Summary. This study is a comparison of hydraulic fracture models run using test data from the GRI Staged Field Experiment No.
3. Models compared include 2D, pseudo-3D, and 3D codes, run on up to eight different cases. Documented in this comparison are
the differences in length, height, width, pressure, and efficiency. The purpose of this study is to provide the completions engineer
with a practical comparison of the available models so that rational decisions can be made as to which model is optimal for a given
application.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing, one of the most important stimulation techniques available to the petroleum engineer, is being used extensively in tight gas sandstones, 1-5 coalbed methane,6 high-permeability sandstones in Alaska,7 very weak sandstones off the U.S.
gulf coast, 8 horizontal wells in chalks, 9.10 and many other applications from waste disposal to geothermal reservoirs. Because of
this diversity of application, hydraulic fracture design models must
be able to account for widely varying rock properties, reservoir
properties, in-situ stresses, fracturing fluids, and proppant loads.
As a result, fracture simulation has emerged as a highly complex
endeavor that must be able to account for many different physical
processes.
The petroleum engineer who must design the fracture treatment
is often confronted with the difficult task of selecting a suitable hydraulic fracture model, yet there is very little comparative information available to help in making a rational choice, particularly
on the newer 3D and pseudo-3D models. The purpose of this paper
is to help provide some guidance by comparing many of the available simulators.
The Fracture Propagation Modeling Forum held Feb. 26-27,
1991, near Houston provided the origin for this paper. This forum,
sponsored by the Gas Research Inst. (GRI), was open to all known
hydraulic fracturing modelers. Participants were asked to provide
fracture designs based on the Staged Field Experiment (SFE) No.
3 fracture experiment. After the fracture designs presented at this
meeting were compared, a final, revised data set was given to all
participants. The results presented in this paper are derived from
that data set. To publish the results, a four-member committee (the
authors) was chosen from forum participants. In assembling this
comparison, committee members purposely attempted to avoid judging the relative values of the different models. Only the results and
quantifiable comparisons are given.
Background-Basic Modeling Discussion
In recent years, fracturing simulators used in the oil industry have
proliferated. This proliferation was intensified by the availability
of personal computers and the need for fast design simulators for
use in the field. Applying these models as "black boxes," without
knowledge of the underlying assumptions, may lead to erroneous
conclusions, especially for unconfined fracture growth.
Hydraulic fracturing is a complex nonlinear mathematical problem that involves the mechanical interaction of the propagating fracture with the injected slurry. Several assumptions are commonly
made to render the problem tractable: plane fractures, symmetric
with respect to the wellbore; elastic formation; linear fracture
mechanics for fracture propagation prediction; power-law behavior
of fracturing fluids and slurries; simplification of fracture geometry and its representation by few geometric parameters; etc. Ref.
11 gives a detailed description of the governing equations. Although
the models predict' 'trends" of treating pressure behavior, they may
Copyright 1994 Society of Petroleum Engineers
not always reliably predict the observed behavior for a given treatment. This discrepancy has been attributed to many complex interactions between the injected fluids and the formation that are
not well understood.
An attempt to characterize phenomenologically some of these
complex processes occurring within the fracture (e.g., mUltiple fractures and increased frictional losses) and near the fracture tip (e.g.,
nonlinear formation behavior, microcracking, formation plasticity, dilatancy, and plugging) was made in various simulators by the
introduction of additional ad hoc parameters ("knobs"). The choice
of values for these parameters is based only on the modeler's experience. These knobs, used to match model predictions with fieldobserved behavior, result in the lack of a standard model response
for a given physical problem. This issue was addressed in the forum by having different participants (discussing several different
models) simulate common test cases derived from the actual SFE
No.3 fracturing treatment. These models can be categorized in order
of decreasing complexity as follows.
1. Planar 3D models: TerraFrac of TerraTek Inc. 12-16 run by
Arco and HYFRAC3D by S.H. Advani of Lehigh U.17
2. GOHFER, a unique finite-difference simulator by Marathon
Oil Co. 18.19
3. Planar pseudo-3D models.
A. "Cell" approach: STIMPLAN of NSI Inc., ENERFRAC
of Shell,20,21 and TRIFRAC of S.A. Holditch & Assocs. Inc.
B. Overall fracture geometry parameterization: FRACPRO of
Reservoir Engineering Systems (RES) Inc. 2225 and MFRAC-II of
Meyer & Assocs. 26 -29
4. Classic Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) and Geertsma-deKlerk
(GDK) models 30-35 : PROP of Halliburton, 3436 the Chevron 2D
model, the Conoco 2D model, the She1l2D model, and pseudo-3D
models run in constant-height mode.
A discussion of the basics of these models is given to provide
some insights on the model assumptions and their expected effect
on results.
Planar 3D Models. The TerraFrac 12-16 and the HYFRAC3D 17
models incorporate similar assumptions and formulate the physics
rigorously, assuming planar fractures of arbitrary shape in a linearly
elastic formation, 2D flow in the fracture, power-law fluids, and
linear fracture mechanics for fracture propagation. Their difference is in the numerical technique used to calculate fracture opening. TerraFrac uses an integral equation representation, while the
Ohio State model uses the finite-element method. Both models use
finite elements for 2D fluid flow within the fracture and a fracturetip advancement proportional to the stress-intensity factor on the
fracture-tip contour.
Planar 3D Finite-Difference Model (GOHFER). Besides the numerical technique used, this model 18,19 is different from the previous models in two fundamental ways: (1) the fracture opening is
calculated by superposition using the surface displacement of a half7
space under normal load (Boussinesq solution); (2) the fracture propagates when the tensile stress normal to the fracturing plane exceeds the tensile strength of the formation at some distance outside
the fracture by enforcing the tensile criterion at the centroid of the
cells "outside" the fracturing contour. This model predicts higher
treating pressures and shorter, wider fractures than the previous
3D model predictions.
Pseudo-3D Models. These models were developed from the PKN
model by removing the requirement of constant fracture height.
They use equations based on simple geometries (radial, 2D, and
elliptical) to calculate fracture width as a function of position and
pressure and to apply a fracture propagation criterion to length and
height. Furthermore, they assume 1D flow along the fracture length.
These models can be divided into two categories: (1) models that
divide the fracture along its length into "cells" and use local cell
geometry (2D crack or penny crack) to relate fracture opening with
fluid pressure and (2) models that use a parametric representation
of the total fracture geometry. As a result of these assumptions,
each class is expected to have a different fracture geometry, even
for the simple case of a confined fracture.
The pseudo-3D simulators are used extensively for fracture design because of their efficiency and their availability on personal
computers. However, they are directly applicable only for the geometries that are not significantly different from the basic model
assumptions (e.g., models based on a PKN geometry should have
large length/height ratios to be appropriate). Thus, for relatively
unconfined fracture growth in a complex in-situ stress profile, a
3D model is more accurate in predicting "trends" of fracture geometry. To avoid this problem, some pseudo-3D models attempt
to include truly 3D fracture behavior in terms of "history" matching or "lumped" parameters determined from fully 3D solutions
of simpler problems or determined from simulations with 3D
models.
Classic PKN and GDK Models. The difference in treating pressure behavior and fracture geometry of the PKN and GDK models
is well documented 11.37 and is not repeated here.
Fracture Models
This section describes the individual fracture models in this comparison. The modelers or the companies that ran commercially available models provided short descriptions of the models.
Marathon (GOHFER). Marathon Oil CO.'s Grid Oriented Hydraulic Fracture Extension Replicator (GOHFER) 18,19 is a planar
3D fracture geometry simulator with coupled multidimensional fluid
flow and particle transport. As the name indicates, the model is
based on a regular grid structure used for the elastic rock displacement calculations and as a planar 2D finite-difference grid for the
fluid flow solutions. The areal pressure distribution obtained from
the fluid flow equations, including proppant transport, is iteratively coupled to the elastic deformation solution. Using the finitedifference scheme for fluid flow allows modeling of mUltiple discrete fluid entry points, representing perforations at various locations. Each grid node can be assigned an individual value of net
stress, pore pressure, permeability, porosity, wall-building coefficient, rock strength, Young's modulus, and Poisson's ratio, as well
as variables describing fracture-wall roughness and tortuosity. Displacement of the fracture face at each node is determined by integration of the pressure distribution over all nodes, including the
computed tensile stress distribution in the unbroken rock surrounding
the fracture. The fracture width equation used is the general formula given by Boussinesq for displacement of a semi-infinite halfspace acted upon by a distributed load. The solution is general
enough to allow modeling of multiple fracture initiation sites simultaneously and is applicable to any planar 3D geometry from
perfect containment to uncontrolled height growth.
Halliburton (PROP). The PROP program 34-36 is a 2D fracture
design model based on Daneshy's34,35 numerical solution. Its numerical nature makes the model much more flexible than most an8
Interval
Depth
(ft)
Zone
Thickness
(ft)
9,170 to 9,340
170
1
2
3
8,990 to 9,170
9,170 to 9,340
9,340 to 9,650
180
170
310
1
2
3
4
5
8,990
9,170
9,340
9,380
9,455
180
170
40
75
195
---
In-Situ
Stress
(psi)
--
Poisson's
Ratio
Young's
Modulus
(million psi)
Fracture Toughness
(psi/Jin. )
8.5
2,000
6.5
8.5
5.5
2,000
2,000
2,000
6.5
8.5
5.4
7.9
4.0
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
0.21
0.30
0.21
0.29
9,170
9,340
9,380
9,455
9,650
7,150
5,700
7,350
5,800
8,200
0.30
0.21
0.26
0.20
0.30
Chevron 2D Fracturing Simulator. This model can predict the, ing approach adopted. MFRAC-II was run in two different modes
propagation of constant-height, hydraulically induced, vertical frac- to demonstrate the effects of some of these parameters. In one case,
tures for a power-law fluid. The simulator also includes a prop- the base model using system defaults was run (designated MEYER1); in a second case (MEYER-2), additional parameters (such as
pant transport model with proppant settling and a production model.
The simulator can predict the created fracture geometry based on greater friction drop in the fracture) were applied. In both cases,
the PKN and GDK models. It is most suitable to design fractures the viscous thinning assumption was made as a default. Without
where the geologic conditions restrict height growth. In fracture viscous thinning, the effective friction factor would have increased,
resulting in higher net pressures, greater widths, and shorter lengths.
propagation models, the equations describing conservation of mass,
conservation of momentum, continuity of fluid flow, and linear elas- In addition, the fully implicit coupled model for height growth (Vertic deformation of the rock in plane strain are used to calculate mass sion 7.0) results in increased development of fracture height and
flux, fracture width, pressure, and length as functions of time. Given net pressure for certain multilayer formations.
a settling velocity, the proppant transport model calculates the final propped concentration, width, and bank height. It also can Advani (Lehigh U. HYFRAC3D). The three- and five-layer model
results (Cases 5 through 8) are obtained from the HYFRAC3D
predict possible problems caused by proppant bridging or screenout.
code. 17 This finite-element code is based on a set of coupled mass
Shell (ENERFRAC). ENERFRAC20,21 is a hydraulic fracture conservation, fluid momentum, constitutive elasticity, and fracture
model that predicts fracture dimensions for uncontained (circular) mechanics equations governing planar hydraulic fracture propagaand contained (rectangular) fractures. ENERFRAC incorporates tion in a multilayered reservoir. A mapping technique of the basefracture-tip effects and the other interacting processes of viscous line mesh (88 triangular elements representing one-half the fracture)
fluid flow, elastic rock deformation, and fluid loss. Fracture-tip defined in a unit circle to arbitrarily shaped fracture geometries is
effects are accounted for through direct input of the rock's appar- used in the numerical scheme to track the moving fracture front.
ent fracture toughness or the fracture-tip net pressure (overpres- The PKN model results (Cases 1 and 2) also are based on a 2D
sure). This overpressure, defined as the instantaneous shut-in finite-element model simulator with standard PKN model equations,
pressure minus the closure pressure, can be determined in the field including vertical stiffness and 1D fluid flow. These simulation refrom a microfracture or minifracture test. Shell also provided 2D sults are obtained with 20-line elements for the normalized, timePKN and GDK model results. The ENERFRAC results provided dependent fracture half-length.
a useful comparison of the effect of free model parameters (knobs)
on the results. Shell provided results for typical fracture toughness NSI (STIMPLAN). STIMPLAN is a state-of-the-art 3D hydrauvalues measured in laboratory tests (designated ENERFRAC-1) and lic fracture simulator for fracture design and analysis in complex
for a tip overpressure of 1,000 psi (ENERFRAC-2). This compar- situations involving height growth, proppant settling, foam fluids,
ison shows the effect of fracture-tip overpressure on fracture ge- tip screenout, etc. The model has complete fluid/proppant tracking that allows optimum fluid selection and scheduling based on
ometry and net pressure.
time and temperature histories. Fracture height growth is calculatMeyer & Assocs. (MFRAC-II). MFRAC-II26-29 is a pseudo-3D ed through multiple layers and includes proppant settling and bridghydraulic fracturing simulator. MFRAC-II also includes options ing calculations. A fracture analysis/history matching module
for the penny-, GDK- and PKN-type 2D fracturing models. This provides history matching of measured net treating pressures to yield
study was run with MFRAC-II, Version 6.1. MFRAC-II accounts the most accurate possible estimation of actual fracture geometry
for the coupled parameters affecting fracture propagation and prop- and behavior. Also, simulations during fracture closure (pressure
pant transport. The major fracture, rock, and fluid mechanics phe- decline) aid in pressure-decline analysis for fluid loss in complex
nomena include (1) multilayer, asymmetrical confining stress geologic situations.
contrast, (2) fracture toughness and tip/overpressure effects,
(3) rock deformation, (4) variable injection rate and time-dependent Arco (Using TerraFrac). TerraFrac Code 12-16 is a fully 3D hyfluid rheology properties, (5) multilayer leakoff with spurt loss, draulic fracture simulator. Initiated at Terra Tek in 1978, its comand (6) 2D proppant transport. The fracture propagation model cal- mercial availability was announced in Dec. 1983. The model's
culates fracture length, upper and lower heights, width, net pres- overall approach is to subdivide the fracture into discrete elements
sure, efficiency, and geometry parameters as functions of time. The and to solve the governing equations for these elements. These
width variation as a function of height and confining stress also governing equations consist of (1) 3D elasticity equations that reis calculated. To provide applicability over the broadest range of late pressure on the crack faces to the crack opening, (2) 2D fluid
circumstances, MFRAC-II offers numerous options. These options flow equations that relate the flow in the fracture to the pressure
and other free parameters (knobs) allow customization in the model- gradients in the fluid, and (3) a fracture criterion that relates the
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994
Bottomhole temperature, of
Reservoir pressure, psi
Spurt loss
Fluid-Ieakoff height
Fluid-Ieakoff coefficient, tt/.JiTiTr1
Viscosity-Case A, cp
Viscosity-Case B
246
3,600
0.0
Entire fracture height
0.00025
200
0.5
0.06
10,000
50
None
n'
K'
Fluid volume, bbl
Injection rate, bbl/min
Proppant
intensity of the stress state ahead of the crack front to the critical
intensity for Mode 1 fracture growth. TerraFrac provides many
distinctive features: 2D fluid flow for both proppant and temperature distribution; multiple stages having different fluids, proppants,
and rates, with fluid and proppant properties as functions of temperature if desired; multiple layers, each having different in-situ
stresses, Young's moduli, fracture toughnesses, Poisson's ratios,
and leakoffs; poroelastic and thermoelastic capabilities for waterflooding and other applications; a robust mesh generator to handle
a wide variety of fracture geometries and a quasi-Newton method
to solve the nonlinear system of equations for the fluid pressures
(this approach provides fast convergence and high accuracy); and
a post-shut-in calculation capability for which no additional assumptions are made (only the injection rate changes).
Length
Model
SAHt (GOK)
SAH (PKN)
Marathon
Meyer-1 (GOK)
Meyer-1 (PKN)
Meyer-2 (GOK)
Meyer-2 (PKN)
Shell (GOK)
Shell (PKN)
Texaco-FP (GOK)
Texaco-FP (PKN)
Chevron (GOK)
Chevron (PKN)
Advani
Halliburton
Conoco (GOK)
Conoco (PKN)
ENERFRAC-1
ENERFRAC-2
Height
~ ~
2,542
4,855
2,584
2,659
4,507
2,288
3,803
2,724
4,039
2,480
4,157
1,347
2,029
4,595
2,212
2,716
3,986
3,866
3,556
170
170
204
170
170
170
170
170
170
200
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
2,542
4,629
2,516
2,098
4,118
1,808
3,395
2,142
3,347
4,046
2,031
2,304
3,656
3,396
3,155
170
170
204
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
200 cp
Pressure Maximum Width
(psi)
(tt)
0.848
62
1,094
0.502
1,685
0.91
70
0.79
1,188
0.55
97
0.94
1,474
0.68
0.78
53
1,377
0.59
71
0.74
925
0.50
81.9
0.77
1,380
0.63
1,182
0.54
82
0.98
1,595
1,684
0.627
0.704
b'
--
E, *
Efficiency
(%)
0.849
0.394
0.76
0.79
0.43
0.94
0.53
0.78
0.46
0.605
0.289
0.73
0.62
0.32
0.74
0.4
0.61
0.37
0.77
0.43
0.98
0.767
0.554
0.492
0.553
0.6
0.36
0.32
0.77
0.6
0.37
0.387
0.434
85.5
72.3
93
83.1
72.2
85.4
76.6
84
75
86
77
81.9
73
73.8
85.9
82.5
74.4
75
78
0.85
0.42
0.82
1.04
0.5
1.24
0.64
1.03
0.59
0.53
1.07
0.933
0.622
0.58
0.641
0.6
0.28
0.75
0.82
0.36
0.97
0.46
0.81
0.47
0.38
0.84
0.733
0.415
0.456
0.504
61.8
73.6
93
86.4
74.3
88.3
79
89
79
76.9
86
85.2
76.5
78
81.7
n', K'
SAH (GOK)
SAH (PKN)
Marathon
Meyer-1 (GOK)
Meyer-1 (PKN)
Meyer-2 (GOK)
Meyer-2 (PKN)
Shell (GOK)
Shell (PKN)
Advani
Halliburton
Conoco (GOK)
Conoco (PKN)
ENERFRAC-1
ENERFRAC-2
61.8
1,167.5
1,824
117
1,397
161
1,774
89
1,754
1,474
97
0.85
0.54
0.98
1.04
0.64
1.24
0.831
1.03
0.75
0.68
1.07
0.933
1,880
1,986
0.738
0.817
10
Height
Pressure
(psi)
Model
Maximum Width
(ft)
SAH
NSI
RES
Marathon
Meyer-1
Meyer-2
Arco-Stimplan
Texaco-FP
Advani
3,408
3,750
1,744
1,360
3,549
2,692
3,598
1,938
2,089
318
903
544
442
291
360
306
435
357
1,009
283
1,227
1,387
987
1,109
992
1,132
1,113
0.65
0.56
0.9
1.04
0.58
0.72
0.57
0.72
0.66
SAH
NSI
RES
Marathon
Meyer-1
Meyer-2
Arco-Stimplan
Advani
3,259
3,289
902
1,326
2,915
2,120
3,235
2,424
371
329
596
442
337
413
353
435
1,093
1,005
1,428
1,433
1,094
1,212
1,083
1,171
b
--
b,
Efficiency
(%)
0.35
0.32
0.54
0.68
0.35
0.41
0.31
0.3
0.25
0.36
0.64
0.29
0.34
0.25
0.33
0.25
77
66
80
96
70.3
74.3
67
68
43
0.38
0.35
0.74
0.71
0.4
0.48
0.33
0.34
0.31
0.26
0.49
0.66
0.32
0.4
0.26
0.21
77.6
68
62
96
72.7
76.9
69
47
b,
Efficiency
(%)
0.42
0.38
0.6
0.7
0.36
0.46
0.36
0.31
0.25
0.4
0.65
0.28
0.35
0.24
0.45
0.36
0.46
0.42
0.9
0.71
0.46
0.57
0.31
0.25
0.6
0.66
0.37
0.42
0.47
0.34
n', K'
0.75
0.67
1.1
1.08
0.69
0.86
0.65
0.74
Model
Length
(ft)
Height
(ft)
SAH
NSI
RES
Marathon
Meyer-1
Meyer-2
Arco-Stimplan
Texaco-FP
Advani
2,905
3,709
1,754
1,224
2,962
2,407
3,399
2,011
1,594
394
361
501
476
328
327
394
428
438
SAH
NSI
RES
Marathon
Meyer-1
Meyer-2
Arco-Stimplan
Arco-Terrafrac
Texaco-FP
Texaco-FPNOTIP
Advani
2,642
2,765
1,042
1,156
2,535
1,980
2,926
3,124
1,125
2,636
1,870
430
388
600
476
330
349
405
449
602
391
458
200 cp
Pressure Maximum Width
(psi)
(ft)
0.72
960
852
0.63
1,119
0.83
1,250
1.03
0.5
669
768
0.6
0.64
944
1,008
0.68
0.81
1,129
--
80.1
66
82
97
70.5
74.8
68
69
58.1
n', K'
1,035.5
935
1,358
1,262
766
891
968
1,160
1,270
934
1,151
The SFE-3 data set was specifically chosen to ensure that the
model comparison would be performed with actual field data, not
for a contrived data set that might favor one type of model. In addition, the SFE-3 data set is one of the most complete sets of well
information available. It includes stress, rock, and reservoir and
well-performance results.
Table 1 shows the relevant rock and reservoir information for
this initial study. As described in the next section, three different
physical configurations were considered: a single layer, three layers, and five layers. Stress and rock property measurements were
averaged over the appropriate depths for each interval to yield the
physical data in Table 1. Most importantly, the stress contrasts range
from 1,450 to 1,650 psi, although the lower barrier is only 40 ft
thick for the five-layer configuration. Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio were obtained from sonic measurements, thus accounting for the elevated values of Young's modulus.
The actual SFE-3 treatment was a 13-stage procedure using
primarily a 40-lbm/l ,OOO-gal crosslinked gel with sand stages varying from 1 to 8 Ibm/gal. For this comparison, the treatment was
simplified to a single, constant-property fluid with no proppant,
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994
0.82
0.71
1.18
1.04
0.6
0.75
0.7
0.74
1.11
0.49
0.85
81.8
70
87
93
73.7
77.8
70
62
76
62
64
primarily because changes in fluid properties owing to temperature or proppant addition cannot be quantified easily and any resulting comparisons would be of questionable value.
Test Cases
As noted, most models can accommodate and process a much broader range of complex data than presented in this data set (i.e., multiple rock properties, leakoff coefficients, n', and K'). Table 1 and
Table 2 give the complete set of data input. However, the data set
was arbitrarily restricted to limit as many discretionary inputs as
possible to allow more direct comparison of model performance.
The input also should not be construed as optimum design parameters. As mentioned, the data for the cases approximates that from
SFE No.3.
Each participant could model a total of eight possible cases. These
were GDK, PKN, three-layer, and five-layer cases, with separate
runs for a constant Newtonian viscosity and a constant n/ and K'
power-law fluid. The PKN and GDK cases were run with a constant height (2D) set at 170 ft. The three- and five-layer cases were
run with a 3D or a pseudo-3D model, allowing fracture height to
11
--
,- ~-o-'~-"~-""-~-;-'-'~-G-_-~-\.
._-_-----._-.. .-2-'--11'---..'-----,'"
::: r7a'"
g
I 3,000
IC}
2,000
oJ
200cp
---.-_.
n'=0.5, K'=O.06
---.---
PKN -200cp
lr
--
3-LAYER MODELS
GDK -200cp
~~
--0-"
01H':~~.~CP
"-,--,-
.. . ---_...
'
,/'
---{~--
1,000
MODEL
--
;u-c. 1,400
...... 8 ..
II:
3-LAYER MODELS
1,600 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
GDK-200cp
'r;;
---.-_.
;u-c. 1,500
PKN-200cp
II:
=>
~ 1,000
Il.
- ...,:.,....-
500
.,
W
II:
_ .. -6.-..-
Il.
---.---
~ 1,200
--0-OTHER 20 - 200 cp
-200cp
n'=0.5, K'=O.06
=>
W
II:
Iii
'r;;
.........
I- 1,000
W
3-LAYER MODELS
4,000 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
I-
oJ
~MARATHON
-+-ARCO(STlM)
""'*- MEYER-l
--%-MEYER-2
___ ADVANI
2500
,a
LL
2,000
.:::. 2000
I-
<.:>
g; 1,000
z 1500
OU-__
LL
f#v"I
L-~
___ L_ _
~~
_ __ L_ _J __ _
'"
-e-SAH
----&- NSI
-IS-RES
3000
---.---
3,000
;;t
-200cp
n'=0.5, K'=O.06
C}
3500~---------~-----,
'"
,?-v
/
'(?'
..J
1000
500
,-<'J-
11-0
?'
MODEL
o~-,
__~__~__~__~~__~~
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (min)
150
175
200
Model Results
Tables 3 through 5 show the complete set of results for the final
fracture geometries from these model runs for the 2D, three-layer,
and five-layer cases, respectively, Most of the results are based
on the data in these tables, In addition, some time-dependent results will be given in figures, All the data from this comparison
are available in a final report, 41
12
600~------------------~--------~
500
~----+------------il
--
5-LAYER MODELS
-e-SAH
--&-NSI
---!'l--RES
---+-- MARATHON
- + - ARCO(STIM)
200cp
0'=0.5, K'=O.06
---.---
,II,
0,
-><--- MEYER- 1
,../
-E-MEYER-2
___$_ ADVANI
\...
;.
fI
"~ 300
200
100L-__~__~__,-~,-~,-~__~__~
o 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
TIME (min)
MODEL
1600,--------------------------------,
5-LAYER MODELS
I -e-SAH
r--=:::::=:::===l'l===fr=~=-~1..............!NSl
---!'l--RES
1400
---+-- MARATHON
'C;;
_-7---te----::=:::; - + - ARCO(STIM)
1200
--::::::::~::~::j ---*MEYER-1
-E-MEYER-2
Q.
~ 1000
___$_ ADVANI
0::
=>
Vl
Vl
t',
en
D-
; ; 1,200
:"..
a:
::>
~ 1,000 .~~~
W
a:
a.
800
l:ii
0::
"-
1,400 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , - - - - - - - - ,
,/
".i
\...
\,/
800
600
fW
400
200
o __--~--~--~--~--~--~--._~
25
50
75 100 125
TIME (min)
150
175
200
5-LAYER MODELS
4,000 ,-------------------------------------,
I-
-200cp
---.---
3,000
UJ
2500
..J
LL
<t 2,000
I
UJ
2000
I
f-
g; 1,000
~
LL
-e-SAH
-h-NSI
---!'l--RES
---+--MARATHON
-+-ARCO(STIM)
---*-ARCO(TERR)
-E-MEYER-1
___$_MEYER-2
-+-ADVANI
___ TEXACO(FP)
___ TEX -FPNOTP
3000
n'=0.5, K'=O.06
C}
3500,--------------------------------,
OLL__L _ - L_ _
~~ ~
__
_ _L _ _ L_ _L _ _ L_ _
#-
~y>o"":Vo ~o <$"'?'
.4'f-C,0
'f-'?'
~'f-c,0 ~
"zw
1500
...J
1000
500
-<,0/'-<,0/'
MODEL
25
50
75 100 125
TIME (min)
150
175
200
13
600
----e-SAH
----NSI
---e--RES
---+-MARATHON
--+-ARCO(STIM)
500
-----E- MEYER-1
f-
400
,,-....
~ARCO(TERR)
______ MEYER- 2
.....
'-"
:r:
---+-ADVANI
_______ TEXACO(FP)
_______ TEX-FPNOTP
0
w
:r:
300
200
100~__._--~---r---.----r---.---~--~
75
100 125 150 175 200
25
50
TIME (min)
Fig. 13-Height vs. time-five-Iayer models.
Three-Layer Results. The three-layer results (Table 4) show considerably more variability than results from the 2D cases. In Fig.
3, the fracture half-length varies from < 1,000 ft for FRACPRO
to >3,000 ft for the conventional pseudo-3D models. The differences between MEYER -1 and -2 again show that the options available to the analyst can significantly affect results. Many such options
have probably been used in the other models but were not identified for this comparison.
The favorable comparison between Arco and NSI running Stimplan and a similar favorable comparison between Texaco and RES
----e-SAH
----NSI
1400
I~~:::::!~~~~::::::===::===+---e--RES
---+-MARATHON
--+-ARCO(STIM)
~'----=" ~ARCO(TERR)
,,-.... 1200
(f)
0..
'-"
w
a::
,;::::===~;:;::::;!::=:t====:e::-::t=l-----E- MEYER-1
1000
~*-~~~~~~~~$:i:2::=~ -----MEYER-2
---+-ADVANI
_______ TEXACO(FP)
~
::>
(/)
(/)
w
800
0...
600
,,",-_~----:l~-t
a::
fW
400
200
O__--~--~---r--~----r---._--._--~
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
TIME (min)
Fig. 14-Pressure vs. time-five-Iayer models.
14
Acknowledgments
We thank the GRI for its support of this modeling endeavor. We
also thank our respective companies for allowing us to perform this
comparison. The modelers who participated in the forum and prepared data for this paper also deserve special thanks for their efforts. Most importantly, Steve Holditch of S.A. Holditch & Assocs.
Inc. should be singled out for special mention as the prime mover
of the forum and this follow-up paper. He is not an author because
his firm submitted a model, but this study would never have happened without his efforts. Thanks also go to Bill Whitehead of S.A.
Holditch & Assocs. for his work in the forum and in data gathering.
References
1. Holditch, S.A. et al.: "The GRI Staged Field Experiment," SPEFE
(Sept. 1988) 519.
2. Robinson, B.M., Holditch, S.A., and Peterson, R.E.: "The GRI's Second Staged Field Experiment: A Study of Hydraulic Fracturing," paper
SPE 21495 presented at the 1991 SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Houston, Jan. 22-24.
3. Robinson, B.M. et al.: "Hydraulic Fracturing Research in East Texas:
Third GRI Staged Field Experiment," JPT (Jan. 1992) 78.
4. Saunders, B.F. et al.: "Hydraulic Fracturing Research in the Frontier
Formation through the GRI's Fourth Staged Field Experiment, " paper
SPE 24854 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, WashingtoI), Oct. 4-7.
5. Northrop, D.A. and Frohne, K-H.: "The Multiwell Experiment-A
Field Laboratory in Tight-Gas Sandstone Reservoirs," JPT(June 1990)
772.
6. Cramer, D.D.: "The Unique Aspects of Fracturing Western U.S. Coal
Beds," JPT (Oct. 1992) 1126; Trans., AIME, 293.
7. Martins, P.J. et ai. : "Deviated Well Fracturing and Proppant Production Control in the Prudhoe Bay Field," paper SPE 24858 presented
at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, Oct. 4-7.
8. Monus, F.L. et al.: "Fracturing Unconsolidated Sand Formations Offshore Gulf of Mexico," paper SPE 24844 presented at the 1992 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, Oct. 4-7.
9. Owens, K.A., Andersen, S.A., and Economides, M.J.: "Fracturing
Pressures for Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 24822 presented at the
1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
Oct. 4-7.
10. Meehan, D.N.: "Stimulation Results in the Giddings (Austin Chalk)
Field," paper SPE 24783 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, Oct. 4-7.
11. Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, J.L. Gidley et al. (eds.),
Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (June 1989) 12.
12. Clifton, R.J. and Abou-Sayed, A.S.: "On the Computation of the ThreeDimensional Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures," paper SPE 7943
presented at the 1979 SPEfDOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoir Symposium, Denver, May 20-22.
13. Clifton, R.J. and Abou-Sayed, A.S.: "A Variational Approach to the
Prediction of the Three-Dimensional Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures,"
paper SPE 9879 presented at the 1981 SPEfDOE Low Permeability
Reservoir Symposium, Denver, May 27-29.
14. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J.J.: "Multiple Fluids, Proppant Transport,
and Thermal Effects in Three-Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 18198 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5.
15. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J.J.: "Modeling of Poroelastic Effects in Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 21871 presented at the 1991 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver,
April 15-17.
16. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J.J.: "Adaptive Optimal Mesh Generator for
Hydraulic Fracturing Modeling," Proc., 32nd U.S. Rock Mechanics
Symposium (1991).
17. Advani, S.H., Lee, T.S., and Lee, J.K.: "Three-Dimensional Modeling of Hydraulic Fractures in Layered Media: Part I-Finite Element
Formulations," ASME J. Energy Res. Tech. (1990) 112, 1-9.
18. Barree, R. D.: "A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three Dimensional
Fracture Propagation in Heterogeneous Media," paper SPE 12273
presented at the 1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, Nov. 15-18.
IS
Authors
Warpinski
Moschovidis
Parker
Norm Warplnskl is a distinguished member of the technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque,
where he specializes in fluid and rock mechanics with interests in hydraulic fracturing, in-situ stresses, geomechanics, and natural fracture systems. He holds a PhD degree in
mechanical engineering from the U. of Illinois and has been
with Sandia since 1977. Warpinski was a 1990-92 Review
Chairman for JPT and was a member of the Editorial Review
Committee. Zlssls Moschovidis is currently a research associate at the Amoco Research Center in Tulsa. A member
of the Wellbore Stability Team, he works primarily in well bore
stability, cuttings injections, hydraulic fracture propagation,
modeling, and rock mechanics. Moschovidis received a diploma in civil engineering from the Natl. Technical U. of Athens,
Greece, an MS degree in structural engineering from the Imperial C. of Science and Technology in London, and a PhD
degree in engineering mechanics from Northwestern U. in
Evanston, 1L. Cecil D. Parker is a senior staff engineer for
Conoco in the Well Completions Group in Houston. He has
spent 25 years designing and executing stimulation treatments worldwide, including the North Sea, Middle East, and
North America. He holds a degree in chemistry/biology from
Abilene Christian U., Abilene, TX. Photograph and biographical sketch of 1.5. Abou-Sayed are unavailable.
19. Barree, R.D.: "A New Look at Fracture-Tip Screenout Behavior,"
1PT (Feb. 1991) 138; Trans., AIME, 291.
20. Shlyapobersky, J.: "Energy Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing," Proc.,
26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City (June 1985).
21. Shlyapobersky, J., Wong, G.K., and Walhaug, W.W.: "Overpressure
Calibrated Design of Hydraulic Fracture Simulations, " paper SPE 18194
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5.
22. Cleary, M.P.: "Analysis of the Mechanisms and Procedures for Producing Favorable Shapes of Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 9260 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Sept.
23. Cleary, M.P.: "Comprehensive Design Formulae for Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 9259 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
24. Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A., and Wright, T.B.: "Experimental and
Modeling Evidence for Major Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field Procedures," paper SPE 21494 presented at the 1991
SPE Gas Technical Symposium, Houston, Jan. 22-24.
25. Cleary, M.P. and Fonseca, A.: "Proppant Convection and Encapsulation in Hydraulic Fracturing: Practical Implications of Computer Laboratory Simulations," paper SPE 24825 presented at the 1992 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, Oct. 4-7.
16
26. Meyer, B.R.: "Design Formulae for Two- and Three-Dimensional Vertical Hydraulic Fractures: Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,"
paper SPE 15240 presented at the 1986 SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, May 18-21.
27. Meyer, B.R.: "Three-Dimensional Hydraulic-Fracturing Simulation on
Personal Computers: Theory and Comparison Studies," paper SPE
19329 presented at the 1989 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, Oct. 24-27.
28. Meyer, B.R., Cooper, G.D., and Nelson, S.G.: "Real-Time 3D Hydraulic Fracturing Simulation: Theory and Field Case Studies," paper
SPE 20658 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
29. Hagel, M. and Meyer, B.: "Utilizing Mini-Frac Data To Improve Design and Production," paper CIM 92-40 presented at the 1992 Annual
Technical Conference of the Petroleum Soc. of CIM, Calgary, June.
30. Kristianovic, S.A. and Zheltov, Y.P.: "Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid," Proc., Fourth World Pet.
Cong., Rome (1955) II, 579-86.
31. Perkins, T .K. and Kern, L.R.: "Widths of Hydraulic Fractures," 1PT
(Sept. 1961) 937; Trans .. , AIME, 222.
32. Geertsma, J. and deKlerk, F.: "A Rapid Method of Predicting Width
and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures," 1PT (Dec. 1969) 1571;
Trans., AIME, 246.
33. Nordgren, R.P.: "Propagation of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures," SPEJ,
(Aug. 1972) 306; Trans., AIME, 253.
34. Daneshy, A.A.: "On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures," 1PT
(Jan. 1973) 83; Trans., AIME, 255.
35. Daneshy, A.A.: "Numerical Solution of Sand Transport in Hydraulic
Fracturing," 1PT (Jan. 1978) 132.
36. Poulsen, D.K. and Lee, W.S.: "Fracture Design With Time- and
Temperature-Dependent Fluid Properties," paper SPE 12483 presented at the 1984 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakersfield, Feb. 13-14.
37. Geertsma, J. and Haafkens, R.: "A Comparison of the Theories for
Predicting Width and Extent of Vertical Hydraulically Induced Fractures," ASME 1. Energy Res. Tech. (March 1979) 101, 8.
38. McLeeod, H.O.: "A Simplified Approach to Design of Fracturing Treatments Using High-Viscosity Cross-Linked Fluids," paper SPE 11614
presented at the 1983 SPE Low Permeability Symposium, Denver,
March 14-16.
39. Crawford, H.R.: "Proppant Scheduling and Calculation of Fluid Lost
During Fracturing," paper SPE 12064 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Sept. 5-8.
40. "Staged Field Experiment No.3," GRI-9110048, GRI final report,
Chicago, IL (Feb. 1991).
41. Warpinski, N.R.: "Hydraulic Fracture Model Comparison Study: Complete Results," GRI-93/0109, GRI topical report , Chicago, IL (Feb.
1993) 163.
m3
mPa's
m
C
m3
em
kg
kPa
SPEPF
Original SPE manuscript received for review April 26, 1993. Revised manuscript received
Nov. 17, 1993. Paper accepted for publication Nov. 16, 1993. Paper (SPE 25890) first
presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Sym
posium held in Denver, April 12-14.
References
1. Cleary, M.P.: "Comprehensive Design Fonnulae for Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 9259 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
2. Cleary, M.P.: "Analysis of Mechanisms and Procedure for Producing
Favorable Shapes of Hydraulic Fractures, " paper SPE 9260 presented at
the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Sept. 21-24.
3. Cleary, M.P., Keck, R., andMear, M.: "Microcomputer Models for the
Design of Hydraulic Fractures," paper SPE 11628 presented at the 1983
SPE Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs.
4. Cleary, M.P., Kavvadas, M., and Lam, K.Y.: "Development ofa Fully
Three-Dimensional Simulator for Analysis and Design of Hydraulic
Fracturing," paper SPE 11631 presented at the 1983 SPE Symposium
on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, March.
5. Cleary, M.P.: "Theoretical and Laboratory Simulation of Underground
Fracturing Operations," MIT UFRAC Annual Reports, Cambridge,
Sept. 1981-87.,
6. Crockett, A.R., Okusu, N.M., and Cleary, M.P.: "A Complete Integrated Model for Design and Real-Time Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Operations," paper SPE 15069 presented at the 1986 SPE California
Regional Meeting, Oakland, April.
7. Cleary, M.P., Barr, D.T., and Willis, R.M.: "Enhancement of RealTime Hydraulic Fracturing Models With Full 3D Simulation," paper
SPE 17713 presented at the 1988 SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Dallas, June 13-15.
8. Cleary, M.P.: "The Engineering of Hydraulic Fractures-State of the
Art and Technology," JPT (Jan. 1988) 13.
9. Johnson, D.E. and Cleary, M.P.: "Implications of Recent Laboratory
Experimental Results for Hydraulic Fractures," paper SPE 21846 .
presented at the 1991 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Permeability Symposium, Denver, April.
10. Gas Research Institute Staged Field Experiments (SFE) I through 4;
No.3 finally published as Report No. GRI-9110048, Feb. 1991.
11. Wright, T.B., Johnson, D.E., and Cleary, M.P.: "Real-Data/On-Site
Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing and Procedures for Design Optimization," paper presented at the IntI. Gas Research Conference, Orlando,
FL, Nov. 1992.
12. Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A., and Wright, T.B.: "Experimental and
Modeling Evidence for Major Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field Procedures," paper SPE 21494 presented at the 1991
SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Houston.
13. Cleary, M.P. and Fonseca, A. Jr.: "Proppant Convection and Encapsulation in Hydraulic Fracturing: Practical Implications of Computer and
Laboratory Simulations," paper SPE 24825 presented at the 1992 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7
14. Cipolla, c.L., Meehan, D.N., and Stevens, P.L.: "Hydraulic Fracture Perfonnance in the Moxa Arch Frontier Formation," paper SPE
25918 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meetingl
Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, April 26-28.
IS. Martinez, A.D., Wright, C.A., and Wright, T.B.: "Field Application
of Real-Time Hydraulic Fracturing Analysis," paper SPE 25916 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Penneability
Reservoirs Symopsium, Denver, April 26-28.
16. Wright, T.B. et al. : "Identification and Comparison of True Net Fracturing Pressures Generated by Pumping Fluids With Different Rheology
Into the Same Formations," paper SPE 26153 presented at the 1993
SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, June 28-30.
17. Johnson, D.E. etal.: "On-Site Real-Time Analysis Allows Optimal
Propped Fracture Stimulation of a Complex Gas Reservoir," paper SPE
25414 presented at the 1993 SPE Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, March.
18. Johnson, D.E. et al.: "Real-Data On-Site Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing Generates Optimum Procedures for Job Design and Execution," paper
SPE 25920 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, April 26-28.
19. Cleary, M.P. et al.: "Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs To Avoid
Premature Screenout of Hydraulic Fractures With Adequate Proppant
Concentration," paper SPE 25892 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Penneability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, April 26-28.
20. Cleary, M.P. et al.: "Critical Issues in Hydraulic Fracturing of High Permeability Reservoirs," paper SPE 27618 to be presented at the 1994 SPE
European Production Operations Conference, Aberdeen, March 15-17.
(SPE 28158)
SPEPF
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994