SPE 86554

Fracture Flow Modeling and Visualization

Jody R. Augustine, SPE, Baker Oil Tools

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

influx when the fracture extends near an aquifer. Results are
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition shown that detail hydrocarbon and water production versus
on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 18–20 February 2004.
aquifer proximity to the fracture.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Model Description
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at The following work makes use of two separate, but
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
similar, numerical models. A two dimensional high resolution
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is radial model was used for all but the water coning analysis.
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous For these cases a lower fidelity three dimensional cylindrical
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. model was used.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Reservoir Simulator. SINDA/FLUINT fluid flow analysis

Proposal software was used for the reservoir simulator. A more
Many questions relative to fracture flow characteristics detailed description of using SINDA/FLUINT for reservoir
remain under investigated. How big does a fracture need to analysis can be found in reference 1.
be? How can fines migration potential be alleviated with a
fracture? What is the fracture production contribution versus Nodalization. The nodalization for the high resolution model
the radial contribution? How much production is directed can be seen in Figures 1 and 3. In order to take advantage of
through out-of-phase perforations? How close can the fracture symmetry, half of the formation and one fracture wing were
be to an aquifer? modeled. The model has 36 logarithmically spaced radial
A three dimensional radial reservoir model was developed divisions, and 36 linearly space angular divisions. Each
to answer these questions. The model integrates the reservoir, angular element represents 5 degrees.
wellbore, formation damage, fracture, and the
completion hardware. Fracture. A rectangular fracture wing of constant width was
Historically, researchers have modeled the fracture as one used. A no-flow boundary was placed at the edge of the
dimensional. By modeling the fracture in 2 and 3 dimensions fracture that contacted the formation (at radius L). This was
one can visualize the flow patterns around a fractured well. By done to compensate for the idealized constant
analyzing these flow patterns, one can better understand the width assumption.
impacts the fracture is having. Results are presented (both
vector and contour plots) that highlight the flows within and Formation Damage. Formation damage, when included in
around the fracture. Conclusions are presented that quantify the analysis, was assumed to have depth of 1 foot from the
fracture effectiveness vs. length and comparisons are made to sandface. The sandface was assumed to have a permeability
previous work. of either 20% or 10% of the native formation. This
Fracture flow visualization provides insight into the permeability reduction was varied logarithmically along the
formation fluid velocities that could lead to fines migration. formation radius until a radius of 1 foot was reached and the
The effects a fracture has on formation velocity reduction will formation permeability retained it original value. This
be quantified. While no generalized theory exists for fines approach results in skin numbers of 4.3 and 9.8, respectively.
transport velocity thresholds (only formation specific values to
date), this type of analysis is an effective way to quantify Perforations. Whenever perforations were used they were
those velocities and to aid in designing completions and modeled as damaged. The perforation tunnels were modeled
setting production targets that prevent further formation as cylinders with a 6 inch formation penetration. The
damage through fines migration. compaction zone was modeled as a ½ inch radial zone with a
The production fraction from perforations out-of-phase permeability 20% of that of the surrounding formation. This
with the fracture are also quantified. Conclusions are drawn is shown in Figure 2. The perforation pattern used was 12
about the relative importance of cleaning and/or stimulating shots per foot with a 60 degree phasing.
these perforations.
A benefit of using a three dimensional reservoir/fracture Non-Darcy Flow Effects. The non-Darcy flow effects were
simulator is it provides a method of determining the water not included in the analysis. The effects were not included so
2 SPE 86554

the effects of viscosity, density, and production rates would fractures. The subsequent results are shown in Figures 6
not influence the flow distributions. A technique for including and 7.
the non-Darcy flow effects has been developed and will be The productivity increases for the open-hole fracture case
used for further work. and the cased and perforated fracture case are relative to the
open-hole Darcy flow equation. When skins are used, the
Results increase is relative to the Darcy equation including the skin, as
shown in Equation 1.
Calibration. The model was checked against the Darcy flow
equation and was found to be within 1.5%. k res h
Jo = ………………………(1)
141.2 µ ln⎛⎜ e + Skin ⎞⎟
Radial Flow Visualization. In order to quantify the effects a r
fracture is having on a reservoir one must first understand how ⎝ rw ⎠
the fracture is altering the fluid flow characteristics in the
formation. While velocity vector plots are the more common Figure 6 shows the familiar shape of the productivity
method for displaying flow fields, the author finds that flow increase curves in references 2 and 3.
rate vectors are more effective means of investigating radial The author defines dimensionless relative conductivity as
flow fields. As will be discussed in later sections, radial flow kfracwfrac/kresre. This is a slightly different approach than used
velocities achieve such high magnitudes in the near wellbore in references 2 and 3. This was done to remove the variable of
region, that visualization of the flow fields is most difficult. well spacing and solely use the effective drainage radius in the
The flow rate vectors can represent either volumetric or mass denominator of the dimensionless relative conductivity. The
flow rates. For incompressible flows, the relative results are use of well spacing and an effective drainage radius is an
the same. apparent use of redundant boundary conditions.
Figure 7 shows the fracture productivity increases for the
Fracture Effects on Flow Fields. Figure 4 illustrates the cased and perforated case. It can be seen that at low relative
radial flow field for an un-fractured open-hole completion. It conductivities the effects of the perforations become evident.
can be seen that the flows move radially inward toward the Since the perforation permeabilities have an impact in this
wellbore. Figure 5 illustrates the radial flow field for a region, the curves become more jagged. Overall, there is little
fractured open-hole completion. The following properties difference between the open-hole fracture productivity
were used: kfrac = 200,000 mD, wfrac = 0.75 in., kres = 100 mD, increases and the cased and perforated fracture
fracture wing length L = 51 ft. productivity increases.
It is important to note that the magnitudes of the flow rate Figures 6 and 7 would prove quite useful when
vectors are meaningful only when compared to the vectors in determining required fracture wing lengths. Fracture wing
the same plot. If the magnitudes were held constant then it length effectiveness is an inherent property of these plots.
would be impossible to see the vectors, they would either be
so small as to appear as dots or so large as to appear as Radial Flow Contribution versus Fracture Flow
random lines. Contribution. The cases mentioned previously were also
When viewing the entire field (effective drainage radius used to quantify the radial flow contribution versus the
of 1111 ft) the results look very similar for the fractured and fracture flow contribution. These results are shown in Figures
un-fractured cases. As the viewing field is reduced to a 50 ft 8, 9, and 10. It was discovered that the flow ratio (radial
radius the impacts become more apparent. This is where the flow/fracture flow) is a function of relative conductivity and
flow rate vectors turn away from the wellbore and toward the fracture length ratio. The results compare well to those in
fracture. In other words, the flow takes the path of least reference 4.
resistance. This results in significantly more flow through the Figure 8 shows that as the relative conductivity increases,
fracture that the sandface of the wellbore, as shown in the 2 ft the flow ratio decreases. For very low relative conductivities,
radius plot on Figure 5. The cumulative effect of the fluid such as the case for high permeability reservoirs, the flow ratio
flowing through the fracture can also be seen. Note how the is greater than 1. This means that there is more flow coming
magnitude of the fracture flow vector continues to increase as across the sandface than through the fracture. For relative
the radius nears the wellbore. Based on Figure 3, the fracture conductivity values greater than 0.02 the flow ratio starts to
is at 90 degrees. become a function of the length ratio. This is evident as the
curves begin to separate.
Productivity Increase from a Fractured Formation. Using The impact of the information displayed in this figure is
the 2-D model, hundreds of cases were run to quantify the that one can make economic decisions regarding cleaning and
productivity increase from a fractured formation. The cases stimulation treatments for the sandface of a fractured well.
were run with fracture permeabilities (kfrac) ranging from For instance, if one has a well with a relative conductivity of
50,000 mD to 300,000 mD, fracture widths (wfrac) of 0.5, 0.75, 0.2, a length ratio of 0.05, and a skin of 0.0, the resulting flow
and 1.0 in, reservoir permeabilities (kres) ranging from 10 mD ratio would be 0.035. This indicates that under ideal
to 5,000 mD, fracture length ratios (L/re) ranging from 0.01 to conditions, the fracture would contribute 96.5% of the
1.0, and skins of 0.0, 4.3, and 9.8. These conditions were production and the sandface would contribute 3.5%. Thus,
applied to open-hole fractures and cased and perforated any capital expended for cleaning or stimulation of the
sandface can be weighed against the expected incremental
SPE 86554 3

production from those efforts. Conversely, with a relative contact of an infinite acting aquifer. This is a pure water
conductivity of 0.004, and a length ratio of 0.05, the flow ratio drive case.
would be 0.6. Thus, 38% of the production would be from the Figure 16 shows the unfractured case. As expected, the
sandface and 62% would be from the fracture. In this water cones toward the wellbore in a predictable fashion.
situation, cleaning or stimulation efforts would almost Figure 17 show the effects of a fracture under identical
certainly be economically justified. conditions. It can be seen that the water cone is skewed
The effect of skin on the flow ratio can be seen in Figures slightly toward the fracture. Therefore, the presence of the
9 and 10. While the shape and magnitude of the curves fracture does influence the shape of the cone. However, the
remain the same, it is evident that as skin increases the flow presence of the fracture, even with its proximity to the aquifer,
ratio curves shift to the left and decrease in slope. As did not significantly alter the water influx into the well. While
expected, the skin makes the fracture more effective and less the fracture does provide a highly conductive path near the
production is contributed by the sandface. aquifer, the density difference between the water and the oil,
Figures 11 and 12 depict the flow ratios for the cased and as well as the formation permeability and the production rate,
perforated cases. The use of perforations introduces an are what influence the shape of the water cone and the water
additional effect on the flow fields that is not adequately influx. The presence of the fracture makes no apparent
captured with the dimensionless relative conductivity. The significant difference. Correlating the fracture productivity
permeability of the proppant in the perforation tunnels is the results and the fracture flow ratio results mentioned
same as the permeability of the proppant in the fracture. previously, with water coning, is a subject for future work.
Consequently, the flow ratios are a function of proppant
permeability. This effect is greatest at very low relative Conclusions
conductivities. It is evident that the shape and slope of the The conclusions for this paper are summarized below:
curves are very similar to the open-hole fracture cases shown 1. Flow rate vector plots provide an effective means of
in Figures 8, 9, and 10. When formation damage is visualizing radial flow patterns around a fracture.
introduced, as the author has defined it, there is little effect on 2. The high conductivity of a fracture diverts flow away
the flow ratio in the perforated case. from the sandface of the wellbore.
3. Fracture productivity increases can be quantified with the
Fracture Effects on Formation Velocity. The data sets used dimensionless relative conductivity parameter.
for Figures 13 and 14 are identical to those used for Figures 4 4. Fracture wing lengths for high permeability formations
and 5. Figure 13 illustrates the formation velocity contours of need only to extend beyond the near wellbore
an un-fractured open-hole completion, measured in formation damage.
feet/second. At the outer reaches of the effective drainage 5. Fracture productivity increases for open-hole fractures are
radius, the formation velocities are near zero, as expected. not significantly different than those from cased and
Closer to the wellbore, the formation velocities increase perforated fractures, for the cases analyzed.
rapidly. Such is the nature of radial flow. 6. Radial flow contribution from the sandface versus the
Figure 14 depicts the formation velocities for a fractured fracture flow contribution can be quantified with the
well under identical conditions. Again, at the outer reaches of dimensionless relative conductivity parameter.
the effective drainage radius the formation velocities are near 7. The expected benefits of cleaning or stimulating the
zero. Closer to the wellbore, the fracture begins to take flow sandface in an open-hole fractured well can be determined
out of the formation. The streamlines are evident very near with Figures 8, 9, and10.
the wellbore. These streamlines are very similar to those 8. The expected benefits of cleaning or stimulating the off-
presented in reference 5. The end result is that with a fracture perforations in a cased and perforated well can be
fractured formation, the maximum formation velocities are estimated with Figures 11 and 12.
reduced by a factor of two. This has significant impact in the 9. Fractures reduce formation velocities and thereby reduce
area of fines migration. It is important to note that the permeability reducing fines transport.
velocities within the fracture are not included as they would 10. Fracture proximity to an aquifer has a negligible effect on
overshadow the formation velocities. the water influx.
Industry wide quantification of fines migration is still in
its early stages. One aspect that is always true with fines Nomenclature
migration is that it is a function of formation velocity.6,7 Thus, J = productivity index, bbl/day/psi
fractured formations reduce formation velocity and Jo = nominal productivity index, bbl/day/psi
consequently minimize permeability reductions caused by kfrac = fracture and/or perforation permeability, mD
fines migration. kfracwfrac = fracture conductivity, mDft
kres = reservoir permeability, mD
Fracture Effects on Water Coning. Figure 15 depicts the L = fracture length, ft
cylindrical reservoir model used for the investigation of the L/re = fracture length ratio
effects of fractures on water coning. The properties and re = effective drainage radius, ft
conditions used are also on Figure 15. This case illustrates rw = wellbore radius, ft
how the water oil contact migrates in the presence of a fracture wfrac = fracture width, ft
that has extended beyond the wellbore and near the water oil
4 SPE 86554

References
1. Augustine, J.R.: “An Investigation of the Economic
Benefit of Inflow Control Devices on Horizontal Well
Completions Using a Reservoir-Wellbore Coupled
Model”, paper SPE 78293 presented at the SPE 13th
European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland,
U.K., 29-31 October 2002.
2. McGuire, W.J., and Sikora, V.J.: “The Effect of
Vertical Fractures on Well Productivity”, Petroleum
Transactions, AIME, Vol. 219, 1960.
3. Tinsley, J.M. et al.: “Vertical Fracture Height – Its
Effect on Steady State Production Increase”, JPT,
May, 1969.
4. Burton, R.C. et al.: “Comparison of Numerical and
Analytical Inflow Performance Modeling of
Gravelpacked and Frac-Packed Wells”, paper SPE
31102 presented at the SPE formation Damage
Control Symposium, Lafayette, LA, 14-16
February 1996.
5. Gureghian, A.B.: “A Study by the Finite-Element
Method of the Influence of Fractures in Confined
Aquifers”, SPEJ, April, 1975.
6. Selby, R.A., and Ali, S.M.: “Mechanics of Sand
Production and the Flow of Fines in Porous Media”,
JCPT Reservoir Engineering, May-June 1988,
Vol. 27, No. 3.
7. Gruesbeck, C., and Collins, R.E.: “Entrainment and
Deposition of Fine Particles in Porous Media”, SPEJ,
December, 1982.
SPE 86554 5

No Flow Boundary

perforation
tunnel

compaction
zone

radius = 1111 feet reservoir

nodes
Figure 1. Full 2-D Radial Nodalization
perforation length = 6 in.
perforation diameter = 1 in.
compaction zone = 0.5 in.

Figure 2. Perforation Parameters

180 degrees 9 5/8” Casing 0 degrees

Cement
12 ¼” Wellbore

Figure 3. Near Wellbore Nodalization

6 SPE 86554

1000

900

800

700

600
feet

500

400

300

200

100

0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
feet

50

45

40

35

30
feet

25

20

15

10

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
feet

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
feet

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
feet

Figure 4. Flow Rate Vectors, Open-Hole, No Fracture

SPE 86554 7

1000

900

800

700

600
feet

500

400

300

200

100

0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
feet

50

45

40

35

30
feet

25

20

15

10

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
feet

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
feet

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
feet

Figure 5. Flow Rate Vectors, Open-Hole, With Fracture

8 SPE 86554

7 7
L/re=0.01 L/re=0.01
6
6 L/re=0.02 L/re=0.02
L/re=0.05 Skin = 0.0 5 L/re=0.05 Skin = 0.0
5 L/re=0.1 L/re=0.1
4
L/re=0.3 L/re=0.3
4 L/re=1.0 L/re=1.0
3

3
2
J/Jo

J/Jo
2

1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
0.5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re

10 10
9 L/re =0.01 9 L/re=0.01
8 L/re =0.02 8 L/re=0.02
L/re =0.05 Skin = 4.3 Skin = 4.3
7 7 L/re=0.05
L/re =0.1 L/re=0.1
6 L/re =0.3 6 L/re=0.3
5 L/re =1.0 L/re=1.0
5

4 4
J/Jo

3 3
J/Jo

2 2

1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re

20 20
L/re=0.01 L/re=0.01
L/re=0.02 L/re=0.02
L/re=0.05 Skin = 9.8 Skin = 9.8
L/re=0.05
L/re=0.1 L/re=0.1
10 L/re=0.3 10 L/re=0.3
9 9
L/re=1.0 L/re=1.0
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
J/Jo

J/Jo

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re

Figure 6. Fracture Productivity Ratio, Open-Hole, Skin = 0.0, Figure 7. Fracture Productivity Ratio, Cased and Perforated,
4.3, and 9.8 Skin = 0.0, 4.3, and 9.8
SPE 86554 9

1
10
L/re=0.01
L/re=0.02
Skin = 0.0 L/re=0.05
L/re=0.1
L/re=0.3
0
Flow Ratio, radial flow/fracture flow

10 L/re=1.0

-1
10

-2
10

-3
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re

Figure 8. Flow Ratio, Open-Hole Fracture, Skin = 0.0

1 1
10 10
L/re=0.01 L/re=0.01
L/re=0.02 L/re=0.02
L/re=0.05 Skin = 9.8 L/re=0.05
Skin = 4.3
L/re=0.1 L/re=0.1
L/re=0.3 L/re=0.3
0 0
10
Flow Ratio, radial flow/fracture flow

10 L/re=1.0
Flow Ratio, radial flow/fracture flow

L/re=1.0

-1 -1
10 10

-2 -2
10 10

-3 -3
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re

Figure 9. Flow Ratio, Open-Hole Fracture, Skin = 4.3 Figure 10. Flow Ratio, Open-Hole Fracture, Skin = 9.8
10 SPE 86554

0
10

Skin = 0.0

Flow Ratio, off-frac perf flow/frac perf flow

-1
10

L/re=0.01, kfrac=100 D
L/re=0.01, kfrac=200 D
10
-2 L/re=0.01, kfrac=300 D
L/re=0.10, kfrac=100 D
L/re=0.10, kfrac=200 D
L/re=0.10, kfrac=300 D
L/re=1.00, kfrac=100 D
L/re=1.00, kfrac=200 D
L/re=1.00, kfrac=300 D
-3
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re

Figure 11. Flow Ratio with Perforations, Skin =0.0

0
10

Skin = 9.8
Flow Ratio, off-frac perf flow/frac perf flow

-1
10

L/re=0.01, kfrac=100 D
L/re=0.01, kfrac=200 D
10
-2 L/re=0.01, kfrac=300 D
L/re=0.10, kfrac=100 D
L/re=0.10, kfrac=200 D
L/re=0.10, kfrac=300 D
L/re=1.00, kfrac=100 D
L/re=1.00, kfrac=200 D
L/re=1.00, kfrac=300 D
-3
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10

Relative Conductivity, kfracwfrac/kres re

Figure 12. Flow Ratio with Perforations, Skin = 9.8

SPE 86554 11

1000

900

800

700

600
feet

500

400

300

200

100

0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
feet
50

45

40

35

30
feet

25

20

15

10

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
feet
2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
feet

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
feet

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-3
x 10

Figure 13. Formation Velocity Contours (ft/sec), Open-Hole, No Fracture

12 SPE 86554

1000

900

800

700

600
feet

500

400

300

200

100

0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
feet
50

45

40

35

30
feet

25

20

15

10

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
feet
2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
feet

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
feet

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-3
x 10

Figure 14. Formation Velocity Contours (ft/sec), Open-Hole, With Fracture

SPE 86554 13

Wellbore
40 feet No Flow Boundary

No Flow Boundary
40 feet Fracture
Wing
80 feet Q = 2000 bbl/day
100 feet µoil = 1.0 cp
µwater = 0.44 cp
ρoil = 50.0 lbm/ft3
ρwater = 60.7 lbm/ft3
kres = 200 mD
kfrac = 200 D
wfrac = 0.75 in.

200 feet

Water Oil Contact, Infinite Aquifer

Figure 15. 3-D Radial Nodalization for Water Coning

14 SPE 86554

Water Oil Contact at t = 0 hours Water Oil Contact at t = 0 hours

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50
feet

feet
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 0
50 0 50 0
100 50 100 50
100 100
150 150 150 150
feet feet
feet feet

Water Oil Contact at t = 200 hours Water Oil Contact at t = 200 hours

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50
feet

50
feet

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 0
50 50
0 0
100 50 100 50
100 100
150 150 150 150
feet feet
feet feet

Water Oil Contact at t = 800 hours Water Oil Contact at t = 800 hours

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50
feet

feet

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 0
50 50
0 0
100 50 100 50
100 100
150 150 150 150
feet feet
feet feet

Figure 16. Water Oil Contact Surface, Open-Hole, No Fracture Figure 17. Water Oil Contact Surface, Open-Hole, With Fracture