SPE-171019-MS

Fracture Conductivity Decrease Due to Proppant Deformation and

Crushing, a Parametrical Study
Jiahang Han, Baker Hughes Inc.; John Yilin Wang, The Pennsylvania State University

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Charleston, WV, USA, 2123 October 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Sustainable high fracture conductivity is a key to successful stimulation. The reduction of hydraulic
fracture conductivity due to proppant deformation and crushing is frequently observed. Previous researches are based on laboratory experiments and empirical correlations, which can not fully explain
proppant damage in field cases. In this paper, we applied our fully coupled fluid flow and geomechanical
model to further understand the proppant pack deformation and crushing.
Parametric studies on wellbore and reservoir pressures, formation properties, and proppant biot
constant were performed to understand proppant deformation and crushing in different conditions.
Additionally, an analytical model for avoiding proppant crushing was developed for fractured wells.
Through this research, we found fracture conductivity loss due to deformation and crushing are severer
than laboratory results. Large deformation and high probability of crushing were observed near wellbore
according to the net pressure. Fast flow back (low bottom hole pressure) would generate large proppant
crushed zone. Various reservoir properties as pressure gradient, formation stiffness, and matrix permeability were also investigated. Strong proppant is highly recommended for natural fractures, and hydraulic
fracture near well bore especially for tight formations. Small chock size (high BHP) is also recommended
during early production. Additionally, a simple analytical model is provided, accoding to the parametrical
studies, for operating well without breaking proppant pack.

Introduction
During hydraulic fracturing, proppant is used to create conductive channel for oil/gas to flow. The strength
and stiffness of the proppant remains the main concern of the successiveness of the stimulation. Gidley
et al. (1995), and Lacy et al. (1997) pointed out several factors that may severe decrease the proppant pack
conductivity. Proppant crushing and induced particles could block the fracture channel and decrease the
fracture width, resulting in low fracture productivity.
In order to understand the proppant crush resistance, API recommened practice 19C (RP19C, identical
to IS013503-2 standard). Results generated from the 10 inch conductivity cell standard tests may not
represent field conditions. Palisch et al. (2009) indicated that results from standard tests can deviate from
field tests at the magnitude of one order. Additionally, the standard lab tests are time consuming. Han et
al (2014) developped a numerical model that can quantify the proppant deformation and crushing under

SPE-171019-MS

Table 1Variables for numerical model

Variable
m
Cf
Cs
Km
Kf
C

f
gradP
gradG
Pr
Pw
S
Vm
Bm
Gm
p
Ef
vf
f
BP
FCD
GP

Units

Description

Expression

Fractional
1/pa
1/pa
mD
mD
Fractional
Pas
lb/ft3
Psi/ft
Psi/ft
Psi
Psi
lb/ft3
Fractional
GPa
GPa
lb/ft3
Psi
Fractional
Fractional
GPa
Fractional
GPa

Porosity of Matrix block

Compressibility of fluid (water)
Compressibility of solid
Permeability of matrix blocks
Permeability of proppant pack
Ratio of H/hmin
Viscosity
Fluid density
Pressure gradient
Overburden stress gradient
Reservoir Pressure
Pressure at well bore
Matrix solids density
Matrix solids Poissons ratio
Matrix solids Bulk modulus
Matrix solids Shear modulus
Proppant density
Proppant Youngs modulus
Proppant Poissons ratio
Porosity of fracture block
Proppant Bulk modulus
Fracture dimensionless conductivity
Proppant Shear modulus

1.00E-01
4.40E-10
4.16E04
0.1
10E05
1.50E01
1.00E-03
62.43
5.00E-01
9.50E-01
4.50E03
5.00E02
125
2.20E-01
0.7
4
105
5.00E06
2.50E-01
3.00E-01
1
100
12

certain assumptions. The model was validated with the conductivity tests. In this paper, this numerical
model will be used to analized proppant crushing and deformation in reservoir condition and field scale.

Model Configuration
In the model Proppant pack and formation rocks were treated as poroelastic media. The poroelastic
simulations estimate 3D compaction related to fracture production by taking subsurface fluid with Darcys
law and coupling it to structural displacements with a stress-strain analysis. This model focused on elastic
displacements brought on by changing fluid pressures when production begins. In order to evaluate
fracture conductivity damage due to proppant deformation and crushing, the permeability and porosity
cubic law is utilized. The porosity change due to proppant deformation and crushing was reflected on the
change of proppant pack permeability. Proppant crushed zone was quantified by Mohr-coulomb failure
index. This coupled finite element model was verified by conductivity tests (Han, Wang, Puri, 2014).
Part of reservoir, which is the fractured area, was simulated. Fracture dimensions are about 500 ft. long,
002 ft. wide and 90 ft. high (Fig. 2&3). The fracture was put inside a huge formation block, which is 10
ft. wide, 600 ft. long and 100 ft. high (Fig. 3). The reason to simulate part of the reservoir rather than
whole reservoir area was to save computation load because our research interests are mainly in fracture
conductivity. This model can be further connected with production model. The stress loads from
overburden rocks and in-situ stress were applied. The walls of the fracture can deform freely. The goal
was to solve for the changes in fluid pressure, stress, strain, and displacement of proppant packs due to
production. Surface between fracture and matrix was set as deformable and permeable. Inputs for the
model are listed on table 1.
Both 2D and 3D views of model are shown in Figs 1 and 2. The fractured zones are meshed in to fine
elements while the matrix zone are meshed into larger elements. Hydraulic fractures propagate perpendicularly to the minimum in-situ stress, as indicated in Fig.1.

SPE-171019-MS

Figure 1Top view of the model in 2D (plot in the right side is the geometry after meshing)

Figure 23-dimentional view of the model (plot in the right side is the geometry after meshing)

Figure 3proppant deformation under different reservoir pressure (at t8 mins)

SPE-171019-MS

Where:
(1)
(2)
(3)

Parametrical Study
In this section, we will study proppant deformation and crushing under different reservoir pressure,
flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP), formation permeability, and proppant pack biot constant.
Effect of Reservoir Pressure
The difference of reservoir pressures means the different reservoirs depth. Based on pressure gradient 0.5
psi/ft and stress gradient 0.95 psi/ft, the reservoir pressure, and in-situ stress accordingly as Equations 13.
The studied reservoir pressure were assigned from 2000 psi to 6000 psi. Five senarios with 1000 psi
reservoir pressure incremental were investigates as the following figure.
Figure 3 illustrates proppant pack deformation under five different reservoir pressure. As reservoir
pressure increases, more displacement were observed from the simulated results. The results indicate that,
large reservoir pressure would decrease more the propped fracture width. Especially for the near wellbore
region, the large difference between wellbore pressure and reservoir pressure can generate large net
pressure acting on the proppants, resulting in large proppant deformation as illustrated. For the near
wellbore region, sinario with reservoir pressure of 6000 psi has 5 times more displacement than the
reservoir pressure of 2000 psi. In the mean while in the fracture far from wellbore, only 3 times difference
was generated in the proppant pack displacement. These results emphasize the effect of net pressure on
proppant deformation. Hence large difference between reservoir pressure and wellbore pressure can cause
large production volume, fast pressure drop in the fracture, and large net pressure on the proppant pack.
We conduct the same parametric study on proppant volumetric deformation. The simulated results
show the same trend. For the near wellbore region, Incremental of reservoir pressure from 2000 psi to
6000 psi create roughly 5 times difference in volumetric strain, while for zones in fracture away from
wellbore, only less than 3 times difference in proppant pack is found. The net pressure cause a large
volumetric strain in the near wellbore region.
The reservoir pressure would affect the horizontal stress value. Larger reservoir pressure can cause
larger horizontal stress based on the concept of the poroelastic medium. The high in-situ stress create more
deformation. It is important to use strong proppant for pressurized reservoir.

Effect of Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure

Different FBHP means different wells operational conditions. In this parametric study, the wellbore
FBHP various from 500 psi to 2000 psi, while the reservoir initial pressure remains at 4500 psi. Four cases
with 500 psi wellbore pressure incremental were built.
Figure 5 shows proppant pack displacement under different wellbore pressure. As wellbore pressure
decreases, more displacement were observed. Smaller wellbore pressure would further decrease the
propped fracture width. Especially for the near wellbore region, the large difference in wellbore pressure
and reservoir pressure can create large net pressure acting on the proppants pack, resulting in large
proppant deformation. For the near wellbore region, from 2000 FBHP to 500 FBHP result in 1.3 times
difference in displacement. In the fracture further from wellbore, no difference was found in the proppant
pack displacement, because that of fluid differences in these four cases. These cases enhance our
conclusion on the net pressure effects on the deformation of proppant deformation.

SPE-171019-MS

Figure 4 Proppant pack volumetric strain under different reservoir condition (at t8 mins)

Figure 5proppant deformation under different FBHP (at t8 mins)

Parametric studies on proppant volumetric deformation are also examined. The simulated results
demonstrate the same result which is small wellbore pressure generate large proppant volumetric
deformation. For the near wellbore region, 1.4 times difference in volumetric strain was generated
comparing cases with 500 FBHP and 2000 FBHP, while for the fracture far away from wellbore, almost
none difference in proppant pack volumetric deformation is found. The illustrated results point to the
effect of the net pressure on the proppant deformation.
The effects of different wellbore pressure on proppant crushing are also investigated. The proppant
crushing zone under different wellbore pressure are shown on the following Figure 7. Smaller FBHP cause
larger the crushed proppant pack zone is. In other word, large chock size would generate large propped
fracture crushing zone. The bottom of the propped area has larger crushed zone than the zone of the upper
part is due to the distribution of the minimum horizontal pressure. The bottom part has larger minimum
horizontal stress than the upper part. Well with a small wellbore pressure will produce at a high production

SPE-171019-MS

Figure 6 Proppant volumetric strain under different well bore pressure (at t8 mins)

Figure 7Proppant crushing zone under different well bore pressure (crushed zone are highlighted in red)

rate and have a large pressure drop which generating large net pressure on the proppant pack. The stress
condition on the proppant pack is investigated to check whether the proppant is under safe condition or
crushed according to the Mohr-coulomb failure criteria

Effect of Formation Permeability

Three cases of formation permeability of 1 mD, 0.1 mD, and 0.01 mD are analyzed. The simulated results
of different formation permeabilities are shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8 shows proppant pack displacement under formations of different permeability. As formation
permeability decreases, a higher displacement was observed. The results indicate that formation rock
permeability is inversely related to proppant pack deformation. Especially for the near wellbore region,
the effects of formation rock permeability are more obvious. At the near wellbore region, the fracture fluid

SPE-171019-MS

Figure 8 Proppant deformation under different formation permeability (at t8 mins)

was firstly produced, and then formation fluid would flow into fracture to compensate the pressure drop
between fracture and formation. When the formation rocks are permeable, the fluid would flow into the
fracture easily and help the proppant pack to resist the formation rocks compaction. For the region far
from wellbore, the fracture pressure was not changed in such a rapid period, and the formation fluid wasnt
flowing to the fracture yet. The formation permeability would affect the rate the fluid flowed from the
formation to the fracture. When the formation is permeable, the formation fluid can flow into the fracture
more quickly and easily. The fluid pressure difference between formation and fracture would be small, and
less deformation would be expected from the proppant pack.
Same conclusion would be drawn from the propapnt pack volumetric strain as shown in Figure 9.
Proppant pack in more permeable formation rocks would have less volumetric strain. The fluid transported
from the formation rocks into the fracture would be beneficial for the proppant pack to resist the fracture
planner compaction. Also, the fluid diffusion between formation and fracture would help to balance the
fluid pressure difference between formation and fracture.

Effect of Proppant Pack Biot Constants

The biot constant of proppant pack mainly depends on solids compressibility, and grain cementing. It is
defined as the following equation.
(4)
Where Kb is the drained bulk modulus of porous rock, and Kg is the bulk modulus of solid grains.
represents solid rock without pores. No pressure influence.
indicates extremely compliant porous solid. Maximum pore pressure influence.
From loosely consolidated sand formation to cemented solids pack, biot constant varies from 0.5 (dry
Fountainebleu sandstone) to 0.9 (dry Ottowa sand) (Zoback, 2007). In this parametric study, we sweep
proppant pack biot constant from 0.5 to 0.9 to investigate various packed proppant deformation as the
following Figures 10 and 11.

SPE-171019-MS

Figure 9 Volumetric strain under different formation permeability (at t8 mins)

Figure 10 Deformation of proppant pack with different biot constant (at t8 mins)

SPE-171019-MS

Figure 11Volumetic strain of proppant pack with different biot constant (at t8 mins)

From Figure 10 and 11, the deformation increases as the proppant pack biot constant increases. The
value of biot constant multiply the fluid pressure is the pressure that applied on the solids. The increased
biot constant can be viewed as increased pressure being applied on the proppant grains which will
compress the solids. Due to the compression of the solids, the proppant pack will deform. Hence, the
effects of different biot constant are more obervious when they are under high pressure.
The effect of various biot constant on proppant crushing is also investigated. The results are demonstrated as the following figure 12.
The figure indicates that the incremental of proppant pack biot will enhance the safety of proppant
pack. With high biot number, though solids are of large deformation, they are of less possibility of
crushing. Due to the use of mohr-coulomb failure as the critera for proppant crushing, the fluid pressure
being applied on the proppant solids is the minimum stress on the solids. The larger the fluid pressure is,
the smaller the mohr circle is. As long as the mohr circle is away from the cretia, the proppant pack will
be safe.

Proppant Pack Damage Analysis Plot

Based on the parametric study of the proposed proppant damage analysis numerical model, the sensitivity
of some key parameters are investigated. In order to better utilized the methodology in to the field, we
developed a practical formalism, Proppant Pack Damage Analysis Plot (PPDA), to predict the potential
of proppant pack damage during field development. The PPDA is designed to integrate relatively simple
geomechanics with the physical state of a reservoir to predict whether proppant pack damage will happen
with time. One import aspect of this study is to analysis the stress condition of proppant pack during the
development of the reservoir. For the settled proppant pack, the stress that being applied are the minimum
in-situ stress, which is the 1 on the proppant pack, and the fluid pressure in the fracture, which is the 3
on the pack as Figure 12.

10

SPE-171019-MS

Figure 12Curshing zone of proppant pack with different biot constant

Figure 13Mohr-Coulomb failure critaria

As the conducted parametric study, the potential

of proppant crushing is sensitive to the well bore
pressure and reservoir pressure. Without integrating
the reservoir parameters, the Mohr-Coulomb model
is difficult for field application. One important component of this analysis is the change in horizontal
stress that related the pressure change during depletion. Poroelastic theory is often used for predicting
the changes in magnitude of stresses with depletion.
Figure 14 PPDA plot
For an isotropic, porous and elastic reservoir that is
laterally extensive with respect to its thickness (20:
1), the applicable relationship is as following (Segall and Fitzgerald, 1996):

SPE-171019-MS

11

Figure 15PPDA plot application

(5)
where v is Poissons ratio and is the biot coefficient.
With production occurs at a low FBHP, decrease of the fluid pressure in facture will decrease the
minimum stress applied on the proppant. The hmin is also decrease due to the formation pressure decrease
in a much slower speed due to its low permeability comparing with fracture. The mohr circle shift left and
keep increasing its area. Once the mohr circle reach the failure line, proppant pack crushing will occur.
, where is the coefficient of friction
The equation of mohr-coulomb failure criteria is
and C0 is the cohesion factor. As the key factor for the proppant pack damage analysis are the hmin and
pf, we want to reformulate the mohr-coulomb failure plot into a new plot with hmin and pf as the axles.
To quantify where the mohr circle reaches the failure envelop is to determine the length of mohr circle
radius and distance between the failure line and circle center.
The mohr circle radius:
(6)

12

SPE-171019-MS

The distance between mohr circle center and the failure criteria:
(7)
The coordinates of (x0, y0) are

, then
(8)

Set D Rmor
(9)
The slop of the line would be
, and the intersection on the y axle would be
as the
following figure.
To apply this PPDA plot to the proppant pack damage analysis, the very first step is to determine the
initial hmin and initial reservoir pressure. The application of the PPDA is demonstrated as the following
case (Figure 15).
Assume the cohesion factor is negligible, and friction coefficient is 0.6 (applicable for loss cemented
sand). And the initial pressure of the sandstone reservoir is 5000 psi and hmin is 8000 psi as following
figure. The well initial condition is as point A (5000, 8000). If the well head pressure is set as 600 psi
(point C) at the beginning of the well depletion, the link between A and B will cross the failure line, and
proppant pack will fail. If the well head pressure is set to be around point B (2800, 8000), as the pressure
deplete, manipulate the well carefully to point D along the failure line without across. The well can be
safely produced without breaking the settled proppant pack as the orange line. The time of manipulating
the well chock would depends on the formation rock permeability, proppant biot constant etc. which are
can affecting the transmissibility of pressure diffusion.

Conclusion
A comprehensive study of proppant deformation and crushing under different reservoir conditions is
conducted. This research includes parametric studies using a coupled geomechanic and fluid flow model,
and an anlytical method for proppant crushing identification. The major conclusions from this work are
as follows:

Largest deformation and highest possibility of crushing were observed near wellbore. Strong
proppant was recommended at the last stage of slurry.
Proppant crushing area is related to the wellbore production pressure. Small chock size is
recommended during wells early operation.
A PPDA plot is developed to properly operate a well without breaking the proppant pack.
Future work can be done for further analysis of the proppant damage phenomenon. Fracture is a
complex system involved with stress, fluid pressure, chemicals, and temperature. Numerical modeling
with the consideration of coupling chemical reaction, fluid transportation, and stress reorientation would
be a good approximation of the fracture in the reservoir.
Nonmenclature
ob,
overburden stress, psi.
gradG,
stress gradient, psi/ft.
H,
depth, ft.
,
biot constant.
reservoir pressure, psi.
pr,
hmin,
minimum insitu stress, psi

SPE-171019-MS

v,
H,
Kb,
Kg,
Sh,
Pp,
,
C0,
Rmor,
D,
Pf,

13

poission ratio.
maximum insitu stress, psi
drained bulk modulus of porous rock, Gpa
the bulk modulus of solid grains, Gpa
change of the horizontal insitu stress, psi
change of the pore pressure, psi
the coefficient of friction
the cohesion factor.
radius of mohr circle
distance between mohr circle center and failure cretaria
fluid pressure, psi

References
Gidley, J. L., G. S. Penny, et alet al. 1995. Effect of Proppant Failure and Fines Migration on
Conductivity of Propped Fractures. SPE Production & Facilities. 10(01): 20 25. SPE-24009-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/24008-PA
Han, J., Wang, J. Y., Puri, V., 2014 A Fully Coupled Geomechanics and Fluid Flow Model for
Proppant Pack Failure and Fracture Conductivity Damage Analysis. Paper SPE-168617-MS presented at
SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. The Woodlands, Texas. 4-6 Februrary. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168617-MS
Lacy, L.L., Rickards, A.R., and Syed, A.A. 1997. Embedment and Fracture Conductivity in Soft
Formations Associated with HEC, Borate and Water-based Fracture Designs. Paper SPE 38590-MS
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/38590-MS
Palisch, T. T., R. J. Duenckel, et alet al. 2009. How to Use and Misuse Proppant Crush Tests Exposing the Top 10 Myths. Paper SPE-119242-MS presented at SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference. The Woodlands, Texas. 19-21 January. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119242-MS
Segall, P., and Fitzgerald, S. D., 1996. A Note on Induced Stress Changes in Hydraucarbon and
Geothermal Reservoirs, Techtonophysics 289, 117128.
Zoback, M. D. 2007. Reservoir Geomechanics, Cambridge University Press. ISBN-13:9780521146197