SP J~91f I

A General Analysis of Fracturing

Pressure Decline With Application
to Three Models
K.G. Nolte, SPE, Amoco Production Co.

Summary. This paper presents the basis for determining the parameters that quantify the creation of a
hydraulic fracture from the fracturing pressure decline after a fracture treatment. The analyses are generally
applicable to the standard models used in fracture design-i.e.; Perkins-Kern (PK), Khristianovitch-Geertsmade Klerk (KGD), and the penny or radial models. The parameters that can be determined, as shown in an
example, include the fracture's dimensions, fluid-loss coefficients, fluid efficiency, and fracture closure time.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing, like other drilling, completion, and
reservoir behavior, is complicated because the processes
cannot be observed directly. This deficiency has been
overcome for description of reservoir processes by the
development, over the past 50 years, of analyses based
on the wellbore pressure and flow rate. During the past
5 years, similar analyses for fracturing have been
introduced 1.2 and successfully applied. 3-7 Recently, field
application has been significantly facilitated by the introduction of computerized vans specially equipped to
record and to analyze fracturing data. 7-9 The analysis of
fracturing pressure during injection 2 provides qualitative
information on the nature of the fracture's growth-i.e.,
height confinement or growth, excessive fluid loss, or restricted extension-and quantitative information by comparing recorded pressure data with pressures simulated
by a computer model. 6 Analysis of the pressure decline
after fracturing provides information on the fluid-loss
characteristics, fracture dimensions, fluid efficiency, and
fracture closure time. 1 This analysis was initially limited to the PK model for fracture geometry. 10 However,
this analysis can be extended to the other standard
models-the KGD model ll - 13 and penny or radial
model. 10,12 Schematics of these models are shown in Fig.
1. Recently the analysis'has been appliedto'a fractUre with
an elliptical area. 14 The derivations of the more general
equations, considerations for their applications, and an
example are given in the following sections.

Assumptions
The assumptions made and the effect on specific equations are summarized below.
1. A continuous rate of fracture growth (Eq. 1) that
would require a constant injection rate, no accelerated
growth as a result of penetration of a zone having significantly lower closure pressure, and no retarded growth
caused by proppant bridging are assumed.

'Now with Dowell Schlumberger.

Copyright 1986 Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1986 .

2. A continuous change of the ratio of fracture to fluidloss area would not be'violated by the subsequent penetration of an impermeable and higher-stress zone, generally
the case for shale, for which both width and fluid loss
would be relatively negligible; conversely, it would be
violated for the subsequent penetration of either a lowerstress or permeable zone.
3. Spurt loss, the opening and closing of natural fractures, and pressure-dependent loss are not explicitly considered. However, Eqs . 34 and 35 give corrections for
these effects.
4. The assumption of constant fracture area from shutin of injection to fracture closure would be strictly violated by either additional extension or partial closure. The
practical consequences of both are unknown but may be
unimportant. The amount of additional extension is likely to be relatively small, and if the closure results in mismatches of the fracture faces or propping caused by rock
fragments or proppant, the closed section would still be
in communication with the open section and would contribute to fluid loss.
5. The assumption that the fracture closes without interference of proppant requires either a calibration treatment without proppant or, for an actual stimulation with
proppant,tfie use orEg. 2Zfor fracture cfosure time and
pressure matching (Eq. 27) before the fracture closes on
the proppant. Closure on the proppant is generally indicated by an accelerated rate of pressure decline. 6
6. For relationships based on pressure (p* or p s given
in Eqs. 26 through 31), closure-pressure changes during
shut-in must be assumed negligible compared with p s or
p* if the well bore pressure is used directly. If the change
in closure pressure is significant and can be predicted or
estimated, these equations may be applied with appropriate corrections.

Derivations
Area/Fluid-Loss Relation. Proceeding in a similar but
more general manner than for the previous derivations 1
for pressure decline, the fracture's rate of areal growth
can be bounded 1,15 by either the assumption of negligi571

Well
Perkins-Kern
(Ref. 10)
~I------L--------~I
------~~------

T
hf

Khristianovic.
Geerstma-de Klerk
(Refs. 11. 12)

Well

~Profiles
~ .

Radial or Penny
(Refs. 10. 11)

I
Fig. 1-Schematlc of fracture models.

Fig. 2-Schematlc for areas and times in derivation.

ble fluid loss to the formation or predominant fluid loss

(i .e. , upper bound and lower bound, respectively).

where C is the conductance or fluid-loss coefficient. Integrating Eq. 4 after substituting Eq . 2 gives

a=aIA=TII

... . ... . . .. . . .. ... . . . .. . . .. .. (la)

q,(I,a)=

and
a=aIA=(Tlt)'h,

.... . .. .. . . .. : .. .. .. . . . . . (lb)

or

2CA

ra

vI

0 vl-a e

----r- J

da

2C:
[2.(1 ~~)]
vI
sm 1 a

. ............. (5)

rlt=(aIA)e =a e , .. . . .. .. ...... ......... . .. (2)

where e= 1 for the upper bound and e=2 for the lower
bound, A and 1 are the current area and time. and a and
T are area and time at some other time (see. Fig. 2). The
upper bound assumes not only negligible fluid loss but
also constant fracture width. Because the width generally increases and stores a portion of the injected fluid , the
upper-bound exponent in Eq. 1 is actually less than
unity-i.e., lie < 1. The actual exponent for this bound
with the PK model was derived in Ref. I. and can be found
by similar methods for the KGD and penny or radial
models. The values for the PK, KGD , and radial models.
respectively, are

_ 2CA k

v 10

2Jtito
sin - I a

(l-~) ]

'

. . . .. . (6)

I/e2n+2)/(2n+3), .... .... . .. . .. . . . . ... (3a)

where the upper expression in the brackets is for the upper bound (e= 1) and the lower expression in the brackets is for the lower bound (e=2) . By substitution of
a=Ako the final fluid loss or porous area, and T=lo into
Eqs: 5 and 1. Eq. 6 follows. The subscript 0 denotes the
end of pumping (beginning of shut-in) .
The total area for one face of the fracture, A f. can be
exp,ressed by Akand the following expre.ssion can be substituted into the above relations .
.

I/en+ 1)/(n+2), . ... . . ...... .... . . .. . .. (3b)

Ak =/pAf . . .. ..... . ... . . . . ..... . ...... .. . (7)

and

and

lie < (4n+4)/(3n+6), . . . . ...... ........... (3c)

where n (generally :s 1) is the exponent in the power-law
model for fluid flow. The rate of areal-growth bounds (Eq .
1) is illustrated in Fig. 3.
The rate of fluid loss through an incremental area , 00 ,
at time 1 (see Fig . 2) is expressed by the Carter 16 relation as

2COO
q,(I,OO)= Jt-T(a) ,
572

. .. . . . .. .. . ........... (4)

where hf is the total vertical fracture height and h k is the

porous- or loss-section height for the PK and KGD
models. Generally , /p would be unity for the radial or
penny model.
Rate and Volume of Fluid Loss. The fluid-loss rate after shut-in (t~lo, a=Ak-i.e ., assume A=Ak =constant)
SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

1 a=A=A k - - - - - - - Lower Bound

Eq. l'

2 0.05

... -

0.1

0.5

0.2

1.0

"/2

~~

It

Or-------------------------~
Bounds,

cu

-~

-o

- - Lowe<
4

:>

..~:

..

-~,.

{ ... ~ ..... ' .. . .... -]

-tPo' ''''o .... '' ..'.' .~ .. ~~~

__ -

...-/

,,/2. _ _4/3 ..
I~~~~--~--~~~~~~--~--~I

log TIt

o 0.05

0.2

0.1

0.5

1.0

2.0

5.0

10.

!linwIsionIns Tome. ID - lit. -1

Fig. 3-lIIustration of bounds for area growth.

Fig. 4-Dimensionless functions for loss rate and volume.

is found by substitutingEq. 1 for a with T=to into Eq.

6 and using Eq. 7:

where K(K ~ 1) is a multiple to C that accounts for additional fluid loss only during pumping (e.g . spurt loss or
opening of natural fractures only during injection). These
effects, along with the definition of K, will be discussed
later. Eq. 10 can be expressed as

q,(t,A k )=

2C!pA f [2.J1ito (1- ..h -to It) ]

r
v 10

sin -I ...rr;;it

1f'>

2CfpAf

JIo

f(t D) . .... . .. . ... ........ (8)

and
ID=(t-tO)lto

v,

KCfpAfJlo

for the bounds on the fluid volume lost during pumping.

The theoretical bounds in Eq. 11 bracket the approximate
values of .J8 and 3 used in Refs. 17 and 18.
The volume of fluid lost after shut-in (i.e., pumping
correction, K not applicable) is found by integrating Eq.
8 from I D =0 (shut-in) and using

=tlto-l, ....... .. . . .. . ................ (9)

with!(tD) representing the two functions in brackets in
Eq. 8 for the upper and lower bounds, and t D as the
dimensionless shut-in time. Fig. 4 shows the bounds for
! (I D) and illustrates. that. they differonly .,slightly

10%).

As a result of the closeness of the bounds,

either can be used with engineering accuracy for a good
representation of ft.t D)'
The volume of fluid lost during pumping is found by
integrating Eq. 6 over the time of pumping with
a=A=Ako or a=l, and substituting Eq. 7:

>8/3 .. ................. (II)

get D)= ft.t D)dt D

[4/3[(1

+tb)3I2 -I D312]
1

(l + I D )sin - (1

I/,

"J'
I L '

+I D) - +t D "

(12a)

results in

=2CfpA f Jlo [g(1 D) - g(O)] , . . . . ......... (12b)

.......... ' (10)

SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

where the upper and lower bounds for g(ID) are given
in the brackets of Eq. 12a. The lower-bound integration
was given in Ref, 5. Fig. 4 shows these bounds, and as
for !(ID)', the bounds are very close.
573

Inspection of Eq. 10 shows that the values in brackets

are equal to g(t D =0) in Eq. 12a; or rewriting Eq. 10 for
the lost volume while pumping gives

or

VlVt =el(1-ef)=!x .................... (16a)

and

ef=!x/(l +!x). . ......................... (l6b)

and

go =g(O) = 4/3 ]
[ 1(12

By use of the relations from Eqs. 15, 14, and 13,

..................... (13b)

Relations aased on Loss Coefficient

and Time
.
The volume of fluid lost between shut-in and the fracture's
closure is found from Eq. 12b evaluated at t e , the time
for fracture to close after shut-in, or the dimensionless
closing time, telto. This volume is also equal to the fluid
in the fracture at shut-in, Vf , the fracture volume.

Vt.s;(tD=tclto)=Vf ...................... (14a)

!x=VflV"
Vj=2C!pA f../'to (g e ~ go),
............................ (17a)

and

y.t =2KC!pAf../'to go ,

..................... (17b)

and Eq. 16a, it follows that

and

or
and

ef=I-K/(K-l+g elgo) ................... (l8c)

and

ge=g(teltO); go =g(O) , .................. (l4d)

where b is the average fracture width at shut-in. Eq. 14c
implies that b can be determined if the loss coefficient,
C, can be estimated and the time of the fracture's closing'
determined from data after the treatment.

=l-golgco if K=l. ................... (18d)

Thus!x and fluid efficiency, ef. can be determined directly from fracturing data (i.e., the time for the fracture to
close) through the function g(tD) evaluated at the closure
time if K = 1, as generally is the case. Inversely, for use
in fractur~ design, the predicted time for, closure can be
found from the predicted.efficiency-Le. Eq. 18cr-as
shown in Fig. 5 (K =1) by the inverse of the function g.I.e., g - \ -as

Fluid Efficiency. The introduction of a parameter denoted

as p in Ref. 1 and here as!x, will facilitate subsequent
derivations.
!x=VlV, . .............................. (15)
This parameter is the ratio of fracture volume to fluidloss volume at shut-in and is related to the more generall~ used parameter "fluid efficiency," ef' which is the ratIo of fracture volume to total volume injected, Vj From
this definition (Eq. 15) and the continuity equation,
Vi = Vt + Vf' it follows that

ef=VlV j ; l- ef=V t IV j ,
574

=g-I [go(ifx+ 1)] ................... (19a)

or, for K= 1,

=g -I [go(l +!x)]. . .................. (l9b)

SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

1.0

5.

-- - ., - 1

::D

e,-1-110~
p-~1110 -1

",-

,;.

...
1.5

",-1 Upper
e,-O Lower

~
i4: 04

<
0

.6 .

0.4 C
3
!!'

0.2

<:

i
1.0 0
0.8 r0
0.6 l!!

Bounds:

w
==

2.

2-

0.6

.!.!

.,- 0 ('--Bound)
(Upper Bound)

aci"

0.8

0.2

-b

1.

.5

p.

1e

0.5

0.2

0.5

1.0

2.0

Dimensionless Closure Tome. Ie

5.0

0
10.0

02
.

110

0.1

Fig. S-Fluid efflclency from closure time.

/
0.05 .
0 05

Note that the inverse ofIx can be shown to equal x";; /2 ,

where x is the parameter of the Carter area equation. 16-18
The above expressions for time to close assume that the
fracture closes completely (no proppant). If proppant is
considered, the effective fracture volume that will close
is VI - V pro where Vpr is the volume of proppant including the porosity of the proppant. The value of g(tD) for
closing on the proppant will be denoted as g ~. Then the
equivalent of the expression in Eq. 17a for the volume
of fracture that closes is

0.1

to
0.2

0.5

1.

2.

DimenSionless Tme. I D
F~g. 6-Dlmenslonless difference functlon--master for
curve ' matching.

where!vp is the volume fraction of proppant pumped (including theproppant porosity, 4 relative to the total slurry
pumped, W is the proppant weight. and w is the srcific .
weight of the proppant material-e.g . 165 lbm/ft ,2.65
g/cm 3 [2643 kg/m 3 , 0.957 Ibm/in. 3 ] for sand.

Fracture Width. Substituting IC/xgo=gc-go from Eq.

18a into Eq. 14c yields
and from Eqs. 13a and 15,

b=2KCjp .fto!xgO ........................ (23)

for the average width at shut-in with!x from Eq. 18a for
no proppant or Eq. 22a with proppant.
Dividing Eq. 20 by Eq. 21 yields
Vpr
(g~ -go) .
1--=
.
VI
I(golx

Fracture Area and Penetration. Combining the continuity equation, Vi = V,+ VI' and Eqs. 13a and 16a gives the
following for the fracture area.
Vi =:: v;+ VP= Vi(r+!~)

Substituting VI=Ix Vj/(l +Ix) found from Eq. 16a and

solving for Ix when proppant is present yields

=2KCIpA I .ftogo(l +!x) ..... . ...... .. . . (24a)

Ix = !vp +(g ~ - gO)/(l(go)

or

I-fyp

or for
.

Ix =

1(=

I,

g~/go

1,-!vp

AI= _ _ _V_i _ _._

2l(C!pgo.fto (1 +!x)

-I

7fr/

. . ...

(24b)

. . ............ . .......... (22a)

in which
!vp = VprlV j

=[~~f],

=W/[wV (I-4],
j

......... : .... (22b)

SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

where the expressions in brackets are the areas for the

PK, KGD, and radial fracture models, respectively; hI
and L are fracture height and tip-to-tip length; and rI is
the fracture radius for the radial model. Eq. 24 can be
exprCjssed in terms oftime to close by substitution ofEq.
18 or Eq. 22 for Ix.
575

Assuming that the time for the fracture to close -can be

determined by interpreting the pressure-decline data, 6 the
fluid efficiency and I", Eq. 18, can be inferred from g c .
If the fluid-loss coefficient during pumping, ICC, is also
known, then the fracture width (Eq. 23) and fracture area
(Eq. 24) can also be inferred. The fracture penetration
can be found from the area (Eq. 24) for the radial model,
rf' and if the fracture height, hf' can be inferred, the fracture length, L, can be found for the other two models.
Although the fluid-loss coefficient can be estimated from
laboratory experiments for the expected conditions and
formation, the rate of pressure decline after pumping stops
can be used to determine the actual coefficient, C (without
the correction, IC) for the specific fluid and formation, as
discussed in the following section.

where cf in Eq. 25 was assumed to be constant, which

is consistent with the previous assumption that the fracture's dimensions, Af' are constant during closing.
Eq. 26 implies that the fluid-loss coefficient is proportional to the rate of net pressure decline divided by the
dimensionless loss function!(tD), and that this coefficient
can be inferred from the decline da~ if cf in Eq. 25b can
also be inferred. The practical use of rate-of-change data
is sometimes difficult because of data scatter, while differences over longer times average out the scatler. Integrating Eq. 26 from some reference time t* to 'a later time
t and using Eq. l2a gives (in terms of dimensionless time)
the pressure difference

R.I.tlona a..... on Prur.

The average fracture width for each of the standard fracture models can be related to the net fluid pressure,
p" = p w -Pc, where P w is the pressure of the fluid at the
well bore in the fracture entrance and Pc is the fracture
closure pressure that equals the in-situ stress acting to
close the fracture .
b=c/p" =cf(Pw -Pc) . . . ..... ... ... . . . . .. (25a)

and defining both

G(ID,tD)=-[g(ID)-g(tD)]

.... . ....... .. . (27a)

1J'

and

and

p=Apn(/~"D)' ........... . ........ . ... (27b)

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . (25b)
for the three models, where b is the average width, cf
is the fracture's compliance for width, E' is the planestrain elastic modulus of the formation, and {3 is the ratio
of the average net pressure in the fracture to the wellbore
value. The term "average" implies the value of p" that,
if distributed uniformly over the fracture area, would
produce the same average width as the actual nonuniform
pressure. The expressions for cf are found from Refs.
10 and 12. Values of {3 appropriate for the different models
are discussed later.
Fluid-Loss Coefficient. The continuity equation implies
that after shut-in and before the fracture closes, the rate
of fluid-loss volume is equal to the rate of change in the
fracture's volume:
dVf
db
- - = -Af-=qr(t,Ad .
dt
dt

Substituting Eq. 8 (which does not contain IC because

pumping has stopped) and Eq . 25a gives

dp"

-AJCf-=
dl

2CfpAf

,- I(ID) . . ... .. . .. . . ... . (26a)

when G(t D.t ~) = 1, gives .

or

for the three models, where G(tD. t~) is shown in Fig.

6 for typical values of t ~. As previously presented I and
demonstrated later, Fig'" 6' can be used as a master' curve'
to match actual pressure-decline da~ for determining P
and, hence, C.
Fluid Emciency. Using Eq. 25a with the value of Pn
directly after shut-in, denoted as Pso and also after substituting C from Eq. 28 into Eq. 13 and Eq. IS yields

AI'

'Kps

V,

4ICgop

1,,=--=

~[311'/16]
tep

112

'II 10

=et'(l-ef)' ...... .. ....... ... ...... . .. (29)

or

dp"
---=
dt

576

2Clp

,- f(t D), . .. . .... . . . ..... . (26b)

Cf'llto

where Eq. 16 was used and the expressions in brackets

are for the upper and lower bounds, respectively, for fracture growth. For Eq. 29, the use ofps assumes no addiSPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

Pump 15 bbI Water, 3 BPM

FIowback at 0.2 BPM
'in

Q.

800

::J

II)
II)

Qj

ct

IV

Fig. 7-illustration of variables for decline analysis.

tiona! extension of the fracture after shut-in . Generally

this will not be the case, and the appropriate value of Ps
will be less than the value at shut-in.
Eq. 29 defines the basic parameter, lx, and efficiency, eJ' in terms of shut-in pressure and the decline-match
pressure, whereas Eq. 18 defines these parameters in
terms of dimensionless closure time. Both expressions
contain the possible correction for C while pumpingi.e ., /c. Importantly, neither of these expressions depends
on an assumed fracture model.
If Eq. 26 is used instead of Eq. 28 in the derivation
for Eq. 29,/x is found to be proportional to Psl(todp/dt)
with j(tD) evaluated at the same time as dp/dt .
Fracture Penetration and Width. Substituting Eq. 28
for C into Eq.24 and mUltiplying by 2{3cfE'l7r yields

'5

en

600

FIowback Time, Min.

'in

1000 .....- - - - - - - - - - - - . 4 6 0 0

CO)

::J

4400

800

- 7 5 0 - -....... 4350

100
10

150
12

. . . , . ....... . . . .. . (30)

These equations permit the fra'CtUrepenetration';'L (~

suming hf can be estimated), or r f to be found from the
pressure-decline analysis in terms of p. and lx, or in
terms of efficiency, ef' and p s' the net pressure immediately after shut-in. These equations, unlike those in the
previous section, do not depend on the fluid-loss coefficient. If closure pressure can be assumed constant, Eqs.
25 and 27 imply that p. can be found from the bottomhole or surface wellbore pressure because p. is in terms
of differences and a constant closure pressure, Pc' or
hydrostatic head is eliminated. These same parameters can
be used to define the average fracture width at shut-in by
substitution of K of Eq. 28 into Eq. 23:

CI)

'0

200
14

4200
16

6008~--~---~----L~~

en

1
Shut-In. Min.
for the three models, or substituting the last expression
in Eqs. 16 and 29,

Q.

ci

vShut-ln Time, v'&fIii:

.s=gE

(5

Fig. a-Interpretatlona of closure pressure for example:

(a) pump-fnlflowback before trelllt~nt (b) pressure decline
after treatment

or directly from Eq. 25:

Fig. 7 shows the various parameters for the decline

analysis.

Application
Closure Pressure. There are two considerations for
closure pressure: the definition of Ix in terms of the time
for ~e fracture to reach closure pressure (time to close
in Eq. 18) and the definition of p. in terms of the decline
in the wellbore pressure (directly measurable) if the
closure pressure is constant instead of the more general
case of decline in net pressure (Eqs. 25 and 27). For liquid reservoirs, closure pressure can change significantlys
during and after a treatment or for subsequent injections.
I

SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

577

iii

1.5
1.3

II)

;,

i.e&: 1.0
j ~ 0.5

C>

II

II>

':.

'"

.r;

..
-"II:

Well

112

Tip

.!! 1.0

!!

:t:

...

Q)

-...
:)

0.5

( .)

1'0

~"=-

u.: .

Ii:

1:
en

'4)

1~

0.1

______

__

~~~~~

__

~~

0.2
Net Pressure, Pn11w

DistltlCe Into Fracture

Fig. 9-Pressure and flow In fracture for shutin.

Fig. 10-Compllance and pressure for height growth.

Generally, however, closure pressure changes are insignificant for gas reservoirs because of their relatively high
compressibility that retards the reservoir pressure transient from significantly penetrating the reservoir. For this
case, closure pressure can be detennined before the fracture treatment and used for subsequent analysis of closure
time and net shut-in pressure, P s .
Closure pressure can generally be found from the pumpin/flowback procedure. 5 .6 This procedure consists of
pumping a small quantity of fluid (e.g., 20 bbl [31. 7 m 3 )
of water at 5 bbl/min [0.79 m 3/min)) and immediately
flowing back at a constant rate of about or less than onequarter the injection rate. Closure pressure is exhibited
by a change in curvature of the pressure plot from positive to negative curvature (Fig. 8). For the decline analyses, this procedure would be most applicable before the
treatment, when closure pressure changes are negligible.
This same technique can be used for liquid reservoirs,
but the value found before the treatment generally will
not be valid to infer the net shut-in pressure, P s' or to
determine when the . fracture closes. Generally, for liquid (and gas) reservoirs, the fracture's closure can be
detennined from a plot of shut-in pressure vs. the square
root of time. 6 Closure pressure is interpreted as the pressure where the slope changes on the plot (Fig. 8).
When closure pressure is expected or is found to change ';
significantly,5 the above equations that contain pressure
(i.e ., p. or PSt Eqs . 26 through 31) cannot be used unless the change in closure pressure can be predicted 5,19

ties of the fracture. This flow generates a pressure gradient until the fluid is completely lost to the formation
or trapped in the proppant when the fracture closes. It
has been implicitly and erroneously assumed that after
shut-in the fluid flow ceases, the fluid friction is zero,
and the pressure is equal to the closure pressure. Fig. 9
shows the simulated pressure and flow rate in a fracture
both before and directly after shut-in. A computer
algorithm 6 based on the PK model and including the continuity equation 15 was used for the simulation. The figure
shows that (3 before shut-in (f3p) is about 0.67 and directly
after shut-in (3$) is about 0.77. The difference is caused
by the reduction in both the flow rate and resulting pressure gradient in the entrance area of the fracture. This
reduction in pressure at shut-in is generally and erroneously considered part of the pressure drop through the
perforations. Because the average width (Le., volume)
of the fracture is essentially constant directly before and
after shut-in, f3 p /(3s is equal to the ratio of net pressure
directly after and before shut-in. The fluid flow is approximately linear from the wellbore to the tip before shutin, and after shut-in it approaches a uniform value over
the central part of the fracture, tapering to zero at the welJbore and tip.
Expressions for (3p and (3 s based on the PK model were
previously .derived 1 on the assumption that the fluid's apparent viscosity and flow rate varied as a power of distance from the tip to the wellbore-i.e ., exponents equal
o and b, respectively. A value of 0=0 would represent
uniform viscosity, whereas 0 = 1 would represent linearly decreasing viscosity from the wellbore to the tip. The
exponent for flow rate, b, was assumed to be unity (linear
variation) while pumping and zero (constant) for shut-in,
and gavel
.
.

and appropriate corrections made. From Eqs. 25 through

27, it follows that p s would be defined in tenns of closure
pressure at shut-in and p. would need to be corrected by
subtracting the predicted change in closure pressure between the times tv and t'o. t'o is the value for which
G(t'o,tv) = I (see Fig. 6) for the particular value of tf>
used with the curve-matching procedure to define p .

fl. Ratio of Average to Net WeUbore Pressure. If the

net pressure in the fracture were the same at all points,
f3 would be unity, where (3 is the correction required for
the well bore net pressure to predict the average fracture
width correctly. During and after injection, however,
there is fluid flow from the welJbore region to the ,extremi578

f3 p =(2n+2)/(3n+3+0) . ................. (32a)

and
f3 s =(2n+2)/(2n+3+0), .................. (32b)

where n is the exponent for the power-law fluid-flow

model. In Ref. 1, P s was assumed to be taken before
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1986

shut-in and consequently used 13 p; however, without loss

of generality, Ps was assumed here to be directly after
shut-in and hence is related with 13 s, as is the case also
for p. Therefore, there is no reason to distinguish between the two, and 13 refers to 13 s in the previous sections. No expressions similar to Eq. 32 for 13 s are
available for the other two fracture models; however, an
estimate of 13 p =0.85 is available 13 for the KGD model.
Because I> 13 s > 13 p' a value of about 0.9 may be appropriate. For the radial model, I3 p can be much smaller than
unity because of the high entrance flow rate and resulting
pressure gradients for a radial fracture in the horizontal
plane. The same is true for perforations over a relatively
small portion of a radial fracture that is in the plane of
the wellbore. After shut~in, however, the flow rate in this
region is zero, which would create a relatively uniform
pressure throughout the fracture, and a value of 13 s near
unity can be expected. The value of 311' 2 /32 =0.925 has
been used for convenience with Eqs. 28, 30, and 31. Thus,
until more precise definitions are presented, the following values of 13 (and thus 13 s) will be used.

13=[6~~+2)/(2n+3+a)J

.................. (33)

3?l'2/32

for the three models, respectively.

Pressure-Dependent Loss Coefficient. These derivations
assumed that the fluid-loss coefficient was constant and
independent of any pressure variations, whereas it depends
on the difference between the fracturing-fluid pressure and
the reservoir-fluid pressure, 15 P R' The relationship 15 is
the square root of the difference for C I , fracturing-fluid
viscosity governing; linear dependence on the difference
for C 2 , reservoir fluid governing; and no assumed dependence for C 3, fracturing-fluid wall-cake' governing_
A dimensional analysis in the Appendix indicates that the
dependence for C 3 is the ~ power of the pressure difference for the compressible cake resulting from a crosslinked polymer fluid. For an incompressible cake (e_g.,
hard particulates), the cake permeability would not depend on pressure, and the relationship 6 is the square root
of the pressure difference. Because the maximum pressure variation during, .c1osure, is. P s' it, follows that the
, maximum error is proportional to Psi (p c - P R ). Then a
conservative correction (to obtain largest possible value)
for the corrected coefficient, C c' in terms of the inferred
value from the decline analysis is

Cc<C(I+

Ps

Pc-PR

)e, ...................

(34)

where for C), e=lh, for C 2 , e=l, and for C3 , e=1h

(incompressible cake) or e= ~ (compressible cake).
Height Growth. Two of the fracturing models assume
that the fracture height, hf' remains constant throughout
pumping and shut-in. The KGD model explicitly assumes
no width variation in the. vertical direction (see Fig. I).
The model thus implicitly assumes that the height is apSPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

1600~------~------~------~-------,

'0;

0-

"

II)
II)

l
...
't:
en
"
QI

1000

800
5MPa
600~

____

~~

50

______

______

100
Shut-in lime. Min,

______

150

200

Fig_ 11-Pressure decline for example.

proximately the perforated interval with limited penetration,14 or it assumes that slip 20 occurs between the
formations with no transfer of shear stresses. As a result,
height growth for this model would not occur. Vertical
height change or growth, however, is possible with the
PK model. This model (see Fig. 1) assumes that the width
is zero at the top and bottom of the fracture because the
elastic solution on which the model is based considers the
shear stresses between vertical sections. The tendency for
limitC'd height growth is caused by higher stresses in the
bounoary formations. 21 For this case, the width is significantly narrower 6 in the boundary formations that are
penetrated by height growth. As a result, the appropriate
fracture height, hf' to use 6 in the pressure and dimension relationships is the height of the lower-stress
formation-generally the gross reservoir section-without
including any additional growth of height. Fig. 10 shows
the change in the assumed constant compliance, Cf, of
Eq. 25 for an idealized case 6 of height limitation because
of stress differences in the formations. The figure shows
that Cf changes by less than 10 % for net pressures, P n ,
less than 0.4 Au (Au=stress difference in formations) or
equivalently for height growth of less than 20% of the
initial height. The compliance andheightarenormalized
in Fig. 10 by their initial values at essentially zero-i.e.,
0+ -net pressure. Also the figure shows that the net
pressure is limited to about 0.9 Au: max Pn or
Ps =0.9Au. For cases in which height growth occurs (if
the pressure-decline analysis is performed after the net
pressure has declined to about one-half of Ps), cf will remain essentially constant until closure and the analysis
will be valid. This restriction is not very limiting because
height growth does not affect the time-ta-close expressions (equations before Eq. 25) and the pressure match,
Eq. 27, can be performed during the latter portion of
closure instead of the initial portion. Height growth would
appear to violate the assumption of constant!p =hplhf,
Eq. 7. This is not the case if the bounding beds are impermeable (generally shales, with no fluid loss) and have
higher stress (generally the case for shales 6 ). For this
case, both the volume of fluid lost and that stored in the
579

narrow width of the boundary formations would be relatively insignificant, and the effective fracture height would
not include the height in these formations.
Fluid Loss From Spurt and Opening Natural Fractures. In the derivation section, a distinction was made
between the fluid-loss conditions during and after pumping, KC and C, respectively. This distinction was made
by the variable K multiplying the loss coefficient for expressions based on fluid loss while pumping. Two primary
effects that can cause increased loss during pumping are
spurt loss and the opening of natural fractures at a specific value of fluid pressure. 2 If the decline analysis for
p. is performed below this opening/closing value of pressure, the inferred conditions for fluid loss would not
reflect the increase in fluid-loss area, denoted as Aoj,
when the fractures were open. The actual loss for this case
should be based on the area Ale +Aof (Aoj for only one
side of the fracture face).
Fluid loss to spurt occurs when a portion of the formation is first fractured and is generally assumed to occur
essentially instantaneously. Therefore, spurt would occur
only during pumping and not after shut-in when the fracture penetration is assumed to stop. The loss caused by
spurt is not included in the time-dependent loss defined
by the loss coefficient. Spurt is defined by volume lost
per unit area and has the dimension of width-i.e., spurt
width, which will be denoted as b s ' The amount of loss
volume caused by spurt during a treatment is 2 b sA Ie. and
A/c=/pA j . From inspection ofEq. 13 for the loss volume
caused by time-dependent fluid loss, and including the effect of natural fractures opening while pumping, Aoj' it
follows that

where C denotes the fluid-loss coefficient without open

fractures or spurt, as generally determined in the laboratory or as inferred by Eq. 28 from decline data.
From a practical standpoint, K can be evaluated in terms
of C and b s if Aoj is assumed to be negligible. The values
of C and b s can be fOl,lnd from appropriate laboratory experiments, or preferably, C from a decline analysis. Fortunately, for the fluid systems most commonly used at this
time; spurt is not as important'as for previous' systems. "
If the effect of natural fractures opening is significant,
and Aof relative to Ale cannot be estimated (a likely case),
an appropriate estimate for K cannot be found. For this
case, the decline analysis would be limited to finding C,
Eq. 28, and the fracture width, Eqs. 14 and 31. However, the determination of C is significant for the design
of subsequent stimulations because the effect of natural
fractures opening-i.e., K-can generally be reduced significantly by the addition of particulate fluid-loss additives.
Effect of Bounds. Essentially all of the expressions that
would be applied in practice contain the function g evaluated at a specified time; however, g is not given uniquely
by the derivations, only values of the upper and lower
bounds. The bounds differ by less than 18 %, or the use
of their average would cause a maximum error of only
9 %, which is within the accuracy of the other parame580

ters that are included in the expressions, e.g., hf or E'.

A value more precise than the average can be found because the upper bound, denoted by g u' is for a fluid efficiency, ef' approaching unity while the lower bound,
denoted by g t, is for an efficiency approaching zero.
Thus, a natural interpolation is
g=efgu +(l-e)g,.

. ... .. . . ............... (36)

The value of ef can be found in practice from decline data

through the relationship with time to close, Eq. 18. Denoting g clgo as gd in Eq. 18 with K= 1 and combining with
Eq. 36 results in the quadratic equation

-b-(b 2 -4ac) 'h

, ef=

2a

' . .... .. ... .. .. .... . . (37)

where

a=gdf _gdu'
b=gdu _2 g dt,
and

c=g1-1.
Eq. 37 was used for the interpolated curve relating efficiency to time to close in Fig. 5.

Example
In this section, expressions derived in the previous sections will be applied to a field case from the Wattenberg
tight-gas field in the Denver basin. The formation is generally about 8,200 ft [2500 m] deep and has a permeability
of less than 5 x 10 -3 md and a temperature of 265F
[130C]. The data were collected from a calibration treatment, without proppant, to determine the fluid-loss coefficient before a massive hydraulic fracture treatment on the
well. The calibration treatment consisted of 500 bbl [80
m 3 ] at a rate of 5 bbllmin [0.79 m 3 /min], with a pump
time, 10, of 100 minutes. The fluid was an emulsion consisting of two-thirds condensate and one-third water-based
poIymer~ Forthis fluid and formation, spurt loss is negligi- "
ble. Also, the pressures during pumping were less than
the natural-fracturing opening pressure of the formation,
interpreted 6 to be Pn = 1,700 psi [11.7 MPa]. Thus, there
is no correction for these effects and K (Eq. 35) is unity .
The pressure-decline curve is shown in Fig. 11 with
a surface shut-in pressure of about 1,550 psi [10.7 MPa].
Because of the formation's low permeability and the relatively high compressibility of gas, significant changes in
closure pressure would not be expected. This was the case,
as Fig. 8 shows that both the pump-in/flow-back test prior to the calibration treatment and a decline pressure vs.
square root of shut-in time after the treatment give essentially the same surface-reference value of 750 psi [5.2
MPa] for the closure pressure. Based on this value of
closure pressure, the time for the fracture to close, Ie,
was 150 minutes after shut-in 'see Fig. 8 or 11) and the
ne~ shut-in pressure, PSI was 800 psi [5.5 MPa].
SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

SOOO.2 .

Dimensionless Shut-in lime (t-t 0""0

\It, -t
D

0.5

1.0

D ol

6I)(t t

2.0

AA

-p (t01 - p (tOI

~'l-A

a.

~.

100

0.5

1.0

(3701

200

<I

..

0.2

~r-------~----~~~~~

~o

:..~O

.#

...Q

00

100

502O=~----~50~--~~----~~
100
200
Shut-in Tme. Min.,

50

20

50
Shut-in TIM. MIn.

Fig. 12-Curve-matchlng procedure for example.

Fig. 12 shows a plot of the log of pressure difference

vs. log of shut-in time with the differem;:e taken from the
dimensionless times 0.2,0.5, and 1.0. These reference
values are appropriate on the basis of the dimensionless
closure time of 150/100= 1.5. This figure also shows the
match with the theoretical-difference curve from Fig. 6
and indicates a match pressure, p *, of 370 psi [2.55
MPa]. The theoretical curves at , D = 1 are aligned with
the pump time, '0, and move vertically until most of these
curves overlie the data. The indicated p * value corresponds to the theoretical-difference value of unity. The
data before closure (tD = 1.5) were matched by the later
two theoretical curves (t~=0.5 and 1). For times greater than the closure, these data deviate from the curves,
which can be inferred as an indication of a closed fracture and a deviation from the assumption of a closing fracture. The deviation of the data from the t~=0.2 curve
(about 70 psi [482.7 kPa] higher) can be.interpreted as
additional fracture extension 1 during this time period.
Another interpretation is ~at the early-time data,
tD =0.2, are valid-i.e., a larger inferred value of
p -and the later times deviate as a result of a partial
closing of the fracture. Fracture extension after shut-in 10
for this period of time, however, can be modeled,6 and
therefore the indicated match will be used. Fracture extension or partial closure are obvious deviations from the
assumption of a constant fracture area after shut-in-e.g.,
for Eq. 8 and subsequent equations. The 'consequences
of a partial closiQg on the derived parameters is uncertain because a misalignment of the closed faces would permit fluid cpmmunication between the closed and open
portions of the fracture and would not reduce the amount
of fluid loss. Other potential causes for deviations from
early-t ~ curves are closing of height growth and changes
in closure pressure. These causes are not considered a~
plicable for this example. Closing of vertical height 6
would CIlUse a lower rate of decline for early time (i.e.,
small t ~ curves) than theoretically predicted-i.e., data
below the theoretical curve. Also the possibility of
meaningful clutnges in closure pressure was excluded because of the same value before and after the treatment
(see Fig. 8).
Other parameters required are the height and elastic
modulus. On the basis of the SPOfltaneous potential (SP)
SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

log, a gross sand section o~ appropriate 6 fracture height,

hf' of 60 ft [18.3 m] was IDferred; also the SP log indicated the primary permeable-section height, h p' to be 32
ft [9.8 m]. These values imply Ip =h plhf=0.53. From
core tests, lite appropriate modulus for the composite section of the fracture height is about 4 x 106 psi [2.8 x 10 4
MPIl]. Thus, the relevant parameters are those provided
in Table 1.
From Fig. 5 or Eq. 36 (time to close) a fluid efficiency
value, ef, of 0.50 is indicated; whereas Eq. 29, based on
the ratio of p sip", indicates a value ofIx = 1.18, for which
the interpolation formula (Eq. 36 with ef=0.5) was used
for the two bounding values. This value of Ix from the
pressure ratio indicates an ef=O.54 (see Eq. 16). Thus
the two different bases of determining fluid efficiency
differ by less than 10%, and subsequently ~ average
value of 0.52 will be used. For ~ value, the corresponding values of Ix (Eq. 16) and the interpolated value of
go (Eqs. 12 and 36) are ef=0.52, Ix=1.08, and
go =1.44.
The values of fj=0.9 and fj=0.93 from Eq. 33 will be
used for the KGD and radial models, respectively. The
value of O. 77 from Fig. 9 will be used for the PK model.
For this example, it will be assumed that the loss coefficient, C, is unknown and to be found from the analysis.
Thus, the pressure relations shown in Eqs. 28 through
31 must be used. Also, the surface pressure can be used
without 'corrections' forclosure-pressure changes,because
the closure pressure is assumed to be essentially constant.
With the values for the appropriate parameters indicated
above substituted, Eq. 28 indicates the inferred tip-ta-tip
. penetration for each of the models. For the PK model,
L=I,700 ft [520 m); for the KGD model, L=290 ft [88
m]; and for the radial model, 2rf=230 ft [70 m);
For the above and subsequent values of inferred parameters, only two significant figures are consistent with the
relative acouracy of the values of E' and hf' For purposes
of illustration, the value of Ip =0.53 will be used for the
radial model, whereas in practice this model is generally
applicable for massive formations with fluid loss over the
complete fracture area, i.e.,lp=l.O.
Using these values of penetration for the KGD and radial models in Eq. 28 for the loss coefficient and other appropriate parameters indicated above yields C=
581

TABLE 1-LlST OF PARAMETERS

Vi' ft3
E'. psi
h" ft
PI' psi
fp
K

p., psi
to. minutes
te. minutes
te/t o

2.800

4x 10 6

60
800
0.53
1.00
370
100

150
1.5

S.l x 10 -4 ftJ.Jmin [3.2 x 10 -5m1.Js"] for the PK

model. C=4.6xl0- 3 ftJ.Jmin [l.SxlO- 4 m/.Js"] for
the KGD model, and C=l.Sxl0- 3 ftJ.Jmin [7.2x
10 -5 m.Js"] for the radial model.
For the emulsion fluid used and the gas-filled lowpermeability formation, fluid-loss resistance is likely
dominated by a compressible wall cake; i.e., e=% for
Eq. 34. Therefore, for a bottomhole reservoir pressure
of 3,200 psi [22.1 MPa], a bottomhole closure pressure
of 4,350 psi [29.9 MPa], and Ps =SOO psi [5.5 MPa], the
pressure correction to C would be less than (1 +
80011 ,350) \4 = 1.0S. This maximum correction is within
the uncertainty of the other parameters and subsequently
will be ignored; whereas, if the loss resistance were dominated by the reservoir (e.g., a liquid-filled reservoir), the
maximum correction would be with e= 1 in Eq. 34. For
this case the maximum correction would be 1.6, which
would be very significant. If this were the case, the pressure dependence 16 for C should be considered in subsequent applications.
TIle average fracture width at shut-in, based on the pressure relations, is found from Eq. 31 as b=0.16 in.
[4.1 x 10 -3 m] for thePK model, 0.91 in. [2.3 x
10 -3 m] for the Kqn model, and 0.36 in. [9.1 x
10 -3 m] for the radial model.
The above values for penetration, loss coeffiCient, and
width indicate a variation of almost an order of magnitude in each of the parameters based on the fracture model
assumed to be applicable. Physical reasons to select which
model may be most applicable include well depth (tendency for interbed slip), fracturing pressure exceeding
overburden (radial in horizontal plane), and formation
thickness (radial in vertical plane for penetrations less than
the thickness). Also,Jrom ~expected, range of the loss
coefficient for the formation and fluid (laboratory data),
the inferred value may indicate which models mayor may
not be applicable for a particular case.
The above calculations used the assumption of constant
closure pressure. If closure pressure were expected or
found to change significantly, the fracture's dimensions
could be inferred from Eqs. 23 and 24 with the use of
a laboratory estimate for loss coefficient.

Conclusions
Theoretical relationships based on the pressure decline after fracturing were derived for the inference of fracture
penetration, average width, fracture closure time, loss
coefficient, and fluid efficiency. These relationships were
found for the three commonly applied fracture modelsthe PK, KGD, and the radial or penny models. Fluid efficiency can ~ found without the assumption of a partic582

ular fracture model or geometry. These relationships were

applied to an example using each of the three models. The
relationships are in terms 'of an upper and lower bound
on the rate of fracture growth. The results for the bounds
are close enough that either can be used with normal accuracy; however, an interpolation can be based 'on efficiency.

Nomenclature
a, A = general variables for area, ft2 [m 2]

fracture area, ft2 [m 2]

porous or loss area, ft2 [m 2]
open natural-fracture area, ft2 [m 2]
average fracture width, eridof
pumping, ft [m]
b s = spurt width, ft [m]
CI = fracture-width compliance, ftJpsi
[m/kPa]
.
C = conductance fluid-loss coefficient,
ftJ.Jrnin [mI.Jmin]
C c' = corrected value of C
C 1 ,C2 ,C 3 = conductance fluid-loss coefficient,
ft/.Jmin [mI.Jmin]
E' = plane-strain elastic modulus, psi [kPa]
e = exponent
eI = fluid efficiency
Ip = fraction of porous area
I Vp = volume fraction' of proppant
Ix = ViVt
f(1 D) = dimensionless loss-rate function
g = defined in Eq. 12
g(1 D) = dimensionless loss-volume function
AI =
Air. =
Aol=
b =

gc
g~
gd
gt
g.,
go
G(I D ,I

= g(lc/lo)

= gc
=
=
=
=

with proppant

gc/go

lower bound for g

upper bound for g
g(/D=O)

D) = dimensionless difference function

hI
hie
k
L
n
P
Pc
Pfl
PR

= vertical fracture

height, ft [m]

= porous section height, ft [m]

=
=
=
=
=
=

permeability
fracture length; tip-to-tip, it [m]
power-law exponent for fluid
pressure., psi [kPa]
closure pressure, psi [kPa]
net pressure, Pw -Pc' psi [kPa]
= reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
P s = net pressure at shut-in, psi [kPa]
Pw = pressure in wellbore, psi [kPa]
p. = match decline pressure, psi [kPa]
qt = fluid-loss rate, ft3/min [m 3 /min]
RI = fracture radius, ft [m]
s = spacing between polymer elements, ft
[m]
I = time since start of pumping, minutes
Ic = closure time, minutes
.
I D = dimensionless 'time, I/to-l
I D= reference value of I D
SPE Fonnation Evaluation. December 1986

tD'
t Dc

= time when G(tD,tv)=l

= dimensionless -closure time
= pumping time, minutes

to
VI = fracture volume, end of pumping. ft3
[m 3 ]

Vi

= volume injected, ft3 [m 3]

= loss volume during pumping,

ft3 [m 3]
Vt,si = loss volume after pumping ends, ft3
Vt

[m 3 ]
Vpr

= proppant volume with voids,

ft3 [m 3]

ex = general variable for area

{J = ratio of average to wellbore net
pressure
{Jp = {J before shut-in
{J s = {J after shut-in
~ = difference
K = correction for C while pumping
~(J = stress difference in fonnations, psi
[lcPa]
T = time fracture area created
q, = porosity of proppant, closed fracture
w = specific weight of proppant, Ibmlft 3
[kg/m3]

Reference.
1. Nolte, K.G.: "Detennination of Fracture Parameters from
Fracturing Pressure Decline," paper SPE 8341 presented at the 1979
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept.

23-26.
2. Nolle, K.G. and Smith, M.B.: "Interpretation of Fracturing
Pre~ures," JPT (Sept. 1981) 1767-75.
3. Veatch, R.W. and Crowell, R.F.: "Joint Research Operations
Programs Accelerate Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Technology,"
JPT(Dec. 1982) 2763-75.
4. Dobkins, T.A.: "Procedures, Results and Benefits of Detailed
Fracture Treatment Analysis," paper SPE 10130 presented at the
1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
5. Smith, M.B.: "Stimulation Design for Sliort, Precise Hydraulic
Fractures-MHF," SPEJ (June 1985) 371-79.
6. Nolte, K.G.: "Fracture Design Considerations Based on Pressure
Analysis," paper SPE 10911 presented at the 1982 SPE Cotton
Valley Symposium, Tyler, May 20.
7. Elbel, I.L. et al.: "Stimulation Study of Cottage Grove Formation," JPT (Iuly 1984) 1199-1205.
8. Cooper. G.D. et al.: "Improved Fracture Design Through the Use
of an On-Site Computer System." paper SPE 12063 presented at
the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Francisco, Sept. 5-8.
9. Hannah, R.R. et al.: "The Real Time Calculation of Accurate
Bortomhole Fracturing Pressures, " paper SPE 12062 presented at
the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Francisco, Sept. 5-8.
10. Perkins, T.K. and Kern, L.R.: "Widths of Hydraulic Fractures,"
JPT(Sept.I96I) 937-49; Trans., AlME, 222.
11. Khristianovitch, S.A. and Zheltov, Y .P.: "Formation of Vertical
Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid," Proc., Fourth
World Pet. Cong., Rome (19.55).

SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1986

12. Geertsma, J. and de Klerk. F.: "A Rapid Method of Predicting

Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures," JPT(Dec.
1969) 1571-81; Trans., AIME, 246.
13. Daneshy, A.A.: "On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures,"
JPT (Jan. 1973) 83-97; Trans., AIME, 255.
14. Martins, I.P. and Harper, T.R.: "Mini-Fmc Pressure Decline Analysis for Fractures Evolving From Long Perforated Intervals and
Unaffected by Confining Strata," paper SPE 13869 presented at
the 1985 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs SymPosium,
Denver, May 19-25.
'
15. Nordgren, R.P.: "Propagation ofa Vertical Hydraulic Fracture,"
SPEJ (Aug. 1972) 306-14; Trans., AIME, 253.
16. Howard, G.C. and Fast, C.R.: Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1970) 2.
17. Harrington, L.I. etal.: "Prediction of the Location and Movement
of Fluid Interfaces in a Fracture," Southwestern Petroleum Short
Course, Texas Tech. V., Lubbock (April 1973).
18. 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.
19. Cleary, M.P. et al.: 'Surface Integral Schemes for Fluid Flow and
Induced Stresses Around Fractures in Underground Reservoirs, ..
paper SPE 11632 presented at the' 1983 SPEIDOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, March 14-17.
20. Perkins, T.K.: "Discussion of On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic
Fractures," JPT (Ian. 1973) 93-95.
21. Harrison, E., Kieschnich, W.F., and McGuire, W.J.: "The
Mechanics of Fracture Induction and Extension," Trans., AIME
(19.54) 201. 2.52-63.

Appendlx-Preur. Dependence for

Comprelble Fluid-Lo Cake.
Currently, the most-used fracturing fluids are waterbased, cross-linked polymers that build a polymer filter
cake on the low-penneability formations that are normally
fractured.. The polymer concentration in the cakes for
these systems is very diluted 6-on the order of I %-and
the loss coefficient, C 3, depends on the square root of
the product of pressure difference, p, and cake penneability,6 k-Le., C 3 ex(pk)'h, where ex denotes proportionality. For dimensional analysis, assume that these
diluted-polymer cakes have the pressure/specific-volume
relation -dplpexdv/v, which gives pv=constant, and
volume changes are caused by loss of water. If the spacing between polymer elements-is denoted as s, it follows
that the specific volume would be pro~rtional to s3 and
the ~nneability proportional to.' s . Then vexk 3/2 ,
pk 31 = constant, or kexp -2/3 and pkexp'h. Thus
C3ex(Pv..)'h=pI/6.

51 Metric Conver.lon Factors

bbl x 1.589 873
psi x 6.894 757

E -01
m3
E+OO = lcPa

SPEFE
Original manuscript (SPE 12941) received in the Society 01 Petroleum EngiMeIS office
Feb. 'n, 1984, Paper accepted lor publication May IS, 1986. R8viaed manuscript receiYed March 24, 1986.

583