SPE 107877
Holistic Fracture Diagnostics
R.D. Barree, SPE, and V.L. Barree, Barree & Assocs. LLC, and D.P. Craig, SPE, Halliburton
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas
Technology Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 1618 April 2007.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
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
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
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Since the introduction of the G-function derivative analysis,
pre-frac diagnostic injection tests have become a valuable and
commonly used technique. Unfortunately, the technique is
frequently misapplied or misinterpreted leading to confusion
and misdiagnosis of fracturing parameters. This paper presents
a consistent method of analysis of the G-function, its
derivatives, and its relationship to other diagnostic techniques
including square-root(time) and log(pwf)-log(t) plots and
their appropriate diagnostic derivatives. Actual field test
examples are given for the most common diagnostic curve
signatures.
Introduction
Pre-frac diagnostic injection test analysis provides critical
input data for fracture design models, and reservoir
characterization data used to predict post-fracture production.
An accurate post-stimulation production forecast is necessary
for economic optimization of the fracture treatment design.
Reliable results require an accurate and consistent
interpretation of the test data. In many cases closure is
mistakenly identified through misapplication of one or more
analysis techniques. In general, a single unique closure event
will satisfy all diagnostic plots or methods. All available
analysis methods should be used in concert to arrive at a
consistent interpretation of fracture closure.
Relationship of the pre-closure analysis to after-closure
analysis results must also be consistent. To correctly perform
the after-closure analysis the transient flow regime must be
correctly identified. Flow regime identification has been a
consistent problem in many analyses. There remains no
consensus regarding methods to identify reservoir transient
flow regimes after fracture closure. The method presented here
is not universally accepted but appears to fit the generally
assumed model for leakoff used in most fracture simulators.
Four examples are presented to show the application of
multiple diagnostic analysis methods. The first illustrates the
expected behavior of normal fracture closure dominated by
matrix leakoff with a constant fracture surface area after shut-
in. The second example shows pressure dependent leakoff
(PDL) in a reservoir with pressure-variable permeability or
flow capacity, usually caused by natural or induced secondary
fractures or fissures. The third example shows fracture tip
extension after shut-in. These cases generally show definable
fracture closure. The fourth example shows what has been
commonly identified as fracture height recession during
closure, but which can also indicate variable storage in a
transverse fracture system.
For each example the analysis will be demonstrated using
the G-function and its diagnostic derivatives, the sqrt(time)
and its derivatives, and the log-log plot of pressure change
after shut-in and its derivatives.1-4 When appropriate, the after-
closure analysis is presented for each case, as is an empirical
correlation for permeability from the identified G-function
closure time.5 A critical part of the analysis is the realization
that there is a common event indicating closure that should be
consistently identified by all diagnostic methods. To reach a
conclusion all analyses must give consistent results.
The goal of this paper is to provide a method for consistent
identification of after-closure flow regimes, an unambiguous
fracture closure time and stress, and a reasonable engineering
estimate of reservoir flow capacity from the pressure falloff
data, without requiring assumptions such as a known reservoir
pressure. Other methods, based on sound transient test theory,
require pressure difference curves based on the observed
bottomhole pressure during falloff minus the known
reservoir pressure.5,8 While these methods are technically
correct they can lead to confusing results at times, especially
in low permeability reservoirs when pore pressure is difficult
to determine accurately prior to stimulation.
This is not a transient test analysis paper but is intended to
present a practical approach to analysis of real, and frequently
marginal-quality, pre-fracture field test data. The techniques
applied are based on some transient test theory. Some of the
results presented here are still under debate and development.
The methods shown have been tested and, we believe, proven
in the analysis of hundreds of tests. Application of these
methods provides consistent analysis that helps to avoid
misinterpretation of falloff data, and give the most useful
information available from diagnostic injection tests.
Step-rate injection tests and their analysis are not included
in the scope of this paper. Determination of the pressure-
dependent leakoff coefficient is also not described here, as it
2 SPE 107877

has been previously reported.3,4 Only the analysis of pressure

decline following shut-in of a fracture-rate injection test is
considered.
Transient Flow Regimes During and After Fracture
Closure
Several transient flow regimes may occur during a falloff test
after injection at fracture rate. The major flow regimes are
graphically illustrated in the classic paper by Cinco-Ley and
Samaniego.6
Immediately after shut-in the pressure gradient along the
length of the fracture dissipates in a short-duration linear flow
period. In a long fracture in low permeability rock the initial
fracture linear flow can be followed by a bi-linear flow period
with the linear flow transient persisting in the fracture while
reservoir linear flow occurs simultaneously. After the fracture
transient dissipates the reservoir linear flow period can
continue for some time, depending on the permeability of the
reservoir and the volume of fluid stored in the fracture and
subsequently leaked off during closure. After closure the
pressure transient established around the fracture propagates
into the reservoir and transitions into elliptical, then
pseudoradial flow. Each of these flow regimes has a
characteristic appearance on various diagnostic plots.
Fluid leakoff from a propagating fracture is normally
modeled assuming one-dimensional linear flow perpendicular
to the fracture face. Settari has pointed out that in some cases
of moderate reservoir permeability the linear flow regime may
not occur, even during fracture extension and early leakoff.7
During fracture extension and shut-in the transient may
already be in transition to elliptical or pseudoradial flow. In
this case analyses based on an assumed pseudolinear flow
regime will give incorrect results. In all cases an
Normal Leakoff Behavior
Normal leakoff is observed when the composite reservoir
system permeability is constant. The reservoir may exhibit
only matrix permeability or have a secondary natural fracture
or fissure overprint in which the flow capacity of the
secondary fracture system does not change with pore pressure
or net stress. After shut-in the fracture is assumed to stop
propagating and the fracture surface area open to leakoff
remains constant during closure.
Normal Leakoff G-Function
As noted in previous papers, the expected signature of the
G-function semilog derivative is a straight-line through the
origin (zero G-function and zero derivative).4 In all cases the
correct straight line tangent to the semilog derivative of the
pressure vs. G-function curve must pass through the origin.
Fracture closure is identified by the departure of the semi-log
derivative of pressure with respect to G-function (Gpw/G)
from the straight line through the origin. During normal
leakoff, with constant fracture surface area and constant
permeability, the first derivative (pw/G) should also be
constant.2 The primary pw vs. G curve should follow a straight
line.1 The example in Figure 1 shows some slight deviation
from the perfect constant leakoff but is a good example of the
expected curve shapes with a clear indication of closure at
Gc=2.31. The closure event is marked by the dashed vertical
line [1].
10500 2000
1
1800
10000
1600
P vs. G

understanding of the flow regime and its relation to the 9500

1400

fracture geometry is critical to arriving at a consistent Fracture Closure

1200
interpretation of the fracture falloff test.

Derivatives
Pressure

9000 1000
GdP/dG vs. G
Diagnostic Derivative Examples 800

For each analysis technique various curves are used to help 8500
600
define closure, leakoff mechanisms, and after-closure flow dP/dG vs. G

regimes. On each plot the curves are labeled as the primary (y 8000
400

vs. x), the first derivative (y/x), and the semilog derivative 200

(y/(lnx) or xy/x). For convenience the primary curve is 7500 0

plotted on the left y-axis and all derivatives are plotted on the 0 5 10 15 20 25
G(Time)
right y-axis for all Cartesian plots. For the log-log plot all
Figure 1: Normal leakoff G-function plot
curves are shown on the same y-axis.
For pre-closure analysis, and consistent identification of
Normal Leakoff Sqrt(t) Analysis
fracture closure, three techniques are illustrated for each
The sqrt(t) plot has frequently been misinterpreted when
example: G-function, Square-root of shut-in time, and log-log
picking fracture closure, even for the simplest cases. The
plot of pressure change with shut-in time. All these analyses
primary pw vs. sqrt(t) curve should form a straight line during
begin at shut-in. The instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) is
fracture closure, as with the G-function plot. Some users
taken as the incipient fracture extension pressure for all cases.
suggest that the closure is identified by the departure of the
When there is significant wellbore afterflow (fluid expansion
data from the straight line trend, similar to the way the G-
or continued low-rate injection), or severe near-well pressure
function closure is picked. This is incorrect and leads to a later
drop, the ISIP can be difficult to interpret accurately and may
closure and lower apparent closure pressure. The correct
be too high to represent actual fracture extension pressure. In
indication of closure is the inflection point on the pw vs. sqrt(t)
all the examples in the paper the pressures have been offset to
plot.
an approximate ISIP of 10,000 psi to remove any relation to
The best way to find the inflection point is to plot the first
the original field test data. The following sections detail the
derivative of pw vs. sqrt(t) and find the point of maximum
data and analysis for the four major leakoff type examples.
SPE 107877 3

amplitude of the derivative. Many fracture-pressure analysis

4

BH ISIP = 9998 psi

3
1
software packages plot the inverse of the actual first derivative 2

and show the inflection point as the minimum of the P vs. t

derivative. The plot in Figure 2, shows that the slope of the 10009

Delta-Pressure and Derivative

8

pressure curve starts low, then increases and reaches a

7
6
(m = 0.632)
5

maximum rate of decline at the inflection point, then decreases 4 Radial Flow
again after closure. The first derivative curve in Figure 2 is
3

plotted with the proper sign. The dashed vertical line [1] is the
2

tdP/dt vs. t (m = -1)

G-function closure pick that is synchronized in time and 1009
pressure with the sqrt(t) plot. Clearly the consistent closure 8
7
6

lies at the inflection point and not at the point of departure 5

from the straight line tangent to the pressure curve. 3

Fracture Closure
The semilog derivative of the pressure curve is also shown 2

on the sqrt(t) plot. This curve is equivalent to the semilog

10
derivative of the G-function for most low-perm cases. The 0.1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1000
closure pick falls at the departure from the straight line Time (0 = 8.15)
through the origin on the semilog derivative of the P vs. sqrt(t) Figure 3: Normal leakoff log-log plot
curve. A single closure point must satisfy the requirement on
both the G-function and sqrt(t) plots. After closure the semilog derivative curve will show a
slope of -1/2 in a fully developed reservoir pseudolinear flow
10500 1000 regime and a slope of -1 in fully developed pseudoradial flow.
1
900
In the example the derivative slope is -1 indicating that
10000
reservoir pseudoradial flow was observed. The late-time data
P vs. t 800 shows a drop in the derivative probably caused by wellbore
700
effects such as gas entry and phase segregation. The use of the
9500 semilog derivative of the log-log plot for after-closure flow
Fracture Closure
600 regime identification, as well as closure confirmation, is a
powerful new addition to fracture pressure decline diagnostics.
Derivatives
Pressure

tdP/dt vs. t
9000 500

400
dP/dt vs. t After-Closure Analysis for Normal Leakoff Example
8500
300 The Talley-Nolte After-Closure Analysis (ACA) flow
regime identification plot for the normal leakoff example is
8000
200
shown as Figure 4.5 The heavy solid line is the observed
100 bottomhole pressure during the falloff minus the initial
reservoir pressure. The slope of the semi-log derivative of the
7500 0
04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 pressure difference function (dashed line) is 1.0 during the
1/24/2007 1/24/2007
Time identified pseudoradial flow period. If a linear-flow period
Figure 2: Normal leakoff sqrt(t) plot existed in this data set a derivative slope of would exist. It is
critical to remember that the slope of the pressure difference
Normal Leakoff Log-Log Pressure Derivative curve on this plot is determined solely by the guess of
The log-log plot of pressure change from ISIP versus shut- reservoir pressure used to construct the plot. The slope of the
in time for the normal leakoff example is shown in Figure 3. derivative is not affected by the input reservoir pressure value.
The heavy curve is the pressure difference and the dashed
curve is its semilog derivative with respect to shut-in time. 100009
8

The vertical dashed line is the unique closure pick from the G- 7
6
5
P=(pw-pr)
function and sqrt(t) plot. It is common for the pressure 4

difference and derivative curves to be parallel immediately 2

P vs. FL2

before closure. The slope of these parallel lines is diagnostic

Delta-Pressure and Derivative

10009
of the flow regime established during leakoff before closure. 8
7

Start of Radial Flow

In many cases a near-perfect slope is observed, strongly
6
5
4

suggesting linear flow from the fracture. In this example the 3

slope is greater than suggesting possible linear flow coupled 2

with changing fracture/wellbore storage (See Appendix B). 1009 (m = 1) FL2 dP/dFL2 vs. FL2
The separation of the two parallel lines always marks fracture
8
7
6

closure and is the final confirmation of a consistent closure

5
4

identification.
3

10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Square Linear Flow (FL^2)
Figure 4: Normal leakoff ACA log plot
4 SPE 107877

If a pseudoradial flow regime is identified, then the G-Function Permeability Estimate

Cartesian Radial Flow plot (Figure 5) can be used to An empirical correlation has also been developed to
determine reservoir far-field transmissibility, kh/. The estimate formation permeability from the G-function closure
viscosity used is the far-field mobile fluid viscosity and h is time when after-closure data is not available. The correlation
the estimated net pay height. For the analysis of the example is described in detail in the Appendix. Figure 7 shows the G-
data kh/ = 299 md-ft/cp. For gas viscosity at reservoir function correlation permeability estimate for the observed
temperature, kh=7.9 md-ft. For the assumed net pay, the closure time and other input parameters. The permeability
effective reservoir permeability is 0.097 md. estimate of 0.097 md is consistent with the Horner and ACA
results.
Estimated Permeability = 0.0974 md
9200 100

9000 Data Input

rp 1
8800 10
0.09 V/V
-1
ct 7.50E-05 psi
8600

Perm eability, m d
E 3.5 Mpsi
1
8400 1 cp
Gc 2.44
Pressure

8200 Pz 966.0 psi

0.1
8000

7800
0.01
Results
(m = 4814.2)
7600 Reservoir Pressure = 7475.68 psi
Transmissibility, kh/ = 298.94991 md*ft
kh = 7.94014 md*ft
7400 Permeability, k = 0.0968 md 0.001
1 Start of Pseudo Radial Time = 2.15 hours 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
7200
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Gc
Radial Flow Time Function
Figure 7: Normal leakoff permeability estimate
Figure 5: Normal leakoff ACA radial flow plot

Pressure Dependent Leakoff

Horner Analysis for Normal Leakoff Example Pressure dependent leakoff (PDL) occurs when the fluid loss
If a pseudoradial flow period is identified, then a rate changes with pore pressure or net effective stress in the
conventional Horner plot can also be used to determine rock surrounding the fracture. PDL is not caused by the
reservoir transmissibility. In Figure 6 the Horner slope through normal change in transient pressure gradient during leakoff.
the radial flow data is 14411 psi. Using an average pump rate This is part of the normal leakoff mode and is handled by the
one-dimensional linear flow solution of the diffusivity
of 18.4 bpm, kh/ = 298 md-ft/cp. For the assumed gas
equation used to model fracture leakoff in a constant
viscosity kh=7.9 md-ft. Using the same assumed net gives
permeability system. The pressure dependence referred to here
k=0.097 md. This result is consistent with the ACA results.
is a change in the transmissibility of the reservoir fissure or
fracture system that dominates the fluid loss rate. PDL is only
9750 apparent when there is substantial stress dependent
1 permeability in a composite dual-permeability reservoir.
9500

9250 G-Function for Pressure-Dependent Leakoff

Figure 9 shows the G-function behavior expected for PDL.
9000
The primary pw vs. G curve is concave upward and curved
8750 while PDL persists. The semilog derivative exhibits the
Pressure

characteristic hump above the straight line extrapolated to

8500
the derivative origin. The end of PDL and the critical fissure
8250 opening pressure corresponds to the end of the hump and
the beginning of the straight line representing matrix
8000
dominated leakoff. Fracture closure is still shown by the
7750 (m = 14411) departure of the semilog derivative from the straight line
through the origin.
7500
(Reservoir = 7476)

7250 2 3
1
Horner Time
Figure 6: Normal leakoff Horner Plot
SPE 107877 5

10500 1000
1 2
Log-Log Pressure Derivative for PDL Example
10250 900 Figure 11 shows the log-log plot for the PDL example. The
800
normal matrix leakoff period, following the end of PDL,
10000
P vs. G
appears as a perfect slope of the semilog derivative with a
9750
700 parallel pressure difference curve exactly 2-times the
Fracture Closure
600
magnitude of the derivative. The parallel trend ends at the
9500 identified closure time and pressure difference. In this

D erivatives
P ressure

GdP/dG vs. G 500

example a well-defined slope, or reservoir pseudolinear
9250
400 flow period, is shown shortly after closure. The later data
9000 approach a slope of 1, which indicates pseudoradial flow has
300
been established.
8750
200
dP/dG vs. G 2

8500 BH ISIP = 10000 psi

100 1

8250 0 10009
P vs. t

Pressure Difference and Derivative

8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 7
6 Linear Flow
G(Time) 5

4 (m = -0.5)
Figure 9: PDL G-function plot
3
(m = 0.5) Radial Flow
2

Sqrt(t) Analysis for PDL

Interpretation of the sqrt(t) plot in PDL cases has often led 1009 Fracture closure
(m = -1)
to incorrect closure picks. Figure 10 shows an expanded view
8
7
6
tdP/dt vs. t
of the sqrt(t) plot for the example with the curves scaled for 5

better visibility. Note that the semilog derivative is nearly

4

identical in shape and information content to the G-function 2

semilog derivative. It clearly shows the PDL hump and

closure, which has been synchronized to the G-function result. 10
Incorrect closure picks on the sqrt(t) plot will not occur if 0.1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1000
the semilog derivative is used. Problems arise when the first Time (0 = 9.133333)
derivative is used exclusively to pick closure. In PDL cases Figure 11: PDL log-log plot
the obvious derivative maximum, or most prominent inflection
point, is caused by the changing leakoff associated with PDL After-Closure Analysis for PDL Example
and does not indicate fracture closure. The false closure The ACA log-log plot (Figure 12) shows both the reservoir
indication is shown on the plot. Many fracture diagnostic tests linear and radial flow periods in their expected locations.
have been badly misdiagnosed because the early and incorrect
closure was picked because of dependence on only the sqrt(t) 100009
P=(pw-pr)
8

plot. This example clearly illustrates why all available

7
6
5

diagnostic plots must be used in concert to arrive at a single 4

3
Start Linear Flow
consistent closure event. 2
End Linear Flow
Delta-Pressure and Derivative

10250 500 10009 P vs. FL2

1
False Closure
8
7
6

10000 5
4
Start Radial Flow
P vs. t 400 3

(m = 1)
9750 2

Fracture Closure
9500 1009 (m = 0.5)
300 8
7
6

tdP/dt vs. t 5 FL2dP/dFL2 vs. FL2

D e riva tiv es

9250
P re ss u re

9000 200 2

3 2 1
10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8750 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
dP/dt vs. t 100 Square Linear Flow (FL^2)
8500 Figure 12: PDL ACA log plot

8250
0 Figures 13 and 14 show the ACA Cartesian plots for the
00:20
1/24/2007
00:40 01:00 01:20 01:40 02:00
1/24/2007
linear and radial flow analyses. Both give consistent estimates
Time of reservoir pore pressure. The pseudoradial flow analysis
Figure 10: PDL Sqrt plot gives a transmissibility of 37.2 md-ft/cp and estimated
permeability of 0.047 md.
6 SPE 107877

9200 8900
1
8800
9000
8700

8800 8600
Pressure

(m = 1438.5)
8500
End Linear Flow Start Linear Flow

Pressure
8600
8400

8300 (m = 43920)
8400

8200
8200 Results
Reservoir Pressure = 8056.66 psi 8100
Start of Pseudo Linear Time = 15.9 (Reservoir = 8064)
2 1 End of Pseudo Linear Time = 54.39
8000
8000 1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Horner Time
Linear Flow Time Function
Figure 15: PDL Horner plot
Figure 13: PDL ACA linear flow plot

9200
G-Function Permeability Estimate for PDL Example
The G-function permeability correlation for the PDL
9000 example is shown in figure 16. It also gives a consistent
permeability of 0.045 md. The impact of the accelerated
leakoff during PDL gives an estimate of the composite
8800
reservoir effective permeability. Note that the injected fluid
viscosity is used for the permeability estimate based on
P re s s u re

8600 closure time.

Estimated Permeability = 0.0453 md

100
8400

Results
(m = 11373) Reservoir Pressure = 8068.81 psi Data Input
10
8200 Transmissibility, kh/ = 37.21984 m rp 1
kh = 0.93764 md*ft 0.08 V/V
Permeability, k = 0.0469 md ct psi
-1
Perm eability, m d

1 6.00E-05
Start of Pseudo Radial Time = 11.26
1 E 5 Mpsi
8000 1 cp
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Gc 2.9
Radial Flow Time Function Pz 841.0 psi
0.1
Figure 14: PDL ACA radial flow plot

Horner Analysis for PDL Example

0.01
For an average pump rate of 6.7 bpm the Horner plot gives
kh/=35.72 md-ft/cp. The Horner estimated permeability is
0.046 md compared to 0.047 md from the ACA Radial Flow 0.001

analysis. Pore pressure estimated from the Horner plot is also 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Gc
consistent with both the linear and radial analyses because a
well-developed pseudoradial flow period does exist in this Figure 16: PDL permeability estimate
case. The vertical dotted line in Figure 15 shows the start of
pseudoradial flow. If a pseudoradial flow period does not
exist, extrapolation of an apparent straight-line on the Horner Fracture Tip Extension
plot can give extremely inaccurate estimates of pressure and In very low permeability reservoirs the decline in wellbore
flow capacity. pressure observed after shut-in may be caused by the
dissipation of the pressure transient established in the fracture
during pumping. The near-well pressure decreases as the
fracture closes, which results in a decrease of fracture width at
the well. The closing of the fracture volumetrically displaces
fluid to the tip of the fracture, causing continued extension of
the fracture length. Much of the pressure decline is therefore
not related to leakoff but to the dissipation of the linear
transient along the fracture length.
SPE 107877 7

G-Function Analysis for Tip Extension Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis with Tip Extension
During fracture tip extension the G-function derivatives The log-log plot of pressure change after shut-in is
fail to develop any straight-line trends. The primary P vs. G particularly useful for diagnosing fracture tip extension.
curve is concave upward, as is the first derivative. The Figure 19 shows the pressure difference and pressure
semilog derivative starts with a large positive slope and the derivative (semilog) for the tip extension example.
slope continues to decrease with shut-in time, giving a
concave-down curvature.3,4 Figure 17 shows a typical case of
5
4 BH ISIP = 10000 psi
1
fracture tip extension with minimal leakoff. This is another 3

case that is frequently misdiagnosed.

2

P vs. t
10009
10200 150 8

Delta-Pressure and Derivative

7
1 6
5
10000
4
125 3
9800 P vs. G
2
(m = 0.25)
9600 100
1009
8
9400 GdP/dG vs. G 7
6
tdP/dt vs. t

Derivatives
Pressure

75 5

9200 4

9000 50 2

8800
10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2
25 1 10 100 1000
8600 dP/dG vs. G Time (0 = 33.7)
8400 0 Figure 19: Tip extension log-log plot
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
G(Time)
In Figure 19 the pressure derivative departs from the early
Figure 17: Tip extension G-function plot unit-slope (storage) and establishes a slope during fracture
tip extension. The pressure difference curve falls on a parallel
Sqrt(t) Analysis with Fracture Tip Extension
Many times the first break in the semilog derivative curve slope line separated by 4-times the magnitude of the
has been misinterpreted as a closure event. The mistake is derivative. The slope signature is diagnostic of bilinear flow
often compounded by the use of the sqrt(t) plot. Figure 18 representing a continued dissipation of the linear pressure
shows the sqrt(t) plot for the same data. The first derivative transient along the fracture length (extension and concomitant
shows a large maximum very shortly after shut-in. This is fluid flow) and some linear flow driving minimal leakoff. For
often mistaken for closure. The semilog derivative on the tip extension to occur the leakoff rate to the formation must be
sqrt(t) plot helps to avoid this mistaken closure pick, and low. As long as the parallel slope trend continues, the
shows the same continuously increasing trend as seen on the fracture has not closed and is still in the process of extending.
G-function semilog derivative plot. In low permeability Closure cannot be determined and no after-closure analysis
systems it is generally safe to assume that as long as the can be conducted.
semilog derivative is still rising, the fracture has not yet
closed. This is not true in very high permeability reservoirs Height Recession or Transverse Storage
and should always be checked using the log-log pressure There are two different mechanisms that can generate a
difference plot. similar diagnostic derivative signature during fracture closure.
Both are caused by an excess stored volume of fluid in the
10200 100 fracture at shut-in relative to the expected surface area of the
10000
Incorrect Closure
1
90
fracture for a planar, constant-height geometry model.
Traditionally this signature has been called fracture height
80
9800
dP/dx vs. t recession. The usual model assumes that leakoff occurs only
9600
70 through a thin permeable bed and that the fracture extends in
60
height to cover impermeable strata with no leakoff. At shut-in
9400 there is a large volume of fluid stored in the fracture and the
Derivatives
Pressure

P vs. t xdP/dx vs. t 50

9200
leakoff rate relative to the stored volume is small, hence the
40 rate of pressure decline is likewise small. As the fracture
9000
30
empties, the rate of leakoff relative to the remaining stored
8800
fluid accelerates and the pressure declines more rapidly. If the
20
fracture height changes during leakoff, the fracture
8600 10 compliance may also decrease, adding to the rate of pressure
8400 0
loss.
04:00
1/25/2007
08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00
1/25/2007
However, the same signature is observed in many cases
Time
where fracture height growth out of zone is not observed by
Figure 18: Tip extension sqrt(t) plot tracers, inclinometer, or micro-seismic mapping. Some of
these cases show treating behavior similar to PDL cases, with
8 SPE 107877

a tendency for rapid screenout and difficulty placing high

proppant concentration slurries. These observations suggest Sqrt(t) Analysis with Storage or Height Recession
that another mechanism may be responsible for the same The sqrt(t) plot (Figure 21) shows a clear indication of
diagnostic derivative signature. The alternate mechanism is closure based on both the first-derivative inflection point and
called transverse fracture storage. the semilog derivative curve. Picking closure in the case of
In transverse fracture storage a secondary fracture set is storage is not generally a problem.
opened when the fluid pressure exceeds the critical fissure-
10500 400
opening pressure, just as in PDL. As the secondary fractures 1
dilate they create a storage volume for fluid which is taken
P vs. t
from the primary hydraulic fracture. While the fracture storage 10000
volume increases, leakoff can also be accelerated so PDL and 300
storage are aspects of the same coupled mechanism of fissure 9500 Fracture Closure
dilation. The relative magnitude of the enhanced leakoff and
storage mechanisms determines whether the G-function xdP/dx vs. t

Derivatives
Pressure
derivatives show PDL or storage. Numerical modeling studies 9000 200

indicate that the storage mechanism can easily dominate even

dP/dx vs. t
large PDL. 8500
At shut-in the secondary fractures will close before the 100
primary fracture because they are held open against a stress
8000
higher than the minimum in-situ horizontal stress. As they
close fluid will be expelled from the transverse storage volume
back into the main fracture decreasing the normal rate of 7500 0
02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00
pressure decline and, in effect, supporting the observed shut-in 1/24/2007
Time
1/24/2007

pressure by re-injection of stored fluid. Accelerated leakoff

Figure 21: Storage sqrt(t) plot
can still occur at the same time but if the storage and
expulsion mechanism exceeds the enhanced leakoff rate then
The storage model, whether caused by height recession or
the only signature observed during falloff will be storage. In
transverse fractures, requires that a larger volume of fluid
many cases a period of linear, constant area, constant matrix
must be leaked-off to reach fracture closure than is expected
permeability dominated leakoff will occur after the end of
for a single planar constant-height fracture. In either case the
storage.
time to reach fracture closure is delayed by the excess fluid
volume that must be lost. Any estimation of reservoir
G-Function Analysis with Storage permeability will give an incorrect result if the uncorrected
The characteristic G-function derivative signature is a
closure time (either Gc or time-to closure in minutes, tc) is
belly below the straight line through the origin and tangent
used. The observed closure time must be corrected by
to the semilog derivative of pw vs. G at the point of fracture
multiplying by the storage ratio, rp. The magnitude of rp can
closure. Figure 20 shows an example of slight to moderate
be determined by taking the ratio of the area under the
storage. In Figure 20 fracture closure, indicated by the same
G-function semilog derivative up to the closure time, divided
departure of the tangent line from the semilog derivative,
by the area of the right-triangle formed by the tangent line
occurs just after the end of the storage effect.
through the origin at closure. For normal leakoff and PDL the
value of rp is set to 1.0 even though the ratio of the areas will
be greater than 1 for the PDL case. It is possible that the
10500 2000
1 closure time for PDL leakoff is proportional to the composite
1800 system permeability including both the matrix and fractures.
10000 For severe cases of storage rp can be as low as 0.5 or less.
1600
P vs. G

1400 Log-Log Pressure Derivative with Storage

9500
Fracture Closure Figure 22 shows the log-log plot of pressure difference and
1200
semilog derivative for the storage case. Prior to closure, and
while transverse storage is dominant, the semilog derivative
D erivatives
Pressure

9000 GdP/dG vs. G 1000

approaches a unit slope, with the pressure difference curve
800
nearly parallel. In some cases the two curves lie together on a
8500
600 single unit-slope line. In this case the curves are separated
slightly and the slope is not exactly 1.0. After closure the
400
8000 reservoir transient signature is defined as in the previously
dP/dG vs. G 200 presented cases. All fracture storage effects are eliminated and
the reservoir pseudolinear flow period is shown by a -1/2
7500 0
5 10 15 20 slope with a pseudoradial flow period indicated by a -1 slope
G(Time) of the semi-log derivative.
Figure 20: Storage G-function plot
SPE 107877 9

10. When a stable pseudolinear flow period exists, the after-

3
BH ISIP = 10000 psi
1
closure Cartesian plot of the linear flow function can be
2

10009 used to estimate reservoir pressure.

8
11. When a pseudoradial flow period exists, both the
Delta-Pressure and Derivative

7
6
P vs. t
5
conventional Horner analysis and after-closure radial-
4 (m = 0.5)
3
(m = -0.5)
flow analysis can be used to determine reservoir
2 transmissibility and pore pressure.

1009
8
Acknowledgements
7
6 The authors would like to thank Kumar Ramurthy,
Halliburton, Mike Conway, Stim-Lab, and Stuart Cox,
5

4
tdP/dt vs. t
3
Marathon, for their discussion and contribution to the
2
procedures described. Sincere thanks are also due to the many
operators whose diligence in pre-frac testing has allowed these
10
0.1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
100
2 3 4 5 6
diagnostic analysis procedures to be developed and tested.
Time (0 = 9.416667)
Figure 22: Storage log-log plot Nomenclature
Af = fracture area, L2, ft2
B = formation volume factor, L3/L3, RB/STB
Conclusions ct = total compressibility, Lt2/m, psi-1
The use of pre-frac injection/falloff diagnostic tests has Cac = after-closure storage, L4t2/m, bbl/psi
Cbl = bilinear flow constant, m/Lt5/4, psihr3/4
become commonplace. Many important decisions regarding
Cpl = pseudolinear flow constant, m/Lt3/2, psihr1/2
fracture treatment designs and expectations of post-frac Cpr = pseudoradial flow constant, m/Lt, psihr
production are based on the results of these tests. In too many Cfbc = before-closure fracture storage, L4t2/m, bbl/psi
cases individual diagnostic plots and analysis techniques are FL = linear flow time function, dimensionless
misapplied, leading to incorrect interpretations. The analyses FR = radial flow time function, dimensionless
presented here lead to the following conclusions: g = loss-volume function, dimensionless
G = G-function, dimensionless
1. With consistent application of all available pressure h = height, L, ft
decline diagnostics, a single unambiguous determination k = permeability, L2, md
Lf = fracture half-length, L, ft
of fracture closure time and pressure can be made.
mH = slope of data on Horner plot, m/Lt2, psia
2. A single, unique closure event can be identified on all mL = slope of data on pseudolinear flow graph, m/Lt2, psia
diagnostic plots. mR = slope of data on pseudoradial flow graph, m/Lt2, psia
3. The conventional analysis of the sqrt(t) plot, using the p = pressure, m/Lt2, psia
inflection point identified by the first derivative, gives pwf = fracture pressure measured at wellbore, m/Lt2, psia
incorrect indications of closure for cases of PDL and tip q = flow rate, L3/t, bbl/D
extension and should not be relied upon. Qt = total injection volume, L3, bbl
4. A modified sqrt(t) analysis, using the semilog derivative, rp = storage ratio, dimensionless
is equivalent to the G-function analysis and helps avoid Sf = fracture stiffness, m/L2t2, psi/ft
t = time, hr
incorrect closure picks in cases of PDL and tip extension.
ta = adjusted pseudotime, hr
5. Flow regimes can be identified using the semilog pressure
derivative on the log-log plot of pwf t during the shut-
in period following the fracture injection test. Greek
6. As in conventional transient test analysis, a pseudolinear = constant, dimensionless
= difference, dimensionless
flow period is identified by parallel slope lines,
= constant, dimensionless
separated by 2x, on the log-log pwf t plot up until = viscosity, m/Lt, cp
fracture closure. = porosity, dimensionless
7. Bilinear flow can be identified by parallel slope lines
separated by 4x on the log-log pwf t plot prior to Subscripts
a = adjusted
fracture closure. c = closure
8. After closure the pseudolinear reservoir flow period is D = dimensionless
identified by a -1/2 slope of the semilog derivative of the e = end of injection
pressure difference on the log-log pwf t plot, and a f = filtrate
3/2 slope of the first derivative of the pressure difference p = pumping
with shut-in time on the same plot. 0 = end of injection
9. Pseudoradial flow is identified by a -1 slope of the w = wellbore
z = process zone
semilog derivative on the log-log plot.
10
References
1. Nolte, K. G.: Determination of Fracture Parameters from
Fracturing Pressure Decline, paper SPE 3841, presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV,
Sept. 23-26, 1979.
2. Castillo, J. L.: Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis
Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff, paper SPE 16417,
presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Joint
Symposium, Denver, CO, May 18-19, 1987.
3. Barree, R. D., and Mukherjee, H.: Determination of Pressure
Dependent Leakoff and Its Effect on Fracture Geometry, paper
SPE 36424, presented at the 71st Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
4. Barree, R.D.: "Applications of Pre-Frac Injection/Falloff Tests in
Fissured ReservoirsField Examples," paper SPE 39932
presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Apr. 5-8, 1998.
5. Talley, G. R., Swindell, T. M., Waters, G. A. and Nolte, K. G.:
Field Application of After-Closure Analysis of Fracture
Calibration Tests, paper SPE 52220, presented at the 1999 SPE
Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
March 2831, 1999.
6. Cinco-Ley, H., and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells, JPT (September 1981) 1749.
7. Settari, A.: Coupled Fracture and Reservoir Modeling,
presented at the Workshop on Three Dimensional and Advanced
Hydraulic Fracture Modeling, held in conjunction with the Fourth
North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, July 29, 2000,
Seattle, WA.
8. Craig, D. P. and Blasingame, T. A.: Application of a New
Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model Accounting for Propagating,
Dilated, and Closing Hydraulic Fractures, paper SPE 1005778
presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, May, 15-17, 2006.
9. Hagoort, J.: "Waterflood-Induced Hydraulic Facturing," PhD
Thesis, Delft Technical University, 1981.
10. Koning, E.J.L. and Niko, H.: "Fractured Water-Injection Wells:
A Pressure Falloff Test for Determining Fracture Dimensions,"
paper SPE 14458 presented at the 1985 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Las Vegas, NV, September, 22-25, 1985.
11. Cinco-Ley, H., Kuchuk, F., Ayoub, J., Samaniego-V, F., and
Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use of
Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper SPE 15476
presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, LA,
October, 5-8, 1986.
Appendix A - Definition of diagnostic functions
The G-Function
The G-function is a representation of the elapsed time after
shut-in normalized to the duration of fracture extension.
Corrections are made for the superposition of variable leakoff
times while the fracture is growing. The form of the
G-function used in this paper assumes high fluid efficiency in
low-permeability formations. Under that assumption the
surface area of the fracture is assumed to vary linearly with
time during fracture propagation. The dimensionless pumping
time used in the G-function is defined as:
( )
t D = t t p / t p . ..........................................................(A-l)
SPE 107877
The elapsed total time from the start of fracture initiation
(not start of pumping) is t and the total pumping time (elapsed
time from fracture initiation to shut-in) in consistent time units
is tP. For the assumption of low leakoff the dimensionless time
(tD) is used to compute an intermediate function:
g (t D ) =
4
3
[ ]
(1 + t D )1.5 t D1.5 . ............................ (A-2)
The G-function used in the diagnostic plots is derived from
the intermediate function as follows:
4
G ( t D ) = g ( t D ) g0 , ....................................... (A-3)
where g0 is the dimensionless loss-volume function at shut-in
(t = tp or tD = 0). All derivatives are calculated using a central
difference function of pressure and G-function (normalized
shut-in time).
After-Closure Analysis and Flow Regime Identification
After-closure pressure decline analysis requires the
identification of fully-developed reservoir pseudolinear and
pseudoradial transient flow regimes. The flow regimes can be
identified by characteristic slopes on a log-log plot of
observed falloff pressure minus reservoir pressure, (pw(t) pi),
versus the square of the linear-flow time function (FL2) and the
semilog derivative, (X*dY/dX), of the pressure difference
curve.5 It is important to note that the guess of reservoir
pressure, pi, used in construction of the flow regime plot
severely impacts the slope and magnitude of the pressure
difference curve. The pressure derivative, because of the
difference function used to generate it, is not affected by the
initial guess of reservoir pressure.
The linear-flow time function is defined by:
2
FL (t , t c ) =
tc
sin 1 for t t c . ......................... (A-4)
t
The linear-flow function also requires an accurate
determination of the time required after shut-in to reach
fracture closure, tc. In the pseudolinear flow period the slope
of the derivative curve on the log-log plot should be . For the
correct estimate of reservoir pore pressure, the pressure
difference curve should also have a slope of and should be
exactly twice the magnitude of the derivative. If a stable
pseudolinear flow period is identified then a Cartesian plot of
observed pressure during the falloff, pw(t), versus FL should
yield a straight line with intercept equal to the reservoir pore
pressure, pi, and with a slope of mL.
pw ( t ) pi = mL FL ( t , tc ) . ............................................ (A-5)
If a pseudoradial flow period exists, the slope of the
derivative and correct pressure difference curves on the log-
log flow regime plot should both be 1.0 and the two curves
should coincide. In the pseudoradial flow period, a Cartesian
plot of pressure versus FR should also yield a straight line with
intercept equal to pi and slope of mR.
SPE 107877
pw ( t ) pi = mR FR ( t , tc ) ............................................. (A-6)
In these equations tc is the time to fracture closure with
time zero set as the beginning of fracture extension, pi is the
initial reservoir pressure, and mR is the Cartesian slope of the
correct straight line. The radial-flow function (FR) is given
by5
1 t c 16
FR (t , t c ) = ln1 + , = 1.6 . ......... (A-7)
4 t t c 2 leakoff fluid. The reservoir fluid and its residual saturation in
In the properly identified pseudoradial flow period the
reservoir far-field transmissibility can be determined from the
slope, fracture closure time, and volume injected during the
test.
kh Qt
= 251,000 . ...................................................... (A-8)
mR tc
In Equation A-8 the permeability, k, is in md, net pay
thickness, h, is in feet, far-field mobile fluid viscosity, , in
cp, tc in minutes, and the volume injected during the test, Qt, is
in bbls, and the slope, mR, is in psi.
Horner analysis
The conventional Horner analysis uses a Cartesian plot of
observed pressure versus Horner time, (tp + t)/t, with all
times in consistent units. The fracture propagation time is tp
and the elapsed shut-in time is t. As shut-in time approaches
infinity the Horner time function approaches 1. A straight-line
extrapolation of the Horner plot to the intercept at a Horner
time of 1.0 gives an estimate of reservoir pressure. The slope
of the correct straight-line extrapolation, mH, can be used to
estimate reservoir transmissibility:
kh 162.6(1440 )q
= . .................................................... (A-9)
mH
The flow rate in Equation A-9 is assumed to be in barrels
per minute and is the average rate for the time the fracture was
extending. In both Equations A-8 and A-9, the viscosity is the
far-field mobile fluid viscosity. The propagation of the
transient in pseudoradial flow occurs at a great distance from
the fracture and is not affected by the injected fluid viscosity.
The major problem with the Horner analysis is that the
results are only valid if the data used to extrapolate the
apparent straight line are actually in fully developed
pseudoradial flow. There is no way to determine the validity
of the Horner analysis or to determine the flow regime within
the Horner plot itself.
G-function permeability estimate
An empirical function to approximate formation
permeability has been derived from numerous numerical
simulations of fracture closure. The correlation is based on the
observed G-function time at fracture closure:
11
0.0086 f 0.01 pz
k= . ...................................... (A-10)
1.96
G E r
ct c p 0.038
The rate of fluid loss from the fracture before closure is
dominated by the mobility of the injected fluid instead of the
far-field viscosity. The total mobility of the injected fluid
during leakoff is dependent on the viscosity of the injected
fluid at leakoff temperature and the relative permeability to the
the invaded region will have some effect on the leakoff fluid
mobility. As a general rule, an assumed injected fluid viscosity
of 1.0 cp is used to incorporate the effects of reservoir
temperature and relative permeability in the invaded zone.
Note that the correlation gives permeability and not kh.
The time to closure is related to fracture volume versus
created area so both the fracture height and length do not
appear in the equation. The process zone stress, Pz, is the net
fracture extension pressure above closure pressure, pc, or
pz = pISIP pc. The net extension pressure and Youngs
Modulus provide a relationship between facture volume
(width) and surface area during pumping.
The other parameters in Equation A-10 are defined, except
the storage ratio, rp. This parameter represents the amount of
excess fluid that must be leaked-off to reach fracture closure
when the fracture geometry deviates from the normally
assumed constant-height planar fracture. The storage ratio, rp,
is the ratio of the area under the G-function semilog derivative
up until closure divided by the area of the triangle defined by
the straight-line (normal leakoff) tangent to the semilog
derivative at closure. For normal matrix leakoff and PDL, rp
is therefore 1.0. For the transverse storage and height
recession signature, rp is some value less than 1.0. The
observed G-function closure time (Gc) is always delayed by
the excess fluid volume in the fracture for either height
recession or transverse storage. Likewise the apparent time to
closure used in the after-closure analysis will be delayed and
will cause errors in the reservoir transmissibility estimate. The
closure time should be corrected by multiplying by rp for all
permeability and transmissibility estimates.
Appendix B - Analytical Solutions and the Log-Log
Diagnostic Graph
Linear and Bilinear Flow Before-Closure
Hagoort9 developed a before-closure analytical solution
accounting for both storage and linear formation flow. Koning
and Niko10 write the solution as
( ) ) , ................ (B-1)
2
pwD = t D C fbcD 1 e tD erfc t (
2
2 D
where
kh ( pw (te ) pw (te + t ) ) , ..................................... (B-2)
pwD ( t D ) =
141.2qB
t D =
0.0002637 k t , ............................................................ (B-3)
ct L2f
12 SPE 107877

=
2 , ..................................................................... (B-4) 1
14
1
34
. ..................................... (B-12)
t + t
C fbcD ct k e

and For convenience, define a constant pseudoradial flow term as

141.2(24)
C fbcD =
5.615C fbc
=
0.8936C fbc . ............................................ (B-5) C pr =
2 kh
( Qt + pwsD (0)Cac ( p0 pi ) ) . ........................... (B-13)
2 ct hL2f ct hL2f
For pseudolinear flow, a constant term is defined as
Here, Cfbc is the before-closure fracture storage constant,
which is defined as8 141.2(24) 0.0002637 1 Qt 1 2 . (B-14)
C pl =
2 hL f + pwsD (0)Cac ( p0 pi ) ct k
C fbc =
2 Af , ................................................................. (B-6)
5.615 S f Similarly, for bilinear flow a constant term is written as
where Af is the fracture area (one wing) and Sf is the fracture 141.2(24)(0.6125)(0.0002637)1 4 Qt 3 4 1 1 4 . .. (B-15)
Cbl =
stiffness. k f wf + ( p0 p )C
i ac ct k
Hagoort's solution predicts that the before-closure falloff is
With the new definition, and defining a reservoir-pressure
a combination of fracture storage and linear flow. As fracture
difference, pw = pw(t) pi, the pseudoradial-flow impulse
storage becomes small, CfbcD0, linear flow will dominate the
solution can be written as
before-closure pressure falloff. In most "hard rock"
environments, CfbcD is small, and for a fracture- pw = C pr t 1 . ................................................................... (B-16)
injection/falloff sequence with t >> te and long closure times,
Similarly, the linear-flow impulse solution can be written as
pw (te ) pw (te + t ) t , ...................................................... (B-7)
pw = C pl t 1/ 2 , .................................................................. (B-17)
where t = te + t and pw(te) is the instantaneous shut-in
pressure. Define a fracture-pressure difference as and the bilinear-flow impulse solution can be written as
pwf = pw (te ) pw (te + t ) , ................................................... (B-8) pw = Cbl t 3/ 4 . ................................................................... (B-18)

and a log-log graph of pwf vs. t will exhibit a slope during The derivatives with respect to t are written for after-closure
linear flow before closure. An analytical before-closure pseudoradial flow as,
bilinear flow solution accounting for fracture tip extension pw , ................................................................ (B-19)
= C pr t 2
during shut-in does not exist, but field data suggest that during (t )
before-closure bilinear flow
for after-closure pseudolinear flow as,
pwf (t )1 4 , .................................................................... (B-9)
pw C pl 3/ 2 , ............................................................. (B-20)
= t
(t ) 2
and a log-log graph of pwf vs. t will exhibit a slope during
bilinear flow before closure. and for after-closure bilinear flow as,
pw 3Cbl 7 / 4 . ............................................................ (B-21)
Pseudoradial, Pseudolinear, and Bilinear Flow After- = t
(t ) 4
Closure
Craig & Blasingame8 developed an analytical solution for a The semilog derivatives and the impulse derivatives11 are
fracture-injection/falloff sequence with a propagating and calculated by multiplying the after-closure derivatives by t and
closing hydraulic fracture, and they derived the "complete" t2, respectively. Table B-1 shows the derivative terms for each
after-closure impulse solutions accounting for fracture storage. after-closure flow regime.
The after-closure impulse solution for pseudoradial flow is
written as Log-Log Diagnostic Graph
141.2(24) 1 . ..... (B-10) Before-closure linear or bilinear flow are identified by the
pw (te + t ) pi =
2 kh
( Qt + pwsD (0)Cac ( p0 pi ) ) t + t relationship between the fracture-pressure difference,
e
pwf, and total time, t, but the after-closure flow regimes are
For after-closure pseudolinear flow, identified by the relationship between the reservoir-pressure
141.2(24) 0.0002637 1 Qt difference, pw, and t, which requires knowing the initial
pw (te + t ) pi =
2 hL f + pwsD (0)Cac ( p0 pi ) reservoir pressure, pi. However, by noting that
12 pwf


1 , ........................................... (B-11) =
pw , ................................................................ (B-22)

ct k te + t t t

and for after-closure bilinear flow, a log-log diagnostic graph can be prepared that is independent
of initial reservoir pressure but can be used to identify before-
141.2(24)(0.6125)(0.0002637)1 4 Qt 34
pw (te + t ) pi = and after-closure flow regimes. Table B-2 shows the
k f wf +( p0 pi )Cac
characteristic slopes of each flow regime for log-log graphs of
pwf vs. t, pwf t vs. t, t pwf t vs. t, and
SPE 107877 13

t 2 pwf t vs. t . t dt
ta = ( ct )i
. .............................................................. (B-24)
0 ct
In gas reservoirs, log-log diagnostic graphs can be prepared by
plotting pawf vs. ta, pawf ta vs. ta, ta pawf ta vs. ta, Since adjusted pseudopressure is a function of initial
reservoir pressure, and if initial reservoir pressure is unknown,
and ta2 pawf ta vs. ta where adjusted pseudopressure is it's often helpful to complete the analysis in terms of pressure
defined as and time to obtain a first estimate of initial reservoir pressure
before refining the estimate using diagnostic and interpretive
p
z pdp , ........................................................... (B-23) graphs plotted in terms of adjusted pseudovariables.
pa =
p i 0 z

and adjusted pseudotime is defined as

Table B-1. After-closure impulse solutions and derivatives.

Flow Regime Impulse Solution Derivative Semilog Impulse

Derivative Derivative
Bilinear pw = Cbl t 3/ 4 pw 3Cbl 7 / 4 pw 3Cbl 3/ 4 pw 3Cbl 1/ 4
= t t = t t 2 = t
t 4 t 4 t 4

Pseudolinear pw = C pl t 1/ 2

pw C pl 3/ 2
= t t
pw C pl 1/ 2
= t t 2
pw C pl 1/ 2
= t
t 2 t 2 t 2

Pseudoradial pw = C pr t 1 pw pw pw
= C pr t 2 t = C pr t 1 t 2 = C pr
t t t

Table B-2. Log-log graph characteristic slopes.

Log-Log Graph Before Closure After Closure

Bilinear Linear Bilinear Pseudolinear Pseudoradial

pwf vs. t
1/4 1/2
pawf vs. ta

pwf t vs. t
3/4 1/2 7/4 3/2 2
pawf ta vs. ta

t pwf t vs. t
1/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 1
ta pawf ta vs. ta

t 2 pwf t vs. t
5/4 3/2 1/4 1/2 0
ta2 pawf ta vs. ta