See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225166997

Effects of Fracture Boundary Conditions on Matrix-

fracture Transfer Shape Factor

Article  in  Transport in Porous Media · July 2006

DOI: 10.1007/s11242-005-1398-x

CITATIONS READS
33 356

2 authors, including:

Hassan Hassanzadeh
The University of Calgary
140 PUBLICATIONS   1,658 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Phase behaviour, bitumen recovery, CO2 sequestration View project

Solvent-Aided Thermal Recovery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hassan Hassanzadeh on 13 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Transport in Porous Media (2006) 64: 51–71 © Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11242-005-1398-x

Effects of Fracture Boundary Conditions on

Matrix-fracture Transfer Shape Factor

HASSAN HASSANZADEH and MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University
Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4

(Received: 5 May 2005; in final form: 26 July 2005)

Abstract. The matrix-fracture transfer shape factor is one of the important parameters in
modeling naturally fractured reservoirs. Four decades after Warren and Root (1963, SPEJ,
245–255.) introduced the double porosity concept and suggested a relation for it, this
parameter is still not completely understood. Even for a single-phase flow problem, inves-
tigators report different shape factors. This study shows that for a single-phase flow in a
particular matrix block, the shape factor that Warren and Root defined is not unique and
depends on the pressure in the fracture and how it changes with time. We use the Laplace
domain analytical solutions of the diffusivity equation for different geometries and differ-
ent boundary conditions to show that the shape factor depends on the fracture pressure
change with time. In particular, by imposing a constant fracture pressure as it is typically
done, one obtains the shape factor that Lim and Aziz (1995, J. Petrolean Sci. Eng. 13,
169.) calculated. However, other shape factors, similar to those reported in other studies
are obtained, when other boundary conditions are chosen. Although, the time variability
of the boundary conditions can be accounted for by the Duhamel’s theorem, in practice
using large time-steps in numerical simulations can potentially introduce large errors in
simulation results. However, numerical simulation models make use of a stepwise approx-
imation of this theorem. It is shown in this paper that this approximation could lead to
large errors in matrix-fracture transfer rate if large time-steps are chosen.

Key words: shape factor, fractured reservoirs, matrix block, matrix-fracture boundary con-
dition.

Nomenclature
a decline constant 1/[T ]
A matrix surface area [L2 ]
cm total matrix compressibility [LT 2 /M]
f time domain function
F laplace domain function
hm matrix block thickness [L]
k porous media permeability [L2 ]
I0 modified Bessel function of first kind

Author for correspondence. e-mail: pooladi@ucalgary.ca
52 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

I1 modified Bessel function of first kind

matrix block thickness [L]
for slab L2 = h2m
L for cylinder L2 = π Rm
2

for sphere L3 = 4/3π Rm3

pf pressure [M/LT 2 ]
pm pressure [M/LT 2 ]
pm average matrix pressure [M/LT 2 ]
pD dimensionless matrix pressure
Pm matrix pressure in Laplace domain
Pm average matrix pressure in Laplace domain
Qm matrix-fracture exchange term [M/L3 T ]
r block radius [L]
Rm outer radius of cylindrical or spherical matrix block [L]
s laplace variable with respect to tD
s
laplace variable with respect to t
t time [T ]
tD dimensionless time
Vm matrix bulk volume [L3 ]
x distance from origin [L]

Greek letters
α
dimensionless decline constant
µ fluid viscosity [M/LT ]
φ porosity
γ euler constant 0.5772156
ρ fluid density [M/L3 ]
σ shape factor constant [1/L2 ]
ηm matrix hydraulic diffusivity, L2 /T

Subscripts
f fracture
m matrix
t total

1. Introduction
Based on Barenblatt et al. (1960) work on fluid flow in fractured media, Warren
and Root (1963) introduced the double porosity concept into petroleum engi-
neering. In their model, a fractured medium comprises two overlapping media:
matrix and fracture. Matrix has a low permeability and a high fluid storage. In
contrast, fracture has a high permeability and a low storage.
In one form of double porosity models, matrix blocks act as a source or
sink for a fracture system, where the fluid transfer between a matrix block
and fracture system is proportional to the difference between fracture pres-
sure and average matrix block pressure as given by the following equation:
km ρ
Qm = σ (pm − pf ), (1)
µ
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 53

where Qm is the rate of the fluid transfer between the matrix and frac-
ture, km the matrix permeability, µ the fluid viscosity, ρ the fluid density,
pm represents the average matrix block pressure, pf is the fracture pressure,
and σ is called matrix-fracture transfer shape factor and has dimensions of
L−2 . The model based on this assumption is called a “pseudo-steady state
(PSS) transfer model”. The matrix-fracture transfer term, Qm is related to
the matrix pressure by the following relationship:


∂pm
Qm = −φm cm ρ , (2)
∂t
where φm is the matrix porosity and cm is the matrix compressibility. The
traditional double porosity model of Warren and Root uses Equation (1) to
model the fluid transfer between the matrix and the fracture in a naturally
fractured reservoir.
This type of model does not account for the pressure transient within
the matrix. There is another model for fluid exchange between the matrix
and fracture, which accounts for the pressure transient in the matrix block
by solving the following equation


1 ∂pm
∇ pm =
2
, (3)
ηm ∂t
where ηm = km /φµcm is the matrix hydraulic diffusivity. This type of model
is called a “transient transfer model” and does not use the matrix-frac-
ture transfer shape factor. In the transient model, the fluid transfer rate
between the matrix and fracture is proportional to the pressure gradient at
the matrix block surface as given by Nanba (1991)
Akm ρ
Qm = ∇pm |matrix face , (4)
µVm
where A and Vm are the matrix block surface area and matrix block vol-
ume, respectively. Petroleum engineering literature shows that the shape
factor remains a controversial topic. A large body of research in the
area of naturally fractured reservoirs simulation is devoted to representing
an accurate matrix fracture exchange term (Kazemi et al., 1976; Thomas
et al., 1983; Kazemi and Gilman, 1993; Lim and Aziz, 1995; Quintard and
Whittaker, 1996; Noetinger and Estebenet, 1998; Bourbiaux et al., 1999;
Coats, 1999; Noetinger et al., 2000; Penuela et al., 2002a,b; Sadra et al.,
2002). In spite of extensive research on fractured reservoir modeling, no
critical improvements have been made during the last two decades. Even for
the single-phase flow problem, various investigators derive different shape
factors. The shape factor is usually derived from a simple mechanism of
pressure diffusion with constant fracture pressure as a boundary condition,
54 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

whereas the physical exchange mechanism in fractured reservoirs is more

complex.
This paper investigates the boundary condition dependency of shape
factor, which is not reported in the earlier works. To investigate the effect
of boundary conditions on the shape factor, the diffusivity equation is
solved analytically in Laplace domain for different depletion regimes in
the fracture. Constant flux at a matrix-fracture interface, exponential, and
linear pressure depletion schemes are investigated. Results show that the
shape factor depends on the fracture pressure and how it changes with
time.
The following sections present, first, a brief review of previous research
works on shape factor. The subsequent section describes the methodol-
ogy used in this study. The third section presents solutions of the diffusiv-
ity equation for different boundary conditions and geometries. The study’s
results are then presented, leading to the discussion and conclusions.

2. Previous Works
In the following section, we describe briefly the relevant literature dealing
with the single-phase shape factor. Barenblatt et al. (1960) introduced the
classic dual porosity concept in the early 1960s. Warren and Root (1963)
applied this concept to reservoir engineering, principally for well testing
applications. They used a geometrical approach to derive the shape factors
for one, two, and three sets of orthogonal fractures.
In another study, Kazemi et al. (1976) introduced the shape factor in
double porosity simulators. They obtained shape factors by discretization
of pressure equation for single-phase flow using the standard seven point
finite difference. Since then, this shape factor formulation has been used
in standard reservoir simulators. Thomas et al. (1983) presented another
expression for the shape factor that was validated by multiphase flow
numerical simulations. Table I gives a summary of shape factors obtained
by these and other authors.
Based on the solution of the diffusivity equation with constant pressure
at the matrix boundary, Coats (1989) derived the PSS shape factor con-
stants of 12, 28.45, and 49.58 for one-, two-, and three-dimensional trans-
fer cases (See Table I). Kazemi and Gilman (1993) used the first term series
approximation of the analytical solution of the three-dimensional diffusiv-
ity equation and derived the shape factor. They used a step change bound-
ary condition in their derivation. Similarly, Lim and Aziz (1995) provided
the analytical shape factor constants for different matrix block geometries.
They used the approximate solution of the single-phase diffusivity equa-
tion with a step change boundary condition at the matrix-fracture inter-
face. They validated their results with fine grid simulations as well as dual
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 55
Table I. Summary of the shape factor constants σ L2 found in literature

Investigator(s) Approach Fluid flow 1D 2D 3D Transient/

PSS

Warren and Root Geometrical Single phase 12 32 60 PSS

(1963)
Kazemi et al. Numerical Single phase 4 8 12 PSS
(1976)
Thomas et al. Numerical Two phase – – 25 Transient
(1983)
Coats (1999) Analytical Single phase 12 28.45 49.58 PSS
Coats (1999) Numerical Two phase 8 16 24 PSS
Kazemi and Gilman Analytical Single phase – – 29.61 Transient
(1993)
Lim and Aziz Analytical Single phase 9.87 19.74 29.61 Transient
(1994)
Quintard and Averaging Single phase 12 28.4 49.6
Whitaker (1996)
Bourbiaux et al. Numerical Single phase – 20 – PSS
(1999)
Noetinger et al. Random walk Single phase 11.5 27.1 –
(2000)
Penuela et al. Numerical Two phase 9.87 – – Transient
(2002)
Sarda et al. (2002) Numerical Single phase 8 24 48 Transient


Pseudo-steady state transfer model.

porosity simulations. They suggested that the shape factor depends on the
geometry and physics of pressure diffusion in the matrix. Here, we will
show that the shape factor also depends on the way the pressure changes
in the fracture.
Quintard and Whitaker (1996) used the volume-averaging technique to
derive the shape factors for single-phase flow of slightly compressible fluids.
Their values are exactly the values obtained by Coats using the analytical
solution of the diffusivity equation under the PSS assumption and constant
pressure at the matrix boundaries. Bourbiaux et al. (1999) derived a shape
factor for two-dimensional matrix-fracture transfer based on a single-phase
fine grid simulation and PSS assumption. To evaluate the shape factor, they
performed a fine grid simulation on a square matrix block under constant
fracture pressure at the matrix boundaries. Using the results of the fine grid
simulation, the shape factor is back calculated. They derived a shape factor
56 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

that has a transient behavior and converges to a constant value of 20.1 at

late time.
Noetinger et al. (2000) presented single-phase flow shape factors calcu-
lated based on the continuous time random walk technique (CTRW). They
compared the CTRW derived shape factors with a numerical simulation
and found a good agreement. Penuela et al. (2002 a, b) developed a time-
dependent shape factor for slab-shape matrix block that converges to the
Lim and Aziz shape factor at late time based on the analytical solution of
the diffusivity equation with constant fracture pressure as a boundary con-
dition. They implemented the shape factor in a double porosity simulator
to perform the flow simulations.
Another effort to derive the single-phase shape factor has been pre-
sented by Sarda et al. (2002). They used numerical simulations of a sin-
gle-phase fluid flow on discrete fracture models to derive the shape-factor
constant. In their model, shape factor was spatially dependent on the local
properties of the matrix blocks and the surrounding fractures.
While a few investigators have modeled the transient behavior for
matrix-fracture shape factor (Bourbiaux et al., 1999; Penuela et al., 2002
a, b), the derivation of the conventional shape factor for matrix-fracture
transfer does not account for the pressure transient in the matrix blocks
and the pressure regime in the fracture. Furthermore, none of the matrix-
fracture shape factor obtained in previous papers allows for a continuous
pressure change in the facture. In this paper, we account for both pressure
transients in the matrix and pressure change in the fracture by using the
Laplace domain analytical solution of diffusivity equation for the matrix
block, subject to various pressure regimes in the fracture. The following
section describes the method we used to derive the single-phase shape fac-
tor for matrix-fracture transfer.

3. Methodology
Warren and Root (1963) presented a relationship for dual porosity sys-
tems that relates the matrix-fracture exchange term to fluid mobility, poten-
tial difference, and shape factor as given by Equation (1). To incorporate
the effects of the pressure transient in the matrix into the shape factor,
the diffusivity equation for the matrix block is solved and then an average
value of the block pressure over the block volume can be introduced into
Equation (1). The matrix-fracture exchange term is related to the rate of
mass accumulation in the matrix block and can be shown by Equation (2).
Combining Equations (1) and (2) leads to the definition of the single-phase
shape factor:


∂pm 1
σ =− . (5)
∂t ηm (pm − pf )
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 57

Determination of p m in Equation (5) requires solution of the matrix pres-

sure subject to the appropriate initial and boundary conditions. The gov-
erning partial differential equation that describes the single-phase pressure
diffusion in a matrix block is given by Equation (3). This equation can be
solved by the Laplace transform method with an arbitrary boundary condi-
tion. The Laplace domain solution
for matrix pressure Pm (x, s
), can then
be integrated to obtain the average matrix block pressure in the Laplace
domain P m (s
), as given below:

1
Pm = Pm dVm , (6)
Vm
Vm

where s
is the Laplace variable with respect to t. The parameter P m is

the average matrix pressure in the Laplace domain and can be inverted to
the time domain by an appropriate Laplace inversion method. To obtain
the shape factor from Equation (5), one also needs the time derivative of
the average matrix block pressure. Accordingly, from the Laplace transform
theorem
 
∂pm

= s
P m − pm (0). (7)
∂t
Substituting all terms in Equation (5) gives the matrix-fracture transfer
shape factor.
 

−1 s
P m − p m (0)
σ=   . (8)
ηm
−1 P m − pf
Equation (8) suggests that calculation of shape factor can be performed by
finding an expression for average matrix pressure in Laplace space, P m (s
).
In the following section, Equation (8) is used to obtain the shape factor
for different geometries, subject to different boundary conditions in the
fracture.

4. Solutions
The solution of the diffusivity equation that leads to the derivation of the
shape factor for various boundary conditions and different matrix block
geometries is presented in this part. This is demonstrated here for a par-
ticular case. The solutions for other cases are presented later.
Consider a slab shape matrix block of thickness hm , with initial pressure
pi sandwiched by two parallel planes of fractures with pressure pf where

−
In this paper, capital letters are used for variables in Laplace domain, and the
sign is used to denote average values.
58 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

in general pf can be a function of time. The governing partial differential

equation and its associated initial and boundary conditions are given by
∂ 2 pm ∂pm
2
= , (9)
∂xD ∂tD

pm (xD , tD ) = 0, tD = 0, 0 ≤ xD ≤ 1,
pm (xD , tD ) = pf , tD > 0, xD = 1,
∂pm (xD , tD )
= 0, tD > 0, xD = 0,
∂xD
where

p = p(xD , tD ) − pi .

The pressure pi is the initial matrix block pressure. The parameters xD and
tD are dimensionless length and time respectively and are defined as fol-
lows:

xD = x/ lc and tD = ηm t/ lc2 , (10)

where lc is the matrix block characteristic length. For a slab shaped matrix
block we consider half of the matrix-block thickness as the characteristic
length. The characteristic lengths of cylindrical and spherical matrix blocks
are considered to be equal to the block radius.
To investigate the effect of fracture pressure on shape factor, pm is
obtained for different boundary conditions using the Laplace transform
method. In this study, we are considering step change, exponential, and lin-
ear pressure depletion as well as constant flux boundary cases. In addition to
the slab geometry, the diffusivity equation is also solved for cylindrical and
spherical geometry subject to the mentioned boundary condition. Functions
describing the pressure regime in the fracture are given in Table II.
Equation (9) with a constant boundary condition pf can be solved to
find the pressure distribution in the matrix block. The Laplace base solu-
tion is given by the following equation (Ozisik, 1980)

 √
1 hm 2 pf cosh(xD s)
Pm = √ , (11)
ηm 2 s cosh s
where s is the Laplace variable with respect to tD . Equation (11) can be
integrated over the block volume to find the average block pressure given
by:

 √
1 hm 2 pf tanh s
P m = √ . (12)
ηm 2 s s
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 59
Table II. Matrix pressure and its average in slab shape for different boundary conditions

Matrix and Pm Pm
fracture BC
 hm 2
pi √   hm 2
pi √ 
Constant 1
ηm 2 s
+ cosh(xD√ s)
s cosh s
1
ηm 2 s
+ (pf −psi √
) tanh
s
s

pressure pf
 hm 2
pi √   hm 2
pi √ 
Linear 1
ηm 2 s
− sp2i α cosh(xD s)
√
cosh( s)
1
ηm 2 s
− s 2p√i s α tanh s
decline, pf =
pi (1 − αt)α
1/t
 hm 2
pi 1  cosh(xD √s)   hm 2
pi 
Exponential, 1
ηm 2 s
− pi s
− s+α
1 √
cosh( s)
1
ηm 2 s
− sp√i s 1 − s+α
s

√ 
pf = pi e−αt tanh
 2 s 
 hm 2
pi 2 √   hm 2
pi
Constant 1
ηm 2 s
− Q4ρk
m µhm
m
cosh(xD D s)
√ √
s s sinh s
1
ηm 2 s
− 4k hm µ
mρ
Qm
s2
flux, Qm

Before we substitute for P m in Equation (8), we need to distinguish

between the Laplace transform parameters when transform is taken with
respect to t and when taken with respect to tD called s
and s, respectively
(Sabet, 1991). By noting that the Laplace parameters s
and s are related
by s
= ηm / lc2 s, one can write Equation (8) as

4
−1 {sP m }
σ h2m = −  . (13)

−1 {P m } − pf
Equation (12) can be incorporated in Equation (13) to obtain
 √ 

−1 tanh
√
s
s

σ hm = 
2
 √  . (14)
1 −1 tanh s
ηm
h2
− 4

√
s s
m

The product group σ h2m is dimensionless and will be called shape factor.
For cylindrical and spherical matrix blocks, hm will be replaced by R. The
transfer-shape factor for a slab matrix with step change in fracture pressure
is obtained using Equation (14) and by inverting its Laplace functions into
the real-time domain using an appropriate Laplace inversion algorithm. In
this work we have used the Stehfest algorithm (Stehfest, 1979).
Similarly, we have obtained the shape factor when the fracture pressure
is a continuous function of time. The solutions are given in Table II. Expo-
nential and linear functions have been considered. The shape factors for
other matrix geometries are calculated using a similar approach. Tables III
and IV show the results for cylindrical and spherical blocks, respectively
(Hassanzadeh, 2002). The analogy between cylindrical (spherical) blocks,
60 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

Table III. Matrix pressure and its average in cylindrical shape for different boundary
conditions

Matrix and fracture Pm Pm

BC
2

√  2

√ 
Constant pressure pf Rm pi
+ (pf −p i ) I0 (r √s) Rm pi
+ (psf √−ps i ) 2II 0((√s)s)
ηm
2

s s I1 (Ro s)
√
ηm
2

s √ 
1

Linear decline, pf = Rm
ηm
pi
s
− sp2i αII0 (r(√Ds) s) Rm
ηm
pi
s
− s2αp
√ i I0 (√s)
2 s I ( s)
1 1
pi (1 − αt)α
1/t


2 1 I0 (rD √s) 2  2 √ 
Rm Rm
Exponential, ηm
pi
s
− pi s
− s+α
1 √
I1 ( s) ηm
pi
s
− psi 1 − s+α
s √
s
I0 ( s)
√
I1 ( s)
pf = pi e−αt

2 2 µQ √  2

 2µ

Rm Rm Rm Rm
Constant flux, Qm ηm
pi
s
− 2km ρ
m I0 (rD s)
√ √
s sI1 ( s) ηm
pi
s
− 2km ρ
Qm
s2

Table IV. Matrix pressure and its average in spherical matrix block for different boundary
conditions

Matrix and Pm Pm
fracture BC
2

√  2

 √ 
Constant Rm
ηm
pi
s
+ (pf −p
s
i) 1
rD
sinh(rD s)
√
sinh s
Rm
ηm
pi
s
+ (pf −p
s
i) √
3
s
coth s − √1s
pressure pf

2 √  2

 √ 
Rm Rm
Linear ηm
pi
s
− sp2i α 1 sinh(rD√ s)
√
s rD sinh s ηm
pi
s
− sp2i 3α
√
s
coth s − √1s
decline, pf =
pi (1 − αt)α
1/t

2 1 √  2


Exponential, Rm pi
− √pis − s+α
1 1 sinh(rD√ s) Rm
− s3p
pi
√i 1 − s
ηm s s rD sinh s ηm

s
√
s 
s+α

pf = pi e−αt coth s − √1s

 √

 2 
2
Rm 2 µQ
Rm 2
Rm Rm µ
Constant ηm
pi
s
− m  3 sinh(rD s)
3km ρ s cosh √s− 1 sinh √s

ηm
pi
s
− 3k mρ
Qm
s2
R m
flux, Qm

with matrix blocks intersected by two (three) sets of perpendicular fractures

is presented under discussions.

5. Results
In the following we present the values of shape factor for blocks of differ-
ent geometries exposed to fractures with different depletion schemes. The
results are presented in the form of a dimensionless group (σ L2 ) as a func-
tion of dimensionless time. Following Lim and Aziz (1995), L is fracture
spacing that results in the equivalent volume of a cylinder and or a sphere
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 61

of radius R for two and three sets of intersected fractures, respectively.

Exact definition of L is given in the Nomenclature.

5.1. slab blocks

Figure 1 shows the shape factor for a slab block exposed to different deple-
tion schemes in the fracture. The conventional boundary condition that is
normally used in literature is a step change for the fracture pressure. Our
solutions with this boundary condition are shown in Figure 1, and indicate
a stabilized value of 9.87 at large dimensionless times. Lim and Aziz (1995)
have obtained the same stabilized value.
Another boundary condition that is used is the exponential decline for
fracture pressure with an exponent equals to a. We used different val-
ues from 0.0001 to 1 for the exponent. The results in Figure 1 show that
for high values of a, the shape factor starts with a transient period and
then converges to the shape factor value for the constant fracture pressure
boundary condition. For very small values of a, the shape factor starts at
higher values and converges to a constant value of 12. The above results
show that not only the transient values of shape factor depends on frac-
ture pressure regime but also the late time values of shape factor depends

Figure 1. Shape factor constant for slab shape matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions.
62 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

on how pressure changes in the fracture. It is found that a range of shape

factors between 9.87 and 12 can be obtained by varying the exponent a.
The exponential function with large exponent values and constant pressure
depletion regimes lead to a value of 9.87 while the exponential function
with smaller exponents, linear, and constant flux depletion regimes give a
late time value of 12. The dimensionless time for stabilization of the value
of shape factor depends on the depletion scheme in the fracture. It is noted
that for a linear decline, the shape-factor constant is not a function of
depletion rate a.
The low and high stabilized values of shape factor are roughly 20%
apart. The practical significance of this is that the fracture-matrix fluid
exchange rates as calculated from Equation (14) and by the two shape-
factor constants would be apart roughly by the same magnitude. This is
further investigated in the following section.

5.2. cylindrical blocks

Similar to the shape factors obtained for a slab, we obtained two differ-
ent values for shape factor both of which have been reported previously.
Figure 2 shows the results for a cylindrical matrix block. For a constant
fracture pressure boundary condition, the shape factor shows a transient
period and then converges to a constant value of 18.2. Lim and Aziz
(1995) reported a similar value. For an exponential pressure decline curve,
results show that a smaller a gives a higher shape factor during transient
period, such that for a very small value of a, the shape factor stabilized
at a value of 25.13, which is about 40% larger that the value of 18.2. The
results for the linear pressure decline are not function of depletion rate and
the stabilized value is similar to the exponential decline with very small
values of a. Applying the constant flux boundary condition results in a
stabilized value of 25.13, similar to the linear decline boundary condition.
Results reveal that the time to stabilization is different for different fracture
boundary condition.

5.3. spherical blocks

Figure 3 gives the results for the spherical matrix block. For a constant
pressure at fracture, the shape factor starts at large values and then declines
to a constant value of 25.65. Lim and Aziz (1995) reported a similar value
for such a boundary condition. The shape factor calculated for the expo-
nential decline with a large value of a is higher than the shape factor for
the constant pressure case at early time. However, they converge to the
same value at late time. As a decreases, the shape factor shows larger val-
ues at early time and longer transient period. For very small values of a,
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 63

Figure 2. Shape factor constant for cylindrical shape matrix block subject to differ-
ent boundary conditions.

Figure 3. Shape factor constant for spherical shape matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions.
64 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

Table V. Shape factor constant for different geometry matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions

Type of boundary condition Shape factor constants, σ L2

Slab Cylindrical Spherical

Constant fracture pressure 9.87 18.2 25.65

Exponential, a = 1 9.87 18.2 25.65
Exponential, a = 0.0001 12 25.13 39
Linear, all a 12 25.5 39
Constant flux 12 25.13 39

the shape factor converges to a constant value of 39. The linear pressure
decline boundary condition gives a similar shape factor as the exponential
case with a small value of a. Applying the constant flux boundary condi-
tion results in a stabilized value of 39 similar to the linear decline bound-
ary condition.

6. Significance of the Results

In summary, it is found that depending on the boundary condition two
stabilized shape factor constant can be obtained for each geometry, which
could be 20–40% apart. Results also reveal that the time to stabilization
depends on the boundary condition imposed on the matrix block. Further-
more, it was shown in Figures 1–3 that the different stabilized values can
be obtained by applying an exponential boundary condition with various
a exponents, where large values of the exponent give the smaller stabilized
value of the shape-factor constant. These stabilized shape factor constants
for different cases are presented in Table V.
The stabilized value of the shape-factor constant is usually used in the
traditional double porosity model. This can cause the following two types
of errors: (1) the matrix-fracture transfer would be underestimated at early
times, because Figures 1–3 show that at early times, the actual value of
shape-factor constant is larger than the stabilized value. (2) Depending on
the stabilized value of the shape factor chosen, the calculated value could
be significantly different even at late times.
The essential question is what is the magnitude of the error if one uses the
stabilized value of shape factor instead of its transient value? We investigated
the error introduced in the single-phase matrix fracture mass exchange term
if one uses the stabilized value instead of the appropriate transient value.
Here, we define the relative errors as the difference between the flow rates
as calculated using the transient shape-factor and the stabilized-shape factor,
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 65

Figure 4. Relative error for a slab shape matrix block subject to different boundary
conditions.

divided by the rate using the transient-shape factor. A positive value would
indicate an underestimation of the transfer term by using the stabilized val-
ues. The results in Figures 4–6 illustrate that using the stabilized value of the
shape-factor constant at early time results a significant underestimation of
the rate of fluid transfer from matrix into fracture. For example, for a slab
shape matrix block if one uses the stabilized value of shape factor, the calcu-
lated rate of mass transfer from matrix block into fracture at dimensionless
time of 0.04 would be 30–50% lower than the actual transient case. The rel-
ative error dies down for cases where the larger stabilized shape factor was
used. On the other hand, using the lower value of the stabilized shape-factor
leads to an overestimation of the matrix-fracture transfer term late times. The
difference, which is of the order of 20–60% depending on the matrix geom-
etry, does not approach zero. While, depending on the boundary condition,
the magnitude of the transfer rate may be small, nevertheless the error would
remain if one uses the lower values of the stabilized shape factor.

7. Discussion
Lim and Aziz (1995) approximated the pressure diffusion in a matrix block
surrounded by two and three sets of perpendicular fractures by solving
66 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

Figure 5. Relative error for a cylindrical shape matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions.

Figure 6. Relative error for a spherical shape matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions.
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 67

the diffusivity equation in cylindrical and spherical geometry, respectively.

According to Lim and Aziz, for two sets of perpendicular fractures with
both sets of fractures having the spacing L, the equivalent radius of the
cylinder is the radius that would give the same volume as a bar with a
L × L square-shaped cross section. For spherical matrix blocks, Lim and
Aziz used an equivalent radius of the sphere that yields the same volume as
a cube with length L on all sides. Here, we have used a similar approxima-
tion to derive the shape factor for such matrix and fracture configurations.
Determining an accurate matrix-fracture transfer shape has been the
subject of several petroleum engineering studies. Previous studies of shape
factor are based on constant fracture pressure at the matrix boundaries.
This work investigates the effects of other boundary conditions on the
matrix-fracture transfer. Our results show that in addition to the matrix
shape, the shape factor constant also depends on the pressure in the frac-
ture and how it changes with time. The results presented in this paper indi-
cate that one can obtain the different values of shape factor reported in the
literature by choosing different boundary conditions.
However, the time variability of boundary conditions can be accounted
for by using the Duhamel’s theorem. In the following it is shown that using
large time-steps can strongly affect the fluid exchange between matrix and
fracture. For instance, in theory a linear pressure decline in the fracture can
be modeled by an infinite number of infinitesimal step changes and appli-
cation of the Duhamel’s theorem to calculate the pressure and fluid efflux.
We consider a case where the matrix pressure can be approximated by
its average value. Using Equations (1) and (2) assuming the matrix block
behaves as a lumped system, the pressure change in the matrix block can
be described by the following ordinary differential equation
d p̄m
+ γ p̄m = γpf (15)
dt

where γ = km σ/µφm cm (16)

We solve the above problem using Duhamel’s theorem and its stepwise
approximation and compare the solutions. Solution for this ODE for con-
stant and linear (pf = pi (1 − α
tD ), α
≤ 1/tD ) fracture pressure are given by
the following equations, respectively.

 − π2
tD
p̄m (tD ) = pf + pi − pf e 4
(constant fracture pressure) (17)

 

4α
 2
− π4 tD
p̄m (tD ) = pi (1 − α tD ) + 2 1 − e (linear fracture pressure)
π
(18)
68 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

As mentioned the average matrix pressure and fluid efflux for a linear
fracture pressure can be obtained by superposition of the constant frac-
ture pressure solutions. However, the accuracy of the superposition solution
depends on the number of steps used. To demonstrate the effect of number
of steps on the average matrix pressure and fluid efflux, result of the linear
pressure decline in the fracture and the superposition solutions of the con-
stant fracture pressure with different number of steps are compared in Fig-
ure 7. The dimensionless efflux in this figure (7a) represents the fluid efflux
divided by its stabilized value under the linear fracture decline. Results
show that using superposition of large pressure steps underestimates the
fluid efflux significantly. The average matrix pressure and the fluid efflux for
a linear fracture pressure can be obtained by superposition of the constant
pressure solution only if small pressure steps are used. Therefore, in prac-
tice using large time-steps in numerical simulations can potentially intro-
duce large errors in simulation results.
We found a shape factor constant of 9.87 and 12 for a slab shape matrix
block. Warren and Root (1963) and Lim and Aziz (1995) reported values
of 12 and 9.87, respectively. For the two-dimensional case, we found val-
ues of 18.2 and 25.13. A shape factor in this range was reported before
by different authors such as Kazemi and Gillman (1993), Lim and Aziz
(1995), Bourbiaux et al. (1999), and Sadra et al. (2002). For the three-
dimensional cases, we derived values of roughly 25 and 39. Thomas et al.
(1983), Kazemi and Gillman (1993), and Lim and Aziz (1995) reported
shape factor values of 25, 29.61, and 29.61, respectively, for three-dimen-
sional transfer cases.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Dimensionless fluid efflux (a) and dimensionless matrix pressure (b) for a
linear pressure decline in fracture as a function of dimensionless time compared
with the superposition solutions of the constant fracture pressure steps. Solutions
are compared for different numbers of steps.
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 69

The focus of this paper was on single-phase flow between matrix and
fracture. Under multi-phase flow conditions, capillary and gravity forces
could become important and the saturation functions lead to nonlinear-
ity of the flow equations. It is expected that under these conditions, the
transfer shape-factor depends on many other factors and using a constant
value, may lead to significant errors. This may explain (but not justify) the
common practice where the shape factor is treated as a matching parame-
ter (Thomas, 1983, Bourbiaux et al., 1999).

8. Conclusions
Previous studies have shown the effect of matrix shape and flow physics on
the shape-factor constant. In this study, we have investigated the effect of
the pressure depletion regime in the fracture surrounding the matrix on the
single-phase flow shape factor. Laplace domain analytical solutions of the
diffusivity equation for various matrix block geometries and boundary con-
ditions presented here have led to the following conclusions:
• The matrix-fracture transfer shape factor depends on the pressure
regime in the fracture and how it changes with time. Depending on
the pressure regime in the fracture a range of stabilized values can be
obtained. The upper value is obtained from a slow (linear or exponen-
tial) pressure depletion in the fracture and the lower bound by a fast
depletion in the fracture.
• The time variability of the fracture boundary condition can be
accounted for by the superposition solution of the constant fracture
pressure only through a large number of pressure steps.
• The boundary condition dependency of a shape factor can be character-
ized by applying an exponential-decline boundary condition with vary-
ing decline exponents, where fast declines lead to a smaller value of
the shape-factor constant. A range of shape factors can be obtained by
assigning different exponents.
• It is shown that using the stabilized shape factor introduces large errors
in the rate of matrix-fracture transfer by fluid expansion at early and
late times.
• For single-phase flow applications, using the shape factor is meaning-
ful when it is derived based on an appropriate geometry, physics, and
boundary conditions.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jacques Hagoort (Hagoort & Assoc.) for his
comments and discussion that greatly improved the earlier version of the
70 HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

paper. After the completion of this work, we have noticed a study by

Chang [20] using an approach different than ours, that has led to similar
results. The financial support for this work was provided by Alberta Energy
Research Institute (AERI) and NSERC. This support is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The first author wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) during the course of this study.

References
Barenblatt, G. E., Zheltov, I. P. and Kochina, I. N.: 1960, Basic concept on the theory of
homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks, J. Appl. Math. Mech. 20, 852–864.
Bourbiaux, B., Granet, S., Landereau, P., Noetinger, B., Sarda, S. and Sabathier, J. C.: 1999,
Scaling up matrix-fracture transfer in dual-porosity models: theory and application, SPE
paper 56557 presented at the SPE Annual Simulation Symposium, Houston, Feb. 3–6
Chang, M. M.: 1995, Analytical Solutions of Single- and Two-phase Flow Problems of Nat-
urally Fractured Reservoirs: Theoretical Shape Factors and Transfer Functions, PhD Dis-
sertation, The University of Tulsa.
Coats, K. H.: 1999, Implicit compositional simulation of single-porosity and dual-porosity
reservoirs, SPE paper 18427 presented at the SPE Reservoir Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3–6.
Hassanzadeh, H.: 2002, Naturally Fractured reservoirs modeling project, annual progress
Report No. 1, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S., Porterfield, K. L. and Zeman, P. R.: 1976, Numerical simulation
of water-oil flow in naturally fractured reservoirs, SPEJ December, 317–326.
Kazemi, H. and Gilman, J. R.: 1993, Multiphase Flow in Fractured Petroleum Reservoirs,
in: J. Bear, C. F. Tsang, and G. de Marsily (eds.), Flow and Contaminant Transport in
Fractured Rock, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 267–323.
Lim, K. T. and Aziz, K.: 1995, Matrix-fracture transfer shape factors for dual-porosity sim-
ulators, J. Petroleum Sci. Eng. 13, 169.
Nanba, T.: 1991, Numerical simulation of pressure transients in naturally fractured reser-
voirs with unsteady-state matrix-to-fracture flow, SPE Paper 22719.
Noetinger, B., Estebenet, T. and Landereau, P.: 2000, Up-scaling of double porosity fractured
media using continuous-time random walks methods, Transport Porous Media 39(3), 315.
Noetinger, B. and Estebenet, T.: 1998, Application of random walk methods on unstruc-
tured grid to up-scale fractured reservoirs, presented at the 1998 European Conference
on Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Peebles, Scotland, Sep 8–11.
Ozisik, N.: 1980, Heat Conduction, Wiley, New York.
Penuela, G, Hughes, R. G., Civan, F. and Wiggins, M. L.: 2002a, Time-dependent shape fac-
tors for inter-porosity flow in naturally fractured gas-condensate reservoirs, SPE 75524,
in: Proceedings of the 13th SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK,
April 13–17.
Penuela, G. , Hughes, R. G., Civan, F. and Wiggins, M. L.: 2002b, Time-dependent shape
factor for secondary recovery in naturally fractured reservoirs, SPE paper 75234.
Quintard, M. and Whitaker, S.: 1996, Transport in chemically and mechanically heteroge-
neous porous media, Advances Water Res. 19(1), 29.
Sarda, S., Jeannin, L, Basquet, R. and Bourbiaux, B.: 2002, Hydraulic characterization of
fractured reservoirs: simulation on discrete fracture model, SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. J.
April, 154.
Sabet, M. A.: 1991, Well Test Analysis, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.
EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 71

Stehfest, H.: 1979, Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms algorithm 368 communica-
tions of the ACM. 13(1), 47.
Thomas, L. K., Dixon, T. N. and Pierson, R. G.: 1983, Fractured reservoir simulation,
SPEJ, February, 42–54.
Warren, J. E. and Root, P. J.: 1963, The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs, SPEJ,
September, 245–255.

View publication stats