PETROLEUM

SCIENCE &
ENGINEERING
ELSEVIER Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 ( 1995) I69- 178

Matrix-fracture transfer shape factors for dual-porosity simulators

K.T. Lim, K. Aziz *
Stunford University, Depurtment ofPetroleum Engineering, Green Earth Sciences Research bldg., Stanford, CA 943052220, USA

Received 17 November 1994; accepted 22 November 1994

Abstract

Matrix-fracture transfer shape factors for dual-porosity simulation of naturally-fracturedreservoirs were derived by combining
analytical solutions of pressure diffusion for various flow geometries. The resulting equations describing the matrix-fracture
flow were cast in a form similar to those proposed by Barenblatt et al. ’ and Warren and Root ‘, but without making the pseudo-
steady state assumption. Shape factors representing one, two and three parallel sets of fractures were obtained. A generalized
matrix-fracture transfer fnncticn for a non-isotropic, rectangular matrix block was also derived. Fine-grid single-porosity and
one-block dual-porosity models were used to verify the results. The results of fine-grid and one-block dual-porosity models were
in good agreement. The shape factors derived in this paper are consistent with observations made in several publications on dual-
porosity simulation studies.

1. Introduction
The concept of treating a naturally-fractured reser-
voir as a dual-porosity medium was introduced by Bar-
enblatt et al. ( 1960) and later by Warren and Root
( 1963) more than three decades ago. In both papers
the transfer per unit bulk volume between the matrix
and the fracture was assumed to take place under
pseudo-steady state conditions. The resulting transfer
rate per unit bulk volume has the form:
(1)
4N(N+ 2)
CT= (2)
L2
where N is the number of sets of fractures ( 1, 2 or 3).
For cubic matrix blocks having a fracture spacing of L,
u has the value of 12/L2, 32/L2, 60/L2 for one, two
and three sets of fractures, respectively.
The application of the shape factor in numerical sim-
ulation was introduced by Kazemi et al. ( 1976). Using
a finite-difference formulation for the flow between the
matrix and the fracture, they showed that for a three-
dimensional case:

where u was defined as a parameter representing the

characteristic of the fractured rock. The parameter u L,; L- 7 L- z

has the dimension of reciprocal area, and is commonly

known as the shape factor. Warren
obtained the following expression:
* Corresponding author.
‘Warren and Root ( 1963)
’ Barenblatt et al. ( 1960).
For Lx = Ly = L, = L, u has a value of 12/L* for three
and Root (1963)
sets of fractures. For one and two sets of fractures, the
values of u are 4/L2 and 8/L’, respectively. The shape
factors proposed by Kazemi et al. are used in a number
of commercially available simulators (Firoozabadi and
Thomas, 1990). Ueda et al. (1989) pointed out that

0920-4105/95/$09.50 0 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDlO920-41OS(95)00010-0
170 K.T. Lirn, K. Aziz / Journal of Perroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 169-178

the application of Eq. 3 is equivalent to assuming a , Matrix

linear pressure gradient between the center of a matrix-
block and the fracture.
The shape factors described in the preceding appear
to be based only on the geometry of the system, and do
not account for the fact that a pressure gradient exists
in the matrix. Coats ( 1989) included pseudo-steady
state matrix-fracture diffusion in his derivation of a
matrix-fracture transfer function. He obtained shape
factors exactly twice those of Kazemi et al.
Thomas et al. (1983) studied various fine-grid sin-
gle-porosity and single-block dual-porosity models.
For a three-dimensional oil-water model, with near unit
mobility ratio, they concluded that a good match
between the two models was obtained with a shape
factors of 251L2. x=-l

Ueda et al. ( 1989) investigated the shape factors for

one- and two-dimensional flows. They introduced a
multiplication factor to the Kazemi et al. type shape
factors. Results of dual-porosity models were com- Fig. I. Schematic of a matrix block surrounded by one set of fractures.
pared to those obtained from fine-grid models and
be shown that the matrix pressure distribution satisfies
experiments. They concluded that Kazemi’s shape fac-
the following partial differential equation (Matthews
tors need to be adjusted by factors of at least 2 for one-
and Russell, 1967) :
dimensional flow. They also concluded hueristically
that the Kazemi et al. shape factor needs to be multi- aP k azp
_=--
(4)
plied by a factor of 3 for two-dimensional flow. a.2
at +~_Lc~
This paper presents the derivations of new shape
factors by combining the geometrical aspects of the If the matrix is initially at a uniform pressurep, and the
system with analytical solutions of the pressure diffu- pressure at the matrix-fracture boundary is maintained
sion equation for flow between the matrix and the frac- constant at pn the solution of Eq. 4 can be expressed as
ture. It will be shown that the shape factors derived in follows:

1
this manner are consistent with the observations made - (2n+ 1)%7%t
by Thomas et al. ( 1983) and Ueda et al. ( 1989). The p$?y_~ 8
I I n=,(2n+ l)%? exp [ W,L2
derivation for the case with one set of fractures is pre-
sented in the following. Derivations for systems with (5)
two and three sets of fractures follow the same principle
and are presented in the Appendix. A detailed derivation is presented in the Appendix.
In a dual-porosity simulation model, all mass flow is
from the matrix to the fracture, or vice versa. Therefore,
2. Derivation the rate of matrix-fracture transfer can be related to the
rate of mass accumulation in the matrix as follows:
In Fig. 1, a matrix block surrounded by a set of
parallel fractures is considered. The fractures have infi- 4= _p&&
at
nite lateral extent such that the matrix block resembles
a slab of thickness L, which is also the fracture spacing. Taking the partial derivative of Eq. 5 with respect to
The flow from the matrix to the fracture is one-dimen- time, t, and substituting it in Eq. 6 will result in an
sional, and perpendicular to the fracture plane. Assum- equation for the rate of matrix-fracture transfer as a
ing that the flow in the matrix obeys Darcy’s law, it can function of matrix and fracture pressures. The form of
 K.T. Litn. K. Aziz /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 169-178 171

dix for details). The resulting matrix-fracture transfer

equation is:

(8)

Eq. 8 has a form similar to Eq. 1, but the assumption

of pseudo-steady state was not made in its derivation.
Comparing the two equations, it is easy to see that the
shape factor for a system with one set of fractures is:

r? 9.87
a=,=-L (9)
L2

The derivations of shape factors for systems with

two and three sets of fractures follow the same principle
I
0.0 I- .’ _
and are presented in the Appendix. Two separate
approaches are presented. The first approach involved
0 1 2 3 4 5
rr2kt&c,L’ the assumptions that a bar-shaped matrix block formed
by two sets of fractures can be represented by a cylin-
Fig. 2. Analytical solution of diffusion in a plane and its approxi- der, and that a cube formed by three sets of fractures
mation. can be represented by a sphere. In both cases, the vol-
umes of the matrix blocks and the corresponcling cyl-
Eq. 5, however, suggests that differentiation with inder or sphere are the same. The resulting shape factors
respect to f will not eliminate the time dependence of are 18. 17/L2 for two sets of fractures and 25.67/L2 for
the function. The dependence on t in the form of an three sets of fractures.
infinite summation series makes the resulting expres- The second approach used the Newman product of
sion unsuitable for implementation in reservoir simu- dimensionless solutions for diffusion in planes (see
lators. Instead, the analytical solution (Eq. 5) is Appendix for details). The matrix-fracture transfer
approximated by a simple exponential-type function as function for systems with anisotropic, rectangular

-
follows: matrix blocks is shown to be:

(_ 1
dkt
Prn_~-()~1 exp -
(7) (10)
Pf-Pi h-G2

This approximation is obtained by taking only the first By defining an equivalent isotropic permeability (Mus-
term in the infinite summation series in Eq. 5. Fig. 2 kat, 1937) :
shows the plots of Eq. 5 and Eq. 7. The vertical axis is
k= (kJ&) “’ (11)
a dimensionless pressure and the horizontal axis a
dimensionless time. The approximate solution is in an equivalent shape factor for an anisotropic matrix
excellent agreement with the analytical solution except block can be defined as:
for dimensionless time of less than 0.1. For typical
reservoir values, this translates to a time of less than 1
(12)
second. The departure from the origin is not important
as it is eliminated from the final form of the equation
For an isotropic (k, = kv= k,) , rectangular matrix
(see the Appendix for details). The important param-
eter is the coefficient oft in the exponent, which reflects block, the shape factor reduces to:
the rate of transient pressure change. Differentiating
Eq. 7 with respect to t and substituting into Eq. 6 ena- (13)
bles the elimination of the time parameter (see Appen-
172 K. T. Lim, K. Aziz /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering I3 (I 995) 169-I 78

Table I third fine-grid model is a cube of size L/2 with fractures

Summary of the constant crL’ as defined by various authors. For this
on three sides, representing one-eight of a cube of size
study: (a) fromEq. 13, (b) cylindrical approximation, (c) spherical
approximation L surrounded by three sets of fractures. Fig. 3 and Table
2 summarize the model descriptions.
Sets of Warren Kazemi Coats This study As a comparison, the dual-porosity model also used
fractures and et al. (1989)
shape factors of Warren and Root, Kazemi et al. and
Root (1976)
(1963) Coats. Plots of cumulative production against time for
the case with one set of fractures are shown in Fig. 4.
1 12 4 8 7?
2 32 8 16 18.17’b’, 2+a) /
3 60 12 24 25.67”‘. 36’“’ /
,
,
/_ _-
For a system with uniform fracture spacing L, the shape
I N=l
factors for two and three sets of fractures computed
using Eq. 13 are 2$lL2 and 37?lL2, respectively. The
result for one set of fractures is identical to that derived
in the preceding 3.
Table 1 summarizes the shape factors as proposed
by Warren and Root, Kazemi et al. and Coats, and those
derived in this paper. These shape factors are used in
the following analyses.

3. Verification

Three separate fine-grid single-porosity, and one sin-

gle-block dual-porosity simulation models were used N=2
to verify the shape factors derived in this paper. The
dual-porosity model has one gridblock of 10 ft on all
sides, and is governed by the matrix-fracture transfer
function based on the number of sets of fractures and
the fracture spacing. In this case the fracture spacing,
L, is also 10 ft. The single-porosity models have one
discrete gridblock representing the fracture with the rest
of the gridblocks representing the matrix. The single- F\----T-----
1 \
\
\
\
\
porosity model for the case with one set of fractures is
a half-plane with a thickness of L/2, with the fracture
on one side. The case with two sets of fractures is
represented by a prism-shaped matrix equivalent to one
quarter of a cube, with the fracture on one side. The

’ The work leading to the derivation of Eq. 13 was performed y ‘4;\I I I

I I

I- x \L____L-__J
independently by the authors in 1993 and early 1994. It was brought
’
\
I I
to the author’s attention, after Eq. 13 was derved, that Chang ( 1993)
and Kazemi and Gilman ( 1993) have derived the same expression.
Z
Also, results consistent with Eq. 13 were obtained by Barkve ( 1992)
and Zimmerman et al. ( 1993). Although the assumptions and
approach as used in arriving at the shape factors are slightly different Fig. 3. Schematic of single-porosity models. Shaded areas represent
in this and other studies (Lim, 1995), it is reassuring that all the fracture planes. Fewer than actual number of gridblocks am shown
results are consistent. for clarity.
 K.T. Lim, K. Aziz / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 169-178 173

Table 2
Data for single-porosity and dual-porosity models

Fine grid, N = 1
Grid dimensions 11X1X1
Grid spacing Ax=2.445, 1.28, 0.64, 0.32, 0.16,0.08, 0.04, 0.02, 0.01, 2x0.005 ft
Ay=Az= loft
Fine grid, N = 2
Grid dimensions 11x1x1
Grid spacing Ax = same as Ax for N = 1
Ay=2.445,6.17, 8.09, 9.05, 9.53.9.77, 9.89, 9.95, 9.98, 2x9.995 ft
AZ= 10 ft
Fine grid, N = 3
Grid dimensions 6X6X6
Grid spacing A~=A~=Az=0.01,0.02,0.08, 0.32, 1.28, 3.3Oft
Dual porosity
Grid dimensions 1X1X1
Grid spacing Ax=Ay=Az=lOft
Common data for all models
Matrix porosity 0.05
Matrix permeability 0.001 mD
Initial pressure 1000 psia
Initial temperature 600°F
Fracture pressure 500 psia for t > 0
Fluid properties are correlated from steam table

60
this paper are for single-phase superheated steam flow.
The single-phase compressed water flow cases were
also analyzed, with essentially the same observations.
In general, the results of dual-porosity models with
shape factors derived in this paper are in good agree-

60

0 Fine Grid, 11 blocks

0 Fine Grid, 21 blocks
__._--_
1 block DP. Waren-Root, o=12fL*
1block DP, This work, a=n2/L2
1 block DP, Coats, o&/L2
-_--
1 block DP, Kazemi et al., 0=4/L’

II/ III Ill 81’ 11’ ‘1, ‘1’ tl”‘l

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (day)
0 Fine Grid, 11 blocks
Fig. 4. Results for system with one set of fractures. ______-
1 block DP, Warren-Root, 0=32/L*
1 block DP, This work, a=2x2/L2
1 block DP. This work, o=18.17/L2
Gridblock size sensitivity for the fine-grid model is also 1 block DP, Coats, 0=16/L’
1 block DP. Kazemi et al.. 0=8iL*
indicated. The results of the single-porosity models luu I A

have been scaled to enable a valid comparison. The 0 2 4 6 a 10

Time (day)
results for two and three sets of fractures are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. All the results presented in Fig. 5. Results for system with two sets of fractures
174 K.T. Lirn, K. Aziz / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 169-I 78
60 ,
I
3D Fine Grid, 216 blocks
1 block DP, Warren-Root,
1 block DP, This work, 0=3&L’
1 block DP, This work. a=2567iL’
1 block DP. Coats, a=24/L2
1 block DP, Kazemi, 0=12/L*
4 6
Time (day)
Fig. 6. Results for system with three sets of fractures.
ment with those of the single-porosity models. Calcu-
lations using Warren and Root shape factors tend to
overestimate the rate of recovery. Results obtained
using Kazemi et al. shape factors underestimated the
recovery rate significantly.
4. Discussions
The results presented in the preceding section show
that the correct shape factors are obtained by coupling
the geometry and the physics of pressure diffusion from
the matrix to the fracture. The shape factors are appli-
cable over all times. The single term approximation of
the analytical solution introduced a small error at early
times, but the error became negligible at late times (see
Fig. 2). Although the form of Eq. 8 is similar to Eq. 1,
pseudo-steady assumption was not made in its deriva-
tion. The assumption of pseudo-steady state was the
premise of the matrix-fracture transfer function pro-
posed by Barenblatt et al. ( 1960) and Warren and Root
( 1963). Shape factors derived by Warren and Root
(1963), Kazemi et al. (1976) and Coats (1989) all
followed the pseudo-steady state assumption. As
shown in the derivation presented in the preceding, the
pseudo-steady state assumption is not necessary when
applied to dual-porosity simulation.
Eq. 8 is capable of describing the transient behavior
of the matrix fracture flow because the matrix pressure,
Pm, and the fracture pressure, pr are both time depend-
ent. Proper selection of time step size during numerical
simulation should capture the transient behavior.
The shape factors derived in this paper are consistent
with the observations made by authors cited in the
introduction. The factor of 25/L* used by Thomas et
al. ( 1983) for the three-dimensional model is in close
agreement with the factors of 25.67/L2 and 3$lL2
derived in this paper. Ueda et al. ( 1989) stated that for
one-dimensional flow the Kazemi et al. shape factor
a=60/L*
(4/L2) needs to be multiplied by a factor of at least 2.
This observation is consistent with the factor of d/L2
for one set of fractures. For a system with two set of
~
fractures, Ueda et al. argued hueristically that the
Kazemi et al. shape factor ( 8/L2) needs to be modified
by a factor of 3. The analysis in this study showed that
it should be a factor of about 2.5.
5. Conclusions
From the preceding discussions, the following con-
clusions can be made: ( 1) The matrix-fracture transfer
shape factor for dual-porosity simulators is a parameter
governed both by the geometry of the system, and the
physics of mass transfer and pressure gradients in the
matrix. (2) A method was presented for the derivation
of the shape factors by approximating analytical solu-
tions of pressure diffusion equations for various geom-
etries of the system, without making the pseudo-steady
state assumption. (3) The shape factors derived in this
paper were verified using single-porosity single-phase
flow models. These shape factors are applicable to all
single-phase flow problems and two-phase flow prob-
lems with near unit mobility ratios. (4) The results
obtained in this paper are consistent with observations
made in the cited literatures on the need to modify the
Kazemi et al. type shape factors for matching with fine-
grid model and experimental results.
6. Nomenclature
C Fluid compressibility, [LT2/M]
ct Total compressibility, [ LT*/M]
k Permeability, [ L2]
 K.T. Lim, K. Aziz/Joumal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 169-178 175

L Fracture spacing, [L J where the superscript “O” refers to a reference state.

M Mass, [M] The solutions of Eq. Al for various geometries are
N Number of sets of fractures presented as follows:
P Pressure, [M/LT*]
4 Mass rate per unit bulk volume, [ M/TL’] 1.1.1. One set offractures
r Radial dimension variable, [L]
R Outer radius of cylinder or sphere [L] Consider a matrix block surrounded by a set of par-
t Time, [T] allel fractures as shown in Fig. 1. The flow from the
X Linear dimension variable, [L] matrix to the fracture is one dimensional and perpen-
u Shape factor, [ 1/L2] dicular to the fracture plane. Eq. Al for a one-dimen-
P Viscosity, [M/LT] sional, linear system is:
P Density, [ M/L31
dP
-=-- k d’p
(A3)
6.1. Subscripts at &_Lc,a,?

which is the equation for diffusion in a plane. The

i Initial condition
following boundary conditions apply:
f Fracture
m Matrix P’Pi* -L/21x<L/2 t=O (A41
x x-coordinate direction
P’Pf, x= -L/2, t>O (As)
y y-coordinate direction
z z-coordinate direction p=pn x=+L/2, t>O (A61

The boundary conditions represent a step change in the

fracture pressure, pr, at the initial time, which is held
Acknowledgements
constant. The analytical solution can be found in Crank
( 1975). If M, denotes the total amount of mass which
Funding for this work was provided by the Stanford has entered the system, i.e., the matrix, at time t and
University Reservoir Simulation Industrial Affiliates
M, the corresponding quantity after infinite time, the
(SUPRI-B) program. solution can be expressed as:

1
- (2n+ l)*dkt
Appendix 1 4/&*

1.1. Derivation of matrix-fracture transfer (A7)

functions for various geometries
Because Eq. A7 is written on a unit volume basis, the
left-hand side can be substituted by the ratio of density
The flow of fluids of small and constant compressi- increment at time t compared to the initial state and the
bility in porous media is governed by the pressure dif- expected increment at infinite time:
fusivity equation (Matthews and Russell, 1967) :
Mt
-=- Pm-Pi
Ipv .
at ( 1
kg
4Wl
(AlI M, Pf-Pi

Combining Eqs. A2, A7 and A8 yields:

(A8)

The solution depends on the geometry and initial and

boundary conditions. - (2nf 1)‘dkt
The assumption of a small and constant compressi- 1)27? exp 4Wtt2
bility fluid implies that the density of the fluid at a given
pressure can be calculated as follows: (A9)

P(P) =p”u +c(P-P”)l (AZ) where pi is the average pressure in the matrix at time
176 K.T. Lbn, K. Aziz /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering I3 (1995) 169-l 78

t. Eq. A9 can be approximated by the expression (see

Fig. 2) :

-dkt
‘$=l-0.81exp
1 i
-
&-%L2 1 (AlO)

This is equivalent to taking the first term in the infinite

summation series. Differentiation of Eq. A10 with

-
respect to t yields:

1
1 a& r?k dkt
(All)
pf-pi ~=~‘81 exp [ ~~C,L2

(Al21
0.2 )
using Eq. AlO. Simplification of the equation yields:

a% ,+,“:t-
-=. - Pm-,,f) (Al3)
0.0 Ii]
at CI
2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
WwRZ
Substituting Eq. Al3 into Eq. 6 results in the following
matrix-fracture transfer function: Fig. 7. Analytical solution of diffusion in a cylinder and its approx-
imation.

(A14) Using arguments similar to those for the case with one
set of fractures, the analytical solution can be expressed
as follows (Crank, 1975):
1.1.2. Two sets offractures
(Al9)
In this case the matrix block is surrounded by two
sets of perpendicular fractures, with both sets of frac- where the rr,‘s are the roots of:
tures having a spacing L. Pressure diffusion from the
J,(Ra,) =0 (A20)
matrix to the fracture can be closely approximated by
that of a cylindrical matrix block. The equivalent where J,,(x) is the Bessel function of the first kind of
radius, R, of the cylinder is the radius that would yield order zero. The analytical solution is approximated by

-
the same volume as a bar with a L XL square-shaped taking only the first summation term in Eq. A19:

1 [ 1
cross-section. The volume is used as a basis of equating
5.78kt
the two geometries due to the considerations given ‘s=l-0.69exp - (‘421)
when deriving Eq. A8. In this case: dwR=
The analytical solution for cylindrical diffusion and its
R = 0.564L (A15)
approximations are plotted in Fig. 7. Differentiating
The pressure diffusion equation (Eq. Al) for radial Eq. A21 with respect to t, and substituting in Eq. 6
geometry is: yields:

(‘416)
,2$~(,, -p,) +z+-m_pf) (A=)

The initial and boundary conditions are:

1.1.3. Three sets offractures
p=pi, O<rlR t=O (AI7)
A matrix block surrounded by three sets of fractures
p=pf, r=R, t>O (A18)
with uniform spacing L has the shape of a cube. The
 K.T. Lirn, K. Aziz/Journal of PetroleumScience and Engineering13 (199.5)169478 111

pressure diffusion from the matrix to the fracture can

be closely approximated by that of a spherical matrix
block. The equivalent radius, R, of the sphere is the one
that would yield the same volume as a cube with a
length of L on all sides. In this case:

R = 0.62OL (~23)

The pressure diffusion equation (Eq. A 1) for spherical

geometry is:

(~24)

0.2
The initial and boundary conditions are:
r
o Analytical Solution
p=pi, O<r<R t=O (A25)
- Fvst Term only

0.0 0 ___
p=pr, r=R, t>O (A261 0 1 2 3 4 5
k&/@pqR’
The analytical solution can be expressed as follows
(Crank, 1975; Zimmerman et al., 1992) : Fig. 8. Analytical solution of diffusion in a sphere and its approxi-
mation.

~427)
Pi -Pi _
The analytical solution is again approximated by taking Pf_Pi
only the first summation term in Eq. A27:
_
1-+2_y l
a=op=oy=o (2a+ 1)2(2p+ 1)2(2y+ 1)2
‘s=l-0.61exp (A281
I

The analytical solution for diffusion in a sphere and its

approximations are plotted in Fig. 8. Differentiating
Eq. A28 with respect to t, and substituting in Eq. 6
yields:
(A30)
I? pk
4=j+Pln-Pl.)
25.67 pk _
=-- L2 El.(Pm--Pf) (~29) By taking only the first terms in each of the summation
P
series (similar to the derivation of solution for diffusion
in a plane), Eq. A30 becomes:
1.1.4. Anisotropic, rectangular matrix blocks

Consider a rectangular
matrix block of dimensions
Lx, Lx and L, with corresponding directional permea- (A31)
bilities k,, ky and k,. If the system is initially at pressure Differentiation of Eq. A3 1 with respect to t yields:
pi and is exposed to a constant fracture pressure pf, the
analytical solution can be derived by taking the New- (~32)
man product of the dimensionless solution for diffusion
in a plane (Eq. A7) as follows (Holman, 1990; Abba- Substituting Eq. A32 into Eq. 6 yields the final form of
zadeh, pers. commun., 1994) : the matrix-fracture transfer function:
178 K.T. Lim, K. Aziz / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 169-I 78

*Conversion factor is exact.

(A33)
References
By defining an equivalent isotropic permeability (Mus-
kat, 1937) : Barenblatt, G.I., Zheltov, 1u.P. and Kochina, I.N., 1960. Basic con-
cepts on the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in fissured
#c= ( k&kz) “3 (A34) rocks. PrikladnayaMatematikai Mekhanika, Akad. Nauk, SSSR,
24(5): 852-864.
and rewriting Eq. A33 as: Barkve, T., 1992. Generation of pseudo data for dual-porosity sim-
ulation Unsolicited SPE Paper 22531.
Chang, M., 1993. Deriving the shape factor of a fractured rock
(A35) matrix. Technical Report NIPER-696 (DE930001 70), NIPER,
Bartlesville Okla.
an equivalent shape factor for an anisotropic matrix Coats, K.H., 1989. Implicit compositional simulation of single-
porosity and dual-porosity reservoirs. SPE 18427, presented at
block can be inferred from Eq. A35 as:
10th SPE Symp. Reservoir Simulation, Houston, Tex., Feb. 6-8.
Crank, J., 1975. The Mathematics of Diffusion, 2nd ed. Claredon
(A36) Press, Oxford, pp. 44-103.
Firoozabadi, A. and Thomas, L.K., 1990.6th SPE Comparative Solu-
tion Project: Dual porosity simulators. J. Pet. Technol., pp. 42
For an isotropic (k,= ky = k,), rectangular matrix (6): 710-763.
block, the shape factor reduces to: Holman, J.P., 1990. Heat Transfer, 7thed. McGraw-Hill, New York,
N.Y., pp. 160-164.
Kazemi, H. and Gilman, J.R., 1993. Flow and contaminant transport
u= nJ(;+++;) (A37)
in fractured rock, Academic Press, Orlando, Fla., pp. 267-323.
Kazemi, H., Merrill, L., Porterheld, K. and Zeman, P., 1976. Numer-
The shape factor for two and three sets of fractures ical simulation of water-oil flow in naturally fractured reservoirs.
calculated using Eq. A37 differs slightly from those Sot. Pet. Eng. J., 16(6): 317-326.
Lim, K.T., 1995. Simulation of fractured reservoir with applications
presented earlier, due mainly to the different methods
to geothermal reservoir. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univ., Stan-
used in approximating the analytical solution. The is ford, Calif., pp. 117-l 18.
logical because a cube has a higher surface area to Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G., 1967. Pressure buildup and flow
volume ratio compared to a sphere of the same volume. tests in wells. SPE Monogr., Vol. I: 2-17.
The approximate form as shown in Eqs. A33 and A37 Muskat, M., 1937. Reprinted 1982. The Flow of Homogeneous Flu-
ids Through Porous Media. IHRDC, Boston, Mass., pp. 225-
was chosen to enable implementation in a system which
227.
is not necessarily cubic or isotropic. Thomas, L.K., Dixon, T.N. and Pierson, R.G., 1983. Fractured res-
ervoir simulation. Sot. Pet. Eng. J., 23( 1): 42-54.
Ueda, Y., Murata, S., Watanabe, Y. and Funatsu, K., 1989. Investi-
gation of the shape factor used in the dual-porosity reservoir
1.2. SI metric conversion factors simulator. SPE 19469 presented at SPE Asia-Pacific Conf., Syd-
ney, Australia, Sept. 13-15.
Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J., 1963. The behaviorofnaturally fractured
ftX3.048* E-Ol=m reservoirs. Sot. Pet. Eng. J.. 3(3): 245-255.
Zimmerman, R.W., Chen, G. and Bodvarsson, G.S., 1992. A dual-
lb x 4535,924 E - 01 = kg porosity model with an improved coupling term. Presented at
17th Stanford Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop,
psi X 6.894,757 E + 00 = kPa
Stanford, Calif., Jan. 29-3 1.
mDX9.869,233 E-01 =prn’ Zimmerman, R.W., Chen, G., Hagdu, T. and Bodvarsson, G.S., 1993.
A numerical dual-porosity model with semianlytical treatment
(“F-32)/1.8=“C of fracture/matrix flow. Water Resour. Res., 29( 7): 2127-2137.