Liu 2018

energies
Article
A Multi-Parameter Optimization Model for the
Evaluation of Shale Gas Recovery Enhancement
Jia Liu 1,2 , Jianguo Wang 1,3, * ID
, Chunfai Leung 2 and Feng Gao 1,3
1 State Key Laboratory for Geomechanics & Deep Underground Engineering, China University of
Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China; jliu_swyk@cumt.edu.cn (J.L.); fgao@cumt.edu.cn (F.G.)
2 Center for Offshore Research and Engineering, National University of Singapore, E1A-07-03,
1 Engineering Drive 2, Singapore 117576, Singapore; ceelcf@nus.edu.sg
3 School of Mechanics and Civil Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology,
Xuzhou 221116, China
* Correspondence: nuswjg@yahoo.com or jgwang@cumt.edu.cn
Received: 14 February 2018; Accepted: 9 March 2018; Published: 15 March 2018
Abstract: Although a multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal well in a shale reservoir initially
produces gas at a high production rate, this production rate declines rapidly within a short period
and the cumulative gas production is only a small fraction (20–30%) of the estimated gas in
place. In order to maximize the gas recovery rate (GRR), this study proposes a multi-parameter
optimization model for a typical multi-stage hydraulically fractured shale gas horizontal well. This is
achieved by combining the response surface methodology (RSM) for the optimization of objective
function with a fully coupled hydro-mechanical FEC-DPM for forward computation. The objective
function is constructed with seven uncertain parameters ranging from matrix to hydraulic fracture.
These parameters are optimized to achieve the GRR maximization in short-term and long-term gas
productions, respectively. The key influential factors among these parameters are identified. It is
established that the gas recovery rate can be enhanced by 10% in the short-term production and
by 60% in the long-term production if the optimized parameters are used. Therefore, combining
hydraulic fracturing with an auxiliary method to enhance the gas diffusion in matrix may be an
effective alternative method for the economic development of shale gas.
Keywords: shale gas reservoir; multi-scale flow; multi-parameter optimization; response surface
methodology (RSM); gas recovery rate (GRR)
1. Introduction
As shale gas reservoirs typically have extremely low permeability, their flow behaviors are very
different from those in conventional gas reservoirs. The commercial development of shale gas has been
driven by three key advances in technology and science: (1) horizontal well plus multi-stage hydraulic
fracturing [1–6], (2) the understanding of gas storage mechanisms [1], and (3) the understanding
of multi-scale mechanisms of gas flows from shale matrix to hydraulic fracture [7–10]. A shale gas
reservoir has free gas stored in matrix pores and natural fractures, and adsorbed gas on the organic
matter [11,12]. The original free and desorbed gases flow from matrix to natural fractures, then to
hydraulic fractures and finally to the horizontal well. The gas flow shows significant multi-scale
characteristics [7] and is significantly affected by the uncertainties of many reservoir parameters for
matrix, natural fractures, and hydraulic fractures. Therefore, an optimal set of these parameters is
expected to maximize the gas recovery rate from a shale gas reservoir.
Sensitive analysis and optimal design for a shale gas reservoir have been conducted by researchers
to maximize the ultimate gas recovery. However, most of the optimal designs are achieved through
local-sensitivity analysis where one variable is usually changed while keeping all other variables
Energies 2018, 11, 654; doi:10.3390/en11030654 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 654 2 of 29
fixed [3,11–14]. Such optimizations cannot provide sufficient insights in screening insignificant
parameters and considering parameter interactions to obtain the optimal design [2]. In addition,
most of reservoir simulations usually ignore the impact of geomechanics on ultimate gas recovery,
and the effect of doing this on gas recovery enhancement has not been well evaluated so far.
Multi-parameter optimization is an essential tool for shale reservoir design. For a problem with
strong non-linearity and noise including discontinuity and non-differentiability in functions, direct
optimal search methods, such as Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Polytope Algorithm (PA), have been
successful in finding reliable optimum solutions. The convergence of these methods is however usually
slow [15,16]. Holt [17] estimated the optimal layout and stages of hydraulic fractures along a horizontal
wellbore by using three gradient-based optimization algorithms. He compared the ensemble-based
optimization, the simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation and finite-difference estimation
of gradient, and subsequently recommended a particle swarm optimization or genetic algorithm
instead of gradient-based algorithms for the optimization of hydraulic fracture spacing. Ma et al. [18]
estimated the optimal hydraulic fracture placement by using the gradient-based finite difference
method (FDM), discrete simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation (DSPSA), and genetic
algorithm. They concluded that both DSPSA and GA are more efficient than the gradient-based
method. Li et al. [19] applied a dynamic simplex interpolation-based alternate subspace (DSIAS)
search method for the mixed integer optimization problems associated with shale gas development
projects. Rammay and Awotunde [20] simultaneously optimized the hydraulic fracture conductivity,
fracture length, fracture spacing and horizontal well. Therefore, many algorithms have been proposed
for the sensitivity analysis and optimal design for the enhancement of shale gas recovery. However,
no satisfactory algorithm is available for the optimal design to identify the significant factors
influencing shale gas production.
Response surface methodology (RSM) is an efficient statistical method for the evaluation and
optimization of complex processes through controllable forward model computations [21]. RSM is
very popular in physical and chemical experiment designs and optimizations for experimental cost
reduction. Combining RSM with numerical reservoir simulations is an alternative optimization method
for multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal well. Yu and Sepehrnoori [2,21] employed RSM and
an economic model to optimize the design parameters such as permeability, porosity, fracture spacing,
fracture half-length, fracture conductivity and well distance. They optimized the combinations of these
parameters under different gas prices. Wang et al. [22,23] also used RSM to investigate the sensitivities
of seven parameters including structural parameters, geomechanical parameters, in-situ field stress
parameter (stress difference) and operational parameter (injection rate) on maximizing stimulated
reservoir volume (SRV). Their studies proved the feasibility of RSM in shale gas production and
hydraulic fracturing modeling. However, they did not consider the local stress-sensitive multi-scale
gas flow mechanisms during the shale gas recovery enhancement.
In the present study, a multi-parameter optimization model is proposed based on the coupling
of RSM with a fully coupled model to evaluate the efficiency of shale gas recovery. An optimization
algorithm will be introduced for multi-stage hydraulically fractured shale gas horizontal wells.
This algorithm combines the RSM for objective optimization and the fully coupled hydro-mechanical
fracture equivalent continuum-dual porosity model (FEC-DPM) for forward computations [14]. The gas
recovery rate (GRR) which is defined as the ratio of cumulative gas production and total mass of gas
in reservoirs at the initial condition is used as the objective function. Seven reservoir parameters are
chosen as decision variables. Design of experiments (DoE) based on an I-optimal method is applied
to obtain the reasonable group of runs. The short-term (2 years) and long-term (30 years) GRRs are
set as two objective functions. Furthermore, the sensitivities of the seven variables are quantitatively
and synchronously evaluated. These results may be helpful in the choice and design of variables or
parameters to maximize GRRs, thus providing a guide for the exploration and development of shale
gas reservoirs.
Energies 2018, 11, 654 3 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, x 3 of 29
2. Optimization Method
2. Optimization Methodand
andObjective
ObjectiveFunction
Function Setting
Setting
2.1. Design of Experiments
2.1. Design of Experiments
DoEDoEis aissystematic
a systematicmethodmethodusedused
to determine
to determinethe relationship between
the relationship uncertain
between factors factors
uncertain affecting
a process
affecting a process and the response of that process. It has been used to evaluate statistically the of
and the response of that process. It has been used to evaluate statistically the significance
different factors
significance of at the lowest
different factorsexperimental
at the lowestcost [21]. Figure
experimental 1 presents
cost the1numerical
[21]. Figure presents the model used in
numerical
thismodel
computation,
used in this where seven uncertain
computation, whereparameters
seven uncertainare indicated fromare
parameters theindicated
shale matrix
fromtothehydraulic
shale
fracture such as matrix apparent diffusivity (A), initial NF aperture (B), NF
matrix to hydraulic fracture such as matrix apparent diffusivity (A), initial NF aperture (B), NF density (C), NF orientation
(D), initial (C),
density HF NF conductivity
orientation(E),(D),HF half-length
initial (F) and HF
HF conductivity (E),spacing (G). NF (F)
HF half-length andandHFHF stand for natural
spacing (G).
fracture
NF and andHFhydraulic
stand for fracture, respectively.
natural fracture Their reasonable
and hydraulic ranges with Their
fracture, respectively. the actual maximum
reasonable ranges and
with the values
minimum actual maximum and minimum
or coded symbol of “−1”values or coded
and “+1,” symbol ofare
respectively, “−1″ and in
listed “+1,”
Tablerespectively,
1. According are to
listed
these in Table
seven 1. According
variables and theirto these seven
ranges, a seriesvariables
of casesand their ranges,
are obtained baseda series
on theofapproach
cases areofobtained
I-optimal
basedwhich
design, on theisapproach
originated of from
I-optimal design, design
the optimal which theory.
is originated from
Optimal the optimal
design is a good design theory.
design choice
Optimal
when design
central is a good
composite designdesign
(CCD) choice
andwhen central composite
Box-Behnken design (BBD)design do(CCD)
not fitand
ourBox-Behnken
needs. We can
design
specify the(BBD)
modeldowenot fit to
wish ourfit,needs. We can specify
add multi-linear the model
constraints, add we wish
center to fit,etc.
points, add multi-linear
Unlike the CCD
constraints, add center points, etc. Unlike the CCD and BBD designs, where
and BBD designs, where there is a specific pattern to the design points, points in these designs there is a specific patternare
to theby
chosen design points, points
an algorithm. in these
Because designs
of this pointareselection
chosen by an algorithm.
process and theBecause
fact thatofthere
this point selection
are often many
process and the fact that there are often many statistically equivalent sets of design points, it is
statistically equivalent sets of design points, it is possible to obtain slightly different designs for the
possible to obtain slightly different designs for the same factor and model information. I-optimal
same factor and model information. I-optimal algorithm chooses runs that minimize the integral of
algorithm chooses runs that minimize the integral of the prediction variance across the factor space.
the prediction variance across the factor space. Thus, I-optimal criterion is recommended to build the
Thus, I-optimal criterion is recommended to build the response surface designs where the goal is to
response surface designs where the goal is to optimize the factor settings, requiring greater precision
optimize the factor settings, requiring greater precision in the estimated model.
in the estimated
Table 2 shows model.the 46 combinations of these uncertain parameters generated by the I-optimal
Table 2 shows the 46 combinations of these uncertain parameters generated by the I-optimal design.
design.
600
C: NF density
F: HF half-length
Proppant-pack
500
E: HF conductivity
400 G: HF spacing
Horizontal well
300
200 B: NF aperture
A: Matrix apparent
100
diffusivity
D: NF orientation
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Figure 1. Numerical model of multi-stage hydraulically fractured shale reservoir horizontal well.
Figure 1. Numerical model of multi-stage hydraulically fractured shale reservoir horizontal well.
Table 1. Optimization parameter in this study.

Table 1. Optimization parameter in this study.
Minimum Maximum
Parameters Coded Symbol Unit
(−1)
Minimum (+1)
Maximum
Parameters Coded Symbol Unit
Matrix diffusivity A (−1)1 (+1)
50 10−8 m2/s
Initial
Matrix NF aperture
diffusivity A B 1 10 20
50 µ−
10 m8 m2 /s
InitialDensity of NF
NF aperture B C 0.001
10 0.005
20 fraction
µm
Density of NFof NF
Orientation C D 0.00110 0.005
80 fraction
degree
Orientation of NF D 10 80 degree
Initial HF conductivity E 0.1 10 µ m2·cm
Initial HF conductivity E 0.1 10 µm2 ·cm
HF half-length
HF half-length F F 40 40 120
120 mm
HFHF spacing
spacing G G 40 40 100
100 mm
Energies 2018, 11, 654 4 of 29
Table 2. I-optimal design table.
Run A B C D E F G
1 50.00 10.00 0.001 10.00 2.38 40 40
2 42.65 10.00 0.001 80.00 0.10 40 100
3 50.00 10.00 0.005 80.00 10.00 120 40
4 19.87 10.00 0.001 80.00 5.20 120 40
5 17.42 10.00 0.005 10.00 3.86 100 40
6 50.00 17.00 0.005 42.20 0.10 40 40
7 1.00 15.08 0.001 50.60 6.04 40 70
8 16.93 20.00 0.004 56.20 10.00 80 100
9 2.23 12.65 0.004 47.80 8.52 120 70
10 28.56 20.00 0.001 80.00 0.10 40 40
11 1.00 10.00 0.005 80.00 10.00 40 100
12 50.00 16.90 0.001 56.55 0.10 100 70
13 28.20 20.00 0.002 10.00 0.64 60 70
14 27.71 14.75 0.001 33.80 10.00 80 40
15 50.00 10.00 0.004 49.55 5.10 80 100
16 1.00 20.00 0.005 80.00 0.10 40 70
17 44.12 20.00 0.005 55.15 0.10 40 100
18 50.00 20.00 0.005 80.00 0.25 120 100
19 2.23 12.65 0.004 47.80 8.52 120 70
20 50.00 20.00 0.001 10.00 10.00 40 100
21 1.00 16.35 0.002 13.50 0.10 120 40
22 15.70 13.40 0.004 17.00 2.08 40 100
23 15.70 13.40 0.004 17.00 2.08 40 40
24 30.79 10.00 0.003 43.95 10.00 40 70
25 48.53 14.02 0.001 24.35 5.57 80 100
26 1.00 15.08 0.001 50.6 6.04 40 70
27 1.00 19.70 0.004 10.00 10.00 40 40
28 17.17 18.10 0.005 74.05 5.20 100 40
29 20.36 18.90 0.001 10.00 6.49 120 100
30 48.78 16.75 0.003 80.00 6.83 60 70
31 50.00 20.00 0.003 29.25 5.99 120 40
32 1.00 20.00 0.001 80.00 10.00 120 40
33 1.00 10.00 0.002 10.00 10.00 80 100
34 2.23 16.70 0.002 80.00 1.83 100 100
35 1.00 20.00 0.005 10.00 0.10 120 100
36 25.34 11.00 0.002 10.00 0.30 80 70
37 50.00 20.00 0.001 80.00 0.84 40 100
38 50.00 10.00 0.003 10.00 9.26 120 40
39 1.00 10.00 0.001 25.40 0.10 120 100
40 44.12 12.53 0.001 80.00 10.00 120 100
41 1.00 10.00 0.004 73.00 0.10 60 40
42 30.79 10.00 0.003 43.95 10.00 40 40
43 50.00 13.50 0.003 10.00 0.10 120 100
44 32.85 10.50 0.005 80.00 0.10 120 70
45 46.08 16.80 0.005 10.00 10.00 80 70
46 48.78 16.75 0.003 80.00 6.83 60 40
2.2. Response Surface Methodology

Response surface methodology applies regression models, experiment design methods, and other
techniques to understand the behavior of the responses of the system. Developing a regression model
for each response can have linear, quadratic and two factor interaction regression models for sequential
F-tests, lack-of-fit tests, and R-square value. For a selected regression model, the significance of each
factor (linear, quadratic and interaction terms) is examined by the analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Insignificant factors are then discarded and the proposed models are used for the response predictions.
RSM can offer a cost-effective and efficient way to manage the uncertainties for shale gas reservoir
Energies 2018, 11,
Energies 2018, 11, 654
x 55of
of29
29
the response predictions. RSM can offer a cost-effective and efficient way to manage the uncertainties
development. More details
for shale gas reservoir on the mathematical
development. More detailsand statistical
on the theories
mathematical andof statistical
RSM can be foundofinRSM
theories the
reference [24].
can be found in the reference [24].
The
Theflow
flowchart
chartfor
forthethe
framework
framework of RSM
of RSMandand FEC-DPM
FEC-DPM coupling is shown
coupling in Figure
is shown 2. The2.main
in Figure The
steps of this framework are listed: firstly, determine the objective function
main steps of this framework are listed: firstly, determine the objective function and identify and identify the settings
the
for the uncertain factors; secondly, select DoE to generate simulation cases
settings for the uncertain factors; secondly, select DoE to generate simulation cases and run all and run all simulations
according
simulations to according
FEC-DPM;tothirdly, FEC-DPM;exportthirdly,
simulationexportresults for calculating
simulation results forobjective function
calculating GRR;
objective
fourthly, perform statistical analysis to obtain the response-surface model; and finally,
function GRR; fourthly, perform statistical analysis to obtain the response-surface model; and finally, perform further
optimization
perform further to obtain the maximum
optimization GRR.
to obtain the On the selection
maximum GRR. On the of an appropriate
selection model, statistical
of an appropriate model,
approach is used to decide which polynomial fits the equation with a
statistical approach is used to decide which polynomial fits the equation with a linear linear model, two-factor
model,model
two-
interaction model (2FI), fully quadratic model, or cubic model. The criterion
factor model interaction model (2FI), fully quadratic model, or cubic model. The criterion for this for this selection is to
choose theishighest
selection to choose polynomial
the highest model, where model,
polynomial additional terms
where are significant
additional terms are andsignificant
the modeland is not
the
aliased. In addition, other criteria are required for the model selection such as the
model is not aliased. In addition, other criteria are required for the model selection such as the maximum “Adjusted
R-Squared” and “Predicted
maximum “Adjusted R-Squared”.
R-Squared” and “Predicted R-Squared”.
FEC-DPM
Response surface methodology
Initialization
Start
Generate discrete fracture information

46 Runs
Determine objective function

Identify factors and ranges Discretize calculated domain into square-cell
Design-Expert
I-optimal algorithm
software Generate elastic compliance matrix & permeability tensor &
shape factor files
Design of experiment
Assigning elastic compliance matrix &

permeability tensor & shape factor in by
Calculate response value COMSOL with MATLAB code
Response surface Design-Expert Fully Coupled

methodology software Solid mechanics Seepage equation
Build regression model Output average stress of cells

Objective function
ANOVA
Update fracture aperture, normal
and shear stiffness
Model diagnosis
Response surface analysis Calculate gas production
Statistical analysis and sensitivity analysis

NO NO
t>T？
Optimization YES
Calculate cumulative gas production
Finish
END
Figure 2. Flow chart of framework for RSM optimization of gas production.

Figure 2. Flow chart of framework for RSM optimization of gas production.
2.3. Objective Function

2.3. Objective Function
The objective function for the optimization of a multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal
The objective function for the optimization of a multi-stage hydraulically fractured horizontal
well can be:
well can be:
 Maximize cumulative gas production
• Maximize
Minimize cumulative gas production
treatment cost
• Minimize treatment cost
In this study, we aim at finding the optimal combination of seven parameters for cumulative gas
production. The treatment cost is not in consideration. Therefore, the objective function is:
Energies 2018, 11, 654 6 of 29
In this study, we aim at finding the optimal combination of seven parameters for cumulative gas
production. The treatment cost is not in consideration. Therefore, the objective function is:
U∗ = argmax ( J (U)) (1)
The objective function GRR is defined as the ratio between cumulative gas production and the
total mass of gas in reservoirs at the initial condition:
CGP
GRR = × 100% (2)
VR ψ( pi )/ρ ga
where CGP is the cumulative gas production, ψ(pi ) is the initial total gas mass in shale gas reservoir
including the adsorbed gas in matrix and the free gas in matrix and natural fractures:

ρ ga VL pi Mpi V p
ψ ( pi ) = φ f + φm − (1 − φm ) + 1 − φm − φ f ρ ga L i (3)
ρ ads pi + PL ZRT pi + PL
The gas recovery rate is a function of multi-parameters such as matrix apparent diffusivity, initial
NF aperture, NF density, NF orientation, initial HF conductivity, HF half-length and HF spacing.
The objective is to find a combination of these parameters to achieve the maximum GRR.
3. Brief Description of Numerical Forward Model for Shale Gas Reservoir Simulations
3.1. Fully Coupled Hydro-Mechanical FEC-DPM
3.1.1. Reservoirs Deformation

e of each cell is contributed by both
For fractured reservoirs, the total elastic compliance tensor Tijkl
fractures and matrix as:
e e e
Tijkl = Mijkl + Cijkl (4)
e is the isotropic elastic compliance tensor at each cell, and C e is the anisotropic compliance
where Mijkl ijkl
tensor from the fractures at each cell. The FEC-DPM considers the effect of fractures on the deformation
through an equivalent elastic compliance tensor at each cell. As such, each cell has its own elastic
compliance tensor (a symmetric 6 × 6 matrix) of 21 independent components. These components are
related to the normal stiffness, the shear stiffness, and the orientation of truncated fractures in this cell.
Generally, the deformation equation of FEC-DPM is expressed as:
∇u + ∇ T u

∇ · D(cell, Kn , Ks ) : + α B I∇ p m + F = 0 (5)
2
3.1.2. Gas Flow in Matrix

The gas flow in shale matrix is governed by a pseudo-steady diffusion equation [14]:
∂pm ZRT h i ∂ε v
AA = Fs Dapp ψ( pm ) − ψ p f − BB (6)
∂t Mg ∂t
where:
ρ ga VL p2m
h i
p a VL pm α B −φm0
AA = pm + − + (1 − φm )
ρ ads pm + PL pm + PL Ks (1+ε v −ε v0+( pm − pm0 )/k s )2

φm p a VL PL ρ ga 2
VL pm −2PL VL pm
(7)
1−φm + −
( pm + PL )2 ρ ads ( pm + PL )2
ρ ga VL p2m α B − φm0

p a VL pm
BB = pm + − (8)
ρ ads pm + PL pm + PL (1 + ε v − ε v0 + ( pm − pm0 )/k s )2
Energies 2018, 11, 654 7 of 29
where Fs is the shape factor to reflect the geometry of the matrix elements, which controls the
gas exchange between matrix and fracture and depends on the truncated fractures in the matrix
element [25].
3.1.3. Gas Flow in Natural Fracture Network

The governing equation for gas flow in the natural fracture network is written as:

Kij (cell, σ0 n , τn )
!
∂ φf ρf h i
+ ∇ −ρ f ∇p f = Fs Dapp ψ( pm ) − ψ p f (9)
∂t µ
where Kij is the permeability tensor in whole domain, which is the integration of all Kije of cells:
1
Kije =

λ Pkk δij − Pij (10)
12
where tensor Pij is related to the fracture geometry intersecting this cell in a 2D problem and is given by:
1 NFIE e 3
Se ∑
Pij = l w f ni n j (11)
where λ is a correction factor for the single parallel plate fracture model which is related to the fracture
tortuosity and surface roughness. In this study, λ = 1. le wf /Se is a dimensionless factor for the revision
of equivalent flux. The permeability tensor over the entire flow domain is obtained by adding the
permeability tensor of every fracture to the cell truncated by the fracture. It is noted that the Kije is
overestimated by Equation (10) and should be modified by a flow-based DFM method [14].
The evolution of natural fracture aperture with stress is given in the following piecewise function
after considering both normal closure and shear dilation:
σ0 n δm


 wf0 − σ0 n +Kn0 δm τn < τc & σ0 n > 0

 ef f
σ0 n δm (τn −τc ) tan φdil
w f = w f 0 − δn + δdil = wf0 − 0
σ n +Kn0 δm + Ks1 τc < τn ≤ τp &σ0 n > 0 (12)
ef f

σ0 n δm (τn −τp ) tan φdil

τn > τp & σ0 n > 0

wf0 − +

0
σ n +Kn0 δm Ks2
3.1.4. Gas Flow in Hydraulic Fractures

The gas flow in a hydraulic fracture is modeled using directional derivatives along the fracture.
The governing equation of gas flow in a hydraulic fracture is:

∂ k
wF ( φF ρ F ) + ∇ T · − ρ F F w F ∇ T p F = w F Q m (13)
∂t µ
where ∇ T denotes the gradient operator along the fracture. The gas pressure in the hydraulic fracture
is the dependent variable for solution.
3.2. Proppant-Pack Hydraulic Fracture Conductivity

The proppant-pack in the hydraulic fracture is critical to maintain fracture conductivity and
allow gas to flow through to the production well [26,27]. The hydraulic fracture filled with proppant
packs is a composite fracture. Its permeability depends on the fracture properties (aperture, intensity,
tortuosity, connectivity etc.), the proppant pack properties (concentration, size and stiffness), and their
interactions (proppant embedment) [28,29]. The compaction of the proppant pack under the confining
Energies 2018, 11, x 8 of 29
packs is a composite fracture. Its permeability depends on the fracture properties (aperture, intensity,
tortuosity, connectivity etc.), the proppant pack properties (concentration, size and stiffness), and
their interactions (proppant embedment) [28,29]. The compaction of the proppant pack under8 of
Energies 2018, 11, 654
the29
confining stresses of the reservoir leads to a reduction in the porosity of the proppant pack. The
porosity, φF, of the proppant pack can be expressed as:
stresses of the reservoir leads top a reduction in the porosity of the proppant pack. The porosity, ϕF , of
V Vs V b0 w
the proppant pack can be  
expressed 1
as:  1 1     1  F 0 1   
F (14)F0 F0
Vb Vb Vb wF
Vp Vs w F0V b0
The compressive = b = of
φFbehavior 1 −proppant
b
= 1 −pack, b
1 −non-linear
(the (1 − φF0between
φF0 ) = 1 −relationship ) σe and wF(14)
, is
V V V wF
described using the Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation theory [30]. Fracture conductivity is
The compressive
significantly reduced inbehavior
the shaleofformations
proppant if pack,
severe theproppant
non-linear relationship
embedment between
occurs. e and wF , is
The σrelationship
described using the Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation theory [30].
between the deformation of the proppant pack and the compressive stress acting on the proppant Fracture conductivity is
significantly
pack reduced
can be written as:in the shale formations if severe proppant embedment occurs. The relationship
between the deformation of the proppant pack and the compressive stress acting on the proppant pack
  e  
wF  wF 0  CwF 0 ln  σe    e λ
can be written as:
(15)
w F = w F0 − Cw F0 ln   e 0  − ησe (15)
σe0
Figure 3 presents
For a proppant the curve
pack, fitting of this formula
the Kozeny–Carman equation to is
experimental data.the relationship between
used to describe
For a proppant pack, the Kozeny–Carman equation is
permeability and porosity [30]. The shale flakes induced by proppant embedmentused to describe the relationship
and brokenbetween
parts of
permeability and porosity [30]. The shale flakes induced by proppant embedment
proppants affect and clog seepage channels. This modifies the ratio of the residual permeability and broken ofparts
the
of
proppant pack (after compaction) to the initial permeability (before compaction). A crushing rate η of
proppants affect and clog seepage channels. This modifies the ratio of the residual permeability of
the proppant
proppants pack (after compaction)
is introduced to the initial permeability
into the Kozeny–Carman equation as: (before compaction). A crushing rate
η of proppants is introduced into the Kozeny–Carman equation as:
φF 33 1 − φF0 2 2

kF
= ( 1 η ) 
k F0k F = 1    φF0
−   1  F 0  (16)
   1 − φF
F
(16)
kF 0  F 0   1  F 
Figure 3 presents the curve fitting of this formula to experimental data.
Further,
Further, the
the fracture
fracture conductivity
conductivity isis defined
defined asas the
the product
product of
of fracture
fracture width
width and
and fracture
fracture
permeability, an important index to evaluate the
the effect
effect of
of fracturing:
fracturing:
F w
Fcc = wFF kkFF (17)
(17)
Model Allometric1
Equation y = a*x^b
Reduced Chi-Sqr 3.28767E-4
0.3 Adj. R-Square 0.9688
Value Standard Error
a 4.22971E-4 1.89557E-4
B
b 1.5692 0.11094
Proppant embedment (mm)
0.2
0.1
0.0 Experimental data from Guo et al. (2008) [31]

Fitting by power law model
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Closure pressure (MPa)
(a)
Figure 3. Cont.
Energies 2018, 11, 654 9 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, x 9 of 29
0.7
Model Allometric1
Equation y = a*x^b
Reduced Chi-Sqr 2.68635E-
0.6 Adj. R-Square 0.99107
Value Standard Error
a 0.0403 0.00228
B
b 0.7000 0.01565
0.5
Proppant embedment (mm)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 Experimental data from Lu et al. (2008) [32]

Fitting by power law model
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Closure pressure (MPa)
(b)
Figure 3. Fitting for proppant embedment by power law model. (a) Proppant embedment test 1 [31];
Figure 3. Fitting
(b) Proppant for proppant
embedment test 2embedment
[32]. by power law model. (a) Proppant embedment test 1 [31];
(b) Proppant embedment test 2 [32].
3.3. Model Setup and Numerical Implementation Procedure
3.3. Model Setup and Numerical Implementation Procedure
The computational domain of the gas reservoir with discrete fracture network is 1500 m × 600 m
in the The computational
horizontal plane domain
and 100ofmthe in gas
the reservoir with discrete
vertical direction (see fracture
Figure 1). network is 1500 mis×located
The reservoir 600 m in at
the horizontal plane and 100 m in the vertical direction (see Figure 1). The
2000 m deep. The horizontal well length is 1000 m and locates at the center of the reservoir. The reservoir is located at 2000 m
deep. The horizontal
transverse well length
hydraulic fractures, is 1000
which are m and locates at
perpendicular tothe
the center
horizontalof the reservoir.
well, are evenly The distributed
transverse
hydraulic fractures, which
along the horizontal are perpendicular
wellbore. The domain is to the horizontal
divided into 2250well,
square arecells
evenly(eachdistributed
cell is 20 m along
× 20the
m)
horizontal wellbore. The domain is divided into 2250 square cells (each cell
to overlap both fractures and matrix. The finite elements are coincident with the square cells, thus is 20 m × 20 m) to overlap
both fractures and
also containing matrix.
2250 The finite elements are coincident with the square cells, thus also containing
elements.
2250 For
elements.
rock deformation, top and right boundaries are subjected to in-situ stress. They are in
maximumFor rock anddeformation, top and right
minimum (horizontal) stressboundaries
directions, are subjectedBottom
respectively. to in-situ andstress. They areare
left boundaries in
maximum
fixed in theand minimum
normal (horizontal)
direction. The initial stress directions,inrespectively.
displacement the whole domain Bottomisand set asleftzero.
boundaries are
For the gas
fixed
flow in the normal
natural direction.
fractures and The initial
matrix, thedisplacement in the
initial reservoir whole domain
pressure is pi. Noisfluxset is
as applied
zero. Foralong
the gasall
flow in natural
external fractures
boundaries. Theand matrix,boundaries
internal the initial reservoir
represent pressure
hydraulicis pi .fractures
No flux isand applied
theiralong
flow allis
external
described boundaries.
by Equation The(13).
internal boundaries
The pressures atrepresent hydraulic
the intersection fractures
points betweenand alltheir flow is described
hydraulic fractures
by
andEquation (13). Thewellbore
the horizontal pressures at all
are the given
intersection points between
as constant all hydraulic fractures
pw. All computational parametersand theare
horizontal
summarized wellbore
in Tableare 3. all given as constant pw . All computational parameters are summarized in
TableThe3. fully coupled hydro-mechanical FEC-DPM is implemented by solving the nonlinear partial
The fully
differential coupledofhydro-mechanical
equations Equations (4)–(17)FEC-DPM is implemented
and the corresponding by solvinglaws.
constitutive the nonlinear partial
A finite element
differential
code is developedequations of Equations
within the platform (4)–(17) and the corresponding
of COMSOL Multiphysics with constitutive
MATLABlaws. A finite element
(a commercial partial
code is developed within the platform of COMSOL Multiphysics with MATLAB
differential equations solver). Firstly, the information of discrete fractures (fracture density, trace (a commercial partial
differential
length, initialequations solver).
aperture, andFirstly, the information
orientation) is generatedof discrete
based on fractures (fracture density,
the Monte-Carlo method. trace length,
Secondly,
initial aperture,
both initial andfree)
(stress orientation) is generated
elastic compliance based
tensor andonpermeability
the Monte-Carlo method.
tensor Secondly,for
are calculated both
eachinitial
cell.
(stress free) elastic compliance tensor and permeability tensor are calculated
These two tensors consider both geometrical and mechanical properties of each fracture within this for each cell. These two
tensors consider
cell. Thirdly, theboth geometrical
governing and mechanical
equations for the rockproperties
deformation of each fracture within
of Equation (5), forthis thecell.
gas Thirdly,
flow of
the governing equations for the rock deformation of Equation
Equations (6) and (9) in matrix and natural fracture domain, and for the gas flow (5), for the gas flow of Equations
Equation (13) (6)
and
along (9)ain matrix and
hydraulic natural
fracture arefracture domain, and
simultaneously for by
solved theCOMSOL
gas flow of Equation (13)
Multiphysics withalong a hydraulic
MATLAB. It is
noted that the equation for the gas flow in a hydraulic fracture is implemented through a weak form
in the code. Both elastic compliance tensor and permeability tensor are expressed by a MATLAB
Energies 2018, 11, 654 10 of 29
fracture are simultaneously solved by COMSOL Multiphysics with MATLAB. It is noted that the
equation for the gas flow in a hydraulic fracture is implemented through a weak form in the code.
Both elastic compliance tensor and permeability tensor are expressed by a MATLAB script. The fracture
aperture, normal stiffness and shear stiffness (i.e., elastic compliance tensor and permeability tensor)
are updated based on the numerical results at the previous time step. A new fully coupled process
is restarted until the specified calculation time. At each time step, both gas production rate and
cumulative gas production are calculated. Finally, the objective function GRR is calculated according
to Equations (2) and (3).
Table 3. Computational parameters used in simulations.
Parameters Value
Model size, m 1500 × 600 × 100
Elastic modulus, E (GPa) 20.68
Solid bulk modulus, ks (GPa) 37.82
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.25
Bulk density, ρ (kg/m3 ) 2400
Maximum horizontal stress, (MPa) 43.34
Minimum horizontal stress, (MPa) 39.01
Initial reservoir pressure, pi (MPa) 28.27
Bottom hole pressure, pw (MPa) 15
Biot coefficient, αB 0.64
f racture
Fracture shear stiffness, Ks (GPa/M) 434
Initial normal stiffness, Kn0 (GPa/M) 434
Friction angle, (◦ ) 24.9
Dilation angle, (◦ ) 5
Methane dynamic viscosity, µ (Pa·s) 2.01 × 10−5
Reservoir temperature, T (K) 350
Langmuir pressure constant, PL (MPa) 10
Langmuir volume constant, VL (m3 /m3 ) 10
Density of adsorbed gas in the organic pores, ρads (kg/m3 ) 370
Matrix porosity ϕm 0.04
Hydraulic fracture porosity ϕF 0.3
3.4. FEC-DPM Model Validation

In order to validate the reliability of this FEC-DPM forward computation model, the history
matching is conducted based the multi-stage fractured horizontal well in the Barnett shale reservoir.
The field data are taken from [33]. As shown in Figure 4a, the horizontal well includes four hydraulic
fractures. Hydraulic fracture maps (half-length) were obtained by geophones installed in offset
wells [33]. The initial reservoirs pressure is 26.2 MPa and the bottom-hole pressure is 10.3 MPa.
The parameters related the natural fractures are taken from [14,34] because they had not been reported
in [6,33]. Other simulation parameters can be found in Table 3. Figure 4b compares the field data
with calculated results by our FEC-DPM model, Yu et al.’s model [6], and Grieser et al.’s model [33].
Furthermore, the corresponding cumulative gas productions are obtained to analyze prediction error.
From Figure 4b, Yu et al. [6] almost perfectly predicted the gas production rate in the first three-year
production. However, according to the tendency of prediction curve, the gas production is highly
likely to be overestimated after three years production. In addition, Grieser et al. [33] overestimated
approximately 30% in the cumulative gas production after about 1900 days. This phenomenon may be
induced by two main reasons. One is that they did not consider the effect of geomechanics and the
other is that their models were single porosity models that did not well reflect the multi-scale gas flow
in shale gas reservoirs. Due to low diffusivity in matrix and a little free gas stored in natural fractures,
gas production rate showed a rapid decline. Our model included these mechanisms, and thus has a
more reasonable matching with field data in short-term and long-term gas productions.
phenomenon may be induced by two main reasons. One is that they did not consider the effect of
geomechanics and the other is that their models were single porosity models that did not well reflect
the multi-scale gas flow in shale gas reservoirs. Due to low diffusivity in matrix and a little free gas
stored in natural fractures, gas production rate showed a rapid decline. Our model included these
mechanisms, and thus has a more reasonable matching with field data in short-term and long-term
Energies 2018, 11, 654 11 of 29
gas productions.
(a) (b)
1.6x105 1.0x108
Field data from Grieser et al. (2009) [33]
Simulation from Grieser et al. (2009) [33]
Hydraulic fracture Simulation from Yu et al. (2014) [6]
8.0x107
Cumulative gas production (m3)

Simulation in this study
1.2x105
Gas production rate (m3/day)

6.0x107
1524 m 8.0x104 Cumulative gas production
Gas production rate 4.0x107
4.0x104
2.0x107
Horizontal well
0.0 0.0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Production time (day)
1066.8 m
Figure
Figure 4.4. (a)
(a)Numerical
Numericalmodel
modelwith
withfour
fourhydraulic
hydraulicfractures
fracturesininthe
theBarnett
BarnettShale
Shaleand
and(b)
(b)history
history
matching for gas production rate and accumulative gas production.
matching for gas production rate and accumulative gas production.
4.4.Results
Resultsand
andDiscussions
Discussions
Hydraulic
Hydraulicfracturing
fracturingin
incombination
combinationwith withhorizontal
horizontaldrilling
drillinghas
hashad
hadaaprofound
profoundimpact
impacton onthe
the
enhancement of gas recovery in low permeability formations. However, current extraction
enhancement of gas recovery in low permeability formations. However, current extraction efficiency efficiency
isislow.
low. ItIthas
hasbeen
beenobserved
observedthat
thathydraulic
hydraulicfracturing
fracturingtreatments
treatmentsstill
stillleave
leavebehind
behind70–80%
70–80%of ofthe
the
estimated gas in place [7]. At the early stage of production, the methane in large fractures
estimated gas in place [7]. At the early stage of production, the methane in large fractures (hydraulic (hydraulic
fracture)
fracture)andandtheir
theiradjacent
adjacentnatural
naturalfracture
fracturenetworks
networksisisreleased
releasedquickly,
quickly,which
whichleads
leadstotothe
therapid
rapid
initial
initial decline in production [7]. Next, matrix block with high gas exchange rate that dependson
decline in production [7]. Next, matrix block with high gas exchange rate that depends onthe
the
distribution of natural fracture sustains the production at intermediate stage of production.
distribution of natural fracture sustains the production at intermediate stage of production. The matrix The
matrix blocklow
block with withgaslow gas exchange
exchange rate has rate
a lowhas a low and
diffusion diffusion and slow desorption
slow desorption process andprocess and
contributes
contributes to and controls long-term production. To understand parameter
to and controls long-term production. To understand parameter interaction from multi-scale flow interaction from
multi-scale
mechanismsflow mechanisms
further, we developfurther, we develop
an optimization anconsidering
model optimization
stress model considering
sensitivity stress
to characterize
sensitivity to characterize the key phenomena involved in hydraulic fracturing
the key phenomena involved in hydraulic fracturing and subsequent production. RSM combining with and subsequent
present reservoir simulation model is not only an optimization method, but also a tool for parameter
sensitivity analysis.
4.1. Simulation Results

Fully coupled FEC-DPM and RSM techniques have been simultaneously employed to investigate
the shale gas horizontal well performance during production process and thus to optimize these
multi-scale parameters. As there are seven variables, 46 numerical simulations (or runs) are first
performed without consideration of geomechanics, and then additional 46 numerical simulations are
performed incorporating consideration of geomechanics. Figure 5 compares the GRR of each run
with and without geomechanics. The reduction in production due to considering geomechanics is
chaotic for different Runs. As shown in Table 2, each Run corresponds to a distribution of natural
fractures, which induces different stress redistribution during gas production. Moreover, the responses
of 46 Runs obtained by I-optimal method determined the fitted response surface. It is observed that
the fitted response surface without geomechanics is different from that with geomechanics. This may
induce different optimization results. In addition, the first three reductions in production are Run 7,
11 and 26. They are much bigger than others. From Table 2, the matrix apparent diffusivities reach
their minimum value in these three Runs. Therefore, the properties of natural fractures play the most
Energies 2018, 11, 654 12 of 29
important role for GRR and the GRR without geomechanics is higher. Furthermore, the production
reduction can reach 47%. On this sense, the effect of stress on gas production is significant and cannot
be Energies
ignored.2018,Figure
11, x 6 compares the gas productions in short-term and long-term if the geomechanics 12 of 29
is Energies
considered.
2018, 11,Their
x difference indicates that fitting equations are different for short- and long-term 12 of 29
gasisproductions.
considered. Their differencethat
It is observed indicates that fitting
for long-term equationsRun
production, are different
11 has theforminimum
short- andGRRlong-term
and Run
isgas
considered.
productions. Their
It difference
is observed indicates
that for that fitting
long-term equationsRun
production, are different
11 has thefor short- and
minimum GRRlong-term
and Run
31 has the maximum GRR. The gas pressures in the matrix and fractures are shown in Figure 7 for
gas productions. It is observed that forpressures
long-term production, Runfractures
11 has theare
minimum GRR and Run
partial selected cases with various designs in Table 2. This figure shows that gas pressures infor
31 has the maximum GRR. The gas in the matrix and shown in Figure 7 both
31 has the
partial maximum
selected cases GRR.
with The gas designs
various pressuresin in the matrix
Table 2. This and fractures
figure shows are
thatshown
gas in Figure
pressures in 7both
for
matrix and fractures significantly vary with the set of parameters. The gas pressure in the matrix
partial
matrix selected cases significantly
and fractures with various vary
designs
withinthe
Table 2. parameters.
set of This figure shows
The gasthat gas pressures
pressure in both
in the matrix of
of Run 11 is much higher than that of Run 31. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there is a
matrix and fractures significantly vary with the set of parameters. The gas pressure
Run 11 is much higher than that of Run 31. It is therefore reasonable to assume that there is a close in the matrix of
close relationship between the distribution of matrix pressure and the hydraulic fracture properties
Run 11 is much
relationship higher the
between thandistribution
that of Run of 31. matrix
It is therefore
pressure reasonable
and the to assume that
hydraulic thereproperties
fracture is a close
(conductivity,
relationship spacing,
between and half-length),
theand
distribution natural
of matrix fracture properties (orientation, density, and aperture).
(conductivity, spacing, half-length), naturalpressure
fractureand the hydraulic
properties fracture
(orientation, properties
density, and
The next section
(conductivity, will explore
spacing, and this relationship
half-length), employing
natural fracturethe RSM method.
properties (orientation, density, and
aperture). The next section will explore this relationship employing the RSM method.
aperture). The next60 section will explore this relationship employing the RSM method. 60
Long-term without geomechanics Reduction in production
60 60
Long-termwithout
Long-term with geomechanics
geomechanics Reduction in production
50 Long-term with geomechanics 50
(%)(%)
50 50
in production
40 40
in production
40 40
(%)(%)
GRR
30 30
GRR
30 30
Reduction
Reduction
20 20
20 20
10 10
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0
5 10 15 20Run number
25 30 35 40 45
Run number
Figure 5. Gas recovery rates of 46 simulation cases without/with geomechanics.
Figure 5. Gas recovery rates of 46 simulation
Figure 5. Gas recovery rates of 46 simulationcases
caseswithout/with
without/with geomechanics.
geomechanics.
99.5
98
99.5
98
90
Counts
90
70
Counts
50
70
Cumulative
30
50
Cumulative
30
10
102
0.5
2
0.5
0.01
14
0.01
14
12
12
10
Counts
108
Counts
86
64
42
20
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 1 2 Short-term
3 4 GRR
5 (%)
6 7 8 0 5 10Long-term
15 20 GRR
25 30(%)35 40 45
Short-term GRR (%) Long-term GRR (%)
Figure 6. Histograms of GRRs of 46 runs in short-term and long-term gas productions with
Figure 6. Histograms of GRRs of 46 runs in short-term and long-term gas productions with
geomechanics.
Figure 6. Histograms of GRRs of 46 runs in short-term and long-term gas productions with geomechanics.
geomechanics.
Energies 2018, 11, x 13 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, 654 13 of 29
Fracture pressure Matrix pressure

Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term
Run 5
Run 11
Run 31
Run 44
Figure 7. Gas pressure distribution from simulation results for the partial 4 runs in short-term and long-term gas production according to Table 2.
Figure 7. Gas pressure distribution from simulation results for the partial 4 runs in short-term and long-term gas production according to Table 2.
Energies 2018, 11, 654 14 of 29
4.2. Regression Model and Statistical Analysis
4.2.1. Fitting Equations

In this study, the Design-Expert software (Stat-Ease, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) is employed
to build the GRR response surface model. The relationships of the objective functions with the seven
independent variables were explored by using the least squares regression. The polynomial models,
such as the linear model, the two-factor interaction model (2FI), the fully quadratic model, and the
cubic model, are statistically evaluated. The results for both short-term and long-term productions
are presented in Table 4. The response surface model is then used to select an appropriate model
which satisfies the following criterion: the highest polynomial model with additional significant terms
but not aliased. The cubic model has the highest polynomial model but is aliased. This means that
there are not enough unique design points to independently estimate all the coefficients for this model.
Using an aliased model will result in coefficients that are unstable and graphs that are not accurate.
Thus, the aliased model cannot be selected [2]. In addition, other criteria are applied to the selection of
model such as the maximum “adjusted R-squared” and “predicted R-squared”. The “Pred R-Squared”
is in reasonable agreement with the “Adj R-Squared”. The difference is less than 0.2 (see Table 4).
Thus, the fully quadratic model is finally selected to build the response surface in the subsequent
optimization process. In addition, the transformation of the response is an important component of
any data analysis. The transformation is needed if the error is a function of the magnitude of the
response (predicted values). Design-Expert (a statistical software package from Stat-Ease Inc.) provides
extensive diagnostic capabilities to check if the statistical assumptions underlying the data analysis are
met. Both models can be used to navigate the design
√ space. In following two objective functions, square
root transformations are recommended. The GRR response surface in the short-term production is
given by:
√
GRR = 1.54 + 0.60 × A + 0.11 × B + 0.068 × C + 0.026 × D + 0.10 × E + 0.22 × F
−0.075 × G − 0.018 × AB + 0.17 × AC + 0.013 × AD + 0.025 × AE
+0.064 × AF −0.034 × AG + 0.039 × BC + 0.066 × BD + 0.053 × BE
+0.014 × BF + 0.02 × BG −0.027 × CD + 0.041 × CE−0.018 × CF (18)
−0.033 × CG + 0.022 × DE + 2.816 × 10−4 × DF − 0.041 × DG + 0.046 × EF
+0.076 × EG − 0.04 × FG −0.29 × A2 +0.085 × B2 +0.20 × C2
−0.034 × D2 −0.19 × E2 −0.023 × F2 + 0.071 × G2
√
The GRR response surface in the long-term production is given by:
√
GRR = 4.54 + 1.47 × A + 0.31 × B + 0.54 × C + 0.09 × D + 0.14 × E + 0.41 × F
−0.09 × G + 0.063 × AB + 0.16 × AC − 0.052 × AD + 0.051 × AE
+0.11 × AF − 0.08 × AG + 0.11 × BC + 0.20 × BD + 0.18 × BE
−1.812 × 10−3 × BF − 2.745 × 10−3 × BG + 0.025 × CD + 0.047 × CE (19)
+0.14 × CF − 0.099 × CG + 0.13 × DE−0.012 × DF −8.547 × 10−3 × DG
+0.082 × EF + 0.059 × EG − 0.077 × FG −0.88 × A2 + 0.19 × B2 −0.091 × C2
−0.23 × D2 −0.36 × E2 +0.053 × F2 + 0.053 × G2
These equations can be used to predict the responses for given levels of individual factors.
By default, the high levels of the factors are coded as +1 and the low levels of the factors are coded
as −1. By comparing the factor coefficients, the coded equation is useful in identifying the relative
impact of the factors.
Energies 2018, 11, 654 15 of 29
Table 4. (a) Statistics approach to select the RSM model for short-term production. (b) Statistics
approach to select the RSM model for long-term production.
Std. Adjusted Predicted

Source R-Squared PRESS Fit or Not
Dev. R-Squared R-Squared
(a)
Linear 0.25 0.8495 0.8218 0.7799 3.38 -
2FI 0.26 0.9265 0.8054 −0.0031 15.40 -
Quadratic 0.065 0.9972 0.9874 0.8706 1.99 Suggested
Cubic 0.025 0.9999 0.9982 - - Aliased
(b)
Linear 0.51 0.8862 0.8653 0.8296 14.96 -
2FI 0.63 0.9235 0.7975 −0.3208 115.93 -
Quadratic 0.097 0.9989 0.9952 0.9485 4.52 Suggested
Cubic 0.029 1.0000 0.9996 - - Aliased
4.2.2. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

ANOVA evaluations of both models in Table 5 imply that both models can describe the
numerical experiments. In order to measure how well the suggested model fits the experimental data,
the parameters F-value, R2 , p-value, and lack of fit are used. The p-value (the values of “Prob > F”)
is the probability that the given statistical model is the same as or greater magnitude than the actual
observed results when the null hypothesis is true. If the p-value is small, the probability of the null
hypothesis occurrence is small. Therefore, smaller p-value corresponds to more significant result.
As seen in Table 5, F-values of model term are 101.97 and 267.44 for short-term and long-term gas
productions, respectively. The p-values < 0.0001 of model shows that there is only a 0.01% chance
that two large F-values could occur due to the noise in experiment, which implies that two quadratic
models are significant.
The p-value less than 0.0500 indicates that the corresponding model terms are significant.
From Table 5 (a) and (b), model terms A, B, C, E, F, G, AC, AF, BD, BE, DG, EF, EG, FG, A2 , B2 ,
C2 , E2 , G2 are significant model terms in the short-term model. For the long-term model, A, B, C, E, F,
G, AB, AC, AF, AG, BC, BD, BE, CF, CG, DE, EF, FG, A2 , B2 , C2 , D2 , E2 are significant model terms. A lot
of significant quadratic terms indicate that the effect of these variables on the GRR can be convincingly
modeled with the quadratic term. For short-term model, the quadratic terms for the NF orientation
(D2 ) and HF half-length (F2 ) are insignificant. However, HF half-length (F2 ) and HF spacing (G2 ) are
not significant for the long-term model. In addition, many significant interaction terms, such as AB
(interaction of matrix apparent matrix and NF aperture) indicate their close relationship.
Moreover, the F-values of Lack of Fit (Lack of Fit is also an important index to evaluate the
reliability of model) are 0.1112 and 0.0690 for short-term and long-term which indicates that lack of
fits is not significant compared to the actual pure error. The regression equation and coefficient of
determination are evaluated to test the fit of model. Residuals are the deviation between predicted and
actual values and expected to follow a normal distribution if the experimental errors are random. Thus,
the adequacy of the model should be firstly evaluated by determining whether the residuals follow
a normal distribution. The straight line in Figure 8 indicates that the Studentized residuals follow
a normal distribution. A significant S-shape curve is usually formed, if the residuals do not follow
a normal distribution. This type of curve is often formed due to the use of an inappropriate model,
which indicates whether an additional transformation of the response is necessary. The actual and
predicted GRR are plotted in Figure 9. The actual values are data for square root of each specific run
from Figure 6, and the predicted values are produced by the model. From Figure 9, both models can
predict actual GRR well. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the independence verification of the errors that
clarified some plots of the residuals versus predicted values and run order, respectively. The predicted
values and run number of the responses versus Studentized residuals are depicted. These graphs
Energies 2018, 11, 654 16 of 29
are able to detect the response variables. The observation from these figures indicates that there is
no unusual configuration such as sequences of positive and negative residuals or megaphone shape.
They further indicate that there is no reason to suspect any violation of independence, nor is there any
evidence pointing to possible outliers [35,36].
Table 5. (a) ANOVA for GRR in short-term response surface with quadratic model. (b) ANOVA for
GRR in long-term response surface with quadratic model.
p-Value
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Value Significant or Not
Prob > F
(a)
Model 15.31 35 0.44 101.97 <0.0001 significant
A 8.85 1 8.85 2061.94 <0.0001 -
B 0.26 1 0.26 59.46 <0.0001 -
C 0.10 1 0.10 23.76 0.0006 -
D 0.016 1 0.016 3.73 0.0823 -
E 0.23 1 0.23 52.56 <0.0001 -
F 1.22 1 1.22 285.53 <0.0001 -
G 0.14 1 0.14 33.69 0.0002 -
AB 3.759 × 10−3 1 3.759 × 10−3 0.88 0.3713 -
AC 0.43 1 0.43 99.09 <0.0001 -
AD 2.101 × 10−3 1 2.101 × 10−3 0.49 0.5000 -
AE 8.553 × 10−3 1 8.553 × 10−3 1.99 0.1883 -
AF 0.071 1 0.071 16.62 0.0022 -
AG 0.017 1 0.017 4.06 0.0714 -
BC 0.019 1 0.019 4.47 0.0607 -
BD 0.061 1 0.061 14.33 0.0036 -
BE 0.038 1 0.038 8.85 0.0139 -
BF 3.217 × 10−3 1 3.217 × 10−3 0.75 0.4068 -
BG 5.927 × 10−3 1 5.927 × 10−3 1.38 0.2670 -
CD 0.011 1 0.011 2.53 0.1430 -
CE 0.021 1 0.021 4.96 0.0500 -
CF 4.226 × 10−3 1 4.226 × 10−3 0.99 0.3443 -
CG 0.015 1 0.015 3.42 0.0943 -
DE 6.599 × 10−3 1 6.599 × 10−3 1.54 0.2432 -
DF 1.172 × 10−6 1 1.172 × 10−6 2.733×10−4 0.9871 -
DG 0.030 1 0.030 6.98 0.0247 -
EF 0.028 1 0.028 6.62 0.0278 -
EG 0.081 1 0.081 18.85 0.0015 -
FG 0.025 1 0.025 5.94 0.0350 -
A2 0.52 1 0.52 121.85 <0.0001 -
B2 0.036 1 0.036 8.37 0.0160 -
C2 0.24 1 0.24 56.93 <0.0001 -
D2 6.635 × 10−3 1 6.635 × 10−3 1.55 0.2420 -
E2 0.19 1 0.19 44.65 <0.0001 -
F2 2.860 × 10−3 1 2.860 × 10−3 0.67 0.4333 -
G2 0.032 1 0.032 7.46 0.0211 -
Residual 0.043 10 4.290 × 10−3 -
Lack of Fit 0.042 8 5.207 × 10−3 8.36 0.1112 not significant
Pure Error 1.246 × 10−3 2 6.230 × 10−4 -
Cor Total 15.35 45 -
(b)
Model 87.68 35 2.51 267.44 <0.0001 significant
A 53.13 1 53.13 5672.42 <0.0001 -
B 2.18 1 2.18 232.70 <0.0001 -
C 6.45 1 6.45 689.12 <0.0001 -
D 0.19 1 0.19 20.42 0.0011 -
E 0.44 1 0.44 46.94 <0.0001 -
F 4.37 1 4.37 466.98 <0.0001 -
G 0.21 1 0.21 22.32 0.0008 -
AB 0.048 1 0.048 5.08 0.0478 -
AC 0.36 1 0.36 38.06 0.0001 -
AD 0.035 1 0.035 3.76 0.0810 -
Energies 2018, 11, x 17 of 29
AB 0.048 1 0.048 5.08 0.0478 -

Energies AC
2018, 11, 654 0.36 1 0.36 38.06 0.0001 - 17 of 29
AD 0.035 1 0.035 3.76 0.0810 -
AE 0.035 1 0.035 3.75 0.0816 -
AF 0.21 1 0.21 5. Cont.
Table 22.53 0.0008 -
AG 0.099 1 0.099 10.55 0.0088 -
BC 0.14 1 0.14 15.11 0.0030
p-Value -
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Value Significant or Not
BD 0.57 1 0.57 61.09 Prob >F
<0.0001 -
AE
BE 0.0350.44 11 0.035
0.44 3.7546.61 0.0816
<0.0001 --
AF 0.21 1 0.21 22.53 0.0008 -
BF 5.167 × 10−5 1 5.167 × 10−5 5.516 × 10−3 0.9423 -
AG 0.099 1 0.099 10.55 0.0088 -
BG
BC 1.154
0.14 × 10
−4
11 1.154
0.14× 10
−4 0.012
15.11 0.9138
0.0030 --
CD
BD 9.434
0.57 × 10−3 11 9.434
0.57× 10−3 61.091.01 0.3392
<0.0001 --
BE
CE 0.440.028 11 0.44
0.028 46.613.03 <0.0001
0.1126 --
BF 5.167 × 10−5 1 5.167 × 10−5 5.516 × 10−3 0.9423 -
CF
BG
0.25
1.154 × 10−4 1
1 0.25
1.154 × 10−4 0.012
26.87 0.0004
0.9138 -
-
CG
CD 9.434 × 0.13
10−3 11 9.434 0.13
× 10−3 1.0113.88 0.0039
0.3392 --
DE
CE 0.0280.22 11 0.22
0.028 3.0323.34 0.0007
0.1126 --
CF
DF 0.25 × 10−3
2.136 11 0.25× 10−3
2.136 26.870.23 0.0004
0.6432 --
CG 0.13 1 0.13 13.88 0.0039 -
DG
DE 1.290
0.22 × 10
−3
11 1.290
0.22× 10
−3
23.340.14 0.7183
0.0007 --
EF
DF 10−3
2.136 ×0.092 11 × 10−3
2.1360.092 0.239.78 0.0107
0.6432 --
DG
EG 10−3
1.290 ×0.049 11 × 10−3
1.2900.049 0.145.27 0.7183
0.0446 --
EF 0.092 1 0.092 9.78 0.0107 -
FG 0.095 1 0.095 10.14 0.0098 -
EG 0.049 1 0.049 5.27 0.0446 -
A
FG
2
0.0954.82 11 4.82
0.095 514.41
10.14 <0.0001
0.0098 --
AB22 4.820.17 11 0.17
4.82 18.27
514.41 0.0016
<0.0001 --
BC2 0.170.049 11 0.17 18.275.20 0.0016 --
2 0.049 0.0457
C2 2 0.049 1 0.049 5.20 0.0457 -
D
D2 0.31
0.31 1
1 0.31
0.31 32.94
32.94 0.0002
0.0002 -
-
E E
2 2
0.720.72 11 0.72
0.72 76.4476.44 <0.0001
<0.0001 --
F2F2 0.0150.015 11 0.015
0.015 1.641.64 0.2290
0.2290 --
GG2 0.018 11 0.018 1.901.90 0.1984 --
2 0.018 0.018 0.1984
Residual 0.094 10 9.367 × 10−3−3 -
Residual
Lack of Fit 0.0920.094 810 9.367
0.012× 10 13.86 0.0690 -
not significant
LackError
Pure of Fit 1.660 ×0.092
10−3 28 8.3000.012
× 10−4 13.86 0.0690 not significant
-
Cor Total
Pure Error 87.77
1.660 × 10−3 452 8.300 × 10−4 --
Cor Total 87.77 45 -
Design-Expert® Software
Sqrt(R11) Normal Plot of Residuals
2.676
Color points by value of
Sqrt(R11):
2.913
99
0.286
95
Normal Probability (%)
90
80
Normal % Probability
70
50
30
20
10
0.361
-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Internally Studentized Residuals

Internally Studentized
(a) Short-term gas Residuals
production
Figure 8. Cont.
Energies 2018, 11, 654 18 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, x 18 of 29
Sqrt(R11) Energies 2018, 11, x Normal Plot of Residuals 19 of 30
6.391
Color points by value of
Sqrt(R11):
6.391 99
1.363
95
Normal Probability (%) 90

Normal % Probability
80
70
50
30
20
10
1.363
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Internally Studentized
(b) Long-term gas Residuals
production
(b)of
Figure 8. Normal plot Long-term
residuals gas production
at different production period.
Sqrt(R1) Figure 8. NormalPredicted vs.
plot of residuals at Actual
different production period.
Figure 8. Normal plot of residuals at different production period.
Color points by value of 3 2.676
Sqrt(R1):
2.676
0.361 2.5
2
Predicted
Predicted
1.5
0.5
0
0.361
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Actual
Actual
(a) Short-term gas production
Figure 9. Cont.
Energies 2018, 11, 654 19 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, x 20 of 30
Energies 2018, 11, x 19 of 29
Sqrt(R11) Predicted vs. Actual
Color points by value of 7
6.391
Sqrt(R11):
6.391
1.363 6
5
Predicted
Predicted
1
1.363
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Actual
(b) Long-term gas production
Actual gas production
(b) Long-term
Figure 9. Predicted √√ versus actual √√ plot at different production periods.
Figure 9.
Figure Predicted √𝐺𝑅𝑅
9. Predicted versus actual √𝐺𝑅𝑅
GRR versus GRR plot at different production periods.
Sqrt(R1)
Residuals
Residuals vs.vs.Predicted
Predicted
Color points by value of 3.00

3 2.676
Sqrt(R1):
2.676
0.361 2.00
1.00
0
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3
-3.00
0.361
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Predicted
Predicted
Figure 10. Cont.

Energies 2018, 11, 654 20 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, x 20 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, x 20 of 29
Sqrt(R11)
Design-Expert® Software Residuals vs.vs.
Residuals Predicted
Predicted
Sqrt(R11) Residuals vs.vs.
Residuals Predicted
Predicted
3 6.391
Sqrt(R11):
3 6.391
6.391
Sqrt(R11):
6.391
2.00
Residuals
1.363 Residuals
2.00
1.363 StudentizedResiduals
Residuals
1.00
1.00
Studentized
Studentized
Studentized
0
0.00
0
0.00
Internally
Internally
-1.00
Internally
Internally
-1.00
-2.00
-2.00
-3
-3.00
-3.00
-3 1.363
1.363
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Figure 10. The Studentized residuals and predicted responses at different production periods.
Figure
Figure10.
10.The
TheStudentized
Studentizedresiduals
residualsand
andpredicted
predicted responses
responses at
at different
different production
production periods.
Sqrt(R1)
Design-Expert® Software Residuals
Residualsvs. Run
vs. Run
Sqrt(R1)
3
Residuals
Residualsvs. Run
vs. Run
2.676
Sqrt(R1):
3 2.676
2.676
Sqrt(R1):
2.676
Residuals
0.361 2.00
Residuals
StudentizedResiduals
0.361 2.00
Residuals
1.00
1.00
Studentized
Studentized
Studentized
0
0.00
0
0.00
Internally
Internally
-1.00
Internally
Internally
-1.00
-2.00
-2.00
-3
-3.00
-3.00
-3 0.361
0.361
1 10 19 28 37 46
1 10 19 28 37 46
Run Number
Run Number
(a) Short-term
Run Numbergas production
(a) Short-term
Run Numbergas production
Figure 11. Cont.

Energies 2018, 11, 654 21 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, x 21 of 29
Sqrt(R11)
Residualsvs.
Residuals vs. Run
Run

3 6.391
Sqrt(R11):
6.391
1.363 Internally Studentized Residuals 2.00

1.00
0
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3
-3.00
1.363
1 10 19 28 37 46
Run Number
Run Number
Figure 11. Studentized residuals versus run number at different production periods.
Figure 11. Studentized residuals versus run number at different production periods.
4.3. Sensitivity Analysis
4.3. Sensitivity Analysis
The percentage contribution of each term is obtained by adding up the total sum of squares in
each The
termpercentage
divided bycontribution
the total, seeofTableeach term
5. When is obtained
all termsbyhave adding
the up
samethedegrees
total sum of squaresthe
of freedom, in
each term divided
contributions can bebyused
the total, see Table
to determine 5. When
which terms allare
termsmore have the same
significant thandegrees of freedom,
the others. Figurethe12
contributions
shows can be of
the influence used to determine
linear and quadratic which terms
terms onare more significant
short-term than the
and long-term others.
GRR. TheFigure
order 12
of
shows theofinfluence
influence the sevenoflinear
linear and for
terms quadratic
short-term terms on short-term
is: A-Matrix diffusivity GRR.
and long-term
apparent > F-HFThe order of
half-length
>influence
B-Initial of
NFthe seven linear
aperture terms
> E-Initial HFforconductivity
short-term is: A-Matrix
> G-HF apparent
spacing > C-NF diffusivity
density >>D-NF F-HForientation.
half-length
> B-Initial
The order NF aperture >ofE-Initial
of influence the seven HFlinear
conductivity
terms for > G-HF spacing >production
the long-term C-NF density > D-NF orientation.
is: A-Matrix apparent
The order of
diffusivity influence
> C-NF of the
density seven
> F-HF linear terms
half-length for the long-term
> B-Initial NF aperture production
> E-Initialis: HFA-Matrix apparent
conductivity > G-
diffusivity > C-NF density > F-HF half-length > B-Initial NF aperture
HF spacing> D-NF orientation. The term of matrix apparent diffusivity has the most significant > E-Initial HF conductivity
> G-HF spacing>
positive impact on D-NF
GRRorientation. The termand
in both short-term of matrix
long-termapparent diffusivity has
gas productions the most
though the significant
quadratic
positive impact
influence of this on GRR
factor hasinaboth short-term
relatively and long-term
large negative effect on gasGRR.
productions
The influencethough the quadratic
of linear term of
influence
NF of this
orientation is factor has a relatively
the weakest one for both large negative
models. Theeffect on GRR. The
HF half-length playsinfluence
a relative ofimportant
linear term of
role
NF orientation
and is the weakest
ranks the second one forapparent
only to matrix both models. The HF
diffusivity in half-length
short-term plays a relative
production. Theimportant
impact ofroleNF
and ranks
density on the
GRR second
is moreonly to matrixfor
significant apparent diffusivity
the long-term in short-term
production production.
compared The impact
to the short-term of
one.
NF density
This on GRR
is because is more
a larger NFsignificant
density can for the long-term
enhance production
gas diffusion compared
from the shale to the short-term
matrix one.
to natural
This is because a larger NF density can enhance gas diffusion from the shale matrix to natural fractures.
fractures.
According to tothe
theabove
abovestudy, thethe
study, 3D 3Dresponse
responsesurface plots plots
surface are shown in Figure
are shown in 13a–f
Figure to 13a–f
describe
to
the interaction
describe of different
the interaction ofvariables
differenton GRR foron
variables long-term
GRR forgaslong-term
production. gasAll fixed parameters
production. All fixedin
Figure 13 are
parameters in set
Figureas their
13 are median values.
set as their Figure
median 13a indicates
values. Figure 13a that the enhancement
indicates in the matrix
that the enhancement in
apparent
the matrixdiffusivity
apparentplays a moreplays
diffusivity significant
a more influential
significant in GRR while
roleinfluential rolethein GRR
GRRincreases
while the slightly
GRR
with the increase
increases slightly of natural
with fracture of
the increase aperture.
naturalThough
fracturenatural
aperture. fractures
Though dominate
natural gas transport
fractures inside
dominate
reservoirs,
gas transport higher
inside matrix apparent
reservoirs, diffusivity
higher means higher
matrix apparent flow means
diffusivity capacity for gas
higher transport
flow capacitytowards
for gas
natural fracture
transport towardsand then fracture
natural hydraulic and fractures for long-term
then hydraulic fractures production.
for long-term With the increase
production. Withof the
matrix apparent
increase of the matrixdiffusivity,
apparentthe GRR increases
diffusivity, the412.5% when the 412.5%
GRR increases initial NFwhenfracture aperture
the initial NF isfracture
10 µm.
This percentage
aperture is 10 μm. decreases to 362.8%decreases
This percentage when initial NF fracture
to 362.8% when aperture is 20
initial NF µm. Figure
fracture 13b illustrates
aperture is 20 μm.
Figure 13b illustrates the relationship between initial NF aperture and NF density. A bigger NF
density implies a shorter distant between natural fracture and matrix block, thus inducing a larger
GRR. The largest GRR occurs where the initial NF aperture and NF density take the maximum
Energies 2018, 11, 654 22 of 29
the relationship between initial NF aperture and NF density. A bigger NF density implies a shorter
distant between natural fracture and matrix block, thus inducing a larger GRR. The largest GRR occurs
Energies 2018, 11, x 22 of 29
where the initial NF aperture and NF density take the maximum simultaneously. Figure 13c reveals that
GRR increases with increasing NF density. Figure 13d shows the influence of initial HF conductivity
simultaneously. Figure 13c reveals that GRR increases with increasing NF density. Figure 13d shows
and NF orientation on GRR, with GRR first increases and then decreases with increasing initial HF
the influence of initial HF conductivity and NF orientation on GRR, with GRR first increases and then
conductivity. Simultaneously, NF orientation has a very small impact on GRR because it mainly controls
decreases with increasing initial HF conductivity. Simultaneously, NF orientation has a very small
NF permeability tensor. In addition, the NF orientation has an impact on the mechanical properties of
impact on GRR because it mainly controls NF permeability tensor. In addition, the NF orientation
the reservoir, which may induce the shear dilation of natural fracture. Generally speaking, fracture
has an impact on the mechanical properties of the reservoir, which may induce the shear dilation of
shear is thought to be enhanced when natural fractures are oriented at an angle to the maximum stress
natural fracture. Generally speaking, fracture shear is thought to be enhanced when natural fractures
direction, or when both vertical stresses and horizontal stress anisotropy are high [14]. Figure 13e
are oriented at an angle to the maximum stress direction, or when both vertical stresses and
shows the influence of HF half-length and initial HF conductivity on GRR. In general, GRR increases
horizontal stress anisotropy are high [14]. Figure 13e shows the influence of HF half-length and initial
significantly with increasing HF half-length and with initial HF conductivity, but the rate of increase
HF conductivity on GRR. In general, GRR increases significantly with increasing HF half-length and
decreases with increasing Initial HF conductivity. Figure 13f shows the relationship of HF spacing, HF
with initial HF conductivity, but the rate of increase decreases with increasing Initial HF conductivity.
half-length and GRR. It is found that GRR increases with increasing HF half-length and decreasing
Figure 13f shows the relationship of HF spacing, HF half-length and GRR. It is found that GRR
HF spacing. This can be attributed to the situation with larger HF half-length during gas production,
increases with increasing HF half-length and decreasing HF spacing. This can be attributed to the
the HF half-length is mainly used to communicate with shale matrix, natural fracture and hydraulic
situation with larger HF half-length during gas production, the HF half-length is mainly used to
fracture. With the increase of HF half-length, the GRR increases 50.3% when HF spacing is 40 m.
communicate with shale matrix, natural fracture and hydraulic fracture. With the increase of HF half-
The percentage decreases to 33.7% when HF spacing is 100 m. Sensitivity analysis indicates that this
length, the GRR increases 50.3% when HF spacing is 40 m. The percentage decreases to 33.7% when
methodology can provide some insights in the optimization of reservoir reformation to obtain the
HF spacing is 100 m. Sensitivity analysis indicates that this methodology can provide some insights
maximum GRR. In conclusion, the sensitivity analysis results indicate that matrix apparent diffusivity
in the optimization of reservoir reformation to obtain the maximum GRR. In conclusion, the
has the most significant positive impact on GRR. The enhancement of matrix diffusivity and gas
sensitivity analysis results indicate that matrix apparent diffusivity has the most significant positive
desorption is a key issue to sustain high gas production rate. Therefore, artificial treatments such as
impact on GRR. The enhancement of matrix diffusivity and gas desorption is a key issue to sustain
heating recovery [37,38] to change the micro-structure of matrix are key to enhance the gas recovery
high gas production rate. Therefore, artificial treatments such as heating recovery [37,38] to change
for long-term gas production.
the micro-structure of matrix are key to enhance the gas recovery for long-term gas production.
75
Short-term
Long-term
70
Influence (%)
10
-
0 2 2
A B C D E F G A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F G Others
Factor
Figure 12. Influences of factors on GRR for short-term and long-term gas production.
Figure 12. Influences of factors on GRR for short-term and long-term gas production.
Energies2018,
Energies 11,x654
2018,11, 23of
23 of29
29
Design-Expert® Software Factor Coding: Actual
Factor Coding: Actual Original Scale
Original Scale R11
R11 35
35
(a) 5 (b)
5
35
35
X1 = B: B 35 35
X1 = A: A
X2 = C: C
X2 = B: B 28
28
Actual Factors Actual Factors
C: C = 0.003 A: A = 25.5 21
21
D: D = 45 D: D = 45
E: E = 5.05 E: E = 5.05
14 F: F = 80 14
F: F = 80
G: G = 70 G: G = 70 GRR (%)
GRR (%) 7
7
0 0
5 5
20 50 0.005 20
18 43
0.004 18
36
16 29 16
22 0.003
14 14
B: Initial NF aperture 12
15
C: NF density 0.002 B: Initial NF aperture
8 A: Matrix apparent diffusivity 12
10 1 0.001 10
Actual Factors: Actual Factors:
Design-Expert® Software C: NF density = 0.003 D: NF orientation = 45 A: Matrix apparent diffusivity = 25.5 D: NF orientation = 45
Factor Coding: Actual
Factor Coding: Actual E: Initial HF conductivity = 5.05 F: HF half-length = 80
Original Scale E: Initial HF conductivity = 5.05 F: HF half-length = 80
Original Scale G: HF spacing = 70
R11
R11 G: HF spacing = 70
35 35
5
(c) 5 (d)
35 35
X1 = C: C X1 = D: D 35 30
X2 = D: D X2 = E: E
28 28

A: A = 25.5 A: A = 25.5 21
21
B: B = 15 B: B = 15
E: E = 5.05 C: C = 0.003
F: F = 80 14 F: F = 80 14
G: G = 70 G: G = 70 GRR (%)
GRR (%)
7 7
0 0
5 5
80 0.005 10 80
70 8.9 70
0.004 7.8
60 6.7 60
50 5.6 50
0.003
40 4.5 40
D: NF orientation 30 0.002
C: NF density E: Initial HF conductivity 3.4 30 D: NF orientation
2.3
20 1.2 20
Actual Factors: 10 0.001 0.1 10
Actual Factors:
A: Matrix apparent diffusivity = 25.5 Design-Expert®
B: Initial NF aperture =15Software A: Matrix apparent diffusivity =25.5 B: Initial NF aperture =15
Factor Coding: Actual
E: Initial HF conductivity = 5.05 Factor Coding:
F: HF half-length = 80 Actual
Original Scale C: NF density = 0.003 F: HF half-length = 80
Original Scale
R11 G: HF spacing = 70 R11 G: HF spacing = 70
35 35
5 (e) 5 (f)
35 35
X1 = E: E X1 = F: F 30 35
X2 = F: F X2 = G: G
28 28
A: A = 25.5 21 A: A = 25.5 21
B: B = 15 B: B = 15
C: C = 0.003 C: C = 0.003
D: D = 45 14 D: D = 45 14
G: G = 70 E: E = 5.05
GRR (%) GRR (%)
7 7
0 0
5 5
120 10 100 120
8.9 90
7.8 100
100 80
6.7
5.6 70 80
80 4.5
G: HF spacing 60
F: HF half-length 3.4 E: Initial HF conductivity 60 F: HF half-length
60 2.3 50
1.2 40 40
Actual Factors: 40 0.1 Actual Factors:
A: Matrix apparent diffusivity = 25.5 B: Initial NF aperture = 15 A: Matrix apparent diffusivity = 25.5 B: Initial NF aperture = 15
C: NF density = 0.003 D: NF oientation = 45 C: NF density = 0.003 D: NF orientation= 45
G: HF spacing = 70 E: Initial HF conductivity = 5.05
Figure
Figure 13.
13. 3D
3Dsurface
surfacefor
forinteraction
interactioneffect
effectofoftwo-parameter
two-parameteron long-termGRR
onlong-term GRR response
response at
at fixed
fixed
values
values of other parameters ((a) Influence of matrix apparent diffusivity and initial NF aperture on
of other parameters ((a) Influence of matrix apparent diffusivity and initial NF aperture on
GRR
GRR;; (b)
(b) Influence
Influence of
of initial
initial NF
NF aperture
aperture and
and NF
NFdensity onGRR
densityon GRR;; (c)
(c) Influence
Influence of
of NF
NF density
density and
andNF NF
orientation
orientationononGRR
GRR;; (d)
(d) Influence
Influence of
of NF
NForientation
orientationand
andinitial
initialHF
HFconductivity
conductivityononGRR
GRR;; (e)
(e)Influence
Influence
of
ofinitial
initialHF
HFconductivity
conductivityand
andHFHFhalf-length onGRR
half-lengthon GRR;; (f)
(f) Influence
Influence of
of HF
HF half-length
half-lengthand
andHF HFspacing
spacing
on GRR
on GRR). ).
Energies 2018, 11, x654
2018, 11, 24 of 29
4.4. Optimization Results

4.4. Optimization Results
The index of GRR reflects the overall response of the formation subjected to short-term and long-
The index of GRR
term gas production. reflects
Larger indexthe overall
implies response
more efficientof gas
the production.
formation subjected
This indextoisshort-term
very important and
long-term gas production. Larger index implies more efficient gas production.
to describe the shale gas productivity. In this study, the numerical optimization with the response This index is very
important to describe
surface method the shale
is conducted gas productivity.
to select In this study,
the set of variables for the the numerical
multi-scale gasoptimization
flow that leads withto the
the
response
maximum GRR. All variables are in their ranges. A total of 100 optimal projects are generated leads
surface method is conducted to select the set of variables for the multi-scale gas flow that after
to the maximum
numerical GRR. All
optimization. variables
Figures are in
14 and 15 their
showranges.
the topA10total of 100for
solutions optimal projects are
the maximum generated
GRR and the
after
corresponding responses of GRR. Figure 14 shows that the matrix apparent diffusivity, initial and
numerical optimization. Figures 14 and 15 show the top 10 solutions for the maximum GRR NF
the corresponding
aperture, NF density responses GRR. Figure
and HFofhalf-length are14 shows
close that the
to their matrix apparent
maximum and havediffusivity, initial NF
smaller changes for
aperture, NF density
all the desirable and HF
solutions. HFhalf-length are close
spacing locates aroundto their
the maximum and have
minimum value. NFsmaller changes
orientation and for all
initial
the
HF desirable solutions.
conductivity HF spacing
show higher locates for
uncertainty around
the 10 thesolutions.
minimum value.15NF
Figure orientation
shows and initial
the optimal GRRsHF in
conductivity show higher uncertainty for the 10 solutions. Figure
the current ranges of parameters are 10% for short-term production and 60% for long-term15 shows the optimal GRRs in the
current ranges
production. of parameters
They are 10% ranges
are in reasonable for short-term
according production
to [2]. Itand 60% for
is noted long-term
that this studyproduction.
did not
They are in reasonable ranges according to [2]. It is noted that this study
investigate other parameters such as bottom-hole pressure, in-situ stress, and gas adsorption did not investigate other
parameters
parameters, although these parameters are very important to gas production [2,39,40]. these
such as bottom-hole pressure, in-situ stress, and gas adsorption parameters, although This
parameters are very important to gas production [2,39,40]. This optimization
optimization process indicated that the optimization room is relatively small, but sensitivity analysis process indicated that
the optimization room is relatively small, but sensitivity analysis reveals that
reveals that matrix diffusion plays an incomparable role in gas production. Thus, the optimization matrix diffusion plays an
incomparable role in gas production. Thus,
results depend on matrix diffusion over other parameters.the optimization results depend on matrix diffusion over
other parameters.
60 25
(a) Short-term (b) Short-term
Long-term Long-term
50
20
B-Initial NF fracture aperture
A-Matrix apprent diffusivity
40
15
30
10
20
5
10
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of solutions Number of solutions
0.006 90
(c) Short-term (d) Short-term
Long-term 80 Long-term
0.005
70
0.004 60
D-NF orientation
C-NF density
50
0.003
40
0.002 30
20
0.001
10
0.000 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 14. Cont.

Energies 2018, 11, 654 25 of 29
Energies 2018, 11, x 25 of 29
(e) Short-term (f) Short-term

Energies 2018,
10 11, x Long-term
140
Long-term
25 of 29
120
8 (e) Short-term (f) Short-term
140
E- Initial HF conductivity
10
Long-term 100 Long-term
F-HF half-length
120
6 80
8
E- Initial HF conductivity
100
60
F-HF half-length
4
6 80
40
60
2 4
20
40
0 2 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 0
(g) 1 2 3 4 5 6
Short-term 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
50
Long-term
(g) Short-term
40 50
Long-term
G-HF spacing
40
30
G-HF spacing
30
20
20
10
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 Number of solutions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 14. Magnitudes of of solutions for the desired top 10 solutions of GRR ((a) Influence of matrix
variables
Number
Figure 14. Magnitudes of variables for the desired top 10 solutions of GRR ((a) Influence of matrix
parameter; (b–d)
Figure 14. are influence
Magnitudes of natural
of variables for fracture parameters;
the desired (e–g) are
top 10 solutions of influence
GRR ((a) of hydraulic
Influence fracture
of matrix
parameter; (b–d) are influence of natural fracture parameters; (e–g) are influence of hydraulic
parameters).
parameter; (b–d) are influence of natural fracture parameters; (e–g) are influence of hydraulic fracture
fracture parameters).
parameters).
100
100
Short-term
Short-term
Long-term
80 Long-term
80
Optimal GRR (%)
Optimal GRR (%)
60
60
40
40
2020
0 0
0 0 22 44 66 88 10
10
Number
Number of
of solutions
solutions
Figure15.
Figure 15.Optimal GRR for
OptimalGRR for top
top 10 solutions.
solutions.
Figure 15. Optimal GRR for top 10 solutions.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In In
thisthis study,the
study, theresponse
responsesurface
surface methodology
methodology is is combined
combined withwith aa fully
fullycoupled
coupledhydro-
hydro-
In this study, the response surfacethe
methodology is seven
combined with a factors
fully coupled hydro-mechanical
mechanical FEC-DPM to explore the influence of seven uncertain factors (i.e., matrixapparent
mechanical FEC-DPM to explore influence of uncertain (i.e., matrix apparent
FEC-DPM to explore
diffusivity, initial theaperture,
influenceNFof seven uncertain factors (i.e., matrixconductivity,
apparent diffusivity, initial NF
diffusivity, initial NFNF aperture, NF density,
density, NF orientation,
NF orientation, initial
initial HF
HF conductivity,HF HFhalf-length
half-length
andand spacing) on the gas recovery rate (GRR) in short-term and long-term productions. An example is
spacing) on the gas recovery rate (GRR) in short-term and long-term productions. An example is
Energies 2018, 11, 654 26 of 29
aperture, NF density, NF orientation, initial HF conductivity, HF half-length and spacing) on the gas
recovery rate (GRR) in short-term and long-term productions. An example is numerically analyzed in
details. Based on these investigations, the following insights and conclusions can be made.
First, the proposed approach is feasible and efficient for the design and optimization of multi-stage
hydraulically fractured horizontal wells with multi-parameters. The GRR response surface model is
reliable in the prediction compared with the actual values of GRR. RSM combining with reservoir
simulation model can be not only an alternative optimization method, but also a tool for parameter
sensitivity analysis.
Second, the influence of these seven uncertain factors for short-term production is ranked as:
A-Matrix apparent diffusivity > F-HF half-length > B-Initial NF aperture > E-Initial HF conductivity
> G-HF spacing > C-NF density > D-NF orientation. This ranking for long-term production becomes:
A-Matrix apparent diffusivity > C-NF density > F-HF half-length > B-Initial NF aperture > E-Initial HF
conductivity > G-HF spacing> D-NF orientation. Therefore, the matrix apparent diffusivity plays the
most important role in short-term and long-term gas productions although hydraulic fracturing is a
vital factor.
Third, optimization results show that the gas recovery rate can reach 10% in short-term and 60%
in long-term if the multi-factor optimization of these parameters is done for a multi-stage hydraulically
fractured shale gas horizontal well. Therefore, combining hydraulic fracturing with an auxiliary
method may be an effective alternative method for the maximum GRR in the development of shale gas.
As a final remark, this study conducted the optimal design solutions by RSM optimization for shale
gas production. The visualization of gas recovery rate evolution in the present numerical modeling
throws new lights on the understanding of interactions among multi-scale controlling variables.
These analyses provide a deep insight into the sensitivity analysis as well as the contributions of
different factors on maximizing the gas recovery rate through an optimization model. These analyses
also indicate that some artificial treatments, such as heating recovery, can be carried out to improve
gas recovery rate. This is a topic for our further study.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the financial supports from the China Scholarship Council
(CSC, Grant No. 201706420033) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51674246).
Author Contributions: Jia Liu proposed the optimization model, implemented the numerical simulations and
prepared the draft of manuscript. Jianguo Wang designed and modified the theoretical framework and the
structures of manuscript; Chunfai Leung corrected English. Feng Gao deduced some equations and revised
some Figures.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Nomenclature
C Proppant pack compressibility index, dimensionless
D 4th order elasticity tensor which is the inverse of the total elastic compliance tensor, GPa
Dapp Gas apparent diffusivity in shale matrix, m2 /s
F Body force, N/m3
Fs Shape factor, m−2
I Identity tensor
J (U) GRR objective function with key parameters, %
ks Solid bulk modulus of the grain, GPa
kF Permeability of hydraulic fractures, m2
Kn Fracture normal stiffness, GPa/m
Ks Total fracture shear stiffness, GPa/m
Ks1 ,Ks2 Shear stiffness before and after shear, respectively, GPa/m
Kij Permeability tensor of natural fracture, m2
Mg Apparent molecular weight of shale gas, kg/mol
pi Initial reservoir pressure, Pa
PL Langmuir pressure constant, Pa
pa Gas pressure at standard condition, Pa
pw Bottom hole pressure, Pa
Energies 2018, 11, 654 27 of 29
R Universal gas constant, J·mol−1 ·K−1

T Reservoirs temperature, K
u Displacement vector, m
U Vector of the unknown parameters
U∗ Optimal combination of the parameters
VR Reservoir volume, m3
VL Langmuir volume (at standard condition), m3 /m3
w Fracture width, mm
Z Z-factor of shale gas, dimensionless
Greek symbols
φ Porosity for shale matrix, fractures system and hydraulic fracture, fraction
ef f
φdil Effective shear dilation angle, rad
σ Total stress, Pa
σ0 n Effective stress acting on fracture surface, Pa
εv Volumetric strain, dimensionless
ρ ads Density of adsorbed gas
ρg Shale gas density, kg/m3
ρ ga Shale gas density at standard condition, kg/m3
η, λ Fitting parameters, dimensionless
δm Maximum closure of natural fracture
τ shear stress of fracture, Pa
τc shear strength of fracture, Pa
µ Gas viscosity, Pa·s
ψ Total gas content, kg/m3
Subscripts
m Matrix
f Natural fractures
F Hydraulic fractures
References
1. Ambrose, R.J.; Hartman, R.C.; Campos, M.D.; Akkutlu, I.Y.; Sondergeid, C. Shale Gas-in-Place Calculations
Part I: New Pore-Scale Considerations. SPE J. 2012, 17, 219–229. [CrossRef]
2. Yu, W.; Sepehrnoori, K. An efficient reservoir-simulation approach to design and optimize unconventional
gas production. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2014, 53, 109–121. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, J.; Wang, J.G.; Gao, F.; Ju, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, L. Flow consistency between non-Darcy flow in
fracture network and nonlinear diffusion in matrix to gas production rate in fractured shale gas reservoirs.
Transp. Porous Media 2016, 111, 97–121. [CrossRef]
4. Liu, J.; Wang, J.G.; Gao, F.; Ju, Y.; Tang, F. Impact of micro- and macro-consistent flows on well performance
in fractured shale gas reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 36, 1239–1252. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, C.; Gamage, R.P.; Perera, M.S.A.; Zhao, J. Characteristics of clay-abundant shale formations: use of
CO2 for production enhancement. Energies 2017, 10, 1887. [CrossRef]
6. Yu, W.; Luo, Z.; Javadpour, F.; Varavei, A.; Sepehrnoori, K. Sensitivity analysis of hydraulic fracture geometry
in shale gas reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2014, 113, 1–7. [CrossRef]
7. Hyman, J.D.; Jiménezmartínez, J.; Viswanathan, H.S.; Carey, J.W.; Porter, M.L.; Rougier, E.; Karra, S.; Kang, Q.;
Frash, L.; Chen, L.; et al. Understanding hydraulic fracturing: A multi-scale problem. Philos. Trans. 2016, 374,
20150426. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Salama, A.; Amin, M.F.E.; Kumar, K.; Sun, S. Flow and Transport in Tight and Shale Formations: A Review.
Geofluids 2017, 2017, 4251209. [CrossRef]
9. Kim, J.; Kang, J.M.; Park, C.; Park, Y.; Park, J.; Lim, S. Multi-objective history matching with a proxy model for
the characterization of production performances at the shale gas reservoir. Energies 2017, 10, 579. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, D.; Dai, Y.; Ma, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhong, B.; Wu, J.; Tao, Z. An analysis for the influences of fracture
network system on multi-stage fractured horizontal well productivity in shale gas reservoirs. Energies 2018,
11, 414. [CrossRef]
11. Pan, Z.; Connell, L.D. Reservoir simulation of free and adsorbed gas production from shale. J. Nat. Gas
Sci. Eng. 2015, 22, 359–370. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 654 28 of 29
12. Gao, F.; Liu, J.; Wang, J.G.; Ju, Y.; Leung, C. Impact of micro-scale heterogeneity on gas diffusivity of
organic-rich shale matrix. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 45, 75–87. [CrossRef]
13. Peng, Y.; Liu, J.; Pan, Z.; Connell, L.D. A sequential model of shale gas transport under the influence of fully
coupled multiple processes. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 27, 808–821. [CrossRef]
14. Liu, J.; Wang, J.G.; Gao, F.; Leung, C.F.; Ma, Z.G. A fully coupled fracture equivalent continuum-dual porosity
model for hydro-mechanical process in fractured shale gas reservoirs. Comput. Geotech. 2017, in review.
15. Liu, G.R.; Zhou, J.J.; Wang, J.G. Coefficient identification in electronic system cooling simulation through
genetic algorithm. Comput. Struct. 2002, 80, 23–30. [CrossRef]
16. Rahman, M.M.; Sarma, H.K.; Dhabi, A. Maximizing tight gas recovery through a new hydraulic fracture
optimization model. In Proceedings of the SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and
Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–11 October 2011.
17. Holt, S. Numerical Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Stage Placement in a Gas Shale Reservoir.
Master’s Thesis, TU Deflt University, Deflt, The Netherlands, 2011.
18. Ma, X.; Plaksina, T.; Gildin, E. Optimization of Placement of Hydraulic Fracture Stages in Horizontal Wells
Drilled in Shale Gas Reservoirs. In Proceedings of the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference,
Denver, CO, USA, 12–14 August 2013; pp. 1479–1489.
19. Li, J.C.; Gong, B.; Wang, H.G. Mixed integer simulation optimization for optimal hydraulic fracturing and
production of shale gas fields. Eng. Opt. 2016, 48, 1378–1400. [CrossRef]
20. Rammay, M.H.; Awotunde, A.A. Stochastic optimization of hydraulic fracture and horizontal well parameters
in shale gas reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 36, 71–78. [CrossRef]
21. Yu, W.; Sepehrnoori, K. Optimization of multiple hydraulically fractured horizontal wells in unconventional
gas reservoirs. J. Pet. Eng. 2013, 2013, 151898.
22. Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, B.; Zhao, Z. Optimization of multiple hydraulically fractured factors to maximize the
stimulated reservoir volume in silty laminated shale formation, Southeastern Ordos Basin, China. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 2016, 145, 370–381. [CrossRef]
23. Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Hu, R.; Ma, C.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, B. Numerical evaluation and optimization of multiple
hydraulically fractured parameters using a flow-stress-damage coupled approach. Energies 2016, 9, 325.
[CrossRef]
24. Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C. Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed
Experiments; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
25. Kazemi, H.; Gilman, J.R.; Elsharkawy, A.M. Analytical and numerical solution of oil recovery from fractured
reservoirs with empirical transfer functions. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1992, 7, 219–227. [CrossRef]
26. Wen, Q.; Wang, S.; Duan, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, F.; Jin, X. Experimental investigation of proppant settling in
complex hydraulic-natural fracture system in shale reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 33, 70–80. [CrossRef]
27. Tan, Y.; Pan, Z.; Liu, J.; Wu, Y.; Haque, A.; Connell, L.D. Experimental study of permeability and its anisotropy
for shale fracture supported with proppant. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 44, 250–264. [CrossRef]
28. Li, K.; Gao, Y.; Lyu, Y.; Wang, M. New mathematical models for calculating proppant embedment and
fracture conductivity. SPE J. 2015, 20, 496–507. [CrossRef]
29. Li, H.; Wang, K.; Xie, J.; Li, Y.; Zhu, S. A new mathematical model to calculate sand-packed fracture
conductivity. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 35, 567–582. [CrossRef]
30. Neto, L.B.; Khanna, A.; Kotousov, A. Conductivity and performance of hydraulic fractures partially filled
with compressible proppant packs. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2015, 74, 1–9.
31. Guo, J.C.; Lu, C.; Zhao, J.Z. Experimental research on propant embedment. J. China Coal Soc. 2008, 33,
661–664. (In Chinese)
32. Lu, C.; Guo, J.; Wang, W. Experimental research on proppant embedment and its damage to fractures
conductivity. Nat. Gas Ind. 2008, 28, 99–101.
33. Grieser, B.; Shelley, B.; Soliman, M. Predicting production outcome from multi-stage, horizontal Barnett
completions. In Proceedings of the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, USA,
4–8 April 2009; Paper SPE 120271.
34. Garcia-Teijeiro, X.; Rodriguez-Herrera, A.; Fischer, K. The interplay between natural fractures and stress
as controls to hydraulic fracture geometry in depleted reservoirs. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 34, 318–330.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 654 29 of 29
35. Iranmanesh, S.; Mehrali, M.; Sadeghinezhad, E.; Ang, B.C.; Ong, H.C.; Esmaeilzadeh, A. Evaluation of viscosity
and thermal conductivity of graphene nanoplatelets nanofluids through a combined experimental–statistical
approach using respond surface methodology method. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 2016, 79, 74–80.
[CrossRef]
36. Kazemi-Beydokhti, A.; Namaghi, H.Z.; Heris, S.Z. Identification of the key variables on thermal conductivity
of Cuo nanofluid by a fractional factorial design approach. Numer. Heat Transf. Part B Fundam. 2013, 64,
480–495. [CrossRef]
37. Teng, T.; Wang, J.G.; Gao, F.; Ju, Y. Complex thermal coal-gas interactions in heat injection enhanced CBM
recovery. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 34, 1174–1190. [CrossRef]
38. Kang, Y.L.; Chen, M.J.; Chen, Z.X.; You, L.J.; Hao, Z.W. Investigation of formation heat treatment to enhance
the multiscale gas transport ability of shale. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 35, 265–275. [CrossRef]
39. Yu, W.; Sepehrnoori, K. Simulation of gas desorption and geomechanics effects for unconventional gas
reservoirs. Fuel 2014, 116, 455–464. [CrossRef]
40. Yu, W.; Zhang, T.; Du, S.; Sepehrnoori, K. Numerical study of the effect of uneven proppant distribution
between multiple fractures on shale gas well performance. Fuel 2015, 142, 189–198. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Liu 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liu 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

energies

Received: 14 February 2018; Accepted: 9 March 2018; Published: 15 March 2018

Energies 2018, 11, 654; doi:10.3390/en11030654 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Table 1. Optimization parameter in this study.

Table 2. I-optimal design table.

2.2. Response Surface Methodology

Generate discrete fracture information

Determine objective function

Assigning elastic compliance matrix &

Response surface Design-Expert Fully Coupled

Build regression model Output average stress of cells

Response surface analysis Calculate gas production

Statistical analysis and sensitivity analysis

Calculate cumulative gas production

Figure 2. Flow chart of framework for RSM optimization of gas production.

2.3. Objective Function

U∗ = argmax ( J (U)) (1)

3.1. Fully Coupled Hydro-Mechanical FEC-DPM

3.1.1. Reservoirs Deformation

3.1.2. Gas Flow in Matrix

3.1.3. Gas Flow in Natural Fracture Network

3.1.4. Gas Flow in Hydraulic Fractures

3.2. Proppant-Pack Hydraulic Fracture Conductivity

0.0 Experimental data from Guo et al. (2008) [31]

0.1 Experimental data from Lu et al. (2008) [32]

Table 3. Computational parameters used in simulations.

3.4. FEC-DPM Model Validation

Cumulative gas production (m3)

Gas production rate (m3/day)

1524 m 8.0x104 Cumulative gas production

Gas production rate 4.0x107

4.1. Simulation Results

Fracture pressure Matrix pressure

4.2. Regression Model and Statistical Analysis

4.2.1. Fitting Equations

Std. Adjusted Predicted

4.2.2. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

AB 0.048 1 0.048 5.08 0.0478 -

Internally Studentized Residuals

Normal Probability (%) 90

Internally Studentized Residuals

Color points by value of 3.00

Figure 10. Cont.

Figure 11. Cont.

Color points by value of 3.00

1.363 Internally Studentized Residuals 2.00

Actual Factors Actual Factors

4.4. Optimization Results

Figure 14. Cont.

(e) Short-term (f) Short-term

Number of solutions Number of solutions

R Universal gas constant, J·mol−1 ·K−1

You might also like