Modeling of Geomechanics in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs
M. Bagheri,* SPE, and A. Settari, SPE, University of Calgary
Summary
Conventional modeling of fractured reservoirs treats fracture-
system permeability and porosity as static (or pressure-dependent)
data. Recent attempts at coupling geomechanics focused on the
permeability but used crude empirical relations and treated the
fluid flow as single porosity. This study takes advantage of the
joint-mechanics theory to develop general, rigorous coupling be-
tween the fluid-flow equation and deformation of fractured media.
Both porosity and permeability coupling are considered.
The geomechanical part uses the equivalent-continuum ap-
proach, considering both rock- and fracture-deformation proper-
ties. Multiple sets of fractures with any dip and strike angle can be
defined. The stiffness of fractures varies with the effective stress
according to a law typical for joints.
The main novelty of this work is that the geomechanics solu-
tion is decomposed into matrix and fracture parts and used to
compute their dynamic porosity and permeability separately. This
approach rigorously captures the effect of fractured-media defor-
mation on the dual-porosity-flow part of the coupled system and
allows the permeability and porosity variations to be based on
measurable joint properties. Generally, fracture deformations pro-
duce changes of the permeability tensor in both magnitude and
orientation, which in turn influences reservoir flow and compac-
tion behavior.
The main issue studied was the variation in the permeability of
the fracture system. The examples show that fracture deformation
has a significant effect on productivity or injectivity and that an-
isotropy of the permeability tensor develops from deformation.
The results provide an initiative for implementing the case of
full-tensor permeability.
Introduction
Similar to other petroleum reservoirs, naturally fractured reservoirs
can be greatly influenced by the geomechanical behavior of rocks.
However, under similar conditions, the role of geomechanics is
even more crucial because of the presence of fractures, which may
be more stress sensitive than the rock matrix. These fractures are
affected by stress disturbances because of fluid production and/or
injection, which results in the opening and closure and the reori-
entation of fractures. These variations in geomechanical properties
of fractures affect their permeability (both magnitude and direc-
tion), which is a controlling factor in the management of naturally
fractured reservoirs.
To capture this behavior, it is inevitable to consider geome-
chanical factors in the modeling of fluid flow in naturally fractured
reservoirs. Acknowledging a few attempts at coupling fluid-flow
behavior in naturally fractured reservoirs, dual-porosity models
used in the industry fail to account for deformability of rock and
fractures. These models use simple pressure-dependent relations for
rock compressibility, while fracture permeabilities are typically
treated statically throughout the simulation of the entire reservoir life.
The theory of coupling geomechanics and reservoir engineer-
ing in fractured rocks published in literature is built on the single-
* Now with Sproule International, Calgary.
Copyright 2008 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 93083) was accepted for presentation at the 2005 SPE Reservoir Simu-
lation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, 31 January–2 February, and revised for publi-
cation. Original manuscript received for review 27 July 2006. Revised manuscript received
for review 14 December 2006. Paper peer approved 18 March 2007.
108
porosity poroelastic theory of Biot (1941, 1955). In the literature,
different approaches have been proposed to extend Biot’s single-
porosity theory to dual-porosity models.
Valliappan and Khalili-Naghadeh (1990) and Khalili-
Naghadeh and Valliappan (1991) accounted in their coupled dual-
porosity formulations for the effect of rock deformation on the
pressure of both media. In these formulations, various coefficients
are involved and defined in terms of measurable physical parameters.
Ghafouri and Lewis (1996) developed a formulation for de-
formable porous media. In this formulation, the compressibility of
fractures is assumed not to alter the compressibility of the whole
system, and the effect of fracture pressure on total deformation
was ignored.
Chen and Teufel (1997) proposed a new formulation out of
Biot’s theory of poroelastisity for coupling geomechanics and fluid
flow in deformable dual media. They added a term to account for
the effect of the pressure of the secondary porosity on volumetric
strain, bulk volume, and total pore volume. They derived the
changes of individual-fracture and matrix pore volumes in terms of
total stress and the pressure of the individual medium. Their final
governing equations were similar to those of Valliappan and Kha-
lili-Naghadeh (1990). The main difference is the way that the
coefficients are defined.
Other models addressing the coupling are also found in litera-
ture. Chen and Teufel (2000) presented a comparison between
some of these models.
Most—if not all—of these models are based on a fully coupled
approach, which is only one of the coupling strategies. Other
schemes of coupling geomechanics and reservoir engineering are
also available, and their advantages and disadvantages have been
discussed in the literature. One of the disadvantages of the fully
coupled approach served as the incentive to develop this research
into an iterative-coupling scheme for a naturally fractured reser-
voir. The main objective was to address the effect of geomechanics
on existing fracture-flow properties (i.e., porosity and permeabil-
ity). Other effects—such as creation of new fractures by matrix
failure, fracture slip, and fault reactivation—are not treated here.
In this model, fracture-flow properties are calculated internally,
provided that the initial distribution of fractures and their mechani-
cal properties are known. Depending on the distribution of frac-
tures, a full permeability tensor may result. However, in the ex-
amples of this paper, fractures are assumed to be parallel to the
coordinate axes, which results in a diagonal permeability tensor.
In the case of oblique fractures, the geomechanical model de-
scribed here must be coupled with a flow model capable of han-
dling full permeability tensor. In this case, changes in fracture
permeability will result in a change in the magnitude as well as the
direction of the principal permeabilities. This rigorous treatment
has also been developed, and its application will be the subject of
a future study.
Modeling of Fractured-Rock Deformation
To model deformation of rock and fractures of a naturally frac-
tured reservoir accurately, one can use the mechanics of deforma-
tion of single fractures and porous rock to develop the concept of
equivalent continuum in the geomechanics module of the coupled
simulator. While the dual-porosity nature of fluid flow is retained
in the flow module, the overall deformation of a dual media (frac-
tured reservoir) is calculated with an equivalent single medium.
Individual deformation of rock and fractures is then calculated by
the decomposition of the overall deformation, again using the de-
formation mechanics of fractures and rocks individually.
February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Interaction of the dual media within the flow module with the
equivalent single medium in the geomechanics module will be
explained in the next section. Here the focus is to briefly explain
the deformation mechanics of fractures and the concept of the
equivalent continuum.
Deformation Mechanics of a Single Fracture. A single fracture
(also called a joint) deforms under stress differently from an intact
rock. Also, its deformation under normal stress is different from
when it is loaded by shear stress. Fracture behavior under shear
stress is more complex; the fracture undergoes several stages of
deformation and requires a complex mathematical relation to be
modeled (Bandis et al. 1983a). Models of shear behavior involve
many parameters that require extensive laboratory work, and dif-
ficulties exist in translating the laboratory work into the simulation
of fracture shear in underground conditions. Therefore, we limited
this study to considering only the normal deformation of fractures,
which is more important for fracture permeability and porosity.
However, shear-related parameters have been retained in the for-
mulation; and instead of modeling the shear, values were assigned
to these parameters to disable the shear deformation of fractures.
Strong nonlinear behavior of fracture deformation under nor-
mal stress (resembling a hyperbola) has been acknowledged uni-
versally in literature (Bandis et al. 1983b; Youshinaka and Yamabe
1986; Goodman 1976). In this work, the fracture-mechanics model
of Bandis et al. (1983b) is implemented in the geomechanics mod-
ule. Their model is based on laboratory investigation of inter-
locked-block samples with natural unfilled joints, which were sub-
jected to a series of loading/unloading cycles. A large hysteretic
behavior was observed in the first load cycle, and it diminished on
subsequent cycles.
It can be argued that, under highly stressed in-situ conditions,
fracture has already experienced loading cycles and the hysteresis
effect is not dominant. A single stress/strain function is then ap-
plied for the deformation of a fracture in loading and unloading,
which is assumed to best represent the fracture-deformation path.
However, the theory of the equivalent media developed here will
apply also to hysteretic behavior, if formulated incrementally.
Bandis et al. (1983b) proposed the following equation for a
hyperbolic path of fracture normal deformation:
⌬v
␴n = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
a − b⌬v
where ␴n is the normal stress, ⌬v is the change in fracture aperture,
and a and b are the constants that have physical meaning. For value
of ␴n→⬁, the closure reaches its maximum:
a
⌬vmax = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
b
Joint normal stiffness, which is the ratio of change of normal
stress to normal closure, is defined as
d␴n
kn = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
d⌬v
The physical meaning of a is found from the derivative of
Eq. 1.
⭸␴n 1 structure of porous materials and joints is the reason for recom-
冉 冊
kn = = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
⭸⌬v b 2
a 1 − ⌬v
a rock mass represented by an equivalent continuum, using a com-
At zero normal stress, normal stiffness is called initial normal
stiffness and is shown to be
冏
⭸␴n 1
kni = = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
⭸⌬v ␴n=0 a
Substituting Eqs. 2 and 5 into Eq. 4 will result in
kni
冉 冊
kn = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
⌬v 2 tact rock and the other because of fractures:
1−
⌬vmax
February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Equivalent-Continuum Concept. The concept of an equivalent
medium of a jointed rock mass (composed of two materials) is to
introduce a third material that behaves the same way as the jointed
rock mass does, under normal and shear stresses. The moduli of
this third material are functions of the moduli of the fractures and
intact rock. Normal and shear stiffness, along with joint orientation
and spacing, are key parameters for constructing the constitutive
equation of the equivalent material. Constitutive relation of frac-
tures, which is described by these parameters, is very similar to
that of intact rock. For fractures, however, displacements of frac-
ture planes are the variables rather than strains.
Constitutive relation for intact rock obeys Hooke’s law and
mathematically has the following form in index notation:
␧ij = Cijkl␴kl, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
where ␧ is the strain vector (1×6), ␴ is the stress vector (1×6), and
C is the stiffness matrix (6×6). For saturated porous rocks how-
ever, ␴ in Eq. 7 is replaced by effective stress ␴⬘ defined as:
␴⬘ = ␴ − ␣p, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
where ␣ is Biot’s coefficient and p is the pore pressure.
A similar expression governs the constitutive relation between
fracture deformation and traction:
⌬␦I = DIJ ⌬⌫J, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
where ␦ is the displacement vector (1×3), D is the fracture stiffness
matrix (3×3), and ⌫ is the traction vector (1×3). The traction vector
is a vector that bears the direction and magnitude of the stress acting
on the joint surface and can be expressed by Cauchy’s formula:
⌬⌫j = ⌬␴ijni, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
where ni represents the components of the vector normal to the
joint surface. Note that the lowercase subscripts in this discussion
indicate the global coordinate system. Each joint set has its own
local coordinate system, which is indicated by capital subscripts.
Often it is assumed that deformation characteristics of the joint
in different directions at the joint surface are the same. Neglecting
the effect of dilatancy behavior (shear-induced volume contraction
or dilation) and shear strain because of normal stress, Eq. 9 can be
expanded in a simple form:
冤 冥
1
0 0
kn
⌬␦N ⌬⌫N
冦 冧 冦 冧
1
⌬␦S = 0 0 ⌬⌫S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
ks
⌬␦T ⌬⌫N
0
1
0
ks
Capital indices represent the local coordinate system of the
fracture, which consists of normal, strike, and dip directions (de-
noted by N, S, and T ). This equation will be used to find the
constitutive relation of jointed rocks next.
For fluid-saturated fractures, ⌫ in Eq. 9 is replaced by effective
stress traction vector ⌫⬘, defined as
⌫⬘ = ⌫ − p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
This form of effective stress is different than that of the matrix
shown in Eq. 8, which includes Biot’s coefficient ␣. Difference in
mending this simple form of effective stress.
Huang et al. (1995) developed the constitutive relation for a dry
bination of both constitutive relations of matrix and fractures and
based on the principle of energy conservation. For saturated rock
masses, this approach is valid for cases where pressure difference
in fractures and matrix (with high-grain compressibility) is small
(Bagheri 2006). The following paragraphs explain this method for
saturated fractured rocks.
Change in the total strain of the continuum because of effec-
tive-stress changes consists of two components: one from the in-
⌬␧ij = ⌬␧ijI + ⌬␧ijJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
109
Eq. 13 can be rewritten for both media to show the relation of each
component in response to the effective-stress change. This is rig-
orous if we assume a small difference between matrix and fracture
pressures, small matrix capillary pressures (in multiphase-flow
cases), and high grain compressibilities (i.e., ␣ close to 1):
⌬␧ijI ≅ C ijkl
I
⌬␴ ⬘kl, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
⌬␧ijJ ≅ C ijkl
J
⌬␴ ⬘kl, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
where ␴⬘ is the effective stress in the continuum. For the con-
tinuum, the definition of effective stress of the matrix is applied
because fractures can be considered as big pores in the continuum.
Because the fractured gridblocks are treated as continuum in
the geomechanical module, an average “continuum pore pressure”
must be defined, which should have the same affect on deforma-
tion as fracture pressure and matrix pressure do. The continuum
pore pressure is calculated on the basis of the following equation:
␾m ␾f
p= p + p , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
␾m + ␾f m ␾m + ␾f f
where ␾m and ␾f are matrix and fracture porosities, respectively.
For multiphase problems, matrix and fracture pressures can be
taken as some average of the individual-phase pressures. The ef-
fective stresses of the pseudocontinuum are calculated by Eq. 8, in
which p is given by Eq. 16 and Biot’s coefficient is that of the
matrix. The continuum pore pressure as defined by Eq. 16 is an
approximation, and further research should be conducted to inves-
tigate if there is a more representative equation.
On the basis of the principle of energy conservation, strain
energy stored in fractures because of stress is equal to the total
work done by the traction at all joints that caused joint move-
ment. Thus,
M fractured reservoirs and allows the parameters of the fracture sets
兺 共␴ ⬘ n 兲⌬␦ A , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
1
␴ ⬘ij⌬␧ijJ = ij
f
i
f
j
f to vary spatially. The flow equations are solved for rock and frac-
V f=1
where M is the total number of fracture sets, f indicates individual
fracture sets, and Af is the total area of the f th fracture set, which
is approximately equal to the volume of the representative block
divided by the average spacing between the fractures in the set.
Thus, the strain of fractured rock because of the movement of the
fractures is given by
M
兺 n ⌬␦ S ,
1
⌬␧ijJ = f
i
f
j f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
f=1
where S is the spacing between the fractures.
Effective traction and displacement vectors can be transformed
between the global and local coordinate systems as follows:
⌬␦ fj = LjJf ⌬␦ fJ, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
⌬⌫⬘I = LfIi⌬⌫⬘i , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
where L contains the direction cosines between local and global
coordinate systems. Note that for the fractures in the continuum,
the effective stress is obtained by substitution of continuum effec-
tive stress into Cauchy’s formula. So the effective stresses in Eq.
20 are somewhat different from those shown in Eq. 12. Substitu-
tion of the counterpart of Eq. 9 for saturated joints and Eqs. 19, 20,
and Cauchy’s formula into Eq. 18 gives the general constitutive
equation for joints:
M ture porosity.
兺nL D
1
J
C ijkl = f f
i jJ
f f f
JLLLl n k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
f=1 Sf
This equation must be added to the constitutive equation for the
matrix to obtain the general-constitutive relation for the equivalent
rock continuum.
Coupling Strategies
The geomechanical module, which is developed to model defor-
mation of fractured rocks, can be coupled to a single-porosity or a
dual-porosity flow model. To study the behavior of fluid flow in a
deformable naturally fractured reservoir, a dual-porosity model is
110
needed. However, it is possible to study the behavior of rock itself
with a single-porosity coupling as discussed below.
Single-Porosity Approach. To study the deformation of fractured
reservoirs and their impact on the environment, for example for a
subsidence problem, a single-porosity flow model can do the job.
The objective here is to see how and to what degree fractures are
participating in the overall deformation of fractured rock. This
requires a realistic “continuum pore pressure” for the equivalent
continuum. In other words, regardless of the nature of fluid flow,
any flow simulators that provide a close estimate of reservoir
pressure are useful for this purpose.
To get a realistic dual-porosity reservoir pressure out of a
single-porosity model, one approach could be converting the com-
pressibility of fractures to some measure of porosity change of
equivalent continuum. The pseudoporosity of the resulting con-
tinuum single-porosity rock, which has a higher compressibility, is
used for the single-porosity model to provide a more realistic
pressure to the geomechanics module. This is accomplished by the
calculation of porosity out of overall strain that resulted from
deformation of rock and fractures. As a result, compressibility of
fractures increases the porosity changes of the pseudorock. A de-
tailed description of this approach and results is presented in
Bagheri and Settari (2006).
Dual-Porosity Approach. The inclusion of effects of fracture de-
formation in stress/strain behavior for fractured rocks provides the
capability of rigorous modeling of naturally fractured rocks. In this
approach, all fractures in the reservoir are represented by several
fracture sets. Each fracture set consists of equally spaced fractures
of the same orientation and properties (such as aperture and stiff-
ness). This concept parallels the geological characterization of
ture domains in a 3D multiphase, dual-porosity flow simulator. On
the geomechanics side, the concept of the previously described
equivalent continuum simplifies the stress/strain equations to a set
of equations for a single continuum. The solution of these equa-
tions leads to an overall stress and strain vector for the continuum
media; however, the corresponding deformation of each medium
can be recovered. An iterative coupling scheme is then used to
couple the interaction between fluid and rock.
Several parameters including matrix porosity, matrix perme-
ability, fracture porosity, and fracture permeability can be coupled
between the flow and geomechanics parts of the model. The main
focus of this research is to study the effect of fracture-permeability
variations on fluid flow in naturally fractured reservoirs. Coupling
of matrix porosity between stress/strain and flow models is per-
formed with the Settari and Mourits (1998) approach, which has
been derived for conventional reservoirs. In this new model for
naturally fractured reservoirs, however, matrix porosity is related
to the strains associated with the matrix part of the fractured rock.
Decomposition of the overall strains to rock and fractures is dis-
cussed later.
Model Initialization. Fig. 1 shows the fracture-related calcu-
lations in the initialization part of the model. Bulk volume, initial
fracture, and matrix porosities along with initial fracture and ma-
trix pressures of each gridblock are transferred from the flow mod-
ule to the geomechanics module to provide initial information for
calculation of continuum pore pressure, fracture aperture, and frac-
Initial aperture of each fracture set in a gridblock is calculated
using the Bandis et al. (1983b) technique. As mentioned earlier,
hysteresi in fracture deformation is neglected in this study. All
fractures in a given fracture set have the same orientation and
properties within a gridblock because the same normal stress and
fracture pressure are exerted on all of them. Effective stress ex-
erted on the planes of a fracture is the net effect of gridblock
fracture pressure and normal stress on the fracture plane.
Once initial aperture was calculated for all fracture sets in a
gridblock, the total fracture pore volume is calculated. This is the
summation of pore volumes for all fracture sets, each of which in
February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 1—Fracture-related calculations in the initialization phase.

turn is the product of aperture and the total fracture area of the
fracture set. The exact calculation of the porosity is nontrivial.
However, regardless of fracture orientation, total fracture area Af
can be approximated by:
Lx Ly Lz
Af = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
S
where S is fracture spacing of a fracture set and Lx , Ly , and Lz are
the length, width, and height of the gridblock, respectively. The
accuracy of this approximation was tested in a separate code that
calculates the exact total area of each fracture set (Bagheri 2006).
Considering the uncertainty regarding the properties and the dis-
tribution of fractures in reservoirs, it is observed that this approxi-
mation is sufficiently accurate even for low-intensity fracture sets.
The error inherent in this approximation approaches zero when
fracture intensity increases.
The final part of initialization concerns fracture-permeability
calculations. Permeability of fractures in fractured blocks is cal-
culated on the basis of the information we have about the orien-
tation and spacing of fracture sets, and the aperture of fracture sets
from the previous step. Details of the method of calculation of
fracture permeability used in this study can be found in Gupta et al. Fig. 2—Dual-media treatment in the solution phase.
(2001). To account for deviation from the cubic law (resulting
mainly from fracture roughness and tortuosity), permeability can
be multiplied by a correction factor. porosity changes, and fracture apertures are used for the calcula-
Calculated fracture porosity and fracture permeability, which tion of fracture permeability and porosity.
now represent characterization of the geological structure of the At the end of the geomechanical iteration, matrix porosity ␾m
fractured reservoir, are passed back to the flow model, where these is always updated using the new effective stress associated with
properties are used for flow calculations. the matrix, which is ␴−␣pm. However, the fracture porosity ␾f and
Dynamic Coupling. The dual-porosity iterative coupling ap- fracture and matrix permeabilities km and kf , respectively, may or
proach of this study is shown schematically in Fig 2. This figure may not be updated. Fig. 2 shows the case where the geomechani-
highlights the stages of calculation of fracture and matrix flow cal iteration involves only ␾m.
properties, and the way in which they are coupled to the geome- New fracture porosities are based on the current gridblock bulk
chanics module. For example, in the initialization stage, matrix and volume. Bulk volume is a dynamic parameter, which changes be-
fracture porosity and pressure are transferred to the geomechanics cause of applied stress by the amount of volumetric strain. Math-
module in each geomechanical iteration loop to build a new con- ematically, this is shown as:
tinuum pore pressure using Eq. 16. This pressure is treated as an
external force in the equations. BV = 共1 + ␧v兲 ⭈ BVi , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
New fracture-normal stiffness and flow properties are calcu-
lated in each geomechanical iteration loop using the effective where BV, BVi, and ␧v are the current and initial bulk volume and
stress on the fracture plane, which is a function of the new fracture the total volumetric strain (compressive strains are negative), re-
pressure transferred from the flow model and total stresses. It spectively. The same adjustment of bulk volume must be per-
should be noted that the fracture flow properties are calculated formed in the flow model as well.
before the new total stress field is calculated. As a result, the total Coupling of fracture-flow properties can be treated in two
stresses used in these calculations are lagging one geomechanical ways. Like matrix porosity, fracture-flow properties can be up-
iteration behind the pore pressures. dated in every geomechanical iteration and passed back to the flow
After the calculation of continuum pore pressure, an equivalent model. The highly nonlinear nature of these properties makes the
constitutive matrix is built using the last normal stiffness of frac- convergence process slow. To alleviate convergence difficulties,
tures. This matrix is composed of static Young’s modulus and an alternative approach for coupling fracture-flow properties was
Poisson’s ratios of the rock, static fracture spacing, and dynamic found to be effective. In this method (shown in Fig. 2), fracture
normal stiffness of fractures. Using this matrix in stress/strain porosity and permeability are updated only at the end of each
calculations provides the total stress and strain of the pseudocon- timestep and used in the next timestep. In other words, these prop-
tinuum. The overall deformation is then decoupled as described erties do not partake in coupling iterations; they use the converged
below. Matrix strains are the basis for the calculation of matrix- coupling variables (such as pressure and stress).

February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 111

 Decoupling of Deformations. Individual fracture deformations
and matrix strains are required to obtain corresponding flow prop-
erties of either media. To obtain these parameters, the calculated
total stress from the solution of the finite-element model is con-
verted to appropriate effective stress associated with each media.
This is done by invoking the proper relation for effective stress and
substitution of total stress and pressure associated with each me-
dium as detailed below.
For a joint set characterized by its normal vector, n៝ , strike
vector, s៝, and dip vector, ៝t, the local components of total stress are
obtained from a simple transformation of global stress tensor:
兵␴nn ␶ns ␶nt其T = Tm 兵␴xx ␴yy ␴zz ␶xy ␶yz ␶zx其T,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
where Tm is the transformation matrix and is equal to
冤 冥
n2x n2y n2z 2nxny 2nynz 2nznx
nxsx nysy nzsz nysx + nxsy nzsy + nysz nzsx + nxsz
nxtx nyty nztz nytx + nxty nzty + nytz nztx + nxtz
The entries of the transformation matrix Tm are the components
of normal, strike, and dip vectors of the joint set in the global
coordinate system. The normal deformation of fractures is then
obtained using Eq. 9 where ⌬⌫J is substituted for the fracture
normal effective stress, ⌫⬘N⳱␴nn−pf (the shear terms are ignored).
This effective stress is also used to update the normal stiffness of
fractures (for the next geomechanical iteration) in every gridblock.
This approach satisfies Eq. 13 and does not require explicit cal-
culation of fracture strains.
Matrix effective stress is obtained by the substitution of pm and
the total stress in Eq. 8. In the next step, matrix strains are obtained
by substituting the static-rock-constitutive-matrix moduli and the
calculated effective stress in Hooke’s law. It was shown by ex-
amples for simple cases—the sum of the two deformations is equal
to the total deformation of the pseudocontinuum (Bagheri 2006).
Results and Discussion
To demonstrate the importance of modeling fracture permeability
as a dynamic parameter, two independent dual-porosity tests are
explained here. In both examples, there are three sets of fractures,
each parallel to one coordinate axis. In the first example, these
fracture sets have the same deformation characteristics with the
same fracture spacing. In the second example, fractures deform
differently.
Example 1. This example is loosely modeled after the Shearwater
field (Kenter et al. 1998). The data, presented at the SPE Forum on
Reservior Geomechanics (2000), are a good example of an over-
pressured, high-pressure/high-temperature field with large deple-
tion. The actual field is not fractured, but the data were modified
to represent a hypothetical dual-porosity dead-oil reservoir. The
structure of the reservoir and the stress model are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3—Structure of stress and the reservoir model (Example 1).
112
The stress model is constructed of 29 gridblocks in the x-direction
over a length of 11 km, five gridblocks in the y-direction over a
width of 1.5 km and 23 gridblocks in the z-direction over a height
of 5.2 km. The reservoir model is the steeply dipping finely grid-
ded region contained inside the stress model shown in darker color
in Fig. 3. It has 19 gridblocks in the x-direction, five gridblocks in
the y-direction, and five gridblocks in the z- direction. The reser-
voir grid is a part of the stress-model grid (i.e., has the same
dimensions where the grids coincide). The difference between the
depth of the first and last gridblocks in the x-direction for all
reservoir layers is 2313 m.
The initial in-situ matrix porosity is 10%, and the matrix per-
meabilities are 1 md in all directions. Oil and water have constant
compressibilities of 1.45×10−6 kPa−1 and 6×10−7 kPa−1, densities
of 752.7 kg/m3 and 999.5 kg/m3, and constant viscosities of 2 cp
and 0.1626 cp, respectively. The initial fluid pressure is 112 812.6
kPa at the depth of 7262.5 m.
Different elastic moduli and Poisson’s ratios were assigned to
different parts of the model. The model was divided into seven
regions with different rock properties, as shown in Table 1. All of
the regions have the same grain modulus of 2.07×109 kPa. Initial
horizontal stresses are 109 137 kPa, and initial vertical stress is
110 240 kPa at a depth of 4876 m. The gradients of horizontal and
vertical stresses are 22.378 kPa/m and 22.604 kPa/m, respectively.
Three identical fracture sets, parallel to the coordinate axes are
assumed in all reservoir gridblocks. They have constant spacing of
2 m, initial stiffness of 39.62 GPa/m, joint aperture at zero effec-
tive stress of 0.44 mm, and minimum aperture of 0.022 mm (maxi-
mum of 95% closure). These parameters are used in calculation of
equivalent moduli of fractured rock according to Eq. 21 and to
calculate shape factor in the transfer function in the flow model
(for example, see Kazemi et al. 1976).
Differences in effective stresses normal to these fractures in
different locations result in a distribution of fracture porosity and
permeability with depth, decreasing from the top to the bottom of
the reservoir. For instance, fracture permeability covers a range
from 88.17 md (kz) to 16.77 md (kx, ky) at the first layer. The
minimum permeability in the entire reservoir is the horizontal
permeability of 15.43 md at the bottom of the deepest layer, where
effective stress is the highest. The distribution is shown as a func-
tion of reservoir block number from left to right in Fig. 4.
Depletion Scenario. For the depletion scenario, a vertical well
is located in the cell (18, 3, 2–5) at the top of reservoir, producing
8000 m3/d of oil at surface conditions until the reservoir pressure
is depleted to 20 000 kPa. The well is completed through the
bottom four layers of the reservoir. The model is run for 20 years.
Three gridblocks—(1, 3, 1) at the bottom, (9, 3, 1) at the middle,
and (18, 3, 1) at the top of the reservoir—are chosen to monitor the
behavior of the reservoir.
To study only the effect of fracture closure on permeability,
fracture porosity was decoupled from the geomechanical code and
its variation was calculated by use of the ordinary compressibility
method. Then the results of this model with dynamic permeability
were compared with the results of the same model using a static
fracture permeability of the same initial distribution. These cases
are referred to as “dynamic” and “static” throughout this paper.
February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 4—Initial Distribution of fracture permeability.
Fig. 5—Effect of fracture closure on production.

Fig. 5 compares cumulative oil production and oil rate in the

Calculation of WI in dynamic-permeability modeling is a com-
depletion case. The dynamic treatment results in a drastic reduc-
plex issue. The difference between BHP-D and GBP-D, shown in
tion in cumulative oil production. Rate of oil production also de-
Fig. 6, reveals the large pressure drop inside the producing grid-
creases more rapidly than in the case of static-fracture permeabil-
block. As a result, finding the proper permeability for the WI
ity. The closure of fractures resulting from an increase in effective
equation is difficult because of variations of pressure (effective
stress (production) reduces overall fracture permeability. The
stress) inside the wellblock.
amount of permeability reduction is higher in the vicinity of the
In this study, the wellblock permeability is used for WI calcu-
production wells. As a result, the producing well experiences a
lations. The geometric part of WI in this approach includes the
higher pressure drop as seen in Fig 6. In very early times, when
variation of the permeability of the gridblock and results in a dynamic
static and dynamic cases produce with the same rate of 8000 m3/d,
geometric part of WI, which is a constant value in the static case.
higher reduction in gridblock pressure of the producing well in the
In another words, during the simulation, new permeabilities are
dynamic case (GBP-D) is seen because of lower permeability re-
used to calculate WI from Eq. 25. This results in smaller well
sulting from fracture closure. In this period, when the well pro-
indices with more production as shown in Fig. 7. The bigger gap
duces on rate control, a large pressure drop in bottomhole pressure
between BHP and GBP in the dynamic case in all times causes this
(BHP) happens in the dynamic case, causing the well to switch pro-
result. Note that the effect of dynamic permeability was ignored in
duction constraint from rate to BHP. This results in early rate drop in
Rb calculation in this study, as it has a negligible effect on the WI.
the dynamic case (case Oil rate−D in Fig. 5). Thereafter, the rate of
Using a more sophisticated method incorporating the variations
pressure drop in the well gridblock in the dynamic case reduces.
of effective stress inside the wellblock in lieu of the current ap-
For rectangular gridblocks and anisotropic permeabilities, the
proach (based on the effective stress using well block pressure)
well index (WI) is:
causes the permeability to reduce more than on the plot shown in
Fig. 8, when we move toward the wellbore. More rigorous treat-
2␲ 公kxkyh ment of well index is left for future studies. This treatment will

冉 冊
WI = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
Rb demonstrate higher influence of dynamic permeability modeling in
ln +s reservoir performance.
Rw
As initial oil in place is the same in both cases, ultimate re-
where h is the thickness perpendicular to the flow direction, kx and covery would also be the same if enough time is devoted to pro-
ky are the permeabilities, Rw is the well radius, s is skin factor, and duction. However, the production rate is lower in the dynamic
Rb is the effective well radius and is given case. If production is continued, the rate of the pressure decline
will decrease more in the dynamic case, as a result of lower rate of
production. Eventually, the plots of production rate for the static
关共ky Ⲑ kx兲1 Ⲑ 2⌬x2 + 共kx Ⲑ ky兲1 Ⲑ 2⌬y2兴1 Ⲑ 2
Rb = 0.28 × . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
关共ky Ⲑ kx兲1 Ⲑ 4 + 共kx Ⲑ ky兲1 Ⲑ 4兴

Fig. 7—Time (effective-stress) dependency of geometric part of

Fig. 6—Effect of fracture closure on producer’s pressure. WI of the producer.

February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 113

 Fig. 8—Effect of fracture closure on fracture permeability.
and dynamic cases cross. This is the point of maximum difference
between cumulative oil productions, which is approximately 33.9
or 51.3%, depending on the chosen reference. Thereafter, rate of
oil production in the dynamic case is higher because of dominating
higher pressures around the low-permeability well.
The drastic change in normal fracture permeability (kz) with
time resulting from this approach is shown in Fig. 8. In the dy-
namic case, permeability reduces up to four times of the initial
(static) values. At different locations in the reservoir, the amounts
of permeability reduction are different. At the top of the reservoir,
permeability of fractures reduces the most, while permeability of
those at the bottom reduces the least. In addition, there are delays
in permeability changes of the middle and bottom blocks, which
correspond to the time necessary to propagate the changes in pres-
sure and, therefore, stress. Evidently, this delay is longest for the
bottom gridblock.
In the upper part of the reservoir where effective stress is lower,
fractures are more deformable. This is the main reason that highest
permeability reduction is observed at the top of the reservoir
(Fig. 9). Fig. 9 shows a plot of vertical permeability vs. the mean
horizontal effective stress for the same gridblocks shown in Fig. 8.
All three curves fall on the same trend, as the deformation
characteristics of all the fractures are the same. The reason for
choosing fracture permeability in the z-direction is that it is a
function of the two horizontal stresses, which vary almost identi-
cally throughout the depletion because of the chosen boundary
conditions for deformation. This makes a plot of permeability vs.
mean effective stress correct. The situation is more complex for the
horizontal permeability, which is a function of both vertical and
horizontal stress. Also, an average pressure of matrix and fractures
Fig. 10—Effect of fracture opening on injection.
114
Fig. 9—Fracture permeability as a function of effective stress.
(Eq. 16) was used for effective-stress calculations because of a
small difference between them. (Obviously, internal calculations
in the flow model are performed using pf and pm.) This plot is
important because it demonstrates that the fracture permeability is
indeed a function of effective stress (rather than pressure).
Injection Scenario. All of these concepts also rule the behavior
of a reservoir in injection situations. Fractures around the injector
open as effective stress is reduced because of increased pressure.
To demonstrate this, water was injected in the model at the low-
permeability bottom part of the reservoir under constant pressure
constraint of 150 000 kPa while the production well was shutin.
The injection well is located in gridblock (1, 3, 2–5).
Injection rates and cumulative water injection along with well
pressures are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Dynamic modeling of
fracture permeability allows higher injection rate because of lower
rate of increase in well pressure and higher injectivity as shown in
Fig. 12. Similar to the depletion case, the injection rate in dynamic
modeling will eventually cross that of the static case and cumula-
tive-injection plots merge together. This is because higher injec-
tion rate eventually increases the reservoir pressure and reduces
the injection pressure potential. Cumulative water injection calcu-
lated using dynamic and static methods for fracture permeability at
the crossing point is different by approximately 29.6 or 42% if
dynamic or static cases are chosen as the reference, respectively.
Vertical fracture permeability (kz) as a function of time and
effective stress is shown in Figs. 13 and 14 for the three monitored
gridblocks. Highest and lowest permeability changes in this case
are also seen in the top and bottom gridblocks, respectively. Simi-
lar to the depletion case, a delay is observed in the permeability
Fig. 11—Effect of fracture opening on the injector’s pressure.
February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 12—Time (effective-stress) dependency of geometric part
of WI of the injector.
response for the top and the middle of the reservoir because of the
time required for these blocks to see the pressure front. Changes in
fracture permeability are larger than in the depletion case, for the
same amount of effective-stress changes, as seen by comparing
Figs. 9 and 14. Again, all gridblocks form a complete fracture-
deformation path, showing the fundamental dependency on effec-
tive stress.
At high injection rates, it is possible to generate negative (ten-
sile) effective stresses. Although it is clear from Fig.14 that hori-
zontal effective stresses in our example remain compressive, this
situation is common in injection processes. Fracture-deformation
equations used here are developed for positive effective stresses. If
one attempts to use them for negative effective stresses, caution is
required because fracture deformation is very sensitive to change
in stress and this makes the problem highly nonlinear. However, in
this case the joint theory is likely not valid and induced (propa-
gating) fractures will form, starting from existing natural fractures.
Modeling of such problems that combine fractured media and
induced fractures is the subject of future work.
Dynamic modeling of fracture permeability also improves the
run times. Fig. 15 shows the run times for all four cases explained
above.
Example 2. In the previous example, we focused on the effect of
dynamic fracture permeability on well productivity or injectivity.
This example demonstrates its effect on pressure distribution and
creation of anisotropy because of differences in properties of the
fracture sets. The data are based on the classical example of Ka-
zemi et al. (1976). The effects of gravity are not present (the
Fig. 14—Fracture permeability as a function of effective stress.
February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 13—Effect of fracture opening on fracture permeability.
reservoir is horizontal and single layer). The only parameters that
have been changed in the flow model are the permeability and
porosity of fractures. Fracture permeability is reduced from its
original value of 10,000 md to 161 md, and fracture porosity is
reduced from 1 to 0.14%. Also, shape factor was calculated on the
basis of the fracture spacings shown in Table 2, and matrix per-
meability was multiplied by 0.1. We have extended the test to a
coupled model using the stress model shown in Fig. 16. The stress
model has seven layers of gridblocks, which are under compres-
sive stresses. Initial homogeneous stress of 27 200 kPa, at the
reference depth of 1196.6 m with a gradient of 22.6 kPa/m, is used
to initialize all the stresses.
Three sets of fractures with different deformation characteris-
tics are used to populate all reservoir grids. Under normal stress,
these fracture sets deform according to Fig. 17. Table 2 shows the
deformation data of these fracture sets, which were chosen such
that the fracture permeability at initial stress is isotropic. Fractures
can close to a maximum of 90% of their aperture at zero effective
stress.
An injection well that injects water at the rate of 31.8 m3/d is
located at gridblock (1, 1, 4) of the stress model and a production
well at the opposite corner of the reservoir produces oil at the rate
of 33.4 m3/d, until the reservoir pressure is depleted to 3447.4 kPa.
Pressure distribution inside the reservoir will be shown for early
times when average reservoir pressures are almost the same for the
static and dynamic cases because of approximately equal amounts
of fluid injections and withdrawals. The difference is caused by
slight differences in water production (water cut).
Fig. 18 depicts the pressure distribution at three different times
along the diagonal that connects the injector and producer. At early
Fig. 15—Effect of static and dynamic modeling of fracture per-
meability on run times.
115
times, pressures fall in the same trend, except around the producer,
where reduction of permeability causes a sharper pressure gradient
in the dynamic case. Despite the effect of injection on fracture
opening, difference in production and injection rates causes a re-
duction in overall reservoir pressure, which results in fracture clo-
sure around the injector (except for the times less than 1 day). This
fact can be inferred from the increasingly higher pressure gradient
around the injector at later times. It is worth noting that in a reverse
condition (pressurizing), it is expected that the pressure gradients
would reduce in the dynamic case.
Fig. 19 shows the change in aperture and the corresponding
effective stress on the planes of all three fracture sets in the injector
gridblock. Different stiffnesses and spacings of the joint sets create
an anisotropic equivalent medium for the solid modeling. How-
ever, in terms of fracture permeability, joint properties were cho-
sen such that the medium is initially isotropic for fluid flow, with
permeability of 161 md in all directions. The anisotropic nature of
deformation causes less change in effective stress in the x-direction
in comparison to change in effective stress in the y-direction be-
cause of higher intensity of soft fractures normal to the x-direction
(note that the boundary conditions are identical in these two di-
rections). Less change in effective stress in the x-direction results
in a very small variation in aperture of the fractures with planes
normal to this direction.
The impact of different fracture deformations on permeability
is to decrease the ky /kx ratio from the initial value of 1 to approxi-
mately 0.902 at 450 days at the injector gridblock, which slightly
elongates the tensor toward the x-direction. The reason for rela-
tively small anisotropy despite the appreciable difference in frac-
ture closures is the number of fractures in each set. In other words,
in spite of small closure of fractures normal to the x-axis, their high
intensity causes higher reduction in permeability in the y-direction
than in the x-direction.
The effect of the permeability anisotropy on flow behavior is
shown in Fig. 20. This plot shows the pressure distribution vs.
distance along the two edges of the reservoir from the injector after
450 days. In the static case, pressures in the x- and y-direction are
equal. However, for the dynamic case, the pressure at the edge
parallel to the x-axis is somewhat higher than along the y-edge.
This is a direct result of higher permeability in the x-direction.
Fig. 16—Structure of stress and the reservoir model (Example 2).
116
Fig. 21 depicts the similar behavior on the two other edges of
the reservoir intersecting at the producer gridblock after 450 days.
In this case, pressure in the x-edge is lower than that in y-edge,
admitting the same concept again. Evidently, the same pressures in
the other two corners of reservoir where wells are not located can
be read either from Fig. 20 or from Fig. 21.
Although the significance of dynamic fracture permeability is
primarily in the improvement of the reliability of the simulation
results, lowering the run times is an added value. The improvement
in the run time as a result of dynamic modeling of fracture per-
meability was observed in Example 2 as well.
Conclusions
In this study, a full-field, iteratively coupled geomechanics and
dual-porosity reservoir simulator has been successfully developed
that is able to model fracture permeability in a dynamic fashion.
The model development includes the effect of coupling through
rock deformation and matrix porosity as well as the effect of
deformation on fracture permeability. However, the examples dis-
cussed in this paper have focused on the demonstration of the
effect of dynamic-permeability calculation on fluid-flow behavior
of naturally fractured reservoirs.
The fracture-deformation phenomenon has a great influence on
performance of naturally fractured reservoirs because of strong
dependency of fracture permeability on fracture aperture. Dynamic
treatment of fracture permeability does indeed require a coupled
formulation, since stress is a key parameter in controlling fracture
deformation. Compared to conventional modeling, the inclusion of
modeling fracture permeability dynamically leads to
• Large changes in fracture permeability
• Lower recovery in depletion (or longer time to reach certain
recovery)
• Higher injectivity and lower productivity of wells
• Steeper pressure gradients in depletion
• Less-steep pressure-gradient distribution in pressurization
• Permeability anisotropy
• Improving the run times
In addition to the fluid-flow-behavior aspect of fractured rocks
dealt with here, the more realistic modeling of fractured-rock de-
formation developed in this work will also be important for prob-
Fig. 17—Deformation of fracture sets under normal stress.
February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 19—Fracture aperture variation with time and effective
stress.
Fig. 18—Diagonal pressure distribution inside the flow model.
␣ ⳱ Biot’s coefficient
lems in which the geomechanical aspects are important (e.g. sub- ⌫ ⳱ traction vector
sidence, fault reactivation, and wellbore stability). These applica- ⌬v ⳱ fracture normal deformation
tions will be the subject of future investigations. ␦ ⳱ joint deformation vector
␧ ⳱ strain tensor, normal strain
Nomenclature
␴ ⳱ stress tensor, normal stress
a ⳱ constant in the joint deformation model
␶ ⳱ shear stress
A ⳱ total area of a fracture set in a block
␾ ⳱ porosity
b ⳱ constant in the joint deformation model
BV ⳱ bulk volume Superscripts
C ⳱ stiffness matrix f ⳱ individual fracture set
D ⳱ joint constitutive matrix I ⳱ intact rock
h ⳱ thickness J ⳱ joint
kn ⳱ joint stiffness M ⳱ number of joint sets
k ⳱ permeability T ⳱ joint
L ⳱ transformation matrix ⬘ ⳱ effective
Lx, Ly, Lz ⳱ gridblock dimensions
n ⳱ joint normal vector Subscripts
p ⳱ pressure f ⳱ fracture
Rb ⳱ effective well radius i ⳱ initial
Rw ⳱ wellbore radius i, j, k, l, I, J, L ⳱ tensor indices
s ⳱ skin factor j ⳱ joint
s៝ ⳱ strike vector of a fracture set m ⳱ matrix
S ⳱ joint spacing n ⳱ normal
៝t ⳱ dip vector of a fracture set N, S, T, n, s, t ⳱ joint local coordinate system
Tm ⳱ transformation matrix s ⳱ shear
v ⳱ fracture aperature t ⳱ total
V ⳱ volume v ⳱ volumetric
WI ⳱ well index x,y,z ⳱ coordinate direction

Fig. 20—Comparison of pressure distribution at the reservoir Fig. 21—Comparison of pressure distribution at the reservoir
edges near injector. edges near producer.

February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 117

References
Bagheri, M. 2006. Modeling Geomechanical Effects on the Flow Proper-
ties of Fractured Reservoirs. PhD dissertation, U. of Calgary, Calgary.
Bagheri, M. and Settari, A. 2004. Fracture Contribution in Reservoir Com-
paction. Paper presented at the ISRM Regional Symposium EUROCK
and Geomechanics Colloqium, Salzburg, Austria, 7–9 October.
Bagheri, M. and Settari, A. 2006. Effect of Fractures on Reservoir Com-
paction and Flow Modeling. Canadian Geotechnical J. 43 (6): 574–
586.
Bandis, S.C., Lumsden, A.C., and Barton, N.R. 1983a. Experimental Stud-
ies of Scale Effects on the Shear Behaviour of Rock Joints. Interna-
tional J. of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics
Abstracts 18 (1): 1–21.
Bandis, S.C., Lumsden, A.C., and Barton, N.R. 1983b. Fundamentals of
Rock Joint Deformation. International J. of Rock Mechanics and Min-
ing Science & Geomechanics Abstracts. 20 (6): 249–268.
Biot, M.A. 1941. General Theory of Three Dimensional Consolidation. J.
of Applied Physics 12 (2): 155–164.
Biot, M.A. 1955. Theory of Elasticity and Consolidation for a Porous
Anisotropic Solid. J. of Applied Physics 26 (2): 182–185.
Chen, H.-Y. and Teufel, L.W. 1997. Coupling Fluid-Flow and Geome-
chanics in Dual Porosity Modeling of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 38884 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October. DOI: 10.2118/
38884-MS.
Chen, H.-Y. and Teufel, L.W. 2000. Coupling Fluid-Flow and Geome-
chanics in Dual Porosity Modeling of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs—
Model Description and Comparison. Paper SPE 59043 presented at the
SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico,
Villahermosa, Mexico, 1–3 February. DOI: 10.2118/59043-MS.
Ghafouri, H.R. and Lewis, R.W. 1996. A Finite Element Double Porosity
Model for Heterogeneous Deformable Porous Media. International J.
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 20 (11): 831–
844.
Goodman, R.E. 1976. Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinu-
ous Rocks. New York City: West Publication Company.
Gupta, A., Penuela, G., and Avila, R. 2001. An Integrated Approach to the
Determination of Permeability Tensors for Naturally Fractured Reser-
voirs. J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. 40 (12): 43–48.
Huang, T.H., Chan, C.H., and Yang, Z.Y. 1995. Elastic Moduli for Frac-
tured Rock Mass. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 28 (3): 135–
144.
Kazemi, H., Merrill, L.S. Jr., Porterfield, K.L., and Zeman, P.R. 1976.
Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in Naturally Fractured Res-
ervoirs. SPEJ 16 (6): 317–326.
Khalili-Naghadeh, N. and Valliappan, S. 1991. Flow Through Fissured
Porous Media with Deformable Matrix: Implicit Formulation. Water
Resources Research 27 (7): 1703–1709.
118
Kenter, C.J., Blanton, T.L., Schreppers, G.M.A., Baaijens, M.N., and Ra-
mos, G.G. 1998. Compaction Study for Shearwater Field. Paper SPE
47280 presented at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petroleum En-
gineering Conference, Trondheim, Norway, 8–10 July. DOI: 10.2118/
47280-MS.
Settari, A. and Mourits, F.M. 1998. A Coupled Reservoir and Geomechani-
cal Simulation System. SPEJ 3 (3): 219–226.
SPE Forum III—Reservoir Geomechanics. 2000. Breckenridge, Colorado.
Valliappan, S. and Khalili-Naghadeh, N. 1990. Flow Through Fissured
Porous Media With Deformable Matrix. International J. for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 29 (5): 1079–1094.
Youshinaka, R. and Yamabe, T. 1986. Joint Stiffness and the Deformation
Behavior of Discontinuous Rock. International J. of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts 23 (1): 19–28
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp × 1.0* E–03 ⳱ Pa⭈s
ft × 3.048* E–01 ⳱ m
ft3 × 2.831 685 E–02 ⳱ m3
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 ⳱ kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
Mohammad Ali Bagheri is a reservoir engineer who works for
Sproule International in Calgary, specializing in reservoir mod-
eling. E-mail: m.bagheri@sproule.com. His research interests
are numerical modeling of fluid flow and geomechanics in
porous media. Bagheri holds a BSc degree in petroleum engi-
neering from the Petroleum University of Technology and an
MSc degree in reservoir engineering from the University of Te-
hran, both in Iran. In 2006, he earned his PhD degree in petro-
leum engineering from the University of Calgary. A. (Tony) Set-
tari holds the PanCanadian/Petroleum Society of CIM En-
dowed Chair in Petroleum Engineering at the University of
Calgary, where he has taught for more than 25 years. He is also
one of the principals in TAURUS Reservoir Solutions Ltd., a high
technology simulation consulting firm in Calgary. Settari is one
of the leading developers of simulation technology for reser-
voir modeling, hydraulic fracturing, and geomechanics. He
holds a BSc degree from the Technical University of Brno,
Czechoslovakia and a PhD degree in mechanical engineering
from the University of Calgary. Settari has been involved in a
wide range of both research and development, and applica-
tion simulation projects, including naturally fractured reservoirs,
enhanced recovery projects, hydraulic fracturing and acidiz-
ing, in-situ thermal processes in oil sands, perforation mechan-
ics, and, more recently, reservoir geomechanics. He served on
the editorial board of JPT and was a Technical Editor for SPE.
February 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering