SPE 21846

SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineers

IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT LABORATORY EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES
by Edward Johnson·, Resources Engineering Systems, Cambridge, MA 02142
and Michael P. Cleary·, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

·SPE Members

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

Thi,s paper was prepared for presentation at the Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, April 15-17, 1991.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract sUb~itted by the author(s). Contents of th~ pa~er,
as resented have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The .ma~enal, as presen~ed: does no~ necessan y re ,ect
~f
an:position the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publicatIon review by Edl~onal th~oclet~
CommitteeskOf
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. lIIustratio~s may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspIcuous ac now gmen
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, RIchardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Summary
Extensive laboratory experiments on hydraulic fracturing have
been performed with a convenient and proven apparatus,
developed over the past ten years at MIT. Results of these
experiments are presented, for instance:
• Dimensions of created hydraulic fractures with various
injected fluids and flow rates
• Pressure measurements along the fracture length
• Pressure responses to injection of various fluid sequences
(e.g. viscosity and flow-rate variation)
These measurements generally confmn a variety of elastic
models developed by Cleary in the early 1980s, which have
since been widely adopted by the industry. However, we have
had to greatly modify such models over the past five years,
because the predictions of such purely elastic models do not
seem to agree with most field measurements (e.g. with net
pressure), suggesting that most existing industry models are
inadequate for practical applications. The reason for such
discrepancies between lab and field behavior is traced to
nonlinear rock response in the near-tip region of the fracture,
which we generally call the leading edge.
Other implications of these results for field applications are dis-
cussed, in particular with regard to the following primary
issues:
• The role of fracture propagation in shut-in analysis
• The role of fluid rheology in fracture opening
• The importance of near-wellbore tortuosity in interpreta-
tion of pressure responses measured in the field
• The role of stress barriers in providing only partial
containment of height growth
It is suggested that current industry concepts need major
revision on these and other issues (see related paper, Ref. [1]).
References and illustrations at end of paper.
413
1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, underground hydraulic fracturing
has become a technique increasingly used by the petroleum
industry to enhance oil and gas extraction. Even though the
process is often utilized, relatively little has been correctly
understood until recently about the actual fracture propagation
and about how material (e.g. rock) and fluid parameters affect
the crack growth. The many attempts at experimental repro-
duction throughout the petroleum industry have often lacked
one or more feature required for credible simulation of the
process, resulting in many untested and incorrect models of
hydraulic fracturing.
Although it is usually impossible to see the actual shape of a
hydraulic fracture in the field, except in very special research
projects (e.g. Ref. [2]), it is still possible to deduce a great
deal of information about the fracture shape by analyzing the
pressure history of the fracture as it grows. This pressure
information can lead to reasonable estimates of the shape and
size of the fracture, if properly interpreted. In particular, a
well-known technique uses shut-in testing, where the fluid flow
into the wellbore is halted: the resulting pressure-versus-time
curve can potentially be used to determine such things as the
fluid-loss characteristics and the fracture closure time [3].
However, only if this information is coupled with an adequate
fracture-propagation model, can good estimates of fracture size
and shape be determined [1]. In the field, these shapes may be
expected to vary from a simple circular geometry (i.e. a poorly
contained fracture) to a more elliptically-shaped geometry (if
it is well contained by stress barriers).
In order to study in detail both the circular and elongated
fracture growth, a device known as DISLASH (Desktop
Interface Separation Laboratory Apparatus for Simulation of
Hydrafrac) was developed at the MIT Resource Extraction
Laboratory (REL). DISLASH has been used extensively in
several different research projects (e.g. Refs. [4,5,6,7,8,9]) to
gain a greater understanding of the fracturing process. To
characterize the fracture-growth behavior for both radial and
channel geometries using DISLASH, the governing parameters
(e.g. fluid injection rate and viscosity) were varied. The
2 RECENT LABORATORY RESULTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES
results--both pressure-versus-time and dimensions-versus-time
curves--were then compared with the most basic theoretical
predictions of the fracture-growth behavior, with results from
another laboratory hydraulic-fracture apparatus (the CIA)
developed at the REL [10], and also with various computer
models developed to simulate underground hydraulic-fracture
growth.
A summary of the work from Ref. [6] is presented as follows:
Section Two provides some of the essential background theory
for the growth of hydraulic fractures for both the circular and
elongated geometries; Section Three gives a description of
DISLASH, the laboratory apparatus used to simulate the
hydrafracs; Section Four provides experimental results for
various test conditions for both the circular- and elliptical-
geometry fractures; Section Five presents additional observa-
tions of lab results and their relevance for the field; and
Section Six offers several conclusions derived from the
laboratory work.
2. Background Theory
Before discussing the data generated with DISLASH, it is
useful to review some of the background theory pertaining to
hydraulic-fracture growth.
2. A Circular Fractures
2.A.l Nonporous, Specified Flow Rate
For a circular-geometry fracture with no fluid leaking from the
fracture into the surrounding medium, assuming a Newtonian
fluid (n=l), the relationship between the radius R of the
fracture and time t can be shown [11] to be
(Ia)
R =
where the 'Y.. terms, or "gamma factors," are coefficients
(allowably v:nable, as described in Refs. [11,12]) resulting
from the lumped-model analysis of the fracture; Qw is the flow
rate of fluid into the fracture; ";:i is the effective channel-flow
viscosity (i.e. ";:i = 12IL) for a Newtonian fluid; E is the
crack-opening modulus, defined for a homogeneous, isotropic
material as E=EI4(1-p~, whereE is the Young's modulus and P
is Poisson's ratio.
If the gamma factors and other coefficients are lumped together
as (approximate) constants, a nondimensional relationship
between the fracture radius and time can be formed using the
wellbore radius R w as a nondimensionalizing parameter for
radius and a characteristic time T' for time. Fracture radius
is then related to time in the following manner [7]:
~ =/[:.] (Ib)
where, using equation la, T' is found to be
(Ic)
The significance of equation lb is that, when there is no fluid
414
SPE2l846
leakoff, one universal curve, normalized by Rw for the radius
axis and by T' for the time axis, should represent the growth
behavior for all materials and all Newtonian fluids at any given
constant flow rate. Thus, plotting families of fracture growth
curves for different component parameters is not necessary
when the curves are put in this nondimensional form.
For the circular-geometry fracture with no leakoff, an analyti-
cal expression can also be obtained [11] for the excess pres-
sure, (1 (showing a remarkable independence of flow rate):
(1 =E [~ 'Ya13 E:] 1/3 r l/3 (Id)
'YI 9 'Y12'Y14E
The above equations apply only for a single specified flow
rate. More general models, allowing variable flow rate
(including shut-in, where Q w = 0), are given in Refs. [1,11].
2.A.2 Nonporous, Specified Pressure
While field hydrafrac operations typically pump the fracture
fluid at specified flow rates, it has proven most valuable in the
laboratory to analyze fractures which are grown with a
specified (constant) pressure applied to the fracture fluid: this
condition provides by far the most rigorous test of actual model
predictions. The associated theoretical analysis is relatively
simple.
The general expression for the growth rate R of constant-
pressure tests for any fracture geometry is given [9,12,13] as
(Ie)
where T c' the characteristic time, is defined by
(It)
and A is an undetermined propagation coefficient related to the
gamma coefficients:
A= ['Yi'YdYi4] (Ig)
'Yi.3
A simple relationship, relating radius versus time for constant-
pressure tests, can be written for constant A, namely:
(Ih)
2.A.3 Porous, Specified Flow Rate
The nondimensional relationship provided in equation 1b may
seem inadequate to represent with one universal curve all
constant-flow-rate radius-versus-time growth plots for porous
materials: the fluid leakoff into the porous materials introduces
additional parameters (e.g. porosity, permeability) that affect
the fracture growth rate. However, we discovered that, when
the efficiency of the fracture can be determined (as in the case
for the DISLASH experiments--see Ref. [6]), it can be used to
modify equation Ib to once again produce the universal-curve
behavior evident for nonporous tests (where the efficiency is
100%). Thus, using the efficiency of the fracture allows the
use of the same universal curve for both nonporous and porous
growth curves (see also Ref. [3]). The time in equation Ib
SPE 21846 E. JOHNSON & M. P. CLEARY
need only be multiplied with the efficiency term e:
(Ii)
This result is demonstrated in Section 4.A.3.
Such a conclusion is not necessarily valid for other fracture
geometries, but it has been experimentally shown to hold for
circular-geometry fractures in DISLASH.
2.B Elongated Fractures
Radial fractures represent one extreme of geometry shapes for
field conditions. The other extreme is a completely contained
channel fracture with a constant height, H. For the case of a
nonporous elongated fracture with constant pumping flow rate,
the analytical expressions for the fracture length, L, and excess
pressure, u, are [11]:
(2a)
(2b)
As a perfectly-contained fracture continues to grow, equation
2b suggests that the excess pressure would increase as t llS , as
compared to radial-fracture excess pressure which decreases as
r l13 (equation 1d). The excess pressure is also directly
dependent on constant flow rate, Qw' whereas in the radial-
geometry case it is not (see equation 1d). Such interpretation
of pressures histories has become popular as a means of
determining the shape of the fracture: falling pressure may
suggest a radial fracture while increasing pressures would
suggest a channel-shaped fracture (e.g. Ref. [14]); however,
this may be too simplistic an interpretation scheme, especially
after a complex injection of differing fluids and proppants are
introduced into the fracture [15]. But for simple cases, which
DISLASH can most easily be used to model, the interpretation
may be expected to hold and can easily be checked.
Equations 2a,2b should apply even if the fracture has a slowly
(or quickly) varying height, for the condition of no 1eakoff. In
this case the fracture dimensions should vary in time as
(2c)
When L=H=R for a circular fracture, equation 2a reduces to
equation 1a given for the circular-geometry fracture growth.
2.C Leading Edge
The leading edge of a propagating fracture is a very small
region at the crack tip where the fluid pressure undergoes
intense variation (in comparison to the gradients in the rest of
the fracture). The crack propagation is controlled primarily by
the mechanisms associated with this region of the fracture.
415
3
2. C.l Non-Penetrated Zone
The leading edge includes a "non-penetrated zone" where no
fracture fluid has penetrated, which is deduced to exist simply
because the propagation of a completely fluid-filled crack
would require an infinite pressure gradient so singular that a
negative-infinite pressure would be necessary at the tip. Such
a requirement is obvious from the expression for radial
Poiseuille flow between parallel plates:
(3a)
If 5 goes to zero as r'" (since power dependence 01 > 0.5),
then the pressure integration would have to go to infinity.
2. C.2 Confining-Stress Effect
For hydraulic fractures located deeply underground, the
confming stress acting over the non-penetrated zone dominates
(e.g. over the material fracture toughness K1C ) in countering
the propagation of the fracture. The confining stress acts as an
"apparent toughness" and tends to stabilize the crack growth.
However, the process cannot be modelled (except, perhaps,
a posterion) by using an "equivalent (variable) toughness"
model: for instance, this would prohibit propagation after
shut-in, which manifestly occurs in DISLASH, as well as in
field situations. .
It is to be expected that the growth rate of the fracture would
decrease with increasing confining stress. Higher confming
stresses produce more pinching near the tip, leaving lower
pressure gradients along the main body of the fracture, so that
the fluid flow rate towards the fracture tip is thus effectively
reduced [13,16]. The result is higher net pressures in the main
body of the fracture, leading to shorter, wider fractures than
might otherwise be expected.
When the ratio of confining stress, 0;" to excess fracture
pressure u is small (i. e. less than three), the confining stress
does seem to playa variable role in determining the actual rate
of propagation of the fracture [16]. Experimental results from
DISLASH verify this phenomenon. For the effect to be
negligible and to represent most field conditions, the lab
experiments were usually performed with a ratio of three or
greater. At ratios of confining stress to excess pressure of five
or more, which is typically the case for field conditions, the
effect of confining stress on fracture propagation goes asymp-
totically to a constant [16]. For the universal-curve behavior
of radial fractures to be strictly valid, the confining stress must
play a negligible role in the propagation of the fracture.
If the condition of quasi-static fracture propagation is to occur,
the confining stress acting over the non-penetrated zone and the
excess pressure acting on the rest of the fracture must together
combine to equal the critical stress intensity factor K1C (which
is zero for DISLASH). This balance of the fracture's tendency
to propagate versus its tendency to remain stationary can be
expressed (for the circular-geometry case) approximately as:
~ [uy';R-(uc +U)V270W ] = K1C (3b)
70
or
w =
[ {hI
270 (uc +u)
(uy';R - ..!2~C]]2 (3c)
where w is the "effective non-penetrated zone size" and R is
the radius of the fracture.
4 RECENT LABORATORY RESULTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES
When the toughness plays a negligible role in fracture propaga-
tion as is the case for deeply located underground fractures
i.e. when '
(3d)
then the K/c term can be neglected in equation 3c. The
expression for the non-penetrated zone size then becomes
(3e)
From equation 3e, which gives an upper-bound estimate for "',
it is clear that increasing the confining stress tends to decrease
the size of the non-penetrated zone. Conversely, the size of '"
increases with increasing excess pressure or crack radius.
Lab experiments using DISLASH clearly show the presence of
a non-penetrated zone at the tip of the fracture. Some field
results (see Ref. [2]) have suggested this non-penetrated zone
can be quite significant in size, up to 10% of the fracture
radius under certain conditions: however, if correct this
would require a very low ratio of u,J (f in that case. ' growth. The system is described in detail elsewhere (e.g. Ref.
2.C.3 Rock Dilation
The exact reason for the high net pressures seen in the field is
no.t ?efmitely established. The primary candidate mechanism,
ongmally suggested by Cleary in 1980 [13], is that the non-
penetrated zone of the fracture may be partially pinched shut
as the rock, upon being unloaded, actually dilates in a nonlin-
ear fashion. Such pinching in part of the non-penetrated zone
would . eff~tively prevent fl)Jid penetration near the tip and
result m hIgher fracture excess pressures. Figure 1a shows a
cross-sectional profile of the crack tip: the cross-hatched area
~on~ the ~riphery of the crack represents the region of
ddation (WhICh may actually be reversed as the element is re-
loaded by the fluid pressure back along the fracture flank). As
the figure illustrates, such dilation increases the corresponding
nonpenetrated zone size "'. The far-field state of stress is
shown in the lower left-hand comer of the figure as compo-
nents of confining stress 0;,/, 0;,2' and (fc3; the unloaded stress
state near the fracture tip is shown in the upper right-hand
comer. Note that, if 0;,/ = 0;,2 = (fc3 = (1. and the material is
isotropic, then the stress state at the tip b~omes an element in
uniaxial compression under a load (1-21')(1. in the z direction
with zero stresses in the x and y directions: This is essentially
the case for the DISLASH apparatus. Since Poisson's ratio is
very nearly 0.5 for the DISLASH rubber material the stress
in the z direction near the unloaded portion of the 'tip goes to
zero; thus, there is little or no near-tip stress to cause dilation.
The fact that the rubber does not dilate while rock in the field
probably does, may be a primary explanation for the relatively
lower excess pressures (and greater radius growth) exhibited in
DISLASH, as compared to field data.
A special axisymmetric computer program (A3DH), developed
at MIT, was recently used to demonstrate the effect dilatancy
could have on the fracture pressure gradient. Figure 1b shows
the pressure ~rofile in the fracture for increasing levels of
leadmg-edge dilatancy (LED). The fracture with zero leading-
edge dilatancy (e.g. corresponding to DISLASH fractures) has
a much higher pressure gradient in the main body of the
fracture than the case with 99.9 % LED. The greater the LED
the lower the corresponding 'Yi2 and the shorter and wider th~
416
SPE21846
fracture will be, for a given injected fluid volume and pumping
conditions.
3. The Laboratory Apparatus (DISLASH and CIA)
3.A Circular Fracture Geometries
Some of the earliest attempts to model a circular hydraulic
fracture at REL involved the fracturing of clear PMMA blocks
[17]. These tests had the advantage of allowing direct observa-
tion of the fracture growth and of obtaining a permanent record
of the fracture created, but, like most other past experiments,
they had several disadvantages, not the least of which was
providing primarily qualitative, rather than quantitative, data.
Fracturing cement specimens in a pressure vessel (see Figure
2a) with the Crack Interaction Apparatus (CIA) proved a more
desirable option, especially for studying curved crack growth
(a major interest at REL in 1980). It offered greater flexibility
in varying test conditions (e.g. casting inclusions) for fracture
growth, as well as in giving both qualitative and quantitative
data. The CIA has been used for many years at REL to
generate a great deal of useful data on hydraulic-fracture
[10]): in summary, it involves the actual cracking of cylindri-
cal cement specimens placed within the pressure vessel. The
cement, which has a low. fracture toughness (-200 psi..[iit),
offers a good model for SImulating underground hydraulic frac-
tures where toughness has an effect, not in resisting fracture
growth, but mainly in deciding fracture-growth directions.
Because toughness is typically irrelevant in the propagation of
d~ un~ergr<?undhydra~lic fractures (deciding mainly fracture
onentation), It was desued to perform lab hydrafrac experi-
ments which had little or no toughness in the material being
fractured.. The concept of interface separation, on which
DISLASH IS based, was developed for this purpose.
The .technique used in DISLASH (Figure 2b) consists of
pressmg two well-matched surfaces together and injecting a
fluid into the interface between them at a pressure greater than
the confining (or closure) pressure. The growth of the circular
puddle of fluid which forms has been shown [7] to be mechani-
cally eq~ivalent t<? the growth of an underground hydraulic
fracture m a matenal of zero fracture toughness, e.g., as in the
re-opening of an already-created fracture. The technique is
therefore an appropriate simulation of deeply located under-
ground fractures for which material toughness has been shown
to be unimportant [12].
DI~LASH, as shown in Figure 2b, incorporates a transparent
pohshed PMMA block for visibility and a soft silicone-rubber
block (or .roam pads when leakoff is being simulated) which
mates agamst the PMMA surface. A thin layer of aluminized
Mylar rests on top of the rubber to prevent swelling of the
rubber as the silicone fracture fluid comes into contact with it·
it also offers the added advantage of reducing adhesio~
between the PMMA/rubber interface.
When the I?ISLASH .cylinder and PMMA block are clamped
toge~er usmg the tie-rod nuts, a confining stress can be
apphed beneath the neoprene jacket membrane which houses
either the rubber block or a stack of porous pads (for leakoff
tests). The jacket acts as a piston and convolutes from its
u~deformed "t?p-~at" configuration to the position depicted in
FIgure 2b, as It hfts the rubber or foam against the PMMA
SPE 21846 E. JOHNSON & M. P. CLEARY
surface. A one-inch (2.5 cm) ring, placed between the jacket
lip and the PMMA, allows for this convolution, as the figure
illustrates. The "piston configuration" keeps the jacket from
crimping or skewing to one side, and thus helps to prevent the
development of any uneven stress variation across the
PMMA/rubber interface as the confining stress is applied.
The fracture fluid flows through the fluid-supply tube to the
wellbore and then into the fracture. The bottom of the
wellbore is counterbored to reduce the divergent, or near-
wellbore, effects produced as the fluid exits a small-sized
wellbore. The low modulus of the rubber (150 psi - I MPa)
allows a low-pressure confining-stress source (lab air) to be
used. It also allows for a larger crack opening, thus reducing
the sensitivity of the crack to interface stress variations due to
any mismatch of the PMMA and rubber; a much more
symmetric (e.g. circular) fracture growth is produced as a
result.
As shown in the schematic of DISLASH in Figure 2b, a
pressure transducer located at the end of the PMMA fluid-
supply tube measures the pressure at the wellbore throughout
the experiment. Four other pressure transducers (not shown)
also measure the pressures of four different pressure probes
located in one-centimeter (0.4 in) increments away from the
wellbore. This feature has allowed for the acquisition of much
valuable data, since it is the first time that the pressure has
been directly measured inside a hydraulic fracture in the lab
setting, despite previous attempts at REL [18]; attempts at field
measurements have yielded somewhat questionable data [2],
e.g. in terms of the tip balance given in equation 3b.
3.B Non-Circular Fracture Geometries
Since fracture geometries in the field are rarely expected to be
perfectly circular, it is important to model a more general
elongated behavior in a lab setting. Two models which are
often used as "standards" for hydraulic-fracture geometries are
the PKN and the CGDD models [1,12]. The PKN geometry
models a 2-D fracture which is bounded in height and propa-
gates to a length equal to many times its fracture height. The
CGDD geometry, representing the other extreme condition of
channel-fracture growth, is a 2-D model of fluid flowing from
a line source (e.g. an uncased wellbore) with a height much
larger than its length. Both of these geometries have provided
interesting data in the lab for the purpose of analysis (e.g.
Refs. [7,17]),· but do not generally model actual fracture
geometries in the field with any reasonably acceptable level of
accuracy.
To create a lab model of a more realistic confined fracture, a
finite-element analysis program was used to predict the
necessary undeformed channel geometry such that, when the
confining pressure below the rubber block was raised to a
specified level, the result was a stress channel of a given height
and confming stress, with a step change in confining stress
outside the channel. This model allows for partial (or even
substantial) growth outside of the channel, depending on the
magnitude of the fracture excess pressure, whereas the PKN
model does not. Of course, in the limit of very low excess
pressures (low in comparison to the barrier containment level),
the PKN geometry is simulated as well.
3.C Scaling Laws
DISLASH and the CIA apparatus can be considered very good
417
5
models of field hydraulic fractures because they obey strict
scaling laws which must apply for any model, and which apply
in the field as well. The equations for hydraulic-fracture
growth given in equations la,2a are true for any size of
fracture. The characteristic times T* (for specified flow rate)
and Tc (for specified pressure) given in equations IC,If scale
the growth time for all circular hydraulic fractures.
DISLASH and CIA also both scale toughness properly,
obeying the condition given in equation 3d: DISLASH has zero
toughness and CIA has a relatively low toughness. For any lab
model to be credible, toughness scaling must be obeyed.
In order to adequately model dilatant effects (which cannot be
produced with DISLASH, but may be present in CIA) on
hydraulic-fracture growth in the lab, additional scaling require-
ments will be necessary. However, the scaling currently
applied to both DISLASH and CIA must not be modified.
4. Experimental Results
DISLASH was used to model both circular and elongated
fracture growth under both porous and nonporous conditions.
Some of the results given in Ref. [6] are discussed below.
4.A Circular Fractures
DISLASH has been used primarily in modelling circular
hydraulic fractures, which are the easiest to reproduce and
offer the least complicated means of obtaining repeatability.
These circular-geometry tests have given much insight to the
hydraulic-fracturing process.
4.A.l Single Fluid Viscosity
Constant Flow Rate
Constant-flow-rate, single-fluid viscosity, nonporous circular-
geometry tests offer the simplest fracture for the purposes both
of generating repeatable tests and of analyzing the resulting
data. As suggested by equation Ib, there exists for such
fractures a single universal curve describing the radial growth
as a function of time. This curve has been well established in
the lab setting (e.g. Refs. [4,5,6,7,9,19]). In an attempt to
represent the universal curve as accurately as possible, the best
data sets generated from DISLASH over a two-year period
were used to obtain an average universal-growth curve. Figure
3a gives this nondimensional curve for the case where the
rubber block is used, and Figure 3b for the foam pads. The
data scatter for both curves is also plotted on the same graphs.
Both curves represent variation in viscosity of up to 300 and in
flow rate by factors up to 10. The percent standard deviation
(standard deviation divided by mean value) is used as a
measure of repeatability here: the rubber-medium universal
curve (Figure 3a) has a percent standard deviation at a radius
of 4.5 cm (1.8 in) (R/R w =28.3) of 17%; the percent standard
deviation at R=4.5 cm (1.8 in) for the foam-medium universal
curve (Figure 3b) is 6%. The two curves are plotted together
in Figure 3c.
As is clear from Figure 3c, the shapes of the two universal
curves representing the growth using the rubber medium and
foam medium are not identical. This is due to the fact that,
strictly speaking, only the rubber material is an exact model of
half a hydraulic fracture, with the PMMA surface acting as a
plane of symmetry. The rubber has a Poisson ratio very near
6 RECENT LABORATORY RESULTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES
to 0.5 and is thus an incompressible material. One result of
this is that the influence functions show that radial displace-
ment is zero along the surface of the rubber when the rubber
is deformed during fluid flow between the PMMAIrubber
interface, which implies that points in the interface beyond the
fracture radius do not try to move due to a contractile Poisson
effect--thus avoiding shear between rubber and PMMA.
Since the foam pad has a Poisson ratio of only about 0.15, it
is highly compressible and has associated fracture influence
functions which cause shear stresses at the PMMA/foam-pad
interface when fluid deforms the pad. Its "half-crack"
deformed shape is, thus, not the same as the shape for that of
a true half-crack for a hydraulic fracture. Notice that,
although this is the case in principle, the two universal curves
for foam and rubber are still remarkably similar within the
range of DISLASH operation. The graph suggests that beyond
an R/Rw value of 35 (i.e. beyond the range which DISLASH
can model), the growth in the foam medium may be noticeably
slower than that in the rubber medium. Yet, within this range
the curves agree fairly well. The fact that the curves are so
similar is important: it allows the effect of leakoff into the
permeable pad to be studied and eventually compared with
computer simulations of hydrafrac leakoff, without undue
concern about the validity of DlSLASH for JI ~ 0.5 .
Because DlSLASH actually models only half of a hydraulic
fracture, the data must be modified before being compared to
computer simulations or other full-crack lab experiments (e.g.
CIA). A convenient result of having interface shear equal to
zero for the rubber is that, to correct from a half crack to a
full crack, all that need be done is to double the channel-
o~ning modulus, Ii. This may be understood more easily by
notmg the lumped-model relationship between crack opening
d, radius R, and excess pressure q [12]:
d q
(4a)
R = 1'1"£
which is a valid expression for a full crack. The half-crack
opening for DlSLASH is onl~half as wide as d in equation 4
for the same 1'1' R, q, and E, which means that when d in
equation 4 is used to refer to the half-crack opening, the right-
hand side of the equatiEn is divided by 2 and modulus Ii then
effectively becomes 2E. This doubled DlSLASH Ii is used
in calculating the time constant T· for all rubber-medium
DISLASH curves. Since the foam and rubber universal curves
are so similar (as compared in Figure 3c), this Ii doubling also
should apply to the T· calculated for the foam-medium
hydraulic-fracture curve.
Calculating a best-fit curve for the two universal curves
provides a useful comparison with the expected growth-rate
behavior given in equation la. The fit suggests that radius
grows as to.42 for the foam material and as to.46 for the rubber
material. Both of these power dependences are within 5 % of
the expected theoretical value of 4/9=0.44 given in equation
la, thus boosting confidence that the data for both foam and
rubber provide a good model of hydraulic-fracture growth.
For a radial-geometry fracture with no leakoff and a Newtoni-
an injection fluid, equation ld suggests that the excess pressure
is independent of flow rate. Figure 4a shows the pressure
histories of four different tests, representing a change in flow
rate by a factor of almost 10 between the lowest and highest
flow rate. The pressures (measured at the wellbore) agree with
each other to within ± 0.1 psi (0.0007 MPa).
418
SPE2l846
The formula for excess pressure given in equation ld shows
that q should go as time to the negative one-third power.
Figure 4b, representing tests using three different fluid
viscosities (1000, 10000, and 300000 cs), confirms that
pressure plotted as time to the negative one-third power gives
a linear behavior. Since the wellbore pressure (rather than the
excess pressure) is plotted on the y- axis, the y-intercept given
by a best-fit line of these curves should give the confining-
stress value plus any wellbore friction pressure (which is
significant for the highest-viscosity test).
The data from DlSLASH discussed above point to the validity
of the lumped-model expressions given in equations la,ld, and
thus of the more general expressions given in Ref. [1,12], of
which equations la,ld are special cases. It follows, then, that
the models based on these more general expressions (e.g. as
contained in the computer simulator FRACPRO, which has
been developed by the Gas Research Institute (GR!) [1] for
real-time matching of field data), can also be used to match the
DlSLASH growth data, since it adopts the same lumped-model
expressions for its calculations. Figure 5a shows the nondi-
mensional DISLASH curve for the rubber medium plotted with
several c~rves generated by FRACPRO at different "112 values.
By choosmg the correct value of 1'12 (which gives the function-
al relationship of the pressure gradient inside the fracture to the
wellbore excess pressure and fracture radius), the radial
DlSLASH data can be matched. For the DISLASH data, this
value is quite high ( ... 0.5). In order to match field pressure
data, 1'12 lower by two to three orders magnitude (i.e 1'12 ...,
0.005-0.001) have been deduced. The role and values of the
"rock nonlinearity parameter" 1'12 may be the easiest way to
express the differences between the various industry models
and those in FRACPRO, which includes all other models as
special cases.
To date, because they are more cumbersome, only a few CIA
constant-flow-rate tests have been run [19]. The results are
shown in Figure 5b in nondimensional form, along with the
DISLASH universal curve. It is clear that the CIA tests grow
more slowly than the DISLASH tests, perhaps indicating some
dilatancy at the tip (which would not occur with DISLASH).
Multiple Flow Rates
DISLASH was used to run a number of constant-flow-rate tests
where the flow rate was stepped during the test. Figure 6a
shows one such test where the flow rate is increased when the
radius reaches 2.5 cm (1 in) at 14 sec. The increase in excess
pressure along the fracture is minimal, even though the flow
rate has been doubled. The pressure response within the
fracture is nearly instantaneous. Figure 6b shows the pressure
response when the flow rate is stepped by a factor of ten at a
radius of 2.5 cm = 1 in (at 52 sec). This time the pressure
response within the fracture is much more noticeable, as is the
increase in friction pressure at the wellbore (note the instanta-
neous falloff of wellbore friction pressure upon shut-in).
Constant Pressure
In order to compare DISLASH data sets with data generated
from the CIA apparatus, specified-pressure tests were per-
formed, since most of the hydraulic-fracture simulations
performed with the CIA instrumentation were done with
constant-pressure conditions at the wellbore rather than
constant flow rate. Some of the better data sets produced over
a two-year period were collected to compare with DISLASH
SPE 21846 E. JOHNSON & M. P. CLEARY
constant-pressure tests. When the nondimensional curve
representing the CIA constant-pressure tests is plotted against
DISLASH constant-pressure tests as in Figure 7 (shown on a
semi-log plot), it seems from the slope m of the lines that the
CIA tests grow somewhat faster than both the DISLASH tests
and the theoretical growth curve (also shown).
This result might be due to the fact that the ratio of confining
stress to excess pressure is low in CIA tests (between 1 and
1.5); hence, a faster growth rate would be expected than that
for the DISLASH tests which have a much higher value for
u"lu (roughly 10). However, it should be noted that the
constant-flow-rate CIA tests actually grew more slowly than
the DISLASH tests (suggesting a dilatant effect in the cement).
It may be that for CIA constant-pressure tests the low 0: 117
ratio, which causes the fracture to speed up, tends to domi~ate
the growth over the dilatant effect, which would tend to slow
down the growth. But because the average u" 117 ratio for CIA
constant-flow-rate tests is higher than the constant-pressure
tests (1.65 rather than 1 to 1.5), just the reverse could begin to
be true. Until more tests and,analyses are performed, it is not
possible to make any definitive conclusions.
In Figure 7, the DISLASH results compare reasonably well
with the numerical model (the results of which were taken
from Ref. [9]). The value of >.. in the exponent (given as min
the figure) is 0.34 for DISLASH, as compared to 0.43 for the
computer model, a percent difference of 20% between the two.
4.A.2 Multiple Fluid Viscosities
DISLASH was also used to perform tests where the fluid
viscosity was varied as the test progressed. Figure 8a shows
the pressure response throughout the fracture for three tests as
the viscosity is increased from 10,000 cs to 300,000 cs, a
factor of 30. The friction inside the wellbore is noticeably
increased (by about 4.5 psi = 0.031 MPa). Only the pressure
at a radius of one centimeter (0.4 in) increases as the higher
viscosity fluid is injected--pressures at radii two, three, and
four centimeters (0.8, 1.2, and 1.6 in) remain unchanged until
the high-viscosity fluid reaches those points (which happens for
this set of tests only at a time of 88 seconds--then the pressure
in probe two begins to increase). At the end of the test, when
shut-in occurs, the initial instantaneous wellbore pressure drop
is due to the friction effect in the wellbore.
Figure 8b shows a dual-viscosity radius-versus-time test with
10,000 cs fluid, followed by 300,000 cs fluid when the fracture
radius reaches 2.5 cm (1 in). Curves representing both single-
viscosity fluids, 10,000 cs and 300,000 cs, are plotted in the
figure as well (the flow rate is the same for all three tests).
Here it is obvious that the higher-viscosity fluid has only a
small effect on the growth behavior of the overall fracture,
even though it fills the bulk of the fracture volume by the end
of the test. This behavior demonstrates that it is the viscosity
of the fluid near the front of the fracture which dominates the
growth rate over the viscosity of any fluid away from the tip
(closer to the wellbore), even without nonlinearity (e.g. [1]).
4.A.3 Porous Material
A number of porous leakoff tests were generated in Ref. [5]
and are replotted here as representative curves in nondimen-
sional form in Figure 9a, which shows three sets of tests at
419
7
three different viscosities (200 cs, 10,000 cs, and 30,000 cS),
with all other test parameters being held constant. It is clear
that the curves do not fall onto the universal curve for nonpo-
rous tests (also plotted in the figure). However, when the
efficiency of each of the curves is calculated and is used as a
multiplicative correction factor for the leakoff curves (as
discussed in 2.A.3), the resulting curves fall very near the
universal curve, as illustrated in Figure 9b. The curves should
fall even closer to the nonporous nondimensional curve if the
efficiency at each radius were considered, but for the sake of
simplicity, only an average efficiency for each test was used.
4.A.4 Shut-in Behavior
Numerous shut-in tests were also performed with DISLASH
under both leakoff and no-leakoff conditions. These data are
important in offering insight into how the fracture responds
once pumping has stopped.
Three nonporous tests are shown in Figure lOa. When the
fracture reaches a radius of 3 cm (1.2 in), the pumping is
stopped. The pressure quickly drops, due to a combination of
the friction effects ceasing in the wellbore, divergence ceasing
near the wellbore, and the tendency of the fluid in the fracture
to approach an equilibrium pressure once pumping has stopped.
It is clear that the radius of the fracture continues to increase
(though much more slowly), even after pumping has ended.
Figure lOb shows a leakoff test with shut-in occurring at a
radius of 2.5 cm (1 in). As with the nonporous shut-in test,
the radius also continues to grow when there is leakoff, even
after the pumping has stopped. Depending on the rate of
leakoff, this growth can be significant. In the case of Figure
lOb the radius increased by at least 0.5 cm (0.2 in), 20% of
the radius size at the start of shut-in, before the fracture closed
at about 21 psig (0.14 MPa) for this test. This translates into
an effective increase in area of 44 %. As shown in Ref. [8],
upon shut-in the fracture could grow forward, remain station-
ary, or even grow backward, depending on the leakoff
characteristics and other conditions.
These shut-in tests are important because they demonstrate the
potential errors (see also Ref. [1]) associated with current
models used to analyze field data, which assume that the
fracture area remains constant during shut-in. A constant-area
fracture size allows certain simplifying assumptions to be made
in analyzing the resulting pressure falloff (as in [3]), but it is
clear that such models cannot be relied upon too heavily since
fracture sizes can still change significantly during shut-in [1].
4.B Elongated Fractures
Although DISLASH has been used in the past predominately
for the purpose of modelling the circular-geometry fracture,
some data have also been generated for the more attractive (for
field applications, at least) elongated fracture geometry.
4.B.l Single Fluid Viscosity
The simplest elongated fracture to analyze is the nonporous,
constant-flow-rate, single-viscosity test. A plot of fracture
length versus time for such a test is shown in Figure lla.
Figure lla illustrates that the dependence of length on time is
greater than that for the circular case, which is to be expected
for channel growth. Length goes as time to the 0.84 power in
Figure lla (which has Qw = .021 eels and J.' =10,000 cs), as
8 RECENT LABORATORY RESULTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES
r
compared to a radius dependence of '9 = to.44 for radial-
geometry growth. In the limit for a constant-height fracture
(approximated by these tests because of their low excess
r
pressures), equation 2a predicts that length goes as 'S , which
is very close to the actual calculated value of to. 84 •
Likewise, the wellbore pressure (plotted in Figure llb) for the
tests shown in Figure lla increases in time to approximately
the power of 0.13 rather than decreasing by r l13 as in the
radial-geometry fracture growth. Again, considering the
limiting case of a constant-height fracture, which these
particular tests approximate, the power dependence of excess
pressure on time should be 1/5, per equation 2b.
The tests shown in Figure lla represent reasonably well-
contained fracture growth with a very slowly growing (but not
completely constant) height. However, when the viscosity of
the fracture fluid is increased by a factor of 30 to 300,000 cs
such that the excess pressure is nearly the same value as the
barrier containment size, the fracture shape becomes far more
elliptical in shape. Figure l2a shows the growth behavior of
such a fracture, where the ratio of length to height is about two
at the end of the test. According to equation 2c, the more
general relationship LH4/S - r 's should hold. The calculated
value of the LH4/S dependance on time is LH4/S - to. 86 , which
is very close to the theoretical value of LH4/S - to. 8 given in
equation 2c.
The pressure curves for the growth data shown in Figure 12a
are plotted in Figure 12b. Even though the fracture is not
circular, the pressure response appears similar to that expected
for a circular fracture, with the exception that the pressure
dependence on time is less than that for a circular hydrafrac.
4.B.2 Multiple Fluid Viscosities
A more complicated pumping scheme than the single-viscosity
test is to inject fluids of different viscosities into the fracture,
as is typically done in field applications. Figure 13 illustrates
the radius and pressure response to pumping multiple-viscosity
fluids into a channel fracture. With a slow pumping rate
(Qw =0.01 cc/s) and a low viscosity (10,000 cs) being pumped
initially, the channel was well contained and the pressure
increased with time. After about 25 seconds, a much higher
viscosity fluid (300,000 cs) began to exit the wellbore and the
wellbore pressure rose much more quickly in time (part of the
initial pressure rise was due to friction in the wellbore). As
the 300,000 cs fluid inside the fracture reached a radius of one
cm (0.4 in), the rate of pressure rise in time was increased
there as well (probes at radii of three and four cm (1.2 and 1.6
in) were not encountered by the higher viscosity fluid and,
hence, continued to exhibit the pressure response associated
with the 10,000 cs fluid). After about 50 seconds, still another
higher-viscosity fluid entered the fracture (600,000 cs). The
wellbore pressure then actually started to decrease as a function
of time as the fracture height at the wellbore began growing
more rapidly. At 100 seconds the test was shut in.
4.B.3 Shut-in Behavior
Figure 13 illustrates the initial pressure response of a nonpo-
rous fracture (with multiple fluid-viscosity injections) upon
shut-in. Figures 14a-d give a schematic representation of this
effect for a different test. Figures l4a-c show tracings from
photographs of a fracture growing as differently colored fluids
(of the same viscosity, for this particular test) are pumped into
the fracture. Figure 14d shows the fracture after the flow rate
420
SPE2l846
has ceased. Notice here that the fracture height has decreased
in size as the length continued to grow during shut-in. The
maximum height achieved before shut-in is shown in the figure
as a dashed line. The fourth fluid has propagated all the way
to the tip of the fracture (not shown). This observed growth
behavior is important, for it illustrates the concept of fracture
pinching which can occur in the field to cause the fracture to
decrease in height during shut-in while it continues to grow in
length (unless, of course, 1eakoff is significant, in which case
the fracture length may remain fixed or even grow back).
The pictures traced in Figures 14a,b,c,d illustrate the behavior
of a well-contained fracture, driven at a relatively low flow
rate, and hence experiencing lower excess pressures.
s. Additional Observations
5.A Issue of Confining-Stress Measurement
As described in [6], several different methods were employed
to measure the confining stress Uc in DISLASH. This parame-
ter is important to know accurately since it is the excess
pressure in the fracture, not the total pressure, which governs
the growth rate. Two of the methods which are commonly used
in the field to determine Uc are the pump-inlflow-back test and
the shut-in leakoff test.
When the pressure response of a pump-inlflow-back test is
plotted versus time, the inflection point on the resulting curve
should be the confining-stress level [3]. This test was per-
formed a number of times using DlSLASH. One of the
resulting graphs is shown in Figure 15. A polynomial best-fit
curve gave the first inflection point at a time of 13 sec (see
figure), corresponding to a pressure of 41.6 psig (0.29 MPa),
which is higher than the actual confining stress at the wellbore
by at least two psi (0.01 MPa). The pump-inlflow-back tests
were all generally repeatable in giving Uc only to within ± 3
psi (± 0.02 MPa), or 6% error, which is unacceptable in the
lab (because the excess pressure is the same order of magni-
tude as the uncertainty in Uc) and may also prove unacceptable
when scaled to field conditions.
The shut-in test offered a more reliable means of determining
the confining stress at the wellbore. When the shut-in pressure
behavior is plotted as pressure versus square root of time, the
point at which the confining stress is reached should show up
on the graph as a break in the pressure-decline curve [3].
Figure l6a shows the pressure history of a typicalleakoff test
before and during shut-in and Figure 16b gives pressure plotted
as the square root of time since shut-in. In Figure 16b the
confining stress appears to be at about Uc =39.2 psig (0.27
MPa) at the wellbore. This value was the same as that which
was determined by other means, though it should be pointed
out that the confining stress in the fracture away from the
wellbore was 40.1 psig 1 (0.28 MPa), or 0.9 psi (0.006 MPa)
higher than the confining stress at the wellbore--due to a
localized deformity in the PMMA out to a radius of roughly
0.25 cm (0.1 in). Such a problem can also easily occur in the
field where the confining stress over the whole extent of the
fracture is not known and can only be determined approxi-
mately at the wellbore.
tThe total confining stress is then atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi = 0.1
MPa) plus the gage confining stress (40.1 psig = 0.28 MPa). or (To =54.8
psia (0.38 MPa). Atmospheric pressure must be included because it is
acting on ~e interface even before gage pressure is applied.
SPE 21846 E. JOHNSON & M. P. CLEARY
5.B Phenomenological Observations
The DISLASH apparatus provides many additional conven-
iences: the most unique among these may be the ability to
visually observe the behavior of fluid flow and fracture
propagation. In particular, Figure 17a shows a test where a
much lower viscosity (by a factor of 30) was pumped following
a higher-viscosity fluid. The lower-viscosity fluid "tunneled"
between the PMMA surface and the higher-viscosity fluid.
This is illustrative of can what happen in the field if a high
viscosity fluid is followed by one of lower viscosity--the
situation is unstable and tunneling results: the resulting
profiles have interesting connotations for applications such as
acid-fracturing, e.g. as a means to preferentially etch the pay
zone. As well, we observed the inviscid fluid actually to
"sheet-tunnel" along the walls outside the viscous fluid. This
latter tunneling behavior may also have important implications
for proppant convection (e.g. [1]): if the low-viscosity fluid is
able to "wet" the side walls of the fracture as it tunnels, the
higher-viscosity fluid which bears the proppant may be able to
slide much more easily down to the bottom of the fracture,
carrying the proppant with it. Such a method of proppant
transport would be far faster than letting the proppant settle to
the bottom on its own (e.g. see Ref. [1]).
Another example of tunneling is given in Figure l7b, which
shows a fracture of the same fluid viscosity driven at a much
higher flow rate than that used to produce the fracture shown
in Figure l4a,b,c,d. In the earlier stages of growth the
fracture has an extremely large non-penetrated zone in the
length direction (w = 8.5 mm = 0.33 in), due to the high
fluid pressure and the lower confining stress in the center of
the channel (see equation 3e). In the height direction, w = 1
mm (0.04 in), which is expectedly much smaller than the w in
the length direction because of the greater confining stress out
of the channel. Later in the growth of this poorly-contained
fracture, there is still significant growth in the height direction.
A second fluid of much lower viscosity has been pumped into
the fracture and has tunneled its way between the PMMA
surface and the higher-viscosity fluid to the right-hand tip of
the fracture and nearly to the left-hand tip.
5.C Near-Wellbore Effect
The divergence, or near-wellbore effect, evidenced in the
pressure behavior of DISLASH fractures is due to the rapid
equilibration of near-wellbore pressure gradients as the fluid
flows out from a wellbore of small radius into the fracture.
The magnitude of the pressure drop caused by divergence is a
function of flow rate, as well as of viscosity.
To reduce the divergent effect for the purpose of obtaining a
more reliable estimate of the true excess pressure during
pumping, the end of the DISLASH wellbore was counterbored
to create a wider effective exit radius for the fluid. The
counterbore had a significant effect in reducing the divergence
at the wellbore, as in Figure 18, a plot of two identical tests
with and without the counterbored wellbore. In an attempt to
reduce even further the near-wellbore effect, the wellbore was
enlarged by about 10% and a counterbore was drilled slightly
larger. The pressure data obtained from tests run with the
larger wellbore and counterbore (also shown in Figure 18)
shows an even further reduction of the divergent effect at the
wellbore. The effect was not completely eliminated, but was
at least greatly reduced. It is possible to determine the
magnitude of the divergent plus friction pressure drop at the
wellbore (both of which are flow-rate and viscosity dependent)
421
9
by performing a shut-in at some point during the test (if all
conditions remain constant), or after each time flow rate or
viscosity is changed (as in most field cases--see Ref. [1]).
6. Conclusions
A convenient and easily operable apparatus known as
DISLASH was used to model the behavior of underground
hydraulic fractures. The case of a nonporous radial fracture
with a Newtonian fracture fluid and a constant pumping rate
was studied in detail, and a nondimensional universal curve,
representing the growth behavior for all materials and all fluid
viscosities, was characterized using the best data sets generated
from DISLASH over a two-year period. The curve proved to
be in close agreement with the lumped-model equations which
express the fracture growth in time, giving a dependence of
radius on time to within 5% of the lumped-model expression.
Comparison of DISLASH constant-flow-rate tests with CIA
tests, which grew more slowly than the DISLASH tests,
suggested the possibility of a dilatant effect in the cement
(which would not be present in the DISLASH rubber medium).
Constant-pressure tests produced using DISLASH were also put
in a nondimensional (universal) form and compared with
another laboratory hydrafrac model (CIA) developed at REL.
The CIA tests exhibited faster growth rates than the DISLASH
tests, which is as expected given that the ratio of confining
stress to excess pressure in the CIA tests was very low. As a
result, confining stress had a variable effect on the growth rate:
the lower the confining stress, the faster the growth rate. The
nondimensional specified-pressure curve for DISLASH was
also compared to a computer model of a circular hydraulic-
fracture growth; they agreed with each other to within 20%.
A number of shut-in tests for the radial-geometry fracture were
performed, for both leakoff and no-leakoff conditions. The
tests revealed significant propagation during shut-in for both
cases, indicating that simplistic interpretation schemes of
analyzing pressure falloff during shut-in with the assumption of
constant fracture area is often not valid. To properly interpret
the pressure behavior during shut-in, the pressure drop due to
propagation and the pressure drop due to leakoff (if any is
present) must both be considered.
In addition to modelling radial-geometry fractures, fracture
growth in a channel was modelled and studied using
DISLASH. The lumped-model expressions for channel
hydrafrac growth were demonstrated to be valid using the
DISLASH data. In particular, the growth dependence on time
suggested by experimental results was found to be within 7 %
of the lumped-model prediction.
Observation of channel-fracture growth confirmed a number of
interesting and important phenomena not directly observable in
the field, including: 1) very high excess pressures leading to
poorly-contained fracture growth; 2) pinching of the fracture
during shut-in such that it may in some circumstances decrease
in height while growing in the length direction; 3) flow of fluid
pumped at later stages in the fracture growth out to the fracture
tip; and 4) near-wall tunneling of a fluid with lower viscosity
to the edge of the fracture. These and other observations
suggest a number of errors in current commonly held ideas on
hydrafrac-growth behavior, for example: 1) the assumption
that during shut-in the fracture area remains roughly constant,
when in fact it may increase (or even decrease) substantially;
2) the flow of fluid (and associated proppant transport) is one-
10 RECENT LABORATORY RESULTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES SPE2l846

dimensional, when, even for well-contained fractures, this is
clearly not the case.
Although there are important quantitative differences from
many field data sets, probably caused by nonlinear near-tip
rock response, many of the observations and data provided by
the DISLASH apparatus may help to explain why current ideas
commonly held in the hydrafrac industry need serious re-
evaluation and modification. These laboratory experiments can
be performed cheaply, repeatably, and credibly, with well-
determined values of the various important parameters, unlike
conditions pertaining in analogous field efforts (e.g. [2]) or
other large-scale laboratory efforts proposed and/or conducted
to date. Thus, future work with DISLASH should continue to
provide insight into some of the many unknowns still present
in the understanding of hydraulic-fracture growth.
Acknowledgements
a Propagating Hydraulic Fracture," Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, 46-54, February 1985.
[3] Nolte, K. G., "Fracturing Pressure Analysis: Deviations
from Ideal Assumptions," SPE Paper No. 20704, SPE
Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, LA, 1990.
[4] Bailey, John R. "Leakoff Simulation in Interface Separation
Experiments," S. B. Thesis in the Department of Mechani-
cal Engineering, M.LT., June 1987. (MIT UFRAC Report
No. REL-87-9)
[5] Johnson, Donald Edward, "Underground Hydraulic Frac-
tures: Leakoff Dependence on Viscosity in a Porous
Medium," B.S. Thesis in the Dept. of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, M.I.T., June 1988.
[6] Johnson, Donald Edward, "Experiments and Analysis on
Hydraulic Fracture Growth in an Interface Separation
Apparatus," M.S. Thesis in the Dept. of Mechanical
Engineering, M.LT., September 1990.

The work reported here was supported primarily by the Gas [7] Mastanduno, R. "Design and Testing of an Experimental
Research Institute, implementing numerous experimental Hydraulic Fracture Simulation Apparatus." S.M. Thesis,
MIT, June 1986. (MIT UFRAC Report No. REL-86-8)
capabilities developed by the MIT UFRAC project (1980-87),
supported by a consortium of petroleum industry participants-- [8] Yap, Jee-Lian, "The Effect of Permeability and the Impor-
especially Amoco, BP, Chevron, Shell, and Texaco. We are tance of Fracture Propagation During Shut-in, of Hydraulic
grateful for this support and for the input and prior work of Fractures," B.S. Thesis in the Dept. of Mechanical Engi-
numerous people. Special thanks should also be made to neering, M.I.T., June 1990.
Shaun Grannis, who was of great help at MIT in generating
much of the data presented in this paper. [9] Papadopoulos, J. M., et. al., "Laboratory Simulations of
Hydraulic Fracturing," SPE/DOE 11618, March 1983.
Nomenclature [10] Wright, Timothy B., "Laboratory Simulations of Hydraulic
Fracturing: Improvements in Equipment and Procedures,"
E Young's modulus B.S. Thesis in the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, M.LT.,
June 1985.
it Crack-opening modulus
H Fracture height [11] Crockett, A. R., et. al., "A Complete Integrated Model for
K 1C Critical stress intensity factor Design and Real-Time Analysis," SPE 15069, April 1986.
L Fracture length
Fracture radius [12] Cleary, M. P., "Comprehensive Design Formulae for
R Hydraulic Fracturing," SPE 9259, September 1980.
~w Wellbore radius
R Radial growth rate [13] Cleary, M. P., "Analysis of Mechanisms and Procedures for
Qw Flow rate Producing Favourable Shapes of Hydraulic Fractures," SPE
9260, September 1980.
o,~ Crack width
E Fracture efficiency [14] Nolte, K. G. and M. B. Smith, "Interpretation of Fracturing
rij Lumped-model gamma coefficients
Fracture propagation coefficient for constant
Pressures," JPT, (Sept. 1981) 1767-75.

pressure conditions [15] Crockett, A.R., R.M. Willis and M.P. Cleary, "Improving
Hydraulic Fracture Predictions by Real-Time History-
p. Fluid viscosity Matching on Observed Pressures," SPE Paper No. 15264,
p. Channel-flow viscosity SPE Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Louisville,
p Poisson's ratio KY, May 1986.
(1 Fracture excess pressure (i.e. pressure above [16] Narendran, V. Mohan, "Analysis of the Growth and Interac-
confining stress) tion of Multiple Plane Hydraulic Fractures," Ph.D. thesis in
Confining, or closure, stress the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, M.LT., March 1986.
Characteristic time for constant-flow-rate-
[17] Papadopoulos, J. M., et. al., "Interface Separation: An
conditions Experimental Tool for Studying Hydraulic Fracture (prelimi-
Characteristic time for constant-pressure nary Version)," October 1982. (MIT UFRAC Report No.
conditions REL-82-l4)
w Non-penetrated zone at fracture tip
[18] Morris, K. A., "A Computerized Data Acquisition and
Control System with Particular Application to a Laboratory
References Hydraulic Fracture Simulator," B.S. Thesis in the Dept. of
Mechanical Engineering, M.I.T., June 1982. (MIT UFRAC
[1] Cleary, M. P., Chris Wright and Tim Wright, "Exper- Report No. REL-82-7)
imental and Modelling Evidence for Major Changes in
Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field Procedures," SPE [19] Motamed, Farzin, "Constant Pressure and Constant Flow
21494, Gas Technology Symposium, 1991. Point Source Hydraulic Fractures in Cement," B.S. Thesis
in the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, M.LT., June 1986.
[2] Warpinski, N. R., "Measurement of Width and Pressure in

422
SPE 21846 E. JOHNSON & M. P. CLEARY 11

Mylar

Aluminum
Cylinder

Non-Penetrated Zone

Figure 1a: Cross-sectional profile of a crack exhibiting a dilatant effect Figure 2b: Side view of DISLASH. Shop air pressure is applied inside the
(shown in the cross-hatched periphery). The excess-pressure gradient is aluminum cylinder to create the confining stress.
small, except at the tip where the gradient undergoes intense variation as the 35 1~"""'''''--~''''''~~'''''~--'-'Ilii-iiIiIJ'''''''---~l
pressure drops down to the confining-stress level (0;,2)'

500F=============::::==';;;::========~ 30
450 99.9" LED

400 25

.;;;
350 99" LED

~
f
300 ~
20 ..

250 ~
:>
::l
f 15
a.
'" 200
~
w
150 10

100
50 5

00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 oL....~....L....~~L....~~L....~~L....~~L....~--.J
·1000 o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Radius (It)
tit* (shifted)
Figure 1b: Graph of excess-pressure gradient for various levels of leading- Figure 3a: Universal-eurve behavior for nonporous radial fracture using a
edge dilatancy (LED). The gradient decreases significantly as the dilatant rubber medium, with data scatter plotted in the background.
effect increases.
35
Radial Pressure on Specimen ............

30

25

20
"Confining" ~
Fluid
~
15

Inflatable
End Pad
10

0
·1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

AxIal Pressure on Specimen

/ tlt* (shifted)
Crack Drlvtng Pressure Figure 3b: Universal-eurve behavior for nonporous radial fracture using a
Figure 13: Schematic view of the CIA apparatus. foam medium, with data scatter plotted in the background.

423
12 RECENT LABORATORY RESULTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES SPE21846

35 40
;/
Rubber medium ~ 1i2-· 5

30

------ \ '/
311

30
.... ""1;2-.05

25
Foam medium
-- -- .... ....
-- --
25 -
.... /
1i2-.oo5

~
~
~
~ /' --
•~
20 20 /
it; it; /
~
~
ill
/
/
/'
/' -- --
15
/ /
10 //
1/
10 II
5

II 0
0 1100 1000 IlI00 2000 2500 3000 31100 4000 0 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000

tit* (shifted) th:*

Figure 3c: Comparison of the two universal curves generated using a rubber Figure Sa: Plot of nondimensional radial-growth curve for DISLASH (solid
medium and a foam medium (from Figures 3a and 3b). line) and FRACPRO radial-growth curves at different "ta values.
50 r-~~~---'--~--'--~----'---~---'
60

40
55

30
bD
.~
50
8 ~
~
~ ;;:
I
p.. 411
20

10
40

0
35
20 40 60 80 100 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0
Time (sec) tI<* (shifted)

Figure 4a: Graph of nonporous radial-geometry tests at four different flow Figure Sb: Comparison of DISLASH (open circles) and CIA universal
rates (0.007, 0.03, 0.04, and 0.06 eels). curves for constant-flow-rate tests.
75

70

65 110

60
bD
.~
bD
.~

8 8
;:"
~ 55 ~ 45
~
! 50 ~

45 40

40

L.-~~L.-~~L.-~~L.....-~---e-L~l~
35
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 o 10 20 30 40 110
Time ~(-.33) sec~(-.33)
Time (sec)
Figure 4b: Pressure histories for constant-flow-rate tests at three different
viscosities (1000, 10000, and 300000 cs), plotted as excess pressure versus Figure 6a: Radial-geometry nonporous test with flow rate doubled when the
cubed root of time. radius reaches 2.5 cm (1 in).

424
SPE 21846 E. JOHNSON & M. P. CLEARY 13

50 5

48 4

.;0
-eo
f
;J
48
]
.=
'6
3
" 3OO,OOOcs

! 44 ~ 2

42

40 '->..-.-JL...>--'----'--'-~__'__'_.L_.L_L_"__'__'__LL_'__~~_'__'______' o 1!l0~~~~3.L0~~~-8LO~~~...J9-0~~~1~2~0~~~150
o 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 110
Time (sec)
Time (sec)

Figure 6b: Radial-geometry nonporous test with flow rate increased by a Figure 8b: Comparison of dual-viscosity radial growth curve with 10,000
factor of ten when the radius reaches 2.5 cm (1 in) at 52 seconds. cs and 300,000 cs viscosity growth curves.
35
m=O.43 30 Nonporous u\versal Curve
THEORY

i
200cs
m=O.56
CIA 25

m=O.34
rl
;;:
20

DISLASH

15

of' a

10

5 IL...~_~....L~~-.L~~.........l~~~~~----'-'
o 2000 4000 8000 8000 10000
thO
t/1:c (shifted)
Figure 9a: Plot of three nondimensional curves at three different viscosities
Figure 7: Comparison of DISLASH, CIA, and computer-model growth representing the average growth behavior of the curves presented in Ref.
curves for specified-pressure tests, plotted as nondimensional curves. [6]. The universal curve for the foam material is also plotted.
58 35 ,.....~~-.~~~,.,.~~---,-~~7r,-."7)-:;-'"l

30 10,OOOcs
54
3O,OOOcs
25

.
";;;
-eo
50

~
20 -

~ p:
~ ;;: 15-
l 46

10

42
5

38 0
0 20 40 80 80 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time <sec) E(tlt' )

Figure 8a: Pressure response in the fracture when viscosity is increased Figure 9b: Plot of nondimensional radius versus time (from Figure 9a) with
from 10,000 cs to 300,000 cs. the nondimensional time corrected by the fracture-efficiency term, e. The
thick line represents the foam universal curve for no leakoff (with e = 1).

425
14 RECENT LABORATORY RESULTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES SPE21846

5 36

60
4 35

55
3
:<l
~
!';o
34
=
.,r
Q.
~
~
2 ~ £ 33

32
40

31
35 L..~~-l~~~-L~~~J-~~~.l-~~-"---' o 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
o 20 40 60 80 100 Time (seel
Time (sec)

Figure lOa: Three nonporous tests shut in when the fracture radius reached Figure 11b: Pressure behavior for the channel-growth data shown in Figure
a size of 3 cm (1.2 in). 11a. The initial pressure peak: and rapid decay at the start of the test is
45 3.5 likely due to initiation effects as the fluid begins to exit the wellbore. The
power dependence of pressure on time is 0.13.
5
3.0
40

2.5 4
.!!l' 35
.;
G
~ 2.0
.
iil
~ 30
:<l
=
Q.
~.
p..
1.5
~
::
;;
~
25
i:l: 1.0

20
0.5

15 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (sec)
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure lOb: Leakoff test pumped at a constant flow rate of 0.04 eels. The
TIlDe (sec)
test was shut in at a radius of 2.5 cm (1 in). The radius continues to grow
even after the pumping has stopped. Figure 118: Length and height growth ~ersus time for a poorly-eontained
6 channel fracture. The length-to-height ratio at the end of the test is two.
70 .~~~

5 65

60
4

!'"
55

i
G
&:
50

2 45

40

35

o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec) o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time (sec)
Figure 11a: Graph of channel-growth behavior (Qw =0.021 eels and
p. = 10,000 cs) for the rubber-medium channel. Length goes as to. 84 • Figure 12b: Pressure curves for the growth data shown in Figure 118.

426
SPE 21846 E. JOHNSON & M. P. CLEARY 15

50

42

46

39 ..
';
.e 42 -
~

~
~

~
36

e
~
~

It
~

5
;;
38 -
/
InJlection Point

! 33
~

34 -

30 2

30
o 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
1
20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 15: Pressure history of a pump-in/flow-back test. The inflection
Time (sec)
point occurs at 41.6 psig (0.29 MPa).

Figure 13: Pressure and radius versus time for a test run with successively
increasing fluid viscosities pumped at a constant flow rate (Qw =0.01 cels).
60

I I I I I I ..
~
55

~ 50

a)
~
£
45

I I I I

o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (sec)
b)

Figure 16a: Pressure history of a constant-flow-rate test before and during

shut-in.
42.0
I I I I
41.5

41.0
c)
40.5
.~
.e
..
~
40.0 Confining Stress. 39.2 psig
~~

&: 39.5

39.0

d) 38.5

38.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time AO.5 (sec)AO.5
Figure 14: View of welI-eontained fracture growth a) with two differently
colored fluids in the fracture, b) with three fluids in the fracture, c) with
four fluids present in the fracture, and d) after shut-in when the fracture has Figure 16b: Curve given in Figure 16a, plotted as pressure versus square
been pinched back. root of time since shut-in time.

427
16 RECENT LABORATORY RESULTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURES SPE21846

Figure 17a: Radial-geometry fracture with tunneling of a lower-viscosity

fluid occurring at the end of the test.

i) a>=l.OOmm

Figure 17b: Tracing of photographs showing a poorly contained fracture

i) during early stages of growth and ii) when a lower-viscosity fluid has
exited the wellbore and tunneled to the tips of the fracture.

54

52

50

r.8-
f 48

&::=
48

/'
large wellbore
44 & counter-sunk

42 UL....~.L..~-L...~...L.~
..........~-.L..~-'-'-~ ..........~'-'-'-~~
o 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90
Time (sec)

Figure 18: Pressure-versus-time histories for identical tests run using a) the
original small wellbore radius (Rw = 0.141 cm = 0.055 in), b) the small
wellbore radius with a counterbore at the end of the wellbore, and c) a
larger wellbore radius (Rw = 0.159 cm = 0.63 in) with a larger counter-
bore (0.25 cm = 0.98 in at its widest point).

428