SPE 155954

New Mathematical Models for Calculating the Proppant Embedment and

Fracture Conductivity
Yuanping Gao, Peking University, Youchang Lv , Man Wang, China Pingmei Shenma Group, Kewen Li*, China
University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Yangtze University, * Corresponding Author

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, o r m embers. Electronic r eproduction, di stribution, o r storage of any part of thi s p aper without t he written cons ent of t he S ociety of Petroleum Engineers i s p rohibited. Pe rmission t o
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Proppant embedment plays a significant role in decreasing fracture aperture and conductivity, especially for weakly
consolidated sandstones, shale (oil and gas) rock, and coal beds. Empirical and semi-empirical models were usually used to
calculate the embedment of proppants. However the accuracy of matching or predicting the proppant embedment using these
existing models may not be satisfactory in some cases. On the other hand, it is difficult to determine the coefficients of these
models. In this study, analytical models were derived to compute the proppant embedment and fracture conductivity.
These new models can be used to calculate the proppant embedment, proppant deformation, the change in fracture aperture
and fracture conductivity in the ideal or experimental situations of either single-layer or multi-layer patterns in the fractures
under closure pressures. The new models showed that the proppant embedment and fracture conductivity are affected by the
factors of closure pressure, fracture aperture, the elastic modulus of proppant and coal bed, the size of proppant, the
concentration of proppant-paving, etc.
Experimental data of proppant embedment in fractures and fracture conductivity of different proppants at different closure
pressures were used to test the models derived in this study. The results from matching the experimental data using the new
and the existing models were compared. The results showed that the new models especially the revised new models could
match the experimental data in all of the cases studied.
The new models for calculating the proppant embedment and fracture conductivity with a better accuracy are of great
significance in selecting proppants, which is helpful to achieve high fracture conductivity and then high oil or gas productions
of conventional, especially unconventional resources such as shale oil, shale gas, and coal bed methane.

Introduction
The purpose of hydraulic fracturing is to create high conductivity fractures in the formations targeted for the recovery of
energy resources (hydrocarbons, steam, and water for geothermal energy). Due to the interaction between
proppants and fracture surface in the condition of closure pressure, the proppants embed into the formations, which results in
the decreasing in fracture aperture and conductivity. Comparing with sandstone, the elastic modulus of the weakly
consolidated sandstones, shale rocks and coal beds are small, so the proppant embedment may be more serious. Proppant
embedment would reduce fracture aperture from 10 to 60 % with subsequent reduction of productivity from oil and gas wells
in weakly consolidated sandstone, and about a 20 % reduction in fracture aperture might restrict fluid flow and recovery by 50
to 60 % (Lacy et al., 1998). It is clear that the proppant embedment plays a significant role for the stimulation effect of
hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, it is of importance to study the theoretical computation and the influencing factors of proppant
embedment.
An equation was derived to calculate the proppant embedment in the condition of known proppant concentration and
overburden load (Huitt and Mcglothlin, 1958). In this equation, there were two characteristic constants which were different
for different proppants and formations. These two constants can be obtained utilizing the fitting results of experimental data,
so this equation was a semi-empirical model but not an analytical model. Huitt and Mcglothlin (1958) conducted relevant
experiments to support the equation, and they found that in the condition of the proppant would embed rather than crush under
the weight of overburden, the influencing factors of proppant embedment contain the competency of the formation, the size of
proppant, the concentration of proppant-paving, fluid leak-off, and the overburden pressure. Huitt et al. (1959) found that a
2 SPE 155954

tougher and more pliable material would be a better propping agent than sand in the condition of the propping sand would
crush rather than embed under the weight of overburden. Rounded and crushed walnut shell is such a proppant which has been
tested in field operations and presented no problems other than those encountered with propping sand. Volk et al. (1981)
attempted to quantify the factors that influence embedment, such as proppant concentration, size, distribution, rock type, and
embedment surface. They formulated empirical equations based on the experimental results, and these equations can be used
for predictive purposes.
Lacy et al. (1997) did experimental research on embedment and fracture conductivity in soft formations associated with
hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC), borate and water-based fracture designs. Their experimental results showed that the primary
parameter that determines embedment was closure pressure, with proppant size and fluid viscosity also being important. Lacy
et al. (1998) developed a new computer-controlled laboratory technique that measures propped fracture aperture and proppant
embedment in soft reservoir sandstone as a function of closure pressure, the concentration of proppant-paving, proppant size,
water saturation, gelled-fluid-leakoff behavior, and core mechanical properties. They investigated the relationships between
the proppant embedment and above variables.
Guo et al. (2008) developed a measurement and analysis system of proppant embedment, and studied the proppant
embedment in core samples experimentally. They found that the fracture aperture would be significantly reduced due to the
proppant embedment. The softer core would embed more seriously. By fitting the experimental data of proppant embedment at
different conditions, they reported the empirical formulas of proppant embedment as a function of closure pressure, the elastic
modulus of core, or the concentration of proppant-paving.
The fracture conductivity is an important index to evaluate the effect of fracturing, and it is affected by the factors of
closure pressure, the elastic modulus and size of proppant, etc. Experimental studies of fracture conductivity have been
reported by many researchers (Schubarth et al., 1997; Lehman et al., 1999; Fredd et al., 2000; Nguyen et al., 2002; Barree et
al., 2003; Weaver and Luo, 2008; McDaniel, 2010). However there have been few analytical models for calculating the
fracture conductivity.
Others (Cooke, 1973; Vlis et al., 1975; Roodhart et al., 1986; Much and Penny, 1987; Peard et al., 1991; Milton-Taylor et
al., 1992) did some research about proppant embedment and fracture conductivity, but overall, for calculating the proppant
embedment and fracture conductivity, the existing models were mostly empirical or semi-empirical. The accuracy of matching
or predicting the proppant embedment and fracture conductivity using these models may be not satisfactory in some cases.
In this study, analytical models were derived to calculate the proppant embedment, proppant deformation, the change in
fracture aperture, and fracture conductivity in the ideal or experimental situations of either single-layer or multi-layer patterns
in the fractures under closure pressures. And it should be noted that, during the stress-strain analysis, it was assumed that the
proppant would embed into the fractures under closure pressure, without considering the case of proppant crush. Experimental
data of proppant embedment and fracture conductivity of different proppants at different closure pressures were used to test
the new models derived in this study. The new models and the existing models were compared with the experimental data, and
the results showed that the new models could match the experimental data in all of the cases studied.

Theoretical background
Wu et al. (2001) derived the stress-strain formulas of two mutually squeezing elastic spheres which are shown in Fig. 1.
Spheres 1 and 2 would deform under the action of balanced pressure. The boundary of the contact area of Spheres 1 and 2 was
a circle, and its radius was set as a and can be expressed as follows (Wu et al., 2001):
3 RR 1
a  ( PCE 1 2 ) 3 (1)
4 R1  R2
Where a is the radius of the boundary of contact area, mm; P is the pressure on Spheres 1 and 2, N; R1 is the radius of Sphere
1, mm; R2 is the radius of Sphere 2, mm. CE (MPa-1) is defined as:
1  12 1  22
CE   (2)
E1 E2
Here ν1 is the Poisson's ratio of Sphere 1, dimensionless; ν2 is the Poisson's ratio of Sphere 2, dimensionless; E1 is the elastic
modulus of Sphere 1, MPa; E2 is the elastic modulus of Sphere 2, MPa.
Wu et al. (2001) proved that the change in distance between the centers of Spheres 1 and 2 meets the following
relationship:
3
PCE
' 4
(3)
3 RR 1
( PCE 1 2 ) 3
4 R1  R2
Where α′ is the change in distance, mm.
SPE 155954 3

When R2 → ∞, the surface of Sphere 2 tends to be a plane, and the two objects in Fig. 1 are transformed into the mutually
squeezed sphere and plate, as shown in Fig. 2.
For Fig. 2, the formulas of α′ can be derived based on Eq. 3, as follows:
2
3
2( PCE D1 ) 3
(4)
' 8
D1
Where D1 is the diameter of Sphere 1, mm.
The value of α′ is affected by two factors: embedment and deformation. For the situation in Fig. 2, these two factors are the
embedment and change in radius of Sphere 1 (half of deformation of Sphere 1), for convenience, the change in radius is named
as deformation in this study. When the elastic modulus of the plate (E2) in Fig. 2 is infinite, Sphere 1 does not embed into the
plate, in this case the value of α′ is only affected by deformation. So the formula of deformation can be derived according to
Eq. 4, and meets the following relationship:
3 1  12 3 2
2( PD1 )
8 E1 (5)

D1
Where β is the value of deformation of Sphere 1, mm.
It can be seen from Eq. 5 that the deformation is only influenced by the values of pressure, the diameter, elastic modulus,
and Poisson's ratio of Sphere 1, but not influenced by any parameters of the plate. Actually, Eq. 5 can be used as the formula
of deformation for a single sphere under balanced pressures. Combining Eqs. 4 and 5, the embedment of Sphere 1 can be
calculated using the following equation:
2
3
2( PD1 ) 3  1  12 1  22 32 1  12 32 
h 8  ) ( (6)
( ) 
D1  E1 E2 E1 
Where h is the value of embedment, mm.

Fig. 1 -Two mutually squeezing elastic spheres. Fig. 2 –The mutually squeezing sphere and plate.

In the situation of spheres being squeezed by two horizontal plates, it was assumed that the gravity of spheres could be
ignored, and the pressures on spheres and contact areas of the upper plate and lower plate were the same. In practice, for
analyzing the proppant in coal beds, the proppant is equivalent to Sphere 1, and the coal beds are equivalent to the upper and
lower plates. It was also assumed that the proppants were evenly paved on the coal beds (single-layer pattern), as shown in
Fig. 3. The distance between the centers of two adjacent proppants is KD1 (K is the distance coefficient). If the proppants are
close to each other, K is equal to 1; if not, K is greater than 1.
Fig. 4 shows the stress analysis for a single proppant in Fig. 3. Comparing Figs. 4 with 2, it can be seen that the unit of
pressure is MPa in Fig. 4, but it is N in Fig. 2. The forces between the coal beds and proppants are acting on the contact areas,
and the relationships between pressures in Figs. 2 and 4 satisfy the following equations:
P  p ( KD1 ) 2 (7)

p  p0  pi (8)
Where p is closure pressure, MPa; K is distance coefficient, dimensionless; p0 is overburden pressure, MPa; pi is fluid pressure
of fracturing fluid, MPa.
The thicknesses of the upper and lower coal beds are the same and assumed as D2, and the coal beds deform under closure
pressure, with the deformation can be calculated using Hooke's law as follows:
4 SPE 155954

p
D2  D2 (9)
E2
Where D2 is the thickness of coal bed, mm; ΔD2 is the deformation of coal bed, mm.
The deformation of coal bed is reflected in the form of proppant embedment, because the thickness of the coal bed which
does not contact with proppants is returned to the initial value. Combining Eqs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, the following equations can
be obtained:
2
p
  1.04 D1 ( K 2 pCE ) 3  D2 (10)
E2

1  12 23
  1.04 D1 ( K 2 p ) (11)
E1

2
 1  12 1  22 32 1  12 23  p
h  1.04 D1 ( K 2 p ) 3  (  ) ( )   D2 (12)
 E1 E 2 E1  E 2

Where α is the change in fracture aperture (actually, the value of α is half of the change in fracture aperture, but for
convenience, α is named the change in fracture aperture in this study), mm; β is the proppant deformation, mm; h is the
proppant embedment, mm; E1 is the elastic modulus of proppant, MPa; E2 is the elastic modulus of coal bed, MPa.
When p0 ≤ pi, which always happen at the beginning stage of fracturing, the proppants neither deform nor embed into the
coal beds. When p0 > pi, which always happen at the later stage of fracturing, the proppants deform and embed. Only when
p0 > pi, Eqs. 10, 11, and 12 can be used to calculate the change in fracture aperture, proppant deformation and embedment.

Fig. 3 -The placement of proppants in coal beds (single-layer, Fig. 4 -Stress analysis for a single proppant (single-layer, front
left: oblique view; right: top view). view)

Results from the single-layer pattern

In this section, the proppants were supposed to spread uniformly one by one, i.e, K = 1, the effects of various factors on the
change in fracture aperture were analyzed.
It was assumed that the known conditions were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E2 = 1200 MPa, D1 = 1 mm, D2 = 3 mm, and E1 ranged from
1500 MPa to 10000 MPa. The change in fracture aperture can be obtained after substituting the known conditions into Eq. 10,
as shown in Fig. 5. The change in fracture aperture is greater when closure pressure is greater or the elastic modulus of
proppant is smaller. When closure pressure reaches a specific value, the change in fracture aperture increases to the maximum,
which is equal to the radius of proppant. In this case the fracture between the two coal beds is closed completely, and the
change in fracture aperture stays at this maximum value.
If the known conditions were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E2 = 1200 MPa, D2 = 3 mm, p = 40 MPa, and E1 ranged from 1500 MPa to
10000 MPa. Substituting the known conditions into Eq. 10, the relationships between the change in fracture aperture and the
diameter of proppant can be obtained and the results demonstrate that the relationships are linear, as shown in Fig. 6. The
change in fracture aperture increases with the diameter of proppant, and decrease with the elastic modulus of proppant when
the other conditions are the same.
SPE 155954 5

0.6 0.6

Change in fracture aperture, mm

Change in fracture aperture, mm

E1=1500 MPa E1=1500 MPa

0.5 E1=3000 MPa 0.5 E1=3000 MPa
E1=5000 MPa E1=5000 MPa
0.4 0.4
E1=10000 MPa E1=10000 MPa
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Closure pressure, MPa Diameter of proppant, mm
Fig. 5 -Relationships between the change in fracture aperture Fig. 6 -Relationships between the change in fracture aperture
and closure pressure. and diameter of proppant.

It was assumed that the known conditions were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E2 = 1200 MPa, p = 40 MPa, D1 = 1 mm, D2 = 3 mm.
Substituting the known conditions into Eqs. 10, 11, and 12, the values of change in fracture aperture, proppant deformation
and embedment at different elastic modulus of proppant can be obtained and the results are shown in Fig. 7. The change in
fracture aperture decreases to a specific value and the proppant deformation decreases to zero as the elastic modulus of
proppant increases, but the proppant embedment increases to a specific value as the elastic modulus of proppant increases.
When the elastic modulus of proppant is much smaller than that of coal bed, the proppant deformation is greater than proppant
embedment, and the proppant deformation is the main cause of the decrease in fracture aperture. When the elastic modulus of
proppant increases, the proppant embedment increases and exceeds the proppant deformation. In this case it is embedment that
mainly causes the decreasing in fracture aperture, which is usually the situation in practice.
The values of change in fracture aperture, proppant deformation and embedment at different elastic modulus of coal bed
can be calculated using Eqs. 10, 11, and 12 with the following parameter values: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E1 = 8000 MPa, p = 40 MPa,
D1 = 1 mm, D2 = 3 mm. The results are shown in Fig. 8. The change in fracture aperture and proppant embedment decrease as
the elastic modulus of coal bed increases, but the proppant deformation stays the same because it is influenced by the elastic
modulus of proppant and external force rather than the elastic modulus of coal bed. The proppant embedment is greater than
deformation when the elastic modulus of coal bed is smaller than that of proppant, and they are the same when the elastic
modulus of coal bed increases to about 9000 MPa. As the elastic modulus of coal bed increases, the change in fracture aperture
gradually approaches the proppant deformation, and the proppant embedment approaches to zero. In this case, the proppant is
softer than coal bed, so the proppant deformation is the main cause of decreasing in fracture aperture.
0.5 0.5
Change in fracture aperture Change in fracture aperture
deformation / embedment, mm

deformation / embedment, mm
Change in fracture aperture /

Change in fracture aperture /

0.4 Proppant deformation 0.4 Proppant deformation

Proppant embedment Proppant embedment

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000
Elastic modulus of proppant, MPa Elastic modulus of coal bed, MPa
Fig. 7 -Relationships between the three variables and elastic Fig. 8 -Relationships between the three variables and elastic
modulus of proppant (E2 = 1200 MPa, p = 40 MPa). modulus of coal bed (E1 = 8000 MPa, p = 40 MPa).

Fig. 9 shows the relationships between the change in fracture aperture and the difference of elastic modulus (the elastic
modulus of proppant minus that of coal bed) at different values of elastic modulus of coal bed or proppant. The values of other
parameters are: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, p = 40 MPa, D1 = 1 mm, D2 = 3 mm. For a specific curve, either the elastic modulus of coal bed
or that of proppant is fixed, and the fixed value is shown in the legend. The compression strength of proppant is greater and the
change in fracture aperture is smaller when the difference of elastic modulus is greater at the same elastic modulus of coal bed.
The proppants embed into coal beds more easily and the change in fracture aperture is greater when the difference of elastic
modulus is greater at the same elastic modulus of proppant. By comparing the three curves with fixed E2, it can be concluded
that when the differences of elastic modulus are the same and E2 is greater (means the elastic modulus of proppant is greater),
the capability of proppant to resist deforming and the capability of coal bed to resist embedding are stronger, so the change in
fracture aperture is smaller. Similarly, by comparing the three curves with fixed E1, it can be concluded that the change in
6 SPE 155954

fracture aperture is smaller if E1 is greater and the differences of elastic modulus are the same. The change in fracture aperture
decreases to a relatively small value when the difference of elastic modulus is equal to zero or close to zero, which indicates
that the proppant has basically achieved the effect of supporting fracture when the elastic modulus of proppant is almost the
same as that of coal bed.
0.5
E2=1000 MPa

Change in fracture aperture, mm

E2=3000 MPa
E2=10000 MPa 0.4
E1=1000 MPa
E1=3000 MPa 0.3
E1=10000 MPa

0.2

0.1

0.0
-30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000
Difference of elastic modulus, MPa
Fig. 9 -Relationships between the change in fracture aperture and difference of elastic modulus (p = 40 MPa).

The strains between proppants

During fracturing in coal beds, the proppants squeeze mutually in addition to the interaction between proppant and coal bed, so
it is necessary to analyze the deformation and embedment between proppants. When the radiuses of Spheres 1 and 2 in Fig. 1
are equal to each other (R1 = R2 = R), Eq. 3 can be reduced:
2
3
2( PCE R ) 3
8 (13)
'
R
The deformation of Sphere 1 is expressed as follow:
3
2
1  12 3
2
( PR) 3 (2 )
8 E1 (14)
1 
R
The deformation of Sphere 2 is:
3
2
1  22 3
2
( PR) 3 (2 )
8 E2 (15)
2 
R
Combining Eqs. 13, 14, and 15, the following equation can be obtained for calculating the embedment between the two
spheres:
2
3
( PR) 3  1  12 1  22 23
8 1  12 23 1  22 32  (16)
h   ' 1   2   2(  )  (2 )  (2 ) 
R  E1 E2 E1 E2 
Where α′ is the change in distance between the centers of Spheres 1 and 2, mm; β1 is the deformation of Sphere 1, mm; β2 is the
deformation of Sphere 2, mm; h is the embedment between Spheres 1 and 2, mm; R is the radius of Spheres 1 or 2, mm.
It was assumed that the known conditions were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E2 = 1000 MPa, P = 70 N, R = 0.5 mm. The change in
distance between the centers of Spheres 1 and 2, the deformations of Spheres 1 and 2, and the embedment at different elastic
modulus of Sphere 1 can be obtained after substituting the known conditions into Eqs. 13, 14, 15, and 16. The results are
shown in Figs. 10a and 10b. It can be seen from Fig. 10a that the change in distance between the centers of Spheres 1 and 2
and the deformation of Sphere 1 decrease as the elastic modulus of Sphere 1 increases, but the deformation of Sphere 2
remains the same because it is independent of the elastic modulus of Sphere 1. Fig. 10b demonstrates that the embedment
(Sphere 2 embedding into Sphere 1) decreases as the elastic modulus of Sphere 1 increases when it is smaller than the elastic
modulus of Sphere 2, and the embedment (Sphere 1 embedding into Sphere 2) increases as the elastic modulus of Sphere 1
increases when it is greater than the elastic modulus of Sphere 2. The embedment is equal to zero and the contact area of the
two spheres is a plane when the elastic modulus of the two spheres are the same (see Fig. 10b). Figs. 10a and 10b show that
the deformations of Spheres 1 and 2 are the major causes of the decrease in distance between the centers of Spheres 1 and 2.
SPE 155954 7

0.7 0.05
Change in distance between the
deformation of Sphere 1 / 2, mm
Change in distance between the

0.6 centers of Spheres 1 and 2

centers of Spheres 1 and 2 /

Deformation of Sphere 1 0.04

0.5

Embedment, mm
Deformation of Sphere 2
0.4 0.03

0.3 0.02
0.2
0.01
0.1
0.0 0.00
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Elastic modulus of Sphere 1, MPa Elastic modulus of Sphere 1, MPa
(a) Change in distance between the centers of Spheres 1 and 2, (b) Embedment between Spheres 1 and 2.
deformation of Sphere 1, deformation of Sphere 2.
Fig. 10 -Relationships between the four variables and elastic modulus of Sphere 1 (R1 = R2 = R, E2 = 1000 MPa, P = 70 N).

Embedment of multi-layer pattern

In practice, the proppants are always paved in multi-layer, so it is necessary to analyze the proppant deformation and
embedment in the situation of multi-layer pattern, as shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11 -Deformation and embedment of proppant in coal beds (multi-layer, left: oblique view; right: front view).

As shown in Fig. 10b, there is no embedment between proppants in the case in which the elastic moduluses and sizes of
two spheres are the same and their contact surface is a plane. For the multi-layer pattern, the deformation can be approximated
as the value of the superposition of each layer’s proppant deformation, but the embedment is the same as single-layer pattern
because only the top-layer and bottom-layer proppant that directly contact with coal beds embed. Based on the assumptions
above and the models for single-layer pattern, the corresponding equations for the multi-layer pattern can be obtained and
expressed as follows:
2
 1  12 23 D1  1  12 1  22 23 1  12 23   p
  1.04 D ( K 2 p ) 3 ( )  (  ) ( )    D2 (17)
 E1 D  E1 E 2 E1   E 2

1  12 23
  1.04 D( K 2 p ) (18)
E1

2
 1  12 1  22 32 1  12 32  p
h  1.04 D1 ( K 2 p ) 3 (  ) ( )   D2 (19)
 E1 E2 E1  E2

Where D is the initial fracture aperture, mm; α is the change in fracture aperture of multi-layer pattern, mm; β is the proppant
deformation of multi-layer pattern, mm; h is the proppant embedment of multi-layer pattern, mm.
Although the expression of Eq. 19 is the same as Eq. 12, the ranges of h are different: the proppant embedment calculated
using Eq. 12 ranges from zero to the radius of proppant, but the proppant embedment calculated using Eq. 19 ranges from zero
to half of the initial fracture aperture. For all of the equations, the calculated values are more accurate when the stress and
strain of proppant and coal bed are small.
As the proppants are nearly next to one another in multi-layer pattern, K is set as 1 in the following theoretical calculations.
Lacy et al. (1998) measured the proppant embedment at different closure pressures using the proppant embedment tester,
which could accurately obtain the displacement and computer-controlled loads acting on proppants and fluids. The known
experimental conditions were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.13, E1 = 21306 MPa, E2 = 1172 MPa, D1 = 0.635 mm, D2 = 20 mm (the thickness of
coal bed was estimated on the basis of the similar experiments). The theoretical values of proppant embedment can be
8 SPE 155954

obtained using Eq. 19 with the above conditions. The results are shown in Fig. 12. The values calculated using the new model
are close to the experimental data but smaller.
The reasons for the smaller model values may be that the new model is derived from the single-layer pattern with the ideal
assumptions of even paving, uniform size distribution and sphericity of proppants. There might be uneven paving and different
sizes of proppants during practical experiments, which might result in unequal pressures on each proppant. So some proppants
bearing greater pressures embed into coal bed more serious, but those at the bottom or top layers might have smaller
embedment or might even not contact the coal bed at all (zero embedment) because of bearing smaller pressures. In addition to
that, the surface of coal bed is rough and there are many small pores on it, which make the proppants "break" them and embed
into coal beds more easily. All these reasons may result in the smaller model values. Considering this, Eq. 19 is modified as
follows:
 2
 1  12 1  22 32 1  12 32  p 
h  b0  b1 1.04 D1 ( K 2 p ) 3 (  ) ( )   D2  (20)
  E1 E2 E1  E2 

Where b0 and b1 are the correction factors can be obtained by fitting with experimental data, dimensionless. Eq. 20 is named as
revised new model in this study.
1.E+01
Experimental data
Proppa nt embedment, mm

1.E+00 New model

1.E-01

1.E-02

1.E-03
0 5 10 15 20
Closure pressure, MPa
Fig. 12 -Comparisons between the new model values of proppant embedment and experimental data at different closure pressures
(experimental data of Lacy et al., 1998).

In order to verify the revised new model, it is necessary to compare the revised new model with the existing models. Huitt
and Mcglothlin (1958) derived a semi-empirical model of calculating the proppant embedment for a single proppant, the
formula is expressed as follow:
1  1

h D1 1  1  B( K 2 p ) m  2  (21)
2  
Where B and m are fitting coefficients that can be calculated using the experimental data, dimensionless. As described for Eq.
19, the expression of proppant embedment for the multi-layer pattern is the same as Eq. 21, and is named as existing model A
in this study.
Guo et al. (2008) derived an empirical model to calculate the proppant embedment by fitting their experimental data, and
the expression is:
h  c3 p 3  c2 p 2  c1 p  c0 (22)
Where c1, c2, c3, and c4 are fitting coefficients, dimensionless. Eq. 22 is named as existing model B in this study.
The experimental data by Lacy et al. (1998) were used to test the three models (Eqs. 20, 21, and 22) and the results are
shown in Fig. 13. The revised new model and existing model B fit well with experimental data, and the calculated values of
existing model A are basically consistent with experimental data, except that it cannot fit the experimental data greater than the
radius of proppant. The correction factors and regression coefficient of the revised new model in Fig. 13 are: b0 = -0.0164, b1 =
1.6233, R2 = 0.9895.
SPE 155954 9

1.0

0.8 Experimental data

Proppant embedment, mm
Revised new model
0.6 Existing model A
Existing model B
0.4

0.2

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Closure pressure, MPa
Fig. 13 -The revised new model and existing models’ calculated values of proppant embedment comparing with experimental data at
different closure pressures (experimental data of Lacy et al., 1998).

Guo et al. (2008) also measured the proppant embedment at different closure pressures using the similar method with Lacy
et al. (1998). The experimental conditions were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.265, E1 = 70000 MPa, E2 = 35957 MPa, D1 = 0.635 mm and D2 =
19 mm. The comparisons of the fitting results of the revised new model and existing models are shown in Fig. 14. It can be
seen from the figure that all the proppant embedment of model and experimental values increase as the closure pressure
increases. The correction factors and regression coefficient of the revised new model are: b0 = -0.0671, b1 = 8.6129, R2 =
0.9538.
Similarly, the experimental data of proppant embedment reported by Lu et al. (2008) were used to test the three models
(Eqs. 20, 21, and 22). The known parameters were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.144, E1 = 35000 MPa, E2 = 28770 MPa, D1 = 0.635 mm, D2 =
15 mm. Fig. 15 shows the comparisons between the model values and the experimental data at different closure pressures. The
correction factors and regression coefficient of the revised new model are: b0 = 0.0646, b1 = 18.200, R2 = 0.9786.
In summary, existing model B with four fitting coefficients could match part of the experimental data slightly better than
the revised new model (only two fitting coefficients), and existing model A is the worst. The above results show that the
revised new model could match the experimental data in all of the cases studied.
0.4 0.7
Experimental data
Revised new model 0.6
Proppa nt embedment, mm
Proppa nt embedment, mm

0.3 Existing model A

Existing model B 0.5

0.4
0.2
0.3 Experimental data
Revised new model
0.2
0.1 Existing model A
0.1 Existing model B
0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Closure pressure, MPa Closure pressure, MPa
Fig. 14 -The revised new model and existing models’ calculated Fig. 15 -The revised new model and existing models’
values of proppant embedment comparing with experimental calculated values of proppant embedment comparing with
data at different closure pressures (experimental data of Guo experimental data at different closure pressures (experimental
et al., 2008). data of Lu et al., 2008).

Fracture conductivity
The fracture conductivity defined as the product of permeability and fracture aperture is an important index to evaluate the
effect of fracturing. The permeability of fracture is related with its porosity, radius of pore throat, and pore tortuosity. One of
the usually used formulas of permeability (Yang and Wei, 2004) is expressed as follow:
r2
k (23)
8 2
Where k is permeability, µm2; ϕ is porosity, dimensionless; r is the radius of pore throat, µm; τ is the pore tortuosity,
dimensionless.
The porosity, radius of pore throat and pore tortuosity is different at different closure pressures. For the proppants used in
Fig. 11, ignoring the pore distribution differences of the proppants in different layers, it is easy to derive the equations of
porosity, radius of pore throat and pore tortuosity when closure pressure is equal to zero. The expressions are:
10 SPE 155954

4
4 2 R13   R13
0  3  26% (24)
4 2 R13

2 3 3 2 3 3
r0  1000  R1  1000  D1 (25)
3 6

2
2   2 
2

 1   
R R1 
3   3  6 (26)
0  
2 2
R1
3
Where ϕ0 is the porosity when closure pressure is equal to zero, dimensionless; r0 is the radius of pore throat when closure
pressure is equal to zero, µm; τ0 is the pore tortuosity when closure pressure is equal to zero, dimensionless; R1 is the radius of
proppant, mm; D1 is the diameter of proppant, mm.
When closure pressure is greater than zero, the porosity, radius of pore throat and pore tortuosity approximately satisfy the
following relationships:
D0  2
 (27)
D  2

 D  2 
r   r0 (28)
 D 

 D  2  2
2

    0  1  1 (29)
 D 
Where β is the proppant deformation calculated by Eq. 18, mm; D is the initial fracture aperture, mm.
According to the definition of fracture conductivity and combining Eqs. 23, 27, 28, and 29, the following equation can be
obtained:
 D0  2  D  2  r0 2
FRCD  kW  ( D  2 )
 D  2   2 2  2
  0  1  1 D
(30)
80 
 D  
Where FRCD is fracture conductivity, µm2·cm; W is the fracture aperture under closure pressure, cm; α is the change in fracture
aperture calculated by Eq. 17, mm.
The following equations can be obtained after the Eqs. 17, 18, 24, 25, and 26 being substituted into Eq. 30:
 2D p 
74.8 f1  f1  0.74   Df1  D1 f 2  2 
 E2  2 (31)
FRCD  D1
0.5 f1  1
2

Where f1 and f2 are defined as:

1  12 23
f1  1  2.08( p ) (32)
E1

1  12 1  22 23 1  12 23
f 2  2.08( p p )  2.08( p ) (33)
E1 E2 E1
Where f1 is the function related to closure pressure, the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of proppant, dimensionless; f2 is the
function associated with closure pressure, the elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of proppant and coal bed, dimensionless.
Eq. 31 is an analytical model for calculating the fracture conductivity, and it can be seen from Eq. 31 that fracture
conductivity is affected by the factors of closure pressure, the diameter of proppants, initial fracture width, elastic modulus of
proppant and coal bed, etc. The influences of these factors on fracture conductivity are analyzed in this study.
SPE 155954 11

Figs. 16a and 16b show the relationships between fracture conductivity and closure pressure at different elastic modulus
and diameters of proppants. The fracture conductivity decreases with closure pressure for all of the cases studied. It can be
seen from Fig. 16a that the proppant of greater elastic modulus has greater fracture conductivity, because of the greater
porosity and radius of pore throat. But the fracture conductivities of four different proppants are the same when closure
pressure is equal to zero. This is because their porosities, radiuses of pore throat and pore tortuosities are the same. Fig. 16b
shows that the proppant of greater diameter (means the radius of pore throat is larger, but the porosity and pore tortuosity are
the same) has greater fracture conductivity. Figs. 16a and 16b illustrate that closure pressure plays a significant role in
decreasing fracture conductivity, and fracture conductivity reduces to zero when closure pressure reaches a specific value.
70 70
E1=1500 MPa D1=0.4 mm
60 E1=3000 MPa 60
Fracture conductivity, µm2·cm

D1=0.6 mm

Fracture conductivity, µm2·cm

E1=5000 MPa D1=0.8 mm
50 E1=10000 MPa 50
D1=1.0 mm
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Closure pressure, MPa Closure pressure, MPa
(a) Different elastic modulus of proppants (ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E2 = (b) Different diameters of proppants (ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E1 = 5000 MPa,
1200 MPa, D1 = 1 mm, D2 = 3 mm, D = 5 mm). E2 = 1200 MPa, D2 = 3 mm, D = 5 mm).
Fig. 16 -Relationships between fracture conductivity and closure pressure.

It was assumed that the known parameters were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E2 = 1200 MPa, D2 = 3 mm, D = 5 mm, p = 40 MPa, and E1
ranged from 1500 MPa to 10000 MPa. The relationships between fracture conductivity and the diameter of proppant can be
obtained using Eq. 31 with the known conditions, as shown in Fig. 17. The fracture conductivity is greater when the diameter
of proppant is greater because the radius of pore throat is larger in this case. Fig. 17 shows that the diameter of proppants
greatly impacts fracture conductivity.
Fig. 18 shows the relationships between fracture conductivity and the initial fracture aperture with the known conditions of
ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, E2 = 1200 MPa, D1 = 1 mm, D2 = 3 mm, p = 40 MPa. It can be seen from Fig. 18 that they are linear
relationships, and fracture conductivity increases with the initial fracture aperture.
60 250
E1=1500 MPa
Fracture conductivity, µm2·cm
Fracture conductivity, µm2·cm

50 E1=1500 MPa
200 E1=3000 MPa
E1=3000 MPa
40 E1=5000 MPa
E1=5000 MPa
150 E1=10000 MPa
E1=10000 MPa
30
100
20

10 50

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 5 10 15 20 25
Diameter of proppant, mm Initial fracture aperture, mm
Fig. 17 -Relationships between fracture conductivity and Fig. 18 -Relationships between fracture conductivity and
diameter of proppant. initial fracture aperture.

In the case in which the known conditions were: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, D1 = 1 mm, D2 = 3 mm, D = 5 mm, p = 40 MPa, and E2
ranged from 150 MPa to 3000 MPa, the relationships between fracture conductivity and the elastic modulus of proppant can
be obtained using Eq. 31 and the results are shown in Fig. 19. The fracture conductivity increases as the elastic modulus of
proppant increases. When the elastic modulus of proppant increases to a specific value, the proppant deformation is small, in
this case the changes in fracture aperture, porosity and the radius of pore throat are also small. So the fracture conductivity
gradually approaches a specific value.
Fig. 20 shows the relationships between fracture conductivity and the elastic modulus of coal bed in the case where the
known conditions are: ν1 = ν2 = 0.2, D1 = 1 mm, D2 = 3 mm, D = 5 mm, p = 40 MPa. It can be seen from Fig. 20 that if the
elastic modulus of coal bed is greater, the proppants embed into coal bed less, and the fracture aperture are greater. Therefore,
the fracture conductivity is greater.
12 SPE 155954

70 70
E1=1500 MPa

Fra cture conductivity, µm2·cm

Fracture conductivity, µm2·cm

60 60 E1=3000 MPa
E1=5000 MPa
50 50 E1=10000 MPa
40 40

30 30
E2=150 MPa
20 E2=250 MPa 20

10 E2=500 MPa 10
E2=3000 MPa
0 0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05
Elastic modulus of proppant, MPa Elastic modulus of coal bed, MPa
Fig. 19 -Relationships between fracture conductivity and Fig. 20 -Relationships between fracture conductivity and
elastic modulus of proppant. elastic modulus of coal bed.

The principle of experimental test of fracture conductivity is Darcy's law, and the usually used model for calculating
fracture conductivity is as follow:
5.555 104  Q
FRCD  (34)
p
Where µ is fluid viscosity, mPa·s; Q is flow rate, mL/s; Δp is the differential pressure, KPa; 5.555×10-4 is the coefficient of
fracture conductivity test apparatus that may be different for different apparatus, dimensionless.
Considering the difficulty to determine the values of those parameters such as E1 and E2, Eqs. 31, 32, and 33 are modified
as follows:
 pC2 
C0 f1  f1  0.74   Df1  D1 f 2  2 D2 
 1  22  2 (35)
FRCD  D1
0.5 f12  1

2
f1  1  2.08( pC1 ) 3 (36)

2 2
f 2  2.08( pC1  pC2 ) 3  2.08( pC1 ) 3 (37)

Where C0 is the correction factor, dimensionless; C1 and C2 are defined as:

1  12
C1  (38)
E1

1  22
C2  (39)
E2
Where C1 is the parameter related to the elastic modulus of proppant (the Poisson's ratio of proppant is set to 0.2), MPa-1; C2 is
the parameter related to the elastic modulus of coal bed (the Poisson's ratio of coal bed is set to 0.2), MPa-1. C0, C1, and C2 can
be obtained by fitting with experimental data.
Cutler et al. (1985) measured the fracture conductivity of proppants made by the material of bauxite, porcelain and
alumina-mullite at different closure pressures. The fracture material was hastelloy, and the known experimental conditions
were: D1 = 0.635 mm, D2 = 25.4 mm, D = 6.35 mm. Fig. 21 shows the comparisons of the model values and experimental data
of fracture conductivity under different closure pressures. It can be seen from Fig. 21 that fracture conductivity decreases as
closure pressure increases for the three kinds of proppants. The proppant of smaller elastic modulus has smaller fracture
conductivity, and the differences between the three fracture conductivities increase as closure pressure increases. Fig. 21
shows that our model can fit well with experimental data for all kinds of proppants. The related parameters in Eq. 35 are as
follows:
Bauxite: C0 = 291.12, C1 = 1.3479×10-5 MPa-1, C2 = 9.6014×10-6 MPa-1, R2 = 0.9188;
Porcelain: C0 = 324.44, C1 = 9.8454×10-5 MPa-1, C2 = 9.6014×10-6 MPa-1, R2 = 0.9494;
Alumina-mullite: C0 = 393.02, C1 = 2.7717×10-4 MPa-1, C2 = 9.6014×10-6 MPa-1, R2 = 0.9601.
SPE 155954 13

160
140

Fracture conductivity, µm2·cm

120
100
80
60 Experimental data (bauxite)
Model fitting (bauxite)
40 Experimental data (porcelain)
Model fitting (porcelain)
20 Experimental data (alumina-mullite)
Model fitting (alumina-mullite)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Closure pressure, MPa
Fig. 21 -Comparisons of the model values of fracture conductivity and experimental data at different closure pressures for the
proppants of bauxite, porcelain and alumina-mullite (experimental data of Cutler et al., 1985).

Zhang et al. (2008) measured the fracture conductivity of 10/20 mesh and 20/40 mesh quartz sands at different closure
pressures with the known experimental conditions: D1 = 1.1 mm (10/20 mesh), D1 = 0.635 mm (20/40 mesh), D2 = 15 mm
(average), D = 6.35 mm (the initial fracture aperture was estimated on the basis of the similar experiments). Fig. 22 shows the
comparisons of the model values and the experimental data of fracture conductivity under different closure pressures for the
10/20 mesh and 20/40 mesh quartz sands. The fracture conductivity decreases with the closure pressure, and the quartz sand of
greater diameter has greater fracture conductivity. Since the compressive strength of quartz sand is about 20 MPa, it crushes
when closure pressure exceeds 20 MPa, resulting in the porosity, radius of pore throat and fracture aperture decreasing rapidly,
so fracture conductivity decreases rapidly. In the process of deriving the expression of fracture conductivity, the proppant
crush were not considered, so there may be a great difference between the experimental data and model values when closure
pressure exceeded the compressive strength of proppant. The new fracture model can basically fit the experimental data, and
the fitting parameters are as follows:
10/20 mesh quartz sand: C0 = 111.41, C1 = 7.5106×10-4 MPa-1, C2 = 2.1258×10-3 MPa-1, R2 = 0.9199;
20/40 mesh quartz sand: C0 = 215.87, C1 = 7.5106×10-4 MPa-1, C2 = 2.1258×10-3 MPa-1, R2 = 0.9274.
Zhang et al. (2008) also measured the fracture conductivity of ceramsite at different closure pressures for the fractures of
steel plate, sandstone and coal bed. The known experimental conditions were: D1 = 0.635 mm, D2 = 15 mm (average), D = 6.35
mm (the initial fracture aperture was estimated on the basis of the similar experiments). The comparisons of the model values
and experimental data of fracture conductivity at different closure pressures for the three kinds of fractures are shown in Fig.
23. The fracture conductivity decreases as closure pressure increases for all kinds of fractures. If the elastic modulus of
fracture is smaller, fracture conductivity is smaller. Fig. 23 shows that the model can fit well with experimental data for the
three kinds of fractures, and the fitted parameters in Eq. 35 are as follows:
Steel plate: C0 = 543.16, C1 = 5.2276×10-4 MPa-1, C2 = 9.6003×10-6 MPa-1, R2 = 0.9772;
Sandstone: C0 = 538.31, C1 = 5.2276×10-4 MPa-1, C2 = 8.6187×10-4 MPa-1, R2 = 0.9831;
Coal bed: C0 = 274.46, C1 = 5.2276×10-4 MPa-1, C2 = 1.4113×10-3 MPa-1, R2 = 0.9807.
160 200 Experimental data (steel palte)
Experimental data (10/20 mesh) Model fitting (steel plate)
140 Model fitting (10/20 mesh) Experimental data (sandstone)
Fracture conductivity, µm2·cm

160
Fracture conductivity, µm2·cm

Experimental data (20/40 mesh) Model fitting (sandstone)

120 Experimental data (coal bed)
Model fitting (20/40 mesh) Model fitting (coal bed)
100 120
80
60 80

40
40
20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Closure pressure, MPa Closure pressure, MPa
Fig. 22 -Comparisons of the model values of fracture Fig. 23 -Comparisons of the model values of fracture
conductivity and experimental data at different closure conductivity and experimental data at different closure
pressures for the 10/20 mesh and 20/40 mesh quartz sands pressures for the fractures of steel plate, sandstone and coal
(experimental data of Zhang et al., 2008). bed (experimental data of Zhang et al., 2008).
14 SPE 155954

The above fitting results show that the proppant embedment and fracture conductivity affected by closure pressure, the
elastic modulus of proppant, diameter of proppant and elastic modulus of coal bed are basically consistent with experimental
data. The closure pressure and elastic modulus of coal bed are usually smaller than those of sandstone. So for fracturing in coal
beds, the proppants do not have to have very high elastic modulus to achieve a specific value of fracture conductivity. Through
the above theoretical and experimental analysis of proppant embedment and fracture conductivity, it is estimated that the
elastic modulus of proppant ranging from 1 to 10 times over that of coal bed is appropriate. At the same time, the diameter of
proppant greatly impacts fracture conductivity. Note that the commonly used sizes are 10/20 mesh and 20/40 mesh. In
practice, the proppant size and elastic modulus may be selected considering the embedment, fracture conductivity, pump
function, cost, etc. In summary, the new mathematical models for calculating the proppant embedment and fracture
conductivity are of great significance in selecting proppants.

Conclusions
The following conclusions may be drawn according to the present study:
1) New mathematical models were derived to calculate the change in fracture aperture, proppant embedment and
deformation. The change in fracture aperture is constituted by two parts: proppant embedment and deformation. Usually, the
proppant embedment is the main part.
2) The change in fracture aperture increases with closure pressure, the diameter of proppant and decreases with the increase
in the concentration of sand-paving, elastic modulus of coal bed and proppant. The proppant embedment increases with
closure pressure, the diameter of proppant, elastic modulus of proppant and decreases with the increase in the concentration of
sand-paving, elastic modulus of coal bed.
3) The values of proppant embedment calculated using the new model are smaller than experimental data, but the revised
new model can match the experimental data in all of the cases studied.
4) New mathematical model was derived to calculate fracture conductivity. The fracture conductivity increases with the
diameter of proppant, initial fracture aperture, elastic modulus of coal bed, elastic modulus of proppant and decreases with the
increase in closure pressure. This new model fits well with experimental data in all the cases studied.
5) The new mathematical models for calculating the proppant embedment and fracture conductivity are of great
significance in selecting proppants.

Acknowledgements
This research was conducted with partial financial support from China Pingmei Shenma Group, the contributions of which are
gratefully acknowledged.

Nomenclature
a = radius of the boundary of contact area, mm;
b0 = correction factor of the revised new model, dimensionless;
b1 = correction factor of the revised new model, dimensionless;
B = fitting coefficient of existing model A, dimensionless;
c1 = fitting coefficient of existing model B, dimensionless;
c2 = fitting coefficient of existing model B, dimensionless;
c3 = fitting coefficient of existing model B, dimensionless;
c4 = fitting coefficient of existing model B, dimensionless;
C0 = fitting coefficient of new fracture conductivity model, dimensionless;
C1 = fitting coefficient of new fracture conductivity model, dimensionless;
C2 = fitting coefficient of new fracture conductivity model, dimensionless;
CE = constant associated with the elastic moduluses and Poisson's ratios of Spheres 1 and 2, MPa-1;
D = initial fracture aperture, mm;
D1 = diameter of Sphere 1(proppant), mm;
D2 = thickness of coal bed, mm;
ΔD2 = deformation of coal bed, mm;
E1 = elastic modulus of Sphere 1 (proppant), MPa;
E2 = elastic modulus of Sphere 2 (coal bed), MPa;
f1 = function related to the closure pressure, elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio of proppant, dimensionless;
f2 = function related to the closure pressure, elastic moduluses and Poisson's ratios of proppant and coal bed, dimensionless;
FRCD = fracture conductivity, µm2·cm;
h = value of embedment, mm;
h′ = calculated value of the revised new model, mm;
k = permeability, µm2;
K = distance coefficient, dimensionless;
m = fitting coefficient of existing model A, dimensionless;
p = closure pressure, MPa;
SPE 155954 15

p0 = overburden pressure, MPa;

pi = fluid pressure of fracturing fluid, MPa;
Δp = differential pressure, KPa;
P = pressure, N;
Q = flow rate, mL/s;
r = radius of pore throat, µm;
r0 = radius of pore throat when the closure pressure is equal to zero, µm;
R = radius of Spheres 1 or 2 when they are the same, mm;
R1 = radius of Sphere 1(proppant), mm;
R2 = radius of Sphere 2, mm;
R2 = regression coefficient, dimensionless;
W = fracture aperture when the fracture is under the action of closure pressure, cm;
α = change in fracture aperture, mm;
α′ = change in distance between the centers of Spheres 1 and 2, mm;
β = deformation of Sphere 1 (proppant deformation), mm;
β1 = deformation of Sphere 1 when the radiuses of Spheres 1 and 2 are the same, mm;
β2 = deformation of Sphere 2 when the radiuses of Spheres 1 and 2 are the same, mm;
ϕ = porosity, dimensionless;
ϕ0 = porosity when the closure pressure is equal to zero, dimensionless;
ν1 = Poisson's ratio of Sphere 1, dimensionless;
ν2 = Poisson's ratio of Sphere 2, dimensionless;
µ = fluid viscosity, mPa·s;
τ = pore tortuosity, dimensionless;
τ0 = pore tortuosity when the closure pressure is equal to zero, dimensionless.

Reference
Barree, R.D., Cox, S.A., Barree, V.L., and Conway, M.W. 2003. Realistic Assessment of Proppant Pack Conductivity for Material Selection.
Paper SPE 84306 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October.
Cooke, C.E. 1973. Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers. SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, 25(9): 1101-1107.
Cutler, R.A., Enniss, D.O., Jones, A.H., and Swanson, S.R. 1985. Fracture Conductivity Comparison of Ceramic Proppants. SPEJ, 25(2):
157-170.
Fredd, C.N., McConnell, S.B., Boney, C.L., and England, K.W. 2000. Experimental Study of Hydraulic Fracture Conductivity Demonstrates
the Benefits of Using Proppants. Paper SPE 60326 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, CO, 12-15 March.
Guo, J.C., Lu, C., Zhao, J.Z., and Wang, W.Y. 2008. [Experimental Research on Proppant Embedment]. Journal of China Coal Society,
33(6): 661-664. Chinese.
Huitt, J.L. and Mcglothlin, B.B. 1958. The Propping of Fractures in Formations Susceptible to Propping-sand Embedment. Paper SPE 58-
115 presented at the spring meeting of the Pacific Coast District, Division of Production, Los Anpeles, Calif., May.
Huitt, J.L., Mcglothlin, B.B., and Mcdonald, J.F. 1959. The Propping of Fractures in Formations in which Propping Sand Crushes. Paper
SPE 59-120 presented at the spring meeting of the Rocky Mountain District, Division of Production, Gasper, Wyo., May.
Lacy, L.L., Rickards, A.R., and Bllden, D.M. 1998. Fracture aperture and Embedment Testing in Soft Reservoir Sandstone. SPE Drilling &
Completion, 13(1): 25-29.
Lacy, L.L., Rickards, A.R., and Syed, A.A. 1997. Embedment and Fracture Conductivity in Soft Formations Associated with HEC, Borate
and Water-based Fracture Designs. Paper SPE 38590-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October.
Lehman, L.V., Parker, M.A., Blauch, M.E., Haynes, R., and Blackmon, 1999. A. Proppant Conductivity - What Counts and Why. Paper SPE
52219 presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 29-31 March.
Lu, C. et al. 2008. [Experimental Research on Proppant Embedment and its Damage to Fractures Conductivity]. Natural Gas Industry, 28(2):
99-102. Chinese.
McDaniel, G., Abbott, J., Mueller, F., et al. 2010. Changing the Shape of Fracturing: New Proppant Improves Fracture Conductivity. Paper
SPE 135360 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September.
Milton-Taylor, D., Stephenson, C., and Asgian, M.I. 1992. Factors Affecting the Stability of Proppant in Propped Fractures: Results of a
Laboratory Study. Paper SPE 24821-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., 4-7
October.
Much, M.G. and Penny, G.S. 1987. Long-term Performance of Proppants under Stimulated Reservoir Conditions. Paper SPE 14615-MS
presented at the meeting of SPE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 18-19 May.
Nguyen, P.D., Weaver, J.D., Parker, M., McCabe, M., Hoogteijling, M., and Horst, M.J. 2002. A Novel Approach for Enhancing Proppant
Consolidation: Laboratory Testing and Field Applications. Paper SPE 77748 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September-2 October.
Peard, N.S., et al. 1991. Improved Fracturing Techniques Increase Productivity in the AWP (Olmos) Field. Paper SPE 21646-MS presented
at the meeting of SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 7-9 April.
Roodhart, L., Kuiper, T.O., and Davies, D.R. 1986. Proppant Rock Impairment during Hydraulic Fracturing. Paper SPE 15629 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 5-8 October.
16 SPE 155954

Schubarth, S.K., Cobb, S.L., and Jeffrey, R.G. 1997. Understanding Proppant Closure Stress. Paper SPE 37489 presented at the SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9-11 March.
Vlis, A.C., Haafkens, R., Schipper, B.A., and Visser, W. 1975. Criteria for Proppant Placement and Fracture Conductivity. Paper SPE 5367
presented at the SPE Fall Meeting of AIME, Dallas, Texas, 28 September-1 October.
Volk, L.J., Raible, C.J., Carroll, H.B., and Spears, J.S. 1981. Embedment of High Strength Proppant into Low-permeability Reservoir Rock.
Paper SPE 9867-MS presented at the meeting of SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 27-29
May.
Weaver, J. and Luo H.Y. 2008. Fracture Conductivity Loss Duo to Geochemical Interactions between Man-Made Proppants and Formations.
Paper SPE 118174 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11-15
October.
Wu, J.K., Wang M.Z., and Wang, W. 2001. [Elastic Mechanics Introduction]. Recension of first edition, 200-203. Beijing: Peking
University Press. Chinese.
Yang, S.L. and Wei, J.Z. 2004. [Reservoir Physics]. First edition, 136-159. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press. Chinese.
Zhang, S.C., Mou, S.B., Zhang, J., Wang, L. 2008. [Experimental Evaluation of Long-term Conductivity of Fracturing in Coal Beds]. Acta
Geologica Sinica, 82(10): 1444-1449. Chinese.