See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289505705

Fully Coupled Hydromechanical Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in 3D

Discrete-Fracture Networks

Article in SPE Journal · August 2016

DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA

CITATIONS READS

106 1,033

4 authors, including:

Mark W. McClure Mohsen Babazadeh

ResFrac Corporation University of Texas at Austin
113 PUBLICATIONS 2,756 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 165 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sogo Shiozawa
University of Texas at Austin
12 PUBLICATIONS 423 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ResFrac View project

Hydraulic fracturing applications and geomechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jian Huang on 16 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
Fully Coupled Hydromechanical
Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in 3D
Discrete-Fracture Networks
Mark W. McClure, Mohsen Babazadeh, and Sogo Shiozawa, University of Texas at Austin; and Jian Huang,
Weatherford International
Summary
We developed a hydraulic-fracturing simulator that implicitly
couples fluid flow with the stresses induced by fracture deforma-
tion in large, complex, 3D discrete-fracture networks (DFNs).
The code is efficient enough to perform field-scale simulations of
hydraulic fracturing in DFNs containing thousands of fractures,
without relying on distributed-memory parallelization. The simu-
lator can describe propagation of hydraulic fractures and opening
and shear stimulation of natural fractures. Fracture elements can
open or slide, depending on their stress state, fluid pressure, and
mechanical properties. Fracture sliding occurs in the direction of
maximum resolved shear stress. Nonlinear empirical equations
are used to relate normal stress, fracture opening, and fracture
sliding to fracture aperture and transmissivity. Fluid leakoff is
treated with a semianalytical 1D leakoff model that accounts for
changing pressure in the fracture over time. Fracture propagation
is modeled with linear-elastic fracture mechanics. The For-
chheimer equation (Forchheimer 1901) is used to simulate non-
Darcy pressure drop in the fractures because of high flow rate. A
crossing criterion is implemented that predicts whether propagat-
ing hydraulic fractures will cross natural fractures or terminate
against them, depending on orientation and stress anisotropy.
Height containment of propagating hydraulic fractures between
bedding layers can be modeled with a vertically heterogeneous
stress field or by explicitly imposing hydraulic-fracture-height
containment as a model assumption. Limitations of the model are
that all fractures must be vertical; the mechanical calculations
assume a linearly elastic and homogeneous medium; proppant
transport is not included; and the locations of potentially forming
hydraulic fractures must be specified in advance. Simulations
were performed of a single propagating hydraulic fracture with
and without leakoff to validate the code against classical analyti-
cal solutions. Field-scale simulations were performed of hydraulic
fracturing in a densely naturally fractured formation. The simula-
tions demonstrate how interaction with natural fractures in the
formation can help explain the high net pressures, relatively short
fracture lengths, and broad regions of microseismicity that are of-
ten observed in the field during stimulation in low-permeability
formations, and that are not predicted by classical hydraulic-frac-
turing models. Depending on input parameters, our simulations
predicted a variety of stimulation behaviors, from long hydraulic
fractures with minimal leakoff into surrounding fractures to broad
regions of dense fracturing with a branching network of many nat-
ural and newly formed fractures.
Introduction
Background. The classical conceptual model of hydraulic frac-
turing is that injection creates large, planar hydraulic fractures
that propagate continuously through the formation (Economides
and Nolte 2000). However, in-situ observations suggest that frac-
Copyright V
C 2015 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 173354) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 3–5 February 2015, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 10 November 2014. Revised manuscript
received for review 30 March 2015. Paper peer approved 14 October 2015.
2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:35 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 19
turing can create multiple fractures strands, a branching network,
and other forms of complexity (Warpinski and Teufel 1987; War-
pinski et al. 1993; Mahrer 1999; Jeffrey et al. 2009; Chuprakov
et al. 2013).
In many applications, the classical conceptual model of hydrau-
lic fracturing is adequate for engineering purposes. However, in
low-permeability applications such as shale oil and gas (Fisher
et al. 2004; Bowker 2007; Gale et al. 2007; Cipolla et al. 2008;
King 2010; Suarez-Rivera et al. 2013; Huang et al. 2014a) or geo-
thermal energy (Murphy and Fehler 1986; Evans et al. 2005), frac-
ture networks may be so complex that the classical conceptual
model is overly simplified. Propagating hydraulic fractures
mechanically interact with pre-existing fractures, bedding planes,
and other planes of weakness (Blanton 1982; Teufel and Clark
1984; Warpinski and Teufel 1987; Renshaw and Pollard 1995;
Suarez-Rivera et al. 2006; Gale et al. 2007; Suarez-Rivera et al.
2013; Huang et al. 2014b). These interactions can cause termina-
tion of propagating fractures, leading to branching and network
complexity. Shear stimulation may be another important process.
In shear stimulation, injection induces slip on pre-existing frac-
tures, increasing their transmissivity by breaking up mineralization
and creating mismatch of fracture asperities (Esaki et al. 1999;
Evans et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2013; McClure and Horne 2014).
Hydraulic-fracturing-modeling codes are being developed to
describe these complex processes. These models are challenging
to develop because they need to simultaneously model fluid flow,
stresses induced by fracture deformation, proppant transport,
complex fluid rheology, and fracture-network geometry. Contin-
uum-based dual-porosity models and/or discrete-fracture models
with idealized fracture geometry have been applied for simulating
long-term production (Mayerhofer et al. 2006; Cipolla et al. 2010;
Fan et al. 2010), but may be too simplified to simulate the hydrau-
lic-fracturing process. Conventional hydraulic-fracturing models
assume a single planar fracture (Warpinski et al. 1994), and so
these approaches need modification to describe fracturing in
unconventional resources. DFN models explicitly represent indi-
vidual fractures, which enables them to more realistically describe
the processes taking place during stimulation. However, DFN
codes are challenging to implement, computationally intensive,
and face the challenge of dealing with the complex geometries
that can arise in fracture networks. Modeling of fracture-network
complexity during hydraulic stimulation has been a major focus
of the geothermal-research community for several decades, lead-
ing to a large number of codes being developed (McClure and
Horne 2013). In recent years, new codes have been developed by
the oil and gas community for application to unconventional
resources. Many of these codes have focused on describing hy-
draulic stimulation in fracture networks, involving branching net-
works of hydraulic fractures and/or flow in natural fractures and
shear stimulation (Rogers et al. 2010; Damjanac et al. 2010;
Nagel et al. 2011; Weng et al. 2011; Fu et al. 2012, McClure and
Horne 2013; Wu and Olson 2015; Ouchi et al. 2015).
In modeling of hydraulic stimulation for geothermal energy,
such as enhanced geothermal systems, it is most commonly
assumed that injection primarily causes shear stimulation of pre-
existing fractures, although there is evidence that in many cases,
newly forming hydraulic fractures form and propagate through
1
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
the formation (McClure 2012; Jung 2013; McClure and Horne
2014). Most often, DFN codes have been used to describe hydrau-
lic stimulation in enhanced geothermal systems (Lanyon et al.
1993; Bruel 1995; Kohl and Hopkirk 1995; Willis-Richards et al.
1996; Jing et al. 2000; Rahman et al. 2002; Rachez and Gentier
2010; Zhou and Ghassemi 2011; Riahi and Damjanac 2013). In
some cases, shear stimulation has been simulated with continuum
models (Cladouhos et al. 2011; Dempsey et al. 2013).
Existing DFN codes designed for modeling hydraulic fractur-
ing have neglected the stresses induced by fracture deformation,
have been 2D, have used idealized fracture-network geometry,
have been limited to a small number of discrete fractures, or have
used very idealized semianalytical approximations. We have
developed an efficient modeling approach that fully implicitly cou-
ples fluid flow with the stresses induced by fracture deformation
(opening and sliding) in large, complex, 3D fracture networks.
With this approach, stimulation in large 3D fracture networks can
be simulated in hours or days on a single high-performance com-
pute node. This work is the 3D extension of Complex Fracturing
ReseArch Code (CFRAC), which was developed by McClure and
Horne (2013). The code simulates an array of complex physical
processes, applies realistic stress-boundary conditions for fracture
opening and sliding, includes both propagation of new fractures
and flow and stimulation of preexisting fractures, and uses a well-
validated boundary-element method for mechanical calculations
that converges with mesh refinement to classical analytical solu-
tions from the fracture-mechanics literature (Okada 1992).
Two key design decisions were to use the boundary-element
method (Okada 1992) for the mechanical calculations and to
implement a semianalytical 1D leakoff model (Vinsome and
Westerveld 1980). These decisions create limitations for the code:
the mechanical calculations assume homogeneous, linearly elastic
deformation and the leakoff calculations are only accurate for
simulations of relatively short timescale (hours through days) in
low-permeability formations. However, these decisions allow the
simulations to avoid meshing the volume around the fractures,
which greatly simplifies implementation and improves efficiency.
The code does not permit hydraulic fractures to start and prop-
agate arbitrarily. The locations of potentially forming hydraulic
fractures must be specified in advance. In practice, a large number
of potentially forming fractures can be specified, giving the simu-
lation considerable flexibility in determining where fractures
should form. In future work, we plan to extend the code to allow
fractures to start and propagate arbitrarily.
Conceptual Models of Stimulation and Implications for
Matching of Field Data. McClure (2013) described two different
conceptual models that have been used in the literature to describe
the processes that create stimulation in unconventional resources.
In one conceptual model, mixed-mechanism stimulation (MMS),
propagating hydraulic fractures tend to terminate when they inter-
sect natural fractures and other preexisting planes of weakness.
This conceptual model is derived from laboratory experiments
(Blanton 1982; Teufel and Clark 1984; Renshaw and Pollard
1995; Suarez-Rivera et al. 2006, 2013; Zhou et al. 2008; Gu et al.
2011), in-situ observations (Warpinski and Teufel 1987; Warpin-
ski et al. 1993; Mahrer 1999; Jeffrey et al. 2009; Chuprakov et al.
2013), and computational and/or analytical investigations (Dahi-
Taleghani and Olson 2009; Gu and Weng 2010; Fu et al. 2012;
Chuprakov and Prioul 2015). MMS has been used in numerical
simulations by a variety of authors (Damjanac et al. 2010; Weng
et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2012; McClure and Horne 2013; Huang et al.
2014b; Ouchi et al. 2015; Wu and Olson 2015).
A second conceptual model for stimulation is primary fractur-
ing with shear stimulation leakoff (PFSSL). In this conceptual
model, one or a few large fractures propagate through the forma-
tion during each stage. Complexity is generated as fluid leaks off
from the primary fractures into the surrounding natural fractures.
This complexity may be simulated directly with a DFN or by
assuming the “effective” formation permeability that includes the
effect of surrounding fractures (Warpinski et al. 2001; Palmer
2 2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:35 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 19
et al. 2007; Rogers et al. 2010; Nagel et al. 2011; Roussel and
Sharma 2011; Zhai et al. 2015). The surrounding fractures may be
newly formed fractures (Roussel and Sharma 2011) or they may
be natural fractures that experience shear stimulation (Palmer
et al. 2007; Rogers et al. 2010; Nagel et al. 2011). For fluid pres-
sure to propagate far from the primary fractures through shear-
stimulating natural fractures, the natural-fracture network must be
percolating, experience transmissivity enhancement with slip, and
contain fractures well-oriented to slip at elevated fluid pressure
(McClure and Horne 2014).
For the study described in this paper, we performed simula-
tions representing both the MMS and PFSSL conceptual models.
Termination of propagating hydraulic fractures against natural
fractures was predicted on the basis of the criterion developed by
Gu and Weng (2010).
A key input parameter to the model was whether hydraulic
fractures were permitted to form as vertically continuous features
or whether they were assumed to have limited height. If the frac-
tures were permitted to form into vertically continuous features,
they could propagate around (above and below) any natural frac-
tures they terminated against. This process has been described
experimentally by Bahorich et al. (2012). As a result, a small
number of very-large hydraulic fractures could form as continu-
ous features crossing through the entire problem domain, which is
characteristic of PFSSL. If the hydraulic fractures were assumed
to have limited height, they were unable to propagate around nat-
ural fractures, and stimulation led to a more branching and volu-
metric network, characteristic of MMS. Limited fracture height
can be justified as a model assumption because the hydraulic frac-
tures encounter mechanical interference as they propagate verti-
cally across bedding layers (Suarez-Rivera et al. 2006, 2013).
The PFSSL-inspired simulations predicted long fractures and
low net pressure. The MMS-inspired simulations predicted shorter
fracture length, a more densely fractured stimulated-rock volume,
and higher net pressure.
Methodology
Simulation Methodology. For this study, modifications were
made to an existing code, CFRAC. The original 2D version of
CFRAC was described by McClure and Horne (2013).
During each timestep, four primary variables are calculated at
each element: pressure, opening displacement, sliding velocity,
and direction of sliding. The corresponding four equations at each
element are unsteady-state mass balance, a boundary condition
involving normal stress, a boundary condition involving shear
stress, and a condition that sliding must be in the direction of
maximum resolved shear stress. Calculations are performed im-
plicitly, which means that during every timestep, all properties de-
pendent on the primary variables (such as stress or fluid density)
are updated and a coupled system of equations is solved. The only
exception is a non-Darcy transmissivity-adjustment factor, which
is calculated explicitly.
The following sections describe: generation of the network,
meshing, governing and constitutive equations for fluid flow, gov-
erning and constitutive equations for mechanical calculations, and
numerical techniques for solving the system of equations. A vari-
ety of subsections are provided to address special topics.
Generation of the DFN. Fractures can be specified determin-
istically by the user or generated stochastically. Fractures are gen-
erated stochastically using user-specified statistics for length
distribution, orientation, and spatial density. The location and ori-
entation of potentially forming hydraulic fractures must be speci-
fied in advance. The locations of potentially forming hydraulic
fractures are specified deterministically by the user. In the 2D
code, there is an option to use algorithms that automatically seed
potentially forming fractures throughout the reservoir, but these
are not implemented in the 3D code (McClure and Horne 2013;
McClure 2014).
When locating fractures stochastically, the code performs sev-
eral checks to avoid problematic geometries: low-angle fracture
intersections, very-close-together fracture intersections, and nearly
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
parallel nonintersecting fractures in close proximity. One reason
for these checks is to avoid elements that are very small or have
high aspect ratio. A second reason is that boundary-element meth-
ods, such as the Okada (1992) method, are inaccurate within a cer-
tain distance from each element, which is a fraction of the element
size. With sufficient mesh refinement, this inaccuracy can be
avoided, but unfavorable fracture geometries require an unaccept-
ably high degree of mesh refinement to avoid numerical problems.
Techniques have been developed to handle complex geome-
tries in discrete fracture network by changing fracture geometry at
intersections (Erhel et al. 2009; Mustapha et al. 2010). However,
these methods have been applied only to flow problems, and it is
not clear if they could be applied to problems involving geome-
chanical coupling.
Meshing. In any simulation of a complex 3D DFN, generat-
ing a mesh is a complex and challenging task. In CFRAC, the
mesh is conforming, which means that the boundaries of adja-
cent elements coincide. In the 2D version of CFRAC, a leakoff
model that uses a nonconforming mesh was implemented by
Norbeck et al. (2014), but this method is not currently available
in the 3D version. Several design decisions have been made to
reduce the complexity of mesh generation and to improve the
overall efficiency of the code. First, a boundary-element tech-
nique (Okada 1992) is used to calculate the stresses induced by
fracture deformation. In DFNs, boundary-element techniques
permit stresses to be calculated with a mesh that only includes
the fractures. It is not necessary to mesh the volume around the
fractures (Crouch and Starfield 1983). Second, a semianalytical
1D leakoff model is used to calculate fluid leakoff into the ma-
trix. This method assumes that leakoff from each individual frac-
ture element is 1D and that the leakoff from each fracture
element is unaffected by the leakoff from neighboring fracture
elements. This method is very accurate as long as the matrix per-
meability is sufficiently low, and the stimulation lasts for only a
few hours or days.
The fractures are meshed into rectangular elements, which is
necessary because the Okada (1992) method uses rectangular ele-
ments. This is not a general limitation of 3D boundary-element
techniques for fracture problems. Other element geometries are
possible (Thomas 1993; Ghassemi and Zhou 2011). Because the
fracture elements must be rectangular and a conforming mesh is
required, all fractures in the simulation must be vertical (alterna-
tively, variable dip can be simulated if all fractures have the
same strike).
To further simplify the process of generating a conforming
mesh, fractures heights are slightly adjusted to make sure that
they conform to a prespecified grid. For example, if the problem
domain is h meters high, and Nelm elements will be used to mesh
the problem in the vertical direction (these are both user inputs),
then fracture elements will have a height helm equal to h/Nelm.
Fracture heights will be slightly adjusted so that the top and bot-
tom of each fracture lies at a z-coordinate location, z, such that
(h/2–z)/helm is an integer value (where the middle of the problem
domain is at z ¼ 0).
Fracture-element length in the horizontal direction is a con-
stant, specified value, lelm. Because of fracture intersections, it is
sometimes impossible for element length to be exactly equal to
lelm, and element length may be permitted to be slightly higher or
lower. Typically, lelm and helm are chosen to be nearly equal.
Visualization is performed with the open-source visualization
tool Paraview (Moreland 2014).
Fluid Flow. The fluid-flow equations are solved fully implic-
itly (backward Euler in time) by use of the finite-volume method
described by Karimi-Fard et al. (2004). Timestep duration is cho-
sen adaptively.
Fluid flow is single-phase liquid (no proppant), isothermal,
and the effect of gravity is neglected. The fluid has constant vis-
cosity and is slightly compressible, with a compressibility of cf
and an initial density of qinit. Alternatively, fluid density and vis-
cosity can be interpolated from a lookup table, allowing variation
with both pressure and a user-specified temperature. This allows
2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:35 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 3 Total Pages: 19
the simulator to describe any single phase, constant composition
fluid: liquid water or gases such as carbon dioxide or nitrogen.
Within the fractures, CFRAC solves the unsteady-state mass-
balance equation with Darcy’s law:
@ðEqÞ
¼ r  ðqflux eÞ  qleakoff þ s; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
@t
k
qflux ¼ q rp; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
l
where E is the void aperture (the volume of fluid stored per sur-
face area of fracture), q is fluid density, t is time, qflux is the (vec-
tor-valued) mass flux of fluid through the fracture, e is the
hydraulic aperture (the effective thickness of the fracture avail-
able for flow), qleakoff is the mass rate of leakoff per fracture sur-
face area into the surrounding matrix (described in a later
subsection), s is a source term representing a well, k is permeabil-
ity, l is fluid viscosity, and P is fluid pressure.
The permeability of the fracture is defined to be equal to
e2
k¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
12
When permeability is multiplied by hydraulic aperture, the
result is the transmissivity, T, and the classical cubic-law results
(Witherspoon et al. 1980):
e3
T ¼ ke ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
12
Nonlinear relationships are used to relate pressure, stress, and
deformation to void aperture and hydraulic aperture. We define a
“closed” fracture as a fracture where the fluid pressure is less than
the normal stress and the walls of the fracture are in contact.
Roughness of the fracture walls allows closed fractures to retain
hydraulic and void aperture (thus the fracture is mechanically
closed, but hydraulically open). We define an “open” fracture as a
fracture where the fluid pressure has reached the normal stress
and the walls are no longer in contact. For natural fractures, void
aperture and hydraulic aperture are permitted to be different. This
approach is intended to include the effect of fracture roughness,
both at a microscopic and a macroscopic scale.
For calculating the aperture of closed-fracture elements,
CFRAC uses the following joint-closure relation, which was writ-
ten in this form by Willis-Richards et al. (1996) and was modeled
after the work of Barton et al. (1985):
E0
E¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
1 þ 9r0n =rn;Eref
where E0 is the void aperture at effective stress equal to zero and
rn,Eref is the effective normal stress required to cause a 90%
reduction in void aperture. The effective normal stress, r0n , is
equal to the normal stress, rn, minus fluid pressure.
A similar relation with different constants is used to calculate
hydraulic aperture:
 
e0 /edil
e¼ þ D eff tan : . . . . . . ð6Þ
1 þ 9r0n =rn;eref 1 þ 9r0n =rn;eref
The variable Deff is defined as equal to D, the cumulative sliding
displacement at a location, if D < Deff,max, and is equal to Deff,max
otherwise. The variable /edil is the shear dilation angle, which
relates shear deformation to increases in hydraulic aperture.
In the simulations for this paper, we have assumed the void
aperture does not experience shear dilation (Eq. 5), only the hy-
draulic aperture (Eq. 6). This is a simplifying assumption made
for numerical convenience. The code is able to include shear dila-
tion of void aperture, but this decreases efficiency. The iterative
coupling scheme (described in a later subsection) converges
slowly if there is tight coupling between shear displacement and
the fluid-mass-balance equations. Shear dilation of void aperture
creates a very-tight coupling. Shear dilation of the hydraulic
3
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
aperture also creates a coupling to the fluid-mass-balance equa-
tions, but this coupling is not as strong. For the overall field-scale
behavior of the system, shear dilation of the hydraulic aperture is
more important to include than shear dilation of void aperture.
A user could choose to use identical constants in Eqs. 5 and 6
and could choose to include a shear dilation term in Eq. 5 to ensure
that hydraulic aperture and void aperture are identical. For several
reasons, we often choose constants so that the void aperture is
larger than the hydraulic aperture. Barton et al. (1985) reported
that void aperture can be significantly larger than hydraulic aper-
ture for rough fractures. Also, use of a relatively large E0 can help
account for the relatively coarse scale of the field-scale simulation.
Each discrete fracture in the model represents what may actually
be a complex zone of fractures, rather than a single crack. Even
though the discrete-fracture model can represent a large number of
individual fractures in the formation, it will never be practical to
attempt to represent literally every single fracture in the formation.
Transmissivity scales with the cube of hydraulic aperture but line-
arly with the number of cracks, and so if flow is distributed across
multiple cracks, the effective hydraulic aperture will be lower. In
the most-extreme case, the “fracture” in the simulation could repre-
sent a thick, porous fault zone with effective void aperture on the
order of centimeters and effective hydraulic aperture on the order
of hundreds of microns (McClure and Horne 2011). If a fracture
element is open, then its void and hydraulic apertures are equal to
E0 and e0, respectively, plus the mechanical opening that has
occurred, Eopen. The mechanical opening is the amount of separa-
tion that has occurred between the fracture walls during opening.
For hydraulic-fracture elements (unlike natural-fracture ele-
ments), the hydraulic aperture e is assigned to be equal to the void
aperture, E. This is equivalent to setting e0 equal to E0 and setting
/edil to zero.
For open elements, the apertures are defined as
E ¼ E0 þ Eopen ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
e ¼ e0 þ Deff tanð/edil Þ þ Eopen : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
For natural fractures, E0 and e0 are constant, but for hydraulic-
fracture elements, the values of E0 and e0 are permitted to evolve
during the simulation (and are different for each element), as
described in the next subsection.
Arithmetic averaging is used to calculate the average transmis-
sivity for flow between two elements that have different transmis-
sivity. Often in DFN simulation, harmonic averaging is used for
transmissivity (Karimi-Fard et al. 2004), but we have found that
in CFRAC simulations where transmissivity is a highly nonlinear
function of fluid pressure, harmonic averaging can create a strong
mesh dependence that can only be resolved with very-strong
mesh refinement.
Wellbore storage can optionally be included, as described by
McClure et al. (2014). Wellbore storage is parameterized by the
wellbore-storage coefficient, Cw. Frictional pressure loss in the
wellbore and in the perforations is not included in the simulations.
Residual Aperture of Hydraulic Fractures. There are unique
challenges for defining the aperture of newly forming hydraulic-
fracture elements. For this study, a different algorithm was used
than in the original version of CFRAC (McClure and Horne
2013). McClure et al. (2014) showed that this new algorithm is
useful for achieving realistic simulations of pressure-transient
behavior during diagnostic-fracture-injection tests.
For natural-fracture elements, the values of E0 and e0 are held
constant. But for hydraulic-fracture elements (fracture elements
that form during the simulation because of fracture propagation),
the constants E0 and e0 (used in Eqs. 5 through 8) are different for
each hydraulic-fracture element and are allowed to increase as the
fracture opens until reaching a limiting value. The E0 value that is
used when calculating the aperture of a hydraulic-fracture element
is referred to as the “residual aperture.”
When a hydraulic-fracture element begins, it is given a very-
small residual aperture, 10 lm. This does not perfectly conserve
4 2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:35 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 4 Total Pages: 19
mass because when a new element begins, a corresponding
amount of fluid is not removed from an adjacent element. How-
ever, the error is slight because the initial aperture of the new ele-
ments, 10 lm, is very small. A parameter called the residual
aperture percentage (RAP) is defined such that if the product of
the void aperture and the RAP is greater than the residual aper-
ture, then the residual aperture is increased to be equal to the
product of void aperture and RAP (this update is applied at the
end of the timestep). When residual aperture of the element is
increased, the element’s overall void aperture is held constant by
decreasing Eopen by the amount that the residual aperture is
increased. The residual aperture is allowed to increase until reach-
ing a maximum allowed value, E0,max. If a hydraulic-fracture ele-
ment is closed, then its RAP remains constant. For simulations in
this paper, we used a value of 50% for RAP.
This algorithm is an attempt to mimic the natural formation of
fracture roughness as a crack forms, initially with a very tiny
aperture, and then roughness develops as the crack fully opens
and the walls separate. This approach is somewhat ad-hoc, but it
is physically plausible and necessary for realistic model behavior
during simulations of fracture closure (McClure et al. 2014).
Fluid-Leakoff Model. The semianalytical method of Vinsome
and Westerveld (1980) is used to model leakoff from the fractures
into the matrix. The model assumes that leakoff is 1D away from
each fracture element and leakoff from each element is not
affected by leakoff from the other elements. This model neglects
poroelastic response in the fluid pressure of the formation caused
by deformation at the fractures. Poroelastic-stress changes in the
fracture caused by flow in the matrix are also neglected. The key
advantage of the Vinsome and Westerveld (1980) method is that
it gives a highly accurate and efficient solution to the diffusivity
equation in 1D, even for arbitrarily varying pressure in the frac-
ture over time. In contrast, the Carter leakoff model (Howard and
Fast 1957) assumes constant pressure in the fracture, a simplify-
ing assumption that seriously reduces model generality.
The Vinsome and Westerveld (1980) method was created as a
model of heat loss caused by conduction into a caprock. However,
the equation for heat conduction is identical to the equation for
single-phase-fluid flow in a porous media with constant total com-
pressibility, permeability, and viscosity. Therefore, the method
can be adapted by changing the variables in the original equations
of Vinsome and Westerveld (1980) to their equivalents for flow in
porous media. This method assumes single-phase flow and con-
stant formation permeability, total compressibility, and fluid
viscosity.
The assumptions of 1D leakoff and no interference between
fractures are justified if the fracture spacing is sufficiently large
relative to the penetration distance of the pressure signal. The
penetration distance can be estimated as (Bird et al. 2006)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k
dinv ¼4 t; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
/init ct l
where ct is the formation total compressibility the sum of cf and
c/ and /init is initial porosity. For stimulation duration of 1 hour,
by use of the values from Table 1, the penetration length is 3.2 m,
which is much less than the typical fracture spacing in the net-
work used in our simulations.
Non-Darcy Pressure Drop. The Forchheimer equation (For-
chheimer 1901) for non-Darcy flow in a 1D fracture can be writ-
ten in the form (Fourar et al. 1993)
dP 12l q l q 2
 ¼ 3 Q þ B 3 Q2 ¼ Q þ B Q : . . . . . . . ð10Þ
dX e e T 12T
where B is a unitless constant, x is distance along the fracture, and
Q is the volumetric flow rate per width. Fourar et al. (1993) exper-
imentally measured B to be equal to approximately 0.03 for sin-
gle-phase flow in a rough fracture. Eq. 10 is inconvenient to
implement in a flow simulator because it does not permit Q to be
written explicitly. Following Holditch and Morse (1976), Eq. 10
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
Table 1—Simulation settings used in all simulations.
can be rewritten by use of a unitless transmissivity adjustment
factor, Tadj, in the form of Darcy’s law:
 
dP l BqjQj l
 ¼ Tadj Q ¼ 1 þ Q: . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ
dX T 12l T
In the simulator, the non-Darcy transmissivity-adjustment fac-
tor is the only parameter that is calculated explicitly in time. At
the beginning of each timestep, the simulator calculates the Darcy
flow rate between the adjacent elements by dividing the mass flow
rate by the density, length of the interface between the two ele-
ments, and the average void aperture of the two elements. Then
the adjustment factor is calculated and held as a constant during
the corresponding timestep.
Mechanical Calculations. In addition to solving the fluid-
flow equations, CFRAC calculates the stresses induced by fracture
opening and sliding. The stresses are calculated by use of the
boundary-element method of Okada (1992), which uses the
boundary-element method with constant displacement-discontinu-
ity elements, assuming an elastically homogeneous and isotropic
formation, linear elastic deformation, and small strain. The Okada
(1992) method includes the effect of the Earth’s surface, but this
has a very-small effect unless the fracture deformation is very
shallow. The technique satisfies the equations of classical contin-
uum mechanics: quasistatic stress equilibrium, the compatibility
equations, and Hooke’s law. Calculation results are fully conver-
gent to analytical solutions for crack deformation (Sneddon
1946). The calculations are fully numerical, enabling complex
problems to be solved (for example, arbitrary distribution of pres-
sure within the fracture). An advantage of the boundary-element
method is that it is only necessary to mesh the fractures them-
selves, not the volume around the fractures. It is assumed that
fracture deformation does not affect matrix-fluid pressure and
changes in matrix-fluid pressure do not affect stress on the
fractures.
The stress state at each element is specified by three compo-
nents: rn, ss, and sd, which are the normal stress, strike-direction
shear stress, and dip-direction shear stress. The deformation at
each element is specified by three variables: Eopen, vs, and vd,
which are the mechanical opening, the strike-direction sliding ve-
locity, and the dip-direction sliding velocity. The Okada (1992)
method is used to calculate interaction coefficients that linearly
relate deformation at each element to stress at every element.
Updates of stress caused by deformation are accomplished by
multiplying a dense matrix of interaction coefficients by a vector
2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:35 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 5 Total Pages: 19
of displacement discontinuities. Because there are three types of
deformation and three stress components for each fracture ele-
ment, nine matrix multiplications are performed. In practice, not
every element deforms during every timestep, and so it is not nec-
essary to perform the full multiplications at every timestep. Col-
umns of the matrix of interaction coefficients associated with
elements that are not deforming can be omitted.
Hmmvp, a code developed by Bradley (2014), is used to very
accurately and efficiently approximate the matrices of interaction
coefficients. Hmmvp hugely improves the efficiency and scaling
of the method and enables much-larger fracture networks to be
simulated than would otherwise be possible without massive par-
allelization. Testing has shown that Hmmvp is extremely accurate
and allows computational effort for the matrix multiplications to
scale between O(n) to O[nlog(n)], where n is the number of ele-
ments in the problem (McClure and Horne 2013).
Deformation-Boundary Conditions. For an open element, the
stress-boundary condition is that effective normal stress must be
equal to zero:
rrn  P þ Drn ¼ 0; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ
where rrn is the normal stress on the fracture caused by remote
loading (calculated from the initial conditions) and Drn is the
change in normal stress caused by stress induced by the cumula-
tive deformation of all the fracture elements in the system, as cal-
culated from the Okada (1992) method.
Closed elements experience small normal displacements in
response to changes in effective normal stress (Eq. 5). Optionally,
these stresses can be included by use of the method described in
McClure and Horne (2013). However, these stresses are typically
neglected because they have a very-minor effect on the simulation
results and add significantly to the computational cost of the
calculation.
Fracture elements are also permitted to deform in shear.
Because the fracture is a 2D surface, there are two sliding velocity
components, vd and vs, which are the sliding velocity in the dip/
slip direction (down is taken as positive) and strike/slip direction
(the direction of strike is taken as positive), respectively. Frac-
tures slide if the magnitude of their shear stress exceeds their fric-
tional resistance to slip. In the numerical solver, it is most
convenient to parameterize the problem by use of the variables v,
the magnitude of sliding velocity, and h, the direction of sliding,
measured counterclockwise from the direction of strike. The
strike/slip- and dip/slip-velocity components can be easily calcu-
lated from v and h.
For each sliding element, two equations must be satisfied that
are related to stress-boundary conditions and the direction of slid-
ing. For elements that are not sliding, these equations are omitted
from the system of equations.
For open elements, the stress-boundary condition is that the
magnitude of the shear stress (including dynamic effects on shear
stress, expressed with a radiation-damping term, as discussed in
this study) must be equal to zero:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðsrd þ Dsd Þ2 þ ðsrs þ Dss Þ2  gt ¼ 0; . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
where srs and srd are the shear-stress components caused by remote
loading (calculated from the initial conditions) and Dss and Dsd
are the change in the shear stress caused by the cumulative defor-
mation of the fracture elements in the problem. There is an addi-
tional radiation-damping term, where g is the radiation-damping
coefficient (Rice 1993), which is equal to the shear modulus di-
vided by two times the shear wave speed. This term accounts for
the effect of inertia at high slipping velocities. The radiation-
damping term typically has a negligible effect on simulation
results, but it is useful for numerical reasons because it guarantees
that the magnitude of deformations during a timestep approaches
zero as the timestep duration approaches zero. As a numerical
convenience that has only a very-slight effect on the simulation
results, a small cohesion term, S0,open, is added to Eq. 13, typically
5
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
0.5 MPa. Elements with shear-stress magnitude less than S0,open
do not slide, allowing the code to avoid constantly calculating
very-small sliding deformations on open-fracture elements that
have a sliding velocity of effectively zero.
For sliding closed elements, equality in Coulomb’s law is
enforced:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
j ðsrd þ Dsd Þ2 þ ðsrs þ Dss Þ2  gtj ¼ lf ðrn  PÞ þ S0 ;
                   ð14Þ
where lf is the coefficient of friction and S0 is the cohesion. Frac-
tures with shear-stress magnitude less than the frictional resist-
ance to slip (the right-hand side of Eq. 14) do not slide and are
assumed to have infinite shear stiffness. It is convenient to allow
S0 to be equal to S0,open. Otherwise, fracture elements experience
rapid sliding caused by abrupt loss of cohesion when they switch
from being closed to open.
For each sliding element, there is one stress-boundary condi-
tion for sliding, either Eq. 13 or Eq. 14. A second equation is
needed to control the direction of sliding. This equation specifies
that the direction of sliding must be equal to the direction of maxi-
mum shear stress. This requirement can be expressed as
   
srd þ Dsd vd
arctan ¼ arctan : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð15Þ
srs þ Dss vs
where arctan is the “atan2” function that returns an angle h within
the range p  h < p.
Eqs. 12 through 15 are all imposed implicitly. The values of
Drn, Dss, and Dsd are all evaluated during the timesteps, after
each update within the iterations of the nonlinear solvers.
Solving the Coupled System. The nonlinear system of equa-
tions is solved by use of a specially developed iterative method
with iterative coupling between fluid flow and normal stress-
boundary conditions and the two equations related to shear slip.
The method used in this paper is an extension of the method
described by McClure and Horne (2013). In the iterative coupling
scheme, the system of equations is set up and solved, holding the
unknowns of the second system of equations constant. Then the
system of equations is solved holding the unknowns of system of
equations constant. The residuals from the system of equations
are checked, and the process is repeated until all residual equa-
tions have been simultaneously satisfied (Kim et al. 2011).
Within each system of equations, an iterative scheme is used.
An iteration matrix J is formed, where the ith row and jth column
are given as
@Ri
Jij ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð16Þ
@Xj
where R is the vector of residual equations (equal to zero if the
equations are perfectly satisfied) and X is the vector of unknowns.
Then, the following linear system of equations is solved:
JdX ¼ R; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð17Þ
where dX is an update to the vector of unknowns. After dX is cal-
culated, the vector of unknowns X is updated according to
Xjþ1 ¼ Xj þ dXj ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð18Þ
where the subscript j refers to the iteration number. After the pri-
mary variables are updated, all secondary variables, such as the
fluid properties, are updated. Then the residual vector is recalcu-
lated. Iteration is continued until the Euclidean and infinity norm
of R and dX are less than a convergence criterion. When evaluat-
ing the norm of the residual vector R, the values corresponding to
a mass-balance equation (units of kg/s) are scaled to units of pres-
sure by multiplying by the timestep duration and dividing by the
product of the fluid density, element area, and the derivative of
void aperture with respect to pressure.
6 2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:35 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 6 Total Pages: 19
The linear system of equations is solved by use of the library
UMFPACK (Davis 2004), which also uses BLAS (Lawson et al.
1979; Dongarra et al. 1988), AMD (Amestoy et al. 2004), and
LAPACK (Anderson et al. 1999).
The fluid-flow/opening system of equations involves Eqs. 1 and
12 and the variables P and Eopen. The stresses induced by the slight
normal displacements of closed elements are typically neglected,
although they can optionally be included by use of the McClure
and Horne (2013) technique. For closed elements, Eopen is zero and
it is not necessary to include Eq. 12 in the system of equations.
The fluid-flow/opening system of equations leads to four types
of derivatives: derivatives of the mass-balance equation (Eq. 1)
with respect to pressure, derivatives of the mass-balance equation
with respect to opening displacement, derivatives of the effective
normal-stress equation (Eq. 12) with respect to pressure, and
derivatives of the effective normal-stress equation with respect to
opening displacement.
Derivatives with respect to the opening displacement of an ele-
ment are all nonzero because in the boundary-element method, the
stress induced by deformation at each element is linearly related to
the deformation at every other element. This is problematic,
because this means that the columns of the iteration matrix repre-
senting derivatives with respect to normal displacement may be
dense, which could significantly reduce computational efficiency.
To avoid this problem, CFRAC performs a preprocessing step at
the beginning of the simulation and identifies the interaction coeffi-
cients with magnitude greater than a certain threshold value. All
other interaction coefficients (the vast majority of coefficients) are
set to zero in the iteration matrix, ensuring that the iteration matrix is
sparse. This strategy does not degrade the accuracy of the solution
because after each update, the stresses at each element are calculated
fully by use of Hmmvp (Bradley 2014). Because the interaction
coefficients between elements decay rapidly with distance, the itera-
tive scheme converges quickly. Fracture walls cannot interpenetrate,
and so Eopen cannot be negative. To enforce this condition, before
every update in the iterative procedure, a check is performed to pre-
vent imposing an update that would cause Eopen to become negative.
The sliding system of equations involves Eqs. 13 through 15.
If the shear stress of an element is less than the frictional resist-
ance to slip, it is not sliding, and it is not necessary to include it in
the system of equations. The system of equations is parameterized
with the variables v (the magnitude of the sliding velocity) and h
(the angle of the direction of sliding, measured counterclockwise
from the direction of strike). As with the fluid-flow/opening sys-
tem of equations, terms of the iteration matrix associated with
interaction coefficients with magnitude less than a certain thresh-
old are set to zero. Nonzero values in the iteration matrix must
take into account that sliding deformations can change both shear
and normal stresses in Eq. 14.
The variable h is defined to lie in the interval p  h < p.
Updates may bring h out of that range, and so after each update, a
check is performed, and if necessary, a multiple of 2p is added or
subtracted to bring h back into the correct range. The variable v is
defined to be nonnegative, and so after each update, a check is
performed, and if v is less than zero, it is reset to zero. These
checks are performed before updating stresses in response to the
fracture-sliding deformations.
Element “status” defines whether it is open or closed and slid-
ing or not sliding. A challenge in performing the calculations im-
plicitly is that element status may change during a timestep. To
handle this issue, the code performs a check of element status af-
ter every iteration within the nonlinear solvers. If an element has
changed status, it may need to be added or removed from one or
both of the systems of equations. Therefore, the system of equa-
tions to be solved during a timestep can change and is not known
at the beginning of the timestep. Changing element status causes
discontinuities in the derivative of the solution space, but rarely
causes convergence failures because relatively small timesteps are
used, usually on the order of 1 second, and within each timestep,
iterative solvers are used. In rare cases when convergence failures
occur, the simulator discards the failed timestep and repeats with
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
reduced timestep duration. The problem is set up so that there are
no discontinuities in the solution space and changes never occur
instantaneously. As a result, changes always approach zero as
timestep duration approaches zero, and convergence can always
be guaranteed by sufficiently reducing timestep duration.
Fracture Creation, Propagation, and Crossing. Special crite-
ria are used to control hydraulic-fracture creation, propagation,
and crossing. An important limitation of the code is that the loca-
tion of potentially forming fractures must be specified in advance.
This is an important limitation, and decisions regarding where to
place potentially forming fractures must be made carefully. Poten-
tially forming fractures are assumed to be perpendicular to the
direction of the minimum principal stress before the start of the
simulation. This is a simplification, because stresses induced by
fracture deformation can cause the minimum principal stress to
locally rotate, and hydraulic fractures may form in different orien-
tations and turn during propagation (Roussel and Sharma 2011).
The tendency for fracture turning will be controlled by the magni-
tude of the stress anisotropy.
Hydraulic-fracture elements connected to the wellbore are
considered wellbore-creation elements. At the beginning of the
simulation, they are inactive (because the hydraulic fracture does
not yet exist). At every timestep, the code performs the following
check on each wellbore-creation element: If the element was acti-
vated, and it had pressure equal to the wellbore pressure, would
this element be in tension, with a negative effective normal stress,
and would the tension exceed the tensile strength of the rock, Tstr?
If so, a hydraulic fracture is created at that element. When this
occurs, the elements connected to the well are activated, and to
avoid mesh dependence, all elements within a certain distance of
the well (typically 5 m) are also activated.
Hydraulic-fracture elements connected to natural fractures are
fracture-creation elements. Similar to the wellbore-creation ele-
ments, the following check is performed: if the hydraulic-fracture
element was activated, and it had the same pressure as its con-
nected natural-fracture element, would it be in tension greater
than the tensile strength of the rock? If so, the element and all ele-
ments within a certain distance are created.
Fracture propagation is handled with linear elastic-fracture
mechanics. All active hydraulic-fracture elements that are adja-
cent to an inactive hydraulic-fracture element are considered a
crack tip. At these elements, the stress intensity factor, KI, is cal-
culated by use of the equation given by Olson (2007):
 pffiffiffi 
2G p
KI ¼ 0:806 pffiffiffi Eopen ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð19Þ
4ð1  tp Þ a
where G is the shear modulus and tp is Poisson’s ratio. For a 2D
simulation, a is defined as the element half-length. For our 3D
simulation, we have defined a to be the lower of two numbers, ei-
ther the element half-length or the element half-height (typically,
these are very-close together because we use nearly square ele-
ments). If the stress-intensity factor is greater than the fracture
toughness, KIc, the fracture propagates from that element. Propa-
gation is accomplished by activating any hydraulic-fracture ele-
ment directly adjacent to the element where the stress-intensity
factor has reached the fracture toughness.
Three options have been implemented for termination of prop-
agating fractures against natural fractures. One option is to permit
hydraulic fractures to propagate directly across natural fractures
unimpeded. A second option is to require that hydraulic fractures
always terminate when they intersect natural fractures. If termina-
tion occurs, the fracture-propagation algorithm described previ-
ously is not permitted to create hydraulic-fracture elements on the
other side of the intersection with the natural fracture. Otherwise,
creation elements (described previously) could allow hydraulic
fractures to readily propagate across intersections (even without
the propagation algorithm).
The third option is the Gu and Weng (2010) criterion, which is
an extension of the work of Renshaw and Pollard (1995). The cri-
terion is derived from calculating shear stress and normal stress on
the natural fracture as the hydraulic fracture approaches and testing
2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:35 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 7 Total Pages: 19
whether the natural fracture should slide (which would blunt prop-
agation) before the arrival of the hydraulic fracture. When CFRAC
uses this criterion, crossing is predicted solely on the basis of the
remote-loading-boundary conditions and the fracture orientations.
If the termination criterion is met, then the propagating hydraulic
fracture is not permitted to cross the natural fracture.
Validation. The code has been validated against several analyti-
cal solutions. For brevity, the validation simulations are not
included in this paper and are given in a separate publication
(Babazadeh and McClure 2015).
The implementation of the finite-volume method was validated
by performing constant rate injection into a single large, planar frac-
ture, under stress conditions chosen so that neither fracture opening
nor sliding occurred. For this validation, fracture void and hydraulic
aperture were assumed constant (though the total compressibility was
nonzero because of the fluid compressibility). Given these assump-
tions, the simulation became equivalent to the classical infinite-acting
radial-flow solution (van Everdingen and Hurst 1949). The numerical
solution provided a very-close match to the analytical solution.
Second, the mechanical calculations were validated. Injection
was performed at constant pressure into a circular fracture until
pressure was constant everywhere in the fracture. Usually, the
fractures are assumed to be rectangular in CFRAC, but the code
was modified to permit a circular crack.
In one simulation by use of the circular crack, the fracture was
loaded under compression and zero shear stress. Injection was
performed at a specified pressure greater than the normal stress on
the fracture. At the end of the simulation, the result was equiva-
lent to the analytical solution of Sneddon (1946) for the opening
of a circular crack at constant pressure. The simulation result gave
a very close match to the analytical solution for the opening distri-
bution along the crack and the spatial distribution of induced
stress around the crack.
In a second simulation, injection was performed at a specified
pressure less than the normal stress, but the fracture was initially
loaded with a shear stress, and sliding occurred in response to
injection. Injection was performed until fracture pressure was
constant everywhere, and the results were compared with the ana-
lytical solution of Fabrikant (1989) for sliding of a crack at con-
stant-stress drop. The simulation result gave a very-close match to
the analytical solution for the distribution of sliding along the
crack and the distribution of induced stresses around the crack.
Simulations with no leakoff (PKN-NL) and with leakoff (PKN-
WL), described in the next subsection, were performed to validate
the code by comparing with the classical Perkins-Kern-Nordgren
(PKN) solution for fracture propagation with and without leakoff
(Perkins and Kern 1961; Geertsma and de Klerk 1969; Nordgren
1972) and the equation for radial-fracture propagation without
leakoff (Perkins and Kern 1961; Geertsma and de Klerk 1969).
Details of the Simulations. Eight simulations were performed:
two simulations for comparison with the analytical 2D PKN frac-
ture-propagation solution (PKN-NL and PKN-WL) and six simula-
tions in large, complex, stochastically generated fracture networks:
simulations PF-HS-LE, PF-HS-HE, PF-LS-HE, MMS-HS-LE,
MMS-HS-HE, and MMS-LS-HE, where PF represents primary
fractures, MMS represents mixed-mechanism stimulation, HS rep-
resents high stress, LS represents low stress, LE represents low e0,
and HE stands for high e0. In all simulations, injection was per-
formed at 100 kg/s for 1 hour from a section of a horizontal well-
bore with length of 100 m, drilled in the direction of the minimum
principal stress. Simulations PKN-NL and PKN-WL used Realiza-
tion N0 (no natural fractures, a single planar hydraulic fracture).
Simulations PF-HS-LE, PF-HS-HE, and PF-LS-HE used Realiza-
tion N1, and Simulations MMS-HS-LE, MMS-HS-HE, and MMS-
LS-HE used Realization N2. Table 2 provides the values of the pa-
rameters that were varied between simulations.
Realization N0 contained a single hydraulic fracture, specified
to have a height of 100 m and a half-length of up to 1 km. Realiza-
tions N1 and N2 each contained approximately 3,200 preexisting
7
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
Y-Axis
200 100 0 –100
100
50
Z-Axis
0
–50
–100
Fig. 1—The potentially forming hydraulic fractures seeded in
Realization N1, viewed from the side. For visibility, the fractures
are partially transparent.
natural fractures, which had random strike, dip of 90  , and were
located at random (subject to the constraints described in the Frac-
ture Creation, Propagation, and Crossing subsection) within a
region 800 m long (in the direction of the maximum horizontal
stress, defined as the x-axis direction), 400 m wide (in the direction
of the minimum horizontal stress, defined as the y-axis direction),
and 200 m high, defined in the z-axis direction. The height of the
natural fractures varied between 30 and 50 m, and length of the
natural fractures varied between 30 and 80 m (all fractures were
rectangular). In Realization N1, potentially forming hydraulic frac-
tures were seeded every 50 m, oriented perpendicular to the mini-
mum principal stress, crossing the length of the problem domain
and vertically extending from the top to the bottom (Fig. 1). In
Realization N2, potentially forming fractures were seeded every
25 m, but they each had a height of only 20 m. These confined-
height hydraulic fractures were stacked vertically and staggered,
so that they filled the entire problem domain (Fig. 2).
Figs. 3 and 4 show the natural-fracture network used in Real-
ization N2, viewed from above and from the side. The natural-
fracture network Realization N1 was not identical, but was statis-
tically the same and is not shown for brevity. Fig. 1 shows the
potentially forming fractures seeded in Realization N1. Fig. 2
shows the potentially forming fractures seeded in Realization N2.
The edges of the problem domain were treated as no-flow
boundaries. In accordance with the assumptions built into the
–400 –300 –200 –100
200
100
Y-Axis
–100
–200
Fig. 3—The natural-fracture network in Realization N2, viewed from above. The natural fractures in Realization N1 are similar, but
not identical. The relatively white area in the center of Fig. 1 occurs because of perspective. All the fractures are vertical and so
they appear thin when viewed directly from above. Fracture strike is random.
8 2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:35 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 8 Total Pages: 19
Y-Axis
–200 200 100 0 –100 –200
100
50
Z-Axis
0
–50
–100
Fig. 2—The potentially forming hydraulic fractures seeded in
Realization N2, viewed from the side. For visibility, the fractures
are partially transparent.
method of Okada (1992), the stresses induced by deformation
were calculated assuming the fractures were embedded in an elas-
tic half-space (with the Earth’s surface as the half-space bound-
ary). In the calculations for this study, the fracture depth was
assumed large enough that the Earth’s surface had no effect on
the calculations.
Table 1 provides the settings used in the simulations. The sim-
ulations were performed with formation properties, fluid pressure,
and stress state designed to roughly replicate the Barnett shale
(following McClure and Zoback 2013). The simulations labeled
HS had a high-maximum principal stress (rxx, which was horizon-
tal), and the simulations labeled LS had low-maximum principal
stress. Because the fractures all had dip of 90  , the vertical princi-
pal stress did not have an effect on the stress resolved on the frac-
tures and did not need to be specified. The simulations labeled LE
had low value of e0, and the simulation labeled HE had a rela-
tively higher value of e0. The parameter e0 affects the transmissiv-
ity of the closed natural fractures (Eq. 6), but even if fractures
have low e0, their transmissivity can become elevated if they open
(Eq. 7) or if they experience shear stimulation (Eq. 6).
The PKN simulations had no wellbore storage and homogene-
ous-stress state. The stress state in the MMS and PF simulations
dr
varied linearly with depth, as given by drdzxx and dzyy . The magni-
tude of these gradients was chosen to reflect the variation in effec-
tive stress (stress minus hydrostatic pressure), assuming formation
depth of 1.7 km. The principal stress values rrxx and rryy provided
X-Axis
0 100 200 300 400
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
–300
X-Axis
–200 –100 0
Fig. 4—The natural-fracture network in Realization N2, viewed from the side and slightly above. The natural fractures in Realization
N1 are similar, but not identical.
in Table 1 were set at the depth of the wellbore, the center of sim-
ulation domain. In addition to the linear trend in stress with depth,
a layering of stress with depth was imposed in the MMS and PF
simulations to create fracture-height containment. In the upper
and lower 50 m of the model, both principal stresses were
increased by 5 MPa. This created a tendency for stimulation to
confine within the central 100 m of the problem domain.
In Simulation PKN-NL, there was no leakoff from the fracture
because permeability was assumed to be zero. In Simulation
PKN-WL, the matrix permeability was set to 1017 m2, as in the
other simulations. The tensile strength of the rock, Tstr, is a model
parameter needed for fracture creation and for the Gu et al. (2011)
crossing criterion. It was assumed to be zero.
In the PKN simulations, the fracture elements were 2.4 m high
and 2.5 m long, and there were 32,800 total elements in the simu-
lation (for a maximum potential-fracture half-length of 1 km and
a height of 100 m). In Realizations N1 and N2, fracture elements
were 6.4 m high and 5 m long. There were 203,000 and 214,000
fracture elements in Realizations N1 and N2, respectively. The
nine matrices of interaction coefficients were calculated before
the simulations in a highly compressed format by use of Hmmvp.
With Hmmvp, the RAM requirement of storing the matrices of
interaction coefficients in Realizations N1 and N2 was roughly
80 GB for each realization (using 4-byte single-precision numbers
with eight digits of accuracy). Without the use of Hmmvp, storing
the full, uncompressed matrices of interaction coefficients as 4-
byte floats would have required approximately 1.4 TB of memory.
The six MMS and PF simulations were run simultaneously on a
single high-memory compute node, each simulation using five of
Table 2—Settings specific to particular simulations.
2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:36 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 9 Total Pages: 19
100 200 300
the 32 processors, and completed in 1–2 days, each taking approx-
imately 7,000 timesteps.
Results and Discussion
Comparison of the PKN Simulations with Analytical Solutions.
The PKN simulations modeled creation of a single transverse
fracture from a horizontal well. The hydraulic fracture propagated
radially from the well until it reached the maximum fracture
height of 100 m (which was specified as a model assumption), and
then it propagated in both longitudinal directions. For validation,
the simulation results were compared with classical analytical sol-
utions. At intermediate and late time, Simulation PKN-NL was
compared with the analytical PKN solution with no leakoff (Per-
kins and Kern 1961; Nordgren 1972). At early time, Simulation
PKN-NL was compared with the analytical solution for radial-
fracture propagation with no leakoff (Perkins and Kern 1961;
Geertsma and de Klerk 1969). Simulation PKN-WL was com-
pared with the analytical PKN solution with leakoff (Nordgren
1972). After early time, the simulation results were expected to
have a reasonable match with the analytical PKN solutions, which
assume that fracture length is much greater than height.
For the case of radial-fracture propagation with no leakoff, the
radius, Rf, of the fracture can be calculated as (Perkins and Kern
1961; Geertsma and de Klerk 1969)
 1=9
Gq3v
Rf ðtÞ ¼ 0:56 t4=9 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð20Þ
ð1  tp Þl
9
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15 Stage: Page: 10 Total Pages: 19

60 1,000
Radial - no leakoff PKN - no leakoff
CFRAC - no leakoff CFRAC - no leakoff
50 PKN - with leakoff
800

Fracture Half-Length (m)

CFRAC - with leakoff
Fracture Radius (m)

40
600

30
400

20

200
10

0
0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (seconds)
Time (seconds)
Fig. 6—Fracture half-length vs. time in the PKN simulations and
Fig. 5—Fracture half-length vs. time for Simulation PKN (blue) in the PKN analytical solutions.
and the analytical radial propagation solution (red).

where qv is the volumetric-injection rate, G is the shear modulus, where CL is the leakoff coefficient, w is the average fracture
and tp is Poisson’s ratio. The values used in Eq. 20 are given in width, and Sp is spurt-loss coefficient, which we assumed to be
Table 1. Fig. 5 shows the fracture radius from the radial-fracture- zero. The average fracture width can be calculated as (Nordgren
propagation solution and the very-early-time result from Simula- 1972)
tion PKN-NL. There is a reasonable match, with the simulation  
result showing a slightly greater radius. This may be caused by p ð1  Þl q L 1=4
the relatively coarse mesh used to capture these early-time effects w ¼ ww ¼ 2:05 . . . . . . . . . . . . ð23Þ
5 2 G
and the difficulty of capturing a radial geometry with rectangular
elements. where ww is the fracture width at the wellbore. The leakoff coeffi-
The half-length, L, of a fracture in the PKN model without cient for a fracture with no filter cake is calculated as (Howard
leakoff can be calculated as (Nordgren 1972) and Fast 1957)
!1=5 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Gq3v kct /
LðtÞ ¼ 0:45 t4=5 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð21Þ CL ¼ DP; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð24Þ
ð1  tp Þlh4f pl

where hf is the fracture height. With the Carter leakoff model where DP is the increase in the fluid pressure with respect to the
(Howard and Fast 1957) incorporated into the PKN model, the initial formation-fluid pressure. When calculating CL for use in
fracture half-length can be calculated as (Nordgren 1972; Valko Eq. 22, we used DP equal to the minimum principal stress minus
and Economides 1995) the initial reservoir pressure. The actual injection pressure during
    the simulation was slightly greater than the minimum principal
w þ 2Sp qv 2 2b stress and changed slightly over time.
LðtÞ ¼ expðb Þ erfcðbÞ þ p ffiffiffi  1Þ ; Fig. 6 shows fracture half-length vs. time for Simulations
8C2L phf p
pffiffiffiffi PKN-WL and PKN-NL, and the analytical PKN solutions with
2CL pt and without leakoff. Fig. 7 shows the fracture aperture at the well-
where b ¼ ;                  ð22Þ
w þ 2Sp bore vs. time for the two simulations and the two analytical
solutions.
The simulation results and the analytical solutions matched
–3
well, but not perfectly. The slight mismatch occurred because the
× 10 analytical solutions make simplifying assumptions that are not
3.5
precisely met in our more-general numerical-simulation results.
Fracture Aperture at the Wellbore (m)

3 The PKN analytical solutions assume that the location of the frac-
ture tip is uniform vertically. In our simulations, the fracture tip
was curved, with the fracture length slightly longer at the center
2.5
of the fracture than at the top and bottom. Second, the PKN solu-
tion assumes that the vertical distribution of aperture at each point
2 along the fracture can be calculated from the analytical plane-
strain solution for a fracture with uniform pressure. In our simula-
1.5 tions, there was minimal vertical variation in pressure within the
fracture, and so the analytical PKN assumption of constant pres-
1 sure in the vertical direction was well-founded. However, the ana-
PKN - no leakoff lytical PKN assumption that the plane-strain solution can be used
CFRAC - no leakoff for aperture distribution relies on the fact that the 3D solution will
0.5
PKN - with leakoff approach the plane-strain solution for a fracture much longer than
CFRAC - with leakoff its height. This assumption holds true near the wellbore (as long
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 as the fracture length is significantly greater than height) but is
Time (seconds) less valid near the tips of the fractures. Consistent with this expec-
tation, in the simulation results, it was found that the distribution
Fig. 7—Fracture aperture at the wellbore vs. time in the PKN of aperture in the vertical direction matched the plane-strain solu-
simulations and in the PKN analytical solutions. tion closely near the wellbore, but there was a minor mismatch

10 2015 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 14:36 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123

 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15 Stage: Page: 11 Total Pages: 19

4 Because of the vertical stress layering imposed in the simula-

tion, the stimulated fractures were almost entirely confined within
3.5 the central 100 m of the network in all four simulations. Fig. 15
shows the final fracture network from Simulation MMS-LS-HE
3 viewed from the side. Stimulation has extended no more than
Net Pressure (MPa)
approximately 10–15 m from the top and bottom of the central
2.5 100 m of the problem domain into the surrounding layers of
higher stress. Fig. 15 shows that stimulation spread farther from
2
the wellbore at shallower depth, where the minimum principal
1.5
MMS-HS-HE stress was slightly lower. Fig. 16 shows the distribution of fluid
MMS-HS-LE pressure at the end of Simulation MMS-LS-HE in a horizontal
1
MMS-LS-HE cross section through the middle of the problem domain.
PF-HS-HE Simulations PF-HS-LE, PF-HS-HE, and PF-LS-HE. In
0.5 PF-HS-LE Simulation PF-HS-LE, large hydraulic fractures propagated
PF-LS-HE through the formation with only minimal leakoff into surrounding
0 natural fractures. This simulation was similar to the classical con-
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
cept of hydraulic fracturing, in which large planar features propa-
Time (seconds) gate continuously through the formation. Of the three fractures
that started at the wellbore, the central fracture propagated the
Fig. 8—Net pressure (fluid pressure minus the minimum princi- least distance. This occurred because the stress shadow created by
pal stress).
the opening of the fractures was greatest on the central fracture,
which inhibited propagation. The rate of propagation for each
closer to the fracture tips. The PKN with leakoff solution uses the fracture was affected not only by the stress shadow from neigh-
Carter leakoff model (Howard and Fast 1957), which assumes bors, but also by the interference created by the natural fractures.
that pressure in the fracture is constant with time. Our numerical The Gu and Weng (2010) criterion was used to determine
results used a semianalytical leakoff model that takes into account whether the propagating hydraulic fractures should terminate
varying pressure in the fracture over time. The PKN solution against natural fractures, and in many cases, termination did
assumes that the pressure reaches the minimum principal stress at occur. However, the height of the hydraulic fractures was greater
the crack tip. This assumption was consistent with the numerical than the natural fractures (which were specified to be no more
results, in which pressure remained close to the minimum princi- than 50 m high). When the propagating hydraulic fractures termi-
pal stress at the fracture tip. nated against natural fractures, they were subsequently able to
propagate around the natural fractures by propagating over or
Simulations in Complex Fracture Networks. Fig. 8 shows net under them, and then back around them. Because of this process,
pressure as a function of time during Simulations PF-HS-LE, PF- termination of the propagating hydraulic fractures against the nat-
HS-HE, PF-LS-HE, MMS-HS-LE, MMS-HS-HE, and MMS-LS- ural fractures slowed, but did not prevent, the propagation of the
HE. Figs. 9 through 14 show the final fracture network (color hydraulic fractures. The net pressure during the simulation was
proportional to fluid pressure) from the six simulations, viewed low (Fig. 8), indicating that the hydraulic fractures were able to
from above. For visibility, fractures with pressure less than 20 relatively easily propagate through the formation (as is classically
MPa are omitted. assumed by the PKN and other models).

Pressure (Mpa) X-Axis

28 300 200 100 0 –100 –200 –300

–60 –40 –20

26

Y-Axis
24 20 40 0

22

20

Fig. 9—Final stimulated-fracture network in Simulation PF-HS-LE, viewed from above and slightly from the side. Fracture color is
proportional to fluid pressure. Only fractures with pressure greater than 20 MPa are shown. The wellbore, not shown, is located
from (0, 50, 0) to (0, 50, 0). Three large hydraulic fractures have formed, with minimal leakoff into surrounding natural fractures.

Pressure (Mpa) X-Axis

28 200 100 0 –100 –200 –300
–80 –60 –40 –20

26

24
Y-Axis
0

22
20
40

20
60

Fig. 10—Final stimulated-fracture network in Simulation PF-HS-HE, viewed from above and slightly from the side. Fracture color is
proportional to fluid pressure. Only fractures with pressure greater than 20 MPa are shown. The wellbore, not shown, is located
from (0, 50, 0) to (0, 50, 0). Two large hydraulic fractures and one small hydraulic fracture have formed. Some leakoff into natural
fractures is occurring.

2015 SPE Journal 11

ID: jaganm Time: 14:36 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123

 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15 Stage: Page: 12 Total Pages: 19

Pressure (Mpa)
X-Axis
28 200 100 0 –100 –200 –300

–80 –60 –40 –20

26

24

Y-Axis
22

20 0
20

40
60
Fig. 11—Final stimulated-fracture network in Simulation PF-LS-HE, viewed from above and slightly from the side. Fracture color is
proportional to fluid pressure. Only fractures with pressure greater than 20 MPa are shown. The wellbore, not shown, is located
from (0, 50, 0) to (0, 50, 0). Two large hydraulic fractures and one small hydraulic fracture have formed. A significant amount of
leakoff into natural fractures is occurring.
X-Axis
Pressure (Mpa)
200 100 0 –100 –200
28

–60 –40
26

–20
24

Y-Axis
0
22

20
20

40
60
Fig. 12—Final stimulated fracture network in Simulation MMS-HS-LE, viewed from above and slightly from the side. Fracture color
is proportional to fluid pressure. Only fractures with pressure greater than 20 MPa are shown. The wellbore, not shown, is located
from (0, 50, 0) to (0, 50, 0). A branching network of both new and pre-existing fractures has formed. The stimulated network is rel-
atively sparse.

Pressure (Mpa)
28
X-Axis
300 200 100 0 –100 –200 –300

–80 –60 –40 –20

26

24

Y-Axis
20 0
22
40
60

20

Fig. 13—Final stimulated-fracture network in Simulation MMS-HS-HE, viewed from above and slightly from the side. Fracture color
is proportional to fluid pressure. Only fractures with pressure greater than 20 MPa are shown. The wellbore, not shown, is located
from (0, 50, 0) to (0, 50, 0). A dense and branching network of both new and pre-existing fractures has formed.
X-Axis
–100 0 100 –200
60 80

Pressure (Mpa)
28
40

26
20

24
0

Y-Axis
–20

22
–40

20
–60
–80
–100

Fig. 14—Final stimulated-fracture network in Simulation MMS-LS-HE, viewed from above and slightly from the side. Fracture color
is proportional to fluid pressure. Only fractures with pressure greater than 20 MPa are shown. The wellbore, not shown, is located
from (0, 50, 0) to (0, 50, 0). A very-dense and branching network of both new and pre-existing fractures has formed.

12 2015 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 14:36 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123

 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
–100
Pressure (Mpa)
28
26
24
22
20
Fig. 15—Final stimulated-fracture network in Simulation MMS-LS-HE, viewed from the side. Fracture color is proportional to fluid
pressure. Only fractures with pressure greater than 20 MPa are shown. The wellbore, not shown, is located from (0, 50, 0) to (0,
50, 0). Because of stress layering imposed as a model assumption, the stimulation is mostly confined to the middle 100 m of the
problem domain.
Our model assumed that when the hydraulic fracture propa-
gated back around an intersection with a natural fracture, it was
able to form a hydraulic connection across the natural fracture by
linking back up with the hydraulic-fracture element on the other
side of the intersection. Perhaps in reality, this linkup would not
be perfect, and this process would create a transmissivity barrier.
This process may also interfere with proppant transport. This pos-
sibility will be investigated in future work.
Leakoff from the primary fractures was limited because of the
low transmissivity of the natural fractures. Stress anisotropy was
high, which meant that natural fractures that were not close to per-
pendicular to the minimum principal stress bore significantly
higher stress than the hydraulic fracture, reducing their transmis-
sivity (Eq. 6). In addition, the value of e0 was relatively low,
meaning that natural fractures could not have high transmissivity
unless they opened or slid, which could only happen once they
were exposed to elevated fluid pressure. But their fluid pressure
increased slowly because of their low initial transmissivity.
In Simulation PF-HS-HE, the processes controlling the propa-
gation of the hydraulic fractures were similar to Simulation PF-
HS-LE. However, in Simulation PF-HS-HE, significantly more
leakoff occurred into the surrounding natural fractures because of
the higher value of e0. The hydraulic-fracture length was lower in
Simulation PF-HS-LE because more fluid was lost to the natural
fractures, and the additional surface area of the natural fractures
caused additional leakoff into the matrix. Fluid pressure reached a
modest distance into the natural-fracture network away from the
primary fractures.
X-Axis
–400 –300 –200 –100 0 100
200
100
Y-Axis
0
–100
Fluid Pressure
–200
22 24
20
Fig. 16—Final distribution of fracture pressure in Simulation
MMS-LS-HE, viewed in a horizontal cross section through the
center of the fracture network (at z ¼ 0, the same depth as the
wellbore). Fracture color is proportional to fluid pressure (all
fractures are shown). The wellbore, not shown, is located from
(0, 50, 0) to (0, 50, 0).
2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:37 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 13 Total Pages: 19
X-Axis
0 100 –200
–80
–60
–40
–20
Z-Axis
0
20
40
60
In Simulation PF-LS-HE, there was even more leakoff into the
natural fractures than in Simulation PF-HS-HE. The width of the
region of pressure increase around the primary fractures was
larger, and the fracture lengths were even lower. The lower value
of stress anisotropy resulted in greater transmissivity for the natu-
ral fractures (Eq. 6), facilitating leakoff.
In this study, simulations with lower stress anisotropy (lower
value of the maximum principal stress) had more leakoff into the
natural fractures because there was lower normal stress on the
fractures, increasing their transmissivity. However, in other
(unpublished) CFRAC simulations, we have found that increasing
stress anisotropy can have the opposite effect. With higher stress
anisotropy, natural fractures bear more shear stress, and so are
more likely to slip and experience shear stimulation. The effect of
stress anisotropy on flow depends on how shear stimulation and
fracture opening interact to control how flow occurs through the
fracture network. Overall, the effect of stress anisotropy on the
ability of fluid to flow through the natural-fracture network is
complicated and depends on e0, rn,eref, /edil, the stress state, and
other parameters.
Simulations MMS-HS-LE, MMS-HS-HE, and MMS-LS-
HE. In Simulations MMS-HS-LE, MMS-HS-HE, and MMS-LS-
HE, the net pressure was higher than in Simulations PF-HS-LE,
PF-HS-HE, and PF-LS-HE (Fig. 8). As a model assumption, hy-
draulic-fracture height was limited to 20 m (Fig. 2), and so when
hydraulic fractures terminated against natural fractures, they were
often not able to subsequently propagate around the natural frac-
tures. For fractures to propagate farther through the formation, the
fluid pressure was forced to increase high enough to open the nat-
ural fractures that the hydraulic fractures had terminated against.
This required elevated fluid pressure because the natural fractures
200 300 400
were not oriented perpendicular to the minimum principal stress.
The stimulated-fracture network was most sparse in Simula-
tion MMS-HS-LE, which had the conditions least conductive for
flow in the natural fractures: low e0 and high stress anisotropy.
Fluid pressure took the path of least resistance, opening up and
propagating through natural fractures oriented relatively close to
the minimum principal stress and avoiding fractures oriented
close to perpendicular to the maximum principal stress. This cre-
ated a relatively sparse network, relative to the other two MMS
simulations.
In Simulation MMS-HS-HE, substantially more natural frac-
26
tures were able to open than in MMS-HS-LE because e0 was
higher. The stimulated-fracture network was denser and more
28
branching, containing more propagating hydraulic fractures and a
broader region of leakoff into natural fractures around the hydrau-
lic fractures.
In Simulation MMS-LS-HE, the stimulated-fracture network
was the densest and propagated the least distance from the well-
bore. Natural fractures with a wide variety of orientations were
able to open and accept fluid, allowing a large number of
13
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
hydraulic fractures to form and propagate through the formation
and form a complex and branching network.
Implications for Fracture Geometry and Hydraulic-
Fracturing Design. McClure (2013) described two different con-
ceptual models for hydraulic-fracture geometry that have been
used in the literature. PFSSL is a process where a small number
of large hydraulic fractures propagate continuously through the
formation, with leakoff into surrounding natural fractures or sec-
ondary hydraulic fractures. MMS is a process where termination
of propagating hydraulic fractures against natural fractures or
other planes of weakness creates network branching, and continu-
ous pathways for flow through the reservoir contain both new and
preexisting fractures.
Simulations PF-HS-HE, PF-HS-LE, and PF-LS-HE are exam-
ples of PFSSL, and Simulations MMS-HS-HE, MMS-HS-LE, and
MMS-LS-HE are examples of MMS. The PF simulations demon-
strate that if propagating hydraulic fractures are able to form with
greater height than the largest natural fractures in the formation,
then fracture termination against natural fractures will not prevent
large, continuous hydraulic-fracture features from forming in the
reservoir. As discussed previously, flow barriers might form when
the hydraulic fractures propagate back behind intersections with
natural fractures (after termination), and this possibility will be
investigated in future work. The MMS simulations demonstrate
that if hydraulic-fracture height tends to be limited because of inter-
ference with bedding layers, dipping natural fractures, or stress het-
erogeneity, a branching MMS-like network is more likely to form.
As shown by Simulations PKN-NL and PKN-WL, single hy-
draulic-fracture models of propagation predict very-long fracture
length and very-low net pressure. In the PF simulations, the
enhanced leakoff and interference created by the natural fractures
reduced length substantially relative to the PKN simulations.
Length was also reduced because multiple hydraulic-fracture
strands were permitted to form. In the MMS simulations, net pres-
sure was higher and fracturing generally did not propagate as far
from the wellbore. Simulation MMS-LS-HE had the densest net-
work, and stimulation propagated the least distance from the well-
bore because of the combination of termination and strong leakoff
into the natural fractures.
Simulations PF-HS-LE and MMS-LS-HE represent two very-
different end-member cases of stimulation, both of which can be
observed in field data. Cipolla et al. (2010) provided an example
of a stimulated horizontal well where microseismic indicated that
at some stages, long, linear hydraulic fractures formed (similar to
Simulations PF-HS-LE, PKN-NL, and PKN-WL), and in other
stages, a distributed, volumetric region of stimulation formed
(similar to simulation MMS-LS-HE). Cipolla et al. (2008) pro-
vided an example where a volumetric region of fracturing was
seen from microseismic in one well, and a long, linear region of
microseismic was seen in a neighboring well in the same forma-
tion. Cipolla et al. (2008) also described an example where a well
was initially fractured with viscous fluid and formed a relatively
narrow microseismic region and then was fractured with slick-
water and formed a broad region of microseismicity.
Our simulations demonstrate how key parameters affect
whether injection creates a volumetric region of stimulation. The
differences between the simulations were influenced by whether
hydraulic fractures were prevented by mechanical and stress inter-
ference from forming into large, vertically continuous features,
and the ability to conduct fluid through the natural fractures in the
formation. In our simulations for this study, the ability to conduct
fluid through the natural fractures was affected by the stress ani-
sotropy and e0, but other parameters also play a role (McClure
and Horne 2014).
Operational parameters may affect whether stimulation
behaves more like MMS or PFSSL. Cipolla et al. (2008) noted
that pumping less-viscous fluid results in a broader region of
microseismicity. In the PFSSL framework, this could be
explained by saying that with more viscous fluid, there is less
leakoff into the surrounding natural-fracture network. Fluids with
14
ID: jaganm Time: 14:37 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 14 Total Pages: 19
elevated yield stress can be prevented from entering small-aper-
ture natural fractures. In the MMS framework, this could be
explained by saying that with the higher net pressure caused by
the more-viscous fluid, hydraulic fractures cross preexisting frac-
tures and bedding planes more readily (Chuprakov and Prioul
2015). It may be worthwhile in future research to experiment with
fracture-crossing criteria that consider the viscosity of the fluid
and/or the net pressure in the propagating hydraulic fracture.
The extremely long fractures in Simulations PKN-NL and
PKN-WL were unrealistic. Microseismicity is not typically
observed to propagate as far as 700–900 m from the wellbore dur-
ing stimulation, especially after only 1 hour of injection. The frac-
ture lengths could have been made shorter by use of a higher
formation permeability, but actual formation permeabilities in shale
plays are on the order of 1018 m2 or less, even lower than the per-
meability used in Simulation PKN-WL (1017 m2). Another reason
the fractures propagated so far in the PKN simulations was that
there was only one fracture, unlike in the PF simulations, where
there were three fractures propagating simultaneously. The natural
fractures in the PF simulations could be interpreted as representing
the “auxiliary fractures” or “fissures” that have been described in
the hydraulic-fracturing literature (Nolte and Smith 1981).
In CFRAC simulations, we have found that in simulations
with only hydraulic fractures and no natural fractures, there is a
tendency for one or two hydraulic fractures to propagate per stage,
regardless of how many hydraulic fractures initially form
(McClure 2012; Senthilnathan and McClure 2015). This is
because of the influence of stress shadowing, which causes frac-
tures farthest from the others to have the most favorable condi-
tions for propagation. But introducing formation heterogeneity
(for example, the propagation interference caused by the natural
fractures in the PF simulations) causes fracturing to be more dis-
tributed among multiple fracture strands. Therefore, although we
believe stress shadowing is an important process, models that
assume only newly forming hydraulic fractures and neglect the
effect of natural fractures may exaggerate the effect of stress
shadowing. Interaction of the propagating hydraulic fractures with
planes of weakness such as natural fractures or bedding planes
will tend to lead to more distributed, volumetric fracturing, rather
than the highly localized and simple geometries assumed by clas-
sical hydraulic-fracturing models. Localization is also prevented
by perforation-pressure drop (Lecampion et al. 2015), which was
not included in the simulations for this study.
Simulation MMS-LS-HE showed how MMS can create very-
complex, volumetric-fracture networks. However, Simulation PF-
LS-HE showed that the PFSSL mechanism is also capable of cre-
ating a broad region of stimulation, with high stimulated-fracture-
surface area, as long as there is significant leakoff into natural
fractures from the primary fracture.
In the three PF simulations, the net pressure was quite low. In
the field, high net pressure is often observed during stimulation.
Our simulations showed how elevated net pressure is a natural
consequence of MMS, but not PFSSL. A major contributor to ele-
vated pressure during injection is frictional-pressure loss in the
wellbore and in the perforations. Neither of these processes was
included in the simulations, and so net pressure during the simula-
tions represented solely the reservoir response. In the field, much-
higher apparent net pressure is often observed during pumping
because of frictional-pressure drop. Initial shut-in pressure esti-
mates the net pressure in the reservoir, removing the effects of fric-
tion in the well and perforations. In cases where elevated net
pressure is observed from the initial shut-in pressure, our results
suggest that fracture-network branching and complexity because
of interference with natural fractures is a plausible explanation.
For comparing our net-pressure results with field data, it should be
noted that we used a fluid viscosity of 1 cp, consistent with some
slickwater fracturing, but lower than is conventionally used during
hydraulic fracturing. Also, proppant transport was not included in
the simulation, which would have increased net pressure.
CFRAC is capable of simulating the pressure falloff after the
termination of injection. However, pressure measurements are
2015 SPE Journal
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
typically only available for a short period after the termination of
field-scale hydraulic fracturing. Diagnostic fracture-injection tests
(or minifrac tests) are small hydraulic-fracturing tests performed
specifically so that the post-injection pressure transient can be
monitored and analyzed. Application of CFRAC to minifrac tests
was described by McClure et al. (2014).
McClure and Horne (2014) discussed the requirements that for
fluid pressure to propagate a significant distance away from the
primary hydraulic fractures in the PFSSL mechanism: fluid must
be able to flow through a percolating natural-fracture network,
fractures must be well-oriented to slip, and slip must cause an
increase in fracture transmissivity (although this stimulation may
significantly reduce after pumping stops and fluid pressure draws
back down). McClure and Horne (2014) proposed a “tendency for
shear stimulation” test that could be performed to evaluate the
ability of a formation to conduct fluid through shear-stimulated
natural fractures. Injection could be performed into open hole at
fluid pressure high enough to cause slip on natural fractures but
low enough to avoid creating a hydraulic fracture. The formation
response to this injection would indicate the degree to which
closed natural fractures can conduct fluid through the formation
during stimulation.
Practical Implications. Concepts about stimulation mechanism
have important implications for stimulation design, reservoir
modeling, proppant transport, and long-term recovery. A critical
uncertainty is whether unpropped, stimulated fractures (either
newly formed hydraulic fractures or natural fractures) retain trans-
missivity during the production phase, when fluid pressure is
drawn down. Limited laboratory data are available on natural-
fracture transmissivity in shale (Zhang et al. 2013), and these data
suggest that unpropped-fracture transmissivity is highly sensitive
to both shear displacement and effective normal stress. Very
likely, these relationships vary widely between shale plays and
even within each play, depending on the stress state, composition
of the rock, and other parameters. In plays where slickwater treat-
ments are effective, unpropped-fracture transmissivity must be
high for the stimulation to be effective, and in plays where slick-
water treatments are less effective, a likely explanation is that
unpropped-fracture transmissivity is too low.
If unpropped fractures do not retain transmissivity during the
production phase, then a key issue will be whether proppant can
be effectively transported through the stimulated-fracture network
and create a large, dense, propped volume. One theory is that prop-
pant transport may be more difficult in a fracture network created
by MMS because proppant would need to flow through a variety
of fractures in a variety of orientations. On the other hand, with
MMS, fracture termination causes the net pressure to be higher
and so a greater number of natural fractures are forced to open, en-
abling proppant transport into natural fractures that would other-
wise have aperture too low to accept proppant. This may force the
proppant to flow into a wider, more-distributed volume of rock. In
the PFSSL mechanism, proppant may tend to be confined to the
primary hydraulic fractures because the proppant may struggle to
“turn the corner” into the natural fractures and also because the net
pressure may remain so low that the surrounding natural fractures
are unable to open enough to permit proppant to enter.
McClure (2014) discussed how in MMS, closure of unpropped
fractures (especially those not oriented perpendicular to the mini-
mum principal stress) after the cessation of pumping could create
flow bottlenecks that reduce fluid recovery during flowback.
These sorts of bottlenecks could worsen during long-term produc-
tion, as pressure is drawn down further. Dual-porosity reservoir
models assume that all fractures in the reservoir are well-con-
nected, but real fracture networks may have inconsistent connec-
tivity and experience bottlenecking.
For long-term reservoir modeling, the PFSSL and the MMS
mechanisms would require significantly different approaches. The
PFSSL mechanism could be modeled by placing one or a few
large, high-transmissivity hydraulic-fracture features propagating
away from the wellbore at each stage, each surrounded by a dual-
2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:37 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 15 Total Pages: 19
porosity region representing the stimulated natural fractures. The
MMS mechanism involves a more-distributed region of fracturing
forming at each stage, suggesting that it may be possible to repre-
sent the entire stimulated rock volume with a dual-porosity model.
However, in the MMS mechanism, flow bottlenecking may occur
because fractures with different orientations bear very-different
normal stress and so have different transmissivity (McClure
2014). These transmissivity variations may evolve over time as
the pressure is depleted in the reservoir by production. A dual-po-
rosity model would not be able to fully capture these effects, and
DFN modeling of the production period may be warranted. An
important complication for modeling long-term production is that
propped fractures in the reservoir will have a higher transmissivity
than unpropped fractures, and the transmissivity and distribution
of the propped and unpropped fractures is difficult to characterize
and predict.
Useful future extensions of the model presented in this study
would be to add proppant transport and the ability to simulate
long-term production directly on the 3D DFN.
Conclusions
1. Simulations with a single hydraulic fracture and no natural
fractures predict very-large fracture length and low net pres-
sure, consistent with the classical PKN analytical solutions.
2. In simulations where hydraulic fractures were able to grow
vertically unrestricted, the effect of termination of hydraulic
fractures against natural fractures was limited because fractures
were able to propagate around (above and below) the obstruc-
tions created by the natural fractures.
3. In simulations where hydraulic-fracture height was limited (as
a model assumption), hydraulic fractures that terminated
against natural fractures were not able to propagate around
them, causing higher net pressure, less-distant propagation of
stimulation away from the well, and more network complexity.
4. Simulations with greater stress anisotropy and lower natural-
fracture transmissivity had less leakoff into surrounding natural
fractures, leading to lower stimulated-fracture-surface area.
5. Qualitatively different stimulation mechanisms occurred in dif-
ferent simulations: MMS and PF with shear-stimulation leak-
off. In field operation, the stimulation mechanism will depend
on geological and operational parameters. Optimal stimulation
design, well spacing, stimulation modeling, and long-term pro-
duction modeling all depend on stimulation mechanism, and
further work is needed to develop diagnostic techniques to
diagnose these mechanisms and develop guidelines for how
these concepts can be practically applied.
Nomenclature
a ¼ smallest dimension of an element, either half-height or
half-length, m
B ¼ Forchheimer-equation constant, unitless
cf ¼ fluid compressibility, MPa–1
ct ¼ formation total compressibility, MPa–1
c/ ¼ porosity compressibility, MPa–1
CL ¼ leakoff coefficient, m/s0.5
Cw ¼ wellbore-storage coefficient, m3/MPa
dinv ¼ depth of investigation for a pressure perturbation, m
dX ¼ update to the vector of unknowns, various units
D ¼ cumulative sliding displacement, m
Deff ¼ effective cumulative sliding displacement used in Eq.
6, m
Deff,max ¼ maximum cumulative sliding displacement used for
calculating Deff, m
e ¼ hydraulic aperture, m
e0 ¼ residual hydraulic aperture, m
E ¼ void aperture, m
E0 ¼ residual void aperture, m
E0,max ¼ maximum residual void aperture of hydraulic-fracture
elements, m
15
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
Eopen ¼ mechanical separation between walls of an open ele-
ment, m
G ¼ shear modulus, MPa
hf ¼ fracture height, m
J ¼ iteration matrix, various units
k ¼ permeability, m2
KI ¼ stress-intensity factor, MPam1/2
KIc ¼ fracture toughness, MPam1/2
L ¼ fracture half-length, m
P ¼ fluid pressure, Pa or MPa
Pinit ¼ initial fluid pressure, Pa or MPa
q ¼ mass injection rate, kg/s
qflux ¼ mass flux (vector valued), kg/(m2s)
qleakoff ¼ mass leakoff rate per fracture surface area, kg/(m2s)
qv ¼ volumetric-injection rate, m3/s
Q ¼ volumetric flow rate per width, m2/s
R ¼ vector of residual equations, various units
Rf ¼ hydraulic-fracture radius, m
s ¼ mass source term, kg/(m2s)
S0 ¼ fracture cohesion, MPa
S0,open ¼ cohesion of an open element, MPa
Sp ¼ spurt-loss coefficient, m
t ¼ time, seconds
T ¼ transmissivity, m3
Tadj ¼ transmissivity adjustment factor, unitless
Tstr ¼ tensile strength of the formation
v ¼ sliding velocity, m/s
vd ¼ dip-direction sliding velocity, m/s
vs ¼ strike-direction sliding velocity, m/s
w ¼ average fracture width, m
ww ¼ fracture width at the wellbore, m
x ¼ distance along a fracture, m
X ¼ vector of unknowns in system of equations, various
units
z ¼ depth, m
Drn ¼ deformation-induced change in normal stress, MPa
Dsd ¼ deformation-induced change in dip-direction shear
stress, MPa
Dss ¼ deformation-induced change in strike-direction shear
stress, MPa
g ¼ radiation-damping coefficient, MPa/(m/s)
h ¼ angle specifying the direction of fracture sliding, coun-
terclockwise from the direction of strike, degrees
l ¼ fluid viscosity, cp, Pas, or MPas
lf ¼ coefficient of friction, unitless
q ¼ fluid density, kg/m3
qinit ¼ initial fluid density, kg/m3
rn ¼ normal stress, MPa
r0n ¼ effective normal stress, MPa
rrn ¼ normal stress caused by remote loading, MPa
rn,Eref ¼ 90% closure stress for void aperture, MPa
rn,eref ¼ 90% closure stress for hydraulic aperture, MPa
rxx ¼ initial principal stress in the x-direction, MPa
ryy ¼ initial principal stress in the y-direction, MPa
sd ¼ dip-direction shear-stress component, MPa
srd ¼ dip-direction shear-stress component caused by remote
loading, MPa
ss ¼ strike-direction shear-stress component, MPa
srs ¼ strike-direction shear-stress component caused by
remote loading, MPa
tp ¼ Poisson’s ratio, unitless
/edil ¼ shear dilation angle for hydraulic aperture, degrees
/init ¼ initial porosity, unitless
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Weatherford International for supporting this research,
and especially to Uno Mutlu for his support and contribution.
Thanks to the Texas Advanced Computer Cluster at the Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin for providing central-processing-unit time
for the simulations. Thank you to the editors, journal staff, and the
two anonymous reviewers.
16
ID: jaganm Time: 14:37 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 16 Total Pages: 19
References
Amestoy, P. R., Davis, T. A. and Duff, I. S. 2004. Algorithm 837: AMD,
an Approximate Minimum Degree Ordering Algorithm. ACM Trans.
Math. Software 30 (3): 381–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1024074.
1024081.
Anderson, E., Bai, Z., Bischof, C. et al. 1999. LAPACK Users’ Guide,
third edition. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics.
Babazadeh, M. and McClure, M. 2015. Coupling Fluid Flow and Geome-
chanics in a Three-Dimensional Discrete Fracture Network Simulator.
Oral presentation given at the 49th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics
Symposium, San Francisco, California, 28 June–1 July.
Bahorich, B., Olson, J. E. and Holder, J. 2012. Examining the Effect of
Cemented Natural Fractures on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in
Hydrostone Block Experiments. Presented at the SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–10 October.
SPE-160197-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/160197-MS.
Barton, N., Bandis, S. and Bakhtar, K. 1985. Strength, Deformation and
Conductivity Coupling of Rock Joints. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 22 (3):
121–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(85)93227-9.
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E. and Lightfoot, E. N. 2006. Transport Phenom-
ena, second edition. New York City: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Blanton, T. 1982. An Experimental Study of Interaction Between
Hydraulically Induced and Pre-Existing Fractures. Presented at the
SPE Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, 16–18 May. SPE-10847-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/10847-
MS.
Bowker, K. A. 2007. Barnett Shale Gas Production, Fort Worth Basin:
Issues and Discussion. AAPG Bull. 91 (4): 523–533. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1306/06190606018.
Bradley, A. M. 2014. Software for Efficient Static Dislocation-Traction
Calculations in Fault Simulators. Seismological Research Letters 85
(6): 1358–1365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0220140092.
Bruel, D. 1995. Heat Extraction Modelling from Forced Fluid Flow
Through Stimulated Fractured Rock Masses: Application to the Rose-
manowes Hot Dry Rock Reservoir. Geothermics 24 (3): 361–374.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-6505(95)00014-H.
Chuprakov, D. and Prioul, R. 2015. Hydraulic Fracture Height Contain-
ment by Weak Horizontal Interfaces. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 3–5 Feb-
ruary. SPE-173337-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/173337-MS.
Chuprakov, D., Melchaeva, O. and Prioul, R. 2013. Hydraulic Fracture
Propagation Across a Weak Discontinuity Controlled by Fluid Injec-
tion. In Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing, ed. A. P.
Bunger, J. McLennan and R. Jeffrey, Chap. 8, 157–181. Rijeka, Cro-
atia: InTech.
Cipolla, C., Warpinski, N., Mayerhofer, M. et al. 2008. The Relationship
Between Fracture Complexity, Reservoir Properties, and Fracture
Treatment Design. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, 21–24 September. SPE-115769-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/115769-MS.
Cipolla, C. L., Lolon, E. P., Erdle, J. C. et al. 2010. Reservoir Modeling in
Shale-Gas Reservoirs. SPE Res Eval & Eng 13 (4): 638–653. SPE-
125530-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/125530-PA.
Cladouhos, T. T., Clyne, M., Nichols, M. et al. 2011. Newberry Volcano
EGS Demonstration Stimulation Modeling. GRC Trans. 35: 317–322.
Crouch, S. L. and Starfield, A. M. 1983. Boundary Element Methods in
Solid Mechanics: With Applications in Rock Mechanics and Geologi-
cal Engineering. London; Boston, Allen & Unwin.
Dahi-Taleghani, A. and Olson, J. 2009. Modeling Simultaneous Growth of
Multiple Hydraulic Fractures and Their Interaction with Natural Frac-
tures. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Confer-
ence, The Woodlands, Texas, 19–21 January. SPE-119739-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119739-MS.
Damjanac, B., Gil, I., Pierce, M. et al. 2010. A New Approach to Hydrau-
lic Fracturing Modeling In Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Presented
at the 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th US-Canada Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, 27–30 June. ARMA-10-
400.
2015 SPE Journal
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
Davis, T. A. 2004. Algorithm 832: UMFPACK V4.3 – An Unsymmetric-
Pattern Multifrontal Method. ACM Trans. Math. Software 30 (2):
196–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/992200.992206.
Dempsey, D., Kelkar, S., Lewis, K. et al. 2013. Modeling Shear Stimula-
tion of the Desert Peak EGS Well 27-15 Using a Coupled Thermal-
Hydrological-Mechanical Simulator. Presented at the 47th United
States Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco,
23–26 June. ARMA-2013-608.
Dongarra, J. J., Du Croz, J., Hammarling, S. et al. 1988. An Extended Set
of FORTRAN Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms. ACM Trans. Math.
Software 14 (1): 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/42288.42291.
Economides, M. J. and Nolte, K. G. 2000. Reservoir Stimulation, third edi-
tion. New York City: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Erhel, J., de Dreuzy, J.-R. and Poirriez, B. 2009. Flow Simulation in
Three-Dimensional Discrete Fracture Networks. SIAM J. Sci. Comput.
31 (4): 2688–2705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/080729244.
Esaki, T., Du, S., Mitani, Y. et al. 1999. Development of a Shear-Flow
Test Apparatus and Determination of Coupled Properties for a Single
Rock Joint. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 36 (5): 641–650. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0148-9062(99)00044-3.
Evans, K. F., Moriya, H., Niitsuma, H. et al. 2005. Microseismicity and
Permeability Enhancement of Hydrogeologic Structures during Mas-
sive Fluid Injections into Granite at 3 km Depth at the Soultz HDR
Site. Geophys. J. Int. 160 (1): 389–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-246X.2004.02474.x.
Fabrikant, V. I. 1989. Applications of Potential Theory in Mechanics: A
Selection of New Results. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers.
Fan, L., Thompson, J. and Robinson, J. 2010. Understanding Gas Produc-
tion Mechanism and Effectiveness of Well Stimulation in the Haynes-
ville Shale Through Reservoir Simulation. Presented at the Canadian
Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference,
Calgary, 19–21 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/136696-MS.
Fisher, M. K., Heinze, J. R., Harris, C. D. et al. 2004. Optimizing Horizon-
tal Completion Techniques in the Barnett Shale Using Microseismic
Fracture Mapping. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, 26–29 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
90051-MS.
Forchheimer, P. 1901. Wasserbewegung durch Boden. Zeitschrift des Ver-
eines Deutscher Ingenieure 45: 1782–1788.
Fourar, M., Bories, S., Lenormand, R. et al. 1993. Two-Phase Flow in
Smooth and Rough Fractures: Measurements and Correlation by Po-
rous-Medium and Pipe-Flow Models. Water Resour. Res. 29 (11):
3699–3708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/93WR01529.
Fu, P., Johnson, S. M. and Carrigan, C. R. 2012. An Explicitly Coupled
Hydro-Geomechanical Model for Simulating Hydraulic Fracturing in
Arbitrary Discrete Fracture Networks. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Met. 37
(14): 2278–2300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nag.2135.
Gale, J. F. W., Reed, R. M. and Holder, J. 2007. Natural Fractures in the
Barnett Shale and Their Importance for Hydraulic Fracture Treat-
ments. AAPG Bull. 91 (4): 603–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/
11010606061.
Geertsma, J. and de Klerk, F. 1969. A Rapid Method of Predicting Width
and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures. J Pet Technol 21 (12):
1571–1581. SPE-2458-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2458-PA.
Ghassemi, A. and Zhou, X. 2011. A Three-Dimensional Thermo-Poroelas-
tic Model for Fracture Response to Injection/Extraction in Enhanced
Geothermal Systems. Geothermics 40 (1): 39–49. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2010.12.001.
Gu, H. and Weng, X. 2010. Criterion For Fractures Crossing Frictional
Interfaces At Non-orthogonal Angles. Presented at the 44th US Rock
Mechanics Symposium and 5th US-Canada Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, Salt Lake City, Utah, 27–30 June. ARMA-10-198.
Gu, H., Weng, X., Lund, J. et al. 2011. Hydraulic Fracture Crossing Natu-
ral Fracture at Non-Orthogonal Angles, A Criterion, Its Validation and
Applications. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 24–26 January. SPE-139984-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/139984-MS.
Holditch, S. A. and Morse, R. A. 1976. The Effects of Non-Darcy Flow on
the Behavior of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells. J Pet Technol 28
(10): 1169–1179. SPE-5586-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5586-PA.
2015 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 14:37 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 17 Total Pages: 19
Howard, G. and Fast, C. R. 1957. Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Frac-
ture Extension. Drill. Prod. Prac. 24: 261–270. API-57-261.
Huang, J., Safari, R., Mutlu, U. et al. 2014a. Natural-Hydraulic Fracture
Interaction: Microseismic Observations and Geomechanical Predic-
tions. Presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference, Denver, 25–27 August. SPE-2014-1921503-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2014-1921503.
Huang, J., Safari, R., Lakshminarayanan et al. 2014b. Impact of Discrete
Fracture Network (DFN) Reactivation on Productive Stimulated Rock
Volume: Microseismic, Geomechanics and Reservoir Coupling. Pre-
sented at the 48th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 1–4 June. ARMA-2014–7017.
Jeffrey, R., Bunger, A., Lecampion, B. et al. 2009. Measuring Hydraulic
Fracture Growth in Naturally Fractured Rock. Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 4–7 Octo-
ber. SPE-124919-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/124919-MS.
Jing, Z., Willis-Richards, J., Watanabe, K. et al. 2000. A Three-Dimen-
sional Stochastic Rock Mechanics Model of Engineered Geothermal
Systems in Fractured Crystalline Rock. J. Geophys. Res. 105 (B10):
23663–23679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JB900202.
Jung, R. 2013. EGS - Goodbye or Back to the Future. In Effective and Sus-
tainable Hydraulic Fracturing, ed. A. P. Bunger, J. McLennan and R.
Jeffrey, Chap. 5, 95–121. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.
Karimi-Fard, M., Durlofsky, L. J. and Aziz, K. 2004. An Efficient Dis-
crete-Fracture Model Applicable for General-Purpose Reservoir Simu-
lators. SPE J. 9 (2): 227–236. SPE-88812-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/88812-PA.
Kim, J., Tchelepi, H. and Juanes, R. 2011. Stability, Accuracy, and Effi-
ciency of Sequential Methods for Coupled Flow and Geomechanics.
SPE J 16 (2): 249–262. SPE-119084-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
119084-PA.
King, G. 2010. Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We
Learned? Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
hibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September. SPE-133456-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/133456-MS.
Kohl, T. and Hopkirk, R. J. 1995. “FRACure” – A Simulation Code for
Forced Fluid Flow and Transport in Fractured, Porous Rock. Geother-
mics 24 (3): 333–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-6505(95)00012-
F.
Lanyon, G. W., Batchelor, A.S. and Ledingham, P. 1993. Results from a
Discrete Fracture Network Model of a Hot Dry Rock System. Oral pre-
sentation given at the Eighteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 26–28 January.
Lawson, C. L., Hanson, R. J., Kincaid, D. et al. 1979. Basic Linear Alge-
bra Subprograms for Fortran Usage. ACM Trans. Math. Software 5
(3): 308–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/355841.355847.
Lecampion, B., Desroches, J., Weng, X. et al. 2015. Can We Engineer
Better Multistage Horizontal Completions? Evidence of the Impor-
tance of Near-Wellbore Fracture Geometry From Theory, Lab and
Field Experiments. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Tech-
nology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 3–5 February. SPE-
173363-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/173363-MS.
Mahrer, K. D. 1999. A Review and Perspective on Far-Field Hydraulic
Fracture Geometry Studies. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 24 (1): 13–28. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-4105(99)00020-0.
Mayerhofer, M. J., Lolon, E. P., Youngblood, J. E. et al. 2006. Integration
of Microseismic-Fracture-Mapping Results With Numerical Fracture
Network Production Modeling in the Barnett Shale. Presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 24–27 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/102103-MS.
McClure, M. and Zoback, M. 2013. Computational Investigation of
Trends in Initial Shut-in Pressure during Multi-stage Hydraulic Stimu-
lation in the Barnett Shale. Presented at the 47th US Rock Mechanics/
Geomechanics Association Symposium San Francisco, 23–26 June.
ARMA-2013-368.
McClure, M. W. 2012. Modeling and Characterization of Hydraulic Stim-
ulation and Induced Seismicity in Geothermal and Shale Gas Reser-
voirs. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
McClure, M. W. 2013. Understanding, Diagnosing, and Modeling the
Causes of Fracture Network Complexity in Unconventional
17
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
Reservoirs. The Leading Edge 32 (12): 1494–1500. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1190/tle32121494.1.
McClure, M. W. 2014. The Potential Effect of Network Complexity on
Recovery of Injected Fluid Following Hydraulic Fracturing. Presented
at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, The Woodlands,
Texas, 1–3 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168991-MS.
McClure, M. W., Blyton, C. A. J., Jung, H. et al. 2014. The Effect of
Changing Fracture Compliance on Pressure Transient Behavior During
Diagnostic Fracture Injection Tests. Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 27–29 October.
SPE-170956-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/170956-MS.
McClure, M. W. and Horne, R. N. 2011. Investigation of Injection-
Induced Seismicity Using a Coupled Fluid Flow and Rate/State Fric-
tion Model. Geophysics 76 (6): WC181–WC198. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1190/geo2011-0064.1.
McClure, M. W. and Horne, R. N. 2013. Discrete Fracture Network Mod-
eling of Hydraulic Stimulation: Coupling Flow and Geomechanics.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
McClure, M. W. and Horne, R. N. 2014. An Investigation of Stimulation
Mechanism in Enhanced Geothermal Systems. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
72 (December): 242–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.
07.011.
Moreland, K. 2014. The ParaView Tutorial, Version 4.2. Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Murphy, H. D. and Fehler, M. C. 1986. Hydraulic Fracturing of Jointed
Formations. Presented at the International Meeting on Petroleum Engi-
neering, Beijing, 17–20 March. SPE-14088-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/14088-MS.
Mustapha, H., Dimitrakopoulos, R., Graf, T. et al. 2010. An Efficient
Method for Discretizing 3D Fractured Media for Subsurface Flow and
Transport Simulations. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl. 67 (5): 651–670.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fld.2383.
Nagel, N. B., Gil, I., Sanchez-Nagel, M. et al. 2011. Simulating Hydraulic
Fracturing in Real Fractured Rocks – Overcoming the Limits of Pseu-
do3D Models. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 24–26 January. SPE-140480-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/140480-MS.
Nolte, K. G. and Smith, M. B. 1981. Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures.
J Pet Technol 33 (9): 1767–1775. SPE-8297-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/8297-PA.
Norbeck, J., Huang, H., Podgorney, R. et al. 2014. An Integrated Discrete
Fracture Model for Description of Dynamic Behavior in Fractured
Reservoirs. Oral presentation given at the Thirty-Ninth Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California, 24–26 February.
Nordgren, R. P. 1972. Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture. SPE
J. 12 (4): 306–314. SPE-3009-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/3009-PA.
Okada, Y. 1992. Internal Deformation due to Shear and Tensile Faults in a
Half-Space. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 82 (2): 1018–1040.
Olson, J. E. 2007. Fracture Aperture, Length and Pattern Geometry Devel-
opment Under Biaxial Loading: A Numerical Study with Applications
to Natural, Cross-Jointed Systems. In The Relationship between Dam-
age and Localization, ed. H. Lewis and G. D. Couples, 123–142. Lon-
don: The Geological Society of London.
Ouchi, H., Katiyar, A., Foster, J. T. et al. 2015. A Peridynamics Model for
the Propagation of Hydraulic Fractures in Heterogeneous, Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Tech-
nology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 3–5 February. SPE-
173361-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/173361-MS.
Palmer, I., Moschovidis, Z. and Cameron, J. 2007. Modeling Shear Failure
and Stimulation of the Barnett Shale After Hydraulic Fracturing. Pre-
sented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, Col-
lege Station, Texas, 29–31 January. SPE-106113-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/106113-MS.
Perkins, T. K. and Kern, L. R. 1961. Widths of Hydraulic Fractures. J Pet
Technol 13 (9): 937–949. SPE-89-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89-
PA.
Rachez, X. and Gentier, S. 2010. 3D-Hydromechanical Behavior of a
Stimulated Fractured Rock Mass. Oral presentation given at the World
Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, 25–30 April.
18
ID: jaganm Time: 14:37 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 18 Total Pages: 19
Rahman, M. K., Hossain, M. M. and Rahman, S. S. 2002. A Shear-Dila-
tion-Based Model for Evaluation of Hydraulically Stimulated Natu-
rally Fractured Reservoirs. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Met. 26 (5): 469–497.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nag.208.
Renshaw, C. E. and Pollard, D. D. 1995. An Experimentally Verified Cri-
terion for Propagation Across Unbounded Frictional Interfaces in Brit-
tle, Linear Elastic Materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 32 (3): 237–249.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(94)00037-4.
Riahi, A. and Damjanac, B. 2013. Numerical Study of Hydro-Shearing in
Geothermal Reservoirs with a Pre-Existing Discrete Fracture Network.
Oral presentation given at the Thirty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
11–13 February.
Rice, J. R. 1993. Spatio-Temporal Complexity of Slip on a Fault. Journal
of Geophysical Research 98 (B6): 9885–9907. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/93JB00191.
Rogers, S., Elmo, D., Dunphy, R. et al. 2010. Understanding Hydraulic
Fracture Geometry and Interactions in the Horn River Basin Through
DFN and Numerical Modeling. Presented at the Canadian Unconven-
tional Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary,
19–21 October. SPE-137488-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/137488-
MS.
Roussel, N. and Sharma, M. 2011. Strategies to Minimize Frac Spacing
And Stimulate Natural Fractures in Horizontal Completions. Presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 30
October–2 November. SPE-146104-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
146104-MS.
Senthilnathan, S. and McClure, M. W. 2015. Exploring Conceptual Mod-
els of Hydraulic Fracture Network Growth. Oral presentation given at
the 49th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, San Fran-
cisco, 28 June–1 July.
Sneddon, I. N. 1946. The Distribution of Stress in the Neighbourhood of a
Crack in an Elastic Solid. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 187 (1009): 229–260.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1946.0077.
Suarez-Rivera, R., Behrmann, L., Green, S. et al. 2013. Defining Three
Regions Of Hydraulic Fracture Connectivity, In Unconventional Res-
ervoirs, Help Designing Completions With Improved Long-term Pro-
ductivity. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–2 October. SPE-166505-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/166505-MS.
Suarez-Rivera, R., Connor, B., Kieschnick, J. et al. 2006. Hydraulic Frac-
turing Experiments Help Understanding Fracture Branching on Tight
Gas Shales. Oral presentation given at the 41st US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics, Golden, Colorado, 17–21 June.
Teufel, L. W. and Clark, J. A. 1984. Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in
Layered Rock: Experimental Studies of Fracture Containment. SPE J.
24 (1): 19–32. SPE-9878-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9878-PA.
Thomas, A. 1993. Poly3D: A Three-Dimensional, Polygonal Element,
Displacement Discontinuity Boundary Element Computer Program
with Applications to Fractures, Faults, and Cavities in the Earth’s
Crust. MS thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Valko, P. and Economides, M. 1995. Hydraulic Fracture Mechanics. Chi-
chester, UK: Wiley.
van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W. 1949. The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs. J Pet Technol 1 (12):
305–324. SPE-949305-G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/949305-G.
Vinsome, P. K. and Westerveld, J. 1980. A Simple Method For Predicting
Cap And Base Rock Heat Losses In’ Thermal Reservoir Simulators. J
Can Pet Technol 19 (3): 87–90. PETSOC-80-03-04. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/80-03-04.
Warpinski, N. R. and Teufel, L. W. 1987. Influence of Geologic Disconti-
nuities on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation. J Pet Technol 39 (2):
209–220. SPE-13224-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13224-PA.
Warpinski, N. R., Lorenz, J. C., Branagan, P. T. et al. 1993. Examination
of a Cored Hydraulic Fracture in a Deep Gas Well. SPE Prod & Fac 8
(3): 150–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/22876-PA.
Warpinski, N. R., Moschovidis, Z. A., Parker, C. D. et al. 1994. Compari-
son Study of Hydraulic Fracturing Models—Test Case: GRI Staged
Field Experiment No. 3. SPE Prod & Fac 9 (1): 7–16. SPE-25890-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25890-PA.
2015 SPE Journal
 J173354 DOI: 10.2118/173354-PA Date: 18-December-15
Warpinski, N. R., Wolhart, S. L. and Wright, C. A. 2001. Analysis and
Prediction of Microseismicity Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 30 September–3 October. SPE-71649-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/71649-MS.
Weng, X., Kresse, O., Cohen, C.-E. et al. 2011. Modeling of Hydraulic-
Fracture-Network Propagation in a Naturally Fractured Formation.
SPE Prod & Oper 26 (4): 368–380. SPE-140253-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/140253-PA.
Willis-Richards, J., Watanabe, K. and Takahashi, H. 1996. Progress To-
ward a Stochastic Rock Mechanics Model of Engineered Geothermal
Systems. J. Geophys. Res. 101 (B8): 17481–17496. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1029/96JB00882.
Witherspoon, P. A., Wang, J. S. Y., Iwai, K. et al. 1980. Validity of Cubic
Law for Fluid Flow in a Deformable Rock Fracture. Water Resour.
Res. 16 (6): 1016–1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR016i006p01016.
Wu, K. and Olson, J. E. 2015. Numerical Investigation of Complex Hy-
draulic Fracture Development in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Pre-
sented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, Texas, 3–5 February. SPE-173326-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/173326-MS.
Zhai, Z., Fonseca, E., Azad, A. et al. 2015. A New Tool for Multi-Cluster
and Multi-Well Hydraulic Fracture Modeling. Presented at the SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas,
3–5 February. SPE-173367-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/173367-
MS.
Zhang, J., Kamenov, A., Zhu, D. et al. 2013. Laboratory Measurement of
Hydraulic Fracture Conductivities in the Barnett Shale. Presented at
the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Wood-
lands, Texas, 4–6 February. SPE-163839-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/163839-MS.
Zhou, J., Chen, M., Jin, Y. et al. 2008. Analysis of Fracture Propagation
Behavior and Fracture Geometry Using a Tri-Axial Fracturing System
in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 45 (7):
1143–1152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.01.001.
Zhou, X. and Ghassemi, A. 2011. Three-Dimensional Poroelastic Analysis
of a Pressurized Natural Fracture. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. 48 (4):
527–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.02.002.
2015 SPE Journal
View publication stats
ID: jaganm Time: 14:37 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/150123/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###150123
Stage: Page: 19 Total Pages: 19
Mark McClure is the founder of McClure Geomechanics LLC.
Previously, he was an assistant professor in the Department of
Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of
Texas at Austin from 2013 to 2015. His research focuses on
modeling and characterization of hydraulic fracturing,
induced seismicity, and enhanced geothermal systems.
McClure was honored with an SPE Regional Completions Opti-
mization and Technology Award from the Southwest North
American Region in 2015, Outstanding Service as a Technical
Editor for SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering in 2014, the
Hank Ramey Award for Outstanding Research and Service to
the Department from the Department of Energy Resources En-
gineering at Stanford University in 2012, and Best Paper in Geo-
physics from the Society of Exploration Geophysicists in 2011.
He holds a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, a
master’s degree in petroleum engineering, and a PhD degree
in energy resources engineering, all from Stanford University.
Mohsen Babazadeh is a PhD degree candidate in the Depart-
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering and a graduate
research assistant in the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems
Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Among his
research interests are computational geomechanics, fully
coupled hydraulic-fracturing simulation, and induced seismic-
ity. Babazadeh holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in civil
engineering and geomechanics from Sharif University, Iran,
and Amirkabir University, Iran, respectively.
Sogo Shiozawa is a PhD degree candidate in petroleum and
geosystems engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. His
research interests include modeling of fracture propagation
and proppant transport. Shiozawa holds a bachelor’s degree
in resources and environmental engineering from Waseda Uni-
versity, Japan, and a master’s degree in petroleum engineer-
ing from the University of Texas at Austin.
Jian Huang is geomechanics and reservoir specialist of Geo-
science Research and Development at Weatherford Interna-
tional. He has been with the company for more than 2 years.
Huang’s current research interests include reservoir geome-
chanics, fracture mechanics, proppant placement, and reser-
voir simulation. He has authored or coauthored more than 20
technical papers. Huang holds a PhD degree in petroleum en-
gineering from Texas A&M University.
19