Range of the problem’s dimensional parameters specific to gas shale fracturing jobs
Abstract
We investigated the problem of a hydraulic fracture propagation through a weakly cohesive frictional discontinuity for different conditions of fracture toughness, in situ stresses, fracture intersection angle, injection parameters and permeability of the preexisting fracture. The parametric sensitivity of the fracture interaction process, in terms of crossing versus arresting of the hydraulic fracture at the discontinuity, was performed using numerical simulations through an extensive parameter space representative of hydraulic fracturing field conditions. The effect of the preexisting fracture permeability on the crossing behavior was analyzed using a simple analytical model. We showed that the injection rate and viscosity of fracturing fluid are the key parameters controlling the crossing/noncrossing interaction behavior, in addition to already known fracture interaction angle and insitu stress parameters. We have also found that the preexisting fracture hydraulic aperture, when as large as that of the hydraulic fracture aperture, has significant influence on the interaction and may more likely cause the hydraulic fracture to arrest.
1. Introduction
The main function of a hydraulic fracture (HF) treatment is to effectively increase reservoir permeability and drainage by creating one or more conductive fractures that connect to the wellbore [12]. The stimulation treatments are especially necessary in lowpermeability unconventional source rocks such as shales, which are not economical without fracturing [3] and sometimes even subsequent refracturing [4]. The modeling of HF propagation is important to the design of the treatment and the ability to evaluate posttreatment production. Most fracture propagation models assume an oversimplified single planar geometry of fracture propagation [1, 5]. However, in highly heterogeneous and naturally fractured formations, the geometry of HFs can be complex because of their interaction with preexisting discontinuities in the rock, such as natural fractures, faults, and bedding interfaces [3, 67], which will be referred as NFs. For example, it is well known that an HF can be arrested by an NF or can reinitiate after the contact [816]. The result of the interaction depends on the insitu stresses [10, 15, 1718]; friction [12], cohesion [19], and permeable properties of the NF [20]; the rheological properties of the injecting fluid; and injection flow rate [2122].
To predict the ultimate geometry of HFs, one needs to predict the result of every HFNF interaction [23]. Several theoretical, numerical, and experimental studies have focused on this task [8, 10, 2426]. One of the simplest analytical criterion for predicting the outcome of the HFNF orthogonal interaction was developed by Renshaw and Pollard [18] and extended to arbitrary angle of interaction by Gu et al. [15]. This criterion predicts initiation of the secondary fracture (SF) on the opposite side of the interface influenced only by the friction, cohesion, and insitu stresses. However, the HF activation and stress field near the intersection point are strongly dependent on the opening of the HF at contact and hence on pumping rate and fluid viscosity — a key point that has been ignored up to now [27]. Recent theoretical developments and laboratory experiments [2122] have shown it is possible to derive an analytical crossing model taking into account the effect of flow rate and fluid viscosity on the HFNF crossing behavior [27]. The results of this new HFNF crossing model in a fracturing simulator environment are presented in a companion paper [28].
This paper offers dimensionless formulation and interpretation of the problem of fracture interaction. The numerical investigations are made by means of the code MineHF2D developed by Zhang et al. [20, 29]. This work focuses primarily on the parametric sensitivity analysis of the problem in terms of HF reinitiation at the NF and takes into account a more rigorous initiation criterion based on stress and energy premises.
The content of the paper is organized as follows. First, we define the problem of the HFNF interaction mathematically and select all independent dimensionless parameters that influence the result. Next, we discuss the results of the parametrical study in terms of crossing or arresting behavior in the selected parametric diagrams. Finally, we concentrate on the particular effect of the hydraulic permeability of the NF by means of analytical and numerical models.
2. Problem statement
Consider the interaction between an HF and a preexisting discontinuity that represents a mechanically closed fracture with finite permeability, which is higher than that of the surrounding rock. In what follows the discontinuity will be referred to as an NF.
In nature, both the HF and the NF have certain 3D extents in the vertical and horizontal directions and their interaction should be described in 3D. If the vertical heights of the fractures (perpendicular to the plane of Fig. 1) are far more comparable to or significantly exceed the horizontal size of the fractures affected by the interaction (in a plane of Fig. 1), the consideration of fractures can be reduced to plainstrain geometry. In this work we use a plainstrain model for the interacting fractures in the crosssectional plane defined by the 1D flow direction (Fig. 1).
Suppose that the HF propagates from the injection point (point
Following Zhang and Jeffrey [12], the elasticity equations for the system of interacting fractures can be written as the following sum of the contributions from each fracture with coordinates of their tips
where integration is performed along the fracture path,
where
If the fluid penetrates the closed NF, the hydraulic aperture
To describe the dependency of the hydraulic aperture
where
Restricting our study to incompressible and Newtonian fluids, the fluid flow in the growing HF is described by the following continuity equation and Poiseulle’s law:
where
At the inlet of the HF the fluid flow is prescribed as constant:
When the HF and the NF are in contact at the junction point, the fluid flux is required to satisfy the local continuity equations, meaning that the income flux from the HF is equal to the flux outgoing to the NF. Additionally, the fluid pressure profile along the HF and the NF must have a common value at the junction point. The coupling condition at the junction is
The imposed boundary conditions at the inlet and junction point are sketched in Fig. 2.
The condition for the HF tip propagation implies the quasistatic growth of the Mode I fracture such that Mode I stress intensity factor at the tip of the HF,
where
where
Modeling of the new fracture initiation has been traditionally based on stress criterion only [26]. Following Leguillon [33], this work presents an extension in which the initiation of a new fracture must meet the joint stress and energy criteria, which is dependent on the initial length of the fracture initiated,
where
where
In what follows we are interested in the ultimate result of the HFNF interaction. After the contact with the NF, the HF can either stay arrested by the NF or reinitiate at the NF and continue propagation to the remainder of the rock behind the NF. Possible outcomes of HFNF interaction are schematically drawn in Fig. 3.
In the case of arresting, the NF is extensively activated in opening and sliding such that the tensile stresses near the HF tip become insufficient for continuous fracture propagation or initiation of a new crack behind the NF. After the contact, the fracturing fluid is injected into the NF and the dilated NF becomes a part of a complex hydraulic fracture network. In contrast, if the NF appears to be frictionally or cohesively strong, the HF will reinitiate at the NF and continue its propagation into the remainder of the rock. The fracture often reinitiates at the offset positions, forming a more complex kinked fracture path after the interaction with the NF.
In this work, the problem of the HFNF interaction is solved by means of the computational code developed by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, CSIRO. The details of numerical scheme implemented in this code can be found in [1213, 20, 24, 29].
3. Parameterization of HFNF problem
The complete system of coupled equations (1, 57) subject to the boundary and initial conditions (2, 1014) and criteria for crack initiation and propagation (1516) is a complex multiparameterized problem. The aim of the work is to study parametric sensitivity of the result of HFNF interaction, and the challenge of this undertaking substantially grows with the number of the independent parameters in the study. Our first initiative is to come up with proper parameterization of the problem that will be used in the numerical computations.
There are 14 dimensional parameters that impact the solution: injection rate into fracture,
Table 1 summarizes the expected range of dimensional parameters for the majority of HF jobs in unconventional reservoirs from various sources [3536]. The data were obtained from laboratory experiments and field measurements.










































Let us normalize the equations by the convenient choice of the scaling. First we introduce the displacement scale
where
where
The coordinates, including coordinates of fracture tips, are scaled by the length of the contacted fracture
and the time is scaled by a certain time scale
After substitution of (1721) into equations (113) we obtain these seven dimensionless groups
Choosing the viscosity scaling by setting
After the scaling we obtain nine dimensionless parameters
This study is mainly intended for the oil and gas industry, so the comprehensive numerical study in infinite limits of these parameters in the present study is not necessary. In what follows we limit the range of the dimensionless parameter values to the practical range by use of the compilation of dimensional parameters of the problem shown in Table 1. Using the scaling introduced previously it is possible to calculate the corresponding range of the dimensionless parameters (Table 2).



κ_{IC}  0.002  11 
κ_{IC} ^{ (NF)}/ κ_{IC} ^{ (HF)}  0  0.5 
ΔΣ  0  2 
Ω_{h}  0.0001  0.37 
β  30°  90° 
λ  0.2  1 
The following parametric study is restricted to the range of values of dimensionless parameters shown in Table 2, as practically required.
4. Results of parametric study
We performed numerical simulations of the HF propagation and interaction with the preexisting NF by use of the modified CSIRO code (with stressandenergy initiation criterion) [12, 20]. Dimensionless parameters of the simulations have been selected within the range specified in Table 2. Systematic analysis of the obtained results of HFNF interaction allowed us to project them onto the specific parametric diagrams containing dimensionless toughness of the rock, fracture intersection angle, stress contrast, frictional coefficient. and relative toughness of the NF. For better representation they are divided into several cross sections of one global multiparametrical cube.
4.1. Dimensionless toughness κ I C vs. angle β diagram
Fig. 4 shows the results of a large number of numerical computations performed with various independent parameters of the problem. They are projected on the diagram of dimensionless toughness versus interaction angle. These results represent the final outcome of the HFNF interaction in terms of either fracture crossing or arresting at the NF. We observe that the HF crosses the NF predominantly at large angles of intersection (i.e., close to 90°) and smaller values of dimensionless toughness as expected. Note that the dimensionless toughness
The computations have been performed for several values of insitu rock stress difference
4.2. κ I C vs.ΔΣ diagram
The next series of parametric diagrams represent the results of numerical experiments in the dimensional toughness vs. stress contrast cross section. This representation better emphasizes the role of the dimensionless relative stress and with the flow rate and viscosity that are inversely proportional to the dimensionless toughness. Plots in Fig. 5 clearly show that the higher relative stress difference
4.3. λ vs. κ _{IC(NF)} / κ _{IC} diagram
Next we analyzed the influence of the friction coefficient
5. Effect of NF permeability
5.1. Analytical model
The numerical investigation of the HFNF interaction with the help of MineHF2D code did not allow us to extract the dependency of the fracture interaction outcome on the permeability of the NF. To accomplish the goal of the parametric study, we built an analytical model of the Tshape contact between the HF and the permeable NF with the following assumptions (Fig. 7).
Consider the HF in a Tshape contact with a permeable NF as schematically shown in Fig. 7. Both fractures have uniformly distributed but different hydraulic openings. After the contact, the fracturing fluid penetrates the NF from the tip of the HF. Representation of the HF with blunted tip of width
First, we prescribe the uniform distribution of the fluid pressure along the HF from the inlet point to the contact point:
where
where
Poiseuille’s law and continuity equation for the fluid flow
As long as
where
For steady flow the fluid pressure at the fracture junction point must be the same at the HF and NF sides, so using assumption (24) we write
The total fluid mass balance in the system of the HF and the NF can be written by making use of continuity equations (6) and (27), inlet condition (10), and elasticity equation (25) as follows:
where
Thus, from (30) and (31) we obtain the following system of ordinary differential equations for the fluid penetration length
The solution of these equations can be found after setting up the initial condition at the time of fracture contact,
Rewriting the equations (32) and initial conditions (33) in terms of dimensionless parameters already introduced, and using substitutions
Numerical solution of the problem (34) is plotted in Fig. 8. Fluid penetration length (Fig. 8, left) grows fast at the very beginning (τ << 1) and turns to nearly linear dependence on time when τ > 1. The pressure at the junction point drops right after the HFNF contact (Fig. 8, right). The velocity of pressure drop rapidly slows, and after the certain inflection point it starts to grow linearly. As it will be shown later, the inflection point depends on the NF permeability and initial fluid pressure at fracture contact.
The numerical solution helps in the general solution of the problem (34) but hides the parametrical dependency of the fluid penetration and pressure behavior shown in Fig. 8. To evaluate the pressure inflection point
Let us assume the following law for the fluid pressure and penetration length at the beginning of fracture contact,
where
The unknown constants
From this analysis it is obvious that the rate of fluid pressure drop at the beginning of fracture contact as well as the velocity of fluid penetration into the NF are affected more strongly by the permeability of the NF
The asymptotes (35) can be plotted with the accurate numerical solution of the equations (34). Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the numerical solution of the problem and asymptotes (35) with coefficients (37).
Now consider the largetime behavior of the system of contacted fractures. In that limit let us employ the linear asymptotes for the pressure and fluid penetration length
where
Solution of (39) for the unknown
Comparison of the asymptotes (38) with numerical solution of the equations (34) gives excellent agreement. Fig. 10 demonstrates this comparison.
To find the parametric expression for the inflection point in time scale, where the fluid pressure starts to increase, we substitute
If
Comparing now (41) with (42), one obtains the following estimation for the time of pressure dropgrowth inflection:
This simple expression tells again that practically it is the magnitude of NF permeability that plays a key role in the transient pressure behavior and intensity of NF infiltration by the fracturing fluid.
5.2. Numerical simulations
To validate the analytical model predictions we performed several numerical simulations by MineHF2D code with
Fig. 11 shows the results of simulations for three different values of the residual hydraulic opening prescribed at the NF
For two cases with lower NF permeability (green, reddashed line in Fig. 11) the pressure starts to grow immediately after the fracture intersection. As the fluid weakly propagates into the NF in these cases, the net pressure and HF opening almost equally quickly grow with time. In the second example, for
In the third case, when the residual hydraulic opening at the NF is of the same order of magnitude as the average opening of the HF (3 times less), we observe comparably fast fluid leakoff into the NF after the contact (blue line, Fig. 11), which given the fixed injection rate into the HF does not allow the net pressure in the HF to grow. Very soon after the fluid reaches the tips of the NF prescribed in the numerical model (1.5 m in this example), the NF rapidly opens mechanically and the HF opening starts to grow.
Careful investigation of the complex dynamics of fluidcoupled fracture interaction deserves a separate work.
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, we conducted an extensive parametric study of the problem of HFNF interaction by means of numerical simulator MineHF2D developed by CSIRO. This research was mainly focused on the result of fracture interaction in terms of crossing or arresting of the HF at the NF as a function of the most sensitive parameters, such as fracture approach angle β, friction coefficient λ, dimensionless toughness κ_{IC}, inversely proportional to the injection rate and fluid viscosity, relative stress contrast
In a system of interacting hydraulic and NFs, the number of physical parameters that can affect the result of interaction is large. The proper scaling of the problem allowed us to decrease the number of independent parameters from 14 dimensional parameters to 9 dimensionless parameters, and effectively perform the parametric study in the space of 6 of the most critical dimensionless parameters. We summarized the results of the large number of numerical simulations performed in the range of parameters values relevant to fracturing field operations. The resultant solid picture of parametric sensitivity to the arresting versus crossing behavior helps provide a better understanding of the relative role of each parameter. In particular, aside from the wellknown effect of the fracture approach angle and stress contrast, we revealed the influence of the injection rate and fluid viscosity on reducing the angle and stress threshold for HFNF crossing.
The presented analytical model of the infiltration of the permeable NF by the contact with the HF allowed us to understand a parametric dependency of the HF pressure response and fracturing fluid penetration at early and large time after the HFNF contact. We have seen a predominant role of the hydraulic permeability of the NF in the evaluation of the pressure decay curve after the fracture contact. It appears that at Tshape fracture contact, initially the pressure quickly drops and after some saturation it rebounds to grow. The rebound time of pressure response
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper. Special thanks go to Xi Zhang (CSIRO) for his constant attention and enormous help with improvement of the numerical code MineHF2D during the study, and to Xiaowei Weng (Schlumberger) for constructive discussions of the obtained results and valuable recommendations.References
 1.
Valko P, Economides MJ. Hydraulic Fracture Mechanics: John Wiley & Sons; 1995.  2.
Fjær E, Holt RM, Horsrud P, Raaen AM, Risnes R. Petroleum related rock mechanics, Chapter 11 Mechanics of hydraulic fracturing. In: Fjaer E, Raaen AM, Risnes R, Holt RM, Horsrud P, editors. 2008. p. 369390.  3.
Warpinski NR, Mayerhofer MJ, Vincent MC, Cipolla CL, Lolon EP. Stimulating Unconventional Reservoirs: Maximizing Network Growth While Optimizing Fracture Conductivity, SPE114173PA, 2009.  4.
Vincent M. Restimulation of Unconventional Reservoirs: When Are Refracs Beneficial? SPE136757PA, 2011.  5.
Vincent MC. Examining Our Assumptions—Have Oversimplifications Jeopardized Our Ability to Design Optimal Fracture Treatments? SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference; The Woodlands, Texas, 2009.  6.
Thiercelin M. Hydraulic fracture propagation in discontinuous media. Presented at the International Conference on Rock Joints and Jointed Rock Masses, Tucson, Arizona, USA, 78 January. 2009.  7.
Cipolla CL, Warpinski NR, Mayerhofer MJ. Hydraulic Fracture Complexity: Diagnosis, Remediation, and Exploitation. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition; 01/01/2008; Perth, Australia: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2008.  8.
Daneshy AA. Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in the Presence of Planes of Weakness. SPE European Spring Meeting; Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1974.  9.
Keer LM, Chen SH. Intersection of a Pressurized Crack with a Joint. Journal of Geophysical Research. 1981;86(B2):10328.  10.
Blanton TL. An Experimental Study of Interaction Between Hydraulically Induced and PreExisting Fractures. SPE Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1982.  11.
Cooke ML, Underwood CA. Fracture termination and stepover at bedding interfaces due to frictional slip and interface opening. J Struct Geol. 2001 FebMar;23(23):22338.  12.
Zhang X, Jeffrey RG. The role of friction and secondary flaws on deflection and reinitiation of HFs at orthogonal preexisting fractures. Geophys J Int. 2006 Sep;166(3):145465.  13.
Zhang X, Jeffrey RG. Reinitiation or termination of fluiddriven fractures at frictional bedding interfaces. J Geophys ResSol Ea. 2008 Aug 28;113(B8)  14.
Zhang ZX, Kou SQ, Lindqvist PA, Yu Y. Relationship between fracture toughness and tensile strength of rock. Strength Theories: Applications, Development and Prospects for 21st Century. 1998:2159.  15.
Gu H, Weng X, Lund JB, Mack MG, Ganguly U, SuarezRivera R. Hydraulic Fracture Crossing Natural Fracture at NonOrthogonal Angles, A Criterion, Its Validation and Applications. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference; The Woodlands, Texas, 2011.  16.
Taleghani AD. Fracture ReInitiation As a Possible Branching Mechanism During Hydraulic Fracturing. 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th USCanada Rock Mechanics Symposium; Salt Lake City, Utah: American Rock Mechanics Association; 2010.  17.
Blanton TL. Propagation of Hydraulically and Dynamically Induced Fractures in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium; Louisville, Kentucky, 1986.  18.
Renshaw CE, Pollard DD. An Experimentally Verified Criterion for Propagation across Unbounded Frictional Interfaces in Brittle, Linear ElasticMaterials. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts. 1995 Apr; 32(3):23749.  19.
H.Gu, X.Weng. Criterion For Fractures Crossing Frictional Interfaces At Nonorthogonal Angles. 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th USCanada Rock Mechanics Symposium; Salt Lake City, Utah: American Rock Mechanics Association; 2010.  20.
Zhang X, Jeffrey RG, Thiercelin M. Mechanics of fluiddriven fracture growth in naturally fractured reservoirs with simple network geometries. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2009;114.  21.
Beugelsdijk LJL, Pater CJd, Sato K. Experimental Hydraulic Fracture Propagation in a MultiFractured Medium. SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset Management; Yokohama, Japan, 2000.  22.
Pater CJd, Beugelsdijk LJL. Experiments and numerical simulation of hydraulic fracturing in naturally fractured rock. 2529 June 2005: American Rock Mechanics Association; 2005.  23.
Wu R, Kresse O, Weng X, Cohen Ce, Gu H. Modeling of Interaction of Hydraulic Fractures in Complex Fracture Networks. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference; The Woodlands, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012.  24.
Zhang X, Thiercelin MJ, Jeffrey RG. Effects of Frictional Geological Discontinuities on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference; College Station, Texas USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2007.  25.
Warpinski NR, Teufel LW. Influence of Geologic Discontinuities on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation. SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology. 1987; 39(2).  26.
Chuprakov DA, Akulich AV, Siebrits E, Thiercelin M. HydraulicFracture Propagation in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir. SPE Production & Operations. 2011; 26(1).  27.
Chuprakov D, Melchaeva O, Prioul R. Injectionsensitive mechanics of HF interaction with discontinuities. The 47th US Rock Mechanics Symposium (USRMS); San Francisco, CA, 2013.  28.
Kresse O, Weng X, Chuprakov D, Prioul R. Effect of Flow Rate and Viscosity on Complex Fracture Development in UFM model. The International Conference for Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing; 2022 May 2013; Brisbane, Australia, 2013.  29.
Zhang X, Jeffrey RG, Thiercelin M. Deflection and propagation of fluiddriven fractures at frictional bedding interfaces: A numerical investigation. J Struct Geol. 2007; 29(3):396410.  30.
Crouch SL, Starfield AM. Boundary Element Methods In Solid Mechanics: George Allen & Unwin; 1983.  31.
Cheng AHD, Detournay E. On singular integral equations and fundamental solutions of poroelasticity. Int J Solids Struct. 1998 Dec;35(3435):452155.  32.
Hills DA, Kelly PA, Dai DN, Korsunsky AM. Solution of crack problems. The distributed dislocation technique. Solid Mechanics and its Applications. 1996;44.  33.
Leguillon D. Strength or toughness? A criterion for crack onset at a notch. Eur J Mech aSolid. 2002 JanFeb;21(1):6172.  34.
Erdogan F, Sih GC. On the crack extension in plates under plane loading and transverse shear. Journal of Basic Engineering. 1963;85:51927.  35.
Prioul R, Karpfinger F, Deenadayalu C, SuarezRivera R. Improving Fracture Initiation Predictions on Arbitrarily Oriented Wells in Anisotropic Shales. Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference; 1517 November 2011; Alberta, Canada: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2011.  36.
King GE. Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned? SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Florence, Italy: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2010.