Comparison Study of Hydraulic

Fracturing Models-Test Case:

GRI Staged Field Experiment No. 3
N.R. Warpinski, SPE, Sandia Natl. Labs; Z.A. Moschovidis, SPE, Amoco Production Co.;
C.D. Parker, SPE, Conoco Inc.; and 1.5. Abou-Sayed, Mobil E&P Technical Center

Summary. This study is a comparison of hydraulic fracture models run using test data from the GRI Staged Field Experiment No.
3. Models compared include 2D, pseudo-3D, and 3D codes, run on up to eight different cases. Documented in this comparison are
the differences in length, height, width, pressure, and efficiency. The purpose of this study is to provide the completions engineer
with a practical comparison of the available models so that rational decisions can be made as to which model is optimal for a given
application.

Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing, one of the most important stimulation tech- not always reliably predict the observed behavior for a given treat-
niques available to the petroleum engineer, is being used exten- ment. This discrepancy has been attributed to many complex in-
sively in tight gas sandstones, 1-5 coalbed methane,6 high-perme- teractions between the injected fluids and the formation that are
ability sandstones in Alaska,7 very weak sandstones off the U.S. not well understood.
gulf coast, 8 horizontal wells in chalks, 9.10 and many other appli- An attempt to characterize phenomenologically some of these
cations from waste disposal to geothermal reservoirs. Because of complex processes occurring within the fracture (e.g., mUltiple frac-
this diversity of application, hydraulic fracture design models must tures and increased frictional losses) and near the fracture tip (e.g.,
be able to account for widely varying rock properties, reservoir nonlinear formation behavior, microcracking, formation plastici-
properties, in-situ stresses, fracturing fluids, and proppant loads. ty, dilatancy, and plugging) was made in various simulators by the
As a result, fracture simulation has emerged as a highly complex introduction of additional ad hoc parameters ("knobs"). The choice
endeavor that must be able to account for many different physical of values for these parameters is based only on the modeler's ex-
processes. perience. These knobs, used to match model predictions with field-
The petroleum engineer who must design the fracture treatment observed behavior, result in the lack of a standard model response
is often confronted with the difficult task of selecting a suitable hy- for a given physical problem. This issue was addressed in the fo-
draulic fracture model, yet there is very little comparative infor- rum by having different participants (discussing several different
mation available to help in making a rational choice, particularly models) simulate common test cases derived from the actual SFE
on the newer 3D and pseudo-3D models. The purpose of this paper No.3 fracturing treatment. These models can be categorized in order
is to help provide some guidance by comparing many of the avail- of decreasing complexity as follows.
able simulators. 1. Planar 3D models: TerraFrac of TerraTek Inc. 12-16 run by
The Fracture Propagation Modeling Forum held Feb. 26-27, Arco and HYFRAC3D by S.H. Advani of Lehigh U.17
1991, near Houston provided the origin for this paper. This forum, 2. GOHFER, a unique finite-difference simulator by Marathon
sponsored by the Gas Research Inst. (GRI), was open to all known Oil Co. 18.19
hydraulic fracturing modelers. Participants were asked to provide 3. Planar pseudo-3D models.
fracture designs based on the Staged Field Experiment (SFE) No. A. "Cell" approach: STIMPLAN of NSI Inc., ENERFRAC
3 fracture experiment. After the fracture designs presented at this of Shell,20,21 and TRIFRAC of S.A. Holditch & Assocs. Inc.
meeting were compared, a final, revised data set was given to all B. Overall fracture geometry parameterization: FRACPRO of
participants. The results presented in this paper are derived from Reservoir Engineering Systems (RES) Inc. 2225 and MFRAC-II of
that data set. To publish the results, a four-member committee (the Meyer & Assocs. 26 -29
authors) was chosen from forum participants. In assembling this 4. Classic Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) and Geertsma-deKlerk
comparison, committee members purposely attempted to avoid judg- (GDK) models 30-35 : PROP of Halliburton, 3436 the Chevron 2D
ing the relative values of the different models. Only the results and model, the Conoco 2D model, the She1l2D model, and pseudo-3D
quantifiable comparisons are given. models run in constant-height mode.
A discussion of the basics of these models is given to provide
Background-Basic Modeling Discussion some insights on the model assumptions and their expected effect
In recent years, fracturing simulators used in the oil industry have on results.
proliferated. This proliferation was intensified by the availability
of personal computers and the need for fast design simulators for Planar 3D Models. The TerraFrac 12-16 and the HYFRAC3D 17
use in the field. Applying these models as "black boxes," without models incorporate similar assumptions and formulate the physics
knowledge of the underlying assumptions, may lead to erroneous rigorously, assuming planar fractures of arbitrary shape in a linearly
conclusions, especially for unconfined fracture growth. elastic formation, 2D flow in the fracture, power-law fluids, and
Hydraulic fracturing is a complex nonlinear mathematical prob- linear fracture mechanics for fracture propagation. Their differ-
lem that involves the mechanical interaction of the propagating frac- ence is in the numerical technique used to calculate fracture open-
ture with the injected slurry. Several assumptions are commonly ing. TerraFrac uses an integral equation representation, while the
made to render the problem tractable: plane fractures, symmetric Ohio State model uses the finite-element method. Both models use
with respect to the wellbore; elastic formation; linear fracture finite elements for 2D fluid flow within the fracture and a fracture-
mechanics for fracture propagation prediction; power-law behavior tip advancement proportional to the stress-intensity factor on the
of fracturing fluids and slurries; simplification of fracture geome- fracture-tip contour.
try and its representation by few geometric parameters; etc. Ref.
11 gives a detailed description of the governing equations. Although Planar 3D Finite-Difference Model (GOHFER). Besides the nu-
the models predict' 'trends" of treating pressure behavior, they may merical technique used, this model 18,19 is different from the previ-
ous models in two fundamental ways: (1) the fracture opening is
Copyright 1994 Society of Petroleum Engineers calculated by superposition using the surface displacement of a half-

SPE Production & Facilities. February 1994 7

space under normal load (Boussinesq solution); (2) the fracture prop- aiytical models. For example, the program was recently modified
agates when the tensile stress normal to the fracturing plane ex- for use of multiple fluids and rates within a single treatment, each
ceeds the tensile strength of the formation at some distance outside fluid with its own set of time- and temperature-dependent rheolog-
the fracture by enforcing the tensile criterion at the centroid of the ical parameters. In addition to the power-law model normally used
cells "outside" the fracturing contour. This model predicts higher to characterize gelled fracturing fluids, PROP uses the three-
treating pressures and shorter, wider fractures than the previous parameter Herschel-Bulkley model for fluids containing a nitrogen
3D model predictions. or carbon dioxide phase. The program's proppant transport calcu-
lations are of similar capability. Although the model originally
Pseudo-3D Models. These models were developed from the PKN presented by Daneshy was based on the Khristianovic-Zheltov width
model by removing the requirement of constant fracture height. equation (designated GDK in this paper), the PROP program has
They use equations based on simple geometries (radial, 2D, and since been expanded to include a similar numerical solution of PKN-
elliptical) to calculate fracture width as a function of position and type geometry with a width profile based on calculated local pres-
pressure and to apply a fracture propagation criterion to length and sures. The results presented here are for the GDK-type solution only.
height. Furthermore, they assume 1D flow along the fracture length.
These models can be divided into two categories: (1) models that S.A. Holditch & Assocs. (TRIFRAC). TRIFRAC is a pseudo-
divide the fracture along its length into "cells" and use local cell 3D model of fracture propagation and proppant transport that com-
geometry (2D crack or penny crack) to relate fracture opening with putes created and propped fracture dimensions with a finite-
fluid pressure and (2) models that use a parametric representation difference numerical approach. It can handle multiple nonsymmetric
of the total fracture geometry. As a result of these assumptions, stress layers with unique values for Young's modulus, Poisson's
ratio, fracture toughness, permeability, porosity, and fluid-Ieakoff
each class is expected to have a different fracture geometry, even
coefficients for each layer. Currently, properties for a maximum
for the simple case of a confined fracture.
of 22 layers can be entered. The apparent viscosity of the fractur-
The pseudo-3D simulators are used extensively for fracture de-
ing fluid is computed from the shear rate inside the fracture and
sign because of their efficiency and their availability on personal
changes in flow-behavior index, n' , and consistency index, K', ow-
computers. However, they are directly applicable only for the ge-
ing to variations of temperature and time. Thus, a temperature cal-
ometries that are not significantly different from the basic model culation model is part of TRIFRAC. The choice of initiating the
assumptions (e.g., models based on a PKN geometry should have hydraulic fracture from 10 different layers simultaneously is avail-
large length/height ratios to be appropriate). Thus, for relatively able. Special options are available to enter the pump schedule for
unconfined fracture growth in a complex in-situ stress profile, a nitrogen-foam treatments. The created geometry computation mod-
3D model is more accurate in predicting "trends" of fracture ge- ule is coupled with a rigorous finite-difference proppant transport
ometry. To avoid this problem, some pseudo-3D models attempt simulator that solves simultaneously for proppant distribution, trans-
to include truly 3D fracture behavior in terms of "history" match- port, and settling, along with fracture growth. Depending on the
ing or "lumped" parameters determined from fully 3D solutions fluid velocity along the fracture height and the proppant settling
of simpler problems or determined from simulations with 3D rate, the model computes the proppant profIle at each timestep during
models. the job. TRIFRAC also has the simpler 2D geometry computational
Classic PKN and GDK Models. The difference in treating pres- finite-difference GDK and PKN models. Horizontal fracture ge-
sure behavior and fracture geometry of the PKN and GDK models ometry calculation with the GDK method is also available. All these
is well documented 11.37 and is not repeated here. models are coupled with proppant-transport-calculation modules.

Fracture Models RES (FRACPRO). FRACPR022-25 uses measured values of flow

This section describes the individual fracture models in this com- rate, proppant concentration, and fluid rheology parameters to cal-
parison. The modelers or the companies that ran commercially avail- culate the pressure drop down a wellbore of variable deviation and
able models provided short descriptions of the models. diameter. The time histories of the fracture growth and the net frac-
ture pressure are calculated. The wellbore model handles non-
Marathon (GOHFER). Marathon Oil CO.'s Grid Oriented Hy- Newtonian fluids and corrects for the effects of nitrogen foam, car-
draulic Fracture Extension Replicator (GOHFER) 18,19 is a planar bon dioxide, and proppant phases. The model also accounts for fric-
3D fracture geometry simulator with coupled multidimensional fluid tion variation from entrained proppant. The fracture model is 3D
flow and particle transport. As the name indicates, the model is in that spatial variations in reservoir stress, modulus, pressure, and
based on a regular grid structure used for the elastic rock displace- flow distribution are taken into account.
ment calculations and as a planar 2D finite-difference grid for the However, FRACPRO does not need to calculate the variations
at specific points in the fracture. Instead, the effects are integrated
fluid flow solutions. The areal pressure distribution obtained from
into functional coefficients of governing differential equations, great-
the fluid flow equations, including proppant transport, is iterative-
ly simplifying the calculation of fracture dimensions. The module
ly coupled to the elastic deformation solution. Using the finite-
can therefore run many times faster than real time, as required for
difference scheme for fluid flow allows modeling of mUltiple dis- on-site history matching. The coefficients necessary to calculate
crete fluid entry points, representing perforations at various loca- the spatial variations are calculated from a fully 3D model and
tions. Each grid node can be assigned an individual value of net checked against experimental and field test data. FRACPRO han-
stress, pore pressure, permeability, porosity, wall-building coeffi- dles up to 3 modulus zones, up to 50 stress zones, and up to 50
cient, rock strength, Young's modulus, and Poisson's ratio, as well permeable (Ieakoff) zones. Fluid loss is modeled as 1D flow per-
as variables describing fracture-wall roughness and tortuosity. Dis- pendicular to the fracture face, following Darcy-law behavior, in-
placement of the fracture face at each node is determined by in- cluding spurt loss, filter-cake buildup on the fracture face, and a
tegration of the pressure distribution over all nodes, including the compressible reservoir-fluid region. The rise in confining stress ow-
computed tensile stress distribution in the unbroken rock surrounding ing to poroelastic effects (backstress) is included. Heat transfer
the fracture. The fracture width equation used is the general for- modeling assumes that there is a cubic-fit temperature distribution
mula given by Boussinesq for displacement of a semi-infinite half- between the fracture and the end of the heat transfer region. FRAC-
space acted upon by a distributed load. The solution is general PRO models proppant convection and settling in a fracture. In prop-
enough to allow modeling of multiple fracture initiation sites si- pant convection, heavier treatment stages (e.g., proppant stages)
multaneously and is applicable to any planar 3D geometry from displace rapidly downward from the perforations to the fractury
perfect containment to uncontrolled height growth. bottom. Then the pad or low-concentration proppant stages replace
those stages. FRACPRO also can be used to model proppant settling.
Halliburton (PROP). The PROP program 34-36 is a 2D fracture The proppant is carried with the fracturing fluid and settles. The
design model based on Daneshy's34,35 numerical solution. Its nu- model takes into account the effects of non-Newtonian fluids, hin-
merical nature makes the model much more flexible than most an- dered settling rates, and settled bank buildup.
8 SPE Production & Facilities. February 1994
 TABLE 1-ROCK AND RESERVOIR DATA

Zone In-Situ Young's

Depth Thickness Stress Poisson's Modulus Fracture Toughness
Interval (ft) (ft) (psi) Ratio (million psi) (psi/Jin. )
--- --

Single-Layer (2D) Case

1 9,170 to 9,340 170 5,700 0.21 8.5 2,000

Three-Layer (3D) Case

1 8,990 to 9,170 180 7,150 0.30 6.5 2,000
2 9,170 to 9,340 170 5,700 0.21 8.5 2,000
3 9,340 to 9,650 310 7,350 0.29 5.5 2,000

Five-Layer (3D) Case

1 8,990 to 9,170 180 7,150 0.30 6.5 2,000
2 9,170 to 9,340 170 5,700 0.21 8.5 2,000
3 9,340 to 9,380 40 7,350 0.26 5.4 2,000
4 9,380 to 9,455 75 5,800 0.20 7.9 2,000
5 9,455 to 9,650 195 8,200 0.30 4.0 2,000

Chevron 2D Fracturing Simulator. This model can predict the, ing approach adopted. MFRAC-II was run in two different modes
propagation of constant-height, hydraulically induced, vertical frac- to demonstrate the effects of some of these parameters. In one case,
tures for a power-law fluid. The simulator also includes a prop- the base model using system defaults was run (designated MEYER-
pant transport model with proppant settling and a production model. 1); in a second case (MEYER-2), additional parameters (such as
The simulator can predict the created fracture geometry based on greater friction drop in the fracture) were applied. In both cases,
the PKN and GDK models. It is most suitable to design fractures the viscous thinning assumption was made as a default. Without
where the geologic conditions restrict height growth. In fracture viscous thinning, the effective friction factor would have increased,
propagation models, the equations describing conservation of mass, resulting in higher net pressures, greater widths, and shorter lengths.
conservation of momentum, continuity of fluid flow, and linear elas- In addition, the fully implicit coupled model for height growth (Ver-
tic deformation of the rock in plane strain are used to calculate mass sion 7.0) results in increased development of fracture height and
flux, fracture width, pressure, and length as functions of time. Given net pressure for certain multilayer formations.
a settling velocity, the proppant transport model calculates the fi-
nal propped concentration, width, and bank height. It also can Advani (Lehigh U. HYFRAC3D). The three- and five-layer model
predict possible problems caused by proppant bridging or screenout. results (Cases 5 through 8) are obtained from the HYFRAC3D
code. 17 This finite-element code is based on a set of coupled mass
Shell (ENERFRAC). ENERFRAC20,21 is a hydraulic fracture conservation, fluid momentum, constitutive elasticity, and fracture
model that predicts fracture dimensions for uncontained (circular) mechanics equations governing planar hydraulic fracture propaga-
and contained (rectangular) fractures. ENERFRAC incorporates tion in a multilayered reservoir. A mapping technique of the base-
fracture-tip effects and the other interacting processes of viscous line mesh (88 triangular elements representing one-half the fracture)
fluid flow, elastic rock deformation, and fluid loss. Fracture-tip defined in a unit circle to arbitrarily shaped fracture geometries is
effects are accounted for through direct input of the rock's appar- used in the numerical scheme to track the moving fracture front.
ent fracture toughness or the fracture-tip net pressure (overpres- The PKN model results (Cases 1 and 2) also are based on a 2D
sure). This overpressure, defined as the instantaneous shut-in finite-element model simulator with standard PKN model equations,
pressure minus the closure pressure, can be determined in the field including vertical stiffness and 1D fluid flow. These simulation re-
from a microfracture or minifracture test. Shell also provided 2D sults are obtained with 20-line elements for the normalized, time-
PKN and GDK model results. The ENERFRAC results provided dependent fracture half-length.
a useful comparison of the effect of free model parameters (knobs)
on the results. Shell provided results for typical fracture toughness NSI (STIMPLAN). STIMPLAN is a state-of-the-art 3D hydrau-
values measured in laboratory tests (designated ENERFRAC-1) and lic fracture simulator for fracture design and analysis in complex
for a tip overpressure of 1,000 psi (ENERFRAC-2). This compar- situations involving height growth, proppant settling, foam fluids,
ison shows the effect of fracture-tip overpressure on fracture ge- tip screenout, etc. The model has complete fluid/proppant track-
ometry and net pressure. ing that allows optimum fluid selection and scheduling based on
time and temperature histories. Fracture height growth is calculat-
Meyer & Assocs. (MFRAC-II). MFRAC-II26-29 is a pseudo-3D ed through multiple layers and includes proppant settling and bridg-
hydraulic fracturing simulator. MFRAC-II also includes options ing calculations. A fracture analysis/history matching module
for the penny-, GDK- and PKN-type 2D fracturing models. This provides history matching of measured net treating pressures to yield
study was run with MFRAC-II, Version 6.1. MFRAC-II accounts the most accurate possible estimation of actual fracture geometry
for the coupled parameters affecting fracture propagation and prop- and behavior. Also, simulations during fracture closure (pressure
pant transport. The major fracture, rock, and fluid mechanics phe- decline) aid in pressure-decline analysis for fluid loss in complex
nomena include (1) multilayer, asymmetrical confining stress geologic situations.
contrast, (2) fracture toughness and tip/overpressure effects,
(3) rock deformation, (4) variable injection rate and time-dependent Arco (Using TerraFrac). TerraFrac Code 12-16 is a fully 3D hy-
fluid rheology properties, (5) multilayer leakoff with spurt loss, draulic fracture simulator. Initiated at Terra Tek in 1978, its com-
and (6) 2D proppant transport. The fracture propagation model cal- mercial availability was announced in Dec. 1983. The model's
culates fracture length, upper and lower heights, width, net pres- overall approach is to subdivide the fracture into discrete elements
sure, efficiency, and geometry parameters as functions of time. The and to solve the governing equations for these elements. These
width variation as a function of height and confining stress also governing equations consist of (1) 3D elasticity equations that re-
is calculated. To provide applicability over the broadest range of late pressure on the crack faces to the crack opening, (2) 2D fluid
circumstances, MFRAC-II offers numerous options. These options flow equations that relate the flow in the fracture to the pressure
and other free parameters (knobs) allow customization in the model- gradients in the fluid, and (3) a fracture criterion that relates the

SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994 9

 Texaco (Using FRACPRO). Texaco also ran FRACPRO for six
TABLE 2-TREATMENT DATA
different cases. These include single-layer PKN and GDK models,
Bottomhole temperature, of 246 a three-layer case with constant fracture-fluid viscosity, and five-
Reservoir pressure, psi 3,600 layer cases for constant fluid viscosity, power-Iaw-fluid behavior,
Spurt loss 0.0 and power-Iaw-fluid behavior with the tip-dominated rheology be-
Fluid-Ieakoff height Entire fracture height havior not operating. The five-layer runs provide a good compari-
Fluid-Ieakoff coefficient, tt/.JiTiTr1 0.00025 son of tip-dominated vs. conventional rheology results with
Viscosity-Case A, cp 200 FRACPRO.
Viscosity-Case B
n' 0.5
K' 0.06 Conoco. Conoco's fracture design program is a constant-height (2D)
Fluid volume, bbl 10,000 model where either PKN or GDK geometry can be selected. 38 It
Injection rate, bbl/min 50 has single inputs for n', K', and leakoff coefficient. However, the
Proppant None model can calculate the positions and concentrations of progres-
sive fluid/proppant stages. Fracture area can be calculated by either
the Howard and Fast model or by Crawford's39 extremely accurate
intensity of the stress state ahead of the crack front to the critical simplification.
intensity for Mode 1 fracture growth. TerraFrac provides many
distinctive features: 2D fluid flow for both proppant and tempera- SFE3 Formation and Treatment Data
ture distribution; multiple stages having different fluids, proppants,
The input data for the fracture modeling comparison are based on
and rates, with fluid and proppant properties as functions of tem-
the results obtained at the GRI-sponsored SFE-3 experiment. 3,40
perature if desired; multiple layers, each having different in-situ Well SFE-3 was drilled as the Mobil Cargill Unit No. 15 well in
stresses, Young's moduli, fracture toughnesses, Poisson's ratios, the Waskom field, Harrison County, TX. The well was spudded
and leakoffs; poroelastic and thermoelastic capabilities for water- in Sept. 1988 and drilled to a total depth of 9,700 ft. Of particular
flooding and other applications; a robust mesh generator to handle interest was the Cotton Valley Taylor sand, which was perforated
a wide variety of fracture geometries and a quasi-Newton method between 9,225 to 9,250 ft and 9,285 to 9,330 ft. An extensive log
to solve the nonlinear system of equations for the fluid pressures program and detailed core analyses were done on this well. Both
(this approach provides fast convergence and high accuracy); and pre fracture well testing and postfracture production testing were
a post-shut-in calculation capability for which no additional assump- performed. Two minifracs and one full-scale treatment were con-
tions are made (only the injection rate changes). ducted as part of the stimulation program.

TABLE 3-20 RESULTS AT END OF PUMP

200 cp
Length Height Pressure Maximum Width Efficiency
Model ~ ~ (psi) (tt) b' E, * (%)
--
SAHt (GOK) 2,542 170 62 0.848 0.849 0.605 85.5
SAH (PKN) 4,855 170 1,094 0.502 0.394 0.289 72.3
Marathon 2,584 204 1,685 0.91 0.76 0.73 93
Meyer-1 (GOK) 2,659 170 70 0.79 0.79 0.62 83.1
Meyer-1 (PKN) 4,507 170 1,188 0.55 0.43 0.32 72.2
Meyer-2 (GOK) 2,288 170 97 0.94 0.94 0.74 85.4
Meyer-2 (PKN) 3,803 170 1,474 0.68 0.53 0.4 76.6
Shell (GOK) 2,724 170 53 0.78 0.78 0.61 84
Shell (PKN) 4,039 170 1,377 0.59 0.46 0.37 75
Texaco-FP (GOK) 2,480 200 71 0.74 86
Texaco-FP (PKN) 4,157 200 925 0.50 77
Chevron (GOK) 1,347 170 81.9 0.77 0.77 0.6 81.9
Chevron (PKN) 2,029 170 1,380 0.63 0.36 73
Advani 4,595 170 1,182 0.54 0.43 0.32 73.8
Halliburton 2,212 170 82 0.98 0.98 0.77 85.9
Conoco (GOK) 2,716 170 0.767 0.6 82.5
Conoco (PKN) 3,986 170 0.554 0.37 74.4
ENERFRAC-1 3,866 170 1,595 0.627 0.492 0.387 75
ENERFRAC-2 3,556 170 1,684 0.704 0.553 0.434 78

n', K'
SAH (GOK) 2,542 170 61.8 0.85 0.85 0.6 61.8
SAH (PKN) 4,629 170 1,167.5 0.54 0.42 0.28 73.6
Marathon 2,516 204 1,824 0.98 0.82 0.75 93
Meyer-1 (GOK) 2,098 170 117 1.04 1.04 0.82 86.4
Meyer-1 (PKN) 4,118 170 1,397 0.64 0.5 0.36 74.3
Meyer-2 (GOK) 1,808 170 161 1.24 1.24 0.97 88.3
Meyer-2 (PKN) 3,395 170 1,774 0.831 0.64 0.46 79
Shell (GOK) 2,142 170 89 1.03 1.03 0.81 89
Shell (PKN) 3,347 170 1,754 0.75 0.59 0.47 79
Advani 4,046 170 1,474 0.68 0.53 0.38 76.9
Halliburton 2,031 170 97 1.07 1.07 0.84 86
Conoco (GOK) 2,304 170 0.933 0.933 0.733 85.2
Conoco (PKN) 3,656 170 0.622 0.415 76.5
ENERFRAC-1 3,396 170 1,880 0.738 0.58 0.456 78
ENERFRAC-2 3,155 170 1,986 0.817 0.641 0.504 81.7
'b = average width at the wellbore.
"b, = overall average fracture width.
t S.A. Holditch & Assocs. Inc.

10 SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994

 TABLE 4-THREE-LAYER RESULTS AT END OF PUMP

200 cp
Length Height Pressure Maximum Width Efficiency
Model ~ ~ (psi) (ft) b b, (%)
--
SAH 3,408 318 1,009 0.65 0.35 0.3 77
NSI 3,750 903 283 0.56 0.32 0.25 66
RES 1,744 544 1,227 0.9 0.54 0.36 80
Marathon 1,360 442 1,387 1.04 0.68 0.64 96
Meyer-1 3,549 291 987 0.58 0.35 0.29 70.3
Meyer-2 2,692 360 1,109 0.72 0.41 0.34 74.3
Arco-Stimplan 3,598 306 992 0.57 0.31 0.25 67
Texaco-FP 1,938 435 1,132 0.72 68
Advani 2,089 357 1,113 0.66 0.33 0.25 43

n', K'
SAH 3,259 371 1,093 0.75 0.38 0.31 77.6
NSI 3,289 329 1,005 0.67 0.35 0.26 68
RES 902 596 1,428 1.1 0.74 0.49 62
Marathon 1,326 442 1,433 1.08 0.71 0.66 96
Meyer-1 2,915 337 1,094 0.69 0.4 0.32 72.7
Meyer-2 2,120 413 1,212 0.86 0.48 0.4 76.9
Arco-Stimplan 3,235 353 1,083 0.65 0.33 0.26 69
Advani 2,424 435 1,171 0.74 0.34 0.21 47

TABLE 5-FIVE-LAYER RESULTS AT END OF PUMP

200 cp
Length Height Pressure Maximum Width Efficiency
Model (ft) (ft) (psi) (ft) b b, (%)
--
SAH 2,905 394 960 0.72 0.42 0.31 80.1
NSI 3,709 361 852 0.63 0.38 0.25 66
RES 1,754 501 1,119 0.83 0.6 0.4 82
Marathon 1,224 476 1,250 1.03 0.7 0.65 97
Meyer-1 2,962 328 669 0.5 0.36 0.28 70.5
Meyer-2 2,407 327 768 0.6 0.46 0.35 74.8
Arco-Stimplan 3,399 394 944 0.64 0.36 0.24 68
Texaco-FP 2,011 428 1,008 0.68 69
Advani 1,594 438 1,129 0.81 0.45 0.36 58.1

n', K'
SAH 2,642 430 1,035.5 0.82 0.46 0.31 81.8
NSI 2,765 388 935 0.71 0.42 0.25 70
RES 1,042 600 1,358 1.18 0.9 0.6 87
Marathon 1,156 476 1,262 1.04 0.71 0.66 93
Meyer-1 2,535 330 766 0.6 0.46 0.37 73.7
Meyer-2 1,980 349 891 0.75 0.57 0.42 77.8
Arco-Stimplan 2,926 405 968 0.7 70
Arco-Terrafrac 3,124 449 1,160 0.74 62
Texaco-FP 1,125 602 1,270 1.11 76
Texaco-FPNOTIP 2,636 391 934 0.49 62
Advani 1,870 458 1,151 0.85 0.47 0.34 64

The SFE-3 data set was specifically chosen to ensure that the primarily because changes in fluid properties owing to tempera-
model comparison would be performed with actual field data, not ture or proppant addition cannot be quantified easily and any re-
for a contrived data set that might favor one type of model. In ad- sulting comparisons would be of questionable value.
dition, the SFE-3 data set is one of the most complete sets of well
information available. It includes stress, rock, and reservoir and Test Cases
well-performance results. As noted, most models can accommodate and process a much broad-
Table 1 shows the relevant rock and reservoir information for er range of complex data than presented in this data set (i.e., mul-
this initial study. As described in the next section, three different tiple rock properties, leakoff coefficients, n', and K'). Table 1 and
physical configurations were considered: a single layer, three lay- Table 2 give the complete set of data input. However, the data set
ers, and five layers. Stress and rock property measurements were was arbitrarily restricted to limit as many discretionary inputs as
averaged over the appropriate depths for each interval to yield the possible to allow more direct comparison of model performance.
physical data in Table 1. Most importantly, the stress contrasts range The input also should not be construed as optimum design parame-
from 1,450 to 1,650 psi, although the lower barrier is only 40 ft ters. As mentioned, the data for the cases approximates that from
thick for the five-layer configuration. Young's modulus and Pois- SFE No.3.
son's ratio were obtained from sonic measurements, thus account- Each participant could model a total of eight possible cases. These
ing for the elevated values of Young's modulus. were GDK, PKN, three-layer, and five-layer cases, with separate
The actual SFE-3 treatment was a 13-stage procedure using runs for a constant Newtonian viscosity and a constant n/ and K'
primarily a 40-lbm/l ,OOO-gal crosslinked gel with sand stages vary- power-law fluid. The PKN and GDK cases were run with a con-
ing from 1 to 8 Ibm/gal. For this comparison, the treatment was stant height (2D) set at 170 ft. The three- and five-layer cases were
simplified to a single, constant-property fluid with no proppant, run with a 3D or a pseudo-3D model, allowing fracture height to

SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994 11

 -- --
CONSTANT HEIGHT MODELS 3-LAYER MODELS

,- ~-o-'~-"~-""-~-;-'-'~-G-_-~-\-
.
GDK -200cp 200cp

::: r7a'" ._-_-----._-.. .-2-'--11'---..'-----,'"

g
---.-_.
GDK - n'=O 5, K'=O 06

PKN -200cp
n'=0.5, K'=O.06
---.---
1>"'-' ' ' 0

.. . ---_...
lr

~~
I 3,000 PKN - n'=0.5, K'=O.06
I- --0--
C} " '
Z 2,000 01H':~~.~CP "-,--,- ,/'
W
oJ OTHER 20 - 0'=0.5, K'=O.06
---{~--
1,000

MODEL

Fig. 1-Fracture length-2D models. Fig. 4-Fracture height-three-Iayer models.

'r;;
;u-c. 1,500
II:
=>
.CONSTANT HEIGHT MODELS

--
GDK-200cp

---.-_.
GDK - n'=0.5, K'=O.06

PKN-200cp
...... 8 ..
'r;;
;u-c. 1,400
II:
=>
3-LAYER MODELS
1,600 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

--
200cp

---.---
n'=0.5, K'=O.06

.,
PKN - n'=O.S, K'=O.06
~ 1,000 --0-- ~ 1,200 .........
W OTHER 20 - 200 cp
_ .. -6.-..- W
II: II:
Il. OTHER 20 - n'=0.5, K"=O.06 Il.
Iii 500 - ...,:.,....- I- 1,000
W
Z Z

Fig. 2-Net pressure-2D models. Fig. 5-Net pressure-three-Iayer models.

3-LAYER MODELS: n', K'

3500~---------~-----,

--
3-LAYER MODELS -e-SAH
g 4,000 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 200cp 3000
----&- NSI

I -IS-RES
I- ~MARATHON
C} n'=0.5, K'=O.06
Z 3,000 ---.--- -+-ARCO(STlM)
W 2500 ""'*- MEYER-l
oJ
,a --%-MEYER-2
LL ___ ADVANI
;;t 2,000 .:::. 2000
I I
W I-
<.:>
g; 1,000 z 1500
w

~ L-~ ~~ ~
..J

OU-__ ___ L_ _ _ __ L_ _J __ _
1000
LL ~"I 9,,?-O"l [c"'~ ,.J-~ .1<-<' ",<'I- s>-.).t-~ v,<,?-O"l
f#v"I
~ ~~'< ~'t-0 ~o-?l ~~'< ~<C-'" ~<t- ~ ~?'
-;r e}'i? <'-"'~'- o~'1: o'i? 0
o~'- 500
'" '" ,?-v '(?' 11-0 ,-<'J-
/ ?' ~
o~-, __~__~__~__~~__~~
MODEL o 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
TIME (min)

Fig. 3-Fracture length-three-Iayer models. Fig. 6-Length vs. tlme-three-Iayer models.

be determined by the model. Of particular interest was whether the 2D Results. Considering first the 2D results in Table I, the final
fracture broke through Zone 4 in the five-layer case. half-lengths for all the 2D models are shown in Fig. 1. The well-
known difference in length estimates between the PKN and GDK
Model Results
models is evident in these results, but some differences between
Tables 3 through 5 show the complete set of results for the final different models in each group become apparent. Presumably, tRis
fracture geometries from these model runs for the 2D, three-layer,
difference results because other options are included in some models,
and five-layer cases, respectively, Most of the results are based
on the data in these tables, In addition, some time-dependent re- The effect of the different rheologies is generally small. Besides
sults will be given in figures, All the data from this comparison the PKN and GDK models, GOHFER and ENERFRAC-l and-2
are available in a final report, 41 are also shown,

12 SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994

 3-LAYER MODELS: n', K'

--
600~------------------~--------~
-e-SAH
5-LAYER MODELS
--&-NSI 200cp
---!'l--RES
0'=0.5, K'=O.06
500 ---+-- MARATHON ---.---
- + - ARCO(STIM)
,II,
0,
~----+------------il -><--- MEYER- 1
-E-MEYER-2
___$_ ADVANI
,../ \...
f-
I
;.
"~ 300

200

100L-__~__~__,-~,-~,-~__~__~ MODEL
o 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
TIME (min)

Fig. 7-Height vs. time-three-Iayer models. Fig. 10-Fracture height-five-Iayer models.

3-LAYER MODELS: n', K'

1600,--------------------------------,
5-LAYER MODELS
I -e-SAH 1,400 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , - - - - - - - - ,
1400 r--=:::::=:::===l'l===fr=~=-~1..............!NSl
---!'l--RES
en t',
---+-- MARATHON D-
~ 1200 _-7---te----::=:::; - + - ARCO(STIM) ; ; 1,200
'C;;
Q.
--::::::::~::~::j ---*- MEYER-1
a:
::>
:"..
~ 1000
W
0::
=>
= -E-MEYER-2
___$_ ADVANI ~ 1,000 .~~~
W
a:
".i ,/ \...
Vl 800 a.
Vl
W
0::
l:ii 800 \,/
"- 600 Z
f-
W
z 400

200

o __--~--~--~--~--~--~--._~
o 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
TIME (min)

Fig. a-Net pressure vs. time-three-Iayer models. Fig. 11-Fracture pressure-five-Iayer models.

5-LAYER MODELS: n', K'

3500,--------------------------------,
5-LAYER MODELS

--
-e-SAH
g 4,000 ,-------------------------------------, 200cp -h-NSI
I 3000 ---!'l--RES
I- ---+--MARATHON
C} n'=0.5, K'=O.06
Z 3,000 ---.--- -+-ARCO(STIM)
UJ 2500 ---*-ARCO(TERR)
..J
LL ~
-E-MEYER-1
<t 2,000 2000
___$_MEYER-2
-+-ADVANI
I
I ___ TEXACO(FP)
UJ f-
g; 1,000 "zw 1500
___ TEX -FPNOTP

~ ~~ ~ ~
...J

OLL__L _ - L_ _ __ _ _L _ _ L_ _L _ _ L_ _
1000
LL #c,\,:/" ~O\ ~<,;.~ ,:/" #0'. !?<' <,;.!?<'l. N~ ~O, ",,'?\
~~ ""~'? #c,'? 00>(' 6.~'? ~# ~~ 'f-<J #V'? '?~O
#-
~y>o"":Vo ~o <$"'?'
",'f-Y> ...."" >,?-<,;.'" .4'f-C,0 ~'f-c,0 ~ 500
~'f-~ ~ 'f-'?' -<,0/'-<,0/'

MODEL o 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

TIME (min)

Fig. 9-Fracture length-five-Iayer models. Fig. 12-Length vs. time-five-Iayer models.

The reduction in length between ENERFRAC-I and -2 results The net pressures for the 2D models follow a similar pattern to
from increased tip overpressure. Likewise, the reduction in length length, with the GDK models giving low pressures and the PKN
between MEYER-l and -2 is caused by options included in models providing high net pressures (see Fig. 2). GOHFER is differ-
MEYER-2 that reflect the designers' incorporation of more com- ent in that it predicts short lengths, like the GDK models, but high
plex physics into the fracturing process. pressures, like the PKN models.
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994 13
 5-LAYER MODELS: n', K'
700
----e-SAH
----NSI
---e--RES
600
---+-MARATHON
--+-ARCO(STIM)
~ARCO(TERR)
-----E- MEYER-1
-
,,-....
.....
'-"
f-
500
______ MEYER- 2
---+-ADVANI
_______ TEXACO(FP)
:r: 400
0 _______ TEX-FPNOTP
w
:r:
300

200

100~__._--~---r---.----r---.---~--~
o
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
TIME (min)

Fig. 13-Height vs. time-five-Iayer models.

Three-Layer Results. The three-layer results (Table 4) show con- running FRACPRO show that consistent results can be obtained
siderably more variability than results from the 2D cases. In Fig. from a given model even if run by different organizations.
3, the fracture half-length varies from < 1,000 ft for FRACPRO The fracture height comparison in Fig. 4 shows that much great-
to >3,000 ft for the conventional pseudo-3D models. The differ- er height growth is obtained by FRACPRO than by other models.
ences between MEYER -1 and -2 again show that the options avail- Net pressures (Fig. 5) are particularly high in FRACPRO and GOH-
able to the analyst can significantly affect results. Many such options FER. Efficiencies vary from 40% to >95%, as given in Table 4.
have probably been used in the other models but were not identi- Also of interest are the length, height, and pressure development
fied for this comparison. with time, as Figs. 6 through 8 show for the case with non-
The favorable comparison between Arco and NSI running Stim- Newtonian rheology. Height growth is extremely fast in FRAC-
plan and a similar favorable comparison between Texaco and RES PRO but much better contained in most other models.

5- LAYER MODELS: n' , K'

1600~--------------------------------~

----e-SAH
----NSI
1400
I~~:::::!~~~~::::::===::===+---e--RES
~ ---+-MARATHON
,,-.... 1200 --+-ARCO(STIM)
(f) ~'----=" ~ARCO(TERR)
0..
'-"
1000 ,;::::===~;:;::::;!::=:t====:e::-::t=l-----E- MEYER-1
w
a::
::>
~*-~~~~~~~~$:i:2::=~ ------
~ MEYER-2
---+-ADVANI
_______ TEXACO(FP)
(/) 800
(/)
w ,,",-_~----:l~-t _______ TEX - FPNOTP
a::
0... 600
f-
W
Z
400

200

O__--~--~---r--~----r---._--._--~
o 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
TIME (min)

Fig. 14-Pressure vs. time-five-Iayer models.

14 SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994

 Five-Layer Results. The five-layer results (Table 5) are similar Model A fracture length is greater than Model B fracture length)
to the three-layer comparison, except that fractures in some models are given. It would take a committee with greater powers than this
are shorter because the height breaks through the lower barrier. one has to truly know how the fracture is evolving in the subsur-
Fig. 9 shows the half-lengths; Fig. 10 shows the fracture heights. face and thus to decide which model is better.
Net pressures range from'" 700 to '" 1,400 psi (Fig. 11). Efficien-
cies range from about 60 % to 97 %. Acknowledgments
Fig. 12 shows fracture lengths as a function of time. The length We thank the GRI for its support of this modeling endeavor. We
development in this case is not uniform because height breakthrough also thank our respective companies for allowing us to perform this
into the lower barrier limits growth in some models. The height comparison. The modelers who participated in the forum and pre-
growth is shown in Fig. 13 and the net pressure in Fig. 14. By pared data for this paper also deserve special thanks for their ef-
comparing these results with the three-layer results of Figs. 6 forts. Most importantly, Steve Holditch of S.A. Holditch & Assocs.
through 8, we can see the effect of breakthrough into the lower Inc. should be singled out for special mention as the prime mover
low-stress region. of the forum and this follow-up paper. He is not an author because
his firm submitted a model, but this study would never have hap-
Discussion and Conclusions pened without his efforts. Thanks also go to Bill Whitehead of S.A.
The completion engineer now has a wide array of hydraulic models Holditch & Assocs. for his work in the forum and in data gathering.
available for both design and analysis of hydraulic fracture treat-
ments. However, these models calculate widely different fracture References
geometries for the same input parameters, and choosing a model 1. Holditch, S.A. et al.: "The GRI Staged Field Experiment," SPEFE
that meets the engineer's needs becomes important. We hope that (Sept. 1988) 519.
this comparison study provides sufficient information to make a 2. Robinson, B.M., Holditch, S.A., and Peterson, R.E.: "The GRI's Sec-
studied choice. ond Staged Field Experiment: A Study of Hydraulic Fracturing," paper
Some models clearly predict results that are significantly differ- SPE 21495 presented at the 1991 SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Houston, Jan. 22-24.
ent from the majority. Considering the five-layer cases shown in
3. Robinson, B.M. et al.: "Hydraulic Fracturing Research in East Texas:
Figs. 9 through II, FRACPRO calculates very short fractures, high Third GRI Staged Field Experiment," JPT (Jan. 1992) 78.
net pressures, and large heights. GOHFER also predicts short frac- 4. Saunders, B.F. et al.: "Hydraulic Fracturing Research in the Frontier
tures and high net pressures, but the height growth is not as se- Formation through the GRI's Fourth Staged Field Experiment, " paper
vere. TRIFRAC, STIMPLAN, TERRAFRAC, and MFRAC-II are SPE 24854 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference
all in general agreement, with longer fractures, less height, and and Exhibition, WashingtoI), Oct. 4-7.
somewhat lower net pressures. Advani's model is midway between 5. Northrop, D.A. and Frohne, K-H.: "The Multiwell Experiment-A
the two end cases. Field Laboratory in Tight-Gas Sandstone Reservoirs," JPT(June 1990)
MFRAC-II (in 2D, three-layer, and five-layer cases), ENER- 772.
6. Cramer, D.D.: "The Unique Aspects of Fracturing Western U.S. Coal
FRAC (in 2D cases), and Texaco's FRACPRO cases (five-layer)
Beds," JPT (Oct. 1992) 1126; Trans., AIME, 293.
were run in two different modes and thus provide a useful assess- 7. Martins, P.J. et ai. : "Deviated Well Fracturing and Proppant Produc-
ment of the importance of the options available to the fracture tion Control in the Prudhoe Bay Field," paper SPE 24858 presented
designer. In the original formulation of this study, the modelers at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washing-
were asked to run their models in both a base mode (no options) ton, Oct. 4-7.
and then with a best-option mode-i.e., a mode that reflected their 8. Monus, F.L. et al.: "Fracturing Unconsolidated Sand Formations Off-
expectations of the options needed to provide the closest simula- shore Gulf of Mexico," paper SPE 24844 presented at the 1992 SPE
tion of true fracture behavior. Such options may have included tip Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, Oct. 4-7.
effects, higher frictional pressure drops in the fracture, multiple 9. Owens, K.A., Andersen, S.A., and Economides, M.J.: "Fracturing
Pressures for Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 24822 presented at the
fracture strands, or enhanced toughness. 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
In the three cases mentioned above, the modelers provided such Oct. 4-7.
a comparison, and these results can be used to estimate how sig- 10. Meehan, D.N.: "Stimulation Results in the Giddings (Austin Chalk)
nificantly the engineer can modify the fracture design by incorporat- Field," paper SPE 24783 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical
ing his or her estimate of the best physics possible for a given Conference and Exhibition, Washington, Oct. 4-7.
reservoir. Presumably, such an estimate would be guided by expe- 11. Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, J.L. Gidley et al. (eds.),
rience with the reservoir. For the five-layer case with non- Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (June 1989) 12.
Newtonian viscosity, best-physics results for fracture length differed 12. Clifton, R.J. and Abou-Sayed, A.S.: "On the Computation of the Three-
Dimensional Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures," paper SPE 7943
by about 22 % for MFRAC-II and 57 % for FRACPRO run by Tex-
presented at the 1979 SPEfDOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoir Sym-
aco. For the 2D case with non-Newtonian rheology, ENERFRAC posium, Denver, May 20-22.
results differed by about 7 %. Because many models have such op- 13. Clifton, R.J. and Abou-Sayed, A.S.: "A Variational Approach to the
tions, these results should be a useful guideline for estimating the Prediction of the Three-Dimensional Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures,"
differences in model designs that can be obtained. paper SPE 9879 presented at the 1981 SPEfDOE Low Permeability
The 2D models, both PKN and GDK, generally provide self- Reservoir Symposium, Denver, May 27-29.
consistent results (Figs. I and 2), and the differences between these 14. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J.J.: "Multiple Fluids, Proppant Transport,
types of models are discussed elsewhere. 11 ,37 Chevron's 2D and Thermal Effects in Three-Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Frac-
model, however, yields considerably shorter lengths than the other turing," paper SPE 18198 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5.
PKN and GDK models. GOHFER is also of note because it yields 15. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J.J.: "Modeling of Poroelastic Effects in Hy-
a length typical of the GDK models with the net pressure typical draulic Fracturing," paper SPE 21871 presented at the 1991 SPE Rocky
of the PKN models. Other differences in these 2D models are minor. Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver,
This particular case was chosen because it was a realistic field April 15-17.
situation for which detailed data were available. The committee and 16. Clifton, R.J. and Wang, J.J.: "Adaptive Optimal Mesh Generator for
modelers recognize that other formations, with different stress and Hydraulic Fracturing Modeling," Proc., 32nd U.S. Rock Mechanics
lithology data, may provide a considerably different comparison. Symposium (1991).
Good examples would be cases with either minimal or extremely 17. Advani, S.H., Lee, T.S., and Lee, J.K.: "Three-Dimensional Model-
ing of Hydraulic Fractures in Layered Media: Part I-Finite Element
large stress contrasts. It would be beneficial if future model com-
Formulations," ASME J. Energy Res. Tech. (1990) 112, 1-9.
parisons investigated those cases as well. 18. Barree, R. D.: "A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three Dimensional
Finally, in assembling this comparison, we have purposely at- Fracture Propagation in Heterogeneous Media," paper SPE 12273
tempted to avoid making any value comparisons between the vari- presented at the 1983 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Fran-
ous models. Only the results and quantifiable comparisons (e.g., cisco, Nov. 15-18.

SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994 IS

 26. Meyer, B.R.: "Design Formulae for Two- and Three-Dimensional Ver-
Authors tical Hydraulic Fractures: Model Comparison and Parametric Studies,"
paper SPE 15240 presented at the 1986 SPE Unconventional Gas Tech-
nology Symposium, Louisville, May 18-21.
27. Meyer, B.R.: "Three-Dimensional Hydraulic-Fracturing Simulation on
Personal Computers: Theory and Comparison Studies," paper SPE
19329 presented at the 1989 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgan-
town, Oct. 24-27.
28. Meyer, B.R., Cooper, G.D., and Nelson, S.G.: "Real-Time 3D Hy-
draulic Fracturing Simulation: Theory and Field Case Studies," paper
SPE 20658 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
29. Hagel, M. and Meyer, B.: "Utilizing Mini-Frac Data To Improve De-
sign and Production," paper CIM 92-40 presented at the 1992 Annual
Warpinski Moschovidis Parker Technical Conference of the Petroleum Soc. of CIM, Calgary, June.
30. Kristianovic, S.A. and Zheltov, Y.P.: "Formation of Vertical Frac-
Norm Warplnskl is a distinguished member of the techni- tures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid," Proc., Fourth World Pet.
cal staff at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, Cong., Rome (1955) II, 579-86.
where he specializes in fluid and rock mechanics with in- 31. Perkins, T .K. and Kern, L.R.: "Widths of Hydraulic Fractures," 1PT
terests in hydraulic fracturing, in-situ stresses, geomechan- (Sept. 1961) 937; Trans .. , AIME, 222.
ics, and natural fracture systems. He holds a PhD degree in 32. Geertsma, J. and deKlerk, F.: "A Rapid Method of Predicting Width
mechanical engineering from the U. of Illinois and has been and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures," 1PT (Dec. 1969) 1571;
with Sandia since 1977. Warpinski was a 1990-92 Review Trans., AIME, 246.
Chairman for JPT and was a member of the Editorial Review 33. Nordgren, R.P.: "Propagation of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures," SPEJ,
Committee. Zlssls Moschovidis is currently a research as- (Aug. 1972) 306; Trans., AIME, 253.
sociate at the Amoco Research Center in Tulsa. A member 34. Daneshy, A.A.: "On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures," 1PT
of the Wellbore Stability Team, he works primarily in well bore (Jan. 1973) 83; Trans., AIME, 255.
stability, cuttings injections, hydraulic fracture propagation, 35. Daneshy, A.A.: "Numerical Solution of Sand Transport in Hydraulic
modeling, and rock mechanics. Moschovidis received a diplo- Fracturing," 1PT (Jan. 1978) 132.
ma in civil engineering from the Natl. Technical U. of Athens, 36. Poulsen, D.K. and Lee, W.S.: "Fracture Design With Time- and
Greece, an MS degree in structural engineering from the Im- Temperature-Dependent Fluid Properties," paper SPE 12483 present-
perial C. of Science and Technology in London, and a PhD ed at the 1984 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium, Bakers-
degree in engineering mechanics from Northwestern U. in field, Feb. 13-14.
Evanston, 1L. Cecil D. Parker is a senior staff engineer for 37. Geertsma, J. and Haafkens, R.: "A Comparison of the Theories for
Conoco in the Well Completions Group in Houston. He has Predicting Width and Extent of Vertical Hydraulically Induced Frac-
spent 25 years designing and executing stimulation treat- tures," ASME 1. Energy Res. Tech. (March 1979) 101, 8.
ments worldwide, including the North Sea, Middle East, and 38. McLeeod, H.O.: "A Simplified Approach to Design of Fracturing Treat-
North America. He holds a degree in chemistry/biology from ments Using High-Viscosity Cross-Linked Fluids," paper SPE 11614
Abilene Christian U., Abilene, TX. Photograph and biograph- presented at the 1983 SPE Low Permeability Symposium, Denver,
ical sketch of 1.5. Abou-Sayed are unavailable. March 14-16.
39. Crawford, H.R.: "Proppant Scheduling and Calculation of Fluid Lost
During Fracturing," paper SPE 12064 presented at the 1983 SPE An-
19. Barree, R.D.: "A New Look at Fracture-Tip Screenout Behavior," nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, Sept. 5-8.
1PT (Feb. 1991) 138; Trans., AIME, 291. 40. "Staged Field Experiment No.3," GRI-9110048, GRI final report,
20. Shlyapobersky, J.: "Energy Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing," Proc., Chicago, IL (Feb. 1991).
26th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City (June 1985). 41. Warpinski, N.R.: "Hydraulic Fracture Model Comparison Study: Com-
21. Shlyapobersky, J., Wong, G.K., and Walhaug, W.W.: "Overpressure plete Results," GRI-93/0109, GRI topical report , Chicago, IL (Feb.
Calibrated Design of Hydraulic Fracture Simulations, " paper SPE 18194 1993) 163.
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Houston, Oct. 2-5. 51 Metric Conversion Factors
22. Cleary, M.P.: "Analysis of the Mechanisms and Procedures for Produc-
ing Favorable Shapes of Hydraulic Fracturing," paper SPE 9260 present- bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3
ed at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, ep x 1.0* E+OO mPa's
Sept. ft x 3.048* E-01 m
23. Cleary, M.P.: "Comprehensive Design Formulae for Hydraulic Frac- OF (OF-32)/1.8 C
turing," paper SPE 9259 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical gal X 3.785412 E-03 m3
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24. in. x 2.54* E+OO em
24. Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A., and Wright, T.B.: "Experimental and
Ibm x 4.535924 E-01 kg
Modeling Evidence for Major Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing De-
sign and Field Procedures," paper SPE 21494 presented at the 1991 psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
SPE Gas Technical Symposium, Houston, Jan. 22-24. Conversion factor is exact. SPEPF
25. Cleary, M.P. and Fonseca, A.: "Proppant Convection and Encapsu-
Original SPE manuscript received for review April 26, 1993. Revised manuscript received
lation in Hydraulic Fracturing: Practical Implications of Computer Lab- Nov. 17, 1993. Paper accepted for publication Nov. 16, 1993. Paper (SPE 25890) first
oratory Simulations," paper SPE 24825 presented at the 1992 SPE presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Sym
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, Oct. 4-7. posium held in Denver, April 12-14.

16 SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994

Discussion of Comparison Study of Hydraulic
Fracturing Models-Test Case: GRI Staged Field
Experiment No. 3
Michael P. Cleary, SPE, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology

Warpinski et al. deserve commendation for selflessly undertaking cal consistency of our models, but they also served to eliminate
the task of compiling their paper and maintaining an independent some specUlative models. For instance, the protuberant shapes calcu-
approach to the process, which was initiated and supported by the lated by the pseudo-3D Hydrafrac (P3DH) models, which Ioriginal-
GRI to assist them (and others) in evaluating the relative perform- ly proposed as a tentative simplistic approach, 1 were shown to be
ance of various "models" -e.g., in making decisions for their future completely wrong, even under ideal circumstances where all the as-
funding choices. Because I was at least partly responsible for one sociated physical assumptions should have been justified (if ever).
or more of their nominations to this relatively thankless effort, I Although we then (1984) publicly disavowed these models and re-
hope that they will bear with me now as I make some comments. fused to publish associated papers (including Refs. I and 2) injour-
I will try to be dispassionate in my comments, but it should be clearly nals, as a result perhaps achieving pariah status (successfully
understood by readers that I do have a vested interest in one of the achieved later with other publications), many companies continued
modeling approaches (contained in the FRACPRO system). to use them and some still even sell them commercially. At least
My comments may be divided into three categories: (1) the limited three of the models compared in the subject paper (and one other
comparisons offered by the material in the paper alone; (2) the issues commercial model, not included) are of this kind and are demon-
of matching data from related field operations; (3) the relevance/im- strably wrong at the most basic level. (This is not often made so
pact for overall hydraulic fracturing technology. I will treat these obvious: they generally avoid publicly displaying their seductively
somewhat individually, and with limited space, I will try to make long protuberances along the pay zone and/or the associated net
simply some important points. pressure behavior).
What is more often ignored (and even omitted in Warpinski et
1. Limited Comparison of Models in Paper al. 's paper, despite extensive data, 10) is the behavior of the true
The approach here was based on an "established" (SPE) approach net fracturing pressure, which can be measured on every job, with
of defining a limited "test problem" and comparing the predictions different injection volumes and different fluids. 11-20 We have in-
of the various models. This was deemed especially necessary (e.g., deed found field measurements to show dramatically different
by GRI) because there had been such an extraordinary proliferation response (vs. laboratory behavior and also vs. all conventional
of "models" for hydraulic fracturing during the 1980's, most of models like those in the subject paper). We also have identified
them claiming some kind of "3D" capability. I feel partly (perhaps the major probable causative reasons, establishing the credibility
especially) responsible for this because I "opened Pandora's box" of the resulting models by matching very many data sets for many
with my 1980 papers, 1-4 in which I ruminated/formulated different complex and variable reservoir environments. We have done this
approaches, including most relevant modeling methods. without resorting to "knobs" like fracture-fluid rheology or even
Although I understand all the obvious reasons for this comparison without very questionable manipulation of stress. In fact, we have
exercise-apart from common observations that some models might established such credibility, beyond subjective evaluation, by pre-
not even satisfy basic requirements (like mass conservation)-I had dicting the results of fracture treatments and successfully executing
to invent for myself some analogy/metaphor for the process. I guess the jobs without screenouts and with excellent matching of pressure
I stayed as professor a little too long and have gotten the habit of predictions, as recently reported by numerous users at the first GRI
teaching my students in metaphors/parables. The most immediate Real-Time Conference (Houston, Oct. 1993).14-20
comparison that popped into my head was the gizmo/robot test: We did not even insist on the application of the latter stringent
we run design competitions at the Massachusetts Inst. of Technology condition (i.e., prediction) to the evaluation process now reported
(MIT) (which you may see on public TV every year, including inter- in the subject paper. Although such a blind experiment would truly
national competing teams) in which the objective is to perform some have been the proper approach to the overall undertaking, we had
simple function-e.g., he/she who collects the most ping-pong balls already correctly predicted the response to the job in question (GRI
wins. Such a simple, well-defined test allows us to eliminate the SFE No.3, Ref. 10), and our work on this was already provided
most obvious failures (e.g., machines that do not work) and even or available to the other modeling participants (along with all of
to declare a clear winner, in most cases. the postjob data) before the "contest" was held. However, matching
The objective of Warpinski et at.'s paper was, obviously, not ofthis available data was not required of the participants, so many
to declare such a winner (although I would have welcomed such of the models' calculations did not (even with such hindsight) match
an objective, as discussed in Points 2 and 3). But could it have been the net pressure data (e.g., Figs. 9 and 15 of Warpinski et al. 's
possible to eliminate the obvious failures? The answer is yes (e.g., paper). This explains many of the major differences between models.
see Point 2), but not when based on the "rules of engagement," There are even two different results by two FRACPRO users: RES
which merely report the model calculations for the specified input used the physically realistic default model in FRACPRO, while Tex-
parameters. The readers must decide for themselves which model(s) aco presumably used one of the many conventional model options,
they believe. This situation generates my only major objection to which are actually provided in FRACPRO to clearly demonstrate
the phraseology: because of the artificial test environment, the paper that such models do not match the pressure data.
does not "provide the completions engineer with a practical com- At risk of (being libelled for) excessively belittling expensive soft-
parison of the available models," because no way is provided for ware sold by certain vendors, I may point out that the general story
engineers to judge the results in any way, unless they resort to the of most models in the paper may be summarized in a simple equation
kind of divine inspiration (translate: personal predisposition, or what for fracture-wing length, L, and half-height, h:
they have been telling their company for years), which still seems U+ 1h 2 - 1 =gEVI/(PI-uc ), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-la)
all too pervasive in this industry. So the general question arises: where VI = volume of fluid remaining in the fracture (efficiency,
how should the engineer decide on a model choice? e X volume pumped, V), E = Young's modulus, PI = fracture pres-
sure (e.g., determined carefully from instantaneous shut-in pres-
2. Matching Data From Related Field Operations sure), uc=closure stress, and g (of order 0.25)="garbage
The best way to check these models would be to compare their pre- collector" (which depends on fracture geometry, with ridiculuously
dictions with definitive physical observations. We began this process high values for aforementioned protuberances). The variable 1 al-
about 15 years ago, starting in the laboratory at MIT5-9 and con- lows for variable fracture geometries (/=0 for L>h and/or PKN-
tinuing with extensive field work over the past 10 years. 10-20 The type geometries, 1= I for L<h and/or GDK-type geometries, and
laboratory tests served mainly to check the physical and mathemati- 1=2 for circles).
SPE Production & Facilities. February 1994 17
 This equation is simpler when reduced to oilfield units: modeling and capability claims have been exposed (and discarded)
l+ l h 100
2 - 1 2V because of continuous failure in the field, and most companies are
L 100 == e 100 E 106 / PlOO'
net .................. (D-Ib)
now turning to real technology. It may be hoped that Warpinski
in which L lOO and hloo=length and height in l00-ft units and et al. 's paper might serve to accelerate rather than retard that
V lOO =pumped volume in l00-bbl units (while PI?:} =net pressure process.
in units of 100 psi and E I06 =Young's modulus in units of 10 6 psi). References
To achieve ultimate simplicity, we can plug in actual data from
SFE No.3 (in round terms: Plog ==16; E I06 ==6; V loo ==I(0) to 1. Cleary, M.P.: "Comprehensive Design Fonnulae for Hydraulic Fractur-
ing," paper SPE 9259 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical
get a very approximate mnemonic result:
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.
2Llooh l00 2 == 100 ............................... (D-lc) 2. Cleary, M.P.: "Analysis of Mechanisms and Procedure for Producing
Favorable Shapes of Hydraulic Fractures, " paper SPE 9260 presented at
Clearly, variation of p net (which in turn, along with artificial the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
stress profiles, should greatly affect h in all the models in Warpinski Sept. 21-24.
et al.'s paper) will affect the resulting length. For example, Figs. 3. Cleary, M.P., Keck, R., andMear, M.: "Microcomputer Models for the
9 and 15 show that FRACPRO and the only other considered 3D Design of Hydraulic Fractures," paper SPE 11628 presented at the 1983
SPE Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs.
model (Marathon) calculate higher net pressures (closer to the ex- 4. Cleary, M.P., Kavvadas, M., and Lam, K.Y.: "Development ofa Fully
cellent agreement achieved with actual data), greater fracture Three-Dimensional Simulator for Analysis and Design of Hydraulic
heights, and therefore shorter fracture lengths. Fracturing," paper SPE 11631 presented at the 1983 SPE Symposium
Ironically, despite the incredulous reaction to our early work, on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, March.
matching of production data shows even shorter fracture lengths, 5. Cleary, M.P.: "Theoretical and Laboratory Simulation of Underground
(e.g., Ref. 10, which typifies the reality of postfracture production Fracturing Operations," MIT UFRAC Annual Reports, Cambridge,
Sept. 1981-87.,
matching on many jobs in low-permeability reservoirs). This reality
6. Crockett, A.R., Okusu, N.M., and Cleary, M.P.: "A Complete Inte-
is finally dawning on some in the industry. The "ballpark" ex- grated Model for Design and Real-Time Analysis of Hydraulic Fractur-
pressed in Eq. D-lc may be optimistic, even with nonoptimistic ing Operations," paper SPE 15069 presented at the 1986 SPE California
geometry. For instance, Llh == 3 - L - 800 ft should produce greater Regional Meeting, Oakland, April.
production than actually observed, if proppant was placed effectively 7. Cleary, M.P., Barr, D.T., and Willis, R.M.: "Enhancement of Real-
opposite pay zones. 13 The latter comment represents the crux of Time Hydraulic Fracturing Models With Full 3D Simulation," paper
the whole matter: all the models calculate fracture lengths that are SPE 17713 presented at the 1988 SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Dallas, June 13-15.
excessively optimistic in terms of the actual production, unless
8. Cleary, M.P.: "The Engineering of Hydraulic Fractures-State of the
ridiculous games are played with kh, damage, etc. , and a more Art and Technology," JPT (Jan. 1988) 13.
realistic estimate of actual production could have been obtained with 9. Johnson, D.E. and Cleary, M.P.: "Implications of Recent Laboratory
the simplest possible assumptions: L==h-L-400 ft. Experimental Results for Hydraulic Fractures," paper SPE 21846 .
Indeed, this comment applies more generally to most jobs pumped presented at the 1991 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Per-
in this industry: if all treatments were just able to achieve an effec- meability Symposium, Denver, April.
tively circular fracture with the proppant placed effectively (Ref. 10. Gas Research Institute Staged Field Experiments (SFE) I through 4;
13), the overall average production throughout the industry would No.3 finally published as Report No. GRI-9110048, Feb. 1991.
11. Wright, T.B., Johnson, D.E., and Cleary, M.P.: "Real-Data/On-Site
probably be much better and overall job costs would generally be Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing and Procedures for Design Optimi-
substantially reduced. zation," paper presented at the IntI. Gas Research Conference, Orlando,
FL, Nov. 1992.
3. Relevance to Overall Hydraulic 12. Cleary, M.P., Wright, C.A., and Wright, T.B.: "Experimental and
Fracturing Technology Modeling Evidence for Major Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing De-
Practically speaking, what matters to the completions engineer is sign and Field Procedures," paper SPE 21494 presented at the 1991
how he/she can reduce cost and make better wells. Any effort that SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Houston.
claims to be a (supporting) technology must contribute to one or 13. Cleary, M.P. and Fonseca, A. Jr.: "Proppant Convection and Encapsu-
lation in Hydraulic Fracturing: Practical Implications of Computer and
both of these goals. Our efforts, over the past 5 years at least, have
Laboratory Simulations," paper SPE 24825 presented at the 1992 SPE
demonstrated that dramatic cost reductions and greatly improved Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7
production (beyond conventionally designed jobs) can be achieved 14. Cipolla, c.L., Meehan, D.N., and Stevens, P.L.: "Hydraulic Frac-
confidently only with the use of appropriate real-time technology. ture Perfonnance in the Moxa Arch Frontier Formation," paper SPE
An intrinsic part of such a system is a reliable general physical model 25918 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meetingl
that allows accurate predictions, rapid on-site evaluation, and desigp. Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, April 26-28.
or redesign and execution of the most effective fracturing treatments. IS. Martinez, A.D., Wright, C.A., and Wright, T.B.: "Field Application
Such a capability provides a reliable, cost-effective, and credible of Real-Time Hydraulic Fracturing Analysis," paper SPE 25916 present-
approach that may be contrasted with costly and misleading efforts ed at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Penneability
Reservoirs Symopsium, Denver, April 26-28.
commonly used to justify continued inappropriate procedures. Ex- 16. Wright, T.B. et al. : "Identification and Comparison of True Net Frac-
treme examples are the use of fracture-height logs (e.g., sonic, tem- turing Pressures Generated by Pumping Fluids With Different Rheology
perature, and/or tracer), which we need not even condemn for the Into the Same Formations," paper SPE 26153 presented at the 1993
thoughtful reader. Neither need we explain limitations of shallow SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, June 28-30.
(e.g., "big dig") or near-wellbore observations. 17. Johnson, D.E. etal.: "On-Site Real-Time Analysis Allows Optimal
What we do need to point out is that the kind of data-isolationist Propped Fracture Stimulation of a Complex Gas Reservoir," paper SPE
modeling represented by the subject paper has been used by vested 25414 presented at the 1993 SPE Production Operations Symposium,
interests to mislead the industry for many years. This process con- Oklahoma City, March.
tinues at some companies. Rather than going out on each individual 18. Johnson, D.E. et al.: "Real-Data On-Site Analysis of Hydraulic Fractur-
ing Generates Optimum Procedures for Job Design and Execution," paper
job, finding out what is happening (with instant analysis and feed- SPE 25920 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meet-
back in real time), and pumping the appropriate job, some personnel ing/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, April 26-28.
still insist on rendering a grave financial disservice to their company 19. Cleary, M.P. et al.: "Field Implementation of Proppant Slugs To Avoid
by using such models or surveys as a crutch to support their own pre- Premature Screenout of Hydraulic Fractures With Adequate Proppant
dispositions (e.g., about fracture dimensions). Such "blind-man's Concentration," paper SPE 25892 presented at the 1993 SPE Rocky
bluff" (BMB) hurts all of us, including its practitioners, as careful Mountain Regional Meeting/Low Penneability Reservoirs Symposium,
evaluation on the long term shows; it renders vast resources uneco- Denver, April 26-28.
nomical, with associated negative effects on the U.S. reserve base. 20. Cleary, M.P. et al.: "Critical Issues in Hydraulic Fracturing of High Per-
meability Reservoirs," paper SPE 27618 to be presented at the 1994 SPE
However, I am happy to report that the tide has turned: sensible
European Production Operations Conference, Aberdeen, March 15-17.
practical field-oriented personnel at many companies have grown
tired of BMB and have demanded and obtained change. Spurious (SPE 28158) SPEPF
18 SPE Production & Facilities, February 1994