A New Interpretation Model for

Fracture-Calibration Treatments
Yong Fan, SPE, Texaco E&P Technology Div.

Summary

This paper introduces an interpretation model for fracture-calibration tests conducted in both low- and high-permeability reservoirs.
The model is based on a detailed description of fluid flow into the
porous medium with considerations of variable filtercake, nonNewtonian invasion effects, and superposition of fracture pressure.
The leakoff rate is determined by the pressure profile instead of
presumption of leakoff mode. This work, incorporating mass balance with principles of fluid and solid mechanics, provides a
straight-line technique for determining formation permeability and
fracture filtercake resistance. The determined pressure drops from
the fracture face into the reservoir allow the separate computation
of the compressibility-controlled component of leakoff and the
combined filtercake and non-Newtonian invasion components.
Leakoff is pressure-dependent.
Case studies of actual treatments are provided to demonstrate the
new model and its interpretation. Comparisons are made to elucidate the similarities and differences between the traditional method
and the new method. The new method accounts for fluid leakoff
more accurately, allows for better fracturing design, and is particularly attractive for the tip screenout fracturing (frac-pack) treatments conducted in medium-to-high permeability formations.
Introduction

Fracture-calibration treatment, also known as minifracture test, is

small-scale fracturing that is conducted in the target zone with the
same fluid to be used in the subsequent main treatment. The test is
aimed at interpreting fracture geometry and determining design
parameters by means of fracturing-pressure analysis. Since its
inception, the fracture calibration treatment has become an effective tool and routine practice for evaluating and improving treatment design, particularly before the massive fracturing treatment is
implemented.
Although the potential importance of the fracture pressure and its
interaction with the formation stress was recognized early,1 the
systematic study of fracturing-pressure analysis did not begin until
the late 1970s, when massive hydraulic fracturing in tight gas
formations became common. In 1979, Nolte2 presented a fundamental analysis of fracturing-pressure decline that permitted the
inference of fracture geometry and design parameters. Later, qualitative diagnosis of fracturing behavior during injection, and the use
of pressure analysis for a fracturing design were published by Nolte
and Smith3 and Nolte.4 More comprehensive studies on minifrac
analysis and its applications, generally called Nolte analysis in the
petroleum industry, can be found in Refs. 5 through 8. A detailed
review on this subject was presented in two textbooks.9,10
The pressure-decline analysis presented by Nolte uses Carters
leakoff model11 with assumptions of constant fracture width and
pressure. The leakoff rate was presumed to be inversely proportional to the square root of time, with a proportionality constant
called the fluid-leakoff coefficient. The original Nolte analysis
employs type-curve matching to determine the leakoff coefficient.
Castillo modified Noltes plot by introducing the G function, which
makes the pressure decline vs. G function a straight line.12 The
minus slope of this straight line, equivalent to the match pressure
in Nolte analysis, is proportional to the fluid leakoff coefficient.

Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Original SPE manuscript received for review 28 March 1997. Revised manuscript
received 24 November 1997. Paper peer approved 2 December 1997. Paper (SPE
37401) first presented at the 1997 SPE Production Operations Symposium held in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 911 March.

108

The concept of leakoff coefficient has been widely used in

predicting fluid loss and optimizing treatment design. However, the
leakoff coefficient determined by traditional analysis suffers from
two distinct and important weaknesses. First, it does not discriminate among controlling mechanisms of fluid loss and the nature of
their inherent deviations from ideality. Second, the leakoff coefficient is assigned to the entire (or part of the) fracture treatment,
implicitly assuming that this is relatively constant for the reservoir
conditions and treatment fluids in use.13 Recent studies have indicated that pressure decline analyses using Carters leakoff did not
perform as well as expected in a number of cases because of the
unrealistic assumptions used.14 17 For instance, when this analysis
is applied to the pressure-dependent leakoff case, the fluid efficiency is overpredicted, suggesting inadequate pad-volume and
pump-rate requirements. A design with inadequate pad volume
often causes proppant dehydration and premature screenout.
Perhaps the greatest challenge to traditional minifracture analysis
has been the emergence of frac-pack technology.18,19 This stimulation technique greatly extends the traditional permeability ranges
of fracture candidates. Oil wells with permeabilities up to 1,000 md
have been treated.20 Gas wells with moderate permeabilities have
also been effectively frac-packed.21 In such cases, Carters leakoff
model fails to capture the transient behavior of non-Newtonian fluid
invasion into porous media indicated by the properties of the
fracturing fluids and reservoir formations.22,23
Mayerhofer et al.13 first presented pressure transient analysis of
fracture-calibration tests that attempted to determine formation
permeability and fracture filter-cake resistance for tight reservoirs.
Their approach used a constant-rate solution of an infinite-conductivity well introduced by Gringarten et al.24 to account for the
fluid leakoff behavior. The results obtained by use of the constantrate solution cannot match fracturing-pressure declines with
field experience.
This paper presents a new interpretation model by incorporating
mass balance with principles of fluid and solid mechanics for
determining formation permeability, fracture filter-cake resistance,
and pressure-dependent leakoff coefficient from fracturing-pressure decline. In this study, the leakoff rate is determined by the
pressure profile with considerations of variable filter-cake, nonNewtonian invasion effects, and superposition of fracture pressure.
The model can be used to interpret the minifrac test data collected
in tight-gas reservoirs, low-permeability oil reservoirs, and fracpack candidates of medium to high permeability formations.
Characterization of Fluid Leakoff Rate

Fracturing fluid leakoff includes mechanisms of filter-cake effect,

filtrate invasion, and reservoir flow. During leakoff, polymer units
and additives in a fracturing fluid can either deposit on the fracture
face and form an external cake, or penetrate into the porous
formation for a few inches and form an internal cake. Outside the
invasion zone, the transient flow of reservoir fluid can extend for
a significant distance into the formation. Obviously, the leakoff rate
is dependent on the pressure gradient between the fracture face and
the reservoir, and on properties of the fracturing fluid and the
formation rock. For an arbitrary timestep, n, during the fracture
closing, the driving force of fluid leakoff between the fracture face
and reservoir can be written as
pf, n 2 pi 5 ~ pf, n 2 pw, n ! 1 ~ pw, n 2 pi !,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

where p f 5 fracture pressure, p i 5 initial reservoir pressure, and

p w 5 pressure within the reservoir at the interface of the fracture
fluid and the formation fluid. According to the theory of porous
SPE Journal, June 1998

medium flow, the pressure profile from the invasion interface to the
reservoir, with consideration of pressure superposition, is given by23

~ pw, j 2 pw, j21 !erf~jj21 !,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)

j51

where jj21 5

2 a~t 2 tj21 !

k
and a 5
.
fmct

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)

Substituting Eqs. 1 and 5 into Eq. 2 yields

n

~ pf, j 2 pf, j21 !erf~jj21 ! 2 s#@1 2 erf~j0 !#, . . . . . (6)

j51

where p f, 0 5 p i . The leakoff rate is then determined by use Darcys

law,

HO
n

~ pf, j 2 pf, j21 !

j51

s#

t 2 tj21 t

HO
kfct
pm

~ pf, j 2 pf, j21 !

j51

E9 5

E
,
1 2 n2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11c)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)

and b 5 ratio of net pressure between the wellbore and fracture tip.
For the fracture-closure period, b is calculated by Eq. 13. For the
PNK model,

b5

~2n9 1 2!
;
~2n9 1 3 1 a!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13a)

s#

b 5 0.9; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13b)
and for the Radial model,

b 5 3p2 /32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13c)

In Eq. 13, n9 5 flow-behavior index of a power-law fluid and a 5
viscosity degradation correction.
Substituting Eqs. 8 and 10 into Eq. 9 results in

. . . . . . . . . . (7)
dDp
2Af cf
5 Ap
dt

The volumetric leakoff rate is obtained by

qL 5 Ap

pb
~32/3p2 !r,
2E9

cf 5

for the KDG model,

kfct
pm

and for the radial model,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)

s# 5 pf, n 2 pw, n .

un 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11b)

where E9 5 formation plane-strain modulus that can be calculated

using Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio,

Because of the relatively small region and difficulty in distinguishing external cake from the internal, the filter-cake and invasion effects can be characterized by a lumped parameter called
filter-cake resistance, which describes the pressure drops across the
external cake and fracturing-fluid invasion zone,

pn 5 pf, n 2

pb
2x ;
2E9 f

cf 5

pn 5 pw, n 1

for the Khristianovich-Geertsma-de Klerk (KGD) model,

t 2 tj21 t

HO
kfct
pm

~ pf, j 2 pf, j21 !

j51

s#

t 2 tj21 t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
.

. . . . . . . . (8)

Eq. 8 presents a solution that describes the transient flow of

polymer solution through a filter cake and the reservoir. This
approach computes fluid leakoff differently than the previous
leakoff model. In particular, the leakoff rate is determined by the
pressure profile as a function of properties of a fracturing fluid and
reservoir formation and the change in fracture pressures. No constant bulk property, such as the leakoff coefficient, is used. The
results obtained by this method indicate that higher-permeability
formation has larger fluid-leakoff rate and fracture-closes more quickly
than lower-permeability formations when the other conditions are
fixed.

Integration of Eq. 14 from time t n21 to t n yields

Dpn21 2 Dpn 5
where Rp 5

kfct
$U 2 s#~ tn 2 tn21 !%,
pm n

. . . . . . (15)

Ap
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
Af

O
n

and Un 5

2Rp
cf

~ pf, j 2 pf, j21 !~ tn 2 tj21 2 tn21 2 tj21 !.

. . . . (17)

j51

In fact,

O
n

Fracturing-Pressure Decline Analysis

Once the injection stops, the fracture begins to close in, driven by
the fracture net pressure. During the closure period, the rate of
change in fracture volume is equal to the rate of the fracturing fluid
lost to the formation. Therefore, the following relation is satisfied:
dVf
dw
2
5 2Af
5 qL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
dt
dt
The average fracture width is proportional to the fracture net
pressure with a constant (termed a fracture compliance, c f ),
w 5 cf ~ pf 2 pc ! 5 cf Dp, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
where the fracture compliance for the three fracture models is
defined by Eq. 11.9 For the Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PNK) model,
cf 5

pb
h ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11a)
2E9 f

SPE Journal, June 1998

Dp0 2 Dpn 5

Dpn21 2 Dpn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)

n51

Therefore, Eq. 15 can be rewritten as

Dp0 2 Dpn 5

2Rp
cf

HO
kfct
pm

n51

O
n

Un 2 s#

n51

~ tn 2 tn21 ! .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
Because the filter cake is a porous medium, the filter-cake resistance can be determined by use of the properties of fracturing fluid,
formation rock, and leakoff rate,25
s# 5 Rf VL un 5 Rf F,
where F 5 VL u

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)

and R f 5 filter-cake resistance factor, which physically means the

pressure drop across the filter cake contributed by unit of leakoff
109

volume/unit area and leakoff rate raised to the n9th power. V L 5

accumulated fluid leakoff volume/unit area. From the material
balance, the accumulated leakoff volume and leakoff rate can be
computed by
VL 5 cf ~Dp0 2 Dpn ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
Dpn21 2 Dpn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
tn 2 tn21

and u 5 cf

Substituting Eq. 20 into 19 and rearranging results in

Dp0 2 Dpn

F3

n
n51

~ tn 2 tn21 !

H OO
kfct
pm F 3

2Rp
cf

n
n51

n
n51

Un

~ tn 2 tn21 !

2 Rf . . . . . . (24)

Eq. 24 can be simplified as

Yn 5

2Rp
cf

where Yn 5

and Xn 5

kfct
~X 2 Rf !,
pm n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)

Dp0 2 Dpn

O
O
O

F3

n
n51

~ tn 2 tn21 !

n
n51

F3

n
n51

Un

~ tn 2 tn21 !

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27)

It is readily seen from Eq. 25 that plotting Y n vs. X n , known here

as a specialized plot, is a straight line. The slope, m, of this straight
line defines the formation permeability,
k5

pmcf 2 m2
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28)
4Rp 2 fct

while the intercept, b, determines the filter resistance factor,

Rf 5 2

cf b
2Rp

pm
.
kfct

fct k
~ p 2 pi !. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30)
pm w, n

It should be noted that permeability and the leakoff coefficient

are connected but distinct parameters that are used to describe the
fluid transmissibility in porous media. When the pressure-independent leakoff is considered (assumed) in fracturing, the leakoff
coefficient is proportional to a square root of formation permeability. The leakoff coefficient is determined once the permeability
is known, or vice versa. Because leakoff is pressure-dependent in
this study, determination of the fluid loss requires knowledge of
formation permeability, filter-cake resistance factor, and pressure
responses. In other words, no leakoff coefficient is necessary in the
fluid-loss calculation. However, the concept of fluid-leakoff coefficient has been used in fracturing the industry for decades.11 Most
current fracturing simulators still use Carters model in predicting
fluid loss. The leakoff coefficient is a traditionally fundamental
parameter for treatment design and optimization.
Field Case Studies

Three fracturing-pressure declines obtained from actual calibration

treatments are interpreted below using the new model. The analysis
produces formation permeability, filter-cake resistance factor, pressure-dependent leakoff coefficient, and components of pressure
drops from the fracture face to the reservoir.
110

TABLE 1FRACTURE-CALIBRATION TEST: CASE 1

Injection volume of the fracturing fluid, bbl
Pumping time, minutes
Flow behavior index of the fracturing fluid
Total fracture height, ft
Permeable fracture height, ft
Formation porosity
Formation total compressibility, psi21
Reservoir fluid viscosity, cp
Poissons ratio
Pressure ratio between wellbore and fracture tip
Formation plane-strain modulus, psi
Fracture net pressure at shut-in, psi
Reservoir pressure, psi
Fracture closure pressure, psi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (29)

Once the pressure drop in filtercake and reservoir permeability

are determined, the pressure-dependent leakoff coefficient is
readily quantified by Eq. 30,
CL 5

Case 1. This fracture-calibration treatment was conducted in an

oil reservoir. The pressure-decline data for this test were first used
by Nolte and Economides9 to show how to determine the fluidleakoff coefficient and fracture geometry. More information about
the treatment and properties of the formation rock and fluids can be
gained by reviewing their references. The pertinent variables and
pressure decline are presented in Table 1. Using the data in Table
1, a specialized plot of Y n vs. X n is made, as shown in Fig. 1. This
is a straight line with a slope of 1.567 3 1022 and an intercept of
22.959 3 1029. From Eqs. 28 and 29, the computed formation
permeability is 6.38 3 10216 m2 (0.65 md), and the filter-cake
resistance factor is 1.89 3 1011 Pa z s/m11n9. Fig. 2 shows plots of
the driving forces vs. shut-in time, including total pressure difference between the fracture face and the reservoir, and pressure-drop
components in filter cake and the reservoir. It is shown that the total
pressure drop and the reservoir component decrease with time
because the fracture is closing after shut-in and the net pressure
decreases. The pressure drop in filter cake increases with leakoff
because of the accumulation of external and internal deposits.

507.5
35
0.4
70
50
0.1
1.0 3 1025
1.4
0.26
0.74
4.3 3 1026
760
3,000
5,230

Point After
Shut-In

Shut-In Time
(minutes)

Pressure
Decline
(psi)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

0.0
0.9
3.7
6.5
9.2
12.0
13.8
15.7
17.5
19.4
21.2
23.0
24.9
26.7
28.6
30.4
32.3
34.1
36.0
37.8
39.6
41.5
43.3

5,990
5,963
5,882
5,811
5,748
5,694
5,659
5,626
5,594
5,564
5,534
5,504
5,474
5,447
5,418
5,392
5,364
5,338
5,314
5,291
5,269
5,247
5,228
SPE Journal, June 1998

accounts for fluid leakoff as a function of injection conditions,

pressure behavior, and properties of the formation rock and fluids.

Fig. 1Specialized plot for Field Case 1.

Fig. 2The pressure drops in the total, filter-cake, and reservoir

components for Case 1.

However, as shown in Fig. 2, the pressure drop in filter cake is not,

as many thought before, a dominant pressure component in the total
driving force for fluid leakoff. The presumption of pressure-independent leakoff based on this filter-cake-dominant idea may result
in misinterpretation for fracture-calibration tests. Fig. 3 illustrates
both the pressure-dependent leakoff coefficient determined by the
new method and a constant leakoff coefficient, C L 5 1.3 3 10 23
ft/=min, determined by traditional analysis.9 The new method

Fig. 3Comparison of fluid-leakoff coefficients between the

new method and the traditional method for Case 1.
SPE Journal, June 1998

Case 2. This is a fracture-calibration test performed in a tight-gas

field in Denver basin, where the formation is about 8,200 ft deep
and has a temperature of 265F.6 The pressure decline, related
formation and fluid properties, and treatment parameters were
previously published by Nolte.10 The original pressure decline was
given in terms of surface conditions. In this paper, the pressuredecline curve digitized from Fig. 14.25 in Ref. 10 was transferred
as the bottomhole pressure by adding a hydrostatic pressure difference to the surface pressure, based on the wellbore depth and
fluid density (using an approximation of 0.433 psi/ft). Fig. 4
presents the pressure decline after shut-in until fracture closure.
Table 2 gives treatment data and pertinent reservoir properties. Fig.
5 is the specialized plot for Treatment Case 2. The straight line has
a slope of 3.966 3 1022 and an intercept of 28.515 3 10210, which,
in turn, indicates that the formation permeability is 0.0041 md and
the filter-cake resistance factor is 2.15 3 1012 Pa z sn9/m11n9. The
pressure drops during the fracture-closing period are presented in
Fig. 6 for this case. Similarly, with a decrease in the net pressure,
the total pressure drop and reservoir-component decrease with
shut-in time until complete closure. In Case 2, the filter-cakepressure drop increases slightly because the leakoff rate in tight
reservoirs is very slow. The comparison between pressure-dependent
leakoff coefficient and constant leakoff coefficient, previously determined as CL 5 8.1 3 1024 ft/=min,10 is shown in Fig. 7. Clearly, the
use of constant leakoff coefficient for all or part of the fracturing
treatment fails to describe the fluid-leakoff behavior subject to the
changes in fracture net pressure and reservoir conditions.
Case 3. The fracture-calibration test was conducted in a soft,
poorly consolidated formation. For this well, the measured formation Youngs modulus is about 4.7 3 105 psi. The injection and
flowback tests were performed before pumping a gelled fracturing
fluid, indicating the fracture-closure pressure of 5,426 psi. From the
minifracture test, the instantaneous shut-in pressure is 5,883 psi.
The net fracture pressure at shut-in is 457 psi. Table 3 presents the
fracturing injection parameters and reservoir properties. The pressure decline is shown in Fig. 8. According to the fracture-closure
pressure, the fracture closes completely in 3 minutes and 50 seconds
after pumps stop. For this field treatment, the pressure-decline data
are interpreted and the specialized plot is shown in Fig. 9. The data
fall in a straight line with a slope of 6.60 3 1022 and an intercept
of 24.10 3 1028. Using Eqs. 28 and 29, the formation permeability
is 194.54 md and the filter-cake resistance factor is 6.21 3 109 Pa z
sn9/m11n9. Fig. 10 shows the total pressure drop, filter cake, and
reservoir component vs. shut-in time. Even in such a high permeability formation, the pressure drop in the reservoir is still higher
than that in filter cake. However, because of high leakoff rate and
possible polymer invasion, the pressure drop in filter cake increases

Fig. 4 The fracturing-pressure decline for Case 2.10

111

TABLE 2FRACTURE-CALIBRATION TEST: CASE 2

Injection volume of the fracturing fluid, bbl
Pumping time, minutes
Flow behavior index of the fracturing fluid
Total fracture height, ft
Permeable fracture height, ft
Formation porosity
Formation total compressibility, psi21
Reservoir fluid viscosity, cp
Poissons ratio
Pressure ratio between wellbore and fracture tip
Formation plane-strain modulus, psi
Fracture net pressure at shut-in, psi
Reservoir pressure, psi
Fracture closure pressure, psi

500
100
0.67
60
32
0.06
3.0 3 1024
0.015
0.22
0.77
4.0 3 1026
800
4,150
4,300

Fig. 7Comparison of fluid-leakoff coefficients between the

new method and the traditional method for Case 2.

TABLE 3FRACTURE-CALIBRATION TEST: CASE 3

Fig. 5Specialized plot for Field Case 2.

Fig. 6 The pressure drops in the total, filter-cake, and reservoir

components for Case 2.

considerably with leakoff in this case. For Field Case 3, the constant
leakoff coefficient is estimated by the traditional analysis to be
3.47 3 1022 ft/=min. Fig. 11 presents fluid-leakoff coefficients
determined by the two methods. In this case, the traditional method
presents constantly higher values of fluid-leakoff coefficient than
the new method.
Discussion. The results of the three case studies are summarized
in Table 4. Whereas the traditional analysis for fracture-calibration
112

Injection volume of the fracturing fluid, bbl

98.48
Pumping time, minutes
12.82
Flow behavior index of the fracturing fluid
0.39
Total fracture height, ft
68
Permeable fracture height, ft
68
Formation porosity
0.30
Formation total compressibility, psi21
1.0 3 1025
Reservoir fluid viscosity, cp
1.0
Poissons ratio
0.24
Pressure ratio between wellbore and fracture tip 0.74
Formation plane-strain modulus, psi
5.0 3 1025
Fracture net pressure at shut-in, psi
457
Reservoir pressure, psi
4,192
Fracture closure pressure, psi
5,426

Fig. 8 The fracturing-pressure decline for Case 3.

tests determines the overall leakoff coefficient, the new method

determines formation permeability and fracture filter-cake resistance, which, in turn, allows computation of the pressure-dependent
leakoff. These parameters are generally not available from other
procedures. The fluid-leakoff rate computed in this study has
included effects of injection condition, properties of fracturing
fluids and formation, and more importantly, the change in fracture
net pressure. In addition, the formation properties and leakoff
SPE Journal, June 1998

TABLE 4RESULTS OF FRACTURE CALIBRATION TESTS

New Method

Fig. 9 Specialized plot for Field Case 3.

Traditional

Tests

k
(md)

Rf
~Pazsn9a /m11n9 !

CL
~ft/ min!

CL
~ft/ min!

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3

0.65
0.0041
194.54

1.89 3 1011
2.15 3 1012
6.21 3 109

Function
Function
Function

1.3 3 1023
8.1 3 1024
3.47 3 1022

model-dependent. In the cases above, the PKN model was used to

compute the fracture compliance, which is consistent with previous
studies9,10 and treatment-pressure responses. If the KGD and radial
models are used, additional information connected with the injection period is needed to determine the fracture extension.
Conclusions

Fig. 10 The pressure drops in the total, filter-cake, and reservoir components for Case 3.

Fig. 11Comparison of fluid-leakoff coefficients between the

new method and the traditional method for Case 3.

parameters determined from the minifracture pressure tests provide

necessary input for the forward-simulation models presented before.22,23 It should be noted that in Eq. 25, only pressure-decline
data and corresponding time are used to define the slope and the
intercept from the specialized plot, which are independent of
fracture-propagation models. However, when the permeability and
resistance factor are computed, appropriate choice of a fracturepropagation model is necessary because the fracture compliance is
SPE Journal, June 1998

1. A new interpretation model for fracture-calibration treatments

has been developed to determine formation permeability, fracture
filter-cake resistance, and pressure-dependent leakoff coefficient.
2. Field case studies demonstrate that the new model can convincingly interpret the fracturing-pressure-decline data collected in
tight-gas reservoirs, low-permeability oil reservoirs, and frac-pack
candidates of medium-to-high permeability formations.
3. The use of constant leakoff coefficient for all or part of the
fracturing treatment fails to capture the leakoff behavior varying
with the changes in fracture net pressure and reservoir conditions.
Furthermore, the claim made in the literature that the pressure drop
in filter cake is a dominant component in the total pressure drop
may result in misinterpreting fracture-calibration tests.
4. This work, incorporating mass balance with principles of fluid
and solid mechanics, accounts for fluid leakoff more accurately
with consideration of the effects of variable filter cake, nonNewtonian invasion, and superposition of fracture pressure, and
therefore allows for better determination of treatment parameters
and fracturing job design.
Nomenclature
A f 5 fracture surface area for two surfaces, m2
A p 5 permeable fracture area for four surfaces, m2
b 5 intercept of a specialized plot
c f 5 fracture compliance, m/Pa
C L 5 fluid loss coefficient, m/s0.5
c t 5 total system compressibility, Pa21
E 5 Youngs modulus, Pa
E9 5 plane-strain modulus, Pa
h f 5 fracture height, m
k 5 formation permeability, m2
m 5 slope of a specialized plot
n 5 arbitrary time step during fracture closing
n9 5 flow-behavior index of a power-law fluid
p 5 pressure, Pa
p c 5 fracture-closure pressure, Pa
p f 5 fracture pressure, Pa
p i 5 initial reservoir pressure, Pa
p w 5 pressure at the invasion interface, Pa
Dp 5 fracture net pressure, Pa
q L 5 volumetric leakoff rate, m3/s
r 5 fracture radius, m
R f 5 filtercake resistance factor, Pa z sn9/m11n9
R p 5 ratio of total permeable area to fracture area
s# 5 filtercake resistance, Pa
t 5 time, seconds
u 5 superficial leakoff rate, m/s
V f 5 created fracture volume, m3
V L 5 accumulated fluid leakoff volume, m3/m2
w 5 average fracture width, m
x 5 coordinate perpendicular to the fracture face, m
113

xf
Xn
Yn
a
b
f
n
m

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

fracture half-length, m
intermediate variable defined by Eq. 27
intermediate variable defined by Eq. 26
hydraulic diffusivity coefficient, m2/s
ratio of net pressure at the wellbore to that at fracture tip
formation porosity
Poissons ratio
reservoir fluid viscosity, Pa z s

References
1. Godbey, J.K. and Hodges, H.D.: Pressure Measurements During Fracturing Operations, Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 65.
2. Nolte, K.G.: Determination of Fracture Parameters From Fracturing
Pressure Decline, paper SPE 8341 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2326,
September.
3. Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B.: Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures,
JPT (September 1981) 1767.
4. Nolte, K.G.: Principles for Fracture Based on Pressure Analysis,
SPEPE (February 1988) 22; Trans., AIME, 285.
5. Nolte, K.G.: Determination of Proppant and Fluid Schedules from
Fracturing Pressure Decline, SPEPE (July 1986) 255.
6. Nolte, K.G.: A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline With
Application to Three Models, SPEFE (December 1986) 571; Trans.,
AIME, 281.
7. Nolte, K.G.: The Application of Fracture Design Based on Pressure
Analysis, SPEPE (February 1988) 31.
8. Nolte, K.G.: Fracturing-Pressure Analysis for Nonideal Behavior,
JPT (February 1991) 146; Trans., AIME, 291.
9. Nolte, K.G. and Economides, M.J.: Fracturing Diagnosis Using Pressure Analysis, Reservoir Stimulation, (second edition), Prentice-Hall
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1989) Chap. 7.
10. Nolte, K.G.: Fracturing Pressure Analysis, Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1989)
12, Chap. 14.
11. Carter, R.D.: Derivation of the General Equation for Estimating the
Extent of the Fracture Area, Drilling & Prod. Prac. (1957) 261.
12. Castillo, J.L.: Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including
Pressure-Dependent Leakoff, paper SPE 16417 presented at 1987
SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 1819 May.
13. Mayerhofer, M.J., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Economides, M.J.:
Pressure-Transient Analysis of Fracture-Calibration Tests, JPT
(March 1995) 220; Trans., AIME, 299.
14. Mukherjee, H., Larkin, S., and Kordziel, W.: Extension of Fracture
Pressure Decline Curve Analysis to Fissured Formations, paper SPE
21872 presented at 1991 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 1517 April.
15. Nolte, K.G., Mack, M.G., and Lie, W.L.: A Systematic Method for
Applying Fracturing Pressure Decline: Part I, paper SPE 25845 presented at 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 1214 April.
16. Zhu, D. and Hill, A.D.: A Comprehensive Model of Minifrac Pressure
Behavior With Foam Fracturing Fluids, paper SPE 25846 presented at
1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 1214 April.

114

17. Dusterhoft, R. et al.: Improved Minifrac Analysis Technique in HighPermeability Formations, paper SPE 30103 presented at 1995 SPE
European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, Netherlands,
1516 May.
18. Smith, M.B., Miller, W.K., II, and Haga, J.: Tip Screenout Fracturing:
A Technique for Soft, Unstable Formation, SPEPE (May 1987) 95;
Trans., AIME, 283.
19. Fan, Y. and Economides, M.J.: Fracture Dimensions in Frac&pack
Stimulation, SPE Journal (December 1996) 403.
20. Roodhart, L.P., et al.: Frac-and-Pack Stimulation: Application, Design,
and Field Experience, JPT (March 1994) 230.
21. Martins, J.P. and Stewart, D.R.: Tip Screenout Fracturing Applied to
the Ravenspurn South Gas Field Development, SPEPE (August 1992)
252; Trans., AIME, 293.
22. Fan, Y. and Economides, M.J.: Fracturing Fluid Leakoff and Net
Pressure Behavior in Frac and Pack Stimulation, paper SPE 29988
presented at 1995 SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
Beijing, 1417 November.
23. Fan, Y. and Llave, F.M.: Tip Screenout Fracturing of Gas Wells, SPE
Journal (December 1996) 463.
24. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Raghavan, R.: Unsteady-State
Pressure Distributions Created by a Well With a Single Infinite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture, SPEJ (August 1974) 347; Trans., AIME,
257.
25. Yi, T. and Peden, J.M.: A Comprehensive Model of Fluid Loss in
Hydraulic Fracturing, SPEPF (November 1994) 267.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl 3 1.589 873

cp 3 1.0*
ft 3 3.048*
md 3 9.869 233
psi 3 6.894 757
*Conversion factors are exact.

E201
E203
E201
E204
E200

5
5
5
5
5

m3
Pa z s
m
mm2
kPa
SPEJ

Yong Fan, a project engineer with Texaco E&P Technology Div.

in Houston, formerly was a senior engineer with U. of Tulsa/Natl.
Inst. for Petroleum & Energy Research and a research associate
with Texas A&M U. His research interests include reservoir stimulation, well completion, and production engineering. Fan
holds a BS degree in chemistry and an MS degree in petroleum
engineering from Southwest Petroleum Inst., China, and a PhD
degree in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M U. He is a
member of the Editorial Review Committee.

SPE Journal, June 1998