ARMA/NARMS 04-502

Geometry of the fracture for cuttings reinjection operation and solid

concentration: A numerical study
Koji Yamamoto, Teruyuki Koyama
Petroleum Technology Center, Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation-JOGMEC, Chiba, Japan
Yutaka Nakama
Fuji Research Institute Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
Copyright 2004, ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
th
This paper was prepared for presentation at Gulf Rocks 2004, the 6 North America Rock Mechanics Symposium (NARMS): Rock Mechanics Across Borders and Disciplines, held in Houston,
Texas, June 5 9, 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by a NARMS Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA/NARMS and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of NARMS,
ARMA, CARMA, SMMR, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement
of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: In order to evaluate the growth of fractures for cuttings re-injection, a solid transport model is included in a solid-
fluid coupled hydraulic fracturing simulator. The fracture geometry is a critical factor affecting the safety of the re-injection
operation, and solid particle flow in the fractures is known to have a dominant effect on the fracture propagation. To improve the
accuracy of the simulation, the finite element method (FEM) is introduced for modeling the particle motion in the fracture fluid. In
the model, opening of the fracture, interaction between multiple particles, and change in viscosity by the solid concentration are
taken into account. Numerical examples shown here reveal that the fracture geometry is highly dependent on the concentration of
the solid due to the change of gravity and slurry viscosity. The injected solid concentration is one of the few controllable
parameters, thus the results suggest the feasibility of geometry control.

1. INTRODUCTION The authors have developed another numerical

simulator of hydraulic fracturing, in which the true
Hydraulic fracturing technique is widely used in the three-dimensional geometry and interaction of
petroleum industry for stimulating wells. Another multiple fractures are considered [3]. The solid
application of the technology is drill cuttings transport model is added to the fully coupled model
reinjection, in which huge fractures are created in of fluid flow in the fracture and opening of the
formations around wellbores to contain the fracture in an elastic medium. For the cuttings
slurrified solid waste produced by the drillings [1]. slurry problem, we need an accurate solution for the
The major concern of cuttings re-injection is a case of a high concentration of solid particles.
breakthrough of fracture into adjacent formations In this paper, we demonstrate a solid transport
and surfaces. If a fracture propagates into usable model that considers the effect of the fracture wall
aquifers, petroleum reservoirs, or the surface or and in the interaction of multiple particles.
seabed, it can cause the grave environmental Furthermore, some numerical results for different
pollution and operational risk. Although this concentrations of injected solids are shown to
operation requires careful design of the fracture exhibit the effect of this parameter on the final
growth, there are few controllable factors, and those geometry of the fracture. The slurry viscosity and
that are controllable are also restricted by operation vertical pressure gradient can be manipulated by
margins. A numerical study using a solid transport varying the solid concentration in the slurry, so the
model in the fracture shows that the solid fracture growth is controllable by this parameter.
concentration of the injected cuttings slurry
influences the fracture growth significantly through
the leak-off character of the formation [2].
2. NUMERICAL MODELING
dS: Fracture advance Injection schedule: Slurry pump
A fully coupled model of a hydraulic fracturing determined by inear rate and solid concentration
fracture mechanics
simulator is developed for the design of well model Formation model
stimulation in complicated stress state and well and (Uniform elasticity,
fracture geometries [3]. The coupled solution of the and layered stresses
fluid pressure and fracture opening is computed and leak-off characters)
using the displacement discontinuity (DD) method Transport of
solid particles
for solid, and the finite element method (FEM) for Coupled solution of
Newtonian or non-Newtonian fluid. Equilibrium fracture opening and
between the normal stress on the fracture surface fluid flow.
and fluid pressure in the fracture is satisfied over
the entire region of the fractures.
The solid transport model using FEM is adopted for
the transport of proppant and cuttings particles. For
this application, the fluid is assumed to be a
combination of fluid and solid particles. As shown Fig. 2. Schematics of the fracture model.
in Fig. 2, the solid transport model is solved after
obtaining the coupled solution. The model gives the Table 1. Input parameters to the simulator
solid concentration in the fracture using fluid flux
Uniform Material Properties
and fracture opening of the coupled solution. The elastic modulus of the E:Youngs modulus (psi)
particles are driven by the slurry flow, and settle formation :Poissons ratio
due to the difference in density between the fluid gravity vector gx, gy, gz
and the solid. Conditions of eash Stratus
layer boundary depth hbi (ft)
A schematic chart of the fracture model is shown in in-situ stress xx, yy, zz, xy, yz, zx (psi)
Fig. 2, and major input parameters to the model are leak-off coefficient cL (ftmin)
listed in Table 1. fracture toughness KIC (psiinch)
time increment Model of a Borehole
numbers of holes any
deviation angle x, y
Fracture Propagation & Mesh Generation
offset position ox, oy
perforated section hf,upper , hf,lower (ft)
Initial fracture (assumed to be elliptical)
Coupling Analysis (Aperture-Fluid)
size a :major axis (ft)
b :minor axis (ft)
Stress-Displacement Injected Fluid Flow azimuth
(DD) (FEM) number of fractures any
Fracture Aperture Pressure Property of Fracture Fluid
Distribution power law indecis k :consistency index
n :power law exponent
density f
Property of Proppant
Solid Transport (FEM) density of particles p
Proppant Concentration
diameter of particles dp
Injection Schedule (defined at each time)
injection rate Q (bbl/min)
Fig. 1. Schematic flow of the fracturing simulator. solid concentration cb
at the borehole

3. SOLID TRANSPORT MODEL

3.1. Model concept and fundamental equations
Clifton & Wang [4] modeled the flow of the
particles as the particle motion along streamlines
considering relative motion between solid and fluid Borehole
(slip velocity). Yew [5] adopted FEM to discretize Perforation
the equations of continua for the solid transport
model. For the fracture propagation problem,
remeshing in the model is necessary in order to F .
adopt the adaptation to the changing fracture
geometries throughout the computation process, so P . dc
=0
c=cp dn
the streamline method is inconvenient. Also, mass
conservation must be satisfied at all times.
Therefore, we apply the FEM model to the concept c=0
of slip velocity of Clifton & Wang. Moreover,
precise models of slip velocity under more realistic
Fracture front
conditions are introduced to the formulation.
Equations of continua for solid particles and total
slurry volume are written as Fig. 3. Boundary conditions of solid concentration

(c p w) + ( p q p ) = 0 (1) Concentration of the solid particles at the borehole

t is fixed:
c = cP on P
( w ) + ( q ) = q L f (2) (6)
t
where P is perforated interval of the borehole. At
respectively. In the equations, c is the solid the fracture front which has 0 aperture, the particles
concentration, and q, and qp are the flow rate of can not enter there, which is written as
slurry and solid particles respectively. Densities of
the constituents are denoted by , p, and f, and w c=0 on F (7)
denotes fracture aperture. In Eq. (2), qL is the fluid where F is the fracture front.
leak-off rate from the fracture to the formation. The
leak-off rate qL is a function of time t, and is The condition that the solid particles do not leak-off
determined at each point of the fracture by the through the fracture surface is written as
following equation: dc
=0. (8)
2c L dn
qL = (3)
t t0 Those conditions are summarized in Fig. 3. The
total slurry flux q is given as the coupled solution,
where cL is the leak-off coefficient determined by so Eq. (1) and (2) can be solved under the boundary
the formation permeability and differential pressure conditions (6), (7) and (8) to gives the solid
between the formation and the fracture. t0 is the concentration for a given time and fracture
time at which fresh surface of the fracture is created geometry.
at this point.
In this model, only the fluid can leak off through the
fracture surfaces, while the solid particles remain in 3.2. Slip velocity
the fracture. The relationships between fluid, solid According to Clifton and Wang [4], we introduce
and slurry flux, and solid concentration are written slip velocity vs to Eq. (1) and (2) and so rewrite
as these equations of continua for the total system as
q = q p + q f , q = wv, q p = cwv P , q f = (1 c )wv f w
c
+ q c = (c (1 c )wv s ) + cq L (9)
t
(4)
where
where qf: is a fluid flux, and v, vf, and vp are
velocity of slurry, fluid, and particles, respectively. vs=vf - vp (10)
Total slurry density is written as then
q = p q p + f q f , = c p + (1 c ) f (5) vp=v-(1-c) vs (11)
 where v, vp and vf are the where
velocity of slurry, solid, and fluid, respectively. The
q = wv q s (18)
slip velocity is assumed to be the terminal velocity
of the particles which settle down under gravity. and
The basic Stokes friction F for a single spherical (1)
=
(
c(1 c) f C ( w) f A ( w) )
particle in an infinite media is written as g ( c , w)
cf A ( w) + (1 c) f C ( w)
F = 3 f Dv . (19)
g ( 2 ) (c, w) = c(1 c) f ( w) f ( w)
(12) C A

where f is fluid viscosity and D is particle diameter. cf A ( w) + (1 c) f C ( w)

The equilibrium between the differential gravity and
The effect of the fracture walls is based on
Stokes friction is written as
Wakiyas model [8], and fA and fC are defined as
3 follows:
( p f )g + 3 f Dv = 0 .
4 D
(13)
3 2 A 2D 2D
3
2D
4

f ( w) = 1 0.6526 + 0.1475 0.132

Then the terminal velocity v is derived as w w w

3 4
2D 2D 2D
1 0.6526 + 0.3160 0.132
( f p ) gD .
2
1 f C ( w) = w w w
v = (14)
18 f 1 2D
2

1
9 w
From Eq. (4) and (11), the flow rate of the solid
particles qp can be written as (20)
q p (c, w) = c(1 c) wv . (15) t
The factor F (c) denotes the effect of multiple
particles that is formulated by Brown [9], as follows
The effects of non-Newtonian nature of the fluid
and fracture surfaces, we apply the same
F t
(c ) =
(1 c)
2
(21)
formulation of Clifton and Wang [4], summarized 101.82 c
as following.
For non-Newtonian fluid, Acharyas solution [6] of
a non-linear equation of Novotny [7] is used. The 3.3. Effect of solid particles on fluid viscosity
slip velocity is determined as Several models are proposed for the change of fluid
viscosity f due to the solid concentration.
1
1 D n '1 n '
v = ( f p )gD 2
In this model, one of the following three criteria is
g (16) used:
18 k ' F ( n' )
= f (1 + 2.5c) (Einstein) (22)
where
2.5 n '
3 n ' 3
33n' 5 63n' 4 11n' 3 +97 n' 2 +16n' c
F ( n' ) = 3 2 = f 1 (Landel) (23)
4n' 2 (n'+1)(n'+2)(2n'+1) c max
(17) 1

n'

1.125 c 3

c
where n is power law exponent, k is constitutive
max
index, and g is a unit vector of the vector g. This = f

1
relationship is an approximate solution for cases
1 c
3
where n is close to 1.
c
max
The relative flow rate caused by slip velocity qs in
which the effect of wall and inter-particle (Frankel and Acrivos (24)
interaction is taken in to account is derived from the
equation where is apparent viscosity of the slurry, and cmax
is the upper limit of solid concentration which is set
q s ( w, c) = g (1) (c, w)q g ( 2 ) (c, w) F t (c)q to be 0.64. In every case, the apparent viscosity
increases with the increment of solid concentration.
According to the Landel, and Frankel and Acrivos
criteria, the apparent viscosity is infinite when
c=cmax, and the fluid can no longer flow when the
concentration reaches this value. This phenomenon
is known as screen-out, and is manifested as an
unexpected pressure increase at the borehole. Such
a high concentration of solid particles occurs in the
situations such as:
i) When the fracture enters a high leak-off
formation. Fluid is lost in the formation, while the
solid particles remain in the fracture.
ii) When the slurry viscosity is not high enough to
suspend the solid particles, the solid concentration
becomes very high at the bottom of the fracture due
to settlement of the particles.
Using the regular leak-off criterion written as Eq.
(3), the fracture front has a high leak-off rate, so
solid particles are transported there and the
concentration in the front region becomes high.
When screen-out occurs, the pumping should be
terminated as the operation has failed.
3.4. FEM formulation
The discretized form of Eq. (9) is written as
dc
Aij + Bi c = f ci
dt
where
Aij = wN i N j dxdy
N i N i
Bij = q x + qy N j q L N i N j dxdy
x y
where t is time step and is a parameter of the
integration.
4. CASE STUDIES
4.1. Effect of the solid concentration on the
geometry
To exhibit the effect of solid transport on the
fracture propagation, growth of a fracture in
uniform rock mass properties and stress condition is
simulated. The fluid is injected with the pumping
rate 0.78 m3/min with 0%, 5%, and 20% solid
concentration at the injected points. The history of
fracture heights are shown in Fig. 4., with the
record of pressure and fracture aperture in Fig. 5.
The result shows that the downward propagation is
inhibited by the high concentration of solid particles
in 20% concentration case.
The final geometry of the fracture of 20% are
shown with a contour of solid concentration in Fig.
6 and with pressure distribution in Fig. 7. High
pressure drop is found in the bottom part of the
fracture associated with high concentration of the
solid particles.
4.2. Application to a field case
Using the model, we simulate cuttings reinjection
for an offshore field in the Middle East [10].
(25)
A saline aquifer in the field is chosen for the
cuttings reinjection formation. This formation is a
part of the overburden of an oil reservoir, and is
(26) known to be a severe lost circulation zone in which
drilling fluid (sea water) frequently escapes into the
formation with cuttings. Therefore, we assume that
the minimum horizontal stress and pore pressure are
very low, and similar to the hydrostatic pressure of
(27) seawater.

and The formation is modeled with several layers that

have different stress and leak-off coefficient. The
N i N i upper and lower zones of the injected interval are
f ci = q s x + qsy dxdy . (28)

x y tight zones, and have higher stress and lower leak-
off coefficient, so they are expected to work as seals
Linear shape function Ni is used for the disretization. to prevent fracture growth. In this simulation, the
The effect of the slip velocity is in the right-hand formation and slurry properties listed in Tables 2
side of Eq. (25). and 3 are used.
The solution of Eq. (25) is derived by the time
integral as follows:
( A + tB )c n+1 = t f c + {A (1 )tB}c n (29)
 -300

-200

-100
0 10 20 30 40
height (ft)

100 pump time (min)

200
height upper 0%
300 height lower 0%
height upper 5%
height lower 5%
400
height upper 20%
height lower 20%

Fig. 4. Fracture height (upper and lower) of each concentration

case.

5000 1.2
high concentration of solid particles
1
4000
max. aperture (inch)
max. pressure (psi)

max. aperture 0.8 Fig. 6. The final geometry of the fracture with solid
3000
concentration. (45 min injection)
0.6
2000
0.4
0%
1000 5%
max. pressure 0.2
20%
0 0
0 10 20 30 40
pump time (min)

Fig. 5. Maximum pressure and fracture aperture of each

concentration case.

The values for the formation are determined from

well logging data such as P-wave and S-wave
velocity from a dipole sonic tool. The formation is
divided into many layers according to assumed
stress and elasticity gap, because such gaps have a
dominant effect on the fracture geometry. Also,
some drilling experiences, such as the lost high pressure drop at the bottom
circulation occurrence are used to estimate the Fig. 7. The final geometry of fracture with pressure
stress states. distribution. (45 min injection)
The total solid volume for one run of the injection is
set to be 94.2 m3. This value is a typical volume of In the modeling study, the vertical gradient of
12- 1/4 inch and 8- 1/2 inch sections in a single well horizontal stress (dSh/dz) is set to be slightly higher
in the field. In those sections, the cuttings may be than the seawater density (dSh/dz=12 kPa/m).
oily due to the produced oil, or contaminated by Landels criterion of Eq. (23) is adopted for the
shale inhibitor chemicals. Three different solid simulation.
concentration cases (5, 10, and 20 vol.%) are 4.3. Simulation results
modeled. For the same solid volume and injection The simulation results for each solid concentration
rate with different concentration, the total slurry case are shown in Figs. 8, 9 and 10. The tone in the
volume varies as listed in Table 4. figures indicate the distribution of net slurry
pressure (pressure minus normal stress). In each
case, large pressure drop is seen at the fracture front Table 4. Injection parameters
due to the concentration of solid particles.
Injection rate (m3/min) 0.78
We wish to know whether the fracture could Solid volume (m3) 94.2
penetrate the lower and upper formations and break 5% case
through them. We have ensured that the stress gap Slurry volume (m3) 1884
between the injection layer and overburden is large Injection time (min) 2400
10% case
enough to prevent breakthrough [10]. However, in
Slurry volume (m3) 942
the denser slurry case (20%), the density of the Injection time (min) 1200
slurry is higher than the stress gradient 20% case
(dp/dz>dSh/dz=12 kPa/m), so the fracture may Slurry volume (m3) 422
propagate downward, where the stress and stiffness Injection time (min) 600
of the formation are uncertain.
Nevertheless, as shown in Fig. 10, the simulation
result of the denser case indicates that the high net pressure zone
downward advance of the fracture is prevented by low net pressure zone
the pressure drop around the fracture tip, and the
fracture still propagates upward. Hence, the stress
contrast of the upper seal formation is still the upper
critical parameter. stress gap
In every case, the solid waste created by the drilling
of the single well does not break through the
expected seal formation. However, there are find 120 ft
two different risks. If the solid concentration is low,
the volume of slurry should be larger, and the aerial
extension of the fracture is also larger. Therefore, 75 ft
the fracture can penetrate the seal formation deeply
if the stress contrast between the target and seal lower stress gap
formations is not high enough. Another risk is
screen out of the fracture in the higher concentration Fig. 8. Final geometry of the fracture: 5% Solid concentration
case. If the leak-off coefficient is higher than case.
expected, the leak-off rate is also higher, and the
fracture will not advance at the designed treatment
pressure.
Table 2. Formation properties
Overburden/ Injection
Underburden formation
Youngs modulus (GPa) 24 19 upper
Poisons ratio 0.33 0.33 stress gap
Leak off coefficient (msec) 3.910-6 3.910-5
Fracture toughness (MPam) 433 303
Stress contrast (psi) 350 or 700 0
120 m
Table 3. Slurry and solid particle properties
Fluid
Specific gravity 1.25
Power law index
75 m
1.0
Viscosity (cp) 70 lower stress gap
Solid
Specific gravity 2.4 Fig. 9. Final geometry of the fracture: 10% Solid
Diameter (mm) 0.4 concentration case.
Concentration (%) 5.0, 10.0, 20.0

upper
stress gap
120 m
low net pressure 75 m
zone
lower stress gap
Fig. 10. Final geometry of the fracture: 20% Solid
concentration case.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
The numerical results presented here show the
effect of solid concentration on fracture growth and
final geometry.
Two main factors are involved: the difference
between the pressure gradient and vertical gradient
of the horizontal stress, and the change of slurry
viscosity due to the change of solid concentration.
This viscosity change is caused by the leak-off of
the fluid part of slurry into the formation, and the
settlement of solid particles under gravity.
Usually, a fracture tends to propagate downward
when denser slurry is injected. However, the
settlement of solid particles and increment of
viscosity prevent such downward fracture growth.
In the case presented here, the accumulation of solid
particles at the bottom of the fracture inhibits the
fracture from advancing downward. In other words,
a fracture containing high proportion of solids tends
to propagate upward.
Moreover, a high solid concentration can cause
higher treatment pressure which can abort the
injection. Therefore, the solid concentration of the
slurry and the leak-off characteristics of the
formation should be carefully studied and designed,
as well as other geomechanical factors such as
stress contrast between the injection zone and seal
formations.
The model presented here considers several
phenomena of the flow of mixed solid-fluid matter.
However, the results are too simple compared with
the behavior of true cuttings slurries, the most
important difference being that the solid particles in
the cuttings are not uniform in size and not
spherical. There is also an important difference
between the grinded cuttings and proppant. The
rheology of such material may be more complicated
and non-linear. Another point may be thermal and
chemical reactions of the slurry.
Leak-off behavior is likely to be another key factor.
Small particles may leave the formation with fluid,
and filtrate cake is created on the surface. This is
not observed in the case of usual propped fracturing.
Therefore, not only modeling study, but also
experimental study should be carried out together
with careful monitoring of the site testing.
REFERENCES
1. Moschovidis, Z. A., D. C. Gardner, G. V. Sund and R.
W. Veatch Jr. 1994. Disposal of oily cuttings by
downhole periodic fracturing injections, Valhall, North
Sea: Case study and modeling concepts, SPE Drilling
and Completion. 9 (4): 256-262.
2. Abou-Sayed, A.S., Q. Guo, J. D. McLennan and J. T.
Hagan. 2000. Case studies of waste disposal through
hydraulic fracturing. In Proceedings of the 2000 North
American Rock Mechanics Symposium Workshop on
Three-Dimensional and Advanced Hydraulic Fracture
Modeling:13-21. Seattle, WA.
3. Yamamoto, K., T. Shimamoto, and S. Sukemura. 2004.
Multiple fracture model for a hydraulic fracturing
simulator, ASCE Int. J. Geomech. 4 (1) (to be
published)
4. Clifton, R. J. and J.-J. Wang. 1988. Multiple fluids,
proppant transport, and thermal effects in three
dimensional simulation of hydraulic fracturing. SPE
18198., In Proceedings of 1988 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition: 175-188. Houston, Texas.
5. Yew, C.-H. 1995. Mechanics on Hydraulic Fracturing.
Lecture note presented at TRC/JNOC. Chiba, Japan.
6. Acharya, A. 1988. Particle Transport in Viscous and
Viscoelastic Fracturing Fluid. Trans. of AIME. 283:
104-111.
7. Novotony, E. J., 1977. Proppant Transport. SPE 6813.
In Proceedings of SPE 52nd Fall Technical
Conference: 89-102.
8. Wakiya, S. 1957. Viscous flow past a spheroid, J. Phys.
Japan. 12: 1130-1141.
9. Brown, G. G. 1951. Unit Operations. New York City:
John Willey & Sons Inc.
10. Shioya, Y., K. Yamamoto, T. Fujieda, H. Al-Khatib,
and S. Kikuchi. 2002. Cuttings reinjection to shallow
undersea formation: The Geomechanical acceptance
analysis using hydraulic fracturing simulator, SPE
78586. In Proceedings of the Tenth Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference:
950-956. Abu Dhabi, UAE.