SPE-209716-MS

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Estimation of the Half-Length of Non-Simultaneous-Closed Fracture
Through Pressure Transient Analysis: Model and Case Study

Zhipeng Wang, Zhengfu Ning, and Zejiang Jia, China University of Petroleum Beijing; Qidi Cheng, Xinjiang Oil
Field Company; Yuanxin Zhang, Heavy Oil Development Company of Petro China Xinjiang Oilfield Company;
Wenting Guo and Qingyuan Zhu, China University of Petroleum Beijing

Copyright 2022, Society of Petroleum Engineers DOI 10.2118/209716-MS

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EuropEC - Europe Energy Conference featured at the 83rd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition held in Madrid,
Spain, 6 - 9 June 2022.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
During water-flooding development, severe water breakthrough has been observed in fractured wells. It is
essential that determine the reason for water-breakthrough to improve the performance of production wells.
However, the conventional pressure-transient analysis model hardly characterizes fracture-induced pressure
response and fracture half-length, leading to erroneous results. This paper aimed at present an approach
to estimate the half-length of non-simultaneous fracture induced in a relatively economical way. The non-
simultaneous fracture closure flow (NFCF) model was proposed to characterize flow in induced fracture.
To better characterize pressure response in induced fracture, we first modeled fluid flow in fracture with
variable conductivity by two-part, variable-conductivity-linear flow and low-conductivity-linear flow. At
the same time, fracture closure was considered to occur twice according to the pressure response of water
injection wells, and its condiction followed experimental results. As a result, a semi-analytical solution was
developed. We compared it with the finite-conductivity model to certify the accuracy. A new flow regime
(the non-simultaneous fracture close linear flow) was discovered and behaved as two peaks on the pressure
derivative curve. It will shorten the half-length of induced fracture if the new flow regime is ignored. Case
studies showed that the NFCF model matched well with field data, which validated the practicability of
the proposed approach. Our results might help accurately understand the reason for the water breakthrough
- enormous the half-length of induced fracture was ignored in the past. In addition, the results also have
provided significant insight for the operators could make reasonable decisions, reasonable well spacing and
water-flooding rate, to improve production and water injection wells performance.
Keywords: induced fracture, non-simultaneous-closed fracture, pressure transient analysis, dynamic
fracture, well testing

Introduction
The pressure-transient analysis method is one of the cheapest and most convenient ways to assess reservoir
properties based on bottom hole pressure data(Ehlig-Economides et al., 2009; Rodriguez et al., 1984). Many
2 SPE-209716-MS

researchers established models to evaluate reservoir parameters(Guizada and Al-Harbi, 2016; Rahim and
Buhidma, 2006; Restrepo and Tiab, 2009). In tight reservoirs, hydraulic fracturing is the most commonly
used method to improve fractured well performance(Sun and Schechter, 2015; Sun et al., 2016). Newman's
product and Green's function methods were introduced to solve complex flow problems in the fracture.
(Cinco-Ley and Samaniego-V, 1981; Dyes et al., 1958; Gringarten and Ramey, 1973; Hagoort et al.,

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
1980; Koning and Niko, 1985; Lee and Brockenbrough, 1986; McGuire and Sikora, 1960; Raghavan et
al., 1972; Scott, 1963; Tiab and Puthigai, 1988; Wong et al., 1986). Cinco L et al. (1978) developed a
mathematical model of finite conductivity. They analyzed the slope of the curve in log-log and semi-log
plots to improve the accuracy of the interpretation of fracture parameters such as fracture conductivity, etc.
Lee and Holditch (1979) summarised and generalized the methodology for determining the permeability
in low permeability reservoirs more accurately. Then, some field cases were applied to verify the accuracy
of the different models in interpreting the fracture parameters, with the results showing that the finite
conductivity model gives more accurate fracture parameters (Holditch and Lee, 1979). However, The
pressure response data from the injection wells indicate that water injection will induce fractures(Craig and
Blasingame, 2006; de Pater et al., 1996; Eltvik et al., 1992; Morales et al., 1986; Raghavan et al., 1997).
Chen and Rajagopal (1997) studied induced fracture interferences in rectangular reservoirs and found the
most suitable development solution. Spivey and Lee (1999) presented two new composite or dual-volume,
wellbore models to describe the storage effect better. Then the researchers found that the induced fractures
differed from the hydraulic fractures because there was no proppant in the induced fractures. However,
if the parameters of the induced fracture are not accurately determined, it can lead to water breakthrough
and seriously affect the performance of injection and production wells(Anand and Subrahmanyam, 2014).
At the same time, many field cases have demonstrated that waterflooding-induced fractures will affect the
performance of producing wells(Saeby et al., 2005). Then many researchers began to investigate ways for
characterizing waterflooding-induced fractures. Craig and Blasingame (2005) used a method-step function
to describe the induced fractures and used the new model for small fracture design. Igbokoyi and Tiab (2008)
found that the mechanism of induced fracture formation is through the interconnection of natural fractures.
BinAkresh and Anisur Rahman (2011) found that conventional models interpreting pressure response data
of injection wells would obtain a large wellbore storage coefficient. Davletbaev et al. (2014) demonstrated
the existence of induced fractures when the injection pressure is higher than the natural fracture opening
pressure. Wang et al. (2018) presented the IWWIF model to describe the pressure response of waterflooding-
induced fracture, considering variable fracture conductivity. Wang et al. (2019) developed a new analytical
solution model to match the pressure response with a single peak on pressure derivative. However, many
pressure response data of injection wells show a double or even multiple peak pattern on the pressure
derivative curve.
In conclusion most work does not take into account that the fractures will close several times during the
pressure test. If the phenomenon of multiple fracture closures is ignored, very short fracture half-length
parameters will be obtained and will seriously affect the accuracy of the other interpreted parameters.
To fill this gap, the NFCF model was proposed. The phenomenon of multiple fracture closure and the
phenomenon of double fracture storage were introduced to characterise the two-peak shape on the pressure
derivative curve. The NFCF model is proposed to match well with the traditional finite-conductivity model,
thus the accuracy of the model is verified. The quantitative determination of fracture closure lengths is
effective in preventing water breakthrough, allowing researchers to take action before it occurs. At the same
time, the amplified wellbore storage coefficients were corrected to verify the occurrence of fracture closure,
greatly improving the accuracy of the interpretation parameters. Finally, the NFCF model is used to match
the field data, and the interpretation results are more reasonable, which validates the practicality of the
NFCF model.
SPE-209716-MS 3

Methodology
physical model & assumptions
Fig. 1 shows the physical model of the NFCF model. The induced fracture will close twice during the shut-
in period.

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Figure 1—Physical model of the NFCF model

The following conditions are assumed.

• The reservoir is isothermal and isotropic.

• The conductivity of induced fracture is variable. The crack closes from the tip. When the pressure
inside the fracture balances the pressure outside the fracture, the closure stops. Closure-fracture-
storage effect and variable fracture conductivity coefficient characterize the non-simultaneous
fracture closure phenomenon.
• The reservoir fluid is single-phase and slightly compressible water.

• The gravity effect is ignored.

Solution of pressure response in fracture

As shown in Fig. 2, the fracture begins to close from the tip as the pressure decreases. When the pressure
in the fracture is balanced with the reservoir matrix pressure, the fracture stops closing. The first fracture
closure is over. The water in the fracture flows into the reservoir. The pressure in the fracture continues to
decrease. The pressure balance between the fracture and the reservoir matrix is broken again. The second
fracture closure begins. When the pressure balance is reached again, the crack stops closing.
4 SPE-209716-MS

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Figure 2—Schematic diagram of non-simultaneous fracture closure discrete grid

The dimensionless line source solution in Laplace space is:

(1)

The dimensionless pressure response solution of discrete non-simultaneous closed fracture is:

(2)

The Stefest method was used to obtain the pressure response of real space.
The pressure response considering irregular conductivity
As shown in Fig.3, due to the non-simultaneous closure of fractures, the conductivity of closed fractures
and open fractures is different, and the pressure response in induced fractures is different from that in
hydraulic fractures due to the absence of proppant filling.

Figure 3—Schematic diagram of fractures closed from the tip.

The pressure response in the fracture considering the conductivity of the fracture is:

(3)

The conductivity of the first closed fracture is introduced, as shown in Equations (4) and (5).

(4)

(5)
SPE-209716-MS 5

Where Fc0D is the opening fracture conductivity, Fc1D is the conductivity of the first closed fracture. The
conductivity of the second closed fracture is introduced, as shown in Equations (6) and (7).

(6)

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
(7)

Where, Fc2D is the conductivity of the second closed fracture.

Then, the opened fracture conductivity is assumed to follow an exponential function because this rule
cannot be accurately tested in the laboratory. The conductivity of closed fractures is constant, as shown in
Equation (8).

(8)

Where the αD0 is the conductivity variation coefficient in opened fracture, the αD1 is the conductivity
variation coefficient in first closed fracture, and the αD2 is the conductivity variation coefficient in second
closed fracture.
The closed fracture conductivities in the first and second closed fractures are constant. As shown in
Equations (9) and (10), the conductivity in the connecting surface between the opened and closed fractures
is the same.
(9)

(10)
Where, xcD is the end position of the first crack closure, and xc1D is the end position of the second crack
closure.
Fig.4 shows the schematic diagram of the conductivity in the fracture. The conductivity of the closed
fracture is constant, and the conductivity of the two closed fractures is different. The conductivity of opened
fracture conforms to the exponential function.

Figure 4—The fracture conductivity. (a)The fist closed fracture. (b)The second closed fracture. (c)The open fracture.

The pressure response solution considering non-simultaneous fracture closure.

During shut-in pressure testing, fluid flow into the reservoir caused pressure reduction in the fracture. When
the pressure in the fracture reaches the critical pressure of fracture closure, the fracture starts to close and
6 SPE-209716-MS

compresses the fluid in the fracture, causing the rate of pressure reduction in the fracture to decrease until
the pressure in the fracture and the reservoir pressure balance, and the fracture stops closing. The fluid in
the fracture then continues to flow into the reservoir, and the pressure continues to change, causing the
fracture to close a second time, as shown in Figure 5. According to field data, the fracture usually closes
twice during the pressure build-up period

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Figure 5—Schematic diagram of the fracture closure principle

The length of the closed fracture is defined in equations (11) and (12) (Bhardwaj et al., 2016). It can be
seen from the formula that the fracture closure length is related to the reservoir properties and the critical
pressure at the beginning of fracture closure is different in the two closure processes, thus proving that
fractures are not closed at the same time.

(11)

(12)

Where the ptip1 and ptip2 are the critical pressure of fracture closure, the δH min is the minimum horizontal
principal stress, the ν is Poisson's ratio, the U is the fracture surface energy, and the E is the plane-strain
modulus.
Equations (1) to (12) are combined to obtain Equation (13).

(13)

Where
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Equation (13) is solved to obtain the solution of bottom-hole pressure in Laplace space.
SPE-209716-MS 7

2.5 Duhamel's principle is used to consider double fracture storage and skin effects
During fracture closure, the fluid is squeezed, resulting in a storage effect similar to that of a wellbore.
This paper considers the fracture closure twice, so the fluid is squeezed twice to form the double fracture
storage effect. Duhamel's principle is used to decouple the dual fracture storage effect, wellbore storage
effect, and skin effect.

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
The fracture storage coefficient is defined as shown in Equation (18).

(18)

As shown in Equations (19) and (20), the E is introduced.

(19)

(20)

Equations (21) - (25) show that the Duhamel principle is used to obtain a bottom hole pressure solution
considering the dual fracture storage and skin effects.
(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

Finally, the bottom hole pressure solution of the NFCF model is obtained, as shown in Equation (25).
2.6 Pressure-transient behavior
The curve is divided into eight flow regimes, as shown in Fig. 6.

• I. Wellbore storage regime: The fluid is compressed in the wellbore in this flow regime. The
pressure and pressure derivative curves coincide and have unite slope.
• II. Transitional flow regime: The wellbore storage effect and the skin effect determine the shape
of the transitional flow regime curve. In this regime, the pressure derivative curve is an upward
convex shape.
• III. Double fracture storage regime: During fracture closure, the fluid within the fracture is
squeezed to form a pressure response similar to the wellbore storage effect. The non-simultaneous
closure of the fracture results in a curve with a slope greater than one on the pressure derivative
curve.
• IV. First closed fracture linear flow phase: the fracture is closing, allowing the fluid in the fracture
to be compressed and the bottom hole pressure to rise. During this regime, the pressure derivative
curve shows a rising curve.
• V. Irregular linear flow regime: In this regime, the first closure of the fracture ends. The induced
fracture consists of an open and closed fracture, and the two-section fractures have different
8 SPE-209716-MS

conductivities. The irregular linear flow phase is characterized as a curve with a slope greater than
one on the pressure derivative curve.
• VI. Second fracture closure linear flow regime: The fracture begins to close for a second time,
and the fluid within the fracture is compressed again. The pressure inside the fracture rises. The
pressure derivative curve demonstrates a rising curve.
•

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
VII. Transitional flow regime: In this regime, the pressure wave propagates to the end of the fracture
and is transitioning to the matrix.
• VIII. Pseudo-radial flow regime: the pressure derivative curve shows a horizontal line.

Discussion
Model validation

Figure 6—The type curve of the NFCF model

In this section, we will verify the validity of the NFCF model. We assume that the NFCF model has no
fracture closure, that the fracture conductivity is constant, and that the other parameters take the same values.
As shown in Fig. 7, the curves of the NFCF model and the conventional finite-conductivity model match
well.
SPE-209716-MS 9

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Figure 7—Comparison between the finite-conductivity model and the NFCF model

Principle of induced fracture irregular flow

During pressure testing of the injection well, proppant within a hydraulic fracture prevents the fracture from
closing. However, the induced fracture is not filled with proppant, causing the fracture will close several
times. At the same time, the conductivity of a closed fracture is not the same as that of an open fracture.
The fluid in the fracture will be compressed during the fracture closure process, thus severely affecting the
pressure response of the injection well.
As shown in Fig. 8, it is assumed in this paper that the fracture closes twice from the end of the fracture
and that the two closures result in different conductivities. The conductivity of the open crack obeys an
exponential function due to the unsupported filling within the fracture.

Figure 8—Comparison of different fracture states

Principle of non-simultaneous closure of the fracture

Fig.9 shows a schematic of the pressure response considering a non-simultaneous closure of the fracture.
After shut-in, the fluid flows into the reservoir, causing the pressure response within the fracture to decrease.
When the pressure in the fracture drops to the first fracture closure critical pressure, the fracture begins to
close. The fracture squeezes the fluid, causing the fracture pressure to increase slowly until the pressure
system balances. Then, the fluid continues to flow into the reservoir. When the pressure reaches the second
critical fracture closure pressure, the fracture begins to close and squeeze the fluid a second time. The curve
10 SPE-209716-MS

pattern of the measured data shows that the fracture will complete twice closures during the pressure test
period.

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Figure 9—Schematic of fracture non-simultaneous closure

Sensitivity analysis
Dimensionless first fracture closure critical pressure. This section discusses the sensitivity analysis of the
dimensionless first fracture closure pressure. We choose four dimensionless fracture closure pressures of 0.9,
1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 to plot the pressure and pressure derivative curves. As shown in Fig.10, the dimensionless
first fracture closure pressure affects the first fracture closure linear flow regime and the second fracture
closure linear flow regime. As the parameter increases, both peak patterns on the pressure derivative curve
move upwards. As the first fracture closure pressure increases, the length of the fracture closure will improve
and raise the critical pressure for the second fracture closure.

Figure 10—Effect of dimensionless first fracture closure parameters on pressure and pressure derivative curves
SPE-209716-MS 11

Dimensionless second fracture closure critical pressure. As shown in Fig. 11, the dimensionless second
fracture closure pressure parameter only affects the second fracture closure linear flow regime. When the
second fracture closure critical pressure changes, the first fracture closure has been complete, and the
first fracture closure length and critical pressure will not change. As can be seen from the figure, as the
dimensionless second fracture closure critical pressure increases, the second peak pattern on the pressure

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
derivative curve moves upwards.

Figure 11—Effect of dimensionless second fracture closure critical pressure parameters on pressure and pressure derivatives

Fracture conductivity variation coefficient. Fracture conductivity variation coefficient affects the first
fracture closure linear flow regime, the irregular fracture linear flow regime, and the second fracture closure
linear flow regime. Four coefficients were chosen, including 0.75, 1.75, 2.75, and 3.75, to analyze the
sensitivity of the parameters. As shown in Fig.12, the pressure derivative curves in the three flow regimes
rise as the parameter increases. A larger fracture conductivity indicates a faster fracture closure. The faster
the fracture closes, the more violently the fluid is compressed, causing the pressure derivative curve to rise.
12 SPE-209716-MS

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Figure 12—Effect of the fracture conductivity variation coefficient on pressure and pressure derivative

First closed fracture conductivity. After partial closure of the fracture, the conductivity of the closed
fracture differs from the conductivity of the open fracture. We took four first closed fracture conductivity
parameters, including 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, to analyze the sensitivity of the NFCF model. As shown in
Fig.13, the first closed fracture conductivity parameter affects the first fracture closure flow regime, the
irregular fracture flow regime, and the second fracture closure flow regime. As the first fracture closure
conductivity increases, the pressure derivative curve gradually decreases because the increased fracture
conductivity allows the pressure within the fracture to be released more easily.

Figure 13—Effect of first closed fracture conductivity on pressure and pressure derivative
SPE-209716-MS 13

Case studie
As shown in Fig.14, the NFCF model and the traditional finite conductivity model match the field data.
The NFCF model matches the field data better, as shown in Fig 14 (a). However, the matching effect of
the traditional finite conductivity model is very poor, and the curve shape of features cannot be matched,
as shown in Fig. 14 (b).

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Figure 14—Comparison between the field data matched by the NFCF model and the traditional finite-conductivity model

It can be seen from Table 1 that the permeability obtained by the NFCF model and traditional finite
conductivity model is similar, which is 0.55md and 0.5 mD, respectively. The NFCF model can obtain
three storage coefficients: wellbore storage coefficient, first fracture closure storage coefficient, and
second fracture closure storage coefficient, 0.85, 3.0, and 2.5, respectively. However, the wellbore storage
coefficient obtained by the traditional finite conductivity model is 6.2. It is a common phenomenon that the
wellbore storage coefficient obtained from injection well data by conventional model is too large, but there is
no reasonable method to explain this problem. In this paper, non-simultaneous fracture closure is considered,
and the first fracture storage coefficient and the second fracture storage coefficient are introduced to correct
the magnified wellbore storage coefficient. At the same time, the phenomenon of closed fracture is ignored,
and the half-length of interpreted fracture is too short. The fracture half-length obtained by the traditional
model in this paper is only 25m, which is an unreasonable value. The closed fracture half-length obtained by
the NFCF model is 25m and 15m, and the fracture half-length is 85m, which is a reasonable value. Similarly,
the NFCF model can obtain two fracture conductivity and one fracture closure rate coefficient, which can
more accurately characterize the characteristics of induced fractures. Finally, the fracture skin coefficient
and wellbore skin coefficient are used to more accurately describe the pressure drop on the fracture surface
and around the wellbore.
14 SPE-209716-MS

Table 1—Comparison of matched results by NFCF model and conventional finite-conductivity model

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
As shown in Table 1, the wellbore storage coefficient obtained by the NFCF model matching actual
data is far less than that obtained by the traditional finite conductivity model, which explains the
phenomenon that the wellbore storage coefficient of injection Wells is too large. Secondly, the conventional
finite conductivity model ignores the phenomenon of fracture closure, resulting in the interpretation of
fracture half-length parameters being too short. NFCF model introduces reservoir property parameters
to characterize the phenomenon of non-simultaneous fracture closure, which significantly improves the
accuracy of interpretation results.

Conclusions
In this paper, the water injection well model is established and solved. The rock stress and in-situ stress are
introduced into the model. Five effects (two-fracture storage effect, fracture variation conductivity effect,
fracture irregular conductivity effect, and fracture non-simultaneous closure effect) make the model more
accurate and flexible. The MNFC model is compared with a traditional finite inflow model to verify its
accuracy. The model addresses three problems.
1. First, traditional models usually obtain large wellbore storage coefficients when fitting the pressure
response data of injection Wells. This parameter is wrong. In this paper, the enlarged wellbore storage
coefficient is corrected by considering the two non-simultaneous closure phenomena and introducing
the first fracture closure storage coefficient and the second fracture closure storage coefficient.
2. Secondly, the fracture half-length parameters obtained by the traditional finite conductivity model
are too short, making researchers unable to discover fracture connectivity and take measures in time,
thus leading to water breakthrough. The NFCF model accurately captures the length of two closed
fractures and the total fracture half-length, guiding researchers to treat overextended fractures on time
to improve the performance of injection and production Wells.
3. Finally, the NFCF model considers the influence of fracture closure on injection well's pressure
response and matches the pressure derivative curve with a two-peak shape rather than treating it as
incorrect data. One field data was studied to validate the NFCF model.
SPE-209716-MS 15

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51974330 and
51774298).

Nomenclature

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
xD, yD The dimensionless cartesian coordinate, dimensionless
qD Dimensionless rate, dimensionless
qfD The dimensionless rate in the fracture, dimensionless
FcD1 The conductivity of the first closed fracture, dimensionless
FcD2 The conductivity of the second closed fracture, dimensionless
pfD The dimensionless pressure in the fracture, dimensionless
pwD The dimensionless pressure in the bottom-hole, dimensionless
S Skin factor
Sf Fracture skin factor
CfD1 The dimensionless first fracture-storage coefficient, dimensionless
CfD2 The dimensionless second fracture-storage coefficient, dimensionless
CwD The dimensionless wellbore-storage coefficient, dimensionless
tD The dimensionless time, dimensionless
E Plane-strain modulus
αD fracture closure rate coefficient, dimensionless

References
Anand, A., Subrahmanyam, S.G., 2014. Induced Fracture Modelling and Its Integration with Pressure Transient Analysis:
Study for Shallow-water Offshore Field, South-East Asia - Part 1, Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, D031S064R003.[Link]
Bhardwaj, P., Manchanda, R., Hwang, J. et al, 2016. A New Reservoir Scale Model for Fracture Propagation and Stress
Reorientation in Injection Wells, 50th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, ARMA-2016-114.
BinAkresh, S.A., Anisur Rahman, N.M., 2011. Challenges in Interpreting Well Testing Data from Fractured Water
Injection Wells with a Dual Storage Phenomenon, SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, SPE-139587-
MS.[Link]
Chen, C.-C., Rajagopal, R., 1997. A Multiply-Fractured Horizontal Well in a Rectangular Drainage Region. SPE Journal,
2(04): 455–465.[Link]
Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego V. F., 1981. Transient Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
33(09): 1749–1766.[Link]
Cinco L.H., Samaniego V.F., Dominguez A.N., 1978. Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite-Conductivity
Vertical Fracture. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 18(04): 253–264.[Link]
Craig, D.P., Blasingame, T.A., 2005. A New Refracture-Candidate Diagnostic Test Determines Reservoir Properties and
Identifies Existing Conductive or Damaged Fractures, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE-96785-
MS.[Link]
Craig, D.P., Blasingame, T.A., 2006. Application of a New Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model Accounting for
Propagating, Dilated, and Closing Hydraulic Fractures, SPE Gas Technology Symposium, [Link]://
[Link]/10.2118/100578-MS.
Davletbaev, A., Baikov, V., Bikbulatova, G. et al, 2014. Field Studies of Spontaneous Growth of Induced Fractures
in Injection Wells, SPE Russian Oil and Gas Exploration & Production Technical Conference and Exhibition,
SPE-171232-MS.[Link]
de Pater, C.J., Desroches, J., Groenenboom, J. et al, 1996. Physical and Numerical Modeling of Hydraulic Fracture Closure.
SPE Production & Facilities, 11(02): 122–128.[Link]
Dyes, A.B., Kemp, C.E., Caudle, B.H., 1958. Effect of Fractures on Sweep-out Pattern. Transactions of the AIME, 213(01):
245–249.[Link]
16 SPE-209716-MS

Ehlig-Economides, C.A., Martinez, H., Okunola, D.S., 2009. Unified PTA and PDA Approach Enhances Well
and Reservoir Characterization, Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, SPE-123042-
MS.[Link]
Eltvik, P., Skoglunn, T., Settari, A., 1992. Waterflood-Induced Fracturing: Water Injection Above Parting Pressure at
Valhall, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE-24912-MS.[Link]
Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Jr., 1973. The Use of Source and Green's Functions in Solving Unsteady-Flow Problems

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
in Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 13(05): 285–296.[Link]
Guizada, P., Al-Harbi, A., 2016. Determination of Reservoir Properties and Heterogeneity through Pressure Transient
Analysis for a Clastic Gas Reservoir, SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference and Exhibition, SPE-181973-
MS.[Link]
Hagoort, J., Weatherill, B.D., Settari, A., 1980. Modeling the Propagation of Waterflood-Induced Hydraulic Fractures.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 20(04): 293–303.[Link]
Holditch, S.A., Lee, W.J., 1979. Fracture Evaluation With Pressure Transient Tests In Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs. Part II: Field Examples, Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, [Link]://
[Link]/10.2118/7930-MS.
Igbokoyi, A.O., Tiab, D., 2008. Pressure Transient Analysis in Partially Penetrating Infinite Conductivity Hydraulic
Fractures in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE-116733-
MS.[Link]
Koning, E.J.L., Niko, H., 1985. Fractured Water-Injection Wells: A Pressure Falloff Test for Determining Fracture
Dimensions, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE-14458-MS.[Link]
Lee, S.-T., Brockenbrough, J.R., 1986. A New Approximate Analytic Solution for Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fractures.
SPE Formation Evaluation, 1(01): 75–88.[Link]
Lee, W.J., Holditch, S.A., 1979. Fracture Evaluation With Pressure Transient Testing In Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs. Part I: Theoretical Background, Symposium on Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs, [Link]://
[Link]/10.2118/7929-MS.
McGuire, W.J., Sikora, V.J., 1960. The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Productivity. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
12(10): 72–74.[Link]
Morales, R.H., Abou-Sayed, A.S., Jones, A.H. et al, 1986. Detection of a Formation Fracture in a Waterflooding
Experiment. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 38(10): 1113–1121.[Link]
Raghavan, R., Cady, G.V., Ramey, H.J., 1972. Well-Test Analysis for Vertically Fractured Wells. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 24(08): 1014–1020.[Link]
Raghavan, R.S., Chen, C.-C., Agarwal, B., 1997. An Analysis of Horizontal Wells Intercepted by Multiple Fractures. SPE
Journal, 2(03): 235–245.[Link]
Rahim, Z., Buhidma, I., 2006. Integrating Pressure Transient Analysis in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Technical Symposium
of Saudi Arabia Section, SPE-106359-MS.[Link]
Restrepo, D.P., Tiab, D., 2009. Multiple Fractures Transient Response, Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, SPE-121594-MS.[Link]
Rodriguez, F., Horne, R.N., Cinco-Ley, H., 1984. Partially Penetrating Fractures: Pressure Transient Analysis of an Infinite
Conductivity Fracture, SPE California Regional Meeting, SPE-12743-MS.[Link]
Saeby, J., Bjorndal, H.-P., van den Hoek, P., 2005. Managed Induced Fracturing Improves Waterflood Performance in
South Oman, International Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC-10843-MS.[Link]
MS.
Scott, J.O., 1963. The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Transient Pressure Behavior of Wells. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 15(12): 1365–1369.[Link]
Spivey, J.P., Lee, W.J., 1999. Variable Wellbore Storage Models for a Dual-Volume Wellbore, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, SPE-56615-MS.[Link]
Sun, J., Schechter, D., 2015. Optimization-Based Unstructured Meshing Algorithms for Simulation of Hydraulically and
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Variable Distribution of Fracture Aperture, Spacing, Length, and Strike. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 18(04): 463–480.[Link]
Sun, J., Schechter, D., Huang, C.-K., 2016. Grid-Sensitivity Analysis and Comparison Between Unstructured
Perpendicular Bisector and Structured Tartan/Local-Grid-Refinement Grids for Hydraulically Fractured Horizontal
Wells in Eagle Ford Formation With Complicated Natural Fractures. SPE Journal, 21(06): 2260–[Link]://
[Link]/10.2118/177480-PA.
Tiab, D., Puthigai, S.K., 1988. Pressure-Derivative Type Curves, for Vertically Fractured Wells. SPE Formation
Evaluation, 3(01): 156–158.[Link]
Wang, Y., Cheng, S., Zhang, K. et al, 2019. Investigation on the transient pressure response of water injector
coupling the dynamic flow behaviors in the wellbore, waterflood-induced fracture and reservoir: Semi-analytical
SPE-209716-MS 17

modeling and a field case. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 130: 668–679.[Link]
[Link].2018.09.083.
Wang, Y., Cheng, S., Zhang, K. et al, 2018. A Comprehensive Work Flow To Characterize Waterflood-Induced Fractures
by Integrating Real-Time Monitoring, Formation Test, and Dynamic Production Analysis Applied to Changqing Oil
Field, China. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 22(02): 692–708.[Link]
Wong, D.W., Harrington, A.G., Cinco-Ley, H., 1986. Application of the Pressure Derivative Function in the Pressure

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
Transient Testing of Fractured Wells. SPE Formation Evaluation, 1(05): 470–480.[Link]
18 SPE-209716-MS

Appendix A
Model solving process
• Pressure response of non-simultaneously closed fracture The dimensionless line source solution
in Laplace space is:

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
(A-1)

The dimensionless pressure response solution of discrete non-simultaneous closed fracture is:

(A-2)

The pressure response in the fracture considering the conductivity of the fracture is:

(A-3)

The conductivity of the first closed fracture is introduced, as shown in Equations (A-4) and (A-5).

(A-4)

(A-5)

The conductivity of the second closed fracture is introduced, as shown in Equations (6) and (7).

(A-6)

(A-7)

Then, the opened fracture conductivity is assumed to follow an exponential function because this rule
cannot be accurately tested in the laboratory. The conductivity of closed fractures is constant, as shown in
Equation (A-8).

(A-8)

The closed fracture conductivities in the first and second section fractures are constant. As shown in
Equations (A-9) and (A-10), the conductivity in the connecting surface between the opened and closed
fractures is the same.
(A-9)
SPE-209716-MS 19

(A-10)
It can be seen from the formula that the fracture closure length is related to the reservoir properties and the
critical pressure at the beginning of fracture closure is different in the two closure processes, thus proving
that fractures are not closed at the same time.

Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
(A-11)

(A-12)

Equations (A-1) to (A-12) are combined to obtain Equation (A-13).

(A-13)

The fracture storage coefficient is defined as shown in Equation (A-14).

(A-14)

The E is introduced as shown in Equations (A-15) and (A-16).

(A-15)

(A-16)

As shown in Equations (A-17) - (A-21), the Duhamel principle is used to obtain a bottom hole pressure
solution considering the dual fracture storage and skin effects.
(A-17)

(A-18)

(A-19)

(A-20)

(A-21)

Finally, the bottom hole pressure solution of the NFCF model is obtained, as shown in Equation (A-21).
 Downloaded from [Link] by Halliburton Energy Services Group user on 17 August 2023
SPE-209716-MS

(B-1)

(B-2)

(B-3)

(B-4)

(B-5)

(B-6)

(B-7)

(B-8)

(B-9)
Dimensionless Definitions
Appendix B
20