SPE 166222

Pressure and Temperature Transient Analysis: Hydraulic Fractured Well

Application
Priscila M. Ribeiro, Stanford University/ Petrobras, and Roland N. Horne, Stanford University

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September2 October 2013.
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 necessar ily 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 prohi bited. 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
Recent developments in bottomhole data acquisition techniques, such as distributed temperature sensing systems (DTS), have
brought attention to the potential increase of information that can be obtained from temperature data. Studies have shown the
application of temperature surveys to estimate flowrate profiles, resolve the kind of damage around the well, improve the
robustness of the history matching, among others. Nonetheless, Temperature Transient Analysis (TTA) is not a mature
technique and its capabilities have not been explored fully yet.
In order to investigate the application of temperature analysis to the hydraulic fracturing problem, in addition to pressure
analysis, a numerical model was developed to calculate pressure and temperature responses. Regarding the fracture and
reservoir fluid flow, a general approach can be adopted, where the formation permeability and fracture characteristics dictate
how the fluids flow during and after fracture growth. We developed a comprehensive model, which accounts for the pressure
effect on the temperature response, as well as a dynamic fracture that grows and eventually is allowed to close during falloff.
In this research we analyzed the temperature and pressure responses during and immediately after hydraulic fracturing in
order to improve our knowledge of this complicated physical problem. Based on this study, we can better understand not only
the fracture properties, but also the reservoir itself. In addition, sensitivity analysis shows how reservoir permeability can
impact final fracturing performance, as well as pressure and temperature responses. The developed model is also applied to
simulate minifrac analysis, and a field example is presented that shows a good agreement with the simulated behavior during
fracture closure.
This paper highlights the potential of Temperature Transient Analysis, expanding the application of temperature in
addition to pressure transient analysis to improve the characterization of fractured wells:
a) TTA has potential to reduce uncertainty related to fracture length and reservoir permeability.
b) TTA also adds value to DTS information, which is commonly measured but often not fully used.
c) Temperature analysis has the potential to give reliable information about the flow dynamics of the reservoir and
especially about near well zone.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracturing is a widely applied well stimulation technique. Oil and gas operators around the world have used
hydraulic fracturing successfully to increase production and reserves. Recently the application of multiple hydraulic fractures
along horizontal wells has made possible the exploitation of unconventional reservoirs, such as shale gas and shale oil.
Hydraulic fracturing operations allow us to bypass near-wellbore damage and return a well to its natural productivity, and
extend a conductive path deep into a formation and thus increase productivity beyond the natural level (Economides and
Nolte, 2000). Although operational practices have shown considerable evolution over a few decades, hydraulic fracturing
characterization still has a lot of room for improvement.
The modeling of the hydraulic fracturing process involves the coupling of at least three processes: the mechanical
deformation induced by the fluid pressure on the fracture surfaces; the flow of fluid within the fracture; and the fracture
propagation. Usually, the solid (rock) deformation is modeled using the theory of linear elasticity, which is represented by an
integral equation that determines the nonlocal relationship between the fracture width and the fluid pressure (Economides and
Nolte, 2000).
Nolte and Smith (1981) presented the basis for interpretation of pressure behavior during hydraulic fracturing based on
Carters leakoff model (Carter, 1957). They demonstrated that a log-log plot of fracturing pressure above the closure stress

SPE 166222

versus treatment time can be used to identify periods of unrestricted extension, confined height, excessive height growth and
restricted penetration. In the same year, Nolte (1979) presented a pressure decline analysis theory (pressure after injection and
before fracture closure). He suggested procedures to quantify the fluid loss coefficient, fracture length and width, fluid
efficiency and time of fracture closure. The practice of performing minifracs was introduced by his development.
A frequent assumption among the hydraulic fracturing models is that fluid loss from fracture to reservoir rock is described
by Carters leakoff model (Carter, 1957), where leak-off velocity is a function of time and the leak-off coefficient. Different
from the previous assumptions, Plahn et al. (1997) presented a numerical model that uses the reservoir pressure as a control
to the flux from fracture to the reservoir. The pressure response during fracture growth is modeled in order to study pump in/flowback tests (short time injection followed by production). Plahn et al. (1997) used the two well-known fracture
geometry models, PKN and KGD (Figure 1), to represent a dynamic fracture during the pressure change due to fluid
injection.
Pressure is by far the most commonly used data for fracture analysis, but there are others tools to investigate fracture
geometry and effectiveness, such as near-wellbore radioactive tracing or microseismic fracture imaging (Barree, 2002).
Recent developments in bottom-hole data acquisition techniques have allowed real-time monitoring of hydraulic fracturing
using fiber-optic distributed temperature sensing systems (DTS) to estimate the fracture initiation depth, vertical coverage,
number of generated fractures, effects of diverting agents and undesired flow behind casing (Sierra et al., 2008).
Originally, the temperature profiles, usually obtained by production logging tools (PLT), have been a tool to estimate
qualitatively where the flow took place. However temperature data are a rich source of information that has been collected for
years, together with the pressure, but not fully used. Recently, Duru and Horne (2008) built a comprehensive reservoir
thermal model considering conductive and convective mechanisms and also other thermal phenomena, like viscous
dissipation and the adiabatic expansion heating/cooling effect. Following their previous development, Duru and Horne (2010)
introduced the potential of using temperature data during history matching. The use of temperature information improved the
accuracy of estimation of the porosity field.
Sui et al. (2008) applied temperature transient analysis to commingled reservoirs. They presented a method to determine
multilayer formation properties from pressure and distributed temperature data, and concluded that layer permeability,
damage permeability and damage radius can be determined uniquely using single-point transient pressure and transient
distributed temperature data.
When the focus turns to temperature modeling of the hydraulic fracturing process, many temperature models presented in
the literature are focused on better prediction of fracturing fluid behavior to optimize proppant placement and/or acid
reactions in acid treatments (Kamphuis et al., 1990; Settari, 1980; Craig et al., 1996). However, the use of temperature
analysis applied to quantitative fracture and reservoir characterization is not a common practice.
With the development of new measurement technologies, such as DTS, the characterization practices of temperature
analysis are likely to be improved. Recently, Seth et al. (2010) presented a numerical solution for temperature response
during a hydraulic fracture job using a simplified fracture growth model by approximating the interaction between fracture
and reservoir by an overall leak-off coefficient, without any pressure consideration. They showed that the temperature data
can give useful information about the rock thermal properties, such as conductivity, and also about the leak-off coefficient.
In this work, we analyzed the temperature and pressure responses during and immediately after hydraulic fracturing in
order to improve our knowledge of this complicated physical problem. We developed a more comprehensive model, which
accounts for the pressure effect on the temperature response, as well as a dynamic fracture that grows during injection and
eventually is allowed to close during falloff. Based on this study, we are able to better understand not only the fracture
properties, but also the reservoir itself. In addition, sensitivity analysis shows how reservoir permeability can impact final
fracturing performance, as well as pressure and temperature responses. Also, the developed model can be applied to
understand minifrac pressure response. Minifracs appear as a reliable alternative for tight formation characterization. We
explored the fracture creation during injection and also the type curves and data transformation technique for pressure decline
analysis during the falloff. A field data example from a nanodarcy reservoir was compared with the simulated results and
showed the same data characteristics.
Model Description
Pressure and temperature responses during hydraulic fracturing and after the injection stops (falloff/flowback) are the focus
of this work. The hydraulic fracturing problem requires a coupled model that encompasses well, fracture and reservoir
behavior. The fracture is able to grow and eventually to decrease in volume (by closure) due to fluid loss to the reservoir. The
model described in this paper couples reservoir and fracture flow to the energy balance. No prior assumption about fluid loss
from fracture to reservoir is required, and so Carters model is not assumed. The coupling between mechanics and mass
balance follows an approach similar to the one described by Plahn et al. (1997). The approach generates the pressure
response and predicts the flow velocities throughout the reservoir during fracture creation by coupling the mass balance
inside the reservoir and within the created fracture with well-known simplified two-dimensional fracture geometries, named
PKN (Nordgren, 1972) and KGD (Geertsma and Klerk, 1969). The reservoir flow and mechanical properties and fluid
injection rates are the parameters that determine final fracture length.
Temperature responses during fracture growth and closure are governed by the energy balance coupled with mass balance
and simplified geomechanical relations. The problem described here accounts for variable fracture length and width, and also

SPE 166222

for pressure effects on the energy balance. The solution is obtained by numerical methods, where the mass balance coupled
with geomechanics is solved first and then applied to the energy balance to obtain the equivalent temperature response, not
only during the injection period, but also in the subsequent falloff or flowback. The detailed pressure and temperature
modelings are described in the following sections.
Mass balance and fracture growth: Fracture growth and closure modeling requires coupling two-dimensional fracture
geometries, such as in the PKN and KGD models (Figure 1), to the reservoir model. Both reservoir and fracture are
discretized and solved numerically by the finite difference technique. Finite difference reservoir simulators are commonly
used to model fluid flow in reservoirs.

Figure 1 PKN (Nordgren, 1972) and KGD (Geertsma and Klerk, 1969) fracture geometries.

Considering a representative elemental volume (REV) of reservoir, the mass balance is represented for a block (i, j) as:

q i1/ 2, j q i1/ 2, j q i, j 1/ 2 q i, j 1/ 2 Si, j

(V ) i , j

( 1)

(q) denotes the mass flow rate normal to a particular face of the grid-block, S is the rate at which mass is removed from the
grid-block via sinks (or added via sources), is the porosity of the grid-block, and V is the bulk volume of (i, j) grid block.
The analysis assumes a two-dimensional system with uniform thickness, h, and the flow velocities inside the reservoir are
given by Darcys law.
The initial and boundary conditions describe a closed reservoir in equilibrium prior to the injection:

px, y, t 0 pi

( 2)

S x xw , y y w , t ( q)inj

( 3)

( q)x xe , y, t ( q)x, y ye , t 0

( 4)

After the discretization of the reservoir, and stating the conservation laws, a system of equations can be written honoring
the boundary and initial conditions.
The coupling between fracture and reservoir starts by assuming a direction of growth in advance, defining the potential
fracture as special grid-blocks. The fracture grids have variable properties, which relate pressure, stress, fracture width and
length. For a homogeneous reservoir, lines of symmetry can be traced from the wellbore, so the reservoir can be represented
by only one fourth of the total, as is shown in Figure 2. Dynamic fracture behavior (growth and shrinkage) is incorporated
into the numerical model by changing fracture grid-block properties such as porosity and permeability. As pressure increases
due to the injection of fluid, the fracture grows and the grid-block properties are not constant anymore. As the fracture grows,
the fracture grid block has to advance and the permeability and porosity have to change due to the increase in fracture width
and length. When the injection stops, the fluid pressure decreases and so does fracture aperture. To honor fracture volume
and conductivity, grid-block permeability and porosity also decrease.
Fracture growth is controlled by predefined propagation criteria. In this work, we applied the two-dimensional geometry
models: PKN and KGD. The propagation criterion for a PKN fracture is based on fluid velocity at the tip. While the fracture
is growing, pressure at the tip is equal to the closure pressure pc. The choice of simplified geometries is related to the fact that
the full mechanical description is not the goal of this first analysis, but to understand pressure and temperature behavior when

SPE 166222

fracture properties are not constant. For KGD fractures the propagation criterion is based on the magnitude of the mode I
stress intensity factor, KI:

K I (t ) 2

12 L f (t )

L f (t )
0

p f ( x, t ) p c
L2f (t ) x 2

dx
( 5)

When the KI overcomes the rock critical value (KIC) the fracture is allowed to grow, otherwise the fracture stays at the
same position.

Figure 2 Reservoir and fracture volume discretization: the model couples reservoir, well and fracture.

The modeled fracture is vertical with fixed height equal to the reservoir thickness. Fracture deformation (i.e., width) is
modeled using England and Greens (1963) well-known solution for a pressurized plane-strain crack, in an infinite, linearly
elastic medium:

w( , t )

8(1 2 )
E

d (t )

u f

0
u2 2

( s, t ) pc
u2 s2

dsdu , [0, d (t )]

( 6)

where d is the characteristic length of the fracture, is the position along d, w(x) is the fracture width distribution, f(x) is
total internal fracture stress, and pc is the pressure of fracture closure. E and are the mechanical properties of the rock,
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. During the injection period f(x) can be considered equal to pf(x), where pf(x) is the
fluid pressure distribution in the fracture. During fracture closure, the existence of asperities is considered (Figure 3), which
introduces an additional contact stress (m) that acts against complete fracture closure. In this case the total fracture stress is
written as:

f pf m

( 7)

Figure 3 Asperities on fracture walls (modified from Danko, 2013).

This property ensures that an enhanced conductivity path along the fracture will be preserved, even though the fracture
conductivity decreases continuously until a stable fracture volume is reached during shut-in (or flowback). The minimum
fracture aperture at which the walls will first touch (asperities), wf,min, is an input in this approach, which considers that the

SPE 166222

asperities contact one another along the centerline of the fracture. The contact stress equations are computed using the
Barton-Bandis discontinuity closure model (Brady and Brown, 2004):

m ( x, t )

w f ( x, t )

A B w f ( x, t )

( 8)

where A and B are constants, and

w f ( x, t ) w f ,min w f ( x, t )

( 9)

The vertical plane-strain assumption simplifies the elasticity problem because fracture width for each vertical cross
section depends only on the local pressure (i.e., there is no lateral coupling), which is the basis for the PKN fracture model.
The PKN model is indicated as the appropriate geometry model when fracture length, 2Lf, exceeds fracture height, h
(Economides and Nolte, 2000). The vertical plane-strain assumption requires that each vertical cross section deforms
independently of all others. This results from the implicit assumption that pressure gradients along the fracture are relatively
small. Since pressure is uniform over each vertical cross section, Equation (6) reduces to a simple form:
w( z, t )

2 1 2 f pc
E

h f 2 4 z 2 , z [ h 2, h 2]

( 10)

Equation (10) gives an elliptical width profile with maximum width, wmax, at z = 0, the centerline of the fracture. The
average width that gives the same area as the elliptical cross section is:

wmax

h f 1 2
2E

pc

( 11)

For the KGD geometry Equation (6) has to be solved by numerical integration.
The fracture grid properties need to be modified at each time step to honor the fracture geometry. The fracture
permeability is determined by the fracture width, as stated by the following equation:
2

k fr

w
12

( 12)

Porosity is also changed in order to honor variable fracture volume in a fixed-dimension grid-block representation. The
system of equations is solved by a fully implicit numerical scheme. As permeability and porosity along the fracture grid
blocks are not constant anymore, their changes and derivatives have to be incorporated into the Jacobian of the NewtonRaphson scheme. In addition to that, contact stress terms also have to be considered during shut-in or flowback, when
asperities on the opposite fracture walls touch. In this case, the Jacobian increases in size (Figure 4), as for each fracture gridblock there will be a contact stress m as unknown in addition to pressure. The additional equations added to the system are
the contact stress equations for each fracture grid block (Equation 8).

Figure 4 Jacobian and Newton Rapshon matrix equations when mechanical stress inside the fracture is applied.

Energy balance: During hydraulic fracturing, cold fluid is injected into a warm reservoir. Part of the injected fluid creates
the fracture and part of it is lost to the formation. The difference between injected fluid and reservoir temperatures creates an
altered temperature zone not only inside the well and fracture, but also inside the reservoir, in the fracture neighborhood. In
the energy balance equation we consider not only heat exchange by convection and conduction, but also heat changes due to
pressure effects. The pressure influence is named the Joule-Thomson effect and the adiabatic expansion. There is also the
work done by the fluid to break the rock during fracturing. The Joule-Thomson effect is a change in the temperature of a fluid
during expansion in a steady flow process involving no heat transfer or work at constant enthalpy. The effect occurs in

SPE 166222

throttling-type processes, such as adiabatic flow through a porous plug or an expansion valve, and as fluids flow into and up
the wellbore, where a drop in pressure occurs (Steffensen and Smith, 1973).
The temperature change per unit pressure change at constant enthalpy is defined by the Joule-Thomson coefficient,

JT

T
p

T 1
C

( 13)

where T is temperature, p is pressure, H the enthalpy, is the coefficient of thermal expansion, fluid density, and C the
specific heat capacity.
This effect means that as liquid or gas flows in the reservoir toward the well, depending on its Joule-Thomson coefficient,
it heats up or cools down because of the pressure drop at the wellbore. A liquid or gas also heats up or cools down as it flows
up the wellbore because of the friction pressure drop there. In general, a pressure drop causes slight heating of flowing oil and
water but a large Joule-Thomson cooling for flowing gas (Brown, 2003).
Adding those effects, the reservoir energy balance equation becomes:

( 14)

eff l 1 s

( 15)

Ceff Cl 1 Cs

( 16)

T
p
eff Tr l Cl v Tr Tr
Tr 1 v p Seff Ceff r
t
t
where:

In addition to that, the growing fracture problem accounts for the work done by the fluid to increase the size of the
fracture by breaking the reservoir rock:

Wp

A f

( 17)

where Af = wf h = f(x,t). For fracture the equation is:

T fr

p
l Cl v fr T fr T fr
T fr 1 v fr p h hl Tr T fr W l Cl
t
t

( 18)

The right hand side of Equation (14) represents the transient temperature variation. The left hand side terms are heat
conduction, heat convection, temperature change caused by temporal fluid expansion, temperature change caused by spatial
fluid expansion and viscous dissipation, and finally the heat source term. For the fracture equation, Equation (18), in addition
to the previously described terms there is the work done by the fluid to deform the rock and open the fracture (W) and heat
conduction through the fracture wall between fluid inside the fracture and the reservoir.
The injection temperature at the top of reservoir is given by Rameys classic analytical solution based on the heat transfer
between well and reservoir and the convection of fluid downhole. The analytical solution states that:

Tinj z, t Tsurf a z a A Tinj z 0, t Tsurf a A e z / A

( 19)

where:
A

qCl f (t )
2

( 20)

z is the distance down from the well head, a is the geothermal gradient, Cl is fluid thermal heat capacity and f is a
dimensionless time function representing the transient of the heat transfer coefficient between the well and the formation.
More details can be found in Ramey (1962). This temperature will be part of the source term for the well grid-block energy
balance equation (Sinj).
The well will provide fluid to fracture and reservoir, in case of open completion, and it also will exchange heat by
conduction with the formation around it. The overall heat transfer coefficient will depend on the kind of completion, for a
cased and cemented well, for example, both materials have to be considered while calculating U (Willhite, 1967). The contact
area is given by 2rwh. So, the well grid-block equation can be written as:

Tw

p
T
Tw 1 q p 2 rw U Tr Tw 2 rw l Cl v fr Tw Sinj Cl l rw2 w
t
t

( 21)

A fine discretization is necessary for the finite difference scheme in order to increase the accuracy and capture the thermal
transients.

SPE 166222

Results and Discussions

The finite difference model described in the previous section was used to study pressure and temperature transients during
hydraulic fracturing. The base case consists of a vertical fracture propagating in a homogeneous reservoir. Reservoir
dimensions were set in a way that boundary effects are not felt during the total simulation time. The injected and reservoir
fluids are assumed to have similar properties, and the single-phase solution represents the scenario adequately. The base case
reservoir parameters are shown in Table 1. The case considered 30 minutes injection of 12ft3/min of fluid at 20oC at the
surface. The injected fluid exchanges heat with the wellbore wall and the surrounding formation during its way down to the
reservoir, which makes the injected temperature at the sand face different from the specified Tinj at the surface. After 30
minutes the well is shut in and the falloff period starts. Figure 5 presents the reservoir pressure maps at the end of injection
(Figure 5 - top) and during falloff (Figure 5 - bottom). During the injection period the fracture propagates away from the
wellbore and the injected fluid creates a pressure disturbance around the fracture. During shut-in, the pressure alteration
diffuses further into the reservoir, reducing its magnitude.

Figure 5- Pressure maps (psi) at the end of injection (top) and falloff (bottom) periods for PKN fracture geometry.
Table 1 Base case fluid and reservoir properties
Property
Value
Porosity ()
0.15
Permeability (k)
0.5md
Reservoir thickness (h)
50ft
Well radius (rw)
0.3ft
Reservoir depth
2200ft
Initial pressure (pi)
2500psi
Fluid compressibility (cl)
5.0x10-6 psi-1
Fluid density at standard conditions
49 lb/ft3
Fluid density
125 lb/ft3
Fluid viscosity ()
1cp
Minimal horizontal stress (min or pc)
3500psi
Poisson ration ()
0.2
Youngs Modulus (E)
2.0x106psi
Asperities size (wf,min)
7x10-4ft
Fluid heat capacity (Cl)
4186.8 J/kg.K
Rock heat capacity (Cr)
921.1 J/kg.K
Rock thermal conductivity (r)
1.44 W/m.K
Fluid thermal conductivity (l)
0.52 W/m.K
Injection temperature at surface (z=0ft)
20oC
Initial Temperature (Ti)
80oC

The net pressure and fracture half-length histories for PKN fracture geometry are shown in Figure 6. Net pressure consists
of wellbore pressure minus the closure pressure, pc. The well pressure increases moderately during injection, while the
fracture is growing. The injection causes not only fracture length growth but also width growth related with the increase in
pressure along the fracture, as shown in Figure 7 (top). During shut-in the pressure declines and the fracture volume
decreases. The fracture closure happens through a decrease in fracture aperture, while the fracture length generated during
injection stays constant (Figure 6 - right). Figure 7 (bottom) presents width profiles along the fracture during shut-in. As
pressure decreases inside the fracture, it is not able to stay open, so it gradually gets narrower. When the width reaches the
size of the asperities, the opposite walls start to touch and contact stress is generated against the complete closure. In part, this

SPE 166222

is responsible for the behavior of pressure change behavior during falloff presented in Figure 6. The pressure reflects the
behavior of dynamic geometry, where the fracture grows and closes, changing volume and conductivity.

Figure 6 - Wellbore pressure (left) and fracture length (right) histories for PKN geometry.

Figure 7 Average width profiles during fracturing (top) and falloff (bottom) for PKN geometry.

For the KGD model the pressure behavior during injection and fracture propagation differs, it decreases slightly as the
fracture propagates (Figure 8). The width profiles during injection show how the fracture grows and during shut-in they
indicate how fracture volume decreases and the effect of asperities on the residual fracture aperture (Figure 9).

Figure 8 - Wellbore pressure and fracture length histories for KGD geometry

SPE 166222

Figure 9 Fracture width profiles during fracture growth (top) and closure (bottom) for KGD geometry.

Figure 10 Pressure difference (blue) and its logarithmic derivatives with respect to t (red) and equivalent time (green) during
falloff for PKN geometry.

Figure 11 Pressure difference (blue) and its logarithmic derivatives with respect to t (red) and equivalent time (green) during
falloff for KGD geometry.

The log-log plot of falloff pressure and its derivative with respect to the shut-in time (t=t-tinj) for PKN fracture is
presented in Figure 10. The linear flow is observed in early times, followed by a steep bump in the derivative, which
decreases towards a slope of -1 after that. The derivative spike is coincident with the moment at which the fracture width

10

SPE 166222

around the well becomes as small as the specified minimum width of the asperities. The derivative tends to zero because
during the shut-in the pressure tends to return to the initial pressure of the reservoir, remembering that the injection period is
small compared with the total falloff time.
The equivalent log-log plot for KGD fracture geometry is presented on Figure 11. It is important to notice that the same
spike in the pressure derivative is present, regardless the assumption of fracture geometry. The spike is related to the fracture
closure at the wellbore, when the wall asperities start to touch.
When we performed a sensitivity analysis to reservoir permeabilities it was clear that fracture length and the pressure
response are directly affected. Table 2 shows the final fracture length for different permeabilities in a massive hydraulic
fracturing scenario, which are performed at high rates in a 60ft thick reservoir. For all the sensitivity analysis performed in
this section the injection rate was 21.5bbl/min. All cases have the same input properties, and PKN geometry, except for
reservoir permeability. The lower the permeability, the longer the generated fracture will be. This is related to the fact that for
constant injection rate, the lower the permeability, the lower the quantity of fluid lost to the formation and the more effective
the fracturing treatment.
Table 2 Fracture length sensitivity to reservoir permeability.
0.05
0.5
1
5
Reservoir permeability [md]
2297
1301
980
507
Fracture half length (Lf) [ft]

10
450

The pressure transient analysis for the different reservoir permeabilities is expressed in terms of falloff pressure and the
logarithmic derivative with respect to the shut-in time in Figure 12. The commonly observed signature contains the linear
flow at early times, when the fracture is still open, followed by a steep jump in the logarithmic derivative. For all the cases
analyzed, this jump occurs at the moment when the fracture closes at the wellbore wall. The lower the permeability, the later
the spike in the logarithmic derivative happens. Koning and Niko (1985) and van den Hoek (2002) presented semianalytical
solutions for fracture closure during falloff applied to water flooding scenario (long time of injection when compared with the
falloff), where a similar spike is present when fracture closes. Those models described fracture closure by a change in
wellbore storage, keeping the fracture conductivity constant and infinite.

Figure 12 Permeability sensitivity analysis: pressure and its logarithmic derivative in a log-log plot.

Solving the energy balance equation yields the temperature during the hydraulic fracturing process. Figure 13 (left) shows
the average temperature inside the wellbore at reservoir depth for the different permeability cases. As can be seen, the
average temperature inside the wellbore shows a very small sensitivity to the different reservoir permeability cases. On the
other hand, analyzing the temperature inside the fracture (right plot in Figure 13), in the well neighborhood, we can observe a
significant difference in the way the temperature recovers, in other words, in the way it warms back. It can be observed that
the lower the permeability, the faster will be the temperature recovery over time. Paying close attention to the early times, the
lower permeability cases, which have larger fractures, warm up slower than higher permeability cases. At early times the
fracture is still open and more fluid will be inside the fracture in lower permeability cases, so the heat that comes from the
reservoir has to warm up a bigger mass and larger fluid film; then, explaining why the temperature recovery is slower. After
the fracture shrinks, the reservoir rock will easily warm the fluid inside the fracture. Lower permeability will have smaller
alterations in the temperature inside the reservoir in the neighborhood around the fracture. So for those cases the fracture
temperature will warm up faster towards the initial reservoir temperature (Tres). After the fracture closure, the heat transfer is
basically governed by conduction (diffusive mechanism). This process characterizes a slower temperature increase during
later times of shut-in.

SPE 166222

11

Figure 13 shows that during shut-in the highest distinction between different reservoir properties in terms of temperature
occurs inside the fracture and reservoir. So, if instead of only shutting the well in it is flowed back, the temperature
disturbances that have happened inside the fracture and in its neighborhood would be recovered at the well. Figure 14
presents the temperature response measured inside the well during injection and flowback. As can be seen, the difference
between permeabilities is also reflected in the temperature measurement, and this difference is able to be observed inside the
well.

Figure 13 Permeability sensitivity analysis: average temperature inside the wellbore (left), and temperature history inside the
fracture adjacent to the wellbore (right).

Figure 14 Average temperature inside the wellbore at the reservoir depth considering flowback rate history.

Temperature derivatives: Pressure transient analysis has the pressure derivatives as main tool for flow regime diagnosis,
especially after the logarithm derivative type curves introduced by Bourdet et al. (1983). Inspired by such a useful tool we
analyzed the derivative characteristics of temperature transients for hydraulic fracturing scenario.
The first important observation is about the location of temperature sensor. For cases where DTS is deployed in a well
there are two main possibilities: the optical fiber can be installed inside the tubing, in direct contact with the fluid inside the
well; or it can be installed behind the casing and cemented, which will lead to higher sensitivity to the reservoir temperature
(Sierra et al. 2008). If installed behind the casing, it has sometimes been the practice that several fibers are placed around the
well to ensure that after the perforating job at least one of the fibers will not be damaged by the guns.
When the temperature sensor is placed inside the well it measures the average fluid temperature at the reservoir depth. At
the end of injection the temperature inside the well is close or equal to the injected temperature, and the surrounding reservoir
is at higher temperature. Figure 15 shows the difference between the temperatures recorded for different sensor locations: at
the reservoir wall (green line, Tr) and at the wellbore (blue line, Tw), in addition to the fluid temperature inside the fracture
(red, Tfr). When the well is flowed back the temperature warms faster and the temperature tends to be the same for the
different locations after a couple of hours.
When the temperature is recorded behind the casing (Tr), close to the reservoir rock, the measurement might behave as
represented by the green line in Figure 15. When the injection stops, the temperature still decreases due to the heat transfer
through the wall of the well. This period will be shorter for smaller well radius and also when the flowback is performed.
Inside the fracture the temperature (Tfr) changes very quickly when the fracture is closing. The temperature transits from the
well temperature to the formation temperature as the fluid film gets thinner. Inside the well the temperature (Tw) will reflect
the injected temperature during injection and after it be influenced by the volume of fluid at lower temperature and the heat

12

SPE 166222

transfer through the casing. In case of flowback the temperature increases faster mainly due to the entrance of warmer fluid
that comes from the fracture and the reservoir.

Figure 15 Temperature response measurement for different sensor locations: injection followed by shut-in (left), and injection
followed by flowback (right).

To understand the effect of injection and falloff/flowback on the temperature derivatives, analyses of sensitivity to
reservoir permeability and to injection rate were performed. The higher the injection rate the longer will be the fracture
length. The same is true for lower permeabilities, less fluid is lost and a longer fracture is created. In order to avoid
differences in injected temperature at the reservoir depth due to different injection rate, the injection temperature for all the
cases analyzed in this subsection was specified as constant at the reservoir depth.

Figure 16 Temperature logarithmic derivative for flowback case: sensitivity to reservoir permeability (left) and injection flow rate
(right).

Figure 17 Temperature logarithmic derivative for warmback case: sensitivity to reservoir permeability (left) and injection flow rate
(right).

SPE 166222

13

The semilog plot of logarithmic derivative of temperature during both flowback (Figure 16) and falloff (Figure 17)
presents a maximum point for all the analyzed cases. For the flowback cases the maximum is located at the same time for
most of the different values of reservoir permeability or injection rate, as long as the fluid properties, well characteristics and
flowback rate remain the same.

Figure 18 Simplified representation of wellbore heat transfer during falloff (left) and flowback (right).

This observation can be explained by solving a simplified equation for each of the cases, falloff and flowback. For the
flowback case, the temperature inside the well can be simplified by assuming that heat convection is the dominant effect in
the heat transfer, and also that reservoir fluid that enter the wellbore has constant temperature and equal to Tres (Figure 18 right). The governing equation is:
Vw l Cl

dT
q fb l C l Tres T
dt

( 22)

where qfb is the flowback rate. The solution of Equation (22) is given by Equation (23):

TD e

q fb t
Vw

( 23)

where:

TD t

Tres T t
Tres Ti

( 24)

The logarithmic derivative of wellbore temperature has a maximum, which is given by the ratio of well volume by the
flowback rate (Equation 25). For the simulated flowback cases the tmax is equal to 10.6min. Multiplying tmax by qfb
(1.6ft3/min) we recover the input volume of the well in front of the porous medium (16.95ft3). This effect can be seen as an
analog of wellbore storage in pressure transient analysis (PTA). The temperature wellbore storage (TWBS) was also
acknowledged by Ramazanov et al. (2010). This relationship between the temperature maximum and the wellbore volume
and rate was true for many different well radia and flowback rates tested, but for low permeability where the fracturing was
performed at high rates the maximum position is shifted to a little late in time (see 50d case in Figure 16-left). A possible
explanation is that for lager fractures, and consequently large volume of liquid inside it at shut-in, the fluid that flows first to
the well is at low temperature and it decreases the accuracy of this simplification.
t max

Vw
q fb

( 25)

For the falloff scenario, a possible simplification is to describe the heat transfer between the well and reservoir as a fluidfilled cylinder at low initial temperature (Ti) surrounded by a medium at high temperature (Tres), where the heat is transferred
by conduction through the cylinder wall (Figure 18 - left). The higher the temperature variation in the reservoir in the vicinity
of the well the worse will be this approximation compared with the full physics solution. The governing equation for
simplified warmback is presented in Equation (26).

Vw l Cl

dT
2 rw h U Tres T
dt

( 26)

The solution of this first-order ordinary equation subjected to the initial condition (T=Ti) is given by Equation (27).

TD e

( 27)

and TD is given by Equation (24).

where
The logarithmic derivative of the analytical solution for well temperature during falloff has a maximum which happens at
a shut-in time given by Equation (28). From Equation (28) we can obtain the effective heat transfer coefficient between well
and reservoir (U) by taking the time of maximum dT/dlnt semilog plot, when the fluid density and heat capacity are known.

14

SPE 166222

The slope of straight line formed by the semilog plot ln(dT/dt) vs. t can also be used to calculate U, because it is given by 1/T. But this simplification is not fully accurate, if we calculate U using the tmax from the simulated data the value of heat
transfer estimate (6.15W/m2K) is smaller than the actual one (15.5W/m2K).
t max T

l Cl rw

( 28)

2U

For the falloff case this approximation is very rough and becomes less accurate as the wellbore radius increases, because
the decrease in the wall temperature and heat conduction inside the reservoir are not accounted for, which reflects a smaller
heat transfer coefficient estimate than the actual one. High injection rates and permeabilities also contribute to decrease the
accuracy of this representation. So the calculated value from Equation (28) can be seen as the lower bound for the effective
heat transfer coefficient.
Considering the conduction inside the reservoir rock around the well, but assuming the temperature inside the reservoir is
constant and equal to Tres at the shut-in time, the solution is given in the Laplace space by:

TwD

s keff

Urw

where

2UC eff rw

K0

s K1

s s sK
0

and:

l C l eff

C eff rw 2

T eff

( 29)

( 30)

The comparison between the temperature logarithmic derivatives obtained from Equations (27) and (29) with the numeric
solution is shown in Figure 19. It is observed that even considering the conduction inside the reservoir is not enough to
reproduce the numeric behavior. The numeric solution considers the cooling effects during injection, which has the
conduction with the wellbore and also the convective effect of cold fluid percolating the reservoir by the leakoff. As the
fracture is created the shape of cooling zone inside the reservoir is elliptic. This first cooling effect influences the temperature
derivative in a way that its maximum happens later in time and has smaller absolute value.
In spite of the approximations, in a practical application the calculated values from either Equation (28) or Equation (29)
can be seen as lower bounds for the effective heat transfer coefficient. This would be useful information in that the heat
transfer coefficient is often unknown.

Figure 19 Comparison between the temperature logarithmic derivatives during shut-in: analytical solution considering constant
rock temperature (green); analytical solution considering conduction inside the rock (red); and full physics numerical solution
(blue).

When we analyze the wellbore temperature first derivative with respect to time it is observed that there is a considerable
difference when sensitivity analysis is performed (Figure 20). For different injection rates, and consequently different fracture
length, the flowback derivative shows some difference at the early times, and after a maximum all the curves collapse in a
descendent mode (Figure 20 - right). For different permeabilities the distinction in the temperature derivative is seen for
longer time (Figure 20- left), which shows the permeability indeed affects the thermal response in fracturing scenarios.
Comparing Figure 20 left and right we have observed that for the same permeability the curves have the same derivative
behavior for most of the time and different behavior for all different permeabilities studied here. This characteristic can be
explored for inverse problem solution.

SPE 166222

15

Figure 20 Temperature derivative during flowback: permeability (left) and injection flow rate (right) sensitivities.

Minifrac
A straightforward application of the presented model is the study of minifrac tests. Minifrac is characterized by a very short
injection time, usually few minutes, at high rate capable of breaking the rock and creating a small fracture. The test is
followed by a long falloff, where the pressure decline is recorded during the shut-in period. This test is normally performed in
order to estimate the fracture closure pressure, and when the falloff is long enough to reach the radial flow it also can provide
a valuable estimate of permeability, which will be used for the main fracturing job. Minifracs are not conventional well tests,
because a fracture is created during injection and closes during falloff.
As the time of injection is short compared with the falloff, the minifrac could be approximated as an instantaneous
injection. As described by Gu et al. (1993) and Abousleiman et al. (1994), the instantaneous injection pressure solution for
the falloff period is given by the derivative of corresponding constant rate solution multiplied by the volume injected:
pwv t Vinj

d pw t , C sT
dt

( 31)

Noticing this fact, Craig et al. 2006 realized the slug-test analysis methods (Peres et al. 1993) can be applied to the falloff
data as though the created fracture was preexisting. From Equation (31) the equivalent constant and unitary rate injection
pressure solution can be obtained by integrating the recorded falloff pressure. Equation (32) describes the data
transformation, and using the same principle the logarithmic derivative is calculated directly (Equation 33).

pw t , CsT

1
Vinj

t
0

pwv d

( 32)

dp w t , C sT t p wv t

d ln(t )
Vinj

( 33)

We used our numerical model to simulate a minifrac performed in a 25ft thick reservoir with a permeability of 1md,
where the injection time was 5 minutes at 12ft3/min. The result is shown in Figure 21. At the early times the log-log plot
presents the effect of changing size fracture, with the equivalent time derivative assuming higher values than the pressure
difference for intermediate and later times.
Subsequently, we applied the integral transformation suggested by Craig et al. (2006) to our simulated falloff data when
the fracture is closing (Equation 32). Figure 22 shows the effect of such transformation. The Bourdet derivative presents a
more familiar characteristic: wellbore storage, fracture influence, followed by radial flow.
Using the integral transformation of closing fracture pressure during falloff period as input data into a commercial well
test analysis software allows the data to be interpreted as a regular constant-injection test, with unit rate (-1). The model is
able to recover the reservoir permeability and also the fracture dimensions (Table 3). Figure 22 shows the model (black lines)
fitting the transformed data with parameters given by nonlinear regression. The initial closing fracture behavior is
transformed into unit slope characteristic of wellbore storage.
Table 3 Comparison between input and interpreted parameters.
Parameter
Simulation Input and Final
Data Interpretation
Fracture Geometry
k (md)
Lf (ft)
C (bbl/psi)

1
117.
-

1.03
118
0.009

16

SPE 166222

Pressure [psi]

To understand the signatures displayed by the falloff pressure in a closing fracture scenario we compared the dynamic
fracture simulation with the respective response for a fixed fracture that has the same characteristics as the stable final stage
of the closing fracture (same reservoir properties, fracture length and conductivity). We also compared with the response of a
simple vertical well. The falloff response comparisons are shown in Figure 23 (left). As can be seen, after the closing fracture
reaches a more stable geometry its derivative overlays the derivative for the traditional fixed fracture scenario, showing not
only the fracture effect but also transitioning together to the radial flow. The fact that for later time the falloff response for
fixed fracture overlays the derivative for growing/closing fracture case implies that after sufficient time the reservoir behavior
is not influenced by the fracture propagation, but by the final fracture shape. After stable fracture geometry is reached, the
influence of bilinear flow is observed. For even later time the radial flow is obtained, which is in agreement with Gu et al.
(1993) and Abousleiman et al. (1994). When the integral transformation is applied the log-log plot shows a more familiar
characteristic, as shown in the right plot in Figure 23.

1000

100

1E-3

0.01

0.1

1
Time [hr]

10

100

Figure 21- Bourdet derivative of minifrac pressure falloff for 1md reservoir.

Pressure [psi]

Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]

1000

100

1E-3

0.01

0.1

1
Time [hr]

10

100

Figure 22 Bourdet derivative and finite conductivity model math for integral transformed minifrac pressure falloff (psi.h) for 1md
reservoir.

Log-Log plot: p-p@dt=0 and derivative [psi] vs dt [hr]

Figure 23- Comparison between closing fracture, fixed fracture and vertical well falloff type curves (left), and equivalent integral
transformed analysis (right).

SPE 166222

17

The integral operation transforms the early behavior of falloff data for the closing fracture into pure wellbore storage
(Figures 22 and 23-right). For the growing fracture problem the total storage coefficient can be expressed by:

C sT t clVw clV fr t

dV fr t

( 34)

dp

A comparison between the terms on the right hand side of Equation 34 (Figure 24) shows that the magnitude of derivative
of fracture volume with respect to pressure is higher than the storativities of the fracture (clVfr) and wellbore. More than that,
the derivative has a high value for the majority of time when I(p) exhibits the unit slope. Then dVfr/dp drops and the
transformed pressure behavior starts to transit to linear flow. The value of the wellbore storage coefficient interpreted from
the transformed data is 0.009bbl/psi.
For the PKN fracture the derivative of fracture volume with respect to pressure during the falloff for ideal cases depends
on fracture stiffness. Substituting the input values used for our simulation into the fracture volume derivative expression, the
derivative of fracture volume with respect to pressure can be calculated as follows:

dV fr p
dp

2hL f

dw fr p
dp

2hL f
S fr

0.0095 bbl psi

( 35)

where Sfr is the fracture stiffness and the expressions for PKN and KGD fractures are presented in Table 4.
Table 4 Fracture Stiffness for PKN and KGD Geometries.
Fracture Model
Stiffness (Sfr)

PKN

2E

KGD

1 2 h

1 2 L f

For the case of constant wellbore storage in static reservoir geometry, the wellbore pressure is given in the Laplace space
by:
p wv s Vinj s

pwc s

1 C sT s 2 p wc s

( 36)

and the integral of falloff pressure will be equivalent to the constant rate at the wellhead with storage coefficient CsT:
pwc s
1
pwv t dt pwv s Vinj
Vinj pw s
s
1 C sT s 2 pwc s

( 37)

The fact that storage is high when the fracture is closing can explain why the unit slope is seen at the early times of the
transformed data, and also is covering the change in fracture conductivity with decrease in aperture. The data integration
brings the wellbore and fracture storages to influence the data in the same way the regular wellbore storage does in a
traditional drill stem test (DST).
A useful conclusion that was possible by analyzing the fracture behavior during closure and the data transformation by
integral is the fact that the moment in time when the pressure and its derivative start to first separate at the end of pure storage
is equivalent to the decrease in dVfr/dp. This statement can be visualized by comparing Figures 23 (right) and 24 (left). The
same was observed in all the simulated cases so far, with permeability ranging from 10md to 100nd.

Figure 24 Fracture volume derivative with respect to pressure (left) and fracture storativity (right) during the falloff for 1md
reservoir.

18

SPE 166222

One problem of the integral transformation approach is that it requires knowledge of the correct initial pressure (pi). Even
a small mistake can cause a large change in the p and its logarithmic derivative such that they do not show the radial flow
clearly, as exemplified in Figure 25. 5 psi deviation from the correct initial pressure makes the integral data deform and the
interpretation is compromised severely. The plots in Figure 25 are based on simulated results, but the same behavior is seen
in real data.

Figure 25 Effect of initial pressure on integral transformed data. The actual pi used to create the simulated data is 2500psi. The
figures from the left to the right were generated from p calculated pi equals to 2500, 2505 and 2495psi, respectively.

Tight Reservoirs: Hydraulic fracturing is commonly applied to low permeability reservoirs, with permeability scaling from
micro- to nanodarcies. In order to analyze the reservoir and fracture behavior in those scenarios we simulated a minifrac
performed in a 100nd reservoir.

Figure 26 Minifrac performed in 100nd reservoir: falloff Bourdet derivative with respect to Agarwal equivalent time (left) and of
integral transformed data (right).

As we can see in Figure 26, the Bourdet derivative with respect to Agarwal equivalent time (teq) for the falloff period
represents very well the common characteristics of many real data from unconventional reservoirs published in the literature
(for example, Hawkes et al., 2013). The 3/2 slope appears in cases in which the permeability is very low and the fracture
remains open for a considerable amount of time. This is in agreement with Noltes solution (Nolte, 1979) for high efficiency
fracturing jobs (100% efficiency), because there is very low leakoff due to the formation being tight. This behavior has been
explored by recent papers in order to estimate the closure pressure, which would be the point where the pressure derivative
deviates from 3/2 slope (Marongiu-Porcu et al., 2011 and Bachman et al., 2012).
For this specific example the fracture does not stop growing after 5 minutes of injection. The fracture grows for 2 minutes
more at the beginning of falloff. In this case, also due to a very small leakoff, the fracture stays open for several hours, which
influences the pressure derivative directly. If we perform the integral transformation on the falloff part of the data we can see
that unit slope remains for 21 hours (Figure 26- right). There is a correspondence between the end of unit slope and a more
stable fracture volume. For this case, after the transformation we can see that radial flow is not seen during the 200 hours of
falloff. As the reservoir permeability is very low even the short injection was able to create a considerable fracture length
(400 ft), and the transition to fracture flow regime (linear or bilinear) is what we see after the unit slope.
Figure 27 (left) shows pressure derivative for the falloff period of a field test in which a minifrac was performed in a
high-pressure ultralow permeability reservoir. The injection time was 3 minutes, followed by 48 hours of falloff. As can be
seen, the pressure derivative shows a similar behavior to our simulated examples. The integral transformation led to the
permeability estimate of 130nd. In this case the estimated fracture length from interpretation of integral transformation in a

SPE 166222

19

commercial well testing software was small (6ft) and it is in agreement to the observation that unit slope starts to separate
after 1min of falloff.

Figure 27 Field data of minifrac in an ultralow permeability gas reservoir: Falloff Bourdet pressure derivative with respect to
Agarwal equivalent time (left) and integral transformation (right).

Conclusions
In this work we developed a fully implicit numerical simulator that accounts for fracture creation and closure, providing both
pressure and temperature responses. This model was applied to a series of cases with different reservoir permeabilities and
injection rates. The fracture permeability appears as one of the key parameters to control final fracture length and the closure
behavior. The smaller the permeability the longer the fracture and later in time it will close.
The transient temperature data was also investigated and was shown to be impacted by the reservoir flow properties (such
as permeability and porosity); furthermore, temperature variation is affected by pressure drop. This fact provides us an
opportunity to apply temperature analysis together with pressure analysis to improve formation and fracture parameter
estimates. We also have demonstrated that measured temperature is very sensitive to the sensor location. If the sensor is
inside the well there will be an effect of the fluid volume in what has been referred to previously as temperature wellbore
storage (TWBS).
The preliminary temperature transient analysis shows that there is a potential application for these data and further studies
are needed in order to improve our understanding about the information that is carried by the temperature signal.
The simulator was also applied to minifrac analysis, where the simulated data were used to investigate the behavior of a
data transformation based on the integral operation technique. For all the examples analyzed so far, the end of unit slope of
the transformed data happens at the same time as when the value of dVfr/dp drops, and can be taken as fracture closure time.
It was possible to recover final fracture properties and reservoir permeability from traditional well testing technique, given
that the duration of falloff was long enough to develop the linear/bilinear and radial flow regimes after the fracture walls have
touched. The advantage of minifrac tests is the fact that short injection time allows those regimes to happen sooner than
would be seen in a traditional DST.
A field data example has shown that our model is able to reproduce the real behavior of falloff with closing fracture.
Based on the work presented here we can list the following conclusions:
1- It has been observed that reservoir permeability controls the fracture closure time and length;
2- Pressure derivative presents a spike when fracture closes at the well;
3- Real data from shale and tight reservoirs published in the literature show the same pressure derivative behavior
described here;
4- Temperature response after fracturing is influenced by reservoir permeability and final fracture length.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Petrobras S.A. for allowing the publication of this work and the financial support of the current
PhD of the first author. We also appreciate the support from Stanford University Consortium on Innovation in Well Testing
(SUPRI-D).
Nomenclature
Af
Vertical cross sectional area of fracture
c
Compressibility
Cl
Heat capacity of the fluid
Clk
Leak-off coefficient
Cs
Heat capacity of the solid.
CsT
Wellbore storage coefficient.

20

SPE 166222

d
E
h
k
kf
KI
KIc
Lf
p
pc
pi
pf
pnet
pw
q
r
s
S
Srf
t
T
U
vlk
V
w

wmax
x
y

Characteristic length of fracture

Youngs modulus
Reservoir thickness / fracture height
Permeability
Fracture permeability
Stress intensity
Critical stress intensity factor
Fracture half length
Fluid pressure
Fracture closure pressure
Initial reservoir pressure
Pressure in the fracture
Fracture net pressure
Pressure at the wellbore
Flowrate
Radius
Laplace variable
Source
Fracture stiffness
Time
Temperature
Equivalent heat transfer coefficient at well wall
Leak-off velocity
Volume
Fracture width
Average fracture width for a cross section
Maximum fracture width for a cross section
Spatial coordinate in direction parallel to fracture
Spatial coordinate in direction perpendicular to fracture

Coefficient of thermal expansion

Thermal conductivity

Fluid viscosity

Porosity

Poissons ratio

Density
Subscripts
D
Dimensionless
e
External boundary
eff
Effective
f
Fluid
fb
Flowback
fr
Fracture
i
Initial
inj
Injection
l
Liquid
lk
Leak-off
r
Reservoir/rock
s
Solid
sc
Standard condition
sf
Sand face
v
Variable rate
w
Well
References
Abousleiman, Y., Cheng, A. H-D., and Gu, H.: "Formation Permeability Determination by Micro or Mini-Hydraulic Fracturing, J. of
Energy Resources Technology (June 1994) 116, No. 6, 104.
Bachman, R.C., Walters, D.A., Hawkes, R.A., Toussaint, F., Settari, A.: Reappraisal of the G Time Concept in Mini-Frac Analysis,
presented at SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8-10 October, 2012.
Barree, R.D., Fisher, M.K., and Woodroof, R.A.:"A Practical Guide to Hydraulic Fracture Diagnostic Technologies," paper SPE 77442
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibtion, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September 2 October, 2002.

SPE 166222

21

Bourdet, D. P., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A. A. and Pirard, Y. M., 1983 a. A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis. World
Oil, May, 95-106. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston.
Brady, B.H.G. and Brown, E.T.: Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, third edition, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2004)
131.
Brown, G., McAllister, K., Al-Asimi, M., and Raghavan, K.: Monitoring Horizontal Producers and Injectors During Cleanup and
Production Using Fiber-Optic-Distributed Temperature Measurements, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, CO, October 5-8, 2003.
Carter, R.D.: Derivation of General Equation for Estimating the Extent of the Fracture Area Drill. And Prod. Prac., API 261-168, 1957.
Craig, D.P., Brown, T.D., and Eli, J.W.: Field Investigation of Heat Transfer in Hydraulic Fractures and the Effect of Heat Transfer on
Fracturing Fluid Design, presented at SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 6-9 October, 1996.
Craig, D.P., and Blasingame, T.A.: Application of a New Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model Accounting for Propagating, Dilated, and
Closing Hydraulic Fractures, presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada, 15-17 May, 2006.
Danko, G.: Dynamic Model of Discrete Fracture Opening under Fluid Injection, Proceedings, 38 th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 11 - February 13, 2013.
Duru, O.O., and Horne, R. N.: Modeling Reservoir Temperature Transients and Matching to Permanent Downhole Gauge Data for
Reservoir Parameter Estimation, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, SPE 115791-PP, 2008.
Duru, O.O., and Horne, R. N.: Joint Inversion of Temperature and Pressure Measurements for Estimation of Permeability and Porosity
Field, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 20-22 September, 2010.
Economides, M.J. and Nolte, K.G.: Reservoir Stimulation, third edition, Prentice John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, England (2000).
England, A.H. and Green, A.E.: Some Two-Dimensional Punch and Crack Problems in Classical Elasticity, Proc., Cambridge Phil Soc.,
London (1963) 59, 489.
Geertsma, J. and Klerk, F.A.: Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of Hydraulically Induced Fractures, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (December 1969) 1571-81; Trans., AIME, 246.
Gu, H., Elbel, J.L., Nolte, K.G., Cheng, A.H-D., and Abousleiman, Y.: Formation Permeability Determination Using Impulse-Fracture
Injection, presented at SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, March 21-23, 1993.
Hawkes, R.V., Anderson, I., Bachman, R.C., Settari, A.: Interpretation of Closure Pressure in the Unconventional Montney Using PTA
Techniques. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, Woodland, Texas, USA, 4-6 February 2013.
Kamphuis, H., Davies, D. R., & Roodhart, L. P.: A New Simulator for the Calculation of the In-Situ Temperature Profile during Well
Stimulation Fracturing Treatments, The International Technical Meeting, Calgary, 10-13 June 1990.
Koning, E. J. L. and Niko, H.: Fractured Water-Injection Wells: A Pressure Falloff Test for Determining Fracture Dimensions, SPE
14458, presented in 60th ATCE, Las Vegas, Sept. 1985.
Marongiu-Porcu, M., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Economides, M. J.: Global Model Fracture Falloff Analysis, presented at SPE North
American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14-16 June, 2011.
Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B.: Interpretation of Fracturing Pressures, SPE 8297, Journal of Petroleum Technology (September 1981) 33,
No. 9, 1767-1775.
Nolte, K.G.: Determination of Fracture Parameters of Fracturing Pressure Decline, SPE 8341, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, September 23-26, 1979.
Nordgren, R.P.: Propagation of a Vertical Hydraulic Fracture, SPE Journal (August 1972) 306-14; Trans., AIME, 253.
Peres, A.M.M., Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: A New General Pressure-analysis Procedure for Slug Tests, SPEFE, December 1993, 292298.
Plahn, S.V., Nolte, K.G., Thompson, L.G. and Miska, S.: A Qualitative Investigation of the Fracture Pump-In/Flowback Test, paper SPE
30504, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA (October 22-25, 1995); also in SPE
Production & Facilities (February 1997) 12, No. 1, 20-27.
Ramazanov, A.Sh., Valiullin, R.A., Sedretdinov, A.A., Shako, V.V., Pimenov, V.P., Fedorov, V.N., and Belov, K.V.: Thermal modeling
for Characterization of Near Wellbore Zone and Zonal Allocation, presented at 2010 SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 26-28 October, 2010.
Ramey, H.J.: Wellbore Heat Transmission," Journal of Petroleum Technology 14(4): 427 - 435, Trans., AIME, 225, 1962.
Seth, G., Reynolds, A.C., and Mahadevan, J.: Numerical Model for Interpretation of Distributed Temperature Sensor Data During
Hydraulic Fracturing, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 20-22 September, 2010.
Settari, A.: Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Processes, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, December 1980, 487-500.
Steffensen, R.J., and Smith, R.C.: The Importance of Joule-Thomson Heating (or Cooling) in Temperature Log Interpretation, presented
at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting of Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME in Las Vegas, Nevada, September 30- October 3, 1973.
Sierra, J., Kaura, J., Gualtieri, D., Glasbergen, G., & Sarkar, D. (2008). DTS Monitoring Data of Hydraulic Fracturing: Experiences and
Lessons Learned. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September 2008.
Sui, W., Zhu, D., Hill, A.D., and Ehlig-Economides, A.C.: Model for Transient Temperature and Pressure Behavior in Commingled
Vertical Wells, paper presented at the 2008 DPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, 28-30 October, Moscow,
Russia.
van den Hoek, P. J.: Pressure Transient Analysis in Fractured Produced Water Injection Wells, SPE 77946, 2002.
Willhite, G.: Over-all Heat Transfer Coefficients in Steam and Hot Water Injection Wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology 19(5), 607615, 1967.