A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TREATMENT

DESIGN RESULTING AN IMPROVED PROPPANT SCHEDULING METHOD

A Thesis written by:

Kevin Wiradi
12212086

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR
At the Department of Petroleum Engineering
Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering
Institut Teknologi Bandung

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF MINING AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2016

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TREATMENT

DESIGN RESULTING AN IMPROVED PROPPANT SCHEDULING METHOD

By:
Kevin Wiradi
NIM: 12212086

Petroleum Engineering Department

Institut Teknologi Bandung

Approval:
Supervisor
Bandung, ____________________

___________________________________
(Prof. Dr. Ir. Sudjati Rachmat, DEA)
195509021980031005

A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TREATMENT

DESIGN RESULTING AN IMPROVED PROPPANT SCHEDULING METHOD
Kevin Wiradi1, Sudjati Rachmat2
1
2

Student of Petroleum Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

Lecturer of Petroleum Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract
Back to fracturing history, the first commercial hydraulic fracturing may be done since 1949, but actually the idea
of fracturing formation to quicken the production already exist since 1865. So the idea is more than a century old
now. Hydraulic fracturing treatment design is one of an aspect that has been developed so much, until now people
are able to generate a treatment design without consume much so time on that.
Hydraulic fracturing treatment design has been vastly developed since 1953, until in the 2000s Gu, H. et al. has
developed a method which includes numerical calculations and then automatically designs the hydraulic fracturing
treatment to its most optimum option, and just needs to be told how far would the fracture go, and do it with what
fluid and proppant. By the creator its named as Pump Schedule Generator (PSG). But far before that, in 1983 H.
R. Crawford developed a methodology with a few calculations to calculate the volume of fracturing fluid needed
based on the designed and desired fracture network dimensions, number of proppant needed, and also the
production increase.
This work analyses the comparison between the older method and PSG, and then modifies the schedule created
by the older method to come up to the results of the PSG. A fracturing design simulator, FracCADE 5.1. was used
in this study. It helps the writer to understand the basics of Pump Schedule Generator and the causes and effects
of parameters to the EOJ result values. The formations structure and parameters were taken from an Indonesian
shale gas reservoir.
Keywords: hydraulic fracturing, Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment Design, schedule, Pump Schedule Generator
Sari
Kembali ke sejarah perekahan, perekahan hidrolik komersial pertama mungkin telah dilakukan pada tahun 1949,
tetapi sebenarnya ide untuk merekahkan formasi untuk mempercepat produksi telah ada sejak 1865. Maka ide ini
telah berumur lebih dari satu abad sekarang. Desain penanganan perekahan hidrolik adalah salah satu aspek
yang telah dikembangkan sangat besar, hingga sekarang orang-orang dapat menghasilkan desain penanganan
tanpa membutuhkan waktu yang banyak untuk hal tersebut.
Perekahan hidrolik telah banyak berkembang sejak 1953, hingga pada tahun 2000-an Gu, H. et al
mengembangkan sebuah metode yang memiliki perhitungan numerik dan dengan otomatis mendesain
penanganan perekahan hidrolik hingga opsi yang memungkinkan dan paling optimum, dan hanya butuh data
input mengenai seberapa jauh rekahan akan berpropagasi, dan dilakukan dengan fluida dan proppant yang
mana. Oleh pengembangnya dinamakan sebagai Pump Schedule Generator (PSG). Tetapi jauh sebelum itu, pada
tahun 1983 H. R. Crawford mengembangkan sebuah metodologi dengan beberapa perhitungan untuk menghitung
volume fluida perekah yang berdasar kepada dimensi rekahan yang didesain dan diinginkan, jumlah proppant
yang dibutuhkan, dan juga peningkatan produksi.
Pekerjaan ini menganalisa perbandingan antara metode yang lama dengan PSG, dan kemudian memodifikasi
jadwal yang dibuat oleh metode lama tersebut agar dapat lebih mendekati hasil dari PSG. Simulator desain
perekahan, FracCADE 5.1 digunakan untuk studi ini. Software ini membantu penulis untuk mengerti mengenai
dasar-dasar Pump Schedule Generator dan sebab akibat dari parameter parameter yang dapat didesain
terhadap nilai nilai fracture di End of Job. Data mengenai formasi didapat dari salah satu shale gas reservoir
di Indonesia.
Kata Kunci: perekahan hidrolik, Desain Penanganan Perekahan Hidrolik, jadwal, Pump Schedule Generator

I. Introduction
Back to fracturing history, the first commercial
hydraulic fracturing may be done since 1949, but
actually the idea of fracturing formation to quicken the
production already exist since 1865. So the idea is more
than a century old now. Hydraulic fracturing treatment
design is one of an aspect that has been developed so
much, until now people are able to generate a treatment
design without consume much so time on that.
Hydraulic fracturing treatment design has been vastly
developed since 1953, until in the 2000s Gu, H. et al.
has developed a method which includes numerical
calculations and then automatically designs the
hydraulic fracturing treatment to its most optimum
option, and just needs to be told how far would the
fracture go, and do it with what fluid and proppant. By
the creator its named as Pump Schedule Generator
(PSG). But far before that, in 1983 H. R. Crawford
developed a methodology with a few calculations to
calculate the volume of fracturing fluid needed based
on the designed and desired fracture network
dimensions, number of proppant needed, and also the
production increase.
This work analyses the comparison between the
Crawfords method and PSG, and then modifies the
schedule created by Crawfords method to come up to
the results of the PSG. A comprehensive reasoning
between each differences in each generated schedule is
also given in this text.
Fracturing model used in this text is KGD, instead of
PKN. Between those two models, KGD is more simple
than PKN, because the proppant concentration
distribution only differs in an axis, so a more quantitybased approach study can be obtained.
Fracturing design simulator, FracCADE 5.1. was used
in this study. It helps the writer to understand the basics
of Pump Schedule Generator and the causes and effects
of parameters to the EOJ result values. The formations
structure and parameters were taken from an
Indonesian shale gas reservoir.

Development of Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment

Design
The first commercial hydraulic fracturing treatment
was in 1949, but the first noticed study about schedule
design was in 1957 by Howard et. al, 1975 by
Harrington et al, then later on followed by Crawford in
1983, Nolte in 1986, and in 2000 by Gu, H. et al.
There are 5 paper which writer noticed about the
development of hydraulic fracturing treatment design
since the first commercial hydraulic fracturing
treatment.

1957: 1957: Howard, et. al: Optimum Fluid

Characteristics for Fracture Extension
1973: Harrington, et. al: Prediction of the Location
and Movement of Fluid Interfaces in a Fracture
1983: Crawford, H. R.: Proppant Scheduling and
Calculation of Fluid Lost During Fracturing
1986: Nolte, K. G.: Determination of Proppant and
Fluid Schedules from Fracturing-Pressure Decline
2003: Gu, H. et. al: New Pump Schedule
Generator for Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment
Design
Harrington et al. presented in the study selection of
final proppant concentration based on the fracture
conductivity needed to meet design requirements. Then
the value of proppant concentration and fracture
penetration requirements will be the inputs to a
computer program to determine the fluid volume
required, amount of proppant and pad volume needed,
and proppant addition schedule.
Crawford presented the same scope of study with an
addition of fluid loss volume to be calculated. A few
simple equations, few suggestion steps, and also case
problems were given as the outcome of his study to
help fracking operators to calculate and generate their
own schedule based on the desired fracture geometry.
By the time he presented his study, about hundreds of
well have been tested by the method.
Three years after Crawford there was Nolte who
introduced proppant and fluid schedule determination
by observing fracturing pressure decline. But the
method was said to be applicable primarily for new
prospects where little information about about the
fracturing response is known.
Lastly, Gu et al. presented a pump schedule generator
(PSG), which is an automatic proppant and fluid
schedule determination by numerical iteration. Gu et
al. published the work while they were in
Schlumberger back in 2003, which is most probably
the one that is used in Schlumbergers FracCADE ver.
5.1.
Two of them will be used, practiced, and discussed in
this study, which are Crawfords method and the Pump
Schedule Generator.
Crawfords method was thought to be one of the
simplest quantitative method thats available at the
time. The method is based on the leak-off coefficient
value and the dimension of the designed desired
fracture network to determine the volume of fracturing
fluid needed. Although it is quantitative and based on
laboratory works on attempt to determine the leak-off
coefficient, the method still use 50% of safety factor
applied to the pad volume needed to frac the formation
until they got the desired fracture dimension. So
actually the method is not that deterministic. But still,

the schedule produced by this method is easy to be

produced and also easy to be done.
Pump Schedule Generator is the next batch of the
hydraulic fracturing treatment design generation. To
design a pump schedule more efficiently and
effectively, the automatic generation of pump schedule
by a computer program is highly desirable. The
automatic pump schedule generation is an inverse
problem, in which the fracture length and concentration
distribution inside the fracture are specified input,
whereas the fluid volume and proppant concentration
in the pump schedule are to be determined.
Problem Statement
By doing a lot of background studies, writer take two
problems that can be evaluated, there are:
1. What are the differences between the schedules
created by Crawfords hydraulic fracturing
treatment design method and Pump Schedule
Generator method?
2. Can the schedule result by Crawfords hydraulic
fracturing treatment design method be simply
improved? If its possible, how are the comparison
between the schedule produced by improved
Crawfords method and PSG?

Figure 1 - Methodology of the Study

II.

Theory

Hydraulic Fracturing Basics

Hydraulic fracturing is one of well-stimulation
technique that is most suitable to wells in low-moderate
permeability reservoir. The idea is to create a highly
conductive pathway to produce the insitu fluid faster
than pre-job condition.

Objectives of This Study

The writer then generated two objectives based on the
problem stated:
1. Examine the quality comparison of two hydraulic
fracture treatment design methods and analyse
them, between one suggested by Crawford (1983),
and the automated version (Pump Schedule
Generator), based on EOJ values (fracture length,
height, width, net pressure, conductivity, FCD) and
the proppant distribution in the fracture.
2. Observe the values exerted by the improved method
with comparison to the earlier method and the
automated method.
Methodology
Since the scope of this study is only about schedule of
hydraulic fracturing treatment, the treatment fluid and
proppant selection wont be optimized. Writer only
choose them by selecting which is probably the best
suited to the formation without doing sensitivity study
about it.
The methodology of this study is explained in the next
figure:

Hydraulic fracturing treatment design is highly affected

by the formation parameters, which are type of the
encountered formation, formations mechanical
properties (Youngs Modulus, Poissons Ratio), insitu
stress, and also the depth of the formation.
Formation Mechanical Properties
Youngs Modulus
This parameter relates the force that is work upon a
substance to the length difference between the original
length and the resulted length. The equation is as
follows:
=

(1)

Where:
E = Young's modulus (modulus of elasticity)
F = force exerted on an object under tension
A0 = actual cross-sectional area through which the
force is applied
L = amount by which the length of the object
changes
L0 = original length of the object
Young modulus is highly related to materials brittleductile attribute. The higher the Youngs modulus
value, more forces are needed to extend the materials
length to the same value. It means higher Young
modulus value indicates that the substance is able to

resist more deformation which is made by a working

force. Thus, materials with high Youngs modulus
value is considered as brittle materials.

(2)

Where:
= resulting Poissons ratio
= transverse strain (negative for axial tension,
positive for axial compression)
= axial strain (positive for axial tension,
negative for axial compression)

Figure 2 - Young's Modulus compares the strain and stress

that occur over a material (www4.ncsu.edu)

= = =

Most materials have Poissons ratio values ranging

between 0.0 and 0.5. A perfectly incompressible
material deformed elastically at small strains would
have a Poissons ratio of exactly 0.5. Sands Poisson
ratio is ranged between 0.20 and 0.45, while clays
range is a lot smaller, ranged between 0.30 and 0.45.

In the opposite, low Young modulus value means the

substance is able to deform easily by lower value of
working force. Rubber is the example of a substance
which has a low Young Modulus value. Thus materials
with low Youngs modulus value is considered as
ductile materials. Their difference can be explained in
the stress-strain curve below (Figure 3).

Figure 4 - Poisson effect when a material is being strained

(en.wikipedia.org)

Figure 3 - Stress - strain curve for brittle and ductile

materials (mechanical-materialstechnology.blogspot.com)

The breakdown characteristic of brittle and ductile

materials is different. Brittle materials are not elastic,
thus right after the breakdown stress is achieved, the
material will be broken instantly. Its different with the
ductile materials, they are not broken instantly after a
certain stress is acted upon them. Instead, if the stress
passes a critical value, the material will be deformed
permanently, and the breakdown stress is usually much
higher than the brittle one.
Poissons Ratio
This parameter is the negative ratio of transverse to
axial strain. When a material is compressed in one
direction, it usually tends to expand in the other two
directions perpendicular to the direction of
compression. This phenomenon is called the Poisson
effect. The equation is as follows:

This Poisson effect has a role in hydraulic fracturing

treatment design. Poissons ratio value is used in
horizontal stress calculations, as it is also affected by
the deformation which is caused by the overburden
pressure (vertical axis).
Stresses Acting upon Reservoir
There are two dimension of stresses acting upon a
reservoir, vertical and horizontal stress.
Vertical Stress
Two factors affecting the vertical stress which is
counted for calculating reservoir mechanical behavior
are overburden pressure and reservoir pore pressure.
Consider a reservoir rock at depth H, the in situ stress
caused by overburden formation in the vertical
direction is expressed as:
=

144

(3)

Where:
= overburden stress, psi
= average density of overburden formation
H = depth of formation

Then the contact stress between grains is called

effective stress:
=

normal to the least principal stress. That is why, the

working stress in both axis determines the fracture
orientation.

(4)

Where:
= effective vertical stress, psi
= Biots poro-elastic constant, approximately 0.7
= pore pressure, psi
Figure 5 below explains the concept of effective stress
between grains.

Depth of the formation also determines the fracture

orientation. The deeper the reservoir, the overburden
stress value will be higher. Thus, the vertical stress will
be more dominant and make a vertical-oriented fracture
instead of horizontal-oriented one. Based on a study in
a field, the critical depth which changes the fracture
orientation is about 600 meters. It means, if an operator
fractures a formation less than 600 meters deep, he will
get a horizontal fracture. Deeper than that he will get a
vertical fracture.

Figure 5 - Correlation between effective vertical stress and

pore pressure (Guo, 2007)

Horizontal Stress
The effective horizontal stress is expressed as:

= 1

(5)

Where v is Poissons ratio. The effective horizontal

stress is caused by the overburden force acting upon the
grains in the reservoir. The total (minimum) horizontal
stress is expressed as
= +

(6)

Total horizontal stress is still excluding tectonic stress.

Thus, its said to be the minimum value of the
horizontal stress. The maximum horizontal stress may
be:
, = , +

(7)

Terzaghi presented following expression for the

breakdown pressure:
= 3, , + 0

(8)

Where T0 is the tensile strength of the rock.

Figure 6 - Fracture orientation determined by direction of

the least working stress (Schechter, 1992)

Hydraulic Fracture Treatment Design

Hydraulic fracture schedule is one of the keys to
successfully run a fracking job, as the operator has to
determine which fluid is going to be used to deliver
which proppant, and when the fluid to be pumped to
the downhole with how much concentration of
proppant. And finally, how would the fracture face be
far in the target depth. All of the mentioned above has
to be designed carefully to deliver the best production
scenario. A few pictures to depict the fracturing
activity are in the Figure 7.
Basically, the treatments function is to give enough
hydraulic pressure to make the bottomhole pressure
pass the formation breakdown pressure to frack the
reservoir up to a certain radius from the wellbore. Then
a certain number of pressure, called fracture
propagation pressure, is to be maintained to enlarge the
fracture.

Fracture Orientation
The orientation of a fracture in earths body is
determined by the stress values in the two axis. It is
postulated that fractures should occur along planes

Figure 8 - Pressure profile against time in a typical

hydraulic fracturing treatment (Schechter, 1992)

At pad stage, operator pumps a certain volume of

treatment fluid to the wellbore, to give sufficient
hydraulic pressure to frack the formation. After the
operator propagates the fracture up to a desired radius,
then the frack is kept open at the instantaneous shut-in
pressure. Then the slurry stage begins.
The slurry being injected consists of the selected
treatment fluid with proppants mixed in it. The goal of
the slurry stage is to take the proppants into the
formation and spread the proppants evenly in the
reservoir.

Figure 7 - Stages of hydraulic fracturing treatment (Guo,

2007)

After that a lower value of pressure, instantaneous

shut-in pressure, is then to be maintained to keep the
fracture from closing. A graphic in Figure 7 shows a
pressure profile versus pumping time in a typical
hydraulic fracture treatment.
The next procedure is to put proppants into the fracture
to keep the frack from a complete closure. The
proppant also has to meet some specific requirement,
related to the formation closure pressure. If the
proppant cannot withstand the closure pressure, the
proppant will be shattered and cannot give its best
conductivity. A few problems would be encountered if
the fractured formation is too soft. The proppant would
be embedded into the fracture surface, so the fracture
width will be smaller than it should be.
Stages in Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment
Commonly in a hydraulic fracture treatment, there are
3 main stages, pad stage, slurry stage, and flush stage.
These stages are related to a graph in Figure 8.

After the proppants is set, there is a flush stage. Flush

stage has a goal of cleaning up the fracked reservoir
and the wellbore from all unwanted substance except
the proppants.

Treatment Fluid
Fluids that is used during fracturing has to pass a few
selection process to evade a screen out (failed
operation) or gel damage (failure at post-operation). A
few criteria that has to be considered to select a
treatment fluid are as follows:
Viscosity, this parameter affects the fluids ability to
frack the rock and brings proppant to the fracture area
in the fractured rock.
Fluid Loss, this parameter is one of major design
variables of fracturing fluid, measured by fluid-loss
coefficient (CL) and spurt loss (SP). Operator of
hydraulic fracture treatment jobs doesnt want
excessive fluid loss since it will cause the fracture
wont propagate further if the fluid supplied and
accumulated to the downhole is insufficient. So, a

fracture fluid with the lowest possible value of fluidloss (leak-off) coefficient CL should be selected.
Fluid efficiency, this parameters value shows the
portion of fluid that is still in the fracture area at any
point in time, when compared to the total volume
injected at the same point in time. If too much fluid
leaks off, the fluid has low efficiency (10 20%), and
the created fracture will be only a small of the total
volume injected. However, if the fluid has high
efficiency (80 90%), the fracture will not close
rapidly after the treatment. Ideally, a fluid efficiency of
40 60% will provide an optimum balance between
creating the fracture and having fracture close down
after the treatment.
Fluid compatibility, this parameter also has to be
considered especially in formation sensitive to clay
swelling, emulsion, fines migration, which lower the
chance of production success after the operation is run.
It is better to test a core from the formation with the
fracturing fluid in the lab first to check its compatibility
to the rock.

formation depends on the kind of material of the

proppant itself. Many materials including glass beads,
walnut shells, plastic beads, and aluminum pellets have
at one time or another been used to prop hydraulic
fractures. As the fracture fluids have improved, the
number of different materials used has steadily been
reduced. Presently, sand and bauxite are in common
use.
Sand has proven to be successful as a proppant for all
types of reservoirs, and it is less expensive than other
types of proppant as it can be found anywhere near
aquatic environment (i.e. shore, seabed). Sand for use
as proppant should not contain more than 5 wt% fines
which, if present in excessive quantities, reduce the
fracture conductivity. Sand has the additional
advantage that when crushed, it breaks into smaller
fragments, rather than being powdered. This particular
advantage helps to maintain high fracture
conductivities even when the closure stresses
supported by the proppant are large.
Sintered bauxite

Stability, the fracturing fluid also has to be not sensitive

to temperature. Because the formations temperature
will be escalated especially in the deeper formation. If
the available fluid is not compatible in temperature
stability, an additive called High Temperature
Stabilizer can be added to ensure the fluid stability in
the reservoir.

A high-strength proppant, which does not crush as

readily as sand under high closure stresses. Bauxite is
denser than sand, and thus the fracture fluid designed
to transport bauxite will have to be more viscous and
hence more expensive than a fluid that will transport
sand. So the treating pump pressure also has to be
bigger than when transporting sand proppants.

Friction Pressure, this parameter is considered as

critical. An excessive friction pressure caused by the
treatment fluid will decrease the maximum effective
bottomhole pressure by the same pumping unit.
Therefore, the friction has to be calculated along the
hydraulic fracturing treatment design with the
limitation of pumping pressure.

Ceramics

Economical, all of the parameters above leads to

economical aspect of the selected treatment fluid, will
the treatment fluid fits the bill after the design is
completed. The economical aspect is not only
considered from the price of the treatment fluid, but the
fold of increase created by the hydraulic fracturing
operation also has to overcome the expenses of the
hydraulic fracturing operation. Inexpensive fluid which
causes gel damage most of the time will not be selected
if a better fluid is available, even though its several
times more expensive.

Both of them are stronger in stronger closure stress than

their respective base proppant (sand or ceramics). But
the permeability profile of them both are slightly lower
in the low closure stress zone. It shows that the resin
closes the space between the proppant more tightly
than before. Thus, when the closure stress is low, the
permeability of them both are not affected by the
strength of the proppant. But at the higher closure stress
zone, resin coated sand/ceramics shows more integrity.

Proppant

As we can see from the graphs, permeability of the

resin coated proppants (for both type) will pass the
respective base proppant at certain closure pressure
(sand = 3500 psi, ceramic = 7200 psi).

Proppants purpose to be used in hydraulic fracturing

treatment is to prop/support the fractured area after it is
created. Its strength against the closure pressure of the

Currently it is widely used, as it is the only alternative

that is given by FracCADE 5.1 other than sand type
proppants. It is even more stronger than sintered
bauxite.
Resin-coated Sand/Ceramics

The characteristic of each type of proppant can be seen

in Figure 18. Note from the figure: Red = Sand; Green
= Resin-coated sand; Blue = Ceramic; Purple = Resincoated ceramic

Fracture Geometry (Model)

There are still some controversies about whether a
single fracture or multiple fractures are created in a
hydraulic fracturing job. Both cases have been
evidenced based on the information from tiltmeters and
microseismic data, it is commonly accepted that each
individual fracture is sheet-like. However, the shape of
the fracture varies as predicted by different models.

PKN model was firstly derived by Perkins and Kern

(1961) for a fixed-height vertical fracture, then
Nordgren (1972) added leakoff and storage within the
fracture (due to increasing width) to the Perkins and
Kern model, which is shown in the Figure 11. It is
important to emphasize that even for contained
fractures, the PKN solution is only valid when the
fracture length is at least three times the height.

Currently, the most widely used fracture geometry are

PKN and KGD models, as they are simple enough to
be created or modeled. But before that, a simple radial
crack/fracture model was first presented by Sneddon
and Elliot (1946) called a Radial Fracture Model. This
occurs when there are no barriers constraining height
growth or when a horizontal fracture is created.

Figure 9 - Radial (penny-shaped) fracture geometry

(www.intechopen.com)

KGD model assumes that a fixed height vertical

fracture is propagated in a well-confined pay zone (i.e.,
the stresses in the layers above and below the pay zone
are large enough to prevent fracture growth out of the
pay zone). This model was presented by Khristianovich
and Zheltov (1955) as shown in the Figure 10. The
model assumes that the width of the crack at any
distance from the well is independent of vertical
position, which is a reasonable approximation for a
fracture with height much greater than its length.

Figure 11 - PKN fracture geometry (Guo, 2007)

The three models discussed before all assume that the

fracture is planar, that is, fracture propagates in a
particular direction, fluid flow is one-dimensional
along the length of the fracture, and leakoff behavior is
governed by a simple expression derived from
filtration theory.
Those planar 2D models are deviated with significant
simplifying assumptions. But they are helpful enough
for understanding the growth of hydraulic fractures.
Currently modern computer allows routine treatment
design to be made with more complex models, which
are solved numerically. Then pseudo-threedimensional models were invented.
There are two types of P3D model, there are lumped
and cell based. In the lumped models, the fracture
shape is assumed to consist of two half-ellipses joined
at the center. The horizontal length and wellbore
vertical tip extensions are calculated at each time-step,
and the assumed shape is made to match these
positions. In cell-based models, the fracture shape is
not prescribed. The fracture is treated as a series of
connected cells, which are linked only via the fluid
flow from cell to cell. The height at any cross-section
is calculated from the pressure in that cell, and fluid
flow in the vertical direction is generally approximated.
Productivity of Fractured Wells

Figure 10 - KGD fracture geometry (Guo, 2007)

After the reservoir is fractured, the altered permeability

of the fracture will escalate the production rate highly.
The relative importance of each of the steps can be

analyzed using the concept of fracture conductivity

defined as:
=

(9)

Where:
FCD = fracture conductivity, dimensionless
kf = fracture permeability, md
w = fracture width, ft
xf = fracture half-length, ft.
If the fracture is considered as a negative skin where
the fractured area is much less than the drainage area
of the well, the long term productivity of the fractured
well can be estimated assuming pseudo-radial flow in
the reservoir. Then the inflow equation can be written
as:
=

( )

141.2(ln + )

(10)

Where Sf is the equivalent skin factor, with negative

sign indicating that the wellbore is stimulated. The fold
of increase can be expressed as:

ln

ln +

3
0.72 (ln + )

( +)(

Proppant Scheduling Technique

Crawfords Proppant Scheduling and Calculation of
Fluid Lost
Crawford suggested a method that determines two
parameters that has to be calculated:

(11)

But when the fracture dimension is comparable to the

drainage area of the well, significant error may result
from using the equation, which was derived based on
radial flow. An analytical solution for estimating fold
of increase in well productivity for a fractured reservoir
was presented by Guo and Schechter (1999) as follows:

Figure 12 - A method to determine fractured skin based on

dimensionless fracture conductivity value (Guo, 2007)

4
1
1
)

2
1

(12)

Amount of fracturing fluid needed without wasteful

overdesign, and
Efficient proppant schedule which simultaneously
provides high fracture conductivity, long propped
lengths and low odds of a screenout.
The approach presented here to achieve a few goals for
highly viscous or crosslinked, fracturing fluids is to:
1. Estimate the created fracture area:

= +30.5

(14)

Where:
=

(13)

And ze is the distance between the fracture and the

boundary of the drainage area.
One of the method to determine skin factor is using
Figure 12 below. McGuire-Sikora developed a chart in
Figure 19 to predict a hydraulic fractured reservoirs
skin based on the permeability before-after treatment,
well spacing area, and the size of fracture length
relative to the drainage radius.
Valko et al. (1997) converted the data in Fig. 12 into
the following correlation:

1.65 0.328 + 0.1162

+ ln ( ) =

1 + 0.180 + 0.0642 + 0.053

2. Calculate the fluid lost in terms of its average width

and its volume by:
= 3 0.5

(15)

= (3 0.5 )

(16)

3. Select a pad volume which is about 40% of VFL, the

fluid lost.
4. Taper proppant in stages ranging from about up
to 10 or 12 pounds of proppant per gallon of liquid
(ppg) at the surface. Select stage volumes to
achieve sand concentrations in the fracture which
begin at about 2 ppg and increase to about 15 ppg.
Proppant Scheduling Procedure
1. Select a target productivity increase, fracture length
and conductivity that seems desirable and practical

Where, u = ln (FCD).

2.

3.

4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

for this well by use of McGuire-Sikora Chart. See

Figure 19.
Select a fluid which provides good fluid loss
control, with low spurt loss. Obtain the best
available laboratory data for the fluid loss
coefficient, C, for the temperature, time exposure,
and reservoir characteristics expected during the
job.
For the frac design multiply the laboratory C factor
above by 1.5 to provide 50% safety factor. This step
is to allow for some unplanned things which may
happen in the field, i.e.:
Inadequate product quality
Instrument malfunction
Equipment failures during the job
Careless mistakes made by service or company
personnel on location
Estimate or calculate an average fracture width
using the Geertsma and deKlerk equation with the
high viscosity fracture design program by McLeod.
Calculate the created fracture area and the fluid lost
from equation (1) and (3)
Select a pad volume which is 40% of VFL, the fluid
lost during the frac job.
Select proppant stages with which start at and
increase to 10 to 12 pounds per gallon of liquid.
Calculate the final sand concentration and location
of the leading and trailing edge of each stage, using
McLeods program:

= {1 +

+1

5.237

(18)

= and =

The schedule is generated numerically by iteration. The

first iteration starts with an initial schedule with two
stages: a small pad stage and a slurry stage of the
specified maximum proppant concentration. The
schedule is executed using a fracture simulator. Inside
the fracture simulator, the schedule is divided into substages with one sub-stage for each time step. The fluid
and proppant volumes of each sub-stage are tracked as
the sub-stages flow inside the fracture toward the
fracture tip. The flow inside the fracture is assumed to
be 1D along the fracture length, and the displacement
of the sub-stages is assumed to be piston-like.
At the end of each time step, the proppant
concentration of each sub-stage inside the fracture is
examined. If the concentration is higher than the
specified maximum concentration, the propant
concentration of the sub-stage in the schedule is
adjusted so that the concentration in the fracture would
be the specified concentration at this time step if the
schedule were re-executed.

(17)

= 1+0.045

two basic requirements in the conventional PSG

conceptual model: one is that the proppant flow front
reaches the fracture tip just as the fracture grows to the
specified length; the other is that the proppant
concentration inside the fracture reaches the specified
maximum value along the fracture length at the end of
pumping. The proppant concentration may ramp down
near the fracture tip.

+.+

(19)

Gus Pump Schedule Generator

In Gus method, a lag-length concept is implemented
in a new PSG to control the distance between the
proppant flow front and the fracture tip. The lag-length
is necessary to prevent premature bridging and
screenout in many situations. In this new PSG, the laglength is automatically determined to generate an
optimum schedule that uses the minimum pad volume
to avoid premature screenout. The PSG is based on a
pseudo-3D fracture model, and schedules can be
designed for conventional (non-TSO) or TSO
treatments.
The purpose of a PSG is to automatically generate a
pump schedule that includes the amount of fluid in the
pad stage and the ramping of proppant concentration in
the slurry stages, based on specified fracture length and
proppant concentration inside the fracture. There are

III. Simulation
In this study, FracCADE 5.1. was used to simulate the
hydraulic fracturing treatment which the schedule was
exerted from two different methods, which are
Crawfords method and the Gus automated method.
The data used to be the zone input data in the simulator
and also input for Crawfords method calculation was
taken from Rian Rachmantos magister thesis, Discrete
Fracture Network Model Application, With P3D Model
Approach for Hydraulically Induced Fracture in Shale
Gas Reservoir. The data was gathered from Rengat
Block located in Central Sumatera Basin (CSB), which
is a shale formation.
This simulation doesnt do a sensitivity study of using
different type of proppant and treatment fluid. The
treatment fluid used is YFGOIV, which is an oil based
treatment fluid. This fluid is selected as the best fluid
that is available in the simulator because of its high
viscosity, stability at high temperature, and also the fact
that oil is the fluids base will only benefit the operation
at the shale formation. Then it is safe to say that the
fluids compatibility to the formation (shale) doesnt
affect the simulations result.

10

The proppant selected is 20/40 Brady sand because of

the fact that sand proppants are currently being widely
used and high success ratio to prop the fracture.
After comparing the results from both method, a few
modifications will be applied to the earlier method
based on the several things that can be seen from the
later method to be meaningful to lift the productivity
index, and the result will be compared to both of the
methods.
KGD fracture model is selected for all of simulation.
The selection of KGD fracture model is based on how
the KGD model proved to be useful for understanding
fracture growth in the reservoir. In this case, KGD
model extends its fracture length on the horizontal axis
only (x-axis), while other types of fracture model
expand to the vertical axis as well (y-axis). This
simplifies the task of finding the breakthrough on what
action can be taken to spread the final proppant
concentration in the fractured area more evenly.
With the usage of KGD model, a few assumptions have
to be taken, which are:

Crawford's Method
Calculations

Simulation using Schedule

Exerted from the Calculation

Simulation using Schedule from

Pump Schedule Generator

Analysis of the Results

Simulation using Schedule from

Modified Crawford's Method

Comparison Between Three

Results

The fracture is propagated in a well-confined pay

zone, which means the fracture wont go through
the zone barriers to the respective upper and lower
zone.
Flow rate in the fracture was constant
Pressure in the fracture could be approximated by a
constant pressure in the majority of the fracture
body

The inputs needed for PSG to be able to run are the

desired fracture model, design length, pumping rate,
main and flush fluid to be used, round off of the fluid
stage, the proppant to be used, first proppant
concentration, proppant step size, and maximum
proppant concentration in the treatment fluid.

The simulation can be broken down into several stages

which can be seen in Figure 13.

Simulation using Schedule

Crawfords Method (Case C)

Crawfords Method Calculation (Case A)

After both simulations are being run, the results are

also being analysed. The analysis is available in the
chapter 4, Result and Analysis.

The procedure of Crawfords method to determine the

correct schedule for hydraulic fracturing treatment is
written on chapter 2, and was calculated in Microsoft
Excel, exerting the volume of treatment fluid and propladen fluid needed, the mass of proppant needed, and
ultimately the treatment schedule itself, to yield the
desired fractured length.
The calculation counting in the created fracture width,
fluid lost during fracturing, and also the fold of increase
for before and after the treatment operation is run. The
calculation and the schedule result can be seen in
Figure 20 and 21.

Figure 13 - Simulation and Analysis Flowchart

from

Modified

In short, three changes may be applied to the schedule

from the schedule exerted by Crawfords method,
which are adopted from Gus PSG method. They are:
Not only the proppant concentration, but the fluid
volume is also being tapered, and ends with large
volume portion on the last prop laden fluid
concentration.
More proppant mass than before (because of larger
volume portion on the last prop laden fluid
concentration)
Pad fluid volume is timed by 1.5x.

Generating Schedule using Pump Schedule

Generator from FracCADE 5.1. (Case B)
FracCADE 5.1. provides the Pump Schedule Generator
(PSG) to help people easily create a treatment schedule
resulting a highly conductive fracture.

IV. Result and Analysis

Summary Results of the Three Cases
Using FracCADE 5.1., a simulation using the schedule
exerted from the calculation using Microsoft Excel that

11

can be seen in Figure 20. The results of all three

simulations can be seen in figure 23-24, 27-28, and 3132.
It can be seen from the figures that all of them resulting
a fracture length of more than 500 feet, which is the
ideal fracture length for a reservoir with a drainage area
of 60 acres (re = 912 ft) based on a reasonable target of
fracture length, half of the drainage radius.
In term of fracture length, Case A has the best value.
Other than that, results from case A have a lot of
aspects that is relatively inferior if compared to case B.
When it comes to propped fracture width, effective
conductivity, effective FCD, and the look of proppant
concentration profile across the fracture length, even
most of the time case C leads amongst the three cases.
Links
Between
Proppant
Concentration
Distribution, Fracture Conductivity, and the
Schedule
After an observation on the results, the schedule
exerted by both methods are also being examined. It
can be seen from both schedules and the proppant
concentration that the proppant concentration
distribution correlates heavily and linear to the
conductivity of the fracture, because both graphs look
almost the same.
The pictures of proppant concentration profile and
conductivity profile across the fractured area are
available in Figure 23-24, 27-28, and 31-32 for each
cases. It can be seen from the proppant concentration
distribution along the fracture by case A that the
proppant is not distributed evenly across the fracture
area. The final proppant concentration is diminishing at
the tip of the fracture.
If the proppant concentration profile of both results of
case A and case B are compared, the maximum
conductivity region in the fracture area exerted by case
A (1586 - 1928 md.ft) only exist until about 225 ft from
the wellbore, while the same value of conductivity can
be found in the result exerted by Case B at about 500 ft
from the wellbore. This is the main aspect that is seen
as the most critical difference between both methods.

earlier stage of pumping (low concentration fluid) takes

the place nearer to the fracture tip, and the later stage
of pumping (high concentration fluid) takes the place
nearer to the wellbore. The assumption explains why
case As schedule exerted a fracture with proppant
concentration distribution as can be seen in Figure 2324. Based on that assumption only, all of the results and
the schedule exerted by each cases are somewhat
linked.
The improved version (case C) adopts PSGs approach
that the concentration at early times is designed to be
acceptably low to prevent proppant bridging from
excessive proppant concentration near tip fracture (lag
length), then exponentially improved, which gives
large volume proportion at the max concentration prop
laden fluid. This brings one drawback that can be seen
from case Bs schedule, we need more proppant mass
(1.5x case As total mass) to frack the same fracture
length. But with that drawback, the effective
conductivity across the fracture is nearly doubled.
There is a study which learns the advantages of having
more proppant concentration in the fracture area. There
are three highlighted benefits that can be gained by
having greater proppant concentration in the fracture
area:
Wider Fracture Width
The study explains the correlation of sand
concentration with fracture. It can be seen that both
correlates linearly, which means higher sand
concentration will only gain larger fracture width
value.
The results of simulations are also showing the
same correlation between sand concentration and
fracture width. Case C exhibit the highest average
proppant concentration in the fracture area, and
case C also exerts the highest average fracture
width along the fracture.

It can be seen also that the schedules characteristics

determines the proppant concentration distribution in
the fracture area. In case As schedule, each different
stages (1.0 PPA, 2.0 PPA, etc) has the same volume of
prop laden fluid, while in case B the higher proppant
concentration stages are being pumped faster that case
A. Case B only need about 1400 gallon of 1.0 and 5.0
PPA stages before it enters the 8.0 PPA stages. The rest
of the operation runs with prop laden fluid with at least
9.0 pounds of proppant added.
These two distinct characteristics of schedule can be
correlated directly to the results by assuming that the

Figure 14 - The relation between sand concentration with

the created fracture width (Coulter et. al, 1972)

12

 Lower Portion of Sand Crushed

This phenomena of sand crushing by the closure
pressure in the fracture area is actually depends on
the proppant strength. The type of proppant that is
used in the study is also Brady sand, which is not
too strong in higher closure pressure.

Higher Flow Capacity

The result of the study indicates that for the
concentration evaluated the fracture flow capacity
increases as the sand concentration increases.

Figure 15 - Relation between sand concentration and

portion of sand crushed (Coulter et. al, 1972)

If the proppant concentration is quite small, a

partial monolayer proppant arrangement can be
found in the fracture area. Thus, if the proppant is
not crushed, an embedment phenomenon can be
found, which also decreases the conductivity of the
fracture. And if its crushed, its said that the
crushing will be more severe in the lower
concentration than in higher concentration.
Higher proppant concentration will only benefit the
operator in higher conductivity value, because
multilayer proppant arrangement will be met, and
the fracture area will behave as if it is a sand
reservoir.

Figure 17 - Relation between sand concentration and

fracture flow capacity (Coulter et. al, 1972)

Difference in Pad Fluid Volume

From Figure 21 and 25, it can be observed that the total
pad fluid volume from case A is about 1800 gallon, and
from case B is about 2900 gallon. From the definition
of pad stage, the fluid volume injected will correlates
to the fracture length created by the pad stage. Instead
of following that definition, the results of the
simulation are different. The fracture length created by
the case B is slightly lower than the case As.
Firstly, case C was also run with 1800 gallon of pad
fluid volume, just like case A. But then it turns out that
the fracture created was only 320 ft long (roughly 65%
of case As). This phenomenon is caused by the
increasing value of fracture width in case C, which also
lift the volume of pad fluid needed to open the fracture
in the first place. With the same fracture length and 1.5
times more fracture width, the volume of pad fluid
needed would also be 1.5 times more than before. So
after this analysis, case Cs pad fluid volume was
altered to be 1.5 times higher than before. Then the
results show the fracture length is considered to be in
the region of acceptance ( 500 ft) with a lifted value
of fracture width.
Results of the Modified Crawfords Method (Case
C)

Figure 16 - Proppant arrangement in the fracture area

(Schechter, 1992)

As what has been analysed and can be seen in Figure

33, results of case C has better values in the most of
parameters except the fracture length and fluid
efficiency, which case As result has better values, and
the last segments conductivity (near the tip of
fracture), which is lost only to case Bs result.
The case C simulation result which shows the fracture
conductivity and proppant concentration distribution in

13

the fracture can be seen in Figure 31-32. The result also

shows that the created fracture has a better proppant
concentration distribution than the case A. To compare
it with an apple-to-apple comparison, the created
fracture which has the conductivity in the region of
1586 md.ft and larger takes place roughly 0-450 ft from
the wellbore (case A = 0-225 ft, case B = 0-500 ft). This
value shows that case C has a better proppant
concentration distribution, thus also better overall
fracture conductivity than case A. Although case B still
has the better distribution than case C, case Cs result
still has the better effective fracture conductivity
through all the fracture area.
According to Schechter, R.S. in his book, the
stimulation ratio from fracturing treatment in gas well
cannot be correctly predicted by McGuire-Sikora chart.
The chart is developed by assuming that the flow into
the wellbore of the unstimulated well follows Darcys
law and that the flow of fluid through the fracture into
the wellbore is laminar. Both of these assumptions may
be incorrect when applied to gas wells. The corrections
for turbulence are generally best handled using a
reservoir simulator so that the nonlinear, turbulent flow
behaviour can be accurately predicted.

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

Conclusion
1. Quality comparison between all cases:
Proppant concentration distribution, case B is a
remarkable upgrade for case A.
Total Proppant Mass, case B uses 1.5x more
proppant than case A.
Pad fluid volume, case B uses 1.5x more pad
fluid than case A.
Schedule, the schedule exerted by case B
doesnt need to pump the low concentration
slurry for a long time. Low concentration slurry
is only needed to give the lag length needed.
Thus, case Bs fracture result is dominated by
large proppant concentration, which makes case
B having the best conductivity distribution
along the fracture.
2. Comparison of the results between each method can
be seen in Figure 33. In summary, here are few
parameters with each method with the best value:

Fracture Half-Length: Case A

Fracture Width: Case C
Fluid Efficiency: Case A
Effective Conductivity: Case C
Effective FCD: Case C
Maximum Surface Pressure: Case C

Average Proppant Concentration: Case C

Maximum Proppant Concentration: Case C
Last Segments Conductivity: Case B
Recommendation
1. This study has to be confirmed with another try in
different formation.
2. Try to apply graded proppant size in a schedule to
maximize conductivity in the near fracture tip area.

VI. Acknowledgment
There are a few parties that has helped the writer to
complete this study and also to complete this study.
Firstly, the writer wants to thank God for all of His
blessings that writer has received until this very
moment.
Secondly, writer also want to thank these following
parties:
1. Prof. Dr. Ir. Sudjati Rachmat, DEA and Wijoyo Niti
Daton, S.T., M.T., as writers dearest lecturers for
their kindness and patience to guide writer to write
a good thesis.
2. Writers family, who do not stop encouraging and
inspiring writer to strive to do the best in each and
every moment.
3. Writers friends, Evans Immanuel, Franky
Octavius, Andreas Ansen, Ryan Kurniawan
Santoso, M. Ansy Alghasi, M. Iffan Hannanu,
Rizky Primayudha, who have helped writer in
building the content of this study.
4. Writers batch in Petroleum Engineering ITB 2012
- Petroverso, for the moments writer has spent and
made the writer who he is.
5. All other parties who have helped the writer
directly or indirectly.

VII. References
Cipolla, C. L., Modeling Production and Evaluting
Fracture Performance in Unconventional Gas
Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2009.
Coulter, G. R., and Wells, R. D., The Advantages of
High Proppant Concentration in Fracture
Stimulation, Journal of Petroleum Technology, SPE3298, 1972
Crawford, H. R.: Proppant Scheduling and
Calculation of Fluid Lost, SPE-12064, 1983.

14

Economides, M., Oligney, R., and Valk, P., Unified

Fracture Design, Texas: Orsa Press, 2002.
Gu, H., and Desroches, J.: New Pump Schedule
Generator for Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment
Design, SPE-81152, 2003.
Guo, B., Ghalambor, A., and Lyons, W. C.:
Petroleum Production Engineering: A ComputerAssisted Approach, Lafayette: Elsevier Science &
Technology Books, 2007.
Hidayat, R., Maulana, J., Asnanda, G., and Kukuh, K.,
Peningkatan Produksi Minyak Melalui Hydraulic
Fracturing di Struktur Cemara

McLeod, H. O., A Simplified Approach to Design of

Fracturing Treatments Using High Viscosity CrossLinked Fluids, SPE/DOE-11614, 1983.
Nolte, K. G.: Determination of Proppant and Fluid
Schedules from Fracturing-Pressure Decline, SPE18357, 1986.
Rachmanto, R., Discrete Fracture Network Model
Application with P3D Model Approach for
Hydraulically Induced Discrete Fractures in Shale Gas
Reservoir, Bandung: Institut Teknologi Bandung,
2012.
Schechter, R. S.: Oil Well Stimulation, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1992.

15

16

Figure 18 - Different type of proppant and their permeability in different

closure stress

Figure 19 - McGuire-Sikora chart for determining fold of production increase after a

fracturing treatment (McGuire-Sikora, 1960)

Figure 20 - Calculation process in determining hydraulic fracturing treatment schedule by Crawford's method

17

Figure 21 - Case A (Crawford's method) schedule

Figure 22 - Summary results of case A

18

Figure 23 - Case A's proppant concentration and conductivity in the fractured area

Figure 24 - Case A's proppant concentration and conductivity contour in the fractured area

19

Figure 25 - Case B (Pump Schedule Generator) schedule

Figure 26 - Summary results of case B

20

Figure 27 - Case B's proppant concentration and conductivity in the fractured area

Figure 28 - Case B's proppant concentration and conductivity contour in the fractured area

21

Figure 29 - Case C's (Modified Crawford's method) schedule

Figure 30 - Summary results of case C

22

Figure 31 - Case C's proppant concentration and conductivity in the fractured area

Figure 32 - Case C's proppant concentration and conductivity contour in the fractured area

23

Figure 33 - Comparison between summary results of the three cases

24