Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas
Technology Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 1618 April 2007.

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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Since the introduction of the G-function derivative analysis,
pre-frac diagnostic injection tests have become a valuable and
commonly used technique. Unfortunately, the technique is
frequently misapplied or misinterpreted leading to confusion
and misdiagnosis of fracturing parameters. This paper presents
a consistent method of analysis of the G-function, its
derivatives, and its relationship to other diagnostic techniques
including square-root(time) and log(p
wf
)-log(t) plots and
their appropriate diagnostic derivatives. Actual field test
examples are given for the most common diagnostic curve
signatures.

Introduction
Pre-frac diagnostic injection test analysis provides critical
input data for fracture design models, and reservoir
characterization data used to predict post-fracture production.
An accurate post-stimulation production forecast is necessary
for economic optimization of the fracture treatment design.
Reliable results require an accurate and consistent
interpretation of the test data. In many cases closure is
mistakenly identified through misapplication of one or more
analysis techniques. In general, a single unique closure event
will satisfy all diagnostic plots or methods. All available
analysis methods should be used in concert to arrive at a
consistent interpretation of fracture closure.
Relationship of the pre-closure analysis to after-closure
analysis results must also be consistent. To correctly perform
the after-closure analysis the transient flow regime must be
correctly identified. Flow regime identification has been a
consistent problem in many analyses. There remains no
consensus regarding methods to identify reservoir transient
flow regimes after fracture closure. The method presented here
is not universally accepted but appears to fit the generally
assumed model for leakoff used in most fracture simulators.
Four examples are presented to show the application of
multiple diagnostic analysis methods. The first illustrates the
expected behavior of normal fracture closure dominated by
matrix leakoff with a constant fracture surface area after shut-
in. The second example shows pressure dependent leakoff
(PDL) in a reservoir with pressure-variable permeability or
flow capacity, usually caused by natural or induced secondary
fractures or fissures. The third example shows fracture tip
extension after shut-in. These cases generally show definable
fracture closure. The fourth example shows what has been
commonly identified as fracture height recession during
closure, but which can also indicate variable storage in a
transverse fracture system.
For each example the analysis will be demonstrated using
the G-function and its diagnostic derivatives, the sqrt(time)
and its derivatives, and the log-log plot of pressure change
after shut-in and its derivatives.
1-4
When appropriate, the after-
closure analysis is presented for each case, as is an empirical
correlation for permeability from the identified G-function
closure time.
5
A critical part of the analysis is the realization
that there is a common event indicating closure that should be
consistently identified by all diagnostic methods. To reach a
conclusion all analyses must give consistent results.
The goal of this paper is to provide a method for consistent
identification of after-closure flow regimes, an unambiguous
fracture closure time and stress, and a reasonable engineering
estimate of reservoir flow capacity from the pressure falloff
data, without requiring assumptions such as a known reservoir
pressure. Other methods, based on sound transient test theory,
require pressure difference curves based on the observed
bottomhole pressure during falloff minus the known
reservoir pressure.
5,8
While these methods are technically
correct they can lead to confusing results at times, especially
in low permeability reservoirs when pore pressure is difficult
to determine accurately prior to stimulation.
This is not a transient test analysis paper but is intended to
present a practical approach to analysis of real, and frequently
marginal-quality, pre-fracture field test data. The techniques
applied are based on some transient test theory. Some of the
results presented here are still under debate and development.
The methods shown have been tested and, we believe, proven
in the analysis of hundreds of tests. Application of these
methods provides consistent analysis that helps to avoid
misinterpretation of falloff data, and give the most useful
information available from diagnostic injection tests.
Step-rate injection tests and their analysis are not included
in the scope of this paper. Determination of the pressure-
dependent leakoff coefficient is also not described here, as it

SPE 107877
Holistic Fracture Diagnostics
R.D. Barree, SPE, and V.L. Barree, Barree & Assocs. LLC, and D.P. Craig, SPE, Halliburton
2 SPE 107877
has been previously reported.
3,4
Only the analysis of pressure
decline following shut-in of a fracture-rate injection test is
considered.

Transient Flow Regimes During and After Fracture
Closure
Several transient flow regimes may occur during a falloff test
after injection at fracture rate. The major flow regimes are
graphically illustrated in the classic paper by Cinco-Ley and
Samaniego.
6

Immediately after shut-in the pressure gradient along the
length of the fracture dissipates in a short-duration linear flow
period. In a long fracture in low permeability rock the initial
fracture linear flow can be followed by a bi-linear flow period
with the linear flow transient persisting in the fracture while
reservoir linear flow occurs simultaneously. After the fracture
transient dissipates the reservoir linear flow period can
continue for some time, depending on the permeability of the
reservoir and the volume of fluid stored in the fracture and
subsequently leaked off during closure. After closure the
pressure transient established around the fracture propagates
into the reservoir and transitions into elliptical, then
pseudoradial flow. Each of these flow regimes has a
characteristic appearance on various diagnostic plots.
Fluid leakoff from a propagating fracture is normally
modeled assuming one-dimensional linear flow perpendicular
to the fracture face. Settari has pointed out that in some cases
of moderate reservoir permeability the linear flow regime may
not occur, even during fracture extension and early leakoff.
7

During fracture extension and shut-in the transient may
already be in transition to elliptical or pseudoradial flow. In
this case analyses based on an assumed pseudolinear flow
regime will give incorrect results. In all cases an
understanding of the flow regime and its relation to the
fracture geometry is critical to arriving at a consistent
interpretation of the fracture falloff test.

Diagnostic Derivative Examples
For each analysis technique various curves are used to help
define closure, leakoff mechanisms, and after-closure flow
regimes. On each plot the curves are labeled as the primary (y
vs. x), the first derivative (y/x), and the semilog derivative
(y/(lnx) or xy/x). For convenience the primary curve is
plotted on the left y-axis and all derivatives are plotted on the
right y-axis for all Cartesian plots. For the log-log plot all
curves are shown on the same y-axis.
For pre-closure analysis, and consistent identification of
fracture closure, three techniques are illustrated for each
example: G-function, Square-root of shut-in time, and log-log
plot of pressure change with shut-in time. All these analyses
begin at shut-in. The instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) is
taken as the incipient fracture extension pressure for all cases.
When there is significant wellbore afterflow (fluid expansion
or continued low-rate injection), or severe near-well pressure
drop, the ISIP can be difficult to interpret accurately and may
be too high to represent actual fracture extension pressure. In
all the examples in the paper the pressures have been offset to
an approximate ISIP of 10,000 psi to remove any relation to
the original field test data. The following sections detail the
data and analysis for the four major leakoff type examples.

Normal Leakoff Behavior
Normal leakoff is observed when the composite reservoir
system permeability is constant. The reservoir may exhibit
only matrix permeability or have a secondary natural fracture
or fissure overprint in which the flow capacity of the
secondary fracture system does not change with pore pressure
or net stress. After shut-in the fracture is assumed to stop
propagating and the fracture surface area open to leakoff
remains constant during closure.

Normal Leakoff G-Function
As noted in previous papers, the expected signature of the
G-function semilog derivative is a straight-line through the
origin (zero G-function and zero derivative).
4
In all cases the
correct straight line tangent to the semilog derivative of the
pressure vs. G-function curve must pass through the origin.
Fracture closure is identified by the departure of the semi-log
derivative of pressure with respect to G-function (Gp
w
/G)
from the straight line through the origin. During normal
leakoff, with constant fracture surface area and constant
permeability, the first derivative (p
w
/G) should also be
constant.
2
The primary p
w
vs. G curve should follow a straight
line.
1
The example in Figure 1 shows some slight deviation
from the perfect constant leakoff but is a good example of the
expected curve shapes with a clear indication of closure at
G
c
=2.31. The closure event is marked by the dashed vertical
line [1].

0 5 10 15 20 25
G(Time)
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1
P vs. G
GdP/dG vs. G
dP/dG vs. G
Fracture Closure
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s

Figure 1: Normal leakoff G-function plot

Normal Leakoff Sqrt(t) Analysis
The sqrt(t) plot has frequently been misinterpreted when
picking fracture closure, even for the simplest cases. The
primary p
w
vs. sqrt(t) curve should form a straight line during
fracture closure, as with the G-function plot. Some users
suggest that the closure is identified by the departure of the
data from the straight line trend, similar to the way the G-
function closure is picked. This is incorrect and leads to a later
closure and lower apparent closure pressure. The correct
indication of closure is the inflection point on the p
w
vs. sqrt(t)
plot.
The best way to find the inflection point is to plot the first
derivative of p
w
vs. sqrt(t) and find the point of maximum
SPE 107877 3
amplitude of the derivative. Many fracture-pressure analysis
software packages plot the inverse of the actual first derivative
and show the inflection point as the minimum of the
derivative. The plot in Figure 2, shows that the slope of the
pressure curve starts low, then increases and reaches a
maximum rate of decline at the inflection point, then decreases
again after closure. The first derivative curve in Figure 2 is
plotted with the proper sign. The dashed vertical line [1] is the
G-function closure pick that is synchronized in time and
pressure with the sqrt(t) plot. Clearly the consistent closure
lies at the inflection point and not at the point of departure
from the straight line tangent to the pressure curve.
The semilog derivative of the pressure curve is also shown
on the sqrt(t) plot. This curve is equivalent to the semilog
derivative of the G-function for most low-perm cases. The
closure pick falls at the departure from the straight line
through the origin on the semilog derivative of the P vs. sqrt(t)
curve. A single closure point must satisfy the requirement on
both the G-function and sqrt(t) plots.

1/24/2007
04:00 08:00 12:00
1/24/2007
16:00
Time
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
P vs. t
tdP/dt vs. t
dP/dt vs. t
Fracture Closure

Figure 2: Normal leakoff sqrt(t) plot

Normal Leakoff Log-Log Pressure Derivative
The log-log plot of pressure change from ISIP versus shut-
in time for the normal leakoff example is shown in Figure 3.
The heavy curve is the pressure difference and the dashed
curve is its semilog derivative with respect to shut-in time.
The vertical dashed line is the unique closure pick from the G-
function and sqrt(t) plot. It is common for the pressure
difference and derivative curves to be parallel immediately
before closure. The slope of these parallel lines is diagnostic
of the flow regime established during leakoff before closure.
In many cases a near-perfect slope is observed, strongly
suggesting linear flow from the fracture. In this example the
slope is greater than suggesting possible linear flow coupled
with changing fracture/wellbore storage (See Appendix B).
The separation of the two parallel lines always marks fracture
closure and is the final confirmation of a consistent closure
identification.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (0 = 8.15)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
10
100
1000
(m = -1)
(m = 0.632)
BH ISIP = 9998 psi
1
D
e
l
t
a
-
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
P vs. t
tdP/dt vs. t
Fracture Closure
Radial Flow

Figure 3: Normal leakoff log-log plot

After closure the semilog derivative curve will show a
slope of -1/2 in a fully developed reservoir pseudolinear flow
regime and a slope of -1 in fully developed pseudoradial flow.
In the example the derivative slope is -1 indicating that
reservoir pseudoradial flow was observed. The late-time data
shows a drop in the derivative probably caused by wellbore
effects such as gas entry and phase segregation. The use of the
semilog derivative of the log-log plot for after-closure flow
regime identification, as well as closure confirmation, is a
powerful new addition to fracture pressure decline diagnostics.

After-Closure Analysis for Normal Leakoff Example
The Talley-Nolte After-Closure Analysis (ACA) flow
regime identification plot for the normal leakoff example is
shown as Figure 4.
5
The heavy solid line is the observed
bottomhole pressure during the falloff minus the initial
reservoir pressure. The slope of the semi-log derivative of the
pressure difference function (dashed line) is 1.0 during the
identified pseudoradial flow period. If a linear-flow period
existed in this data set a derivative slope of would exist. It is
critical to remember that the slope of the pressure difference
curve on this plot is determined solely by the guess of
reservoir pressure used to construct the plot. The slope of the
derivative is not affected by the input reservoir pressure value.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Square Linear Flow (FL^2)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100
1000
10000
(m= 1)
D
e
l
t
a
-
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
P vs. F
L
2
F
L
2
dP/dF
L
2
vs. F
L
2
P=(p
w
-p
r
)
Start of Radial Flow

Figure 4: Normal leakoff ACA log plot
4 SPE 107877

If a pseudoradial flow regime is identified, then the
Cartesian Radial Flow plot (Figure 5) can be used to
determine reservoir far-field transmissibility, kh/. The
viscosity used is the far-field mobile fluid viscosity and h is
the estimated net pay height. For the analysis of the example
data kh/ = 299 md-ft/cp. For gas viscosity at reservoir
temperature, kh=7.9 md-ft. For the assumed net pay, the
effective reservoir permeability is 0.097 md.


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Radial Flow Time Function
7200
7400
7600
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
(m = 4814.2)
Results
Reservoir Pressure = 7475.68 psi
Transmissibility, kh/ = 298.94991 md*ft
kh = 7.94014 md*ft
Permeability, k = 0.0968 md
Start of Pseudo Radial Time = 2.15 hours 1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

Figure 5: Normal leakoff ACA radial flow plot


Horner Analysis for Normal Leakoff Example
If a pseudoradial flow period is identified, then a
conventional Horner plot can also be used to determine
reservoir transmissibility. In Figure 6 the Horner slope through
the radial flow data is 14411 psi. Using an average pump rate
of 18.4 bpm, kh/ = 298 md-ft/cp. For the assumed gas
viscosity kh=7.9 md-ft. Using the same assumed net gives
k=0.097 md. This result is consistent with the ACA results.


2 3
1
Horner Time
7250
7500
7750
8000
8250
8500
8750
9000
9250
9500
9750
(m = 14411)
(Reservoir = 7476)
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

Figure 6: Normal leakoff Horner Plot


G-Function Permeability Estimate
An empirical correlation has also been developed to
estimate formation permeability from the G-function closure
time when after-closure data is not available. The correlation
is described in detail in the Appendix. Figure 7 shows the G-
function correlation permeability estimate for the observed
closure time and other input parameters. The permeability
estimate of 0.097 md is consistent with the Horner and ACA
results.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
G
c
Data Input
r
p 1
0.09 V/V
c
t 7.50E-05
psi
-1
E 3.5 Mpsi
1 cp
Gc 2.44
Pz 966.0 psi
Estimated Permeability = 0.0974 md
P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

m
d

Figure 7: Normal leakoff permeability estimate

Pressure Dependent Leakoff
Pressure dependent leakoff (PDL) occurs when the fluid loss
rate changes with pore pressure or net effective stress in the
rock surrounding the fracture. PDL is not caused by the
normal change in transient pressure gradient during leakoff.
This is part of the normal leakoff mode and is handled by the
one-dimensional linear flow solution of the diffusivity
equation used to model fracture leakoff in a constant
permeability system. The pressure dependence referred to here
is a change in the transmissibility of the reservoir fissure or
fracture system that dominates the fluid loss rate. PDL is only
apparent when there is substantial stress dependent
permeability in a composite dual-permeability reservoir.

G-Function for Pressure-Dependent Leakoff
Figure 9 shows the G-function behavior expected for PDL.
The primary p
w
vs. G curve is concave upward and curved
while PDL persists. The semilog derivative exhibits the
characteristic hump above the straight line extrapolated to
the derivative origin. The end of PDL and the critical fissure
opening pressure corresponds to the end of the hump and
the beginning of the straight line representing matrix
dominated leakoff. Fracture closure is still shown by the
departure of the semilog derivative from the straight line
through the origin.

SPE 107877 5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
G(Time)
8250
8500
8750
9000
9250
9500
9750
10000
10250
10500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2 1
P vs. G
GdP/dG vs. G
dP/dG vs. G
Fracture Closure
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s

Figure 9: PDL G-function plot


Sqrt(t) Analysis for PDL
Interpretation of the sqrt(t) plot in PDL cases has often led
to incorrect closure picks. Figure 10 shows an expanded view
of the sqrt(t) plot for the example with the curves scaled for
better visibility. Note that the semilog derivative is nearly
identical in shape and information content to the G-function
semilog derivative. It clearly shows the PDL hump and
closure, which has been synchronized to the G-function result.
Incorrect closure picks on the sqrt(t) plot will not occur if
the semilog derivative is used. Problems arise when the first
derivative is used exclusively to pick closure. In PDL cases
the obvious derivative maximum, or most prominent inflection
point, is caused by the changing leakoff associated with PDL
and does not indicate fracture closure. The false closure
indication is shown on the plot. Many fracture diagnostic tests
have been badly misdiagnosed because the early and incorrect
closure was picked because of dependence on only the sqrt(t)
plot. This example clearly illustrates why all available
diagnostic plots must be used in concert to arrive at a single
consistent closure event.

1/24/2007
00:20 00:40 01:00 01:20 01:40
1/24/2007
02:00
Time
8250
8500
8750
9000
9250
9500
9750
10000
10250
0
100
200
300
400
500
1
False Closure
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
P vs. t
tdP/dt vs. t
dP/dt vs. t
Fracture Closure

Figure 10: PDL Sqrt plot


Log-Log Pressure Derivative for PDL Example
Figure 11 shows the log-log plot for the PDL example. The
normal matrix leakoff period, following the end of PDL,
appears as a perfect slope of the semilog derivative with a
parallel pressure difference curve exactly 2-times the
magnitude of the derivative. The parallel trend ends at the
identified closure time and pressure difference. In this
example a well-defined slope, or reservoir pseudolinear
flow period, is shown shortly after closure. The later data
approach a slope of 1, which indicates pseudoradial flow has
been established.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (0 = 9.133333)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
10
100
1000
(m = 0.5)
(m = -1)
(m = -0.5)
BH ISIP = 10000 psi
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
P vs. t
tdP/dt vs. t
Fracture closure
Linear Flow
Radial Flow

Figure 11: PDL log-log plot

After-Closure Analysis for PDL Example
The ACA log-log plot (Figure 12) shows both the reservoir
linear and radial flow periods in their expected locations.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Square Linear Flow (FL^2)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
100
1000
10000
(m = 1)
(m = 0.5)
1 2 3
D
e
l
t
a
-
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
P vs. F
L
2
F
L
2
dP/dF
L
2
vs. F
L
2
P=(p
w
-p
r
)
Start Linear Flow
End Linear Flow
Start Radial Flow

Figure 12: PDL ACA log plot

Figures 13 and 14 show the ACA Cartesian plots for the
linear and radial flow analyses. Both give consistent estimates
of reservoir pore pressure. The pseudoradial flow analysis
gives a transmissibility of 37.2 md-ft/cp and estimated
permeability of 0.047 md.

6 SPE 107877
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Linear Flow Time Function
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
(m = 1438.5)
Results
Reservoir Pressure = 8056.66 psi
Start of Pseudo Linear Time = 15.9
End of Pseudo Linear Time = 54.39
1 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Start Linear Flow
End Linear Flow

Figure 13: PDL ACA linear flow plot

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Radial Flow Time Function
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
(m = 11373)
Results
Reservoir Pressure = 8068.81 psi
Transmissibility, kh/ = 37.21984 m
kh = 0.93764 md*ft
Permeability, k = 0.0469 md
Start of Pseudo Radial Time = 11.26
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

Figure 14: PDL ACA radial flow plot

Horner Analysis for PDL Example
For an average pump rate of 6.7 bpm the Horner plot gives
kh/=35.72 md-ft/cp. The Horner estimated permeability is
0.046 md compared to 0.047 md from the ACA Radial Flow
analysis. Pore pressure estimated from the Horner plot is also
consistent with both the linear and radial analyses because a
well-developed pseudoradial flow period does exist in this
case. The vertical dotted line in Figure 15 shows the start of
pseudoradial flow. If a pseudoradial flow period does not
exist, extrapolation of an apparent straight-line on the Horner
plot can give extremely inaccurate estimates of pressure and
flow capacity.
1
Horner Time
8000
8100
8200
8300
8400
8500
8600
8700
8800
8900
(m = 43920)
(Reservoir = 8064)
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

Figure 15: PDL Horner plot


G-Function Permeability Estimate for PDL Example
The G-function permeability correlation for the PDL
example is shown in figure 16. It also gives a consistent
permeability of 0.045 md. The impact of the accelerated
leakoff during PDL gives an estimate of the composite
reservoir effective permeability. Note that the injected fluid
viscosity is used for the permeability estimate based on
closure time.

0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
G
c
Data Input
r
p 1
0.08 V/V
ct 6.00E-05
psi
-1
E 5 Mpsi
1 cp
Gc 2.9
Pz 841.0 psi
Estimated Permeability = 0.0453 md
P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

m
d

Figure 16: PDL permeability estimate


Fracture Tip Extension
In very low permeability reservoirs the decline in wellbore
pressure observed after shut-in may be caused by the
dissipation of the pressure transient established in the fracture
during pumping. The near-well pressure decreases as the
fracture closes, which results in a decrease of fracture width at
the well. The closing of the fracture volumetrically displaces
fluid to the tip of the fracture, causing continued extension of
the fracture length. Much of the pressure decline is therefore
not related to leakoff but to the dissipation of the linear
transient along the fracture length.

SPE 107877 7
G-Function Analysis for Tip Extension
During fracture tip extension the G-function derivatives
fail to develop any straight-line trends. The primary P vs. G
curve is concave upward, as is the first derivative. The
semilog derivative starts with a large positive slope and the
slope continues to decrease with shut-in time, giving a
concave-down curvature.
3,4
Figure 17 shows a typical case of
fracture tip extension with minimal leakoff. This is another
case that is frequently misdiagnosed.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
G(Time)
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
1
P vs. G
GdP/dG vs. G
dP/dG vs. G
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s

Figure 17: Tip extension G-function plot

Sqrt(t) Analysis with Fracture Tip Extension
Many times the first break in the semilog derivative curve
has been misinterpreted as a closure event. The mistake is
often compounded by the use of the sqrt(t) plot. Figure 18
shows the sqrt(t) plot for the same data. The first derivative
shows a large maximum very shortly after shut-in. This is
often mistaken for closure. The semilog derivative on the
sqrt(t) plot helps to avoid this mistaken closure pick, and
shows the same continuously increasing trend as seen on the
G-function semilog derivative plot. In low permeability
systems it is generally safe to assume that as long as the
semilog derivative is still rising, the fracture has not yet
closed. This is not true in very high permeability reservoirs
and should always be checked using the log-log pressure
difference plot.

1/25/2007
04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00
1/25/2007
20:00
Time
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
Incorrect Closure
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
P vs. t xdP/dx vs. t
dP/dx vs. t

Figure 18: Tip extension sqrt(t) plot

Log-Log Pressure Derivative Analysis with Tip Extension
The log-log plot of pressure change after shut-in is
particularly useful for diagnosing fracture tip extension.
Figure 19 shows the pressure difference and pressure
derivative (semilog) for the tip extension example.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2
1 10 100 1000
Time (0 = 33.7)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
10
100
1000
(m = 0.25)
BH ISIP = 10000 psi
1
D
e
l
t
a
-
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
P vs. t
tdP/dt vs. t

Figure 19: Tip extension log-log plot

In Figure 19 the pressure derivative departs from the early
unit-slope (storage) and establishes a slope during fracture
tip extension. The pressure difference curve falls on a parallel
slope line separated by 4-times the magnitude of the
derivative. The slope signature is diagnostic of bilinear flow
representing a continued dissipation of the linear pressure
transient along the fracture length (extension and concomitant
fluid flow) and some linear flow driving minimal leakoff. For
tip extension to occur the leakoff rate to the formation must be
low. As long as the parallel slope trend continues, the
fracture has not closed and is still in the process of extending.
Closure cannot be determined and no after-closure analysis
can be conducted.

Height Recession or Transverse Storage
There are two different mechanisms that can generate a
similar diagnostic derivative signature during fracture closure.
Both are caused by an excess stored volume of fluid in the
fracture at shut-in relative to the expected surface area of the
fracture for a planar, constant-height geometry model.
Traditionally this signature has been called fracture height
recession. The usual model assumes that leakoff occurs only
through a thin permeable bed and that the fracture extends in
height to cover impermeable strata with no leakoff. At shut-in
there is a large volume of fluid stored in the fracture and the
leakoff rate relative to the stored volume is small, hence the
rate of pressure decline is likewise small. As the fracture
empties, the rate of leakoff relative to the remaining stored
fluid accelerates and the pressure declines more rapidly. If the
fracture height changes during leakoff, the fracture
compliance may also decrease, adding to the rate of pressure
loss.
However, the same signature is observed in many cases
where fracture height growth out of zone is not observed by
tracers, inclinometer, or micro-seismic mapping. Some of
these cases show treating behavior similar to PDL cases, with
8 SPE 107877
a tendency for rapid screenout and difficulty placing high
proppant concentration slurries. These observations suggest
that another mechanism may be responsible for the same
diagnostic derivative signature. The alternate mechanism is
called transverse fracture storage.
In transverse fracture storage a secondary fracture set is
opened when the fluid pressure exceeds the critical fissure-
opening pressure, just as in PDL. As the secondary fractures
dilate they create a storage volume for fluid which is taken
from the primary hydraulic fracture. While the fracture storage
volume increases, leakoff can also be accelerated so PDL and
storage are aspects of the same coupled mechanism of fissure
dilation. The relative magnitude of the enhanced leakoff and
storage mechanisms determines whether the G-function
derivatives show PDL or storage. Numerical modeling studies
indicate that the storage mechanism can easily dominate even
large PDL.
At shut-in the secondary fractures will close before the
primary fracture because they are held open against a stress
higher than the minimum in-situ horizontal stress. As they
close fluid will be expelled from the transverse storage volume
back into the main fracture decreasing the normal rate of
pressure decline and, in effect, supporting the observed shut-in
pressure by re-injection of stored fluid. Accelerated leakoff
can still occur at the same time but if the storage and
expulsion mechanism exceeds the enhanced leakoff rate then
the only signature observed during falloff will be storage. In
many cases a period of linear, constant area, constant matrix
permeability dominated leakoff will occur after the end of
storage.

G-Function Analysis with Storage
The characteristic G-function derivative signature is a
belly below the straight line through the origin and tangent
to the semilog derivative of p
w
vs. G at the point of fracture
closure. Figure 20 shows an example of slight to moderate
storage. In Figure 20 fracture closure, indicated by the same
departure of the tangent line from the semilog derivative,
occurs just after the end of the storage effect.


5 10 15 20
G(Time)
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1
P vs. G
GdP/dG vs. G
dP/dG vs. G
Fracture Closure
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s

Figure 20: Storage G-function plot

Sqrt(t) Analysis with Storage or Height Recession
The sqrt(t) plot (Figure 21) shows a clear indication of
closure based on both the first-derivative inflection point and
the semilog derivative curve. Picking closure in the case of
storage is not generally a problem.

1/24/2007
02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00
1/24/2007
10:00
Time
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
0
100
200
300
400
1
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
P vs. t
xdP/dx vs. t
dP/dx vs. t
Fracture Closure

Figure 21: Storage sqrt(t) plot

The storage model, whether caused by height recession or
transverse fractures, requires that a larger volume of fluid
must be leaked-off to reach fracture closure than is expected
for a single planar constant-height fracture. In either case the
time to reach fracture closure is delayed by the excess fluid
volume that must be lost. Any estimation of reservoir
permeability will give an incorrect result if the uncorrected
closure time (either G
c
or time-to closure in minutes, t
c
) is
used. The observed closure time must be corrected by
multiplying by the storage ratio, r
p
. The magnitude of r
p
can
be determined by taking the ratio of the area under the
G-function semilog derivative up to the closure time, divided
by the area of the right-triangle formed by the tangent line
through the origin at closure. For normal leakoff and PDL the
value of r
p
is set to 1.0 even though the ratio of the areas will
be greater than 1 for the PDL case. It is possible that the
closure time for PDL leakoff is proportional to the composite
system permeability including both the matrix and fractures.
For severe cases of storage r
p
can be as low as 0.5 or less.

Log-Log Pressure Derivative with Storage
Figure 22 shows the log-log plot of pressure difference and
semilog derivative for the storage case. Prior to closure, and
while transverse storage is dominant, the semilog derivative
approaches a unit slope, with the pressure difference curve
nearly parallel. In some cases the two curves lie together on a
single unit-slope line. In this case the curves are separated
slightly and the slope is not exactly 1.0. After closure the
reservoir transient signature is defined as in the previously
presented cases. All fracture storage effects are eliminated and
the reservoir pseudolinear flow period is shown by a -1/2
slope with a pseudoradial flow period indicated by a -1 slope
of the semi-log derivative.

SPE 107877 9
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6
0.1 1 10 100
Time (0 = 9.416667)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
3
10
100
1000
(m= 0.5)
(m= -0.5)
BH ISIP = 10000 psi
1
D
e
l
t
a
-
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
n
d

D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
P vs. t
tdP/dt vs. t

Figure 22: Storage log-log plot


Conclusions
The use of pre-frac injection/falloff diagnostic tests has
become commonplace. Many important decisions regarding
fracture treatment designs and expectations of post-frac
production are based on the results of these tests. In too many
cases individual diagnostic plots and analysis techniques are
misapplied, leading to incorrect interpretations. The analyses
presented here lead to the following conclusions:

1. With consistent application of all available pressure
decline diagnostics, a single unambiguous determination
of fracture closure time and pressure can be made.
2. A single, unique closure event can be identified on all
diagnostic plots.
3. The conventional analysis of the sqrt(t) plot, using the
inflection point identified by the first derivative, gives
incorrect indications of closure for cases of PDL and tip
extension and should not be relied upon.
4. A modified sqrt(t) analysis, using the semilog derivative,
is equivalent to the G-function analysis and helps avoid
incorrect closure picks in cases of PDL and tip extension.
5. Flow regimes can be identified using the semilog pressure
derivative on the log-log plot of p
wf
t during the shut-
in period following the fracture injection test.
6. As in conventional transient test analysis, a pseudolinear
flow period is identified by parallel slope lines,
separated by 2x, on the log-log p
wf
t plot up until
fracture closure.
7. Bilinear flow can be identified by parallel slope lines
separated by 4x on the log-log p
wf
t plot prior to
fracture closure.
8. After closure the pseudolinear reservoir flow period is
identified by a -1/2 slope of the semilog derivative of the
pressure difference on the log-log p
wf
t plot, and a
3/2 slope of the first derivative of the pressure difference
with shut-in time on the same plot.
9. Pseudoradial flow is identified by a -1 slope of the
semilog derivative on the log-log plot.
10. When a stable pseudolinear flow period exists, the after-
closure Cartesian plot of the linear flow function can be
used to estimate reservoir pressure.
11. When a pseudoradial flow period exists, both the
conventional Horner analysis and after-closure radial-
flow analysis can be used to determine reservoir
transmissibility and pore pressure.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Kumar Ramurthy,
Halliburton, Mike Conway, Stim-Lab, and Stuart Cox,
Marathon, for their discussion and contribution to the
procedures described. Sincere thanks are also due to the many
operators whose diligence in pre-frac testing has allowed these
diagnostic analysis procedures to be developed and tested.

Nomenclature
A
f
= fracture area, L
2
, ft
2
B = formation volume factor, L
3
/L
3
, RB/STB

c
t
= total compressibility, Lt
2
/m, psi
-1

C
ac
= after-closure storage, L
4
t
2
/m, bbl/psi
C
bl
= bilinear flow constant, m/Lt
5/4
, psihr
3/4
C
pl
= pseudolinear flow constant, m/Lt
3/2
, psihr
1/2

C
pr
= pseudoradial flow constant, m/Lt, psihr
C
fbc
= before-closure fracture storage, L
4
t
2
/m, bbl/psi
F
L
= linear flow time function, dimensionless
F
R
= radial flow time function, dimensionless
g = loss-volume function, dimensionless
G = G-function, dimensionless
h = height, L, ft
k = permeability, L
2
, md
L
f
= fracture half-length, L, ft
m
H
= slope of data on Horner plot, m/Lt
2
, psia
m
L
= slope of data on pseudolinear flow graph, m/Lt
2
, psia
m
R
= slope of data on pseudoradial flow graph, m/Lt
2
, psia
p = pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
wf
= fracture pressure measured at wellbore, m/Lt
2
, psia
q = flow rate, L
3
/t, bbl/D
Q
t
= total injection volume, L
3
, bbl
r
p
= storage ratio, dimensionless
S
f
= fracture stiffness, m/L
2
t
2
, psi/ft
t = time, hr
t
a
= adjusted pseudotime, hr


Greek
= constant, dimensionless
= difference, dimensionless
= constant, dimensionless
= viscosity, m/Lt, cp
= porosity, dimensionless

Subscripts
a = adjusted
c = closure
D = dimensionless
e = end of injection
f = filtrate
p = pumping
0 = end of injection
w = wellbore
z = process zone


10 SPE 107877
References

1. Nolte, K. G.: Determination of Fracture Parameters from
Fracturing Pressure Decline, paper SPE 3841, presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV,
Sept. 23-26, 1979.
2. Castillo, J. L.: Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis
Including Pressure-Dependent Leakoff, paper SPE 16417,
presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Joint
Symposium, Denver, CO, May 18-19, 1987.
3. Barree, R. D., and Mukherjee, H.: Determination of Pressure
Dependent Leakoff and Its Effect on Fracture Geometry, paper
SPE 36424, presented at the 71st Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
4. Barree, R.D.: "Applications of Pre-Frac Injection/Falloff Tests in
Fissured ReservoirsField Examples," paper SPE 39932
presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low-
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Apr. 5-8, 1998.
5. Talley, G. R., Swindell, T. M., Waters, G. A. and Nolte, K. G.:
Field Application of After-Closure Analysis of Fracture
Calibration Tests, paper SPE 52220, presented at the 1999 SPE
Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
March 2831, 1999.
6. Cinco-Ley, H., and Samaniego-V., F.: Transient Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells, JPT (September 1981) 1749.
7. Settari, A.: Coupled Fracture and Reservoir Modeling,
presented at the Workshop on Three Dimensional and Advanced
Hydraulic Fracture Modeling, held in conjunction with the Fourth
North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, July 29, 2000,
Seattle, WA.
8. Craig, D. P. and Blasingame, T. A.: Application of a New
Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model Accounting for Propagating,
Dilated, and Closing Hydraulic Fractures, paper SPE 1005778
presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, May, 15-17, 2006.
9. Hagoort, J.: "Waterflood-Induced Hydraulic Facturing," PhD
Thesis, Delft Technical University, 1981.
10. Koning, E.J.L. and Niko, H.: "Fractured Water-Injection Wells:
A Pressure Falloff Test for Determining Fracture Dimensions,"
paper SPE 14458 presented at the 1985 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Las Vegas, NV, September, 22-25, 1985.
11. Cinco-Ley, H., Kuchuk, F., Ayoub, J., Samaniego-V, F., and
Ayestaran, L.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use of
Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper SPE 15476
presented at the 61
st
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, LA,
October, 5-8, 1986.


Appendix A - Definition of diagnostic functions

The G-Function
The G-function is a representation of the elapsed time after
shut-in normalized to the duration of fracture extension.
Corrections are made for the superposition of variable leakoff
times while the fracture is growing. The form of the
G-function used in this paper assumes high fluid efficiency in
low-permeability formations. Under that assumption the
surface area of the fracture is assumed to vary linearly with
time during fracture propagation. The dimensionless pumping
time used in the G-function is defined as:
( )
/
D p p
t t t t = . .......................................................... (A-l)
The elapsed total time from the start of fracture initiation
(not start of pumping) is t and the total pumping time (elapsed
time from fracture initiation to shut-in) in consistent time units
is t
P
. For the assumption of low leakoff the dimensionless time
(t
D
) is used to compute an intermediate function:
( ) ( ) [ ]
5 . 1 5 . 1
1
3
4
D D D
t t t g + = . ............................ (A-2)
The G-function used in the diagnostic plots is derived from
the intermediate function as follows:
( ) ( )
0
4
D D
G t g t g

=

, .......................................(A-3)
where g
0
is the dimensionless loss-volume function at shut-in
(t = t
p
or t
D
= 0). All derivatives are calculated using a central
difference function of pressure and G-function (normalized
shut-in time).

After-Closure Analysis and Flow Regime Identification
After-closure pressure decline analysis requires the
identification of fully-developed reservoir pseudolinear and
pseudoradial transient flow regimes. The flow regimes can be
identified by characteristic slopes on a log-log plot of
observed falloff pressure minus reservoir pressure, (p
w
(t) p
i
),
versus the square of the linear-flow time function (F
L
2
) and the
semilog derivative, (X*dY/dX), of the pressure difference
curve.
5
It is important to note that the guess of reservoir
pressure, p
i
, used in construction of the flow regime plot
severely impacts the slope and magnitude of the pressure
difference curve. The pressure derivative, because of the
difference function used to generate it, is not affected by the
initial guess of reservoir pressure.
The linear-flow time function is defined by:
( )
c
c
c L
t t for
t
t
t t F =
1
sin
2
,

. .........................(A-4)
The linear-flow function also requires an accurate
determination of the time required after shut-in to reach
fracture closure, t
c
. In the pseudolinear flow period the slope
of the derivative curve on the log-log plot should be . For the
correct estimate of reservoir pore pressure, the pressure
difference curve should also have a slope of and should be
exactly twice the magnitude of the derivative. If a stable
pseudolinear flow period is identified then a Cartesian plot of
observed pressure during the falloff, p
w
(t), versus F
L
should
yield a straight line with intercept equal to the reservoir pore
pressure, p
i
, and with a slope of m
L
.
( ) ( ) ,
w i L L c
p t p m F t t = . ............................................(A-5)
If a pseudoradial flow period exists, the slope of the
derivative and correct pressure difference curves on the log-
log flow regime plot should both be 1.0 and the two curves
should coincide. In the pseudoradial flow period, a Cartesian
plot of pressure versus F
R
should also yield a straight line with
intercept equal to p
i
and slope of m
R
.

SPE 107877 11
( ) ( ) ,
w i R R c
p t p m F t t = ............................................. (A-6)

In these equations t
c
is the time to fracture closure with
time zero set as the beginning of fracture extension, p
i
is the
initial reservoir pressure, and m
R
is the Cartesian slope of the
correct straight line. The radial-flow function (F
R
) is given
by
5

( ) 6 . 1
16
, 1 ln
4
1
,
2
=

+ =

c
c
c R
t t
t
t t F . ......... (A-7)
In the properly identified pseudoradial flow period the
reservoir far-field transmissibility can be determined from the
slope, fracture closure time, and volume injected during the
test.

251, 000
t
R c
Q kh
m t
= . ...................................................... (A-8)
In Equation A-8 the permeability, k, is in md, net pay
thickness, h, is in feet, far-field mobile fluid viscosity, , in
cp, t
c
in minutes, and the volume injected during the test, Q
t
, is
in bbls, and the slope, m
R
, is in psi.

Horner analysis
The conventional Horner analysis uses a Cartesian plot of
observed pressure versus Horner time, (t
p
+ t)/t, with all
times in consistent units. The fracture propagation time is t
p

and the elapsed shut-in time is t. As shut-in time approaches
infinity the Horner time function approaches 1. A straight-line
extrapolation of the Horner plot to the intercept at a Horner
time of 1.0 gives an estimate of reservoir pressure. The slope
of the correct straight-line extrapolation, m
H
, can be used to
estimate reservoir transmissibility:

( )
H
m
q kh 1440 6 . 162
=

. .................................................... (A-9)
The flow rate in Equation A-9 is assumed to be in barrels
per minute and is the average rate for the time the fracture was
extending. In both Equations A-8 and A-9, the viscosity is the
far-field mobile fluid viscosity. The propagation of the
transient in pseudoradial flow occurs at a great distance from
the fracture and is not affected by the injected fluid viscosity.
The major problem with the Horner analysis is that the
results are only valid if the data used to extrapolate the
apparent straight line are actually in fully developed
pseudoradial flow. There is no way to determine the validity
of the Horner analysis or to determine the flow regime within
the Horner plot itself.

G-function permeability estimate
An empirical function to approximate formation
permeability has been derived from numerous numerical
simulations of fracture closure. The correlation is based on the
observed G-function time at fracture closure:
1.96
0.0086 0.01
0.038
f z
c p
t
p
k
G Er
c

=



. ...................................... (A-10)
The rate of fluid loss from the fracture before closure is
dominated by the mobility of the injected fluid instead of the
far-field viscosity. The total mobility of the injected fluid
during leakoff is dependent on the viscosity of the injected
fluid at leakoff temperature and the relative permeability to the
leakoff fluid. The reservoir fluid and its residual saturation in
the invaded region will have some effect on the leakoff fluid
mobility. As a general rule, an assumed injected fluid viscosity
of 1.0 cp is used to incorporate the effects of reservoir
temperature and relative permeability in the invaded zone.
Note that the correlation gives permeability and not kh.
The time to closure is related to fracture volume versus
created area so both the fracture height and length do not
appear in the equation. The process zone stress, P
z
, is the net
fracture extension pressure above closure pressure, p
c
, or
p
z
= p
ISIP
p
c
. The net extension pressure and Youngs
Modulus provide a relationship between facture volume
(width) and surface area during pumping.
The other parameters in Equation A-10 are defined, except
the storage ratio, r
p
. This parameter represents the amount of
excess fluid that must be leaked-off to reach fracture closure
when the fracture geometry deviates from the normally
assumed constant-height planar fracture. The storage ratio, r
p
,
is the ratio of the area under the G-function semilog derivative
up until closure divided by the area of the triangle defined by
the straight-line (normal leakoff) tangent to the semilog
derivative at closure. For normal matrix leakoff and PDL, r
p

is therefore 1.0. For the transverse storage and height
recession signature, r
p
is some value less than 1.0. The
observed G-function closure time (G
c
) is always delayed by
the excess fluid volume in the fracture for either height
recession or transverse storage. Likewise the apparent time to
closure used in the after-closure analysis will be delayed and
will cause errors in the reservoir transmissibility estimate. The
closure time should be corrected by multiplying by r
p
for all
permeability and transmissibility estimates.


Appendix B - Analytical Solutions and the Log-Log
Diagnostic Graph

Linear and Bilinear Flow Before-Closure
Hagoort
9
developed a before-closure analytical solution
accounting for both storage and linear formation flow. Koning
and Niko
10
write the solution as
( ) ( )
2
2
1
2
D
t
D fbcD
D
p t C
e erfc t
wD

=


, ................ (B-1)
where
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
141.2
w e w e
D
p t p t t kh
p t
wD
qB
+
=
, ..................................... (B-2)
2
0.0002637
D
t f
k t
t
c L

=
, ............................................................ (B-3)
12 SPE 107877
2
fbcD
C

=
, ..................................................................... (B-4)
and
2 2
5.615 0.8936
2
fbc fbc
fbcD
t f t f
C C
C
c hL c hL
= =
. ............................................ (B-5)
Here, C
fbc
is the before-closure fracture storage constant,
which is defined as
8

2
5.615
f
fbc
f
A
C
S
=
, ................................................................. (B-6)
where A
f
is the fracture area (one wing) and S
f
is the fracture
stiffness.
Hagoort's solution predicts that the before-closure falloff is
a combination of fracture storage and linear flow. As fracture
storage becomes small, C
fbcD
0, linear flow will dominate the
before-closure pressure falloff. In most "hard rock"
environments, C
fbcD
is small, and for a fracture-
injection/falloff sequence with t >> t
e
and long closure times,
( ) ( )
w e w e
p t p t t t +
, ...................................................... (B-7)
where t = t
e
+ t and p
w
(t
e
) is the instantaneous shut-in
pressure. Define a fracture-pressure difference as
( ) ( )
wf w e w e
p p t p t t = +
, ................................................... (B-8)
and a log-log graph of p
wf
vs. t will exhibit a slope during
linear flow before closure. An analytical before-closure
bilinear flow solution accounting for fracture tip extension
during shut-in does not exist, but field data suggest that during
before-closure bilinear flow
1 4
( )
wf
p t
, .................................................................... (B-9)
and a log-log graph of p
wf
vs. t will exhibit a slope during
bilinear flow before closure.

Pseudoradial, Pseudolinear, and Bilinear Flow After-
Closure
Craig & Blasingame
8
developed an analytical solution for a
fracture-injection/falloff sequence with a propagating and
closing hydraulic fracture, and they derived the "complete"
after-closure impulse solutions accounting for fracture storage.
The after-closure impulse solution for pseudoradial flow is
written as
( ) 0
141.2(24) 1
(0) ( ) ( )
2
t i w e i
e
Q p C p p p t t p
wsD ac
kh t t

+ + =
+
. ..... (B-10)
For after-closure pseudolinear flow,
0
141.2(24) 0.0002637 1
( )
(0) ( ) 2
t
w e i
i f
Q
p t t p
p C p p hL
wsD ac

+ =

+

1 2
1
t e
c k t t

+

, ........................................... (B-11)
and for after-closure bilinear flow,
1 4
3 4
0
141.2(24)(0.6125)(0.0002637)
( )
( )
t
w e i
i
f f
Q
p t t p
p p C
k w
ac


+ =

+



1 4 3 4
1 1
t e
c k t t

+

. ..................................... (B-12)
For convenience, define a constant pseudoradial flow term as
( ) 0
141.2(24)
(0) ( )
2
t i pr
Q p C p p C
wsD ac
kh

+ =
. ........................... (B-13)
For pseudolinear flow, a constant term is defined as
1 2
0
141.2(24) 0.0002637 1
(0) ( ) 2
t
pl
t i f
Q
C
c k p C p p hL
wsD ac

=

+

. (B-14)
Similarly, for bilinear flow a constant term is written as

1 4
1 4
3 4
0
1 141.2(24)(0.6125)(0.0002637)
( )
t
bl
t i
f f
Q
C
c k p p C
k w
ac

=

+

. .. (B-15)
With the new definition, and defining a reservoir-pressure
difference, p
w
= p
w
(t) p
i
, the pseudoradial-flow impulse
solution can be written as
1
w pr
p C t

=
. ................................................................... (B-16)
Similarly, the linear-flow impulse solution can be written as
1/ 2
w pl
p C t

=
, .................................................................. (B-17)
and the bilinear-flow impulse solution can be written as
3/ 4
w bl
p C t

=
. ................................................................... (B-18)
The derivatives with respect to t are written for after-closure
pseudoradial flow as,
2
( )
w
pr
p
C t
t

, ................................................................ (B-19)
for after-closure pseudolinear flow as,
3/ 2
( ) 2
pl
w
C
p
t
t

, ............................................................. (B-20)
and for after-closure bilinear flow as,
7/ 4
3
( ) 4
w bl
p C
t
t

. ............................................................ (B-21)
The semilog derivatives and the impulse derivatives
11
are
calculated by multiplying the after-closure derivatives by t and
t
2
, respectively. Table B-1 shows the derivative terms for each
after-closure flow regime.

Log-Log Diagnostic Graph
Before-closure linear or bilinear flow are identified by the
relationship between the fracture-pressure difference,
p
wf
, and total time, t, but the after-closure flow regimes are
identified by the relationship between the reservoir-pressure
difference, p
w
, and t, which requires knowing the initial
reservoir pressure, p
i
. However, by noting that
wf
w
p
p
t t

=

, ................................................................ (B-22)
a log-log diagnostic graph can be prepared that is independent
of initial reservoir pressure but can be used to identify before-
and after-closure flow regimes. Table B-2 shows the
characteristic slopes of each flow regime for log-log graphs of
p
wf
vs. t,
wf
p t vs. t,
wf
t p t vs. t, and
SPE 107877 13
2
wf
t p t vs. t .
In gas reservoirs, log-log diagnostic graphs can be prepared by
plotting p
awf
vs. t
a
,
awf a
p t vs. t
a
,
a awf a
t p t vs. t
a
,
and
2
a awf a
t p t vs. t
a
where adjusted pseudopressure is
defined as
0
p
z pdp
p
a
p z
i

=


, ........................................................... (B-23)
and adjusted pseudotime is defined as
( )
0
t
dt
t c
a t i
c
t

=
. .............................................................. (B-24)
Since adjusted pseudopressure is a function of initial
reservoir pressure, and if initial reservoir pressure is unknown,
it's often helpful to complete the analysis in terms of pressure
and time to obtain a first estimate of initial reservoir pressure
before refining the estimate using diagnostic and interpretive
graphs plotted in terms of adjusted pseudovariables.






Table B-1. After-closure impulse solutions and derivatives.
Flow Regime Impulse Solution Derivative Semilog
Derivative
Impulse
Derivative
Bilinear
3/ 4
w bl
p C t

=
7/ 4
3
4
w bl
p C
t
t

3/ 4
3
4
w bl
p C
t t
t

2 1/ 4
3
4
w bl
p C
t t
t

Pseudolinear
1/ 2
w pl
p C t

=

3/ 2
2
pl
w
C
p
t
t

1/ 2
2
pl
w
C
p
t t
t

2 1/ 2
2
pl
w
C
p
t t
t

Pseudoradial
1
w pr
p C t

=
2 w
pr
p
C t
t

1 w
pr
p
t C t
t

2 w
pr
p
t C
t

Table B-2. Log-log graph characteristic slopes.
Before Closure After Closure Log-Log Graph
Bilinear Linear Bilinear Pseudolinear Pseudoradial
vs.
vs.
wf
awf a
p t
p t

1/4 1/2
vs.
vs.
wf
awf a a
p t t
p t t



3/4 1/2 7/4 3/2 2
vs.
vs.
wf
a awf a a
t p t t
t p t t


1/4 1/2 3/4 1/2 1
2
2
vs.
vs.
wf
a awf a a
t p t t
t p t t


5/4 3/2 1/4 1/2 0