SPE 107634

New Mechanical and Damage Skin Factor Correlations for Hydraulically Fractured
Wells
H. Mahdiyar, M. Jamiolahmady, and A. Danesh, Heriot-Watt U.

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the European Formation Damage Conference
held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May1 June 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
Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most common well
stimulation techniques. Hence, considerable amount of efforts
has been devoted to study their performance under different
prevailing conditions. Description of hydraulically fractured
wells using the existing commercial reservoir simulators
requires the use of very fine grids, which is very cumbersome,
costly and impractical.
In this work a two dimensional single-well mathematical
simulator has been developed, which is based on finitedifference methods, and simulates linear Darcy flow in a
hydraulic fractured well. Based on the results of our in-house
simulator different correlations have been developed for
calculation of fracture (Sf), face damage (SfD), and chocked
damage (Sck) skin factors. These formulations benefit from
relevant dimensionless numbers expressing the effect of
geometry and those used to quantify the extent of damages
occurred during fracturing operation. The results indicate that
in-house Sf values are more accurate than those available in
the literature. SfD, reflecting the reduction of the permeability
of the rock close to the fracture, is more realistically captured
here when damaged thickness is assumed to decrease linearly
towards the tip of the fracture. This is more superior to the
uniform thickness assumption made in the literature, which
overestimates SfD. It is also shown the available analytical
expression for calculation of Sck, which is a reflection of
reduction of fracture permeability, overestimate Sck hence, a
more realistic correlation has been developed for this purpose.
The skin correlations developed here enables the engineers
to study the productivity of a fractured well using simple
open-hole system. They can also be used for the optimum
design of a hydraulic fracture system by minimizing flow
resistance for a given fracture volume and fracture
permeability. This can be achieved readily by conducting

simple derivation of the mathematical expressions of skin

formulations presented here.
Introduction:
Hydraulic fracturing is one of the well established well
stimulation techniques especially for tight reservoirs. Because
of the importance and wide applications of hydraulic
fracturing, the study of pressure transient analysis and also
productivity calculations in such systems has been the subject
of interest for many investigators and lots of efforts have been
directed to them1-13.
All these studies can be classified into two categories. The
first type of work focuses on the flow behavior and pressure
changes at unsteady state conditions. The main objective of
this type of work is presentation of well test analysis method
for estimation of characteristics of an existing fracture and its
associated conductivity.
The second type of work, which is in line with this paper,
investigates the flow behavior and pressure distribution around
fracture at pseudosteady-state conditions. This is aimed at
determination of improvement in well productivity or of
optimized fracture design. Results of theses works are in the
form of charts or correlations for calculating the well
productivity, skin factor or effective well-bore radius.
Skin factor is a useful tool for comparing the performance
of a real system, which is often complex and difficult to
replicate, with that of an open-hole system. In a Hydraulically
Fractured System (HFS), the thickness of the fracture is
usually less than 1 cm requiring fine grids for the fracture cells
to accurately simulate fluid flow in these systems. In addition
to the existence of this significant scale difference between
fracture and porous media, fine grids are required around the
fracture to capture the abrupt changes in flow parameters in
this region. Accurate skin factors, on the other hand, can help
a reservoir engineer to forecast the well productivity without
using fine grid, which is costly and cumbersome.
McGuire and Sikora1 (1960) used an electric analogue
computer to study the effect of finite-conductivity vertical
fractures on the productivity of wells in expanding fluid-drive
reservoirs. The result of their study was some curves
demonstrating the productivity increase benefited from
hydraulic fracturing.
Prats2 (1961) presented an analytical model for
pseudosteady-state behavior of finite-conductivity vertical
fractures. In this work Prats introduced the concept of
effective well bore radius. He also showed that there is an

SPE 107634

optimum fracture design, length-width ratio, for a given

fracture volume that maximizes productivity.
Cinco-ley et al3-8 (1977, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1987, 1989)
studied HFS for both transient and pseudosteady-state. Some
of their major contributions (regarding pseudosteady-state) are
the introduction of fracture pseudo skin, an equation for
estimating face damaged skin and also presenting a curve for
estimating effective well bore radius.
Valko et al9-10 calculated pseudosteady-state productivity
index of a fractured well and then presented some charts for
optimum design of a fracture.
Meyer and Jacot11 (2005) presented a new model and an
analytical solution for the calculation of dimensionless
productivity index of a finite conductivity vertical fracture. In
their work the well is located at the centre of a closed
rectangular reservoir flowing under pseudosteady-state
conditions. They also introduced a simple equation for
estimating pseudo fracture skin when fracture length is
negligible compared to reservoir length.
The main objective of this paper is the investigation of
single phase Darcy flow in HFSs. The result of this study is
presented in the form of a number of skin correlations. These
formulations express the effect of fractures on flow
performance in a HFS compared to that of an equivalent openhole system. There are also separate correlations to estimate
the impact of fracture face and chocked damages.
The introduced correlations are not only useful tools for
simulating an open hole system instead of hydraulically
fractured system but also can be used to optimize fracture
design as will be discussed in the last part of this paper.
Simulation of a Hydraulically Fractured System
In commercial simulators the effects of stimulated or damaged
zones on the well-bore flow rate are generally presented by a
skin factor in the well block grid calculation. This enables a
reservoir engineer to simulate a simple open-hole system
instead of the complex real system.
Flow around the well bore is usually stabilized very
quickly hence, in commercial simulators flow from the well
grid block into the well bore is calculated at steady state
conditions. Because the main objective of this study is the
development of skin factors correlations we simulated the flow
around a HFS at steady state conditions.
Fig. 1 schematically shows a hydraulically fractured
system (HFS). In our model it is assumed that:
a) Width of the fracture is constant.
b) Fracture has penetrated vertically through the whole
height of the reservoir.
c) Fracture has penetrated symmetrically in both
directions.
d) Well-bore flow from the matrix is negligible,
compared to the flow from the fracture to the well.
e) HFS has a square shape with constant pressure at the
boundaries.
f) Flow is linear (Darcy flow).
g) Single-phase fluid under study is incompressible.

Continuity equation and Darcy law can be combined to

give:

P P
= 0.
k
+ k
x x y y

(1)

Boundary conditions required for solving this differential

equation are:
At x = 0

P
= 0,
x

(1a)

At y = 0

P
= 0,
y

(1b)

P=Pe,
P=Pe,

At x = Xe
At y = Xe

(1c)
(1d)

where, Xe is the half length of the drainage area (the side

length of a quarter of that).
Numerical Solution Technique
The Finite difference numerical method has been used for
solving this partial differential equation. Because of the
symmetry in the HFS, a quarter of this system, shown in Fig.
2, is simulated to save computational time.
The model is divided into 1000 grid blocks, 40 blocks in x
direction and 25 blocks in y direction. So there are 40 rows
and 25 columns, as shown in Fig. 3. The grid blocks near the
well and those near the tip of the fracture are finer than the
remaining blocks to capture more accurately the abrupt
changes in flow parameters in these areas especially near the
well bore where flow velocity is at its maximum.
This girding is the result of the previous studies in this
department12 as well as some recommendations available in
the literature, Guppy et al.13 (1982).
Each block could have 2, 3 or 4 neighboring blocks, which
have mass transfer to or from it. Fig. 4 shows schematically
an inner block with its 4 neighboring blocks. Mass flow rate
between two neighboring blocks is equal to driving force, P,
divided by flow resistances between the centers of the two
blocks. According to the mass conservation law, at steady
state conditions, the algebraic summation of mass flows
entering each block must be zero. That is,

P(i +1, j ) P( i , j )
RX ( i +1, j ) + RX (i , j )
+

P( i , j +1) P( i , j )
RY( i , j +1) + RY( i , j )

+
+

P(i 1, j ) P( i , j )
RX ( i 1, j ) + RX ( i , j )
P( i , j 1) P( i , j )
RY( i , j 1) + RY(i , j )

=0

(2)

SPE 107634

In this equation RX(i,j) and RY(i,j) are flow resistances in the

x- and y-directions, respectively. These values can be
calculated as follows:

RX (i , j ) =
RY( i , j ) =

x( i , j )
2hk ( i , j ) y (i , j )
y ( i , j )

where, re is the equivalent radius, equal to the radius of a

cylindrical medium volumetrically equal to the square
drainage area.

re =
.

Xe.

(6)

(3)
For hydraulically fractured systems Eq. 7 is used to define
pseudo skin, denoted by S,

2hk ( i , j ) x (i , j )

2kh

P
.
re
+ S'
ln
X
f

Eq. 2 is the finite difference form of Eq. 1 for inner blocks.

For blocks neighboring the boundaries the shape of the
equation is slightly different according to the boundary
conditions expressed by Equations 1a-d.

q=

The solution of Eq. 2 together with the boundary condition

expressed by Eq. 1 is the pressure distribution, which is used
to calculate the well flow rste by the following equation:

Rearranging Eq. 7 in the form of Eq. 8 illustrates the

physical meaning of pseudo skin:

4 P(1,1) PW
q =
.
RX (1,1)

q=

(4)

Comparison of In-House Simulator with ECLIPSE

Flow in a HFS with the same size and grid pattern as those
in our in-house simulator was simulated by ECLIPSE
commercial simulator. Here 64 injection wells with the
bottom-hole pressure equals to Pe are placed in all the
boundary blocks and the bottom-hole pressure of all wells are
set to constant value of Pe. This makes the simulated model
reach the steady state conditions rapidly with the boundary
conditions similar to the boundary conditions imposed in the
in-house simulator.
The results of two simulators were compared for many
prevailing conditions. The close agreement between the results
confirmed the integrity of the structure of the in-house
simulator.
However, it is noted that the in-house simulator
automatically generates mesh for the HFS with any geometry
and fracture sizes. This allows us to study the HFS for many
prevailing conditions and produce large data banks for
developing the skin correlations. Doing the same job with
commercial simulators is time consuming and cumbersome.
Skin Factors In Hydraulically Fractured Wells
Skin factor is generally defined by Eq. 5,

q=

2kh

P
.
re
Ln + S
rw

(5)

P
r
1
ln e
2kh X f

+ S
2kh

'

(7)

P
,
Rmz + R fz

(8)

where, Rmz (ln(re/Xf)/2kh) is the radial flow resistance in

the matrix zone. Therefore Rfz (S/2kh) mainly represents the
flow resistance in the fractured zone, although it also contains
non-radial effect in the matrix zone. These regions are
schematically shown in Fig. 5. It is noted that this definition
of skin has a more realistic physical meaning compared to that
expressed by Eq. 5 and also proved to give more efficient
correlations.
For Darcy flow systems with zero flow skin, the following
simple relationship between skin and pseudo skin factors can
be obtained by comparing Eq. 5 with Eq. 7.

S = S ' ln

Xf
rw

(9)

In this paper pseudo mechanical skin is defined as the

pseudo skin factor of a HFS containing single phase Darcy
flow. This factor is the summation of pseudo fracture skin and
damages skin factors, which will be discussed in the following
sections.
Pseudo Fracture Skin Correlation
Pseudo fracture skin is defined as the skin factor of a no
damaged HFS. As mentioned earlier this factor represents
flow resistance in the fractured zone as well as the non-radial
flow effect in the matrix zone around the fracture. Previous
studies4,11 have confirmed that flow resistance in the fractured
zone is a function of dimensionless fracture conductivity,

SPE 107634

which is the ratio of conductivity in the fracture to that in the

matrix inside the fractured zone.

C fD =

k f wf
kX f

(10)

On the other hand, considering the geometry of a fractured

system it can be concluded that the non-redial flow effect in
the matrix zone is affected by the relative size of the fracture
compared to that of drainage area, expressed by the following
dimensionless number:

r
IX = e .
Xf

(11)

Fig. 6 shows the variation of pseudo fracture skin with IX

at three different dimensionless fracture conductivities (CfD).
Cinco-ley4 has reported that the effect of IX on effective well
bore radius, or pseudo fracture skin, is negligible when IX is
bigger than 4.0. The results of Fig. 7 confirm his observation.
This suggests that flow is almost radial for the region beyond
IX>4.
Meyer and Jacot11 (2005) introduced the following
equation for calculation of pseudo fracture skin for HFSs with
IX >>1.0, where pseudo skin is only a function of CfD.

S 'f = ln 2 +

C fD

(12)

Fig. 7 compares the results of our in-house simulator with

the results of this equation with IX bigger than 4.0. A good
agreement is noted between the results of this equation and
those of the In-house simulator. It should be noted that Meyer
has used semi-analytical solution technique to obtain Eq. 12
while our results have been obtained from our numerical
simulator.
For the general case including the cases that the effect of
variation of non-radial flow in the matrix zone is important (IX
is comparable with 1.0) we have developed the following
correlation:

S 'f = ln 2 A +
,

C fD

(13)

Fracture width (Wf): 2, 6, 10, 14 mm

Fracture permeability (kf): 10, 50, 90, 130, 170, 210 D
Reservoir permeability (k): 0.1, 1, 9, 25, 48, 81 mD
IX range: 1.2< IX < 10
CfD range: 0.2< CfD< 888
Number of data points: 15900
Fig. 8 verifies the accuracy of Eq. 13 by comparing its results
with the outcome of the in-house simulator. Here the standard
error of estimate is less than 0.016.

Skin Factors for Damages

Damage skin represents the difference between the
resistance of the damaged layer and its resistance without any
damage. Two most common damages in hydraulic fractured
systems are fracture face and choked damages.
Fracture Face Damage
Fracture face damage expresses the permeability reduction
normal to the fracture. Increasing the matrix resistance due to
this damage can be represented with the fracture face damage
skin factor, shown by SfD.
Total flow resistance of a HFS (RT) can be calculated by
the following equation:

RT =

re
ln
+ S 'f + S fD =

2kh X f

S 'f + (Rdamaged Rundamaged )

ln e +
2kh X f 2kh

(14)

, (15)

where Rdamaged is the damaged layer resistance and Rundamaged is

its resistance without damage. If it is assumed that the
damaged layer has a constant thickness and permeability and
flow from the matrix to the fracture is uniform and normal to
the fracture face, we can write:

Rdamaged =

wd
4k d X f h

and Rundamaged =

wd
4kX f h

Combining Equations 15 and 16 will result in:

where

0.17
.
A = ln e
I X 0.87

In this equation with increasing Ix, A approaches one and

Eq. 13 converts to Eq. 12. For instance, when IX is equal to 4,
A is 0.98 and the results of two Equations (12 and 13) are
almost similar. The coefficients of Eq. 14 have been obtained,
conducting a multi-regression exercise, for a wide range of
variation of the pertinent parameters as follows:

(16)

SPE 107634

S fD
S fD

wd
wd

2kh 4 X f k d h 4 X f kh

wd k

=
1
2 X f kd

(17)

This equation was described first by Cinco-Ley4 (1978).

In practice, damaged layer thickness is usually not constant
but most probably decreases almost linearly toward the tip of
the fracture. In this case the negative effect of the damaged
layer could be less especially for large values of the fracture
conductivity. That is, most flow enters the fracture through the
regions near the tip of the fracture where the damage thickness
and its resistance is less.
To simulate this in the in-house simulator the width of the
grid of blocks in second row is set equal to the maximum
thickness of the damaged layer but the average permeability of
any block of this row is calculated with the following
equation:

k =

kk d
,
x
x
k (1
) + kd
XF
XF

(18)

where, x is the distance from the well towards the fracture tip.
This equation is the result of equating the equivalent flow
resistance of each block to the summation of flow resistances
of the damaged and undamaged layers of that block.
Data analysis of a large data bank (more than 8000 cases)
obtained from the in-house simulator resulted in Eq. 19 for
calculation of fracture face damaged skin.

1 wd
S fD = 0.48+

C fD X f

0.82

0.7

k
1 .
kd

(19)

The coefficients of the above correlation have been

obtained, conducting a multi-regression exercise, for a wide
range of variation of the pertinent parameters as follows:
Fracture half length (Xf): 25, 59, 146 m
Fracture width (Wf): 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 mm
Fracture permeability (kf): 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, 110D
Reservoir permeability (k): 1, 10,20, 30, 40, 50 mD
k/kd: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50
Maximum damage thickness: 3, 12, 21, 30, 39 Cm
CfD range: 0.3< CfD< 47
Fig. 9 compares the outcome of the results of this Eq. 19
with those of the in-house simulator confirming accuracy of
this correlation. Here the standard error of estimate is 0.01.

Fig. 10 demonstrates that for very high conductive

fractured systems the effect of this damage could be
negligible. This Figure also shows the prediction of Eq. 17,
proposed by Cinco-lay4, which is independent of variation of
CfD. The data of Fig. 10 has been obtained by varying kfwf
while the following parameters are kept constant:

wd,max
Xf

=2

k
wd
= 0.02 and 1 = 50.
Xf
kd

Choked fracture skin effect

This effect refers to the presence of a damaged zone near
the wellbore inside the fracture and, which causes a reduction
of fracture conductivity. The conductivity reduction can be
due to an over-displacement of the proppant or fine migration
and accumulation at the well bore during production. This
damage can be expressed by reduced permeability, kf,ck. If it is
assumed that all flow passes through the whole length of the
damaged zone (xck), a simple mathematical expression can be
obtained for choked fracture skin, Eq. 20.

S ck

X
1 X ck

=
ck
2kh 2 w f k f , ck h w f k f h

S ck =

X ck k k f

w f k f k f ,ck

(20)

Sck represents the difference between real resistance of the

fractured zone and its resistance without damage and can be
obtained following a procedure similar to that for Eq. 15, as
follows:

RT =

re
ln
+ S 'f + S ck =

2kh X f

S 'f + (Rdamaged Rundamaged )

ln e +
2kh X f 2kh

,(21)

where

Rdamaged =

X ck
2k f ,ck w f h

Rundamaged =

X ck

2k f w f h

Eq. 20 is different from the equation reported by Diego,

Valko and Economides 10, as follows:

SPE 107634

S ck =

X ck k k f

X f k f k f ,ck

1 .

(22)

In this equation Sck depends on the fracture length instead

of the fracture width as we have it in Eq. 20. In their paper it
has not been explained why choked skin is a function of
fracture length which should not relate to the flow resistance
in the choked layer. Since all other parameters in both
equations are the same it seems that there is a typo in their
formulation, Eq. 22.
Fig. 11 shows the accuracy of Eq. 20 by comparing its
results with those of the in-house simulator. As this Figure
shows this equation could overestimate the values of Sck
especially for the high values of Xck. This is because Eq. 20 is
based on the assumption that all flow passes though the whole
length of the damaged (choked) area. However, for high
values of Xck a considerable portion of flow enters from the
sides of the damaged zone and does not pass through the entire
damaged zone.
For a more accurate calculation of choked skin Eq. 23 can
be used as,

S ck

X k
= 0.43 ck
w k
f f

0.51

kf

1
k

f ,ck

0.7

(23)

This correlation is structurally similar to Eq. 20 but with

different coefficient and power exponents. These coefficient
and exponents have been obtained by conducting a multiregression exercise using large data bank produced by the inhouse simulator. This data bank contained more than 7000
data points, at the following conditions:
Fracture width (Wf): 4, 6, 8, 10 mm
Fracture permeability (kf): 20, 60, 100, 140, 180D
Reservoir permeability (k): 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 mD
kf/kf,ck: 2, 4, 7, 10
Xck/Xf< 0.15
Fracture half-length (Xf): 24, 59, 146m
Fig. 12 shows the accuracy of Equation 23. In this
comparison the standard error of estimate is about 0.06.
Optimum Fracture Design
For certain fracture volume and fracture permeability,
optimum fracture design in a hydraulic fractured system is
achieved when the system productivity is maximized or, in
other word, total flow resistance in the system is minimized.
Under this condition the first derivative of the flow resistance
to the fracture length must be zero. That is,

R D
X f

=0

V f ,k f
r
R D = ln e
X
f

where

(24)

+ S'

RD is the dimensionless flow resistance.

Thus the introduced correlations in this paper could be
used for finding optimum fracture design for Darcy flow
systems.
For instance, for the simple case that the variation of non
radial flow in matrix zone is negligible, Ix>4, and no damage
in the fractured zone using Eq. 12 and Eq. 23 will provide us
with the optimum CfD value. That is,

r
RD = ln e
X
f

+ ln 2 +

C fD

(25)

If N is defined as the inverse of CfD we will have:

kf
X f =
2kv
f

2 1
N2

(26)

where vf is the volume of fracture per unit height.

Combining Equations 24 to 26 gives:

RD

1
=0
+
=0

2N 2 + N
N v f ,k f
N opt =

C fDopt =

(27)

This is in good agreement with the result of Diego et al.10

which has reported C fDopt = 1.6 .
For the case that fracture length is not much smaller than
the length of porous medium Eq. 13 must be combined with
Eq. 24. In this case optimum design depends on IX.
Similarly, finding the optimum design when there is
fracture face damage or chocked damage is also possible if the
required data for evaluating these damages is available.
Summary and Conclusion
An in-house simulator has been developed to study single
phase Darcy flow around a hydraulically fractured well at
steady state condition. This simulator was then used to
generate large banks of data to develop several general skin
factors related to pertinent dimensionless numbers. These

SPE 107634

formulations express the effect of the fracture on flow

performance compared to that of an equivalent open-hole
system including the impact of fracture face and chocked
damages.
It was confirmed that when the drainage radius is bigger
than four times fracture length, the fracture skin factor is only
a function of dimensionless fracture conductivity and it can be
calculated with the equation introduced by Meyer and Jacot11.
However our improved correlation could be used for almost
all practical fracture and reservoir dimensions.
It was shown that when face damage thickness decreases
towards the fracture tip the available equation in the literature
overestimates the impact of this damage therefore a new
correlation was developed to estimate this damage skin more
accurately.
The mathematical expression obtained for chocked damage
skin, which is based on the unrealistic assumption that all flow
passes through the whole length of the damaged zone (xck),
was improved by presenting a correlation with more general
exponents.
It was also demonstrated that these correlations can also be
used for optimum design of a hydraulic fracture system by
minimizing flow resistance for a given fracture volume and
fracture permeability. This can be achieved readily by
conducting simple derivation of the mathematical expressions
of skin formulations presented here.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The above study was conducted a part of the Gas-condensate
Recovery Project at Heriot-watt University, which is
sponsored by: The UK Department of Trade and Industry, BP
Exploration Company (Colombia) Ltd, Gaz de France,
Petrobras, Statoil A.S.A. and Total Exploration UK plc, which
is gratefully acknowledged.

Nomenclature
CfD= fracture conductivity.
h = formation thickness.
k = absolute reservoir permeability
kf = absolute fracture permeability
m = mass flow rate
P = pressure
q = flow rate
r = radius
R = flow resistance
S = skin factor
S`= pseudo skin factor
Sck = choked fracture skin factor
SfD = fracture face damage skin factor
Sf = fracture skin factor
wf = fracture width
Xe = Half length of the square reservoir
Xf = Half length of the fracture
= viscosity
= density
Subscript
d = damage

D = dimensionless
e = external as in re
i = an index
j = an index
f = fracture
fz = fractured zone
mz = matrix zone
m,fz = matrix medium in the fractured zone
w = well-bore

References
1. McGuire, W, and Sikora V.: The Effect of Vertical Fractures on
Well Productivity JPT, (1960), pp 72-74, SPE 1618-G.
2. Prats M.: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir BehaviorIncompressible Fluid Case, SPEJ (June 1961) 1, No. 2, pp 105118, SPE 1575.
3. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V: Effect of Well-bore storage and
Damage on the Transient Pressure behavior of vertically
fractured Wells, Denver Colorado, (1977), SPE 6752.
4. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V and Dominguez: Transient Pressure
Behavior for a well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical
Fracture, SPEJ, (Sep-1978), pp 253-264, SPE 6014.
5. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V: Transient pressure Analysis: Finite
Conductivity Fracture Case versus Damaged Fracture Case,
Texas, (Oct-1981), SPE 10179.
6. Cinco-Ley: Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing by Transient
Pressure Analysis Methods, China, (March 1982), SPE 10043.
7. Cinco-Ley, H., Remey Jr., H.J, Samaniego-V and Rodriguez, F:
Behavior of Wells with Low-Conductivity Vertical Fractures,
Texas, (Sep-1987), SPE 16776.
8. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V and Rodriguez, F: Application of
the Pseudo-linear Flow Model to the Pressure Transient
Analysis of Fractured Wells, SPE Formation Evaluation
Technology J., (1989), 4, No. 3, pp 438-444, SPE 13059.
9. Valko P. and Economides M.: Heavy Oil Production from
Shallow Formation: Long Horizontal Wells versus Horizontal
Fractures, Canada, (1998), SPE 50421.
10. Diego J. Romero Valko P. and Economides M.: Optimization of
the Productivity Index and the Fracture Geometry of a
Simulated Well with Fracture Face and Choke Skins,
Production and Facilities J., (2003), pp 57-64, SPE 81908.
11. B.R. Meyer, R.H. Jakot: Pseudodteady-State Analysis of Finite
Conductivity Vertical Fractures, Texas, (2005), SPE 95941.
12. Ali Danesh et al. Gas Condensate Recovery Project IPE
Herriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, Final Report (2005).
13. K.H. Guppy, H. Cinco-Ley, H.J. and Ramey Jr.: Pressure
Build up Analysis of Fractured Wells Producing at High Flow
Rate, JPT, (Nov-1982), pp 2656-2666, SPE 10178.

SPE 107634

Fig. 1: A symmetrical hydraulic fracture in a square reservoir.

Fig. 4: An inner block with flow resistance of its neighbor blocks.

y
Fig. 2: A quarter of the hydraulic fractured reservoir studied in
this work.

Fig. 5: Flow resistances in a square or its equivalent cylindrical

reservoir.
Total flow resistance is the summation of flow
resistances in the matrix and fractured zoon.

Fig. 3: Grid blocks of the simulated quarter reservoir.

SPE 107634

1.4

3.5
Simulated Pseudo Fracture Skin

CfD=1.5
CFD=4.7

1.2

CFD=10.8

S'f

0.8

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

0.6
0

10

1.5

2.5

3.5

Fig. 8: Pseudo fracture skin values obtained by our in-house

simulator versus those estimated using Eq. 13 at IX>1.2.

2.5

1.4
Simulated Face Damage Skin

Simulated Pseudo Fracture Skin

Estimated Pseudo Fracture Skin

IX
Fig. 6: Variation of pseudo fracture skin with IX at three different
CfD.

0.5

1.5

0.5

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Estimated Pseudo Fracture Skin

Fig. 7: pseudo fracture skin values obtained by our in-house
simulator versus those estimated using Meyers equation, Eq. 12,
at IX>4.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Estimated Face Damage Skin

Fig. 9: Face damage skin values obtained by our in-house
simulator versus those estimated using Eq. 19, when damage
thickness decreases linearly towards the fracture tip.

10

SPE 107634

New Equation
Cinco-Ley Eq.

Simulated Chocked Skin

Face Damage Skin

2.5
2
1.5
1

0.5
0

0
0

10

Fig. 10: Variation of face damage skin with fracture conductivity

for constant damage thickness, using Cinco-ley equation, and
decreasing damage thickness, using Eq. 19.

Simulated Chocked Skin

0
1

Estimated Chocked Skin

Fracture Conductivity, CfD

Estimated Chocked Skin

Fig. 11: choked damage skin values obtained by our in-house
simulator versus those estimated using Eq. 20.

Fig. 12: choked damage skin values obtained by our in-house

simulator versus those estimated using Eq. 23.