Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 1297–1302 | Cite as

Numerical modelling of hydraulic fracturing procedure in hydrocarbon reservoirs

  • Afshin DavarpanahEmail author
  • Behnam Mirshekari
Original Article


Due to the increasing demand for the utilization of hydrocarbon fossil fuels in numerous industries, petroleum engineers push themselves into limits to provide novel and sustainable solutions to enhance the volume of produced oil. There are various methods to improve the productivity for reservoirs of which hydraulic fracturing (HF) treatment is one of the most common ones. HF is a treatment during which by injection of high-pressure fluid, mostly water, fractures are initiated and propagated from well to reservoir so that the rate of production rises. One of the holistic and more confidential solutions to address this issue is the appropriate numeration modelling of hydraulic fracturing simulations. The objectives of this study are to create a 3D numerical model simultaneously coupling solid, fluid, and fracture mechanics equations. For this purpose, cohesive zone model based on the traction–separation law, which is implemented in Abacus software, is used to model a conventional condition of HF treatment. It is observed that the fracture pressure values for the depths 1–3 are 76.7, 82.6 and 85.2 MPa, respectively. Furthermore, the fracture extension pressure is 53, 59, and 65 MPa, respectively. The onset and expansion pressures also increased with increasing depth due to increasing initial stresses.


Hydraulic fracturing 3D numerical model Fracture extension pressure High-pressure fluid 



  1. Adachi J, Siebrits E, Peirce A et al (2007) Computer simulation of hydraulic fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:739–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghighi MA, Valencia KJL, Chen Z et al (2006) An integrated approach to the design and evaluation of hydraulic fracture treatments in tight gas and coal bed methane reservoirs. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. San Antonio, Texas, USA. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson TL, Anderson TL (2005) Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardestani EA, Davarpanah A, Zargar G et al (2019) Mathematical modeling of formation damage effect during underbalanced drilling operations. Model Earth Syst Environ 1–11Google Scholar
  5. Brenner K, Hennicker J, Masson R et al (2018) Hybrid-dimensional modelling of two-phase flow through fractured porous media with enhanced matrix fracture transmission conditions. J Comput Phys 357:100–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrier B, Granet S (2012) Numerical modeling of hydraulic fracture problem in permeable medium using cohesive zone model. Eng Fract Mech 79:312–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandra N, Li H, Shet C et al (2002) Some issues in the application of cohesive zone models for metal–ceramic interfaces. Int J Solids Struct 39:2827–2855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Z (2012) Finite element modelling of viscosity-dominated hydraulic fractures. J Pet Sci Eng 88:136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Z, Bunger A, Zhang X et al (2009) Cohesive zone finite element-based modeling of hydraulic fractures. Acta Mech Solida Sin 22:443–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng C, Bunger AP (2019) Reduced order model for simultaneous growth of multiple closely-spaced radial hydraulic fractures. J Comput Phys 376:228–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davarpanah A (2018) A visual investigation of different pollutants on the rheological properties of sodium/potassium formate fluids. Appl Water Sci 8:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B (2018) Experimental study and field application of appropriate selective calculation methods in gas lift design. Pet Res 3:239–247Google Scholar
  13. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B (2019a) Experimental investigation and mathematical modeling of gas diffusivity by carbon dioxide and methane kinetic adsorption. Ind Eng Chem Res 58:12392–12400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B (2019b) Mathematical modeling of injectivity damage with oil droplets in the waste produced water re-injection of the linear flow. Eur Phys J Plus 134:180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B (2019c) Experimental study of CO2 solubility on the oil recovery enhancement of heavy oil reservoirs. J Therm Anal Calorim. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davarpanah A, Mirshekari B (2019d) Numerical simulation and laboratory evaluation of alkali–surfactant–polymer and foam flooding. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davarpanah A, Nassabeh M (2017) Optimization of drilling parameters by analysis of formation strength properties with using mechanical specific energy. J Bulg Chem Commun 364–375 (Special Issue J)Google Scholar
  18. Davarpanah A, Razmjoo A, Mirshekari B (2018) An overview of management, recycling, and wasting disposal in the drilling operation of oil and gas wells in Iran. Cogent Environ Sci 4:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davarpanah A, Shirmohammadi R, Mirshekari B et al (2019a) Analysis of hydraulic fracturing techniques: hybrid fuzzy approaches. Arab J Geosci 12:402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davarpanah A, Mazarei M, Mirshekari B (2019b) A simulation study to enhance the gas production rate by nitrogen replacement in the underground gas storage performance. Energy Rep 5:431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davarpanah A, Zarei M, Valizadeh K, Mirshekari B (2019c) CFD design and simulation of ethylene dichloride (EDC) thermal cracking reactor EnergySources. Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 41:1573–1587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dean RH, Schmidt JH (2009) Hydraulic-fracture predictions with a fully coupled geomechanical reservoir simulator. SPE J 14:707–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Espinosa HD, Zavattieri PD (2003) A grain level model for the study of failure initiation and evolution in polycrystalline brittle materials. Part II: numerical examples. Mech Mater 35:365–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guo J, Luo B, Lu C et al (2017) Numerical investigation of hydraulic fracture propagation in a layered reservoir using the cohesive zone method. Eng Fract Mech 186:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hou X, Zhang X, Guo B (2019) Mathematical modeling of fluid flow to unconventional oil wells with radial fractures and its testing with field data. J Energy Res Technol 141:070702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li L, Tang C, Li G et al (2012) Numerical simulation of 3D hydraulic fracturing based on an improved flow-stress-damage model and a parallel FEM technique. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:801–818Google Scholar
  27. Li Q, Xing H, Liu J et al (2015) A review on hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoir. Petroleum 1:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu R, Zhu T, Jiang Y et al (2019) A predictive model correlating permeability to two-dimensional fracture network parameters. Bull Eng Geol Environ 78:1589–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malekan M, Silva LL, Barros FB et al (2018) Two-dimensional fracture modeling with the generalized/extended finite element method: an object-oriented programming approach. Adv Eng Softw 115:168–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McClure M, Babazadeh M, Shiozawa S et al (2015) Fully coupled hydromechanical simulation of hydraulic fracturing in three-dimensional discrete fracture networks. In: SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. Society of petroleum engineers. The Woodlands, Texas, USA. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Qingling L, Shouceng T, Gensheng L et al (2018) An analytical model for fracture initiation from radial lateral borehole. J Pet Sci Eng 164:206–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salimzadeh S, Paluszny A, Zimmerman RW (2017) Three-dimensional poroelastic effects during hydraulic fracturing in permeable rocks. Int J Solids Struct 108:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sampath K, Perera M, Elsworth D et al (2019) Effect of coal maturity on CO2-based hydraulic fracturing process in coal seam gas reservoirs. Fuel 236:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shiozawa S, McClure M (2016) Simulation of proppant transport with gravitational settling and fracture closure in a three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator. J Pet Sci Eng 138:298–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Siddhamshetty P, Kwon JSI, Liu S et al (2018) Feedback control of proppant bank heights during hydraulic fracturing for enhanced productivity in shale formations. AIChE J 64:1638–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang H (2016) Numerical investigation of fracture spacing and sequencing effects on multiple hydraulic fracture interference and coalescence in brittle and ductile reservoir rocks. Eng Fract Mech 157:107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu Y-S (2018) Hydraulic fracture modeling. Gulf Professional Publishing, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang Y, Tang X, Zheng H et al (2018a) Hydraulic fracturing modeling using the enriched numerical manifold method. Appl Math Model 53:462–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang Z-Z, Yi L-P, Li X-G et al (2018b) Pseudo-three-dimensional numerical model and investigation of multi-cluster fracturing within a stage in a horizontal well. J Pet Sci Eng 162:190–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yoshioka K, Bourdin B (2016) A variational hydraulic fracturing model coupled to a reservoir simulator. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 88:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zarei M, Davarpanah A, Mokhtarian N et al (2019) Integrated feasibility experimental investigation of hydrodynamic, geometrical and operational characterization of methanol conversion to formaldehyde. Energy Sour Part A Recovery Util Environ Eff. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Petroleum EngineeringIslamic Azad University, Science and Research BranchTehranIran

Personalised recommendations