Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available
Available online
online at at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000
Structural
Procedia
Structural Integrity
Structural Procedia
Integrity
Integrity Procedia 00(2016)
(2016)
2 (2016)
00 000000
24792486
000000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
21st
21st European
European Conference
Conference on
on Fracture,
Fracture, ECF21,
ECF21, 20-24
20-24 June
June 2016,
2016, Catania,
Catania, Italy
Italy
3D model of hydraulic
21st European fracture
Conference with
on Fracture, Herschel-Bulkley
ECF21, compressible
20-24 June 2016, Catania,
3D model of hydraulic fracture with Herschel-Bulkley compressible
Italy

3D
XVmodel ofConference
Portuguese hydraulic fracture
on Fracture,fluid
fluid PCF pumping
with
pumping
2016, Herschel-Bulkley
10-12 February 2016, Pao compressible
de Arcos, Portugal
Cherny fluid pumping
a a,b,
Thermo-mechanical Cherny S.G.
modeling S.G.ofa , Lapin V.N.a,b,
a
, Lapin highV.N.pressure turbine blade of an
a
a 6, ac. Lavrentieva ave.,
Institute of Computational Technologies SB RAS, a,b,Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
Cherny S.G.
Novosibirsk Nationalairplane
SB RAS,,6,Lapin V.N.ave.,
gas turbine
2, Pirogova Str.,engine
a
Institute of Computational Technologies ac. Lavrentieva Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
b Research State University, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
b
Novosibirsk National Research State University, 2, Pirogova Str., Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
a
Institute of Computational Technologies SB RAS, 6, ac. Lavrentieva ave., Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
b Novosibirsk National Research StateaUniversity, 2, Pirogova
b Str., Novosibirsk,c630090, Russia
P. Brando , V. Infante , A.M. Deus *
Abstract
AbstractaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
A fully-coupled 3D model of early stage of hydraulic fracture propagation
Abstract Portugal is enriched by incorporating two submodels for simu-
A fully-coupled 3D model of early stage of hydraulic fracture propagation is enriched by incorporating two submodels for simu-
lationbIDMEC,
of fluidDepartment
flow insideof the fracture.Engineering,
Mechanical The Herschel-Bulkley model
Instituto Superior is used
Tcnico, to describedethe
Universidade flowAv.
Lisboa, of Rovisco
non-Newtonian fluid and
Pais, 1, 1049-001 the
Lisboa,
lation of fluid flow inside the fracture. The Herschel-Bulkley model is used to describe the flow of non-Newtonian fluid and the
PortugalPropagation
A fully-coupled
Reynolds equation3D ismodel of
modified early
for stage of
compressiblehydraulic
fluid fracture
flow propagation
simulation. is enriched
of by incorporating
inclined two
hydraulically submodels
driven pennyfor simu-
shaped
Reynolds
c equation is modified for compressible fluid flow Superior
simulation. Propagation of inclined hydraulically driven penny shaped
lationCeFEMA,
fracture the Department
ofinfluid rock insideofmultiaxial
flow under Mechanical
the fracture. Engineering,
loadThe Instituto
Herschel-Bulkley
is simulated. model
The influence Tcnico,
is the
of usedUniversidade
rheologydethe
to describe
fluid Lisboa,
and flow Av. Rovisco Pais,
of non-Newtonian
compressibility 1, 1049-001
on the andLisboa,
fluidpressure
fluid the
fracture in the rock under multiaxial load is simulated. The influence of the fluid rheology and compressibility on the fluid pressure
Portugal
Reynolds
and equation
the fracture formis modified
is shown. for compressible fluid flow simulation. Propagation of inclined hydraulically driven penny shaped
and the fracture form is shown.
c 2016 in
fracture ThetheAuthors.
rock under multiaxial
Published load is simulated.
by Elsevier B.V. The influence of the fluid rheology and compressibility on the fluid pressure
c 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
and the fracture
Peer-review
Copyright 2016form
underThe is shown.
responsibility
Authors. of the by
Published Scientific
Elsevier Committee
B.V. This of open
is an ECF21.access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Abstract under responsibility of the Scientific Committee
Peer-review of ECF21.
c 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords:
Peer-review
Peer-review 3D model
under
under of fracture,ofhydraulic
responsibility
responsibility the fracturing,
Scientific
of the Herschel-Bulkley
Committee
Scientific of ECF21.
Committee fluid, compressible fluid
of ECF21.
Keywords:
During their3D model of fracture,
operation, hydraulic
modern fracturing,
aircraft Herschel-Bulkley
engine components fluid, compressible
are subjected tofluid
increasingly demanding operating conditions,
Keywords: 3D model of fracture, hydraulic fracturing, Herschel-Bulkley fluid, compressible fluidto undergo different types of time-dependent
especially the high pressure turbine (HPT) blades. Such conditions cause these parts
degradation, one of which is creep. A model using the finite element method (FEM) was developed, in order to be able to predict
the creep behaviour of HPT blades. Flight data records (FDR) for a specific aircraft, provided by a commercial aviation
company, were used to obtain thermal and mechanical data for three different flight cycles. In order to create the 3D model
1. needed
Introduction
for the FEM analysis, a HPT blade scrap was scanned, and its chemical composition and material properties were
1. Introduction
obtained. The data that was gathered was fed into the FEM model and different simulations were run, first with a simplified 3D
1. rectangular
Introduction
Hydraulic block shape,is
fracturing in the
order to betterand
primary establish
most the model, technique
effective and then with forthe real 3D stimulation
reservoir mesh obtainedusedfrominthe
theblade scrap. The
petroleum
Hydraulic
overall fracturing
expected behaviour is the primary
in terms and most effective
offracturing
displacement technique for reservoir stimulation of used in the petroleum
industry. The objective of hydraulic is towas observed,
improve theinnatural
particular at the trailing
connection edge
of the the blade.
wellbore and theTherefore such a
reservoir.
industry.
model Thebefracturing
can objective
useful in ofis hydraulic
the goal ofrole fracturing
predicting is to
turbine improve
blade the natural of connection of the wellbore
usedonand thepetroleum
reservoir.
Hydraulic
Nearwellbore effects play athekeyprimary inand most
establishing thislife,
effective given
technique
connection, a setfor
and FDR
maydata.
reservoirhavestimulation
a big impact inperformance
the of
Nearwellbore
industry. The effects play
objective a key rolefracturing
of hydraulic in establishing this connection,
is to improve thehydraulic
natural and may have a the
connection big wellbore
impact onand performance of
hydraulic fracturing treatment and its effectiveness. Predicting fracturing of fluid performance the screenout
and reservoir.
2016
hydraulic
NearwellboreThe Authors.
fracturing
effects Published
treatment by
and
play a keyregionElsevier
its B.V.
effectiveness.
role inisestablishing Predicting
thismany hydraulic
connection, and fracturing
may have aarefluid performance
bigatimpact on few and screenout
performance of
frequency
Peer-review
in the
under
near-wellbore
responsibility region
quite difficult;
of the Scientific
physical mechanisms play and models are
frequency
hydraulic in the
fracturing near-wellbore is quite Committee of PCF
difficult; many 2016. mechanisms are at play and few models are
physical
available for testing treatment
the variousand its effectiveness.
possible scenarios.Predicting
In Shokinhydraulic fracturing
et al. (2015) fully fluid performance
3D model and screenout
of hydraulic fracture
available
frequency for testing
in isthe the variousregion
near-wellbore possible scenarios.
is quite In many
difficult; Shokinphysical
et al. (2015) fully 3D
mechanisms are model
at play of hydraulic fracture
propagation
Keywords: High proposed. The Blade;
Pressure Turbine main Creep;
feature of Element
Finite the model that3Dboth
Method; Model;wellbore influence
Simulation. and the and few models
distribution are
of fluid
propagation
availableinto is
for the proposed.
testing The
the variousmain feature of the model that both wellbore influence and the distribution of fluid
pressure fracture are takenpossible scenarios.
into account. In Shokin
It allows to apply et the
al. model
(2015)forfully 3D model
simulation of hydraulic
of early fracture
stage of fracture
pressure
propagationintoistheproposed.
fracture areThetaken
maininto account.
feature It allows
of the model to apply
that boththewellbore
model for simulation
influence and oftheearly stage of fracture
distribution of fluid
propagation with the near-wellbore effects considered.
propagation
pressure with the
into the fracture near-wellbore effects considered.
are taken into oilfields
account.isItaccompanied
allows to apply
The development of unconventional by the model forof
the invention simulation
new fluidsofwith
earlycomplex
stage ofrheology
fracture
The development
propagation with of unconventional
theHerchel-Bulkley
near-wellbore oilfields is accompanied by the invention of new fluids with complex rheology
effects
(flocks, fibers, etc.). modelconsidered.
is one of the most suitable models for such fluids. The advantage of this
(flocks, fibers,
The development etc.). Herchel-Bulkley model is one of the most suitable models for suchfluids
fluids.with
Thecomplex
advantage of this
rheological law is thatofasunconventional oilfields
its particular cases is accompanied
it includes by the invention
simpler rheological models: offrom
new Newtonian rheology
and pseudoplastic
rheological law
(flocks,tofibers, is that
etc.). as its particular
Herchel-Bulkley cases
model it includes simpler rheological models: from Newtonian and pseudoplastic
fluids the ones obeying the Bingham law. is
Theonelatter
of the
twomost suitable models
rheological models are
for such
often fluids.
used inThe advantage
hydraulic of this
fracturing
fluids to thelaw
rheological ones is obeying
that as itsthe Bingham
particular law.itThe
cases lattersimpler
includes two rheological
rheological models
models:arefrom
oftenNewtonian
used in hydraulic fracturing
and pseudoplastic
fluids to the ones obeying the Bingham law. The latter two rheological models are often used in hydraulic fracturing
*Corresponding
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 218419991.
author. Tel.: +7-383-330-7373 ; fax: +7-383-330-6342.
E-mail address:
Corresponding amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
author. Tel.: +7-383-330-7373 ; fax: +7-383-330-6342.
E-mail address: lapin@ict.sbras.ru;
E-mail address: lapin@ict.sbras.ru;
Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-383-330-7373 ; fax: +7-383-330-6342.
2452-3216
2452-3216  2016
c 2016
E-mail address: TheThe Authors.
Authors. Published
Published
lapin@ict.sbras.ru; by by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
2452-3216 c 2016
Peer-review The
under Authors. Published
responsibility by Elsevier
of by
the B.V.Committee of PCF 2016.
Scientific
Peer-reviewunder responsibility of the Scientific Committee of ECF21.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific CommitteeThis
Copyright 2016 The Authors. Published Elsevier B.V. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
of ECF21.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2452-3216 c 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer reviewunder
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of Scientific
of the the Scientific Committee
Committee of ECF21.
of ECF21.
10.1016/j.prostr.2016.06.310
2480 Cherny S.G. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 24792486
2 Cherny S.G., Lapin V.N. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000

Fig. 1. Scheme of 3D model

simulators, in particular, while modeling proppant transport and settling. The fluid compressibility is another factor
that affects the fluid behavior.
To investigate the influence of fluid rheology on the fracture behavior at early stage of fracture propagation the
3D model developed by Shokin et al. (2015) has been enhanced by means of considering the general model of fluid
behavior described by Hershel-Balkley rheological law and Reynolds equation for compressible fluid.

2. 3D model of hydraulic fracture propagation

2.1. General view of 3D model

The model proposed by Shokin et al. (2015) and developed by Kuranakov et al. (2016) unites three sub-models
that describe three main processes affecting the fracture propagation: fluid flow, rock deformation and rock breaking
caused by the fracture propagation. These sub-model allows to calculate the distributions of the fracture width W, fluid
pressure P and fluid flux q at each step of the propagation. Because the model is focused on the early stage of fracture
propagation the lag between the fracture front xr and the fluid front xf is accounted and so the positions of both fronts
should be found too. The geometrical conception of the model is shown in Fig. 1. The fracture width is calculated
using the model of rock deformations. It is based on elastic equilibrium equations solved in the infinite domain with
the wellbore and the fracture inside. Conventional boundary element method is applied by Shokin et al. (2015)) and
dual boundary element method is used by Kuranakov et al. (2016)) to solve this problem. Irwings criterion is used
to calculate the fracture increment at each step of the fracture propagation and the maximal circumferential stress
criterion is used to find the propagation direction of the fracture front. To find the fluid front position the Stefan
condition is applied. It is supposed that the fluid front moves with the same speed as the fluid particles at the front do.
A model of Newtonian fluid flow is used by Shokin et al. (2015) and Kuranakov et al. (2016) to calculate the fluid
pressure distribution and the fluid flux.
Detailed description of the numerical algorithm of the combined solution, the propagation criterion, the boundary
element method can be found by Shokin et al. (2015), Kuranakov et al. (2016). Here the model applied for the
simulation of the fluid flow is modified only. So the Newtonian fluid model and the numerical algorithm are explained
more accurately.

2.2. Model of Newtonian fluid flow inside the fracture

The fluid fluid flow inside the fracture is governed by two-dimensional model of the Newtonian fluid flow between
two parallel plates. The model is based on two equations: the continuity equation

W
+q=0 (1)
t
 Cherny S.G. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 24792486 2481
Cherny S.G., Lapin V.N. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000 3

Fig. 2. Domain of the fluid flow and its piecewise planar representation.

and the Navier-Stokes equations without negligible small terms

W3
q= P. (2)
12
The Reynolds equation is derived from (2) and (1) (see for ex. Hamrock et al. (2004))
(aP) = f, (3)
where
W3 W
a= ,f = t . (4)
12
This equation is supplemented by the boundary conditions at the fluid front xf and at the inflow boundary xf (see
Fig. 2)
P |xf = p pore , q |xq = qin nq , (5)
where p pore is the pressure of the porous fluid, nq is the normal vector to the boundary xq that lies in the tangent plane
to the fracture surface, qin = Qin /Lq is the average inflow rate that is calculated using the given inflow rate Qin and the
length Lq of the inflow boundary xq . In terms of pressure the second condition (5) is rewritten as
P 12qin
= nq . (6)
n W3
The equation (3) is solved by finite element method (FEM) as is has been described in Shokin et al. (2015),
Kuranakov et al. (2016). This method transforms the differential problem (3-5) into a system of linear algebraic
equations that can be written as
KP = Q + F, (7)
where P = (P1 , ...PN ) is the vector of pressure values at all N nodes of the computational mesh, K is a N N matrix
and Q, F are vectors of size N. It should be noted that in case of Newtonian fluid K, Q, F are calculated using formulas
(4), (6) and do not depend on the pressure P.

2.3. Herschel-Bulkley model

The equation (2) for the case of the Newtonian fluid is obtained using the Poiseuille velocity profile (see Fig. 3, left)
as the solution of the problem about fluid flow between parallel flat plates (see for example Hamrock et al. (2004)). In
case of Herschel-Bulkley fluid the velocity profile is different (see Fig. 3, right) and the equation (2) can be written as
 1+1/n  
n 2+1/n 1/n 2z 2z n
q= W |P| 1 1 + , z = 0 |P|1 . (8)
(4n + 2)(2K)1/n W W n+1
It also can be rewritten in the form of (2) by using the variable apparent viscosity app (P) instead of the constant
viscosity . The apparent viscosity can be written as the function of the pressure
(2K)1/n (2n + 1) (4n + 2)21/n 0
app = (W|P|)(n1)/n + . (9)
6n 3n(W|P|)1/n
2482 Cherny S.G. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 24792486
4 Cherny S.G., Lapin V.N. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000

Fig. 3. Poiseuille velocity profiles for Newtonian (left) and Herchel-Bulkley (right) fluids.

In case of one-dimensional power law (0 0) fluid flow inside the fracture the apparent viscosity (9) was used by
Ouyang et al. (1997) and Rungamornrat et al. (2005).
The expressions (2) and (9) are combined with (1) to obtain the Reynolds equation (3) with apparent viscosity (9)
instead of the constant viscosity . Like in case of Newonian fluid the FEM gives the system of equations similar to
(7). But because the coefficient a in (4) now depends on the pressure the matrix K(P) and the vector Q(P) also do and
so the equations in the system (7) are nonlinear. The following auxiliary iteration process is introduced to solve the
system and to calculate the pressure distribution

1. s = 0 : The pressure from the previous step of the fracture propagation is taken as the initial solution P s = Pn ;
2. The coefficients a s is calculated at each point using (4);
3. The interim pressure P  is calculated from the solution of (7) with K(P s ), Q(P s );
4. The pressure distribution at the next iteration is calculated using the relaxation procedure
 + P s (1 r), where r(s) = rmax ||Ps s || ;
P s+1 = P(r) (10)
||P P||

||P s P||

5. s = s + 1. The iterations 24 are repeated untill the condition ||P s || < c is fullfield.

The values rmax = 0.1 , and c = 104 are used in the current calculations.

2.4. Model of compressible fluid

To take the fluid compressibility into account one should add the fluid density and rewrite the continuity equation
(1) in the form
W
+ (q) = 0. (11)
t
In case of low compressible fluid the density obeys the law
(P) = 0 (1 + C0 P), (12)
where C0 is the compressibility coefficient. It allows to exclude the density from the (11) and to obtain the modified
mass conservation equation

[W(1 + C0 P)] + [(1 + C0 P)q] = 0. (13)
t
As in case of Newtonian incompressible fluid (Sec. 2.2) the equations (11) and (2) are combined into the equation (3).
But coefficients of (3) depend on the pressure
(1 + C0 P)W 3 W(1 + C0 P)
a= , f = . (14)
12 t
As in case of Hershel-Bulkley fluid (Sec. 2.3) the equations in the system (7) are nonlinear. The same iteration
procedure is applied to obtain its solution. The only difference is that at the steps 2 and 3 the coefficients f (P s ) and
F(P s ) should be also recalculated with regarding the pressure P s .
 Cherny S.G. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 24792486 2483
Cherny S.G., Lapin V.N. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000 5

Fig. 4. Fracture trajectories in yz plane for non-Newtonian fracturing fluid K = 0.075Pa s, n = 1, 0 = 11Pa and different wellbore deviation
angles: 1 = 0 ; 2 = 15 ; 3 = 30 ; 4 = 45 ; 5 = 60 .

3. Computational results

As is has been mentioned the proposed model is able to take into account the influence of the wellbore on the frac-
ture trajectory and the effect of the fluid flow inside the fracture. Here the influence of fluid rheology and compress-
ibility on fracture propagation process is shown. For this purpose series of numerical simulations have been performed
under parameters that are typical for transversal hydraulic fractures placed at a relatively low depth. The wellbore is
approximated by the cylindrical cavity with radius Rw = 0.12m and height H = 1.2m. It is turned at the angle
(wellbore deviation angle) around axis x as it is shown in Fig. 1. The initial fracture with radius Rin = 0.25m is places
transversally to the wellbore. The rock around the wellbore is loaded by in situ stresses with xx = yy = 16MPa,
zz = 12MPa. The rock is characterized
by the Young modulus E = 20GPa, the Poisson coefficient = 0.2 and
fracture toughness KI c = 3MPa m. Fluid is pumped into the wellbore with rate Qin = 0.1m3 /s. The non-Newtonian
fluid is described in scope of Herschel-Bulkley model with consistency factor K, power law index n and yield stress
0 . The compressible fluid is characterized by compressibility coefficient C0 .

3.1. Sensitivity of fracture trajectory to wellbore deviation angle

Lets estimate first the influence of wellbore deviation angle on the fracture trajectory in the near wellbore zone.
The calculations are made for the fluid with the consistency index K = 0.075Pa s, n = 1, 0 = 11Pa and the
wellbore deviation angle varied from 0 to 60 degrees. In all cases the fracture form is similar to one shown in Fig. 1.
The fracture front tends to the so-called Preferred Fracture Plane (PFP) that is normal to the minimum principal
in-situ stress. The most curvilinear trajectory is observed in the xz plain. The fracture trajectories in yz plane for non-
Newtonian fracturing fluid and different wellbore deviation angles are shown in the Fig. 4. As expected the greater
wellbore deviation angle causes the greater distance needed to the fracture to turn to the PFP. But in all cases the
fracture turns to the PFP earlier than it reaches the size of ten wellbore diameters.

3.2. Herschel-Bulkley fluid pumping

It is known (since Khristianovich and Zheltov (1955)) that fluid viscosity seriously affects the fracture main
parameters. So to show the effect of fluid rheology on fracture propagation process it seems reasonable to compare
fluids with the same apparent viscosity but with different rheology parameters. The value of apparent viscosity is
calculated by the formula (for ex. Fox et all. (2015))
app = (K n + 0 )1 . (15)
where is shear rate. According to Montgomery (2013) the typical for hydraulic fractures value of shear rate is
= 50s1 . This value is used to calculate the apparent viscosity in fields and laboratories because it is in accordance
with the recommended by Standard ISO (2011) interval [5; 170]s1 . The simulation of fracture propagation are
performed for planar fracture ( = 0 ) for four cases of fluid rheology

1. Newtonian fluid 1: K = 0.075Pa s, n=1, 0 =0Pa;

2484 Cherny S.G. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 24792486
6 Cherny S.G., Lapin V.N. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000

Fig. 5. Wellbore pressure versus time for = 0 : 1 Newtonian fluid 1; 2 Newtonian fluid 2; 3 Power-law fluid; 4 Bingham fluid (left). And
Shear rate versus radial coordinate at different time moments for Newtonian fluid 2 (right).

2. Newtonian fluid 2: K = 0.3Pa s,n= 1, 0 = 0Pa;

3. Power-law fluid: K = 0.66Pa sn , n=0.8, 0 =0Pa;
4. Bingham fluid: K = 0.075Pa s, n=1, 0 =11Pa.

The apparent viscosity calculated using at = 50s1 for the last three fluids are the same app = 0.3Pa s. In
Fig. 5 (left) the dependence of the wellbore pressure on time is presented in logarithmic scale. One can see that
although the apparent viscosity of fluids 2 to 4 at = 50s1 is the same, the average values of wellbore pressure
for Power-law (curve 3) and Bingham (curve 4) fluids considerably different from the average value calculated for
Newtonian fluid 2. The difference between curve 2 and curves 3 and 4 varies from 20% to 50%. This means that
substituting non-Newtonian rheology by Newtonian one in hydraulic fracturing simulator can produce an error in
predicting the wellbore pressure at early stage of fracture growth from 20% to 50%. The reason of the difference is
that the typical shear rates at the early stage of fracture propagation is much greater than 50s1 . In Fig. 5 (right), the
shear rate distribution along the radial coordinate is shown at different time moments for the case of Newtonian fluid
2 (K = 0.3Pa s).
One can see that the shear rate value varies in the interval [50 103 ; 200 103 ]s1 . This means that typical
share rates in the fracture at early state of its development is three orders of magnitude larger than those used during
laboratory testing of fracturing fluids. Let us choose the share rate value = 50 103 s1 for determinacy and calculate
apparent viscosity for the considered Power-law and Bingham fluids using formula (15). We obtain that their apparent
viscosities are approximately equal to each other and to app = 0.075Pa s, which is four times less than the apparent
viscosity of fluids 2 to 4 at = 50s1 . In Fig. 5(left) one can see that the pressure curve (curve 1) for the fluid with
viscosity of 0.075Pa s (Newtonian fluid 1) is close to the curves 3 and 4 that correspond to the non-Newtonian fluids
with the same apparent viscosity at share rates typical for the early stage of transverse hydraulic fracture growth. The
same differences are observed in Fig. 6, 7 where the distributions of the fluid pressure, the fracture width along the
radial coordinate and the fracture trajectories in yz plane are shown at the moment when the fracture radius reaches
R=2.7m.
Fig. 5(left), 6 and 7 demonstrate that the proper determination of apparent viscosity allows reducing considerably
the error in calculating the wellbore pressure and the fracture width while approximating the non-Newtonian fluid
rheology by the Newtonian fluid model. For Power-law fluid, for example, the error falls below 10% and for Bingham
fluid the error is less than 0.5%. Newtonian fluid 1 (curves 1) and Bingham fluid (curves 4) have the same consistency
index and differ only by the value of yield stress, 0 = 0Pa and 0 = 11Pa correspondingly. If shear rate is high then
the term 0 / in 15 is negligible small in comparison with the term K0 n / and has no effect on apparent viscosity.
The fact that curves 1 and 4 in Fig. 5 (left) and 6 almost coincide means that while modeling the early stage of
hydraulic fracture development the rheology of Bingham fluid can be successfully approximated by Newtonian fluid
with the same viscosity (consistency factor) and the value of yield stress can be just neglected.
 Cherny S.G. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 24792486 2485
Cherny S.G., Lapin V.N. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000 7

Fig. 6. Fluid pressure (left) and fracture width (right) versus radial coordinate at the moment when fracture radius reaches R=2.7m: 1 Newtonian
fluid 1; 2 Newtonian fluid 2; 3 Power-law fluid; 4 Bingham fluid

Fig. 7. Fracture trajectories in yz plane for = 60 :1 Newtonian fluid 1; 2 Newtonian fluid 2; 3 Power-law fluid.

3.3. Compressible fluid pumping

To show the effect of fluid compressibility on fracture propagation process it seems reasonable to compare flu-
ids with the same rheology properties but with different compressibility coefficients. According to Kartoatmodjo &
Schmidt (1994), the value of compressibility coefficient for oils varies in the interval C0 [0.3; 20] 109 Pa1 .
Water that is the main ingredient in hydraulic fracturing fluid is characterized by the compressibility coefficient
C0 = 0.46 109 Pa1 that is also inside this interval. In Fig. 8 (left) the dependence of the wellbore pressure on
time is presented for compressibility coefficient varied inside the mentioned interval. One can see that low compress-
ible fluid (with C0 < 2.5 109 Pa1 ) behaves like an incompressible one. The increasing of the fluid compressibility
causes the increasing of the pressure that is needed to be maintained to hold the same pumping rate into the wellbore.
At the same time the effect of the fluid compressibility on the fracture geometry is insignificant. Thus in Fig. 8 (right)
the fracture trajectories in yz plane for = 60 are shown for compressible and incompressible fluid. One can see that
the trajectories are very close to one another.

4. Discussion

Models of non-Newtonian fluid flow and model of compressible fluid have been included into the 3D model of early
stage of hydraulic fracture propagation. Series of numerical experiments have been performed to show the influence
of fluid rheology and compressibility on the fracture propagation process.
It has been shown that values of fluid shear rate at the early stage of transversal fracture propagation are about
3 orders greater than values that is typical for long fractures. Due to high values of shear rate the influence of yield
stress is negligible, and Bingham fluid model can be replaced by the Newtonian one. Newtonian fluid model also can
be used for pseudoplastic fluid flow simulation, but the value of the apparent viscosity should be accurately calculated
using the shear rate that is observed in the fracture at the proper stage of the propagation. The increasing of the fluid
2486 Cherny S.G. et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 24792486
8 Cherny S.G., Lapin V.N. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000000

Fig. 8. Wellbore pressure versus time for = 0 (left) and fracture trajectories in yz plane for = 60 (right): 0 incompressible fluid; 1
C0 = 20 109 Pa1 ; 2 C0 = 10 109 Pa1 ; 3 C0 = 5 109 Pa1 ; 4 C0 = 2.5 109 Pa1 .

compressibility causes the increasing of the pressure that is needed to be maintained to hold the same rate into the
wellbore.
Both the wellbore pressure and the fracture width are sensitive to fluid rheology and fluid compressibility. But all
fluid properties considered (except the viscosity) almost has no effect on the fracture trajectory. It should be noted
that all results obtained are only relevant to the case of very high shear rates, which is typical for the early stage of
transverse fracture propagation, for example.

Acknowledgements

The development of the 3D model with Hershel-Balckley incompressible fluid submodel was supported by grant
14-11-00234 of Russian Scientific Fund. The elaboration of the compressible fluid model was performed with the
support of Siberian Branch of RAS, project IV.36.1.4. Authors also express theirs gratitude to Novosibirsk National
Research State University for the access to Novosibirsk State University Supercomputer Center.

References

Hamrock, B.J., Schmid, S.R., Jacobson, B.O., 2004. Fundamentals of fluid film lubrication (SE), Marcel Dekker Inc, 693 p.
Fox, R.W., McDonald, A.T., Pritchard, P.J., Mitchell, J.W., 2015. Fluid Mechanics (9th Edition), John Wiley & Sons, ISBN: 978-1-118-96127-8.
Garagash, D.I., 2006. Transient solution for a plane-strain fracture driven by a shear-thinning, power-law fluid. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.
30, 14391475.
Kartoatmodjo, T., Schmidt, Z., 1994. Large data bank improves crude physical property correlations. Oil and Gas Journal 92:27(27), 5155.
Khristianovich, S.A., and Zheltov., Y.P., 1955. Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of Highly Viscous Liquid, Proc., Fourth World Pet.
Congress, Rome, 2, 579586.
Kuranakov, D.S., Esipov, D.V., Lapin, V.N., Cherny S.G., 2016. Modification of the boundary element method for computation of three-dimensional
fields of strainstress state of cavities with cracks. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 153. 302318
Montgomery, C., 2013. Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing, chapter Fracturing Fluids. InTech, DOI: 10.5772/45724.
Ouyang, S., Carey, G.F., Yew, C.H., 1997. An adaptive finite element scheme for hydraulic fracturing with proppant transport. Int. J. fro Num.
Meth. in FLuids, Vol. 24, 645670.
Rungamornrat, J., Wheeler, M.F., Mear, M.E., 2005. A numerical technique for simulating nonplanar evolution of hydraulic fractures. Paper SPE,
N. 96968, P. 19.
Shokin, Yu., Cherny, S., Esipov, D., Lapin, V., Lyutov, A., Kuranakov, D., 2015. Three-dimensional model of fracture propagation from the cavity
caused by quasi-static load or viscous fluid pumping. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Vol. 549. Mathematical Modeling
of Technological Processes, P. 143157.
Sousa, J.L., Carter, B.J., Ingraffea, A.R., 1993. Numerical simulation of 3D hydraulic fracture using Newtonian and power-law fluids. Int. J. Rock.
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 30(7), 12651271.
Standard ISO 13503-1:2011. Petroleum and natural gas industries Completion fluids and materials Part 1: Measurement of viscous properties
of completion fluids.