Analytical Model for

Unconventional Multifractured
Composite Systems
Ekaterina Stalgorova and Louis Mattar, IHS
Summary
This paper presents an analytical model for unconventional reser-
voirs with horizontal wells with multiple fractures. The model is
an extension of the trilinear ow solution, but it subdivides the
reservoir into ve regions instead of three. This enables it to be
used for more-complex reservoirs. Accordingly, the model can
simulate a fracture that is surrounded by a stimulated region of
limited extent (fracture branching), whereas the remaining reser-
voir is nonstimulated. In addition to modeling ow within the
fracture and ow within the stimulated region, the model takes
into account ow from the surrounding nonstimulated region, both
parallel to and perpendicular to the fracture.
The model can be used to simulate the ow in tight reservoirs
with multifractured horizontal wells. In many cases, the fractures
do not have a simple biwing shape, but are branched. This effec-
tively creates regions of higher permeability around each fracture,
which obviously affect the production performance signicantly.
However, in many tight reservoirs, in spite of their lowpermeability,
the surrounding nonstimulated region can also be a signicant con-
tributor to long-termproduction. The ve-region model accounts for
this contribution. Thus, it is particularly valuable when generating
production forecasts for reserves evaluation.
The model was validated by comparing its results with numeri-
cal simulation. We found that analytical and numerical results are
in good agreement only when the geometry of the system falls
within certain limitations. However, these limitations are met in
most cases of interest. Therefore, the model is useful for practical
engineering purposes.
Introduction
A common way to produce hydrocarbons from tight reservoirs is
to use horizontal wells with multiple hydraulic fractures. It has
been postulated that, in many cases, the propagation of a fracture
may create a branch pattern (Daneshy 2003). Fracture branching
creates a stimulated region around each hydraulic fracture, which
can be modeled by introducing a region of higher permeability
(Fig. 1).
Brown et al. (2009) suggested an analytical solution to
describe the pressure distribution for a system in which the en-
hanced region occupies all the space between fractures (Fig. 2a).
They considered that the model consists of three regions: fracture,
high-permeability region, and low-permeability region. A 1D lin-
ear ow was assumed within each region. Brohi et al. (2011) pro-
vided another solution for the same conguration; the main
difference between these two solutions is the way in which the
three regions are coupled.
In our earlier study (Stalgorova and Mattar 2012), we sug-
gested a solution for the case when the enhanced region occupies
only part of the space between the fractures, but the region
beyond the fractures was neglected (Fig. 2b) Similar to Brown
et al. (2009), we considered three linear-ow regions (fracture,
high-permeability region, and low-permeability region), but the
location of the regions and their interaction were different.
In this paper, we present a solution for the case shown in
Fig. 2c. To provide the pressure distribution for such a system, we
consider ve regions of linear ow; therefore, the suggested
model is referred as a ve-region model. This case is a generaliza-
tion that encompasses both the trilinear-model solution suggested
by Brown et al. (2009) and the enhanced-fracture-region model
presented by Stalgorova and Mattar (2012).
Five-Region Model
The mathematical formulation of the proposed model is an
extension of the one presented in our earlier study (Stalgorova
and Mattar 2012). We present an outline of the solution in this
section, whereas the detailed derivation is given in Appendices
A and B.
To model a reservoir with a multifractured horizontal well, we
assume that all fractures have the same length and conductivity
and are spaced uniformly along the horizontal well. This assump-
tion is realistic because it is common eld practice to design
equally spaced hydraulic fractures with similar properties. We
introduce a region of higher permeability around each fracture to
represent fracture branching. Because of the symmetry of the sys-
tem, we can perform calculations on one-quarter of the space
between the fractures. Flow in the model is treated as a combina-
tion of ve linear ows within contiguous regions, as shown in
Fig. 3. We formulate the 1D ow solutions for each region and
then couple them by imposing ux and pressure continuity across
the boundaries between regions.
A schematic for the suggested ve-region model is presented in
Fig. 3. The model consists of Regions 1 through 4 and the Fracture
Region. To keep the solution general, we allow different properties
(permeability, porosity, and total compressibility) in each region.
However, for practical purposes, properties for Regions 2, 3, and 4
can be considered identical because they represent the original res-
ervoir rock, whereas Region 1 represents the region of enhanced
permeability immediately near the fracture.
The pressure distribution in each region is governed by the
ow equation \ q
k
l
\q
_ _
=
@
@t
(/q) (Dake 1978). For the case
of liquid ow, this equation can be rewritten as
\
2
p =
/lc
k
@p
@t
(1)
Note: for the case of gas ow, the equation should be rewritten in
terms of pseudopressure, as discussed later in the Possible Model
Modications section.
To simplify the solution, we rewrite this equation for each
region in dimensionless terms and convert it to the Laplace do-
main. Denitions of dimensionless variables are given in Appen-
dix A; derivations of equations and solutions are given in
Appendix B.
Region 4
The diffusivity equation becomes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Copyright VC 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 162516) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 30 October1 November 2012, and
revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 7 December 2012. Revised
manuscript received for review 21 March 2013. Paper peer approved 30 May 2013.
246 August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
@
2
p
4D
@y
2
D

s
g
4D
p
4D
= 0 (2)
where p
4D
is the pressure in Region 4 in the Laplace domain.
v Boundary Condition 1: No-ow condition at the outer reser-
voir boundary (y =y
2
)
@p
4D
@y
D

yD=y2D
= 0 (3)
v Boundary Condition 2: Pressure continuity between Regions
4 and 2 (at y =y
1
)
p
4D
(y
1D
) = p
2D
(y
1D
) (4)
Region 3
The diffusivity equation becomes
@
2
p
3D
@y
2
D

s
g
3D
p
3D
= 0 (5)
v Boundary Condition 1: No-ow condition at the outer reser-
voir boundary (y =y
2
)
@p
3D
@y
D

y
D
=y
2D
= 0 (6)
v Boundary Condition 2: Pressure continuity between Regions
3 and 1 (at y =y
1
)
p
3D
(y
1D
) = p
1D
(y
1D
) (7)
Region 2
The diffusivity equation becomes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a b c
k
1
k
1
k
1
k
2
k
2
k
2
Fig. 2(a) Trilinear-ow model (Brown et al. 2009), (b) enhanced-fracture-region model (Stalgorova and Mattar 2012), and (c) ve-
region model (this study).
Stimulated
region width (x
1
)
y
Region 3: Region 4:
k
3
,
3
, c
3
Region 1:
k
1
,
1
, c
1
k
f
,
f
, c
f
Region 2:
k
2
,
2
, c
2
k
4
,
4
, c
4
w/ 2
y
1

=

F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

h
a
l
f

l
e
n
g
t
h

(
(
x
f
)
y
)
Fracture:
Fracture half width = w/2
Half distance between fractures (x
2
)
x
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

h
a
l
f

w
i
d
t
h

(
y
2
)
Fig. 3Schematic and dimensions for ve-region model (one-
quarter of a fracture).
a b
k
1
k
2
Fig. 1Horizontal well with multiple branch fractures (a) and its representation by a model (k
1
>k
2
) (b).
August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 247
@
2
p
2D
@x
2
D

k
4
k
2
y
1D

@p
4D
@y
D

y
1D

s
g
2D
p
2D
= 0 (8)
v Boundary Condition 1: No-ow boundary midway between
the fractures
@p
2D
@x
D

x
2D
= 0 (9)
v Boundary Condition 2: Pressure continuity between Regions
1 and 2
p
2D
(x
1D
) = p
1D
(x
1D
) (10)
Region 1
The diffusivity equation becomes
@
2
p
1D
@x
2
D

k
3
k
1
y
1D

@p
3D
@y
D

y1D

s
g
1D
p
1D
= 0 (11)
v Boundary Condition 1: Flux continuity between Regions 2
and 1
k
2
l
@p
2D
@x
D

x1D
=
k
1
l
@p
1D
@x
D

x1D
(12)
v Boundary Condition 2: Continuity between Region 1 and
Fracture Region
p
1D
(w
D
=2) = p
FD
(w
D
=2) (13)
Fracture Region
The diffusivity equation becomes
@
2
p
FD
@y
2
D

2
F
CD

@p
1D
@x
D

wD=2

s
g
FD
p
FD
= 0 (14)
v Boundary Condition 1: No ow through the fracture tip
(y
D
=y
1D
)
@p
FD
@y
D

y
1D
= 0 (15)
v Boundary Condition 2: Obtained by applying Darcys law at
the wellbore (yD=0). (A correction to account for owline con-
vergence in the fracture, caused by the well being horizontal
rather than vertical, is introduced later in Eq. 20). In dimension-
less terms, in the Laplace domain, it becomes
@p
FD
@y
D

0
=
p
F
CD
s
(16)
Flow directions and boundary conditions for each region are
summarized in Fig. 4.
It can be shown (see detailed derivation in Appendix B) that
the solution of the preceding equations with boundary conditions
(Eqs. 2 through 16) is:
p
FD
(y
D
) =
pcosh[(y
D
1)

c
6
(s)
_
[
F
CD
s

c
6
(s)
_
sinh[

c
6
(s)
_
[
(17)
where c
6
(s) is calculated as shown in Appendix B. The solution at
the wellbore is given by
p
wD
= p
FD
(0) =
p
F
CD
s

c
6
(s)
_
tanh[

c
6
(s)
_
[
(18)
This solution can be inverted from the Laplace to the time domain
with the numerical algorithm given by Stehfest (1970).
It is worth noting that, in the case when the stimulated region
(Region 1) occupies all the space between fractures (x
1
=x
2
), the
ve-region model reduces to the trilinear model of Brown et al. 2009
(Fig. 2a). In the case when the contribution of Regions 3 and 4 is
neglected (y
1
=y
2
), the ve-region model reduces to the enhanced
fracture region model of Stalgorova and Mattar (2012) (Fig. 2b).
Therefore, the ve-region model is a generalization that covers both
the trilinear model and the enhanced fracture region model.
Possible Model Modifications
This section follows Stalgorova and Mattar (2012).
Gas Flow
The solution was derived for a liquid system. To use the solution
for gas ow, the dimensionless pressure should be expressed in
terms of real-gas pseudopressure (Eq. A-1).
It is, however, important to keep in mind that, for the case of
gas, the diffusivity term g =
k
/lc
is not constant but changes with
pressure, so the diffusivity equation becomes nonlinear. One of
the ways to deal with this problem is to use pseudotime (Anderson
and Mattar 2005).
Dual Porosity
If desired, a dual-porosity modication can be introduced to the
model: The inner region can be treated as a dual continuum. The
essence of the modication consists of replacing s with u =sf(s)
in Eq. 11, in which f(s) is a function dened by the dual-porosity
characteristics of the system. A detailed description of the dual-
porosity modication is given in Brown et al. (2009).
Skin Because of Convergence (Choking Skin). We assumed 1D
linear ow within the hydraulic fracture. This would be appropri-
ate if the well intersecting the fracture were vertical. However, in
our present scenario, the well is horizontal, and the owlines in
the fracture itself are not linear all the way, but as they approach
the horizontal well, they converge toward the wellbore (Fig. 5).
This convergence results in an additional pressure drop, which is
referred to as a skin because of convergence (choking skin).
Mukherjee and Economides (1991) provided a formulation (s
c
) to
account for this additional pressure drop. Eq. 18 is modied as
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
No-flow
No-flow
N
o
-
f
l
o
w
No-flow
Region 3 Region 4
Region 1 Region 2
p
1
= p
3
p
F

=

p
1
p
1

=

p
2
p
2
= p
4
y
1
= (x
f
)
y
y
2

y
w/2 x
1
x
2
p
F
y
q
F
x
k
1

p
1

p
2

x
=

k
2
Fig. 4Five-region model: ow directions and boundary
conditions.
248 August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
p
wD
=
p
F
CD
s

c
6
(s)
_
tanh[

c
6
(s)
_
[

s
c
s
(19)
where s
c
is the skin because of convergence, which can be cal-
culated from
s
c
=
k
1
h
k
f
w
ln
h
2r
w
_ _

p
2
_ _
(20)
Wellbore Storage
The wellbore-storage effect can also be incorporated as suggested
by Brown et al. (2009). To account for wellbore storage, modify
the wellbore pressure given in Eq. 19 to
p
wD;storage
=
p
wD
1 C
D
s
2
p
wD
(21)
where C
D
is the dimensionless wellbore-storage coefcient.
Model Validation
We compared the results of the ve-region model with the results
of numerical simulation. We used a single-phase liquid for this
exercise. For numerical simulation, we used a 2D nite-difference
model. To ensure the accuracy of the model, we dened a ne
grid throughout the reservoir, and enforced additional renement
near the fracture and near the boundaries of the regions. One-
quarter of a fracture stage was modeled with 33 91 grid cells.
Overall, the cell size was approximately 2 3 ft, and the cells
near the fracture and near the region boundaries were 0.6 0.6 ft.
Other model parameters are presented in Table 1. For these pa-
rameters, the ve-region-model results showed excellent agree-
ment with the numerical simulation, as can be seen in Fig. 6.
Alternative Model (for Reservoirs Elongated in
x-Direction)
In the original ve-region model, it was assumed that ow can be
approximated by a combination of linear ows in each of the ve
regions, as was shown in Fig. 4. This assumption is valid for some
cases. However, there are other cases when such an approxima-
tion produces inaccurate results. For example, if x
2
is much larger
than y
2
, we can expect the owlines in Region 4 to be aligned in
the direction of the pressure sink (the fracture). To account for
such reservoir geometries, we developed an alternative ve-region
model that directs the ow in Region 4 toward Region 3 rather
than Region 2. This is depicted in Fig. 7. The modications to the
relevant equations and boundary conditions were straightforward.
Figs. 8 and 9 compare the original ve-region model with the
alternative ve-region model for two different geometries. For the
case in which y
2
>>x
2
(Fig. 8a), the original ve-region model is in
close agreement with the numerical model, whereas the alternative
model produces inaccurate results (Fig. 8b). On the other hand, for
the cases in which x
2
>>y
2
, the alternative ve-region model gives
more accurate results than the original one (Figs. 9a and 9b).
For a typical eld case of a horizontal well with multiple frac-
tures, x
2
~ 100 ft (0.5 times the horizontal-well length/number of
fractures) and y
2
~ 500 ft (half the distance between two neigh-
boring horizontal wells). Therefore, the use of the original ve-
region model (shown in Fig. 4) is more appropriate for most cases
of interest.
It was shown previously that, under certain reservoir congura-
tions, the original ve-region model is applicable, whereas other
congurations require the use of the alternative ve-region model.
Unfortunately, there are cases when both the original and the alter-
native models are not accurate enough. One such case is when
both x
2
and y
2
are much larger than the fracture half-length (x
f
)
y
(e.g., a single fracture in an innite reservoir). Fig. 10 shows that
for such a conguration, the numerical solution is signicantly dif-
ferent from that of either model. The explanation for this inaccur-
acy is that, at distances far away from the fracture, the owlines
should be radial not linear; however, the ve-region models do not
allow for this. The ve-region model was developed to deal with
multiple-fracture horizontal wells. The geometry of these systems
is not likely to lead to radial ow. Therefore, rather than resolving
this problem, we have focused instead on dening the conditions
of the applicability of the original ve-region model.
Applicability of the original five-region model
To evaluate when the Five-Region Model is applicable, we per-
formed comparisons with numerical models for different reservoir
congurations. Agreement between the ve-region model and the
numerical model depends on many parameters such as x
1
, x
2
,
(x
f
)
y
, y
2
, k
1
, k
2
, and q
F
. It may seem difcult to test all possible
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 1MODEL PARAMETERS
Initial pressure p
i
10,000 psi
Viscosity l 1 cp
Formation volume factor B 1 bbl/STB
Compressibility c 110
6
psi
1
Horizontal-well length L
e
2,000 ft
Reservoir width Y
e
1,000 ft
Fracture half-length
(in y-direction)
(x
f
)
y
100 ft
Dimensionless fracture
conductivity
F
CD
20.8
Distance from well to
permeability boundary
x
1
25 ft
Number of fractures n
f
20
Net pay h 100 ft
Permeability of
stimulated region
k
1
1 md
Permeability of
nonstimulated regions
k
2
= k
3
=k
4
0.01 md
Porosity / 0.1
Saturation S
w
1
Production rate q 400 STB/D
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
P
w
f
,

p
s
i
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
time, days
Pwf (Five-Region Model)
Pwf (numerical simulation)
Fig. 6Comparison of ve-region-model results with numeri-
cal-model results.
F
ra
ctu
re
Horizontal wellbore
Fig. 5Convergence of owlines toward the wellbore within
the fracture.
August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 249
combinations of parameters. However, looking at the solution,
one can notice that the number of parameters that actually affect
the result can be minimized, if we compare p
D
vs. t
D
plots (dimen-
sionless) instead of comparing p vs. t plots. Fig. 11 illustrates the
comparison of the dimensionless type curves obtained from the
original ve-region model and the numerical simulator for one
reservoir geometry.
We ran a series of such comparisons with different combina-
tions of dimensionless parameters, and we observed that the nu-
merical and ve-region-model type curves show reasonable
agreement if all the following conditions are met:
v x
1
_0.1 x
2
.
In other words, the stimulated zone occupies at least 10% of
the space between fractures.
v (x
f
)
y
_0.1 y
2
.
This condition ensures that the fracture length is not too small
compared with the reservoir size. If the fracture length is very
small, radial ow is more likely to occur, and this is not handled
by the ve-region model. The (x
f
)
y
is usually at least 100 ft; y
2
is
the half-distance between neighboring horizontal wells, which
can be estimated at approximately 1,000 ft; therefore, this condi-
tion is usually met.
v y
2
_2 x
2
. The area drained by each fracture is elongated in
the y-direction (if the geometry were more elongated in the x-
direction, the alternative model would be more appropriate). The
x
2
is the half-distance between adjacent fractures, so it can be
expressed as x
2
=L
e
/(2n
f
), in which L
e
is the horizontal-well
length (approximately 4,000 ft) and n
f
is the number of fractures
(at least 10). Therefore, we can safely assume that x
2
is less than
400; thus, y
2
_2 x
2
, and the condition y
2
_2 x
2
is typically met.
Conclusions
We have presented an analytical model to simulate ow through a
horizontal well with branch fractures surrounded by a nonstimu-
lated zone. The following conclusions can be made:
The proposed ve-region model is a generalization for both the tri-
linear model (Brown et al. 2009) and the enhanced-fracture-region
y
2

y
No-flow
Region 3
Region 1
Region 4
Region 2
N
o
-
f
l
o
w
N
o
-
f
l
o
w
No-flow
y
1
= (x
f
)
y
p
F
y
q
F
w/2 x
1
x
2
x
p
1
= p
3
p
F

=

p
1
p
3

=

p
4
p 1

=

p 2
k1

p1

p2

x
=

k2
Fig. 7Alternative ve-region model: ow directions and boundary conditions.
Original
Alternative
a b
x
1
= 25 ft
k
2
= 0.1 md
x
2
= 250 ft
(
x
f
)
y

=

1
0
0

f
t
y
2

=

1
0
0
0

f
t
k
1
= 1 md
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
time, days
p
w
f
,

p
s
i
Original Five-Region Model
Alternative Five-Region Model
Numerical Simulation
Fig. 8y
2
x
2
: Model schematic (a) and comparison of the original and alternative ve-region models with numerical simulation
(b).
250 August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
model (Stalgorova and Mattar 2012). Equations describing the
model have been solved analytically in the Laplace domain.
The ow through a horizontal well with multiple branch frac-
tures can be represented by ve regions of linear ow.
We compared the results obtained from the ve-region model
with the results of numerical simulation. The results showed
close agreement for typical well and reservoir congurations.
Depending on the reservoir geometry, the ve-region model is
not always applicable. We suggested the alternative ve-region
model for cases when x
2
y
2
. However, this condition does not
apply for most of the practical cases of multiple-fractured hori-
zontal wells.
We found that the ve-region model gives accurate (close to
numerical) results when the stimulated zone is not too small
compared with the whole reservoir (in the x- and y-direction),
and the model is elongated in the y-direction. Formally, it can
be expressed as x
1
_0.1 x
2
, (x
f
)
y
_0.1 y
2
, and y
2
_2 x
2
. It was
shown that these conditions are met in most practical cases.
Nomenclature
B = liquid formation volume factor, RB/STB
c = compressibility, 1/psi
C
D
= dimensionless wellbore storage
c
t
= total compressibility, 1/psi
F
CD
= dimensionless fracture conductivity
h = net pay, ft
k = permeability, md
Original Alternative
k
2
= 0.1 md
k
1
= 1 md
x
1
= 50 ft
(
x
f
)
y

=

1
0
0

f
t
y
2

=

1
0
0
0

f
t
x
2
= 1000 ft
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
p
w
f
,

p
s
i
b
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
time, days
a
Original Five-Region Model
Alternative Five-Region Model
Numerical Simulation
Fig. 10x
2
and y
2
(x
f
)
y
: Model schematic (a) and comparison of the original and alternative ve-region models with numerical
simulation (b).
100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
p
D
0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
t
D
p
D
(Five-Region Model)
p
D
(Numerical Simulation)

x
1D
= 1
x
2D
= 5
y
2D
= 20
k
2
= 0.01
Fig. 11Comparison of dimensionless type curves obtained
from the ve-region model and numerical simulation.
Original Alternative
k
2
= 0.1 md
x
2
= 3000 ft
(
x
f
)
y

=

1
0
0

f
t
k
1
= 1 md
y
2

=

3
0
0

f
t
x
1
= 50 ft
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
p
w
f
,

p
s
i
Original Five-Region Model
Alternative Five-Region Model
Numerical Simulation
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
time, days
a
b
Fig. 9x
2
y
2
: Model schematic (a) and comparison of the original and alternative ve-region models with numerical simulation
(b).
August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 251
k
f
= fracture permeability, md
k
i
= permeability of the ith region, md
L
e
= horizontal-well length, ft
n
f
= number of fractures
p = pressure, psi
p
D
= dimensionless pressure
p
FD
= dimensionless pressure in the fracture
p
i
= initial reservoir pressure, psi
p
iD
= dimensionless pressure in the ith region
p
p
= pseudopressure, psi
2
/cp
p
wf
= wellbore owing pressure, psi
q = well-production rate, SDB/D, Mscf/D
q
F
= production rate through one fracture, SDB/D, Mscf/D
r
w
= wellbore radius, ft
s = Laplace-transform parameter
s
c
= skin because of convergence
S
w
= water saturation, fraction
t = time, hours
T = reservoir temperature,

R
t
D
= dimensionless time
w = fracture width, ft
w
D
= dimensionless fracture width
x = coordinate along the horizontal well, ft
x
1
= distance from fracture to permeability boundary, ft
x
2
= half-distance between fractures, ft
x
D
= dimensionless coordinate along the horizontal well
x
1D
= dimensionless distance from fracture to permeability
boundary
x
2D
= dimensionless half-distance between fractures
(x
f
)
y
= half fracture length, ft
y = coordinate perpendicular to the horizontal well, ft
y
1
= fracture half-length, ft
y
2
= half-distance between horizontal wells, ft
y
D
= dimensionless coordinate perpendicular to the horizontal
well
Y
e
= reservoir size in y-direction (distance between horizontal
wells), ft
z = gas-compressibility factor
g = diffusivity, ft
2
/hr
g
FD
= dimensionless diffusivity in the fracture
g
i
= diffusivity in the ith region, ft
2
/hr
g
iD
= dimensionless diffusivity in the ith region
l = viscosity, cp
/ = porosity, fraction
/
i
= porosity of the ith region, fraction
/
f
= fracture porosity, fraction
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Karel Zaoral for his advice, valu-
able and stimulating discussions, and contribution to the software
implementation.
References
Anderson, D.M. and Mattar, L. 2005. An Improved Pseudo-Time for Gas
Reservoirs With Signicant Transient Flow. Paper 2005-114 presented
at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
79 June. http:/dx.doi.org/10.2118/2005-114.
Brohi, I., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Aguilera, R. 2011. Modeling Fractured
Horizontal Wells as Dual Porosity Composite ReservoirsApplica-
tion to Tight Gas, Shale Gas and Tight Oil Cases. Paper SPE 144057
presented at the SPE Western North American Region Meeting, An-
chorage, Alaska, 711 May. http:/dx.doi.org/10.2118/144057-MS.
Brown, M., Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R. et al. 2009. Practical Solutions for
Pressure Transient Responses of Fractured Horizontal Wells in Uncon-
ventional Reservoirs. Paper SPE 125043 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 47
October. http:/dx.doi.org/10.2118/125043-MS.
Dake, L.P. 1978. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Daneshy, A.A. 2003. Off-Balance Growth: A New Concept in Hydraulic
Fracturing. J. Pet Tech 55 (4): 7885. http:/dx.doi.org/10.2118/80992-
MS.
Mukherjee, H. and Economides, M. 1991. A Parametric Comparison of
Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance. SPE Form Eval 6 (2):
209216. http:/dx.doi.org/10.2118/18303-PA.
Stalgorova, E. and Mattar, L. 2012. Practical Analytical Model to Simu-
late Production of Horizontal Wells With Branch Fractures. Paper SPE
162515 presented at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, 30 October1 November. http:/dx.doi.
org/10.2118/162515-MS.
Stehfest, H. 1970. Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms. Communi-
cations of the ACM 13 (1): 4749. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1145/361953.
361969.
Appendix ADimensionless Variables
Dimensionless pressure:
p
D
=
k
1
h
141:2q
F
Bl
(p
i
p)
k
1
h
1422q
F
T
[p
p
(p
i
) p
p
(p)[
for liquid
for gas
_

_
(A-1)
where q
F
=q/(number of fractures) is the ow rate through one
fracture and p
p
(p) is the real-gas pseudopressure dened by
p
p
(p) = 2
_
p
p
ref
p
l(p)z(p)
dp (A-2)
Dimensionless time:
t
D
=
g
1
t
(x
f
)
2
y
(A-3)
Dimensionless distances:
x
D
= x=(x
f
)
y
x
1D
= x
1
=(x
f
)
y
x
2D
= x
2
=(x
f
)
y
w
D
= w=(x
f
)
y
y
D
= y=(x
f
)
y
y
1D
= y
1
=(x
f
)
y
= (x
f
)
y
=(x
f
)
y
= 1
y
2D
= y
2
=(x
f
)
y
(A-4)
Dimensionless diffusivities for ve regions:
g
1D
= g
1
=g
1
= 1
g
2D
= g
2
=g
1
g
3D
= g
3
=g
1
g
4D
= g
4
=g
1
g
FD
= g
F
=g
1
(A-5)
where g
F
= 2:637 10
4
k
F
(/c
t
)
F
l
and g
i
= 2:637 10
4
k
i
(/c
t
)
i
l
(i =1,2, 3, or 4 indicates region).
Dimensionless fracture conductivity:
F
CD
=
k
f
w
k
1
(x
f
)
y
=
k
f
w
D
k
1
(A-6)
Appendix BProblemDerivation and Solution
The suggested solution is based on the assumption that the ow
can be represented by a combination of ows within contiguous
regions, and that the ow within each region is 1D, as shown in
Fig. B-1. Formally speaking, this assumption is inconsistent. For
example, assuming 1D linear ow in Region 4 means that pres-
sures at A and B in Fig. B-1 are equal. At the same time, pressure
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
252 August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
at C can be considered equal to pressure at B, as well as pressure
at D to pressure at A (a result of pressure continuity); therefore,
pressure at C should be equal to pressure at Dbut, at the same
time, we assume ow from C to D in Region 3.
Though this simplied formulation has some inconsistencies
from a formal point of view, it gives a solution that is close to the
exact solution for the cases of interest (as was demonstrated in the
Applicability of the Original Five-Region Model section); there-
fore, the suggested solution can be used for practical purposes.
In the general case, for liquid pressure, distribution in each
region is described by the diffusivity equation
\
2
p = g
@p
@t
(B-1)
where g =
k
/lc
; therefore, g is different for different regions.
In dimensionless terms dened in Appendix A, Eq. B-1 can be
rewritten as
\
2
p
iD

1
g
iD
@p
iD
@t
D
= 0 (B-2)
where index i indicates one of the regions1, 2, 3, 4, or fracture
(F).
After conversion into the Laplace domain, Eq. B-2 becomes
\
2
p
iD

s
g
iD
p
iD
= 0 (B-3)
Here, the bar above the pressure symbol indicates the Laplace do-
main, and s is the Laplace-transform parameter with respect to t
D
.
Equation and Boundary Conditions for Region 4
We assume that ow in Region 4 is a 1D linear ow and p
4D
does
not depend on x
D
. In this case, \
2
p
4D
=
@
2
p
4D
@y
2
D
; so, Eq. B-3
becomes
@
2
p
4D
@y
2
D

s
g
4D
p
4D
= 0 (B-4)
v Boundary Condition 1: No-ow condition at the outer reser-
voir boundary (y =y
2
)
@p
4D
@y
D

y
D
=y
2D
= 0 (B-5)
v Boundary Condition 2: Pressure continuity between Regions
4 and 2 (at y =y
1
)
p
4D
(y
1D
) = p
2D
(y
1D
) (B-6)
The general form of the solution for Eq. B-4 can be given as
p
4D
(y
D
) = A
4
cosh (y
D
y
2D
)

s
g
4D
_ _ _
B
4
sinh (y
D
y
2D
)

s
g
4D
_ _ _
(B-7)
By applying the boundary condition given by Eq. B-5, we
obtain B
4
= 0. By applying the boundary condition given by Eq.
B-6, we obtain A
4
=
p
2D
(y
1D
)
cosh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
4D
_
_ _
Therefore, the pressure for Region 4 can be rewritten in terms
of the pressure for Region 2 at the boundary between Regions 2
and 4:
p
4D
(y
D
) = p
2D
(y
1D
)
cosh (y
D
y
2D
)

s
g
4D
_
_ _
cosh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
4D
_
_ _ (B-8)
Flux between Regions 2 and 4 is proportional to
@p
4D
@y
D

y1D
= p
2D
(y
1D
)

s
g
4D
_
tanh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
4D
_ _ _
(B-9)
Equation and Boundary Conditions for Region 3
We assume that ow in Region 3 is a 1D linear ow and p
3D
does
not depend on x
D
. In this case, \
2
p
3D
=
@
2
p
3D
@y
2
D
; so, Eq. B-3
becomes
@
2
p
3D
@y
2
D

s
g
3D
p
3D
= 0 (B-10)
v Boundary Condition 1: No-ow condition at the outer-reser-
voir boundary (y =y
2
)
@p
3D
@y
D

yD=y2D
= 0 (B-11)
v Boundary Condition 2: Pressure continuity between Regions
3 and 1 (at y =y
1
)
p
3D
(y
1D
) = p
1D
(y
1D
) (B-12)
The general form of the solution for Eq. B-10 can be given as
p
3D
(y
D
) = A
3
cosh (y
D
y
2D
)

s
g
3D
_ _ _
B
3
sinh (y
D
y
2D
)

s
g
3D
_ _ _
(B-13)
By applying the boundary condition given by Eq. B-11, we
obtain B
3
= 0. By applying the boundary condition given by
Eq. B-12, we obtain A
3
=
p
1D
(y
1D
)
cosh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
3D
_
_ _
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
Region 3 Region 4
Region 1 Region 2
A B
C D
Fracture
x
y
Fig. B-1Flow represented by a combination of 1D linear ows.
August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 253
Therefore, the pressure for Region 3 can be rewritten in terms
of the pressure for Region 1 at the boundary between Regions 1
and 3:
p
3D
(y
D
) = p
1D
(y
1D
)
cosh (y
D
y
2D
)

s
g
3D
_
_ _
cosh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
3D
_
_ _ (B-14)
Flux between Regions 1 and 3 is proportional to
@p
3D
@y
D

y
1D
= p
1D
(y
1D
)

s
g
3D
_
tanh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
3D
_ _ _
(B-15)
Equation and Boundary Conditions for Region 2
Eq. B-3 for Region 2 is
@
2
p
2D
@x
2
D

@
2
p
2D
@y
2
D

s
g
2D
p
2D
= 0 (B-16)
To convert Eq. B-16 into a 1D form, we integrate each of its
terms from 0 to y
1D
with respect to y
D
.
Assuming that pressure in the second region does not depend
on y
D
, integrating the rst term of Eq. B-16 gives
_
y1D
0
@
2
p
2D
@x
2
D
dy
D
= y
1D
@
2
p
2D
@x
2
D
(B-17)
Integrating the second term of Eq. B-16 gives
_
y
1D
0
@
2
p
2D
@y
2
D
dy
D
=
@p
2D
@y
D

y
1D

@p
2D
@y
D

0
(B-18)
There is a no-ow boundary along the horizontal well; there-
fore,
@p
2D
@y
D

0
= 0:
Flux across the boundary between Regions 2 and 4 is continu-
ous; therefore, k
2
@p
2D
@y
D

y
1D
= k
4
@p
4D
@y
D

y
1D
.
So, integrating the second term of Eq. B-16 gives
_
y1D
0
@
2
p
2D
@y
2
D
dy
D
=
k
4
k
2
@p
4D
@y
D

y
1D
(B-19)
Assuming that the pressure in Region 2 does not depend on
y
D
, integrating the third term of Eq. B-16 gives
_
y
1D
0
s
g
2D
p
2D
dy
D
= y
1D
s
g
2D
p
2D
(B-20)
Therefore, after integration, Eq. B-16 becomes
y
1D
@
2
p
2D
@x
2
D

k
4
k
2
@p
4D
@y
D

y
1D
y
1D
s
g
2D
p
2D
= 0 (B-21)
Dividing Eq. B-21 by y
1D
, we obtain
@
2
p
2D
@x
2
D

k
4
k
2
y
1D

@p
4D
@y
D

y
1D

s
g
2D
p
2D
= 0 (B-22)
v Boundary Condition 1: No-ow boundary midway between
the fractures
@p
2D
@x
D

x
2D
= 0 (B-23)
v Boundary Condition 2: Pressure continuity between Regions
1 and 2
p
2D
(x
1D
) = p
1D
(x
1D
) (B-24)
Using Eq. B-9 and assuming that p
2D
does not depend on y
D
,
Eq. B-22 can be rewritten as
@
2
p
2D
@x
2
D
c
1
(s)p
2D
= 0 (B-25)
where
c
1
(s) =
s
g
2D

k
4
k
2
y
1D

s
g
4D
_
tanh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
4D
_ _ _
(B-26)
The general form of the solution for Eq. B-25 can be given as
p
2D
(x
D
) = A
2
cosh[(x
D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
[
B
2
sinh[(x
D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
[ (B-27)
By applying the boundary condition given by Eq. B-23, we
obtain B
2
= 0. By applying the boundary condition given by
Eq. B-24, we obtain A
2
=
p
1D
(x
1D
)
cosh[(x
1D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
[
Therefore, pressure for Region 2 (Eq. B-27) can be rewritten
in terms of pressure for Region 1 at the boundary between
Regions 1 and 2:
p
2D
(x
D
) = p
1D
(x
1D
)
cosh[(x
D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
[
cosh[(x
1D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
[
(B-28)
Flux between Regions 1 and 2 is proportional to
@p
2D
@x
D
[
x1D
= p
1D
(x
1D
)

c
1
(s)
_
tanh[(x
1D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
[
(B-29)
Equation and Boundary Conditions for Region 1
Eq. B-3 for Region 1 is
@
2
p
1D
@x
2
D

@
2
p
1D
@y
2
D

s
g
1D
p
1D
= 0 (B-30)
To convert Eq. B-30 to a 1D form, we integrate each of its
terms from 0 to y
1D
with respect to y
D
. In the same way that it
was performed for Region 2, we can obtain that after integration
Eq. B-30 becomes
@
2
p
1D
@x
2
D

k
3
k
1
y
1D

@p
3D
@y
D

y
1D

s
g
1D
p
1D
= 0 (B-31)
v Boundary Condition 1: Flux continuity between Regions 1
and 2
k
2
l
@p
2D
@x
D

x
1D
=
k
1
l
@p
1D
@x
D

x
1D
(B-32)
v Boundary Condition 2: Continuity between Region 1 and
Fracture Region
p
1D
(w
D
=2) = p
FD
(w
D
=2) (B-33)
Using Eq. B-15 and assuming that p
1D
does not depend on y
D
,
we can rewrite Eq. B-31 as
@
2
p
1D
@x
2
D
c
2
(s)p
1D
= 0 (B-34)
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
254 August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
where
c
2
(s) =
s
g
1D

k
3
k
1
y
1D

s
g
3D
_
tanh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
3D
_ _ _
(B-35)
The general form of the solution for Eq. B-34 can be given as
p
1D
(x
D
) = A
1
cosh[(x
D
x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
B
1
sinh[(x
D
x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[ (B-36)
By substituting x
D
=x
1D
, we obtain that A
1
=p
1D
(x
1D
). If we
substitute Eq. B-29 in the left side of the boundary condition
given by Eq. B-32 and use Eq. B-36 to calculate the right side of
the boundary condition given by Eq. B-32, we can express B
1
as
B
1
= p
1D
(x
1D
)
k
2
k
1

c
1
(s)
c
2
(s)

tanh(x
1D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
= p
1D
(x
1D
) c
3
(s) (B-37)
where
c
3
(s) =
k
2
k
1

c
1
(s)
c
2
(s)

tanh(x
1D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
(B-38)
Therefore, Eq. B-36 can be rewritten as
p
1D
(x
D
) = p
1D
(x
D1
) cosh[(x
D
x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
_ _
c
3
(s)sinh[(x
D
x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
_ _
(B-39)
Applying the boundary condition given by Eq. B-33, we
obtain
p
FD
(w
D
=2) = p
1D
(x
D1
) cosh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
_ _
c
3
(s)sinh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
_ _
(B-40)
Therefore,
p
1D
(x
D1
) =
p
FD
(w
D
=2)
cosh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[ c
3
(s)sinh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
=
p
FD
(w
D
=2)
c
4
(s)
(B-41)
where
c
4
(s) = cosh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
c
3
(s)sinh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[ (B-42)
So, the expression for the pressure in Region 1 (Eq. B-39) can be
rewritten in terms of the pressure in the fracture at the boundary
between Region 1 and fracture:
p
1D
(x
D
) = p
FD
(w
D
=2)

cosh[(x
D
x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[ c
3
(s)sinh[(x
D
x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
c
4
(s)
(B-43)
Flux from Region 1 to the fracture is proportional to
@p
1D
@x
D

w
D
=2
= p
FD
(w
D
=2)

c
2
(s)
_

sinh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[ c
3
(s)cosh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
c
4
(s)
= p
FD
(w
D
=2) c
5
(s) (B-44)
where
c
5
(s) =

c
2
(s)
_

sinh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[ c
3
(s)cosh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
c
4
(s)
(B-45)
Equation and Boundary Conditions for Fracture
Region (F)
Eq. B-3 for the Fracture Region is
@
2
p
FD
@x
2
D

@
2
p
FD
@y
2
D

s
g
FD
p
FD
= 0 (B-46)
To convert Eq. B-46 to a 1D form, we integrate each of its
terms from 0 to w
D
/2 with respect to x
D
.
Integrating the rst term of Eq. B-46 gives
_
w
D
=2
0
@
2
p
FD
@x
2
D
dx
D
=
@p
FD
@x
D

wD=2

@p
FD
@x
D

0
(B-47)
There is a no-ow boundary in the middle of the fracture (in
the y-direction); therefore,
@p
FD
@x
D

0
= 0:
Flux across the boundary between Region 1 and the fracture is
continuous; therefore, k
f
@p
FD
@x
D

w
D
=2
= k
1
@p
1D
@x
D

w
D
=2
.
So, integrating the rst term of Eq. B-46 gives
_
wD=2
0
@
2
p
FD
@x
2
D
dx
D
=
k
1
k
f
@p
1D
@x
D
[
wD=2
(B-48)
Assuming that pressure in the fracture does not depend on x
D
,
integration of the second and third terms of Eq. B-46 gives
_
w
D
=2
0
@
2
p
FD
@y
2
D

s
g
FD
p
FD
_ _
dx
D
=
w
D
2
@
2
p
FD
@y
2
D

s
g
FD
p
FD
_ _
(B-49)
Therefore, after integration, Eq. B-46 becomes
k
1
k
f
@p
1D
@x
D

w
D
=2

w
D
2
@
2
p
FD
@y
2
D

s
g
FD
p
FD
_ _
= 0 (B-50)
Dividing Eq. B-50 by w
D
/2 and using the denition of F
CD
(Eq. A-6), we obtain
@
2
p
FD
@y
2
D

2
F
CD

@p
1D
@x
D

w
D
=2

s
g
FD
p
FD
= 0 (B-51)
v Boundary Condition 1: No ow through the fracture tip
(y
D
=y
1D
)
@p
FD
@y
D

y1D
= 0 (B-52)
v Boundary Condition 2: Obtained by applying Darcys Law
at the wellbore (y
D
=0), as shown on Fig. B-2. In Field units
Darcys Law through one half of the fracture is given by:
q
F
2
= 0:001127
k
f
h w
l B
@p
@y
(B-53a)
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 255
If we convert
@p
@y
to
@p
D
@y
D
by use of the chain rule and denitions
given by Eqs. A-1 and A-4 and then simplify the obtained equa-
tion by use of Eq. A-6 and convert to the Laplace domain, the
boundary condition becomes
@p
FD
@y
D

0
=
p
F
CD
s
(B-53b)
Because this formulation ignores the radial convergence to-
ward the horizontal well within the fracture, it will need to be cor-
rected later on by incorporating a convergence skinsee the
Possible Model Modications section.
Using Eq. B-44 and assuming that p
FD
does not depend on x
D
,
we can rewrite Eq. B-51 as
@
2
p
FD
@y
2
D
c
6
(s)p
FD
= 0 (B-54)
where
c
6
(s) =
s
g
FD

2
F
CD
c
5
(s) (B-55)
The general solution for Eq. B-54 is
p
FD
(y
D
) = A
F
cosh[(y
D
y
1D
)

c
6
(s)
_
[
B
F
sinh[(y
D
y
1D
)

c
6
(s)
_
[ (B-56)
Using the boundary condition given by Eq. B-52, we obtain
B
F
=0, and using the boundary condition given by Eq. B-53b, we
obtain
A
F
=
p
F
CD
s

c
6
(s)
_
sinh[

c
6
(s)
_
y
1D
[
(B-57)
Therefore, the solution for the Fracture Region is
p
FD
(y
D
) =
pcosh[(y
D
y
1D
)

c
6
(s)
_
[
F
CD
s

c
6
(s)
_
sinh[

c
6
(s)
_
y
1D
[
(B-58)
Using that y
1D
=1 (Eq. A-4), we can calculate the solution at
the wellbore:
p
wD
= p
FD
(0) =
p
F
CD
s

c
6
(s)
_
tanh[

c
6
(s)
_
[
(B-59)
Calculation Summary
To summarize, wellbore pressure can be obtained with the follow-
ing sequence of calculations:
c
1
(s) =
s
g
2D

k
4
k
2
y
1D

s
g
4D
_
tanh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
4D
_ _ _
c
2
(s) =
s
g
1D

k
3
k
1
y
1D

s
g
3D
_
tanh (y
1D
y
2D
)

s
g
3D
_ _ _
c
3
(s) =
k
2
k
1

c
1
(s)
c
2
(s)

tanh(x
1D
x
2D
)

c
1
(s)
_
c
4
(s) = cosh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
c
3
(s)sinh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
c
5
(s) =

c
2
(s)
_

sinh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[ c
3
(s)cosh[(w
D
=2 x
1D
)

c
2
(s)
_
[
c
4
(s)
c
6
(s) =
s
g
FD

2
F
CD
c
5
(s)
p
wD
=
p
F
CD
s

c
6
(s)
_
tanh[

c
6
(s)
_
[
As discussed in the body of the paper (the Possible Model
Modications section), modications to this calculation procedure
can readily be made to account for the gas case, dual-porosity
effects, skin because of convergence of ow lines within the frac-
ture, and wellbore storage.
Louis Mattar is with Fekete Associates, recently acquired by
IHS. He specializes in well testing and production-data analy-
sis, and has authored 70 technical publications. In 2003, he
was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer in well testing. In 2006, Mat-
tar received the SPE International Reservoir Description and
Dynamics Award. In 2012 he was a Distinguished Member of
SPE. He holds MSc and PEng degrees.
Ekaterina Stalgorova is with Fekete Associates, recently
acquired by IHS. She holds a degree in in mathematics from
MoscowStateUniversity andan MScdegreein petroleumengi-
neering from the University of Alberta. Stalgorova specializes in
analytical modeling for well testing and production-data anal-
ysis. Her research interests also include classical and nonclassi-
cal numerical simulation.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
q
F
/2 q
F
/2
w
h
Fig. B-2Flow within the fracture toward the wellbore.
256 August 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering