Transport in Porous Media (2006) 64: 5171

DOI 10.1007/s11242-005-1398-x

Springer 2006

Effects of Fracture Boundary Conditions on

Matrix-fracture Transfer Shape Factor
HASSAN HASSANZADEH and MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University
Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
(Received: 5 May 2005; in nal form: 26 July 2005)
Abstract. The matrix-fracture transfer shape factor is one of the important parameters in
modeling naturally fractured reservoirs. Four decades after Warren and Root (1963, SPEJ,
245255.) introduced the double porosity concept and suggested a relation for it, this
parameter is still not completely understood. Even for a single-phase ow problem, investigators report different shape factors. This study shows that for a single-phase ow in a
particular matrix block, the shape factor that Warren and Root dened is not unique and
depends on the pressure in the fracture and how it changes with time. We use the Laplace
domain analytical solutions of the diffusivity equation for different geometries and different boundary conditions to show that the shape factor depends on the fracture pressure
change with time. In particular, by imposing a constant fracture pressure as it is typically
done, one obtains the shape factor that Lim and Aziz (1995, J. Petrolean Sci. Eng. 13,
169.) calculated. However, other shape factors, similar to those reported in other studies
are obtained, when other boundary conditions are chosen. Although, the time variability
of the boundary conditions can be accounted for by the Duhamels theorem, in practice
using large time-steps in numerical simulations can potentially introduce large errors in
simulation results. However, numerical simulation models make use of a stepwise approximation of this theorem. It is shown in this paper that this approximation could lead to
large errors in matrix-fracture transfer rate if large time-steps are chosen.
Key words: shape factor, fractured reservoirs, matrix block, matrix-fracture boundary condition.

Nomenclature
decline constant 1/[T ]
matrix surface area [L2 ]
total matrix compressibility [LT 2 /M]
time domain function
laplace domain function
matrix block thickness [L]
porous media permeability [L2 ]
modied Bessel function of rst kind

a
A
cm
f
F
hm
k
I0

Author for correspondence. e-mail: pooladi@ucalgary.ca

52

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

pf
pm
pm
pD
Pm
Pm
Qm
r
Rm
s
s

t
tD
Vm
x

modied Bessel function of rst kind

matrix block thickness [L]
for slab L2 = h2m
2
for cylinder L2 = Rm
3
for sphere L3 = 4/3 Rm
pressure [M/LT 2 ]
pressure [M/LT 2 ]
average matrix pressure [M/LT 2 ]
dimensionless matrix pressure
matrix pressure in Laplace domain
average matrix pressure in Laplace domain
matrix-fracture exchange term [M/L3 T ]
block radius [L]
outer radius of cylindrical or spherical matrix block [L]
laplace variable with respect to tD
laplace variable with respect to t
time [T ]
dimensionless time
matrix bulk volume [L3 ]
distance from origin [L]

Greek

letters
dimensionless decline constant
uid viscosity [M/LT ]
porosity
euler constant 0.5772156
uid density [M/L3 ]
shape factor constant [1/L2 ]
matrix hydraulic diffusivity, L2 /T

I1

Subscripts
f
fracture
m
matrix
t
total

1. Introduction
Based on Barenblatt et al. (1960) work on uid ow in fractured media, Warren
and Root (1963) introduced the double porosity concept into petroleum engineering. In their model, a fractured medium comprises two overlapping media:
matrix and fracture. Matrix has a low permeability and a high uid storage. In
contrast, fracture has a high permeability and a low storage.
In one form of double porosity models, matrix blocks act as a source or
sink for a fracture system, where the uid transfer between a matrix block
and fracture system is proportional to the difference between fracture pressure and average matrix block pressure as given by the following equation:
Qm =

km
(pm pf ),

(1)

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

53

where Qm is the rate of the uid transfer between the matrix and fracture, km the matrix permeability, the uid viscosity, the uid density,
pm represents the average matrix block pressure, pf is the fracture pressure,
and is called matrix-fracture transfer shape factor and has dimensions of
L2 . The model based on this assumption is called a pseudo-steady state
(PSS) transfer model. The matrix-fracture transfer term, Qm is related to
the matrix pressure by the following relationship:



pm
Qm = m cm
,
(2)
t
where m is the matrix porosity and cm is the matrix compressibility. The
traditional double porosity model of Warren and Root uses Equation (1) to
model the uid transfer between the matrix and the fracture in a naturally
fractured reservoir.
This type of model does not account for the pressure transient within
the matrix. There is another model for uid exchange between the matrix
and fracture, which accounts for the pressure transient in the matrix block
by solving the following equation



1 pm
2
pm =
,
(3)
m t
where m = km /cm is the matrix hydraulic diffusivity. This type of model
is called a transient transfer model and does not use the matrix-fracture transfer shape factor. In the transient model, the uid transfer rate
between the matrix and fracture is proportional to the pressure gradient at
the matrix block surface as given by Nanba (1991)
Qm =

Akm
pm |matrix
Vm

face ,

(4)

where A and Vm are the matrix block surface area and matrix block volume, respectively. Petroleum engineering literature shows that the shape
factor remains a controversial topic. A large body of research in the
area of naturally fractured reservoirs simulation is devoted to representing
an accurate matrix fracture exchange term (Kazemi et al., 1976; Thomas
et al., 1983; Kazemi and Gilman, 1993; Lim and Aziz, 1995; Quintard and
Whittaker, 1996; Noetinger and Estebenet, 1998; Bourbiaux et al., 1999;
Coats, 1999; Noetinger et al., 2000; Penuela et al., 2002a,b; Sadra et al.,
2002). In spite of extensive research on fractured reservoir modeling, no
critical improvements have been made during the last two decades. Even for
the single-phase ow problem, various investigators derive different shape
factors. The shape factor is usually derived from a simple mechanism of
pressure diffusion with constant fracture pressure as a boundary condition,

54

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

whereas the physical exchange mechanism in fractured reservoirs is more

complex.
This paper investigates the boundary condition dependency of shape
factor, which is not reported in the earlier works. To investigate the effect
of boundary conditions on the shape factor, the diffusivity equation is
solved analytically in Laplace domain for different depletion regimes in
the fracture. Constant ux at a matrix-fracture interface, exponential, and
linear pressure depletion schemes are investigated. Results show that the
shape factor depends on the fracture pressure and how it changes with
time.
The following sections present, rst, a brief review of previous research
works on shape factor. The subsequent section describes the methodology used in this study. The third section presents solutions of the diffusivity equation for different boundary conditions and geometries. The studys
results are then presented, leading to the discussion and conclusions.
2. Previous Works
In the following section, we describe briey the relevant literature dealing
with the single-phase shape factor. Barenblatt et al. (1960) introduced the
classic dual porosity concept in the early 1960s. Warren and Root (1963)
applied this concept to reservoir engineering, principally for well testing
applications. They used a geometrical approach to derive the shape factors
for one, two, and three sets of orthogonal fractures.
In another study, Kazemi et al. (1976) introduced the shape factor in
double porosity simulators. They obtained shape factors by discretization
of pressure equation for single-phase ow using the standard seven point
nite difference. Since then, this shape factor formulation has been used
in standard reservoir simulators. Thomas et al. (1983) presented another
expression for the shape factor that was validated by multiphase ow
numerical simulations. Table I gives a summary of shape factors obtained
by these and other authors.
Based on the solution of the diffusivity equation with constant pressure
at the matrix boundary, Coats (1989) derived the PSS shape factor constants of 12, 28.45, and 49.58 for one-, two-, and three-dimensional transfer cases (See Table I). Kazemi and Gilman (1993) used the rst term series
approximation of the analytical solution of the three-dimensional diffusivity equation and derived the shape factor. They used a step change boundary condition in their derivation. Similarly, Lim and Aziz (1995) provided
the analytical shape factor constants for different matrix block geometries.
They used the approximate solution of the single-phase diffusivity equation with a step change boundary condition at the matrix-fracture interface. They validated their results with ne grid simulations as well as dual

55

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Table I. Summary of the shape factor constants L2 found in literature

Investigator(s)

Approach

Fluid ow

1D

2D

3D

Transient/
PSS

Warren and Root

(1963)
Kazemi et al.
(1976)
Thomas et al.
(1983)
Coats (1999)
Coats (1999)
Kazemi and Gilman
(1993)
Lim and Aziz
(1994)
Quintard and
Whitaker (1996)
Bourbiaux et al.
(1999)
Noetinger et al.
(2000)
Penuela et al.
(2002)
Sarda et al. (2002)

Geometrical

Single phase

12

32

60

PSS

Numerical

Single phase

12

PSS

Numerical

Two phase

25

Transient

Analytical
Numerical
Analytical

Single phase
Two phase
Single phase

12
8

28.45
16

49.58
24
29.61

PSS
PSS
Transient

Analytical

Single phase

19.74

29.61

Transient

Averaging

Single phase

12

28.4

49.6

Numerical

Single phase

20

Random walk

Single phase

11.5

27.1

Numerical

Two phase

9.87

Transient

Numerical

Single phase

24

48

Transient

9.87

PSS

Pseudo-steady state transfer model.

porosity simulations. They suggested that the shape factor depends on the
geometry and physics of pressure diffusion in the matrix. Here, we will
show that the shape factor also depends on the way the pressure changes
in the fracture.
Quintard and Whitaker (1996) used the volume-averaging technique to
derive the shape factors for single-phase ow of slightly compressible uids.
Their values are exactly the values obtained by Coats using the analytical
solution of the diffusivity equation under the PSS assumption and constant
pressure at the matrix boundaries. Bourbiaux et al. (1999) derived a shape
factor for two-dimensional matrix-fracture transfer based on a single-phase
ne grid simulation and PSS assumption. To evaluate the shape factor, they
performed a ne grid simulation on a square matrix block under constant
fracture pressure at the matrix boundaries. Using the results of the ne grid
simulation, the shape factor is back calculated. They derived a shape factor

56

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

that has a transient behavior and converges to a constant value of 20.1 at

late time.
Noetinger et al. (2000) presented single-phase ow shape factors calculated based on the continuous time random walk technique (CTRW). They
compared the CTRW derived shape factors with a numerical simulation
and found a good agreement. Penuela et al. (2002 a, b) developed a timedependent shape factor for slab-shape matrix block that converges to the
Lim and Aziz shape factor at late time based on the analytical solution of
the diffusivity equation with constant fracture pressure as a boundary condition. They implemented the shape factor in a double porosity simulator
to perform the ow simulations.
Another effort to derive the single-phase shape factor has been presented by Sarda et al. (2002). They used numerical simulations of a single-phase uid ow on discrete fracture models to derive the shape-factor
constant. In their model, shape factor was spatially dependent on the local
properties of the matrix blocks and the surrounding fractures.
While a few investigators have modeled the transient behavior for
matrix-fracture shape factor (Bourbiaux et al., 1999; Penuela et al., 2002
a, b), the derivation of the conventional shape factor for matrix-fracture
transfer does not account for the pressure transient in the matrix blocks
and the pressure regime in the fracture. Furthermore, none of the matrixfracture shape factor obtained in previous papers allows for a continuous
pressure change in the facture. In this paper, we account for both pressure
transients in the matrix and pressure change in the fracture by using the
Laplace domain analytical solution of diffusivity equation for the matrix
block, subject to various pressure regimes in the fracture. The following
section describes the method we used to derive the single-phase shape factor for matrix-fracture transfer.
3. Methodology
Warren and Root (1963) presented a relationship for dual porosity systems that relates the matrix-fracture exchange term to uid mobility, potential difference, and shape factor as given by Equation (1). To incorporate
the effects of the pressure transient in the matrix into the shape factor,
the diffusivity equation for the matrix block is solved and then an average
value of the block pressure over the block volume can be introduced into
Equation (1). The matrix-fracture exchange term is related to the rate of
mass accumulation in the matrix block and can be shown by Equation (2).
Combining Equations (1) and (2) leads to the denition of the single-phase
shape factor:



pm
1
=
.
(5)
t
m (pm pf )

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

57

Determination of p m in Equation (5) requires solution of the matrix pressure subject to the appropriate initial and boundary conditions. The governing partial differential equation that describes the single-phase pressure
diffusion in a matrix block is given by Equation (3). This equation can be
solved by the Laplace transform method with an arbitrary boundary condition. The Laplace domain solution
for matrix pressure Pm (x, s
), can then
be integrated to obtain the average matrix block pressure in the Laplace
domain P m (s
), as given below:

1
Pm =
Pm dVm ,
(6)
Vm
Vm

where s
is the Laplace variable with respect to t. The parameter P m is

the average matrix pressure in the Laplace domain and can be inverted to
the time domain by an appropriate Laplace inversion method. To obtain
the shape factor from Equation (5), one also needs the time derivative of
the average matrix block pressure. Accordingly, from the Laplace transform
theorem


pm

= s
P m pm (0).
(7)
t
Substituting all terms in Equation (5) gives the matrix-fracture transfer
shape factor.



1 s
P m p m (0)
=
(8)


.
m
1 P m pf
Equation (8) suggests that calculation of shape factor can be performed by
nding an expression for average matrix pressure in Laplace space, P m (s
).
In the following section, Equation (8) is used to obtain the shape factor
for different geometries, subject to different boundary conditions in the
fracture.
4. Solutions
The solution of the diffusivity equation that leads to the derivation of the
shape factor for various boundary conditions and different matrix block
geometries is presented in this part. This is demonstrated here for a particular case. The solutions for other cases are presented later.
Consider a slab shape matrix block of thickness hm , with initial pressure
pi sandwiched by two parallel planes of fractures with pressure pf where


In this paper, capital letters are used for variables in Laplace domain, and the
sign is used to denote average values.

58

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

in general pf can be a function of time. The governing partial differential

equation and its associated initial and boundary conditions are given by
2 pm pm
=
,
2
tD
xD

(9)

tD = 0, 0 xD 1,
pm (xD , tD ) = 0,
pm (xD , tD ) = pf , tD > 0, xD = 1,
pm (xD , tD )
= 0,
tD > 0, xD = 0,
xD
where
p = p(xD , tD ) pi .
The pressure pi is the initial matrix block pressure. The parameters xD and
tD are dimensionless length and time respectively and are dened as follows:
xD = x/ lc

and

tD = m t/ lc2 ,

(10)

where lc is the matrix block characteristic length. For a slab shaped matrix
block we consider half of the matrix-block thickness as the characteristic
length. The characteristic lengths of cylindrical and spherical matrix blocks
are considered to be equal to the block radius.
To investigate the effect of fracture pressure on shape factor, pm is
obtained for different boundary conditions using the Laplace transform
method. In this study, we are considering step change, exponential, and linear pressure depletion as well as constant ux boundary cases. In addition to
the slab geometry, the diffusivity equation is also solved for cylindrical and
spherical geometry subject to the mentioned boundary condition. Functions
describing the pressure regime in the fracture are given in Table II.
Equation (9) with a constant boundary condition pf can be solved to
nd the pressure distribution in the matrix block. The Laplace base solution is given by the following equation (Ozisik, 1980)


1 hm 2 pf cosh(xD s)
Pm =
,
(11)

m 2
s cosh s
where s is the Laplace variable with respect to tD . Equation (11) can be
integrated over the block volume to nd the average block pressure given
by:


1 hm 2 pf tanh s
P m =
.
(12)

m 2
s s

59

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Table II. Matrix pressure and its average in slab shape for different boundary conditions
Matrix and
fracture BC

Pm

Constant

1
m

pressure pf
1
m

Linear
decline, pf =
pi (1 t)
1/t

1
m

Exponential,
pf = pi et

1
m

Constant

Pm
 hm 2
pi
2

 hm 2
pi
2

 hm 2
pi
2

 hm 2
pi
2

D s)
+ cosh(x
s cosh s

sp2i

pi

1
m


cosh(xD s)

cosh( s)

1
s

1
s+
2

m hm
Q4k
m

1
m

 cosh(xD s) 

cosh( s)


cosh(xD D s)

s s sinh s

1
m

1
m

 hm 2
pi
2

 hm 2
pi
2

 hm 2
pi
2

 hm 2
pi
2

) tanh
+ (pf psi
s

s 2pi s tanh



s
spi s 1 s+

tanh
 2 s 
hm
Qm
4k
s2
m

ux, Qm

Before we substitute for P m in Equation (8), we need to distinguish

between the Laplace transform parameters when transform is taken with
respect to t and when taken with respect to tD called s
and s, respectively
(Sabet, 1991). By noting that the Laplace parameters s
and s are related
by s
= m / lc2 s, one can write Equation (8) as
h2m = 

4
1 {sP m }

1 {P m } pf

.

Equation (12) can be incorporated in Equation (13) to obtain



s

1 tanh
s
2

hm = 
 .
s
m
1 1 tanh

4
h2
s s

(13)

(14)

The product group h2m is dimensionless and will be called shape factor.
For cylindrical and spherical matrix blocks, hm will be replaced by R. The
transfer-shape factor for a slab matrix with step change in fracture pressure
is obtained using Equation (14) and by inverting its Laplace functions into
the real-time domain using an appropriate Laplace inversion algorithm. In
this work we have used the Stehfest algorithm (Stehfest, 1979).
Similarly, we have obtained the shape factor when the fracture pressure
is a continuous function of time. The solutions are given in Table II. Exponential and linear functions have been considered. The shape factors for
other matrix geometries are calculated using a similar approach. Tables III
and IV show the results for cylindrical and spherical blocks, respectively
(Hassanzadeh, 2002). The analogy between cylindrical (spherical) blocks,

60

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

Table III. Matrix pressure and its average in cylindrical shape for different boundary
conditions
Matrix and fracture
BC

Pm
2
Rm
m
2
Rm
m

Constant pressure pf
Linear decline, pf =
pi (1 t)
1/t

2
Rm
m

Exponential,
pf = pi et

2
Rm
m

Constant ux, Qm

Pm

pi

s
pi
s

pi
s
pi
s

i ) I0 (r s)
+ (pf p
s
I1 (Ro s)

sp2i II0 (r(Ds) s)

2
Rm
m
2
Rm
m

pi

1
s

1
s+

2 Q
Rm
m
2km

I0 (rD s)

2
Rm
m

I1 ( s)


I0 (rD s)

s sI1 ( s)

2
Rm
m

pi

s
pi
s

+ (psf ps i ) 2II 0((s)s)

1

i I0 (s)

s2p
2 s I ( s)

pi
s


2
s

psi 1 s+
s

pi
s

2
Rm
2km

Qm
s2


I0 ( s)

I1 ( s)

Table IV. Matrix pressure and its average in spherical matrix block for different boundary
conditions
Matrix and
fracture BC
Constant

Pm
2
Rm
m

pressure pf
Linear

2
Rm
m

decline, pf =
pi (1 t)
1/t
Exponential,

2
Rm
m

pf = pi et
Constant

2
Rm
m

Pm

pi
s

i) 1
+ (pf p
s
rD

pi
s

sp2i

pi
s

pis


pi
s


sinh(rD s)

sinh s

2
Rm
m


1 sinh(rD s)

s rD sinh s

1
s

1
s+

2
Rm
m


1 sinh(rD s)
rD sinh s

2 Q
Rm
3 sinh(rD s)
m 

3km s cosh s 1 sinh s
R
m

2
Rm
m

2
Rm
m

pi
s




3
i)
+ (pf p
coth s 1s
s
s

pi
s

sp2i


coth

s 1s



i 1 s
s3p
s+
s


coth s 1s
 2 

Rm
pi
Qm
3k
s
s2
m
pi
s

ux, Qm

with matrix blocks intersected by two (three) sets of perpendicular fractures

is presented under discussions.
5. Results
In the following we present the values of shape factor for blocks of different geometries exposed to fractures with different depletion schemes. The
results are presented in the form of a dimensionless group ( L2 ) as a function of dimensionless time. Following Lim and Aziz (1995), L is fracture
spacing that results in the equivalent volume of a cylinder and or a sphere

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

61

of radius R for two and three sets of intersected fractures, respectively.

Exact denition of L is given in the Nomenclature.
5.1. slab blocks
Figure 1 shows the shape factor for a slab block exposed to different depletion schemes in the fracture. The conventional boundary condition that is
normally used in literature is a step change for the fracture pressure. Our
solutions with this boundary condition are shown in Figure 1, and indicate
a stabilized value of 9.87 at large dimensionless times. Lim and Aziz (1995)
have obtained the same stabilized value.
Another boundary condition that is used is the exponential decline for
fracture pressure with an exponent equals to a. We used different values from 0.0001 to 1 for the exponent. The results in Figure 1 show that
for high values of a, the shape factor starts with a transient period and
then converges to the shape factor value for the constant fracture pressure
boundary condition. For very small values of a, the shape factor starts at
higher values and converges to a constant value of 12. The above results
show that not only the transient values of shape factor depends on fracture pressure regime but also the late time values of shape factor depends

Figure 1. Shape factor constant for slab shape matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions.

62

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

on how pressure changes in the fracture. It is found that a range of shape

factors between 9.87 and 12 can be obtained by varying the exponent a.
The exponential function with large exponent values and constant pressure
depletion regimes lead to a value of 9.87 while the exponential function
with smaller exponents, linear, and constant ux depletion regimes give a
late time value of 12. The dimensionless time for stabilization of the value
of shape factor depends on the depletion scheme in the fracture. It is noted
that for a linear decline, the shape-factor constant is not a function of
depletion rate a.
The low and high stabilized values of shape factor are roughly 20%
apart. The practical signicance of this is that the fracture-matrix uid
exchange rates as calculated from Equation (14) and by the two shapefactor constants would be apart roughly by the same magnitude. This is
further investigated in the following section.
5.2. cylindrical blocks
Similar to the shape factors obtained for a slab, we obtained two different values for shape factor both of which have been reported previously.
Figure 2 shows the results for a cylindrical matrix block. For a constant
fracture pressure boundary condition, the shape factor shows a transient
period and then converges to a constant value of 18.2. Lim and Aziz
(1995) reported a similar value. For an exponential pressure decline curve,
results show that a smaller a gives a higher shape factor during transient
period, such that for a very small value of a, the shape factor stabilized
at a value of 25.13, which is about 40% larger that the value of 18.2. The
results for the linear pressure decline are not function of depletion rate and
the stabilized value is similar to the exponential decline with very small
values of a. Applying the constant ux boundary condition results in a
stabilized value of 25.13, similar to the linear decline boundary condition.
Results reveal that the time to stabilization is different for different fracture
boundary condition.
5.3. spherical blocks
Figure 3 gives the results for the spherical matrix block. For a constant
pressure at fracture, the shape factor starts at large values and then declines
to a constant value of 25.65. Lim and Aziz (1995) reported a similar value
for such a boundary condition. The shape factor calculated for the exponential decline with a large value of a is higher than the shape factor for
the constant pressure case at early time. However, they converge to the
same value at late time. As a decreases, the shape factor shows larger values at early time and longer transient period. For very small values of a,

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

63

Figure 2. Shape factor constant for cylindrical shape matrix block subject to different boundary conditions.

Figure 3. Shape factor constant for spherical shape matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions.

64

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

Table V. Shape factor constant for different geometry matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions
Type of boundary condition

Constant fracture pressure

Exponential, a = 1
Exponential, a = 0.0001
Linear, all a
Constant ux

Shape factor constants, L2

Slab

Cylindrical

Spherical

9.87
9.87
12
12
12

18.2
18.2
25.13
25.5
25.13

25.65
25.65
39
39
39

the shape factor converges to a constant value of 39. The linear pressure
decline boundary condition gives a similar shape factor as the exponential
case with a small value of a. Applying the constant ux boundary condition results in a stabilized value of 39 similar to the linear decline boundary condition.
6. Signicance of the Results
In summary, it is found that depending on the boundary condition two
stabilized shape factor constant can be obtained for each geometry, which
could be 2040% apart. Results also reveal that the time to stabilization
depends on the boundary condition imposed on the matrix block. Furthermore, it was shown in Figures 13 that the different stabilized values can
be obtained by applying an exponential boundary condition with various
a exponents, where large values of the exponent give the smaller stabilized
value of the shape-factor constant. These stabilized shape factor constants
for different cases are presented in Table V.
The stabilized value of the shape-factor constant is usually used in the
traditional double porosity model. This can cause the following two types
of errors: (1) the matrix-fracture transfer would be underestimated at early
times, because Figures 13 show that at early times, the actual value of
shape-factor constant is larger than the stabilized value. (2) Depending on
the stabilized value of the shape factor chosen, the calculated value could
be signicantly different even at late times.
The essential question is what is the magnitude of the error if one uses the
stabilized value of shape factor instead of its transient value? We investigated
the error introduced in the single-phase matrix fracture mass exchange term
if one uses the stabilized value instead of the appropriate transient value.
Here, we dene the relative errors as the difference between the ow rates
as calculated using the transient shape-factor and the stabilized-shape factor,

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

65

Figure 4. Relative error for a slab shape matrix block subject to different boundary
conditions.

divided by the rate using the transient-shape factor. A positive value would
indicate an underestimation of the transfer term by using the stabilized values. The results in Figures 46 illustrate that using the stabilized value of the
shape-factor constant at early time results a signicant underestimation of
the rate of uid transfer from matrix into fracture. For example, for a slab
shape matrix block if one uses the stabilized value of shape factor, the calculated rate of mass transfer from matrix block into fracture at dimensionless
time of 0.04 would be 3050% lower than the actual transient case. The relative error dies down for cases where the larger stabilized shape factor was
used. On the other hand, using the lower value of the stabilized shape-factor
leads to an overestimation of the matrix-fracture transfer term late times. The
difference, which is of the order of 2060% depending on the matrix geometry, does not approach zero. While, depending on the boundary condition,
the magnitude of the transfer rate may be small, nevertheless the error would
remain if one uses the lower values of the stabilized shape factor.
7. Discussion
Lim and Aziz (1995) approximated the pressure diffusion in a matrix block
surrounded by two and three sets of perpendicular fractures by solving

66

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

Figure 5. Relative error for a cylindrical shape matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions.

Figure 6. Relative error for a spherical shape matrix block subject to different
boundary conditions.

67

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

the diffusivity equation in cylindrical and spherical geometry, respectively.

According to Lim and Aziz, for two sets of perpendicular fractures with
both sets of fractures having the spacing L, the equivalent radius of the
cylinder is the radius that would give the same volume as a bar with a
L L square-shaped cross section. For spherical matrix blocks, Lim and
Aziz used an equivalent radius of the sphere that yields the same volume as
a cube with length L on all sides. Here, we have used a similar approximation to derive the shape factor for such matrix and fracture congurations.
Determining an accurate matrix-fracture transfer shape has been the
subject of several petroleum engineering studies. Previous studies of shape
factor are based on constant fracture pressure at the matrix boundaries.
This work investigates the effects of other boundary conditions on the
matrix-fracture transfer. Our results show that in addition to the matrix
shape, the shape factor constant also depends on the pressure in the fracture and how it changes with time. The results presented in this paper indicate that one can obtain the different values of shape factor reported in the
literature by choosing different boundary conditions.
However, the time variability of boundary conditions can be accounted
for by using the Duhamels theorem. In the following it is shown that using
large time-steps can strongly affect the uid exchange between matrix and
fracture. For instance, in theory a linear pressure decline in the fracture can
be modeled by an innite number of innitesimal step changes and application of the Duhamels theorem to calculate the pressure and uid efux.
We consider a case where the matrix pressure can be approximated by
its average value. Using Equations (1) and (2) assuming the matrix block
behaves as a lumped system, the pressure change in the matrix block can
be described by the following ordinary differential equation
d p m
+ p m = pf
dt

(15)

where = km /m cm

(16)

We solve the above problem using Duhamels theorem and its stepwise
approximation and compare the solutions. Solution for this ODE for constant and linear (pf = pi (1
tD ),
1/tD ) fracture pressure are given by
the following equations, respectively.


p m (tD ) = pf + pi pf e

2
4

tD

(constant fracture pressure)



2
4



4 tD
p m (tD ) = pi (1 tD ) + 2 1 e

(17)

(linear fracture pressure)

(18)

68

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

As mentioned the average matrix pressure and uid efux for a linear
fracture pressure can be obtained by superposition of the constant fracture pressure solutions. However, the accuracy of the superposition solution
depends on the number of steps used. To demonstrate the effect of number
of steps on the average matrix pressure and uid efux, result of the linear
pressure decline in the fracture and the superposition solutions of the constant fracture pressure with different number of steps are compared in Figure 7. The dimensionless efux in this gure (7a) represents the uid efux
divided by its stabilized value under the linear fracture decline. Results
show that using superposition of large pressure steps underestimates the
uid efux signicantly. The average matrix pressure and the uid efux for
a linear fracture pressure can be obtained by superposition of the constant
pressure solution only if small pressure steps are used. Therefore, in practice using large time-steps in numerical simulations can potentially introduce large errors in simulation results.
We found a shape factor constant of 9.87 and 12 for a slab shape matrix
block. Warren and Root (1963) and Lim and Aziz (1995) reported values
of 12 and 9.87, respectively. For the two-dimensional case, we found values of 18.2 and 25.13. A shape factor in this range was reported before
by different authors such as Kazemi and Gillman (1993), Lim and Aziz
(1995), Bourbiaux et al. (1999), and Sadra et al. (2002). For the threedimensional cases, we derived values of roughly 25 and 39. Thomas et al.
(1983), Kazemi and Gillman (1993), and Lim and Aziz (1995) reported
shape factor values of 25, 29.61, and 29.61, respectively, for three-dimensional transfer cases.
(a)

(b)

Figure 7. Dimensionless uid efux (a) and dimensionless matrix pressure (b) for a
linear pressure decline in fracture as a function of dimensionless time compared
with the superposition solutions of the constant fracture pressure steps. Solutions
are compared for different numbers of steps.

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

69

The focus of this paper was on single-phase ow between matrix and

fracture. Under multi-phase ow conditions, capillary and gravity forces
could become important and the saturation functions lead to nonlinearity of the ow equations. It is expected that under these conditions, the
transfer shape-factor depends on many other factors and using a constant
value, may lead to signicant errors. This may explain (but not justify) the
common practice where the shape factor is treated as a matching parameter (Thomas, 1983, Bourbiaux et al., 1999).
8. Conclusions
Previous studies have shown the effect of matrix shape and ow physics on
the shape-factor constant. In this study, we have investigated the effect of
the pressure depletion regime in the fracture surrounding the matrix on the
single-phase ow shape factor. Laplace domain analytical solutions of the
diffusivity equation for various matrix block geometries and boundary conditions presented here have led to the following conclusions:
The matrix-fracture transfer shape factor depends on the pressure

regime in the fracture and how it changes with time. Depending on

the pressure regime in the fracture a range of stabilized values can be
obtained. The upper value is obtained from a slow (linear or exponential) pressure depletion in the fracture and the lower bound by a fast
depletion in the fracture.
The time variability of the fracture boundary condition can be
accounted for by the superposition solution of the constant fracture
pressure only through a large number of pressure steps.
The boundary condition dependency of a shape factor can be characterized by applying an exponential-decline boundary condition with varying decline exponents, where fast declines lead to a smaller value of
the shape-factor constant. A range of shape factors can be obtained by
assigning different exponents.
It is shown that using the stabilized shape factor introduces large errors
in the rate of matrix-fracture transfer by uid expansion at early and
late times.
For single-phase ow applications, using the shape factor is meaningful when it is derived based on an appropriate geometry, physics, and
boundary conditions.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jacques Hagoort (Hagoort & Assoc.) for his
comments and discussion that greatly improved the earlier version of the

70

HASSAN HASSANZADEH AND MEHRAN POOLADI-DARVISH

paper. After the completion of this work, we have noticed a study by

Chang [20] using an approach different than ours, that has led to similar
results. The nancial support for this work was provided by Alberta Energy
Research Institute (AERI) and NSERC. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The rst author wishes to acknowledge the nancial support of the
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) during the course of this study.
References
Barenblatt, G. E., Zheltov, I. P. and Kochina, I. N.: 1960, Basic concept on the theory of
homogeneous liquids in ssured rocks, J. Appl. Math. Mech. 20, 852864.
Bourbiaux, B., Granet, S., Landereau, P., Noetinger, B., Sarda, S. and Sabathier, J. C.: 1999,
Scaling up matrix-fracture transfer in dual-porosity models: theory and application, SPE
paper 56557 presented at the SPE Annual Simulation Symposium, Houston, Feb. 36
Chang, M. M.: 1995, Analytical Solutions of Single- and Two-phase Flow Problems of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs: Theoretical Shape Factors and Transfer Functions, PhD Dissertation, The University of Tulsa.
Coats, K. H.: 1999, Implicit compositional simulation of single-porosity and dual-porosity
reservoirs, SPE paper 18427 presented at the SPE Reservoir Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 36.
Hassanzadeh, H.: 2002, Naturally Fractured reservoirs modeling project, annual progress
Report No. 1, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S., Portereld, K. L. and Zeman, P. R.: 1976, Numerical simulation
of water-oil ow in naturally fractured reservoirs, SPEJ December, 317326.
Kazemi, H. and Gilman, J. R.: 1993, Multiphase Flow in Fractured Petroleum Reservoirs,
in: J. Bear, C. F. Tsang, and G. de Marsily (eds.), Flow and Contaminant Transport in
Fractured Rock, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 267323.
Lim, K. T. and Aziz, K.: 1995, Matrix-fracture transfer shape factors for dual-porosity simulators, J. Petroleum Sci. Eng. 13, 169.
Nanba, T.: 1991, Numerical simulation of pressure transients in naturally fractured reservoirs with unsteady-state matrix-to-fracture ow, SPE Paper 22719.
Noetinger, B., Estebenet, T. and Landereau, P.: 2000, Up-scaling of double porosity fractured
media using continuous-time random walks methods, Transport Porous Media 39(3), 315.
Noetinger, B. and Estebenet, T.: 1998, Application of random walk methods on unstructured grid to up-scale fractured reservoirs, presented at the 1998 European Conference
on Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Peebles, Scotland, Sep 811.
Ozisik, N.: 1980, Heat Conduction, Wiley, New York.
Penuela, G, Hughes, R. G., Civan, F. and Wiggins, M. L.: 2002a, Time-dependent shape factors for inter-porosity ow in naturally fractured gas-condensate reservoirs, SPE 75524,
in: Proceedings of the 13th SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK,
April 1317.
Penuela, G. , Hughes, R. G., Civan, F. and Wiggins, M. L.: 2002b, Time-dependent shape
factor for secondary recovery in naturally fractured reservoirs, SPE paper 75234.
Quintard, M. and Whitaker, S.: 1996, Transport in chemically and mechanically heterogeneous porous media, Advances Water Res. 19(1), 29.
Sarda, S., Jeannin, L, Basquet, R. and Bourbiaux, B.: 2002, Hydraulic characterization of
fractured reservoirs: simulation on discrete fracture model, SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. J.
April, 154.
Sabet, M. A.: 1991, Well Test Analysis, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.

EFFECTS OF FRACTURE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

71

Stehfest, H.: 1979, Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms algorithm 368 communications of the ACM. 13(1), 47.
Thomas, L. K., Dixon, T. N. and Pierson, R. G.: 1983, Fractured reservoir simulation,
SPEJ, February, 4254.
Warren, J. E. and Root, P. J.: 1963, The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs, SPEJ,
September, 245255.