SPE 84218

Modeling Fracture Tip Screenout and Application for Fracture Height Growth Control
M. Bai, TerraTek; R.H. Morales, SPE, Dowell Schlumberger; R. Suarez-Rivera, SPE, TerraTek, W. D. Norman, SPE,
ChevronTexaco; S. Green, TerraTek
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 8 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper discusses the use of numerical simulations for
predicting the onset and development of fracture tip screenout
(TSO). It presents a parametric study for fracture containment
to prevent height growth into water boundaries or a gas cap,
under conditions that approximately simulate Gulf of Mexico
reservoirs (weakly consolidated, high permeability soft
formations). Different typical field cases were analyzed to
demonstrate height containment at TSO conditions. The
perforation interval is critical to height containment, with
perforation height of only a fraction of the total pay interval
required in some cases in order to create TSO.
Introduction
As background, this section summarizes (1) under what
conditions a TSO occurs; (2) how the planar threedimensional simulator TerraFRAC, used in this analysis,
models that mechanism; and (3) how simulations can provide
an understanding of the mechanisms occurring during the frac
and pack operation.
A typical TSO treatment consists of pumping a volume of
proppant free fracturing fluid (pad) followed by a volume of
proppant laden slurry. The pad, although small in volume,
may develop most of the final fracture geometry. The slurry
upon entering the fracture dehydrates due to rapid leakoff of
the fracturing fluid and packs the fracture with proppant
particularly near the fracture tip. The packed fracture creates a
pressure drop along the fracture that eventually restrains
and/or arrests fracture growth once most or the entire fracture
tip is packed; i.e. a tip screenout. When this happens the net
pressure near the well bore increases, usually rapidly.

Further pumping results in inflation of the fracture, and

eventually in some cases to fracture extension and a
corresponding reduction in net frac pressure. If proppant
dehydration via leakoff is effectiveparticularly near the
fracture tippacking of the new fracture area will again occur
with another pressure build up results.
If during the process the fracture breaks into a low leakoff
formation (i.e. breaks into the overlying shale for example),
dehydration likely will not occur and the fracture will grow
unlimited without the occurrence of a TSO. Net pressure will
generally continue to decrease.1-3
The planar three-dimensional simulator for this analysis
uses a progressively refined and dense mesh of small
triangular elements that allow true calculation of the fracture
geometry based on fracture mechanics that advances the crack.
Proppant transport is calculated as well as leakoff into the
formation. Slurry dehydration that occurs and proppant
density throughout the fracture area are thereby calculated4,5.
The TerraFRAC simulator used here allows calculation
of the fracture (or inflation of the fracture) as pumping
continues, and does not require an arbitrary definition of
TSO and a termination of the calculation. Proppant density
at each time step in the calculation and at all locations
throughout the fracture may be viewed, and screenouti.e.
the reaching of a critical proppant density where further
packing is not physically possibleis always known. This is
very important, as screenout may therefore be carefully
studied including the onset, the transition to complete tip
screenout, the inflation of the fracture, and finally further
extension or breakout of the fracture. This helps to determine
net pressure allowable before fracture breakout and to avoid
overestimates of fracture width.
Case Descriptions
Several cases have been investigated to understand (1) the
effect of the perforation interval (relative to the total pay zone)
on fracture containment and (2) the ability to avoid fracture
growth downward into what might be a water saturated zone.
In all cases TSO was obtained, and net pressure is noted along
with fracture geometry, fracture width, and proppant
concentration throughout the fracture.
In all the figures, the net pressure is the pressure at the
fracture center near the wellbore, fracture length is the
distance horizontal from the well bore to the outer most tip of

SPE 84218

one wing of the fracture, fracture height is the total height of

the fracture at the well bore, and fracture width is the
maximum width of the fracture along the wellbore. The
proppant density is defined as proppant concentration in
pounds per gallon (proppant/liquid) or as ppa as shown in
Tables 2 and 3.
The input data for the simulations for a typical Gulf of
Mexico oil reservoir are listed in Table 1. The pumping stage,
injected fluid volume, proppant concentration and proppant
mass are listed in Tables 2 and 3, for Cases 1 and 2
respectively. For all cases shown here the pumping rate is 20
barrels per minute for all pumping stages.
Table 1 Input Data
Reservoir pressure (psi)
Sand Permeability (md)
Sand Porosity (%)
Sand Youngs modulus (psi)
Shale Youngs modulus (psi)
Sand Poissons ratio
Shale Poissons ratio
Fluid density (lb/ft3)
n
K
Leakoff coefficient (Case 1) (ft/min)
Leakoff coefficient (Case 2) (ft/min)
Reservoir (sand) thickness (ft)
Perforation interval (Case 1) (ft)
Perforation interval (Case 2) (ft)
Top of sand (ft)
Top of overlying shale (ft)
Top of underlying shale (ft)

4300
100
28
750000
1000000
0.23
0.32
62.4
0.5
0.056
0.02
0.03
120
10040 ~
10080
10010 ~
10050
10000
9900
10120

Case 1
Figures 1 through 4 show the net pressure versus pumping
time and fracture length, height, and width also as a function
of pumping time. Three sequential events are apparent and
marked on the Figures, including (a) the onset of TSO, (b)
complete TSO (not marked but the point where net pressure
increases sharply), and (c) a first fracture re-growth and a
second fracture re-growth. At about 3 minutes after the slurry
injection begins, the pressure-time curve (i.e. in log-log format
showed in Figure 1) shows a rising trend representing the
onset of TSO. The proppant concentration at this time shows
a substantial portion of the fracture tip region has reached the
critical proppant packing whereby no further proppant
concentration is physically possible for that fracture width.
It should be noted that the industry standard suggests TSO
occurs when the pressure-time log-log plot approaches a slope
of one1 (or slightly greater depending on the formation
properties). However based on the simulation results here, the
onset of TSO seems to occur before the curve reaches unit
slope, since the proppant has already fully packed along a
substantial part of the fracture tip. Therefore, the transition
period between the onset of TSO and the time when the

pressure-time curve reaching a slope of one, is important for a

successful TSO to develop.
At 5 minutes after the injection begins, the change of slope
of the pressure-time curve (in Figure 1) corresponds to a
sudden but small height re-growth, which is very clearly
shown in Figure 3 (and shows also as a small length re-growth
in Figure 4). The second fracture re-growth occurs at 7
minutes after the injection begins, and shows very clearly as a
sudden change of net pressure, as well as a change in fracture
dimensions. It is clear that fracture re-growth may show much
clearer as a fracture dimension change, and may be much less
obvious to see on the net pressure log-log plot.
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Table 2 Case 1 Pumping Schedule

Fluid
Proppant
Proppant
Volume (bbl) Concentration Mass (lbm)
(ppa)
20.42
0
0
16.71
0.5
351
15.93
1.5
1004
15.35
2.8
1805
14.88
4.2
2625
14.47
6.1
3707
14.1
7.9
4678
13.77
9.3
5378
13.46
12.4
7010
13.18
13.8
7639
13
15.2
8299
12.5
17.3
9082
12
19
9595

At 5, 7, and 9 minutes after the injection pumping begins,

the distributions of proppant concentration (in pounds per
gallon of clear liquid not in pounds per foot of fracture area)
are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7. It is noted that the proppant
bridging (i.e. the critical proppant concentration where no
further packing for that fracture width is physically possible)
always starts along the fracture boundary and then evolves to
other parts of fracture as the pumping continues. The fracture
re-growth (at 5 minutes and 7 minutes) may be deduced from
Figures 6 and 7 where the suddenly lower proppant
concentrations (densities) appear in the fracture tip areas.
Case 2
Case 2 is similar to Case 1, but is aimed to verify whether a
TSO can be created in a manner that would prevent downward
growth of the fracture that might grow into a water saturated
zone in the lower part of the pay formation. For this Case, the
perforated depth range is 10,010 to 10,050 feet. The top of
underlying shale is 90 feet below the center of the perforation
interval (i.e., at 10,030 feet).

SPE 84218

Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Table 3 Case 2 Pumping Schedule

Fluid
Proppant
Proppant
Volume
Concentration
Mass (lbm)
(bbl)
(ppa)
20.42
0
0
16.71
0.5
351
15.93
0.8
535
15.35
1.5
967
14.88
2.3
1437
14.47
3.2
1945
14.1
4.2
2487
13.77
5.3
3065
13.46
6.4
3618
13.18
7.5
4152
13
8.6
4696
12.5
9.7
5092
12
10.8
5443

Figures 8 through 11 show the net pressure and fracture

length, height, and width as a function of pumping injection
time for Case 2. Except for the variations in the time of event
occurrences, the results are very similar to those in Case 1 (i.e.
as shown in Figures 1 to 4). The TSO occurs at about 3.5
minutes, while the first fracture re-growth occurs at 6 minutes
(which seems to be primarily a height growth), and the second
fracture re-growth occurs at 7.3 minutes (which seems to be
primarily a length growth).
The distribution of proppant concentration (Figures 12 to
14), however, is drastically different from Case 1. As a result
of the placement of perforations in the upper part of sand, the
fracture growth is in a downward direction. The fracture
downward growth becomes restricted by the proppant bridging
(i.e. a tip screenout in this local region) at the lower part of
fracture boundary (see Figures 12 and 13). The slurry
dehydration generally stops fracture growth, as proppant
packing continues in other parts of the fracture (see Figure 14)
and the TSO occurs. For this illustration, the saturated water
zone is located at 85 feet below the perforation center, and the
fracture does not break into this saturated water zone.
Discussion
From the TerraFRAC simulations of the frac and pack TSO
treatments, the following observations can be deduced.

Case 1 is presented to demonstrate specific features that

occur during TSO treatments. This Case shows that a
TSO is a transient response reflecting initial proppant
bridging near and along the fracture tip, which
subsequently grows to bridgeor screen offthe entire
fracture tip. The Case shows that subsequent and sudden
fracture re-growths can occur, followed by further
proppant slurry dehydration that restricts the new
fracture re-growth.
Case 2 shows that by proper designincluding proper
perforation interval location, the fracture height growth
can be effectively contained during a TSO treatment.
This containment can be critical to prevent the fracture

from growing into water saturated zones or breaking

through a gas cap.
In both Cases presented here, the TSO initiation seemed
to be related to the control of leakoff in the production
zone using high leakoff fluids. This insight requires
higher attention be given to the fluid system used and to
the application of aggressive proppant scheduling with
higher proppant concentrations.
The Cases showed that an effective TSO treatment
requires that sufficient leakoff area between the top and
bottom boundaries of the perforation interval be
provided. Otherwise, fracture containment may not
occur and a TSO would not occur.
In view of the TSO modeling shown here, it is crucial to
use a three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator in
order to capture essential details of fracturing.
Complicated events occur during the different stages of
proppant bridging development during a TSO treatment.

Conclusions
From the Cases investigated here, the following conclusions
can be made.

After the onset of tip screenout, the fracture may re-grow

as a result of reaching a higher net pressure. Such new regrowth may be stopped by further proppant bridging, but
the phenomena may occur again. Eventually the fracture
may break out of the high leakoff zone, and a successful
TSO will not occur.
Fracture height containment within the payzone can be
achieved in a TSO treatment, even without a containment
barrier within the payzone (i.e. Case 2 presented herein).
To achieve tip screenout, it is necessary to provide
sufficient leakoff areas below and above the perforation
interval (i.e. Case 1 presented herein).
A fully three-dimensional hydraulic fracturing simulator
can model tip screenout mechanisms, and can show detail
to assist in developing broad understandings using
field observations.
Fully three-dimensional simulations are required to
simulate the onset of TSO, to predict containment to
allow total TSO, to define the transition from total TSO to
fracture re-growth, to predict the arrest of the new regrowth fracture, and to predict either continued re-growth
and arrest or fracture breakthrough and TSO failure.

References
1.
2.
3.

Smith, M.B. and Hannah, R.R.: High-Permeability

Fracturing: The Evolution of a Technology, JPT (July
1996) 628.
Roodhart, L.P. et al.: Frac-and-Pack Stimulation:
Application, Design, and Field Experience, JPT (March
1994) 230.
Morales, R.H. et al.: Optimum Fractures in High
Permeability Formations, paper SPE 36417 presented at
the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct. 6-9, and

SPE 84218

Morales, R.H., Norman, W.D., Stewart, B.R., Mullen,

M.E., Alis, S.A. Fracturing Behavior in Soft Layered
Formations, SPE Annual Technical Conf, Dallas, Tx, Oct
22-25, 1995
Bai, M., Green, S. and Van den Hoek, P.J.:
A Parametric Analysis of Deep Injection for Waste
Disposal Using 3-D Hydraulic Fracture Simulator, Proc.
5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium
(NARMS-TAC), Toronto, Canada (July, 2002) 577-584.
Clifton, R.J.: Three-Dimensional Hydraulic Fracturing,
SPE Monograph Series, Richardson, TX (1989).

5.

6.

200
re-growth (2)

re-growth (1)
TSO

150
Fracture Length (ft)

4.

100

50
1.E+03
0

re-growth (2)

re-growth (1)

10

Time (min)

Net Pressure (psi)

TSO

Figure 4 Plot showing fracture length and pumping time

(Case 1)

1.E+02

1.E+01
1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

Upper Shale

Time (min)

Sand

Figure 1 Plot showing net pressure and pumping time (Case 1)

0.6
re-growth (2)

Fracture Width (in)

0.5

re-growth (1)

0.4

TSO

0.3

Lower Shale

0.2

0.1

0.0
0

10

Time (min)

Figure 5 Contour of proppant density at fracture re-growth (1) (5

minutes) and with 54% of 186 bbls slurry injected (Case 1)

Figure 2 Plot showing fracture width and pumping time (Case 1)

Upper Shale

Sand

150
boundary of shale

Fracture Height (ft)

120

90
TSO

re-growth (1)

re-growth (2)

60

30

Lower Shale

0
0

Time (min)

Figure 3 Plot showing fracture height and pumping time

(Case 1)

10

Figure 6 Contour of proppant density at fracture re-growth (2) (7

minutes) and with 76% of 186 bbls slurry injected (Case 1)

SPE 84218

120

boundary of shale

Upper Shale

Sand
Fracture Height (ft)

90

re-growth (1)
TSO

60

re-growth (2)

30

Lower Shale

10

Time (min)

Figure 7 Contour of proppant density at 9 minutes after injection

and with 96% of 186 bbls slurry injected (Case 1)

Figure 10 Plot showing fracture height and pumping time

(Case 2)
160
re-growth (1)
TSO

1.E+03
re-growth (2)

120
Fracture Length (ft)

re-growth (1)

Net Pressure (psi)

TSO

1.E+02

re-growth (2)

80

40

0
0
1.E+01
1.E-02

10

Time (min)
1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

Time (min)

Figure 8 Plot showing net pressure and pumping time (Case 2)

0.6

Figure 11 Plot showing fracture length and pumping time

(Case 2)

Upper Shale
re-growth (2)

0.5

Fracture Width (in)

re-growth (1)

0.4
TSO

0.3

0.2

Sand

0.1

0.0
0

10

Lower Shale

Time (min)

Figure 9 Plot showing fracture width and pumping time (Case 2)

Figure 12 Contour of proppant density at fracture re-growth (1)

(6 minutes) and with 63% of 192 bbls slurry injected (Case 2)

SPE 84218

Upper Shale

Sand
Lower Shale

Figure 13 Contour of proppant density at fracture re-growth (2)

(7.3 minutes) and with 76% of 192 bbls slurry injected (Case 2)

Upper Shale

Sand
Lower Shale

Figure 14 Contour of proppant density at 9 minutes after

injection and with 93% of 192 bbls slurry injected (Case 2)