journal article·2026-05-13Open access

High-Precision Numerical Simulation of Fracturing Flowback in Shale Gas Wells: A Case Study of Changning Block

Yong Zhang, Junming Xu, Chaoping Zhu

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 10

Abstract

Multi-stage fracturing of shale gas is currently the core technology for achieving the economic development of shale gas. However, during post-fracturing production, issues such as fracture closure, proppant backflow, and fracturing fluid loss can inevitably occur, causing damage to the reservoir. To investigate the backflow performance of shale gas fracturing, this study establishes a high-precision fluid–solid coupled geomechanical model based on actual data from Changning shale gas wells and performs history matching. The history matching results indicate that neglecting factors such as geomechanics and capillary pressure leads to overly smooth curves, poor convergence, and results inconsistent with the actual production trends. A comprehensive model incorporating gas adsorption, geomechanics, capillary pressure, and secondary fractures provides the best fit. After validating the model’s accuracy, the effects of proppant concentration, proppant injection method, fracture parameters, well spacing, and fracturing design on fracturing backflow were analyzed. The study shows that proppant concentration, distribution pattern, fracture geometry, and well spacing are key factors influencing the effectiveness of shale gas fracturing stimulation. An optimal proppant concentration exists, as excessively high concentrations accelerate fracture closure and reduce production gains. Proppants should be primarily distributed near the wellbore to ensure high production and sufficient backflow. Fracture spacing and half-length should be optimized to balance production increase and fracturing fluid retention. Among the vertically non-uniform fracture distributions, staggered patterns offer the highest production potential, while uniform distributions yield the best backflow performance. In the Changning shale gas region, a well spacing of 300 m is recommended, and zipper fracturing can improve backflow efficiency.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Hydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis · Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics · Hydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Oil and Gas Engineering, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China

School of Economics and Management, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China

References (33)

Show source-provided references
1. Flow behavior analysis of two-phase (gas/water) flowback and early-time production from hydraulically-fractured shale gas wells using a hybrid numerical/analytical model10.1016/j.coal.2017.09.001 ↗
2. A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States10.1021/es405118y ↗
3. Olson, J.E. (July, January 29). Multi-fracture propagation modeling: Applications to hydraulic fracturing in shales and tight gas sands. Proceedings of the 42nd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (USRMS), San Francisco, CA, USA.
4. Flowback fracture closure of multi-fractured horizontal wells in shale gas reservoirs10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106711 ↗
5. Numerical simulation on fracturing fluid flowback from post-fracturing shale gas wells and influencing factors10.1007/s13202-025-01932-w ↗
6. Kim, J., Seo, Y., Wang, J., and Lee, Y. (2019). History Matching and Forecast of Shale Gas Production Considering Hydraulic Fracture Closure. Energies, 12.10.3390/en12091634 ↗
7. A Practical probabilistic history matching framework for characterizing fracture network parameters of shale gas reservoirs10.1016/j.jgsce.2024.205326 ↗
8. Numerical study of the effect of uneven proppant distribution between multiple fractures on shale gas well performance10.1016/j.fuel.2014.10.074 ↗
9. New insights on mechanisms controlling fracturing-fluid distribution and their effects on well performance in shale-gas reservoirs
10. Performance-Based Comparison for Hydraulically Fractured Tight and Shale-Gas Reservoirs With and Without Non-Darcy-Flow Effect10.2118/194011-PA ↗
11. Numerical investigation of water retention in secondary fractures and apparent permeability modeling in shale gas production10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107294 ↗
12. Numerical study of the effect of natural fractures on shale hydraulic fracturing based on the continuum approach(Article)10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107038 ↗
13. Novel hybrid Fast Marching Method-based simulation workflow for rapid history matching and completion design optimization of hydraulically fractured shale wells10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107718 ↗
14. Choke management simulation for shale gas reservoirs with complex natural fractures using EDFM10.1016/j.jngse.2022.104801 ↗
15. Adaptability evaluation of DFM and EDFM discrete fracture characterization methods
16. A two-phase flow model coupled with geomechanics for simulating transient production behaviour in an unconventional reservoir by considering fracture geometry and capillary pressure10.1016/j.fuel.2024.130959 ↗
17. A Numerical Well Test Model for Fractured Wells in Fractured Shale Gas Reservoirs Considering Multiple Flow Mechanisms Available to Purchase10.2118/228296-PA ↗
18. Gas Relative Permeability and its Evolution During Water Imbibition in Unconventional Reservoir Rocks: Direct Laboratory Measurement and a Conceptual Model10.2118/198896-PA ↗
19. Lake, L.W. (1988). Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall.
20. Fracture-Face-Skin Evolution During Cleanup
21. Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids
22. Numerical investigation of fluid-loss mechanisms during hydraulic fracturing flow-back operations in tight reservoirs10.1016/j.petrol.2015.05.013 ↗
23. Civan, F., and Evans, R.D. (1994). Characterization of Non-Darcy Multiphase Flow in Petroleum Bearing Formation, University of Oklahoma, School of Petroleum & Geological Engineering.
24. Li, S., and Gu, J. (2009). Fundamentals of Reservoir Numerical Simulation, China University of Petroleum Press.
25. Gregg, S., and Sing, K. (1982). Adsorption, Surface Area and Porosity Academic, Academic Press.
26. Pietruszczak, S. (2010). Fundamentals of Plasticity in Geomechanics, CRC Press.
27. Yeager, B.B., and Meyer, B.R. (2010, January 13–15). Injection/Fall-off Testing in the Marcellus Shale: Using Reservoir Knowledge to Improve Operational Efficiency. Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, WV, USA.10.2118/139067-MS ↗
28. Numerical simulation of hydraulic fracturing process in a naturally fractured reservoir based on a discrete fracture network model10.1016/j.jsg.2021.104331 ↗
29. The Influence of Development Target Depletion on Stress Evolution and Infill Drilling of Upside Target in the Permian Basin10.2118/205476-PA ↗
30. Zhang, Q., Yan, X., Wang, X., Feng, G., Yao, W., Yin, Y., and Zhang, K. (2022). Investigating the Impacts of Nonuniform Proppant Distribution and Fracture Closure on Well Performance in Shale Gas Reservoirs. Front. Earth Sci., 10.10.3389/feart.2022.852381 ↗
31. Numerical analysis of gas production laws considering heterogeneous proppant distribution10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104211 ↗
32. Zeng, L., Chen, R., Li, B., and Wang, Y. (2023, January 27–28). Analysis of Main Controlling Factors for Fracturing Stimulation Effect in Shale Gas Horizontal Wells. Proceedings of the 33rd National Natural Gas Academic Annual Conference, Nanning, China.
33. Productivity evaluation of multi-stage fracturing horizontal wells in shale gas reservoir with complex artificial fracture occurrence