Society of FWroleum Engineers of AIME PAPER

6200 N. Central Expwy WMBER~pE 6126

Dallas, Tex. 75206

Fluid Leak-off Under Dynamic and Static

Cor~di~ ions Ut’i ! i zing the Same Equipment
By
B. K. Sinha, Member SPE-AIME,HalliburtonServices

THIS pAt=ER IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

@copyr/gfJt 797ti
American Institute of Min/ng, Metallurgical, and Fbtro/eum Engineers, Inc.
Th{spaper wosprepared iorthe51stAnnua/ Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of FWroletim
Engineers of AIME, held in New Orleans, Oct. 3-6, ?976. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more
than 300 words, Illustrations !nay not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. I%blicat{on elsewhere afier publication in the JOURNAL OF
PETROLEUM TECHNOLOG Yorthe SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is usually granted upon
request h?the Editor of the appropriate journal, provided agreement to give proper credit is made. Discussion of
this paper is invited,

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION
Previousstudieshave indicateda The phenomenonof fluid leak-off
substantialdifferencein fluid leak-off throughporous media occurs in the pro-
behavi.orof fracturingfluids under dy- cess of drilling,cementingand stimu-
namic and static conditions. The present lating a well. The standardprocedures
study Is an attempt to determinethe recommendedby API for evaluatingfluid
factorsthat contributeto this differ- leak-offcharacteristicsof fracturing
ence and to improvethe ability to pre- fluids,drilling fluidsand cement
diet f2uid leak-offbehaviorof well slurriesare basicallystatic in nature$
completionflulds, This paper describes althoughthe actual phenomenontakes
two equipmentdesigns developedand re- place under dynamic conditions. Here
suits obtainedby using this equipment the term dynamic refers to fluid motion
to test several types of fracturing along the core surfaceand static refers
fluids. to the lack of motion along the core
surface. The validityof the static
For a gj.venfluid there appears to leak-offtest is often questioned. But
be an optimum fluid velocityalong the the reasons for continuinga static test
core surface for minimum leak-off. Con- are its simple operationalfeaturesand
trary to previousstudies,fluid leak- procedures. Also, lack of a simple and
off under dynamic conditionsis usually better standardizeddynamic fluid leak-
Zesa than or approximatelyequal to that off device that can be used on a routine
obtainedunder static conditions This basis Is another reason for continued
may be attributedto the quick, effectiveusage of the static test.
sealingor pluggingof pores on the core
surfaceby the correct size of particles. Several studieshave been publtshed
Particlesthat may cause bridging (thus, related to static and dynamicbeha-~ior
inefficientsealing)are removed from of fracturingfluldsl-Sand drilling
the core surfaceby gravity action or fluids’’-’o.Significantdifferencesin
fluid motion in the equipmentdescribed. the resultshave been reported,dependin~
upon the nature of fluid tested and the
Leak-offbehaviorof fluids in the particulardynamic equipmentused. --
two equipmentdesigns describeddepends
upon whether the test fluid falls under This paper describestwo separate
the categoryof gel, suspension,or equipmentlayouts,each of which can be
colloid. used to study static and dynamic fluid
Referencesand illustrationsat end of leak-offcharacteristicsof different
paper. fluids. Several diesel oil based
 FLUID LEAK-OFFUNDER DYNAMIC AND STATIC
(!ONT)TTTf)NS
- - .,- - - - ---- TITTT.T!ZTNC
.------.,- TUT!
---- SIAMF!
w..... - -liY311TPMli!NT
~“** ,,-.-., *
Qnn
VA xl
c~~
UAC

fracturingfluids have been tested in system can be made homogeneouswith the

each equipmentlayout. The primary atd of the Moyno pump and by manlpu2a-
objectlveof this paper is to study tion of appropriatevalves. Additional
fluid leak-offunder dynamicand static mixing is providedby using the stirring
conditionsutilizingthe same equipment device (2,150rpm) inside the mixing
to make the comparisonof resultsmore cell (Fig. 1) or test cell (Fig. 2).
meaningfulthan reported earlier.
During the process of introducinga
EXPERIMENTALEQU17JPMENT
AND PROCEDURE chemicalinto the system or while mixing
(by circulating),base fluid at 100 psI
A schematicdiagram of orieof’the is forced from the reservoirby the
two equipmentarrangementsis shown in floatingpiston and allowed to enter the
Fig. 1. The complete-systemconsists core sample through its axial hole.
oi’(1) a circulatoryunit and (2) a Introductionof the base fluid through
pressurizingunit. The circulatory the axial hole uf the core sample also
unit includesan annular test cell preventsprematurecontaminationof the
similarto that describedby Hall and outer surface of the core during the
Dollarhidel{consistsof core holder and preparatorystages prior to the actual
core cell), mixing cell and modified test.
Moyno pump. The pressurizingunit irA-
cludes,anitrogencylinder,and a cylin- Bef’orestartingthe dynamic or
drical reservoirwith a floatingptstoc. static test using either of the two
equipmentdesigns (referto Figs. 1 and
For dynamic conditions,valves D 2), preparatoryvalve P is closed, fluid
and M are opened and valve S is closed. valve F is opened and the test is initia
For static conditions,valves S and M ted as soon as test valve T Is opened.
are opened and valve D is closed. The
Moyno pump operatesunder both static The leak-offvolume is collectedin
and dynamic test conditions. a preweigheclplastic containerand the
correspondingtime is measured with a
Figure 2 is a schematicdiagram of stop watch. Actual leak-of’f volume is
the second equipmentarrangementmis- calculatedknowing the weignt and densit
cussed In this paper. The complete of the leak-offfluld (base fluid)”.Thi
system consistsof a test cell (with a procedureprovidesbetter accuracy than
core holder and stirringdevice),test the direct volumetricmeasurementsIn a
fluid reservoir,pressurizingunit gkaduafiedcylinder. At the beginningo-f
(mentionedearlier)and modifl.ed.Moyno the test, measurementsare made at an
pump (optional). It is feasibleto intervalof’15 seconds. These time in-
conduct both dynamic and static tes..s tervalsare increasedas the test pro-
in this equipmentarrangementwithout gresses. The normal test time is 37.5
the aid of a pump, if desired. However, minutes.
in this study the pump has been used for
maintaininghomogeneousfluid circula- All tests reportedwere conducteda
tion. Valves D and S are opened and room temperatureand at approximately
valve M is closed,under both static 100 psi pressuredifferential. Dimen-
and dynamic conditions. Here dynamic sions of all the cores tested were 1.75
and static conditionsare attainedwhen in. O.D., 0.38 in. I.D. and 4.5 in. high
the agltatlngdevice is on or off The surfacearea of the cores exposed to
respectively. leak-offwas 24.74 square inches in all
the tests.
The completesystem in either of
the two equipmentarrangementsIs first EXPERIMENTALRESULTS AND DISCUSSION
filled with the base fluid containedin
the cylindricalreservoirwith a floating Initially,tests were conducted
piston. Permeabilityof the core sample with syntheticcores (Hydrostone).
with respect to the base fluid can be Dynamic and static tests were conducted
determinedby measuringthe flow rates on these cores accordingto the equlp-
across the core surfaceand the axial ment arrangementdescribedin Fig. 1.
hole under desiredpressuredifferen- The I.D. of the core cell used In these
tials. four tests was 3.13 j.rlc~es. Concentra-
tl=n of fluid 10SS additive A (finely
Fluid loss additivesor other chem- G...’idedoil solublepowder) was 50 lb
icals can be introduceddirectlyinto per 1000 gal. diesel oil and the flow
the circulatorysystem througha hose rate was 7.20 gpm. Figure Sshows
connection. The entire circulatory plots of cumulativeleak-offvolume
L
 FLUID LEAK-OFFUNDER DYNAMIC AND STATIC
;PE 6126 CONDITIONSUTILIZING
.- THF?
——————. ____ SAMR F!QTITPMF!NT
_ . .. ._ _~“-. ..-..*

v&sus time for all four cores tested. four Berea sandstonecores tested in the
After 120 minutes of dyqamic testing on tWO equipment arrangements. It can be
core A, the test conditionswere changed seen In this figure that dynamic leak-of
to static for 62 minutes. DyrItic,:?
test- values are lower than the corresponding
tng was conductedusing core B for 201 static tests conductedusing both the
minutes and then changed to static for equipmentwith an annular flow configura
91 minutes. Static tests were initially tion and the test cell with the stirring
conductedon cores C and D for 65 minutes device. Cumulativeleak-offvolume
and 73 minutes and then changed to ~yna- versus squareroot of time plots of the
mic for 154 minutes and 35 minutes, same data are shown in Fig. 6.
respectively.
Dynamicand static data were also
As can be seen in Fig. 3$ no notlce- obtainedusing core cells with I.D. of
able change occurredwhen changing the 2.5 and 2.0 inches. Flow rate and
test conditionsfrom dynamic to static concentrationof fluid loss additiveA
and vice versa. The most noticeable remainedthe same as in the previous
fact was that the leak-offvolume versus testsb Figure 7 shows that the leak-off
time curves indicatedlower values under values obtainedunder dynamic conditions
dynamic conditionsthan under static were again less than the corresponding
conditionsat all times for two compara- values obtainedunder static conditions
tive tests. It was also observedthat for each of the three core cells used.
cores with higher permeabllitiesgave Flow velocitiesin the three core cells
higher leak-offvolumesunder both were 26.2o ft/min (I.D. = 3.13 in.)$
dynamic and static tests. 55,36 ft/min (I.D. = 2.5 in,) and 188.24
ft/min (I.D. = 2,0 in.).
A visual examinationof the cores
after testingrevealed that the cake Data from three dyni~mlctests
depositedduring the initial static shown in Fig. 7 suggestthat for a given
conditionwas not eroded by changingto additiveconcentrationthere is an opti-
a’dynamic condition. The’cakedeposited mum flow velocityat which minimum fluid
after the initialdynamic conditionswas leak-offoccurs. The corresponding
comparativelythinnerand less resistant static Leak-offvalues are high in
co damage than that formed under the comparisonwith the dynamic test values,
initial static condition. Figure 4 is in spite of an increaf3ingconcentration
a photographof a core that was Initiallyof fluid loss additiveA In the core
tested for 1$12minutes under static cdll with time.
conditionsand then tested for 124
minutes under dynamic conditions. Earlier studieshave shown increas-
ing fluid leak-offwith an increasein
The resistantnature of the depos- flow velocityalong the core surface
ited cake has been well documentedin with minimum leak-of’foccurringat zero
the literature. However,leak-offvol- velacity. This is somewhatcontraryto
ume versus time curves indicatinglower the observationsmade in this study.
values under dynamic conditionsthan Lower leak-offvalues obtainedunder
static conditionsfor simple suspensions the dynamic conditionin this study in
has not been reportedpreviously. comparisonwith the static conditionmay
be attributedto the qutck, effective
Sihce fluid leak-offwas too high sealing of pores on the core surfaceby.
in the syntheticcores and very sensitive the correct size of particles. Particle
to core permeabilityfurther investiga- that may cause bridging (thus,ineffic-
tlons were carriedout with Berea sand- ient sealing)are removed from the core
stone coras. surface in this equipmentby gravity
action under static tests and by fluid
In the next series of tests$ both motion under dynamic tests. The chances
equipmentarrangementsdescribedin of the correct size of particlesenter-
Figs. 1 and 2 were used to obtain the ing the por:s are greater under dynamic
data under dynamic and stetic conditions.than under static conditionsIn the
A flow rate of 7.2 gpm was maintained equipmentdescribedhere, therefore,
throughthe core cell (I.D.= 3.13 in.) it seems likely to have less fluid leak-
under the dynamic condition. The concen-off under dynamic conditionthan under
tration of fluid loss additiveA was static condition.
50 lb per 1000 gal. of diesel oil.
Figure 8 shows cumulativeleak-off
Figure 5 shows cumulativeleak-off volume versus time plots for two diesel
volume versus time relationshipfor the 011 based gels o’fdifferentchemical
 FLUID LEAK-OFFUNDER DYNAMIC AND STATAC
f?(lNllT~Tf)h.lQ fT~TT.TZTT..TCl ITW17 Qnl’fl17 17f31TTDM%W~
MqwA*
““..”***”*. “ “ * *M*-..*,V ***M Mr’&*-,&, A.*&*, * Usw WAC

compositions. Gel-1 had a semi-solid static tests.

structurewhile Gel-2 had a fluid-like
appearance. Under both static and dyna- Higher dynamic leak-offvalues we~+e
mic tests (conductedIn the 3.13 in. core obtainedin the test cell with the
cell), Gel-l producedapproximatelythe stirringdevice when comparedto the
same curve. This appears to be due to correspondingstatic test. This may be
bhe intrusionof semi-solidgel Zn$o the attributedto the centrifugalforce
pore structureof the core at the begin- (stirr@rspeed 2,150 rpm) which inter-
ning of the tests. The intrudedmaterial fere~ with the free flow of polymer
remained inside the pore structure,thus moleculeu (in case of gel) and suspended
the identicalbehavior. fluid loss particles (in case of gel
plus fluid loss additive). These can
In case of Gel-2 (see Fig. 8), contributeto bridgin~an~ thus ineffic-
static fluid leak-offwas higher as ob- ient sealing.
served before in comparisonwith the
dynamic leak-offvalues. However,under It is interestingto note that the
dynamicconditions Gel-2 was more effec- minimum and maximum leak-offvalues were
ti.vethan Gel-1 in controllingfluid obtainedusing the tes~ cell with the
leak-off. This is probablydue to the stirringdevice (refer to Figs. 5 and
more effectivesealingof pores on the 11)0 In case of diesel oil and fluid,
core surfaceby the correct size of Gel-2 loss additiveA (ref’erto Fig. 5) the
molecules, However,under static condi- minimum leak-offoccurredunder dynamic
tions Insffictentsgalingoccurs due to conditions;while In case of’gelled
the lack of motion along the core sur- diesel oil and fluid loss additiveB
f’ace. This lack of motion encourages (referto Fig. 11) the minimum leak-off
bridgingand thus preventsthe correct occurredunder static conditions. This
size Gel-2 moleculesfrom enteringinto may be due to the fact that agitation
the pore structwe. ai~s free flow of fluid loss particles
in ungelleddiesel oil; while in case of
Gel-2 was also tested in the test gelled diesel oil free flow is obstructe
cell with the stirringdevice under because of high gel viscosityand prea-
static and dynamic conditionsand the ence of centrifugalforce.
data are graphicallyshown in Fig, 9.
For comparison,results obtainedunder SUMMARY
static and dynamic conditionswith Ge<l-2
in the core cell (1.Dt = 3.13 in.) are Two differenttypes of equipment
also includedin this figure. Cumulativehave been descr~bedto study fluid leak-
leak-offvalues shown in Figure 9 are off behaviorof differentfluids. One
plotted versus square root of time in of the types has an annular flow config-
Fig, 10. ~t can be seen in Figs. 9 and uration and needs a pump for circulating
10 that dynamic leak-offvalues are the test fluid. In the other equipment,
higher than static values during the motion is providedalong the core sur-
major portion of the test. This is just face by a stirringdevice and can be
the oppositeof ‘theobservationsmade operatedwith or without the use of a
with ungelleddiesei oil and fluid loss pump.
additiveA.
It appears from the tests conducted
Gel-2 with fluid loss additiveB, in the two equipmentarrangementsthat
finely divided oil insolublepowder, (50 the phenomenonof fluid leak-offthrough
lb per 1000 gal. of gelled diesel) was porous media is controlledprimarilyby
also tested under static and dynamic the effectivesealingor pluggingof the
conditionsin both equipmentarrange- pore structure by the correct size partl
ments. Figures 11 and 12 show cumula- cles of fluid loss additivesor gel
tive leak-offvolume plottedagainst 1 molecules, Inefficientfluid leak-ofi’
time and the square root”of time respec- control is associatedwith bridging
tivel’f. These figures show that there (cake building)of particleson the sur-
is co[lsiderable differencebetween the face of core. Factors which prevent
static and dynamic data obtained in the bridgingwill also aid in attaining
test cell. The dynamic and static data effectivefluid leak-offcontrol.
obtainedin the core cell are extremely
close. Also t!~estatic test data ob- CONCLUSIONS
tained in the test cell and core cell
are practicallythe same. The dynamic 1* In the case of suspensions(diesel
data obtained in the core cell alao and fluid loss additiveA), the
closelyapproximatesthe other two leak-offvalues obtainedunder dyna-
.
 FLUID LEAK-OFFUNDER DYNAMIC AND STATIC
flnhlRT~TflhIQ llmTTT!7TAlfl fllU17 c2hhf17 t7fltfTDM=Xlt’11

mic conditionsare less in comparisonapprecia~ion to the man&gementof’

to the static conditions. This was Halliburton Servicesfor permissionto
observedwhen the leak-offtests were Ipublishthis paper. Thanks are expresse
performedin the two differentequip-Ito T. dlroux and L. L. Melton for their
ment arrangementsusing synthetic ~helpfulSuggestions. Assistanceof
and Berea sandstonecores. \B.W. HulseY. R. W. Litke and J. E. Evan
2. In case of gelled diesel oil with or
wj,thoutadditives the leak-offvalues\
appreciated.

were lower or approximatelyequal to REFERENCES

the static values obtainedin the
r
in obtaining-experlrflental

II
data is

annular flow configurationequipment. 1. Hall, C. D., Jr. and I)ollarhide,

Lower leak-offvalues under dynamic
conditionscan bc attributedto the
quick, effectivesealingor plugging
of pores on the core surfaceby the
correct size of particles. Particles
that may cause bridging (thus,in-
efficientsealing)are removed from
the core surface-byfluid motion or
gravityaction in this equipment.
4. Higher leak-offvalues were obtained
under dynamic conditionthan the
correspondingstatic tests for gelled
diesel with or without fluid 10s3
additivein the test cell with the
stirringdevice. This may be due to
the centrifugalforce that interferes
with the free flow of gel and sus-
pended fluld loss additivesof
differentsizes. This contributes
to bridgingand thus, inefficient
sealing.
5. The behaviorof a fluid in the two
equipmentarrangementsdescribed
here depends upon whether the test
fluid falls under the categoryof
gel, suspension,or colloid.
6. For a given fluid there appears to
be an optimum fluid velocityalong
the core surfacefor minimum leak-
off.
7* In dynamic tests conductedIn the
cell with a stirringdevice, a plot
of cumulativeleak-offvolume versus
square root of time on Cartesian
paper resultedin a straightline.
8. Further tests need to be conducted
on the simple test cell with a
stirringdevice to study the effect
of rotationalspeed on fluid leak-
off behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express his
F. E.: “Effectsof Fracturing
Fluid Velocity on Fluid Loss Agent
Performance”,Paper SPE 736,
presentedat the 38th Annual Fall
Meeting of the SPE of AIME, New
Orleans,Louisiana,Oct. 6-9, 1963;
Trans., AIME (1964)2Jl, 555-560.
I
2e Hall, C. C., Jr. and Dollarhl.de,
1?.E.: ~’Performance o:fFracturing
Fluid Loss Agents under Dynamic
Conditions”,J. Pet. Tech.
.— (July,
1968) 763.
3. Williams,B. B.: “Fluid Loss from
HydraulicallyInducedFractures”,
J. Pet. Tech. (July, 1970) 882.
4. Williams,M.: I!Radial Filtration
of DrillingMuds”, Trans.flAIME
(1940)~, 570
5. Prokop, C. L.: “RadialFiltration
Of Mud During Drilling”,Trans.,
AIME (1952)~, 5.
6. Ferguson,C. K. and Klotz, J: A.:
“Filtrationof Mud During Drilling”,
Trans.,AIME (1954}
‘7. Horner,V.; White,)M. M.; Cochran,
C. D.; and Deiley, F. H.: “Microbit
Dynamic FiltrationStudies’~,Trans.j
AIME (1957),~, 183.
8. Krueger,R. F.: “Evaluationof
Drilling-FluidFilter-LossAdditive:
Under Dynamic Conditionsf’,J, Pet,
Tech. (Jan,, 1963) 90. —
9* Outmans,H. D.: “Mechanicsof
Static and Dynamic Filtrationin
the Boreholei’,Sot. Pet. Eng. J.
(Sept.,1963) 236.
.0. Bezemer,C. and Havenaar,I.:
“FiltrationBehaviorof Circulating
DrillingFluids”,Sot. Pet, En~. J.
(Dec.,1966) 292.
 FEmw’mw%
CORE HOLDER
—

- mrbll.u ““, ,-
CELL TEST FLW M
N RESERVOIR ,
Tu
D~ ‘?
..?.s’’.,,,,,,.
’11
(3AWE
T
“
h I nu.m.m
c●
Id GAUGE i

NITR&EN
.j-gJJ
PUMP
.0 Im;,glc &

FI - Equipment arrangement ( test cel I

fi~, 1 - Equipment arrangement (annular WI?“ h 2stirrer) for dynamic and static
flow configuration) for dynamic and static leak-off tests.
leak-off test S.

-. -
.+
! .:..
., .,

. SYNTHE~C CORES “.-we

... .,
z. 8000 -
OCORE A-16.8md

y 3000 :
“ 2000 -
3 STATIC CONOITION
A
60 100 140 180 220 260 300
TIMEtMIN.

Fig. 4 - Photograph of synthetic (hydrastone)

Fig. 3 - Cumulative leak-Off volume vs time. core before and after test.
 mm, BEREA
--- --—-.— SANDSTONE
— -. - CORES 900 13EFKA
●390m&DYNAMlC ~~’~ (- 8ANOSTONE CORES
w

L“’’”
~800 0368md-STATIC 600
q 700
I
E
.700
::;:m~.:::~:’c
t/367m&oy~AMlc
I 7EST CELL
ANNULAR o
0
A

d a
L 600 / >600 A383md-STATIC I CELL ~
b a 0
& 500 500 A
/~/ b t 0

G 400 3400

‘g5---’- 9300
~zoo
100
Y
0387 md- OYYAMIC
A363 md- STATIC I ANNULAR
CELL 1
1
OLJ’—A.L+Ll—Ld——Ld—.d—A.u— L7. .. tf l ., ., ...,.,.,.
O 4 8 $2! 16 ;,~024M;8 32 36 40 44 00 1 g s -%
Aim,
J&i
Fig. 5 - Cumulative leak-off volume vs time. Fig. 6 - Cumulative leak-off volume vs
square root ,Jf time.

900 BEREA SANDSTONE CORES”

STATIC TESTS ’00[ BEREA SANDSTONE CORES
~ 600 FLOW VEI.0CITY=26.20 FT/MIN,
G 800 ● 363md-CORE CELL I 013.131N. .
I
J WJOI ●373md-CORE:CELL I 1112.601N.
●
●
~ 700 . . 399md-OYNAMIC GEL-,
25‘ ‘- “ 375qd~C~ffNCELL ● 341md-STATlc I
> 600 - ‘.. >600 -

z 400 “
Y,300 - ,
DYNAMIC TESTS + 300 -
3
~ 200 -
100 c 379md-188.24FTlMlN 100
o~ 004
~+-‘
04 6121620242832364044 8121620242632364044
TIME,MN,

Fig. 1 - Cummulativs leak-off volume vs time. Fig. 8 - Cumulative leak-off vs time,

 ‘, BEFEASAMMTONEC*S -Y
● - 1100
Soo - ● 400md - DYNAhac TEST CELL ●
e 376md- STATIC }WIT14 STIRRER . ● . 1000
;: :
0
?OO 0“ ~
0
● 0
! Soo :
o A
● a
a
&
!!:. “ go 4
● ‘$

am: :4 a e 357md-DYNN.w2 ANNULAR

x3a3Md-sTATIc )FLOWC~LL
1:; ~go%oe moo.
1 1 , 0 I
‘O 4 8 12 16 #;~;8 32 40 44 , , #
1 2 5 6
m~ 4
Fig. 9 - Cummulati v.’! leak-off vs time. Fig. 70 - Ctimmutati ve I eak-off vs equare
f’OOt Of time.

006 SEREA SANDSTC#JE CORES

~::1
BEREA SAN9STK CORES ~ 800 QEL-2 + FLMD LOSS ADiJITIVES B
GEL-2+ FLUD LOSS ADDITIVE B [
= 800[

%:t:;!%!’c}
‘ST CELL
WITH
0353 md-DYNAMIC
STIRRER
ANNLJLAR FLOW
.
i!i
4
500 ‘ 364md-STATlc } CELL
●
●

3 200 *

8. ~ ~
1:8;88
Je t.’.’.’.’ , i I 1 t -1 I.___ . ..l . . . . . . . . ..l
() 4 8 12 16 ##N28 32 3640 o 1“ 2 6 6
/7&&
F19, 11 - Cumulative leak-off vs time. Fig. 12 - Cummul ati ve leak-off ve square
root of time.