Difference between revisions of "OnPlan Comparison Study 2 Warpinski"

From wiki.pengtools.com
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Cases)
 
(60 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
{{Quote| text = This study is a comparison of hydraulic fracture models run using test data from the GRI Staged Field Experiment No. 3. Models compared include 2D, pseudo-3D, and 3D codes, run on up to eight different cases. Documented in this comparison are the differences in length, height, width, pressure, and efficiency. The purpose of this study is to provide the completions engineer with a practical comparison of the available models so that rational decisions can be made as to which model is optimal for a given application. | source = Warpinski et al <ref name= Warpinski />}}
 
{{Quote| text = This study is a comparison of hydraulic fracture models run using test data from the GRI Staged Field Experiment No. 3. Models compared include 2D, pseudo-3D, and 3D codes, run on up to eight different cases. Documented in this comparison are the differences in length, height, width, pressure, and efficiency. The purpose of this study is to provide the completions engineer with a practical comparison of the available models so that rational decisions can be made as to which model is optimal for a given application. | source = Warpinski et al <ref name= Warpinski />}}
  
−
===Simulators===
+
===Hydraulic Fracturing Simulators===
  
 
Planar 3D models:
 
Planar 3D models:
Line 34: Line 34:
  
 
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1">
 
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1">
−
<tr><th>CASE</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th></tr>
+
<tr ><th>CASE</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr>
−
  <tr><td>Formation Properties </td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Formation Properties </td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
−
<tr><td>Young's modulus, psi </td><td>8.50E+06</td><td>8.50E+06</td><td>8.50E+06</td><td>8.50E+06</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Resesvoir and rock data</td><td>Single-Layer</td><td>Single-Layer</td><td>3-Layer </td><td>3-Layer </td><td>5-Layer</td><td>5-Layer</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td>Poisson's ratio</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.21</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Fluid Properties </td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
−
<tr><td>In situ stress, psi </td><td>5700</td><td>5700</td><td>5700</td><td>5700</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Viscosity, cP</td><td>200</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>200</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>200</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td>Fracture toughness, psi in^0.5 </td><td>2000</td><td>2000</td><td>2000</td><td>2000</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>K, (lbf-sec^n)/ft^2</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.06</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.06</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.06</td></tr>
−
<tr><td>Fluid Properties </td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>n</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.5</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.5</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.5</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td>Viscosity, cP</td><td>200</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>200</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Leak-off, ft/min^0.5 </td><td>0.00025</td><td>0.00025</td><td>0.00025</td><td>0.00025</td><td>0.00025</td><td>0.00025</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td>K, (lbf-sec^n)/ft^2</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.5</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.5</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Spurt loss, gal/ft^2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td>n</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.06</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>0.06</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Other Data</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td>Leak-off, ft/min^0.5 </td><td>0.00025</td><td>0.00025</td><td>0.00025</td><td>0.00025</td></tr>
+
<tr><td>Pumping rate, bbl/min </td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>50</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td>Spurt loss, gal/ft^2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Pumping volume, bbl</td><td>10000</td><td>10000</td><td>10000</td><td>10000</td><td>10000</td><td>10000</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td>Other Data</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+
<tr><td>Pupming time, min</td><td>200</td><td>200</td><td>200</td><td>200</td><td>200</td><td>200</td></tr>
−
<tr><td>Model</td><td>PKN</td><td>PKN</td><td>KGD</td><td>KGD</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td>Proppant</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>None</td></tr>
−
<tr><td>Pumping rate, bbl/min </td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>50</td></tr>
+
 
−
  <tr><td>Pumping volume, bbl</td><td>10000</td><td>10000</td><td>10000</td><td>10000</td></tr>
 
−
<tr><td>Pupming time, min</td><td>200</td><td>200</td><td>200</td><td>200</td></tr>
 
−
<tr><td>Perforated interval, ft </td><td>170*</td><td>170*</td><td>170*</td><td>170*</td></tr>
 
−
  <tr><td>Pay-zone thickness, ft </td><td>170</td><td>170</td><td>170</td><td>170</td></tr>
 
−
<tr><td>Depth, ft</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>9170-9340</td></tr>
 
 
</table>
 
</table>
  
−
''*'' - The PKN and GDK cases were run with a constant height (2-D) set at 170 ft (52 m).
+
 
 +
Rock and reservoir data:
  
 
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1">
 
<table border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1">
−
<tr><th>Interval</th><th>Depth (ft)</th><th>Zone Thickness (ft)</th><th>In Situ Stress (psi)</th><th>Poisson's Ratio</th><th>Young's Modulus (10^6 psi)</th><th>Fracture Toughness (psi/in^0.5)</th></tr>
+
<tr><th>Interval</th><th>Depth<BR/> (ft)</th><th>Zone<BR/> Thickness <BR/>(ft)</th><th>In Situ<BR/> Stress <BR/>(psi)</th><th>Poisson's<BR/> Ratio</th><th>Young's<BR/> Modulus <BR/>(10^6 psi)</th><th>Fracture<BR/> Toughness <BR/>(psi/in^0.5)</th></tr>
−
  <tr><td colspan="7">Single-Layer (2D) Case</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td colspan="7">Single-Layer Case</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>1</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>170</td><td>5700</td><td>0.21</td><td>8.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>1</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>170</td><td>5700</td><td>0.21</td><td>8.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td colspan="7">3-Layer (3D) Case</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td colspan="7">3-Layer Case</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>1</td><td>8990-9170</td><td>180</td><td>7150</td><td>0.3</td><td>6.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>1</td><td>8990-9170</td><td>180</td><td>7150</td><td>0.3</td><td>6.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>2</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>170</td><td>5700</td><td>0.21</td><td>8.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>2</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>170</td><td>5700</td><td>0.21</td><td>8.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>3</td><td>9340-9650</td><td>310</td><td>7350</td><td>0.29</td><td>5.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>3</td><td>9340-9650</td><td>310</td><td>7350</td><td>0.29</td><td>5.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
−
  <tr><td colspan="7">5-Layer (3D) Case</td></tr>
+
  <tr><td colspan="7">5-Layer Case</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>1</td><td>8990-9170</td><td>180</td><td>7150</td><td>0.3</td><td>6.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>1</td><td>8990-9170</td><td>180</td><td>7150</td><td>0.3</td><td>6.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>2</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>170</td><td>5700</td><td>0.21</td><td>8.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>2</td><td>9170-9340</td><td>170</td><td>5700</td><td>0.21</td><td>8.5</td><td>2000</td></tr>
Line 73: Line 69:
 
  <tr><td>5</td><td>9455-9650</td><td>195</td><td>8200</td><td>0.3</td><td>4.0</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
  <tr><td>5</td><td>9455-9650</td><td>195</td><td>8200</td><td>0.3</td><td>4.0</td><td>2000</td></tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
 +
 +
 +
Perforations data:
 +
 +
The well was perforated between 9225 to 9250 ft and 9285 to 9330 ft.
  
 
==Comparison==
 
==Comparison==
−
The fracture net pressure, half-length and width predicted by different simulators<ref name = Warpinski/> are plotted below in dots.
+
The fracture net pressure, half-length, width and height predicted by different simulators<ref name = Warpinski/> are plotted below in dots.
−
The overlapped [[:category:fracDesign | fracDesign]] fracture net pressure, half-length and width shown as lines are in a good agreement with the simulation data.
+
The overlapped [[:category:onPlan | onPlan]] fracture net pressure, half-length, width and height shown as lines.
 +
 
 +
Single-Layer cases 1 and 2 show good agreement between [[:category:onPlan | onPlan]] and paper results.
 +
 
 +
3-Layer and 5-Layer cases 3 - 6 show that [[:category:onPlan | onPlan]] generally predicts less height thus more length and less width.
 +
 
 +
{{Quote| text = These comparisons show that differences in calculated fracture lengths can be large, as much as a factor of three difference. Fracture heights, for the multi-layer cases, can differ by more than 50%. Net pressures also differ by a factor of two.
 +
| source = Warpinski et al <ref name= Warpinski />}}
  
 
<table>
 
<table>
−
<tr><td>[[File:Warpinski 1 Net Pressure.png|400px| Net Pressure]] <BR/> Case 1 Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:Warpinski 1 Half-length.png|400px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 1 Half-length</td><td>[[File:Warpinski 1 Width.png|400px|Width]] <BR/> Case 1 Width </td></tr>
+
<tr><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 1 Net Pressure.png|300px| Net Pressure]] <BR/> Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 1 Half-length.png|300px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Half-length</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 1 Width.png|300px|Width]] <BR/> Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Width </td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 1 Height.png|300px|Height]] <BR/> Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Height </td></tr>
−
<tr><td>[[File:Warpinski 2 Net Pressure.png|400px| Net Pressure]]<BR/> Case 2 Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:Warpinski 2 Half-length.png|400px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 2 Half-length</td><td>[[File:Warpinski 2 Width.png|400px|Width]] <BR/> Case 2 Width </td></tr>
+
<tr><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 2 Net Pressure.png|300px| Net Pressure]] <BR/> Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 2 Half-length.png|300px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Half-length</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 2 Width.png|300px|Width]] <BR/> Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Width </td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 2 Height.png|300px|Height]] <BR/> Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Height </td></tr>
−
<tr><td>[[File:Warpinski 3 Net Pressure.png|400px| Net Pressure]]<BR/> Case 3 Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:Warpinski 3 Half-length.png|400px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 3 Half-length</td><td>[[File:Warpinski 3 Width.png|400px|Width]] <BR/> Case 3 Width </td></tr>
+
<tr><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 3 Net Pressure.png|300px| Net Pressure]] <BR/> Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 3 Half-length.png|300px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Half-length</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 3 Width.png|300px|Width]] <BR/> Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Width </td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 3 Height.png|300px|Height]] <BR/> Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Height </td></tr>
−
<tr><td>[[File:Warpinski 4 Net Pressure.png|400px| Net Pressure]]<BR/> Case 4 Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:Warpinski 4 Half-length.png|400px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 4 Half-length</td><td>[[File:Warpinski 4 Width.png|400px|Width]] <BR/> Case 4 Width </td></tr>
+
<tr><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 4 Net Pressure.png|300px| Net Pressure]] <BR/> Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 4 Half-length.png|300px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Half-length</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 4 Width.png|300px|Width]] <BR/> Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Width </td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 4 Height.png|300px|Height]] <BR/> Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Height </td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 5 Net Pressure.png|300px| Net Pressure]] <BR/> Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 5 Half-length.png|300px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Half-length</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 5 Width.png|300px|Width]] <BR/> Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Width </td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 5 Height.png|300px|Height]] <BR/> Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Height </td></tr>
 +
<tr><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 6 Net Pressure.png|300px| Net Pressure]] <BR/> Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Net Pressure</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 6 Half-length.png|300px|Half-length]]<BR/> Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Half-length</td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 6 Width.png|300px|Width]] <BR/> Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Width </td><td>[[File:onPlan Warpinski 6 Height.png|300px|Height]] <BR/> Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Height </td></tr>
  
 
</table>
 
</table>
  
−
===fracDesign Models===
+
==onPlan Hydraulic Fracturing Models==
 +
 
 +
The [[:category: onPlan | onPlan]] models from this study are available online at [https://www.pengtools.com www.pengtools.com] by the following links:
 +
 
 +
[[File:Warpinski Case 1.png|600px| Warpinski Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp)]]
 +
[https://www.pengtools.com/onPlan?paramsToken=5f21354c0ab6bb656ad1fb8e4fa36f12 Warpinski Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp)]
  
−
The [[:category:fracDesign| fracDesign]] models from this study are publicly available online at [https://www.pengtools.com www.pengtools.com] and can be opened through the links below:
+
[[File:Warpinski Case 2.png|600px| Warpinski Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n)]]  
 +
[https://www.pengtools.com/onPlan?paramsToken=f65a7c7896ff5a373156e9ef037aa57c Warpinski Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n)]
  
−
[https://www.pengtools.com/fracDesign?paramsToken=5b20b216fcf9bb1ac9aed5d04620d1a9 Warpinski Case 1]
+
[[File:Warpinski Case 3.png|600px| Warpinski Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp)]]
 +
[https://www.pengtools.com/onPlan?paramsToken=6649e6453a5f3c3bebac077d1090c5d3 Warpinski Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp)]
  
−
[https://www.pengtools.com/fracDesign?paramsToken=2e3113151dd21bcff4b544467f6b6633 Warpinski Case 2]
+
[[File:Warpinski Case 4.png|600px| Warpinski Case 4 (3-Layer K&n)]]
 +
[https://www.pengtools.com/onPlan?paramsToken=dd6a83450b010b6f83503dc542e3d5cd Warpinski Case 4 (3-Layer K&n)]
  
−
[https://www.pengtools.com/fracDesign?paramsToken=b6bb9bc0aaafa75624901216e3013880 Warpinski Case 3]
+
[[File:Warpinski Case 5.png|600px| Warpinski Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp)]]
 +
[https://www.pengtools.com/onPlan?paramsToken=ccdeee8a5ea03b4b02df08e1335a8001 Warpinski Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp)]
  
−
[https://www.pengtools.com/fracDesign?paramsToken=2b30a86ab8877577d42e3bd7377313d0 Warpinski Case 4]
+
[[File:Warpinski Case 6.png|600px| Warpinski Case 6 (5-Layer K&n)]]
 +
[https://www.pengtools.com/onPlan?paramsToken=15a3f7119228c9220a5730ecf541240b Warpinski Case 6 (5-Layer K&n)]
 +
 
 +
Note that evaluation access is required to open the models. Please [https://www.pengtools.com/contact contact us] to get evaluation access.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 115: Line 137:
  
 
[[Category:onPlan]]
 
[[Category:onPlan]]
 +
[[Category:pengtools]]
 +
 +
{{#seo:
 +
|title=Hydraulic Fracturing Case Study Warpinski vs onPlan
 +
|titlemode= replace
 +
|keywords=hydraulic fracturing, hydraulic fracturing simulation software, petroleum engineering software, petroleum engineering, warpinski, case study
 +
|description=Hydraulic fracturing simulator onPlan vs Warpinski SPE paper 25890: Comparison Study of Hydraulic Fracturing Models.
 +
}}

Latest revision as of 08:26, 15 November 2019

Brief

The case study is based on Warpinski [1] paper published in 1994.

The onPlan calculates 6 cases described in the paper and shows good agreement in results.

Inputs

Paper Summary

This study is a comparison of hydraulic fracture models run using test data from the GRI Staged Field Experiment No. 3. Models compared include 2D, pseudo-3D, and 3D codes, run on up to eight different cases. Documented in this comparison are the differences in length, height, width, pressure, and efficiency. The purpose of this study is to provide the completions engineer with a practical comparison of the available models so that rational decisions can be made as to which model is optimal for a given application.
— Warpinski et al [1]

Hydraulic Fracturing Simulators

Planar 3D models:

  • TerraFrac of TerraTek Inc.
  • HYFRAC3D by S.H. Advani of Lehigh U. - Planar 3D model
  • GOHFER by by Marathon Oil Co. - a unique finite-difference simulator

Planar pseudo-3D models:

  • STIMPLAN of NSI Inc.
  • ENERFRAC of Shell
  • TRIFRAC of S.A. Holditch & Assocs. Inc.
  • FRACPRO of Reservoir Engineering Systems (RES) Inc.
  • MFRAC-II of Meyer& Assocs.

Classic Perkins-Kern-Nordgren (PKN) and Geertsma-deKlerk (GDK) model:

  • PROP of Halliburton
  • Chevron 2D model
  • Conoco 2D model
  • Shell 2D model
  • pseudo-3D models run in constant-height mode

Cases

CASE123456
Formation Properties       
Resesvoir and rock dataSingle-LayerSingle-Layer3-Layer 3-Layer 5-Layer5-Layer
Fluid Properties       
Viscosity, cP200 200 200 
K, (lbf-sec^n)/ft^2 0.06 0.06 0.06
n 0.5 0.5 0.5
Leak-off, ft/min^0.5 0.000250.000250.000250.000250.000250.00025
Spurt loss, gal/ft^2000000
Other Data      
Pumping rate, bbl/min 505050505050
Pumping volume, bbl100001000010000100001000010000
Pupming time, min200200200200200200
ProppantNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone


Rock and reservoir data:

IntervalDepth
(ft)		Zone
Thickness
(ft)		In Situ
Stress
(psi)		Poisson's
Ratio		Young's
Modulus
(10^6 psi)		Fracture
Toughness
(psi/in^0.5)
Single-Layer Case
19170-934017057000.218.52000
3-Layer Case
18990-917018071500.36.52000
29170-934017057000.218.52000
39340-965031073500.295.52000
5-Layer Case
18990-917018071500.36.52000
29170-934017057000.218.52000
39340-93804073500.265.42000
49380-94557558000.27.92000
59455-965019582000.34.02000


Perforations data:

The well was perforated between 9225 to 9250 ft and 9285 to 9330 ft.

Comparison

The fracture net pressure, half-length, width and height predicted by different simulators[1] are plotted below in dots. The overlapped onPlan fracture net pressure, half-length, width and height shown as lines.

Single-Layer cases 1 and 2 show good agreement between onPlan and paper results.

3-Layer and 5-Layer cases 3 - 6 show that onPlan generally predicts less height thus more length and less width.

These comparisons show that differences in calculated fracture lengths can be large, as much as a factor of three difference. Fracture heights, for the multi-layer cases, can differ by more than 50%. Net pressures also differ by a factor of two.
— Warpinski et al [1]
Net Pressure
Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure		Half-length
Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Half-length		Width
Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Width 		Height
Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Height
Net Pressure
Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Net Pressure		Half-length
Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Half-length		Width
Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Width 		Height
Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Height
Net Pressure
Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure		Half-length
Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Half-length		Width
Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Width 		Height
Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Height
Net Pressure
Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Net Pressure		Half-length
Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Half-length		Width
Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Width 		Height
Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Height
Net Pressure
Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure		Half-length
Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Half-length		Width
Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Width 		Height
Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Height
Net Pressure
Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Net Pressure		Half-length
Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Half-length		Width
Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Width 		Height
Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Height

onPlan Hydraulic Fracturing Models

The onPlan models from this study are available online at www.pengtools.com by the following links:

Warpinski Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp) Warpinski Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp)

Warpinski Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n) Warpinski Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n)

Warpinski Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp) Warpinski Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp)

Warpinski Case 4 (3-Layer K&n) Warpinski Case 4 (3-Layer K&n)

Warpinski Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp) Warpinski Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp)

Warpinski Case 6 (5-Layer K&n) Warpinski Case 6 (5-Layer K&n)

Note that evaluation access is required to open the models. Please contact us to get evaluation access.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 N.R., Warpinski; Z.A., Moschovidis; C.D., Parker; I.S., Abou-Sayed (1994). "Comparison Study of Hydraulic Fracturing Models—Test Case: GRI Staged Field Experiment No. 3 (includes associated paper 28158 )" (SPE-25890-PA). Society of Petroleum Engineers. 
Retrieved from "https://wiki.pengtools.com/index.php?title=OnPlan_Comparison_Study_2_Warpinski&oldid=6478"