Difference between revisions of "OnPlan Comparison Study 2 Warpinski"
From wiki.pengtools.com
(→Comparison) |
|||
| (48 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 39: | Line 39: | ||
<tr><td>Fluid Properties </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr> | <tr><td>Fluid Properties </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr> | ||
<tr><td>Viscosity, cP</td><td>200</td><td> </td><td>200</td><td> </td><td>200</td><td> </td></tr> | <tr><td>Viscosity, cP</td><td>200</td><td> </td><td>200</td><td> </td><td>200</td><td> </td></tr> | ||
| − | <tr><td>K, (lbf-sec^n)/ft^2</td><td> </td><td>0. | + | <tr><td>K, (lbf-sec^n)/ft^2</td><td> </td><td>0.06</td><td> </td><td>0.06</td><td> </td><td>0.06</td></tr> |
| − | <tr><td>n</td><td> </td><td>0. | + | <tr><td>n</td><td> </td><td>0.5</td><td> </td><td>0.5</td><td> </td><td>0.5</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>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>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>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> | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
==Comparison== | ==Comparison== | ||
The fracture net pressure, half-length, width and height 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:onPlan | onPlan]] fracture net pressure, half-length, width and height shown as lines | + | 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:onPlan Warpinski 1 Net Pressure.png| | + | <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: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: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: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> | ||
| − | == | + | ==onPlan Hydraulic Fracturing Models== |
| − | The [[:category: | + | The [[:category: onPlan | onPlan]] models from this study are available online at [https://www.pengtools.com www.pengtools.com] by the following links: |
| − | [https://www.pengtools.com/ | + | [[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)] | ||
| − | [https://www.pengtools.com/ | + | [[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/ | + | [[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/ | + | [[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)] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[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)] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[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 113: | 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
Contents
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
| CASE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formation Properties | ||||||
| Resesvoir and rock data | Single-Layer | Single-Layer | 3-Layer | 3-Layer | 5-Layer | 5-Layer |
| Fluid Properties | ||||||
| Viscosity, cP | 200 | 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 | 0.00025 | 0.00025 | 0.00025 | 0.00025 | 0.00025 | 0.00025 |
| Spurt loss, gal/ft^2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other Data | ||||||
| Pumping rate, bbl/min | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| Pumping volume, bbl | 10000 | 10000 | 10000 | 10000 | 10000 | 10000 |
| Pupming time, min | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Proppant | None | None | None | None | None | None |
Rock and reservoir data:
| Interval | Depth (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 | ||||||
| 1 | 9170-9340 | 170 | 5700 | 0.21 | 8.5 | 2000 |
| 3-Layer Case | ||||||
| 1 | 8990-9170 | 180 | 7150 | 0.3 | 6.5 | 2000 |
| 2 | 9170-9340 | 170 | 5700 | 0.21 | 8.5 | 2000 |
| 3 | 9340-9650 | 310 | 7350 | 0.29 | 5.5 | 2000 |
| 5-Layer Case | ||||||
| 1 | 8990-9170 | 180 | 7150 | 0.3 | 6.5 | 2000 |
| 2 | 9170-9340 | 170 | 5700 | 0.21 | 8.5 | 2000 |
| 3 | 9340-9380 | 40 | 7350 | 0.26 | 5.4 | 2000 |
| 4 | 9380-9455 | 75 | 5800 | 0.2 | 7.9 | 2000 |
| 5 | 9455-9650 | 195 | 8200 | 0.3 | 4.0 | 2000 |
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]
 Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure |  Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Half-length |  Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Width |  Case 1 (Single-Layer 200cp). Height |
 Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Net Pressure |  Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Half-length |  Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Width |  Case 2 (Single-Layer K&n). Height |
 Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure |  Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Half-length |  Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Width |  Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp). Height |
 Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Net Pressure |  Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Half-length |  Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Width |  Case 4 (3-Layer K&n). Height |
 Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Net Pressure |  Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Half-length |  Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Width |  Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp). Height |
 Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Net Pressure |  Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Half-length |  Case 6 (5-Layer K&n). Width |  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 2 (Single-Layer K&n)
Warpinski Case 3 (3-Layer 200cp)
Warpinski Case 4 (3-Layer K&n)
Warpinski Case 5 (5-Layer 200cp)
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
- ↑ 1.0 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.
