Difference between revisions of "OnPlan Comparison Study 1 Weng"
From wiki.pengtools.com
(→Cases) |
(→Cases) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
===Cases=== | ===Cases=== | ||
| − | <table border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" > | + | <table border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" style="text-align: center"> |
<tr><th>CASE</th><th>A</th><th>B</th><th>C</th><th>D</th><th>E*</th><th>I</th><th>J</th><th>K</th><th>L</th><th>M</th><th>N</th><th>O</th></tr> | <tr><th>CASE</th><th>A</th><th>B</th><th>C</th><th>D</th><th>E*</th><th>I</th><th>J</th><th>K</th><th>L</th><th>M</th><th>N</th><th>O</th></tr> | ||
<tr><td>Formation Properties </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr> | <tr><td>Formation Properties </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr> | ||
Revision as of 09:21, 16 October 2018
Contents
Brief
The case study is based on Weng [1] paper published in 1992.
Paper Summary
Pseudo 3D (P3D) hydraulic fracturing models often overpredict fracture height for a poorly contained fracture. This is caused partly by either the neglect of the fluid flow component in the vertical direction or a crude treatment of the 2D fluid flow in the fracture as 1D flow in the vertical direction in the fracture-height calculation. This paper presents a height-growth model that adopts a flow field more representative of the actual 2D flow in a fracture.— Xiaowei Weng[1]
Inputs
Simulators
- Terra Tek 3D - fully 3D model
- U. of Texas 3D - fully 3D model
- Original P3D - a commercial P3D simulator
- Modified P3D - a commercial P3D simulator modified by replacing its original height-growth model with Weng 2D flow-height model
Cases
| CASE | A | B | C | D | E* | I | J | K | L | M | N | O |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formation Properties | ||||||||||||
| Young's modulus, psi | 4.225E+06 | 4.225E+06 | 4.225E+06 | 4.225E+06 | 4.225E+06 | 7.50E+05 | 7.50E+05 | 7.50E+05 | 7.50E+05 | 5.19E+06 | 5.19E+06 | 5.19E+06 |
| Poisson's ratio | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 |
| Stress contrast, psi | 200 | 400 | 800 | 400 | 400 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 500 | 900, 1400 | 900, 1400 | 900, 1400 |
| Fracture toughness, psi in^0.5 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 | 4920 | 4920 | 4920 |
| Fluid Properties | ||||||||||||
| K, (lbf-sec^n)/ft^2 | 0.0031 | 0.0031 | 0.0031 | 0.0016 | 0.0031 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.00002 | 0.07 | 0.00157 | 0.15 | 0.00002 |
| n | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.39 | 0.75 | 1 | 0.75 | 1 | 0.4 | 1 |
| Leak-off, ft/min^0.5 | 0.0006 | 0.0006 | 0.0006 | 0.0006 | 0.0006 | 0.000163** | 0.000163** | 0.000163** | 0.000163** | 0.000043*** | 0.000043*** | 0.000043*** |
| Spurt loss, gal/ft^2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.00035 | 0.00035 | 0.00035 |
| Other Data | ||||||||||||
| Pumping rate, bbl/min | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Pumping volume, 1000 gal | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 66 | 64 | 63 | 71 | 5.6 | 10 | 2.5 |
| Pupming time, min | 29.8 | 29.8 | 29.8 | 29.8 | 29.8 | 39.3 | 38.1 | 37.5 | 42.3 | 5.3 | 9.5 | 2.4 |
| Perforated interval, ft | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 180 | 180 | 180 | 180 | 16.4 | 16.4 | 16.4 |
| Pay-zone thickness, ft | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 223 | 223 | 223 | 223 | 62 | 62 | 62 |
* - Case E is identical to Case B, except there is no fluid leakoff in the bounding layers.
** - In case spurt-loss is not an input a larger leak-off coefficient of 0.00065 is used which yields roughly the same efficiency as the other models.
*** - In case spurt-loss is not an input a larger leak-off coefficient of 0.0002 is used which yields roughly the same efficiency as the other models.
Comparison results
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Weng, Xiaowei (1992). "Incorporation of 2D Fluid Flow Into a Pseudo-3D Hydraulic Fracturing Simulator" (SPE-21849-PA). Society of Petroleum Engineers.
