Difference between revisions of "FracDesign Comparison Study 1 Warpinski"
From wiki.pengtools.com
(→Brief) |
(→Simulators) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
===Simulators=== | ===Simulators=== | ||
| − | * | + | * TRIFRAC of S.A. Holditch & Assocs. Inc. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 10:39, 17 October 2018
Brief
The case study is based on Warpinski [1] paper published in 1994.
The fracDesign calculates 4 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]
Simulators
- TRIFRAC of S.A. Holditch & Assocs. Inc.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 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.
