FracDesign Comparison Study 1 Warpinski

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

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
Formation Properties
Young's modulus, psi	8.50E+06	8.50E+06	8.50E+06	8.50E+06
Poisson's ratio	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21
In situ stress, psi	5700	5700	5700	5700
Fracture toughness, psi in^0.5	2000	2000	2000	2000
Fluid Properties
Viscosity, cP	200		200
K, (lbf-sec^n)/ft^2		0.5		0.5
n		0.06		0.06
Leak-off, ft/min^0.5	0.00025	0.00025	0.00025	0.00025
Spurt loss, gal/ft^2	0	0	0	0
Other Data
Model	PKN	PKN	KGD	KGD
Pumping rate, bbl/min	50	50	50	50
Pumping volume, bbl	10000	10000	10000	10000
Pupming time, min	200	200	200	200
Perforated interval, ft	170	170	170	170
Pay-zone thickness, ft	170	170	170	170
Depth, ft	9170-9340	9170-9340	9170-9340	9170-9340