Difference between revisions of "OnPlan Comparison Study 1 Weng"

From wiki.pengtools.com
Jump to: navigation, search
(Cases)
(Cases)
Line 35: Line 35:
 
</table>
 
</table>
  
''*'' - Case E is identical to Case B, except there is no fluid leakoff in the bounding layers.
+
''*'' - Case E is identical to Case B, except there is no fluid leakoff in the bounding layers.<BR\>
 
+
''**'' - In case spurt-loss is not an input a larger leak-off coefficient of 0.00065 is used which yielded roughly the same efficiency as the other models.<BR\>
''**'' - In case spurt-loss is not an input a larger leak-off coefficient of 0.00065 is used which yielded 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 yielded roughly the same efficiency as the other models.<BR\>
 
 
''***'' - In case spurt-loss is not an input a larger leak-off coefficient of 0.0002 is used which yielded roughly the same efficiency as the other models.
 
  
 
==Comparison results==
 
==Comparison results==

Revision as of 09:16, 16 October 2018

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

CASEABCDE*IJKLMNO
Formation Properties             
Young's modulus, psi 4.225E+064.225E+064.225E+064.225E+064.225E+067.50E+057.50E+057.50E+057.50E+055.19E+065.19E+065.19E+06
Poisson's ratio0.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.290.290.29
Stress contrast, psi 200400800400400100100100500900, 1400900, 1400900, 1400
Fracture toughness, psi in^0.5 100010001000100010001000100010001000492049204920
Fluid Properties             
K, (lbf-sec^n)/ft^20.00310.00310.00310.00160.00310.120.070.000020.070.001570.150.00002
n111110.390.7510.7510.41
Leak-off, ft/min^0.5 0.00060.00060.00060.00060.00060.000163**0.000163**0.000163**0.000163**0.000043***0.000043***0.000043***
Spurt loss, gal/ft^2000000.0250.0250.0250.0250.000350.000350.00035
Other Data            
Pumping rate, bbl/min 202020202040404040252525
Pumping volume, 1000 gal2525252525666463715.6102.5
Pupming time, min29.829.829.829.829.839.338.137.542.35.39.52.4
Perforated interval, ft 808080808018018018018016.416.416.4
Pay-zone thickness, ft 100100100100100223223223223626262

* - Case E is identical to Case B, except there is no fluid leakoff in the bounding layers.<BR\> ** - In case spurt-loss is not an input a larger leak-off coefficient of 0.00065 is used which yielded roughly the same efficiency as the other models.<BR\> *** - In case spurt-loss is not an input a larger leak-off coefficient of 0.0002 is used which yielded roughly the same efficiency as the other models.<BR\>

Comparison results

References

  1. 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.