OnPlan Comparison Study 1 Weng

From wiki.pengtools.com
Revision as of 09:17, 16 October 2018 by MishaT (talk | contribs) (Cases)
Jump to: navigation, search

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.
** - 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. 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.