Advertisement

Comparison of analytical models for hydraulic fracture conductivity

  • Yuxuan LiuEmail author
  • Dilin Wen
  • Xin Wu
  • Jianchun Guo
  • Jiandong Wang
Original Paper
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of hydraulic fracturing is to establish a highway for oil and gas transportation, and the fracture conductivity reflects the highway’s transport capacity. Scholars have proposed several methods for calculating the conductivity, including both numerical and analytical methods. The analytical methods have received widespread attention as their calculation processes are simple and easy to use. However, the differences between the analytical models and between the models and experimental results are not clear, which prevents the selection of the optimal model. Therefore, this study compared these differences. In this study, comparative analysis was conducted for four analytical models from four aspects, including the factors considered by the models, input parameters, model calculation results, and the differences between the models and the experimental results. By conducting this comparison, there are some differences between the factors, input parameters, and calculation results of the four models. There are also some differences between the predicted values of the models and the experimental results. For practical application, the model must be corrected by fitting the test data. The current model does not fully reflect the interaction mechanism between a proppant and a rock. It is recommended that further research on analytical modeling is conducted.

Keywords

Fracture conductivity Hydraulic fracturing Model Comparison 

Nomenclature

C

the Carman–Kozeny constant, dimensionless

D1

Proppant diameter, mm

D2

core thickness, mm

E1

Young’s modulus of the proppant, MPa

E2

Young’s modulus of the rock, MPa

FRCD

fracture conductivity, μm2 cm

f1

function related to the closure pressure, Young’s modulus, and Poisson’s ratio of proppant, dimensionless

f2

function related to the closure pressure, elastic moduli, and Poisson’s ratios of proppant and rock, dimensionless

h

embedment depth, mm

H

fracture height, m

k

permeability, μm2

K

distance coefficient, dimensionless

kn

normal fracture stiffness, MPa/cm

L

fracture length, m

N

number of proppants in the model, dimensionless

n1

number of proppants in each layer, dimensionless

n2

number of proppant layers, dimensionless

p

closure pressure, MPa

pmax

maximum contact pressure, MPa

R

proppant radius, mm

r0

radius of pore throat when the closure pressure is equal to zero, μm

Rs1

proppant distance ratio, dimensionless

Rs2

proppant distance ratio, dimensionless

wf

fracture width, mm

wf0

initial fracture width, mm

ν1

Poisson’s ratio of sphere 1, dimensionless

ν2

Poisson’s ratio of sphere 2, dimensionless

η

proppant crushing rate, dimensionless

β

proppant deformation, mm

α

change in fracture width, mm

σn

normal stress, MPa

τ

degree of tortuosity, dimensionless

Notes

Funding information

This study received financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51804266; No. 51525404; No. 51874250), the Young Scholars Development Fund of SWPU (201599010084), and the National Science and Technology Major Project (No. 2016ZX05002-002).

References

  1. Alramahi B, Sundberg MI (2012) Proppant embedment and conductivity of hydraulic fractures in shales. ARMA-2012-291Google Scholar
  2. Awoleke OO, Zhu D, Hill AD (2016) New propped-fracture-conductivity models for tight gas sands. SPE J 21:1508–1517.  https://doi.org/10.2118/179743-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barree RD, Miskimins JL, Conway MW, Duenckel R (2018) Generic correlations for proppant-pack conductivity. SPE Prod Oper 33:509–521Google Scholar
  4. Bolintineanu DS, Rao RR, Lechman JB et al (2017) Simulations of the effects of proppant placement on the conductivity and mechanical stability of hydraulic fractures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 100:188–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunger AP, Lu G (2015) Time-dependent initiation of multiple hydraulic fractures in a formation with varying stresses and strength. SPE J 20:1,317–1,325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cui G, Ren S, Rui Z et al (2018a) The influence of complicated fluid-rock interactions on the geothermal exploitation in the CO2 plume geothermal system. Appl Energy 227:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cui G, Wang Y, Rui Z et al (2018b) Assessing the combined influence of fluid-rock interactions on reservoir properties and injectivity during CO2 storage in saline aquifers. Energy 155:281–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dehghan AN, Goshtasbi K, Ahangari K, Jin Y (2016) Mechanism of fracture initiation and propagation using a tri-axial hydraulic fracturing test system in naturally fractured reservoirs. Eur J Environ Civil Eng 20:560–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng S, Li H, Ma G, Huang H, Li X (2014) Simulation of shale–proppant interaction in hydraulic fracturing by the discrete element method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:219–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guo J, Liu Y (2012) Modeling of proppant embedment: elastic deformation and creep deformation. SPE 157449Google Scholar
  11. Guo J, Lu C, Zhao J, Wang W (2008) Experimental research on proppant embedment. J China Coal Soc 33:661–664Google Scholar
  12. Guo J, Luo B, Lu C et al (2017a) Numerical Investigation of hydraulic fracture propagation in a layered reservoir using the cohesive zone method. Eng Fract Mech 6:195–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guo J, Wang J, Liu Y, Chen Z, Zhu H (2017b) Analytical analysis of fracture conductivity for sparse distribution of proppant packs. J Geophys Eng 14:599–610.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2140/aa6215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khanna A, Kotousov A, Sobey J, Weller P (2012) Conductivity of narrow fractures filled with a proppant monolayer. J Pet Sci Eng 100:9–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2012.11.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lacy LL, Rickards AR, Bilden DM (1998) Fracture width and embedment testing in soft reservoir sandstone. SPE Drill Complet 13:25–29.  https://doi.org/10.2118/36421-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li K, Gao Y, Lyu Y, Wang M (2015) New mathematical models for calculating proppant embedment and fracture conductivity. SPE J 20:496–507.  https://doi.org/10.2118/155954-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li H, Wang K, Xie J et al (2016) A new mathematical model to calculate sand-packed fracture conductivity. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 35:567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin M, Chen S, Ding W, Chen Z(J), Xu J (2015) Effect of fracture geometry on well production in hydraulic-fractured tight oil reservoirs. J Can Pet Technol 54:183–194.  https://doi.org/10.2118/167761-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu Y, Guo J, Jia X et al (2017) Long term conductivity of narrow fractures filled with a proppant monolayer in shale gas reservoirs. J Eng Res 5:236–249Google Scholar
  20. Liu Y, Guo J, Lu C (2018) Experimental analysis of proppant embedment mechanism. Chem Technol Fuels Oils 54:204–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Man S, Chik-Kwong Wong R (2017) Compression and crushing behavior of ceramic proppants and sand under high stresses. J Pet Sci Eng 158:268–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meng Y, Li Z, Guo Z (2014) Calculation model of fracture conductivity in coal reservoir and its application. J China Coal Soc 39:1852–1856Google Scholar
  23. Neto LB, Kotousov A (2013) Residual opening of hydraulic fractures filled with compressible proppant. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 61:223–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rui Z, Li C, Peng F et al (2017a) Development of industry performance metrics for offshore oil and gas project. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 39:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rui Z, Peng F, Ling K et al (2017b) Investigation into the performance of oil and gas projects. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 38:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rui Z, Cui K, Wang X et al (2018a) A quantitative framework for evaluating unconventional well development. J Pet Sci Eng 166:900–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rui Z, Cui K, Wang X et al (2018b) A comprehensive investigation on performance of oil and gas development in Nigeria: technical and non-technical analyses. Energy 158:666–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rui Z, Guo T, Feng Q, Qu Z, Qi N, Gong F (2018c) Influence of gravel on the propagation pattern of hydraulic fracture in the glutenite reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 165:627–639.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.02.067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rui Z, Wang X, Zhang Z et al (2018d) A realistic and integrated model for evaluating oil sands development with Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage technology in Canada. Appl Energy 213:76–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanematsu P, Shen Y, Thompson K, Yu T, Wang Y, Chang DL, Alramahi B, Takbiri-Borujeni A, Tyagi M, Willson C (2015) Image-based Stokes flow modeling in bulk proppant packs and propped fractures under high loading stresses. J Pet Sci Eng 135:391–402.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang H (2016) Numerical investigation of fracture spacing and sequencing effects on multiple hydraulic fracture interference and coalescence in brittle and ductile reservoir rocks. Eng Fract Mech 157:107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wangen M (2017) A 2D volume conservative numerical model of hydraulic fracturing. Comput Struct 182:448–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warpinski NR, Mayerhofer M, Agarwal K, Du J (2013) Hydraulic-fracture geomechanics and microseismic-source mechanisms. SPE J 18:766–780.  https://doi.org/10.2118/158935-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu K, Chen Z, Li X (2015) Real gas transport through nanopores of varying cross-section type and shape in shale gas reservoirs. Chem Eng J 281:813–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu K, Olson J, Balhoff MT, Yu W (2017) Numerical analysis for promoting uniform development of simultaneous multiple-fracture propagation in horizontal wells. SPE Prod Oper 32:41–50Google Scholar
  36. Xu W, Zhao J, Rahman SS, et al (2018) A comprehensive model of a hydraulic fracture interacting with a natural fracture: analytical and numerical solution. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1–19Google Scholar
  37. Yan X, Huang Z, Yao J et al (2016) Theoretical analysis of fracture conductivity created by the channel fracturing technique. J Nat Gas Sc Eng 31:320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang J (2014) Theoretical conductivity analysis of surface modification agent treated proppant. Fuel 134:166–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.05.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang J, Hou J (2016) Theoretical conductivity analysis of surface modification agent treated proppant II – channel fracturing application. Fuel 165:28–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang J, Ouyang L, Zhu D, Hill AD (2015) Experimental and numerical studies of reduced fracture conductivity due to proppant embedment in the shale reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 130:37–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang F, Zhu H, Zhou H, Guo J, Huang B (2017) Discrete-element-method/computational fluid-dynamics coupling simulation of proppant embedment and fracture conductivity after hydraulic fracturing. SPE J 22:632–644.  https://doi.org/10.2118/185172-PA CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhu H, Shen J, Zhang F, et al (2018) DEM-CFD modeling of proppant pillar deformation and stability during the fracturing fluid flowback. GeofluidsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and ExploitationSouthwest Petroleum UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.CNOOC China LimitedZhanjiangChina
  3. 3.Sinopec Shengli Oilfield CompanyShengliChina

Personalised recommendations