Assessment and Prediction of Erosion in Completion Systems under Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Using Computational Fluid Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High rate injection or production of fluids with sand particles places wellhead components and downhole assemblies at risk of erosion damage. Depending on the severity and location of the material loss, this may pose a significant well loss or blowout hazard. For this reason, assessment and mitigation of erosion can be critical for such applications. In this work, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was used in conjunction with erosion models to assess the erosion damage characteristics associated with the operating conditions and equipment for a high-rate, shale gas reservoir fracturing application. The work was based on the severe erosion damage experienced by EnCana as a result of high rate hydraulic fracturing operations performed in horizontal shale gas wells at their Horn River, BC field development. Material losses were observed within the wellhead equipment as well as in the LTC couplings of the production casing string near surface in several wells. CFD models were developed for the existing wellhead and wellbore geometries and used to simulate a range of hydraulic fracture operating conditions in an effort to predict the locations and degree of material loss in the components in each case. The models were calibrated with caliper log data and measurements taken from casing samples retrieved from several wells. The analyses suggested that well head system modifications, such as tubing head spool changes and use of spacer spools, could be effective in substantially reducing material losses in the tubular connections. In addition, sensitivity analyses were performed for different wellhead configurations and variations in the hydraulic fracturing parameters to determine the factors that likely had the most influence on the connection material losses. The results served to demonstrate that it is possible to use CFD with erosion models as predictive tools to identify locations of severe erosion in completion systems, and, when calibration data is available, to quantify the amount of material loss in wellhead and downhole components. This information can aid in designing optimum completions systems, and in defining operating conditions which can reduce the risk of equipment failure, potential blow-outs, and associated safety and environmental hazards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".