MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802366434 · doi:10.2118/190041-ms

Experimental Study on the Effect of Injection Parameters on Proppant Transport in Rough Vertical Hydraulic Fractures

2018· article· en· W2802366434 on OpenAlexaff
Hai Huang, Tayfun Babadagli, Huazhou Li, Kayhan Develi, Gongjue Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Western Regional Meeting · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringHydraulic fracturingSettlingSlurryMaterials scienceVolumetric flow rateFracture (geology)Fracturing fluidFlow (mathematics)ComminutionGeotechnical engineeringViscositySurface roughnessGeologyEnvironmental scienceComposite materialMechanicsEnvironmental engineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The understanding of proppant flow through fractures is critical in evaluating the hydraulic fracturing performance. As a continuation of our experimental efforts devoted to understanding how proppant flows in rough vertical fractures, in this paper, we examine the effect of injection parameters on the proppant transport in rough vertical fractures. The effects of polymer concentration, injection rate, proppant concentration, and type of proppant were investigated in detail. Experimental results show that a sufficiently high polymer concentration is needed to enable effective proppant flow in rough fractures. In general, the relative coverage of proppants increased dramatically as the polymer concentration increased, implying that the higher viscosity of fracturing fluid could enhance the slurry's ability to place more proppant vertically into the fracture and help to maintain a better conductivity after fracturing treatment. A sufficiently high injection rate of the slurry is also needed to enable effective proppant flow in rough fractures. At certain low injection rate, the proppants carried by a low polymer solution might not exhibit a tree-like settling pattern, diminishing the effect of roughness effect on the proppant transport. This means that even in rough fractures, the tree-like settling pattern of the proppants did not necessarily occur for sure; the injection rate should be properly selected to enable such phenomenon. With other condition being kept constant, a higher proppant loading led to a higher final relative coverage of the proppants in the rough fractures. But if the injection rate used for delivering the proppants is not sufficiently high, we may encounter injectivity issues; in our lab experiments, this caused the choking of the pump. The heavier proppant (ceramic proppants) in the rough fracture models tended to suppress the tree-like settling pattern that was experienced by the lighter proppant (silica sands). This is attributed to the larger density of the ceramic proppants, leading to a larger settling velocity. In order to maximize the spreading of a given proppant over a rough fracture model, we should determine the proper values of all the essential injection parameters (including polymer solution, injection rate, proppant concentration) by striking a good balance among them. The conclusions obtained in this study shed light on how to optimize slurry injection parameters to achieve an optimal proppant-filling ratio during hydraulic fracturing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Western Regional MeetingSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207