MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160008218 · doi:10.2118/204154-ms

Practical Applications of Water Hammer Analysis from Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments

2021· article· en· W3160008218 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater hammerHammerHydraulic fracturingPetroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineeringFracture (geology)Environmental scienceMechanicsEngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Water hammer is oscillatory pressure behavior in a wellbore resulting from the inertial effect of flowing fluid being subjected to an abrupt change in velocity. It is commonly observed at the end of large-scale hydraulic fracturing treatments after fluid injection rate is rapidly reduced or terminated. In this paper, factors affecting treatment-related water hammer behavior are disclosed, and field studies are introduced correlating water hammer characteristics to fracture intensity and well productivity. A simulator based on fundamental fluid-mechanics concepts was developed to model water hammer responses for various wellbore configurations and treatment characteristics. Insight from the modeling work was used to develop an optimal process of terminating fluid injection to obtain a consistent, identifiable oscillatory response for evaluating water hammer periodicity, decay rate, and oscillatory patterns. A completion database was engaged in a semi-automated process to evaluate numerous treatments. A data screening method was developed and implemented for enhancing interpretation reliability. Derived water hammer components were correlated to fracture intensity, well productivity and in certain cases, loss of treatment confinement to the intended treatment interval. Using the above process, thousands of hydraulic fracturing treatments were evaluated, and the results of that work are included in this study. The treatments were performed in wells based in Texas, South America, and Canada and completed in low permeability and unconventional reservoirs. The water hammer decay rate was determined to be a reliable indication of the system friction (friction in the wellbore and hydraulic fracture network) that drains energy from the water hammer pulse. In unconventional reservoirs characterized by small differences in the minimum and maximum horizontal stresses, high system friction correlated positively with fracture intensity/complexity and well performance. Results were constrained with instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) and pressure falloff measurements to identify instances of direct communication with previously treated offset wellbores. The resulting analyses provided: – identification of enhanced-permeability intervals – indications of hydraulic fracture geometry – assessment of treatment modifications intended to enhance fracture complexity – identification of loss of treatment confinement to the intended interval – location of associated points of failure in the wellbore Topics covered in the paper include: Introduction Joukowsky Equation Period and Boundary Conditions Review of Prior Work on Water Hammer Analysis Shut-In Pressure Data, Analysis, and Model Data collection frequency Data issues and requirements Water Hammer Analytical Method Water Hammer Model Effects on Water hammer signature Fluid properties Step-down rate change and duration Perforation friction Applications Identification of Boundary Condition Identification of Treatment Stage Isolation Identification of Casing Failure Depth Identification of Excess Period (Excess Length) Case Study – Water Hammer Data in an Unconventional Reservoir Interpretation of frac geometry and friction in the fracture Relationship to well productivity

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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