Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C.1
GRI-93/0109
Topical Report
HydraulicFractureModelComparisonStudy:
CompleteResults
11 1 1 1111111
Prepared by:
N. R. Warpinski, Sandia National
I. S. Abou-Sayed,
Z. Moschovidis,
11 11
*8574884*
Laboratories
Mobil Exploration
AMOCO Production
and Production
Company
C. Parker CONOCO
Services
SANDIA NATIONAL
LABORATORIES
TECHNICALLIBRARY
GasResearchInstitute
Tight Sands and Gas, Processing Research Department
February 1993
180p.
SAND93-7042
GRI93/0109
TOPICAL REPORT
(February, 1993)
Prepared by
N. R. Warpinski Sandia National Laboratories
l.S. Abou-Sayed Mobil Exploration and Production Services
Z. Moschovidis AMOCO Production Company
C. Parker CONOCO
Prepared at
Sandia National Laboratories
Division 6114
P.O. BOX 5800
Albuquerque,
For
GAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Contract No. 5089-211-2059
GRI Project Manager
Steve Wolhart
Tight Gas Sands Field Evaluation
February 1993
GRI DISCLAIMER
LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Sandia National Laboratories as
an account of work sponsored by the Gas Research institute (GRI). Neither
GRI, members of GRI, nor any person acting on behalf of either
a.
b.
Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting
from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed
in this report.
...-
..,
..
1- c-~
E?(3RT 00CUMENTAllON
PAGE
X W@.nt% Auo,b
--
l nd Subtttle
Tltl*
No.
GRI-93/olo9
x
Oao
Preparation
2/17/93
Hydraulic
Fracture
Model
Comparison
~wS)N.R.
Warpinski,
1.S.
Abou-Sayed,
Study:
Complete
C. Parker,
Results
&
Z. Moschovidis
fid~omanixotion
Ma- l nd Addrns
Sandia National
Laboratories
Division
6253
P.O. BOX 5800
Albuquerque,
New Mexico
87185
Z
m&~&
la
~dt/WorttUn4t
N..
IL
_mct(C)orCcOmt(G)
No.
5089-211-2059
(a)
l%Tyf100f~O@Wt
SfmnwnhSOfSdXdOCINameo#~S
on the results
&14riOdCowr,d
Topical
Report
14.
of the Fracture
Propagation
Modeling
Forum
cmsrmct(udtsuo~
study is a comparison
of hydraulic
fracture
models run using test data from the GR
Staged-Field
Experiment
#3 (SFE-3).
Models compared include:
(1) PKN and GDK constantheight
versions;
(2) 3-layer
pseudo-3-D models; and (3) 5-layer
3-D or pseudo-3D models
Model calculations
were provided
by several
consulting
companies,
oil producing
companies,
service
companies,
and academia.
Modelers were given the measured stress an~
material
property
data obtained
at SFE-3 and fluid
properties
approximating
those used
during SFE-3 stimulations.
Companies were allowed to run any or all of the three cases
(constant
height,
3 layer,
or 5 layer)
using their
own models or commercial models they
had purchased,.
Included
with
the results
are brief
discussions
of each model.
This
paper documents the differences
in length,
height,
width,
pressure,
and efficiency
predicted
by the various
models for each of thethree
cases.
Well-known
differences
in
between the
length between 2-D PKN and GDK models are shown, but so are differences
much shorter
pseudo-3-D and fully-3-D
models.
For example, two of the models yield
Overall,
efficiencies
varied between 40% and 97%, and
lengths
than other 3-D models.
net pressures
ranged from about 700 to 1600 psi for the 3-layer
and 5-layer
cases.
Heights varied
from 300-700 ft.
These comparisons
clearly
show that fracture
design
models give widely varying
results.
These results
provide
the petroleum
engineer
a
practical
comparison of the various
available
design models for an actual
field
test.
This
17. oa4uMntAMlysi*
Tight
b.
00urloIacs
gas sands,
1dontlfm?8/Otmn.
Ended
hydraulic
C. COSATI
Awdlablllty
fracture
modeling
Terms
IL
fracturing,
height,
Fracpro,
Trifrac,
Stimplan,
Flold/Cmup
SWtctinl
19.
SoawltYU-c
(This
R.-
z1.
No.
of
Paces
Title
Contractor
Principal
Investigator
Report
Period
Objective
Technical
Perspective
N. R. Warpinski
February 1991 -Februa~, 1993
Topical Report
To develop a mmparative study of hydraulic-fracture
simulators in order to provide stimulation engineers
with the necessary information to make rational
decisions on the type of models most suited for their
needs.
Large quantities of natural gas exist in low
permeability reservoirs throughout the US.
Characteristics of these reservoirs, however, make
production diffiwlt and often economic and stimulation
is required. Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most
important stimulation techniques available to the
petroleum engineer, being used extensively in tight
gas sandstones, coalbed methane, high permeability
sandstones in Alaska, very weak sandstones off the
US. gulf coast, in horizontal wells in chalks, and in
many other applications from waste disposal to
geothermal reservoirs. Because of this diversity of
Technical
Approach
Results
Table of Contents
1.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
2.0 RATIONALE
3.0 BACKGROUND - BASIC MODELING DISCUSSION
3.1 Planar 3-D Models
3.2 Planar 3-D Finite Difference Model - GOHFER
3.3 Pseudo-3-D Models
3.4 Classic PKN and GDK Models
4.0 FRACTURE MODELS
4.1 S.A. Holditch & Assoc. (TRIFRAC)
4.2 Meyer & Associates (MFRAC-11)
4.3 Advani (Lehigh HYFRAC3D)
4.4 Shell (ENERFRAC)
4.5 Halliburtion (PROP)
4.6 Chevron
4.7 Conoco
4.8 Marathon (GOHFER)
4.9 ARCO (using TerraFrac)
4.10 /4S1(STIMPLAN)
4.11 Resources Engineering Systems (FRAPRO)
4.12 Texaco (using FRACPRO)
5.0 SFE-3 FORMATION AND TREATMENT DATA
6.0 TEST CASES
7.0 MODEL RESULTS
7.1 2-D Results (Cases 1-4)
7.2 3-Layer Results
7.3 5-Layer Results
8.0 DISCUSSION
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
11.0 REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
11
12
13
14
14
16
16
17
19
20
21
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
107
116
125
134
136
145
155
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
List of Tables
Table 1 Rock and Reservoir Data
Table 2 Treatment Data
Table 3 2-D Results at End of Pump
Table 4 3-Layer Results at End of Pump
Table 5 5-layer Results at End of Pump
Table 6 Time to breakthrough into lower layer
Table 7 S.A Holditch & Assoc. - GDK Constant height p=200 cp
Table 8 S.A Holditch & Assoc. - GDK Constant height n=0.5, k =0.06
Table 9 S.A Holditch & Assoc. - PKNConstant height p=200 cp
Table 10 S.A Holditch & Assoc. - PKN Constant height n=0.5, k=0.06
Table 11 S.A. Holditch & Assoc. - 3-layer p=200 w
Table 12 S.A. Holditch & Assoc. - 3-layer n=0.05, k=0.06
Table 13 S.A. Holditch & Assoc. - 5-layer p=200 cp
Table 14 S.A. Holditch & Assoc. - 5-layer n=0.05, k=0.06
Table 15 Meyer& Assoc. - GDK Constant height p=200 cp Base Case
Table 16 Meyer& Assoc. - GDK Constant height n=0.5, k=0.06 Base Case
Table 17 Meyer& Assoc. - PKN Constant height p=200 cp Base Case
Table 18 Meyer& Assoc. - PKN Constant height n=0.5, k=0.06Base Case
Table 19 Meyer& Assoc. - 3-layer ~=200 cp Base Case
Table 20 Meyer& Assoc. - 3-layer n=0.5, k=0.06 Base Case
Table 21 Meyer& Assoc. - 5-layer p=200 cp Base Case
Table 22 Meyer& Assoc. - 5-layer n=0.5, k=0.06 Base Case
Table 23 Meyer& Assoc. - GDK Constant height p=200 cp Knobs on
Table 24 Meyer& Assoc. - GDK Constant height n=0.5, k=0.06 Knobs on
Table 25 Meyer& Assoc. - PKN Constant height p=200 cp Knobs on
Table 26 Meyer& Assoc. - PKN Constant height n=0.5, k=0.06 Knobs on
Table 27 Meyer& Assoc. - 34ayer w=200 cp Knobs on
Table 28 Meyer& Assoc. - 3-layer n=0.5, k=0.06 Knobs on
Table 29 Meyer& Assoc. - 54ayer p=200 cp Knobs on
Table 30 Meyer& Assoc. - 5-layer n=0.5, k=0.06 Knobs on
Table 31 Advani - PKN Constant Height p=200 cp
Table 32 Advani - PKN Constant Height n=0.5, k=0.06
Table 33 Advani - 3-Layer u=200 cp
Table 34 Advani - 3-Layer n=0.5, k=0.06
Table 35 Advani - 5-Layer p=200 cp
Table 36 Advani - 5-Layer n=0.5, k=0.06
Table 37 Shell - GDK Constant Height p=200 cp
Table 38 Shell - GDK Constant Height n=0.5, k=0.06
Table 39 Shell - PKN Constant Height p=200 cp
Table 40 Shell - PKN Constant Height n=0.5, k=0.06
Table 41 Shell ENERFRAC v=200 cp Base Case
Table 42 Shell ENERFRAC n=0.5, k=0.06 Base Case
Table 43 Shell ENERFRAC 1.L=200cp 0verpressure=500 psi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Length comparison for cases 1-4
Figure 2 Net pressure comparison for cases 14
Figure 3 Efficiency comparison for cases 1-4
Figure 4 Comparison of maximum width at welibore for cases 1-4
Figure 5 Comparison of average width at wellbore for cases 14
Figure 6 Comparison of average width in fracture for cases 1-4
Figure 7 Length history for case 1
Figure 8 Net pressure history for case 1
Figure 9 History of width at wellbore for case 1
Figure 10 Length history for case 2
Figure 11 Net pressure history for case 2
Figure 12 History of width at wellbore for case 2
Figure 13 Length history for case 3
Figure 14 Net pressure history for case 3
Figure 15 Histo~ of width at wellbore for case 3
Figure 16 Length history for case 4
Figure 17 Net pressure history for case 4
Figure 18 History of width at wellbore for case 4
Figure 19 Length history for other constant height-models -200 cp
Figure 20 Net pressure history for other constant height-models -200 cp
Figure 21 History of width at wellbore for other mnstant-height models -200 cp
Figure 22 Length history for other constant height-models - n, k
Figure 23 Net pressure history for other constant height-models - n, k
Figure 24 History of width at wellbore for other constant-height models - n, k
Figure 25 Length comparison for cases 5 and 6
Figure 26 Height comparison for cases 5 and 6
Figure 27 Net pressure mmparison for cases 5 and 6
Figure 28 Efficiency comparison for cases 5 and 6
Figure 29 Comparison of maximum width at wellbore for cases 5 and 6
Figure 30 Comparison of average width at wellbore for cases 5 and 6
Figure 31 Comparison of average width in fracture for cases 5 and 6
Figure 32 Length history for case 5
Figure 33 Height history for case 5
Figure 34 Net pressure history for case 5
Figure 35 History of width at wellbore for case 5
Figure 36 Length history for case 6
Figure 37 Height history for case 6
Figure 38 Net pressure history for case 6
Figure 39 History of width at wellbore for case 6
Figure 40 Length comparison for cases 7 and 8
Figure 41 Height comparison for cases 7 and 8
Figure 42 Net pressure comparison for cases 7 and 8
Figure 43 Efficiency mmparison for cases 7 and 8
Figure 44
Figure 45
Figure 46
Figure 47
Figure 48
Figure 49
Figure 50
Figure 51
Figure 52
Figure 53
Figure 54
Appendix A
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
Appendix B
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
Appendix C
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
Appendix D
Figure D1 Height profiles - cases 5-8
Appendix E
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
Appendix F
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
Appendix G
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
2.0 RATIONALE
The petroleum engineer, who must design the fracture treatment, is often confronted
with a difficult choice of selecting a suitable hydraulic-fracture model for hislher needs,
yet there is very little comparative information available to help in making that choice,
particularly with respect to the newer 3-D and pseudo-3-D models. Many experienced
engineers will also have their own biases about hydraulic fracture performance and
would prefer to find a mde whose output is most consistent with the engineers
experience. The purpose of this report is to help provide some guidance by comparing
many of the available simulators.
This report had its origins in the Fracture Propagation Modeling Forum held February
26-27, 1991, near Houston, TX. This forum, which was sponsored by the Gas
Research Institute, was open to all known hydraulic fracturing modelers. Participants
were asked to provide fracture designs based on the SFE No. 3 fracture experiment, as
well as a history match of the actual pressure data from the treatment. After
comparison of the fracture designs and histoty matches presented at this meeting, a
final, revised design data set was given to all participants. Most of the revised data
sets were returned by September 1991, although a couple were returned or modified as
late as November 1993. The results in this report are derived from the model
calculations of the revised design data set. Because of the difficulty in trying to
establish any consistency in the use of the actual treatment data (e.g., effects of the
breaker, temperature, rate changes, etc.), it was decided that any further attempt to
compare history matches would need to be deferred. Thus, publication of forum results
is limited to the design phase only.
To publish the results, a four-member committee (the authors) was chosen from forum
participants. In assembling this mmparison, the members of the committee have
purposely attempted to avoid making any judgments about the relative value of different
models so as not to inject our biases into this comparison. Only the results and
quantifiable comparisons are given.
Since hydraulic fracturing is performed in a large percentage of gas completions (and
in recompletion), the benefit to the gas consumer comes from the optimization of this
technique when an appropriate model is used. Optimization results in more costeffective completions, enhanced gas production, lower wellhead costs, and additional
supply.
The modelers who participated in the forum and prepared data for this paper desewe
special thanks for their efforts. Most importantly, Dr. Steve Holditch of S.A. Holditch &
Associates should be singled out for special mention as the prime mover of the forum, at
follow-up SPE paper, and this report.
3
3.0 BACKGROUND - BASIC MODELING DISCUSSION
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of fracturing simulators used in the oil
industry. This proliferation was intensified by the availability of personal computers and
theneed for fast running design simulators forusein the field. Apply ingthese models
as black boxes, without knowing the underlying assumptions may lead to erroneous
conclusions, especially for unconfined fracture growth. While specific descriptions of
the individual models are given in section 4.0, this section provides a general overview
of hydraulic-fracture models and catalogues the various models into similar groupings.
Hydraulic fracturing is a complex non-linear mathematical problem, that involves the
mechanical interaction of the propagating fracture with the fluid dynamics of the
injected slurry. Several assumptions are commonly made to render the problem
tractable: plane fractures, symmetric with respect to the wellbore; elastic formation;
linear fracture mechanics for fracture propagation prediction; power law behavior of
fracturing fluids and slurries; simplification of fracture geometry, and its representation
by few geometric parameters; etc. The reader is referred to the SPE Monograph
Volume 1211 for a detailed description of the governing equations. Although the
models predict trends of treating pressure behavio~ they may not always reliably
predict the observed behavior for a given treatment. This discrepancy has been
attributed to many complex interactions of the injected fluids with the formation that are
not well understood.
An attempt to phenomenologically characterize some of these mmplex processes
occurring within the fracture (e.g., multiple fractures, increased frictional losses) and
near the fracture tip (e.g. non-linear formation behavior, microcracking, formation
plasticity, dilatancy, plugging, etc.) was made in various simulators by the introduction
of additional ad hoc parameters (knobs). The choice of values for these parameters
is only based on the experience of the modeler, possibly with some guidance from the
laborato~, field observations, or from other computational resources (e.g., finite
element codes). These knobs are used to match model predictions with field observed
behavior, and result in the lack of a standard model response for a given physical
problem. This issue was addressed in the forum by having different participants
(several different models) simulate common test cases derived from the actual SFE No.
3 well fracturing treatment. These models can be categorized in the order of
decreasing complexity as follows:
(1) Planar threedimensional (3D) models
models
A- Cell Approach
STIMPIAN of NSI, Inc.
ENERFRAC of Shel120~21
TRIFRAC of Holditch & Assoc.
B- Overall Fracture Geomet~ Parameterization
FRACPRO of RES, lnc.22-25
MFRAC-11of Meyer and ASSOC.26-29
(4) Classic PKN and GDK Models30-35
PROP of Halliburton34-36
Chevron 2-D mode137
Conoco 2-D mode138139
Shell 2-D model
Pseudo-3-D models run in mnstant-height mode
A discussion of the basics of these models is given to provide some insights on the
model assumptions and how they are expected to affect the results.
3.1 Planar 3-D Models
The TerraFrac12-16 and the HYFRAC3D17 models employ similar assumptions and
formulate the physics rigorously, assuming planar fractures of arbitrary shape in a
linearly elastic formation, two dimensional flow in the fracture, power law fluids, and
linear fracture mechanics for fracture propagation. Their difference is in the numerical
technique to calculate fracture opening. TerraFrac uses an integral equation
representation, while the HYFRAC3D model uses the finite element method. Both
models use finite elements for twodimensional fluid flow within the fracture and employ
a fracture tip advancement proportional to the stress intensity factor on the fracture tip
contour.
3.2 Planar 3-D Finite-Difference Model -GOHFER
Besides the numerical technique used, this modell8119 is different from the previous
models in two fundamental ways: (a) fracture opening is calculated by superposition
using the surface displacement of a half space under normal load (Boussinesq
Solution); (b) the fracture propagates when the tensile stress normal to the fracturing
plane exceeds the tensile strength of the formation at some distance outside the
fracture by enforcing the tensile criterion at the centroid of the cells outside the
5
fracturing mntour. This model predicts higher treating pressures and shorter and wider
fractures as compared with the ones of the previous 3D models.
3.3 Pseudo-3-D Models
These models were developed from the PKN model by removing the requirement of
constant fracture height. They use equations based on simple geometries (radial} two
dimensional, elliptical) to calculate fracture width as a function of position and pressure
and apply a fracture propagation criterion to both length and height. Furthermore, they
assume one dimensional flow along the length of the fracture.
These models can be divided into two categories: (A) models that divide the fracture
along its length into cells, and use local cell geometry (twodimensional crack or
penny crack) to relate fracture opening with fluid pressure; (B) models that use a
parametric representation of the total fracture geometry. As a result of these
assumptions, it is expected that each class will have different fracture geometry, even
for the simple case of a mnfined fracture.
The pseudo-3D simulators are extensively used for fracture design because of their
efficiency and their availability on personal mmputers. However, they are directly
applicable only for the geometries that are not significantly different from the basic
assumptions of the model (e.g., models based on a PKN geometry should have large
length/height ratios to be appropriate). For relatively unconfined fracture growth in a
complex in situ stress profile, a 3D model is thus more accurate in predicting trends of
fracture geometry. To avoid this problem, some pseudo-3-D models attempt to include
truly 3D fracture behavior in terms of history matching or lumped parameters
determined from fully 3D-solutions of simpler problems or determined from simulations
using 3D models.
3.4 Classic PKN and GDK Models
The difference in treating pressure behavior and fracture geometty of the PKN and
GDK models is well documented in the literature 1140and need not be repeated here.
6
4.0 FRACTURE MODELS
This section describes the individual fracture models that were used in this comparisorl.
Short descriptions of the models were provided by the modelers or by the companies
who ran commercially available models.
4.1 S.A. Holditch & Assoc. (TRIFRAC\
SAHS hydraulic fracturing model TRIFRAC is a pseudo-3-D fracture propagation and
proppant transport model that computes created and propped fracture dimensions
using a finitedifference numerical approach. It has the capability to handle multiple
non-symmetric stress layers with unique values for Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio,
fracture toughness, permeability, porosity, and fluid Ieakoff coefficients for each layer.
Properties for a maximum of twenty-two layers can be input currently.
The apparent viscosity of the fracturing fluid is computed based upon the shear rate
inside the fracture and changes in n and k due to variations of temperature and time.
A temperature calculation model is thus part of TRIFRAC. Choice of initiating the
hydraulic fracture from ten different layers simultaneously is available. Special options
are available to input pump schedule for nitrogen foam treatments.
The created geometry computation module is coupled with a rigorous finite difference
proppant transport simulator that solves simultaneously for proppant distribution,
transport, and settling along with the growth of the fracture. Depending upon the fluid
velocity along the height of the fracture and the rate of settling of the proppant, the
model computes the proppant profile at each time step during the job.
TRIFRAC also has the simpler twodimensional geometry computational finitedifference models of Geertsma and DeKlerk, and Perkins, Kern, and Nordgren.
Horizontal fracture geometry calwlation using the GDK method is also available. All
these models are coupled with proppant transport calculation modules.
4.2 Mever & Associates (MFRAC-11~
MFRAC-1126-29is a pseudo-3-D hydraulic fracturing simulator. MFRAC-11also
includes options for the penny, GeertsmadeKlerk and Perkins-Kern/Nordgren type 2-D
fracturing models. Version 7.0, written in C++ and developed under Microsoft Windows
3.x, offers a user interface which takes full advantage of the facilities existing under this
operating system. The programs features include intelligent menus, a complete fluid
database, flexible units and user wstomized help screens.This study was run using
MFRAC-11,Version 6.1.
MFRAC-11accounts for the coupled parameters affecting fracture propagation and
proppant transport. The major fracture, rock and fluid mechanics phenomena include:
(1) multi-layer, unsymmetrical confining stress mntrast, (2) fracture toughness and
7
tip/overpressure effects, (3) rock deformation, (4) variable injection rate and time
dependent fluid rheology properties, (5) multi-layer leak-off with spurt loss and (6) 2-D
proppant transport. The fracture propagation model calculates fracture length, upper
and lower heights, width, net pressure, efficiency, and geometry parameters as a
function of time. The width variation as a function of height and confining stress is also
calculated.
In order to provide applicability over the broadest range of circumstances, MFRAC-11
offers numerous options which can be employed by the user. These options and other
free parameters (knobs) allows customization in the modeling approach adopted.
MFRAC-11was run in two different modes to demonstrate the effects of some of these
parameters. In one case, the base model using the system defaults was run
(designated MEYER-1 ); in a second case (MEYER-2) additional parameters (such as
greater friction drop in the fracture) were applied. In both cases, as a default, the
viscous thinning assumption was made. Without viscous thinning, the effective friction
factor would have increased, resulting in higher net pressures, greater widths and a
shorter length. In addition, the fully implicit coupled model for height growth (Ver. 7.0)
results in increased development of fracture height and net pressure for certain multiIayer formations.
4.3 Advani [Lehigh HYFRAC3D~
The 3 layer and 5 la er model results (Cases 5 through 8) are obtained from the
HYFRAC3D code. 11 This finite element mde is based on a set of coupled mass
conservation, fluid momentum, constitutive elasticity and fracture mechanics equations
governing planar hydraulic fracture propagation in a multilayered reservoir. A mapping
technique of the baseline mesh (88 triangular elements representing half of the
fracture) defined in a unit circle to arbitrary shaped fracture geometries is utilized in the
numerical scheme for tracking the moving fracture front.
The PKN model results (Cases 1 and 2) are also based on a twodimensional finite
element model simulator with standard PKN model equations including vertical stiffness
and onedimensional fluid flow. These simulation results are obtained using 20 line
elements for the normalized, timedependent fracture half-length.
4.4 Shell (ENERFRAC\
ENERFRAC2D21 is a hydraulic fracture model that predicts fracture dimensions for
uncontained (circular) and contained (rectangular) fractures. ENERFRAC incorporates
fracture tip effects in addition to the other interacting processes of viscous fluid flow,
elastic rock deformation, and fluid loss. Fracture tip effects are accounted for through a
direct input of the rocks apparent fracture toughness or the fracture tip net pressure
(overpressure). This overpressure is defined as the instantaneous shut-in-pressure
minus the closure pressure and can be determined in the field from a microfrac or
minifrac test.
Shell also provided 2-D PKN and GDK model results. The ENERFRAC results
provided a useful comparison of the effect of free model parameters (the knobs
discussed earlier) on the results. Shell provided results for typical fracture toughness
values measured in lab tests (the base case, designated ENERFRAC-1 ) and also for a
several tip overpressures. The particular case of a tip overpressure of 1000 psi
(ENERFRAC-2) is shown in several plots for comparison with the base case. This
comparison allows us to see the effect of fracture tip overpressure on fracture geometry
and net pressure.
4.5 Halliburton (PROP]
The PROP program~-~
is a 2-D fracture design model based on Daneshys
numerical solution. Its numerical nature makes the model much more flexible than
most analytical models. For example, the program has recently been modified for use
of multiple fluids and rates within a single treatment, each fluid with its own set of timeand temperaturedependent theological parameters. In addition to the power-law
model normally used to characterize gelled fracturing fluids, PROP uses the threeparameter Herschel-Bulkley model for fluids containing a nitrogen or carbon dioxide
phase. The programs proppant transport calculations are of similar capability.
Although the model originally presented by Daneshy was based on the KhristianovicZheltov width equation (designated GDK in this paper), the PROP program has since
been expanded to include a similar numerical solution of PKN-type geometry with a
width profile based on calculated local pressures. The results presented here are for
the GDK-type solution only.
4.6 Chevron
Chevrons 2-D fracturing simulator is capable of predicting the propagation of constant
height hydraulically induced vertical fractures for a power-law fluid. The simulator also
includes a proppant transport model with proppant settling and a production model.
The simulator is capable of predicting the created fracture geometry based on either
PerWs-Kem-Nordgren (PKN) or the GeertsmadeKlerk (GDK) models. It is most
suitable to design fractures where the geologic conditions restrict height growth. In
fracture propagation models, the equations describing conservation of mass,
conservation of momentum, continuity of fluid flow, and linear elastic deformation of the
rock in plane strain are used to calculate mass flux, fracture width, pressure, and length
as function of time. The proppant transport model calculates the final propped
concentration, width, and bank height given a settlement velocity, and can predict
possible problems caused by proppant bridging or screen out.
The fractured well production model is based on an analytic solution developed by Lee
and Brockenbrough 37 to study the transient behavior of a well intercepted by a finite
conductivity fracture in an infinite reservoir. This production model provides the short
9
time production results. Combining this solution with the well known semi-log
asymptotic solution for longer time periods provides a reliable tool for predicting the
potential productivity of the fractured well.
4.7 Conoco
Conom's fratiure design program isamnstant-height model 2-D)whereeither PKN
or GDK geometry can be selected, as described by McLeod.3 $ It has single inputs for
n, k and Ieakoff coefficient. However, the model is capable of calculating the positions
and concentrations of progressive fluidlproppant stages. Fracture area can be
calculated by either the Howard and Fast Model or an extremely accurate simplification
by CrawFord.39
4.8 Marathon (GOHFER~
Marathon Oil Companys Grid Oriented Hydraulic Fracture Extension Replicator
(GOHFER)l 8S19is a planar 3-D fracture geometry simulator with coupled multidimensional fluid flow and particle transport. As indicated by the name, the model is
based on a regular grid structure which is used for both the elastic rock displacement
calculations and as a planar 2-D finite difference grid for the fluid flow solutions. The
areal pressure distribution obtained from the fluid flow equations, including proppant
transport, is iteratively coupled to the elastic deformation solution. Using the finite
difference scheme for fluid flow allows modeling of multiple discrete fluid entry points
representing perforations at various locations.
Each grid node can be assigned an individual value of net stress, pore pressure,
permeability, porosity, wall-building coefficient, rock strength, Youngs Modulus, and
Poissons Ratio, as well as variables describing fracture wall roughness and tortuosity.
The displacement of the fracture face at each node is determined by integration of the
pressure distribution over all nodes, including the computed tensile stress distribution
in the unbroken rock surrounding the fracture. The fracture width equation used is the
general formula for displacement of a semi-infinite half-space acted upon by a
distributed load, given by Boussinesq. The solution is general enough to allow
modeling of multiple fracture initiation sites simultaneously, and is applicable to any
planar 3-D geometry from perfect containment to uncontrolled height growth.
4.9 ARCO (usina TerraFrac\
TerraFracTM Code12-16 is a fully threedimensional hydraulic fracture simulator. It
was initiated at Terra Tek in 1978 and its commercial availability was announced in
December, 1983. The overall approach used in the model is to subdivide the fracture
into discrete elements and to solve the governing equations for these elements. These
governing equations consist of(1) 3-D elasticity equations that relate pressure on the
crack faces to the crack opening, (2) 2-D fluid flow equations that relate the flow in the
fracture to the pressure gradients in the fluid, and (3) a fracture criterion that relates the
10
intensity of stress state ahead of the crack front to the critical intensity for Mode I
fracture growth. TerraFrac provides many distinctive features including(1) 2-D fluid
flow for both proppant and temperature distribution, (2) multiple stages having differenl
fluids, proppants, rates, with fluid and proppant properties being functions of
temperature if desired, (3) multiple layers, each having different in situ stress, Youngs
modulus, fracture toughness, Poissons ratio, and Ieakoff, (4) poroelastic and
thermoplastic capabilities for waterflooding and other applications, (5) a robust mesh
generator to handle a wide variety of fracture geometries and a quasi-Newton method
to solve the nonlinear system of equations for the fluid pressures (this approach
provides for fast convergence and high accuracy), and (6) a post-shut-in calculation
capability for which no additional assumptions are made (only the injection rate
changes).
4.10 NSI (STIMPLAN~
STIMPLAN is a state-of-the-art 3-D hydraulic-fracture simulator for fracture design and
analysis in complex situations involving height growth, proppant settling, foam fluids, tip
screen out, etc. The model has complete fluid/proppant tracking that allows for
optimum fluid selection and scheduling based on time and temperature history.
Fracture height growth is calculated through multiple layers, and includes proppant
settling and bridging calwlations. A Fracture Analysis/History Matching module
provides for history matching of measured net treating pressures to yield the most
accurate possible estimation of actual fracture geometry and behavior. Also,
simulations during the fracture closure (pressure decline) period aid in pressure decline
analysis for fluid loss in mmplex geologic situations.
4.11 Resources Enaineerina Svstems (FRACPRO)
FRACPR022-25 uses measured values of flowrate, proppant concentration, and fluid
rheology parameters to calculate the pressure drop down a wellbore of variable
deviation and diameter, and the time histories of the fracture growth and the net
fracture pressure are calwlated. The wellbore model handles non-Newtonian fluids
and mrrects for the effects of nitrogen foam, carbon dioxide, and proppant phases.
The model also accounts for friction variation from entrained proppant.
The fracture model is 3-D, in that spatial variations in resewoir stress, modulus,
pressure, and flow distribution are taken into account. However, it does not need to
calwlate the variations at specific points within the fracture. Instead, the effects are
integrated into functional coefficients of governing differential equations, greatly
simplifying the calwlation of the fracture dimensions. The module can therefore run
many times faster than real time, as required for history matching on-site. The
coefficients necessary to calwlate the spatial variations are calculated from a full three
dimensional model and checked against experimental and field test data.
11
FRACPRO handles up to three modulus zones, up to fifty stress zones, and up to fifty
permeable (Ieakoff) zones. Fluid loss is modeled as one-dimensional flow
perpendicular to the fracture face, following Darcy-law behavior, including spurt loss,
filtercake buildup on the fracture face, and a impressible reservoir-fluid region. The
rise in confining stress due to poroelastic effects (backstress) is included. Heat
transfer modeling assumes that there is a cubic-fit temperature distribution between the
fracture and the end of the heat transfer region.
FRACPRO models the convection and settling of proppant in a fracture. Proppant
convection is a process whereby heavier treatment stages (e.g., proppant stages)
displace rapidly downward from the perforations to the bottom of the fracture. Those
stages are then replaced by the pad, or by low-concentration proppant stages. Initial
Iaboratoty and computer simulations indicate that proppant convection maybe the
dominant mechanism in propped-fracture stimulations. As well, FRACPRO can be
used to model proppant settling. The proppant is carried with the fracturing fluid, and
settles. The model takes into account the effects of non-Newtonian fluids, hindered
settling rates, and settled bank buildup.
4.12 Texaco (usina FRACPRO)
FRACPRO was also run by TEXACO for six different cases. These include single-layer
PKN and GDK modes, a 3-layer case with mnstant frac fluid viscosity, and 54ayer
cases for constant fluid viscosity, power-law-fluid behavior, and power-law-fluid
behavior with the tip dominated rheology behavior not operating. The 5-layer runs
provide a good comparison of tipdominated vs. mnventional rheology results using
FRACPRO. The 3-layer and the tipdominated 5-layer cases provide a good
comparison of the results for two different companies using the same model.
4.13 ARCO (usina STIMPLAN\
STIMPIAN was also run by ARCO for four different cases. These include both 3-layer
and 5-layer cases. These results provide a good comparison of the results for two
different companies using the same model.
12
5.0 SFE-3 FORMATION AND TREATMENT DATA
The input data for the fracture modeling com arisen is based upon the results obtained
at the GR1-sponsored SFE-3 experiment.3~4 r SFE-3 was drilled as the Mobil Cargill
Unit No. 15 well in the Waskom Field, Harrison County, Texas. The well was spudded
in September, 1988, and drilled to a total depth of 9700 ft (2957 m). Of particular
interest was the Cotton Valley Taylor sand which was perforated between 9225-9250 ft
(2812-281 9 m) and 9285-9330 ft (2830-2844 m). An extensive log program was run on
this well and detailed core analyses performed. Both prefrac well-testing and post-frac
production testing were performed. Two minifracs and one full-scale treatment were
conducted as part of the stimulation program.
The SFE-3 data set was specifically chosen to insure that the model comparison would
be performed with actual field data and not for a contrived data set that might favor one
type of model over others. In addition, the SFE-3 data set is one of the most complete
sets of well information available, and includes stress, rock and reservoir and wellperformance results.
For this initial study, the relevant rock and reservoir information are shown in Table 1.
As will be described in the next section, three different physical mnfigurations were
considered: a single layer, three layers, and five layers. Stress and rock property
measurements were averaged over the appropriate depths for each interval to yield the
physical data given in Table 1. Most importantly, the stress contrasts range from 14501650 psi (1O-11.4 MPa), although the lower barrier is only 40 ft (12 m) thick for the five
layer mnfiguration. Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio were obtained from sonic
measurements, thus accounting for the elevated values of Youngs modulus.
The actual SFE-3 treatment was a thirteen-stage procedure using primarily a
40 lb/1000 gal (4.8 kg/m3) crosslinked gel with sand stages varying from 1-8 ppg
(120 kg/m3). For the purpose of this comparison, the treatment was simplified to a
single, constant-propetiy, fluid with no proppant, primarily because changes in fluid
properties due to temperature or the addition of proppant can not be easily quantified
and any resulting mmparisons would be of questionable value.
13
6.0 TESTCASES
As noted in the description section, most of the models are capable of accommodating
and processing a much broader range of complex data than presented in this data set
(i.e., multiple rock properties, leak-off coefficients, n, k, etc.). Refer to Tables 1 and 2
for the mmplete set of data input. However, the data set was arbitrarily restricted to
limit as many discretionary inputs as possible to allow a more direct comparison of
model performance. The treatment input is also not to be construed as optimum design
parameters, but rather an approximation of that from SFE No. 3.
There were a total of eight possible cases each participant could model if they so
chose. These were GDK, PKN, 3-layer, and 5-layer cases with separate runs for a
mnstant Newtonian viscosity and a constant n and k power-law fluid as follows:
GDK Constant height -200 cp fluid
Case 1
GDK Constant height - Power-law fluid (n, k)
Case 2
PKN Constant height -200 cp fluid
Case 3
PKN Constant height - Power-law fluid (n, k)
Case 4
3-Layer -200 cp fluid
Case 5
3-Layer - Power-law fluid (n, k)
Case 6
5-Layer -200 w fluid
Case 7
5-Layer - Power-law fluid (n, k)
Case 8
The PKN and GDK cases were run with a constant height (2-D) set at 170 ft (52 m).
The 3-layer and 5-layer cases were run using a 3-Dora Pseudo-3-D model allowing
fracture height to be determined by the model. Of particular interest was if the fracture
broke through zone 4 in the 5-layer case.
The important rock propetiy data for the 3-layer case are shown graphically in Figure 1,
and the data for the 5-layer case are shown in Figure 2. These stress and modulus
profiles are simplifications of the actual stress and modulus profiles measured at the
SFE No. 3 site.
14
7.0 MODEL RESULTS
A short summary of the final geometry at the end of pumping is given in Tables 3-5 for
the 2-D, 3-layer, and 5-layer cases respectively. A summary of the time to
breakthrough for the 5-layer calculations is given in Table 6. All of the submitted data
from the modelers are given in Tables 7-83, in the following order
Tables 7-14
S.A. Holditch & Assoc. Trifrac
Meyer & Assoc. M-FRAC-11base case (Meyer-1)
Tables 15-22
Meyer & Assoc. M-FRAC-11knobs (Meyer-2)
Tables 23-30
Advani HYFRAC3D
Tables 31-36
Tables 37+0
Shell 2-D Models
Tables
41-50
Shell Enetirac.
Halliburton 2-D Prop
Tables 51-52
Tables 53-54
Chevron 2-D models
Conoco 2-D models
Tables 55-58
Marathon GOHFER
Tables 59ARCO (Stimplan)
Tables 65%8
ARCO (TerraFrac)
Table 69
NSI Stimplan
Tables 70-73
RES Fracpro
Tables 74-77
Texaco (Fracpro)
Tables 78-83
The graphs of the data shown in this section were derived from this tabular data set. In
addition, some modelers provided additional graphical information on the width and
height profiles along the length of the crack. These are given in the following
appendices:
S.A. Holditch & Assoc. Trifrac
Appendix A
Meyer & Assoc. M-FRAC-11base case (Meyer-1)
Appendix B
Meyer & Assoc. M-FRAC-11knobs (Meyer-2)
Appendix C
Advani HYFRAC3D
Appendix D
Marathon GOHFER
Appendix E
ARCO (Stimplan and TerraFrac)
Appendix F
RES Fracpro
Appendix G
15
The reduction in length between ENERFRAC-1 and ENERFRAC-2 is due to increased
tip overpressure. Likewise, the reduction in length between MEYER-1 and MEYER-2 is
due to options that were included in MEYER-2 which reflect the designers
incorporation of more complex physics into the fracturing process.
The net pressures for the 2-D models, shown in Figure 4, follow a similar pattern to
length, with the GDK models giving low pressures and the PKN models providing high
net pressures. GOHFER is different in that it predicts short lengths, like the GDK
models, but high pressures like the PKN models.
The efficiencies for the 2-D calculations are shown in Figure 5. Values ranged from 7095%.
The fracture maximum width is shown in Figure 6, while the average width at the
wellbore is given in Figure 7, and the average width throughout the whole fracture is
shown in Figure 8. As expected, the GDK models provide much greater width than the
PKN models. GOHFERS width is more similar to the GDK models while ENERFRACS
width is closer to the PKN models.
The time-history results for Case 1 (GDK with 200-cP fluid) are shown in Figures 9-11
for length, net pressure and width at the wellbore, respectively. It is interesting to note
that even for this simple data set there is a significant difference between the various
GDK models.
Time-history results for Case 2 (GDK with power-law fluid) are shown in Figures 12-14
for length, net pressure and width at the wellbore, respectively. As with the Case 1
results, there is also a significant difference in the calculations of the various models.
Time history results for Case 3 (PKN with 200-cP fluid) are shown in Figures 15-17 for
length, net pressure and maximum width at the wellbore, respectively. Different PKN
models also have considerable variation in their calculated output.
Time history results for Case 4 (PKN with power-law fluid) are shown in Figures 18-20
for length, net pressure and maximum width at the wellbore, respectively.
Time history results for other 2-D models using a 200-cp fluid (these do not fit exactly
into the Case 1 or 3 categories) are shown in Figures 21-23 for length, net pressure
and maximum width at the wellbore, respectively. The effect of tip overpressure is seen
by comparing the two ENERFRAC cases.
Time history results for other 2-D models using a power-law fluid are shown in
Figures 24-26 for length, net pressure and maximum width at the wellbore,
respectively. Tip-overPressure effects can be again seen for a power-law fluid.
16
7.2 3-Laver Results
The 34ayer summary results (Table 4) show considerably more variability than the 2-D
cases. A comparison of all 3-Layer length calculations (Cases 5 and 6) is shown in
Figure 27. The fracture half length varies from less than 1000 ft for FRACPRO to
greater than 3000 ft for the conventional pseudo-3-D models. An interesting and
illustrative comparison is seen in the differences between MEYER-1 and -2. MEYER-2,
using some features that the modeler believes are more appropriate physics, results in
a fracture length that is nearly 1000 ft less than the base case with no options. Many
such options have probably been employed on the other models, but were not
identified as such for this comparison.
The favorable comparison between ARCO and NSI running Stimplan, and a similar
favorable comparison between TEXACO and RES running FRACPRO, show that
consistent results can be obtained from a given model even if run by different
organizations.
The fracture height comparison, given in Figure 28, shows that much greater height
growth is obtained by FRACPRO than by other models. Net pressures, shown in
Figure 29, are particularly high in FRACPRO and GOHFER. Efficiencies vary from
40% to greater than 950A,as given in Figure 30.
Fracture maximum widths (at the wellbore) are given in Figure 31, the maximum
average width at the wellbore is shown in Figure 32, and the average width in the entire
fracture is shown in Figure 33. In all three cases, Fracpro and GOHFER calculate
much greater widths than the other models.
Time histories for Case 5 (3-layer with 200-cP fluid) are given in Figures 34-37 for
length, height, net pressure and maximum width at the wellbore, respectively. These
graphs clearly show that there is an amazing range of output from the different models,
even for this relatively simple case.
Time histories for Case 6 (3-layer with power-law fluid) are given in Figures 38-41 for
length, height, net pressure and maximum width at the wellbore, respectively. Height
growth is extremely fast in FRACPRO, but much better contained in most of the other
models.
7.3 5-Laver Results
The 5-layer (Cases 7 and 8) summary results (Table 5) are similar to the 3-layer
comparison, except that the length in some models is shorter because the height
breaks through the lower barrier. The half lengths are shown in Figure 42 and the
fracture heights are given in Figure 43. Net pressures range from nearly 700 psi
(4.8 MPa) to almost 1400psi (9.7 MPa), as shown in Figure 44. Efficiencies range
from about 60A to 970A,as shown in Figure 45. Again, there is relatively good
17
agreement between the same model run by two different mmpanies (Stimplan by NSI
and ARCO and Fracpro by RES and Texaco).
The maximum fracture width at the wellbore is shown in Figure 46, the fracture average
width at the wellbore is given in Figure 47, and the average width throughout the entire
fracture is shown in Figure 48. As in the 3-layer case, Fracpro and GOHFER provide
the most width development.
Time histories for Case 7 (5-layer with 200-cp fluid) are shown in Figures 49-52 for
length, height, net pressure, and maximum width at the wellbore, respectively. The
length development in this case is not uniform because height breakthrough into the
lower barrier limits growth in some of the models. By mmparing all these results with
the 3-layer calculations, the effect of breakthrough into the lower low-stress region can
be seen.
Time histories for Case 8 (5-layer with power-law fluid) are shown in Figures 53-56 for
length, height, net pressure, and maximum width at the wellbore, respectively. One of
the interesting results of this study is the behavior of the pressure response as the
fracture breaks into the lower barrier. Some models have pressure decreasing, others
have pressure remaining flat, while others continue to have pressure increase.
8.0 DISCUSSION
The completion engineer now has a wide array of hydraulic models available for both
design and analysis of hydraulic-fracture treatments. However, these models calculate
widely different fracture geometries for the same input parameters, and it bemmes
important to choose a model that meets the needs of that particular engineer. The
purpose of this comparison study is to evaluate the size of the difference and to provide
s~lcient information for the engineer to make a studied choice.
It is clear that there are some models that predict results that are significantly different
from the majority. Considering the 5-layer cases shown in Figures 42-44, FRACPRO
calculates very short fracture lengths and high net pressures and large height.
GOHFER also predicts short fracture lengths and high net pressures, but the height
growth is not as severe. TRIFRAC, STIMPLAN, TERRAFRAC, and MFRAC-11are all
in general agreement, with longer fractures, less height, and somewhat lower net
pressures. HYFRAC3D is midway between the two end cases.
MFRAC-11(in 2-D, 3-layer and 5-layer geometries), ENERFRAC (in 2-D geometry), and
Texacos FRACPRO cases (5-layer geometry) were run in two different modes and thus
provide a useful assessment of the importance of the options that are available to the
fracture designer. In the original formulation of this study, the modelers were asked to
run their models in both a base mode (no options) and then with a best-option mode,
that is, a mode that reflected their expectations of the options needed to provide the
closest simulation of true fracture behavior. Such options may have included tip
18
effects, higher frictional pressure drops in the fracture, multiple fracture strands,
enhanced toughness, or others.
In the three cases mentioned above, the modelers provided such a comparison, and
these results can be used to estimate how significantly the engineer can modify the
fracture design by trying to incorporate his estimate of the best physics possible for a
given reservoir. Presumably, such an estimate would be guided by experience with the
reservoir. For the 5-layer case with non-Newtonian viscosity, best physics results for
fracture length differed by about 22% for MFRAC-11and 57% for FRACPRO run by
Texaco. For the 2-D case with non-Newtonian rheology, ENERFRAC results differed
by about 7%. Since many models have such options, these results should be a useful
guideline for estimating the differences in model designs that can be obtained.
The 2-D models, both PKN and GD~ generally provide self-consistent results and the
differences between these types of models has been discussed in prior
publications.1 1140 Chevrons 2-D model, however, yields considerably shorter lengths
than the other PKN and GDK models. GOHFER is also of note because it yields a
length typical of the GDK models with the net pressure of the PKN models. Other
differences in these 2-D models are minor.
This particular case was chosen because it was a realistic field situation for which
detailed data were available. The committee and the modelers all recognize that other
formations, with different stress and Iithology data, may provide a considerably different
comparison of the models. Good examples would be cases where there are minimal
stress contrasts and where the stress contrasts are extremely large. h would be
beneficial if future model comparison studies investigated those cases as well.
It is also interesting to note that there was general agreement among the modelers at
the forum that pressure-history matching (not included in this report) would always
result in similar fracture geometries, regardless of the model. This is because a match
of the pressure will constrain the width of the fracture, and hence length and height willl
vaty by relatively small amounts. Such an agreement is not the case, however, for
design modeling (the results of this report) where the pressure is determined by the
model.
Finally, in assembling this comparison, the members of the mmmittee (the authors)
have purposely attempted to avoid making any value comparisons between the various
models. Only the results and quantifiable comparisons (e.g., model A frac length is
greater than model B frac length) are given, as it would take a committee with greater
powers than this one has to truly know how the fracture is evolving in the subsurface
and, thus, to decide which model is better.
19
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
A comparison study of many of the available hydraulic fracture models has been
completed. This study provides information on the relative differences in the models for
this one particular case.
These comparisons show that differences in calculated fracture lengths can be large,
as much as a factor of three difference. Fracture heights, for the multi-layer cases, can
differ by more than 50%. Net pressures also differ by a factor of two.
Calculations from the same model with different options give a useful comparison of the
importance of all of the additional physical mechanisms that are continuously being
added to the models to explain the wide variety of pressure responses observed in
different reservoirs. Such options give the completions engineer considerable
flexibility, but also difficult choices of when various options should be used.
20
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Two primary recommendations result from this study.
It would be beneficial to perform this same type of study for different input
conditions. This particular case was chosen because it was a realistic field situation
for which detailed data were available. Other warranted cases are those where
there are minimal stress contrasts and where the stress contrasts are extremely
large
The pressure-history matches that were performed at the Fracture Propagation
Modeling Forum provided many interesting results, but were not suitable for
documentation because there was no simple way to compare the various models.
However, a comparison of pressure-history matches would be of value.
21
11.0 REFERENCES
1.
Holditch, S.A., B.M. Robinson, W.S. Whitehead & J.W. Ely, The GRI Staged Field
Experiment, SPE Form. EvaI., 519-533, Sept. 1988.
2.
Robinson, B.M., S.A. Holditch & R.E. Peterson, The Gas Research Institutes 2nd
Staged Field Exp.: A Study of Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE 21495, Gas Tech. Symp.,
Houston, TX, Jan. 1991.
3.
Robinson, B.M., S.A. Holditch, W.S. Whitehead & R.E. Peterson, Hydraulic
Fracturing Research in East Texas: Third GRI Staged Field Experiment, ~,
44, 78-87, Jan. 1992.
Vol.
4.
Saunders, B.F., B.M. Robinson, S.A. Holditch & R.E. Peterson, Hydraulic
Fracturing Research in the Frontier Formation through the Gas Research Institutes
Fourth Staged Field Experiment, SPE 24854, 67th Ann. Tech. Conf., Washington,
D.C., 909-922, Oct. 1992.
5.
Northrop, D.A. & K-H. Frohne, The Multiwell Experiment - A Field Laboratory in
Tight Gas Sandstone Reservoirs, ~,
Vol. 42,772-779, June 1990.
6.
Voi.
7.
Martins, P.J., J.C. Abel, C.G. Dyke, C.M. Michel & G. Stewart, Deviated Well
Fracturing and Proppant Production Control in the Prudhoe Bay Field, SPE 24858,
67th Ann. Tech. Conf., Washington, D.C., 955-970, Oct. 1992.
8.
Menus, F.L., F.W. Broussard, J.A. Ayoub, & W,D, Norman, Fracturing
Unconsolidated Sand Formations Offshore Gulf of Mexico, SPE 24844, 67th Ann.
Tech. Conf., Washingtonj D.C., 817-831, Oct. 1992.
9.
Owens, K.A., S.A. Andersen & M.J. Emnomides, Fracturing Pressures for
Horizontal Wells, SPE 24822, 67th Ann. Tech. Conf., Washington, D.C., 581-588,
Oct. 1992.
10. Meehan, D.N., Stimulation Results in the Giddings (Austin Chalk) Field, SPE
24783, 67th Ann. Tech. Conf., Washington, D.C., 195-205, Oct. 1992.
11. Gidley, S.A. Holditch, D.E. Nierode, & R.W. Veatch, Editors, Recent Advances in
Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Monograph Volume 12, Richardson, TX, June 1989.
12. Clifton, R.J. & A.S. Abou-Sayed, On the Computation of the Three-Dimensional
Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures, SPE 7943, SPE/DOE Low Perm. Gas Res.
Symp., Denver, CO, May 1979.
22
13. Clifton, R.J. & A.S. Abou-Sayed, A Variational Approach to the Prediction of the
Three Dimensional Geometry of Hydraulic Fractures, SPE 9879, SPE/DOE Low
Perm. Res. Symp., Denver, CO, May 1981.
14. Clifton, R.J. & J.J. Wang, Multiple Fluids, Proppant Transport, and Thermal Effects
in 3-Dimensional Simulation of Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE 18198, 63rd Ann. Tech.
Conf., Houston, TX, Oct. 1988.
15. Clifton, R.J. & J.J. Wang, Modeling of Poroelastic Effects in Hydraulic Fracturing,
SPE 21871, Joint Rocky Mt. Regional/Low Perm. Res. Symp., Denver, CO, April
1991.
16. Clifton, R.J. & J.J. Wang, Adaptive Optimal Mesh Generator for Hydraulic
Fracturing Modeling, 32nd U.S. Rock Mech. Symp., 1991.
17. Advani, S.H., T.S. Lee & J.K. Lee, Three-Dimensional Modeling of Hydraulic
Fractures in Layered Media: Part I -Finite Element Formulations, ASME J. Enercw
Res. Tech., Vol. 112, 1-9, 1990.
18. Barree, R.D. A Practical Numerical Simulator for Three Dimensional Fracture
Propagation in Heterogeneous Media, SPE 12273, Reservoir Simulation Symp.,
San Francisco, CA, 403411 Nov. 1983.
19. Barree, R.D. A New Look at Fracture-Tip Screenout Behavior, ~,
143, Feb. 1991.
20. Shlyapobersky, J., Energy Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing, Proc. 26th U.S.
Symp. on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, SD, June 1985.
21. Shlyapobersky, J., G.K. Wong & W.W. Walhaug, Overpressure Calibrated Design
of Hydraulic Fracture Simulations, SPE 18194, 63rd Ann. Tech. Conf.,Houston,
TX, October 1988.
22. Cleary, M.P., Analysis of the Mechanisms and Procedures for Producing
Favorable Shapes of Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE 9260, SPE Ann. Tech. Conf.,
Dallas, TX, Sept. 1980.
23. Cleary, M.P., Comprehensive Design Formulae for Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE
9259, SPE Ann. Tech. Conf., Dallas, TX, Sept. 1980.
24. Cleary, M.P., C.A. Wright& T.B. Wright, Experimental and Modeling Evidence for
Major Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing Design and Field Procedures, SPE 21494,
SPE Gas Tech. Symp., Houston, TX, Jan. 1991.
23
25. Cleary, M.P. & Amaury Fonseca, Proppant Convection and Encapsulation in
Hydraulic Fracturing: Practical Implications of Computer Laboratory Simulations,
SPE 67th Ann. Tech. Conf., Washington, D.C., Oct. 1992.
26. Meyer, B.R., Design Formulae for 2-D and 3-D Vertical Hydraulic Fractures: Model
Comparison and Parametric Studies, SPE 15240, Unconv. Gas Tech. Symp.,
Louisville, KY, 391401, May 1986.
27. Meyer, B.R., Three-Dimensional Hydraulic Fracturing Simulation on Personal
Computers: Theory and Comparison Studies, SPE 19329, Eastern Reg. Mtg.,
Morgantown, VW, p.213, Oct. 1989.
28. Meyer, B.R., G.D. Cooper& S.G. Nelson, Real-Time 3-D Hydraulic Fracturing
Simulation: Theoty and Field Case Studies, SPE 20658, 65th Ann. Tech. Conf.,
New Orleans, LA, 417-431, Sept. 1990.
29. Hagel, M. & Meyer, B., Utilizing Mini-Frac Data to Improve Design and
Production, CIM 92-40, Pet. Sot. of CIM Ann. Tech. Conf., Calgaty, Alberta, June
1992.
30. Kristianovich, S.A. & Y.P. Zheltov, Formation of Vertical Fractures by Means of
Highly Viscous Liquid, Proc. Fourth World Pet. Cong., Rome, Volume 11,579-586,
1955.
31. Perkins, T.K. & L.R. Kern, Wdths of Hydraulic Fractures, ~,
Sept. 1961.
32. Geertsma, J. &F. deKlerk, A Rapid Method of Predicting Width and Extent of
Hydraulic Induced Fractures, JPIQ Vol. 21, 1571-1581, Dec. 1969.
33. Nordgren, R.P., Propagation of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures, 1
SPEJ Vol. 12, 306314, Aug. 1972.
34. Daneshy, A.A., On the Design of Vertical Hydraulic Fractures,~,
1973.
83-93, Jan.
24
37. Lee, S.T. & J.R. Brockenbrough, A New Analytical Solution for Finite-Conductivity
Vertical Fractures with Real Time and LaPlace Space Parameter Estimation,
SPE12013,58thAnnualTech.Conf.,San Francisco,CA, October5-8, 1983.
38. McLeeod, H. O., A Simplified Approach to Design of Fracturing Treatments Using
High ViscosityCross-LinkedFluids,SPE11614,LOWPenn. Symp., Denver, CO,
121-136., March 1983.
39. Crawford, H.R., Proppant Scheduling and Calculation of Fluid Lost During
Fracturing, SPE 12064, 58th Ann. Tech Conf., San Francisco, CA, Oct. 1983..
40. Geertsma, J. &R. Haafkens, A Comparison of the Theories for Predicting Width
and Extent of Vertkal Hydraulically Induced Fractures, ASME J. Enera v Res.
Tech., Vol. 101,8-19, March 1979.
41. - Staged Field Experiment No. 3, GR1-91/0048, GRI Final Report, Feb. 1991.
25
26
Depth
(ft)
Zone
Thickness (ft)
In Situ
Stress
Poissons
Ratio
Youngs
Modulus
Fractwe
Toughness
II
1
2
3
)
180
170
310
8990-9170
9170-9340
9340-9650
I .-6A ,,70
180
170
40
75
. a.
1m
7150
0.30
5700
0.21
7350
0.29
S-Layer(3-D) Case
0.30
I 7150 I
5700
0.21
7350
0.26
5800
0.20
.-A.
- ..
I
OAJU
U.au
8.5x10
5.5X100
2000
2000
I 6.5xlo~ I
8.5x10
5.4xlo~
7.9xlo~
A-..4 -h +=
,~nnn
Luuu
2000
2000
2000
A...
1 4.UX1 u
Table 2 TreatmentData
Bottom-hole
temperature
Reservoirpressure
Qpul
I
1
L Iu
FluidIeakoffheight I entkefractureheight I
FluidIeakoffcoefficientI
0.00025ftNmin
Vkcositv- Casa A
200 co
I
Viscositv
1~
246 F
3600 psi
- Case B
Injectionrate
Proppsnt
n= 0.5-
k= 0.06
50 bpm
I
none
27
Table 3 2-D Results at End of Pump
15
)
18
3
4
170
170
..-
1474
53
I 0.68
0.78
----
)7
=LL(GDK) I
2142 1
170
0.91
0.79
0.55
89
-.. .
0.76
0.79
0.43
0.730.62
0.32
0.53
0.78
-.. .
0.5
1.24
1.03
1 0.64 1
I 1.03 I
0.4
0.61
---
93
83.1
72.2
I 76.6
84
----
0.36 I
0.97
74.3
I 8[
0.81
89
28
Table 4 3-Layer Resultsat End of Pump
k -mm
Luu
81i AVED
a-w I I=n
CP
MODEL
SAH
NSI
Dee
lX=MARATHON
MEYER-i
....-..
II
I
MFYFR.7
...-.-..-
.ARCO-STIM
.. -- -. ..-.
~uwr
r
AR\/AMl
$-s
W.nm.u
0.65 1009
318
3408
0.:
283
0.56
. ii
-----903
3750
11-1360
3549
I, --J2
26~
I 3598
1
442
291
360
306
:40
9nYQ
357.
--
MA
.17AA
-..
,227
1387
987
1109
992
1561
0.9
1.04
0.58
0.72
0.57
1113
. ..-
0.66
_._
rm-
. .
...
SAH
[--
pcrs
NSI
32!
1 328-
---
Kria
...- . -. . -
..
ARCO-STIM
ADVANI
353
-435
1083
1171
t3n-
iiii
2424
I 0.65 I
0.74 1
0.33
0.34
0.26
0.21
;;
80
96
70.3
74.3
67
89
43
0.25
0:;5
0.36
0.64
0.29
0.34
0.25
0.54
0.68
0.35
0.41
0.31
1.333
0.33
69
47
n,k
3-LAYER
MODEL
SAH
NSI
RES
MARATHON
MEYER-1
1980
349
891
0.75
405
449
578
968
1160
1365
0.7
0.74
.. .
2926
3124
1089
1168
614
1285
AtiWA~;
1870
458
1151
MEYER-2
ARCO-STIM
A~co-TF
,Cv cm
W AVG F
0.31
0.25
0.6
0.66
0.37
0.42
0.57
1.19
87.7
0.47
0.34
Newtanian
63
n. k
60
50
10
<75
<75
---
113
-44
55
69
30
40
73.7
77.8
70
62
88.5
1.077
0.85
EFFIC
81.8
70
87
93
I
I
64
30
11 Time
II
(rein)
Hei@t
(ft)
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
25
so
75
Im
125
150
175
200
(R)
10
661
1036
1348
1624
1876
2110
(F@
721
119
96
84
77
72
66
65
62
2542
I Max. Wm
(in)
Efkiancy
99
69
66
67
87
66
66
66
66
0.039
0.426
0.537
0.614
0.676
0.727
0.772
0.612
0.646
Avg. Wti
atWl?llbole
tire\
,,,,,
1
\fin)
0.032
w
I O.a
I Avg.Wti
(%)
inFrac
0.2264
0;>370
0.$
.429
0.475
0.514
0.5%7
mn
0.5,
0.605
0.426
0.537
0.614
76
O.t%
ox
. ..27
0.772
nn49
W.wn&
0.646
I
I
1
I
II
nW.6,k=0.06
Tima
(rein)
Hai@t
(ft)
HatfLanglh
(it)
Na! Pmaaum
0$0
Effbkncy
(%)
Malt.width
(In)
o
2s
50
75
100
125
160
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
10
626
942
1195
1415
1613
1796
1967
2120
662
134
118
109
103
99
96
63
91
99
90
89
89
69
66
66
66
66
0.037
0.452
0.597
0.704
0.769
0.663
0.929
0.966
1.04
A~. Wh
in Frac
(i)
O.&
0.267
0.365
0.436
0.494
0.543
0.567
0.626
0.662
A~. Wdlh
at Wellbua
0.;7
0.452
0.597
0.704
0.789
0.663
0.62s
0.966
1.04
l-ii
(mill)
H*M
(ft)
o
25
50
75
100
125
1!50
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
Hau Laflglh
(it)
Nat Praaaure
10
1067
lnl
2379
2934
3452
3941
4406
42
712
627
901
%5
998
1035
lm
1094
Tabk 10 SA Witch&
EffI
(%)
Max. Wti
00
AVO.Wa
In Frac
96
63
80
76
76
75
74
73
72
0.079
0.327
0.379
0.413
0.436
0.4s8
0.475
0.469
0.502
0.13
0.157
0.203
0.229
0.247
0.260
0.271
0.261
0.290.
n=0.6,
kW.06
--m
50
75
100
19S
iii
b
175
2cm
1/u
170
170
170
47n
..170
170
170
;;
2342
;
266!.
1
I
I
-,
919
--989
---
----
1M>
!33A1
3793
4220
4629
1
I
I
7B
G
1
1
I
----
..
0.422
iii<
I
I
I
Avg.Wtdlh
at Wellbom
0.015
0.256
0.296
0.325
0.344
0.360
0.373
0.362
0.3W
..-
. .-6
0.217
-...
0235
I
I
I
---
,-
-. ..
03s6
II
-.=. -
1069
1131
1166
G
74
74
i
OS(M
0.519
0.536
i
A;
E-l
31
HeigM
(R)
o
25
50
75
lCN)
125
150
175
m
172
233
253
268
281
291
301
310
318
upper
HaigM
(ft)
86
121
133
142
150
156
182
167
172
Lower
HeigM
(ft)
86
112
120
126
131
135
139
142
145
Half
Length
(ft)
15
769
1288
1720
2105
2458
2792
3107
3408
Net Preaeure
(P9
164
768
846
894
928
953
975
993
1009
Emciancy
(%)
95
84
82
81
80
79
78
77
77
p=200 q
Max. Wm
(in)
0.076
0.423
0.486
0.529
0.561
0s88
0.610
0.629
0.647
Avg. Width
in Frac
(in)
0.059
0.2227
0.248
0.264
0.275
0.283
0.290
0.296
0.301
Avg.Width
et Wellbore
(in)
0.059
0.273
0.301
0.319
0.330
0.338
0.343
0.348
0.353
II
(rein)
.----o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
HeigM
(n).,-,
172
238
266
289
308
326
342
357
371
I %&iIii%
I WI
NI
WTrzErI1
-,- I G%I
,..%%
.,
.-,
. ,,
,--- ..
(m
86
124
141
155
166
177
187
197
206
(m
86
114
125
134
142
148
155
161
165
(ft)
16
810
1319
1729
20E6
2415
2717
2995
3259
164
787
886
947
991
1024
1051
1073
Iw
95
84
82
81
80
79
78
76
77
0.076
0.438
0.522
0.581
0.627
0.664
0.696
0.724
0.751
(in)
0.059
0.216
0.241
0.259
0.273
0.283
0.291
0.299
0.306
(in)
O.m
0.280
0.316
0.338
0.347
0.359
0.368
o.3n
0.384
HelgM
(n)
173
231
250
269
328
369
387
391
394
upper
HeigM
(ff)
87
120
132
141
155
165
171
174
In
Lower
Height
(it)
86
111
119
128
173
204
216
217
217
Haif
Length
(it)
12
781
1318
1767
2124
2338
2525
2710
2906
Net Ptesaure
(F@
Effdancy
(%)
209
760
838
883
912
930
943
953
m
96
85
82
80
79
80
80
80
80
Max.Wm
(m)
0.097
0.420
0.480
0.522
0.604
0.660
0.689
0.705
0.716
Avg.W~
In Frac
(in)
0.075
0.224
0.244
0.258
0.271
0.283
0.292
0.299
0.305
Avg.W~
at Wellbofe
Avg.W&
In Frac
(in)
0.075
0.213
0.236
0.255
0.273
0.286
0.295
0.303
0.309
Aq. Width
al Wellbore
(in)
0.075
0.279
0.312
0.391
0.425
0.438
0.447
0.454
0.481
0.:75
0.273
0.299
0.316
0.363
0.394
0.410
0.417
0.423
t
(rein)
HeigM
(f!)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
f 75
m
173
235
263
364
396
405
414
422
430
Tm
upper
HaigM
(R)
87
123
739
164
178
186
194
201
207
Lmwr
HeigM
(ft)
86
113
124
200
217
219
220
221
222
Half
Length
(ft)
12
822
1356
17C6
1886
2071
2264
2442
2642
Net Preaaure
(F@
m
777
874
929
964
985
1006
1021
1036
Efficiency
(%)
96
84
81
61
81
82
82
82
82
Max. width
(in)
0.097
0.434
0.512
0.653
0.722
0.754
0.781
0.801
0.618
cp Beee Caae
/
Time
Height
Nat Preseum
(mIn)
(R)
(n)
(F@
(%)
(in)
o
25
60
75
100
125
150
175
m
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
669
1082
1406
1697
1961
2207
2439
0
136
110
M
88
82
77
73
70
100
88
86
85
85
84
84
83
83
0
0.402
0.504
0.575
0.631
0.679
0.720
0.757
0.7W
Half Length
Max. Wm
EfRdancy
Avg.W~
in Frac
A~. Wti
at Waiibore
(in)
0
0.315
0.395
0.451
0.495
0.532
0.564
0.593
0.619
(rein)
Ha@ht
(ft)
Heif Length
(ft)
Net Pmaeure
w
EfWancy
(%)
o
2s
50
75
100
126
160
176
m
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
611
822
1173
1391
1588
1769
1S39
2098
0
176
154
142
134
129
124
120
117
lW
69
68
86
67
87
67
67
66
TWe17
Man.Wm
00
IP200cp
Beee Ceea
Avg.Widih
in Free
0)
:
0.380
0.473
0.555
0.621
0.676
0.729
0.774
0.616
o
0.459
0.603
0.708
0.783
0.885
0.930
0.986
1.041
Meyar&Aeaoc. -PKNCcmetantheight
Hai@tt
(n)
Half Len@
(n)
Nat Praeeure
(P@)
Effidenq
(%)
Malt.width
(w
o
25
60
170
170
170
0
948
1605
0
613
924
la
84
60
7s
170
917R
o
373
0.:.
0.424
n
A=
-..
0.481
0.s01
0.518
f
0.532
A~. W~
h Free
m)
0
I
0.219
.
--074
..148
1
n
X%7
0.281
0.292
0.302
0.310
.me.e
u.-
90s
lt3EEEE
--- ..- --..
r
L!
17s
170
170
4086
4507
78
-ii
1092
G
75
.. ..
7A
,. aa
1100
t
I
llm
Ilm
. .
I
I
73
.-
./L
A~. W~
et Walibora
:
0.459
0.=
0.708
0.793
0.665
0.930
0.986
1.041
Beee Caea
Time
(mill)
:
0.402
0.504
0.575
0.631
0.879
0.720
0.757
0.790
A--U.a 10
Aq. width
et Welibofa
m)
0
0.292
0.332
0.358
o.3n
0.393
0.4LM
0.417
I
. *U.*LI
Hei@t
(n)
Half Length
(n)
Nat Praeeure
(F@
Effdency
(%)
o
25
50
76
100
125
150
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
934
1539
2057
2524
2Q57
3363
3749
4118
0
862
1013
1114
1180
1253
1307
1354
1397
lm
84
81
79
78
77
76
75
74
Wm
(in)
o
0.395
0.485
0.511
0.548
0.575
0.600
0.621
0.641
A~. W~
in Free
im)
0
0.222
0.260
0.286
0.305
0.321
0.335
0.347
0.356
Aq. Wm
al Wenbom
:
0.310
0.364
0.401
0.426
0.451
0.470
0.487
0.502
1
q
,,,
.,
33
Table 19 Meyer& Aaaoc. - Ueyaf
Time
H*M
(rein)
(R)
upper
Height
la}
,,,,
170
214
234
249
280
970
-. 278
85.
110
122
131
138
IM
. ..
149
0
25
50
75
lW
J2&
,
I
,
I
ltbz$E
LWer
HeigM
(R)
0=
Helf
Length
(ft)
n
Net Pmeeure
(m
Effdancy
(%)
104
112
118
122
17(3
.-129
131
4-
8;2
1421
1867
226H
262 0
G
3258
-Ma
7k
826
876
910
935
956
973
987
4M
,Uw
83
80
77
75
74
72
71
70
Max. Wm
(in)
n
0.385
0.445
0.482
0.510
0.632
0.550
0.566
llm
HeigM
(ft)
upper
He#IM
Lower
He#JM
Half
L?
Net Preeeure
(pi)
Effdancy
(%)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
m
170
217
247
269
287
301
315
326
337
85
112
130
143
164
la
172
179
186
85
105
117
126
133
138
143
147
151
0
846
1307
1668
1975
2?44
2487
2708
2915
0
784
m
957
lWO
law
1057
Ion
low
100
84
80
78
77
76
75
74
73
Avg.W~
in Fiat
(in)
n
.
0.206
0.232
0.247
0.257
0.266
0.273
0.279
n 9a6
Avg.W~
et Wellbofe
(in)
n
0.268
0.295
0.311
I
0.322
0.331
0.338
0.345
n 111
Beae Ceae
Man.Wm
(in)
0
0.414
0.426
0.549
0.590
0.622
0.650
0.673
0.694
Avg.width
in Free
0)
:
0.214
0.246
0.267
0.282
0.295
0.305
0.314
0.322
Avg.Wti
et Wellbore
Avg.Wti
in FRIC
0)
:
0.206
0.231
0.248
0.257
0.260
0.268
0.267
0232
Avg.Wm
et Weflbra
a)
:
0.268
0.294
0.310
0.321
0.321
0.336
0.341
0364
AVSI.W~
in Free
Avg.W~
et Welibore
(in)
0
0.286
0.323
0.345
0.361
0.374
0.385
0.394
0.402
HdgM
(rein)
(ft)
o
25
!K)
75
lW
125
150
175
m
170
183
m
212
219
232
259
269
%
upper
HeigM
(m
85
111
124
132
1s
144
143
132
123
Lower
HeigM
(f!)
85
104
113
119
123
138
lm
206
70!5
Half
Length
(ft)
0
672
1414
1863
2257
2564
2626
2716
2962
Net Preeeure
(@)
Efkiency
(%)
0
743
829
879
913
933
799
674
m
100
83
80
n
75
73
72
71
Max.Wm
(in)
0
0.367
0.446
0.483
0.511
0.536
0.520
0.487
0 A97
71
He@M
(rein)
(fu
17n
upper
He@M
~
25
-a7?7
m
HeigM
~
R<
Half
Length
(ft)
R=!
Net Pniaiin
w
Effii
(%)
Max.Wm
m
lm
1)
(in)
in
)(1
100
.--,
19s
- .-
-..
15013301131%
175 1 329
122
I Gl%
I
207
7!51
?5
75
Osw
05a3
..Ie
0.327
o:
34
(it)
(n)
(rein)
o
0.479
0.601
0.686
0.754
0.811
0.860
0.904
0.944
lW
89
88
88
87
88
88
66
85
0
192
153
134
122
f14
107
102
97
0
589
927
1208
1457
1685
1698
2098
2288
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
o
25
50
75
1(N
125
150
175
200
(in)
(%)
(m
Ha@M
(ft)
Half Lan@h
(ft)
Nat Praaawa
(P@)
EfWancy
(%)
o
25
50
75
100
125,
150)
175i
200
170
170
170
170
170
0
515
784
1002
1192
0
255
218
1s9
187
478
171
166
161
100
91
90
89
89
69
s
69
88
,.
1m
4-
170
170
--170
;&
..-
1=
lti
I
I
Max. Wm
00
I
I
Height
(ft)
Half Lan@I
(It)
o
25
50
75
100
125.
150
170
170
170
170
170
0
785
1337
1620
K
175
200
fm
..-
170
,
1
47n
..
--
2676
---3088
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
lW
87
84
82
80
79
78
n
n
Aq. W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.436
0.568
0.683
0.741
0.807
LO.cmu
1
0.919
0.968
I
m)
I
I
I
o
0.460
0.524
0.565
0.598
0.621
7.842
a
0.660
0.676
HatfLength
Knobs on
A~. W*
at Wallbora
;
0.556
0.724
0.846
0.945
1.030
41.1s
1.173
1.235
W200CP Knobaon
(%)
0
la
1141
1231
1298
1353
1399
1438
1A7A
0
0.556
0.724
0.846
0.945
1.030
1.105
1.173
1.235
Aq. Wti
at Wallbcm.?
(in)
0
0.479
0.601
0.666
0.754
0.811
0.660
0.904
0.944
Avg.Wm
in Frac
(in)
0
0.376
0.471
0.538
0.591
0.835
0.674
0.709
0.740
Max. Wti
Efkiancy
Nat Praaaura
Half Langlh
Height
Time
Max. Wti
~ lima
H*M
(rein)
(R)
(ft)
(P@
(%)
m)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
2W
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
741
1238
1867
2056
2417
2759
3083
3395
0
1110
1298
1422
1517
1598
1862
1721
1774
lW
87
85
63
82
81
80
80
79
o
0.509
0.595
0.652
0.898
0.732
0.763
0.790
0.814
h Frac
(in)
o
(D.273
cD.31O
cD.334
0.352
0.367
0.379
0.390
0.399
atw
m)
0
0.360
0.411
0.443
0.467
0.486
0.503
0.517
0.530
Knobs on
Avg.W&
h Ftac
(i)
:
0.291
0.339
0.371
0.395
0.415
0.433
0.448
0.461
Avg.Wti
at Wallbora
(in)
0
0.399
0.467
0.511
0.548
0.574
0.598
0.619
0.638
35
Tabk 27 Meyer
11
LOWr
HeigM
upper
Haight
(mIn)
.
100
125
1s0
175
.
307
321
332
343
200
380
,167
176
183
190
195
Effii
(%)
Max. Wtih
(in)
,~
(:
113
6
,W4
140
145
149
153
155
122
p-2W cp lcnoba on
Wayar
Net Preeaure
(F@
Half
Length
,9A
a Aaaoc..
m
1109
1446
1740
20(5
2250
2478
2692
Avg.Width
@Wellbore I
fi;)
(.
0.477
0.553
0.599
0.632
0.659
0.660
0.699
0.715
86
83
81
79
n
76
75
74
870
960
1008
1040
lW
1082
1097
1109
Aq. Wti
in Frac
in
0.255
0.283
0.301
0.313
0.323
0.331
0.319
0.349
0.365
0.377
0.387
0.395
0.338
0.401
0.344
0.407
Aw. Width
in Frac
(in)
0
0.276
0.313
0.335
0.352
0.368
0.378
0.388
0.397
Avg.Width
at Wellbore
(in)
0
0.352
0.392
0.415
0.433
0.447
0.459
0.489
0.478
He@M
(ft)
o
25
50
75
170
246
291
322
347
367
385
m
413
100
125
150
175
m
m
He@M
(n)
85
i17
135
147
168
163
169
174
178
upper
HeigM
(ft)
85
129
156
175
191
204
216
226
235
Effii
(%)
Net Pmaaure
(@)
Half
Length
(ft)
0
637
968
1225
1444
1636
1811
1971
2120
Max.Wm
(h)
100
87
84
82
81
80
79
78
n
0
944
1048
1102
1138
1163
1183
1199
1212
0
0.534
0.834
0.697
0.743
0.780
0.811
0.837
0.861
17n
;;
50
7s
100
125
262
346
325
325
150
325
175
m
--
326
!a97
..
m
He@M
(ft)
upper
HeigM
(R)
He@ht
(ft)
R6
85
113
iii
210
206
207
X)7
208
%la
124
144
138
119
118
118
118
lIQ
,0
,--
-
17&.:
:
;
743
n
I i977
7R
I,
7m
, 94
--- m
.,
,
I
I1
=r
7AR
,1 %u-47 I1
a.-r
Max.Wm
m)
I
1
I
1
1
AVU.Width
Avg.Width
h Frac
et Wellbom
(h)
)
:
0
0318
02s5
--- .7
ii%
0.337
0.296
0.373
0.316
0.404
0.328
0.420
0.338
0.435
0.447
0.346
n An *C*
.1
1
0
0
47Q
----0.556
0.517
u.:
- -s37
o.!
X56
01572
.ns..586
n can
.-
w.-r q
mne
(rein)
150
341
129
175
200
345
349
132
135
LWer
HeifIM
(ft)
. .
w
118
197
209
209
-211
212
213
214
I,
(&3
tI
Effdency
(%)
Net Praaaure
w)
Half
Length
(ft)
nnl
-,
4n9n
,&.
I
1
I
1
125!5
-1454
1638
1814
1980
S&l
7a7
77n
re,
,,
805
832
654
874
891
Max.Wm
(in)
Avg.Wdh
et Wellbore
(in)
0.;76
0.313
0.348
0.s0
0.399
0.455
.-
lW
I1
II
87
AA
9*
w
I
1
I1
O.&s
.W580
II
d.807
81
n M?
ii
79
79
78
ii;
0.699
0.724
0.748
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
-. -.
-----
nw
0.383
0.398
0.411
0.423
o Aa7
0.513
0.533
0.551
0.587
II
36
;;
IF
HaigM
(n)
Half Langth
(ft)
170
..-
170
170
n
968
1638
170
SuIy
n
25
!50
11
Nat Praaaum
(m
2
i
Avg. W~
in Frac
(in)
IM
804
91!5
987
fo41
M81
79
78
w
0.369
0.420
o.~~
.*
0.470
nIA=
w.
--O,G1
!.,=.
0.!529
n U7
0.216
~
---7A6
.f
0.285
1 OR.
1121
1153
11R9
.-
Max. Wm
(in)
Efficiency
(%)
;;
75
7A
Half Lan@
(R)
Nat Prasaura
(P@
EfWancy
(%)
Max. wkllh
(w
;
50
75
lm
125
150
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
919
1513
2020
2479
2904
a
3683
4048
0
9W
1062
1170
1252
1320
1378
1429
1474
100
85
83
81
80
79
78
78
77
0
0.413
0.487
0.537
0.575
0.806
0.632
0.656
0.676
0
25
w
75
100
125
150
175
ZU3
Uppaf
1
170
240
274
298
316
326
340
352
357
Is
Nat Praaaura
LOwf
HaigM
Haighl
I&\
,,,,
,,,
1 In\
85
85
116
124
131
143
158
141
189
147
151
177
185
155
193
159
162
2aa91
0.302
0.310
Omfl
a
&
972
1040
1048
lon
1090
1114
--
1113
0.289
n
-.329
0.358
0.375
0.391
0.404
0.415
0.426
AVU.Width
in Frac
0
0.229
0.271
0.298
0.319
0.337
0.352
0.365
0.377
Afl. W~
at Wallbua
on)
0
0.324
0.383
0.421
0.451
0.475
0.496
0.515
0.531
@OO cp
Max. width
m)
Effi
(%)
G
(ft)
c)
&
1089
1303
1501
1635
nm
1983
o.=
an)
u
2.280
i
m
k=0.06
mm
(fnin)
Tima
(rein)
1
1
I
I
1
I
Avg. W~
at Wallbofa
(in)
o
o.&
0.513
0.571
0.598
0.624
0.634
0.649
A3
06s8
lno
--67
58
58
52
51
48
..
Avg.W~
h Frac
(in)
0
0.;18
0.220
0.245
0.248
0.265
0.285
0.238
Avg.Wdh
at Wallbla
(in)
n
O.k
0.298
0.316
0.326
0.329
0.326
0.327
nzin
n 33I
H@M
(n)
47A
u~
HaigM
(it)
se
LWer
HaigM
(ft)
e=
Nat Praaaura
(@)
Half
Langth
(R)
n
Max. W*
(In)
Effdancy
(%)
4-
1142
1171
0.422
0.530
0.568
0.598
0.648
52
0.7W
0.165
0.191
0.198
0.218
0.2W
0.213
0.216
A7
n 7A-
n944
*
1
d
A~. Wm
in Frac
(in)
0.659
Avg.W~
at Waubora
).
~I
a
0.;1
0.288
0.303
0.3W
0.318
o.~319
0.334
n xaa
II
37
Height
(rt)
o
25
50
75
lW
125
150
175
200
170
240
276
380
392
403
413
430
438
Upper
HeigM
(ft)
85
124
144
151
161
169
177
190
195
Lmvar
Height
(R)
65
116
132
229
231
234
237
241
243
Half
Length
(ft)
0
654
1073
1194
1227
1273
1363
1506
1594
Net Preaaure
(m
Effciency
(%)
0
665
W5
1065
1051
1048
1047
1076
1129
100
67
58
62
65
63
58
57
56
Max. Wti
(in)
0
0.434
0.513
0.667
0.702
0.727
0.720
0.749
0.805
Avg.Wti
in Frac
(i)
:
0.216
0.220
0.295
0.340
0.359
0.337
0.336
0.364
Avg.W~
7
et Wellbora
(in)
0
0.267
0.299
0.366
0.408
0.421
0.402
0.406
0.445
Nat Preeeure
(w
E-
Time
(rein)
HeigM
(ff)
uppar
Ha@M
~
H~M
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
m
170
249
378
388
398
422
430
449
65
131
147
1s7
166
187
193
205
85
117
231
23i
232
235
237
244
0
905
1150
1159
1206
1502
1751
1853
0
865
992
1021
1044
1027
1035
1095
100
71
72
76
70
65
62
61
Am
94 n
9AR
4 nml
1151
(%)
Max.Wm
(in)
0
0.422
0.597
0.662
0.695
0.697
0.704
0.770
nfun
Ag. Width
tn Frac
(i)
;
0.165
0.244
0.299
0.308
0.278
0.267
0.289
n 7*7
Avg.Width
at Wetlbora
(in)
o
0.251
0.340
0.377
0.396
0.373
0.370
0.410
n *K
38
Half Langth
(ft)
Nat Praaaura
w)
o
s
170
170
170
170
0
704
1107
1441
0
104
.w
73
170
..-
1736
----
1
I
G
85
M
RA
%
ra
-.
,-
lM
125
150
175
.
170
170
170
.-.,.
I
I
2007
2261
2499
100
86
.?
01
0
0.398
496
u.
0.566
I
1
86
62
56
cc
.
=-
I
0.622
,
I
0.669
0.710
n
-..7A6
.r!770
l-ha
(mIn)
Ha@M
(ft)
Half Langth
(ft)
Nat Pfaaaum
(@)
Efhdancy
(%)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
624
942
1198
1421
1622
1607
1979
2142
0
1s
117
108
102
98
94
91
69
lUI
m
89
89
86
66
88
86
67
HaigM
(n)
Half Lar@h
(it)
Net Praaaura
Effdancy
(%)
o
25
50
75
lW
125
1s
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
948
1540
2044
2496
2917
3310
3663
4039
0
848
Q93
1092
1166
1232
1286
1334
1378
100
84
61
79
78
77
76
76
75
0.390
0.445
0.489
0.498
0.566
0.622
0.525
0.557
05a6
-----
0.669
0.710
0.748
07 r
0617
kW.08
o
0.453
0.596
0.6.99
0.7s4
0.856
0.920
0.977
1.030
Tuna
(rein)
Max. Wm
(m)
Avg.Widlh
in Frac
(m)
0
0.356
0.466
0.549
0.615
0.672
0.722
0.788
0.809
P=200CP
Max. Wm
(w
Avg.Wdth
at Wailbora
(in)
0
0.398
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.311
Max. Wklth
(in)
Effi
(%)
Tm
(rein)
p=2W CP
Aq. W~
h Frac
0
0.358
0.423
0.468
0.499
0.528
0.550
0.570
0.589
a
Avg.width
atWalbra
o
0.453
0.5W
O.sw
0.784
0.856
0.920
0.977
1.030
Aq. WWI
at Wallbora
0
0.225
0.286
0.293
0.314
0.331
0.345
0.356
0.370
0
0.281
0.332
0.368
0.392
0.413
0.432
0.448
0.463
Ag. W&
in Frac
(in)
0
) 251
0.-.
0.310
0.350
0.382
0.408
0.432
0.452
0.471
Avg.W~
at Wabra
(m)
0
0.314
0.387
0.437
o.4n
0.511
0.540
0.565
0.589
Tm
(Irlh)
Ha@M
(It)
Half Langth
(ft)
Nal Praaaun?
(P$J9
EKdancy
(%)
0
25
s
75
100
125
1s
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
863
1=
1767
2132
2465
2776
3069
3347
0\
950
1160
1307
1424
15Z
1606
1885
1754
41n
.-85
83
82
81
80
80
79
79
Max.Wm
m)
o
O.h
0.493
0.567
0.607
0.650
0.s87
0.720
0.750
39
Height
(ft)
Half Length
(ft)
Net Praaaura
(@)
Effcierrcy
(%)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
811
1373
1863
2311
2729
3125
3503
m
0
1093
1237
1332
1405
1464
1513
1557
1595
1(XI
85
83
81
79
78
77
76
75
Max. Wti
(in)
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.261
0.2W
0.322
0.340
0.354
0.367
0.377
0.367
o
0.423
0.483
0.522
0.551
0.575
0.594
0.612
0.627
Avg.W~
et Wellbore
(in)
0
0.332
0.380
0.410
0.433
0.451
0.487
0.480
0.492
o
2si
50
75
15U
---
175
200
Half Len@
(it)
Net Preeeure
(L@
170
0
no
. -
0
1160
. --,.
170
100
125
. --
HeigM
(ft)
,
I
I
. -1m
170
170
170
. --
1{U
170
170
---
Iimf
13X4
1693
2079
2436
,
I
I
Z{{z
----
1..-.
AU
1598
.,..-..
1. .-
30!32
3396
I
I
1 la{
----
1WI
4nmn
1=
100
66
u
62
81
.*
w
..
:
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.278
0.327
0.361
0.366
A .m.
Max. Wm
(in)
Effii
(%)
0
0.448
0.530
0.585
0.626
a ee.
I
Avg.W~
et Weilbore
(i)
:
0.352
0.417
0.459
0.492
-e.-
Um
0.713
0.736
w~~
L
c.A
HeigM
(ft)
Haif Length
(ft)
Net Preaaura
w)
o
25
50
75
lW
125
150
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
772
1322
1806
2249
2663
3054
3429
3789
0
1120
1259
1353
1424
1482
1531
1574
1612
Effdmy
(%)
lcm
88
83
81
80
79
78
77
76
Max.Wm
(in)
o
0.448
O.m
0.543
0.571
0.594
0.613
0.630
0.645
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
O.m
0.312
0.335
0.352
0.366
0.378
0.389
o.3w
Avg.Wat Weilbore
(in)
0
0.352
0.396
0.427
0.449
0.467
0.462
0.495
o.5w
HaigM
(ft)
Haif Length
(ft)
Net Praesure
w)
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
730
1220
1642
2024
Z379
2714
3031
3336
0
12C0
1392
1524
1=
1710
1782
1846
1903
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
Eff@ency
(%)
lW
87
84
83
82
81
80
79
79
Max.Wm
(in)
o
0.477
0.556
0.608
0.649
0.682
0.710
0.735
0.757
Avg.W~
in Free
(in)
0
0.294
0.X3
0.375
O.m
0.420
0.438
0.453
0.467
Aw. W~
et Weiiimre
(in)
0
0.375
0.437
0.478
0.509
0.535
0.558
O.m
0.5s5
40
l-me
(mh)
II
o
25
m
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
--
%
100
12s
150
175
m
I
I
Half Len@
(n)
Net Preeaura
(90
0
* )
..11/4
1634
2080
24s0
0
1262
1372
iA<l
Avg.Wm
in Free
an)
Avg.Wm
at Wellbore
(in)
lm
86
66
0.536
0.585
nfi16
.W
.659
u.676
0.691
0.704
0.332
0.361
0.360
0.395
0.407
0.417
0.428
0.434
0.422
0.429
0.464
0.502
0.518
0.531
0.543
0.553
Iml
101U
1649
1664
3205
Max. width
(in)
Effii
(%)
w
79
79
7s
He@t
(It)
170
Half Lenglh
(ft)
Net Preaaura
(@)
Effdancy
(%)
Max. Wti
(in)
0
1359
100
69
o.!--
1496
J
i5
x
1635
65
1605
62
1872
1932
1966
62
61
60
0.662
0.
0... 0.796
0.817
Avg.W~
in F=
A~. W*
at Wellbore
o
0. .
--- . .
:2)
II
o
25
Hai@
(it)
I
I
170
170
Half Length
(R)
Nat PreaauIu
(P@
o
524
o
1591
lsa
Max.Wm
(w
Effciency
(%)
100
o
0.695
0.794
91
63
Avg.W~
a! Wallbore
Avg.Wa
In Ffac
An\
o
I
0.490
fin]
II
o.
0verpreaaure=1600 pal
f
The
(rein)
Ha@M
(R)
Half Len@
(ft)
Nat Praaaura
(f@
Effciancy
(%)
o
25
170
170
0
507
0
1672
1776
1662
1934
1996
2054
2105
2152
lW
91
89
87
66
6s
w
63
62
lBai13F
150
175
200
170
170
170
7
2291
2591
2661
Mar. Wm
(w
o
0.721
0.774
0.609
0.637
o1.661
0.662
0.901
0.918
Avg.W~
h Free
on)
0
0.445
o.4n
0.499
0.518
0.531
I
0.544
0.556
0.566
Avg.W~
at Waubora
(i)
:
0.566
i
0.608
0.s3s
0.6!57
0.676
0.s93
(
0.707
I
0.721
1[
41
HeigM
(ft)
Half Length
(ft)
Net Preaaure
(f@
o
25
50
75
lm
125
150
175
m
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
420
878
1141
1482
1813
2133
2446
2750
0
2035
2059
2061
2102
2122
2141
2159
2175
Efficiency
(%)
Max. Wdh
(in)
lW
93
90
89
87
86
85
84
84
o
0.884
0.921
0.937
0.947
0.956
0.963
0.970
0.978
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.545
0.568
0.578
0.584
0.590
0.594
0.598
0.802
Avg. Width
at Wellbofe
(in)
0
0.694
0.723
0.736
0.744
0.751
0.757
0.762
0.767
Heighf
(ft)
Half Length
(ft)
Net PreaaurE
(L@)
o
25
Xl
75
100
125
150
175
m
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
413
765
1098
1414
1717
2008
2290
2583
0
2088
2148
2203
2252
2297
2339
2378
2414
Effiincy
(%)
100
93
91
89
88
67
86
85
85
Max. Wm
(in)
0
0.900
0.951
0.978
0.999
1.016
1.032
1.047
1.060
Aq. W*
in Frac
Avg.Wm
at Wellbore
(in)
(in)
0
0.555
0.588
0.603
0.616
0.627
0.637
0.646
0.654
0
0.707
0.747
o.78a
0.784
0.798
0.811
0.622
0.833
42
HaigM
(ft)
HaKLangth
(R)
Nat Praasura
(m
Efficiency
(%)
o
25
50
75
100
125
1s0
175
m
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
17n
0
535
858
1132
1378
1805>
1818
2020
7917
0
188
141
120
108
98
92
88
87
100
91
89
88
88
87
87
88
86
MaK.Wm
(in)
0
0.53
0.88
0.74
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.94
O!atl
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.42
0.52
0.58
0.83
0.87
0.71
0.74
077
Avg.W~
at Wellbore
(in)
0
0.53
0.88
0.74
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.94
nem
kW.08
/
Tii
(mIn)
Ha@M
(f!)
HaKLan@
(ft)
Nat Pmaaura
(@)
Efficiency
(%)
o
25
50
75
lm
125
150
175
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
580
881
1108
1322
1518
1899
1a70
0
188
140
128
117
110
105
101
100
91
89
88
88
87
87
86
Max. Wm
(m)
0
0.51
0.85
0.75
0.84
0.90
0.97
102
Aw. W*
in Frac
(in)
0
0.40
0.51
0.59
0.88
0.71
0.78
080
Avg.W*
at Wellbore
(in)
0
0.51
0.85
0.75
0.84
0.s0
0.97
107
43
HeigM
(ft)
HaKLength
(ft)
Net Preaeure
(I@
Effiincy
(%)
o
25
50
75
lm
125
150
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
366
561
774
906
1026
1137
1241
1347
0
116
102
94
90
67
64
82
60
lW
65
64
63
63
63
62
62
82
q!
Max. Wm
(in)
o
0.333
0.436
0.530
0.569
0.640
0.565
0.726
0.767
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.262
0.343
0.416
0.462
0.502
0.536
0.570
0.602
Avg. Wtih
at Wellbore
(in)
0
0.333
0.436
0.530
0.569
0.640
0.565
0.726
0.767
Time
(rein)
HeigM
(it)
HaKLength
(ft)
Net Praaaum
(@)
o
25
9
75
100
125
150
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
454
744
1049
1267
1470
1660
1641
2029
0
637
966
1106
1179
1239
1291
1336
1360
Effi
(%)
Max. Wm
(in)
Avg.W~
in Fmc
(in)
100
82
60
77
76
75
74
73
73
0
0.364
0.453
0.508
0.541
0.569
0.592
0.613
0.633
0
0.216
O.m
0.265
0.304
0.319
0.332
0.344
0.355
Avg.W~
at Wellbore
(in)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
He@M
(it)
Half Length
(rt)
Net Preaaure
(P@)
Effkkncy
(%)
o
25
50
75
lW
125
150
175
200
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
0
704
1108
1439
1734
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1(KI
87
86
85
64
84
63
83
83
2492
2716
Max. Wm
(in)
Avg.Wm
in Ffac
o
0.391
0.489
0.556
0.613
0.659
0.699
0.735
0.787
Avg. Wklth
et Wellbofe
(in)
(in)
0
0.307
0.384
0.438
0.461
0.517
0.549
0.577
0.602
0
0.391
0.469
0.558
0.613
0.669
0.699
0.735
0767
Time
(mill)
I
1
Half Length
(n)
---
,,
Net Praeeufu
(@)
.
.
i-
Effii
(%)
.--
G
86
1
.
iii
I
I
I
.
.
.
86
85
65
(in)
(in)
Afl. W~
in Free
Max. Wti
I
.....
Avg.W*
at Weflbofe
(m)
-.
0.5
0.(
. .. . .
-.---
. .. . .
0.~6
0.833
0.886
0933
0.609
0.654
0.695
0733
0.776
0.833
0.888
0933
He@M
(ft)
170
170
170
o
25
50
Net Preaaure
Half La@
(ft)
0
639
1418
=-
h
1
1
Effibiancy
(%)
100
85
82
.
.
.
77
76
75
-.
.
.
Avg.Wti
in Fmc
(in)
0
0.250
0.286
(w
.
.
.
. J
%44
Wm I
IMax.
A~. Width
at Wellbore
(3n)
0
0.375
0.428
-..
-ok
0.325
0.339
.
.
0.351
0.381
a ..*
0.4
0.5
0.5-0.541
-em.
Half Len@
(n)
Net Preaaure
W)
Effdancy
(%)
170
25
--
170
---
0
831
.-
.
.
100
85
--
ii
Time
(tin)
--- .
5
3
I
1-
.
.
A-. W*
in Frac
(in)
0
0.253
- ---
(in)
.
.
77
177
Malt
Wm
I
1.
.
.
Avg.Wti
I at Wellbofe I
:
0.380
---)
.,
45
Tab& 59 Marathon GHOFER Conatent Heighl IF200 cp
Time
(rein)
Hei@t
(tt)
Half Length
(rt)
Net Preeeure
(I@
Efficiency
(%)
lcm
97
96
95
95
94
94
94
93
204
25
50
75
lW
125
150
175
m
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
204
374
714
1054
1360
1666
1972
2312
2564
1819
1742
1666
1694
1863
1664
1678
1665
Max. Wm
(in)
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.66
0.71
0.69
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.73
o
0.91
0.91
0.66
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.90
0.91
Avg. Width
at Wellbora
(in)
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.78
0.76
He@M
(ft)
Half Length
(ft)
o
25
50
75
lW
125
lEO
175
m
m
204
204
204
204
204
204
m
204
o
374
714
1020
1360
1632
1936
2244
2516
Net Preaaur@
(M
Effdency
(%)
0
1632
1767
1764
1754
1~6
1766
1605
1625
Avg.Wti
in Frac
(in)
o
0.66
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.73
0.74
0.75
MaYc.
W~
(in)
lW
97
96
95
95
94
94
94
93
0:1
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.95
0.s6
0.97
0.98
A~. W~
at Wellbore
fin)
0.76
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.79
0.60
0.62
HaigM
(R)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
m
374
374
408
408
442
442
442
442
upper
Height
(It)
204
236
236
236
236
236
236
238
m
He@M
(ft)
170
170
170
170
204
m
m
204
G
(ft)
0
306
476
612
782
916
1C64
1190
1360
Net Praaaure
(@)
Effciency
(%)
0
1423
1435
1426
1413
1391
1394
1396
1369
100
98
97
97
97
97
97
97
96
He@M
(n)
upper
H*M
(n)
Lcwer
H*M
m
Half
Length
(n)
Net Praaaure
(@)
Effi
(%)
Max.Wm
(in)
0
0.64
0.95
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.m
1.04
1.04
A-. W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.51
0.59
0.61
0.63
0.62
0.63
0.65
0.64
Avg.Wm
al Wellbora
(in)
0
0.55
0.66
0.67
0.66
0.67
0.66
0.69
0.68
AI@.W~
in Frac
(in)
A~. W~
at Wellbora
(in)
n-O.6, k=0.08
Max.Wm
(in)
100
25
374
374
406
442
442
442
442
442
204
204
204
204
236
236
236
23a
170
170
170
204
204
204
204
204
m
476
612
782
664
102Q
1190
1326
1434
1450
1441
1414
1434
1434
1431
1433
96
98
97
97
97
97
97
96
0.64
0.98
1.04
1.02
1.06
1.07
1.07
1.08
0.51
0.59
0.61
0.61
0.64
0.65
0.65
0.88
0.55
0.66
0.66
0.67
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.71
50
75
lm
125
150
175
200
46
HaigM
(rein)
(ft)
o
2s
50
7s
1(X)
125
150
175
m
340
442
442
442
476
476
476
476
Uppaf
HaigM
(R)
204
204
204
204
238
238
238
736
Half
m
H~~
y
0
308
408
544
714
850
952
1088
1224
170
238
238
238
236
238
238
n6
Nat Praaaura
(PO
Effdancy
(%)
0
1447
1323
1303
1266
1251
1257
1254
1%11
100
98
96
97
97
97
97
97
97
Max. Wm
(in)
0
0.84
0.98
1IX)
0.99
1.00
1.02
1.03
103
A~. W~
in Frac
a)
;
0.!53
0.59
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.65
065
Avg. Wti
at Walibora
(i)
:
0.58
0.64
0.71
0.70
0.67
0.89
0.70
070
Avg.Wti
in Frac
{m)
0
0.54
0.59
0.61
0.84
0.65
0.64
0.65
0.88
Avg.Wti
at Wabra
(in)
0
0.62
0.86
0.88
0.71
0.74
0.70
0.70
0.71
HaigM
(It)
Uppaf
Ha@M
~
308
442
442
442
442
476
476
476
170
204
204
204
204
238
238
238
w
Haight
(ft)
136
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
Hatf
Lan@h
(ft)
0
306
408
544
880
816
916
1054
1156
Nat Pmaaura
w)
0
1455
1316
1289
1285
1268
1265
12s7
1263
Effi
(%)
Max. W*
(w
100
98
%
95
94
94
94
93
93
0
0.84
0.95
0.98
1.01
1.01
1.03
f .03
1.04
47
Height
(ft)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
m
170
249
259
269
280
288
295
300
m
Upper
Height
(ft)
85
154
159
164
171
175
180
162
186
m
HeigM
(R)
85
w
lW
105
110
113
116
118
121
Half
Length
(ft)
0
920
1422
1850
2248
2616
2960
3286
3598
Net Preeaure
(I@
Eftwency
(%)
Max. W&h
(in)
0
824
868
W2
927
955
963
976
992
lW
80
76
74
73
71
70
68
67
El
Time
(rein)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
m
He@M
(R)
Hai@t
(It)
85
97
I
105 I
113
170
252
271
28s
155
166
176
305
185
120
315
328
340
1%~
191
196
205
713
124
130
135
1Al
HeigM
(it)
170
251
268
354
369
3s9
3s0
380
394
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
ml
Height
(It)
upper
H*M
LWer
Ha@M
Half
Length
(ft)
(n)
(n)
85
157
168
175
176
176
176
176
180
65
95
100
180
194
194
205
205
215
0
928
1425
. +-
upper
He@M
(ft)
85
m
He@M
(rt)
85
.
0.57
Max. Wm
Half
Net Praaaum Efkiency
Length
(%)
(in)
(F@
(m
0
lW
o
0
..
81
800
645
I
.
1356 I
77
911
-----.
1746
me
{3
I
1
.
2094
73
990I
1
I
.
2409
71
1016
.
2703
1043
71
.
2976
89
1061
.373!!
1om
69
065
%
2540
2848
3118
3399
Half
Length
(f!)
0
Effkiancy
(%)
0
816
860
881
685
891
900
908
944
100
80
77
74
72
70
89
88
68
Net Pmsaure
(@)
Max.Wm
.
.
0.25
0.26
026
II
II
03?!
A~. W~
Avg.W~
et Wellbon?
(in)
0
.
.
.
.
.
0
0.19
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.24
0
.
.
Max.Wm
(in)
1{
0
.
I
--216
J
2497
J
&
931
74
73
71
.
.
948
2717
X9s
967
966
71
70
ii
in Free
75
0.24
0.2!
5
U.z
---
.
.
.
0.36
nW.6, k-O.O6
100
80
1
Avg.W~
et Wellbtxa
(i)
:
.
.
(in)
0.64
Effii
(%)
I
I
Avg.width
in Frac
0)
:
0.19
0.22
-
p=200 cp
Net Praaaure
(i@
.
.
.
Avg.width
et Wellbc+a
(in)
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.31
nW.6, k4.06
Avg. Width
in Frac
(in)
0
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.70
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.19
1
.U.m
1
0.22
07A
L .
0.25
0.28
0.26
0.27
Avg.W~
et Wellbore
(in)
0
1
II
+-+---II
.
.
0.40
48
upper Law
HeigM
(n)
He@M
~
Height
~
170
228
248
358
370
399
408
423
449
85
142
150
170
182
211
220
234
239
85
84
96
188
188
188
~~
1=
210
Half
Length
(ft)
0
921
1371
1802
2133
2378
=1
=
3124
Net Pressure
0$0
0
884
981
997
1030
1080
1120
1150
1180
EffI
(%)
lW
81
71
73
87
87
8s
84
82
Max Wdh
(in)
o
0.37
0.45
0.47
0.52
0.83
0.87
.07
0.74
Avg.W~
in Frac
0)
;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Avg.W&
at Wellbore
(in)
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Haight
(rein)
(ft)
6
50
75
100
125
150
47C
Uppaf
LaWr
Haight Ha@M
(ft)
(ft)
85
85 I 1
+ --+
44a
I1
, , aT ! ,
-r
1
.-.
246
122 I 124
497
1
252
,-.-.
,
256
126
1301233
259
127
1321~
267
131
136)
w=
4*C
4A4
17J
+
lAA
Nat Praaaura
Half
Langth
(@)
(R)
t-l
I,
n
I
&
144
..J7
IQ44
..
6
--- 6
3089
3428
37s0
746
787
818
840
86s
884
QI13
4M
. -81
75
73
71
69
66
67
t%
iii
50
75
100
125
150
175
!mo
253
265
%
298
308
322
32!2
1%
125
130
139
148
151
157
160
&l
1%
128
134b
1756
135
145
2123
9Afi0
-
142
I,
158 I, 77AQ
--16513032
168
3289
I
E
910
-m!.97n
v1003
1005
Avg.W*
in Ffac
n
0.:9
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.24
on
(%)
I
n
0.-%
0.43
0.46
0.49
0.50
0.52
0.54
056
Avg.
Wii
[1
-.l%2-11
I
n
O.-n
0.26
0.28
0.29
0.30
0.31
0.31
037
-11
I
~I
n=0.6, k-O.O6
;
72
71
..
----
7n
n=
n9s
69
68
I
I
0.65
.Uml
0.26
.-
, .- ,
-.
--- .
-.
U.&
--.
1=al
OHI
----
nm
0.34
!0.35
II
o
25
30
75
100
125
150
175
m
Ha@ht
(tt)
170
172
238
242
248
342
359
364
361
Uppaf
Haight
(ft)
65
124
123
126
126
149
153
157
155
Half
Langth
(ft)
0
911
14s9
1945
2373
2739
3079
3424
3709
m
Ha@M
(ft)
85
1s
112
117
120
193
2a3
206
2W
Nat Praaatue
(@)
Effciency
(%)
0
682
757
799
828
828
848
871
852
100
78
76
74
72
70
68
67
66
Max.Wm
(in)
0
0.38
0.43
0.46
0.49
0.56
0.60
0.63
0.63
Avg.W~
in Fmc
(i)
:
0.17
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.25
Aq. W~
at Wallbom
(i)
:
0.24
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.38
0.38
A~. w~
in Fmc
A~. W~
at Wallbofa
HaigM
(R)
170
Uppar
Ha@M
(tt)
85
HaigM
(It)
85
Half
Nat Praaaura Effi
Langth
(%)
w)
(ft)
0
lW
0
m 6
-708
80
I
I
y
1364
77
810
1
- .A
1
-.
1757
w
878
;
2089
u
2333
904
8s0
71
2555
77& i
70
Gi
1
%65
70
935
25233
125
108
50
75
100
125
1=
+=
ll~-i=-i;=i=
244
354
365
375
381
a
126
152
157
162
165
118
203
209
213
215
lfw
91 R
Max.Wm
m)
o
0.40
0.47
,. -a
i
I
U.ol
0.65
- .U.oo
0.66
0.70
0.71
(in)
0
0.18
0.21
.U.u
0.23
--.
).0
0.25
0.?
m.
U.37
0.39
u.<
39
o?
..38
).41
0...
0.42
U.L4
0.24
0.25
0.25
I
1
II
II
50
Height
(rein)
(ft)
o
25
50
75
100
125
170
347
4W
439
469
495
=4
e
-Iv
531
544
4 =n
;;
m
upper
He@M
(ri)
85
218
262
294
319
340
-Qcn
373
385
Half
J
Lwer I
Hei@.
-- _
(ft)
(ft)
0
85
448
129
711
136
932
145 I
11244
150
155
1= D
4C7
1 4,-ARl 1
;G
I
1606
1744
1=
il&Ywl
~-yW
Net Pressure
.. ,
EfWency
. .
0
1130
1162
1185
1202
1215
1222
1223
1227
Im
.-
(Dsi)
69
87
85
84
82
81
60
Hei$jht
(n)
upper
He@M
~
w
Hd@t
*
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
m
170
337
404
452
4w
521
54s
574
598
85
189
231
261
285
305
323
340
354
85
146
173
191
204
216
=
234
242
HW
Lengih
(ft)
0
325
468
571
656
729
793
650
902
Avg.Wti
Avg.Width
in Frac
I at Weiibore I
(in
(in)
0
0
.- .-)
I
Max. Wti
(%)
p=2W q)
(in)
.I
0.69
0.73
0.76
0.78
0.87
0.66
0.90
0.34
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.38
0.36
0.51
0.51
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.54
0.54
!1
nW.8, kW.06
Net Pmswm
(m
Effdency
(%)
0
1334
1363
1361
Is
1405
1413
1421
1426
100
60
75
71
w
67
65
63
62
Max. Wm
00
0
0.72
0.s4
0.91
O.M
1.01
1.04
1.06
1.10
Avg.Width
in Frac
:
0.39
0.4
0.44
0.46
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.4!3
Avg.Width
at Weiibora
)
:
0.59
0.43
0.44
0.46
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.49
upper-
H~
lime
(mill)
HeigM
(ft)
o
25
50
75
lai
125
150
175
200
170
396
420
43s
458
469
480
Hd@t
(f!)
85
m
222
239
253
265
275
491
265
1600
501
207
1754
Hei@t
(it)
65
1=
193
~
203
204
=
Length
(It)
0
408
665
867
11=
1~
Net Pressure
w
0
979
1013
1042
1064
1061
1098
110s
1119
Effii
(%)
Max. w~
m)
100
91
69
67
66
65
84
63
62
0
0.57
0.67
0.71
0.75
O.n
0.80
0.61
0.83
Aw. Wh Free
0
0.30
0.34
0.36
0.37
0.36
0.39
0.40
0.40
Avg.W&
at Wedibore
0
0.45
0.51
0.54
0.56
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.60
He@M
(ft)
o
25
m
75
100
125
150
175
200
170
406
475
516
545
559
583
592
600
upper
H@M
(R)
85
202
252
286
312
333
347
357
366
m
H*M
(n)
85
m
223
230
233
236
238
235
234
H~
Len@
(n)
0
293
424
535
632
719
648
952
1042
Net Pressure
(@)
EftWency
(%)
MaX.wkml
m)
0
1233
1317
1343
1360
1375
1355
1352
1356
100
m
92
90
90
89
86
87
87
0
0.74
0.91
1.01
1.cs
1.14
1.14
1.16
1.18
Avg.W~
in Frac
(in)
0
0.42
0.49
0.52
0.s
0.56
0.57
0.56
0.60
Aw. W~
at Weiibolu
(in)
0
0.63
0.74
0.76
0.64
0.87
0.66
0.87
O.w
1[
51
(rein)
HeigM
(ft)
Half Len@!
(R)
Nat Pressure
w)
o
25
50
75
ltnl
125
150
175
m
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
17n
0
636
1002
1307
1577
1824
0
144
113
99
89
83
78
74
71
9m
EK~
(%)
Avg.Wti
in Free
Max. width
(in)
Avg.Wti
{
et Weiiimre
(in)
100
91
89
88
88
87
87
88
06
0
0.39
0.48
0.55
0.60
0.84
0.88
0.71
074
(in)
0
0.39
0.48
0.55
0.60
0,84
0.88
0.71
074
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He@M
(ft)
Half Len@
(R)
Ne4Preaaure
(F@
Efikianq
(%)
Max.width
(w
o
25
50
75
lW
125
150
175
-
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
170
47n
0
849
1449
1978
2460
2915
3348
3759
0
653
732
783
823
854
881
m
tm
88
65
83
81
80
79
78
o
0.33
0.39
0.42
0.44
0.48
0.48
0.49
A4
C7
He@M
(R)
upper
He@M
(rt)
--
. --
m
HeigM
(It)
85
Half
Lengnl
(ft)
0
Net Pressure
(w
Effciency
(%)
100
m .
..
Max.W*
(in)
o
25
50
75
lm
125
150
175
200
170
367
383
396
a
411
418
422
428
upper
Lwer
HeigM
He@M
(n)
(ft)
85
85
176
191
193
lW
201 I 195 i
208- I lW
. -214
1s(
220
198
224
198 i
229
199
Half
Length
(rt)
0
483
751
.
1233
1449
1649
--5
-- . 1
Effciency
(%)
0
872
915
100
84
80
n
%
73
72
70
69
E
976
988
m
lm
1
1
1
1
..
.-
u. [L
II
II
II
q
p=200 cp
Net Preaaute
(@)
QAA
--- ,
0.64
----
Afl. W~
et Weiibora
(in)
0
.
He@M
(ft)
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Afl. WMlh
in Free
(in)
0
I
1
Time
(rein)
(in)
P=200 cp
,
I
,
Avg.Wm
at Weiiimle
ncn
k?)
A~. W~
in Frac
(i)
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Max.Wm
(in)
0
0.50
0.67
n m
-.
0.63
0.64
0.86
0.67
0.68
A~. W~
at Weiibore
(in)
0
.
.
Avg.W~
in Fmc
m)
0
.
.
.
II
.
.
.
-
.
.
52
k
50
75
100
125
150
175
m
,,
414
473
505
530
552
571
588
Rn9
m7
255
285
310
330
346
364
a7na
207
218
220
220
222
223
~,.
4
I
99A
,
!
1
283
442
=
7M
125
1%
..
..1257
.-
,=
.=.
10Z5
14%
!
I
* 77n
(mill)
Height
(ft)
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
m
t 70
256
288
348
360
370
378
385
am
Time
n=0.6, kW06
upper
Height
(n)
85
164
168
161
171
179
188
192
4a7
Lmmr
He@M
(R)
85
92
100
187
189
191
192
193
4aA
Helf
Length
(n)
0
659
1308
1603
1802
2020
2234
2440
9$ra6
..-.
78
77
1.=
1.08
.
.
.
.
76
1 11
Net Preeewe
(@)
Emdency
(%)
Max. width
m)
0
857
930
m
845
678
900
919
m
100
80
74
70
67
65
84
63
m
0
0.35
0.40
0.38
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
O AQ
Avg.W*
in Frac
0)
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Avg.W~
et Weilbore
m)
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
GDK -200
-.
4,000
g
I
3,000 1t(9
z 2,000
W
..
1~
w-*-
..
.
------ *
PKN -200
.*----&-*
.=
0TH:et2&
200
Cp
..-
1,000
Ot
Cp
**.**
CD
MODEL
Figure 1 Length comparison for cases 1-4
1 I
FRACTURE NETPRESSURE
CONSTANT HEIGHT MODELS
2,000
GDK -200
&d&@
n
.-
c1
,P
,h,
(#3
@l&
*
,*..Q*
p
,.2* f=
:
FJ
1,000
b
w
u
-1,500
w
-**AH*
**
.
.
Cp
. ..00.
0
.-
-*
**
Cp
@-
OTHER 2D -200
-A-
Cp
-+-
MODEL
Figure 2 Net pressure comparison for cases 14
il
FRACTURE EFFICIENCY
CONSTANT HEIGHT MODELS
100
GDK -200
90
PKN -200
g,
i),
,m.
/
60
. . . . . .
h,
80
70
Cp
A-----
,$.O...,, =-
i./!ri./
-9-
........-
~.-.:* *O * w
*O...
Cp
. . . . . .
OTH:,12&
200
Cp
..m
m
MODEL
Figure 3 Efficiency comparison for cases 1-4
Cp
,B..*
---------
------ *
---
PKN -200
Cp
. . . . .
0
200 Cp
.-
.t-l
MODEL
Figure 4 Comparison of maximum width at wellbore for cases 1-4
I I
UJ
$
x
1-
1.2
+ca ,,
\
1
0.8
3 0.6
(5
>
< 0.4
/\
i,:\
-----
\;&#~
\
.A
- -cl
....*o
.O, ..*.**
hO
. . . . ...**
....
MODEL
Comparison of average width at wellbore for cases 14
Cl)
GDK- n=0.5,k=0.06
-----*
PKN -:00
.....*
CP
.. ... .
PKN - n=0.5,
-+-
k=0.06
OTHER 2D -200 CD
,
--4--*
OTHER
-1
k=0.06
F.
##
08 -
o
<
E 0.6
IL
z
w
88
GDK -:00
+*
*<
--------r
GDK -
Cp
n=0.5,k=0.06
-----*
PKN -&OO Cp
. . ...0
. . . . . .
\\,
-------
v!k~
&./
0.4 0..@..*~.@............@...
*.@...*8
z
.&.#.B o
1n 0.2
3
r
I I I I I I I I I I I
Gel
MODEL
Figure 6 Comparison of average width in fracture for cases 1-4
k=0.06
PKN - ~=~,
OTHE:.ZIJ200 Cp
..-.
. . k=0.06
OTHER 2D-~=0.5,
GDKCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
Cp
3000
%SAH
A-MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
~SHELL
--I---TEXACO(FP)
~CHEVRON
+HALLIBURTON
+e+CONOCO
2500
2000
+
w
~ 1500
c1
z
w
-1
1000
500
00
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein)
150
175
2 o
GDKCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
Cp
200
+SAH
~MEYER-1
-B-MEYER-2
~SHELL
-t--TEXACO(FP)
~CHEVRON
+HALLIBURTON
1-
W
z
50
o
0
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein)
*
8
150
175
200
GDKCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
Cp
1.0
+SAH
~MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
~SHELL
-+-TEXACO(FP)
~CHEVRON
+HALLIBURTON
-I@- CONOCO
x
1-
0.0
25
50
75
100
TIME
(rein)
125
150
175
GDKCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
2500
+SAH
~MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
2000
-SHELL
~HALLIBURTON
~CONOCO
1500
x
1=
a
z
~
1000
500
0
o
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein)
\
J
150
175
200
GDKCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
300
m
A
m
250
I
#
200
150
100
50
0
o
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein)
150
175
SAH
MEYER-1
MEYER-2
SHELL
HALLIBURTON
GDKCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
1.25
+!+SAH
1A-MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
~SHELL
~HALLIBURTON
~CONOCO
-J
-1
s!
x
1-
0.00
0
25
50
75
~pvf~
100
125
I-:n)
\lll Ill)
150
175
200
PKNCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
Cp
5000
/t
4000
%SAH
A-MEYER-1
+9-MEYER-2
~ADVANl
~SHELL
-+--TEXACO(FP)
-CHEVRON
~CONOCO
1000
0
o
25
50
7-5
TIME
Figure 13 Length history for case 3
100
(rein)
125
150
175
2( o
PKNCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
Cp
1600
+3-SAH
~MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
+ADVANI
~SHELL
++
TEXACO(FP)
1400
200
+CHEVRON
000
800
600
400
200
o
0
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein) .
150
175
2 o
PKNCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
Cp
0.7
+SAH
AI-MEYER-1
-e3-MEYER-2
-4+
ADVANI
~SHELL
-+-TEXACO(FP)
0.5
+CHEVRON
0,4
0.3
0.2
0.1
I
0.O
o
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein)
150
175
PKNCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
5000
+!+SAH
A-MEYER-1
+9-MEYER-2
+ADVANI
~SHELL
~CONOCO
4000
1000
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein)
150
175
21
PKNCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
i1
1800
+SAH
A+MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
)
+ADVANI
L
~SHELL
1600
1400
(/)
CL
1200
w
CY
1000
c
e
800
1-
600
n-
W
z
400
200
0
25
50
75
100
TIME
Figure 17 Net pressure history for case 4
(rein)
125
150
175
PKNCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
0.9
+SAH
~MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
~ADVANl
~SHELL
-J
-J
005
0.4
3
x
a
z
0.2
0.1
0.0
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein) #
150
175
OTHER
2DCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
cp
.
%MARATHON
1 ~ENERFRAC-1
+ENERFRAC-2
TIME
(rein)
OTHER
2DCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
Cp
2000
+
1800
MARATHON
=s-ENERFRAC-1
+ENERFRAC-2
1600
~
v
1400
1200
V-& 1000
-1
N
&
800
w
z
600
400
200
0
o
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein)
150
175
- 2(Y) en
200
OTHER
2DCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
200
Cp
1.0
+!+
~ENERFRAC-1
+ENERFRAC-2
m
-J
MARATHON
0.6
3
1-
= 0.4
1=
(a
0.0
25
50
75
100 125
TIME (rein)
150
175
200
OTHER
2DCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
3500
+MARATHON
1 ~ENERFRAC-1
3000
+ENERFRAC-2
2500
4-
W 2000
1000
500
0
o
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
OTHER
2DCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
2000
1800
9
k
m
A
m
1600
4ooj
200
0
o
25
50
75
TIME
100
125
150
175
(mIn)
- n, k
200
MARATHON
ENERFRAC-l
ENERFRAC-2
OTHER
1
2DCONSTANT
HEIGHT:
n,
.C
+
MARATHON
~ENERFRAC-1
+ENERFRAC-2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
I
25
50
75
100
125
TIME (n-dn)
150
175
2
n.
4,000 ~
200 Cp
1-
0
z
n=0.5, k=0.06
------*
3,000
-1
2,000
-1
Lu
K
-d
1,000
L
MODEL
Figure 25 Length comparison for cases 5 and 6
FRACTURE HEIGHT
3-IAYER MODELS
700
Cp
w
n=0.5,k=0.06
-----*
200
w
u
3
400
10300
s
L
200
MODEL
Figure 26 Height comparison for cases 5 and 6
FRACTURE NETPRESSURE
3-IAYER MODELS
1,600
200 Cp
w
n
.Cn
n=0.5,
k=0.06
----- m
.
-1,400
PKN -~00
1,200
1,000
800
MODEL
Figure 27 Net pressure comparison for cases 5 and 6
**..*
CP
... ...
FRACTURE EFFICIENCY
3-MYER MODELS
Cp
w
n=0.5,k=0.06
-----* .
200
90
80
PKN -:00
. .... .
70
60
50
40
II
MODEL
Figure 28 Efficiency comparison for cases 5 and 6
.* ..*.
CP
200 Cp
w
n=0.5,
k=0.06
------ m
1-
00
5
0
MODEL
Figure 29 Comparison of maximum width at wellbore for cases 5 and 6
0.4
0.2
(9
>
<
MODEL
Figure 30 Comparison of average width at wellbore for cases 5 and 6
Cl)
.... . .
200 Cp
w
0.6
n=0.5,k=0.06
-----*
0.5
PKN -~00
.. . ...
0.4
CP
.. ....
z 0.3
0.2
00
cd
0.1
(5
>
MODEL
Figure 31 Comparison of average width in fracture for cases 5 and 6
3LAYER
MODELS:
200
Cp
400C
kA-NSI
) +RES
-+MARATHON
-t-ARCO(STIM)
, +w+MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
~ADVANl
3000
n
R
L
w
-1
1000
TIME (m!n)
Figure 32 Length history for case 5
+-TEXACO(Fp)
3LAYER
MODELS:
200
CD
+SAH
J ~NSl
-B-RES
~MARATHON
--+-
5
)
/
1001
25
50
75
TIME
Figure 33 Height history for case 5
100
(rein)
125
150
175
200
ARCO(STIM)
+MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
-@ADVANl
---4--TEXACO(FP)
00
3LAYER
MODELS:
200
Cp
1500
-f9-SAH
/4?3
4
1200
~NSl
+RES
-e--MARATHON
-+
ARCO(STIM)
+MEYER-1
*MEYER2
900
-E$-ADVANI
-4-TEXACO(Fp)
m
0)
600
300
25
50
75
100
125
TIME (m In)
Figure 34 Net pressure history for case 5
150
175
3LAYER
MODELS:
200
CP
1.2
+
SAH
~NSl
-E3-RES
~MARATHON
~MEYER1
~MEYER2
~ADVANl
EXACO(FP)
0.0
o
25
50
75
100
125
TIME (rein)
150
175
2(
3LAYER
MODELS:
n,
3500
*SAH
~NSl
+RES
-+--MARATHON
--+-ARCO(STIM)
+MEYER-1
3000
2500
*MEYER-2
~ADVANl
2000
~ 1500
-1
1000
500
o
TIMF
. . . ..-
(~in)
3LAYER
MODELS:
n,
600
+SAH
~NSl
+ZI-RES
500
~MARATHON
---tARCO(STIM)
~MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
~ADVANl
300
200
100
25
50
75
100
125
TIME (rein)
150
175
200
3LAYER
MODELS:
n,
1600
*SAH
~NSl
1400
+RES
--+-i-
1200
MARATHON
ARCO(STIM
+MEYER-1
*MEYER-2
~ADVANl
1000
800
600
400
200
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
2( o
3LAYER
MODELS:
n,
1.2
+9-SAH
~NSl
+RES
~MARATHON
~MEYER-1
~MEYER-2
~ADVANl
1 *O
0.8
0.6
co
0.4
3
x
4
x
0.2
0.0
25
50
75
100
125
TIME (rein)
150
175
200
4,000
200 Cp
w
n=0.5, k=0.06
--- e-.
3,000
2,000
1,000
MODEL
Figure 40 Lenath comparison
FRACTURE HEIGHT
5-IAYER MODELS
---
200 Cp
w
n=0.5.
---
300
MODEL
Figure 41 Height comparison for cases 7 and 8
k=0.06
=--
FRACTURE NETPRESSURE
5-IAYER MODELS
1,400 j
200 Cp
~
.-
U)
n=0.5, k=0.06
----- *
.
cl
-1,200
p
w
800
t
z
6001
tI
MODEL
Fiaure 42 Net cressure com~arison
FRACTURE EFFICIENCY
5-LAYER MODELS
200 Cp
w
n=0.5, k=0.06
------*
90
80
70
fn
vl
60
50
MODEL
Figure 43 Efficiency comparison for cases 7 and 8
200 Cp
w
I
1a
n=0.5, k=0.06
------
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
MODEL
Figure 44 Comparison
FRACTUREAVERAGE
WIDTH AT WELLBORE
5-LAYER MODELS
1.4
200 Cp
w
1.2
n=0.5, k=0.06
------ m
w\
0.8
0.6
#
8
w
4
0.4
0.2
MODEL
Figure 45 Comparison
w
n=0.5, k=0.06
--- * ---
1-
(),2
(gOil
MODEL
Fiaure 46 Com~arison of averaae width in fracture for cases 7 and 8
5L/4yER
MODELS:
200
Cp
4000
+SAH
~NSl
3500
+RES
3000
MARATHON
--+--
ARCO(STIM)
+MEYER-1
*MEYER-2
~ADVANl
-+--TEXACO(FP)
co
(0
1000
500
0
o
25
50
75
TIME
Figure 47 Length history for case 7
100
125
(rein)
150
175
200
5L14yEf?
MODELS:
200
Cp
600
+SAH
~NSl
+RES
+MARATHON
--+--ARCO(STIM)
~MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
-1$11- ADVANI
~TEXACO(FP)
500
.,.
o
0
Ill
200
100
0
25
50
75
100
125
?~+~
/rein)
\llllll/
150
175
2(
5LAYER
MODELS:
200
Cp
1600
+SAH
~NSl
1400
~
-P3-RES
-e-MARATHON
1200
-+-ARCO(STIM
~MEYER-1
+MEYER2
~ADVANl
~TEXACO
1000
800
600
400
200
0
25
50
75
100
TIME
Figure 49 Net pressure history for case 7
(rein)
125
150
175
FP)
5LAYER
MODELS:
200
CP
1.2
*SAH
~NSl
+RES
+MARATHON
--tMEYER-1
?1.0
w
E
~MEYER-2
+ADVANI
--+$+ TEXACO(Fp)
m 0.8
-1
-1
w
3
1= 0.6
a
x
l-n
0.4
z
x
a
z
0.2
0.0
o
25
50
75
100
125
?!ME
(m!n)
150
175
200
5 LAYER
MODELS:
n,
3500
+SAH
.
~NSI
3000
+Z+RES
~MARATHON
I
2500
-+-ARCO(STIM)
-++
ARCO(TERR)
+MEYER-1
4$MEYER-2
~ADVANl
4+
TEXACO(FP)
o
W
I&l
-1
+E+TEX-FPNOTP
1500
1000
500
0
0
25
50
75
TIME
Figure 51 Length history for case 8
100
(rein)
125
150
175
2(
5-LAYER
700
MODELS:
n,
..
*SAH
~NSl
+RES
600
~MARATHON
-+-AR CO(STIM)
-++-ARCO(TERR)
~MEYER-1
+$-M EYER-2
500
+ADVANI
++-TEXACO(Fp)
~TEX-FPNO
w
I
300
200
100
25
50
75
100
125
T~}JE (rein)
fllll
l,,
150
175
5LAYER
MODELS:
n,
1600
+9-SAH
~NSl
1400
+RES
~MARATHON
-+--ARCO(STIM)
++--ARCO(TERR)
//
+MEYER-1
~MEYER-2
~ADVANl
~TEXACO(FP)
~TEX-FPNOTP
1000
800
600
400
200
[
25
50
75
100
TIME
Figure 53 Net pressure history for case 8
125
(rein)
150
175
200
5-LAYER
MODELS:
n,
1.2
+9-SAH
~NSl
+RES
-+-
.5 1.0
w
--+-ARCO(TERR)
Qi
+MEYER-1
+MEYER-2
~ADVANl
-+--TEXACO(FP)
~TEX-FPNOTP
~ 0.8
-J I
MARATHON
0.2
0.0
0
25
50
75
100 125
?~}~~ (rein)
\llllll,
150
175
21
107
Appendix
Figure Al -A8 give the height profiles and width profiles calculated by Trifrac as a
function of length for cases 543. These profiles were provided by S.A. Holditch &
Assoc. and have not been changed for publication.
Fracture
a, constant
case
200
Height
Profile
200 cp fluid
..- ..-
Plot
[f$-200.OAT)
Flrst
Layer
~nl~id~lon
150
100 .
_ --
-. .
--------- --..-.._
-_
---
-.
--
--
..-
..-.
.._
-1oo -
___ _
.~~
-150- L
-200t I I I 1 I
o
500
Figure Al
1
I
~~(-j~
I
i500
1
2000
2500
LEGEND
At Shut-In
I
-...
Ciuuu
>500
:.
1
200
&5,
150
..
-
852,
1270,
1704.
..._
I-
----2130,
2556+
[
100 2982,
- 3407.
/i
;\
\i.\
\\
J
/
\\.
\
. ..- ..
++
_- AN,
---
50
n
v
\
\,$
:y\
---
---
--. --
___
,__
I \I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I /
\
-50
- ...--
,/.
,.+,.,
~
,,+:&
-/ //
/,{/+
[
-100
.- -
I
t
__ __ .
-150 I I
.75
1 I I
-,50
-.25
0
.25
Fracture Width (in)
1 I I I I I I 1 I
.50
,75
300
200
100
- ---
. . - t----
-4-J
c
O)
z-
-100
--
--
--
---
---
. .----- .. - .-.. _
_ _ ....- -,.,- -
. .- ---- -.- -. .- ___ .... -_
---
.-
..._--
------
---
-200
-300
o
I I I I I I
500
I
f~~~
I
I
~500
2000
2500
Fracture Half-Length (ft)
LEGEND
At Shut-In
I
3000
3500
3001
o,
200
n
-+-J
w
~nltlfitiufl
[_ay~p
1
I
-407.
815.
- 1222,
- 1630,
---- 2037,
2444,
2852,
-3259.
100. .-..
_--,
-....-.
-, . . .. . .. .
-
- _,._ ....-
- .. - . . - ,, _ ._ -
0-
-..
.
- ___. ..-----100
-----
- -.
--
-- .- . _ -..-,---
[
-200 I
- --- - _ -
-1.00
Figure A4
-.75
-.50
III1
-,25
6
I I I 1 I I I
.25
I I I
II I1 I I
,50
,75
I I 1
1400
300
.
-.-.-----.1
100
.----. --------.
_-,,-----,...
-..,.
-.,,,
_ ........_..... .._
..--,,
-.- ,----------..__,_
-_
0
u
-.--
LL
- . -- ..-.-
-100}
- - - ..- .
-.....-.
.-,
,,-.
---------
.,
F
L
-200 -
-300t I
,____
__
500
1 I I I 1 I
1000
1500
Fracture Half-Length
2000
(ft)
At Shut-In
I I I I I I I
3,
2500
.
1
1
200-
Lzi\/ur
363.
726.
1090,
1453.
100 :..:1816.
0,,
.-
=--2
.f7g:
-----------
._
.
.
.
-
,
,..
.1
1
2542,
2905.
-----
4-J
-1oo
--
,___,
/
\ .. ,,
-200
.
<
-.75
I I I
-.50
I I I
-.25
+--------------
-300
___,
1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I I
I
Fracture Width
.25
(in)
.50
I I
,75
Fracture
variable
Height Profile
Plot
viscosity
fluid
(f5-v,DAT)
-.
-.,..1
100
--
--
.. _
-.._ -
-..
. -_
_-
0
al
-M
u
m
2 -100
---- -----
-- -- - -
--
-----
-~
------T
-200
----------------
-300
t
~
I I I 1 I 1
LEGEND
At Shut-In
I
~fJfJ
I
~~~~
~~~~
Fracture Half-Length
2000
[ft)
I I I I I
p~~~
~~~~
Width Profile
case
300,
b,
Down Fracture
variable
viscosity
(At Shut-In)
fluid (F5-V.DAT)
(FT)
-3300
o 6600
- 991,
- 1321,
I1
_---,.
--.,
---
--
u ---___
__
___
-._
200
----1651,
1981.
2311,
- 2641,
100
. -
..._
!.
____
...
.-,,-
,-.
__
z
m
.I-l
_
I
$?
al
.3
;
----k -100
___
___
-200
_____
-300
I I
-1.00
-*75
-,50
I1 1I
-.25
Fracture
I I I I I I
o
.25
Width
(in)
1 I I I I I I
,50
.75
1.00
116
Stress Profile
:
@
__
__
puy
zone
-0,5
++
-1,0
i!
).0
0,5
+--
c
o
___
/
o
%
-500 0
500
Net
1000
Stress
(psi)
1500
2000
Width
8
. . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .
!-
. . . . . . . . . . . ...>. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . .
Profile Contours
. . .. . ... ..
. . . . . . . . . ...
. . . .. . . . . . . ,
. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . .
..
.
..- .!..... . . .
..=S.Q.
.w.
-.-...
--. .--.*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..--.m..~.
. ...
...+a.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
.
. . . . . . . ..=.
. ...
.... . ....
.... ............
.......
... .
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
..........
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . .
. . .
. ...
$.
$..
...
....,
...
. . .
,,
10
. . .
.,.
.....
,
.
..
500
1ooo
t, ,
,,,
,,,
::
..
....
. . . .. . (),43 . .......-..:;:;...,..::..;:
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- .
.. . . .
... ..432
.-, _. -. +.,.
. ... . . . . . . -. ... . . ...-..
,.
. . . ... . . . ....
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..=..-..
.-.
.. . . . . . . . .. . . . -8%
. . . .. . .. . . . ...=..
.. . . . . . . ... O.14 . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . 0.09 . ... .. . . . .
... .... ... ... ... ..... 0103 .. ...... ...
1
.,...
. .
,.
.......
, .,,
. .
. .
#J$
. .
.*
~Q
..-
..
. .
. . . .
..
. .
,.,...Q
....
*..
. .
. . .
. .
.........
.* . . . ...
. . . . . .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .
. $.....
1500
2000
2500
..
3000
3500
4000
Length (ft)
I
Stress Profile
o
%
o
0
c
c
zone
pay
-1.0 -0,5
),0
0,5
(ir
o
o
__
-i
t
8
Y
,.
-500
500
1000
1500
Net Stress
(psi)
2000
....
-..
...
.*
..
6
0
,,.
.,.*Q
.
. ..#
F-1
. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . 0.10
. ........
!-l
10
500
1000
1500
2000
Length (ft)
Figure B4 Width profile - case 6
2500
300 o
Stress Profile
I
pay
zone
(
(il
.
z-1000
I
0
Net
1000
Stress
2000
(psi)
la
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .........
...
-------. . . . ..$.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>O
-.+.- ...
_................................................=
...=..= ..u. SAA.. .-.
. .
. .-.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-. . . . ..-.
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ....**
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . .
,0
.........
@g
Ql*y
..*......
. .
...-........... ........ ..
-..
...
. . . . . . . . . . .
.........
.... . . .
._
. . . . . ..O ...
. . . .
........
...
...
...
....
..
...
...
, ,* ,*
..
0,47..
- ...
,
.....
..*
,
.
, ,
.
,,
..
.. .
. ..
,
. .
,
\
.\
I
.
,
,,
.
$
It
#
,
o
I
.
t
t
.
;
#,
,
,-. . . . .
#
#
:
.
,
.
.
.. . . .... . . . .
.,.
e,..@
,,...
,,
,,
,/
..
.
t
,
,
,..
. . . . . . . . . . .. . ...Q.43 . . . . . ..*.. ..
,., . .. ... . . . .
,.,
,,. .
, :
. . ...*. .,. .$
. . ,.. .. . d
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . ...8 . . .
-.,
,..
. . . . . . .. . . .. .... ... .... .. ..
, ~,
. . ...
-.
~:rn:w:rnQd~?R.n%
......*.*...
. . ...... ......
. . . ..-.
. . . ..
.,
.. . ... . ......... ..
I 1
. .. . .. =..-...U .. .u..~ . . .. ...- ..: . ....
.
.L
,=
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... .
.*
... ... ..
. .. . . . . . . . . . ..-O
,
.. . . . . . . . .
,
#
'". ".. "". Q.2p.F.2:;.::::; j:}:::; ::::::..:: ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
;; ,,,..
. . . . . ..
.. .
..
,
;
.* .
.,
. . . . . . . ..*
,.
.,.
-, .,...,.;-..,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...
.,, . . . . . .. *..
. . . . . . . . . . . . .*** . . . . . . . . .
. . .. . . . . . . . . ...o.~. ;::~;;;o;x2:::* :;:::~.!(iz:::::::::
........-....tt.t$l$:t~
... .. ..
-@O.
w
.,
z....................................... ...........
.
... .
;
o
,1
,.
0s
z~z
T
z:
N
......
.................
I
:
N
10
500
1000
1
1500
2000
Length (ft)
Figure B6 Width profile - case 7
I
2500
1
3000
Stress Profile
pay
0]
zone
2
M
3 g
y
0
y
?-1OOO
1000
2000
Net Stress (psi)
o
3000
J
Figure B7 Height profile - case 8
1-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
.. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . ... . . .
..........
. . . . . . . . . .. . . .......... .... . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~. .-. .
----.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.-l-.
. .
.n.
. .
.
.
. . . . . .
.,.
..
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
.
..fik
..-
-. ..*
.u.tj~..,.,
.,,
...
. .
. .
.,
.
.
. .
. . .
. .
.
.
.,
..
.*
.
..
. . . .
.,,
....
. . .
:.,
. . .
.
...
,$
,
,,,
.
,*
,
.
$,
1$
\$!l
,::
,$
,*
,*
,,
,,
,,
,$
,,
il.
,,
,. . ,, i
..... Q@q
x:-:
-:-"m?::-.o~?-:
-:~:-:~-:'*.;:::;
:-;:-;
::::O..=:::.
"_.
_i_
.
t
;
... ..
,. . ..-
+..
. . . . ...6...
.. .. .... ..... ... .... .. .
,OO.,.,...O
,;
..-
. . .
. . . .. .
.0$..
.*.
O.*
@3-
,.
...~-......o,~~
. . . . . . . . . . . ..
..............
:::::...........................
.....*
0
..
...........
%
-.
\
in
#
.$.
!+
(.,
~~
.
..0.
~,~f-j
,8
,,
. . . . . . ....
. .--.-...
.,,,.
**
.....
,,
,0
,,
,, I
,
*11:
.4
. . . . . .
t
,
,
,.
;
,
~;
,
)
.!
.
6
A
, ;;
.
,.
. .
,r
I
N
10
500
1000
1500
2000
Length (ft)
Figure B8 Width profile - case 8
I
2500
I
3000
125
Stress Profile
I
c
r-
.
.
__
_-
--d
w
zone
pay
I
(3,5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
1.(
( in,
. _ __
0
I
I -500
Figure Cl
1000 1500
Net Stress (psi)
500
2000
8
I
-...*...
...........-.
d
....................
........
o
0
+
. . . . . . . . . . -.
. .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+.
. . . . . .
*.....
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
..O
..O
.
-------
. . . . . .,
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
.,
,.,
. .
..
.
.
,..
. . . . .
. . . .
.-.
..
. ..-.
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. .
.
.,
. . .
.,
..".
""..
""'".
""""
"...`""..
"....a.
""."...."`""
. . . .
. . . . . . . . .
........
.............................
s. ... ....
--------
/.
..,.......
,.
..
. ,
,..
. .
,.
...
..
..~..~ . . ...
......... ....- ..=..- -.-OO.,.~..-..... ..... 0.32
.000,25 ... ........ .. .. .. .. . .. . ......
..-..6.
(@
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
. . . . .
.
\
,
..
..
#
,.
,,
,,
,,
,.
...
......
,,.
.
... ..
II
I
02
10
500
1000
1500
Length (ft)
Figure C2 Width profile - case 5
I
2000
2500
J
3000
Stress Profile
I
--c
-@C
~.
pay
---L
zone
-1,0 -0.5
.
-500
500
Net
Stress
1000
1500
(psi)
2000
).0
IQ.5
Width
. . . . .
Profile Contours
1
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . -.
. . . . . . .
......
........
...........
............
.............
..........
.,. ,
.....
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
k..ti,&.+ti..
. . . . . . . . . . .,,
.-..,.
. . . .
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . , . . . . ..
A.._
...,,
. . . . . . . . . .
. ...,
. .
. .
., ~oaz.
............
;:; :_:_.
\#
.......
...
... .
,, #
..
. . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
,,
.,
,
.
\
:
,
#
..
#
.
,.~
.,,
...
,*
.,1
~56::::::::::::
"::~.~+.:::...:::::;
::;:;
:::.:::::;
::;;.;;
::::.".
m.-..a-
. .. . . . . .
,...................0,30
. .. . . . . . . .... . . .. . . ...
. .. . . . . . .
. . . . ... .. ... . . .. .. ..
... . .. . . .. .
. .. . . . . . .. ...-..
. . . ... . . .. . . . . . . ... . . ..
...... ..
10
500
1000
1500
Length (ft)
Figure C4 Width profile - case 6
I
2000
I
2500
Stress Profile
~
02
o
0 -
1+ _
zo
=
~.
pay
zone
z-1000
0
1000
2000
Net Stress (psi)
. .
. .
. .
Q.._
..
-----
.+.
..
.._.
._-.
a..
..=..+..
..
->
-..
.
*.F
.. . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . ... --..=
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . ...
..
.
. . . . . . .. . . . . .
..
,,
.. .. .. .. .. . . . . .
. ...
. . .
. . .. . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
..*,
.. . . .. .. .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . ....
... .
.
.,
.
. ... .
...
,,
-. .,.
. . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . .. ..
. . . . . . . o,~~
,
. . .
*,
.
. . . .
. . . . . . .
....
o,~~ ..
. . . .
. .
..
::
,,
,,
::
,,::
,,
.,
.
$
0::
,,,
1+,
.,,
#
.
...... . . . .,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
o
m
,.,
. .
. .
.
,.,
.......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
-.. .
. .
. .
......
. . . .
. .. ..
, ..
....
(% : : :::
l,,
,..
0:!;:
.
.
~045 . . ........,............,,.,.
,/..
........
-o.. -.=..
=.. =.. AOJ39 . . . . . . . . . . .-.
. . . . ..... . . . . _. . ..... . .... ..- +:::
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . ...?=. . -.. .- ...,,,,..
. . . . . ...= ,.-..- -.. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . -.....
,
. . ...-
:.:..-..:.0:33 :::::::::::::
...........
, .
...
.
#.
..
. . .. .. .
...
.. . .. .. . ..
. . .. ... .. . . .. . .
. . . ...* . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.............
. . . . . . . . . . . . ...
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ,.
.. . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . ...
. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...
E)(J(J
1000
,,. ,, j~
,.
&. . . . ~. .- ,,: +:
,
. . . .,. .
.
. . . . . ... . . . .
1500
Length (ft)
Figure C6 Width profile - case 7
.,,
2000
2500
Stress Profile
c)
o
N
l-+ .
pay
zone
o
0
N
-1000 0
Net
1000
2000
Stress
(psi)
o
C.3
mt
3000
Width
o
r)
Y-1
Profile Contours
,
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
.
. --. .
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
.-
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 -. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . ..
.
$ .......................
.
...&.
.=
._ .
...
..
..
.,
.,,
s
t
,
,
,
,
,...,...
..Q
f#
G!
z
E
10
500
,.
.
.
1000
Length (ft)
Figure C8 Width profile - case 8
,,,
,,,
,,,
,
,
;,,
,4
,1
.
1500
!,
::
,1,
,!
#
,
z
N
,,,
... .......
~. .
:. .
. ...-.... ...
,=
- .....=..=. . .. ... .... . .... . .. .... .=------,.. .,. .
,,. . ...*
,.
,. ~.4t
,.
..,
..
,
. . .----.
T - .................-*Q......
.. .. ... . . ... ... ....
.. .
. . .. ..
. ... ,
.
.. ...,
,\
. 0.4Q
0
,
m
,.,
,,
,. ,
,,
..
,. ,.
.,
..
d ,..
.
..
.
,.
., ....
,.,
...
. ...
....
1 ... ..... .. ......
..
..
........
..
...
........
....-.............""...".'.."."
-... ...... .....". -."".. "."."".".".Q.. . . ....
. ....
.:.:.................. ... .. z . ......... .........
. . ... .... .. ... .. .
iv -j!!~~~~~:~~i-~-.l@.2.6
I
z
,
,
,,,
,,,
,
..
. ..* . ....
.............
. ..............-,..
. ...
tl-,.w-..-. ~. .~. 4.49 ... ;... ..... ... ....
. OJJQ;
.. . . ... . .. .. ......
Qf)
...
.,
,.
.,,
,,,
:;
4:
,;
,, ,
2000
cd
cd
134
Appendix
Figure DI gives the height profiles calculated by HYFRAC3D for cases 5-8. These
profiles were provided by S. Advani of Lehigh University and have not been changed
for publication.
SFE
NO.
FRACTURE
GEOMETRY
400.0
--.+3-:
----
-----
200,0
WOax-r-%wso
8
---------
aian
z.a*Oa-
Cca.e
43>
-----------
----
.,---
-------
0,0
-200.0
--------
-------
--=
---z---
--------
---
*d-------
-400.0
750
1500
2250
3000
136
Appendix
Figure El -E8 give the height profiles and width profiles calculated by GOHFER as a
function of length for cases 5-8. These profiles were provided by Marathon. and have
not been changed for publication.
GRI/SFE #3 Case 5 -3
Layer
Const.
Vise.
200
,4
.8
\\\\
+#
-200
Fracture
Figure El
2000
1000
Half Length,
ft
O*2
to
co
-0
-0.4
-06*
-0.8.
400
-300
-200
- CaSa 5
I
1
-1oo
0
Frac Height, ft.
100
200
3 )0
GR1/SFE #3 Case
6 - 3 Layer
Variable
Vise
200
,25
,50
,75
1,00
200
1000
Fracture
2000
Half Length,
ft
04s
02*
0
-0 *2
-o*4
-06*
-08 .
-4 10
1
. .....
-300
-200
I
I
0
-100
Frac Height, ft,
100
200
3(
Layer Const
Vise,
200
is
,Q
\\l
i!
(J
(d
t
/111
-200
1000
Fracture
2000
Half Length,
ft
-04a
-06
-088
-400
I
-300
I
-200
I
I
-100
(j
Frac Height, ft.
I
100
I
200
300
Layer VariableVise.
o
.25
.50
,75
200
1,00
-200
1000
Fracture
2000
Half Length,
ft
06,
049
02a .
o\
-021
-040
-06,
-08!
-400
I
-300
-200
-100
(
Frac Height, ft.
100
200
145
Appendix
Figure FI-F8 give the height profiles and width profiles as a function of length for cases
5-8 using Stimplan. Figure F9 gives the height profile as a function of length for case 8
using TerraFrac. These profiles were provided by ARCO and have not been changed
for publication.
7
......
9000
--
9100
I m-o *. 4---*.
-~8~.~.-..m-_m
---m---.-+-_+._+\
-%
9200
h,
9300 -~
9+-+-+-~-~--
9400 ~a~.~
9500 -9600 ~~
~
9700
. -----------0
1000
1---------1-----------+-.
1500
2000
x
--t---2500
3000
+.--+
3500
4000
7
..
..................................................
......
...........................................................
I
,
i
. ...!.....
..... ........,,-.................................
...
i<
-.
,\
%,
.
,
.,:.:.,$.
. .
. . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.:
s
,
.
:...::...,,. ,.!, .,.,,.,.
.
,
.,
2 .
/ .-. ;
:.
.,.
.).
.7
..
t.;;
+.-.!
.,. .-.:;:..:.*..:.*.:
,
.
.
.
u)
i?
9600
1
9700
4~-
9000
.
I
9100
--
9200
9300
9400
9500
~~.
=--+--_-m.-_..
m....._*_+
.--..~~
*.
----9,
4---
.--.-w-----
1)
,em.e.
~--=
..--~-a--~--
---v
...-...*B -----*---
*- *-*
~
500
1000
-. I.-
l---2000
1Soo
x
t----
t-
2500
3000
1
3500
150
.
.
.
.
.
.
...... .......... .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
! . . . . ........
. . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
SIIT#3(5-layer,COnst,Uisc)
ill IJidth(in)
..
.............>...,,,..,,.,,,,.
,,
....
I......
.
.....
.
.
.
,
.
,.,,
....
..s
....
050
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
...........................
..(
.
,
.
.
.
,
9200
,,
. . .
9100
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.............................
,..,O,,
.
,,.,.
,,.,,
. .
. . . . . . . . . .
9300
.
.
.
.
.
,.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
.
. .
. .
o
.. . . . . . . . .
. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. .. . .
.
.
.
,
.
.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . .
9400
.....
. .
9500
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.s
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
. . . . . . ...,
. . . . .
.
*
STIMPLAN,
SFE#3 (5-Layer,
200 cp)
8900
9000
9100
9200
9300
9400
9500
9600
9700
0
500
1000
1500
2000
x
2500
3000
3500
152
Stress(psi)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
..............
.
,
,
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
-.
WE#3 (5-laym,Uar,(Jisc)
3500 -0,50 Hidth(in)
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9100
.
.
.
.........................
.
.
.
.
..........................
.
.
9200
. . . . .
.....
.F
.......
....,
...~
05R
a
. . . . . . .
.....
*,
.
*
.
*
.
9309
..
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
9400
.
............... ........................... ...............
.
.
.
9500
.
*
,0
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..OO
o
-,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
,
,
.
h IJidth:0,79 in
co
9000
~..m
9100
--9--m*_.~
.
-m.-m_m_.,m-,
__m
-----0
-..,
..
._-*
9200
\
A
9300
9400
~~
t-m
9500
,T
,~-o---~*-
9600
9700
500
1000
1500
x
2000
2500
3000
.. ...... . . . .
Men
IdL::3FE#3
Fi 1e I%me:
60(3,0
400,0
20(3, 0
0.0
-200,13
40L3,0
-600.0
I
50
,0
looi.o
I
1500.0
I
2000.0
LENGTH (ft
- case 8
I
2500.0
I
3000.0
I
3500.0
155
Appendix
G VWdthand
Figure G1 -G8 give the height profiles and width profiles calculated by Fracpro as a
function of length for cases 5-8. These profiles were provided by RES and have not
been changed for publication.
6300
6900
7500
8100
8700
8
g 9300
&
9900
-1
I
I
I
I
. . . ..-. I ---I
I
I
I
1
-----1----I
I
I
I
----a. . . . .
I
I
I
I
I ---------I
I
I
I
I
1 ----I
I
I
I
;----I
I
I
I
1 ----I
I
I
I
1 ----I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1 ------f
I
I
-----
11----I
I
I
----I
I
:----I
I
I
I -----I
I
I
------
ii
II
1110
-m-----
. . . ---- I -----I
1Osa
CP; 3-LAYER
CASE 5:200
Stress Profile
d
I
1170
. .. . .
------,
Permeablllty
-----
I
I
1230
5200
Low
6250
Closure
7300
8350
.3000
Stress (psi)
Figure GI
.1500
0
Lenglh (feel)
High
1500
3000
I
I
I
I
8740.
. ----
8880.
.--.
.-:----I
I
I
L ----I
I
I
I
r ----I
I
I
I
I. ----I
I
I
I
J---1
I
I
9020.
----
---1 ----I
I
I
9160.
..----J-----
---
9300.
A
. ---
9440.
.- --1 ----I
I
I
I
J------:
I
I
I
9580 . .---
9720 .. -----
.--+-
-----
5200
: -----
I
I
I
I
I
6250
7300
9860 ..__:---
10000,
-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
--1 ----I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.. ---,
I
I
I
I
J-----I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
CP; 3-LAYER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
#
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dh
}----I
I
I
I
-+----I
I
I
I
s
$
5:200
CASE
Stress Profile
8600
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
+
8350
1.00
0,60
0.20
0.20
Widlh (inches)
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
0,60
1,00
7300
StressProfile
I
I
I
I
~
&
g
7700
------
8100
-----
8500
------
8900
------
9300
8
9700
1050
-----
--
I
I
I
-----
L ----I
I
I
I
I
-----r
I
I
I
I
I
-1----I
I
I
I
-l ---I
I
1
I
I ----I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L -----1
I
I
I
:----I
I
I
I
--wnr---------
!
I -----I
-----
-----
I
I
I
d
I
-i ------i
I
I
I
I
----I
I
m
co
I
.
I
I
I
1010
-----
I
----I
I
I
--
I
I -----
I
I
I
I
6250
7300
1090
1130
5200
6350
-2000
.1000
0
Lenglh
(feet)
1000
2000
8880
.----
9020
.----
9160
=
%
=
~
I
I
------
.-
------
----I
I
I
I
1
-1----1
I
I
I
-1..--.I
I
I
I
1
L ----I
I
I
I
I
----r
1
I
I
I
L -----
---
I
I
I
-.
&
+ -----I
1
9440
.-
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
----
9580
9720
9860
1000
--
--
I
I
t
-1 -----
-----
-- ----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----
I
I
1
I
--.--
-d-l-
5200
-----
-,
6250
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
-----
I
I
I
I ----I
I
I
I
I
8350
1,00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0,20
-&LL&-0,20
0,60
Ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Ill
,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-i-u-L-
7300
I
Ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
1
I
---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
---.-
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
}----I
I
I
I
+----I
i
.-
I
I
I
I
l\
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
9300
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8740
CASE
~GOOStress Profile
Width (Inches)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
II
I
0,60
I
I
I
I
1
I
t
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,00
6900
------
7500
I
I
----I
I
I
I
I
----I
I
------
--------
----
-t
I
I
I
I
I
----I
I
I
I
8700
------
9300
------
-----,
t
&
I
9900
I
I ------
------
1050t
-----
1110(
------
1170(
------
I
I
I
I
-1 ------
I
I
I
I
I -..---1
I
I
I
I
-----I
I
I
123(X
1----I
I
I
I
~----I
I
I
I
I
8100
CP; 5-LAYER
I
I
I
I
T
=
~
CASE 7:200
Stress Profile
6300
I
L ----I
I
I
I
:----I
I
I
I
-----
I
I
I
I
-----I
I
I
I
I
-+
-----
I
I
I
:-----I
I
I
I
I
---r
I
I
I
Permeability
Low
High
5200
6250
7300
8350
-3000
-1500
Lqj!!?(fee!)
1500
3000
8740
-----
8880
-----
I
I
I
-1 -----
-----
I
I
I
I
.-
9160
1
g
.-
9300
..
&
..-
9440
I
I
I
I
-1---1
I
-.----
-.-.--
9720
l -----I
I
I
I
-------
----I
I
I
I
9660
-----
I
I
L -----
I
I
I
I
1----I
I
I
I
. -!-----I
11
-----I
I
I
I
9580
I
I
r ----I
I
I
I
1 ----I
I
I
I
-1 -----
I
9020
I
I
I
-l -----1
I
I
I
---
I
I
I
I
t----I
I
I
~----.
I
I
I
I
r---
.-
I
I
I
I
6250
7300
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.00
8350
I
I
I
I
I
1Ooc
5200
CP; 5-LAYER
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
----I
I
I
I
7:200
CASE
Stress Profile
8600
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0,60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
&I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0,20
Widlh (inches)
0,60
1.00
7300
7700
8100
Stress Profile
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----T
-1--
-----
1.....
--
8500
8900
s
4
~
9300
r?!
9700
Iolc
105C
-.
--
-..4..-
1
I
I
I
I
. .1
I
I
-w
------
-----
------
109C
113(
-----
---
1 ----I
I
-L
-----
I
I
.I
I
---
I
I
I
I
-1------t
I
I
I
I
I .----I
L--.,-I
I
I
I
,--
I
I
I -----I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
I
I
I
L
I
---
1------I
I
6533
7866
. ..-.
5200
Closure
9200
-2000
Stress (PsI)
.1000
Leng[h
(feet)
1000
2000
~GOOStress Profile
-1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8740.
.--..
-.
J.1
I
----- L
I
I
II
1!
11
8880 -. --.-.;--
----
1
I
I
9020 .. ----.-;--
,-1
I
1
I
9160
3
~9300
&
---
.- .-.-J--
---
---
r
I
I
I
I
.-.
. ---1 ..I
.--.
..
I
. - J------LI
I
9580
-----
l------t-
1
I
I
9720
:----I
I
I
I
-+-I
I
I
I
------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
1
I
I
I
-1 ----1
---
.---.--~------~-
9860
---
---
I
I
I
I
1 ----1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TI
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
5200
6533
7866
9200
1,00
I
I
II
ILL
9440
I
1
I
I
1
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
0,20
I
I
I
I
k I
0,60
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0,20
Width (Inches)
0,60
1,00
LEFT BLANK