SPE-184861-MS

Proppant Distribution Among Multiple Perforation Clusters in a Horizontal

Wellbore

Chu-Hsiang Wu, Shiting Yi, and Mukul M. Sharma, The University of Texas at Austin

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24-26 January
2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Plug-and-perf fracturing stages with multiple perforation clusters have become common practice in the
industry. However, it is usually unclear whether or not the fluid and proppant are distributed evenly among
all clusters. In this study we present a method for computing the proppant distribution into each cluster
in a fracturing stage. By integrating proppant transport into a multi-cluster hydraulic fracturing model and
implementing a simple screenout criterion, we show that the proppant distribution in a fracturing stage can
be very uneven with a strong bias towards the heel-side clusters even when the initial fluid distribution is
uniform among all clusters.
In this work, we define the efficiency of proppant transport into a perforation by the proppant transport
efficiency (PTE), which is defined as the mass fraction of proppant transported through a perforation relative
to the total mass of proppant approaching the perforation. The dynamic proppant distribution in a fracturing
stage is modeled using the PTE concept in 3 steps. First, a series of coupled computational fluid dynamics
- discrete element method (CFD-DEM) simulations were performed to obtain PTE under controlled flow
conditions. Then, the CFD-DEM simulation results were statistically analyzed to generate a PTE correlation
as a function of wellbore, perforation, fluid, and proppant properties. Finally, the PTE correlation was
incorporated into a multi-cluster hydraulic fracturing model to compute the dynamic distribution of fluid
and proppant among multiple clusters in a fracturing stage.
Results from this work show that proppant concentration in the toe-side clusters can be several times
higher than the injected concentration. This occurs because the high wellbore flow rate near the heel-
side clusters provides proppant particles a large enough inertia that prevents them from turning into the
perforations. Proppant concentration in the wellbore is thus increased as the slurry flows towards the toe side
and the fluid preferentially leaks off from the heel side perforations. The highly concentrated slurry increases
the screenout risk of the toe-side clusters. Our modeling results show that if toe-side clusters screen out at
an early time of a proppant stage, fluid and proppant are re-distributed to the heel-side clusters. In such a
case, cumulative fluid and proppant distributions will be heel-biased. Simulation results are compared with
field observations and are shown to be completely consistent with DTS and DAS observations on proppant
distribution made in three different studies.
2 SPE-184861-MS

The method presented in this work provides a way to quantify proppant transport at a wellbore scale. It
shows that the uneven proppant distribution among perforation clusters is a function of fluid, perforation and
proppant properties. An estimate of proppant placement in different perforation clusters can be computed for
any pumping schedule and wellbore/perforation geometry using this method. This can be used to optimize
perforation clusters that will result in a more even distribution of proppant in each cluster.

Introduction
Plug-and-perf completions are one of the most commonly used completion methods for horizontal wells in
unconventional reservoirs. The method stimulates the well with a number of isolated fracturing stages. Each
fracturing stage usually involves 3 to 6 perforation clusters that are simultaneously stimulated by injected
fluid. The operation begins from the toe-side of a well and proceeds towards the heel side with drillable
plugs placed between each stage for zonal isolation. After completing all of the fracturing stages, the plugs
are drilled and circulated out of the well before the well is put into production. Previous studies found that
shale plays completed with the plug-and-perf approach often have under-performing perforation clusters
with almost one third of all perforation clusters not contributing to production (Baihly et al. 2010; Miller et
al. 2011). Recent observations made from distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) and distributed temperature
sensing (DTS) during each fracturing stage showed that it is common to have a few dominant clusters
taking the majority of the treatment volumes while leaving other clusters in the same stage understimulated
(Ugueto et al. 2016; Wheaton et al. 2016).
There can be many possible reasons to explain these observations: stress interference between fractures,
local heterogeneity of the reservoir, difference in the effectiveness of zonal isolation between stages,
differences in stimulation job design (pumping schedules and fluid/proppant selection), and differences
in natural fracture systems surrounding the well. Although all of these reasons can lead to the uneven
stimulation of a reservoir volume, it is still hard to explain why most of the dominant clusters are located
near the heel-side of a fracturing stage.
In this work we propose an alternate explanation for the heel-side treatment bias: the bias can occur
because of premature near-wellbore screen out of toe-side perforation clusters at early pumping times in
any fracture stage. By numerically simulating the flow of proppant particles under downhole conditions we
show that the proppant distribution among multiple perforation clusters can be highly uneven even when
the fluid is uniformly distributed in all clusters. Our results show that it is difficult for the proppant to make
the turn into perforations at typical high wellbore flow rates because of the effect of proppant inertia. This
implies that the proppant concentration in toe-side clusters can be significantly higher than the proppant
concentration in heel-side ones when the proppant slurry is first pumped. This can lead to premature near-
wellbore screenout of toe-side clusters and create the heel-side treatment bias commonly seen in the field.

Simulation of Proppant Transport (Step 1)

A coupled computational fluid dynamics and discrete element method (CFD-DEM) approach (Goniva et
al. 2012; Mondal et al. 2016) is used to evaluate the effect of proppant inertia on proppant transport in this
work. The unresolved CFD-DEM model assumes incompressible flow and solves the mass conservation
equation and the volume-averaged Navier-Stokes equation for the fluid:

(1)

(2)
SPE-184861-MS 3

where f is the volume fraction of the fluid phase in the CFD cell, uf is the fluid velocity, f is the fluid density,
and is the stress tensor for the fluid phase. Rpf is the particle-fluid momentum
exchange term that is computed by assembling particle-based drag forces in each cell. Movement of particles
is computed through the DEM coupling, which accounts for the hydrodynamic drag, the viscous shear,
the pressure gradient forces from fluid-particle interaction, and the collision force from particle-particle
interaction. The transport of proppant slurry is simulated for a section of horizontal wellbore with a single
perforation. Fig.1 shows the schematic of the modeled geometry.

Figure 1Schematic of the CFD-DEM model geometry used in this work. (Wu and Sharma, 2016).

Results from CFD-DEM simulations are used to compute the proppant transport efficiency (PTE). The
PTE is defined as the rate of proppant transport into a perforation divided by the rate of proppant transport
upstream of that perforation (Eq. 3). The PTE for a given perforation depends on the rate proppant size,
proppant density, fluid flow rate, fluid density, rheology, wellbore diameter, and perforation flow ratio
(PFR). The PFR is defined as the fluid flow rate through the perforation relative to the fluid flow rate
upstream of that perforation (Eq. 4):

(3)

(4)

where perf and upstream are proppant mass flow rates, perf and upstream are volumetric fluid flow rates,
through the perforation and upstream of that perforation, respectively. The computed PTEs were plotted
against the PFRs (see Fig. 2 for an example).

Proppant Transport Efficiency Correlations (Step 2)

A total of 45 PTE versus PFR plots were generated based on the results of 180 CFD-DEM simulations for a
wide range of proppant sizes, flow rates, proppant densities, wellbore diameters and fluid viscosities. Each
of the PTE curve was fitted with a fourth-order polynomial in the form of Eq. 5:
(5)
4 SPE-184861-MS

where C1, C2, C3, and C4 are the fitting coefficients. Note that these fitting coefficients reflect how PTE
changes with PFR for a given set of fluid, proppant, wellbore, and perforation properties. The range of
simulation parameters used in this work is shown in Table 1.

Figure 2An example of PTE versus perforation flow ratio plot. Note that the plot is composed of four simulation
results with perforation flow ratio ranging from 0.2 to 0.8 for a given set of fluid, proppant, wellbore, and perforation
properties. A 1 lbm/gal, 600 m proppant slurry flowing at a wellbore flow rate of 60 bbl/min was used in this example.
The perforation size is 3/8" oriented on the side of a 6" casing. The data is fitted by a fourth-order polynomial curve.

Table 1Range of simulation parameters used in this work

Parameter Range

Casing Diameter (in.) 3, 6

Perforation Orientation High-side, Low-side, Side
Perforation Diameter (in.) 3/8, 1/2
Proppant Diameter (m) 600, 1260

Proppant Density (g/cm ) 3 1.54, 2.65, 3.56

Proppant Concentration (lbm/gal) 1, 3

Wellbore Flow Rate (bbl/min) 6, 15, 30, 60, 120
3
Fluid Density (g/cm ) 1

Fluid Viscosity (cp) 0.1, 1, 100

After obtaining the fitting coefficients from all 45 PTE versus PFR curves, the least absolute shrinkage
and selection operation (LASSO) method was used to perform a multivariate linear regression analysis for
the fitting coefficients (James et al. 2013). The LASSO selects a subset of simulation parameters (variables)
that best predicts the trends for C1, C2, C3, and C4. We limited the subset selection to only the independent
variables to ensure the simplicity and interpretability of the statistical model. The functional form for
predicting C1 to C4 is shown in Eq. 6.

(6)
SPE-184861-MS 5

where Dcasing is the casing diameter, Dperf is the perforation diameter, Cproppant is the proppant concentration,
Dproppant is the proppant size, proppant is the proppant density, and f is the wellbore fluid flow rate.
We observe that the PTE is insensitive to the orientation of a perforation when the wellbore flow rate is
larger than 6 bbl/min. It is also worth noting that fluid density and fluid viscosity are not included in Eq.
6; the former is not included because it was fixed in our parametric study, the latter is shown to have less
impact at a high wellbore flow rate (60 bbl/min) and thus is not part of the equation. Our results also show
that increasing the proppant concentration, proppant density, wellbore flow rate, or casing size can lower
the PTE at a perforation. Proppant size and fluid viscosity have less influence on PTE when the wellbore
flow rate is high enough to suspend the proppant. More details can be found in Wu and Sharma (2016). Fig.
3 shows the effect of increasing casing size and wellbore flow rate on PTE (after Wu and Sharma 2016).

Figure 3Effect of increasing casing size and wellbore flow rate on PTE. After Wu and Sharma (2016).

The solutions of Eq. 6 can be used in Eq. 5 to obtain PTE versus PFR curves for flow conditions within the
range of our parametric investigation (as listed in Table 1). These PTE correlations represent how efficiently
proppant particles are transported into perforations under different flow conditions and can be used to solve
proppant transport at a wellbore scale. Generally speaking, the proppant concentration entering a perforation
is very different from the injected proppant concentration. Toe-side perforation clusters tend to accept more
proppant at the beginning of a proppant stage.

Modeling Proppant Distribution among Multiple Clusters in a Fracturing

Stage (Step 3)
The PTE correlation (Eq. 5) described above computes proppant transport through a single perforation with
a given fluid distribution. This section describes how these calculations of PTE can be incorporated into
a multi-cluster hydraulic fracturing model to calculate the dynamic proppant distribution among multiple
perforations and clusters during a fracturing stage.
6 SPE-184861-MS

Calculation of Proppant Distribution among Multiple Clusters

The fluid and proppant distribution into each cluster can be obtained by incorporating the PTE correlation
when solving the mass conservation of fluid and proppant in the wellbore. Eq. 7 is the mass balance equation
for an incompressible fluid.

(7)

Where inf is the injection rate (pumping rate), perf, i is the flow rate entering perforation i, and k is the
total number of perforations in a fracturing stage. Eq. 8 is the mass balance equation for proppant transport.

(8)

Where inj is the proppant mass injection rate, perf is the proppant mass flow rate entering perforation
i, upstream, i is the proppant mass flow rate at the upstream location of perforation i, and PTEperf, i is the PTE
at perforation i at current time.
Eq. 9 shows the functional form of PTEperf, i, which is governed by the PFR, and wellbore, fluid, and
proppant properties. Note that since PTEperf, i varies with PFR, it should be re-solved whenever perf, i is re-
evaluated.

(9)

The following steps summarize how the equations are solved to obtain the dynamic proppant distribution:
1. Calculate fluid distribution among multiple clusters, solve Eq. 7 to get perf, i.
2. For each perforation, solve Eq. 6, and use the solutions of coefficients in Eq. 5 to get the PTE versus
PFR curve. Then, find the PTE value on the curve using the PFR value at the perforation.
3. Solve Eq. 8 to get the proppant distribution into each perforation at the current time.

Implications of the PTE versus PFR curve

Fig. 4 shows an example of what the proppant concentration looks like at the beginning of a proppant
stage. The flow rate in this example is 30 bbl/min, and the injected proppant concentration is 3 lbm/gal.
Proppant distribution is evaluated by assuming the fluid is evenly distributed among 3 clusters, each with
4 perforations. This example demonstrates that the proppant distribution can be quite non-uniform even
when fluid is uniformly distributed among all clusters. Proppant particles tend to accumulate near the toe-
side perforations; and proppant concentration increases as slurry flows from the heel-side perforations to
the toe-side perforations. This can be explained by the physics presented in the PTE vs PFR curve.
SPE-184861-MS 7

Figure 4An example of simulated proppant distribution using the PTE correlation. Slurry is injected at 30 bbl/min with 3
lbm/gal proppant concentration. Each cluster has 4 perforations. Cluster 3 is on the heel side and cluster 1 is on the toe
side. Uniform fluid distribution among the 3 clusters is assumed. Result shows that proppant distribution is quite non-
uniform. The heel-side perforations receive a dilute slurry and the toe-side perforations receive a concentrated slurry.

The unit slope line in a PTE versus PFR curve represents a condition in which the proppant exactly follows
the fluid. However, it was shown in our parametric study that most PTE versus PFR curves are below the
unit slope line (see Fig. 3 for an example). This implies that under most flow conditions proppant particles
are not transported efficiently into perforations. Instead they tend to accumulate in the wellbore slurry and
flow towards the toe cluster. Therefore, the heel-side perforation receives a proppant concentration that is
lower than the injected value while the toe-side perforation receives a proppant concentration that is several
times higher than the injected value.

Incorporation of the PTE Correlation into a Multi-Cluster Hydraulic

Fracturing Model
The PTE correlation is incorporated in a multi-cluster hydraulic fracturing model to calculate dynamic fluid
and proppant distribution during a fracturing stage. The PTE correlation was extrapolated when perforation
flow conditions were outside the range of the parametric study shown in Table 1. As we have seen earlier,
proppant particle inertia causes it to to stay in the wellbore instead of turning into perforations. This increases
the proppant concentration in the slurry near the toe-side clusters. The highly concentrated slurry increases
the risk of screen-out in the near-wellbore regions at the toe-side clusters. In this work, we assume that when
the proppant concentration flowing into a perforation exceeds 25% volume concentration, near-wellbore
fractures connected to that perforation will screen out. When the near wellbore complex fractures are packed
by proppant, the perforation is considered screened out and it no longer accepts any more fluid or proppant.
It is important to point out that, proppant screen-out is not likely to happen in the perforation tunnel (Tran
et al. 2009; Lafond et al. 2013), but is much more likely to happen in the near-wellbore region (in complex
near-wellbore fractures). Once perforation screeout occurs, fluid and proppant are re-distributed into the
other active perforations. This process continues until the proppant concentration in all perforations is below
the plugging limit, and all these remaining perforations continue to receive fluid and proppant.

Multi-Cluster Hydraulic Fracturing Model

The model calculates simultaneous propagation of multiple planar fractures. In the model, fracturing fluid
is distributed among multiple fractures using a flow resistance model. The flow resistance of a fracture is
8 SPE-184861-MS

defined as the summation of the flow resistance in the wellbore, in the perforations, inside the fracture, as
well as the reservoir. The distribution of fracturing fluid is inversely proportional to the flow resistance of
fractures. In other words, a fracture with higher flow resistance receives less treating fluid than a fracture
with lower resistance.
A detailed description of the flow resistance calculation and fracture discretization and propagation
calculation is available in Yi and Sharma (2016). A simple flow chart for this method is shown in Fig. 5.
The calculation of pressure drop in the perforation and the stress shadow effect is briefly discussed below.

Figure 5Calculation flow chart of the multi-cluster hydraulic fracturing model.

The perforation pressure drop is calculated using Eq. 10 (Romero et al. 1995):

(10-a)

(10-b)
where Q is the total flowrate through perforations (bbl/min), f is the fluid density (lbm/gal), n is the number
of unplugged perforations, Dperf is the perforation diameter (in), C is the discharge coefficient, and M is the
total mass of proppant passed through perforations (lbm). Eq. 10-a shows that the perforation pressure drop
is proportional to the square of total flow rate and is strongly influenced by the number of active perforations
in a cluster. Eq. 10-b accounts for the erosion of perforations induced by sand slurries.
The opening of a fracture induces additional stress in its neighborhood, and suppresses the propagation
of its neighboring fractures. This effect is known as the stress shadow effect (Roussel and Sharma 2012). In
this model, the stress shadow effect is computed using the Westgaard's solution (Sneddon 1946) as shown
SPE-184861-MS 9

in Fig. 6. For each fracture, the stress shadow effect from other fractures is calculated by superposition of
the Westgaard solution.

Figure 6Westgaard's solution describes the distribution of stress in an infinite 2D elastic medium
resulting from the opening of a fracture under a uniform liquid pressure: x is the axis along the
fracture face and y is the axis perpendicular to the fracture face; hf is fracture half height. The
stress shadow effect is considered in this work by superposition of the Westgaard solution.

Results and Discussion

The multi-cluster hydraulic fracturing model introduced above, combined with the PTE correlation for
proppant transport, can be used to calculate the dynamic fluid distribution and sand distribution during a
fracturing stage. In this section, simulation results for a typical horizontal well stimulation stage based on a
field case are presented. The results are compared with field measurements made available by fiber optics
(DTS and DAS). The simulated proppant distribution agrees very well with the field observations. The
commonly observed trend of heel-biased sand placement is explained and the factors controlling the heel-
biased treatment distribution are discussed.
A fiber optic DAS and DTS monitored multi-stage cemented liner completion case in "a low permeability
over-pressured sand/siltstone reservoir" was published by Molenaar and Cox (2013). The fracturing stage
was completed with 4 clusters with 50 m spacing. During the treatment, the two clusters close to the toe
were found to screen out early in the proppant stage. And the heel-side two clusters ended up receiving most
of the treatment. The final sand placement was severely heel-biased.
Simulations were performed based on this field case using all the information provided, such as: cluster
number, cluster spacing, maximum injection rate, injected proppant concentration range. Some other
parameters not given in the paper are estimated, such as pore pressure, minimum horizontal stress, Young's
modulus, and wellbore diameter. The cluster arrangement is shown in Fig. 7. The heel-side fracture from the
previous stage was included for stress shadow effect. The pumping schedule used in simulation is shown
in Fig. 8. Estimated simulation parameters are shown in Table 2.
10 SPE-184861-MS

Figure 7Simulation case set up: 4 clusters with 50 m spacing, each cluster has 5 perforations. The heel-side
fracture from the previous stage is included for stress shadow considerations. The toe cluster of the current
stage is most affected by the fracture from the previous stage and the heel cluster of the current stage is least
affected. The distance between the toe cluster of the current stage to the heel fracture of previous stage is 50 m.

Figure 8Pumping schedule simulated. Maximum slurry injection rate 44 bbl/min; proppant concentration ramps up from
0 to 3 ppg. The whole treatment lasts for about 2 hours. Designed total proppant mass to pump is 100,000 lbm per cluster.

Table 2Simulation Parameters

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Wellbore Inner Diameter (in.) 3 Stimulation Depth (ft) 6818

Perforation Diameter (in.) 3/8 Pore Pressure (psi/ft) 0.44
Proppant Diameter (m) 600 Minimum Horizontal Stress (psi/ft) 0.62

Proppant Density (g/cm ) 3 2.65 Poisson's Ratio 0.23

Fluid Density (g/cm3) 1 Young's Modulus (GPa) 5

Fluid Viscosity (cp) 0.1 Fracture Half Height (ft) 82

Simulation results showing the injection rate into each cluster are shown in Fig. 9. In the pad stage (first
10 min of treatment), cluster 1 (toe side cluster) receives less fluid than the other clusters mainly because
of the stress shadow effect from the fracture of the previous stage, which induces additional stress that
SPE-184861-MS 11

suppresses fracture propagation. The stress shadow effect from the previous stage has the most influence
on the nearest cluster (cluster 1) and the least influence on the furthest cluster (cluster 4).

Figure 9Simulation results showing the injection rate into each cluster. Cluster 1 receives less fracturing
fluid during the pad stage mainly because of the stress shadow effect from the fracture in the previous
stage. At early pumping time(proppant stage), cluster 1 and cluster 2 screened out because of the highly
concentrated slurry close to the toe side of the fracturing stage. Treatment fluid was quickly re-distributed
into the other active perforations after the screenout of toe-side clusters. Each cluster has 5 perforations.

In the proppant stage, as predicted by the PTE correlation, the proportion of proppant entering a
perforation is lower than the proportion of fluid entering the perforation at a high wellbore flow rate (Fig. 3).
Therefore, the heel-side perforations receive only a small proportion of injected proppant at the beginning of
the proppant stage. This increases the proppant concentration in the slurry as the slurry flows from the heel
side to the toe side. The proppant concentration into the toe-side perforations is several times higher than
the injected concentration. The highly concentrated slurry flowing into the toe-side perforations increases
the risk of premature screenout.
As stated in the previous section, a 25% proppant volume concentration into a perforation is used as
an empirical criterion for the beginning of proppant screen-out in the near wellbore region. Fig. 9 clearly
shows that the toe-side proppant concentration is high and this results in the near-wellbore region of cluster
1 (toe-side cluster) gradually screening-out. The flow rate into cluster 1 decreases as screenout occurs and
fracturing fluid is re-distributed into the other active perforations. Eventually, all perforations in cluster 1
are screened out (at approximately 22 min). Shortly after that, cluster 2 also screens out (at about 25 min),
leaving only the two heel-side clusters that continue to receive treatment. In fact, 3 out of 5 perforations
in cluster 3 reached the critical concentration and were plugged later in the treatment as well. At the end
of this simulation, there were only 2 active perforations in cluster 3 while all 5 perforations of cluster 4
remained active.
The final cumulative fluid and sand distribution is shown in Fig. 10. It is clear that the fluid distribution
and the proppant distribution trends are different. First, cluster 1 receives more fluid, but less proppant than
cluster 2. Second, the treatment distribution shows a declining trend from the heel-side clusters to the toe-
side clusters. The main reason is that the numbers of active perforations in each cluster after about three-
fourths of the treatment are: 5 2 0 0 (from heel to toe), respectively. With cluster 1 and 2 fully screened
out, all of the treatment fluid (44 bbl/min) has to flow through the remaining active perforations in clusters
3 and 4. The fluid distribution between clusters 3 and 4 is determined by the perforation pressure drop (Eq.
10). With fewer perforations open to flow, the perforation flow resistance of cluster 3 is higher than cluster
12 SPE-184861-MS

4 at the same flow rate. Therefore, cluster 4 will take more fluid than cluster 3 when the system is balanced.
Third, more proppant ended up in cluster 3 even though cluster 4 receives more fluid. This can be explained
by the inertia of the proppant particles reflected in the PTE. When flowing at a high velocity, it is difficult
for proppant to turn 90 degrees into the perforation. Therefore, the ratio of proppant entering the perforation
is less than the ratio of fluid entering it. This phenomenon is quantified by the PTE curve (see Fig. 3 for an
example), which is below the 1:1 uniform particle distribution line. It is worth pointing out that the proppant
volume entering a cluster is the slurry rate multiplied by the proppant concentration. If more fluid enters
cluster 4, then even if the proppant concentration in cluster 4 is lower than cluster 3, the total amount of
proppant entering cluster 4 could still be more than cluster 3.

Figure 10Cumulative fluid and proppant distribution among the 4 clusters from simulation results. Two trends can be
observed: (1) the fluid distribution and the proppant distribution are different. The fluid distribution declines from the heel-side
cluster to the toe-side cluster, with the heel cluster receiving the majority of fracturing fluid. Cluster 3 receives less fluid, but
more proppant than cluster 4, and (2) there is a strong heel-side bias in proppant placement. Each cluster has 5 perforations.

The sand placement estimated from DAS data for this field case is published by Molenaar and Cox (2013)
and shown in Fig. 11. A comparison between Figs. 10 and 11 show that the proppant distribution among the
4 clusters is well captured by the simulation. The two clusters on the heel side receive most of the proppant
while the two toe-side clusters receive very little proppant. More proppant ended up in the second cluster
from the heel (cluster 3) than the first cluster from the heel (cluster 4).
SPE-184861-MS 13

Figure 11Field data of sand placement calculated from DAS measurement. After Molenaar and Cox (2013).

The biased proppant placement towards the heel has also been independently reported by Ugueto et al.
(2016) and Wheaton et al. (2016). These papers present the treatment distribution estimated using DTS and
DAS measurements. Fig. 12 from Ugueto et al. (2016) and Fig. 13 from Wheaton et al. (2016) show two
field examples.

Figure 12Field data published by Ugueto et al. (2016). Heel-biased treatment distribution was observed repeatedly in all 3-
cluster, 4-cluster, and 6-cluster stages. In each column, the top figure shows the DAS measured treatment allocation among
clusters in multiple fracturing stages, the bottom figure shows the averaged treatment allocation from the observed trend.
14 SPE-184861-MS

Figure 13Field data published by Wheaton et al. (2016). Proppant distribution of 14 stimulation stages is presented.
For each stage, the bars from left to right show the proppant placement from the toe cluster to the heel cluster. These
results show a general trend of biased proppant distribution towards the heel-side clusters. In some cases, the
heel cluster gets most of the proppant. In other cases, the second cluster from the heel gets most of the proppant.

Fig. 12 presents the treatment distribution as measured by DAS for eight 3-cluster stages, eighteen 4-
cluster stages, and four 6-cluster stages. Heel-biased treatment distribution was observed consistently in all
3-cluster, 4-cluster and 6-cluster stages.
Fig. 13 shows data published by Wheaton et al. (2016). 14 stimulation stages are presented in the figure.
For each stage, the bars from left to right shows the proppant placement from toe cluster to heel cluster.
These results clearly show the biased proppant placement towards to heel side. In some cases, the heel cluster
gets most proppant; in other cases, the second cluster from the heel gets most proppant. One important
observation in their work is that in many stages, the use of diverter to improve proppant placement did
not change the distribution of proppant in the clusters. The dominant fracture cluster remained dominant
throughout the treatment.
To summarize, heel-biased proppant distribution had been observed multiple times in the field in plug-
and-perf stimulation stages. According to the analysis above, the factors causing the heel-biased distribution
are the following:
1. The stress shadow induced by fractures created in the previous stage influences the toe cluster the
most and the heel cluster the least. This can lead to a non-uniform fluid distribution that favors the
heel-side fractures.
2. As shown in the PTE correlation, the proppant ratio entering a perforation is less than the fluid
ratio entering the perforation. This makes the proppant concentration flowing into the heel-side
clusters lower than the injected concentration. The proppant concentration in the wellbore is therefore
increased as the slurry flows from the heel side to the toe side.
3. The highly concentrated slurry in the toe-side clusters increases the risk of premature screenout.
Screenout risk is high especially early in the proppant stage, when near-wellbore complexity causes
a large pressure drop.
4. As toe-side clusters screen out, fluid and proppant are re-distributed into heel-side clusters. At the end
of the stimulation, the cumulative fluid distribution and proppant distribution are heel-biased.

Conclusions
In this work, a method is presented to compute the distribution of proppant and fluid into proppant clusters
for any given wellbore and perforation geometry and proppant pumping schedule. The method is based
SPE-184861-MS 15

on CFD-DEM simulations of proppant transport in wellbores. It is shown that proppant particles do not
flow into perforations in the same proportion as the fluid. At high wellbore velocities, the inertia of the
proppant particles prevents them from turning the corner and entering perforations. This effect is quantified
through the proppant transport efficiency (PTE) correlations we have developed based on our CFD-DEM
results. This causes much higher proppant concentrations near the toe clusters leading to premature cluster
screenout. The PTE correlation has been incorporated into a multi-cluster hydraulic fracturing model to
simulate dynamic fluid and proppant distribution among multiple clusters in plug-and-perf stimulation
stages. The simulated proppant distribution for a field case agrees very well with field observations based on
DAS and DTS data. The frequently observed trend of heel-biased proppant distribution has been explained
and factors causing the heel-biased distribution have been discussed.
More specific conclusions of this work are summarized as follows:
1. A PTE correlation has been developed by fitting the CFD-DEM simulation results. The PTE
correlation quantifies the ratio of proppant entering a perforation based on given fluid flow ratio
entering the perforation as slurry flows in the wellbore.
2. The PTE curve in most occasions is below the 1:1 uniform distribution line, implying that the proppant
ratio entering a perforation is less than the fluid ratio entering the perforation because of the inertia
of the denser solid particles.
3. The proppant concentration entering the heel-side clusters is lower than the injected concentration.
The proppant concentration in the slurry increases as the slurry flows from the heel side to the toe
side. At the toe cluster, the slurry concentration can be several times higher than the injected proppant
concentration.
4. The highly concentrated slurry increases the risk of premature screenout of the toe-side clusters.
Screenout risk is especially high early in the proppant stage, when the pressure drop caused by near-
wellbore complexity is significant.
5. As perforations in the toe-side clusters screen out, fluid and proppant are re-distributed into other
active perforations. At the end of a fracturing stage, the cumulative fluid and proppant distributions
among multiple clusters are heel-biased. Furthermore, the cumulative fluid distribution and proppant
distributions can be different from one another.
6. The influence of stress shadow effect has been considered. The stress shadow effect from fractures of
previous stage suppresses fracture propagation from the toe-side clusters. This also promotes a heel-
biased fluid distribution.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Hydraulic Fracturing and Sand Control JIP at The University of Texas
at Austin for its support on this work and the Texas Advanced Computing Center for providing high
performance computational resources.

Nomenclature
C =Discharge coefficient
Ci =Fitting coefficients of a PTE versus PFR curve, i = 1 to 4
Cproppant =Proppant concentration
Dcasing =Casing diameter
Dperf =Perforation diameter
dproppant =Proppant diameter
M =Total mass of proppant passed through perforations
perf =Proppant mass flow rate through a perforation
16 SPE-184861-MS

upstream=Proppant mass flow rate in the upstream of a perforation

n =Number of unplugged perforations in a cluster
Q =Total flow rate through perforations
f
=Wellbore fluid flow rate
perf =Volumetric fluid flow rate through a perforation
upstream =Volumetric fluid flow rate in the upstream of a perforation
Rpf =Particle-fluid momentum exchange
uf =Fluid velocity
f =Volume fraction of the fluid phase in the CFD cell
f =Fluid viscosity
f =Fluid density
proppant =Proppant density
=Fluid shear stress
Pperf =Perforation pressure drop

List of Acronyms
CFD-DEM Computational Fluid Dynamics-Discrete Element Method
DAS Distributed Acoustic Sensing
DTS Distributed Temperature Sensing
LASSO Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operation
PFR Perforation Flow Ratio
PTE Proppant Transport Efficiency

References
Baihly, J., Malpani, R., Edwards, C., et al 2010. Unlocking the Shale Mystery: How Lateral Measurements and Well
Placement Impact Completions and Resultant Production. Paper SPE 138427 presented at the SPE Tight Gas
Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2-3 November 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/138427-MS
Cox, B.E. and Molenaar, M.M., 2013. Field cases of hydraulic fracture stimulation diagnostics using fiber optic distributed
acoustic sensing (DAS) measurements and Analyses. Paper SPE 164030 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 28-30 January 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/164030-MS
Goniva, C., Kloss, C., Deen, N.G., Kuipers, J.A.M., and Pirker, S. 2012. Influence of Rolling Friction on Single Spout
Fluidized Bed Simulation. Particuology 10, no. 5, pp. 58291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2012.05.002
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T. et al 2013. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in R. Springer,
New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7
Lafond, P.G., Gilmer, M.W., Koh, C.A., et al, 2013. Orifice jamming of fluid-driven granular flow. Physical Review E,
87(4), p.042204. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.042204
Miller C., Waters, G., and Rylander, E. 2011 Evaluation of Production Log Data from Horizontal Wells Drilled in Organic
Shales. Paper SPE 144326 presented at the SPE North American Unconventional Gas Conference and Exhibition, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA, 14-16 June 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/144326-MS
Mondal, S., Wu, C.-H. and Sharma M.M. 2016. Coupled CFD-DEM Simulation of Hydrodynamic Bridging
at Constrictions. Int. J. Multiph. Flow, Volume 84, September 2016, pp. 245-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.05.001.
Romero, J., Mack, M.G. and Elbel, J.L.,1995. Theoretical model and numerical investigation of near-wellbore effects in
hydraulic fracturing. Paper SPE 30506 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, 22-25 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30506-MS
Roussel, N.P. and Sharma, M.M. 2012. Role of stress reorientation in the success of refracture treatments in tight gas
sands. SPE Production and Operations, 27(04), pp.346-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/134491-PA
Sneddon, I., 1946. The distribution of stress in the neighbourhood of a crack in an elastic solid. Proc., the Royal Society
of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 22 October. Vol. 187, No. 1009, pp. 229-260. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1946.0077
SPE-184861-MS 17

Tran, T.V., Civan, F. and Robb, I.D., 2009. Correlating flowing time and condition for perforation plugging by suspended
particles. SPE Drilling & Completion, 24(03), pp.398-403. SPE-120847-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/120847-PA
Ugueto, C., Gustavo, A., Huckabee, P.T. et al 2016. Perforation Cluster Efficiency of Cemented Plug and Perf Limited
Entry Completions; Insights from Fiber Optics Diagnostics. Paper SPE 179124 presented at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, the Woodlands, Texas, 9-11 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179124-MS
Wheaton, B., Haustveit, K., Deeg, W. et al 2016. A Case Study of Completion Effectiveness in the Eagle Ford Shale
Using DAS/DTS Observations and Hydraulic Fracture Modeling. Paper SPE 179149 presented at the SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference, the Woodlands, Texas, 9-11 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179149-MS
Wu C.-H., Sharma, M.M. 2016. Effect of Perforation Geometry and Orientation on Proppant Placement in Perforation
Clusters in a Horizontal Well. Paper SPE 179117 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference,
The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 9-11 February 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179117-MS
Yi, S. and Sharma, M., 2016. A Model for Refracturing Operations in Horizontal Wells Employing Diverting Agents.
Paper SPE 181795 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Hydraulic Fracturing Conference, Beijing, China, 24-26 August.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/181795-MS