Hydraulic fracture model comparison study: Complete results

Abstract

LEGAL NOTICE This reportwas prepared by Sandia National Laboratoriesas an accountof work sponsoredby the Gas Research Institute(GRI). Neither GRI, members of GRI, nor any personacting on behalf of either: a. Makes any warrantyor representation,expressor implied,with respect to the accuracy,completeness,or usefulnessof the informationcontained in this report,or that the use of any apparatus,method,or processdisclosed in this report maynot infringeprivatelyownedrights;or b. Assumesany liabilitywithrespect to the use of, orfor damagesresulting from the use of, any information,apparatus,method,or process disclosed in this report. "-R-D=ORT IX)(_UIdENTATION '" .[Pmrr .o.

Numerical methods for hydraulic fracture propagation: A review of recent trends

“…These models are often fit for certain purposes and as such their limitations must therefore be properly understood, especially because the various models can vary significantly among each other both in underlying simplifications and in solutions even to relatively sim-ple hydraulic fracturing problems. Some appreciation of the diversity of modeling approaches can be gained from the classical comparative study of Warpinski et al (1993). In this review, after a brief description of the underlying simplifications and limitations, our focus will be on some recent advances without attempting to comprehensively review many various models and their specific approaches to simplification and generalization.…”

Sampling-based stochastic analysis of the PKN model for hydraulic fracturing

“…In this section, we present numerical results based on the methodology presented above. In Section 5.1, we first validate our methodology in a deterministic setting by consideration of the benchmark results presented in the comparative study by Warpinski et al [41]. In this section, we demonstrate the necessity to use a tip enrichment function and enforcement of volume conservation, and we study the influence of the mesh size and time step size on the numerical results.…”

“…To demonstrate the validity of the presented methodology, we consider the benchmark case studied by Warpinski et al [41], which is based on a staged-field experiment of the Gas Research Institute [41, p. 26]. The considered model parameters are assembled in Table 1.…”

Dynamic Assessment of Induced Stresses and In-situ Stress Reorientation during Multi-Stage Hydraulic Fracturing in Unconventional Reservoirs

“…The SPE Forum compared hydraulic fracture models designed by twelve most common simulators, and they resulted with a difference up to 50% while having the same input data (Warpinski et al, 1993). These models were categorized in the order of decreasing complexity as follows: ).…”

“…Hydraulic stimulation first triggered the interest of engineers and scientists a couple of decades ago, when hydraulic fracturing was recognized as an important technology for extracting hydrocarbons. At that time, the inconsistency in results from different hydraulic fracturing simulators was primarily captured by Warpinski, who developed a comparative study of twelve fracture models and acknowledged the discrepancy in results for up to 50% amongst the selected models (Warpinski et al, 1993). More advanced model alternatives have been developed ever since, offering a design of a complex fracture network in the reservoir, such as simul-frac or zipper frac (Mutalik and Gibson, 2008).…”