Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Major factors influencing proppant behaviour and proppant-associated damage mechanisms during hydraulic fracturing

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ultra-low permeability of shale reservoirs necessitates engineering applications such as hydraulic fracturing to enable the extraction of economically viable amounts of gas. In this process, a high-pressure fluid is injected into the reservoir to create a network of fractures. Proppants are solid, spherical, high-strength particles with size range between 8 and 140 mesh (105 μm–2.38 mm), which are injected into the reservoir simultaneously with fracturing fluid to prompt the opening of the fractures created, and they play a major role in the hydraulic fracturing process. As a result, appropriate management of proppants in shale reservoirs based on precise identification of their behaviour in shale reservoirs is necessary, because unexpected proppant performance or behaviour, commonly known as proppant damage mechanisms, can greatly reduce fracture conductivity. Therefore, it is essential to determine the major factors affecting proppant behaviour in order to maintain constant fracture conductivity. Numerous factors have been found in previous studies, and they can be summarized into three major groups: proppant properties, reservoir properties and hydraulic fracturing production, which affect proppant damage mechanisms. In the present paper, case studies have been provided on the determination of potential factors influencing proppant behaviour, followed by a discussion of their effects on fracture conductivity. The aim of this study is to present current opinions on potential factors influencing proppant behaviour based on a comprehensive literature review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Reproduced with the permission from Lacy et al. [50])

Fig. 2

(Reproduced with the permission from Weaver et al. [104])

Fig. 3

(Reproduced with the permission from Volk et al. [98])

Fig. 4

(Reproduced with the permission from Gaurav et al. [32])

Fig. 5

(Reproduced with the permission from Wood et al. [110])

Fig. 6

(modified from Volk et al. [98])

Fig. 7

(Reproduced with the permission from Gaurav et al. [32])

Fig. 8

(Reproduced with the permission from Schein et al. [87])

Fig. 9

(Reproduced with the permission from Kern et al. [47])

Fig. 10

(Reproduced with the permission from Akrad et al. [1] and Corapcioglu et al. [18])

Fig. 11

(Reproduced with the permission from Montgomery and Steanson [68])

Fig. 12

(Reproduced with the permission from Lacy et al. [50])

Fig. 13

(Reproduced with the permission from LaFollette and Carman [52] and Raysoni and Weaver [82])

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akrad OM, Miskimins JL, Prasad M (2011) The effects of fracturing fluids on shale rock mechanical properties and proppant embedment. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Denver, Colorado, USA; 30 October–2 November, SPE 146658 MS

  2. Almond S, Penny G, Conway M (1995) Factors affecting proppant flowback with resin coated proppants. In: Proceedings of SPE European formation damage conference and exhibition. Budapest, Hungary; 3–5 June, SPE 30096 MS

  3. Alotaibi MA, Miskimins JL (2015) Slickwater proppant transport in complex fractures: new experimental findings & scalable correlation. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas, USA; 28–30 September, SPE 174828 MS

  4. Alramahi B, Sundberg M (2012) Proppant embedment and conductivity of hydraulic fractures in shales. In: Proceedings of 46th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. Chicago, Illinois; 24–27 June, ARMA 291

  5. American Petroleum Institute (1989) Recommended practices for evaluating short-term proppant-pack conductivity, vol 61, 1st edn. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barree R, Conway M (1994) Experimental and numerical modeling of convective proppant transport. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. New Orleans, Louisiana; 25–28 September, SPE 28564 MS

  7. Barree R, Conway M (2004) Beyond beta factors: a complete model for Darcy, Forchheimer, and trans-Forchheimer flow in porous media. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 26–29 September, SPE 89325 MS

  8. Barree RD, Conway M (2007) Multiphase non-Darcy flow in proppant packs. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Anaheim, California, USA; 11–14 November, SPE 109561 MS

  9. Belvalkar RA, Oyewole S (2010) Development of Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Florence, Italy; 19–22 September, SPE 134852 MS

  10. Boyer J, Maley D, O’Neil B (2014) Chemically enhanced proppant transport. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 27–29 October, SPE 170640 MS

  11. Brannon HD, Wood WD, Wheeler RS (2006) Large scale laboratory investigation of the effects of proppant and fracturing fluid properties on transport. In: Proceedings of SPE international symposium and exhibition on formation damage control. Lafayette, Louisiana, USA; 15–17 February, SPE 98005 MS

  12. Burke LH, Roney D, Elgar T, Hersey AN (2012) Factors That impact the performance of resin coated proppant in low temperature reservoirs. In: Proceedings of SPE Canadian unconventional resources conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 30 October–1 November, SPE 162792 MS

  13. Cho Y, Eker E, Uzun I, Yin X, Kazemi H (2016) Rock characterization in unconventional reservoirs: a comparative study of Bakken, Eagle Ford, and Niobrara Formations. In: Proceedings of SPE low perm symposium. Denver, Colorado, USA; 5–6 May, SPE 180239 MS

  14. Cikes M, Cubric S, Moylashov MR (1998) Formation damage prevention by using an oil-based fracturing fluid in partially depleted oil reservoirs of Western Siberia. In: Proceedings of SPE formation damage control conference. Lafayette, Louisiana; 18–19 February, SPE 39430 MS

  15. Cipolla CL, Lolon E, Mayerhofer MJ, Warpinski NR (2009) The effect of proppant distribution and un-propped fracture conductivity on well performance in unconventional gas reservoirs. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. The Woodlands, Texas; 19–21 January, SPE 119368 MS

  16. Cipolla CL, Warpinski NR, Mayerhofer MJ, Lolon E, Vincent MC (2008) The relationship between fracture complexity, reservoir properties, and fracture treatment design. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Denver, Colorado, USA; 21–24 September, SPE 115769 MS

  17. Cooke C Jr (1973) Conductivity of fracture proppants in multiple layers. J Pet Technol 25(09):101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Corapcioglu H, Miskimins J, Prasad M (2014) Fracturing fluid effects on young’s modulus and embedment in the Niobrara formation. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 27–29 October, SPE 170835 MS

  19. Cornell D, Katz DL (1953) Flow of gases through consolidated porous media. Ind Eng Chem 45(10):2145–2152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Coulter G, Wells R (1972) The advantages of high proppant concentration in fracture stimulation. J Pet Technol 24(06):643–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cutler R, Enniss D, Jones A, Swanson S (1985) Fracture conductivity comparison of ceramic proppants. Soc Pet Eng J 25(02):157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Da Silva MR, Schroeder C, Verbrugge J-C (2008) Unsaturated rock mechanics applied to a low-porosity shale. Eng Geol 97(1):42–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Daneshy A (2013) Horizontal well fracturing: a state-of-the-art report. World Oil 234(7):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dewhurst D, Bunger A, Josh M, Sarout J, Delle Piane C, Esteban L, Clennell M (2013). Mechanics, physics, chemistry and shale rock properties. In: Proceedings of 47th U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. San Francisco, California; 23–26 June, ARMA 151

  25. Dontsov E, Peirce A (2014) The effect of proppant size on hydraulic fracturing by a slurry. In: Proceeding of 48th U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. Minneapolis, Minnesota; 1–4 June, ARMA 7777

  26. Dontsov E, Peirce A (2015) Proppant transport in hydraulic fracturing: crack tip screen-out in KGD and P3D models. Int J Solids Struct 63:206–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Duenckel RJ, Conway MW, Eldred B, Vincent MC (2011) Proppant diagenesis-integrated analyses provide new insights into origin, occurrence, and implications for proppant performance. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference, SPE 139875

  28. Forchheimer P (1901) Wasserbewegung durch boden. Zeitz Ver Duetch Ing 45:1782–1788

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gadde PB, Liu Y, Norman J, Bonnecaze R, Sharma MM (2004) Modeling proppant settling in water-fracs. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 26–29 September, SPE 89875 MS

  30. Gandossi L (2013) An overview of hydraulic fracturing and other formation stimulation technologies for shale gas production. Eur. Commisison Jt. Res. Cent. Tech. Reports, Volume 26347 of EUR (Luxembourg. Online), ISSN 1831-9424

  31. Gao Y, Lv Y, Wang M, Li K (2013) New mathematical models for calculating the proppant embedment and conductivity. In: Proceedings of international petroleum technology conference. Beijing, China; 26–28 March, IPTC 16410 MS

  32. Gaurav A, Dao EK, Mohanty KK (2010) Ultra-lightweight proppants for shale gas fracturing. In: Proceedings of tight gas completions conference. San Antonio, Texas, USA; 2–3 November, SPE 138319 MS

  33. Geertsma J (1974) Estimating the coefficient of inertial resistance in fluid flow through porous media. Soc Pet Eng J 14(05):445–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ghanizadeh A, Clarkson CR, Deglint H, Vahedian A, Aquino S, Wood J (2016) Unpropped/propped fracture permeability and proppant embedment evaluation: a rigorous core-analysis/imaging methodology. In: Proceedings of unconventional resources technology conference. San Antonio, Texas; 1–3 August 2016, pp 1824–1852

  35. Gray M, Deutsch N, Marrero M (2017) Current regulatory issues regarding hydraulic fracturing. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference and exhibition. The Woodlands, Texas, USA; 24–26 January, SPE 184859 MS

  36. Gu M, Mohanty K (2014) Effect of foam quality on effectiveness of hydraulic fracturing in shales. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 70:273–285

    Google Scholar 

  37. Guo J, Liu Y (2012) Modeling of proppant embedment: elastic deformation and creep deformation. In: Proceedings of SPE international production and operations conference and exhibition. Doha, Qatar; 14–16 May, SPE 157449 MS

  38. Guo T, Zhang S, Wang L, Sui W, Wen H (2012) Optimization of proppant size for frac pack completion using a new equipment. J Pet Sci Eng 96:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gutierrez M, Nygard R (2008) Shear failure and brittle to ductile transition in shales from P-wave velocity. In: Proceedings of the 42nd U.S. rock mechanics symposium (USRMS). San Francisco, California; 29 June–2 July, ARMA 198

  40. Han J, Wang JY (2014) Fracture conductivity decrease due to proppant deformation and crushing, a parametrical study. In: Proceedings of SPE eastern regional meeting. Charleston, WV, USA; 21–23 October, SPE 171019 MS

  41. Handwerger DA, Keller J, Vaughn K (2011) Improved petrophysical core measurements on tight shale reservoirs using retort and crushed samples. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Denver, Colorado, USA; 30 October–2 November, SPE 147456 MS

  42. Hathon L, Myers M (2012) Shale rock properties: peak strength, acoustic anisotropy and rock fabric. In: Proceeding of 46th U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. Chicago, Illinois; 24–27 June, ARMA 577

  43. Hlidek BT, Meyer RK, Yule KD, Wittenberg J (2012) A case for oil-based fracturing fluids in Canadian montney unconventional gas development. In: Proceeding of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. San Antonio, Texas; USA, 8–10 October, SPE 159952 MS

  44. Hu YT, Chung H, Maxey JE (2015) What is more important for proppant transport, viscosity or elasticity? In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. The Woodlands, Texas, USA; 3–5 February, SPE 173339 MS

  45. Huitt J, McGlothlin Jr B (1958). The propping of fractures in formations susceptible to propping-sand embedment. In: Proceeding of drilling and production practice. New York, New York; 1 January, API 115

  46. Jin L, Penny G (1998) A study on two phase, non-Darcy gas flow through proppant packs. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. New Orleans, Louisiana; 27–30 September, SPE 49248 MS

  47. Kern L, Perkins T, Wyant R (1959) The mechanics of sand movement in fracturing. J Pet Technol 11(07):55–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kias E, Maharidge R, Hurt R (2015) Mechanical versus mineralogical brittleness indices across various shale plays. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; USA 28–30 September, SPE 174781 MS

  49. Kurz BA, Schmidt DD, Cortese PE (2013) Investigation of improved conductivity and proppant applications in the Bakken formation. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. The Woodlands, Texas, USA; 4–6 February, SPE 163849 MS

  50. Lacy L, Rickards A, Ali S (1997) Embedment and fracture conductivity in soft formations associated with HEC, borate and water-based fracture designs. In: Proceedings of annual technical conference and exhibition. San Antonio, Texas; 5–8 October, SPE 38590 MS

  51. Lacy L, Rickards A, Bilden D (1998) Fracture width and embedment testing in soft reservoir sandstone. SPE Drill Complet 13(01):25–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. LaFollette RF, Carman PS (2010) Proppant diagenesis: results so far. In: Proceedings of SPE unconventional gas conference. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; 23–25 February, SPE 131782 MS

  53. Lehman LV, Parker MA, Blauch ME, Haynes R, Blackmon A (1999) Proppant conductivity: what counts and why. In: Proceedings of SPE mid-continent operations symposium. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; 28–31 March, pp 673–683

  54. Li K, Gao Y, Lyu Y, Wang M (2015) New mathematical models for calculating proppant embedment and fracture conductivity. SPE J 20(03):496–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Liang F, Sayed M, Muntasheri GA, Chang FF, Li L (2016) A comprehensive review on proppant technologies. Petroleum 2(1):26–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lin M-L, Jeng F, Tsai L, Huang T (2005) Wetting weakening of tertiary sandstones—microscopic mechanism. Environ Geol 48(2):265–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Liu C, Nagel Sydney R, Schecter DA, Coppersmith SN, Majumdar S (1995) Force fluctuations in bead packs. Science 269(5223):513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Liu Y, Sharma MM (2005) Effect of fracture width and fluid rheology on proppant settling and retardation: an experimental study. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Dallas, Texas; 9–12 October, SPE 96208 MS

  59. Lolon E, Chipperfield S, McVay D, Schubarth S (2004) The significance of non-Darcy and multiphase flow effects in high-rate, frac-pack gas completions. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 26–29 September, SPE 90530 MS

  60. Lowe D, Huitt J (1966) Propping agent transport in horizontal fractures. J Pet Technol 18(06):753–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Martins J, Milton-Tayler D, Leung H (1990) The effects of non-Darcy flow in propped hydraulic fractures. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. New Orleans, Louisiana; 23–26 September, SPE 20709 MS

  62. Matthews HL, Schein GW, Malone MR (2007) Stimulation of gas shales: They’re all the same—right? In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. College Station, Texas, USA; 29–31 January, SPE 106070 MS

  63. McDaniel GA, Abbott J, Mueller FA, Pavlova S, Parias T, Alary J (2010) Changing the shape of fracturing: new proppant improves fracture conductivity. In: Proceeding of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Florence, Italy; 19–22 September, SPE 135360 MS

  64. Milton-Tayler D (1993) Non-Darcy gas flow: from laboratory data to field prediction. In: Proceedings of SPE gas technology symposium. Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 28–30 June, SPE 26146 MS

  65. Milton-Tayler D (1993) Realistic fracture conductivities of propped hydraulic fractures. In: Proceeding of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 3–6 October, SPE 26602 MS

  66. Miskimins JL, Lopez HDJ, Barree RD (2005) Non-Darcy flow in hydraulic fractures: does it really matter? In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Dallas, Texas; 9–12 October, SPE 96389 MS

  67. Montgomery C (2013) Fracturing fluids. In: Proceedings of ISRM-ICHF-2013-035 ISRM international conference for effective and sustainable hydraulic fracturing. Brisbane, Australia; 20–22 May, SPE 90530 MS

  68. Montgomery C, Steanson R (1985) Proppant selection: the key to successful fracture stimulation. J Pet Technol 37(12):2163–2172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Mueller M, Amro M (2015) Indentation hardness for improved proppant embedment prediction in shale formations. In: Proceedings of SPE European formation damage conference and exhibition. Budapest, Hungary; 3–5 June, SPE 174227 MS

  70. Novotny E (1977) Proppant transport. In: Proceedings of SPE annual fall technical conference and exhibition. Denver, Colorado, 9–12 October, SPE 6813 MS

  71. Olson KE, Haidar S, Milton-Tayler D, Olsen E (2004) Multiphase non-Darcy pressure drop in hydraulic fracturing. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 26–29 September, SPE 90406 MS

  72. Pangilinan KD, Christopher C, Advincula RC (2016) Polymers for proppants used in hydraulic fracturing. J Pet Sci Eng 145:154–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Parker M, Weaver J, Van Batenburg D (1999) Understanding proppant flowback. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 3–6 October, pp 681–693

  74. Pascal H, Quillian RG (1980) Analysis of vertical fracture length and non-Darcy flow coefficient using variable rate tests. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Dallas, Texas; 21–24 September, SPE 9348 MS

  75. Patankar N, Joseph D, Wang J, Barree R, Conway M, Asadi M (2002) Power law correlations for sediment transport in pressure driven channel flows. Int J Multiph Flow 28(8):1269–1292

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  76. Paugh LO (2008) Marcellus shale water management challenges in Pennsylvania. In: Proceedings of SPE shale gas production conference. Fort Worth, Texas, USA; 16–18 November, SPE 119898 MS

  77. Penny GS, Jin L (1995) The development of laboratory correlations showing the impact of multiphase flow, fluid, and proppant selection upon gas well productivity. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Dallas, Texas; 22–25 October, SPE 30494 MS

  78. Perfetto R, Melo R, Martocchia F, Lorefice R, Ceccarelli R, Tealdi L, Okassa F (2013) Oil-based fracturing fluid: first results in West Africa onshore. In: Proceeding of international petroleum technology conference. Beijing, China; 26–28 March, IPTC 16640 MS

  79. Pursell D, Blakeley D (1988) Laboratory investigation of inertial flow in high-strength fracture proppants. In: Proceeding of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 2–5 October, SPE 18319 MS

  80. Raysoni N, Pinto M, Kothamasu R (2013) Insights into the relationship between single grain and API/ISO crush strength when applied to proppants with or without diagenesis. In: Proceedings of 47th U.S. rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. San Francisco, California; 23–26 June, ARMA 171

  81. Raysoni N, Sarda A (2013) Evaluating flowback proppants for proppant diagenesis in shale. In: Proceedings of SPE European formation damage conference and exhibition. Noordwijk, The Netherlands; 5–7 June, SPE 165165 MS

  82. Raysoni N, Weaver JD (2012) Long-term proppant performance. In: Proceedings of SPE international symposium and exhibition on formation damage control. Lafayette, Louisiana, USA; 15–17 February, SPE 150669 MS

  83. Rickards AR, Brannon HD, Wood WD (2006) High strength, ultralightweight proppant lends new dimensions to hydraulic fracturing applications. SPE Prod Oper 21(02):212–221

    Google Scholar 

  84. Saba T, Mohsen F, Murphy B, Garry M, Hilbert B (2012). White paper: methanol used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. Document no 1103844.000 0101 0711 TS26

  85. Safari MR, Gandikota R, Mutlu U, Ji M, Glanville J, Abass H (2013) Pulsed fracturing in shale reservoirs: Geomechanical aspects, ductile-brittle transition and field implications. In: Proceedings of unconventional resources technology conference. Denver, Colorado, USA; 12–14 August, URTEC 1579760 MS

  86. Sahai R, Miskimins JL, Olson KE (2014) Laboratory results of proppant transport in complex fracture systems. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. The Woodlands, Texas, USA; 4–6 February, SPE 168579 MS

  87. Schein GW, Carr PD, Canan PA, Richey R (2004) Ultra lightweight proppants: their use and application in the Barnett Shale. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 26–29 September, SPE 90838 MS

  88. Schmidt D, Rankin P, Williams B, Palisch T, Kullman J (2014). Performance of mixed proppant sizes. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. The Woodlands, Texas, USA; 4–6 February, SPE 168629 MS

  89. Shokir E, Quraishi AA (2009) Experimental and numerical investigation of proppant placement in hydraulic fractures. Pet Sci Technol 27(15):1690–1703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Smith M, Bale A, Britt L, Cunningham L, Jones J, Klein H, Wiley R (2004) An investigation of non-Darcy flow effects on hydraulic fractured oil and gas well performance. In: Proceeding of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Houston, Texas; 26–29 September, SPE 90864 MS

  91. Stephens WT, Schubarth SK, Dickson KR, Snyder EM, Doles K, Herndon DC (2007) Behavior of proppants under cyclic stress. In: Proceeding of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. College Station, Texas, USA; 29–31 January, SPE 106365 MS

  92. Szwedzicki T (1998) Indentation hardness testing of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35(6):825–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Szymanska J, Wisniewski P, Wawulska-Marek P, Malek M, Mizera J (2016) Selecting key parameters of the green pellets and lightweight ceramic proppants for enhanced shale gas exploitation. Proc Struct Integr 1:297–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Tek M, Coats K, Katz D (1962) The effect of turbulence on flow of natural gas through porous reservoirs. J Pet Technol 14(07):799–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Terracina JM, Turner JM, Collins DH, Spillars S (2010) Proppant selection and its effect on the results of fracturing treatments performed in shale formations. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Florence, Italy; 19–22 September, SPE 135502 MS

  96. Van Batenburg D, Biezen E, Weaver J (1999) Towards proppant back-production prediction. In: Proceedings of SPE European formation damage conference. The Hague, Netherlands; 31 May–1 June, 247-254

  97. Vincent MC, Pearson CM, Kullman J (2000) Non-Darcy and multiphase flow in propped fractures: case studies illustrate the dramatic effect on well productivity. In: Proceedings of SPE western regional meeting. Anchorage, Alaska; 26–27 May, pp 71–84

  98. Volk LJ, Raible CJ, Carroll HB, Spears JS (1981) Embedment of high strength proppant into low-permeability reservoir rock. In: Proceedings of SPE/DOE low permeability gas reservoirs symposium. Denver, Colorado; 27–29 May, SPE 9867 MS

  99. Vreeburg R, Roodhart L, Davies D, Penny G (1994) Proppant backproduction during hydraulic fracturing—a new failure mechanism for resin-coated proppants. J Pet Technol 46(10):884–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Wang J, Joseph D, Patankar N, Conway M, Barree R (2003) Bi-power law correlations for sediment transport in pressure driven channel flows. Int J Multiph Flow 29(3):475–494

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  101. Wang R, Lu C, Wang G, Zhang D (2014) Influence of cyclic loading on the fracture toughness and load bearing capacities of all-ceramic crowns. Int J Oral Sci 6(2):99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Wanniarachchi W, Ranjith P, Perera M, Lashin A, Arifi A, Li J (2015) Current opinions on foam-based hydro-fracturing in deep geological reservoirs. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Resour 1(3–4):121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Warpinski NR, Mayerhofer MJ, Vincent MC, Cipolla CL, Lolon E (2009) Stimulating unconventional reservoirs: maximizing network growth while optimizing fracture conductivity. J Can Pet Technol 48(10):39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Weaver JD, Nguyen PD, Parker MA, Van Batenburg DW (2005) Sustaining fracture conductivity. In: Proceedings of SPE European formation damage conference. Scheveningen, The Netherlands; 25–27 May, SPE 94666 MS

  105. Weaver JD, Parker M, van Batenburg DW, Nguyen PD (2007) Fracture-related diagenesis may impact conductivity. SPE J 12(03):272–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Weaver JD, Rickman RD, Luo H (2008) Fracture-conductivity loss due to geochemical interactions between manmade proppants and formations. In: Proceeding of SPE eastern regional/AAPG eastern section joint meeting. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; 11–15 October, SPE 118174 MS

  107. Weaver JD, Rickman RD, Luo H, Logrhy R (2009) A study of proppant formation reactions. In: Proceeding of SPE international symposium on oilfield chemistry. The Woodlands. Texas; 20–22 April, SPE 121465 MS

  108. Wen Q, Zhang S, Wang L, Liu Y, Li X (2007) The effect of proppant embedment upon the long-term conductivity of fractures. J Pet Sci Eng 55(3):221–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Williams B, Nierode D (1972) Design of acid fracturing treatments. J Pet Technol 24(07):849–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Wood WD, Brannon HD, Rickards AR, Stephenson C (2003) Ultra-lightweight proppant development yields exciting new opportunities in hydraulic fracturing design. In: Proceeding of SPE international symposium on oilfield chemistry. The Woodlands. Texas; 20–22 April, SPE 121465 MS

  111. Woodworth TR, Miskimins JL (2007) Extrapolation of laboratory proppant placement behavior to the field in slickwater fracturing applications. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. College Station, Texas, USA; 29–31 January, SPE 106089 MS

  112. Wu T, Wu B, Zhao S (2013) Acid resistance of silicon-free ceramic proppant. Mater Lett 92:210–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Xu W, Thiercelin MJ, Le Calvez J, Zhao R, Ganguly U, Weng X, Gu H (2010) Fracture network development and proppant placement during slickwater fracturing treatment of barnett shale laterals. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Florence, Italy; 19–22 September, SPE 135484 MS

  114. Yadav S, Saldana C, Murthy T (2015) Indentation studies on soft rocks. In: Proceedings of 13th ISRM international congress of rock mechanics. Montreal, Canada; 10–13 May, ISRM 257

  115. Yang M, Economides MJ (2012) Revisiting natural proppants for hydraulic fracture production optimization. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. The Woodlands, Texas, USA; 6–8 February, SPE 151934 MS

  116. Yang Y, Liu H, Xie L, Zhang M (2016) Experimental study of non-darcy two-phase flow in a fractured–vuggy medium. Chem Technol Fuels Oils 52(2):175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Yu W, Sepehrnoori K (2013) Simulation of proppant distribution effect on well performance in shale gas reservoirs. In: Proceedings of SPE unconventional resources conference Canada. Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 5–7 November, SPE 167225 MS

  118. Zhang D, Ranjith P, Perera M (2016) The brittleness indices used in rock mechanics and their application in shale hydraulic fracturing: a review. J Pet Sci Eng 143:158–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Zhang G, Li M, Gutierrez M (2016) Numerical simulation of proppant distribution in hydraulic fractures in horizontal wells. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 48:157–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Zhang J, Ouyang L, Alfred DH, Ding Z (2014) Experimental and numerical studies of reduced fracture conductivity due to proppant embedment in shale reservoirs. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 27–29 October, SPE 170775 MS

  121. Zhang J, Ouyang L, Zhu D, Hill AD (2015) Experimental and numerical studies of reduced fracture conductivity due to proppant embedment in the shale reservoir. J Pet Sci Eng 130:37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Zhang J, Zhu D, Hill AD (2015) Water-induced fracture conductivity damage in shale formations. In: Proceedings of SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. The Woodlands, Texas, USA; 3–5 February, SPE 173346 MS

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deep Earth Energy Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Building 60, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Y. Tang, P. G. Ranjith & M. S. A. Perera

Authors
  1. Y. Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. G. Ranjith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. S. A. Perera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. G. Ranjith.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, Y., Ranjith, P.G. & Perera, M.S.A. Major factors influencing proppant behaviour and proppant-associated damage mechanisms during hydraulic fracturing. Acta Geotech. 13, 757–780 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0670-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-0670-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation