SPEIDOESOcloty

of
Potroloum En@rseers
U.S. Department
of Energy

SPE/DOE 13905

Proppant Settling in Non-Newtonian Fracturing Fluids

by L,P. Rood hart, Koninki~keNieli Hi? hb~i~t~ikim

SPE Member

Copyright 1985, Sodefy of Petroleum Engineers

This paper waa presented at the SPE/DOE 1985 Low PermeabilityGas Resewoirs held in Denver, Colorado, May 19-22, 1985. The material is subjectto
correction by the author. Permission to copy is restrictedto an abstrast of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, P.O. Sox SZZ886, Richardson, Texes
75WW383S. Telex 7300s9 S% DAL.

ABSTRACT
‘On account of their highly non-tiewtoni
an
fluid characteristics,the common fracturingfluid
Experimentalresults of the settling of
possess completelydifferent propertiesunder
spherical particlesin flowing non-Newtonian
shear and under stagnant conditions.In the
fracturingfluids show that Stokes Law based on
calculationof proppantsettling velocities,two
‘Power Law! viscositiesis insufficientto predict distinct shear regimes must therefore be
particlefall rates in both flowing and quiescent distinguished:
fluids. 1. During the hydraulicfracturingtreatment,when
the fluid is being pumped.
In a stagnant fluid the experimental
2. During closure of the fracture followingthe
settling velocitiesare more than an order of treatment,when the fluid is essentially
magnitude higher than those calculated,while in a
stagnant.
flowing fluid, settling is lower than that
calculated.These phenomena can be explained by In both cases knowledgeof the settling
extending the ~PowerLaw! model with a zero shear
velocity of a single sphere is the first step in
viscosityand by assuming an anisotropicviscosity
understandingof the complex transport process
in a flowing fluid.
leading to the final proppant distributionin the
fracture.
Anisotropyin the viscosityonly beS?mes
important above shear rates of, say, .25s , and
There are few publishedexperimentalFes.iilts
so will not play a role in the majority of
of the settling of proppant in a quiescentor a
fracturingtreatmentswhere average shear rates in
flowing fluid. The build-upof a proppant bank
the fracture will be below this value.
from a non-Newtonianfluid in a vertic~l slot flow
model w s studied by Schols and Visser and
3
Babcock . Several other’sstudied the settling of
1. INTRODUCTION single particlesu der shear in concentric
4,5
cylin er devices ,a moving belt par llel plate
In a hydraulicfracturingtreatment,a ~ ?
model or in vertical slot flow model .
fracture is created from the wellbore by rupturing
the formationat high pressure by means of a Each of the authors report findings which
fracturingfluid. A propping material, carried by deviate fran Stoke’s Law settling velocitiesin
the fracturingfluid, is placed in the induced sheared fluids as well as stagnant fluids, but no
fracture channel to prevent the fracture fran good explanationwas found for this anomalous
closing after the fluid pressure has been behaviour.
released.The productivityimprovementis mainly
determinedby the propped dimensionsof the This paper provides an explanationfor such
fracture, which in turn are largely controlledby behaviourby using a descriptionof the
the settling velocity of the proppant in the frac theologicalbehaviourwhich accounts for the zero
fluid. A high settling velocity will result in the
shear viscosityof the fluid, and by Introducing
formatio~ of a proppant bank at the bottom of the the concept that the resistanceto motion across
fracture . A very low settling velocitywill the flow is differentfreesthe resistanceto
permit the proppant to remain in suspensio~ motion in the directionof flow. For conceptual
distributedover the total fracture height . ease, this is best describedby the term
‘anisotropicapparent viscosity . However one must
realise that the term viscositycan not be
uniquely defined for a non-Newtonianfluid.

---

PROPPANT SETTLING IN NON-NEWTONIANFRACTURINGFLUIDS
2. STATIC SETTLING
The ‘powerlaw’ model, commonly used to
describe frac fluid rheology, is considered
adequate for descrl’bingthe p~~pe?tie~Gf imst
fluids under ehear, but, as is shown below; it
does not accuratelydescribe settling of the
proppant in a stagnant fluid.
Methods for predictingsettling velocities
of propping4agentshave been publishedby Daneshy8
and Novotny . Both methods employ a form of
Stokes’ law which states that the drag coefficient
acting on a slowly falling spare is given by:
4 dg ‘S-PL 24
CD.-— (—) ~ (1)
3V2 ‘L
m fluids apparent viscosity,p , is often observed
d V=p
with Reynolds number defined as Re = (.2)
Y becomes very large. The ‘Power-Lawmodelp is
In these equationsg is gravitational
acceleration,pg and PI are the proppant and
liquid densities,respectively,and d is the
sphere diameter.p representsthe viscosityof the
liquid and V= is the inifinitebath, single
particle,settling velocity.For a finite
concentrationof particles in a finite bath, the
settling velocity is called Vt. These two
quantitiesare not always identical,because of
the influenceof the wall and of the interaction
between particles.Substitutionof eq. (2) in eq.
(1) 13iVeS the well known expression
g(pg-pLM
Vm = (3)
18P
with which, terminal settling velocitiesof
falling sphere can be calculated.
Stokes’ law is valid up to a Reynolds number of
about 0.1. At Re=l, (eq.2) Stokes’ law predicts a
settling velocitywhich is about 10 per cent lower
than the true value.
As most fracturingfluids behave as non-
Newtonian fluids, an apparent viscosity,p ,
which is a function of the shear rat$,8hasgo be
introduced.In the existing theories ‘ on
proppant settling,the apparent viscosityis
describedby a power-lawmodei:
n-1
=KY (4)
‘a
in which
n = flow-behaviourindex
K . consistencyindex
Y = shear rate on proppant
.
SPE 13905
For9’PowerLaw’ fluids, Reynolds number is defined
as
Re=+
which transformseq. (1) into
I/n
dpg-pl)d
v~={ ,8K } d (6)
The settling velocityhas now becom~l$n{fiction
of n and K, ~nd 1S Proportionalto d
instead of d ss in the case of Newtonian fluids.
This descriptionof proppantsettling is
correct if the fracturingfluid behaves as a pure
‘Power-Lawvfluid. For polymer based fracturing
(Fig. 1) to approacha limit?ng value MO, as the
shear rate, Y, approacheszero; IJaalso approaches
another limiting value, p=, (less than u ) as Y
thereforeonly valid for intermediateshear rates.
In field applicationsthe shear rates never become
large enough for p to approach Ym; however,
during closure of ?he fracture LIathe fluid
viscositywill be equal to the zero shear
viscosity,PO. For this reason a power-lawmodel
is inadequateto describe the viscogityof a
(polymerbased) fracfluidat low shear rates and
the theories based on this model must yield faulty
results in the calculationof settlingvelocities
In a stagnantfluid.
The most simple model which accounts for
zero shear viscositiesis
1 1
—. +
(7)
‘a
where, in addition to the power-lawparametersn
and K, a third parameter,the zero shear
viscosity,M , is introduced.Unfortunately,the
zero shear v?scositycannot be determinedby u$ink
the standardFarm-35 viscometernormally used to
determinethe power-lawindices of a fracturing
fluid. A more sophisticatedviscometersuch as the
‘ContravesLow-Shear 30t has to be used. Viscosity
measurementsof two fracfluidsat various polymer
concentrationsusing the ‘ContravesLow-Shear 30*
viscometer,are depicted in Fig. 1, where a fit
with eguation (4) is given by the full line. The
theologicalparametersp , n and K, extractedfran
the experimentaldata, a8e given in Table 1 for
the various fluids. Settling velocitiesof
particles in stagnant fluids can now be calculated
by substitutinga Reynolds number based on eq. (7)
into equation (l):
gApd2 gApd2 V l-n
Vm=— —
18 IIo’18K (:) (8)
SPE 13905 L.P. ROODHART
The validity of equation (8) was tested
experimentally.A cylindricalvessel (diameterD)
was filled with test fluid, and glass or steel
balls (diameterd, density p) were allowed to f~l
along the axis of the cylinder and the terminal
velocityof the fall, V , measured. In this
experiment,spheres with diameters of 1; 2; 4; 6;
8; 10 and 15 mm were used with cylindershaving
diameters of 49.5; 35.3; 25.9 and 11.4 mm. As the
measurementswere taken in a liquid with a finite
volume, a correctionfor the wall effect has to be
made. The infinite bath fall velocity then becomes
‘t
V. = ~. The correctionfactor, F, was determined
in the same manner as for a Newtonian fluid by
plotting the measured settling rates against the
ratio of the sphere diameter to the diameter of
the cylindricalcontainer,for all sphere-cylinder
combinations.Vm is determinedby extrapolationto
d n2d
zero -
D. In Fig. 2, the results are comparedwith a
theoreticalcorrectionfactor for a N~y~onian
fluid, proposed by Haberman and Sayre . The good
agreement between theory and experimentalresults
confirms that at low shear rates the fracturing
fluid exhibits Newtonian behaviour (Fig. l).
The correctedexperimentalsettling
velocities can be comparedwith the fell rates
calculatedwith equation (8) and with eQIaUOII
(6). This comparisonis depicted in Fig. 3. It is
clear that the use of a ‘power-law’model
(equation6) to calculatesettling velocities,
P~~*Jc~s ~a~ge~ ~het czc & ~Qpe than an Order of
magnitude too small. This may be particularly
importantwhen a long fracture-closingtime is
expected (as is the case in the tight gas
reservoirs),since a correct estimateof the
proppant settling-rateis then essentialto
calculate the ultimate propped fracture height and
thickness.
3. DYNAMIC SETTLING
During closure of the fracture,the
fracfluid is static and the settling process is
governed by the Newtonian part of the viscosity
curve. During pumping, the fluid is subJectedto
shear and settling is controlledby the non-
Newtonian part of the flow curve which should
result in faster settling.
Sedimentationof proppant in sheared fluids
has been studied by several workers using
different experimentaldevices,varying frcxnslot
flow model to rotating concentriccylinders.
Rotating, concentriccylinder devices have the
advantageof an infiniteslot length, but the
disadvantagethat centrifugalforces drive the
P?’OppaEtwrti~l~~ Eoward8 the outer cylinder
wall, which, because of the complicatedshear
profile in the annulue,makes interpretationof
the data a hazardous exercise.Another problem
with suc a device is the occurrenceof Taylor
vortices5 when the the inner cylinderrotates.
These problems can be avoided by using a
parallel plate model and accepting the fact that
slow settling,such as occurs in cross linked
gels, cannot be studied due to the finite length
of the model.
The overall shear imposed on a particle
falling in a flowing (sheared)non-Newtonianfluid
is very difficultto calculatebecause the stream
function is notl~nownfor such a syst~. stokes’
stream function can be used to obtain a surface
average shear rate acting on a sphere falling in a
quiescentNewtonian fluid (AppendixA).
This results in an average shear rate
2vt ‘t
<Y>’= —. In the literaturevalues frcm <~> = —
d d
1. 33V
to <Y> = — for power law fluids are found
(n is the power law index), dePendingon the
stre~~unCtiOn used. An average shear rate
CT> = ; gives the best results in fitting
experimentaldata and is in agreementwith eq. 6
and 7.
If one assumes the proppant particlesto
travel with the flowing fluid and that the
horizontalstream function generatedby the
flowing fluid does not influencethe vertical
stream function generatedby the falling particle,
the overall shear rate acting on a proppant
particle is the vector sum of the ~hea~ rate *Je
to p;oppantsettling, (y) and the shear rate
imposed by the fluid mo!?
ion at the location of the
falling particle.This assumptionis valid if one
ccmponentof the shear rate is small with respect
to the other.
Using this overall shear rate, the viscosity
is calculated,and used in Stokes’ Law to
calculatethe settling rate of a particle in a
Plowing fluid.
This ie the basis of Novotny’s descriptions
of the settlingmechanism in flowing Power-Law
fluids. However, this approachdoes not take the
existenceof a zero-shearviscosityinto account,
which causes the model to fail at low shear rates.
It also assumes the viscosityto be independentof
the directionwith respect to the flow i.e. the
fluid is isotropic.It can be envisagedthat in a
flowing polymer solution shear will induce an
anisotropyin the fluid by alignment or stretching
of the long chained polymermolecules.This
orientationwill be opposed by Brownianmovement,
which tends to disorder the system in such a way
that at each higher shear rate an equilibria
aat.hl
-“”..”- feha=
..J..-” with
“. . . . -a vfldlleed
. ------ ~~~a~~nt VISCOSit~
along the flow direction,but not necessarily
perpendicularto the flow direction.
 13905 L.P. ROODHART
We could not discover any literatry
“eferenceto the existenceof anisotropyin
{iscosityfor fracflulds.We therefore carried out
i number of measurementsto determine if any
misotropy could be detected.
Experimentalmodel
To measure the vertical canponentof the
viscosityas a function of the shear rate, a
vertical slot flow model which consists of two
parallel perspex plates separated by a removable
spacer was built (Fig. 4). The model is 2 m long,
0.4 m high and the slot width can be varied
between 5 and 20 mm. Through this slot fracturi g
f~~id ~an be pumped at a maximtxnrate of 600 cm?/S
which correspondsto 0.23 bblslmin per foot
fracture height (one wing).
To determinevertical viscositycomponents,
glass or steel spheres are injected into the
flowing fluid. The trajectoryof the falling
spheres is recorded by taking photographswith a
motor driven camera, and the horizontaland
vertical velocitiesof the falling sphere(s)are
calculated.The horizontalVelC)Cit~p?’odwx?sthe
location of the particle in the gap, and therefore
the local shear rate and viscosity,while the
vertical velocity (fall rate) yields the vertical
ccmponentof the viscosity.Test were performed
Using hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) solution and a
hydroxypropylguar (HPG) solution.The theological
propertiesof the gels are listed in Tables 2 and
3. These data have been derived frcm measurements
with a pann 50 visccmeter,measurementsof the
pressure differentialover the slot in the
parallel plate at various pump rates and for the
low shear rates, measurementswith the Contraves
low-shear 30 viscometer.
Results
Spheres ranging in diameterqfran2 to 8 mm
and aving a density of 2520 kg/mJ (glass)or 7450
kg/m9 (steel)were allowed to fall in the parallel
plate model with slot width of 5.7 and to 10 MM.
Results of these measurementsare illustratedin
P4- ~, ~ke~e the f~~ rates (infinitebath) of b
~~e.
mm spheres are plotted against the overall shear
rate along the sphere surfacgl An interesting
phenomenaoccurs; above 30 s , the settling rate
becomes l%? and less dependenton the shear.
Above 80 s the fall rate beccmes independentof
the shear rate. This phenomeno~.$asbeen noticed
by several other investigators , but not
adequatelyexplained.The vertical viscosity
component of a HEC and a HPG solution,as
extractedfrcm these rates, is depicted in Figs. 6
and 7 together with the normal (horizontal)
component of the viscosityas a function of the
shear rate. The dots in Fig. 7 are calculated
using fall velocitiesas presented in Fig. 2 of
ref. 13.
The figures show that at low shear rates
both viscosityccxnponents are indistinguishable
and show essentiallyNewtonian ~~viour. At
higher shear rate9 (above 1-20 s ) the curves
separate.The horizontalviscositycomponentshows
.—
1.
a Ipower Law! beha~io~ while at shear rates
greater than 80 s- the vertical componentreduces
graduallyto a value of about 30% of its zero
shear value where it then remains constant for
further increase in shear rate. Due to the S-shape
of this curve, a simple ‘PowerLaw! or extended
Power Law equation is insufficientto fl~scribethe
flow relation.A three parametermodel
introducedby Hamersma was found to cover our
experimentaldata well. The model relates shear
rate with shear stress by the following equation:
[-TO (l-;aT)j (9)
in which a = (
The three parametersare the two limiting
viscositiesu and Um and an apparent yield stress
To. Using the”apparentviscositydefined by
T
. - and eq. 9 excellent agreementis obtained
‘a
?
with the experimentaldata over the entire shear
region (Figs. 6 and 7) with model parametersaa
listed in Table 4.
The viscositycalculatedwith eq. 9 can
therefore be substitutedin Stokes law to
accuratelypredict fall rates of single particles
in flowing and stagnant fluids. The disadvantage
of this description1s that one needa three
differentnew parameters (p , pm and To) instead
of the two ‘PowerLaw! coefficientsto which the
oil industryis accustaned.
W3W FZt?S d’ i~,tW~St ip. f~=&1&Pipy2
The effectiveviscosityof the fiuid in tne
fracture is a product of the (shearrate
dependent)viscosityand the wall correction
factor and shows a minimum values between one
~d~~t.e!’
a!?d9!?s!
third d the fPBC width fran the
centre, dependingthe flow rate and the fracture
width (Fig. 8).
Proppant particleswill therefore:migrate
away frcm the centre and the walls #nd travel in
the region with the least viscosity . The shear
rate in that location will be lees than near the
wall and can be calculatedas a function of the
pump rate, if one knows the frac width as a
function of the pump rate.
Geertsma and de Klerk’s fracture theoryti
has been used to calculatethe frac width
variationwith pump rate for a typical 3000 bbl
fracjob.The results are shown,in Fig. 9. The
shear rate in the region of interest can then be
calculatedand is representedin Fig. 10 by the
shaded area. At flow rates in the range of normal
field values (< 0.3 bb~{mln ft), the shear ~ate
never comes above 35 s in the ❑ain settling
area.
5 PROPPANT SETTLING IN NON-NEWTONIANFRACTURINGFLUIDS SPE 13905

The vertical viscosityccmponentstarts NOMENCLATURE

deviatingfrcm the h~~izontalcomponentat shear
rates above say 25 s . This means that for all CD= drag coefficient
practiclepurposes,one can calculatedynamic
settling rates using the normal horizontal ‘ d = sphere diametre (m)
viscosityat pump rates below 0.2 bbl/min ft. The F= wall corectionfactor
L.—..--.-, -*--..-<+.,
norlzcmuti 41=~....
f~=uwO..J.U oivnn . by eq, 7:
Substitutionof this in Stokes’ Law yields g = gravitationalaccelaraticii(fi/.s2)
index (Pa Sn),
K = power law cOi%liSteiiCy
gApd2 gApd2
v. (lo) n . power law flow behaviourindex
‘~+
18k’(;-’ Va= infinite bath settling velocity (tII/S)
Vt= terminal settlingvelocity in a confined
For proppant particlesmuch smaller than the medilum(m/s)
fracture width ? is the shear rate at the PI. liquid density (Kg/m3)
location with th$ lowest effectiveviscosity.
p9= sphere density (Kg/m3)
Canparison of predictedand measured settling PO= zero shear viscosity (Pa s)
rates
Ha- apparent viscosity (Pa s)
The differencesin the three different pm= infiniteshear viscosity (Pa s)
theologicalmodels are illustratedby Fig. 11,
which comparesmeasured settling velocitieswith Y= shear rate (s-l)
values calculatedusing eqs. 4, 7 and 9. To= apparent yield stress (Pa)
The commonlyused ‘Power Law’ model is only +W= shear rate at wall (s-’)
.
reasonablyaccurate over a very limited range Of shear rate at a position two thirds of the
shear rates. At low shear rates (low settling ‘2/3=
rates and/or low pump rates) it predicts a much frac width frcm the centre
.
too small settling velocity because the zero shear Y1,~ shear rate at a positionone quarter of the
viscosity is not accountedfor. By extending the
frac width”franthe centre
‘PowerLawt with a zero shear viscosity (eq.10),
excellent agreementwith experimentaldata is
obtained at lower rates of shear. However, at high APPENDIX A
shear rates both models fail because the infinite
shear vertical viscosityis not taken into Flow around a sphere in a quiescentfluid
account.This effect, however, only becomes
important above pump rates of 0.2 bbl/ft min. Since flow around a sphere is non
visccinetric,it is necessaryto determinethe
Settling rates calculatedwith eq. 9 and surface averagedexpressionsfor the shear stress
Stokes Law are in good agreement with the and the shear rate,
experimentaldata over the entire shear region. ‘n terms of ‘befall ‘elOciFy
of the sphere. Based on Stokeisstreamfunction :

CONCLUSIONS
~2
1 3s
The Power Law model canmonlyused to 22
‘=vRsine[-G+T-2 —I
describefrac fluid behaviouris inaccuratewhen
used to calculateproppant settling, either in a
static situation during fracture closure or in a r
dynamic situation during pumping. with c = -
R and R the sphere radius, the velocity

The extended Power law model (inclusionof a componentsin spherical coo

““~~inates
r and 6, @ can
zero shear viscosity)i~lapplicablein a shear be found analyticallyto be :
rate region fran O-25 s . This range of shear
rates is applicableto the main proppantsettling 3R 1 R2
areas within the fracture for pump rates lower Vr = V- [1- ~ (;) + ~ (;) ] Cose (A-1)
than sane 0.2 bbl/min ft.

At higher pump rates the use of a three

parameter (Hamersma)model is required to 3R 1 R3
nti.talv~~~~~i~ the orouoantsettling.
ace=.-.-.= vm.-v@[l-- ~ (~) - ~ (~) 1 sine (A-2)
r--r-

Vo. o

For a steady creeping flow around a sphere the

. .. .“ u~iUlmablun
.---...,.-+4
,. ccmpcmect,
only non-vanlsnlngrate VI
~~ ;~~~;i: $8 the normal ccnnponents, is Ire which
 L.P. ROODHART 6
SPE 13905

10. Bird, B.B., Amstrong,R.C. & Hassager,O.,

,!DYnmics of polymer liquids”.
(J. WileY & Sons, New York, 1976).
11. Chhabra, R.P., Tiu, C. & Uhlherr, P.H.T.,
Shear-thinningeffects in creepingflow
about a sphere.
ubstitUtiOnof eqs. (1) and (2) into eq. (3) Rheology, Proceedingof the eighth
v internationalcongress of rheology,Napels,
m
Italy Volume 2, 9-13.
Ives ?Re = 3 ~ sine with V- the finite bath 12. Brenner,H., Low Reynolds number
hy~rodynamics.
,e~:~ing~e~QCitY and d the sphere diameter.
(NoordhofPinternationalpublisher,Leiden)
ntegrationof this expressionover the sphere p. 322-329.
,urfaceand dividing by the sphere area, yields an
... 13. Clark, P.E. & Guler, N., Prop transport in
<v. ~erti~a~ fraCtIMef3,
iverage<1> = ~, while the maximum shear rate at Settling Velocity correlations.Paper SPE
11636.
3vm 14. Geertsma,J. & Haafkens,R., “A comparisonof
the theories for predictingwidth and
;hesphere surface is Y~x = ~. extent of vertical hydraulicallyinduced
fractures”.
These expressionsare valid for a sphere J. of Energy ResourcesTechn. —101, 8,
.. .. . ,.--ll~.+mni=~ /1070)
‘ailingin a NewtonianIlula or ifi nu,,,.=d.”.
..... \lz(z#.
‘luid~lwhichbehave Newtonian at shear rates below 15. Hamersma, P.J., Ellenberger,J. & Fortuin,
1s , like the HEC and HPG solutions used in , 11Athree parametermodel describing
J.M.Ii.
;his study. the experimentalrelation between shear
stress and shear rate for Laminar flow of
INFERENCES aqueous polymer solutions~!.
1. Schols, R.S. & Visser, W.: “Proppantbank Rheol. Acta~, 270-279 (1981).
build-up in a vertical fracturewithout 16. Guillot, D. & Dunand, A., “Theological
fluid-loss”. characterizationof fracturingfluids using
Paper SPE 4834, presentedat the SPE-AIME laser anemanetry.
European Spring Meeting, Amsterdam,May 29- Paper SPE 12030, presentedat the 58th
30, 1974. Annual Technical conference,San Francisco
2. van Dcmselaar,H.R. & Visser,W.: “Proppant October 5-8, 1983.
concentrationin and final shape of 17. Gottlieb,M., f~zeroshear rate viscOSity
fractures generated by viscous gels”. measurementsfor polymer solution by
SPE Journal (December1974), 531. falling ball visccmetry!t.
3. Babcock, R.E., Prokop,C.L. & Kehle, J. of Non. New. Fluid Mech., ~, 97-109
R.O.: ?~Distribution of proppingagents In (1979).
vertical fractures!’. 18. Chhabra, R.P. & Uhlherr, P.H.T., Estimationof
ProducersMonthly (November1967) 11-18. zero shear vlscosltyof polymer SOIUtiOnS
4. Novodny, E.J., *qproppanttran.9port”.: frao falling sphere data.
paper SpE 6813, presentedat SPE 52nd Rheol. Acts, ~, 593-599 (1979).
Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Oct. 9-12, 19. Bird, R.B., Steward,W.E. & LightfoOt,E.M.,
1977. Transport phencmena.
5. Hannah, R.R. & Barrington, L.J.: Measurement (John Wiley & Sons, New York) p. 57.
of dynamic proppantfall rates in 20. Darby, R., Viscoelaeticfluids.
fracturinggells using a concentric (MarcelDekker, Inc., New York). p. 186.
cylinder tester.
J. Pet. Tech.(May 1981) 909-913.
6. Clark, P.E., Manning, F.S., Quadir, J.A. &
Guler, N., ‘Prop transport in vertical
fractures.
Paper SPE 10261, presentedat the SPE 56th
Annual Fall TechnicalConference,San
Antonio, Oct. 5-7, 1981.
7. Sievert, J.A., Wahl, H.A., Clark, P.E. &
u=-~i.
.s-. ...... M,V=, !Iprop transport in a large
verticalmodel!!.
Paper SPE 9865, presented at SPE/DDE low
permeabilitysymposium,Denver, May 27-29,
1981.
8. Daneshy, A.A., Nunerical solutionof sand
transport in hydraulicfracturing.
J. Pet. Tech. (January 1978) 132.
9. Skelland,A.H.P., Non Newtonian flow and heat
transfer.
(John WileY & Sons, Inc.) 1967.
7 PROPPANT SETTLING IN NON-NEWTONIANFRACTURINGFLUIDS SPE 13905

TABLE 1 - THEOLOGICALPARAMETERSOF THE VARIOUS FRACFLUIDSAS USED IN THE

STATIC EXPERIMENTS

m Inn G~~~~ng agent power law indices zero shear viscosity

x“...

NUMBER type concentration n K

‘o
kg/m3 Pa Sn Pas

I Guar Gum I 3.6 0.52 0.33 0.1

II HEC 4.8 0.45 1.40 0.54
111 HEc 7.2 0.37 4.0 2.0
IV Guar Gum 9.6 0.29 8.5 4.2
v HEc 12.0 0.22 40.0 32.0

TABLE 2- THEOLOGICALPARAMETERSHEC SOLUTIONS USED IN THE DYNAMIC

EXPERIMENTS

FLUID Gelling agent Power law indices zero shear vigcosity

NUMBER concentration n K
PO
kg/m3 Pa sn Pa.s

I 4.8 0.44 1.5 0.44

II 6.o 0.32 4.5 0.55
III 7.2 0.32 6 1.6

TABLE 3 - THEOLOGICALPARAMETERSHPG SOLUTIONS USED IN THE DYNAMIC

EXPERIMENTS

FLUID Gelling agent Power law indices zero shear viscosity

NUMBER concentration n K
MO
kgl❑3 Pa Sn Pas

I 3.6 0.47 0.83 0.22

11 4.8 0.46 1.13 0.4
111 7.2 0.33 4.77 3.7

—
 L.P. ROODH.ART
SPE 13095

TABLE k - VALUES OF THE THREE PARAMETERSl.Io,

U= AND To OF AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS
-———
8F H~RGXy ETHYL CELLULOSEAND HYDROXY PROPYL GUAR AT 20°C

Gelling agent B. Pm T
‘LUID o
IUMBER concentration
kg/m3 Pas Pas Pa

HEC
4.8 ().44 0.14 1.8
I
7.2 1.6 0.35 7
11

HPG
3.6 0.22 0.07 0.6
I
4.8 0.40 0.16 0.7
II
7.2 3.4 0.7 7
111
 v,
APPARENT
APPARENT VISCOSITY Po, ymer ,0”., ”,,0!!0”
VISCOSITY
(POISE) . ,2 0 kQ/m’
( Pas)
1000 A 96

ioo
—. FIT WITH EQUATION7( EXTENDED POWER LAW)
: ::
36
+
xsxxs= ExPERIMENTAL CURVES

“j,,;LAO
The
0

sol!d
0! 02

curve IS
03

occord!ng
04

to
05

Habermon’s
06 07

exact
+—

theory
Fig, l-tirent wsi~S. shear rare fmplymer tiut#ons mthprownnm mllst&!n Tabk 1.
Fim 2-Wall correction factw for a cyimdncal V-I.

MEASURED sETTLINGS
VELOCITY (m/s)

,().1
I ‘/”
t x :x X** ●

x *x ●*

x x xx ,x ‘.** ●
x ●
x
xx ●
x x ●/

I
xx

40-3 x
●
x
x
PoWER LAW
ExTENTEDPDWER LAW

{0. 4
I
100% AGREEMENT

w.__.
cl- L,-”d.l ...—
Klc&l,

{0-2 {o-i
,(3-4 ,(3-3
+0-5

CALCULATED SETTLING VELOCITY (m/s) ~

Fig.3.-CampansM teiww measured and caku!ated particle sanhng vek.ctties i. a SMWMI fluid. ‘pa,
po, Pas
Poise
EQ7(EXT~NDED~WER LAW)
v- I ——- EQ 9 (HAMERSMA)
[

‘“’s’O1
/
‘L’Z=T....
K-&
F
● 048%HEc
x06%
❑ 072%
SC2LUTIUN
1,
0.1 i
f, ~-i
10 !00
-----
lUUU
1

F*. s-mm hmzcmtd (WU82) md VOltkA (Im2) .wIllpcnanta 01tiwaF@arOntvlsms@ VS.Sh+a ,*O i. a
HEC Sc4diin.

20 40 60 ~ 80 100 f20 i40

Y, s-i
FM,2-Immnw ot *ear m a 4-mmdIameteI glass sphere 20nlmg in a HEc sdutkk. ~ 13905
 wan

‘a”-:
i .0
—- II
--&_

--~
o i-
I
L..

.
i

10.1
0.0{ {0 100 {000
O.i t.
+. ~.i

FRAC.
WIDTH
mm.
AFTER TOTAL VoLUME
20 - IS PuMPED

~-

10
1 f~ AFTER PAD VOLuME t Izzfi
I. J//,”
WA
IS PuMPED
\ MAIN sETTLING “f
I // \ AREA

IY 0 2 4
1
-4 -2
LOCATION lNFRACTURE, mm

50 t pAa VOLUME PUMpED

/

MEAsURED sETTLING
vELC)CITY(mm/s)
/
10 -
. POWER LAW EQ 4
* EXTENOED POWER LAW EQ 7
i /
z ❑ EQ9
/

(a) ●
10 ✎

50
I t
. .“

TOTAL vOLUME 400 %

/
I PUMPEO / ./ AGREEMENT
40 /’
}

7X 0.1 -
30
(s-1)

20
1
{0 I
1

{ 40
0.4
CALCULATED SETTLING VELOCITY ( mmis)
Fb. 11-w- tuvmenrmawti ●ti mbtied sealhw
.mlociMs
Ofat.mm@we inanow.
,.E0.72%W= ~~~