SPE 119242

How to Use and Misuse

Proppant Crush Tests –
E
Exposing
i the
th Top
T 10 Myths
M th

John Kullman, CARBO Ceramics

T. T. Palisch, M. Chapman, R. Duenckel, and S.

Woolfolk CARBO Ceramics
Woolfolk, Ceramics, Inc
Inc.
M. C. Vincent, Insight Consulting
 Outline
• Introduction/Motivation
• Crush Test Procedure
• Myths
M ths
–Misuse/misapplication
pp
• Summary
 The Big Picture
• Fracs must provide:
– Reservoir contact (length, height) to contact and
collect oil and gas
• Related to volume of proppant
– Flow capacity to carry oil and gas to the wellbore
• Related to proppant permeability and frac width –
described as conductivityy

• Other Important Proppant Characteristics

– Durability
y
– Temperature Resistance
– Transportability
– Fluid Compatibility
– Flowback Control
– Environmentally Benign
 Question…
• Gas
G Well
W ll
– 7500 psi stress
– You can successfully place a 16/20 or 16/30
sized proppant

• Two choices of proppant

– Proppant A – 16/20 Ceramic, 14% Crush (7.5k)
– Proppant B – 16/30 Ceramic, 7.5% Crush (7.5k)
– Which proppant would you choose?
– What if I told y
you that they
y had the same MPD?
– What would you be willing to pay for your choice?
 Introduction/Motivation
• API RP56 & 60 original – updated in ISO
13503-2 (2006)
– “improve quality…delivered proppants”
– “enable…to compare physical properties”
– Original
O i i l iintent
t t tto help
h l qualify
lif sand
d sources
• “Crush results” and proppant selection
– “qualified
“ lifi d engineering
i i analysis….required
l i i d ffor
their application to a specific situation”
– SPE 11634 – Conductivity comparisons cannot
be made on the basis of crush tests
Yet many still choose their proppants based on
**Yet
crush results **
 ISO 13503-2 Crush Test Procedure
• P
Proppantt isi pre-sieved
i d tto
remove particles outside of
stated mesh range.
• Dry
D proppantt placedl d iin steel
t l
cell at ~4 lb/sq ft (sand
equivalent)
• Room temperature
• Proppant evenly distributed
with level surface
• Load
L d appliedli d att uniform
if rate
t
• Constant stress maintained for
two minutes
• Proppant is sieved. The weight percent which falls
below the primary screen is reported.
– For 16/20 proppant all material < 20 mesh is reported as “fines”
fines
– For 30/50 proppant all material < 50 mesh is reported as “fines”
 ISO 13503-2 Crush Test Procedure
Do these reflect realistic conditions?
• Proppant is pre-sieved.
• Proppant Loading – sand/RCS/LWC ~4 lb/ft2,
IDC 4.8 lb/ft2, Bauxite ~5.2 lb/ft2
• Smooth, steel plates – embedment?
• “Carefully
y loaded”
• Dry, room temperature
• 2000 psi/min,
psi/min relaxed after 2 minutes
• Only the particles smaller than bottom screen
are considered “fines”
fines or “crush”
crush
Are the results repeatable/reliable?
Crush Cell Loading critical
• “variance in crush results….associated with
method of loading…”
• Significant efforts ongoing on ISO Committee
and StimLab to alleviate variations in results
– Loading technique thought to be the cause
– Lab to lab, technician to technician, equipment to
equipment
 ISO Subcommittee Results

9.1
10
11

9.5
50
Test#1
Test#2
Test#3

9.1
10
16/30 Brown Sand Hand Loaded Weight Percent Crush at 4000psi

17.7
78
10
Are the results repeatable?

19.8
88
18.4
43
14.8% Avg

8.4
40
9

8.9
90
8.6
60
6.0
04
5.9
92
8
6.4
42
23.2
26

7
23.2
29
24.7
75

Lab Number
9.2
20

6
9.8
80
10.1
10
15.7
74

5
17.5
52
18.4
45
24.5
52

4
14.7
71
17.8
86
16.7
70

3
14.6
60
16.7
70
25.2
21

2
23.6
60
24.2
29
9.1
18

1
10.6
63
10.9
95

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Perrcent Crush
h
 Are the results repeatable?
16/30 Brown Sand Mechanical Loaded Weight Percent Crush at
18 4000psi
Test#1
16 Test#2
Test#3
14

12
Perrcent Crush
h

10.0% Avg
10

2 No data
11..41
16..66

12..80
12..00
12..00

10..79
10..89
10..32

10..53

10..22
10..49

10..60
10..80
10..10
reported
9..26
9..40
9..79

8..96

9..85
9..07

7..76
8..40
7..80

9..94

8..40
8..20
8..40

9..23
7..50
7..50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Lab Number ISO Subcommittee Results
Does Fracture Width Affect Crush?
• Interior grains loaded “evenly”
• Exterior grains
g have fewer
load points
• Crush increases significantly
as proppant loading
decreases
• For a 20/40 proppant, there are approximately
24 layers of proppant in standard crush test.
test
– 8% are exterior grains
• 1 lb/ft2 is
i ~6
6 llayers off 20/40 proppantt
– 33% are exterior grains
Crush Depends
p Upon
p Frac Width!

30

25
Percent Crush

20

15

10

0 Monolayer
4 lb/sq ft 2 lb/sq ft 1 lb/sq ft 0.5 lb/sq ft 0.25 lb/sq ft
~ 0.2 lb/sq ft
 Crush vs # Layers
100%
Crush at 10,000 psi
20/40 Proppants
White Sand
90%
ELWC
RCS
80%
B
Bauxite
it Ceramic
C i
70%
2
1 lb/ft
60%
Sand &
% Crush

RCS
50%
2
1 lb/ft
40% 2
B
Bauxite
it 1 lb/ft
ELWC
30%

20%

10%

0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
# of Layers
 Crush vs # Layers
100%
Crush at 1000 psi White Sand
90% All 20/40 Proppants RCS
ELWC
80% Bauxite Ceramic

70%

60%
% Crush
h

50%

40%

30%
2
1 lb/ft
2 2
20% 1 lb/ft 1 lb/ft Sand &
Bauxite ELWC RCS
10%

0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
# of Layers
Partial
Monolayer
RANGE OF FRACTURE COMPLEXITY
SPE 77441
Simple
p Fracture Complex
p Fracture

Very Complex Fracture Network

Complex fracs are
believed to provide less
cumulative conductivity
than simple,
simple wider
fractures
 Vertical Complexity
D T
Due To Joints
J i t

Physical evidence of
fractures nearly
always complex

NEVADA TEST SITE

HYDRAULIC FRACTURE
MINEBACK
16
 Uniform Packing
Arrangement?

Pinch out, proppant

pillars,
ill iirregular
l
distribution?

Is this ribbon laterallyy

extensive and
continuous for
hundreds or
thousands of feet?
17
 Are Large Particles weaker than Small?
80.00
ush one pelllet

70.00 Single
Si l 1488.2x
y= P
Pellet
1488 2ll - 18
t C
Crush
714 h
18.714

60.00
2
R = 0.7765 NO!!
50.00
CPFcru

40.00
Force to

30.00
Pounds of F

20 00
20.00
18 12/18
10.00 16 16/20
20/40
0.00 14
P

Percent Crush

0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600

12
Proppant Size inches Courtesy Stim-Lab
10
8
6
4
2
0
30/50 LWC 20/40 LWC 16/20 LWC 12/18 LWC
For all proppant types, larger grains have
greater individual strength
strength.
160

140

12/18
120

20/40 CarboLite
100
Hi k
Hickory
Interprop
CPF

80
CoSilica
Jordan
60
ResinPR

40

20

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
pp
Proppant Size,, inches

Source: Stim-Lab Consortium, July 2001 1.8-16

Another Look at Single Grain Strengths…

160

140

12/18
120

20/40 CarboLite
100
Hi k
Hickory
Interprop
CPF

80
CoSilica
Jordan
60
ResinPR

40
Note that application of
20 resin does not improve
p
grain strength, but rather
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
improves
0.12
distribution of
pp
Proppant Size,, inches
stress between grains
and encapsulates fines.

Source: Stim-Lab Consortium, July 2001 1.8-16

 So why does crush increase
with
ith llarge proppants?
t ?

• Strength in numbers?
“There’s Strength in Numbers”

Smaller mesh sizes distribute the load to across

more particles compared to larger mesh sizes
 Proppant Type
• Natural quartz crystals (sand), manufactured ceramics, and
resin-coated proppants crush differently

• Sand
– Quartz
Q t crystals
t l tend
t d to
t resultlt in
i a greater
t number
b off fine
fi shards
h d
• Ceramics
– Tend to cleave or p
part into relatively
y few,, larger
g p pieces
• Resin Coated Products
– Resin does not significantly change single grain strength, but
improves distribution of stress
stress. If the particles can be
encapsulated, they will not be measured as “crush” regardless of
whether the substrate fails
SPE 11634 - conductivity comparisons cannot be made on the basis of
crush tests.
Do all Proppants Fail in the Same Manner?
When they fail
fail…
– Sands shatter like a glass
– Ceramics
C i cleave
l lik
like a b
brick
i k
– Resin Coated products
“deform”;
deform ; fines captured
Brown Sand
att 6k psi.
i

IDC at
RCS at 8k psi. 8k psi.
Do fines affect all proppants similarly?
Remember…
R b
• All proppants do not fail in the same manner
– The fines generated by one proppant may look
drastically different than those generated by
another.
th
• The packing arrangement for similarly sized
proppants are not the same for all types of
proppants.
– i.e. the packing arrangement for a 20/40
ceramic, 20/40 RCS and 20/40 Sand will be
diff
differentt even att comparable
bl stresses.
t
 Post Crush Sieve Distribution

100
98
ent in Siize

75 After crushing 20/40

EconoProp at 6000 psi
Rangge
Weig ht Perce

50 Standard API technique

25
1.18 0.43 0.2 0.13 0.08 0
0
-20/+40 -40/+50 -50/+70 -70/+100 -100/+200 -200/+325 Pan

Source: CARBO Analyses Nov 1998

 A Closer Look at the Crushed Fraction
“2% fines” reported with standard
testing could mean 2 cleaved grains
1.20 per 100 (4 immobile pieces), or it could
1.18 represent 400 mobile fragments in the
100-mesh range
1.00
Immobile cleaved grains It makes a difference!
Crush

0.80
Percent C

0.60 0.43 Potentially mobile in 20/40 pack

(SPE 24008)
0.40 0.2
P

0.13
0.08
0.20 0

0.00
-40/+50 -50/+70 -70/+100 -100/+200 -200/+325 Pan

Source: CARBO Analyses Nov 1998

 Fluid Effects
• Crush testing is performed dry. What if the proppant
is saturated?
7
Modified Crush Test Results
6
E
EconoProp
P att 6000 psii
Percentt Crush

5
4
3
2
1
0
Dry API Moisten in cell Moisten in cell Moisten with Moisten with
with water with min. oil water, then min. oil, then
add to cell add to cell
Source: CARBO Tech Brochure 3/4/96
Is one set of Test Conditions superior to another?
Dry,
y, wet,, hot,, room temperature,
p , water or oil…
is one method more realistic than another?
6k Crush @ 2#/ft2

35
Sand
30 ELWC
RCS
25
ush %

20
Cru

15

10

0
Standard Load by Load by Standard Standard Standard Wet with Wet with Standard Standard
Loading
g hand and hand and then tapp then wet then wet water then mineral oil but heat to but heat to
rotate do not cell with water with load into then load 200F dry 200F wet
piston rotate mineral oil cell into cell
piston
Can Crush results be Correlated to Conductivity?

More Realistic Conditions in a Conductivity Test

What’s the Difference?

• Proppants
pp evaluated as received
• Tests equivalent mass loading, and 2 lb/ft2
• Utilizes Sandstone shims
• Flow water through pack
• Elevated temperatures (150°
(150 or 250°
250 F)
• Stress held for at least 50 hours
Disassembled API Proppant Cell
Ports for Measuring
Differential Pressure Temperature Port

Proppant Bed

Flow Through
Sandstone Cores Proppant Bed
Long Term Conductivity Cells
Can Crush results be Correlated to Conductivity?
The “crush” measured after a Conductivity test
significantly higher than Crush test.
6k Crush Results vs Crush after Conductivity Testing at 6k psi
45
40 Sand
35 ELWC
RCS
30
Crush %

25
20
C

15
10
5
0
Standard Load by Load by Standard Standard Standard Wet with Wet with Standard Standard
Loading hand and hand and then tap then wet then wet water then mineral oil but heat to but heat to
rotate do not cell with water with load into then load 200F dry 200F wet
piston rotate mineral oil cell into cell
piston

All tests at 2 lb/ft2 loading

Embedment

More width retained,

but lower perm
Spalling
Spalling
Example of Conductivity Loss
CO N D U CT I V I T Y V S . C L O S U R E S T R E S S

100000
YME=5E6psi
S t i m - L a b In c .
YME=1E6psi
10000 P re dk F 0 2 YME=.5E6psi
YME=.1E6psi
`
1000

100

10
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
C LO S UR E S T R E S S - P S I

1 .0
0 lb //s q ft 2 0 /4 0 B
Ba d g e r1
1 5 0 °F 1 .0
0 lb //s q ft 2 0 /4 0 B
Ba d g e r1
1 5 0 °F
1 .0 lb /s q ft 2 0 /4 0 Ba d g e r1 5 0 °F 1 .0 lb /s q ft 2 0 /4 0 Ba d g e r1 5 0 °F

Source: Stim-Lab Consortium, Feb 2002 1.6-46

 Proppant Durability
In the real world:

- Fractures are subjected to high stresses

(increasing) for extended periods of time
- Stress levels fluctuate (cyclic stress) with
wellwork
ll k and
d changes
h iin liline pressure

Therefore:

• All proppants appear to lose conductivity over

time
ti
• Traditional resins do not appear to protect
proppants
p oppa s fromo deg
degradation.
ada o
• Many data suggest degradation is a mechanical
failure, not chemical attack. 38
 Proppant Durability
• Traditional “long term” conductivity tests maintain
stress on proppant for 50 hours
– It is known that proppants continue to degrade beyond
50 hours, but this was a practical compromise between
laboratory expense and accuracy
accuracy. Fig 4,
4 SPE 16415

1000

d-ft)
20/40 Jordan sand,
Longer test captures a portion of

ctivity (md
8000 psi

the time-dependent decline. We

know degradation continues
beyond
y this,, but modern “50 hour”

Conduc
tests include correction for initial
repacking/etc.
This phenomenon occurs even 100
with silica saturation 0 25 50 75 100
Hours at Constant Stress
Reference: SPE 16415 Norton and Stim-Lab
 Extended duration tests:
1984
(75 & 250F)
API “short term” cell: Metal plates, continuous flowing 2% KCl,
Non silica saturated
Non-silica

Fig 19, SPE 12616 between metal plates

100
vity
Conductiv

20/40 Sand at 75F

80
10/20 Sand at 250F
60
Original C

40
20
%O

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Days at Constant Stress, 5000 psi

Reference: SPE 12616 by Montgomery, Steanson, Schlumberger 40

 Published extended duration tests:
1986
93C (200F)
All non-corrodible surfaces, prop in
Teflon tube, continuous flowing 2% KCl 1986
(300F)
Fig 4, SPE 14133 Teflon tube, continuous flowing 2% KCl,
1 Non-silica saturated
Ratio

0.8
meability R

0.6 SPE Drilling, April 1986, page 5

10000

md-ft)
0.4 CarboPROP at 10,000 psi (69 MPa)

nductivity (m
CarboLITE at 10,000 psi (69 MPa)
Perm

0.2
Sand at 5000 psi (35 MPa)
1000
0
Interprop
0 15 30 45 60 75 Proflow
Con
RCS
Days at Constant Stress
Ottawa Sand
100
0 10 20 30 40 50

Days at Constant Stress, 8500 psi

References: SPE 14133 by CARBO, SPE Drilling article by Norton-Alcoa Proppants and TerraTek Research

41
Temperature Correction for White Sand
At 6500 psi and 250F, 20/40 White Sand loses
40% off it
its conductivity
d ti it compared d to
t 150F.
150F
20/40 Premium White Sand

1
eg F, factorr

0.8
Correction ffrom 150 de

0.6

0.4
150 deg F
nductivity C

200 degF
0.2 250 deg F
300 deg F
Con

350 deg F
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Stress, psi StimLab PredictK
 Cyclic Loading of Proppant Packs
• All proppants appear to be damaged by
continued stress cycling
Effect of Stress Cycling on Proppants
Three cycles, 6000 to 1000 psi
5,000 15% loss
md-ft)

4,000 50 hrs at 6000 psi

nductivity (m

3 cycles, 6000 to 1000

3,000
23% loss 32% loss
2,000
Con

1,000

-
RCS #1 RCS #2 EconoProp
CARBO Tech Rpt 99-062 Proppant Type (all 20/40)

Source: CARBO Tech Rpt 99-062

 Effect of Stress Cycling on Proppant Conductivity
(Stim-Lab July 2000 data)
10,000 St
Stress (psi)
( i)
LWC
9,000
RCS
8 000
8,000
ductivity ((md-ft)

7,000

6 000
6,000 Ceramic loses 26%,
26%
RCS loses 35% due to 25 cycles
5,000

4,000
Cond

3,000

2,000

1,000
-
0 100 200 300 400
Hours
 Effect of Stress Cycling
on Proppant Crush (6000 psi)
30
Single Crush at 6000 psi

25 Triple Cycle Dry Crush

maller tthan 40
0

Triple Cycle Crush in Long Term Cell

cent Crrush

20
mesh)

15.79

15
((wt% sm

10.44
Perc

10 8.47

5 3 33 3.83
3.33 3 02
3.02
1.37 1.52 1.92

-
RCS #1 RCS #2 EconoProp
CARBO Tech Rpt 99-062 Proppant Type (all 20/40)
 Options to reduce crush:
Action Crush Conductivity
Rename 16/20 to 16/30
⇓ ~50% No change
Add 30 mesh material to 16/20 and rename to 16/30
⇓ ~60% ⇓ ~30%
Reduce average proppant size or produce broader distribution
⇓ ⇓
Sticky additive to agglomerate fines
⇓ ~100% ⇓
Pre-cured or curable resins
⇓ often ⇓ at low stress,
⇑ at high
g stress
Include deformable “cushioning” agents
⇓ ⇓
The Correct Way to Test Proppant
• Remember, proppant must achieve two goals:
– Reservoir contact (p
(proppant
pp volume))
– Ability to conduct hydrocarbons with minimal pressure loss
• These characteristics can be directly measured with
a conductivity test
– Proppant confined between sandstone core
– Realistic temperatures
– Flowing brine, oil, and/or gas
– 50 hour duration (or longer)
– Cyclic stress, embedment, fines migration, non-Darcy and
g
other issues can be investigated in specialized
p tests
– Directly measures parameters of interest [frac width and
flow capacity]
 SPE 119242

How to Use and Misuse

Proppant Crush Tests –
Exposing the Top 10 Myths

Questions?
 Darcy’s
Darcy s Law vs
vs. Forchheimer Equation

• Δ P/L = μ v / k
– Pressure drop is proportional to fluid
velocity
l it
– Applicable only at low flowrates

• Δ P/L = μ v / k + β ρ v2

– Pressure drop is proportional to square of

fluid velocity
– Applicable at realistic fracture flowrates
D
Does F
Fracture
t Width Affect
Aff t Crush?
C h?

• Crush increases significantly in narrow

fractures
Interior grains are loaded
“evenly”
evenly on 6 sides

Exterior grains are not

stressed uniformly
 Long
g Term Conductivity
y Test
Procedure

• Load 63 g (equivalent to 2 lbs/sq ft) of proppant in

each cell.
• Install cells in the press.
• Purge 2% KCl solution with oxygen-free nitrogen.
• Apply a vacuum for 45 minutes to remove air in
cells.
• Flow 2% KCl solution through heated silica sand,
andd cells.
ll
• Ramp to an initial stress of 1000 psi and to a 500
psi fluid pressure.
• After checking equipment is working properly, heat
cells to 250ºF.
Long Term Conductivity Test
Procedure

• Increase stress to 2,000 psi.

• Flow fluid at rates of 33, 4 and 6 ml/min
ml/min.
Measure Δ p 30 minutes after each step
change in flow rate.
• Measure frac width and temperature. Maintain
stress for 50 hr.
• Increase stress in 2 2,000
000 psi increments for 50
hours each.
• Continue measuring Δ p at 3, 4 and 6 ml/min of
fluid flow, frac width and temperature until
12,000 psi stress is reached.
AB
Better
tt Test
T t to
t Select
S l t Proppant
P t
• Long term conductivity testing
• Direct measurement of flow capacity of
proppant pack
• Can account for:
– Embedment
– Temperature
– Fluid Effects
– Fines Migration
g ((with appropriate
pp p flowrates))
 Is complexity
solely attributed
to “rock
rock fabric”?
fabric ?

Chudnovsky, Univ of Ill, Chicago Unconsolidated 200 mesh sand, 35 lb XLG,

Flow Å SPE 63233

54 Many other examples! [TerraTek, Baker, Weijers, CSM FAST consortium]

Frac Width – with CrossLinked Gel
Diffuse slurry TSO + high concentration Diffuse slurry
Modest concentration Low concentration

2 pp g 3] sand slurryy is
ppa [[240 kg/m
We don’t envision thick
wf filtercakes in very tight rock,
about 1 part solids to 7 parts liquid.
Final frac width could be ~1/7th the
but it doesn’t take much to
damage a narrow frac! pumping width!
Navigation menu