Investigation of Flow Behavior of Slickwater in Large Straight and Coiled Tubing
- Subhash N. Shah (University of Oklahoma) | A.H. Ahmed Kamel (University of Oklahoma)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Production & Operations
- Publication Date
- February 2010
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 70 - 79
- 2010. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 2.4.3 Sand/Solids Control, 4.3.1 Hydrates, 4.3.4 Scale, 2.4.5 Gravel pack design & evaluation, 3.2.3 Hydraulic Fracturing Design, Implementation and Optimisation, 2.5.2 Fracturing Materials (Fluids, Proppant), 4.1.2 Separation and Treating
- 0 in the last 30 days
- 826 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Low-damage fracturing fluids are normally used for better fracture-dimension confinement and lower residue. This leads not only to longer fracture lengths, but also to higher fracture conductivity. Slickwater fracturing technology, developed in the 1980s, is less expensive than gel treatments. Fluid and proppant volumes can be reduced, and treatment flow rates can be increased significantly. When compared to conventional gel treatments, slickwater fracturing can generate similar or better production responses.
In frac treatments, slickwater is pumped through straight tubing (ST) and coiled tubing (CT). As a result of secondary flow, frictional pressure losses in CT are higher than in ST. Determining these losses is of the utmost importance for successful treatments. Customarily, laboratory-generated flow data are used to develop correlations to predict frictional pressure loss of fluids flowing in ST and CT. These correlations are then, without verification, applied to field applications, which employ much larger conduit sizes.
The present study is aimed to experimentally investigate the hydraulic properties of a commonly used drag reducer--Nalco ASP-820--in larger tubing sizes. This is a modified partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA). Previously, we reported flow data gathered employing ½-in. ST and CT (varying curvature ratio) and the correlations developed to predict frictional pressure losses of fluids in ST and CT. In this investigation, the large-scale flow data acquired from 200-ft ST and 1,000-, 2,000-, and 3,000-ft, 1½-in. CT, and 1,000-ft 2?- and 2?-in. CT, are compared with the predictions from the correlations developed from ½-in.-pipe data. The effects of shear intensity, shear duration, and pipe roughness on flow properties of the ASP-820 fluid are also investigated.
Results show significantly lower drag reduction in CT than in ST because of secondary flow caused by the CT curvature. Polymer degradation because of shear (shear intensity and duration) and/or tubing roughness can reduce drag reduction significantly. The results are discussed in light of a recently developed "drag-reduction envelope" to evaluate the drag reduction characteristics of slickwater fluid in ST and CT.
|File Size||892 KB||Number of Pages||10|
Berger, S.A., Talbot, L., and Yao, L.S. 1983. Flow in CurvedPipes. Annual Review Fluid Mechanics 15: 461-512.doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.15.010183.002333.
Berman, N.S., Griswold, S.T., Elihu, S., and Yuen, J. 1978. An observation of the effect ofintegral scale on drag reduction. AIChE Journal 24 (1):124-130. doi:10.1002/aic.690240114.
Chen, N.H. 1979. An ExplicitEquation for Friction Factor in Pipe. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamen. 18 (3): 296-297. doi:10.1021/i160071a019.
Gasljevic, K., Aguilar, G., and Matthys, E.F. 2001. On two distinct types ofdrag reducing fluids, diameter scaling and turbulent profile. Journal ofNon-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 96 (3): 405-425.doi:10.1016/S0377-0257(00)00169-5.
Savins, J.G. 1964. Drag ReductionCharacteristics of Solutions of Macromolecules in Turbulent Pipe Flow.SPE J. 4 (3): 203-214; Trans., AIME, 231.SPE-867-PA. doi: 10.2118/867-PA.
Shah, S. and Zhou, Y. 2009. Maximum Drag Reduction Asymptote of PolymericFluid Flow in Coiled Tubing. Journal of Fluids Engineering 131 (1): 011201.1-011201.9.
Shah, S.N., Ahmed K., and Zhou, Y. 2006. Drag reductioncharacteristics in straight and coiled tubing--An experimental study. J.Pet. Sci. Eng. 53 (3-4): 179-188.doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2006.05.004.
Srinivasan, P.S., Nandapurkar, S.S., and Holland, F.A. 1970. FrictionFactors for Coils. Trans. Instn. Chem. Engr. 48:T156-T161.
Toms, B.A. 1948. Some Observations on the Flow of Linear Polymer Solutionsthrough Straight Tubes at Large Reynolds Numbers. Proc., 1stInternational Congress of Rheology, Amsterdam, Sec. II, 135-141.
Virk, P.S. 1975. Dragreduction fundamentals. AIChE Journal 21 (4): 625-656.doi:10.1002/aic.690210402.
Zhou, Y. and Shah, S.N. 2006. New Friction Factor Correlations forNon-Newtonian Fluid Flow in Coiled Tubing. SPE Drill & Compl 21 (1): 68-76. SPE-77960-PA. doi: 10.2118/77960-PA.