SPE 119242

How to Use and Misuse Proppant Crush Tests - Exposing the Top 10 Myths
Terry Palisch, SPE, R. Duenckel, SPE, Mark Chapman, SPE, Scott Woolfolk, CARBO Ceramics, and M.C. Vincent,
SPE, Insight Consulting

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 19–21 January 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
When the American Petroleum Institute established standardized crush testing procedures in 1983 (API RP-56), the
committee indicated that the test results should “provide indications of the stress level where proppant crushing is excessive
and the maximum stress to which the proppant material should be subjected.” However, over time many have forgotten not
only how the test is conducted, but also its original intent. As such, many now misapply the results of crush testing as they
select proppants for their fracture designs.

This paper will review the top ten myths associated with crush testing and its interpretation, addressing such common
questions as:
• Do standard test conditions (high proppant concentration and low temperature) provide realistic predictions
of proppant performance?
• Should proppant be tested wet or dry?
• Does the loading procedure affect crush?
• What happens if proppant is not uniformly distributed in a fracture?
• Do all proppants fail in the same manner?
• Are all proppant types equally damaged by 5% crush?
• How can the industry misuse the test to report “superior” results?

Readers of this paper will be armed with a better understanding of 1) how crush testing is performed, 2) how crush results
can be misapplied and 3) the correct use of crush test results. In addition, the authors will present an alternative methodology
for evaluating proppant which incorporates all of the benefits gained from crush testing, but avoids the common pitfalls.
Armed with this information readers can improve the design of fracture treatments, thereby achieving increased production
rates and superior economic returns.

Introduction
ISO 13503-2 (International Organization for Standardization, 2006), is a compilation of three API Recommended Practices
(RP56, RP58 and RP60), developed and modified by industry committees, and ultimately approved worldwide by
representative countries to evaluate proppant parameters. Contained in these standards are procedures to determine numerous
proppant characteristics, including sieve, shape, acid solubility, turbidity, bulk density, apparent specific gravity and crush.
While these tests have been “developed to improve the quality of proppants delivered to the well site” and to “enable users to
compare the physical characteristics of various proppants”, ultimately “qualified engineering analysis and judgment are
required for their application to a specific situation” (ISO 13503-2). In other words, these standard procedures should be
used to conduct the listed tests, but their results should not be blindly used to select the appropriate proppant.
One of the procedures described by the standard is that of “crush testing”. The original purpose of API RP-56 was to
provide a uniform set of procedures to qualify sand sources for potential use in fracturing. More detailed examination of
sand sources, including conductivity testing, would follow. However, many engineers have come to rely on the reported
proppant crush as a primary criterion in proppant selection. Crush data are reasonably inexpensive to obtain, and are readily
available for most proppants. Crush testing remains a useful tool in some manufacturing and quality control applications.
However, proppant crush results have the potential to be extremely misleading and are widely misunderstood. The following
sections will address the primary myths associated with crush testing and address their significance to the design engineer.
2 SPE 119242

Myth 1 – Proppant Crush Test Procedures Simulate Actual Fracture Conditions

Current crush test procedures are defined and standardized in Section 11 of ISO 130503-2. While explained in more detail in
the ISO document, highlights of the procedures are as follows:
1. The proppant sample is pre-sieved to ensure that the grain sizing is 100% “in-spec” prior to testing. (i.e. if a 20/40
proppant is being tested, all particles larger than 20 Mesh and smaller than 40 Mesh are discarded prior to testing).
This may result in the removal of up to 10% of the particles from some commercial proppants.
2. Proppant is tested at different mass concentrations to yield the same volume for all products. This volume is
equivalent to the volume occupied by standard sand at approximately 4 lb/ft2. A greater mass is specified for dense
proppants to achieve similar initial widths.
3. The crush cell is 2 inches in diameter and 3.5 inches in length, and surfaces have a Rockwell C hardness of at least
43 or better.
4. Proppant is loaded into the cell in such a manner “to obtain a consistent loose pack throughout the cell with a level
surface” (ISO 13503-2). To accomplish this, the source of the proppant stream is to be moved during loading so that
the pack is level. It is also noted that care must be taken to avoid agitation of the cell to avoid disturbing the loose
pack.
5. The top piston is placed onto the proppant pack with minimal disturbance, and rotated 180 degrees to level the pack.
6. After carefully moving the cell into the press, stress is applied at a rate of 2000 psi/min until the target stress is
reached. This constant stress is maintained for 2 minutes.
7. The proppant is dry during the testing and evaluated at ambient temperature.
8. The cell is then removed and the entire contents are sieved. The mass of proppant which falls through the bottom
sieve in the original sieve stack is considered the “crushed material” from the test (i.e. if the sample is a 20/40
proppant, only the material which is smaller than 40 Mesh is reported as crushed material).
9. The mass of crushed material is divided by the total mass to determine the “percent crush” for the sample. It is a
mass percentage, not a representation of the number of particles in each size range.

However, there are numerous aspects of the crush test that do not simulate actual conditions of most fractures, including:
1. Eliminating the proppant from the sample that is not within the specified range. Proppants are typically pumped as
received at the well site, without any further processing.
2. Loading proppant at the equivalent of 4 lb/ft2. Actual fractures often achieve 1 lb/ft2 or lower concentrations.
3. The steel crush cell does not allow for any embedment that occurs when proppant is confined between actual
reservoir rock.
4. Proppant is not “carefully loaded” into a real fracture, but is deposited by a gas or liquid fracturing fluid, leading to a
different packing arrangement.
5. Fracture faces are not smooth parallel steel surfaces, but instead have asperities and discontinuities that may change
the results.
6. In an actual fracture, the proppant is wet with gel, water and/or hydrocarbons when placed into the fracture, and will
reach the temperature of the fracturing fluids or formation.
7. The formation may not close at the rate of 2000 psi/min, and the stress is not relaxed after 2 minutes.

This does not imply that crush tests cannot be used to compare proppants. However, caution should be used to ensure
that a proppant is not disqualified (or chosen) due to unrealistic conditions. Each of the above concerns affects the amount of
crushed material that is generated for a given proppant, and affects different proppants to differing degrees. Some of these
will be illustrated in subsequent myths.
SPE 119242 3

Myth 2 – Crush Test Results have Good

16/30 Brown Sand Hand Loaded Weight Percent Crush at 4000psi
Repeatability Provided the ISO Procedures 26
are Followed 24
Test#1
Test#2
Throughout the crush procedures, the ISO committee 22
Test#3
notes the importance of the cell loading technique. 20
Notes such as “avoid agitation” and “do not shake or 18
jar the cell” are prevalent, because “variance in crush

Percent Crush
16 14.8% Avg

results have been largely associated with the method 14

of loading the crush cell”. In 2007 the ISO “crush” 12

subcommittee joined with Stim-Lab to investigate the 10

effects of the loading procedure. Eleven different 8

companies performed crush tests on common samples 6

4
of several different types and sizes of proppant. A
2
single source of 16/30 Brown Sand was carefully split

10.95
10.63

24.29
23.60
25.21

16.70
14.60
16.70

17.86
14.71
24.52

18.45
17.52
15.74

10.10

24.75
23.29
23.26

18.43
19.88
17.78
9.18

9.80
9.20

6.42
5.92
6.04

8.60
8.90
8.40

9.10
9.50
9.10
0
to obtain identical samples which were sent to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
eleven companies for crush testing using ISO methods Lab Number
at 4000 psi. Each company performed and reported
Figure 1 – Comparison of crush reported by various labs. A common
the tests in triplicate (Figure 1). Although each sample of 16/30 Brown Sand was tested at 4000 psi using the ISO
company presumably used consistent procedures, procedures and loading the cell by hand.
technicians, and equipment in all three replicates,
varying results were obtained within individual 16/30 Brown Sand Mechanical Loaded Weight Percent Crush at
companies (see Company 1 and 4 in Figure 1). 18 4000psi
Test#1
Furthermore, the difference between labs using the 16 Test#2
same procedures varied by a factor of four, with a high
Test#3
of ~25% to a low of ~6%. This variation led Stim-Lab 14

to test a mechanical loading device in an attempt to 12

Percent Crush

reduce loading anomalies. While the elimination of 10.0% Avg

10
the “human element” did appear to reduce variation,
there were still instances in which a single lab reported 8
poor repeatability (Company 2 in Figure 2) and
6
overall crush results between companies still varied by
25%. When the two techniques are compared, the 4
average of the triplicate tests still vary significantly
2
depending on which method and lab is used (Figure 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
3). Note that all tests performed in Figures 1-3 0
conform to ISO standard procedures. Proppant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Lab Number
loading procedures significantly affect reported results
and the Stim-Lab consortium continues to analyze and Figure 2 – Even with a mechanical loading device, reported crush
varied by laboratory. Identical split samples of 16/30 Brown Sand
address this subject. As of this writing, it is clear that were provided to each lab for testing at 4000 psi.
an operator evaluating a proppant sample would
receive different crush measurements by different 16/30 Brown Sand Hand vs. Mechanical Loaded Avg Crush at 4000psi
laboratories, leading to potential errors in 26
24 Hand Loaded
determination of proppant suitability.
22 Mechanical Loaded

20
18
Percent Crush

16 14.8% Avg

14
12
10.0% Avg
10
8
6
Not performed

4
2
10.25

24.37
12.34

16.00
12.27

19.03
10.67

17.24

23.77
10.22

18.70

10.50
9.48

9.82

9.70
7.99

6.13

8.63
8.33

8.08

9.23

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Lab Number

Figure 3 – Crush values averaged from triplicate tests show variation

by laboratory and by loading procedure (Figures 1 and 2 combined).
 4 SPE 119242

Myth 3 – Crush Testing represents the

100%
White Sand
Packing Arrangement of Real World
Crush at 1000 psi
90% All 20/40 Proppants RCS Proppant Packs
ELWC With fractures hundreds or thousands of feet
80% Bauxite Ceramic
in extent growing through laminated
70% formations with varying closure stresses, it is
60%
likely that some areas would be imperfectly
filled with proppant [Vincent, 2009], putting
% Crush

50% many grains in arrangements that will cause

40%
increased stress concentration beyond the
ideal laboratory procedures. While it may
30%
2
not be possible to examine all possible
1 lb/ft
20% 2 2
Sand &
proppant arrangements in laboratory tests,
1 lb/ft 1 lb/ft
Bauxite ELWC RCS variable layer crush data are useful to
10% provide a conceptual understanding
0%
regarding the degree of damage that can be
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 expected in non-uniform distributions.
# of Layers
Figures 4a and 4b illustrate that the number
100% of proppant grains and layers greatly affects
Crush at 10,000 psi
20/40 Proppants
White Sand the reported crush. Throughout this paper,
90%
ELWC
“White Sand” denotes high quality Ottawa
RCS
80% sand, “RCS” denotes a pre-cured, fully
Bauxite Ceramic
70%
tempered white sand with 2% resin coating,
“ELWC” denotes an economy light weight
1 lb/ft2
60%
Sand &
ceramic, and “bauxite” denotes a high
% Crush

50%
RCS strength ceramic proppant. As proppants
1 lb/ft
2 approach a single or partial layer, the
40% Bauxite 1 lb/ft
2 measured crush of the proppant is elevated,
ELWC even at stresses as low as 1000 psi (Figure
30%
4a). If testing between parallel steel pistons
20% is representative, this suggests that aperture
restrictions in the fracture or any areas
10%
receiving low proppant concentrations may
0% experience tremendous stress concentration
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 on the proppant grains and high levels of
# of Layers
Figures 4a & 4b – Crush values for four different 20/40 proppants (Sand, RCS, proppant failure. Recall that in a traditional
ELWC and Bauxite) at 1000 and 10,000 psi at various number of layers. crush test, all proppants are evaluated at the
equivalent of 4 lb/ft2, masking this
phenomenon. Conductivity data measured by Fredd et al (2001) with 1.0 lb/ft and 0.1 lb/ft2 proppant packs corroborate that
2

proppant strength is challenged in progressively narrower fractures, even when tested between sandstone cores.

While there is debate regarding whether partial monolayers can be reliably achieved over large portions of a created frac,
even if they can be successfully placed the stress concentrated on individual proppant grains will be enormous. For
reference, a full monolayer of 20/40 sand/RCS/LWC is ~ 0.2 lb/ft2. Even if a partial monolayer is not intentionally designed,
low particle concentrations may be inadvertently achieved under some of the following conditions:
• Dilated fracture width is greater than one proppant diameter, but less than two, preventing placement of a multi-
layer pack
• Fractures are allowed to close upon diffuse slurries containing low concentrations of proppant suspended in viscous
fluids that provide adequate suspension until closure.
• Proppant density is close to the density of the fracturing fluids, and diffuse slurries are suspended until closure.
• In regions of the fracture, rough fracture faces, “stair-stepped”, “T-shaped” fractures, or width restrictions at
reservoir lamina inhibit proppant transport and may result in low proppant concentrations in specific locations.
SPE 119242 5

Myth 4 – Crush Test Results from Wide (ISO) Proppant

Crush increases significantly in narrow Packs are Applicable to Typical Narrow Fractures
When proppant grains are loaded into a crush cell, particles can
fractures in the crush cell
be categorized as interior or exterior grains. Grains in the interior
Interior grains are loaded of the pack are generally in contact with six to twelve neighboring
“evenly” on 6 sides grains, providing uniform stress distribution. However, exterior
Exterior grains are not grains have fewer contact points leading to greater force
stressed uniformly magnification (Figure 5). For this reason, exterior grains
experience greater damage in the crush cell. Therefore, as
Recall the Crush Test is proppant pack width (proppant concentration) decreases, crush
done at ~4 lb/ft2 – very wide increases, because the exterior grains comprise a larger
percentage of the total grains (Figure 6). Notice that this
Figure 5 – Exterior grains have fewer contact (load) points phenomenon occurs regardless of whether the proppant is a Sand,
than interior grains, resulting in increased damage to Resin Coated Sand or Ceramic. A premium white 20/40 sand,
exterior grains relative to exterior.
may exhibit 12% crush when a proppant pack containing 4 lb/ft2
is tested, but may demonstrate over 20% crush if evaluated at 1
25.0 lb/ft2. Precured resin coated sand and ceramic, normally
RCS considered to to provide adequate strength at 6000 psi can
ELWC demonstrate a doubling in crush as the proppant concentration is
20.0
Sand
reduced in the crush cell. Fracture width has a large impact on
Crush % 6k

15.0 measured proppant crush and results reported from wide fractures
(like the crush test) may mislead operators wishing to understand
10.0 proppant performance in realistically narrow fractures. Notice
that the standard ISO crush tests are conducted on proppant packs
5.0 at the equivalent of 4 lb/ft2, and ISO conductivity tests are
performed at 2 lb/ft2. It is believed that many actual fractures
0.0
achieve less than 1 lb/ft2; neither of the standard tests perfectly
1 2 4
Crush Cell Loading, lb/ft2 represents downhole conditions.
Figure 6 – Crush values for three different 20/40
proppants (ELWC, RCS and Sand) at 6000 psi and various
proppant concentrations.

Myth 5 – Large Particles are Weaker than Small Particles

One common misunderstanding is the effect of particle size on particle strength. Standard crush tests indicate that larger
diameter proppants experience much higher crush under identical closure stress than smaller particles of the same material.
Figure 7 illustrates that as the sieve size for a lightweight ceramic increases, so does the reported crush at a common stress.
Regardless of proppant type, this trend is observed – as proppant diameter is increased, the reported crush of the proppant
pack increases.
This leads many to mistakenly conclude that large particles are inherently weaker than small particles. However, single
pellet crush testing belies this conclusion. Figure 8 plots the pounds of force required to induce failure of a single proppant
particle, and indicates that large particles are actually stronger than small particles. Although data are plotted compared to a
straight line, it has long been recognized that for perfect spheres of uniform material strength, the force theoretically required
p
to rupture a sphere is related to the diameter squared [Spon & Spon, 1874].
80.00
18
crush one pellet

70.00 y = 1488.2x - 18.714

16 2
R = 0.7765
60.00
14
Percent Crush

50.00
12
CPF

40.00
10
Pounds of Force to

30.00
8
6 20.00 12/18

4 10.00 16/20
20/40
2 0.00
0.0000 0.0100 0.0200 0.0300 0.0400 0.0500 0.0600
0
30/50 LWC 20/40 LWC 16/20 LWC 12/18 LWC Proppant Size inches

Figure 7 – Crush values for four different sized LWC proppants Figure 8 – Single pellet/grain crush tests for various sized
at 7500 psi. lightweight ceramics (courtesy of Stim-Lab Consortium).
6 SPE 119242

So why are packs comprised of larger, stronger particles

more vulnerable to crush than smaller particles? There are
two primary mechanisms that explain this apparent
contradiction. First, it is important to recognize that a
constant volume of proppant is used in standard tests.
Therefore, when testing smaller particles, the applied closure
stress is distributed over many more individual particles than
when testing large diameter proppant (Figure 9). Although
large particles are stronger, the reduction in the number of
grains results in greater force concentration and increased
crush. Second, a pack composed of small particles will
contain many more layers of proppant than one containing
large particles. As shown previously, the more layers of
proppant tested, the lower the percentage of exterior grains
present, which will in turn improve the reported crush
performance of the pack (see Myth #4, Figure 5).
Figure 9 – Crush tests are performed using a constant volume
of proppant. Larger particles provide fewer contact points to
distribute the stress load.

Myth 6 –Resin Coating Improves Particle Strength

Most proppants can be resin coated. Resin coating is typically specified for one of two reasons – 1) a curable resin can be
used to coat any substrate to reduce proppant flowback, and 2) a precured resin can be used to “extend the stress” at which a
proppant can be applied. Note that standard ISO crush procedures do not apply to curable resin coated proppants as they
have the ability to cold-flow and bond together in the crush cell. The resulting consolidated wafer falls outside the test scope
(ISO 13503-2:2006/DAM 1), and therefore the discussion in this section will focus on precured resin coated proppants and
uncoated proppants. When a resin coated proppant is tested, the results typically show that the “crush” for a resin coated
proppant is substantially lower than for the uncoated substrate (Figure 6). This leads to a popular misconception that resin
adds strength to the proppant particle. However, as shown in Figure 10, adding resin to Jordan Sand did not improve the
individual grain strength. Rather, the resin coating tends to consolidate any fines generated by the failed proppant substrate
when the proppant crushes. So when a crush test is performed on a resin-coated proppant, while the proppant grains may still
break, the fines generated by the crushed proppant are 160
CPFfailure of single grain

“encapsulated” in the resin, and therefore generally do not fall

140 The application of resin
through the bottom screen and are not reported. The low
does NOT improve
reported crush value is often misinterpreted, as many assume 120
grain strength.
that means the resin coated particles did not crush. Although 100
CarboLite
LWC
Hickory
encapsulation of proppant fines is a laudable achievement, as IDC
Interprop
it reduces the potential for fines migration and plugging, the 80
Applied Force to reach

CoSilica
collapse of proppant particles can still result in compaction 60
Jordan
Prem RCS
ResinPR
and grain rearrangement – resulting in loss of porosity
40
(Figure 11) and corresponding conductivity despite minimal
reported crush. 20

While a resin coating does not add appreciable strength

0
to individual proppant grains, resin may reduce overall 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
damage to a proppant pack. Resin coatings can alter packing Proppant Size, inches

arrangements, and increase the area of contact between

Figure 10 – Single pellet crush tests of various proppants
adjacent grains, providing for better stress distribution and (courtesy of Stim-Lab Consortium).
reduced proppant damage. For curable (or partially cured)
resin coated proppants, if it were possible to place the proppant in the fracture and allow it to cure prior to experiencing full
closure stress, the overall strength of the proppant pack might be further improved, as bonded grains can provide mutual
support. However, to fully capitalize on this benefit, the closure stress would be limited (ideally to ~1000 psi confining
stress) for many hours following the fracturing treatment. While it is thought achievable in some fields, many operators
hesitate to defer production for adequate time to allow complete curing prior to initiating production and subjecting proppant
to full closure stress. Resin coated proppants are recognized to provide significant benefits in flowback prevention, and in
conductivity improvement, however, the mechanism of conductivity enhancement is widely misinterpreted as strengthening
of individual particles.
SPE 119242 7

Myth 7 – All Proppants Crush in the Same Manner

When comparing crush results of different proppants, many
mistakenly believe that if two products each have 5% crush 12/20 Brown Sand at
they will perform similarly. However, this assumption 6000 psi.
ignores two critical issues. The first is that all proppants do
not crush in the same manner, as shown in Figure 11. Quartz
sand breaks similarly to glass – if you drop a glass on
pavement, it will shatter in numerous pieces. Likewise, when
sand crushes it produces numerous small shards and particles,
sometimes referred to as “fines”. Ceramic proppants behave
more similarly to a brick – if you drop a brick on the
pavement it will cleave into fewer, larger pieces. As Resin Coated
Sand at 8000 psi.
discussed in Myth #6, a resin coating cannot prevent all
substrate damage, but many shards can be encapsulated
within the resin, limiting the migration of fines. All three Intermediate Density
phenomena can be seen in Figure 11. Ceramic at 8000 psi.
In addition, recall that the reported “crush” value for a
proppant only indicates one thing – the mass (percentage) of Figure 11 – Cross sectional photos of three proppants under
the proppant falling through the bottom screen after crushing. stress in the conductivity cell (courtesy of Stim-Lab
It says nothing of how much proppant is actually broken but Consortium).
remains larger than the bottom screen, or the actual size distribution of the material reported as crush. For example, if two
proppants, one an Economy Lightweight Ceramic (ELWC) and the other a high quality White Sand, are crushed at 6000 psi
using ISO procedures, the reported crush for these materials are 2% (ELWC) and 12% (Sand). But this only depicts part of
the story. Figure 12 indicates that size distribution
or profile of those broken particles are very different. 75
After crushing 20/40 ELWC
Nearly 60% of the reported “2% fines” generated by 59 and White Sand at 6000 psi,
Weight Percent of total

the ELWC still remain larger than the 50 Mesh the ELWC has 2% crush
crushed material

screen, while only 10% are smaller than 100 mesh (<40 Mesh) and the White
50 44 Sand has 12%.
(with none small enough to reach the pan). In
contrast, the fines generated by the White Sand are
smaller. Only 44% of the reported “12% fines” from
the crushed White Sand remain on the 50 Mesh 21 22
25
13
10 12
screen and 22% are smaller than 100 mesh (with 4%
small enough to reach the pan). Remember, when a 6 4 5 4
proppant has 2% reported crush, this could mean that 0
of every 100 particles, 2 particles have cleaved or 2 0
-40/+50 -50/+70 -70/+100 -100/+200 -200/+325 Pan
particles have shattered into many fragments. The Figure 12 – Distribution of particle sizes of the crushed fraction of 20/40
reported mass crush is identical, but the conductivity ELWC and 20/40 White Sand after 6000 psi ISO Crush Test.
ramifications can be very different. Lower strength
proppants will not only have greater total crush, but will result in a greater proportion of small fragments [Schubarth &
Milton-Tayler, 2004]. As reported by Cutler et al (1985), “it is apparent…that direct conductivity comparisons cannot be
made…on the basis of crushing tests or the fines generated during a conductivity test.”

Myth 8 – Damage Induced by Proppant Fines Affects all Proppants Similarly

Fines can be generated from spalled formation or crushed proppant, and both are likely present in all fractures. Although
these fines may cause damage when plugging pore throats within a proppant pack, the magnitude of this damage will be
governed by the pack’s ability to handle/transmit these fines. Therefore, one key to understanding this damage is the size of
the fines relative to the size of the pore throats of the proppant pack. Generally, three things can happen: 1) The fines are too
large to pass through pore throats – large formation grains fail to enter the pack and large proppant fines “stay put” where
they were generated, 2) the fines are so small that they pass through the pack into the wellbore and 3) the fines are small
enough to be semi-mobile in the pack, but large enough to eventually plug a pore throat.
Many studies have been conducted to examine particle movement through porous media - mostly in support of gravel
pack and fracpack optimization. With theoretically perfect spheres in close order hexagonal packing the minimum pore
throat aperture will accommodate passage of a sphere 15.5% the diameter of the proppant. Saucier (1974) confirmed this
ratio experimentally, showing that formation sand generally cannot enter into a proppant pack if the proppant grains are ~6x
greater than the diameter of the formation sand. By analogy, one may infer that broken proppant particles which retain >15%
of their original diameter will be trapped within the pore structure and cannot migrate. Work by Gidley et al (1992) showed
that crushed sand particles smaller than 100 mesh were partially mobile in 20/40 sand packs, and would concentrate in the
downstream portion of proppant packs. However, in tests conducted to examine tail-in treatments, if the pore throat aperture
in the downstream proppant were reduced by adding a resin coating, fines would be trapped at the proppant interface and
8 SPE 119242

would not penetrate the downstream 20/40 RCS. Conversely, when the downstream pore throats were made larger by
substituting a 16/20 ceramic, no fines were captured in the larger proppant – they all flowed cleanly through the pack. These
data provide some confirmation that particles larger than 15% of the proppant size are immobile. Particles smaller than ~5%
of the proppant size may travel through typical proppant packs. Although the theoretical maximum is 15.5% for perfect
spheres of perfectly uniform size, without crush, gel damage or any other hindrances, it may be appropriate to use ~10% for
high quality, tightly sieved ceramic proppant under actual operating conditions. For 20/40 sand, it appears that crushed
particles larger than 100 mesh should be considered immobile, particles smaller than 300 mesh (silica flour) likely can travel
through the pack into the well, and particles between 100 and 300 mesh may be particularly problematic if they migrate and
progressively plug pore throats.

Particles too large to pass through pore throats

As shown in Figures 11 and 12, many broken
grains are simply cleaved, and the particles are
too large to rearrange or move any significant
1
distance within the pack. Although any
proppant damage is undesirable, this does not
cause nearly the damage as a similar mass of
small particles that migrate and plug many
dozens of pore throats. It is also clear that the
initial particle arrangement has an enormous
impact on the flow capacity. In other words, the
ceramic pack shown in Figure 13 provides
significant flow capacity despite the visual
evidence that 12 of the 44 visible grains were
damaged. Although this indicates that 27% of
the pellets were damaged, many particles
cleaved into approximate hemispheres and the
resulting fragments may remain too large to fall
through the sieve and be reported as crush. Figure 13 – Cross-sectional photo of 20/40 Intermediate Density Ceramic after
Typically at this stress, the manufacturer of this 10,000 psi stress. Red dots on the duplicated right panel indicate damaged
Intermediate Density Ceramic (IDC) reports particles (courtesy of Stim-Lab).
2.2% to 2.5% crush when tested by API
standards on a 4 lb/sq ft pack. [Norton, (1996-2004)]. Despite a large number of broken particles, it is evident that most
fragments were immobile, and were not displaced even during injection of epoxy in preparation for thin section photographs.
Simply determining the proportion of damaged grains fails to indicate the resulting flow capacity. Likewise, disassembling
the pack, sieving to determine the percent crush and reassembling will result in a much reduced flow capacity. The pieces
can never be reassembled into as advantageous of an arrangement as initially obtained. For these reasons, the post-crush
sieve distribution has very little correlation to measured conductivity. Similarly, efforts to assemble “synthetic” proppant
mixtures with a size distribution similar to the post-crush particles does not provide good correlation with measured
conductivity.

Particles that are small enough to pass cleanly through an intact proppant pack
When broken particles are small enough relative to the proppant (e.g. 300 mesh particles in a 20/40 proppant pack) the fines
should be able to travel through a clean fracture and will often be produced into the wellbore and surface facilities. These
very small fines may have minimal impact on retained fracture conductivity, although in some instances excessive formation
fines production may cause operational concerns. Uniformly sized particles and thorough gel cleanup reduce the variation in
the effective aperture of the pore throats and may increase production of proppant fines or formation fines to surface. Lab
data indicate that more highly damaged packs with variable size/shape of proppant particles will capture a greater percentage
of these fines [Saucier, 1974].
SPE 119242 9

Particles of intermediate size, which are likely to migrate and

plug pore throats
It is the particles of intermediate size which have the greatest
potential to most significantly decrease the conductivity of a
proppant pack. Particles that are small enough to travel
through multiple pore throats, but eventually encounter a pore
throat of inadequate aperture will migrate some distance within
the pack but eventually bridge/plug. In this case the
conductivity damage will depend on the volume of particles
present in this size range. The greater the number of proppant
or formation fines in this size range, the larger the damage.
Many reference work performed by Coulter & Wells
[1972] (Figure 14) to illustrate the effect of adding fines to a
proppant pack. In the experiment, the addition of just 5% fines
to a 1 lb/ft2 20/40 Brady Sand pack at 3500 psi reduced flow
capacity by 65%. While this illustration serves as a stark
reminder of the potential effects of fines damage in a proppant
pack, caution must be used when trying to extrapolate these
results to other proppant packs. Using this chart to estimate
conductivity loss in another proppant pack, one must make the
following assumptions (which were the basis/conditions for
Coulter’s experiment):
1) All crushed particles are equivalent to 60/100 Mesh
Sand. Figure 14 – The effect on flow capacity of adding 60/100
2) The pore geometry of a 20/40 Brady at 3500 psi is fines to a sand pack (Coulter et al, SPE 3298).
identical to the product of interest.
3) Fines are equally damaging to all types of proppants (i.e. Sand, RCS, Ceramic, etc.).
4) Fines will be evenly distributed throughout the proppant pack, and trapped within the pore bodies as in this test.

In fact, rarely are any of these conditions met in actual fractures. Crushed proppant always provides a distribution of
particle sizes extending beyond 60-100 mesh [Myth #7]. The pore structure of proppants varies with proppant type and
closure stress [Figures 11 and 13]. The addition of fines will impose different degrees of damage on other proppant types,
as McDaniel & Willingham (1978) have reported a 25-50% conductivity loss when mixing 5% 100-mesh sand to 20/40 sand,
and Stim-Lab (2007) showed less than 30% damage when 50/170 and 170/270 sand particles were mixed with 20/40 bauxite.
Fines will not be evenly distributed throughout the pack based on increased crushing near the fracture faces [Myth #4] and
migration of small particles [Myth #8]. Although Figure 14 is a useful example of the potential damage fines may cause
within a proppant pack, it should not be used to draw direct conclusions about the magnitude of the damage for a different
proppant pack. The only way to successfully determine that is to perform a conductivity test, which will be discussed in later
sections.
6k Crush @ 2#/ft2

Myth 9 – One Crush Test Condition 35

(Ambient, Hot, Wet, Dry, etc) Provides 30
Sand
ELWC
Adequate Understanding of Proppant 25 RCS
Damage
Crush %

20
As described in the Myth #1, crush testing is
merely one technique used to characterize 15

proppant. There are numerous shortcomings of the 10

test procedure itself, including unrealistic proppant 5
concentration (4 lb/ft2 equivalent), steel shims (as
0
opposed to reservoir rock), uniform proppant 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
distribution, controlled stress application, ambient rotate do not cell with water with load into then load 200F dry 200F wet
temperature, and dry proppant, to name a few. piston rotate
piston
mineral oil cell into cell

Remember that the goal of the test is to be able to

perform relatively quick, simple, repeatable tests to Figure 15 – Although proppant concentration and stress are unchanged,
obtain a qualitative comparison between proppants, the procedure used to load proppant into the conductivity cell can
or to verify that proppant received on location is in dramatically alter the proppant crush [Note that all tests were done at the
some manner similar to that which was advertised. equivalent of 2 lb/ft2 – to match the Conductivity testing].
As will be shown later, using crush results for
proppant selection is not advisable. In addition, attempts to make the test “more realistic” can have the effect of complicating
the procedure and increasing variability of the results. Figure 15 shows the effects of several potential loading changes on
10 SPE 119242

three different proppants. Notice that the procedure selected can make a given proppant look better or worse, despite the fact
that they are performed on identical proppant samples at identical proppant concentration and stress. Determining which test
protocol is most appropriate may be more dependent on the desired outcome than on similarity to realistic proppant
arrangements achieved in a fracture. For example, although wet crush testing appears to be a logical improvement to more
closely correlate with actual fracturing, it is key to recognize that the sequence to when the water is added to the cell affects
the outcome. It is believed that when damp proppant is added to a conductivity cell, surface tension holds particles in
different packing arrangements. In effect, you are building a sand castle – and surface tension does not allow grains to reach
the same packing density – resulting in increased crush. On the other hand, if proppant is moistened with mineral oil, or
some other lubricant, particles pack more tightly and reported crush is reduced. It is not clear that either test more accurately
represents the packing arrangement achieved in actual fractures, in which particles are deposited by a dynamic moving fluid,
or where fractures close upon suspended slurries. Furthermore, it is unclear that any of the procedures shown in Figure 15
are more realistic than another, and the uncertainty and variability of the results once again illustrates why end users must
exercise extreme caution when trying to use crush tests to directly predict or compare the flow capability of two proppants.

Myth 10 – Proppant Crush Test Results can be Correlated with Conductivity

Perhaps the most important misconception regarding reported crush results is that they can be accurately used to predict
proppant conductivity. Being mindful of the previous nine myths, it is important to recognize the differences between the
standard ISO 13503-2 crush test and the standard ISO 13503-5
Post Conductivity Crush vs ISO Crush
conductivity test. The standard conductivity test: 60

1) Evaluates the proppant as received (does not remove “out ELWC

PC RCS
of spec” proppant)
White Sand
2) Tests an equivalent mass loading of 2 lb/ft2 (more 50
2
realistic than 4 lb/ft )
3) Compresses the proppant between sandstone shims (not
40
steel)
Post Conductivity Crush

4) Flows water through the proppant pack (not dry)

5) Typically evaluates ceramic and resin coated proppants at 30
250°F and uncoated sand at 150°F (not room
temperature)
6) Maintains the stress for 50 hours prior to measurement 20

(not two minutes)

10
Due to these differences, proppant behavior in the
conductivity cell can be significantly different than in the crush
cell. To illustrate, ISO crush and conductivity tests were 0
performed on split samples of three popular 20/40 proppants. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Standard procedures were followed, except that for consistency, ISO Crush

all conductivity tests were performed at 250ºF. After the Figure 16 – The conductivity test imposes significantly
conductivity tests were completed, proppants were removed from greater proppant damage than the crush test.
the cells and the “crush” was evaluated for each proppant (all
particles smaller than 40 Mesh were considered 6k Crush Results vs Crush after Conductivity Testing at 6k psi
fines). As shown in Figure 16, significantly 45
greater proppant damage is experienced in the 40 Sand
conductivity cell than in the steel crush cell. This 35 ELWC

should not be a surprise given the numerous RCS

30
Crush %

differences between the two tests listed 25

previously. In fact, when one superimposes the 20
percent fines measured after standard 15
conductivity testing at 6000 psi upon the previous 10
Figure 15 in which proppants were tested in the 5
steel crush press at the same stress and 0
concentration (2 lb/ft2), with the exception of two 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
ELWC results, the actual crush measured in the rotate do not cell with water with load into then load 200F dry 200F wet
piston rotate mineral oil cell into cell
conductivity cell for all three proppants is much piston
higher than measured under any of the various
crush procedures (Figure 17). Moreover, the Figure 17 – Total proppant damage observed following a 50-hour
“crush” of the 20/40 RCS measured after conductivity test is much higher for Sand and RCS than any of the
conductivity testing was nearly twice as high as previous short term techniques shown in Figure 15. The dashed lines
the 20/40 ELWC, whereas for many of the ISO represent the percent fines measured after sieving the contents of the
conductivity cell. All testing at 6000 psi stress.
crush tests the RCS had a lower reported crush.
SPE 119242 11

Clearly the performance of the three proppants tested in the conductivity cell does not appear to correlate with any of the
previous crush test procedures.
Conductivity and crush testing was also performed on these same proppants at 8000 psi. Figure 18 consolidates the
conductivity of the three proppants at both 6000 and 8000 psi. Also shown are three sets of “crush” data for each proppant –
standard ISO crush results (at 4 lb/ft2), ISO crush results but at 2 lb/ft2 (to match the conductivity test) and the fines collected
following completion of the conductivity test. Whether using ISO crush at 4 lb/ft2 or modified to 2 lb/ft2, the crush results do
not predict conductivity. In this case the 20/40 ELWC had over three times the crush at 8000 psi as it did at 6000 psi, yet the
conductivity dropped by ~33%., Meanwhile the ISO crush for the 20/40 RCS only increased by 15% yet the conductivity
dropped by almost 20%. Furthermore, the ISO crush for the 20/40 Sand increased by 25% but the conductivity decreased by
over 60%. It does not matter which crush measurement is utilized; clearly the conductivity can not be predicted using those
values. This chart further illustrates why it is inappropriate to use Figure 14 to predict the effect that fines have on the flow
capacity of a proppant pack.

5000
ISO Crush: 2.1% ELWC
4500
ISO at 2 ppsf: 4.3% PC RCS
Cond Test: 8%
4000 White Sand

3500
ISO Crush: 7.2%
ISO Conductivity, mD-ft

ISO at 2 ppsf: 9.6%

3000
Cond Test: 17%

2500

2000

1500 ISO Crush: 2.2%

ISO at 2 ppsf: 2.7% ISO Crush: 12.1% ISO Crush: 4.6%
Cond Test: 13% ISO at 2 ppsf: 15.6% ISO at 2 ppsf: 5.4%
1000 Cond Test: 43% Cond Test: 22% ISO Crush: 19.4%
ISO at 2 ppsf: 24.5%
500 Cond Test: 53%

0
Evaluated at 6000 psi Evaluated at 8000 psi

Figure 18 – Conductivity results for three 20/40 proppants at 6000 and 8000 psi. Captions above columns indicate the crush
2 2
which would be reported by traditional ISO procedure (4 lb/ft ), ISO testing at 2 lb/ft in the crush cell, and proppant fines
2
observed after disassembling the conductivity cell (2 lb/ft ).

Therefore, while there is no doubt that fines ISO Permeability vs ISO Crush
250
and crushed proppant impact the flow capacity of
ELWC
a proppant pack and will have an adverse impact
PC RCS
on conductivity, one must be very careful when
200 White Sand
drawing conclusions about overall conductivity
performance differences from just one parameter
(such as crush). It is obvious from Figure 19 that
150
ISO Permeability, D

crush is detrimental to conductivity, but the

relationship is impossible to quantify using ISO
crush results alone. In Figure 19, the ISO crush
100
percentages are from the standard crush
conditions (4 lb/ft2), and the permeability is from
the standard conductivity conditions (2 lb/ft2).
50
Clearly, it is erroneous to draw a single
relationship between reported crush and proppant
conductivity.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
ISO Crush

Figure 19 – Permeability (via the ISO Conductivity test) compared to ISO

Crush for three 20/40 proppants. Both tests at 6000 psi.
12 SPE 119242

However, is this lack of correlation due the

difference in proppant loading? Figure 20 Permeability vs ISO Crush Results at Comparable Concentration
compares the measured proppant permeability 350
ELWC
against the crush that would be reported if the PC RCS
crush cell were loaded at the same mass 300 White Sand
concentration of the conductivity cell for
measurement of permeability. Note that in this 250
figure, data includes tests at both 1 lb/ft2 and 2
lb/ft2, and at 6000 and 8000 psi. Once again, 200

Permeability, D
there is very little correlation that would allow
construction of a reliable algorithm to predict
150
permeability from reported crush.
The inability to predict proppant permeability
100
from reported crush is not limited to ELWC, RCS
and Sand. Figure 21 shows the conductivity of
two different Intermediate Density proppants at a 50

range of stresses. While both proppants are 20/40

and have similar densities, Proppant Blue has 0
lower crush than Proppant Red at 10,000 psi 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ISO Crush at Comparable Concentration
(3.7% vs 8.6%). Proppant Blue also has the
advantage of a larger mean particle diameter Figure 20 – Permeability (via the conductivity test) compared to crush for
(MPD). However, Proppant Red has a higher three 20/40 proppants, when the crush test is performed at the same
conductivity than Proppant Blue at all stresses concentration as the corresponding Conductivity test.
tested, with 60% higher conductivity at 10,000 psi
despite having over twice the crush and smaller MPD. One could easily be tempted to choose Proppant Blue given the
superior crush results, when in reality Proppant Red has higher flow capacity at the ISO/Baseline Conductivity test
conditions.
While both types of tests require specialized equipment, more laboratories are equipped with a crush press than a
conductivity apparatus due to expense and complexity of the latter equipment. Furthermore, crush tests can be performed in
15 minutes whereas a conductivity test will require a minimum of 3 days for a single stress. Of course this tempts many to
propose the use of less expensive crush
Comparison of Two Different 20/40 IDC Proppants
10000 tests to infer proppant performance.
However, as demonstrated, this is not
Proppant Red
advisable, and instead, conductivity testing
8000
ISO 13503-5 Conductivity (mD-ft)

20/40 Mesh should be used. There is little doubt that

MPD 685 μm
ASG 3.32 g/cc
standard conductivity measurements have
6000
10k Crush - 8.6% their limitations, and can be made
increasingly realistic to incorporate the
effects of non-Darcy, multiphase flow,
Proppant Blue
4000 stress cycling, gel damage, and other
20/40 Mesh
MPD 731 μm conditions likely to be experienced in
ASG 3.34 g/cc
2000
10k Crush - 3.7% actual fractures [Palisch, 2007]. Ultimately
a good estimate of the flow capacity of the
fracture is required to optimize fracture
0 design and proppant selection. It is
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Stress (psi) therefore more desirable to use the direct
measurement of proppant flow capacity
Figure 21 – Conductivity comparison between two different IDC proppants,
showing the proppant with the highest crush also has the highest conductivity. (i.e. conductivity) rather than some indirect
proxy such as crush.
SPE 119242 13

How to Misuse and/or Misapply Crush Test Results

Since crush tests do not directly measure flow capacity of a proppant pack, it is possible to misuse or misapply their results.
Stated more plainly, if crush results are used to select proppant, instead of a conductivity test, it is improbable that the
resulting treatment will be optimized.. Many crush test results are
misleading and counter-intuitive. To illustrate, suppose you were
given the choice of the two proppants shown in Table 1 to use in Proppant A Proppant B
your frac design. Also assume that it has been proven that both
proppants can be successfully placed, and your well has an effective
Size: 16/20 16/40
stress of 7500 psi. Which proppant should you choose? You might Type: LWC LWC
be tempted to choose Proppant B since it has a lower crush value,
ASG: 2.70 2.70
but Proppant A appears to have a tighter sieve. What if you were
told that Proppant A was the same price as Proppant B…would that 7.5k Crush: 14% 7.5%
change your answer? Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is
what is the conductivity of each proppant at 7500 psi. Ironically, Table 1 – The ISO labeling for two proppants -
they both have the same conductivity because, they are the same Proppant A and Proppant B.
product. How can the same product have two different crush
values? That’s simple. Recall how the crush test is performed – only the product that falls through the bottom screen is
considered “crushed material”. In this case, the label on Proppant A was changed from 16/20 to 16/40 (this is allowable
since >90% of the proppant will still fall between the 16 and 40 mesh screen). But when the size label changed, the bottom
screen for the crush test was reduced to the 40 Mesh screen, effectively halving the amount of material that fell to the pan.
So the reported crush can be manipulated by simply changing the size distribution label.
While this may seem extreme, it illustrates what can happen when just a crush test is used for selection. There are many
things that can be done to effectively reduce the amount of crush reported in an ISO crush test. But, they don’t always
change the proppant conductivity, or worse, many times these actions may actually hurt conductivity. The following “quiz”
illustrates the concept. Ask yourself what effect each action below will have on the reported crush and conductivity
performance of the proppant pack:
1) Action: Rename a 16/20 proppant to 16/40.
Effect: The measured crush will decrease by ~50%, but the conductivity will remain unchanged.
2) Action: Introduce 30 Mesh particles into a 16/20 proppant, making it a true 16/30 proppant.
Effect: The measured crush will decrease (more contact points) but the conductivity will also decrease.
3) Action: Reduce average particle size or produce a broader distribution.
Effect: The measured crush will decrease and the conductivity will decrease
4) Action: Coat the proppant with either a precured or curable resin.
Effect: The measured crush will decrease substantially. The conductivity may decrease at lower stresses (loss in
porosity due to resin), but will increase at higher stresses (due to superior stress distribution and fines encapsulation).
5) Action: Add some sort of deformable cushioning agents, fibers, films or other additives.
Effect: The measured crush will decrease and conductivity will normally decrease.

So if we wish to provide a proppant that allows us to report the lowest crush, we will want to minimize porosity and
maximize grain contacts. This can be accomplished using many techniques, including those shown above. However, if we
wish to provide a proppant pack with superior flow capacity, we will attempt to maximize porosity and width, and minimize
tortuosity in the proppant pack.

The Value of Crush Testing

While much of the previous discussion has centered on the limitations of crush testing, this procedure does play a valuable
role in proppant identification and in manufacturing Quality Assurance and Control (QA/QC). For suppliers of natural sands
as well as users of these products (such as Resin Coating facilities) crush testing is one of many important parameters that are
routinely evaluated to qualify proppants for manufacture and sale. For manufacturers of man-made proppants such as
ceramics, crush testing and other QC measurements are implemented to ensure that manufacturing facilities are operating
under optimal conditions, and to verify that consistent quality proppants are being made and delivered to the end user. As a
matter of normal operations, the largest producer of ceramic proppants performs over 70,000 crush tests every year to ensure
consistent quality and optimized manufacturing conditions. In this controlled environment, automated sampling, cell loading,
and crush testing provide extremely repeatable results and allow useful feedback to continuously optimize manufacturing
parameters.
Under carefully controlled ISO testing procedures, repeatable data can be generated to aid end users in making
qualitative comparisons between proppants. However, crush tests do NOT adequately predict proppant performance under
realistic conditions. For that reason, conductivity tests were designed to directly measure the parameter of interest - flow
capacity (or conductivity) of the proppant pack.
14 SPE 119242

A Final Word about Proppant Selection

This paper has emphasized the shortcomings of the ISO crush test when used to predict proppant performance under realistic
conditions in a hydraulic fracture. By now it should be clear that proppant should not be selected based on the results of
crush tests alone. Selecting a proppant solely by investigation of crush, sieve size, mean particle diameter, density or price
(or any other single parameter) will rarely provide an optimal solution. Notice, however, that with the exception of cost, an
ISO conductivity test will take most of these parameters into account. Optimizing proppant selection is a complex problem,
and requires more than a simplistic “rule of thumb” or crush threshold to achieve the ideal economic selection. To choose the
correct proppant for a given application requires several steps. First, one should determine how much conductivity their frac
requires. This will be a function of reservoir deliverability, fracture geometry, and fluid cleanup constraints. Second, the
conductivity of each potential proppant must be measured in the lab and then corrected for downhole or realistic conditions
(Palisch et al, 2007). Next, production must be predicted for each proppant and an economic comparison performed leading
to the economically optimized frac design. This analysis generally requires the use of a production model. While there are
many models on the market, only a few take into account most of the realistic conductivity conditions present downhole. A
recommended final step, which is frequently overlooked, is to analyze the field results after the frac has been performed to
reality-check the assumptions and frac model. In general the authors have found that most hydraulic fractures are
conductivity limited, meaning that efforts to increase the conductivity of a fracture usually increase production. The only
question is whether it is economic to do so.

Summary
Crush test procedures are standardized and described in ISO 13503-2, the document that replaced the testing procedures
contained in API RP-56, 58 & 60. While crush testing plays a valuable role in proppant identification and in manufacturing
QA/QC, caution must be exercised when using the results of these tests for proppant selection in fracture designs. Some of
the pitfalls and misconceptions associated with crush testing and crush results include:
1) Many aspects of the crush test do not mimic actual fracture conditions. Some of these include 4 lb/ft2 equivalent
proppant loading, steel shims (rather than rock), proppant must be “carefully loaded” into the cell, proppant is dry
and at room temperature, and the stress on the proppant is increased at a controlled rate.
2) Crush test results are extremely sensitive to the loading technique employed during the procedure. Different
technicians and different laboratories can generate large variations in results.
3) Applying crush results from “wide fractures” (i.e. the equivalent of 4 lb/ft2) to typical narrow fractures is invalid,
since the narrower fractures result in elevated crush.
4) Crush percent typically increases as proppant sieve size increases due to more stress being placed on fewer
individual grains. Note, however, that larger particles actually have higher individual grain strength than smaller.
5) Crush percent does not indicate how much proppant has been damaged. It merely indicates how much broken
proppant is smaller than the lower primary sieve screen after “crushing”. Many more grains break but do not fall
through the screen, either because they are still too big, or because a resin coating is holding them together.
6) Resin coating does not improve the strength of individual proppant grains. It can increase the performance of the
overall pack due to superior stress distribution.
7) All proppants do not crush in the same manner. Sand based proppants tend to shatter, ceramic proppants tend to
cleave and resin coated proppants deform as the internal substrate breaks.
8) Different proppant packs are affected differently by fines. Crushed particle size and pore geometry will dictate the
extent to which fines will damage a given proppant pack. Caution should be used when employing “rules of thumb”
to determine the absolute effect that crushed material will have on the conductivity of a proppant pack.
9) Caution must be used when modifying the crush test to be “more realistic”, such as adding fluids or increasing
temperature. Depending on the procedure these practices may drastically increase or decrease the crush percent, and
often sacrifice test repeatability.
10) While one may argue that increasing crush will likely decrease conductivity, it is not advisable to make direct,
quantitative correlations between crush and conductivity. Rather, conductivity tests should be run at realistic
conditions to directly measure the conductivity which will inherently include the effects of crush/fines, temperature,
fluids, etc.
11) Care should be taken when comparing the crush of two proppants. There are many things that can be done to reduce
crush that either does not change the proppant pack conductivity or more often reduces it.

The primary conclusion is that proppants should not be selected using a single parameter, such as crush testing, size,
shape, mean particle diameter, cost, etc. Rather, proppants should be selected by first identifying the conductivity needed
based on the fracture geometry and reservoir deliverability, and then using the realistic conductivity of various proppants to
determine the proppant that provides the best economic performance to satisfy the company’s specific economic goals. This
evaluation will typically require use of a production model that can accommodate adjustments for realistic flow conditions.
Following these steps will improve fracture optimization and result in increased well profitability.
SPE 119242 15

Nomenclature
API American Petroleum Institute
ASG Apparent Specific Gravity, no units
ELWC Economy Light Weight Ceramic
°F degrees Fahrenheit
g/cc grams per cubic centimeter
IDC Intermediate Density Ceramic
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LWC lightweight ceramic
min minutes
MPD Mean Particle Diameter
μm micrometer
PC RCS Precured Resin Coated Sand
lb/ft2 pounds per square foot
psi pounds per square inch
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
RCS Resin Coated Sand

References
API, American Petroleum Institute, 1983. Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations, API RP 56,
First edition March 1983, Second edition, December 1995.
API, American Petroleum Institute, 1995. Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing Operations, API RP 58,
Second edition, December 1995.
API, American Petroleum Institute, 1995. Recommended Practices for Testing High-Strength Proppants Used in Hydraulic Fracturing
Operations, API RP 60, Second edition, December 1995.
Coulter, G.R. and Wells, R.D., 1972: The Advantages of High Proppant Concentration in Fracture Stimulation. SPE paper 3298, JPT, June
1972, 643-650.
Cutler, R.A. et al. 1985: Fracture Conductivity Comparison of Ceramic Proppants. Paper SPE 11634, SPEJ, April 1985, 157-170.
Fredd, C.N. et al: 2001. Experimental Study of Fracture Conductivity for Water-Fracturing and Conventional Fracturing Applications.
SPEJ (Sept 2001) 288-298. SPE 74138.
Gidley, J.L et al. 1992: Effect of Proppant Failure and Fines Migration on Conductivity of Propped Fractures. SPE paper 24008 presented
at the 1992 Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland TX, Mar 18-20.
ISO, 2006: Amendment 13503-2, Measurement of Properties of Proppants used in Hydraulic Fracturing and Gravel-Packing Operations.
ISO.org
McDaniel, R.R. and Willingham, J.R. 1978: The Effect of Various Proppants and Proppant Mixtures on Fracture Permeability. SPE paper
7573 presented at the 1978 Annual Fall Technical Conference, Houston Oct 1-3.
Norton-Alcoa Proppants. Interprop 20/40 specifications 1996, 1998, 2004 as Saint Gobain Proppants
Palisch, T. et al. 2007: Determining Realistic Fracture Conductivity and Understanding its Impact on Well Performance – Theory and Field
Examples. SPE paper 106301 presented at the 2007 Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, TX, Jan 29-31.
Schubarth, S. and Milton-Tayler, D. 2004. Investigating How Proppant Packs Change Under Stress. SPE paper 90562 presented at the 2004
Annual Technical Conference, Houston, Sep 26-29.
Saucier, R.J. 1974: Considerations in Gravel Pack Design. SPE 4030, JPT, Feb 1974, 205-212.
Spon, E. and Spon, F.N. 1874: Dictionary of Engineering, Civil, Mechanical, Military and Naval. E&F.N. Spon, 1874.
Stim-Lab Proppant Consortium, 1986-2008.
Vincent, M.C. 2009: Examining Our Assumptions – Have Oversimplifications Jeopardized Our Ability to Design Optimal Fracture
Treatments? SPE paper 119143 presented at the 2009 Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, Jan 19-21.