See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344445444

New Experimental Methods to Study Proppant Embedment in Shales

Conference Paper · September 2020

CITATIONS READS
3 214

4 authors:

Ekrem Alagoz Haotian Wang

University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at Austin
9 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rod Russell Mukul Sharma

EMPI - Energetic Materials and Products Incorporated University of Texas at Austin
43 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS    550 PUBLICATIONS   13,491 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Numerical Modeling of Particulate Flow Systems View project

High Strain Rate Behavior of Materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ekrem Alagoz on 02 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARMA 20–1933

New Experimental Methods to Study Proppant Embedment in Shales

E. Alagoz
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
H. Wang and Rodney T. Russell
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Mukul M. Sharma
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Copyright 2020 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 54th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in Golden, Colorado, USA, 28 June-1
July 2020. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: It has been frequently reported that in unconventional shale formations, fractured well productivity can be
dramatically reduced by severe proppant embedment due to a reduction in fracture aperture and conductivity. However, the
mechanisms of this decline are poorly understood. In the absence of this understanding, very few models take proppant embedment
into account when predicting production decline. In this study, we present both new experimental techniques and analytical analysis
to explore proppant embedment mechanisms and to quantify stress dependent elastic and plastic deformation, as well as time
dependent creep deformation. Two independent experimental setups have been employed for this purpose. To determine elastic
and plastic deformation a constant displacement test is conducted while monitoring load in a simple and novel experimental setup.
Creep deformation under constant load while monitoring the displacement is combined with these measurements to extract
parameters for elastic, plastic and creep deformation from these two experiments. Results show that plastic and creep deformation
dominate proppant embedment in shale (over 75%), while elastic deformation is usually small (less than 15%).
Understanding the proppant embedment phenomena
1. INTRODUCTION
comprehensively is essential for hydraulic fracturing
In the petroleum industry, hydraulic fracturing has been treatments. Proppant embedment can cause a reduction in
used to produce hydrocarbons from unconventional shale fracture aperture by almost 75% in poorly consolidated
reservoirs. These fractures have been created by a sandstone reservoirs. Additionally, even a 20% reduction
pressurized fluid with proppants. Proppants have been in the fracture gap would reduce hydrocarbon production
used to maintain conductive paths for hydrocarbons to by over 50% (Lacy et al., 1998). In this paper, we study
flow. Once the pumping of the fracturing fluid is stopped, the embedment of proppants on unconventional shale
created fractures begin to close. Fracture closure is a rocks by measuring the elastic, plastic, and creep
function of many different phenomena, including deformation of the rock under stress.
proppant fines generation and migration, proppant crush
resistance, proppant embedment into the fracture surface,
reorientation of proppants during stress variation and
2. METHODOLOGY
proppant flow back (Economides and Nolte, 1989; Sato When the shale deforms, three deformations occur:
and Ichikawa, 1998; Reinicke et al., 2006, 2010; elastic, plastic, and creep deformation. In order to separate
Terracina et al., 2010; Alramahi and Sundberg, 2012). all these three deformations, two independent
Also, closure stress, proppant size, concentration, and experiments have been conducted, which are load-
distribution, formation hardness, surface roughness (Volk controlled and displacement-controlled tests. In the load-
et al., 1981), water saturation, dynamic fluid leak-off, controlled test, we allow a shale sample to deform in all
cyclic loading conditions (Lacy et al., 1998), fluid three rock deformation behaviors and measure the total
viscosity (Lacy et al., 1997), shale mineralogy (Alramahi deformation. In a separate displacement-controlled test
and Sundberg, 2012), fracturing fluid effect (Corapcioglu (which is a relatively quick test), we aim to avoid creep
et al., 2014), elastic, creep deformation (Guo and Liu, deformation. At the end of the displacement-controlled
2012), and pumping strategy (Huang et al., 2019) are test, we are measuring stress-dependent elastic and plastic
other factors that affect proppant embedment. deformations.
In these tests, 3 cm cubic shale samples were used. As the 2.1. Experimental setup
mineralogy may have a considerable effect on shale A constant load experimental setup was designed for the
deformation, the samples were analyzed for their mineral load-controlled tests. Figure 2 depicts a photo and a
compositions based on the x-ray fluorescence method schematic of the load-controlled test.
(XRF). We also aim to see the effect of the fluid in contact
with the shale on deformations. Such data can be used to
optimize fracturing fluids in hydraulic fracturing
treatments. Shale samples are soaked in different fracking
fluids for 15 days at atmospheric pressure. The decision
of the soaking time was made based on typical contact
times with the fluid in the field. Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance (NMR) has been used to determine liquid
volume. By assuming uniform penetration, we calculated
the invasion depth of fracturing fluid from following Eq.
(1) and the results are tabulated in Table 1.
Fig. 2. (a) Schematic of load-controlled test.
V = hA (1)
Where V is the differential volume which is read from
NMR results, h is the invaded depth, Φ is the porosity
(Unpreserved Utica shale porosity is 7 percent which is
read from NMR) and A is the surface area of the shale
sample.
Table 1. Liquid volume for each exposure to fluid.
Time Period ΔV (ml) h (mm)
Initial 0.191 0.00
5 days 0.196 0.027
11 days 0.264 0.3694
Figure 1 shows the NMR results of a preserved Utica
shale, and it shows that the clear correlation between
Fig. 2. (b) A photo of load-controlled test.
soaking time and the volume of soaked liquid. Table 1
shows the liquid volume in the shale after each soaking The preserved shale sample is cut into small rectangular
period. Based on the penetration distance calculation pieces and confined to avoid cracking occurs along the
results, samples were exposed to the fracturing fluid for bedding planes. Figure 3 shows the small indenter and
15 days. In both experiments a 1 mm diameter tungsten shale confinement. 1 mm tungsten carbide ball has been
carbide ball has been used to represent a proppant grain. used as a proppant to deform shale samples. This ball has
The maximum embedment depth in this study is 0.5 mm, a high tensile strength of 344 MPa so that proppant
which is equivalent to the ball radius. However, the data crushing can be ignored.
selected from the experiment and used in this paper are
less than 0.37 mm embedment in order to see the fracking
fluid effect more accurately.

b)
a)

Fig. 3. (a) Small indenter screw, (b) shale confining

In this load-controlled test, a constant load is applied

while measuring the displacement. A Raspberry Pi (R-Pi),
micro-computer, tells the displacement gauge to transmit
Fig. 1. NMR results to calculate penetration distance. a measurement at set time intervals. The R-Pi records the
displacement data and timestamps every entry for later
analysis.
A second experimental setup is a displacement-controlled
test. A proppant embedment load cell assembly was
designed to quantify elastic and plastic deformations in
this test. We made this test fast to prevent creep from
playing any role. Figure 4 illustrates a photo and a
schematic illustration of the displacement-controlled test.
An optical screw (80 threads per inch) controls the
displacement. Turning the optical screw by an angle of Fig. 5. Geometry of spherical indentation.
45° will cause 0.04 mm embedment. While the proppant
embeds, load cell data is monitored, and a microscope Constitutive equations have been developed for data
images the embedment process. analysis. From Sneddon’s analysis [14], the relation
between load(P) and displacement(h) can be expressed by
the following equation where μ is the shear modulus and
ν is the Poisson’s ratio.
4 a
P= h (3)
1− v
180
160
140
Load (N) 120
Fig. 4. (a) Schematic of displacement-controlled test. 100 S = dP/dh
Loading
80
60
40
Unloading
20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Indentation Depth (mm)

Fig. 6. Displacement-controlled test data.

Figure 6 shows the relation between indentation load-

displacement data. The slope of earlier unloading part
gives the initial unloading stiffness.
dP
S= (4)
Fig. 4. (b) A photo of displacement-controlled test.
dh
From Pharr et al. [10], Eq. (3) can be related to the elastic
2.2. Theory modulus, E and leads to Eq. (6) and reduced modulus, Er
In past research, several models have been developed for
can be determined by using the Eq. (6).
indentation test data analysis (Hertz, 1863., Pharr et al.,
1991., and Tabor, 1951). Since a spherical ball is used in E = 2 (1 + v) (5)
this study, the relation between contact depth and contact
radius can be written as  s
Er = (6)
2 A
a = 2Rhc − h 2
c (2)
Where A is the projected area of the contact,
Where F is applied force, 𝑎 is the contact radius, R is the
radius of the indenter and hc is contact depth as can be A =  a2 (7)
seen in Figure 5.
In the elastic region, Er can be also determined from the To validate above value, Meyer’s [9] equation can be
indentation stress-strain plot as can be seen in Figure 7. used.  obtained from the Load-contact radius plot in
Load and contact depth obtained from the displacement- Figure 9.
controlled test.
P = B(2a)  (13)
Indentation stress and indentation strain are defined as
250
P
 ind = (8)
 a2 200 y = 1418.1x3.1542
R² = 0.9812

Load (N)
a 150
 ind = (9)
R 100
Stress-strain relation from Tabor’s [15] observations is 50
 ind = 0.2 Er  ind (10) 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
14000
Contact Radius (mm)
Indentation Stress (psi)

12000
10000
Fig. 9. Load-contact radius relation in the plastic region.
8000
6000 K, B, m , and  are the empirical parameters.
4000
The elasto-visco-plastic model that has been developed
2000
for deformation calculations (Eq. (14) and Eq. (15)) can
0 be used for stress-dependent deformations in both elastic
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 (σ<σyield) and plastic (σ>σyield) regimes. Since the
0.2*Indentation Strain displacement-controlled test (fast test) prevents creep
from occurring, these two deformations can be calculated
Fig. 7. Displacement controlled test stress-strain relation. from this test.

In the plastic region, Tabor [15] gives e = (14)
Er
 = K m (11)
1
Where   m
p =   (15)
m =− (12) K
In Figure 8, by plotting load versus indentation stress and On the other hand, the load-controlled test has been used
indentation strain K and m parameters can be obtained. to measure total deformation including elastic, plastic and
creep. Elastic and plastic deformation contributions can
40000 be calculated from the displacement-controlled test by
Indentation Stress (psi)

35000 using the Eq. (14) and Eq. (15). Total deformation curve
30000 y = 188463x1.1542 obtained from the load-controlled test. By subtracting
25000 R² = 0.8748
these stress dependent deformation components from the
20000 total curve leads to deformation caused by only creep. By
15000 fitting the power law model to residual data, empirical
10000 parameters C and n can be obtained. Then creep
5000 deformation can be described by an equation of the form
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 c = Ct n (16)
0.2*Indentation Strain

Fig. 8. Stress-strain relation in the plastic region.

 0.116
0.114
0.112
STRAIN

y = 0.1078x0.006
0.11
R² = 0.9885
0.108
0.106
0.104
0 5 10 15
TIME (THOUSAND SECONDS)
CREEP TOTAL STRAIN Power (CREEP)

Fig. 10. An example of load-controlled test result. Fig. 12. Preserved Utica shale sample mineralogy.

Eq. (14), Eq. (15) and Eq. (16) meets the following As can be seen from Figure 11 and Figure 12, the higher
relationship: clay content in the shale leads to larger deformation. It can
1 also be seen from the deformation data that elastic
   m deformation is 5-15 percent of the total deformation.
= +   + Ct n (17) Therefore, shale rock deformation behavior is dominated
Er  K 
by plasticity and creep.
Using the model in Eq. (16), rock deformation behavior
3.2. The effect of Fracturing Fluids on Embedment
can be split into its elastic, plastic and creep components.
The shale samples were tested after being exposed to
different fracking fluids to measure their effect on
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION embedment. Different combinations of chemicals were
tested to comprehensively understand the interactions
3.1. The Influence of Shale Mineralogy on among fracking fluids and the shale. Some of the tested
Embedment fluids are listed in Table 2.
High clay content shale samples generally experience
severe proppant embedment with significant fracture Table 2. Chemicals used to expose shale samples
conductivity reduction (Alramahi and Sundberg, 2012). Chemicals Name Fraction
To address the effect of shale rock mineralogy on DI Deionized water Base fluid
proppant embedment in this work, 4 Utica shale samples KCl Potassium Chloride 3%
with different mineralogy were selected and soaked with FR1 Friction Reducer#1 0.1%
the same fracking fluid and tested. The results showed FR2 Friction Reducer#2 0.1%
that there is a positive correlation between the embedment Cl Clay Inhibitor 0.1%
and clay content of the shale. S7 Surfactant#7 0.1%
S8 Surfactant#8 0.1%

Figure 13 shows the embedment results of shale samples

which exposed to different combination of chemicals
tested with deionized water (DI). In terms of embedment,
the biggest improvement is obtained with Potassium
Chloride (KCl) in DI water. In other words, least amount
of embedment is obtained when the shale soaked with
KCl+DI solution without using any surfactant.

Fig. 11. Preserved Utica shale sample embedment results.


Fig. 13. Deformation results with fracking fluids in deionized
water.
Clay inhibitor (Cl) reduces embedment when mixed with
Surfactant#7 (S7). Figure 14 shows the embedment
results of shale samples after being soaked with
surfactant-used chemicals. In this comparison, the least
embedment occurs with the S7 with Cl combination.
Figure 13 and Figure 14 shows that the usage of S7 with
Cl together diminish the amount of embedment on shale.
Fig. 14. Deformation results with fracking fluids with
surfactant#7.
Using brine in the fracturing fluid might have a different
effect on proppant embedment depending on the
interaction between fracking fluids and shale samples.
Figure 15 depicts the embedment results of shale samples
after being soaked with KCl. The least amount of
embedment is measured for the sample soaked in KCl+Cl.
Fig. 15. Preserved Utica shale sample deformation.
Figure 16 shows the embedment results of shale samples
after being soaked with KCl based chemicals. S7+KCl+Cl
mitigate the embedment among the other fracking fluid
combinations.
Fig. 16. Preserved Utica shale sample deformation.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The main findings of this research work are:
• We have developed a set of constitutive equations to
account for elastic, plastic, and creep deformation
during proppant embedment.
• Key parameters for this model can be obtained from
laboratory tests.
• Two new experimental apparatuses are built and used
to measure the elastic, plastic and creep behavior of
shales when brought into contact with different fluids.
• Embedment measurements are made and reported at
constant displacement and at constant load. This
allows us to clearly separate the elastic, plastic and
creep components of the shale deformation.
• It is shown that proppant embedment primarily occurs
due to plastic deformation and creep of the rock.
Elastic deformation is small (typically less than 15%
of the total deformation).
• Fracturing fluid affects plastic deformation and creep 10. Pharr, G.M., W.C. Oliver, F.R. Brotzen. 1991. On the
more than the elastic deformation. generality of the relationship among contact stiffness,
contact area, and elastic modulus during indentation.
• A higher clay content in the shale sample leads to 11. Reinicke, A., B. Legarth, G. Zimmermann, E. Huenges,
more severe proppant embedment and larger and G. Dresenn. 2006. Hydraulic fracturing and
plasticity. formation damage in a sedimentary geothermal
• Chemical additives such as clay inhibitors in reservoir. ENGINE–Enhanced Geothermal Innovative
deionized water can in some cases cause more Network for Europe Workshop 3, Stimulation of
deformation. However, when it is used in conjunction reservoir and microseismicity, Kartause Ittingen, Zürich,
with other surfactants (such as surfactant#7), the 29, VI – 1.VII, Switzerland.
12. Reinicke, A., E. Rybacki, S. Stanchits, E. Huenges, and
amount of embedment decreased.
G. Dresenn. 2010. Hydraulic fracturing stimulation
• The experimental techniques developed in this paper techniques and formation damage mechanisms –
can be quickly used to evaluate the impact of different Implications from laboratory testing of tight sandstone –
frac fluids on proppant embedment. In addition, the proppant systems. Chemie der Erde - Geochemistry, 70,
role of rock mineralogy on elastic / plastic 107–117.
deformation and creep can be systematically studied. 13. Sato, K. and M. Ichikawa. 1998. Post-Frac analysis
indicating multiple fractures created in a volcanic
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS formation. Paper Society of Petroleum Engineers
The authors gratefully acknowledge BP for providing presented at the SPE India Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, 17-19 February 1998, New Delhi, India. SPE
funding for this work and for the Utica shale samples.
39513-MS.
14. Sneddon, I.N., Int. J. Eng. Sci. 3 (1965) 47.
REFERENCES 15. Tabor D. 1951. Hardness of Metals. Clarendon Press.
Oxford.
1. Alramahi, B. and M.I. Sundberg. 2012. Proppant 16. Terracina, J.M., J.M. Turner, D.H. Collins, and S.E.
embedment and conductivity of hydraulic fractures in Spillars. 2010. Proppant selection and its effect on the
shales, ARMA Paper#12-291, 46th US Rock results of fracturing treatments performed in shale
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in Chicago, formations. Paper Society of Petroleum Engineers
IL, USA, 24-27 June. presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
2. Corapcioglu, H., J.L. Miskimins, M. Prasad. 2014. Exhibition, 19-22 September, Florence, Italy. SPE
Fracturing Fluid Effects on Young’s Modulus and 135502.
Embedment in the Niobrara Formation. Paper SPE- 17. Volk, L.J., J.R. Clarence, B.C. Herbert, and S.S. Judy.
170835-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical 1981. Embedment of High Strength Proppant into Low-
Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Permeability Reservoir Rock. Paper SPE/DOE 9867
Netherlands, 27-29 October 2014. presented at the 1981 SPEIDOE Low Permeability
3. Economides, M.J. and K.G. Nolte. 1989. Reservoir Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 27-29 May.
Stimulation. 2nd ed. Houston.
4. Guo, J., Y. Liu. 2012. Modeling of Proppant
Embedment: Elastic Deformation and Creep
Deformation. Paper SPE 157449 presented at SPE
International Production and Operations Conference and
Exhibition, Doha, Qatar, 14-16 May 2012.
5. Hertz, H. 1863. Miscellaneous Papers, ed. Jones and
Schott, London.
6. Huang, J., R. Safari, O. Perez, E.F. Fragachan. 2019.
Reservoir Depletion-Induced Proppant Embedment and
Dynamic Fracture Closure. Paper SPE 195135-MS
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference, Manama, Bahrein, 18-21 March 2019.
7. Lacy, L.L., A.R. Rickards, and D.M. Bilden. 1998.
Fracture aperture and Embedment Testing in Soft
Reservoir Sandstone. SPE Drilling & Completion, 13(1):
25-29.
8. Lacy, L.L., A.R. Rickards, and A.A. Syed. 1997.
Embedment and Fracture Conductivity in Soft
Formations Associated with HEC, Borate and Water-
based Fracture Designs. Paper SPE38590-MS presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October.
9. Meyer, E. 1908. Untersuchen uber Harteprufung und
Harte.

View publication stats