SPE-201605-MS

Effects of Variable Perforation Configurations on Proppant Trasport and

Distribution in Slickwater Fluids

Shabeeb Alajmei, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Colorado School of Mines; Jennifer Miskimins,
Colorado School of Mines

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition originally scheduled to be held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5 – 7
October 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 26 – 29 October 2020 and was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings were
published online on 21 October 2020.

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
This paper investigates the effect of variable perforation configurations on proppant transport, settling, and
distribution across different perforation clusters in multistage horizontal wells. The results are compared to
other previously published data (Ahmad and Miskimins, 2019) using different proppant sizes and densities.
A 30-foot horizontal laboratory apparatus with three perforation clusters is used to simulate a multistage
horizontal well. Low viscosity fresh water is used as the carrier fluid to transport the proppant. This research
incorporates the influence of testing various injection rates and proppant concentrations on proppant
transport of 100-mesh brown sand. Different perforation configurations are used to test the perforation effect
on proppant transport using similar injection rates and proppant concentrations. A 200-gallon tank is used to
mix the proppant before injecting the slurry mixture using a slurry pump. The apparatus also incorporates a
variable frequency drive, a flow meter and pressure transducers. Sieve analysis is then conducted to identify
the proppant distribution exiting from each cluster at different perforation configurations.
It commonly assumed that the injected proppant is distributed evenly across the perforation clusters
and that the distribution of fluid and proppant is identical. However, this research shows that this is not
always the case. The results show uneven fluid and proppant distributions between clusters when altering the
perforation configurations, injection rates, and proppant concentrations. Sieve analysis also shows different
size distribution of the settled and exited sand through different clusters and individual perforations. Such
information is beneficial to understanding transport in horizontal, multi-stage completions and how such
impacts the overall treatment efficiency.

Introduction
The advancement of hydraulic fracturing stimulation technology, particularly horizontal well hydraulic
fracturing, unlocked the potential for low permeability, unconventional oil and gas reservoirs. Hydraulic
fracturing is one technique that is used to stimulate the flow of the reservoir by creating hydraulic fractures in
the reservoir to enhance the flow of hydrocarbons from these tight reservoirs to the wellbore. In 2016, 69%
of oil and gas wells drilled in the U.S. were horizontal wells and hydraulically fractured (Cook et al. 2018).
2 SPE-201605-MS

Hydraulic fracturing along the horizontal well is performed in stages by isolating multiple sections of the
horizontal wellbore to minimize any non-productive formations and/or water intervals from being fractured
(Crespo et al. 2013). The number of these stages is essential to optimize the treatment and reduce the stress
shadowing effect from the preceding fractured stages (Alrashed et al. 2019). Thus, the recovery is enhanced,
as in the Marcellus Shale which reaches up to 20% using 100 ft spacing (El Sgher et al. 2019).
According to Bagci et al. (2017), there are three main completion methods to successfully isolate different
sections of the long wellbore and facilitate multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. These include plug and perf
completion systems (PnP), ball-activated completion systems (BACS), and coiled tubing activated frac
sleeve completion systems (CTAFS).
Hydraulic fracturing treatments employ the injection of low viscosity fluids, usually fresh water or
slickwater, at high flow rates to create sufficient fracture networks and/or regenerate closed fractures. The
term "slickwater" implies water only, water with low gel concentration, or water with less than 0.5% added
chemicals (such as clay stabilizers and corrosion inhibitors) (Woodworth and Miskimins, 2007). Slickwater
fluid is popular in hydraulic fracturing treatments due to its ability to create large effective stimulate reservoir
volume (SRV) and optimize the fracture conductivity, while minimizing damage to the formation. It is easier
to pump and flow back for well cleanup, and has low overall cost (Ahmad and Miskimins, 2019). Also,
to avoid the damage of proppant pack during the flow back in low permeability reservoirs, only limited
pressure difference is allowed, which makes low viscosity slickwater more useful (Brannon et al. 2006).
According to Schein (2005), in 2004, 31.1% of hydraulic fracturing treatments in the U.S. used slickwater
as the fracturing fluid. However, one of the main challenges is the limited capability of the low viscosity
fracturing fluid to suspend proppant and distribute it evenly to the created fractures through the different
perforation clusters (Palisch et al. 2010). The conductivity of the induced fractures, and consequently the
oil and gas recovery, is strongly dependent on the amount of the proppant placed inside these fractures.
Several studies have focused on proppant transport behavior inside the created fracture such as (Alotaibi,
2015; Sahai et al. 2014; Woodworth and Miskimins, 2007). Nonetheless, few experiments have studied
the transport of the proppant across the horizontal wellbore (Ahmad and Miskimins, 2019; Crespo et al.
2013; Ngameni et al. 2017). This paper presents the findings of the laboratory experiments using two
different perforation configurations and tap water as the carrier fluid by investigating four different proppant
concentrations and three different injection rates with a 100-mesh brown sand.

Methodology
Two different types of perforation configurations were tested utilizing a 30-foot long horizontal pipe.
Each perforation configuration was evaluated with four different proppant concentrations at three different
injection rates. All tests were conducted at atmospheric pressure and at ambient lab temperature. Different
behaviors of the sand distribution and settling were observed using the different perforation configurations.

Experimental Apparatus
A 30-foot horizontal wellbore was used and consists of three equally spaced perforation clusters separated
by 6 feet as shown in Fig. 1. Valves were incorporated on each perforation to make it easy to open and
close based on the desired perforation configurations. Each cluster was originally designed to have a 4-
SPF perforation density at 90° phasing. Yet, controlling each perforation individually using separate valves
allowed different scenarios by closing the bottom perforation. This helped to investigate the sand distribution
across the perforation clusters with both 3 SPF and 4 SPF configurations. The perforation diameter was
designed to be 0.25 inches, which is at least eight times larger than the average diameter of the tested
proppant, to avoid sand bridging. At the end of the horizontal pipe, a 1.5-inch valve was installed and opened
slightly to avoid back pressure build-up on the pump.
SPE-201605-MS 3

Figure 1—Experimental apparatus schematic.

The system includes a 200-gallon tank to mix the 100-mesh brown sand with tap water using a three-
blade propeller before injection. The system also employs a variable frequency drive (VFD) to control the
slurry pump. The flow rate of the injected slurry is measured through a flow meter. Two pressure transducers
are installed at the top of the horizontal pipe before the first two perforation clusters to record the pressure
drop between the clusters. Two video cameras are used to monitor the sand settling during the injection
throughout the transparent horizontal pipe. This pipe has an internal diameter of 1.5-inches.

Experimental Tests
The main objective of these tests was to evaluate the effect of different perforation configurations on the
100-mesh brown sand distribution and settling by varying the proppant concentrations and injection flow
rates. However, prior to conducting the slurry experiments, different tests were carried out by only using
tap water to observe the distribution behavior of the tap water only at the planned injection flow rates. The
injection rates were determined based on achieving turbulent conditions, equipment pressure limitations,
and the minimum settling velocity. All the tested rates were selected to be above the calculated settling
velocity of the tested proppant.

Settling Velocity
There are numerous theories available in the literature to predict the settling velocity of a certain particle.
One of the first developed equations was in 1851 by Stokes et al. (1880) and describes the behavior of a
single particle in a vertical pipe under static conditions (Eq. 1).

(1)

Where, Vs is the minimum particle settling velocity in (m/s), [L][T]−1, dp is the average diameter of the
particle in (m), [L], ρp is the density of the solid particle in (g/cm3), [M][L]−3, ρf is the density of the carrier
fluid in (g/cm3), [M][L]−3, g is the acceleration due to gravity in (m/s2), [L][T]−2, and μf is the dynamic
viscosity of the carrier fluid in (Pa-s), [M][L]−1[T]−1.
However, this law is insufficient to predict the particle settling velocity in a horizontal wellbore due to
its limitations including having an abundance of particles flowing instead of only a single particle and the
influence of each particle on the flow of the adjacent one. Also, proppant used in hydraulically fracturing
treatment is not perfectly spherical in shape. Furthermore, Stoke's law is applicable only in static conditions.
4 SPE-201605-MS

Another equation was developed by Durand (1953) after testing many sizes of different solid particles,
including coal, sand, and gravel in different pipe sizes ranging from 1.5 to 28-inches. The developed
equation, Eq. 2, includes a constant (FL) that is dependent on particle size and concentration.
(2)
Where, s is the ratio of particle to fluid densities and is dimensionless. However, this equation did not
account for the relation between the particle size to the pipe diameter. Durand's equation was ultimately
modified by Wasp et al. (1977) as expressed in Eq. 3.

(3)

Where,
(4)
and CV is the solid concentration by volume, percent, dimensionless, and D, is the inside diameter of the pipe
in meters. In 1980, another settling velocity prediction was developed analytically by Oroskar and Turian
(1980). A correlation was also developed by Schein (2005), although it does not consider the effect of the
pipe internal diameter and the proppant concentration.
Table 1 shows the minimum settling velocity for 100-mesh sand using the above-mentioned equations
and correlations. Then, an optimistic approach was considered using the largest value of these different
equations for each proppant concentration. An additional 15% was incorporated to add an extra safety
margin to ensure injecting above the minimum settling velocity. Note that the minimum settling velocity
increases with increasing the proppant concentration from 2.03 ft/s to 3.09 ft/s.

Table 1—Minimum settling velocity calculation using different correlations

Proppant Oroskar and

Wasp (1977), ft/s Schein (2005), ft/s Selected velocity, ft/s Flow rate, gal/min
Concentration, ppg Turian (1979), ft/s

0.5 2.03 0.064 1.95 2.03 12.8

1 2.34 0.064 2.56 2.56 16.2

1.5 2.55 0.064 2.89 2.89 18.3

2 2.70 0.064 3.09 3.09 19.6

Water Tests
Water-only tests were carried out for one minute of total injection before conducting the actual slurry tests to
ensure the capability of the system to supply the desired injection rates. Also, these tests were conducted to
provide a baseline of the general distribution of the injection using the different perforation configurations.
Fig. 2a shows that the water distribution across the three perforation clusters for three different injection
rates is relatively even with little decrease at the toe cluster when plugging the bottom perforation and
only using (3SPF) configuration. The slight reduction of the toe cluster is attributed to the small leakage of
the valve located at the end of the pipe. When keeping all perforations open to flow (4 SPF), the water is
distributed equally across the three perforation clusters as shown in Fig. 2b.
SPE-201605-MS 5

Figure 2—Water distribution across the three clusters using (a) 3 SPF by plugging the bottom perforation
at each cluster. (b) Distribution of water-only using 4 SPF (From Ahmad and Miskimins, 2019).

Experimental Results
The experimental runs were conducted using 100-mesh brown sand with a specific gravity of 2.65 for the
two different perforation configurations. The first set of tests used the 3 SPF (top and two side perforations
open) configuration with four different proppant concentrations ranging from 0.5 ppg to 2 ppg with 0.5 ppg
increments. Using each proppant concentration, three injection rates were tested, including 50 gpm, 60 gpm,
and 70 gpm. The same proppant concentrations and injection flow rates were used to test the distribution
and settling of the 100-mesh sand after changing the perforation configuration to 4 SPF with 90-degree
phasing (top, bottom, and two side perforations open). This resulted in a total of 24 different tests to observe
and analyze the distribution and settling behavior of the 100-mesh sand.

3 SPF Perforation Configuration

This perforation configuration was attained by intentionally plugging the bottom perforation of each
cluster using a closing valve. The overall distribution of the 100-mesh sand using this perforation
configuration showed relatively even distribution of water and uneven sand distribution with higher
proppant concentration toward the toe cluster at all three different injection rates (50 gpm, 60 gpm, and 70
gpm). The results of the 0.5 ppg mixed concentration are shown in Fig. 3, where the proppant concentration
exiting the first two clusters is significantly below the mixed concentration, but the toe cluster approaches it.
The higher momentum exerted on the sand particles at the higher injection rates prevent them from turning
around the corner and exiting the first two clusters. Increasing the proppant concentration to 2 ppg increases
the amount received at the toe cluster as compared to 0.5 ppg as shown in Fig. 4. However, increasing
the injection rate to 70 gpm at each proppant concentration actually decreases the proppant concentration
received at the toe cluster as compared to the lower injection rates of 50 gpm and 60 gpm). The differences
in mass balance from the injection concentrations to those exiting each of the perforation clusters is due to
some sand settling in the pipe, even though the injection rates were above calculated values as described
in Table 1.
6 SPE-201605-MS

Figure 3—Fluid and proppant distribution between the three perforation clusters using 3
SPF at a concentration of 0.5 ppg and a flow rate of (a) 50 gpm, (b) 60 gpm, and (c) 70 gpm.

Figure 4—Fluid and proppant distribution between the three perforation clusters using 3
SPF at a concentration of 2 ppg and a flow rate of (a) 50 gpm, (b) 60 gpm, and (c) 70 gpm.
SPE-201605-MS 7

4 SPF Perforation Configuration

Another set of tests were conducted on the same 100-mesh brown sand by opening all four perforations to
flow. This 4 SPF perforation configuration has 90° phasing. The same four different proppant concentrations
and injection rates were used as those in the 3 SPF configuration. For a mixed concentration of 0.5 ppg,
uneven proppant distribution across the three clusters with toe-bias was observed when injecting at all
three injection rates as shown in Fig. 5. The high injection rates created large momentum on the 100-mesh
particles and pushed them further away from exiting the first two clusters. The exited proppant concentration
increased noticeably when increasing the mixed proppant concentration from 0.5 ppg to 2 ppg, however,
with a similar toe-biased trend between the three clusters as shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 5—Fluid and proppant distribution between the three perforation clusters using 4
SPF at a concentration of 0.5 ppg and a flow rate of (a) 50 gpm, (b) 60 gpm, and (c) 70 gpm.
8 SPE-201605-MS

Figure 6—Fluid and proppant distribution between the three perforation clusters using 4
SPF at a concentration of 2 ppg and a flow rate of (a) 50 gpm, (b) 60 gpm, and (c) 70 gpm.

Comparison with Published Data

The experimental results of 100-mesh brown sand were compared with previously work conducted by
(Ahmad and Miskimins, 2019) using the same laboratory apparatus, 4 SPF perforation configuration and
carrier fluid, however using different types of proppant. This earlier work presented heel-biased uneven
distribution of both 20/40 and 40/70 sands at a low injection rate of 35 gpm. Conversely, the high momentum
of inertia exerted on the sand particles at the higher injection rate of 75 gpm prevented the sand particles
from turning into the first two clusters. This resulted in an uneven sand toe-biased distribution with more
sand concentration exited from the toe cluster.
Reducing the proppant specific gravity from 2.65 to 2.0 using a lightweight ceramic of two different
sizes, i.e. 20/40 and 40/70, resulted in more even proppant distribution across the three perforation clusters.
The distribution became more even when using the 40/070 ceramic and reducing both the specific gravity
and size (Fig. 7). Comparing this previously published data, which tested a slightly wider range of injection
rates, to these current experimental results indicates that reducing both the proppant specific gravity and
proppant size results in more even proppant distribution even with high injection rates.

Figure 7—Proppant distribution at different proppant concentrations for 40/70 ULW at (a)
a flow rate of 35 gpm and (b) a flow rate of 75 gpm. From Ahmad and Miskimins, 2019.
SPE-201605-MS 9

Settling Analysis
This analysis was performed to quantify the settling rate of the 100-mesh sand with increased injection
rate for the same proppant concentration and perforation configuration. This was done by calculating the
percentage of the settled sand from the total injected sand as expressed in Eq. 5.

(5)

As the injection rate increases, the settling rate of the 100-mesh sand decreases. This decrease in proppant
settling is noticeable with low proppant concentrations of 0.5 ppg. However, increasing the proppant
concentration to 2 ppg decreases the settling effect even when increasing the injection rate to 70 pgm as
shown in Fig. 8. Also, the settling rate of similar proppant concentrations and injection rates is higher using
3 SPF perforation configuration compared to the 4 SPF. The difference of the settling rate between the two
perforation configuration decreases with increasing the proppant concentration.

Figure 8—Settling rate at the bottom of the pipe of various proppant concentrations
and flow rates using (a) 3 SPF configuration and (b) 4 SPF configuration.

Sieve Analysis
Sieve analysis was conducted on 100-mesh sand samples taken from each of the individual perforations of
the three clusters. Additionally, sieve analysis was performed for the sand that exited from the valve, which
is located at the end of the horizontal pipe, and for the settled sand inside the wellbore. The analysis was
performed to compare the particle distribution when using the same proppant concentration and injection
rate with different perforation configurations.
3 SPF. Fig. 9 shows the results of the individual perforation sieve distribution for an injection rate of
70 gpm and 1.0 ppg mixed concentration. For this perforation configuration, the high injection rate of 70
gpm helped in transporting higher percentages of coarser sand particles to the toe cluster and then exited
through the side perforations (Perf #1 and Perf #3) as compared to the original 100-mesh sand distribution.
However, the sand exiting from the top perforation (Perf #2) has a higher percentages of fine particles. It
is worth mentioning that the settled particles at 70 gpm and 1 ppg has similar particle distribution to the
original 100-mesh distribution and may be attributed to the high injection rate which prevents the settling
of only bigger particles at the bottom of horizontal wellbore.
10 SPE-201605-MS

Figure 9—Sieve distribution of 100-mesh sand using 3 SPF at proppant concentration of 1 ppg and a flow rate of
70 gpm exited through (a) cluster 1, (b) cluster 2, (c) cluster 3, and (d) valve and remaind at the bottom of the pipe.

4 SPF. The particle distribution of the 100-mesh sand using 4 SPF is different than what was observed
by closing the bottom perforation at each cluster, i.e. 3 SPF perforation configuration. Fig. 10 shows the
sand distribution exited the toe cluster at the same proppant concentration and injection rate (1 ppg and 70
gpm). However, a higher percentage of coarser particles exited the bottom perforation (Perf #4) and the right
perforation of the injection direction (Perf #3). Both the top perforation (Perf #2) and the left perforation
(Perf 1) received more fine particles compared to the original distribution of the 100-mesh sand. For this
configuration, the settled sand distribution has a lower percentage of the coarse particles and more fine
particles compared to the original distribution. This is attributed to the high injection rate that helps low
viscosity water to suspend coarser particles and prevent settling.
SPE-201605-MS 11

Figure 10—Sieve distribution of 100-mesh sand using 4 SPF at proppant concentration of 1 ppg and a flow rate of
70 gpm exited through (a) cluster 1, (b) cluster 2, (c) cluster 3, and (d) valve and remained at the bottom of the pipe.

Discussion
Based on the experimental results, both perforation configurations show highly uneven proppant distribution
of the 100-mesh brown sand with more proppant concentration at the toe cluster (toe-biased). The high
turbulence due to the high injection rates allows the low viscosity carrier fluid (water) to suspend the sand
particles and transport it further to the toe cluster at the tested injection rates ranging (50 gpm, 60 gpm,
and 70 gpm).
The settling analysis results show that the 3 SPF perforation configuration has more proppant settling at
the bottom of the horizontal pipe as compared to the 4 SPF. This is likely due to the gravity effect on the
sand particles, in addition to the closed perforation tunnel retaining the sand at the bottom of the horizontal
wellbore. The sand deposition is reduced by increasing the injection rate. This reduction is significant at
low proppant concentration.
The sieve analysis demonstrates the ability of low viscosity fluids to transport coarse 100 mesh particles
to the toe cluster with high injection rates. However, the sieve distribution also showed the differences in
particles exiting the various individual perforations. Less coarse particles were deposited at the bottom of
the horizontal wellbore and could be attributed to the high inertia forces exerted on the coarser particles
compared to the finer particles.
12 SPE-201605-MS

Conclusion
Conclusions based on the experimental tests conducted on 1.5-inches horizontal wellbore are summarized
below:

• Proppant distribution of 100-mesh brown sand using both 3 SPF and 4 SPF perforation
configurations showed toe-biased distribution at the tested proppant concentrations and injection
rates.
• Low viscosity tap water is sufficient to transport coarse particles of 100-mesh sand to the toe cluster
at high injection rates.
• Higher sand deposition occurs when using 3 SPF perforation configuration at low proppant
concentration. The deposition rate decreases with increasing the proppant concentration.
• Comparing these findings with published data using the same laboratory apparatus indicates solely
reducing the proppant size is not sufficient to achieve even distribution across the three clusters
using 4 SPF perforation configuration.

Nomenclature
CV The solid concentration by volume, percent, dimensionless.
D Inside diameter of the pipe, m, [L].
dp Average diameter of the particle, m, [L].
F Modified Durand dimensionless variable, dimensionless;
FL Constant variable dependent on proppant size and concentration, dimensionless.
g Acceleration due to gravity, m/s2, [L][T]−2.
GPM Gallon per minute.
ρf The carrier fluid density, g/cm3, [M][L]−3.
ρp The solid particle density, g/cm3, [M][L]−3.
PPG Pound per gallon.
s The ratio of particle to fluid densities, dimensionless.
SPF Shot per foot.
VL The limit deposit velocity, m/s, [L][T]−1.
Vs The minimum particle settling velocity, m/s, [L][T]−1.
μf The dynamic viscosity of the carrier fluid, Pa-s, [M][L]−1[T]−1.
BACS Ball-activated completion systems.
CTAFS Coiled tubing activated frac sleeve completion systems.
PnP Plug and perf completion systems.
ULW Ultra-light weight.

References
Ahmad, F. A., & Miskimins, J. L. (2019, January 29). Proppant Transport and Behavior in Horizontal Wellbores Using Low
Viscosity Fluids. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.2118/194379-
MS
Alotaibi, M. A. (2015). Slickwater proppant transport in complex hydraulic fracture networks: Experimental study and
scalable correlations development. Colorado School of Mines.
Alrashed, A., Miskimins, J., & Tura, A. (2019, March 15). Optimization of Hydraulic Fracture Spacing Through the
Investigation of Stress Shadowing and Reservoir Lateral Heterogeneity. SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference. https://doi.org/10.2118/195071-MS
Bagci, S., Castro, L., & Flores, J. (2017, June 12). Optimization of Hydraulic Fracturing and Production Enhancement:
Case Studies for US Shale Plays and Tight Sand Reservoirs. SPE Europec featured at 79th EAGE Conference and
Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.2118/185773-MS
SPE-201605-MS 13

Brannon, H. D., Wood, W. D., & Wheeler, R. S. (2006, January 1). Large Scale Laboratory Investigation of the Effects of
Proppant and Fracturing Fluid Properties on Transport. SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control. https://doi.org/10.2118/98005-MS
Cook, T., Perrin, J., & Van Wagener, D. (2018). Hydraulically fractured horizontal wells account for most new oil
and natural gas wells—Today in Energy—U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/
todayinenergy/detail.phpšid=34732
Crespo, F., Soliman, M., Jain, S., Bokane, A., Deshpande, Y., Kunnath Aven, N., & Cortez, J. (2013, February 4). Proppant
Distribution in Multistage Hydraulic Fractured Wells: A Large-Scale Inside-Casing Investigation. SPE Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.2118/163856-MS
Durand, R. (1953). Basic Relationships Of The Transportation Of Solids In Pipes—Experimental Research. 89–103.
https://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jspšdockey=0253228
El Sgher, M., Aminian, K., & Ameri, S. (2019, April 22). The Impact of Stress Shadowing and Geomechanical Effects
on Gas Production From Marcellus Shale. SPE Western Regional Meeting. https://doi.org/10.2118/195250-MS
Ngameni, K. L., Miskimins, J. L., Abass, H. H., & Cherrian, B. (2017, January 24). Experimental Study of Proppant
Transport in Horizontal Wellbore Using Fresh Water. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and
Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.2118/184841-MS
Oroskar, A. R., & Turian, R. M. (1980). The critical velocity in pipeline flow of slurries. AIChE Journal, 26(4), 550–558.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690260405
Palisch, T. T., Vincent, M., & Handren, P. J. (2010). Slickwater Fracturing: Food for Thought. SPE Production &
Operations, 25(03), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.2118/115766-PA
Sahai, R., Miskimins, J. L., & Olson, K. E. (2014, February 4). Laboratory Results of Proppant Transport in Complex
Fracture Systems. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.2118/168579-MS
Schein, G. (2005). The Application and Technology of Slickwater Fracturing. https://www.onepetro.org/general/
SPE-108807-DL
Stokes, G. G., Larmor, J., & Rayleigh, J. W. S. (1880). Mathematical and physical papers. Cambridge : University Press.
http://archive.org/details/mathphyspapers01stokrich
Wasp, E. J., Kenny, J. P., & Gandhi, R. L. (1977). Solid-liquid flow slurry pipeline transportation. Trans Tech Publications.
Woodworth, T. R., & Miskimins, J. L. (2007, January 1). Extrapolation of Laboratory Proppant Placement Behavior
to the Field in Slickwater Fracturing Applications. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. https://
doi.org/10.2118/106089-MS