9 views

Uploaded by Rahulprabhakaran Vannostran

Shlyapobersky [1985]

- 1 Strain Profiling of Fatigue Crack Overload Effects
- Talat Lecture 2403 Applied Fracture Mechanics
- shyam2006.pdf
- ISRM Chevron Notched Semi-CIruclar
- 951
- Mecanica da Fratura
- Fracture Toughness K1c and Toughness Gc
- Lode Angle v2
- metals-06-00163.pdf
- 73666136 Introductory Fracture Mechanics
- www.carmagen.com_news_Publications_ipeia2009JAumuller.pdf
- Fatigue Chapter 6
- 71151530-FatigueFatigue
- 2009_Modeling of Crack Propagation in Weld Beam-To-Column Connections Submitted to Cyclic Loading With Cohesive Zone Model
- 100330345-Book-Creep-Modul.pdf
- solid state physics
- Article
- Indentation Frontini
- Work Ability Criteria in Bulk Forming Processes
- DNV-RP-F204 Riser Fatigue October 2010

You are on page 1of 10

Energyanalysis

of hydraulic

fracturing

J.SHLYAPOBERSKY

ShellDevelopmentCompany,Houston, Texas,USA

INTRODUCTION

Hydraulic

fracturing

is

increasingly

being

used

as

stimulation

reservoirs.

Most industrial

fracture

treatment designs are still

based on two simple

hydraulic

fracture models:

the Khristianovitch-Geertsma-de

Klerk (KGK)

model (Geertsma & de Klerk 1969) and Perkins-Kern-Nordgren

(PKN) model

(Perkins & Kern 1961, Nordgren 1972).

These models have been compared

and preferred

conditions for their application

to treatment design have

been discussed (Geertsma & Haafkens 1979).

Both models have two main

shortcomings.

They neglect rock strength and cannot predict

the fracture height growth.

The latter

fact has, in recent years, stimulated

intensive

research

to generate

complex hydraulic

fracture

growth and

containment models.

Computer codes are being developed by Terra Tek

(Clifton

& Abou-Sayed 1981), MIT (Cleary 1980, Cleary et al. 1983), ORU

Because of simpli-

fying

assumptions about hydraulic

fracturing,

these models predict

different

fracture

geometries

for identical

reservoir

and treatment

conditions (Palmer & Luiskutty 1984).

The propped fracture

length estimated using pressure build-up

tests

fracture

simulators.

The propagating overpressure (the fracture

treatment bottom hole pressure minus the fracture closure pressure) observed

in the field

is frequently

much higher than that predicted by hydraulic

fracture simulators (Warpinski 1984, Medlin & Fitch 1983).

If a hydraulic

fracture

model is "tuned" on high propagating overpressure,

the

predicted

fracture

length will

usually

be shorter

and more consistent

with the well's

production response.

Two mechanisms could cause these high treatment pressures. One is due

to viscous flow through a much more complex multiple

fracture

system

than the planar fracture assumed in hydraulic fracture models (Warpinski

& Teufel 1984; Medlin & Fitch 1983).

Another possible mechanism is due

to a layer of relatively

small cracks around a large hydraulic fracture

fracture

hydraulic

fracture

propagation.

of treatment

pressures

energy with

required

for

539

SCALE

EFFECT

IN

HYDRAULIC

FRACTURING

Scale effects

are inherent

in geomechanical

problems.

Traditionally,

mathematical

theories

describing

rock behavior

have been formulated

based on analysis

of laboratory

experiments

with small rock specimens.

Legitimate

questions

arise about the applicability

of such theories

to

predict

behavior of large rock bodies,

especially

in cases when rock

characteristics

required

by the theory demonstrate

a strong dependence

on specimen size and test conditions.

Contemporary fracture

mechanics are based on Griffith's

idea that

failure

of brittle

solids

is due to microcracks

always present in real

materials.

Griffith

formulated

a crack propagation

criterion

and introduced a new material

constant,

specific

fracture

surface

energy

,

which characterizes

material

resistance

to crack growth (fracture

toughness).

Using the Griffith

energy balance, it was shown that the critical pressure

necessary

to start

propagating

a penny-shaped crack of

radius R is (Sack 1946)

p* = /(/2)''/R

(1)

Modulus.

The energy per unit

atomic

bonds

when

the

crack area

crack

is

(

formed.

It

is

true

material

to rupture

constant

crystals.

Thus, the Griffith

theory can be, strictly

speaking,

applied

only to crack propagation

in ideal,

defect

free,

single

crystal

solids.

The applications

of the theory

to fracture

propagation

in rocks and other real

solids

are questionable.

These

solids

contain

different

types of flaws which makes the fracturing

process extremely

complicated.

Microscopic

observations

of fracture

propagation

in rocks,

polymers

and metals

show that

the material

in the region

surrounding

the main

crack undergoes a microstructural

transformation.

In rocks, an extensive array of microcracks was observed (Friedman et al. 1971); in polymers microcrazes and recrystallized

zones appeared (Bevis & Hull 1970);

in metals,

creation

of microcracks (Chudnovsky & Bessendorf 1983) and

the presence of plastic

zones, associated

with extensive

dislocation

motion, was noted.

The complicated

structure

of the damage in the material

near an

induced fracture

is typical.

Similar

features

of rock transformation

in

a zone near a propagating hydraulic

fracture

can be anticipated

only on

a large

field

scale.

Indeed,

recent

observations

in mineback experiments (Warpinski

& Teufel 1984) have shown that there are considerable

surface

roughness and wavyhess,

echelon

fracturing,

and significant

offsets

when natural

fractures

are intersected.

Detection

of hydraulic

fractures

by borehole geophones supports the presence of a relatively

narrow zone adjacent

to the fracture

with high microseismic

activity

(Hart et al. 1984).

The microseismic signals can be generated either by

shear slippage

along pre-existing

joints

or by cracks propagating

in

shear-tensile

combined mode. In any case, these signals indicate

energy

dissipation

due to irreversible

rock transformation

in a near-fracture

active

zone called

crack layer.

To properly

describe

fracture

propagation

in real solids,

theory has to be modified

to account for energy dissipated

the Griffith

in creation

of the crack layer.

It was proposed (0rowan 1952; Irwin 1958) that this

dissipated

energy be added to the specific

fracture

surface energy and a

new characteristic

called

the apparent fracture

surface energy be determined from laboratory

tests

on pre-cracked

specimens using formulas

540

similar

to (1).

This apparent

fracture

surface

energy which is an

empirical

characteristic

of fracture

toughness,

is the total

energy

required

to create a unit area of the main fracture

and the crack layer

associated

with this

area.

A difficulty

in applying

this

GriffithOrowan-Irwin

theory is that the apparent

fracture

surface

energy is not

a material

constant,

but depends on the whole history

of crack layer

propagation (Bakar et al. 1984).

One may

anticipate

that as the crack layer grows with fracture

propagation,

the

fracture

toughness increases

also.

This effect

of crack growth on the

rock

fracture

toughness

has been observed

in

fracture

lab

tests

(Ouchteralony

1983).

Microseismic

activity

during hydraulic

fracture

treatment,

measured by borehole

geophones and direct

observations

in

mineback experiments also demonstrate that the size of the crack layer

around hydraulic

fracture

can be much larger

than seen in lab experiments.

The corresponding

rock toughness characterizing

hydraulic

fracture propagation

should also be significantly

higher than its laboratory

measured

value.

DETERMINATION

OF FRACTURE

TOUGHNESS

FROM

TREATING

PRESSURE

on rock toughness in hydraulic

fracturing

process

manifests

itself

indirectly

through very high fracture

treating

pressures observed during frac jobs.

Accurate measurements of the fracture

propagation

overpressure

and comparison

with

numerically

simulated

overpressures

show that hydraulic

fracture

models, which either neglect

rock toughness or use its

laboratory

measured values,

predict

much

smaller

overpressures

than

actually

appear

in

field

conditions

(Warpinski

1984a,b).

The rock toughness characteristics

can be determined from field

pressure data by matching these and the overpressure

simulated with a hydraulic

fracture

model, in which fracture

toughness

proposed approach requires

much effort

in field

performance and contains

uncertainties

in test procedures and data interpretation.

The fracture

closure pressure (p.),

assumed to be equal to the minimum

An accurate estimate of

this pressure is essential for the whole analysis. To measurePc'

minifrac

and microfrac

shut-in

and flowback tests are used (Nolte 1984,

McLennan & Roegiers 1982, Warpinski

1984a).

In a shut-in

test,

the

pressure

decline

curve

has no evident

features

which would indicate

fracture

closure.

A detailed

reservoir

analysis

of the pressure falloff is thus required

to avoid a subjective

and erroneous definition

of

the closure pressure.

Different

approaches in defining

p_ from shut-in

& Roegiers 198).

An alter-

native

technique

to determine

the fracture

closure

pressure

is the

constant

rate

flowback

test.

The flowback

pressure

decline

curve

usually

has

two distinctive

points

which may indicate

fracture

closure.

The inflection

point A on the pressure decline curve (Figure

1) has been successfully

used to estimate the fracture

closure pressure

(Nolte 1984).

flowback rates (Warpinski 1984a).

A mathematical analysis of the flow back

tests

and several

field

tests

suggests

that

point

C on the flowback

pressure decline

curve may be a better

indication

of the fracture

closure pressure because under certain

conditions

it represents

a well

reproducible

rate independent pressure value.

APw

541

pressure

through perforations:

estimated

Ap

= pW - pC

W

friction

pressure

= BHP- p - pC .If

drop (p_)

the inJeg-

high rock

(1)

Some fluid

flow restrictions

may exist

in the perforated

zone

1984b)

which create

higher

than theoretically

estimated

friction

pressure

drop at

the

fracture

entrance

and,

(Warpinski

perforation

(2)

stress intensity factor Ki[Ap] maybe smaller for the real fracture

than calculated

by a hydraulic

fracture

model (Figure 3).

These two effects

of fluid

flow are difficult

to quantify.

Their

significance

in the pressure analysis

can be reduced by using shut-in

pressure data.

During the early shut-in period the pressure gradient

in

the fracture

is almost eliminated

and p

= p (small pressure drop in

shut-in).

If

one notices

that

()

for

given fracture

geometry is determined by the fracture

volume and the

latter

changes insignificantly

after

a short time of pressure equalization after

shut-in,

a surprizing

result is that the ISIP is a measure of

the average

fracture

propagating

pressure,

not the fracture

closure

pressure (the minimum in situ stress).

Apparent rock toughness can be

estimated by the Griffith-Sack

type equation

KlC

where

the

fracture

= p ieff

shape dimensionless

constant

(2)

is

of

the order

of

fracture

or the half

height

of a contained

fracture.

The effective

fracture

size has to be known to use Equation (2).

In microfrac

tests,

the fracture

shape is assumed to be circular

and its

radius

can be

calculated

from pressure decline

curve (modified

Nolte analysis).

In

minifrac

tests,

the fracture

is assumed to be contained in the pay zone

wth half height considered

as the effective

fracture

radius giving a

conservative

estimate

of fracture

toughness.

FIELD

EXAMPLE

tests conducted in

the MWX Paludal

Zone Phase I stimulation

(Warpinsk 1984a).

Prior

to

these tests, the minimum in situ stress of about 40.7 MPa has been estimated by different

techniques

(microfrac

tests,

step rate

test,

flow

back test).

The pressure

decline

curve for the first

test

shows

the temperaturesurveysshow(fracture height HT - 30min the first

test

K

1C

The use of equation (2) gives

- 9.7 MPa

or in terms of the apparent fracture surface energy

2

F = KI /E

two

othe

appearing

tests

summarized

in hydraulic

in

fracture

Table

treatments

indicate

that

is much larger

rock

toughness

and two orders of magnitude for K C and F , respectively.

These

results

agree

withthegeneral

trenofheapparent

fracture

surface

energy

rowth

with c%ack

size;

.

o

Z

(

for

542

10- m),

"small"

100 J/m for lab size cracks ( 10 Zm) and 10,O00 J/mZ

hydraulic

fractures

(<lOOm).

This

scale

effect

is

very

likely

to be caused by the crack layer

accompanying the hydraulic

fracture

propagation

and is clearly

seen even for small changes of

pumped volumes in Table 1.

How strong this effect can be in large

treatments

is an important practical

issue.

Some limited

data reported

in the literature

(Medlin & Fitch 1983) demonstrate tremendous increases

of post treatment

ISIP's

of more than 16MPa with

respect

to their

initial

values

which resulted

in screenouts.

It

is suggested

that

pressure screenouts be studied not only as sandout phenomena, but also

as a phenomenon of crack layer

evolution

during hydraulic

fracturing

treatments.

ENERGY

ANALYSIS

OF

HYDRAULIC

FRACTURING

The analysis

of

the

fracture

propagation

process

and hydraulic

fracturing

treatment

data suggests that the rock toughness effect

is

very important

and, under certain

conditions,

may even become dominant

for fracture

growth.

Therefore,

any hydraulic

fracture

theory has to

account for at least four interacting

processes--fluid

flow, rock deformation,

rock toughness, and fluid

loss through fracture

walls to adequately

describe

hydraulic

fracture

growth and to predict

realistic

fracture

dimensions.

An approximate

theory that incorporates

the rock

toughness effect

in conventional

fracture

models is presented below for

a circular

fracture.

A circular

fracture

equilibrium

growth.

of radius

R at time

The following

t is considered

during

quasi-

fluid pumped

(qt), leak-offv_ume

(2RvCTr) (Nolte1984),and

:

Here

is

a constant (4/3

/2)dependent

on the

(3)

total

fluid

fracture

energy .

is

th

average fracture

energy

considertions.

For

quasiequilibrium

fracture

propagation,

the

total

energy

dissipation

rate is minimized.

Three processes give the major contribution to the total

energy loss in the hydraulic

fracture;

(1) creation

surface

( .c ),

(2)

fracture

(3) viscous

flow between parallel

plates,

all energy

rates can be calculated

analytically

and expressed in terms of average

fracture

width:

= rq/,d= (3/32)E'q/R,

f = (12/)t21n/()

3

(4)

c

interval.

The condition

which yields

of quasiequilibrium

an expression

for

fracture

propagation

requires

width

([)2=w2+ /w+w}

(6)

where wc

2= (16/3a)m/E',

w= (1281no/(3a))qR/E'

c

543

Solving

fracture

the fracture

radius R and the average

width at time t are determined.

The average overpressure

Ap = (3/16)E'w/R

profile

for

plates

p(r)= Pw-(6q/)(w--)-31n(r/R)

o

can

be

calculated.

SCALING

The

LAWS

OF HYDRAULIC

presented

FRACTURING

hydraulic

fracture

dimensionless characteristics

model

allows

introduction

of

The .energy

The widthAequation

suggestsa dimensioness

eometricaparameter

k = Wc/W. Finally the materialbalancegivesdimensionless

leak-

of parameter

k1 = 2RCTV_/(q/)that is relatedto the fluid effi-

to injectedvolume)

as

dimensionless

para-

meters k

,

and k1 quantify three interactive mechanisms

betweenfour

physicalCgrockesses

involved

inhydraulic

fracturing.

Thus,

they

repre-

fracturing

which have to be obeyed in

properly scaled lab hydraulic

fracture

experiments.

CONCLUS ION

The scale

effect

on fracture

toughness

is discussed

in context

of

hydraulic

fracturing.

The crack layer causes this effect

and results

in

significant

increase of fracture

toughness and treatment pressure with

crack growth.

The laboratory

fracture

toughness measurements cannot

A method

to estimate

fracture

toughness from treatment

pressure data is proposed

and a field

example is discussed.

A variational

principle

of the minimum energy dissipation

rate is used to incorporate

fracture

toughness in

classic hydraulic

fracture

models.

Dimensionless characteristics

of the

hydraulic

fracturing

process are introduced which are the scaling laws

of the process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The

author

permission

discussions

wishes

to

to publish

thank

the

management

of

Shell

Oil

Company for

and assistance

in preparing

the paper.

REFERENCES

Bakar, M., A. Chudnovsky & A. Moet 1983. The Effect of Loading History

on the Fracture Toughness of Polycarbonate.

Proc. Int. Conf. on

Fatigue in Polymers. London, GB. 81.-8.8.

Biot, M.A., L. Masse & W.L. Medlin 1982. A Two-Dimensional Theory of

Fracture Propagation.

SPE Paper 11067.

57th Annual Conference.

New

Orleans, LA. September.

544

Toughness Characterization

in Steel.

Western

Reserve

Univ.

Cleveland,

NASAReport 168154. Case

OH.

Comprehensive Design Formula for Hydraulic

Fracturing.

SPE Paper 9259.

55th Annual Conference.

Dallas,

TX.

September.

Cleary,

Development of a Fully

Three-Dimensional

Simulator

for Analysis and Design of Hydraulic

Fracturing.

SPE Paper 11631.

Symposium on Low Permeability

Gas

Reservoirs.

Denver, CO. March.

Clifton,

R.$. & l.S. Abou-Sayed 1981.

A Variational

Approach to the

Prediction

of the Three-Dimensional

Geometry of Hydraulic

Fractures.

SPE/DOEPaper 9879.

Denver,

Reservoirs.

CO. May.

Friedman,

1972.

Fracture-Surface

Energy of

Rocks.

Int.

J. Rock, Mech. 9:757-766

Geertsma, J. & F. deKlerk 1969.

A Rapid Method of Predicting

Extent of Hydraulically

Induced Fracture.

JPT December.

Predicting

Width

Fractures.

Trans.

and Extent

ASME.

J.

of Vertical

En.

Width and

Res.

Hydraulically

Tech.

101:8-19.

for

Induced

March.

Hart, C.M., D. Engl, R.P. Fleming & H.E. Morris 1984. Fracture

Diasnostics Results for the Multiwell

Experiments's Paludal Zone

Stimulation.

SPE/DOE/GRI Paper 12852. Unconventional Gas Recovery

Symposium.

Pittsburg,

PA. May.

Irwin,

G.R. 1958.

Analysis of Stresses

Crack Traversing

a Plate,

Discussion.

Trans. ASME. J. Art. Mech:

299-301.

Mclennan, J.D.

Instantaneous

Conference.

Medlin, W.L. &

Treatments.

CA.

How Instantaneous

are

Shut-In Pressures.

SPE Paper 11064.

57th Annual

New Orleans, LA. September.

J.L. Fitch 1983.

Abnormal Treating Pressures in MHF

SPE Paper 12108.

58th Annual Conference.

San Francisco,

October.

A General Analysis of Fracturing

Pressure Decline.

SPE Paper 12941.

Nordgren, R.P. 1972.

Propagation of a Vertical

Hydraulic Fracture.

SEPJ:

306-314.

Orowan, E. 1952.

Fundamentals of Brittle

Behavior in Metals.

In W. M.

Murray (ed.),

Fatigue and Fracture of Metals.

New York:

John Wiley &

Sons.

Ouchterlony,

F. 1983.

Fracture

Toughness Testing of Rock. In H. P.

Rossmanith (ed.),

Rock Fracture Mechanics.

Int.

Centre Mech. Sci.

CISM Courses & Lectures No. 275. Wien - New York:

Springer.

Palmer, I.D. & C.T. Luiskutty 1984.

Comparison of Hydraulic Fracture

Models for Highly Elongated Fractures

of Variable

Height.

Oral

Roberts Univ. Preprint.

Tulsa, OK.

Perkins,

T.K. & L.R. Kern 1961.

Width of Hydraulic

Fractures.

JPT: 937949

Warpinski,

N.R. 1984a.

Summary of Results of MWX Paludal Zone Phase I

Stimulation.

Memorandumof Record.

Sandia National Labs. January.

Warpinski,

N.R. 1984b.

MWX Paludal In Situ Stress Measurements and

Hydraulic

Fracture

Behavior.

Memorandum. Sandia National

Labs.

October.

Discountinuities

on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation.

SPE Paper

13224.

59th Annual Conference.

Houston, TX. September.

545

Table 1.

Paludal

Apparent Fracture

Zone

Phase

Stimulation*

Volume

ISIP

(m3)

(MPa)

Ap

(MPa)

(HTm

Ref

K1C

)

(m)f

MPayr

22

44.2

2.8

28

12

9.7

57

45.9

4.5

41

12

15.6

47.6

6.2

46

12

21.5

114

KJ/m

2

3

7.8

14.9

Y = 24m(Warpinski1984a)

qB

"1'

INJECTION

BHP pwJ5

PT

HUT - )N

ISlp

-p(

BHP

,,=DW

' PT

FLOW

BACK

ir

A B

'///////

qB'

Figure 1.

Injection

- shut-in

flowback pressure curve of typical

micro/mini

fracture

test.

Figure 2.

Bottom hole pressure

measurements and friction

drop

during fracture

test.

IP-

DISTANCE

DISTANCE

ALONG

THE FRACTURE

Figure 3.

Hypothetical

pressure profile

during injection

for (A) idea1 well-fracture

system, (B) fracture treatment.

546

and shut-in

- 1 Strain Profiling of Fatigue Crack Overload EffectsUploaded bySon Tran
- Talat Lecture 2403 Applied Fracture MechanicsUploaded bysantasatana
- shyam2006.pdfUploaded byYudy SIr
- ISRM Chevron Notched Semi-CIruclarUploaded byJavier Valenzuela
- 951Uploaded byyrdgcgf5664
- Mecanica da FraturaUploaded byLarissa Medeiros
- Fracture Toughness K1c and Toughness GcUploaded byEric Arriaga Altamirano
- Lode Angle v2Uploaded byAnne Todd
- metals-06-00163.pdfUploaded byAlket Dhami
- 73666136 Introductory Fracture MechanicsUploaded bySerawit Tadesse
- www.carmagen.com_news_Publications_ipeia2009JAumuller.pdfUploaded byJai Patel
- Fatigue Chapter 6Uploaded byJia En
- 71151530-FatigueFatigueUploaded bygu1000
- 2009_Modeling of Crack Propagation in Weld Beam-To-Column Connections Submitted to Cyclic Loading With Cohesive Zone ModelUploaded byMassimo Latour
- 100330345-Book-Creep-Modul.pdfUploaded byPhillip Miller
- solid state physicsUploaded bysoumendra ghorai
- ArticleUploaded byMarco Lopez
- Indentation FrontiniUploaded byBenjamin Blair
- Work Ability Criteria in Bulk Forming ProcessesUploaded bymehanny_sherif7140
- DNV-RP-F204 Riser Fatigue October 2010Uploaded byTroy
- Research Inventy : International Journal of Engineering and ScienceUploaded byresearchinventy
- CE2155 - 01 Mechanic of Materials (Part 3)Uploaded byJulia
- 5-Fatigue of Dental Ceramics in a Simulated Oral Environment - CopyUploaded bymichael.cretzu
- Stress presentation.pptxUploaded byDhakshina K
- 68Uploaded byMona Awad
- Corrosión en Plantas de GNUploaded byMonthy José Salcedo Rosas
- mekbatUploaded byerika
- Lecture 5 Failure AnalysisUploaded bybmyertekin
- How to Prevent Weld FailureUploaded byأحمد دعبس
- Fadiga e Fratura Aco Carbono1Uploaded bykleberdelacerda

- نمونه فرم تهیه پروپوزال دانشگاه ادلایدUploaded byamir11601
- Simulation of Viscoelastic Materials in AbaqusUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Biometrics InformationUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- co2crc_regionalstudies_researchprojectsUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- GEO ExPro v12i6Uploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- RWTH Summer School 2016 ScheduleUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Route Description Fluor OfficeUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Club Line SeriesUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Staying in the Netherlands After Your Studies 20110624Uploaded byAkshay Vaidhy
- B.E.petroleumEngg.2008CourseUploaded bydhorajkar
- MV_Membership_Form.pdfUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- CFR_2013Uploaded byJoy Tan
- 3DEC Brochure.pdfUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- o Mv DrillingUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Icovia® Room PlannerUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- The Independence War of 1857 (Veer Savarkar)Uploaded byNrusimha ( नृसिंह )
- The Independence War of 1857 (Veer Savarkar)Uploaded byNrusimha ( नृसिंह )
- QUE$TOR manual.pdfUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Invitation BenKeiUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Invitation BenKeiUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- ONGC Colony Gymnasium & TT Centre 2Uploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- dumux-handbook-2.8Uploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Coffey Insight Geomechanics of Hydraulic Fracturing Michael BlackamUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Scientific IntegrityUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- ReleaseUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- 20160331_Academic_Calender_16-17_Uploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- Proline Washing Machine ManualUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- TU Delft Code of Ethics en(1)Uploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran
- BL FlowUploaded byRahulprabhakaran Vannostran

- Lecture 6_chapter 6Uploaded byFiq_den08
- Drop Weight Test/Dynamic Tear Test ASTM E 436; E 604 & American Petroleum Institute (API) -5L Application ReportUploaded bymarkus_naslund
- ANSYS 14.5 PreviewUploaded byVivaCharles
- - Stress Corrosion Cracking Behaviour of Gas Tungsten Arc Welded Super Austenitic Stainless Steel JointsUploaded byMuchamadAsyhari
- fatigue.pdfUploaded bysuzilamatsalleh
- DNV-RP-C203-10Uploaded byg0700996
- Me 215 Ch 6 Fatigue 11310Uploaded byYusuf Sahin
- 987_9.pdfUploaded byHerman Jamal
- 1-s2.0-0029549389901611-main.pdfUploaded byHabibie Rahman
- Recent Development in Natural FiberUploaded byM.Saravana Kumar..M.E
- Acoustic Emission Study of Fatigue Crack GrowthUploaded byPravasini Kuanr
- Fracture strength of prefabricated all-ceramic posteriorinlay-retained fixed dental prosthesesUploaded byDiana Grigore
- AIChE Wilhelm April 08 Process SafetyUploaded bymostafa_1000
- UTF-8'en'[12302945 - Archives of Civil Engineering] Numerical Modeling of Diagonal Cracks in Concrete BeamsUploaded bylazem.360
- EPM CLASE 3.pdfUploaded byJORGE FREJA MACIAS
- Can Final Paper Rev 2Uploaded bys_murugan02
- scordelisUploaded byrahul vaish
- J IntegralUploaded bymshameli
- Propriedades Fadiga ASTMA36 WJ 1978 11 s334Uploaded byMarcell Enzweiler
- ME Machine Design SyllabusUploaded bynitingurav
- 1 Cracked Isotropic Plate Structures – a Review CamerareadyUploaded byd4891
- pron2Uploaded byEddy Pacheco
- 44157Uploaded byscribdhalmar
- 5 Impact TestUploaded byChantayya Badugu B
- Using XFEM in Abaqus to Model Fracture and Crack PropagationUploaded byGustavo
- RefUploaded byBlue Haris
- XFEM and EFG Cohesive Fracture Analysis for Brittle and Semi-Brittle MaterialsUploaded byusamaumer
- ch09Uploaded byKilona
- 37088691Uploaded bykhairnar_y87
- Fracture Critical FatigueUploaded byAltayeb Yassin