SPE 37735

A Mathematical Model for Predicting Wellbore Screenout in FRACPACKs

Mazen H. Omari, Schlumberger Dowell
Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE Middle East Oil Show and
Conference.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435

Abstract
The fracturing and gravel packing sand control technique,
most commonly referred to as FRACPACK, has recently
become one of the most successful and reliable ways to
complete low to moderate permeability unconsolidated
sandstone reservoirs. In addition to providing a good sand
control completion, FRACPACK offers the advantage of
stimulating the reservoir and reducing the final skin.
FRACPACK treatments are most commonly done with the
screen in place where a gravel pack packer is run with the
blank pipe and screens placed across the zone of interest.
Later, a fracturing treatment is performed through the gravel
pack packer and across the screens (Fig. 1)
Although a lot of research has been made in the fracturing
area of FRACPACKs, little is known about the nature of
slurry flow in the screen/casing annulus below the gravel pack
packer crossover ports and before entering the perforations. It
is believed that as pumping progresses, deposition of proppant
on the screen yields stable nodes that may cause bridging in
the annulus that may result in early termination of the
fracturing treatment.
This paper discusses the steps involved in mathematically
predicting node buildup on the screen during FRACPACK
treatments. A simple model was developed that calculates
the size of the node deposit at the end of fracturing treatments
based upon treatment parameters. FRACPACK case histories
from the Gulf of Mexico where wellbore screenouts occurred
were predicted by the model.
Introduction
Although the basic design of a FRACPACK job involves
fracturing technology, an important part of the design which
is often neglected is the flow of the fluid below the crossover

ports and before it enters the formation at the perforations.

Of specific interest is the flow that develops behind the
screen in the annulus of the wash-pipe/screen which may lead
to deposition of nodes on the screen. The most successful
fracturing treatment design will fail if bridging occurs in the
screen/casing annulus, as this will cause the job to terminate
prematurely, resulting in lower fracture conductivity and a
sudden unexpected pressure increase causing possible collapse
of the down-hole equipment.
Recently operators have become increasingly aware of node
deposit buildup across the screen and introduced a set of
measures to prevent what is referred to as wellbore
screenout. Some of these methods include one or a
combination of the following: large wash-pipe diameters,
pre-packed screens, smaller screen diameters, less amount of
proppant, shunt tubes on the screens and performing the
FRACPACK in two trips for long intervals where a lot of
proppant needs to be placed. Although most or all of these
measures have proved to be effective in some way, it is not
fully understood how and why these have worked. This paper
attempts to model the flow of fluid and proppant deposition in
a FRACPACK and help in providing more understanding of
the different factors accounting for wellbore screenout. A
total of 23 fracturing and packing treatments were analyzed
and compared with the mathematical model results.
The in and out flow
The concept of flow into the screen and out of the wash-pipe
is not new in gravel packing. A lot of research has been
targeted at measuring flow behind the screen and the
resulting deposition of gravel at the face of the screen during
gravel pack operations. This flow was believed to account for
many early screen-outs in gravel packing. Although the same
concept applies to FRACPACKs, the variables involved in
determining the flow are different from those used in the
gravel packing:
The flow rate in a FRACPACK job is much higher than in a
conventional gravel pack. While pumping rates in gravel
pack jobs do not usually exceed 5 BPM, the rates in
FRACPACKs can be well over 15 BPM, causing higher
friction pressures in the screen/casing annulus.
The amount of proppant in a FRACPACK job is greater
(30,000 to 300,000 lbs) than that in conventional gravel
packs (5,000 to 15,000 lbs).

Mazen H. Omari

The carrier fluids used in FRACPACKs have higher

viscosities than those used in gravel packing. This results
in higher friction pressures in the screen/casing annulus.
Higher proppant concentrations are experienced in
FRACPACKs than in conventional gravel packing. While
in a gravel pack the gravel loading is 2-4ppa, the
FRACPACK loading can exceed 12 ppa in the final stages.
Slurry viscosity and density of FRACPACK jobs are higher
than gravel pack ones.
While in gravel packing the node deposition most
commonly occurs when circulating through the screen and
taking returns back into the wash-pipe, the deposition in a
FRACPACK is different. In order for flow to exist behind
the screen, in the wash-pipe/screen annulus, it must enter
into the screen at some point at the uppermost section and
later exit into the screen/casing annulus flowing into the
perforations. This is referred to as the in and out flow.
Flow below the crossover ports in a FRACPACK
To be able to predict the node buildup across a screen in a
FRACPACK treatment, the flow behind the screen and
outside the wash-pipe (to be referred to hereafter as inside
flow) has to be calculated as it is this flow that causes
deposition at the node. Research and job experience show
that flow inside the screen does exist in most, if not all, cases.
The amount of such flow depends on many parameters, most
important of which are: screen/casing annular clearance,
wash-pipe/screen clearance, fluid rheology and flow rate.
Little experimental work is available that enables the
derivation of equations for flow below the crossover ports. To
understand the flow pattern below the crossover ports, it is
necessary to model this flow based on some assumptions to
simplify the problem.
Consider the section of a well below the crossover ports of a
gravel pack packer (Fig. 2). On a typical FRACPACK
treatment, the flow, after entering the screen/casing annulus
through the crossover ports, will likely be distributed as
follows:
A very small part of the total flow should take place at the
upper most section of the screen entering the screen and
depositing some proppant in the annulus. This fluid
leaking off into the screen flows behind the screen and
later exits at a lower section of the screen flowing into the
perforations. This is the early development stage of the
node. The initial length of the node is dependent on many
factors, some of which are: area of screen open to flow,
wash-pipe/screen annulus, screen/casing annulus, pumping
rate, rheology of fluid.
As more slurry is pumped, the leakoff into the screen
continues, but would now redistribute itself where it gets
diverted to the section of the screen just below the first node.
Some flow still enters the screen at the upper node, but
would be little compared to the flow at the lower section.
This is the node length development stage.
When more slurry is pumped, the pattern above continues
until a point is reached where the length of the node grows
very little. This is due to the fact that the pressure drop
across the node becomes less than that along the
screen/casing annulus. Also due to the geometry of the

flow path, i.e. the flow into the perforations, the flow will
re-enter at the uppermost section again. This would redivert the flow back into the upper section of the screen and
deposition of the node should again progress from the top,
but now through a larger section of the screen. This
dynamic process continues with little resultant growth in
node length.
Due to node deposit buildup in the annulus, velocities in the
annulus of the casing/screen become high, causing greater
friction pressures and eventually more flow would be
diverted into the screen. This, coupled with the fact that
slurry at the final stages will be high in proppant loading,
could cause a very rapid build up of the node, eventually
plugging the annulus.
Basic Assumptions for Model
Even with the simplified flow pattern described above, it is
evident that finding exact equations to describe the flow
below the crossover ports would not be practical.
The distribution and redistribution process of the flow, as
well as the dynamic buildup of the node, make it difficult to
theoretically describe the process. Flow is non-uniform, even
in the screen/casing annulus, as it decreases from a maximum
value before the top perforations to zero at the bottom
perforations. To address this flow issue and estimate the
distribution as well as the node buildup process, a set of
assumptions were made.
1. The fluid flowing in the annulus of the screen/casing is a
slurry of uniform proppant concentration in all directions.
2. The slurry rheology is a direct function of the carrier fluid
rheology. A factor will be used that is a function of the
proppant concentration.
3. The fluid leaking off into the screen has the same
properties as the carrier fluid.
4. The node buildup across the screen will be assumed to
take place across a predetermined length of the screen to
be called node length. All the flow into the screen will
be assumed to take place in that section. Although this is
not strictly true, it will produce conservative results in the
model. (A value of 10% of the total screen length for the
node length was found to give the best match between the
model and field results.)
5. The equivalent path of flow will be defined as the length
of the screen where the total (equivalent) flow inside the
screen will exit into the perforations. This is an assumed
value and has no physical meaning, but is required to
calculate the pressure drops outside and inside the screen.
This value will be assumed to be 40% to 50% of the total
length of the screen.
6. The node buildup process across the screen is stable and,
once it develops, is not reversible. No erosion of the node
will take place, even when higher velocities are
encountered at a later stage of the treatment. This
assumption is true for very viscous carrier fluids.
7. The flow distribution between the annulus of the
screen/casing or outside and the annulus of washpipe/screen or inside is a function of the pressure drop
along the screen, pressure drop inside the screen and

SPE 37735

A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR PREDICTING WELLBORE SCREENOUT IN FRACKPACKS

pressure drop across the node as well as the total flow.

(More fluid will take the path of least resistance).
8. The well is vertical and no account was made for settling
of the gravel.
9. The screen, wash-pipe and casing are perfectly centered.
Rheology Equations
The rheology of the carrier fluid used in FRACPACKs will be
assumed to follow a visco-elastic behavior. Visco-elastic
fluids follow the power law behavior but have a higher critical
Reynolds number. This model was developed as part of
experiments done earlier 9. The equations describing this
model can be written as follows:
For Laminar Annular Flow (Oil field units):
V
NRe

Pf
f
NRe(c)

13.476 x 4Q(1)
(D22- D12 )
= 2.28 x x V2-n' x (D2- D1)n' ....(2)
144n' K' (2n'+1)
3n
= 0.039 x fx LV2 .. (3)
0.8165(D2-D1 )
= 16 ..(4)
NRe
= 3470 - 1370n'(5)

Equations for Turbulent Annular Flow (Oil field units):

V
NRe
Pf
1/f
D2
D1
L

Pf
Q
Nre
n'
K'
f

13.476 x 4Q ..(6)
(D22- D12 )
= 928 x x0.8165 V x (D2-D1 )n' (7)

= 0.039 x fx LV2 ...(8)

0.8165(D2-D1 )
=14.9 n'-1.6 D0.13log(NRef) - 53.9 n'-1.9 D0.27(9)
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Casing Inner Diameter , in.

Tubing Outer Diameter , in.
Pipe or casing length , ft.
Fluid Density , lb m/gal
Fluid velocity , cps.
Friction Pressure Drop , Psi
Pumping Rate , BPM
Reynolds Number, Unitless
Power Law Flow index , unitless
Fluid consistency index , lb-secn/ft2
Fanning Friction Factor, Unitless

The rheology of the slurry will be assumed to be

proportional to the carrier fluid with a slurry correction
factor, CF. Basically the same equations are used for the
visco-elastic carrier fluid with the friction multiplier
coefficient, CF.
fs = fcf x CF.(10)
fs is the slurry friction coefficient and fcf is the carrier fluid
friction coefficient found from Eqs. (4) or (9) above. CF can
be calculated as follows:

CF = r (Laminar Flow)(11)
CF = r0.55r0.45 (Turbulent Flow)......(12)
r = ( 1 + [ 0.75(e1.5n-1)e-(1-n)/1000 ] ) (1.25 p )(13)
1- p
p = Cp /( Cp + )
Cp = Particle Concentration, lb m/gal
p = Particle Density, lb m/gal

= shear rate , sec-1

r = Friction correlation coefficient, unitless
r = ( 1+ Cp/f)/ ( 1+ Cp/ p)
f = Carrier Fluid Density, lb m/gal
Using Equations of flow for the carrier fluid coupled with
Eqs. (11), (12) and (13), the friction pressure drop and
velocity of the flow behind the screen can be determined in
the annulus.
Pressure Drop Across Node
The pressure drop across the node deposit restricts the flow
into the wash-pipe. As the node width increases, it becomes
more and more difficult for fluid to leak off inside the screen
(for a constant flow outside). The pressure drop or resistance
to flow across the node resembles the pressure drop in a
gravel pack completion. It is basically a simple form of Darcy
linear flow which is directly proportional to the viscosity of
the fluid flowing and inversely proportional to the
permeability of the deposit. (Due to the small thickness of
the node, radial effects will not be considered).
In simpler terms, the equation can be written as follows:
P = Nw Q
kA
For oilfield units, and assuming that the area open to flow is
the open screen area per foot multiplied by the length of the
node, the above equation can be written as follows:
P = 1.84 x 108 NwQ (14)
k AsoL
: The viscosity of carrier fluid at the down-hole shear rate
(cP).
Nw :The width of the stable node (in)
Q :Flow across the Node (BPM)
k :Permeability of the proppant (md)
Aso :Area open to flow (in2) per ft screen length
L : Being the length of the node in ft.
The above equation is very sensitive to the viscosity and
should be taken as being at down-hole conditions of
temperature (based on the down-hole shear rate, which is in
itself a function of the flow, Q). To find the value of
viscosity, , the following oilfield unit equations were used:
' =
1647 Q
(15)
(D2-D1) (D22-D12)
= 47880 K'(16)
'(1-n')
Where D2 and D1 are respectively the outer and inner
diameters considered and Q is the flow rate. ' is the shear
rate at the considered flow rate with K' and n' being the power
law indexes.

Mazen H. Omari

Pressure Drop Across a Prepacked Screen

When the screen is prepacked, an additional pressure drop
will be encountered resisting flow into the screen. This is due
to the annular pack between the screen jackets. Theoretically,
the effect of this annular pack is very similar to the effect of
the node deposit accumulated on the screen. Consequently,
the total pressure drop resisting the flow to the inside of the
screen can be calculated by the addition of the pressure drops
from the node and the pre-pack.
Equations (14), (15) and (16) were used to calculate the extra
pressure drop due to the prepacked annulus. The prepack
gravel resin coated permeability, which is 80 to 90% of the
undamaged permeability, was used to calculate the extra
pressure drop.
Due to the nature of the flow, the actual pressure drop
encountered should be twice that calculated above, since the
flow has to enter and exit the screen. This is the advantage of
using prepacked screens as it becomes more difficult for flow
to develop inside the screen when compared to a regular
screen.
Mathematical Representation of the Problem
To find the flow distribution between the outside and
inside flow, an equation of the pressure drops should be
satisfied. Assuming that the flow into the screen exits at a
distance Leq, equivalent length, from the top of the screen
and meets with the outside flow going into the perforations,
then the following equation can be written.
Poutside /Leq = Pinside /Leq + Pnode/ Leq (17)
This equation implies that the fluid flowing behind the
screen should exit the screen and join the flow outside at a
distance Leq from the top of the screen. The total pressure drop
for the inside flow is the sum of pressure drop due to flow in
the annulus between wash-pipe and screen, Pinside , and the
pressure drop across the node, Pnode. (this is negligible
initially before proppant deposits occur, Fig. 3).
Using the equations (1) to (16) it is possible to calculate
flow distribution using an iterative solution scheme. All the
terms in equation (17) can be written as a function of the total
flow rate and, in order to solve for the outside and inside flow
rates, an algorithm was defined that assumed flow distribution
values prior to iteration. In the following section, the
variables and algorithm used to solve equation (17) are
presented.
Model Input / Output Variables
The model input includes: casing and screen dimensions,
screen gauge and length, wash-pipe diameter, proppant
permeability, density and absolute volume, carrier fluid power
law and consistency indices at bottom hole conditions, the
treatment pumping schedule with stage proppant loading and
pump rates.
The model will output values of the following at the end of
each pumping stage: the flow distribution outside and inside
the screen, the pressure drop across the node and pressure
drop along the screen (in the annulus) and the node width
deposited at the face of the screen.

Model Algorithm
The following are the steps involved in the calculation of the
output variables listed above:
a) From the carrier fluid density, absolute volume of
particles and proppant concentration, determine the
slurry density.
b) From Equations (11), (12) and (13) determine the slurry
friction correlation coefficient assuming laminar flow and
a shear rate of 100 sec-1. (The slurry friction correlation
coefficient is not very sensitive to the value of shear)
c) Assume a flow inside and outside as a function of the
total flow rate.
d) Calculate the velocity of flow outside and inside using
Eqs. (1) or (6). Use the density of slurry for outside flow
and density of carrier fluid for the inside flow.
e) Calculate the Reynold's numbers outside and inside from
Eqs (2) or (7) depending on the nature of the flow
(laminar or turbulent).
f) Calculate friction coefficient inside and out using Eqs (4)
or (9).
g) Calculate pressure drop outside and inside using Eqs (3)
or (8). Multiply the friction outside by the correlation
factor.
h) Calculate ' and from Eqs (15) and (16).
i) Calculate the pressure drop across the node using Eq.
(14). Note this is zero in the first stage of the treatment.
j) Check the equality in Eq. (17) by subtracting both sides.
k) According to the result obtained above, modify the flow
assumption and repeat until convergence or until the
equality in Eq. (17) is satisfied.
l) After calculating the flow inside or the flow into the
wash-pipe/screen annulus, calculate the sand depositing
on the screen by multiplying the flow rate by the
pumping time of the current stage and by the proppant
concentration.
m) Divide the value obtained in step (e) above by the surface
area and calculate the width of the node.
n) Repeat all the above steps for all the treatment stages
adding the node width cumulatively each time. Note that
as node builds up, so does the pressure drop across the
node as it is a direct function of the node width. Each
stage has a unique solution. The cross-sectional annular
area formed by the node has to be subtracted from total
area available for flow in the screen/casing annulus.
o) Screenout occurs if the node width becomes greater or
equal to the annulus of screen/casing.
At the end of the algorithm, all output variables were
displayed in a table form to check the development of flow in
each stage.
Results
In order to evaluate the model predictions, 23 jobs were
studied from a database of more than 200 fracturing jobs.
These jobs were chosen with varying casing sizes (i.e. 5 1/2,
7, 7 5/8 and 9 5/8 casing). Those jobs represent the
treatments where the highest amount of proppant was
designed and pumped.

SPE 37735

A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR PREDICTING WELLBORE SCREENOUT IN FRACKPACKS

After inputting the job parameters and running the model for
all the treatments, it was found that using a node length of 0.1
times the screen length it gave the most reasonable results
when compared to field data (TABLE 1). The following
observations were made when comparing the actual
treatments results of treatments with the model predictions:
In the jobs where highest amounts of proppant were actually
pumped without screenout, the model predicted screenout
just before placing all the proppant. This was attributed to
the conservative assumptions that were used in the model.
From field results, it was clear that most jobs pumped with
a large amount of proppant were the jobs done using a
prepacked screen. The model supports this observation,
since the node width predicted in most cases was low
compared to that calculated for regular non-prepacked
screens.
Very few jobs were available in the database where a lot of
proppant was pumped in the case of non-prepacked screens.
The four cases studied show that the model predicted
screenout earlier than that encountered in the field. In case
there was no screenout predicted, the final node width
predicted by the model was high (50% to 70% of annular
clearance) indicating the likelihood of screenout had the
treatment continued.
The results of the model confirmed that some screenouts
were actually not caused by bridging due to node buildup.
This was also evident since such screenouts happened very
early in the treatment.
In general, the results of the model are conservative and
may be used to estimate the amount of proppant that can be
safely pumped prior to screenout.
The model predicted that a flow as much as 0.01 to 0 0.05
BPM in the screen/wash-pipe annulus is enough to cause
the node to buildup and eventually screenout.
Effect of Treatment Well Parameters on Screenout
A study was performed to determine the predicted effect of
pumping and well schematic parameters on the node buildup,
as predicted by the mathematical model. It appears that the
results of this study justify existing gravel packing operational
assumptions.
Wash-pipe Diameter
The wash-pipe to screen ID ratio has a pronounced effect on
the node buildup for 7 casing . In the case of a 9 5/8"
casing, and for the common size of screens used, the model
results suggest that wash-pipe ratio is not as significant as in
smaller size casings. This is due to the large annulus
available for the flow of slurry compared to inside of the
screen. (Fig. 4)
Variation of Proppant
Although most of the fracturing treatments were done using a
20/40 mesh sand, it is worthwhile to mention that the higher
the permeability of the proppant, the more likely a screenout
will occur. The situation is especially critical if 10/20 gravel
is used for fracturing. (Fig. 5)
Screen Diameter
The size of the screen was found to be a main factor in the
node buildup. Larger screen diameters lead to less annular
clearance which accelerates the screenout process. Some

Operators use a 2 7/8 OD screen for a 7 production casing,

while others use a 4.5OD screen inside a 7 5/8 casing. The
size of the screen should be selected carefully, especially if the
interval to be treated is long and large amounts of proppant
are to be pumped. (Fig. 6)
Carrier Fluid
A more viscous fluid will, in general, result in a smaller node
size on the screen. Although a higher viscosity fluid causes
greater friction in the annulus between screen and casing, this
is secondary to the higher pressure drop of flow leaking off
across the screen which takes place at very low shear rates
and is directly proportional to the viscosity of the carrier fluid.
This fact may help in explaining some of the early screenouts
observed in the field, due to either premature breaking of the
gel or preparing fluid with properties inconsistent with the
design requirements. (Fig. 7 )
Pump Rate
The results of the model show that the higher the pump rate
the greater will the node build up. At a late stage of the
treatment, or when the effective area of flow in the annulus
decreases due to node deposit buildup, the fluid in the annulus
is in turbulent flow causing a sudden increase in friction
pressure drop and diverting more flow inside the screen. (Fig.
8)
Screen Length
The model suggests that the longer the screen, or the more
perforated the interval, the more critical will be the wellbore
screenout. This is evident since longer screens encourage
more flow behind the screen as it reduces the pressure drop
per unit length in the wash-pipe/screen annulus. It is nonadvantageous to excessively overlap the screen above the
perforations. (Fig. 9)
Summary and Conclusions
A mathematical model was developed to calculate the size of
the node buildup on the screen during fracturing treatments as
a result of flow taking place in the screen and wash-pipe
annulus. The model predictions appear to reflect actual field
results from fracturing treatments where a large amount of
proppant was pumped.
A study performed using the model suggests that one of the
most effective methods to prevent wellbore screenout on
FRACPACKs is the use of prepacked screens. This fact was
corroborated from the database of jobs performed in the Gulf
of Mexico.
The success of a fracturing treatment with regard to
preventing wellbore screenout lies in reducing the amount of
flow leakoff into the screen (no matter how this is achieved).
If flow develops early in the fracturing treatment, then it is
likely that this flow will increase gradually to induce a
screenout depending on the duration of treatment. The use of
the model presented in this paper enables optimizing
treatment parameters to predict wellbore screenout prior to
job execution. Often good practices and proper screen and
wash-pipe selection will facilitate pumping a large amount of
proppant prior to bridging out in the annulus.

Mazen H. Omari

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Schlumberger Dowell for the
opportunity to prepare this paper. In addition, there are
numerous other people that have provided valuable input.
These include: Paul Massebouef, Ray Tibbles, Mehmet Parlar,
Norman Chesnut, Charlie Carroll, Michael Mathews and
Mike Colluzi.

DrillPipe

Gravel Pack Packer

X/O Ports

Screen

Casing

References
1. C.D. Haynes and K.E. Gray: Sand Particle Transport in
perforated Casing, SPE 4031
2. C. Gruesbeck and R.E. Collins: Particle Transport through
perforations, SPE 7006
3. Richard M. Hodge: Gravel Transport in Deviated Wellbores,
SPE 10654R.
4. S. Torrest: Deposit buildup During Gravel Packing with Viscous
Polymer Solutions, SPE 10072
5. Robert S. Torrest: Aspects of slurry and Particle Settling and
Placement for Viscous Gravel Packing ( AQUAPAC) , SPE
11009
6. Robert S. Torrest: The Flow of Viscous Polymer Solutions for
Gravel Packing Through Porous Media, SPE 11010
7. B.C. Skaggs: Transport Efficiency of High-Density Gravel
Packing Slurries, SPE 12480
8. Calculation of pressure losses across gravel packs, SPE
17167
9. D.G. Gurley and T.E. Hudson: Factors Affecting Gravel
Placement in Long Deviated Intervals, SPE 19400
10. P.H. Winterfeld and D.E. Schroeder Jr.: Numerical Simulation
of Gravel Packing, SPE 19753
11. M.H. Johnson J.P. Ashton and Hang Nguyen: The effects of
erosion velocity on filter-cake stability
During Gravel
Placement Openhole Horizontal Gravel pack Completions,
SPE 23773
12. Well Cementing by Eric B. Wilson.

Node Buildup

Slurry Flow
Carrier Fluid Flow

Wash
Pipe
Perforations
Figure 2 - Flow distribution and node buildup below the crossover ports
in a Frack and Pack

Total BPM :
Slurry
Gravel Pack
Packer

Screen

Node
Buildup

Lnode

Leqv

Qoutside : Slurry

Node Width: DeltaP

Qinside: Carrier Fluid

DeltaP : Pre-pack

DeltaP out /Leqv.= DeltaP in /Leqv. + DeltaP Node/Leqv.

+ 2 x DeltaP Prepack/Leqv.
Figure 3 - This figure shows how the model splits the flow into two
continuous parts flowing into the middle of the perforated interval

DrillPipe
Gravel Pack Packer
Crossover ports
Casing
Slurry Flow
Carrier Fluid

Wash
Pipe
Perforations

Node width/Annular Clearance

Screen

2
1.5
7 in
7-5/8"
9-5/8"

1
0.5
0
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

Washpipe Ratio

Figure 1 - Typical FRACPAC Schematic with screens in place and packer set.
Figure 4 - The node buildup increases as washpipe ratio decreases. The effect is less severe in 9 5/8 casing size
Values of nodewidth/annular clearance of greater than one indicate wellbore screenout

A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR PREDICTING WELLBORE SCREENOUT IN FRACKPACKS

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
40-60

7 in
7-5/8"
9-5/8"

20-40

20-10

Node width/Annular Clearance

Node width/Annular Clearance

SPE 37735

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

7 in
7-5/8"
9-5/8"

10 BPM

Proppant Mesh

25 BPM

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

7 in
7-5/8"
9-5/8"

3-1/2"

4"

Figure 8 - Variation of the size of node buildup with crosslinked and linear HEC carrier fluids

Node width/Annular Clearance

Node width/Annular Clearance

15 BPM
Pump Rate

Figure 5 - The node buildup increases as the permeability of the proppant increases.
Values of Node width/annular clearance of greater than one indicate wellbore screenout

2-7/8"

2
1.5
5-1/2"
7- in
7-5/8"

1
0.5
0
50

100

150

Screen Length

Screen Diameter

Figure 9 - Effect of the length of interval (or screen length) on the node buildup as simulated by
the model.

Figure 6- The node buildup increases as the diameter of the screen increases.

Node width/Annular Clearance

TABLE 1 - COMPARISON OF MODEL WITH FIELD CASES

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
X-linked

7 in
7-5/8"
9-5/8"
Linear
80lb

Linear
60 lb

Carrier Fluid

Figure 7 - Variation of the size of node buildup with crosslinked and linear HEC carrier fluids

Casing
Csg Weight
Casing ID
Screen
Screen Type
Screen ID
Screen OD
Scr. Gauge
Scr. Length
Wash-pipe
OD
Prop. Mesh
Carrier Fluid
BHST
Frac BPM
No. Stages
Design lbs
Actual lbs

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

5 1/2
17 lb/ft
4.892
2 7/8
Prepak
2.441
3.42
0.008
153 ft
1.90

7
29 lb/ft
6.184
3.5
Prepak
2.992
4.045
0.008
360 ft
2.37 5

7-5/8
33 lb/ft
6.76
4.5
Prepak
3.94
5.2
0.008
150 ft
2.875

9-5/8
47 lb/ft
8.681
4.5
Regular
4.045
5.196
0.012
130 ft
2.875

7-5/8
29 lb/ft
6.875
4.0
Regular
3.5
4.54
0.012
100 ft
2.875

20/40
HEC80
130 F
12
6
125000
48 000

20/40
HEC80
180 F
20
6
190000
175000

20/40
HEC80
180 F
13
8
196000
147000

20/40
HPG30
170 F
25
11
95 000
74 000

20/40
HPG35
186 F
12
7
70 000
57 000

76 000
------

180 000
------

115 000
------

95 000
0.50

54 000
------

Model Predictions
lbs Proppant
Node size

Five critical cases out of the 24 cases used to validate the model. The
results predicted were close to what was observed in the field . Cases 1
and 3 are examples of situations where wellbore screenout was not
accounted for in the design stage. In case 2, results of field treatment
and model show that the amount of proppant planned was really the
optimum for that particular schematic and pumping schedule. Cases 4
and 5 demonstrate the advantage of using prepacked screens.