SPE 96339

An Integrated Transport Model for Ball-Sealer Diversion in Vertical and

Horizontal Wells
X. Li, SPE, Z. Chen, SPE, S. Chaudhary, SPE, and R.J. Novotony, SPE, BJ Services Co.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
Ball sealer diversion has been proven to be both an effective
and economic way to selectively stimulate low permeability
oil and gas reservoirs in hydraulic fracturing and matrix
acidizing treatments. However, the design and implementation
of a successful ball sealer diversion treatment is still a
challenge. Often the designer depends on experience, and
lacks the knowledge of accurate ball transport and sealing
behaviors. An integrated model for selecting operating factors
such as fluid and ball properties, as well as predicting the ball
sealers transport and hydraulic behavior prior to pumping is
needed for optimizing the stimulation process.
In this paper, an integrated transport model is presented to
describe the relationships among the ball sealer transport
sealing behavior, wellbore deviation, wall effect, perforation
density and size, fluid properties, pumping rate and ball
properties. In addition, the smoothness of ball, perforation
phasing, and velocity profile inside the wellbore during ball
seating are also taken into consideration. Recommendations
are provided for determining the number of ball sealers per job
for either single or multiple stage treatment, the designed
pumping rate, and the physical properties of the fluid and ball
sealer. A hydraulic analysis model is presented for the overall
fluid dynamics starting from surface, through wellbore, to
reservoir. This analysis describes the effects of reservoir
condition, pressure drop on perforations, and actual sealing
efficiency on the surface treatment pressure profile. This paper
will investigate the effects of the diversion factors on the ball
transport behaviors such as transport time, ball sealer
efficiency and surface pressure.

Introduction
One of the first ball sealer process was performed by the
Western Company in 1956[1]. Since then, it has been widely

applied in the selective well treatment and stimulation[2].

During this ball sealer process development, a significant
improvement was reported by using near-neutral buoyancy
balls instead of conventional ball sealers. It was reported that
the buoyant ball sealer seating efficiency was increased to
100%[3,4]. Although there are several references that have
studied the properties of this diversion process, the
implementation of this technique in the industry is still relies
on the field experience and rules of thumb.
Modern techniques such as Laser Doppler Anemometry
(LDA) and Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) provide useful
measurement tools to observe transport behaviors in the solid
particle-fluid system. And advanced CFD simulators offer
numerical analysis in the fluid dynamics. However, the
mechanism of transport phenomena in the particle-fluid
system is still not fully understood.
Hydrodynamic forces and moments acting on particles
enclosed by fluids depends on many factors, such as the local
(undisturbed) flow field, fluid and particle inertia, external
forces and particle shape. Non-Newtonian fluids and turbulent
flow increase the degree of the problems complexity. For this
diverting process, these factors are fluid and ball properties,
pumping rate, well geometry and perforation data. In order to
understand this transport process, an integrated transport
model was developed to describe the relationships among
these factors and to develop a software product as a design and
simulation tool for guiding the implementation of the process.
Transport Model
Based on the principle of fluid mechanics, the ball tracks are
simulated through a Lagrangian approach taking into account
only the one-way coupling effect. The transient model for this
transport process is an ordinary differential equation with an
initial condition.
The equation of ball motion can be expressed as:

du
BV B dtB = BV B g + T n dS
S

(1)

where VB is the volume of the ball , B is the density of the

ball, uB is the ball velocity vector, and T is the instantaneous
stress tensor that must satisfy the Navier-Stocks equations.

SPE 96339

In Equation (1), the stress tensor term can be described as[5]:

The drag coefficient is calculated from the following

equations[6]:

T n dS = FD + FPG + FA + FL

(2)

where subscripts D, PG, A and L respectively denote force

components arising from drag, gravity, flow pressure gradient,
added mass effect, and lift force.
When the ball achieves a steady-state condition, the balls
velocity becomes a constant, this velocity is called terminal
settling velocity (or slip velocity).
The ball will be acted on by two main forces when it closes to
the perforation. These two main forces are an inertial force
whose direction is along the axis of casing and a drag force
toward to the perforation. The ball seating depends mainly on
the magnitude of these two forces. If the drag force is greater
than the inertial force, the ball will hit the perforation.
Otherwise, it will move down to the next perforation and the
evaluation continues. If the ball has not seated before passing
all the perforations in the interval, the ball will drop to the
bottom of the well.
The inertial force is a function of terminal settling velocity and
wall effect. And the drag force toward perforation is a function
of velocity profile from the center of the casing to the entrance
of perforation and discharge coefficient.
The other criterion is related to the ball holding force after the
ball seats on the perforation. This holding force is created by
the pressure difference across the perforation. The force trying
to dislodge the ball is a drag force caused by the main stream
flow of fluid. For example, In the case of vertical well, if the
ball unfolding force is greater than the vertical component of
the ball holding force, the ball will drop.
Therefore, the successful sealing of the perforation depends on
two main factors: seating and holding. Only a ball that can
meet both two criteria is considered seated.
In order to predict the surface pressure as a function of time
during this diversion process, the perforated zones reservoir
information is taken into consideration of this integrated
model. This information provides more details for hydraulics
analysis.
Numerical Methods
The ordinary differential equation following a Lagrangian
particle tracking methodology was solved numerically by a
fourth-order Rung-Kutta integrating method. Hence, the
instantaneous positions and velocities of the spherical ball can
be calculated numerically.
The balls terminal velocity is a function of drag coefficient.
And the drag coefficient is a function of Reynolds number that
is related to the terminal velocity. In order to obtain the
velocity, a trial-and-error solution is adapted to deal with this
coupling problem.

For Newtonian fluid:

Cd= 24/Re
Cd = 24/Re + 4/Re1/3
Cd = 0.44
Where Re = VdB/

Re<3
3<Re<500
Re>500

For Non-Newtonian Fluid (Power-Law)

Re<989
Cd =24(1+0.15Re0.687)/Re
Cd=0.44
Re>989
Where Re = V2-n dBn /K
The velocity profile of ball path from the centerline of casing
to the entrance of perforation is assumed a line function of a
distance from the casings centerline. The diversion force due
to the difference pressure through the perforation is computed
by numerical integrating this velocity profile.
Wall Effect
Several researchers found that the presence of walls or finite
boundaries exerts a retarding effect on the terminal velocity of
particles in a viscous medium[7]. However, the mathematical
relationship among the ratio of ball diameter to the tubing or
casing internal diameter, fluid rheology and wall effect factor
is difficult to be correlated.
In this paper, we use the wall factor (Fw) related to the
diameter ratio as follows[8]:
for laminar flow:

Fw = 1 (d B / D) 2.25

(3)

and for turbulent flow:

Fw = 1 (d B / D)1.5

(4)

Integration of Formation Properties and Surface

Pressure Change
After some of the perforations are sealed by balls, the surface
pressure will respond accordingly. By observation of the
surface pressure behavior the dynamic effectiveness of ball
sealer operation can be estimated.
An assumption is that at a given thickness of reservoir which
is evenly perforated with N perforations, the fluid would be
evenly pumped into formation if no perforations are sealed.
With some of the perforations sealed, at the same pump rate,
there will be an extra pressure increase due to both the reduced
fluid flow channels and effective thickness of reservoir. This
increased pressure will also force fluid flow into other zones.
When all the perforations on the first zone are sealed, the
second target zone is ready to be acidized or fractured.
At constant pump rate, the surface pressure response is
described by the infinite-acting transient radial flow model. In
practice an pseudosteady state model is sufficient.

Pwf (t ) = Pi + 203328QuB ln[re (t ) / rw ] / (knh / N ) (5)

SPE 96339

where
Pwf(t) : flowing pressure at center of top zone;
Pi : reservoir initial pressure;
Q : pump rate, BPM;
: fluid viscosity, cp;
B : fluid volume factor;
n : the number of unsealed perforations;
N : total number of perforations of this zone;
k : reservoir permeability, Md;
h : reservoir thickness, ft;
re(t) : radius of drainage at time t, ft
rw : wellbore radius;

re (t ) = 0.0037[kt / ct ]

0.5

In addition, the simulator conducts hydraulics calculation and

provides the results of surface pressure as a function of time
during the ball sealer process.

(6)

where

: porosity, %;
t : pump time, min;
ct : total compressibility, 1/psi;
The surface treating pressure is obtained by adjusting
bottomhole pressure with frictional and hydrostatic pressures.
The surface increase delta P after pumped a time t is:

Psurf = p surft p surf 0 = 203328QuB (ln[ re (t ) / rw ] / (knh / N )

(7)
Surface pressure changes during the ball sealer process
Figure 7 describes a typical tendency about pressure change as
the perforations are sealed. From this figure, at a certain time,
balls start to seal the perforations, the pressure increases
slightly compared to the pressure when all perforations are
opened. Once the open perforations percentage decreases to
~20%, the pressure increases dramatically.
Simulator
The ball sealer simulator is developed on Microsoft Windows
platform with friendly graphical user interface. It can cope
with both conventional and buoyant ball sealers. The simulator
is also adjusted to fit the practical application on the basis of
experimental data. Several main features of this simulator are
listed as below:
Newtonian and Non-Newtonian fluids;
Single and multiple stages treatment;
Wall effect on the ball transport behavior;
The effect of well geometry (Vertical, inclined and
horizontal);
The influence of fluid and ball properties;
Effect of perforation data (Perforated zone length,
perforation numbers, shot density, perforation size and
phasing etc.);
The effect of pump rate.
The simulation results are presented with several useful
information such as predicting the balls seating and holding
status, ball sealer and fluids transport time to the specified
perforation, fluid volume used for the ball sealer treatment and
how many perforation are sealed after the treatment.

Results and Discussion

Unsteady period and Settling Velocity
The balls velocity as a function of time is shown in Figure
1.In this figure, we find that the time for the ball to achieve
terminal setting or rising velocity is short. For example, in
these cases, it is just a few seconds. This indicates that it is
reasonable that the actual falling velocity is considered a
constant in the wellbore during the ball sealer process. The
simulators accuracy and computing efficiency depend mainly
on the time step length (t) during the simulation.
Mathematically, we have to choose t -> 0 so that dV/dt
become more accurate. However, this will increase the
expense of computational time. In reality, some balls may not
seat on the perforations during the process. These balls will be
present in the fluid. The velocity gradient around each ball
may be effected by the presence of nearby balls. This is a
hindered settling. In this paper, we will not consider this factor
in our model.
Drag coefficient and ball surface smoothness
For spherical particles, there are well over 30 equations in the
literature relating to the drag coefficient (Cd) to the Reynolds
number of spheres falling at their terminal velocity. Some
correlations are of varying complexity, and contain as many as
18 arbitrary parameters. In this paper, we use the model as
described above as we consider the balls sphericity is 1.00.
However, For the higher Re regimes, we obtained polynomial
functions by regression analysis with the Achenbachs data,
and use these functions for the calculation.
The effect of balls surface smoothness on the ball settling
velocity is shown in Figure 2. The difference between smooth
ball and dimpled ball is mainly from drag coefficient. It should
be noted that the effect of smoothness is in a certain Res
range, typically from 20,000 to 300,000.
From Figure 2, it shows that the terminal settling velocity of a
dimpled ball is larger than that of a smooth ball. From fluid
mechanics viewpoints, the drag force experienced by a ball as
it moves through a fluid is usually divided into two
components: viscous drag and pressure drag. Viscous drag is
associated with the viscous stresses developed within the
boundary layers while pressure drag comes from the eddying
motions that are set up in the wake downstream of the ball. At
a very low Reynolds number, the drag exerted on the ball is
predominately viscous drag. The pressure distribution on the
ball in this region does not contribute much to the overall
drag. While at large Reynolds number, pressure drag is the
dominant form of drag present. Viscous effects are still
present since the fluid has a viscosity, but its effects remain in
the thin boundary layer next to the ball. According to the
boundary layer theory[9], the fluid at a moderate rate, reaches a
separation point which is a position on the ball surface that the
velocity gradient becomes zero. In other words, the adverse
pressure gradient causes the fluid to separate from the
surface at this point on the ball. As the velocity increases, the

flow of fluid is therefore reversed in this area producing

eddies and formation of a wake region behind the ball.
In the case of a smooth ball, the boundary layer on the surface
is experienced laminar flow, this boundary layer tens to
separate and break away from the ball easily. This separation
of the boundary layer causes a large wake of low pressure
behind the ball, resulting in a high drag force. On the other
hand, in the case of a dimpled ball, the dimpled surface makes
the boundary layer more turbulent, this causes the boundary
layer to extend further along the ball, resulting in the wake
behind the ball is smaller than that behind a smooth ball. The
smaller the wake, the lower pressure and the easier it is for the
fluid to flow around the ball and so the drag force is less.
Perforation Density and Phasing
For many stimulation treatments, the perforation density is
usually in the range of 1~12 shot/feet. We examine a test case
(Test Case A) with a perforated zone of 20 feet. The pumping
fluid is 15%HCl with 5 bpm pump rate for a single-stage ball
sealer process. The RCN (Rubber Coated Neoprene) balls
size is 7/8 with specific gravity is 1.3. The perforation size is
0.375 and phasing is zero degree. The casing I.D. is 4.0.
The ball sealer efficiency as a function of shot density is
shown in Figure 3. The ball sealer efficiency is defined as the
number of sealed perforations divided by total number of
perforations. In this example, for the shot density below 3
shots/ft, the ball sealer efficiency is 100%. It means that under
the process conditions (pump rate, fluid and ball properties,
perforation size etc.), the number of perforations in this
perforated interval is suitable for meeting the criteria of both
seating and holding. As the shot density increases, less fluid
goes through each perforation to the reservoir, the fluid
velocity in the mainstream is reduced, this causes the decrease
of the inertial energy of ball in the fluid. Eventually it
decreases the ball sealers efficiency. In this case, when the
shot density is over 8 shots/ft, the ball sealer efficiency
becomes zero, which means the ball sealer is total failed. This
useful information will provide a guide for the operation
engineers in design the ball sealer process.
Figure 4 shows the relationships among the non-seated ball
percentages, and shot density. In this example, the dropped
ball numbers are the same as the total perforations. We define
the non-seated ball percentage is the number of non-seated
balls divided by the total number of dropped balls. In this
example, the non-seated percentage is increased as the shot
density is increased.
Figure 5 shows the relationship between the phasing and ball
transport time. We use the above test case with the shot
density is 2 shots/ft. The ball transport time is the time
necessary for a ball to seal at the last perforation. There are
very few referemces in the literature on studies of the phasing
effect on the particles transport trajectory in the fluid inside
the wellbore. Although Chen et al[10] proposed some
mathematical treatments for flow efficiency of perforated
systems in the wellbore. Their work was more theoretical and
the systems were not for solid particle multiphase fluids.

SPE 96339

From this figure, it turns out the phasing has little effecs on the
ball transport time in the casing. In general, the ball
trajectories in the fluid are fairly complicated because both
translational and rotational motions should be simultaneously
considered and these motions are coupled. To simplify the
simulation process, we assume that the ball trajectory follows
a certain pattern along the fluid transport. Statistically, the
instantaneous balls transport velocity consists of the mean
velocity and a fluctuating velocity. Under the same Reynolds
number and other conditions, the perforations phasing
orientation may not change the local disturbance or
perturbation. On the other hand, the perforation phasing does
not change the balls transport length within the shot density
of 1~12 shots/ft. Hence, the phasing has a little effect on the
balls transport behaviors.
Ball transport time
Table 1 lists partially data that present the relationship
between transport time and wellbore measured depth. Internal
experiments show that the ball transport time in reality is
longer that that of this simulator.
The reasons for this behavior may be explained as follows.
From Equation (2), we could find that the forces on the ball
when the ball is moving through a fluid are quite complex. As
we discussed in the above section, for a fast moving ball, there
will be some point on the ball where the flow separates,
creating a turbulent wake behind the ball. As the pressure
differential between the leading surface of the ball and the
surface within the turbulent wake arrives at a critical point, it
may cause the ball to migrate laterally and spin. So the
spinning of the ball in the fluid could result in the retarded ball
in the transport time. The spinning of solid particles in fluid is
a very complex topic in physics of fluids, which is out of the
scope of this paper.
The ball spinning will cause a lift force for the ball. This is so
called Magnus effect. This lift force is usually perpendicular
to the direction of the fluid flow and related to the angular
velocity of the fluid flow. This force is not easy to calculate
analytically in the fluid dynamics. Although Joseph et al[12]
proposed a DNS (direct Numerical simulation) method to
compute the slip velocity in the low Reynolds number range
with the lift force is taken into account, there still no
experimental data to confirm it.
Overall, both the lateral migration and lift force may cause the
retarded movement of ball along the centerline in the casing
and then increase the balls transport time.
Inclined and Horizontal Well
Figure 6 shows the effect of wellbore inclination on the ball
sealers performance. In this test case (Test Case B except the
shot density is 4 shots/ft), the ball sealer efficiency increases
as the wellbore inclination angle increases, while the nonseated ball percentage decreases as the inclination angle
increases. Under the same conditions, the inclination angle
mainly changes the settling velocity of ball, which changes
ball inertia force, ball diverting force, as well as the holding
force.

SPE 96339

Conclusions
1. An integrated transport model is developed on the basis of
Lagrangian approach with one-way coupling effect in the fluid
dynamics.
2. This ball sealer simulator is capable of dealing with both
Newtonian and Non-Newtonian fluids. Several main factors
such as wall effect, wellbore geometry, fluid and ball
properties, perforation shot density and pump rate are taken
into account in this software.
3. The simulation results show that the time period from
unsteady state to the steady state is quiet short.
4. The test cases in this paper demonstrate that the ball sealer
efficiency decreases as the perforation shot density increases,
while the ball sealer efficiency decreases as the perforation
discharge coefficient increases.
5. Drag coefficient, surface smoothness, and wellbore
inclination angle play an important role in the ball sealer
diverting process.
6. This simulator also provides hydraulic anlysis integrating
with reservoir information during the ball sealer process.
Nomenclature
API
= American Petroleum Institute
B
= fluid volume factor
CFD
= Computational Fluid Dynamics
Cp
= discharge coefficient
ct
= total compressibility, 1/psi
DNS
= Direct Numerical Simulation
h
= reservoir thickness, ft
k
= reservoir permeability, Md
LDA
= Laser Doppler Anemometry
N
= total number of perforations of this zone
n
= the number of unsealed perforations
= reservoir initial pressure
Pi
PIV
= Particle Image Velocimetry
Pwf(t) = flowing pressure at center of top zone
Q
= pump rate, BPM
RCN
= Rubber Coated Neoprene
= radius of drainage at time t, ft
re(t)
rw
= wellbore radius
T
= the instantaneous stress tensor
t
= pump time, min
= the volume of the ball
VB

= the density of the ball

= fluid viscosity, cp
= porosity, %

References
1. Harrison, N.W.: Diverting Agents Their History and
Application, J. Pet. Tech. (May 1972)593-598.
2. Brown, R.W., Neill, G.H., Loper, R.G.: Factors
Influencing Optimum Ball Sealer Performance, J. Pet.
Tech. (April 1963) 450-454.
3. Bale G.E.,: Matrix Acidizing in Saudi Arabia by Using
Buoyant Ball Sealers, J. Pet. Tech. (October 1984)17481753.
4. Erbstosser, S. R.: Improved Ball Sealer Diversion,J.
Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1980)1903-1910.
5. Babiano, A., Cartwright, J. H. E., Piro, O., Provenzale,
A.: Dynamics of Small Neutrally Buoyant Sphere in a
Fluid and Targeting in Hamiltonian Systems, Phys. Rev.
Lett.,(June 2000)5764-5767.
6. Clift, R., Grace, J. R., Webber, M. E.: Bubbles, Drop and
Particles, Academic Press, New York, 1978.
7. Felice, R., Gibilaro, L. G., Foscolo, P. U.: On the
hindered Falling Velocity of Spheres in the inertial Flow
Regime, Chem . Engr. Sci., (1995)30053006.
8. Govier, G. W., Aziz, K. The Flow of Complex
Mixturesin Pipe, Litton Educational Publishing Inc.,
New York, (1972)4-13.
9. Bird, R.B., Stewart, W. E., Lightfoot, E. N.:Transport
Phenomena, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2002.
10. Chen, C. Y., Arkinson C.:Flow Efficiency Of Perforated
Systems- A Combined Analytical And Numerical
Treatmnent,(2001), J. of Engr. Math., 159-178..
11. Patankar, N.A., Huang, P.Y., Ko,T., Joseph D.D. : Liftoff of a single particle in Newtonian and viscoelastic
fluids by direct numerical simulation,(2001), J. Fluid
Mech., 438, 67-100.

SPE 96339

Ball Velocity versus time

80

Velocity, ft/min

70
60

7/8" Ball,S.G.=1.3,
Settling Velocity
7/8" Ball,S.G.=1.1,
Settling Velocity"
7/8" Ball,S.G.=0.9,
Rising Velocity

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Time, s
Figure 1. Ball Velocity as a function of time

Comparison between dimpled ball and smooth

ball (7/8", S.G.=1.3, Settling velocity)
Velocity, ft/min

100
80
60
40
Dimpled ball

20

Smooth ball

0
0

0.5

1.5

Time, second
Figure 2. Ball smoothness effect on the settling velocity

2.5

SPE 96339

Ball Sealer Efficiency vs. Shot Density

Efficiency(%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

10

11

12

Shot Density, #Shot/ft

Figure 3. Efeect of Shot Density on Ball Sealers efficiency

Unsaeted or unholded
perforations, %

Precentage of unseated or unholded

perforations vs. Shot density
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Unseated
Unholded

10

11

Shot density, #shots/ft

Figure 4. Effect of Shot Density on unseated ball or unholding ball percentage

12

SPE 96339

Transport time, seconds

Transport time vs. Phasing

470
468
466
464
462
460
458
0

50

100

150

200

Phasing

Figure 5. Effect of Phasing on balls transport time

Wellbore inclination vs. ball sealer efficiency

and unholded ball percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ball Sealer Efiiciency

Unholded ball Percentage

20

40

60

80

Wellbore inclination Angle

Figure 6. Relationship between wellbore inclination and ball sealer efficiency

100

SPE 96339

1000

100

900

90

800

80

700

70

600

60

All Perfs Open

500

50

400

Some Perfs Sealed

40

300

Open Perfs

30

200

20

100

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Pump Time

Figure 7. Surface pressure as a function of pumping rate

Table 1. Ball transport time (partially list)

Perforation Depth
(M.D., ft)
5830.50
5830.75
5831.00
5831.25
5831.50
5831.75
5832.00
5832.25
5832.50
5832.75
5833.00
5833.25
5833.50

Ball Sealed Ball Transport

Status
Time (Seconds)
No(Unhold)
No(Unhold)
No(Unhold)
No(Unhold)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

1449.7
1449.8
1450.0
1450.2
1450.4
1450.6
1450.8
1451.0
1451.1

35

Open perforations, %

Pressure Increase

Surface Pressure Response