SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control
Tiffin, D. L., King, G. E., Larese, R. E., Britt, L. K., Amoco E&P

Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Formation Damage Control Conference held in Lafayette, LA, 18-19 Feb. 1998.
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
Guidelines for sand control completion technique and gravel
size selection are presented. These new criteria are based
primarily on reservoir sand size distribution. Emphasis is on
formations with very high fines content and a wide distribution
of grain sizes. Upon failure and/or particle movement, these
formations can exhibit very high skins and reduced production
capacity with traditional control methods. Guidelines are also
discussed for formations with little fines and a very uniform
grain size distribution.
Proposed criteria are based on field experience and
experiments conducted with reservoir cores from different sand
formations worldwide. Experiments were conducted by
packing different gravels at the effluent end of core plugs and
surging fluids through the plugs and gravel. Cases are presented
where traditional methods would lead to an overly restrictive
gravel pack and advantages are obtained with use of larger
gravel.
Introduction
This work attempts to provide easily determined guidelines to
help address the question of What is the optimal sand control
technique for a weak or unconsolidated sand? The guidelines
are based solely on reservoir sand size. No attempt is made to
determine when or if a reservoir will fail. The guidelines here
are for the case where the reservoir will fail during its producing
life and some type of sand control will be needed. Guidelines
are based on operating experience and simple lab testing.
Emphasis is on formations containing large amounts of fines,
since these fines can contribute to very high skins and reduced
production capacity with traditional control methods.
Current gravel pack completion designs generally do a good
job at preventing reservoir sand invasion with reservoir sand that
has a normal distribution pattern, but questions linger whether

rates could be increased and costs lowered with screen-only

completions. For reservoir sand distributions that are skewed
towards finer sands and/or where large amounts of fines
predominate, skins from traditional gravel pack and screen
completions can be high and failures have occurred.
Although gravel packing is a well established completion
mechanism, the amount of damage seen after packing is often
severe. The cause of this damage takes many forms, but
increasingly, the size and presence of formation fines is
recognized as one of the major contributors to this damage.* The
action of fines as a flow restriction in a gravel packed
completion is known, but often only considered as an existing
condition immediately after the completion. Often however,
skins increase over time with production, with migrating fines
blamed as a major culprit. Part of this work is based on a
hypothesis that the gravel pack design may actually be a
contributor to this damage in some cases. The basic hypothesis
that is presented and defended here is that some formations have
the right size of fines and sufficient quantities of the fines to
seal against the gravel pack, causing severe restrictions in flow.
The principle fines suspected are sub 325 mesh grains (clay
sized fines) from the formation. The origin of the fines is still a
point of research, but a few causes are understood about what
turns these fines loose in the formation. When these fines are
present in the right size or in large quantities, or when the
formations are poorly sorted (a very wide size range between
minimum and maximum grain size), the result is often invasion
by the finest particles into the pores, reducing permeability in
the critical near-wellbore area.
Background from published literature in this area is
extensive, but most of the data from field operations has focused
on near well damage caused by screen damage from drilling and
completion fluids, perforation flow dynamics, gel damage from
packing or fluid loss control fluids or out-of-specification
gravel. Related work to this study appear to be limited to a few

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

authors that recognize some component of the contribution to

flow restriction of fines along the gravel pack interface or the
screen.1-5

Current Gravel Pack Design Methods and Problem

Identification
Saucier and others solidified gravel pack selection criteria with
several studies in the 1960s and 70s that led to the often
applied gravel sizing criteria based on 6 times the 50% particle
size.6-8 The resultant plot, Figure 1, is a typical design aid used
in most current gravel sizing studies. Reference 9 offers a good
review of gravel sizing criteria.
The use of this criteria has proven effective for stopping sand
in most formations; however, there have been a number of
papers in the 1990s investigating productivity impairment to
sand control completions in general and gravel packed
completions in particular.10-12 In looking at these papers, the
average skin damage values to gravel packed completions are
ranging from a low of around +10 to over +50 even on
completions that do not report obvious completions based
problems. Recently published data has shown that the average
skin calculated for frac-packed completions ranges from a skin
of -2 to 5.13-18
Although the gravel packing carrier fluids have been studied
closely, few investigators have looked in detail at the sizing of
the gravel relative to the formation for a large variety of
formation samples. The basis of this paper is not to try to
disprove the Saucier criteria. It is rather, as an added piece of
design information, and should be useful in more intelligently
selecting candidates for various sand control completions.
An evaluation of gravel pack failures identified several cases
that support a change in the way gravel and screens are sized.
The data is interesting, and becoming more conclusive, that the
size, type and quantity of fine particles (sub 325 mesh =
0.0017 = 44 microns) may play a starring role in plugging both
gravel packs and screens. The sub 325 mesh is selected here,
because the average pore size of the 40/60 mesh gravel (smallest
common gravel pack gravel) is about 45 microns. This size and
smaller particles can enter the pores and can bridge inside the
pack. Additionally, large masses of particles in this size range
can plug the formation/gravel pack interface, causing significant
damage skins. The created pressure drop at the interface is also
a catalyst for scale formation; a feat that has been documented
on small grained formations.
In practical engineering investigations of screen failures in
several parts of the world (both vertical and horizontal wells),
unpublished accounts of the completion behavior immediately
before the screen failed showed several cases where the pressure
inside the screen fell sharply while the reservoir pressure
remained the same (or built up?). One explanation for this
behavior is that the screens, and in some cases the gravel packs,
were plugging with fines, becoming, in effect, blank pipe
sections; thus the failures may have been more related to
hydraulic collapses than mechanical crush events. This same
occurrence may take place in vertical wells.

The proposed solution is to:

1. Identify these formations by a particle sorting criteria,
based on size range and quantity, and
2. Use a completion mechanism that will either pass the fines
or confine them so far away from the wellbore that the
conductivity damage they cause has a minimum effect on
production.
3. Additionally, when the fines are absent or the formation is
well sorted, conventional designs based solely on a 50%
number may be too restrictive, creating conditions that lead
to high pressure drop and rate limiting turbulence.
When large quantities of fine mesh grains are present, the fines,
combined with medium and a few larger formation grains create
a plugging potential likened to bridging technology. What is
needed is a new selection criteria for completions that
recognizes both the damaging potential when fine mesh
particles are present and when large numbers of the fine particles
create significant plugging potential. It is important to remember
that both a particular fine particle size and a sufficient amount
of fines are necessary. What is proposed here is a conditional
method of gravel and screen selection that is still based upon the
50% distribution, but takes into account the sorting and sub 325
mesh fines content of the formation, to help determine the
relationship of the fit of the gravel to the formation sand.
Test Accuracy and Measurement Problems
In many cases, poor field coring or sampling procedures or poor
test procedures will loosen fines. Because the fines are easily
attracted to charged surfaces, suspended in liquids or blown
away in air from equipment cooling fans, a significant amount
can be lost under normal processes. Additionally, most
mechanical screening tests only test to 325 mesh; measuring
smaller sizes to get the full range must be measured by laser or
other methods.
Note that sand size analyses are reported in weight percent.
Although only a few weight percent of sub 325 fines sounds
harmless, converting this weight percent to number of particles
can be quite alarming.
Variation within the formation has long been recognized as
a severe problem in design of gravel containment systems,
whether they are conventional gravel packs, high rate packs, or
frac packs. Handling variation of sand sizing and sorting in the
formation can take several forms. One historical approach was
to design for the worst (smallest grain) zone. This approach may
produce a worst case completion in some cases as reflected by
near well skin and turbulence. Splitting the pay up with different
completions methods has been done, but is not popular, and not
perforating zones of smallest sand (since the permeability is
lowest there anyway) has appeal. The best way to handle
variation is arguable, but identifying zones with the problem is
key.
Mobility of Fines.
One key consideration needing to be considered is the mobility
of fine particles. When fine particles are present, the quantity of

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

the fines available to move and form a seal is critical. The sub
325 mesh value may be misleading, especially if the fines are
bound in aggregates and are not free on an individual basis.
Careful geological analysis and testing should be undertaken to
make this important determination. Certainly, if the formation
fails due to changes to the in-situ forces keeping a weak
formation consolidated, individual fines would be available to
plug flow paths and reduce flow capacity. For a typical
formation, fines greater than 5% or so would provide a sufficient
quantity to bridge and seal against the medium and coarse
particles at the interface of the gravel pack.
Fines can be loosened by other mechanisms short of
formation failure and these factors need to be considered as well.
Particle movement in the formation can be triggered by physical
force (drag forces on the particle from flowing fluids), by
chemical repulsion/attraction, by breaking the binding force to
the formation host grain and by a chemical upset where the
particles are held in suspension.
Common causes of particle movement are:
1. High shear force on the solids by flowing liquids, especially
at high flow rates and with high viscosity fluids.
2. acids - pH shift is a chemical upset, as is the 70,000+ ppm
equivalent chloride ion strength - often flocculates
polymers, silica and some dispersed particulates such as
asphaltenes. Very minor effect on most sands however.
3. mutual solvents22 - the solvents can disperse fines by
removing the liquid surrounding the grain that may be
binding the fines to the host grain. Limited by contact.
4. change in salinity of fluids invading formation - most likely
form of damage mechanism from Smectites and dispersible
clays. Often liberates particles in the 1 to 5 micron size.
5. Solvents that reduce viscosity of a trapped liquid layer that
may be holding fines.
6. And, by far, the most likely problem, is the dissagregation
of the matrix of the formation by change in water saturation
or overburden increase.
There are few practical methods of preventing fines from
flowing in a producing formation where fines are naturally or
easily liberated: the act of fluids production can be a strong fines
mover. Only by bridging the fines, keeping the drawdown low
(limiting production), or spreading the drawdown out (improved
reservoir contact by fracturing, open hole gravel packs, high rate
water packing, horizontal wells, etc.), can the fines be stopped.
Bridging the fines is usually very flow restrictive. Where fines
only flow for short periods early in the life of the well, rate
limiting may be effective. But, where fines are part of the
producing challenge over the life of the well, handling by
preventing their flow or passing them through the completion
appears to be the best option.
Sand Sorting Considerations
The following proposed sorting ratios and general data in Table
1 can be obtained from a simple sieve analysis. The advantage
of the sieve analysis is that it can run easily on almost any
sample regardless of the condition. These ratios and other data
do not say anything about the potential for fines migration. That
very important piece of information is still to be addressed by a

sand strength model. The D designations in the table refer to

the sieve size distributions (cumulative%). The D40/D90 ratio,
for example, is the sieve opening (in inches, mm or microns)
above which 40% of the sand is retained, divided by the sieve
opening (same measurement) above which 90% of the sand is
retained. An example from a moderate size, well sorted
formation yields a D40 of 0.0098 (60 mesh), divided by a D90
of 0.0035 (170 mesh) to give a D40/D90 of 2.8. A more poorly
sorted example would be a D40 of 0.017 (40 mesh) and a D90
of 0.0017 (325 mesh), which yields a D40/D90 of 10.
Two formations may have similar sortings but very different
sizing. A formation with a D40/D90 of 0.02/0.0049 = 5, has
approximately the same sorting as a formation with a D40/D90
of 0.0049/0.001 = 5, but the D50% of the first formation is
about 0.017 (40 mesh) and the D50% of the second formation
is about 0.0041 (140 mesh). At first, the difference in sizing in
these two formations with essentially the same sorting may seem
to invalidate the ratio sorting parameter, but the real considerations that we are trying to describe are the ability of the
formation to form blockages, like the bridging and fluid loss
control arguments from the Appendix. The sorting
measurement, therefore is a measurement of the range of coarser
to finer particles. The larger the ratio, the larger the range
between the coarse and fine particles and the more likely the
formation sand grains are to form bridges and lower the
permeability. The smaller the ratio, the more permeability is
preserved. For example, gravel is sized in tight ranges, like
12/20 mesh, with a D40/D90 of 0.056/0.039 = 1.4; 20/40 mesh,
where the D40/D90 ratio is about 0.028/0.019 = 1.5; or 40/60
mesh, with a D40/D90 of 0.014/0.00.011 = 1.3. The sizing and
the permeability of these gravels vary widely, but permeability
is preserved with the consistent pore sizes where plugging fines
are absent (hence the low sorting ratios).
Formations with low sorting values should be completed in
a different manner from formations with high sorting values,
where fines will plug off on screens or secondary (larger
formation sand grains) matrixes over the screens. For D40/D90
sorting values of 1 to 3, consider bare screen completions,
particularly if the permeability of the formation sand is high
enough (1 to 2 darcies or higher) to prevent creation of
significant pressure drops through sand packed perforations.
The actual level of the sorting value, where problems begin
to show, is not exactly known, but rough ranges are beginning
to emerge, along with the knowledge that the screen filtration
level itself is important in the selection of a maximum level of
the ratio. It is important to note that the sorting minimum or
maximum level may also change with the type of sorting
definition. The D40/D90 has been found to be useful for figuring
out whether bare screen completions with woven mesh screens
will work. The level of the D40/D90 from Alex Procyk at Pall
for the 80 micron absolute Stratopak screen is a maximum of 6,
while the 200 micron version of the screen has a maximum
D40/D90 of 8.20 The coarser screens can pass more of the
particles without plugging, hence the higher limit on the ratio
for candidates. Levels of D40/D90 of 5 (from empirical data)
and above are warning signs of fines size that could plug the

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

screen.
Other sorting methods mentioned in Table 1 have utility as
well. The D10/D95 criteria was selected based on the ability to
see distinct variation between the size and sorting ranges of
formation sands. From the section on bridging agent
performance, the ugly correlation between a wide particle size
range and the potential to form a permeability-limiting bridge is
evident, once again. The selection of the D10 level is a bit
arbitrary, but it is a recognition of the importance of larger particles in building a second matrix over the gravel. This coarse
end of the formation sand size spectrum is important, although
less so than the fines. The addition of coarse sand particles over
the gravel surface does not typically significantly reduce the
system permeability, as proved by the Darcy beds-in-series
relationship. The layer would only become important if the
permeability of the layer was substantially lower than the gravel
(<<10% of gravel permeability) or if the coarse sand layer was
thick.
The biggest impact on productivity of a gravel pack is a three
way contrast between the permeabilities of: the gravel, the
formation and the interface layer between the formation and the
gravel. From the beds-in-series relationship, the major impact is
preserving the permeability of the otherwise thin interface layer.
The factor that can most dominate on this layer is the presence
of fines that can fill the pores of the larger grains and reduce
permeability sharply. The D10/D95 ratio increases sharply with
a finer size of sand at the D95 position. For this reason, it is a
good indicator of potential problems with ultra wide range of
particle size, one that can predict problems with a particle size
range that is too wide. For the D10/D95 ratio, levels above 10
are considered high.
Core Test Procedures
Two types of lab tests were conducted: 1) to determine the
mobility of fines under minimal flow stress; and 2) to determine
the effectiveness of different gravel packs with reservoir sand.
The first test is conducted with a 1 to 1.5 inch diameter
reservoir core plug, about 2 inches long. The core plug is loaded
into a Hassler type sleeve core holder and stressed to a net
confining pressure approximating reservoir conditions.
Pressure is applied both radially and axially.
Fluids are
produced through a filter which can be examined later. A base
permeability is established at a low rate (1-2 cc/min) with a nondamaging brine at room temperature.
Permeability
measurements are then obtained at higher rates (up to 10 cc/min)
until a plot of permeability as a function of rate is determined.
For the permeability range studied here, pressure drops accross
the cores were less than 15 psi. If mobile fines are present,
permeability typically decreases as rate is increased because
fines are turned loose and plug pore throats. Since other effects
(like geometry) can reduce permeability with rate, the testing
sequence is repeated at decreasing rates to see if the curves
overlay. If permeability is decreased due to fines mobilization,
then the permeability will not recover as rate is decreased and
the two curves diverge.
The second test is conducted in the same core holder,

however flow rates and stresses are much higher. In this case
the core is mounted and loaded similarly; however 1/2 to 1 inch
of gravel is packed into the core holder on the core exit end.
Brine is surged through the core at 50 psi increments until
flow is restricted and/or formation sand is produced through the
core and gravel. Surging was simulated by pressuring the core
to the desired pressure and rapidly depressuring through the exit
end. Between surging, permeability was measured at a low
injection rate as in the previously described testing. In addition
to the permeability decline, damage to the gravel pack was
determined by collecting and identifying sand produced and
collected in a downstream filter and by making a thin section
along the sand/gravel interface. As discussed below, some of
these thin sections were very useful in demonstrating the type of
damage which can occur.
Laboratory Flow Tests
Case A. Representative sand size distribution for the
Formation A cores used in this testing is presented in Figure 1
while the sorting criteria are in Figure 2. Note the even
distribution with a little over 10% fines (-325 mesh). D50 is .08
mm. As expected, -40/+70 gravel does a good containing the
sand after surging brine at up to 700 psi. A thin section cut along
the -40/+70 gravel/sand interface clearly shows a sharp
delineation between the sand and gravel with no invasion in
Figure 3a -20/+40 gravel allowed sand to infiltrate into and
through the gravel pack with only 50 psi surge pressure as
shown in Figure 3b. Figure 3c demonstrates advantages of
synthetic gravel. In this case, -20/+40 synthetic gravel was used.
As can be seen, little invasion of the gravel by the sand has
occurred. Generally only fines were produced above 300 psi
surges with small amounts of sand between 600 and 900 psi
surging.
Although the D40/D90 ratio indicates that the formation
may be a candidate for a bare screen completion, laboratory tests
with the fine sand on a woven screen showed declines in screen
permeability. In a practical view, there were simply too many
fines and too much spread between minimum and maximum
sand size values.
This is an example of a case where a combination of larger
gravel and a fines-passing screen might be applicable.
D10/D95<20, D40/D90<5 and sub 325mesh<10%. The actual
sub-325 mesh is slightly greater than the proposed 10%
threshold, but some of the fines in this sample may be
agglomerated or immobile.
Case B. The Case B sand is characterized by silt-size siderite
and pyrite crystals approximately 15-20 microns in diameter.
These crystals are loosely disseminated as cement throughout
intergranular pore spaces.
Core flood results confirm the mobility of the pyrite and
siderite in this sand. Results are presented for one sample in
Figure 4. Testing was conducted as described earlier by
measuring permeability at increasing flow rates and then
decreasing flow rates using a non-damaging fluid (brine in this

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

case). As shown in Figures 5a and b, fines were mobilized with

a minimal amount of flow. The loosely packed crystals move
within pores and probably brushpile against pore throat
apertures, resulting in permeability decrease.
Sand size distribution and sorting parameters for this sand
are presented in Figures 5 and 6. The 50% sand size is about
0.09 mm. This sand is just slightly too fine to meet Sauciers
criteria for -20/+40 gravel, so -30/+50 gravel if available, or
more commonly -40/+60 gravel would be the recommended
conservative choice. Sorting factors in Figure 7 depict poorer
sorting than Case A sand for all parameters, especially the sub325 mesh fines which is over 20% in one of these samples.
Surge tests through gravel packs were conducted for this
sand as well. Again thin sections were cut across the gravel/sand
interface and particles were collected on the downstream filter
to determine what passed through the gravel. Surges as high as
1000 psi were applied across the cores. As expected the -40/+70
mesh gravel did an excellent job of stopping sand migration as
shown in Figure 7a. Migration of sand into the gravel pack was
minimal and very little sand was collected on the downstream
filter. Figure 7b depicts results with natural -20/+40 mesh
gravel. Reservoir sand clearly invaded into and through the
gravel pack. Results with the synthetic -20/+40 mesh gravel are
presented in Figure 7c. Note the sharp interface between the
sand and gravel and lack of significant amount of reservoir sand
in the gravel pack. Sand and fines that entered the gravel pack
were produced through the pack and onto the downstream filter
paper as shown. There was more residue on the filter paper with
this gravel than either of the other two cases. In addition to
smaller sand grains, size and texture of additional material on
the filter paper are consistent with siderite or pyrite.
It is apparent in this case that if larger gravel is chosen,
higher permeability and flow rates would be expected with the
synthetic gravel, but care must be exercised in selecting a screen
that allows the fines to pass into the wellbore without plugging.
Case C. Case C sand differs significantly from the Case B sand
even though both are from the same geographical area. Thin
sections of the Case C sand (Figure 8) clearly show mostly
quartz and feldspar with no siderite, pyrite or similar fine
material. Of special significance for this sample however is the
predominance of fractured quartz grains. Fracture porosity is 8
volume percent of the entire sample, accounting for over 25%
of the total porosity. The lack of lithification by
cementation/compaction has permitted lateral rotation/grinding,
resulting in grain breakage. Detached slivers of broken quartz
grains possess the potential for realignment into pore throat
intervals thus restricting reservoir flow.
Flow tests at low rates shown in Figure 9 clearly indicate
that fines are not migrating at normal reservoir rates and
pressure drops. Permeability is constant at increasing and
decreasing rates.
Formation sand size varies widely in the 25 Sand as shown
in Figure 10. The 50% sand size varies from .07 to .2 mm with
sand size generally decreasing with increasing depth. Note also
the long tails on these curves as particle size decreases. (This

presents some problems for selecting a gravel pack size for the
entire interval.) Of particular interest are the sorting factors
presented in Figure 11. This poor sorting was evident from the
tails on the sand size figures, but really stands out when
comparing these numbers to the previous samples. D10/D95 is
typically between 30 and 40, D40/D90 is over 10 and sub-325
fines varies to one sample over 50% by weight. This sand clearly
contains a large quantity of fines and presents a challenging
completion problem. Note also how sorting and the amount of
fines gets worse with depth.
As with the previous samples, surging was also carried out
using various gravel packs at the core exit. Samples chosen for
this testing were all from the upper part of the Case C Sand
where average grain size was larger (0.2 mm) and sorting
parameters were better. Saucier would predict -20/+40 gravel to
be adequate for this sample. Despite using cores with the better
sand, this formation easily defeated both -20/+40 gravel packs
as shown in Figures 12a and b. There is no sharp boundary
between the gravel and sand as with earlier samples and large
amounts of formation sand (mostly fractured quartz) was
collected on the downstream filter paper. Advantages of the
synthetic -20/+40 gravel compared to the natural gravel were
slight.
Results using -40/+70 gravel in this case were fascinating.
As presented in Figure 12c, the smaller gravel does a good job
at limiting reservoir sand from passing through the gravel pack,
but at the expense of severe brushpiling of fines at the
sand/gravel interface. This brushpiling can severely limit
permeability and production rate.
This formation would appear to present a completion
dilemma. If large gravel is chosen to maximize rates and allow
fines to be produced, the large amount and nature of the fines
could cause problems with plugging and cutting through the
screen. If finer gravel is chosen, rates could be severely
impacted with brushpiling of fines at the gravel/sand interface.
One possible solution to this dilemma would be a completion in
which one attempts to minimize flow surging by maximizing the
area between the reservoir and wellbore. There is a critical need
to enlarge the wellbore (move the gravel/formation sand
interface away form the wellbore). This can be accomplished by
fracturing, underreaming, horizontal or multilateral well
technology or large volume prepacking to minimize the
consequences to flow of severe permeability damage at the
interface.
Benefits of Larger Gravel
The accepted basis for gravel sizing in gravel packing design
focuses in on preventing invasion into the matrix created by the
gravel. In the 1970s, Chevron showed that too large a gravel,
specifically those designs based on a bridging concept, would
be invaded by formation sand and the gravel permeability would
be sharply lowered.21 The problem was created by filling of the
pore spaces between the gravel with fines from the formation.
Since that work, several authors have proposed that certain
formations could use larger gravels and proved the point by
gravel packing with 7x through 9x sized gravels. The formations

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

that respond well to this approach are clearly in the minority. A

quick study of their character shows that they are the larger
grained, more well sorted sands, typically with little or no
fines.22,23
When the sorting methods presented here indicate a well
sorted formation that requires gravel packing, larger, rounder,
gravel, with a tighter size range may be of value in improving
flow capacity through lowering pressure drop and improving
conductivity. Before taking on the issue of gravel sizing in the
special (well sorted) formations, it may be of use to consider
ways of improving both interface control and gravel
permeability. The permeability of the gravel is controlled by the
size of the pores that a stressed gravel pack presents to the
formation and maintains between the formation and the screen.
Long known methods of improving gravel permeability are:
1. Using a rounder gravel (presents a more constant pore size
and higher permeability)
2. Using a gravel that contains less initial out-of-range
particles,
3. Using a gravel that produces less fines during handling
and placement (stronger)
4. Using a gravel with a narrower size range.
The rounder gravel offers sharply higher permeability and
less fines created in the gravel handling and placement steps.
The synthetic gravels offer much rounder profiles and greater
strengths for only a small increase in cost over regular gravels.
Resieving gravel, especially synthetic gravels, is an
amazingly cheap method of obtaining gravel with more
consistent pore sizes; an automatic way of achieving more
permeability and less invasion. There is nothing magic about the
presently available gravel sizes of -20+40 mesh, -30+50 mesh,
etc. These mesh sizes were selected, at least in part, because the
naturally occurring gravels could be screened into commercially
saleable quantities in these ranges and the ranges offered what
was considered good permeability. Selecting new ranges of say;
-20+25 mesh or -30+35 mesh may seem unusual, but may offer
tremendous advantages in either the case of abundant fines or
low fines content. Cost is minimal in comparison to benefits,
especially in synthetic gravels.
There are really two types of formations that may benefit
from gravel sizes larger than the standard 6x: those without
significant fines and those with too many fines.
Proposed Sorting Criteria.The sorting criteria presented in this
paper suggest that the following applications data should work
(with other factors as noted). When all values are under the
thresholds, the risk of damage is low where the formation sand
is well described by the examined samples. These ratio and
comparison thresholds are:
1. (D10/D95<10, D40/D90<3, sub 325 mesh<2%) the lowest
sorting values with low fines content may be bare screen
completion candidates. (Need >1 Darcy formation
permeability for cased and perforated completion, with
possible use of prepacked screens).
2. (D10/D95<10, D40/D90<5, sub 325 mesh<5%) low to
medium sorting ranges, or with fines just out of range may

3.

4.

5.

best be served by bare screen completions with new

technology, woven mesh screens. (Need >1 Darcy
formation permeability for cased and perforated
completion).
(D10/D95<20, D40/D90<5, sub 325 mesh<5%) medium
ratio ranges may be served by larger gravel (7x or 8x 50%),
placed in high rate water pack, particularly if the formation
sand size is consistent over the zone (no laminations and
minimum streaks).
(D10/D95<20, D40/D90<5, sub 325 mesh<10%) medium
ratio ranges with too many fines may use a combination of
larger gravel and a fines-passing screen.
(D10/D95>20, D40/D90>5, sub 325 mesh>10%) the
highest ratios, particularly those coupled with large
amounts of fines signal a critical need for enlarging the
wellbore (move the gravel/formation sand interface away
from the wellbore), through fracturing, horizontal or multilateral well technology underreaming, or large volume
prepacking to minimize severe permeability damage at the
gravel/sand interface due to flow.

Conclusions
1. Sorting criteria and resultant completion techniques
proposed here should be useful in selection of gravel and
screen to optimize flow rates in a sand control completion.
2. Synthetic gravel may offer advantages over natural gravel
in optimizing production rates and minimizing sand
invasion.
References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.
8.
9.

Bigno, Y., M. B. Oyeneyin, and J. M. Peden, Investigation of

Pore-Blocking Mechanism in Gravel Packs in the Management
and Control of Fines Migration, SPE 27342, presented at SPE
Intl Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, La, Feb 7-10, 1994.
Oyeneyin, M. B., J. M. Peden, A. Hosseini, G. Ren, and Y. Bigno,
Optimum Gravel Sizing for Effective Sand Control, SPE 24801,
presented at the 67th Annual Tech Conf. and Exhibition of SPE,
Washington D.C., Oct 4-7, 1992.
Markestad, P. and O. Christie, Selection of Screen Slot Width to
Prevent Plugging and Sand Production, SPE 31087, presented at
SPE Intl Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, La, Feb 14-15,
1996.
Jennings, A. R. Jr., Laboratory Studies of Fines Movement in
Gravel Packs, presented at the Annual Tech Conf. and Exhibition
of SPE, Denver, CO, Oct 6-9, 1996.
Reijnen, P. H. F., Trampert, R. A., and Samuel, A. J.: Plugging
Potential of Gravel Carrier Fluids, Contaminated by Satellite
Particles Originating from Gravels, paper SPE 36952, presented
at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference halo in Milan
Italy, Oct. 22-24,1996.
Coberly, C. J.: Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated
Sands, API Drill. & Prod. Practice (1937)
Saucier, R. J.: Successful Sand Control Design for High Rate Oil
and Water Wells, JPT, Vol. 21, 1193, 1969
Penberthy, W. L., and B. J. Cope: Design and Productivity of
Gravel-Packed Completions, JPT, Vol. 32, 1679, 1980.
Bouhroum, A., and F. Civan, A Critical Review of Existing
Gravel-Pack Design Criteria, Paper 24, presented at 5th
Petroleum Conference of the S. Saskatchewan Section, The

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

Petroleum Soc. of CIM, Regina Oct. 18-20, 1993.

10. Shucart, J. K., and A. F. Rustandaja, Gravel Packing in HighRate Oil Completions, SPE 22978, presented at SPE Asia-Pacific
Conference held in Perth, Western Australia, Nov. 4-7, 1991.
11. Burton, R. C., W. M. MacKinlay, R. M. Hodge, and W. R.
Landrum, Evaluations Completion Damage in High Rate, Gravel
Packed Wells,, SPE 31091, presented at SPE Intl Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, La, Feb 14-15, 1996.
12. Beng-Swee Chuah, Hasumi, A. R., Samsudin, N., and Matzain,
A.: Formation Damage in Gravel Packed and Non-Gravel
Packed Completions: A Comprehensive Case Study, Paper
SPE 27360, presented at the Formation Damage Control
Symposium in Lafayette, Louisiana, February 7-10,1994.
13. Fletcher, P. A., Montgomery, C. T., Ramos, G. G., Guillory, R. J.,
and Francis, M. J.: Optimizing Hydraulic Fracture Length to
Prevent Formation Failure in Oil and Gas Wells, paper SPE
27899, presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in
Long Beach, CA., March 23-25,1994
14. Wong, G. K., R. R. Fors, J. S. Casassa, R. H. Hite, and
J. Shlyapobersky, Design, Execution, and Evaluation of Frac and
Pack (F&P) Treatments in Unconsolidated Sand Formations in the
Gulf of Mexico, SPE 26563, presented at the 68th Annual Tech
Conf. and Exhibition of SPE, Houston, TX, Oct 3-6, 1993.
15. Ayoub, J. A., R. D Barree, and W. C. Chu, Evaluation of Frac
and Pack Completions and Future Outlook, SPE 38184,
presented at SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The
Hague, Netherlands, 2-3 June, 1997.
16. Hannah, R. R., Park, E. I., Walsh, R. E., Porter, D. A., Black, J.
W. and Waters, F.: A Field Study of a Combination
Fracturing/Gravel Packing Completion Technique on the
Amberjack, Mississippi Canyon 109 Field, paper SPE 26562,
presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the SPE held in Houston, TX., Oct. 3-6,1993.
17. Hainey, B. W. and Troncoso, J. C.: Frac-Pack: An Innovative
Stimulation and Sand Control Technique, paper SPE 23777,
presented at the Formation Damage Control help in
Lafayette, Louisiana, February 26-27,1992.
18. Powell, K. R., R. L. Hathcock, M. E. Mullen, W. D. Norman, and
P. D. Baycroft, Productivity Performance Comparisons of High
Rate Water Pack and Frac-Pack Completion Techniques,
SPE 38592, presented at the 1997 Annual Tech Conf. and
Exhibition of SPE, San Antonio, TX., Oct 5-8, 1997.
19. Muecke, T. W., Formation Fines and Factors Controlling Their
Movement in Porous Media, JPT, (Feb 1979), 144-150.
20. Procyk, Alex, Pall Well Screens, Private Communication
21. Shyrock, S. G.: Gravel-Packing Studies in a Full-Scale Deviated
Model Wellbore, JPT, (March 1983), pp 603-609.
22. Leone, J. A., M. L. Mana, and J. B. Parmley, Gravel-Sizing
Criteria for Sand Control and Productivity Optimization,,
SPE 20029, presented at the 60th California Regional Meeting of
the SPE, Ventura, CA, April 4-6, 1990.
23. Chan, A. F. and J. P. Parmley, Gravel Sizing Criteria for Sand
Control and Productivity Optimization: Part II - Evaluation of the
Long-Termed Stability,, SPE 23767, presented at SPE Intl
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, La, Feb 26-27, 1992.

Table 1: Formation Sand Sorting Values Considered in

This Work
Sorting or Comparison
Proposed Purpose
D50
Standard Saucier Criteria
D40/D90
Screen Damage Ratio from Pall
D10/D95
Size range between common
min and max particle sizes
sub 325 mesh
Quantity of sub 44 micron
particles

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

Figure 1. Case A distribution.

Figure 2. Sorting factor Case A.

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

3a. Case A sand with -40/+70 gravel.

3b. Case A sand with natural (Ottawa) -20/+40 gravel.

3c. Case A sand with synthetic -20/+40 gravel.

Figure 3. Thin sections across gravel/sand interface for 3 different gravels and Case A sand. -40/+70 gravel works well.

Figure 4. Case B rate tests demonstrating mobility of fines under minimal flow.

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

Figure 5. Particle size distribution, Case B.

Figure 6. Sorting factor comparison, Case B.

10

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

7a. -40/+70 gravel works well.

7b. Sand invasion into the natural -20/+40 gravel.

7c. The absence of retained fines in the synthetic -20/+40 gravel.

Figure 7. Thin sections across gravel/sand interface for 3 different gravels and Case B sand.

11

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

Figure 8. Photomicrographs illustrating potential for "grain/fines" movement and migration in selected
sandstone core plugs subjected to step/surge flow tests.

Figure 9. Case C fines mobility demonstrating that no fines move under minimal flow stresses.

12

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

Figure 10. Formation sand distribution, Case C.

Figure 11. Formation fines sorting study, Case C.

13

SPE 39437

New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control

12a. Case C sand with natural -20/+40 gravel.

12b. Case C sand with synthetic -20/+40 gravel.

12c. Case C sand with -40/+70 gravel.

Figure 12. Thin sections across gravel/sand interface for 3 different gravels and Case C sand.

14