IPTC 13292

Design, Testing, Qualification and Application of Orifice Type

Inflow Control Devices
Colin Jones, Quentin Morgan, Steve Beare, Abdul Awid, and Keith Parry, Weatherford International
Copyright 2009, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 79 December 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Inflow control devices (ICD) are a relatively new type of completion component which are used in a wide range of wells.
The ICD introduces a small controlled pressure drop which is used to modify the inflow profile from the formation into the
completion. When combined with effective zonal isolation this modification of inflow has a number of benefits. It promotes
an even inflow and removes the tendency for a high flux at the heel of the well. It also reduces the flux from highly
permeable zones such as fractures. Both these benefits reduce the tendency for premature water or gas production and
increase the oil recovery.
Following water or gas break-through ICDs can then also preferentially choke these fluids in favour of oil production by
leveraging non-linear relationship between phase velocity and ICD pressure drop. As such, ICDs can be viewed as having
both proactive functionality to retard onset of water and gas coning and also reactive functionality to then retard extent of
water and gas production.
By limiting flow from each joint, ICDs also promote clean up along the entire length of a long horizontal well and reduce
any tendency for hot spots to form at any part of the completion. Both these effects increase completion longevity.
The pressure drop in the ICD is achieved by broadly one of two methods, either a small flow orifice or a long flow
gallery. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. This paper describes a comprehensive program which addresses
the design, testing, qualification and application of an orifice based ICD system.
A comprehensive test program was undertaken to address several aspects of the performance of these ICDs. Firstly the
pressure drop through the ICD was measured for all sizes. This was done for various port configurations and over a range of
oil viscosities. The results showed that the pressure drops were proportional to the density of the fluid and only weakly
dependant on viscosity. Because of this the pressure drops can be described by Bernoullis theory, modified with a discharge
coefficient to account for inlet and outlet losses, and friction losses in the orifice. This discharge coefficient has been derived
empirically, and corroborated by the close match achieved with test results and computational fluid dynamics modeling
(CFD).
An extensive set of tests was also performed to investigate whether the ICD would be prone to plugging by solids laden
fluids. The solids concentration was varied up to a very high level of 1800lbs/1000bbls. The testing revealed no evidence of
plugging.
The third process which was examined in detail was erosion. By their nature orifice based ICDs generate high velocities.
It is a concern that this may give rise to erosion in either the orifices or the diffusion chamber down stream of the orifices.
Erosion of the orifices is of concern since even a small amount of erosion will cause a measurable change in pressure drop. A
set of tests was undertaken at high sand loading to simulate erosion over the entire 20 year life of a well. The results showed
that there was a small weight loss due to erosion on the orifice but that this had a negligible effect on pressure drop. The body
of the ICD experienced virtually no erosion in the testing, only minor polishing.
This comprehensive test program led to great confidence in the ability of the ICD to perform in a wide variety of producer
and injector applications.

IPTC 13292

Introduction
Inflow control devices (ICD) are a relatively new type of completion component, which are used primarily in long horizontal
wells. The ICD introduces a small controlled pressure drop, which is used to modify the inflow profile from the formation
into the completion. When combined with effective zonal isolation this modification of inflow has a number of benefits.
ICDs promote an even inflow and removes the tendency for a high flux at the heel of the well. It also reduces the flux from
highly permeable zones such as fractures. Both these benefits reduce the tendency for premature water or gas production and
increase the oil recovery.
Following water or gas break-through ICDs can then also preferentially choke these fluids in favour of oil production by
leveraging non-linear relationship between phase velocity and ICD pressure drop. As such, ICDs can be viewed as having
both proactive functionality to retard onset of water and gas coning and also reactive functionality to then retard extent of
water and gas production.
ICDs by also limiting flow from each joint promote clean up along the entire length of a long horizontal well and reduce
any tendency for hot spots to form at any part of the completion. Both these effects increase completion longevity.
Types of ICD
There are a number of different types of ICDs available, all of which rely on generating a pressure drop. This pressure drop
is induced either as a consequence of flowing friction resistance in long channels, restricting flow through small ports, or a
combination of the two. Restriction type ICDs are further categorized as orifice and nozzle types. The ICD design reviewed
in this paper is an orifice type choke, featuring small flow ports to generate the required pressure drop. There are also hybrid
designs employing both pressure drop mechanisms which use pipes with a small ID, the pipes lengths being adjusted to give
the required total pressure drop. Other designs feature complex shaped galleries or even flow though ball packs to give the
required pressure drop.
There has been much discussion on the pros and cons of each type of ICD design. Certainly as pressure drop through ICD
types leveraging friction is dependent on fluid viscosity, these ICD types are much less effective at controlling water
production in viscous heavy oil environments. The pressure drop in orifice type ICD designs is by contrast intrinsically much
less sensitive to viscosity, with pressure drop instead dependent on fluid density. As such they will actively restrict water
more effectively in viscous heavy oil environments. The hybrid designs are as yet in their infancy with published data
comparing performance to simpler restrictive types biased by attributes of the test apparatus and methodology.
Channel based designs are said to be more erosion resistant than port based designs1 but the work discussed herein
suggests the port based designs are also highly erosion resistant. It has also been suggested that port based designs are prone
to plugging due to their small open areas but again the work discussed here tends to refute that contention, with the only
reported incident of ICD plugging being in a channel based design2.
This paper describes a comprehensive program which addresses the design, testing, qualification and application of an
orifice based ICD system. The issues which have been looked at in detail are the dependence of pressure drop on viscosity,
erosion both in the ports and body of the device and plugging with solids and drilling fluids.
Orifice ICD Design
A schematic of the orifice ICD is shown in Figure 1. At the outset, the design brief was to produce a system which was
simple, robust, easy to adjust, induced turbulent flow conditions and, under such conditions exhibit characteristics insensitive
to fluid mixture viscosities. The design is also modular and scalable, enabling it to be integrated with a wide range of wire
wrap and premium metal mesh screens of different sizes and lengths for use in weak formations. Alternatively, it can be
integrated with a short solids strainer for use is wells with strong formations not requiring sand control, such as carbonates.

Figure 1 Schematic of the ICD Device

IPTC 13292

ICD construction is similar for all versions. Starting with the basepipe a limited number of perforations are drilled at the
location designated for the ICD module. If direct wrap screens are to be used an appropriate length is then wrapped on a
portion of the basepipe. The ICD module, comprising four main components, is then mounted and welded in place. Tungsten
carbide inserts are installed in the ported ring for wear resistance. Each joint of ICD contains between 5 and 20 ports. The
smallest 2 3/8 size contains 5 ports. All the others contain 10, except versions designed for very high rate injectors.
In each case the ICDs can be configured by plugging a number of the ports in each joint. This can be done at any time
prior to running in hole. It is routinely done on the pipe deck. Orifice type ICD systems are the easiest to adjust, making it
possible to alter ICD configuration based on petrophysical analysis of final open hole logs acquired during/after drilling the
producing intervals. Channel or tube type ICD systems conversely are incapable of such flexibility, instead being factory set,
or set at the operations base prior to load out to the well site. The only option to retain some flexibility in the case of these
ICD types is to hold inventory of each potential configuration.
Flow Performance Characterisation
A comprehensive test program was undertaken to measure the pressure drop through the various sizes of the ICD. This was
done for various port configurations and over a range of oil viscosities, plus water.
The pressure drop measurements were performed at an independent facility. The test setup is shown in Figure 2. Fluid
was pumped through the ICD module using a 10hp piston pump with a nominal rating of 4gpm @ 2000psi. Flow was
measured using a flow meter with an accuracy of 2%. The outlet of the ICD module was pressurized using a pressure
regulator. This was done to inhibit outlet cavitation which was shown to be a problem on earlier tests. Outlet and inlet
pressures were measured using pressure transducers, a 0-500psi on the inlet and a 0-100psi on the outlet. In addition a
differential pressure transducer with a 0-100psi range and a 500psi maximum line pressure was used as a more accurate
measure of the differential pressure. In each case the accuracy of the pressure transducers was 1%. The properties of the oils
tested are shown in Table 1.
A typical set of results are shown in Figure 3. They show the pressure response for the 6 5/8 ICD Module fitted with
1/8 ports.
PRESSURE PLATES (2)
RETAINING ROD (1" DIAM)

PRESSURE
TRANSDUCERS
(2)

TEST
HOUSING

PT

DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE
TRANSDUCER
DRAIN VALVE

FLOREG
SAMPLE

DPT

MANUAL
RELIEF
VALVE

PT

DATA
ACQUISITION

FUNNEL
THERMOCOUPLE
1

55 gal DRUMS (3)

Water

Light
Oil
10cP

Turbine
Oil
40cP

DIGITAL
TURBINE
FLOW METERS
1-10gpm
+/-2% ACCURACY

Each
Calibrated for
Specific Fluid
Density

TRIPLEX PUMP
10hp, 4gpm, 2000psi max

Figure 2 Experimental Setup for the Pressure Drop Measurements

Parameter
Light oil density
Light oil viscosity
Heavy oil density
Heavy oil viscosity

Value
830kg/m3 measured value
10cp measured value
860kg/m3 measured value
40cp measured value

Table 1 Properties of the oils used in the study

IPTC 13292

6-5/8" ICD with 1/8" Ports

140

Differential Pressure (psi)

120

100

4 Ports Actual

4 Ports Theoretical

2 Ports Actual

2 Ports Theoretical

1 Port Actual

1 Port Theoretical

80

60

40

20

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Water Flow Rate (bbl/d)

Figure 3 Experimental Data for the 6 5/8 ICD Module fitted with 1/8 ports, also showing the errors associated with
the measurement and a theoretical fit to the data.
Theoretical Fit to Data
A simple theory was needed to fit to the experimental data. This was needed primarily to extrapolate to fluids which have
not been tested, and for use in modeling the performance of the completions. Several theoretical schemes have been used to
fit the pressure data of the various types of ICDs. Coronado et al3 use a complex composite power law friction factor
correlation with 7 adjustable parameters to fit the behaviour of different ICD types. While this complex treatment is very
laudable a 7 parameter fit is somewhat complex. The theoretical description of orifice type ICDs is much simpler.
Pressure drop through a port is given by the equation below which is derived from Bernoullis equation

P =

8 Q 2
______________________________ (1)
2 d 4C D2

CD is the discharge co-efficient. This factor is included to account for non ideal flow. These can be inlet and outlet pressure
losses, frictional losses etc. Kin and Kout are simple functions of the geometry of the system, and f is the friction factor, which
is a function of the Reynolds Number NRe and the surface roughness of the port. Equation 4 is a friction factor for turbulent
flow, with the more simple expression in equation 5 applicable for laminar flow.

CD2= 1/ (Kin+Kout+fl/d) __________________________ (2)

K in = K cor

Ap
* 0.5 * 1

A f (in )

Ap
K out = K cor * 1

A f ( out )

f =

0.75

______________________ (3)

0.3086
6.9 1.1
+

log
N Re 3.7 d
N Re =

vd

_____________________ (4)

________________________________ (5)

IPTC 13292

Equation 1 can be expanded

fl 8 Q 2

P = K in + K out + 2 4 __________________ (6)

d d

Equation 6 illustrates that port pressure drop exhibits a power law relationship with flow rate Q and is proportional also to
fluid density. There is a slight viscosity dependence incorporated into the turbulent friction factor f, from the viscosity
dependence of Reynolds number shown in equations 4 & 5. Equation 6 was evaluated using the geometry of the ICD module
and the fluid properties used in the tests. As shown in Figure 3, which overlays theoretical and measured pressure drops using
water, the fit is very good. The errors are quantified in Table 2, the first column is the average difference between the
theoretical and measured values over the range of 20-180bpd, and the second column is the fractional difference. With one
port open there is on average 2.3psi difference between the theoretical and measured. This corresponds to a fractional error of
0.03 or 3%. The average error over all tests was less than 5%.
Figure 4 shows the change in pressure drop with flow rates through the 6 5/8 FloReg fitted with 3/32 ports for range of
fluid viscosities. For a single port at higher rates the pressure drop for water is greater than both oils tested. Conversely, at
lower rates the water pressure drop is slightly lower than for heavier oil, but above that of the lighter oil. This type of
behaviour is predicted by Equation 6.

Errors
1 Port
2 Ports
4 Ports
Average

Average Error
(psi)
2.3
0.3
0.3
1.0

Fractional Error
Av Dev/[(dPmax+dPmin)/2]
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.03

Table 2 Error between the theoretical and experimental values.

6-5/8" ICD with 3/32" Ports
450
Water - 1 Port
10cp Oil - 1 Port
40cp Oil - 1 Port

400

Water - 2 Ports
10cp Oil - 2 Ports
40cp Oil - 2 Ports

Water - 4 Ports
10cp Oil - 4 Ports
40cp Oil - 4 Ports

Differential Pressure (psi)

350
1 Port

300

250

200

150
2 Ports

100

4 Ports

50

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Water Flow Rate (bbl/d)

Figure 4 Variation of Pressure Drop with Viscosity

180

200

IPTC 13292

Viscosity + Fluid Density Sensitivity Plot

60.0%
20bpd/port

ICD dP Relative to Water (%)

100bpd/port
40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

-20.0%
0

50

100

150

200

250

Fluid Viscosity (cP)

Figure 5 Calculated variation in ICD pressure drop as a function of viscosity

Figure 5 shows the difference in pressure drop relative to water calculated using Equation 6 for two different flow rates as a
function of oil viscosity. Positive numbers represent a higher pressure drop, negative a lower pressure drop. The graph shows
that at the higher flow rate the pressure drop generated by 40cp oil is roughly 10% less than that generated by water at same
rate. This is also shown in the experimental data in Figure 4. The graph also shows conversely that at the lower flow rate the
pressure drop generated by 40cp oil would be slightly higher than that of water. It is important to note that the difference in
pressure drop relative to water is due to both fluid viscosity and associated density differences (9.9%) relative to water. What
is also apparent from Figure 5 is that viscosity dependence reduces with increasing velocity; i.e. increasing Reynolds
Number.
CFD Modeling
The pressure drop through the ports was also studied using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This was done to evaluate
whether erosion would give significant changes in pressure drop. Figure 6 shows the analysis done on a single port, the
analysis predicts exactly the same value as the physical testing and the analytical models.

Figure 6 CFD analysis of a single 3/32 port with water at 40bwpd

Discharge Coefficients
The pressure drop measurements were used to calculate discharge coefficients. The main reason for using a theoretical model
to predict the Cd2 values is that it can be used to predict values over a wide range of fluid properties. The alternative would be
to measure each case individually. The theoretical model is based on simple physics and it fits the data very well. However, it
would be useful to have a measure of the misfit between the model and the experimental data. This error value would
quantify the uncertainty in the values derived from the theoretical model. The error value might also be used to highlight
problems in the data or the theory.

IPTC 13292

The first difficulty is choosing how to define the error. Table 3 shows the experimental Cd2 value divide by the theoretical
value minus 1

((Cd2(exp)/ Cd2(theo))-1) _____________________ (8)

The average values are averages of the absolute values for either, each fluid, each configuration or an overall average of all
the individual tests in red.

4 1/2" ICD 1/8" Port

4 1/2" ICD 3/32" Port
6 5/8" ICD 1/8" Port
6 5/8" ICD 3/32" Port
Average

Water
0.01
0.03
0.01
-0.05
0.02

Light Oil
-0.11
0.05
-0.10
0.12
0.10
0.10

Heavy Oil
-0.11
-0.01
-0.05
-0.01
0.07
0.07

Average
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05

Table 3 Deviations from the theoretical

The theoretical fit for all fluids is very good, with the average departure being 0.05 or 5%.
Erosion Testing
Erosion is a concern in orifice type ICDs as in order to sustain turbulent flow conditions, thereby minimizing viscosity
dependency, flow velocities through the ports will be high. As a consequence, there will be concern that this may give rise to
erosion, either in the ports or the diffusion chamber down stream of the ports. Erosion of the ports is of concern since even a
small amount of erosion will cause an appreciable change in pressure drop. To address this, a two pronged approach of
physical testing and CFD modeling was taken. A set of tests was undertaken at high sand loading to simulate erosion over the
entire 20 year life of a well.
A well may produce small quantities of fine particles which will not be retained by the screen. The particles will go
through the ICD ports and cause some erosion. A typical maximum solids rate for a well which would be acceptable over a
long term is 5lbs/1000bbls, which corresponds to roughly 15ppm. The erosion rate can be described by a simple equation.

E ( g / s ) = const M ( g / s )V n ________________________(9)
Where E is the erosion rate in grams per second M the solids rate V the velocity and n a constant usually between 2 and 3.
The total erosion is the integral of this equation over the time on production. The total erosion rate is proportional to the total
solids passed through the port, not the actual rate at any one time. Because of this, 20 years erosion at 15ppm can be
accelerated into 20 days by increasing the solids concentration to 365*15ppm or 5475ppm.
The experimental set up is shown in Figure 7. The sand laden slurry is pumped with a diaphragm pump around the flow
loop containing the ICD Module and a single port in a test housing. The sand is sharp foundry sand with a D50 of
200microns; photomicrographs are shown in Figure 9. A total loss system was used with the sand so that fresh sand was
always passed through the system. The high concentration of sand made it impossible to use the turbine flowmeter in the
flowloop. The flow measurement is on the water input side this was somewhat unreliable due to variations in water pressure.
The flowmeter measurement was supplemented with periodic calibrated bucket measurements.
Figure 8 shows the variation in pressure and flow rate over the 20 days of the test. The signals are quite noisy. Also
shown is running average on the pressure. Erosion does manifest in a small effect on the pressure drop, with a 1-2psi drop
observed over the course of the test. Figure 10 shows photographs of the test piece and the FloReg body after the erosion
test. The test piece had some minor smoothing of the port on the inlet side. The body of the FloReg had some polishing
downstream of the port.
The erosion test is relatively aggressive. An ICD would be likely to encounter only very fine sand and clays during its
production life. The 200micron sand used would only be encountered if there was a complete loss of sand control. The
measured erosion and its effect on pressure drop thus represents a worst case scenario. The effect of particle size on erosion
of sand screen was reported in Cameron and Jones4 and by Tilly5. Using the published relationships between particle size and
erosion rate at the same mass flux of particles suggests that 30micron particles will erode at 30% of that of 200micron
particles. Further more if the solids encountered by the ICD were clay particles then the erosion is likely to be negligible.
The erosion on the body of the ICD was negligible even in this aggressive test, only minor polishing was observed.

IPTC 13292

Figure 7 Experimental setup for the erosion tests

2.0

45

1.8

40

1.6

35

1.4

30

1.2

25

1.0

20

0.8

15

0.6

Flow Rate (gpm)

Differential Pressure (psi)

Accelerated Erosion Testing

50

0.4

10
ICD Differential dP
5

0.2

Flowrate

0.0

0
0

120

240

360

480

Elapsed Time (hrs)

Figure 8 Variation of flow rate and differential pressure during the erosion test

Figure 9 Photomicrographs of the sand used in the erosion test.

IPTC 13292

Figure 10 Test piece and FloReg body after the erosion test.
Orifice Port Plugging Potential
Laboratory tests were performed to examine whether drilling fluids could plug orifice-type ICDs. The aspects of port
plugging with drilling fluids examined were:

Can drilling fluid which has been conditioned to pass through the sand screen plug the orifices?

If unconditioned drilling fluid reaches the orifices would it plug?

If the well is shut in for a time with drilling fluid in place will it be difficult to initiate flow through the orifices?
Plugging with unconditioned fluids was investigated by a series of flow tests. A drilling fluid was flowed through the
ICD test piece whilst recording the pressure drop, so that an increase in pressure would indicate plugging. Two metal mesh
filter media (300 micron and 200 micron aperture) coupled with an ICD aperture of 3/32 were tested. The tests were also
repeated with sand added to the drilling fluid to simulate drilled solids. The results are shown in Figure 11, which indicates
that the drilling fluid plugged both filter media, but even with the sand added no plugging was observed in the ICD orifice.
Since the unconditioned mud didnt plug the orifice it is clear that conditioned mud would not cause any pressure rise.
50
200um metal mesh mud

45

200um metal mesh mud + sand

300um metal mesh mud

40
pressure drop (psi)

300um metal mesh mud + sand

35

nozzle mud
nozzle mud + sand

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

volume injected (mls)

Figure 11 Media plugging with unconditioned drilling fluid

Prolonged well shutin influences were also evaluated by means of flow though tests. The tests involved measuring the
pressure drop across the 3/32 ICD aperture whilst flowing the test fluid. The mud was then aged at 80C for 6 days before
restarting flow and measuring the pressure drop required to instigate flow. The drilling fluid used was a laboratory sample,
and so 10ppb of Rev Dust was added to simulate drilled solids. Two tests were done, one with unconditioned mud and one
with mud conditioned to pass through a 200 micron metal mesh screen. The results are shown in Figure 12, indicating low
pressure drop (<1psi) as the mud flowed through the orifice port initially. Once aged, the unconditioned mud required 3.5 psi
to re-establish flow, whereas the conditioned mud began to flow at 1 psi. No significant plugging was observed.

10

IPTC 13292
Mud flow through Floreg nozzle tests
2.4mm nozzle

unconditioned mud

3.5

conditioned mud

pressure drop (psi)

3
2.5
2
mud aged for 6 days

1.5
1
0.5
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

volume injected (mls)

Figure 12 Pressure drops obtained with unaged and aged drilling fluid samples
ICDs and Reservoir Management
ICDs are used in completions for a number of reasons. A common application is to use ICDs to balance inflow in long
horizontal wells. They can help to give a uniform inflow in both homogeneous and heterogeneous formation. This delays
water cut and increases oil production. In the case of a homogeneous formation with a constant permeability, frictional flow
in the completion along a long horizontal well can cause non-uniform inflow. An ICD completion can compensate for this
friction induced phenomenon.
The effect of ICDs on inflow can be modeled using a number of commercially available steady-state near wellbore inflow
modeling simulators to ascertain impact under specific conditions at a particular instant in well life. Alternatively, impact
over complete well life can modeled using commercially available full-field multi-well reservoir simulators.
Coronado et al modeled effectiveness of a hybrid ICD completion to induce uniform inflow compared to an alternative
restriction type ICD completion. They found that the Hybrid system performed better, but failed to reveal configuration
settings of the two completions types to deduce underlying reasons for perceived improved performance.
All types of ICD systems can normalize inflow in long horizontal wells and delay influx of water as this simply involves
ensuring that pressure drop through the ICDs dominates total pressure drop from the reservoir. Figure 13 show a comparison
in a similar reservoir to that of Coronado et al for a port based ICD in comparison to a screen completion. The figure shows
the surface of 50% water saturation. For the conventional screen completion, friction is causing water to be pulled in at the
heel of the well. The toe of the well has enhanced flow also, but this is due to the toe of the well draining a hemispherical
volume at the toe. This effect will also contribute at the heel. The inflow from the ICD screen is much flatter but still not
completely flat.
A distinct advantage of the port based ICD systems is that they can be adjusted at any time prior to running in hole. A
common practice is to configure the ports after the hole has been drilled and the formation logged, facilitating localised
variations in pressure drop to account for any detected variations in reservoir heterogeneity or presence of fractures. In so
doing, the performance of orifice type ICD completions can be optimised.
This proactive component of ICD functionality to retard water break-through is nonetheless dictated purely by extent of
the pressure drop generated through the ICDs relative to reservoir drawdown. Consequently, the same reservoir sweep
pattern will be obtained regardless of ICD type used, provided same pressure drop profile is generated.
Conversely, once water break-through occurs the reactive behaviour of ICDs to choke flow of water will be highlight
dependent on ICD type. Restriction-type ICD designs will promote the flow of oil over the flow of water. ICD designs that
also rely on friction pressure drop mechanisms also will also promote the flow of oil over water, but less effectively. Any
ICD designs that purely reply on friction pressure drop mechanisms would instead encourage the flow of water over flow of
oil.
The hybrid systems such as the one described by Coronado et al are more complicated in their flow behaviour. However a
comparison of this work with theirs appears to show that port based perform in a very similar fashion to the more complex
hybrid designs.

IPTC 13292

11

Figure 13 A Comparison between Ports Based ICD and a Screen Completion

Case Histories
To date a total of 3500 individual units of the orifice type described in this paper have been installed in 40 wells. The types
of applications are predominately long horizontal oil producers in relatively heavy oil. A small number of gas injectors have
also been installed. To date there have been no reported problems with plugging.
Conclusions
The orifice type ICD design discussed in this paper has a number of advantages.
The pressure drops are virtually independent of viscosity, which allows oil to be produced over water over a
wide range of oil viscosity and density.
The can be easily configured at the rigsite to give a wide variety of pressure drops which has the potential to
optimize oil production and recovery.
Due to the wear resistant materials used in the construction of the ICD ports they are resistant to erosion, even
though port velocities can be high.
They do not appear to suffer from any plugging issues during installation in drilling mud laden with drilled
solids.
They also do not appear to suffer from plugging issues when suspended in drilling mud for extended periods of
time.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Weatherford for permission to publish this work. Also to the personnel at Mohr engineering for the experimental
measurements.

12

IPTC 13292

Nomenclature

is the fluid density,

Q
is the flow rate,
d
is the port diameter
l
is the length of the flow port
d
is the diameter of the flow port
f
is the friction factor
Ap
is the area of the port
Af(in)
is the area leading up to the port
Af(out) is the area down stream of the port
Kcor
is a correction factor,
Kin,Kout is the inlet and the outlet loss coefficient, respectively
N Re,mix is the Reynolds number of the mixture

is the surface roughness

d
is the port diameter

is the mixture density

is the mixture viscosity

V
is the velocity through the ports
References
1

Visosky, J., M., Clem,N., J., Coronado, M., P., & Peterson, E., R. :Examining Erosion Potential of Various Inflow Control
Devices to Determine Duration of Performance. SPE 110667 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Anaheim, California, U.S.A. 11-14 Nov. 2007
2
Napier, D. :Lessons Learnt from BPs 1st Inflow Control Device (ICD) Completion, North Sea, West of Shetland.
Presented at PICT Bahrain 21-23 April 2008
3
Coronado, M. P., Garcia, L. A., Russel, R. D., Garcia, G. A., Peterson, E. R.: New Inflow Control Device Reduces Fluid
Viscosity Sensitivity and maintain Erosion Resistance OTC 19811, presented at 2009 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, USA 4-7 May 2009
4
Cameron J., & Jones, C. : Development, Verification and Application of a Screen Erosion Model. SPE 107437 presented
at the European Formation Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30May-1 June 2007.
5
Tilly, G.P.: A Two Stage Mechanism of Ductile Erosion, Wear 23 (1973), pp.87-96.