Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 25891

Perforation Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurries

J.D. Willingham, H.C. Tan, and L.R. Norman, Halliburton Services
SPE Members

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium held in Denver, CO, U.S.A., April 12-14, 1993.

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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 183245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT Incorporating this change of perforation pressure drop

during proppant stages in the real-time bottomhole
Even though pressure drop across perforations for treating pressure calculation will enhance interpretation
clean fracturing fluids can generally be accurately of the treatment analysis.
predicted, it is not well understood for fracturing slurries.
In this paper, two wellbore models-one transparent and INTRODUCTION
one high pressure-were used to study the perforation
friction pressure behavior of sand laden fluids. The During a fracturing treatment, fluid containing
transparent model constructed with cast acrylic allowed proppant is pumped down a tubular string, through
visual observation of fluid exchange in the "rat-hole" and perforations, and into a fracture. Without a bottomhole
flow patterns of the slurries in the well bore and through tool or reference string, the bottomhole treating pressure
the perforations. Critical velocity at which sand begins is calculated from the following equation.
to screenout at the perforations was also determined.
Tests were performed in the high pressure model varying BHTP = Pw + Ph -P, - Ppi (1)
gel concentration, sand concentration, proppant size, and
perforation diameter to gather pressure drop data. The where:
effect of the ratio of perforation diameter to the average
proppant size on the sand screenout tendency at the Bottomhole Treating Pressure (psi)
perforation was also investigated. Wellhead pressure (psi)
Hydrostatic pressure (psi)
A correlation to predict the change of perforation Fluid friction pressure in tubular goods
coefficient due to proppant erosion was developed from (psi)
the laboratory data. This paper presents a field Friction loss across the perforations (psi)
procedure to better estimate the change of perforation
coefficient during proppant stages for calculating the Using an on-site computer system to perform
change of perforation friction. real-time fracturing pressure analysis to predict fracture

References and illustrations at end of paper

479
2 Willingham. J.D.• Tan. H.C.• and Norman. L. R. SPE 25891

propagation requires reliable estimates of the BHTP .1-3 shown in Fig. 1. Determination of Cp can dramatically
With recent advances in computer data acquisition and affect the predicted pressure drop across the
measurement systems fairly accurate wellhead pressure perforations. Based on the experimental data. Cp values
and hydrostatic pressure in Eq. 1 can be obtained. With are in the range of 0.5 to 0.6 for perforations that have
better quality control of fracturing fluids and more not had abrasive fluid pumped through them. 14 When
accurate fluid rheological properties available on-site, pumping abrasive fluids such as sand slurries, the Cp
friction pressure for various fracturing fluids can normally value may change to a value of 0.6 to 0.95 due to
be predicted accurately as we11. 4 - 10 The principal perforation erosion. ll • 14 The exact value of change
unknown in BHTP prediction from Eq. 1 is Ppl ' It is cannot be well defined.
usually assumed to be zero, or negligible in the analysis
of BHTP. In some cases, especially for the treatments This paper addresses a method to better define
with high rates and in wellbores with small numbers of the Cp value for use in Eq. 2 during a fracturing
perforations, this assumption may not be valid. treatment. This is made possible by studying the
perforation friction pressure behavior of various fracturing
The Ppf may change during the proppant stages slurries in transparent and high pressure wellbore models.
due to perforation erosion. 11 If it is not quantified before The phenomenon of flow approaching the "perforation
treatment, this change in PpI may mask the true screenout" and the critical velocity required to suspend
bottomhole treating pressure behavior. It may be the proppant particles as the slurry exits the wellbore
interpreted as breaking out of the treated zone in the through the perforations were investigated in the
analysis and the "screenout mode" may be indeterminate. transparent model. The effects of slurry viscosity and
A treatment may be terminated prematurely due to this density on the perforation friction pressures were studied
misinterpretation. in the high pressure wellbore model. The effect of the
ratio of perforation diameter to proppant size, Dperl/Dprop,
Limited entry fracturing techniques are normally is also discussed in this paper.
used for treating multiple zones. In the limited entry
stimulation treatment design, the BHTP and PpI of each This paper provides a recommendation on the
zone are used to determine the number of perforations to design of perforation size for fracturing treatments to
be shot in each zone to help control fluid entry. Success prevent bridging of proppant particles in the perforations
of the limited entry treatment depends on the accurate tunnels. A field application method is proposed to
calculation of the perforation friction. If the Ppl changes determine the change of Cp due to sand erosion before
during a limited entry treatment, the desired injection the treatment. This will allow a better interpretation of
profile may not be achieved. the real time bottomhole treating pressure analysis and
hence improve the treatment optimization.
The pressure drop across the perforations is
normally calculated from the following equation. 12 •13
EXPERIMENTAL

0.2369Q2 e
D4 (2) Transparent Model
N,P2 2·
Cp
Apparatus

Figure 2 shows the transparent model

constructed with cast acrylic. The model was 12ft high
Total flow rate (bbl/min) and had an outside diameter of 5 in. (10 = 4 in.). Four
Density of fluid (lb/gal) holes were drilled 90 0 offset from one another in a 1-ft
Number of perforations section to represent four shots per foot of perforations.
Diameter of perforations (in.) The "rat-hole" below the perforations was about 4 ft
Coefficient of discharge deep. The sizes of the perforations could be changed
from 1/4 in. through 1/2 in. by replacing the bull plugs.
Three sets of bull plugs with 1/2 in., 3/8 in., and 1/4 in.
In Eq. 2, Cp is the ratio of diameter of the fluid diameter holes were used as perforations in the tests.
stream at the vena contracta (point of lowest pressure
drop) to the diameter of the orifice or perforation as A backpressure regulator with a sand screen

480
SPE 25891 Perforation Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurry 3

installed upstream of the model was set at 200 psi to This model allowed the tests to be performed at
protect the model from overpressure. The flow rate was pressures up to 1,000 psi. A backpressure regulator set
monitored with a 1-in. 10 Foxboro magnetic flow meter. at 700 psi was installed on the pressure dampener of the
A 200 psi Viatran pressure transducer was installed at pump to protect the pump and system from
the inlet to the model. A 5M Deming centrifugal pump overpressure. The pump and plumbing system for testing
was used to circulate the slurry in a 50-gal stainless steel with the high pressure model was very similar to the one
tank to maintain the sand suspension in the slurry. This for testing with the transparent model. A 1,000 psi
centrifugal pump was also used to feed the slurry to a Validyne pressure transducer was used to gather the
3L6 progressive cavity Moyno pump. A 1-in. pressure drop data across the perforation. As in the
Micromotion mass flow meter with density readout was transparent model, the slurry density and mass flow rate
used to measure flow rate and slurry density of the flow were monitored with a 1-in. 10 Micromotion mass flow
exiting each perforation. The fluid was mixed in a 200- meter and a magnetic flow meter.
gal ribbon blender and crosslinker, if used, was injected
into the eye of the centrifugal pump with an ISCO Model Procedure
5000 syringe pump.
In the high pressure well bore model, the pressure
drop data across a single 3/16 in. or 1/4 in. perforation
Procedure for 20, 40, and 60 Ib/Mgal HPG gel fluids containing 2,
4, 6, 8, and 10 Ib/gal 20/40 or 8/16 Brady frac sand
Gelling agent used in the transparent model was were gathered. The tungsten carbide perforation was
CMHPG at concentrations of 20,30,40, and 50 Ib/Mgal. replaced after each test with one gel concentration.
For all tests in the transparent model, 20/40 Brady frac Before gathering data for each sand concentration, a
sand was used. Sand slurry was pumped through four calibration test was done with clean fluid to determine
perforations starting at 40 gal/min and the rate was the Cp value. At each sand concentration, the data were
reduced until screenout at the perforation occurred. The gathered at various rates. Data were also gathered for
flow behavior and the screenout phenomenon at the the 3/8 in. perforations made with stainless steel.
perforations were recorded with a video camera. The
sand concentrations tested were 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Ib/gal. The velocity through the perforations
(rate/perforation cross-sectional area) at which screenout Flow Pattern Observed in Transparent Wellbore Model
occurred was determined to be the critical velocity for a
particular slurry tested. A few tests were also performed "Rat-hole" Fluid Exchange
with 40 Ib/Mgal CMHPG crosslinked with titanate and
30 Ib/Mgal HPG crosslinked with borate. The fluid exchange in the "rat-hole" below the
perforations was visually observed in the transparent
High Pressure Model wellbore model. Before the test, the entire well bore and
the "rat-hole" were filled with 2% KCI. The fluid in the
"rat-hole" was completely exchanged with the well bore
Apparatus fluid when the gelled fluid, either crosslinked or
uncrosslinked, was pumped into the well bore and
Figure 3 is a schematic of the experimental high through the perforations. When the sand stage was
pressure wellbore model. The wellbore was constructed started, the gelled fluid in the "rat-hole" was displaced
with a 8-ft section of 5.S-in. 00, 5.0-in. 10, 14 Ib/ft J-55 with the slurry in a few seconds. This fluid exchange in
casing. Four holes were drilled 90° offset from one the "rat-hole" may be due to the fluid density difference
another in a 1-ft section. The bottom perforation was 1 between the wellbore and the "rat-hole" fluids.
ft from the bottom of the model. The holes were 3/4 in.
NPT drilled and tapped to accept a 3/4 in. nozzle with a Slurry Flow Pattern for Linear Gel
tungsten carbide insert through which the nozzle opening
of 3/16 in. was drilled (Fig.4). The perforation tunnel After fluid exchange in the "rat-hole", the sand
length on these nozzle was 1 in. The carbide nozzles settled in the "rat-hole" for the tests with linear gels.
were chosen over stainless steel because of their The level of sand bed in the "rat-hole" rose continuously
capability to resist erosion by sand slurries. throughout the test until within a few inches from the
bottom of the perforations. Due to sand settling as the

481
4 Willingham. J.D.• Tan. H.C.• and Norman. L. R. SPE 25891

slurry travelled down the wellbore. the effluent from the Pressure Drop Across Perforations
bottom perforation exhibited the highest sand
concentration while the effluent from the top perforation A series of tests was conducted in the high
had the lowest sand concentration. Sand concentration pressure wellbore model using a 3/16 in. perforation to
distribution in the effluents from the four perforations study the effects of slurry density and viscosity on
was more uniform for higher viscosity linear gels with perforation friction pressure. The pressure drop across
lower sand concentrations. .the perforation was plotted versus square of flow rate
(Q2) for each fluid. Figures 5 and 6 show the data for 60
While the rate was decreased. the sand Ib HPG/Mgal gel and 60 Ib HPG/Mgal gel with 4 Ib/gal
segregation in the wellbore grew substantially. At lower 20/40 sand across the 3/16 in. perforation. Cp values
rates. the sand began to form a dune in the wellbore on were obtained from the slope and are summarized in
the opposite side from the bottom perforation. When the Tables 1 and 2.
rate was dropped to below 1 gal/min per perforation with
slurry flowing through the 1/4-in. perforations at a Table 1 shows the Cp values before the
velocity of 6.5 ft/sec, sand began to bridge in the tunnel perforations were exposed to abrasive fluids. The values
of the bottom perforation. This sand bridging at velocities are between 0.6 and 0.7. As shown in Table 2, the Cp
below 6.5 ft/sec resulted in rapid screenout at the value changes slightly with the amount of sand flowing
bottom perforation. Since sand settling placed a high through the perforation even though high Rockwell
sand concentration across lower perforations, screenout hardness material such as tungsten carbide was used as
always started from the bottom perforation. the perforation insert. To eliminate the effect of change
of Cp value on the analysis. the perforation pressure data
The critical velocity through the perforation at were multiplied with the square of Cp (P*C/) and plotted
which screenout at perforation occurs is independent of vs. square of flow rate.
the viscosity of the sand carrier fluids. Instead, it
depends on the perforation diameter and the sand particle
size. For all the gel concentrations tested, sand bridging Effect of Slurry Viscosity
was not observed until the velocity through the
perforation was dropped to below 6.5 ft/sec. Figure 7 shows the effect of viscosity on the
perforation friction pressure across a 3/16 in. perforation
Slurry Flow Pattern for Crosslinked Gel for gelled fluids without sand. The data for 4. 8. and 10
Ib/gal 20/40 Brady sand in various gelled fluids are
For the tests with crosslinked slurries, sand presented in Figs. 8 to 10. In these figures. the term
settling in the "rat-hole" and wellbore was not observed. (P*C/) is plotted as a function of slurry fluid viscosity
Apparent flow stream and boundary were seen in the with flow rate as a parameter. The slurry fluid viscosity
wellbore with the crosslinked slurries. The fluid near the was obtained from the clean fluid viscosity multiplied by
wall appears to be stagnant. a factor to account for the effect of sand concentration
on fluid viscosity. IS The solid lines in these figures are
Restriction of Flow outside Perforations calculated (P*C p 2) values at each flow rate from EQ. 2.
Other than for the slurry fluids with 8-10 Ib/gal sand in
One interesting observation made in this study 20 Ib/Mgal gel, the data have indicated that the slurry
was that the restriction of flow outside the perforation viscosity has little effect on the perforation friction. Even
would result in rapid perforation screenout. When this though EQ. 2 was derived from the experimental data
happened, a particle node formed near the perforation with water,12'14 it is valid for use with slurries as long as
and the slurry was diverted to other perforations through the gelled fluid maintains good proppant transport.
'a flow channel in the wellbore. Test pressure increased
as the cross-sectional area of the flow channel became Pressure drop data across the perforation
smaller due to the growth of the particle node. This reported in this paper are the combination of the (1)
phenomenon of perforation screenout due to restriction pressure drop due to the orifice entry effect and (2)
of flow outside the perforation (in the fracture) may pressure drop across the 1-in. perforation tunnel. As
explain the unexpected treating pressure increase indicated by EQ. 2, the viscosity should not have any
during proppant stages.

482
SPE 25891 Perforation Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurry 5

effect on the pressure drop due to orifice entry. For 40 concentration of about 8 Ib/gal.
and 60 Ib/Mgal gels, the pressure drop across the 1-in.
tunnel may be negligible or too insignificant to be Figure 14 shows the maximum sand
detected in the laboratory. The experimental data match concentration that can be transported through
very well with the calculated (P*C/) values from Eq. 2. perforations. 16 Gruesbeck and Collins 16 have observed
The Reynold's number for the 20 Ib/Mgal gel through the from their study that bridging occurred inside a
perforation was much higher than the numbers for 40 perforation if the ratio of the perforation diameter to
and 60 Ib/Mgal gels. Flow with higher Reynold's number average proppant size was less than 6. The observation
normally exhibits higher friction pressure in the conduit. made in this paper is in good agreement with their work.
This higher Reynold's number, in conjunction with the The experimental data using the ratio of 3.1 indicated
effect of high sand concentration, may result in higher that the perforation began to screenout due to bridging
friction pressure in the 1-in. perforation tunnel for 8 to 10 at a sand concentration of about 2 Ib/gal. For the tests
Ib/gal slurries in 20 Ib/Mgal gel. Therefore, the with the ratio over 7, our data have indicated that sand
experimental data for the slurries in 20 Ib/Mgal gel are bridging will not occur for slurries up to 10 Ib/gal sand,
higher than the calculated IP*C/) values from Eq. 2 even using water as the sand carrier fluid. However, the
which only considers the pressure drop due to orific rate has to be maintained above the critical flow rate
entry. which is about 1 gal/min per perforation. The ratio at
which sand bridging occurs is insensitive to the viscosity
Effect of Slurry Density of the sand carrier fluid. For the ratio of less than 5,
sand bridging occurred for 60 Ib/Mgal linear gel. The 60
In Figures 11 to 13, the P*C/ terms for 20, 40, Ib/Mgal gel has shown to have good proppant transport
and 60 Ib HPG/Mgal gels containing 0, 2,4,6, 8, and 10 efficiency for the test with the ratio greater than 7.
Ib/gal sand were plotted as a function of slurry density to
demonstrate the effect of slurry density on the For the slurry to flow through the perforations
perforation friction. As shown in these figures, the during a fracturing treatment, one needs to have the ratio
experimental P*C/ values and the slurry density show a of perforation diameter to proppant size greater than 5.0.
linear relationship for gel fluids containing less than 8
Ib/gal. Again the solid lines are the calculated P*C p 2 Effect of Rockwell Hardness of Perforation Materials
values from Eq. 2. When the sand concentrations are
above 8 Ib/gal, some deviations from this linear In this paper, Tungsten Carbide (Rockwell
relationship are observed especially in the tests with 20 Hardness, Rc of 95) was used as an insert for most of
Ib/Mgal gel. As discussed earlier, this may be due to the the tests to minimize erosion. Some tests were also
higher friction loss in the 1 in. perforation tunnel for the performed with perforations made of stainless steel (Rc
slurries in 20 Ib/Mgal gel. of 20). Figure 15 shows the change of Cp as a function
of a dimensionless term, S, which is defined in the
Effect of Perforation Diameter to Proppant Size Ratio following Eq. 3.

In the tests for the fluids containing 20/40 mesh

Brady sand through 3/16 in. perforations, the ratio of the S, = Scum / p*D per, . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
perforation diameter to the proppant size was about 7.
A series of tests was conducted in the laboratory using Where:
1/4 in. perforations and 8/16 mesh sand to study the
effect of this ratio on the perforation friction pressure. Slurry density lib/gal)
The ratio for the 1/4 in. perforation and the average Cumulative amount of sand flow
diameter of 8/1 6 mesh sand was about 3.1 . For 1 and through the perf. lib)
2 Ib/gal sand, the effect of slurry density on the friction Diameter of the perforation (in.)
pressure follows a similar trend as observed in the tests
with the ratio of 7. However, when the sand In Fig. 15, the perforation erosion behavior for
concentration was over 2 Ib/gal, the perforation screened Tungsten Carbide material was compared with the data
out at all rates. Some tests were also performed with gathered with perforations shot in J-55 casing IRe of
3/8 in. perforations using slurries containing 8/16 mesh 20).17 In the study by Crump,17 the perforation erosion
sand in which case the ratio was about 4.7. The data behavior due to sand-laden slurries was investigated in a
indicated that screenout at perforation occurred at a sand 4 1/2 in. J-55 casing with single drilled perforations of

483
6 Willingham, J.D., Tan, H.C., and Norman, L. R. SPE 25891

1/2 in., 7/16 in., 3/8 in. and 9/32 in. diameters. Various proppant laden fluids, estimate the amount of
amounts of 20/40 sand in 50 Ib/Mgal HPG gelled fluids sand that had been pumped through the
were pumped through the perforations. The sand perforations (Scum) from the previous job report.
concentrations used were 12, 16, and 20 Iblgal. From Scum' slurry density, and perforation
diameter, estimate the initial Cp value using Fig.
As shown in Fig. 15, the change of Cp values 15.
caused by sand flowed through the stainless steel
perforation gathered in our experiment matches very well 7. Use Fig. 16 to estimate the final Cp value from
with the erosion behavior for the perforations in J-55 the initial Cp value and the amount of sand that
casing. The Rockwell hardness of stainless steel is very will be pumped for the treatment.
similar to J-55. Since the Rockwell hardness of the
tungsten carbide material is much higher than the Rc 8. With the known values of the change of Cp and
value of J-55, the perforations with tungsten carbide the number of perforations open, calculate the
showed better resistance to the proppant erosion. change of the pressure drop across the
perforations during the treatment.
Correlation to Predict Perforation Erosion
The empirical correlation shown in Figs. 15 and
. From the data gathered in our study and Crump's 16 can be incorporated into a real-time BHTP computer
Report,17 an empirical correlation was derived to predict program to facilitate the calculation on-site.
the change of perforation coefficient caused by erosion
from sand slurry flowed through a perforation. Figure 19 CONCLUSIONS
shows the plot of the final Cp values as a function of the
amount of sand pumped through perforations for various 1. Fluid viscosity has been experimentally found to
initial Cp values. have little effect in transporting proppant from a
vertical well bore through perforations as long as
critical velocity is maintained. However, for
PROPOSED FIELD PROCEDURE TO ESTIMATE CHANGE slurry with linear gel, proppant may be deposited
OF Cp in the "rat-hole" after the "rat-hole" fluid is
displaced with the slurry. This "rat-hole" fluid
1. Break down or "bailout" perforations to ensure exchange may be due to density differences
that all perforations are open. between the "rat-hole" fluid and the slurry.

2. Pump at least two tubing volumes of pre-pad or 2. To prevent sand bridging in perforation tunnels,
gel fluids at the designed treatment rate. It is it is important to have the ratio of perforation
preferable to use 40 Ib linear gel to obtain more diameter to average particle size over 5 and
accurate pipe friction pressure. The effect of maintain the velocity through perforation over 6
pipe roughness on friction pressure can be to 7 ft/sec.
minimized with 40 Ib linear gel.
3. As long as the gelled fluid exhibits good proppant
3. Shut-in and take ISIP (Pi)' transport characteristics in the wellbore and no
sand bridging occurs in the perforation tunnel,
4. From ISIP, wellhead pressure (Pw) and pipe pressure drop across the perforation for the slurry
friction (PI)' calculate the perforation friction (Ppl ) fluid can be calculated using Eq. 2.
using the following equation.
4. Using the correlation provided in this paper, the
change of perforation coefficient during proppant
stages due to erosion can be estimated.
5. Determine the effective perforation diameter from Knowing the change of Cp value, the perforation
the perforation service company literature. friction during proppant stages could be
accurately predicted.
6. If the perforations have never been exposed to
abrasive fluid, assume an initial Cp value of 0.6.
If the well was previously fractured with

484
SPE 25891 Perforation Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurry 7

NOMENCLATURE 4. Melton, L.L. and Malone, W.T.: "Fluid Mechanics

Research and Engineering Application in Non-
BHTP Bottomhole treating pressure, (psi) Newtonian Fluid System, SPEJ, (March 1964)
Cp Coefficient of discharge 56.
Dperf Diameter of perforations, (in.)
Dprop = Average proppant diameter, (in.) 5. Hannah, R.R., Harrington, L.J., and Lance, L.C.:
Np = Number of perforations "The Real-Time Calculation of Accurate
Pi Instantaneous shut-in pressure, (psi) Bottomhole Fracturing Pressure from Surface
P, Fluid friction pressure in tubular goods, Measurements Using Measured Pressure as a
(psi) Base," paper SPE 12062, presented at the 58th
Ph = Hydrostatic pressure, (psi) Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition,
PpI = Friction loss across the perforations, (psi) San Francisco, (Oct. 5-8, 1983).
Pw Wellhead pressure, (psi)
Q = Total flow rate, (bbl/min) 6. Shah, S.N.: "Correlations Predict Friction
St = Dimensionless term Pressure of Fracturing Gels," Oil & Gas J. (Jan.
Scum = Cumulative amount of sand flowed 16, 1984) 92-98.
through the perf, lib)
7. Shah, S.N., Lee, Y.N., and Jensen, D.G.: "Frac
Greek Symbols Treatment Quality Improved with Field Rheology
Unit," Oil & Gas J., (Feb. 4, 1985), 47-51.
p = Density of fluid or slurry, lib/gal)
8. Lord, D.L. and McGowen, J.M.: "Real-Time
ACKNO~EDGEMENTS Treating Pressure Analysis Aided by New
Correlation," paper SPE 15367 presented at the
The authors would like to thank the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
managements of Shell Exploration and Production and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
Halliburton Services for their support and aid throughout
this project. Special thanks is extended to Dr. Jim 9. Shah, S.N.: "Effects of Pipe Roughness on
Lawson and Ms. Cindy Taff of Shell for their technical Friction Pressure Fracturing Fluids," paper SPE
support. The authors would also like to thank Benny 18821 presented at the SPE Production
Hulsey, Bill Shipman, and Mike Clark of Halliburton Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City,
Services Research Center for their assistance in gathering Oklahoma, March 13-14, 1989.
the laboratory data.
10. Shah, S.N., Lord, D.L., and Tan, H.C.: "Recent
Advances in the Fluid Mechanics and Rheology of
REFERENCES Fracturing Fluids," paper SPE 22391, presented
at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
1. Swanson, G.S. and Meeken, R.B.: "An Analysis Engineering held in Beijing, China, March 24-27
of Fracturing Pressures in South Belridge and Lost 1992.
Hills Field," paper SPE 9935 presented at the
1981 SPE California Regional Meeting, 11 . Crump, J.B. and Conway, M.W.: "Effects of
Bakersfield, CA, March 25-26. Perforation Entry Friction on Bottomhole Treating
Analysis," paper SPE 15474 presented at the
2. Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B.: "Interpretation of 61 st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
Fracturing Pressures," J. Pet. Tech. (September, of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
1981) 1767-1775. New Orleans, LA, October 5-8, 1986.

3. Conway, M.W., McGowen, J.M., Gunderson, 12. Crane Engineering Department, Eds. Flow of
D.W., and King, D.G.: "Prediction of Formation Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe,
Response From Fracture Pressure Behavior," Technical Paper No. 410, 1988, Crane Co. PP. 2-
paper SPE 14263 presented at the 1985 60th 14, 2-15, 3-14, A-20.
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
SPE, Las Vagas, September 22-25, 1985.

485
8 Willingham, J.D., Tan, H.C., and Norman, l. R. SPE 25891

13. Perry R.H. and Chilton, C.H.: Chemical Engineers'

Handbook, 5th Edition PP 5-14,5-15 & 5-16.

14. "Limited Entry for Hydraulic Fracturing,"

Halliburton Internal Fracturing Technical Paper
No. F3077.

15. Shah, S.N.: "Rheological Characterization of

Hydraulic Fracturing Slurries," paper SPE 22839
presented at the 66th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in
Dallas, TX, October 6-9, 1991.

16. Gruesbeck, C. and Collins, R.E.: "Particle

Transport Through Perforations," SPE 7006
presented at the Third Symposium on Formation
Damage Control of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers held in Lafayette, Louisiana, February
15-16, 1978.

17. "High-Sand Concentration Perforation Friction

Test for 1/2", 7116", 3/8", and 9/32"
Perforations, " Halliburton Internal Laboratory
Report, February, 1983.

486
 Table 1

Perforation Coefficient Before Exposed to Abrasive Fluids

Fluid Perf Size Perf. Cp

Fluids Visco (cPs) (in.) Material Value
Water 1.0 3/16 Tungsten Carbide 0.59
20 Ib gel 9.0 3/16 0.62
25 Ib gel 15.1 3/16 0.63
40 Ib gel 31.8 3/16 0.63
50 Ib gel 49.4 3/16 0.65
60 Ib gel 62.0 3/16 0.65
Water 1.0 1/4 Tungsten Carbide 0.64
60 Ib gel 58.0 1/4 0.64
Water 1.0 3/8 Stainless Steel 0.7
60 Ib gel 58.0 3/8 Stainless Steel 0.63

Table 2

Perforation Coefficient After Exposed to Abrasive Fluids

Clean Fluid Sand Conc. Perf. Size Perf. Cp

Fluids Visc., (cPs) (Ib/gal) (in.) Material Value
Water 1.0 0 3/16 Tungsten Carbide 0.59
60 Ib gel 62 2 3/16 Tungsten Carbide 0.65
60 Ib gel 62 4 3/16 Tungsten Carbide 0.67
60 Ib gel 62 6 3/16 Tungsten Carbide 0.67
60 Ib gel 62 8 3/16 Tungsten Carbide 0.74
60 Ib gel 62 10 3/16 Tungsten Carbide 0.8
Water 1.0 0 3/8 Stainless Steel 0.7
60 Ib gel 62 4 3/8 Stainless Steel 0.7
60 Ib gel 62 8 3/8 Stainless Steel 0.9

487
 Dperf
Cd
ov
1 Heat EtthaDler I (><:l MalDClic Flowmeter
, , ,If')<j I

Flow
i f
5"0.0.

4"'.D.
Cal Acrylic
Dperf D v
P;pe

1 4 Perf. o ~l'
-M-
Centrifupl Moyna D
1
o ,-
D Pump Pump ~4'

R•• Hole

M. . FIowmeter/DeDlOlllcler

i Fig. 2 Transparent Wellbore Model

D

Fig.1 Orifice-Square Edge Perforation

Steel Bull Plug 3/4' NPT

L \
H'O.D. t
S"I.D.
I
Ribbon
rp I ~ I
J-55
.'
Blender CasiDa

4 Perro I
oi
~I'
I I D Tungsten Carbide Insert
"

D Fig. 4 PerforaUon with Insert

Drain Flowmeten

Fig. 3 High Pressure Wellbore Model

 60 Ib HPG/Mgal, 3/16" Perf. 60 Ib HPG/Mgal with 4 Ib/gal 20/40 sand, 3/16" Perf,
800 r - I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
1000, 1

- 600 -
-.
'iii
Q.

Q.
0
-..
'iii
Q.

Q.
o
400
.
C
(1)

::::J
C
..
(1)

::::J

. .
fn fn
fn fn
(1) (1)

D.. D..

0' I 0' I ,

25 75 125 175 225 275 325 25 75 125 175 225 275 325
Square of Flow Rate (gal/min)2 Square of Flow Rate (gal/mln)2
Fig.5-Pressure Drop Across Perforation Fig.6-Pressure Drop Across Perforation
~
o Ib/gal 20/40 Sand, 3/16" Perf. 4 Ib/gal 20/40 Sand, 3/16" Perf.
600 800..--,- - - - - - - - - - -

-
Ui
Ir ... ...
• ... ... 22.4 gpm
... :=- 600 ...
Na.
.8:400

o
••• • • • •
20 gpm -
Na.
(I)
c.
•
... • 22.4 gpm

.20 gpm
><
0
•
~
:::l
~ 200
~ X K R X K
X
17.3 gpm
..
>< 400
CD
:::l
X
X
X 17.3 gpm
-,-

- - ...1,4.1 gpm
(I)

.
(I) A
~ CD A 14.1 gpm
D. Ii: 200 A

•• - 10 gpm
';'8.7 gpm .
•
•
~
10 gpm
8.7 gpm
o 0" " I
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Clean Fluid Viscosity @ 170/sec (cps) Slurry Viscosity @ 170/sec (cps)
Fig.7-Effect of Fluid Viscosity Fig.a-Effect of Fluid Viscosity
 11
8 Ib/gal 20/40 Sand, 3/16" Perf. 10 Ib/gal 20/40 sand,3/16 Perf.
800, 1000, ,
...
...__ _ _ _ _ _....,, y 22.4 gpm
•
:::- 600
• -
';;
800
• ...

-o -
(I)
.... .20 gpm c. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . , . 2 2 . 4 gpm
C.
Na.,
:...
• N a., 600 •
x - z 17.3 gpm o x .20 gpm
>< 400 2{ >< x
f f 400 -------------~x17.3 gpm
::s ... ::s
(I) ...
(I) • .14.1 gpm (I) ...
~ f - - - - - - - - - - - - - -......... 14.1 gpm
D:. 200
a. 200
•
• •
•
.10 gpm
• 8.7 gpm •• •
• • 10 gpm
•
8.7 gpm

0' I I , 0" I

o 20 40 60 80 100 o 20 40 60 80 100
Slurry Viscosity @ 170/sec (cps) Slurry Viscosity @ 170/sec (cps)
Fig.9-Effect of Fluid Viscosity Fig.10-Effect of Fluid Viscosity
8
20 Ib HPG/Mgal, 3/16 11 Perf. 40 Ib HPG/Mgal, 3/16" Perf.
1200, ,
1000 , Sand Concentration In Ib/gal
,
Sand Concentration In Ib/gal
, I , , r , , I

o 2 4 6 8 10 o 2 4 6 8 10
1000

-en
S: 800
...
--
';;
a.
800 ...
22.4 gpm

Na.,
o
• 22.4 gpm N a., 600
o 20 gpm
>< 600 20 gpm ><
f
~ ~
17.3 gpm
::s
=
f
400
x
- ... 17.3 gpm

=
400
l~
x
.::~ 14.1 gpm

a. 14.1 gpm

• .• •
200 Ii:
Q) ... • 10 gpm

• .,. 200.-. .., gpm

...- A 10 gpm
• • 8.7 gpm til
0' I ! I I I 0' , I , I I

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Slurry Density (Ib/gal) Slurry Density (Ib/gal)

Fig.11-Effect of Slurry Density Fig.12-Effect of Slurry Density

 60 Ib HPG/Mgal, 3/16 11 Perf.
1000 1 Sand Concentration In Ib/gal 1 81 t

I I I I
o 2 4 6 8 10 From Ref.16

--
'iii
c.
800

22.4 gpm ~
CD CD
Q; .~
6 /
N o. 600
o A 20gpm EUJ
.!"C
•
>< C e 4
CIS
2! 400
17.3 gpm ern
:::J .2 CD Bridging Region
fI)
fI)
CD
~
• ......... 14.1 gpm
e
-

.2 Q;
C)
CIS
2
:&
Q, 200 Jr A lD~
a I
: L---+ 10 gpm
; . . 8.7 gpm
Q,

0 1 t 1 01 I t 1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 o 2 4 6 8 10 12

Slurry Density (Ib/gal) Max. Sand Concentration at Screen-out (Ib/gal)

Fig.13-Effect of Slurry Density Fig.14-Sand Bridging in Perforation
;
Perf. Dia.:9/32 11 ,3/16 11 , 1/411 ,3/8 11 , 1/211
-e 0.5 11

ly'
t

.! c.
o
.:
Initial Cp=O.9
- -
eCD
o
0.4
~
e 0.9
CD

~
'0
;: 0.3 ~ <7 &g
J-55 Casing
~00.8
CIS
0
~ o
e
~ 0.2il Slalnless SI:el o

CD
C)
-
- ---- •
:; 0.7
~

.g
CD
~ 0.1 ~ • ~ • Tungsten Carbide Q, 0.6
- 1ii
0 e
u:::
0'-"'"'= I t t t t l 0.5 r t I I
o 1 234 5 6 o 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dimensionless Number S t (SIPOpe3rf) Amount of Sand Pumped during treatment (M Ibs)
Fig.15-Effect of Perforation Material on Erosion Fig.16-Perforation Erosion due to proppant
 SPE 25891

Perforation Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurry

J. D. Willingham, H. C. Tan, and L. R. Norman

Errata

Below please find the corrected Figure 1.

Dv
-
D perf

Flow
i
----.. D perf

Fig. 1 Orifice-Square Edge Perforation