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
Even though pressure drop across perforations for
clean fracturing fluids can generally be accurately
predicted, it is not well understood for fracturing slurries.
In this paper, two wellbore models-one transparent and
one high pressure-were used to study the perforation
friction pressure behavior of sand laden fluids. The
transparent model constructed with cast acrylic allowed
visual observation of fluid exchange in the "rat-hole" and
flow patterns of the slurries in the well bore and through
the perforations. Critical velocity at which sand begins
to screenout at the perforations was also determined.
Tests were performed in the high pressure model varying
gel concentration, sand concentration, proppant size, and
perforation diameter to gather pressure drop data. The
effect of the ratio of perforation diameter to the average
proppant size on the sand screenout tendency at the
perforation was also investigated.
A correlation to predict the change of perforation
coefficient due to proppant erosion was developed from
the laboratory data. This paper presents a field
procedure to better estimate the change of perforation
coefficient during proppant stages for calculating the
change of perforation friction.
References and illustrations at end of paper
479
Incorporating this change of perforation pressure drop
during proppant stages in the real-time bottomhole
treating pressure calculation will enhance interpretation
of the treatment analysis.
INTRODUCTION
During a fracturing treatment, fluid containing
proppant is pumped down a tubular string, through
perforations, and into a fracture. Without a bottomhole
tool or reference string, the bottomhole treating pressure
is calculated from the following equation.
BHTP = P
w
+ Ph -P, - Ppi (1)
where:
Bottomhole Treating Pressure (psi)
Wellhead pressure (psi)
Hydrostatic pressure (psi)
Fluid friction pressure in tubular goods
(psi)
Friction loss across the perforations (psi)
Using an on-site computer system to perform
real-time fracturing pressure analysis to predict fracture
2 Willingham. J.D. Tan. H.C. and Norman. L. R. SPE 25891
propagation requires reliable estimates of the BHTP.1-3
With recent advances in computer data acquisition and
measurement systems fairly accurate wellhead pressure
and hydrostatic pressure in Eq. 1 can be obtained. With
better quality control of fracturing fluids and more
accurate fluid rheological properties available on-site,
friction pressure for various fracturing fluids can normally
be predicted accurately as we11.
4
-
10
The principal
unknown in BHTP prediction from Eq. 1 is P
pl
' It is
usually assumed to be zero, or negligible in the analysis
of BHTP. In some cases, especially for the treatments
with high rates and in wellbores with small numbers of
perforations, this assumption may not be valid.
The Ppf may change during the proppant stages
due to perforation erosion. 11 If it is not quantified before
treatment, this change in PpI may mask the true
bottomhole treating pressure behavior. It may be
interpreted as breaking out of the treated zone in the
analysis and the "screenout mode" may be indeterminate.
A treatment may be terminated prematurely due to this
misinterpretation.
Limited entry fracturing techniques are normally
used for treating multiple zones. In the limited entry
stimulation treatment design, the BHTP and PpI of each
zone are used to determine the number of perforations to
be shot in each zone to help control fluid entry. Success
of the limited entry treatment depends on the accurate
calculation of the perforation friction. If the P
pl
changes
during a limited entry treatment, the desired injection
profile may not be achieved.
The pressure drop across the perforations is
normally calculated from the following equation.
12

13
shown in Fig. 1. Determination of Cp can dramatically
affect the predicted pressure drop across the
perforations. Based on the experimental data. C
p
values
are in the range of 0.5 to 0.6 for perforations that have
not had abrasive fluid pumped through them.
14
When
pumping abrasive fluids such as sand slurries, the Cp
value may change to a value of 0.6 to 0.95 due to
perforation erosion.
ll

14
The exact value of change
cannot be well defined.
This paper addresses a method to better define
the C
p
value for use in Eq. 2 during a fracturing
treatment. This is made possible by studying the
perforation friction pressure behavior of various fracturing
slurries in transparent and high pressure wellbore models.
The phenomenon of flow approaching the "perforation
screenout" and the critical velocity required to suspend
the proppant particles as the slurry exits the wellbore
through the perforations were investigated in the
transparent model. The effects of slurry viscosity and
density on the perforation friction pressures were studied
in the high pressure wellbore model. The effect of the
ratio of perforation diameter to proppant size, Dperl/Dprop,
is also discussed in this paper.
This paper provides a recommendation on the
design of perforation size for fracturing treatments to
prevent bridging of proppant particles in the perforations
tunnels. A field application method is proposed to
determine the change of Cp due to sand erosion before
the treatment. This will allow a better interpretation of
the real time bottomhole treating pressure analysis and
hence improve the treatment optimization.
EXPERIMENTAL
0.2369Q2 e
N,
2 D4 2
P Cp
(2)
Transparent Model
Apparatus
Total flow rate (bbl/min)
Density of fluid (lb/gal)
Number of perforations
Diameter of perforations (in.)
Coefficient of discharge
In Eq. 2, C
p
is the ratio of diameter of the fluid
stream at the vena contracta (point of lowest pressure
drop) to the diameter of the orifice or perforation as
480
Figure 2 shows the transparent model
constructed with cast acrylic. The model was 12ft high
and had an outside diameter of 5 in. (10 = 4 in.). Four
holes were drilled 90
0
offset from one another in a 1-ft
section to represent four shots per foot of perforations.
The "rat-hole" below the perforations was about 4 ft
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.
diameter holes were used as perforations in the tests.
A backpressure regulator with a sand screen
SPE 25891 Perforation Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurry 3
installed upstream of the model was set at 200 psi to
protect the model from overpressure. The flow rate was
monitored with a 1-in. 10 Foxboro magnetic flow meter.
A 200 psi Viatran pressure transducer was installed at
the inlet to the model. A 5M Deming centrifugal pump
was used to circulate the slurry in a 50-gal stainless steel
tank to maintain the sand suspension in the slurry. This
centrifugal pump was also used to feed the slurry to a
3L6 progressive cavity Moyno pump. A 1-in.
Micromotion mass flow meter with density readout was
used to measure flow rate and slurry density of the flow
exiting each perforation. The fluid was mixed in a 200-
gal ribbon blender and crosslinker, if used, was injected
into the eye of the centrifugal pump with an ISCO Model
5000 syringe pump.
Procedure
Gelling agent used in the transparent model was
CMHPG at concentrations of 20,30,40, and 50 Ib/Mgal.
For all tests in the transparent model, 20/40 Brady frac
sand was used. Sand slurry was pumped through four
perforations starting at 40 gal/min and the rate was
reduced until screenout at the perforation occurred. The
flow behavior and the screenout phenomenon at the
perforations were recorded with a video camera. The
sand concentrations tested were 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10
Ib/gal. The velocity through the perforations
(rate/perforation cross-sectional area) at which screenout
occurred was determined to be the critical velocity for a
particular slurry tested. A few tests were also performed
with 40 Ib/Mgal CMHPG crosslinked with titanate and
30 Ib/Mgal HPG crosslinked with borate.
High Pressure Model
Apparatus
Figure 3 is a schematic of the experimental high
pressure wellbore model. The wellbore was constructed
with a 8-ft section of 5.S-in. 00, 5.0-in. 10, 14 Ib/ft J-55
casing. Four holes were drilled 90 offset from one
another in a 1-ft section. The bottom perforation was 1
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
tungsten carbide insert through which the nozzle opening
of 3/16 in. was drilled (Fig.4). The perforation tunnel
length on these nozzle was 1 in. The carbide nozzles
were chosen over stainless steel because of their
capability to resist erosion by sand slurries.
481
This model allowed the tests to be performed at
pressures up to 1,000 psi. A backpressure regulator set
at 700 psi was installed on the pressure dampener of the
pump to protect the pump and system from
overpressure. The pump and plumbing system for testing
with the high pressure model was very similar to the one
for testing with the transparent model. A 1,000 psi
Validyne pressure transducer was used to gather the
pressure drop data across the perforation. As in the
transparent model, the slurry density and mass flow rate
were monitored with a 1-in. 10 Micromotion mass flow
meter and a magnetic flow meter.
Procedure
In the high pressure well bore model, the pressure
drop data across a single 3/16 in. or 1/4 in. perforation
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
were gathered. The tungsten carbide perforation was
replaced after each test with one gel concentration.
Before gathering data for each sand concentration, a
calibration test was done with clean fluid to determine
the C
p
value. At each sand concentration, the data were
gathered at various rates. Data were also gathered for
the 3/8 in. perforations made with stainless steel.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Flow Pattern Observed in Transparent Well bore Model
"Rat-hole" Fluid Exchange
The fluid exchange in the "rat-hole" below the
perforations was visually observed in the transparent
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
fluid when the gelled fluid, either crosslinked or
uncrosslinked, was pumped into the well bore and
through the perforations. When the sand stage was
started, the gelled fluid in the "rat-hole" was displaced
with the slurry in a few seconds. This fluid exchange in
the "rat-hole" may be due to the fluid density difference
between the wellbore and the "rat-hole" fluids.
Slurry Flow Pattern for Linear Gel
After fluid exchange in the "rat-hole", the sand
settled in the "rat-hole" for the tests with linear gels.
The level of sand bed in the "rat-hole" rose continuously
throughout the test until within a few inches from the
bottom of the perforations. Due to sand settling as the
4 Willingham. J.D. Tan. H.C. and Norman. L. R. SPE 25891
slurry travelled down the well bore. the effluent from the
bottom perforation exhibited the highest sand
concentration while the effluent from the top perforation
had the lowest sand concentration. Sand concentration
distribution in the effluents from the four perforations
was more uniform for higher viscosity linear gels with
lower sand concentrations.
While the rate was decreased. the sand
segregation in the wellbore grew substantially. At lower
rates. the sand began to form a dune in the well bore on
the opposite side from the bottom perforation. When the
rate was dropped to below 1 gal/min per perforation with
slurry flowing through the 1/4-in. perforations at a
velocity of 6.5 ft/sec, sand began to bridge in the tunnel
of the bottom perforation. This sand bridging at velocities
below 6.5 ft/sec resulted in rapid screenout at the
bottom perforation. Since sand settling placed a high
sand concentration across lower perforations, screenout
always started from the bottom perforation.
The critical velocity through the perforation at
which screenout at perforation occurs is independent of
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
was not observed until the velocity through the
perforation was dropped to below 6.5 ft/sec.
Slurry Flow Pattern for Crosslinked Gel
For the tests with crosslinked slurries, sand
settling in the "rat-hole" and well bore was not observed.
Apparent flow stream and boundary were seen in the
wellbore with the crosslinked slurries. The fluid near the
wall appears to be stagnant.
Restriction of Flow outside Perforations
One interesting observation made in this study
was that the restriction of flow outside the perforation
would result in rapid perforation screenout. When this
happened, a particle node formed near the perforation
and the slurry was diverted to other perforations through
'a flow channel in the wellbore. Test pressure increased
as the cross-sectional area of the flow channel became
smaller due to the growth of the particle node. This
phenomenon of perforation screenout due to restriction
of flow outside the perforation (in the fracture) may
explain the unexpected treating pressure increase
during proppant stages.
Pressure Drop Across Perforations
A series of tests was conducted in the high
pressure wellbore model using a 3/16 in. perforation to
study the effects of slurry density and viscosity on
perforation friction pressure. The pressure drop across
.the perforation was plotted versus square of flow rate
(Q2) for each fluid. Figures 5 and 6 show the data for 60
Ib HPG/Mgal gel and 60 Ib HPG/Mgal gel with 4 Ib/gal
20/40 sand across the 3/16 in. perforation. C
p
values
were obtained from the slope and are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 shows the C
p
values before the
perforations were exposed to abrasive fluids. The values
are between 0.6 and 0.7. As shown in Table 2, the C
p
value changes slightly with the amount of sand flowing
through the perforation even though high Rockwell
hardness material such as tungsten carbide was used as
the perforation insert. To eliminate the effect of change
of C
p
value on the analysis. the perforation pressure data
were multiplied with the square of C
p
(P*C/) and plotted
vs. square of flow rate.
Effect of Slurry Viscosity
Figure 7 shows the effect of viscosity on the
perforation friction pressure across a 3/16 in. perforation
for gelled fluids without sand. The data for 4. 8. and 10
Ib/gal 20/40 Brady sand in various gelled fluids are
presented in Figs. 8 to 10. In these figures. the term
(P*C/) is plotted as a function of slurry fluid viscosity
with flow rate as a parameter. The slurry fluid viscosity
was obtained from the clean fluid viscosity multiplied by
a factor to account for the effect of sand concentration
on fluid viscosity. IS The solid lines in these figures are
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
20 Ib/Mgal gel, the data have indicated that the slurry
viscosity has little effect on the perforation friction. Even
though EQ. 2 was derived from the experimental data
with water,12'14 it is valid for use with slurries as long as
the gelled fluid maintains good proppant transport.
Pressure drop data across the perforation
reported in this paper are the combination of the (1)
pressure drop due to the orifice entry effect and (2)
pressure drop across the 1-in. perforation tunnel. As
indicated by EQ. 2, the viscosity should not have any
482
SPE 25891 Perforation Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurry 5
effect on the pressure drop due to orifice entry. For 40
and 60 Ib/Mgal gels, the pressure drop across the 1-in.
tunnel may be negligible or too insignificant to be
detected in the laboratory. The experimental data match
very well with the calculated (P*C/) values from Eq. 2.
The Reynold's number for the 20 Ib/Mgal gel through the
perforation was much higher than the numbers for 40
and 60 Ib/Mgal gels. Flow with higher Reynold's number
normally exhibits higher friction pressure in the conduit.
This higher Reynold's number, in conjunction with the
effect of high sand concentration, may result in higher
friction pressure in the 1-in. perforation tunnel for 8 to 10
Ib/gal slurries in 20 Ib/Mgal gel. Therefore, the
experimental data for the slurries in 20 Ib/Mgal gel are
higher than the calculated IP*C/) values from Eq. 2
which only considers the pressure drop due to orific
entry.
Effect of Slurry Density
In Figures 11 to 13, the P*C/ terms for 20, 40,
and 60 Ib HPG/Mgal gels containing 0, 2,4,6, 8, and 10
Ib/gal sand were plotted as a function of slurry density to
demonstrate the effect of slurry density on the
perforation friction. As shown in these figures, the
experimental P*C/ values and the slurry density show a
linear relationship for gel fluids containing less than 8
Ib/gal. Again the solid lines are the calculated P*C
p
2
values from Eq. 2. When the sand concentrations are
above 8 Ib/gal, some deviations from this linear
relationship are observed especially in the tests with 20
Ib/Mgal gel. As discussed earlier, this may be due to the
higher friction loss in the 1 in. perforation tunnel for the
slurries in 20 Ib/Mgal gel.
Effect of Perforation Diameter to Proppant Size Ratio
In the tests for the fluids containing 20/40 mesh
Brady sand through 3/16 in. perforations, the ratio of the
perforation diameter to the proppant size was about 7.
A series of tests was conducted in the laboratory using
1/4 in. perforations and 8/16 mesh sand to study the
effect of this ratio on the perforation friction pressure.
The ratio for the 1/4 in. perforation and the average
diameter of 8/1 6 mesh sand was about 3.1 . For 1 and
2 Ib/gal sand, the effect of slurry density on the friction
pressure follows a similar trend as observed in the tests
with the ratio of 7. However, when the sand
concentration was over 2 Ib/gal, the perforation screened
out at all rates. Some tests were also performed with
3/8 in. perforations using slurries containing 8/16 mesh
sand in which case the ratio was about 4.7. The data
indicated that screenout at perforation occurred at a sand
483
concentration of about 8 Ib/gal.
Figure 14 shows the maximum sand
concentration that can be transported through
perforations.
16
Gruesbeck and Collins16 have observed
from their study that bridging occurred inside a
perforation if the ratio of the perforation diameter to
average proppant size was less than 6. The observation
made in this paper is in good agreement with their work.
The experimental data using the ratio of 3.1 indicated
that the perforation began to screenout due to bridging
at a sand concentration of about 2 Ib/gal. For the tests
with the ratio over 7, our data have indicated that sand
bridging will not occur for slurries up to 10 Ib/gal sand,
even using water as the sand carrier fluid. However, the
rate has to be maintained above the critical flow rate
which is about 1 gal/min per perforation. The ratio at
which sand bridging occurs is insensitive to the viscosity
of the sand carrier fluid. For the ratio of less than 5,
sand bridging occurred for 60 Ib/Mgal linear gel. The 60
Ib/Mgal gel has shown to have good proppant transport
efficiency for the test with the ratio greater than 7.
For the slurry to flow through the perforations
during a fracturing treatment, one needs to have the ratio
of perforation diameter to proppant size greater than 5.0.
Effect of Rockwell Hardness of Perforation Materials
In this paper, Tungsten Carbide (Rockwell
Hardness, Rc of 95) was used as an insert for most of
the tests to minimize erosion. Some tests were also
performed with perforations made of stainless steel (Rc
of 20). Figure 15 shows the change of C
p
as a function
of a dimensionless term, S, which is defined in the
following Eq. 3.
S, = Scum / p*D
per
, ...................... (3)
Where:
Slurry density lib/gal)
Cumulative amount of sand flow
through the perf. lib)
Diameter of the perforation (in.)
In Fig. 15, the perforation erosion behavior for
Tungsten Carbide material was compared with the data
gathered with perforations shot in J-55 casing IRe of
20).17 In the study by Crump,17 the perforation erosion
behavior due to sand-laden slurries was investigated in a
4 1/2 in. J-55 casing with single drilled perforations of
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
amounts of 20/40 sand in 50 Ib/Mgal HPG gelled fluids
were pumped through the perforations. The sand
concentrations used were 12, 16, and 20 Iblgal.
As shown in Fig. 15, the change of C
p
values
caused by sand flowed through the stainless steel
perforation gathered in our experiment matches very well
with the erosion behavior for the perforations in J-55
casing. The Rockwell hardness of stainless steel is very
similar to J-55. Since the Rockwell hardness of the
tungsten carbide material is much higher than the Rc
value of J-55, the perforations with tungsten carbide
showed better resistance to the proppant erosion.
Correlation to Predict Perforation Erosion
7.
8.
proppant laden fluids, estimate the amount of
sand that had been pumped through the
perforations (Scum) from the previous job report.
From Scum' slurry density, and perforation
diameter, estimate the initial C
p
value using Fig.
15.
Use Fig. 16 to estimate the final C
p
value from
the initial C
p
value and the amount of sand that
will be pumped for the treatment.
With the known values of the change of C
p
and
the number of perforations open, calculate the
change of the pressure drop across the
perforations during the treatment.
. From the data gathered in our study and Crump's
Report,17 an empirical correlation was derived to predict
the change of perforation coefficient caused by erosion
from sand slurry flowed through a perforation. Figure 19
shows the plot of the final C
p
values as a function of the
amount of sand pumped through perforations for various
initial C
p
values.
PROPOSED FIELD PROCEDURE TO ESTIMATE CHANGE
OF C
p
1. Break down or "bailout" perforations to ensure
that all perforations are open.
The empirical correlation shown in Figs. 15 and
16 can be incorporated into a real-time BHTP computer
program to facilitate the calculation on-site.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Fluid viscosity has been experimentally found to
have little effect in transporting proppant from a
vertical well bore through perforations as long as
critical velocity is maintained. However, for
slurry with linear gel, proppant may be deposited
in the "rat-hole" after the "rat-hole" fluid is
displaced with the slurry. This "rat-hole" fluid
exchange may be due to density differences
between the "rat-hole" fluid and the slurry.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Pump at least two tubing volumes of pre-pad or
gel fluids at the designed treatment rate. It is
preferable to use 40 Ib linear gel to obtain more
accurate pipe friction pressure. The effect of
pipe roughness on friction pressure can be
minimized with 40 Ib linear gel.
Shut-in and take ISIP (Pi)'
From ISIP, wellhead pressure (Pw) and pipe
friction (PI)' calculate the perforation friction (P
pl
)
using the following equation.
Determine the effective perforation diameter from
the perforation service company literature.
2.
3.
4.
To prevent sand bridging in perforation tunnels,
it is important to have the ratio of perforation
diameter to average particle size over 5 and
maintain the velocity through perforation over 6
to 7 ft/sec.
As long as the gelled fluid exhibits good proppant
transport characteristics in the wellbore and no
sand bridging occurs in the perforation tunnel,
pressure drop across the perforation for the slurry
fluid can be calculated using Eq. 2.
Using the correlation provided in this paper, the
change of perforation coefficient during proppant
stages due to erosion can be estimated.
Knowing the change of C
p
value, the perforation
friction during proppant stages could be
accurately predicted.
6. If the perforations have never been exposed to
abrasive fluid, assume an initial C
p
value of 0.6.
If the well was previously fractured with
484
SPE 25891 Perforation Friction Pressure of Fracturing Fluid Slurry 7
REFERENCES
NOMENCLATURE

p = Density of fluid or slurry, lib/gal)
Shah, S.N., Lee, Y.N., and Jensen, D.G.: "Frac
Treatment Quality Improved with Field Rheology
Unit," Oil & Gas J., (Feb. 4, 1985), 47-51.
Shah, S.N., Lord, D.L., and Tan, H.C.: "Recent
Advances in the Fluid Mechanics and Rheology of
Fracturing Fluids," paper SPE 22391, presented
at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering held in Beijing, China, March 24-27
1992.
Shah, S.N.: "Correlations Predict Friction
Pressure of Fracturing Gels," Oil & Gas J. (Jan.
16, 1984) 92-98.
Melton, L.L. and Malone, W.T.: "Fluid Mechanics
Research and Engineering Application in Non-
Newtonian Fluid System, SPEJ, (March 1964)
56.
Shah, S.N.: "Effects of Pipe Roughness on
Friction Pressure Fracturing Fluids," paper SPE
18821 presented at the SPE Production
Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, March 13-14, 1989.
Hannah, R.R., Harrington, L.J., and Lance, L.C.:
"The Real-Time Calculation of Accurate
Bottomhole Fracturing Pressure from Surface
Measurements Using Measured Pressure as a
Base," paper SPE 12062, presented at the 58th
Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Francisco, (Oct. 5-8, 1983).
Crump, J.B. and Conway, M.W.: "Effects of
Perforation Entry Friction on Bottomhole Treating
Analysis," paper SPE 15474 presented at the
61 st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
New Orleans, LA, October 5-8, 1986.
Lord, D.L. and McGowen, J.M.: "Real-Time
Treating Pressure Analysis Aided by New
Correlation," paper SPE 15367 presented at the
1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
10.
11 .
6.
4.
7.
9.
5.
8.
Bottomhole treating pressure, (psi)
Coefficient of discharge
Diameter of perforations, (in.)
Average proppant diameter, (in.)
Number of perforations
Instantaneous shut-in pressure, (psi)
Fluid friction pressure in tubular goods,
(psi)
Hydrostatic pressure, (psi)
Friction loss across the perforations, (psi)
Wellhead pressure, (psi)
Total flow rate, (bbl/min)
Dimensionless term
Cumulative amount of sand flowed
through the perf, lib)
2. Nolte, K.G. and Smith, M.B.: "Interpretation of
Fracturing Pressures," J. Pet. Tech. (September,
1981) 1767-1775.
Ph =
PpI =
P
w
Q =
St =
Scum =
1. Swanson, G.S. and Meeken, R.B.: "An Analysis
of Fracturing Pressures in South Belridge and Lost
Hills Field," paper SPE 9935 presented at the
1981 SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, March 25-26.
Greek Symbols
BHTP
C
p
Dperf
Dprop =
N
p
=
Pi
P,
The authors would like to thank the
managements of Shell Exploration and Production and
Halliburton Services for their support and aid throughout
this project. Special thanks is extended to Dr. Jim
Lawson and Ms. Cindy Taff of Shell for their technical
support. The authors would also like to thank Benny
Hulsey, Bill Shipman, and Mike Clark of Halliburton
Services Research Center for their assistance in gathering
the laboratory data.
3. Conway, M.W., McGowen, J.M., Gunderson,
D.W., and King, D.G.: "Prediction of Formation
Response From Fracture Pressure Behavior,"
paper SPE 14263 presented at the 1985 60th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
SPE, Las Vagas, September 22-25, 1985.
12. Crane Engineering Department, Eds. Flow of
Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe,
Technical Paper No. 410, 1988, Crane Co. PP. 2-
14, 2-15, 3-14, A-20.
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
Test for 1/2", 7116",
Perforations, " Halliburton
Report, February, 1983.
Perforation Friction
3/8", and 9/32"
Internal Laboratory
486
Table 1
Perforation Coefficient Before Exposed to Abrasive Fluids
Fluid Perf Size Perf. C
p
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. C
p
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
5"0.0.
D
4"'.D.
Cal Acrylic
P;pe
R Hole
~
~ l
o ,-
o 4 Perf.
-M-
1
D Moyna
Pump
M.. FIowmeter/DeDlOlllcler
Centrifupl
Pump
Fig. 2 Transparent Well bore Model
D
1 Heat EtthaDler I (><:l MalDClic Flowmeter
, , ,If')<j I
o
v
D
perf
f
D
v
Cd
1
i
D
perf
Flow
i
Fig.1 Orifice-Square Edge Perforation
Fig. 4 PerforaUon with Insert
D
Steel Bull Plug 3/4' NPT
L \
H'O.D. t
S"I.D.
I
~ I
J-55
.'
Ribbon
"
I
oi
Blender
rp
CasiDa
I I D Tungsten Carbide Insert
4 Perro I ~ I
Drain
Flowmeten
Fig. 3 High Pressure Well bore Model
60 Ib HPG/Mgal, 3/16" Perf.
800 r-I----------------------,
60 Ib HPG/Mgal with 4 Ib/gal 20/40 sand, 3/16" Perf,
1000, 1
-
600
'iii
Q.
-
Q.
0
..
400
C
(1)
..
::::J
fn
fn
(1)
..
D..
-
'iii
Q.
-
Q.
o
..
C
(1)
..
::::J
fn
fn
(1)
..
D..
Square of Flow Rate (gal/mln)2
Fig.6-Pressure Drop Across Perforation
325 275 225 175 125 75
0' I ,
25
0' I
25 75 125 175 225 275 325
Square of Flow Rate (gal/min)2
Fig.5-Pressure Drop Across Perforation
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Slurry Viscosity @ 170/sec (cps)
Fig.a-Effect of Fluid Viscosity
10 gpm
. .
8.7 gpm
0" " I
o
4 Ib/gal 20/40 Sand, 3/16" Perf.
800..--,-----------
:=- 600 ...
(I)
c.
-
...
22.4 gpm
Na.

0
>< 400

.20 gpm
CD
X
..
:::l
X
X 17.3 gpm
(I)
(I)
A
CD
Ii: 200
A
A 14.1 gpm
120 100 80 60 40 20
Clean Fluid Viscosity @ 170/sec (cps)
Fig.7-Effect of Fluid Viscosity
Ir
...
22.4 gpm
...

...
...
...

20 gpm

X
K R K
17.3 gpm
X
X
-,-
...1,4.1 gpm
-
-
10 gpm

- ';'8.7 gpm

o Ib/gal 20/40 Sand, 3/16" Perf.

600
o
o
-
Ui
.8:400
Na.
o
><

:::l
200

D.

...
8 Ib/gal 20/40 Sand, 3/16" Perf.
800,
_
______....,, y 22.4 gpm

x
10 gpm

8.7 gpm
...
...

--------------......... 14.1 gpm

--------------.,.22.4gpm
~ x 17.3 gpm
x .20 gpm

...
...
-';;
c.
-
N a., 600
o
><
f 400
::s
(I)
(I)
f
a. 200
10 Ib/gal 20/40 sand,3/16
11
Perf.
1000, ,
800
.14.1 gpm
- z17.3 gpm
2{
:...
.... .20 gpm

x
.10 gpm

8.7 gpm
...

:::- 600
(I)
C.
-
Na.,
o
>< 400
f
::s
(I)
~
D:. 200
100 80 60 40 20
0" I
o 100 80 60 40 20
0' I I ,
o
Slurry Viscosity @ 170/sec (cps)
Fig.9-Effect of Fluid Viscosity
Slurry Viscosity @ 170/sec (cps)
Fig.10-Effect of Fluid Viscosity
22.4 gpm
20 gpm
17.3 gpm
...
, , I
2 4 6 8 10
r
o
800
-';;
a.
-
N a., 600
o
><
~ 400 x ~ 14.1 gpm
= l ~ ...
Q) ... 10 gpm
Ii: 200.-. ~ .., gpm
til
,
1000 , Sand Concentration In Ib/gal
40 Ib HPG/Mgal, 3/16" Perf.
22.4 gpm
20 gpm
17.3 gpm
14.1 gpm
10 gpm
8.7 gpm
...

- ...
x
I , ,
2 4 6 8 10
Sand Concentration In Ib/gal
,
o
...- A

. .,.
1200, ,
1000
-
en
S: 800
Na.,
o
>< 600
f
::s
= 400
f
a.
200
20 Ib HPG/Mgal, 3/16
11
Perf.
8
0' , I , I I
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 13 12 11 10 9
0' I ! I I I
8
Slurry Density (Ib/gal)
Fig.11-Effect of Slurry Density
Slurry Density (Ib/gal)
Fig.12-Effect of Slurry Density
60 Ib HPG/Mgal, 3/16
11
Perf.
1
1000 1 Sand Concentration In Ib/gal
I I I I
o 2 4 6 8 10

From Ref.16
/
Bridging Region
81 t
6
~
CD CD
Q; ~
EUJ
.!"C
C e 4
CIS
ern
.2 CD
- C)
e CIS
.2 Q; 2
l ~
Q,
22.4 gpm
17.3 gpm
......... 14.1 gpm
A 20gpm
:&
a : L---+ 10 gpm
I ;..8.7 gpm
Jr A
800
-'iii
c.
-
No. 600
o
><
2! 400
:::J
fI)
fI)
CD
~
Q, 200
Initial Cp=O.9
- -
c.
o
.:
e 0.9
CD
'0
~
00.8
o
e
o
:; 0.7
~
.g
CD
Q, 0.6
1ii
e
u:::
0.5 r t I I
o 1 2 3 4 5 6
Amount of Sand Pumped during treatment (M Ibs)
Fig.16-Perforation Erosion due to proppant
1 1 t
01 I t 1
o 2 4 6 8 10 12
Max. Sand Concentration at Screen-out (Ib/gal)
Fig.14-Sand Bridging in Perforation
0 1 t 1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
0'-"'"'= Itt ttl
o 1 234 5 6
Dimensionless Number S t (SIPO
pe
3
rf
)
Fig.15-Effect of Perforation Material on Erosion
Slurry Density (Ib/gal)
Fig.13-Effect of Slurry Density
;
Perf. Dia.:9/32
11
,3/16
11
, 1/4
11
,3/8
11
, 1/2
11
- 0.5
e
.!
e l '
CD 0.4
o ~
~ y J-55 Casing
;: 0.3 ~ <7 &g
CIS
~
0
~ 0.2il Slalnless SI:el
-
- ----

CD
C)
~ 0.1 ~
-
~ Tungsten Carbide
0
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.
Flow
----..
i
Dperf
-
-
D
v
Dperf
Fig. 1 Orifice-Square Edge Perforation