SPE/ISRM 78166

Sand Mass Prediction in a North Sea Reservoir

Euripides Papamichos, SPE, SINTEF Petroleum Research and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/ISRM 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 or
International Society of Rock Mechanics 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, International Society of Rock Mechanics, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE/ISRM meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part
of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more
than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

become cumbersome and time consuming. An alternative is

presented in this paper where an engineering analytical model
is presented. The model can provide estimates of the mass and
rate of sand production expected during the life of a well
under given production scenarios. The conditions for massive
sand production and the relation to water breakthrough are
currently studied for inclusion in the model. Field validation
remains a challenge as limited reliable sand production data
can be found in the industry. An application to a North Sea
well is presented for the optimum deviation of the well and the
optimum perforation pattern for sand production purposes.

Abstract
An engineering analytical model for sand mass prediction is
presented. The model is based on a sand production function
with parameters correlated to the uniaxial compressive
strength of the formation. The model is used for the prediction
of sand production in an inclined perforated well in the North
Sea.

Sand mass prediction model

Analysis of sand production test results through an erosion
sand production model lead to a model where the sand
production mass Ms is a function of a stress, a pore pressure
gradient and time. For the hollow cylinder sand production test
these correspond to the external stress c, the pore pressure
gradient at the cavity dpc and the test time t, i.e.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held
in Irving, Texas, 20-23 October 2002.

Introduction
Hydrocarbon production increases if the zero sand production
criterion is relaxed and sand production is allowed. The
benefits of the increased production need of course not to
outweigh the negative consequences of sand production such
as risk of well failure, erosion of pipelines and surface
facilities, and sand separation and disposal. A proper
assessment is thus required where the knowledge of the mass
and rate of sand production is necessary. Experimental studies
for volumetric sand measurements in different sandstones,
model development and theoretical and numerical analysis has
lead to the development of some prediction models for sand
production. For heavy oil reservoirs a volumetric sand model
has been proposed by Geilikman et al. [1] to predict the
amount of sand as a function of the changes in drawdown over
time. For conventional reservoirs, a hydrodynamic erosion
model was proposed by Vardoulakis et al. [2]. The model was
subsequently coupled with the mechanical behavior and
failure of an elastic or elastoplastic formation [3],[4],[5]. For a
wellbore with perforations, a hydrodynamic only analysis
shows how sand is produced around the perforation tunnels
[6].
However, for complicated perforation geometries in a
variety of formations, the numerical sand production models

M s = M s ( dpc , c , t ; as , dps , s ) .................................... (1)

The sand production function contains also three material

parameters, a calibration constant as, and the critical for sand
production initiation external stress s and pore pressure
gradient at the cavity dps.
Sand production test. The sand production function Eq.(1)
can be calibrated on test data from a volumetric sand
production test [5] to obtain the constants as, s and dps. The
latter two correspond to the critical external stress and cavity
pore pressure gradient for sand production. From the test data
where a radial fluid flow rate Q is imposed, the cavity pore
pressure gradient dpc is obtained as
dpc =

k 2 ri H

.............................................................. (2)

where k is the permeability of the sandstone, is the fluid

viscosity, ri the current cavity radius, which increases with
sand production, and H the specimen height. Figure 1 shows
as an example the approximation of the cumulative sand mass
data with Eq.(1) for a reservoir sandstone.
The sand production function can alternatively be
calibrated on field sand production data when reliable such

E. PAPAMICHOS

data are available. In the absence of test or field data, the

calibration parameters can be obtained from correlations with
basic mechanical properties such as for example the Uniaxial
Compressive Strength (UCS). These correlations are based on
the physics of the sand production process and a number of
experimental test data for both reservoir and outcrop
sandstones. In particular the following correlations have been
developed

s = a (UCS ) ............................................................... (3)

b

as = as ( s ) ................................................................... (4)

where a, b are correlation constants. As an example the

correlation in Eq.(3) is plotted in Figure 2 (after [7]). For the
pore pressure gradient dps, a constant value has been used, as
it has not been possible yet to obtain a reliable correlation with
a basic mechanical parameter.

1.8

55

1.6

53

49

47

0.8

45

0.6

43

Model

0.4

Sand test data

0.2

41
39

37
0

5000

10000

xo + yo
( xo yo ) cos 2
2

c = Max

2 xyo sin 2 preso +

x + y

(1 2 )

+ 1

51

External stress

1.2

Field application model. An engineering software, SINTEFs

Sand Predictor, has been developed to predict the sand mass
and rate for given in situ stress conditions and production
scenarios. For the application of the analytical model to field
conditions, the cavity stress c and cavity pore pressure
gradient dpc in the model are related through analytical
formulas to relevant field quantities, i.e. in situ stresses,
drawdown and depletion.
For open hole completions, the cavity stress c in Eq.(1) is
related to the drawdown pdd and depletion pdep as follows
[7], [8]:

+ 1

External stress

Sand production

1.4

SPE/ISRM 78166

15000

Time

Figure 1. Volumetric sand production test results for a reservoir

sandstone and model calibration on the cumulative sand data.

+ ( x y ) cos 2 + 2 xy sin 2 pdep

... (5)

pdd

2 (1 )

where xo, yo, xyo are the original in situ total stresses
expressed in the cartesian coordinate system of the deviated
wellbore where the z-axis is parallel to the wellbore, the y-axis
horizontal and the x-axis parallel to the lowermost radial
direction of the wellbore [9]. The expression in the brackets
varies with the angle around the wellbore (measured
anticlockwise with respect to the x-axis). The maximum with
respect to corresponds to the most critical location for sand
production. The drawdown term in Eq.(5) assumes radial flow
towards the wellbore.
The stresses xo, yo, xyo may be expressed in terms of the
initial in situ total vertical, major horizontal, and minor
horizontal stresses vo, Ho, ho, respectively, as follows1

xo = l xH Ho + l xh ho + l xv vo
2

yo = l yH Ho + l yh ho
2

70
60

External stress [MPa]

The direction cosines of the stress transformation Eq.(6)

relate to the wellbore deviation angle dev (i.e. the angle
between the direction of vo and the z-axis; 0 dev 90 )
and the azimuth angle azim (i.e. anticlockwise angle between
the direction of Ho and the x-axis; 0 azim 180 ), as
follows

Onset of sand production

40
30
y = 6.0841x0.6346
R2 = 0.9583

20
10

vo, Ho, ho are assumed to be principal stresses. The

equations apply also in general as long as vo, Ho, ho
represent the in situ principal stresses and the angles are
defined with respect to the directions of these principal
stresses (which in that case will not coincide with the vertical
and horizontal directions).
1

0
0

10

........................................... (6)

xyo = l xH l yH Ho + l xh l yh ho

Cavity failure

50

15

20

25

30

35

Uniaxial compressive strength [MPa]

Figure 2. Correlation between the critical sand production
external stress and the Uniaxial Compressive Strength based on
cavity failure tests (after [7]).

SPE/ISRM 78166

SAND MASS PREDICTION IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR

l xH = cos ( azim ) cos ( dev )

(b) Perforated completions

l yH = sin ( azim )
l xh = sin ( azim ) cos ( dev ) ............................................. (7)
l yh = cos ( azim )
l xv = sin ( dev )

Furthermore, preso is the original reservoir pressure,

Biots effective stress coefficient and the Poissons ratio.
The dimensionless parameters x, y, xy describe how the in
situ total stresses xo, yo, xyo change with depletion and can
be expressed as

x =

xo x

= l xH H + l xh h + l xv v
2

pdep

yo y

y =

xyo xy

xy =

= l yH H + l yh h

pdep
pdep

........................... (8)

= l xH l yH H + l xh l yh h

where H, h, v describe how the in situ total vertical, major

horizontal, and minor horizontal stresses Ho, ho, vo change
with depletion, i.e.

Ho H

H =
h =
v =

pdep

ho h
pdep

.............................................................. (9)

vo v
pdep

and x, y, xy and H, h, v are the total in situ stresses after

depletion pdep. For uniaxial reservoir compaction during
depletion and no arching of the overburden, i.e. zero lateral
displacement and constant total vertical stress, we have

H = h =

(1 2 )
1

v = 0 ........................... (10)

The expressions for the open hole can be applied to

perforated completions by considering the perforations as
open holes of small diameter. In such a case, it is assumed that
the wellbore does not influence the stress field around the
perforations.
The cavity pore pressure gradient dpc in Eq. (1) is related
to the drawdown pdd and depletion pdep as follows:
(a) Open hole completions:
dpc =

pdd

rw ln ( re rw )

....................................................... (11)

dpc =

[ (L

rp n p L p ln re

pdd
p

+ rw ) + 0.5 f D

rp L p

............. (12)

where rw is the wellbore radius, re the well drainage radius, rp

the perforation radius, Lp the perforation length, and np the
perforation density (number of perforations per well length).
Equation (11) is based on radial Darcy flow towards the open
hole, while Eq.(12) is based on an approximate analytical
model of radial Darcy flow up to the perforation tip followed
by local spherical flow convergence into individual
perforations [10]. Parameter f D = f D ( n p , L p , perf pattern ) is
s

a Darcy flow spherical shape factor used to represent the

results of exact finite element perforation inflow simulations
with the analytical expression in Eq.(12). For spiral
perforation patterns, which involve the least interaction
between adjacent perforations, the shape factor does not differ
substantially from unity, i.e. f D = 1 . Saleh and Stewart [10]
s

report the shape factors for rp = 0.635 cm and four common

perforation patterns, spiral 180 (180 phasing), spiral 120
(120 phasing), plane 90 (90 phasing) and strip 0 (0 phasing
with all perforations in line). For use in the analytical model,
the published data were approximated with the function:
f D = Lp ( a1 n p + a2 ) + L p ( a3 n p + a4 ) + a5 n p + a6 ........ (13)
s

where a1 to a6 are calibration constants different for each

perforation pattern, as listed in Table 1.
Equation (12) assumes that the fluid flow is distributed
evenly around the surface of the perforation. In reality,
however, a large portion of the flow is concentrated around the
perforation tip, where the damage of the rock is smaller and
therefore not significant sand production is expected. Thus,
around the length of the perforation where the damage is
concentrated and sand production is expected, a smaller fluid
flux exists. This makes Eq.(12) a conservative estimate for
sand production predictions.
Table 1. Constants in Eq.(12) for calculation of Darcy
s

flow spherical shape factor f D .

Constants
-1

a1 [m ]
-2
a2 [m ]
a3 [ - ]
-1
a4 [m ]
a5 [m]
a6 [ - ]

Spiral 180
0.38963
-0.29051
-0.06444
-1.489
0.017
1.0755

Perforation pattern
Spiral 120
Plane 90
0.20641
0.098111
0.318
2.396
-0.01426
0.040256
-1.4353
-2.6614
0.007037
-0.00394
0.96742
1.1023

Strip 0
-0.03383
2.0171
0.19944
-2.3301
0.063381
0.9629

E. PAPAMICHOS

Field case
The Volumetric Sand Production model has been calibrated
against laboratory experiment data, both from outcrops and
reservoirs. In order to test the model in predicting sand
production in the field, relevant formation and production data
were collected for a North Sea reservoir, such as
Borehole dimension and orientation, and perforation
dimensions, spacing and phasing.
Formation properties of perforated sections (in the form
of logs), such as strength (e.g. UCS), permeability,
porosity, fluid viscosity.
In situ total horizontal and vertical stresses and their
dependence on reservoir depletion, and reservoir pressure.
Production history, i.e. depletion and drawdown over
time.
Two wells were analyzed. Well A was logged after drilling
and then it was put into production. No core was taken. Well
B, an analogue to production well A, was a vertical
exploration well where a core was taken. The sand production
test in Figure 1 was on core from this well.

SPE/ISRM 78166

percent up to a few factors). In the production Well A, the

porosity in the reservoir ranges from 15 to 28%, i.e. very
similar to that in exploration Well B. Most porosity is in the
range 20 to 25% with the porosity trend increasing
downwards. The porosity in the perforated zones is about
25%. The grain size distribution as a function of depth was
measured. The average grain size diameters on three particular
formations were 202 m, 309 m and 387 m.
Rock strength. The Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
has been measured in laboratory experiments on tens of core
samples from Well B. Formel analysis was done (termed here
LMP) to compute the UCS-log. Formel uses acoustic data and
other basic log parameters to calculate the formation strength.
The experimental data show a larger scatter than the logderived UCS. Most data indicate a UCS in the range of 10 to
15 MPa. About 25% of the data is in the range of 15 to 20
MPa. Based on wireline log data (density and P-wave
velocity) in Well A and using the match between
experimentally-measured and wireline-log-based UCS in Well
B, a strength profile was made for production Well A (from
which no core was taken). The computed UCS ranges from 6
MPa to 32 MPa.

Borehole and perforation data. The deviation of well A to

the vertical is 55 and the azimuth angle is 148 SE. The
perforation was at 120 phasing, 6 shots per foot. The design
perforation diameter is 0.012 m and the length is 0.25 m.

Field prediction. A volumetric sand production prediction

study was performed for Well A. Seven intervals were
perforated in this well with a total length of 67.5 m. Table 2
shows the formation properties used in each perforation
interval. These properties were selected from logs, shown in
Figure 3 for the production Well A and in Figure 4 for the
exploration analogue Well B.

Reservoir data. The reservoir fluid pressure at the time of

drilling of well B was 27.6 MPa. This is about 1 MPa less then
the original (pre-production) fluid pressure. Oil viscosity at
STC is 0.47 cp. The final flow rate was 1095 m3/day and the
bottom hole pressure 21 MPa.
Porosity and permeability. The reservoir porosity is in the
range of 15 to 28% with most data in the range of 22 to 26%.
Permeability data are in the 100 to 1000 mD range. Horizontal
permeability is larger than vertical permeability (a few tens of

Table 2. Well A: Perforated intervals and formation properties.

Perforation
interval
1

MD
[m]
5368 - 5374

TVD
[m]
2672.63 - 2676.05

Average TVD
[m]
2674.34

Perforation
length [m]
6

Max porosity
[-]
0.30

5383 -5395

2681.16 - 2687.96

2684.56

12

0.28

2055.3

0.23

6.82

5402 - 5404

2691.95 - 2693.07

2692.50

0.17

6.1

0.33

31.2

5408 -5420

2695.34 - 2702.17

2698.75

12

0.28

2055.3

0.25

6.49

5428.5 -5432.5

2706.98 - 2709.25

2708.12

0.20

29.3

0.31

18.6

5466 -5490

2728.27 - 2741.90

2735.09

24

0.26

706.2

0.24

6.27

5494 -5501.5

2744.17 - 2748.43

2746.30

7.5

0.28

2055.3

0.22

5.46

Total

67.5

Max permeability
Median
[mD
Poissons ratio
6007.3
0.28

Min UCS
[MPa]
8.35

SPE/ISRM 78166

SAND MASS PREDICTION IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR

Porosity Log
Porosity max

only).

Oil volume fraction

Formation boundary

Porosity Log
Formation boundary

Porosity and Oil volume fraction

0

0.1

0.2

Oil volume fraction

Porosity Core

Porosity and Oil volume fraction

0.3
0

2670

0.1

0.2

0.3

2675
2680
2700

2690

2725
TVD [m]

TVD [m]

2700

2710

2720

2750

2730
2775

2740

2750
2800

Well A

Well B
UCS LMP
Formation boundary

UCS min
UCS LMP
Formation boundary

UCS [MPa]
0

10

20

30

40

UCS Core

UCS [MPa]

50
0

2670

10

20

30

40

50

2675
2680
2700

2690

2725
TVD [m]

TVD [m]

2700

2710

2720

2750

2730
2775

2740

2750
Well A

2800
Well B

Figure 3. Porosity, oil volume fraction and UCS logs for

production Well A (values in perforation intervals are shown

Figure 4. Porosity, oil volume fraction and UCS logs for

exploration Well B.

E. PAPAMICHOS

10000

Minor horizontal stress

Formation boundary

In situ stresses and pore pressure [MPa]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2670

2680

2690

Vertical permeability [md]

Vertical stress
Pore pressure
Perf intervals

SPE/ISRM 78166

1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01

2700
TVD [m]

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Porosity

2710

0.3

0.35

Well B

10000

Pres

2730

2740

2750
Well A

Figure 5. Initial total vertical and minor horizontal stress, and

initial pore pressure in the perforation intervals.

Horizontal permeability [md]

2720
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0

Vertical

Horizontal

Formation boundary

Permeability [md]
0.01
2675

0.1

10

100

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Porosity

0.25

0.3

0.35

Well B

Figure 7. Vertical and horizontal permeability measured in cores

in exploration Well B vs. porosity.

1000 10000

2700

TVD [m]

2725

2750

2775

2800
Well B

Figure 6. Log of vertical and horizontal permeability measured in

cores in exploration Well B.

Estimates of the initial total vertical vo, maximum

horizontal Ho and minimum horizontal ho in situ stresses,
and the initial reservoir pressure preso at the perforated
formations and perforated intervals are shown in Figure 5. No
information was available for the changes of the in situ
stresses with depletion, so poroelastic uniaxial compaction
was assumed and Eq.(10) was used with Biots effective stress
coefficient = 0.9.
The permeability in Well A was calculated from
permeability vs. porosity relations derived for Well B based on
core measurements of horizontal and vertical permeability
shown in Figure 6. Plots of the vertical and horizontal
permeability vs. porosity and the approximated functions are
shown in Figure 7. With these functions the vertical kv and
horizontal kh permeability are given as functions of the
porosity :
For a conservative estimate on the sand production, the
minimum value for each perforation interval was selected for
the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), and the maximum
for the porosity and permeability. For the permeability, the
average between the maximum vertical and horizontal
permeabilities was taken. For the Poissons ratio the median
value was selected to avoid the extremes in the log values. The

SAND MASS PREDICTION IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR

Drawdown

0.6

Depletion

0.5
0.4

6
5

0.3

0.2

0
0

20000

40000

60000

Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7

200
150
100
50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Perforation deviation [deg]

(a)
Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6

0.2

Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7

Perf interval 4

0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Perforation deviation [deg]

(b)
Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6

0.016

Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7

Perf interval 4

0.015
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007

0.1

Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6

7
Depletion [MPa]

Drawdown [MPa]

Max Sand production [kg]

The simulated production history for the drawdown and

depletion over time was based on the field production data and
is shown in Figure 8. A constant drawdown of 0.5 MPa and a
linear increase of the depletion with time were applied over
the production period of eight years and three months. The
total depletion was 8 MPa. The deviation of the perforations is
not fixed, as the perforation pattern is a 120 spiral. Therefore,
the results are given for various deviations angles between 35
and 90 with respect to vertical.
The total sand production for the entire well and each of
the perforation intervals is given in Figure 9a and it is
increasing with perforation deviation from vertical because the
vertical in situ stress is the major principal stress. Perforation
intervals 3 and 5 do not produce sand. Figure 9b shows the
maximum sand rate and Figure 9c the maximum perforation
radius (initial radius = 0.006 m) at each perforation interval as
a function of perforation deviation with respect to vertical.
Some perforation intervals, depending on the perforation
deviation, do not produce sand at the start of production but
later on the life of the well as the reservoir is depleted. Figure
10 shows the time and Figure 11 the depletion to sand
production vs. perforation deviation for each of the five sand
producing perforation intervals. Figure 12 show as an
example the sand production and sand rate at perforation
interval 4 (5408-5420 MD) as a function of time. The
perforations with deviation larger than 50 produce sand from
the start. The maximum sand rate is then at the start and it
decreases later because the perforation radius increases. The
perforations with deviation smaller than 50 do not produce
sand from the beginning. The maximum sand rate is at the end
of the production period at the largest depletion. The effect of
water cut on sand production was not included in the sand
prediction.

Well
Perf interval 4

250

Max Sand rate [kg/h]

oil viscosity is = 0.47 cp. The sand production stress s was

calculated from the UCS using Eq.(3). For the sand production
parameter as = as ( s ) , a correlation as in Eq.(4) was used.

Max Perforation radius [m]

SPE/ISRM 78166

0
80000

Time [h]

Figure 8. Simulated production history for the drawdown and

depletion.

0.006
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Perforation deviation [deg]

(c)
Figure 9. (a) Maximum sand production, (b) Maximum sand rate,
and (c) Maximum perforation radius vs. perforation deviation w.r.t.
vertical for the entire well A and for each of the five sand
producing perforation intervals. Intervals 3 and 5 do not produce
sand.

E. PAPAMICHOS

Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6

Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7

Perf interval 4

Perf deviation

50
45

70000
Sand production [kg]

Time to Sand production [h]

80000

SPE/ISRM 78166

60000
50000
40000
30000
20000

90 deg

40
35
30

60 deg

25
20
15

45 deg

10

10000

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

35 deg
0

90

20000

40000

60000

80000

Time [h]

Perforation deviation [deg]

Figure 10. Time to sand production vs. perforation deviation w.r.t.

vertical for each of the five sand producing perforation intervals.

(a)
0.002

Perf interval 2
Perf interval 7

Perf interval 4

Sand prod. rate [kg/h]

Depletion to Sand production [MPa]

0.0018
Perf interval 1
Perf interval 6

8
7
6
5

0.0016
0.0014
0.0012

Perf deviation

0.001
0.0008

90 deg

0.0006

60 deg
45 deg

0.0004

0.0002

35 deg

20000

40000

60000

80000

Time [h]

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Perforation deviation [deg]

Figure 11. Depletion to sand production vs. perforation deviation

w.r.t. vertical for each of the five sand producing perforation
intervals.

Conclusions
The results show that well deviation and perforation pattern
can delay the onset of sand production and reduce
substantially the sand rate and cumulative produced sand. The
fluid flow flux into the perforations affects significantly the
sand rate and sand production and accurate estimates from
reservoir simulations have to be used for correct predictions.
Sand production may decrease due to the enlargement of the
perforations and the resulting reduced pressure gradients.
The sand mass prediction model can be applied for the
estimation of the cumulative amount of produced sand and the
sand rate over the life of a well. Parametric studies can also be
performed to optimize the production strategy (drawdown and
depletion), well and/or perforation orientation, selective
perforation, etc. The models estimates may also be used as
input to sand transport and erosion models for the calculation
of sand transport in horizontal wells and pipelines and erosion
of pipes and other facilities.

(b)
Figure 12. (a) Sand production and (b) sand rate for various
perforation deviations w.r.t. vertical vs. time for perforation
interval 4 (5408-5420 MD).

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Nils Kgesson-Loe of Norsk
Hydro for supplying information about reservoir and
production data. The sponsors of the joint industry project
Volumetric Sand Production at Sintef Petroleum Research,
Conoco Norway, Shell International Exploration &
Production, Norsk Hydro and Statoil are recognized for
supporting this research.
Nomenclature
a1 to a6= calibration constants in Eq. (13)
as = calibration parameter in Eq. (1)
a = calibration constant in Eq. (3), (m/Lt2)-b
azim = azimuth angle of Ho, , deg
b = calibration constant in Eq. (3),
dev = wellbore deviation from vertical, , deg
dpc = pore pressure gradient at the cavity, 1/Lt2

SPE/ISRM 78166

SAND MASS PREDICTION IN A NORTH SEA RESERVOIR

dps = critical pore pressure gradient at the cavity for sand

initiation, 1/Lt2
s
D

f = Darcy flow spherical shape factor,

k = permeability, L2, mD
kh = horizontal permeability, L2, mD
kv = vertical permeability, L2, mD
lxH, lxh, lxv, lyH, lyh = direction cosines of stress transformation
in the wellbore coordinate system,
np = perforation density, 1/m, shots/ft
preso = initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, MPa
re = wellbore influence radius, m
ri = current cavity radius, m
rp = perforation radius, m, cm, m
rw = wellbore radius, m
t = time, t, h
H = hollow cylinder specimen height, m
Lp = perforation length, m, m
Ms = cumulative sand mass, m
MD = measured depth, m, m
TVD = true vertical depth, m, m
UCS = uniaxial compressive strength, m/Lt2, MPa
Q = fluid flow rate, m3/t
= Biot effective stress coefficient,
= coordinate in cylindrical coordinate system,
= fluid viscosity, m/Lt, cp
= Poissons ratio,
c = external cavity stress, m/Lt2
s = critical external cavity stress for sand initiation,
m/Lt2
x, y xy = in situ total stresses in the wellbore coordinate
system, m/Lt2
xo, yo xyo = initial in situ total stresses in the wellbore
coordinate system, m/Lt2
h = in situ total minor horizontal stress, m/Lt2, MPa
H = in situ total major horizontal stress , m/Lt2, MPa
v = in situ total vertical stress, m/Lt2, MPa
ho = initial in situ total minor horizontal stress, m/Lt2,
MPa
Ho = initial in situ total major horizontal stress , m/Lt2,
MPa
vo = initial in situ total vertical stress, m/Lt2, MPa
h = ratio of h change with depletion,
H = ratio of H change with depletion,
v = ratio of v change with depletion,
x = ratio of x change with depletion,
xy = ratio of xy change with depletion,
y = ratio of y change with depletion,
= porosity,
pdd = drawdown, m/Lt2, MPa
pdep = depletion, m/Lt2, MPa

References
1. Geilikman MB, Dusseault MB, Dullien FA: Fluid production
enhancement by exploiting sand production, paper SPE 27820
presented at the 1994 SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on Improved
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17-20 April.
2. Vardoulakis I, Stavropoulou M, Papanastasiou P:
Hydromechanical aspects of the sand production problem,
Transport in Porous Media (1996) 22, 225-244.
3. Stavropoulou M, Papanastasiou P, Vardoulakis I: Coupled
wellbore erosion and stability analysis, Int. J. Num. Anal.
Methods Geomech. (1998) 22, 749-769.
4. Papamichos E, Malmanger EM: A sand erosion model for
volumetric sand predictions in a North Sea reservoir, SPE
69841, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, (Feb. 2001),
44-50.
5. Papamichos E, Vardoulakis I, Tronvoll J, Skjrstein A:
Volumetric sand production model and experiment, Int. J.
Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. (2001) 25, 8, 789-808.
6. Wan RG, Wang J: Analysis of sand production in
unconsolidated oil sand using a coupled erosional-stressdeformation model, presented at the 2001 Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
June 10-12, Paper #2001-49.
7. Tronvoll J, Papamichos E, Skjrstein A, Sanfilippo F: Sand
production in ultra-weak sandstones: Is sand control absolutely
necessary? SPE 39042, presented at the 1997 5th Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference
and Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro.
8. Kessler N, Wang Y, Santarelli FJ: A simplified pseudo 3D
model to evaluate sand production risk in deviated cased holes,
SPE 26541, presented at the 1993 68th Annual Technical Conf.
And Exhibition of the SPE, Houston.
9. Erling F, Holt RM, Horsrud P, Raaen AM, Risnes R: Petroleum
related rock mechanics, Developments in Petroleum Science,
33, Elsevier (1992).
10. Saleh AM, Stewart G: New approach towards understanding of
near well bore behaviour of perforated completions, SPE
36866, presented at the 1996 SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Milan, Italy, 447-464.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp 1.0*
E-03 = Pas
in. 2.54*
E-02 = m
ft 3.048*
E-01 = m
ft2 9.290 304* E-02 = m2
ft3 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
gal 3.785 412 E-03 = m3
lbm 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
mD 9.87
E-16 = m2
psi 6.894 757 E-03 = MPa
bar 1*
E-01 = Mpa
*

Conversion factor is exact.