SPE 151846

Stressed Rock Penetration Depth Correlation

J. Harvey, SPE, B. Grove, SPE, L. Zhan, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 1517 February 2012.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Downhole shaped charge depth of penetration (DoP) prediction has historically been largely determined by API Section I
unstressed concrete performance. As previously reported [1, 2], reliance on unstressed concrete performance is flawed for
several reasons and a review of industry models motivated a new approach based on stressed rock experiments.

As a result of a multi-year extensive experimental program, shaped charge DoP into stressed rocks is found to decrease
exponentially with an empirically determined formation parameter; the ballistic indicator function, FBI. This parameter
which combines formation intrinsic properties (UCS, porosity) and extrinsic properties (overburden stress and pore pressure)
is described as well as its integration into an improved downhole shaped charge prediction model.

The development of the ballistic indicator function required approximately 600 single-shot experiments spanning 4 shaped
charges, 10 different rocks (sandstones and carbonates), overburden stresses from 1 ksi to 20 ksi, and pore pressures from
zero to 10 ksi. A recommended test program is presented which currently requires as few as 12 single-shot experiments for
each charge to determine two charge-dependent parameters: the reference DoP, DoPref, and the exponential coefficient, 0.
These two coefficients are sufficient for FBI<25 ksi which represents the majority of reservoirs currently being perforated
world-wide. For reservoirs in excess of 25 ksi, DoP approaches a non-zero limit which is charge-dependent, and a
preliminary discussion of this limit is included.

This model was initially developed based on sandstone targets. A preliminary extension of this model to carbonate targets is
also presented. In general, carbonates behave differently than sandstones with less stress dependence and shallower
penetration depths.

Introduction

Explosive shaped charges have been used to perforate oil and gas wells since the 1940s. Based on military technology
fielded in World War II, these small explosive devices create metallic jets traveling at several km/sec, perforating steel
casing, cement, and formation rock. Typically, multiple charges are configured in a perforating gun, and initiated in rapid
succession by high explosive detonating cord, which has been initiated by a detonator.
2 SPE 151846

Figure 1 Explosive Shaped Charge Perforator

The primary objective of perforating a cased wellbore is to establish efficient flow communication with the reservoir. The
key perforating parameters which influence reservoir deliverability are well known, and the relative influence of each has
been quantified by a number of researchers [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. These key parameters include shot density, phasing, depth of
penetration (DoP), tunnel diameter, and the nature of any permeability-impaired (crushed) zone which remains surrounding
the perforation tunnels.

Shot density and phasing are fixed system parameters, and therefore their values at downhole conditions are known.
However, downhole values of perforation tunnel depth, diameter, and crushed zone characteristics cannot be known with
certainty. These quantities must be estimated with predictive models. Therefore the accuracy of these predictive models is
an essential ingredient in the accuracy of any productivity prediction.

The authors are currently engaged in active research to increase our understanding of perforation tunnel depth, diameter, and
crushed zone characteristics at downhole conditions. This research is leading to the development of models which more
accurately predict these essential quantities. This paper describes our efforts related to DoP modeling; future papers will
discuss investigations into tunnel diameter and crushed zone characteristics.

Review of Industry Models

To say that there is variability in downhole depth of penetration predictions within industry models is an understatement, as
will be shown. The sources of this variability are largely a result of 1) a lack of stressed rock data, 2) reliance on unstressed
concrete performance, and 3) 2-3 generations of charge development with a 2-fold increase in API Section I penetration
(concrete). The authors work highlights the necessity for testing charges in stressed rock and suggests utilizing the API
Section I test for its original intent; system level interference testing, casing entrance hole diameter evaluation, and sensitivity
to wellbore fluid clearance.

Figure 2 compares 5 industry models (including the model used in the previous version of the authors perforating design
software) and the model proposed in this paper [9]which has been implemented in the latest version of the design tool. The
baseline comparison was made with a 3-3/8 gun system at 6 shots per foot. The API Section I depth of penetration (DoP)
for this gun is 41. The reservoir properties were specified as the UCS (3% potassium chloride brine saturated unconfined
compressive strength) of 6 ksi, an overburden pressure of 5 ksi, and a pore pressure of 3.5 ksi. For a variety of reasons, these
models are largely optimistic with predictions errors upwards of 240%.

These models all follow a similar workflow which begins with an individual charges performance into an API Section I
concrete target. This depth is then used to estimate an equivalent depth in unstressed Berea sandstone. The actual reservoir
strength relative to Berea is then considered and a correction is applied. Actual downhole stress (overburden and pore
pressure) results in additional corrections. Additional effects such as water clearance, casing thickness, cement thickness, etc.
are applied as additional corrections. For all models, the strength and stress effects are considered separately, and without
consistency across all models. However, most models consider the strength effect similarly based on the observations of
Thompson [10].
SPE 151846 3

Figure 2 Baseline comparison of industry models

Thompsons Strength Model

Thompson performed a series of experiments with unstressed rock targets of variable UCS. He found that for a given charge,
DoP was logarithmically related to UCS, i.e.
DoP
ln = 8.6 10 5 UCS ref UCS
( ) (1)
DoPref

where

DoP = DoP into the producing formation

DoPref = DoP into the test formation
UCS = UCS of producing formation (psi)
UCSref = UCS of test formation (psi)

There are several implications for this result. First, a charge can be characterized by measuring its DoP in a single target.
Secondly, this result suggests that shaped charges cannot be optimized for a given target strength. If a charge does not
perform well in a strong target, it will be predictably low performing in a weaker target. Mathematically, this is a result of
the 8.6x10-5 factor being a constant across all charges tested. Thus, charge improvement can be performed with a single
target such as Berea sandstone. Additionally, this correlation is suggested to be applicable across rock types with sandstone
and limestone targets of similar UCS performing equivalently. There is no mention of equivalent performance in concrete
targets. While these tests were limited to unstressed targets, they have provided useful insight into shaped charge
performance in stressed rock.

Stress Effect

In the current test program, initial experiments were performed with a single charge into moderate strength sandstone targets
(Berea) over a range of confining pressures, PC, and pore pressures, PP, up to 20 ksi. Using an appropriately defined effective
stress which will be discussed later, Figure 3 illustrates that the effective stress also exhibits a logarithmic relationship to
DoP, not unlike the dependence on UCS observed by Thompson. This behavior has been observed and reported in the
literature [11, 9]. Figure 4 illustrates that several charges exhibit stress dependent normalized DoP. It also shows that
charges of equivalent size do not always perform equivalently at a given stress. Figure 5 shows a similar trend but with
several different rocks. Again, the normalized performance varies with charge as a given stress. This figure also shows that
these charges exhibit characteristically different rates of performance reduction at increasing stress level. These observations
motivated the development of a correlation which combines the effects of target strength and stress. Additionally, the new
correlation should allow for charge optimization.
4 SPE 151846

0.4

0.2

0.0
UCS=7.7 ksi

ln(DoP/DoPref)
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Effective Stress (ksi)

Figure 3 Logarithmic effect of effective stress on DoP

Figure 4 Shaped charge penetration vs. effective stress for Berea Sandstone (taken from [11])

Figure 5 Shaped charge penetration depth vs. rock stress; different strength rocks and different charges (taken from [9])
SPE 151846 5

Correlation Development and Discussion

A more comprehensive series of over 200 experiments as described in [1, 2] was performed spanning four different charge
sizes into targets ranging from 1,600 psi to 16,000 psi UCS. With the exception of a limited number of tests at 20,000 psi
confining pressure, most tests were performed with confining and pore pressures up to 10,000 psi. The resulting correlation
is very similar in form to that proposed by Thompson with the addition of the combined UCS+stress function:

DoP
ln = 0 (FBI ,ref FBI ) (2)
DoP
ref
FBI = UCS + b Peff (3)

Peff = PC a PP (4)

a ( ) = 0.0967 0.428 (5)

0.7336 1.813x10 5 UCS , UCS < 30,000 psi

b(UCS ) = 5
(6)
3.33 e 9.55 x10 UCS , UCS 30,000 psi

where

DoP = DoP into the producing formation

DoPref = DoP into the test formation @ FBI,ref=10,000 psi

0 = Exponential Charge Coefficient

FBI = Ballistic Indicator Function of producing formation (psi)

FBI ,ref = Ballistic Indicator Function of test formation (10,000 psi)

UCS = UCS of producing formation (psi)

Peff = Ballistic Effective Stress (psi)

PC = Confining Stress (psi)

PP = Pore Pressure (psi)

a = Ballistic Pore Pressure Coefficient

b = Stress Influence Coefficient

= Porosity (%, 0-100)

This model requires six parameters; two shaped charge-specific parameters, DoPref and 0, and four target specific
parameters, UCS in psi, porosity () in percent (0-100), confining pressure (PC), and pore pressure (PP) both in psi. The
reference ballistic indicator function, FBI,ref, was chosen as 10,000 psi which is geometrically in the center of the data set. The
initial shaped charge parameters were based on a regression analysis of the 200+ data points which are shown in Figure 6 and
Figure 7. Figure 6 shows the absolute DoP vs. FBI for each charge tested. For each individual charge (A,B,C, and D), we
observe a well behaved decrease in DoP with increasing FBI (i.e. increasing UCS and/or effective stress.) Figure 6 also
illustrates the absolute differences in DoP among these different charges, for a given FBI. Figure 7 shows the same
information but normalized to each charges DoPref.
6 SPE 151846

Eq. 2 is identical in form to Eq. 1 with two notable exceptions. First, UCS is replaced with the ballistic indicator function,
FBI, which functionally couples the UCS and the effective stress (Peff); Figure 8 illustrates these dependencies. At higher
levels of effective stress, the sensitivity to UCS is reduced. Similarly, at high UCS, the stress dependency is reduced. The
effective stress is defined in a manner analogous to that found in classical geomechanics and soil mechanics. The coefficient
leading the pore pressure is not the conventional Biots parameter, but a newly defined ballistic pore pressure coefficient, a
[12]. It was found that a varied with either rock strength or porosity with stronger rocks exhibiting less dependence on pore
pressure. For the rocks tested, porosity and UCS correlated well in an inverse fashion with stronger rocks having lower
porosity. Porosity seems to be the more relevant of the two parameters: as porosity trends to zero, diminishing influence
from pore pressure should be expected. This is the primary motivation for the power law form of the correlation for a.
Figure 9 illustrates that a is a monotonically increasing function of porosity. Compared to classical Biots parameter, a is
significantly smaller resulting in larger ballistic effective stresses.

The second significant difference between Eq. 1 and 2 is the replacement of the constant (8.6x10-5) with the charge dependent
variable 0. A first approximation assuming a constant 0 does yield a reasonable fit of all available data. However, allowing
0 to be a charge dependent variable noticeably improves the fit of each single charge subpopulation of the full data set
(Figure 7). In addition to fitting the data better, allowing for the charge dependency is qualitatively necessary to account for
charge optimization. Figure 10 illustrates this concept for two hypothetical charges with identical DoPref but different 0. The
weak rock charge, which has a faster drop-off in DoP with increasing FBI (larger 0), out-performs the strong rock charge
at low FBI and vice versa at higher FBI. At 10,000 (FBI,ref), their performances are identical.

The stress influence coefficient, b (Figure 11), which determines the influence of effective stress on FBI is linear over the
range of experimental data, decreasing from 0.734 at zero UCS to 0.19 at 30,000 psi. Above 30,000 psi UCS (where we
currently do not have any data) it is postulated that this function should asymptote to zero. The physical implication of this
assumption is that very strong rocks are completely insensitive to stress. The breakpoint of 30,000 psi was chosen somewhat
arbitrarily, and the coefficients of the exponential extension were chosen to assure continuity of the function.

The ballistic indicator function provides a graphically convenient way to visualize charge performance across the continuum
of reservoirs. By combining all reservoir properties effecting DoP into a single parameter, one can quickly identify relative
differences in DoP between charges across different reservoirs. The current formulation of the ballistic indicator function
provides room for improvement as well. The correlations which are currently used for estimating formation UCS have
inherent uncertainty which will propagate into uncertainty in DoP prediction. This is not a unique problem with this DoP
model. An alternative method would be to directly include physical measurements such as acoustic properties or Youngs
modulus into the ballistic indicator function, essentially replacing UCS.

3.0

Charge A
Charge B 2.5 Charge A
Charge C Charge A Correlation
Charge D Charge B
2.0 Charge B Correlation
Charge C
DoP/DoPref

Charge C (>10 ksi Berea)

Charge C Correlation
DoP

1.5 Charge D
Charge D Correlation

1.0

0.5 Castlegate
Nugget
Berea/Berea Buff
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Ballistic Indicator Function (psi) Ballistic Indicator Function (ksi)

Figure 6 Unscaled DoP Data Figure 7 Exponential DoP correlation

SPE 151846 7

20

18

16 Strong Rock Charge

Conventional Charge
14
Weak Rock Charge
12

D oP (in)
10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Ballistic Indicator Function (ksi)

Figure 8 Ballistic Indicator Function (curves at variable Figure 10 Implications of charge optimization
effective stress)

0.45

0.40
Ballistic Pore Pressure Coefficient, a

0.35

0.30
y = 9.67E-02x4.28E-01
0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Porosity (%)

Figure 9 Ballistic Pore Pressure Coefficient, a() Figure 11 Stress Influence Coefficient, b(UCS)

Shaped Charge Penetration; FBI>25 ksi

The DoP model predicts DoPs approaching zero as the FBI increases. The practical limit for FBI is likely less than 100 ksi
with solid fused silica measuring >160 ksi. Sandstone reservoirs have been reported at 50-60 ksi. The problem with
predicting DoP at these strengths is due to lack of a consistent target material. A search for a natural sandstone is underway,
and likely sources are not going to be found from surface outcrop formations which reach a maximum strength of <30 ksi due
to weathering. Metamorphic quartzite is likely the closest candidate for sandstone targets with UCS of 35-40 ksi. Deep
excavated sandstones could also be a candidate. Ideally, extremely strong wellcore could also be used, but the cost of
obtaining this source will likely be prohibitive. A synthetic alternative or a surrogate material might be the only alternative.

As with any rock, shaped charge penetration will stop when the jet tip velocity drops to a limit where rock strength become
significant compared to the impact pressure of the jet. With this in mind, and considering that the initial impact pressures
from a shaped charge will easily exceed the strength of virtually any material, there will be a non-zero lower limit to shaped
charge DoP. This limit we estimate will occur around a UCS of 35-50 ksi.
8 SPE 151846

Figure 12 Illustration of minimum DoP at extremely high FBI

Experimental Determination of DoPref and 0 for an Uncharacterized Charge

The currently recommended best practice for characterizing charges requires 12 tests; 4 tests with three different rocks. The
three rocks should be chosen to provide the largest range of UCS. A good choice of rocks is Castlegate sandstone (~1600
psi), Berea sandstone (6000-8000 psi), and Crab Orchard sandstone (22,000 psi). All values of UCS are based on single-
phase brine saturation. It is important to characterize the targets on the slab level by selecting a representative selection of
plugs for UCS testing from the extremes of the slab. The UCS tests should be conducted with brine saturated samples. It is
also important to note that some rocks have noticeable strength anisotropy with the strongest direction not always
perpendicular to bedding planes. This is an ongoing investigation concerning the proper UCS direction to use for the
correlation. Currently, the vertical (perpendicular to bedding planes) UCS is the value used in this correlation, but we
typically are interested in measuring the horizontal UCS as well. Experiments are planned to determine is DoP sensitivity to
orientation. Our recommendation for now is to measure UCS in the same direction as the shooting direction which is
typically vertical.

Since the rock behavior is already known and defined in terms of the FBI, it is not necessary to shoot the three rocks with any
pore pressure. Some moderate level of confining stress is required, and 5000 psi is recommended. Depending on charge
performance, a pressure vessel capable of accommodating 36+ of core will be required.

The twelve data points (4 replications in three rocks) can then be regressed using an exponential form to determine DoPref and
0. With the data clustered in groups of four, it is also possible to perform a weighted regression using some measure of the
variability of the clusters. So a cluster of data with large variance will influence the curve less than a cluster with low
variance.

Figure 13 Example of a charge characterization 12-point test

SPE 151846 9

Extension to Carbonates

The DoP correlation was initially developed entirely with sandstone targets. Three carbonate targets were tested with three
charges which were initially characterized with sandstone. The three carbonate targets were chosen to provide a similar
range of UCS; Austin Chalk, 3000 psi UCS, Indiana Limestone, 7600 psi UCS, and Carthage Marble, 20,000 psi UCS. Tests
with Indiana limestone were conducted over a range of confining and pore pressures. Depending on the requirements of the
charge being characterized, an individual performance curve (DoPref and 0) can be measured using carbonate tests for best
accuracy. It is also possible to estimate carbonate DoP using approximate corrections to the sandstone-based DoPref, 0, and
FBI. The pore pressure coefficient, a, should be multiplied by 0.5 and the stress influence coefficient, b, should be multiplied
by 0.7. These two corrections result in reduced sensitivity to effective stress. To correct the charge dependent parameters,
the DoPref should be divided by 1.10 and the 0 should be divided by 1.19. Figure 14 illustrates sandstone and carbonate DoP
curves for a common charge. An additional observation that can be made is that at high FBI, sandstones and carbonates
exhibit similar DoP.

Figure 14 Comparison of sandstone and carbonate DoP

Conclusions and Future Work

The penetration depth model presented here has been in development for several years and has culminated with a rock
descriptor, the ballistic indicator function, which effectively combines influences from reservoir strength and effective stress.
A method of characterizing the charge performance based on an exponential model provides a significantly more accurate
method of prediction compared to the conventional models using unstressed concrete. Shaped charge DoP is characterized
using two parameters; DoPref and 0. The two-parameter DoP model formally defines the meaning of charge optimization.

A preliminary discussion of the extension of this model to extremely strong reservoirs is included, and it is noted that DoP
should not asymptote to zero. This is an on-going area of focus, and the limitation is due to lack of target material.

The model is extended to carbonates via an approximate correction to the FBI and the charge parameters.

Future work will focus on extensions/improvements to the ballistic indicator function to include other target parameters such
as formation fluid effects (other than pressure), anisotropy, and other properties. Future work will also focus on additional
reservoir lithologies such as shales and coal.
10 SPE 151846

References

1. Harvey, J, Grove, B., Zhan, L., Behrmann, L. 2010. New Predictive Model of Penetration Depth for Oilwell Perforating
Shaped Charges, paper SPE 127920 presented at the 2010 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, LA.
2. Harvey, J., Grove, B., Zhan, L. 2010. Shaped Charge Penetration into Stressed Rock Penetration Depth Experiments
and Modeling, paper 10-305 presented at the 44th US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT.
3. Harris, M. H. 1966. The Effect of Perforating on Well Productivity, JPT (April 1966) 518-28; Trans., AIME, 237.
4. Klotz, J.A., Kreuger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.1974. Effect of Perforation Damage on Well Productivity, JPT (Nov 1974)
1033-44; Trans., AIME, 257.
5. Hong, K.C.1975. Productivity of Perforated Completions in Formations With or Without Damage, JPT (Aug 1975)
1027-38; Trans., AIME, 259.
6. McLeod, O.H., Jr 1983. The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance, JPT (Jan. 1983) 31-39.
7. Locke, S.1981. An Advanced Method for Predicting the Productivity Ratio of a Perforated Well, JPT (Dec. 1981) 2481-
88.
8. Karakas, M. and Tariq, S.M. 1991. Semianalytical Productivity Models for Perforated Completions, SPEPE (Feb. 1991)
73-82; Trans., AIME, 291.
9. Behrman, L., Grove, B., Walton, I., Zhan, L., Graham, C., Atwood, D., and Harvey, J. 2009. A Survey of Industry
Models for Perforator Performance: Suggestions for Improvements, paper 125020 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA.
10. Thompson, G. 1962. Effects of Formation Compressive Strength on Perforator Performance, API Division of
Production.
11. Halleck, P. et al. 1988. Reduction of Jet Perforator Penetration in Rock Under Stress, paper SPE 18245 presented at the
1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX.
12. Grove, B., Heiland, J., Walton, I., and Atwood, D. 2008. New Effective Stress Law for Predicting Perforation Depth at
Downhole Conditions, paper SPE 111778 presented at the 2008 SPE Formation Damage Conference, Lafayette, LA.