Chapter 4

Finite Element Solution via Standard Galerkins

Method
4.1

Introduction

The exact solutions to the governing equations derived in the last chapter are generally not available. Hence, numerical solutions are introduced to obtain approximate
solutions. The finite element method is a valuable approximation tool for the solution
of Partial Dierential Equations (PDE) when the analytical solutions are dicult or
impossible to obtain due to complicated geometry or boundary conditions. Such a
method uses a spatial discretization and a weighted residual formulation to transform the governing PDE (strong form) into an integral equation (weak form) that
upon variational treatment yields to the solution of a system of matrix equations. It
turns out that this mathematical/numerical process yields an approximate solution
to the original boundary value problem (Zienkiewicz[105]; Cook, 1981[106]; Hughes,
1987[107]; Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 1991[108]). In this chapter, Galerkins method
of approximation is used to discretize the resulting governing equations in order to
demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model to address sand production in
real boundary value problem context. Considering the complexity of this problem,
it is of interest (and yet without losing generality) to first examine two-dimensional
conditions and restrict the problem to pure erosional aspects, i.e. the deformation
76

of sand matrix is suppressed (u = 0). Thus, the erosion governing equations in a

two-dimensional domain reduce to

c
c
c

+ + qx
+ qy

= 0.
t
t
x
y
t

(4.1)

(1 )c qx2 + qy2 = 0.
t

(4.2)

qx qy
+
= 0.
x
y

(4.3)

p
= 0.
x
p
(1 )2 qy + k0y
= 0.
y

(1 )2 qx + k0x 3

(4.4)
(4.5)

where

= (1 c)f + cs

(4.6)

There are five governing equations in total with five unknowns which are c, ,
p, qx , and qy referring to fluidized solid concentration, porosity, fluid pressure, fluid
flux in x direction, and fluid flux in y direction respectively.

4.2

Finite element solution

Semi-discrete Galerkin approximation is used in order to discretize main field variables c(x, t), (x, t), p(x, t), qx (x, t), and qy (x, t), i.e.

77

c(x, t) = Nj (x)
cj (t)

(4.7)

k (t)
(x, t) = Nk (x)
pl (t)
p(x, t) = Nl (x)
qxm (t)
qx (x, t) = Nm (x)
qym (t)
qy (x, t) = Nm (x)
p , pp , qxp , qyp , and Np are respectively fluidized solid concentration, poroswhere cp ,
ity, fluid pressure, fluid flux in x direction, fluid flux in y direction, and interpolation
function at node p, for p = 1 to nh , the total number of nodes. It is again recalled
that Einstein index notation is used with repeated indices implying summation and
the index p is dummy.
Applying Galerkins method of weighted residual (with weighting functions equal
to interpolation functions) over the entire domain to each one of Equations (4.14.5) in turn together with discretizing time derivatives by standard finite dierence
formula and also linearizing time variables, a system of five non-linear equations is
obtained with its generic form
Wn+1 (cn+1 , n+1 , pn+1 , qxn+1 , qyn+1 ) = Hn (cn , n , pn+1 , qxn , qyn )

(4.8)

in which W and H are functionals which originate from Equations (4.1-4.5) and
subscripts n and n + 1 refer to time stations tn and tn+1 respectively. Vectors c, ,
j , pj , qxj , and qyj
p, qx , and qy contain nodal values of respective unknowns cj ,
with j = 1 to nh .
78

The linearization of time variables uses an averaging parameter [0, 1] such

that variables at time tn+ can be expressed in terms of those at tn and tn+1 , i.e.

Wn+ = (1 )Wn + Wn+1

Wn+1 Wn
W
=
t
t

(4.9)

where t = tn+1 tn , a value of = 0.5 gives the Crank-Nicolson method, = 2/3

gives the trapeziodal method, and a value of = 1 corresponds to an implicit scheme,
while = 0 refers an explicit one.
Equation (4.8) represents the standard non-linear matricial equations that can
be solved via iterative schemes such as the Newton-Raphson method. If superscript
k denotes the iteration number during successive attempts to final solution, then
expanding Equation (4.8) using the Taylors series leads to

k
k+1 k+1
k+1
k+1
k+1
k
k
k
k
k
Wn+1
(cn+1 , k+1
n+1 , pn+1 , qxn+1 , qyn+1 ) = Hn+1 (cn+1 , n+1 , pn+1 , qxn+1 , qyn+1 )

k
k
W
W
k
: cn+1 +
: kn+1
+
c n+1
n+1
k
k

W
W
k
+
: pn+1 +
: qkxn+1
p n+1
qx n+1
k

W
+
: qkyn+1 + 0(c2 , 2 , ...)
qy n+1

= Hn (cn , n , ...)
Hence, the new estimates at iteration k + 1 and time step n + 1

79

(4.10)

k
k
ck+1
n+1 = cn+1 + cn+1
k
k
k+1
n+1 = n+1 + n+1
k
k
pk+1
n+1 = pn+1 + pn+1

(4.11)

k
k
qk+1
xn+1 = qxn+1 + qxn+1
k
k
qk+1
yn+1 = qyn+1 + qyn+1

can be calculated from

ckn+1

kn+1

k
k
k
k
k
Jn+1 (c) Jn+1 () Jn+1 (p) Jn+1 (qx ) Jn+1 (qy ) pkn+1

qkxn+1

qk
yn+1
= H(cn , n , ...) W(ckn+1 , kn+1 , ...)

(4.12)

where the Right Hand Side (RHS) is known, and the Left Hand Side (LHS) involves
the evaluation of a Jacobian J such as

Jkn+1

W
=
c, , p, qx , qy

(4.13)

n+1

Successive iterates are performed until the convergence criteria is satisfied, i.e.

80

 k+1

cn+1 ckn+1 <

where

k+1
pn+1 pkn+1 <
1,

2,

3,

4,

and

1;
3;

k+1

n+1 kn+1 <

k+1

qxn+1 qkxn+1 <

(4.14)

2
4;

are small values, i.e. 1016 .

k+1

qyn+1 qkyn+1 <

If a 4-node bilinear element is considered, the Jacobian becomes a 20 20 matrix

p, qx , and qy . The incremental
since each node has five degrees of freedom, i.e. c, ,
form of the equations to be solved at the element level emerges as

0
[A1]44 [A2]44

[B1]
0

44 [B2]44

0.
0
0

[D1]

44 [D2]44 [D3]44

[E1]44 [E2]44 [E3]44

k
[A3]44 [A4]44

[B3]44 [B4]44

[C1]44 [C2]44

[D4]44
0

0
[E4]44

n+1(2020)

= X(ckn+1 , kn+1 , ...) 201

k
c
n+1

n+1

k
pn+1

qk

xn+1

k
qyn+1

201

(4.15)

where X is a vector containing known variables at previous iterate. The expressions

of submatrices in Equation (4.15) are summarized as follows.

[A1]ij =

i
Ni Nj Nk h n+1
n d
2k + (1 2)
k
t

Z
n+1

Nj
n
+ (1 )
qmx
Nm 2 qmx
+ Ni
d
x

Z
n+1

Nj
n
Nm 2 qmy
d
+ (1 )
qmy
+ Ni
y

81

(4.16)

Z
Ni Nj Nk
Ni Nj
n+1
n
[A2]ij =
2
ck + (1 2) ck d
d
t

t
Z

Nm
[A3]ij =
Ni Nj 2 cn+1
cnm d
m + (1 )
x
Z

Nm
n
[A4]ij =
Ni Nj 2 cn+1
+
(1

)
c
m
m d
y
Z
h
i
n+1 + (1 )
n ) Ni Nj d
[B1]ij = Q 1 Nk (
k
k
Z

[B2]ij =

[B3]ij =

Nj Ni
d +
t

QNi (
cn+1
+ (1 )
cnk )Nk Nj d
k

h
i

n+1
n

1 Nk (k + (1 )k )
cn+1
+ (1 )
cnp Ni Np
p

(4.17)
(4.18)
(4.19)
(4.20)
(4.21)

(4.22)

n+1
n
2 [
qxm
+ (1 )
qxm
] Nm Nj
d
2Q

h
i

n+1
n

cn+1
+ (1 )
cnp Ni Np (4.23)
[B4]ij = 1 Nk (k + (1 )k )
p

n+1
n
qmy
Nm Nj
2
qmy + (1 )
d
2Q
Z
Nj

(4.24)
Ni d
[C1]ij =
x

Z
Nj
[C2]ij =
Ni d

(4.25)
y

Z
h
i

n+1
n 2 n+1
n

qxm
qxm + (1 )
Nm Ni d
[D1]ij = (s f )Nj 1 Nk (k + (1 )k )

(4.26)

[D2]ij =

n+1

2 f + Np
cnp (s f )
cp + (1 )
i
h

n+1
n
n+1 + (1 )
n ) 1
qxm
+ (1 )
qxm
(4.27)
Nj Nm Ni
Nk (
k
k
h
i2

n+1 + (1 )
n ) Nj Nl pn+1 + (1 )
pnl Ni d
+3k0x Nk (
k
k
l
x
82

[D3]ij =
[D4]ij =

n+1
n 3 Nj

k0x (Nk (k + (1 )k ))
Ni d
x

n+1

n+1

cnp f + Np
cnp s (4.29)
1 Np
cp + (1 )
cp + (1 )

i2
n
n+1 + (1 )
1 Nk
Nj Ni d
k

[E1]ij =

h
i2

n+1
n
n+1 + (1 )
n )
(s f )Nj 1 Nk (
+
(1

)
q
q
k
k
ym
ym Nm Ni d

(4.30)

[E2]ij =

[E4]ij =

(4.28)

n+1

2 f + Nl
cnl (s f )
cl + (1 )
i
h

n+1
n
n+1 + (1 )
n ) 1
q
+
(1

)
q
(4.31)
Nk (
ym
ym Nj Nm Ni
k
k
i2
h

n
n+1 + (1 )
n ) Nj Nl pn+1 + (1 )
p
+3k0y Nk (
l Ni d
k
k
l
y

Z
N
n+1
n
j
3

))
k0y (Nk (
Ni d
+ (1 )
(4.32)
[E3]ij =
k
k
y

n+1

n+1

cnm f + Nm
cnm s (4.33)
1 Nm
cm + (1 )
cm + (1 )

i2
n+1
n

1 Nk k + (1 )k
Nj Ni d

Complete forms of the derivatives of F, f, and Q with respect to c, , p, and the

terms of the Jacobian J, can be found in Appendix B. The procedures of NewtonRaphson algorithm are listed in Table 4.1 as follows.

4.3
4.3.1

Numerical examples
One-dimensional example

In order to explore the fundamental behaviour of the model, a segment of a fictitious

reservoir of length L = 1 m with an initial porosity 0 = 0.25 and an initial fluidized
83

Table 4.1: Procedures for Newton-Raphson scheme

1. Set the initial iteration value k = 0 and initial values for each variables
2. Calculate the Jacobian matrix Jkn+1
3. Calculate the right hand side X in Equation (4.15)
4. Solve Equation (4.15)
5. Check for convergence
IF: Equation (4.14) satisfied THEN
go to next time step
ELSE
go to 2 with new trial value for each variables and k = k + 1
ENDIF

c (x, t = 0) = c0 = 0.0002
(x, t = 0) = 0 = 0.25

p (x = 1, t) = 10 MPa

p (x = 0, t)= 0
y

flux qx

0.2

0.6

0.4

0.8

1.0 x (m)

2-D Mesh (no flux at top and bottom)

1-D Mesh

Figure 4.1: Finite element mesh for one dimensional representation of wellbore
84

sand concentration c0 = 0.0002 is considered. The drawdown pressure between

x = 0 and x = L is taken as 10 MPa, while the erosion parameter is 10 m1 .
As far as fluid properties are concerned, heavy oil with a viscosity and an initial
formation permeability k0x = koy = 15 Darcy are considered. Figure 4.1 shows the
two-dimensional finite element mesh consisting of 100 nodes and 49 bilinear elements
with finely spaced ones near the wellbore. These elements gradually become coarser
away from the wellbore so as to reduce the total number of degrees of freedom,
while at the same time not compromising the accuracy of the computations. Also
implicit time integration is chosen with = 1 and the time step t = 0.01 day.
As a validation of this two-dimensional model, a one-dimensional semi-closed form
solution given by Vardoulakis et al. (1996) [64] is also plotted in dashed line in the
forthcoming figures.
In trying to understand the model simulation results, it is of interest to look at
both the fluidized sand concentration c and porosity histories at the exit point in the
wellbore. Figure 4.2 shows an initial sharp rise in fluidized sand concentration up to
reaching a peak value, followed by a rapid drop to an asymptotic value which should
theoretically approach zero at a very large time when sand production completely
stops in both one-dimensional and two-dimensional calculations. The peak value
achieved is relatively very high compared to the initial sand concentration value.
This small discrepancy between the two-dimensional model and the one-dimensional
solution due to the time stepping value used in the former. Turning to porosity
history, see Figure 4.3, there is an initial phase at which porosity remains virtually
unchanged until a time at which porosity gradually increases to reach an asymptotic

85

0.25

peak

0.2

0.15
2-D mesh
0.1

1-D mesh
(Vardoulakis et. al, 1996)

0.05

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

time (days)

Figure 4.2: Fluidized sand concentration history at wellbore

value of 1 at a very large time. Also, the rate of porosity increase decreases gradually
with time and the inflection point on the porosity history curve roughly corresponds
to the peak point on the concentration history curve in Figure 4.2. In the model,
fluidized sand concentration results from two competing mechanisms: (a) mass generation by way of erosion and, (b) dilation (increase in pore volume) phenomena.
The initial phase corresponds to a regime in which mass generation through erosion
is predominant with a peak value proportional to the parameter , the initial concentration c0 , and, porosity 0 to some extent, the permeability and viscosity values
used. After peak, a decline in sand production is observed in favour of dilation of the
sand matrix as the porosity increases to its maximum value of 1. This trend interestingly agrees with experimental observations made by Tremblay et al. (1996)[55]
on wormhole development in sand packs. Although, the model is continuum based,
86

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

2-D mesh
inflection point

0.4

1-D mesh
(Vardoulakis et. al, 1996)

0.3
0.2
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

time(days)

Figure 4.3: Porosity history at wellbore

the results seem to suggest that the regime up to peak fluidized sand concentration
would correspond to wormhole formation, while the post peak part would refer to
eventual stabilization of wormholes with concomitant sand matrix dilation and sand
transport.
Figure 4.4 shows the fluidized sand and oil production rate histories. Here again
there is good agreement between one and two-dimensional calculations. As expected,
the fluidized sand rate also presents a peak which coincides with the point at which
the oil production rate starts to sharply increase. This suggests that an initial
amount of sand needs to be produced in order to trigger the flow of oil towards the
wellbore. In the simulations, the oil production rate increases monotonically since
there is a continual solid generation rate decrease. However, in a real case, the oil
production rate will normally decrease as a result of massive solid production leading
87

0.5

4.5
4

0.4

oil rate (m /day/m )

3.5

0.3

3
3

fluidized sand rate (m /day/m )

0.2

2.5
2

2-D mesh
0.1

1-D mesh
(Vardoulakis et. al, 1996)

1.5
1

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
time (days)

1.2

1.4

Figure 4.4: Fluidized sand and oil production rate histories

to uncontrolled wormhole formation and excessive deformations in the reservoir. For
the model to be able to capture such a phenomenon, deformational aspects will have
to be incorporated in a more formal basis by introducing a stress-strain model for
the sand matrix.
Figure 4.5 shows comparisons for porosity profiles at selected times with a porosity reaching 0.9 at the wellbore at the end of 1 day. Far away from the porosity
sharply drops to its initial far end value. It is expected that a substantial increase
in permeability near the wellbore will follow due to its dependency on porosity, see
Kozeny-Carman Equation (3.30).

88

1
0.08 day
0.22 day
0.32 day
0.54 day
1 day

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

x (m)

Figure 4.5: Porosity profiles at selected times

Remarks
The results show that some characteristic features of sand production may be captured within a continuum framework. Two-dimensional computations when specialized into one-dimensional conditions matched well original results obtained from a
one-dimensional semi-closed form solution described in Vardoulakis et al. (1996) [64]
using finite dierences with an explicit scheme.
As for the initial fluidized sand concentration c0 , its value should be ideally set to
zero. However, the derived model refers to the post fluidization phase and c0 should
have a finite value. For numerical calculations, c0 is set to a small value. During a
sensitivity analysis, it was found that the initial value of c0 had little influence on
the numerical results as long as its value was less than 0.001.

89

Table 4.2: Model parameters for the well

= 5m1
s = 2650 kg/m3 f =985.4 kg/m3
k0x =15 Darcy k0y = 10 Darcy
= 104 cP
c0 = 0.001
0 = 0.2
P0 = 10 MPa
4.3.2

Sand production around wellbore

In order to further illustrate the capability of the model, one quarter of a section
of a well of inner radius r0 = 0.1 m is examined under anisotropic permeability
conditions, i.e. k0x = 1.5 k0y . The outer boundary of the reservoir extends to 1 m
at which a pressure of 10 MPa is imposed while the inner boundary at wellbore is
kept at 0 MPa so as to induce drawdown. The simulation parameters such as initial
fluidized sand concentration c0 , porosity 0 , and erosion coecient are listed in
Table 4.2.
Figure 4.6 shows the finite element mesh composed of 850 nodes and 792 bilinear
elements with each node having five degrees of freedom, i.e. c, , qx , qy , and p.
Notice the placement of finer elements near the wellbore where nonlinearities are
expected to be severe due to high erosional activity. The pressure contours at time
1.0 day are shown in Figure 4.7 where depletion is biased along the direction of
higher permeability, i.e. x-direction.
In order to appreciate the erosional process as fluid is drawn down inside the
wellbore, it is of interest to look at the evolution of both fluidized sand concentration
and porosity with time. Initially at t = 0.35 day, there is a small zone of high
sand concentration (c 0.14) spreading laterally, see Figure 4.8. This represents
approximately a twenty eight fold increase in fluidized sand concentration from its

90

850 nodes
792 elements

0.9
0.8

c, p and calculated at
each node

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x(m)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.6: Finite element mesh for a two dimensional representation of the wellbore

1.0

9.38E+06
8.75E+06
8.13E+06
7.50E+06
6.88E+06
6.25E+06
5.63E+06
5.00E+06
4.38E+06
3.75E+06
3.13E+06
2.50E+06
1.88E+06
1.25E+06
6.25E+05

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

x( m)

Figure 4.7: Pressure distribution around wellbore at t = 1.0 day

91

1
1.44E-01
1.35E-01
1.25E-01
1.15E-01
1.06E-01
9.62E-02
8.67E-02
7.71E-02
6.75E-02
5.80E-02
4.84E-02
3.88E-02
2.93E-02
1.97E-02
1.01E-02

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x(m)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.8: Fluidized sand concentration field at t = 0.35 day

original value. At the same time, the porosity steadily increases to about 0.45 from
its original value of 0.25 in the same region of the wellbore as shown in Figure 4.9.
With time, i.e. at t = 0.59 day, this zone of high concentration shifts to the left
and then propagates vertically as shown in Figure 4.10. Comparing Figures 4.8 with
4.10, it is observed that a zone of high concentration moves like a wave front following
the direction of highest flux governed by the anisotropic permeability and pressure
gradient conditions. The corresponding porosity contours are shown in Figure 4.11
which identifies the development of a zone of high porosity (close to 1.0). This loose
(highly dilated) zone propagates in the direction of highest permeability, i.e. the x
direction.
While erosion further progresses laterally at time t = 1.0 day, it is seen that the

92

1
9.00E-01
7.50E-01
7.00E-01
6.50E-01
6.00E-01
5.50E-01
5.00E-01
4.50E-01
4.00E-01
3.50E-01
3.00E-01
2.50E-01

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x(m)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.9: Porosity field at t = 0.35 day

1
1.44E-01
1.35E-01
1.25E-01
1.15E-01
1.06E-01
9.62E-02
8.67E-02
7.71E-02
6.75E-02
5.80E-02
4.84E-02
3.88E-02
2.93E-02
1.97E-02
1.01E-02

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x(m)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.10: Fluidized sand concentration field at t = 0.59 day

93

1
9.00E-01
7.50E-01
7.00E-01
6.50E-01
6.00E-01
5.50E-01
5.00E-01
4.50E-01
4.00E-01
3.50E-01
3.00E-01
2.50E-01

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x(m)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.11: Porosity field at t=0.59 day

1
1.44E-01
1.35E-01
1.25E-01
1.15E-01
1.06E-01
9.62E-02
8.67E-02
7.71E-02
6.75E-02
5.80E-02
4.84E-02
3.88E-02
2.93E-02
1.97E-02
1.01E-02

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x(m)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.12: Fluidized sand concentration field at t = 1 day

94

1
9.00E-01
7.50E-01
7.00E-01
6.50E-01
6.00E-01
5.50E-01
5.00E-01
4.50E-01
4.00E-01
3.50E-01
3.00E-01
2.50E-01

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Cavity
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

x(m)

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.13: Porosity field at t = 1 day

fluidized sand concentration on the other hand decreases as most of the sand has
been produced, see Figure 4.12. In Figure 4.13, the highly dilated zone has become
more prominent and spreads further away from the wellbore. In practical terms, this
zone can be viewed as a cavity given that the sand has completed depleted.
Remarks
The anisotropic permeability case shows very interesting results in that the zone of
high sand concentration propagates as a wave front from the direction of higher to
lower permeability. This is in contrast with the case of isotropic permeability where
fluidized sand concentration is the same all around the wellbore. However, serious
numerical diculties (oscillations) were encountered during the later stages (t = 0.59
day) of simulation when the fluidized concentration wave shifted to y direction. The
95

Table 4.3: Model parameters for the perforated well

= 5m1
s = 2650 kg/m3
f =985.4 kg/m3
k0x =15 Darcy k0y = 15 or 10 Darcy
= 104 cP
c0 = 0.001
0 = 0.33
P0 = 10 MPa
simulation also broke down in case of the strong anisotropic permeability conditions,
i.e. k0x = 5 k0y .
Sand production around perforated wellbore
Figure 4.14 shows a close-up of the finite element grid representing one quarter of
a section of a well of inner radius r0 = 0.1 m. The outer boundary of the well
extends to 5 m at which a pressure of 10 MPa is imposed while the inner boundary
at wellbore is kept at 0 MPa so as to induce drawdown. The entire finite element
grid is comprised of 3320 nodes and 3198 bilinear elements.
The model parameters are shown in Table 4.3. The perforations (P1, P2, P3) at
the wellbore are also shown in Figure 4.14 and are represented by elements having
a porosity of 0.4, which is higher than the rest of the elements. At this stage of the
analysis, the value of the porosity assigned to the perforation is quite arbitrary, but
this condition will be refined in Chapter 5.
At first, isotropic permeability conditions are considered with k0x = k0y = 15
Darcy. Figures 4.15 and 4.16 show contours of porosity at dierent times (t = 0.3
and 1.6 days) so as to illustrate the growth of loose zones that emanate from the
perforations. In Figure 4.16, three distinct zones of very high porosity ( 0.9 )
propagate quite extensively into the formation with lesser erosion activity occurring
in between perforations. While the model is continuum based, it is still possible to
96

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

P3
P2

perforations
0

P1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

x(m)

0.5

extends to 5m

Figure 4.14: Mesh layout near wellbore showing perforations

0.5
0.850
0.813
0.776
0.739
0.701
0.664
0.627
0.590
0.553
0.516
0.479
0.441
0.404
0.367
0.330

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

x(m)

0.4

0.5

Figure 4.15: Porosity distribution around perforations at t = 0.3 day

97

0.5
0.900
0.859
0.819
0.778
0.737
0.696
0.656
0.615
0.574
0.534
0.493
0.452
0.411
0.371
0.330

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

x(m)

0.4

0.5

Figure 4.16: Porosity distribution around perforations at t = 1.6 days

predict wormhole formation indicated by regions of very high porosities approaching
one. Since isotropic permeability conditions were considered, the three wormholes
shown in Figure 4.16 are geometrically similar. Also, the porosity contours reveal a
zone of localized depletion ( = 0.7 0.9) within approximately 20 cm around the
perforations. Beyond this zone, erosion proceeds in a homogeneous manner as shown
by the uniform porosity contour lines.
Next, anisotropic permeability conditions are investigated and k0x is arbitrarily
set to 1.5 k0y with k0x = 15 Darcy. Figure 4.17 shows the initiation of the wormhole
at the first perforation (P1) with a general bias of propagation in the x direction
where the permeability is the greatest. Figure 4.18 shows the further progression
of the wormhole localizing along the x direction of the well with limited erosion oc-

98

0.5
0.850
0.813
0.776
0.739
0.701
0.664
0.627
0.590
0.553
0.516
0.479
0.441
0.404
0.367
0.330

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

x(m)

0.4

0.5

Figure 4.17: Porosity distribution at t = 0.8 day (anisotropic case)

curring at other perforations. There is a general redistribution of fluxes around the
wormhole that impedes erosion at other sites than perforation P1. Hence, this suggests that wormholes can be directionally formed based on the degree of anisotropy
in permeability conditions. In general, the erosion phenomenon follows the direction
of highest fluxes guided by changes in permeability, fluid pressure, and porosity.
Figure 4.19 shows the depletion of fluid pressures at final time t = 1.6 days, while
Figure 4.20 gives the total flux vectors close to the wellbore. As expected, the fluxes
are the highest at the first perforation.
Remarks
Numerical results presented in this section shows that wormhole propagation could
be captured around a perforated wellbore with localization of erosion in the vicinity
99

0.5
0.850
0.813
0.776
0.739
0.701
0.664
0.627
0.590
0.553
0.516
0.479
0.441
0.404
0.367
0.330

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

x(m)

0.4

0.5

Figure 4.18: Porosity distribution at t = 1.6 days (anisotropic case)

5
1.00E+07
9.29E+06
8.57E+06
7.86E+06
7.14E+06
6.43E+06
5.71E+06
5.00E+06
4.29E+06
3.57E+06
2.86E+06
2.14E+06
1.43E+06
7.14E+05
0.00E+00

x(m)

Figure 4.19: Fluid pressure distribution at t = 1.6 days (anisotropic case)

100

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

x(m)

0.3

0.4

0.5

Figure 4.20: Flux vector distribution (anisotropic case)

of the perforations where high fluxes existed. It is also found that anisotropy of permeability dictates the wormhole propagation which follows the direction of greatest
permeability. However, the perforations are not correctly represented in the simulations by assigning arbitrarily their initial porosity to a value just above that of the
rest of reservoir. A real representation of perforation conditions is needed including
pressure or flux boundary conditions. However, in applying the pertinent boundary conditions, severe numerical diculties are encountered in form of node-to-node
oscillations due to the existence of strong gradients in the calculated field.

101

4.4

Summary and discussions

The numerical results pertaining to one- and two-dimensional conditions show that
sand production can be captured within a continuum framework. While configurations investigated are quite simple, the numerical results give physical insights
that will aid in developing a more complete model that accounts for sand matrix
deformations.
However, it was found that numerical results were sometimes corrupted with
instabilities in the form of node-to-node oscillations or wiggles when applying severe conditions such as imposing highly anisotropic permeability conditions, and
simulating realistic perforation pressure or flux boundary conditions on the inner
wellbore. It was realized that a standard finite element discretization combined with
a Newton-Raphson method could not achieve stable solutions in trying to simulate
realistic boundary value problems. Thus, a numerical scheme must be devised to
overcome numerical instabilities associated with the computation of field variables
with strong gradients. Furthermore, from a computational eciency view point, it
is impractical to solve for five degrees of freedom (fluidized concentration c, porosity
, mixture flux qi , and pressure p) at each node in the current finite element scheme.
For example, a small domain with a radius 0.5 m was simulated due to limitations
imposed by current computer resources. It was also critical to find a good equation
solver and storage scheme for solving eciently the large sparse matrix structure
that arises from the proposed model.

102