SPE 143315

Ultrasound Logging Techniques for the Inspection of Sand Control Screen

Integrity
C. Hyde-Barber, G.T. Weighill, BP; T.R. Tymons, M. Solberg, A.G. Helland, Seawell

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 5–6 April 2011.

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
A significant proportion of worldwide production comes from sand prone reservoirs and is increasingly dependent
upon the performance of sand control completions. However, sand control screens can fail which may lead to lost
production or untimely abandonment of the well. In many cases remedial action may be possible, but the
advanced design of sand control devices presents a considerable challenge to many inspection techniques,
leading to a gap in understanding the failure mechanism. This paper documents the application of an innovative
ultrasound-based technology for the inspection of sand control screen failures, including results and conclusions
derived from an extensive testing program.
The objective of the testing was to prove the feasibility of using phased array ultrasound technology to locate
sand entry points and assess the integrity of the screen in the down hole environment. Specifically, the aim was
to assess the ability to provide integrity information from the internal surface of the base pipe to the outermost
surface of the screen. During testing, several types of sand control screens were methodically damaged,
simulating the defects observed in screens recovered from sand producing wells. The damaged screens were
deployed in a test well and logged with a wireline setup.
The data indicates that damage resulting in enlarged base pipe perforations is detectable and the internal surface
of the base pipe imaged in all screen types. Dependent upon the screen type, the ability to detect damage to the
external layers of the screen, without any base pipe damage, has been demonstrated. In conclusion, in a test
well environment the application of phased array ultrasound has been validated for the investigation of damaged
sand control screens.

Background
With the increasing dependence worldwide upon sand control devices to underpin production, sand control
failures have become high priority for some operators. Sand control devices can fail to prevent sand production in
a significant percentage of applications (King, Wildt and O’Connell, 2003), and with newer large flow rate wells,
this results in a substantial amount of curtailed or lost production, erosion and subsequent damage to down hole
and surface equipment, and may result in the well bore being abandoned and a side track being performed. As
such, locating the failure down hole and implementing a remedial technique can have a significant impact on the
economic viability of a given well.

Sand control screens are designed to prevent particles larger than a certain size, as determined from formation or
proppant characteristics, from being produced while still allowing hydrocarbons to pass through and be produced.
This is achieved through designing the screen, whether it is a mesh, wire wrap, pre-packed sand or an
expandable design, such that the minimum aperture width in the sand retaining layer, or “filter media” is smaller
than the predetermined limit (Saucier, 1972). While production of particles finer than this limit may not be
prevented by design, production of sand particles sized greater than this minimum size indicates that there is a
breach, or some form of mechanical failure of the screen allowing formation sand to pass through the filter media.
Locating the point of sand entry and identifying the extent of the affected area are important in determining the
course of remedial actions that may be then undertaken to either shut off sand production or in making the
decision to abandon or sidetrack the well.
2 SPE 143315

The construction of sand control screens poses a problem for locating the breach or sand entry point in situ.
Screens are typically built with an innermost layer of a perforated base pipe, upon which filter media and any
other layers, such as a jacket, shroud or ribs are mounted. Due to this inner, relatively thick metal base pipe
layer, most down hole inspection methods cannot give reliable information about any outer layers, including the
filter media that prevents sand production. Several techniques have been attempted to locate sand control
screen failures, such as multi-finger caliper logs, production or injection logs, gravel pack or density logs, casing
collar locator logs, sand detection logs, electromagnetic thickness logs and even vibration on distributed fiber
optic systems, (Mullens, Lees and Duvivier, 2010). These methods all provide an indirect measurement and
therefore can only yield an indication of the location of a defect in the external filter media.

Phased Array Ultrasonic Logging Technique

The introduction of a phased array ultrasonic logging tool indicated a possibility of overcoming the inability to
detect damage outside of the base pipe in sand control screen failures. This technology utilizes an array of
approximately 300 ultrasound transmitting elements that are stimulated in sequence to produce a highly focused
beam of ultrasound energy by superposition techniques. This focused beam is sequentially indexed around the
array to capture a scan of the surrounding environment. The phased array technique also provides the unique
ability to vary the focal length of the ultrasound beam such that the depth of investigation into the surrounding
space can be varied. The information obtained from each scan is then used to create a layered shell such that the
3-dimensional geometry of the scanned space can be re-created and enabling the user to view the information as
a whole or to view each layer individually in isolation.

This highly focused and adjustable beam enables the user to “view” or penetrate through layers of material,
including steel, such that information of internal and external features of an assembly can be obtained while the
tool is deployed from within. The scanning process happens very quickly and the system is configured to
automatically generate 128 scans of varying focal length at a frequency of six times a second, resulting in the
capture of approximately 250,000 data points per second providing high resolution information to the user.

Test Setup and Description

The main objective of this testing program was to prove the concept, or ability, of a phased array ultrasonic
logging tool to detect damage in sand control screens both in the base pipe and the outer layers of the screen.
Secondly, the test was designed to assess the sensitivity of the measurement to varying degrees of damage,
including damage incurred to the screen assembly during handling and transport. In addition, multiple screen
designs were tested in order to assess the tool’s response to variations in constructions and materials, and to
provide a baseline response or “fingerprint” image in a range of screen types. The screens types included
premium, wire-wrapped, shunted, pre-packed and expandable screens, with both intentionally induced damage,
and two examples of damage in screens incurred during transport and handling. The details of the screens tested
may be found in Table1.

WWS (Screen WWS WWS Premium

Premium Shunt Pre-Packed Single Wire Expand.
Screen Type A) (Screen B (Screen C (Screen A)
(Screen B) (Screen) Screen Wrap (ESS)
Undamaged damaged) damaged) Test Joint
Screen
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9
Number
Screen
BOT BOT BOT BOT BOT SLB SLB SLB WFT
Vendor
OAL (ft) 42' 0" 42' 0" 42' 0" 41' 10" 41' 10" 38' 7" 40' 7" 39' 2" 42' 10"
Base Pipe OD 5.5" 5.5" 5.5" 5.5" 5.5" 5" 6-5/8" 5-1/2" 7"
Base Pipe
17 17 17 17 17 18 24 17 29
Weight (lbs/ft)

Screen ID 4.892" 4.892" 4.892" 4.892" 4.892" 4.276" 5.920" 4.892" 7.535"

Base Pipe
25 Cr 25 Cr 25 Cr 13 Cr 13 Cr 13 Cr 13 Cr 13 Cr L80
material
Base Pipe
Perf Hole (ID / 0.375" 0.375" 0.375" 0.375" 0.375" 0.472" 0.5512" 0.375" 0.375"
in)
Screen OD 6.040" 6.040" 6.040" 6.540" 6.540" 7.350" 7.500" 5.870" 8.535"
Filter Type
WW WW WW Weave Weave WW PPS WW Weave
(WW / Weave)
Filter guage /
8 ga 9 ga 10 ga 230 micron 230 micron 10 ga 18 ga 8 ga 230 micron
mesh size
SPE 143315 3

Weave /
protection
825 825 825 825 825 316 825 316 316
plate
metallurgy
Centraliser Blades (4 / 90
Spirolizer Spirolizer Spirolizer Spirolizer Spirolizer Ring n/a no
type deg)
Shunt type /
20/30 resin
metallurgy / n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 316 n/a n/a
coated sand
other

Table1: Specifications of Screens Tested

Damage was methodically inflicted in order to simulate the defects observed in screens recovered from sand
producing wells, and to mimic the effect of erosion occurring from the outermost layers inwards, on the screen
assembly. This was accomplished through shot blasting the screens in timed intervals to vary the degree of
damage. In certain screen types where possible, the shot blasting was also centered over a base pipe perforation
to simulate the most likely flow path taken by a solids laden hydrocarbon into the well bore, which could result in
erosion of the base pipe perforations. In the shunted screen, the shot blasting was centered over a shunt tube to
duplicate the effect of a wash out of the tube during gravel pack pumping. Prior to logging, a detailed diagram
including the location of damage and photographs of the damaged areas was made of each screen, as shown
below in Figures 2 and 5, in the results section of this paper. In order to distinguish the varying degree of damage
the man made defects were described and labeled as follows:

100%: Full penetration through the outer screen elements and damage to the base pipe, including enlargement of
a perforation. This corresponds to the longest time interval of shot blasting.
50%: Full penetration through the outermost screen elements and limited damage to the outside of the base
pipe. This corresponds to 50% of the time interval used in the 100% case for shot blasting.
25%: Damage to the outermost screen elements with base pipe remaining undamaged. This corresponds to
25% of the time interval used in the 100% case for shot blasting.

In addition to the shot blasted damage, areas of the outermost screen layers were carefully removed, without any
damage to inner layers or the base pipe, on two types of screens in order to test the capability of the phased array
ultrasonic logging tool to detect defects only on the outermost layer of the screen. Two wire wrapped screen
joints were also included in the testing which had been damaged during transport and handling, and displayed
external damage, such as separation of the wire wrap and buckling of the outer layers. These joints were included
as the damage in this case could be representative of damage incurred while running a screen assembly in hole.

The screens were placed in a water-filled, cased test well and logged with a full scale wireline logging setup in
order to simulate the down hole environment and current logging capabilities as closely as possible. The screens
were logged with three repeat passes and the data processed to generate different image types that best display
the defects in the screens. These different image types are described below in Figure 1.

View Explanation

This is called a flat view which shows the

image captured at a certain radius from the
sensor. The lighter areas represent strong
reflections, i.e. the base pipe. The black dots
are perforations or indentations in the base
pipe. To determine whether a black area is a
dent or a hole, more flat views at different radii
can be used. Another option is to use the
longitudinal x-section explained below.
4 SPE 143315

This is a longitudinal x-section which shows

the well bore at all radii from the sensor, but
only at a certain angle. The inside of the base
pipe is to the left, and 1st and 2nd reflections of
the walls are the white vertical lines. On this
image it is clearly shown that there is a hole
through the base pipe at this angle.

This is a circumferential x-section of the

screen. The blue circle indicates the logging
tool sensor. The red line indicates at which
radius the corresponding flat view image has
been taken. The yellow line indicates the angle
at which the longitudinal x-section image has
been generated. The inner circle is the base
pipe, and the outer circle is an echo of the
base pipe. The black spot indicated by the
yellow line in this picture is a hole through the
base pipe which is larger than the perforations.

This is a 3-Dimensional presentation of two

holes. The upper hole in this view is the same
feature as shown in the flat view, and x-section
views above. The blue color represents the
surface of the base pipe.

Figure 1: Explanation of Image Types

Results
For all screen types, the processed data and resultant images indicate that damage resulting in enlarged base
pipe perforations is detectable in all screen types. The degree of visibility, or ease of detection, is dependent
upon the severity of the damage, and in some screen types, all degrees of damage, including damage to the
external layers only may be detected.

In order to describe the degree of visibility, the following classification system was used:

• Highly visible: The damage is very easy to find and repeatable. The shape of the damaged area can be
SPE 143315 5

recognized in detail in a flat view as well as in a three-dimensional view.

• Clearly visible: The damage is easy to find and repeatable, but the shape of the damage is not recognized in
detail.
• Visible: The damage can be distinguished from the undamaged screen and is repeatable, but the shape
of the damage is not recognizable. These defects are not as obvious as the highly visible and
clearly visible defects.
• Possibly visible: An abnormality in the image that may originate from the damage. This may not be reproduced
in all repeat passes.
• Not visible: The damage is unrecognizable from the images in all passes.

While a summary table of the testing results in all screens may be found in Appendix A, several examples are
discussed below to illustrate highlights of the results.

Screen sample # 7, is a single wire wrapped screen with 17 pound per foot, 5 ½ inch diameter base pipe.
Damage was inflicted as described above and the location and photographs of the damage are detailed in Figure
2 below, while the resultant images are shown in Figures 3 and 4. In Figure 3, the images of the 100% damage
have been generated at the radial depth of investigation corresponding to the base pipe, and display a highly
visible defect in the base pipe on all views. The 50% damage is clearly visible on all views, but the radial depth of
investigation that generated the flat view image is different that that of the 100% damage and hence displays a
different pattern for undamaged screen. The 25% damage, also displayed at a different radial depth of
investigation, can be detected and has been classified as visible. The three-dimensional images of the damaged
locations were generated to display the outer surface of the base pipe. While it appears that the base pipe has
spines emanating from it, these are artifacts due to multiple reflections of the base pipe perforations, and do not
correspond to outer layers of screen. In the three-dimensional images, all degrees of damage may be detected,
with the 100% damage being the most visible.

For both sets of images, the damage is easier to locate by looking for an abnormality or a change in the pattern
exhibited in undamaged screen. As such, some experience in analyzing ultrasonic images is helpful when
interpreting the data. Future developments in pattern recognition software could be applied to this data to assist
in interpretation of any data acquired from a real well.
6 SPE 143315

Screen # 7 (Single Wire Wrapped) Damage Details

0.00 m

1.05 m

2.97 m 100% damage

4.21 m
50% damage

6.19 m

25% damage
8.19 m

11.33 m
11.38 m

11.99 m

Figure 2: Diagram and Photographs of Damage in Single Wire Wrap Screen # 7

SPE 143315 7

Screen # 7 Images
Undamaged screen, Damage, Damage,
Flat view & x-section Flat view & x-section circumferential x-section
100%
50 %
25%

Figure 3: Images of Induced Damage in Wire Wrapped Screen # 7

8 SPE 143315

Screen # 7, Three-Dimensional images

Undamaged screen 100% damage 50% damage

25% damage

Figure 4: Three-Dimensional Images in Wire Wrapped Screen # 7

Screen sample # 9, is an expandable sand screen with a 7” diameter, 29 pound per foot base pipe. The screen
was shot blasted as described above, and in addition a small section of external weave was carefully removed
without damaging any other layers of the screen. The location and photographs of the damage may be found in
Figure 5 below.
SPE 143315 9

In Figures 6 and 7, the images demonstrate that all defects may be detected with the phased array ultrasonic
logging tool. The 100% damage is highly visible and the 50% and 25% damage areas are clearly visible. In
addition, the missing rectangle of outer mesh is seen clearly on both the flat and three-dimensional images, and
was classified as highly visible. There are also sections of the screen that were damaged and display erosion in a
linear pattern. This screen segment was expanded inside of casing and had to be removed using a cutting torch,
resulting in damage to the screen and subsequent corrosion in the area, hence the linear damage patterns in the
obtained images.

Another feature was noted in the expandable screen close to the location of areas of shot blasted damage. In
several images, a darkening or absence of the characteristic diamond weave pattern was missing at
approximately 180 degrees in azimuth from the location of the shot blasted damage. Upon closer inspection of
the screens, it was noted that the weave both in the external and base pipe layers was plugged with metal and
sand debris thought to be a residue of the shot blasting process. While not verified by this testing, this finding
may indicate that plugging could potentially be detected in expandable screens through the use of phased array
ultrasound.
10 SPE 143315

Screen # 9 Expandable Screen

0.00 m

0.37 m

3.17 m
100% damage

50% damage

4.36 m

5.58 m
25% damage
7.32 m

Rectangle of
screen missing.
8.03-8.20 m Measures of
rectangle: 0.17 m x
0.155 m.

9.09 m

10.64 m

12.30 m

Figure 5: Diagram and Photographs of Damage in Expandable Screen # 9

SPE 143315 11

Screen # 9 Images of Damage

Undamaged screen, Damage, Damage,
Flat view & x-section Flat view & x-section circumferential x-section
100 %
50 %
25 %
12 SPE 143315

Outer Mesh

Figure 6: Images of Damage in Expandable Screen # 9

SPE 143315 13

Screen # 9, Three- Dimensional Images

Undamaged screen 100% damage 50% damage

25% damage Missing rectangle

Figure 7: Three-Dimensional Images of Expandable Screen

In addition to the damage described above, two anomalies were detected and examined in more detail. In screen
sample # 5, a premium screen, the degree of damage inflicted via shot blasting is greater than the other screen
14 SPE 143315

samples as this joint was used as the test case for calibration of the shot blasting process. At approximately 180
degrees azimuth from the shot blasted hole in the base pipe, a darkened spot appears on the flat image as shown
in Figure 8. Upon closer examination and generation of the linear and radial cross section images, it was
discovered that this corresponded to an indentation, or erosion, on the inner surface of the base pipe, and is
believed to be a result of the shot blasting process. A second anomaly noted on several images, is the presence
of a strong reflection appearing outside of the screen assembly at the same azimuth as induced damage.
Examination of the images and acquired data indicates that these features could be reflections from the casing in
the test well, as detected through a complete breach in the screen.

Screen # 5 Image of Damage to Base Pipe

Undamaged screen, Damage, Damage,
Flat view & x-section Flat view & x-section circumferential x-section
Damage in Base Pipe

Figure 8: Damage to Base Pipe Screen # 5

The two samples of screen with damage incurred during handling and transport were also logged and the results
indicate that phased ultrasonic logging could assist in detecting this type of external damage in screens down
hole. Figure 9 shows the location of a section of separated wire wrap on screen # 3 and some minor buckling in
the outer screen layers. While this damage was not incurred in hole, the type of damage is felt to be similar to
that which could be incurred during running a screen assembly in hole. Figure 10 demonstrates that this area of
separated wire wrap can be detected. The buckling on this screen was not detected, although screen # 2, which
had an area of deep or larger buckles, did yield an image indicating that it may be possible to detect buckling
dependent upon the severity of damage.
SPE 143315 15

Handling Damage in Screen # 3

0.00 m

1.57 m

Split in screen.
Below the split,
the mesh has
3.23 m been displaced in
the shape of an
arc.

3.23-5.61 m Buckling on a
large area of the
screen.

6.33-6.41 m

11.30 m

11.55 m

12.80 m

Figure 9: Handling Damage in Wire Wrapped Screen # 3

16 SPE 143315

Screen # 3, Separation of Wire Wrap at 3.23 m

Undamaged screen, Damage, Damage,
Flat view & x-section Flat view & x-section circumferential x-section
Pass 2

Figure 10: Separation of Wire Wrap in Screen # 3

Conclusions
In conclusion, the concept, or applicability of phased array ultrasonic logging technology to identify damage in
sand control screens has been proven by the results of this testing program. The ability to detect defects in sand
control screens in situ represents a potentially significant step forward in the management of sand control
completions and may help influence important decisions such as whether to remediate, side track or abandon the
well. While the results of this testing program show that the degree of visibility and ease of detection of the
damage varies dependent upon the severity of the damage and the screen construction, the results are
encouraging and provide impetus to further develop the technology and associated interpretation techniques for
this application.

In all screen types, damage extending to the base pipe perforations is detected and imaged by this technology.
Damage to the internal surface of the base pipe is also detected, and damage to only the external layers of the
screen may be detected and is particularly visible in the expandable screen and to a lesser degree in other screen
types such as in the pre-packed screen. In addition, external damage in wire wrapped screens such as
separation of the wrap, or bucking may also be detected. Finally, anomalies in some screens were also
investigated and may indicate that casing reflections could be detected through a complete breach in the screen
and that plugging in expandable screens could possibly be detected in situ.

Determining the fingerprint, or baseline response, in undamaged screen at different radial depths of investigation
provides a means of identifying any variations to this pattern that could be a result of damage in the screen layers.
As such, these areas of anomaly can then be investigated and the data processed more thoroughly to determine
the possible cause. While labor intensive and requiring a practiced eye to locate these features, there is potential
to use pattern recognition software to aid in interpretation of field data.

The results discussed above prove the concept of using phased array ultrasonic techniques to detect damage in
sand control screens. It is important to note however, that these results were obtained in an ideal test situation,
with the location of the defects known and documented before the logging took place. As such, the results
obtained in this test may not be completely indicative of the response in a real well with higher pressures and the
presence of sand or debris in the fluid and well bore.

References

Al-Shuwaikhat, H. I., et al. 2009. Well Casing Integrity Excellence: A Case History of Evaluating Casing Integrity
Using Modern Imaging and Corrosion Tool Logs in Ghawar Field in Saudi Aramco. Paper SPE/IADC 125712
presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference & Exhibition, Manama, 26-28
October.
SPE 143315 17

Hertzog, R.C., Smaardyk, J.E., Steinman, D.K. 2010. Gravel Pack Imager Tool (GPI): Precise and Accurate
Knowledge of Gravel Pack Integrity. Paper SPE 135060 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Florence, 19-22 September.

King, George E., Wildt, P., and O’Connell, E. 2003. Sand Control Completion Reliability and Failure Rate
Comparison with a Multi-Thousand Well Database. SPE paper 84262 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 5-8 October.

Morris, C., et al. 2007. Application of Enhanced Ultrasonic Measurements for Cement and Casing Evaluation.
SPE/IADC paper 105648 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in Amsterdam, 20-22 February.

Mullens, S.J., Lees, G.P. and Duvivier, G. 2010. Fiber-Optic Distributed Temperature Sensing Provides
Technique for Detecting Sand Production. OTC paper 20429 presented at the Offshore Technolgy
Conference, Houston, 3-6 May.

Navaira, G., et al. 2007. A Novel Technique for Determining Sand Screen Failure. SPE paper 112084 presented
at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control Lafayette, 13-15 February.

Oliver, D.2005. Developments in the Visualisation of Well Tubular Condition. SPE paper 94543 presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Corrosion, Aberdeen, 13 May.

Oliver, D. 2004. New Slimline Electromagnetic Casing Inspection Technology. SPWLA paper 2004_YY
presented at the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts Annual Logging Symposium, Noordwijk, 6-9
June.
th
Saucier, R.J. 1972. Considerations in Gravel Pack Design. SPE paper 4030 presented at the SPE-AIME 47
Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, 9-11 October.

Svela, Per Einar, et al. 2009. Identifying Point of Failure and Repairing Damaged Sand Screens in Gravel Packed
Wells. A Case History from the Heidrun Field. SPE paper 122153 presented at the SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, Scheveningen, 27-29 May.

Tiffen, D.L., King, G.E., Britt, L.K. 1998. New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control. SPE
paper 39437 presented at the SPE Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, 16-19 February.
18 SPE 143315

Appendix A

Screen type Conclusions 1

• The 100% damage is highly visible.

• The 50% damage is clearly visible.
WWS
• The 25% damage is not visible.
(# 1, 2, 3)
• The missing wire wrap is visible in screen # 3, but is not visible in screen # 2.
• The buckling is possibly visible.

• The 100% damage is highly visible. Damage (washout) on the inside of the
base pipe was found 180 degrees from the holes. There was an observed
Premium bump on the inside of the base pipe near the topmost damage in screen
(# 4, 5) number 5.
• The 50% damage is clearly visible.
• The 25% damage is not visible.

• The 100% damage is highly visible.

Shunt
• The 50% damage is visible.
(#6)
• The 25% damage is not visible.

Single Wire • The 100% damage is highly visible.

Wrap • The 50% damage is clearly visible.
(#7) • The 25% damage is visible.

• The 100% damage is highly visible.

Pre-Packed • The 50% damage is clearly visible.
(#8) • The 25% damage is visible.
• The missing rectangle of outermost mesh is highly visible.

• The 100% damage is highly visible.

• The 50% damage is clearly visible.
Expandable
• The 25% damage is clearly visible.
(#9)
• The missing rectangle of outermost mesh is highly visible.
• Damage due to corrosion is possibly visible.
• Linear torch/cut damage is visible.
1
These tests were conducted under controlled, and close to optimal conditions. A test in a real well might produce
different results and conclusions. The elevated pressure would for instance enhance the image quality, but sand
and particles would decrease the image quality.