Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/powtec

Numerical investigation of non-uniform sand retention behavior

in sand screens
Noor Ilyana Ismail a, Shibo Kuang a,⁎, Mengmeng Zhou a, Aibing Yu a,b
a
ARC Research Hub for Computational Particle Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
b
Center for Energy and Environment, Southeast University-Monash University Joint Research Institute, Suzhou 215123, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Non-uniform sand retention behavior often occurs to the serviced screen deteriorating erosion. However, this
Received 9 August 2021 phenomenon is poorly understood. This paper presents a numerical study of the sand retention on wire-
Received in revised form 11 October 2021 wrapped screens, with special reference to non-uniform behaviors. This is done by the combined approach of
Accepted 13 October 2021
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and discrete element method (DEM). The validity of the model has been val-
Available online 16 October 2021
idated for dry and wet sand screen systems. It is used here to study sand retention behaviors at different solid
Keywords:
concentrations and particle size distributions (PSD). Via this model, five distinct sand retention modes are iden-
Sand screen tified: No sand retention (Mode I), partial sand retention (Mode II), sand retention with slow sequential bridging
Sand retention (Mode III), sand retention with fast sequential bridging (Model IV) and sand retention with instantaneous bridg-
Retention mode ing (Mode V). Modes II and III belong to non-uniform sand retention, which develops strong local flows that in-
Non-uniform duce local erosion or hot spot on the screen. A phase diagram is introduced to predict these five modes and their
CFD-DEM transition with respect to solid concentration and PSD. Additionally, the predicted flow and force structures are
Converging slot analyzed in detail. The results indicate that the bridging over a slot heavily relies on the particle accumulation on
the screen. A new screen with a converging slot configuration is proposed to improve this particle accumulation.
This improvement helps develop uniform sand retention on the screen.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Sand production is a migration of failed sand grains from a reservoir
into a well during hydrocarbon extraction. It has been one of the major
problems that operators need to deal with in developing unconsoli-
dated reservoirs, which represent about 70% of the oil and gas reserves
around the world [1]. Sand, along with the hydrocarbon, causes erosion
in piping systems, accumulation of sand in wells and surface vessels,
and disposal problems. Therefore, sand production is highly undesir-
able, promoting the development of various control methods. One of
the most commonly used methods is installing sand screens in a well
to function as a downhole filter to exclude sand while allowing hydro-
carbon to be passed. With sand screen, good well productivity should
be maintained with small operational complexity and low cost. One of
the criteria that are used to evaluate screen performance is sand reten-
tion. In practice, a screen is expected to achieve maximum sand reten-
tion while maintaining an excellent passing rate for hydrocarbon.
However, sand retention of the screen is a complex process. It can
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shibo.kuang@monash.edu (S. Kuang).
occur through different processes such as size exclusion and particle
bridging. Sand retention by size exclusion occurs when particles are
larger than the slot opening of a screen. Thus, such particles are trapped
above the screen. In contrast, particle bridging occurs when particles are
smaller than the slot opening. It is affected by many variables related to
the screen opening to particle diameter ratio, particle size distribution,
fluid velocity, sand concentration, screen type, fluid properties, etc.
This complicates the screen design very much. To date, our knowledge
underpinning sand screen applications is not established [2].
For example, non-uniform sand retention behavior is commonly en-
countered during the sand retention process. It occurs when a screen is
partially covered by sand, leaving only some sections of the screen open
for flow. This condition produces highly localized fluid flows in the
screen as fluid is forced to produce through the remaining open sec-
tions. As this problem persists for a certain period, a screen could be par-
tially plugged in the area covered by particles. Meanwhile, the open
section suffers severe erosion by the high-velocity particle-fluid flow.
Such phenomena have been experimentally observed by Hamid et al.
[3]. Generally, the resulting erosion is very rapid and could occur in
the order of few minutes. Similar problems have also been reported
by other investigators [4–6], who studied screen failure mechanisms
and reported that random sand retention or plugging of the screen

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2021.10.016
0032-5910/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al.
leading to very high erosion rates in other sections, inducing local ero-
sion or hot spot on the screen. In practice, this non-uniform sand reten-
tion reduces hydrocarbon production rates and causes the industry
millions of dollars each year to protect and repair screens. Although crit-
ical to screen performance, non-uniform sand retention is rarely studied
due to the lack of a viable method. In fact, at present, the design and con-
trol of sand screens rely heavily on experimental methods. To cover var-
ious variables related to screen geometries, operating conditions, and
fluid and sand properties, extensive experiments are needed to be con-
ducted, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive, causing extra
costs. Furthermore, measuring the sand retention and production
under controlled and reproducible flow conditions is currently difficult
to achieve [7]. Also, at this stage of development, the particle and flow
structures that govern sand screen performance cannot be assessed
using experimental methods. All these problems bring difficulties to un-
derstanding and quantifying the sand retention behavior experimen-
tally. This is particularly true for non-uniform sand retention as it
occurs more locally and thus is more complicated.
Computer models provide a promising alternative because of the
merits of high efficiency, low cost, and zero risks while providing direct
mechanistic insights into particle-fluid flow systems. Among the most
prominent models is the combined approach computational fluid dy-
namics (CFD) for the fluid phase and discrete element method (DEM)
for particles. In such an approach, the trajectories of and the forces act-
ing on individual particles are tracked directly. It offers a sound theoret-
ical base for describing the interactions among particles, screen wall,
and surrounding fluid. These interactions determine screen perfor-
mance but cannot be generally modeled by continuum methods such
as two-fluid models (TFM), especially for particle-particle/wall interac-
tions [8,9]. For this reason, the TFM approach has not been applied to
simulate sand screens. As such, to our knowledge, the CFD-DEM ap-
proach is only the viably available numerical method to simulate sand
screen.
In recent years, the CFD-DEM approach has been widely accepted as
an effective tool to study various particle-fluid systems, as reviewed by
different investigators [10–15]. Despite the broad applications, only a
few efforts have been reported to use the CFD-DEM method to study
sand retention. One of the earliest CFD-DEM studies on sand retention
over screen was by Feng et al. [16]. They conducted a parametric
study to elucidate the effects of solid concentration and liquid flow
rate on monosized sand retention of a wire-wrapped screen. Thereafter,
several CFD-DEM studies have focused on simulating sand retention
over screen using a polydisperse particles system. For example, Wu
et al. [17] used polydisperse particles to investigate the effects of solid
concentration, fluid velocity and screen opening on sand retention of a
wire-wrapped screen. Shaffee et al. [18] used CFD-DEM simulations to
investigate the effects of adhesive polydisperse particles on the sand re-
tention process of a wire-wrapped screen for enhanced sand control. Al-
though useful, these studies focused on examining screen efficiency,
and the effects of key variables were not studied in detail. Besides,
none of the previous CFD-DEM studies have attempted to analyze
particle-fluid flow characteristics and force structures to understand
the screen performance and identify the underlying mechanisms. Re-
cently, the authors [19] conducted CFD-DEM studies to investigate the
effects of slot width-particle size ratios and wetting fluids on sand re-
tention and production behaviors of widely used wire-wrapped screens.
The analysis of particle flow patterns and force structures, revealed that
sand retention could occur through three distinct mechanisms: stable
bridging, bridging with intermittent collapse and bridging with contin-
uous collapse. Razavi et al. [20] also studied sand retention mechanisms
of screens via CFD-DEM simulations but with and without porous media
on top of the slot opening. They reported that the presence of a porous
region on top of the slot reduced the number of particles passing
through the slot in the specified time compared with the case without
the porous region. All these preceding CFD-DEM studies have shown
the viability of this method in modeling sand screen and predicting
605
Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617
some of its features to some degree. However, the non-uniform sand re-
tention phenomenon observed in serviced screens has not been re-
ported in the previous CFD-DEM studies. To date, it is unclear whether
the CFD-DEM approach is capable of predicting this challenging phe-
nomenon.
In the current work, the sand retention of the wire-wrapped screen
is studied by the reported CFD-DEM model [19]. It focuses on non-
uniform sand retention behavior. This phenomenon is observed when
sand retention occurs randomly and only on some sections of the screen
leaving other sections open for flow. On the other hand, uniform sand
retention is observed when the entire screen section is fully covered
by the retained sand particles. Even though non-uniform sand retention
is frequently observed, the conditions under which it occurs have re-
mained unknown. In addition, in the past, there have been no studies
reported to analyze the non-uniform sand retention in detail due to
lack of effective tool and, thus, the knowledge regarding its flow behav-
iors through a sand screen is limited. A better understanding of the flow
behaviors of this process would help the design and optimization of
sand screens. Therefore, the aim of this study is first to investigate the
influence of operational conditions such as solid concentration and par-
ticle size distribution on the sand retention over screen. Then, a phase
diagram is established to identify the conditions under which different
sand retention modes, including non-uniform ones, occur. Furthermore,
the simulation results are analyzed in detail in terms of particle patterns
as well as flow and force structures to understand the nature of non-
uniform sand retention behaviors. Finally, a new screen is proposed to
mitigate the non-uniform sand retention based on the understanding
developed.
2. Mathematical model
The current CFD-DEM model used here is the same as the one re-
cently reported elsewhere [19]. Therefore, only the key features of the
model are outlined below for brevity. However, detailed modeling and
numerical treatments can be found elsewhere [19,21–35].
2.1. Particle motion
In the DEM model, the motions of individual particles are traced
by an explicit numerical solution of Newton's equation of motion.
For particle i, its translational and rotational motions are determined
by:
ki

dvi
mi ¼ f d,i þ f ∇p,i þ f ∇:τ,i þ ∑ f cn,ij þ f ct,ij þ f dn,ij þ f dt,ij þ mi g ð1Þ
dt j¼1
and
ki

dωi
Ii ¼ ∑ Tij ð2Þ
dt j¼1
where mi is the particle mass, Ii is the moment of inertia, vi is the particle
translational velocity, ωi is the particle angular velocity, and ki is the
number of particle/wall in contact with particle i. The forces involved
are: the particle-fluid interaction forces, including the drag force, fd,i,
calculated by the model formulated using sub-particle simulation re-
sults [26,31,36], the pressure gradient force, f∇p,i and the viscous force,
f∇.τ,i, the gravitational force, mi g and the inter-particle forces between
particles which include elastic force, fc,ij and viscous damping force, fd,
ij. These inter-particle forces are solved into the normal and tangential
components at a contact point. Tij is the torque acting on particle i by
particle j, which causes particle i to rotate. The particle motions are
calculated based on the soft-particle approach originally developed by
Cundall and Strack [37]. The inter-particle contact force is determined
according to the Hertz collision theory [10,38,39] and the Coulomb
sliding friction model is used to determine the frictional force. For
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al. Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617

Table 1 cell into 48 elements to calculate the initial values of porosity in the
Components of forces and torque acting on particle i. CFD cell, which is expressed as
Forces and torques Symbols Equations
n
pffiffiffiffiffi 3=2 ∑i¼1 V i
Normal elastic force fcn,ij − 43 E∗ R∗ δn,ij ni εf ¼ 1− ð5Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V cell
Normal damping force fdn,ij 
−2 56 η Sn,ij m∗ vr,ij ∙nij ni
∗ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
∗
ffi
where Vcell and Vi are the volume of a computational cell and the volume
Tangential elastic force fct,ij −8G R δn:ij ti
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffipffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

Tangential damping fdt,ij −2 56 η St,ij m∗ ðvr ∙ti Þti þ ωi  ri −ωj  rj of particle i inside this cell, respectively, and n is the number of particles
force in the cell. In the second step, the diffusion-based averaging method
Sliding friction force fct,ij −μs|fcn,ij|ti
[45] is used to determine the porosity in the computational domain
Drag force fd,i 2−βðε,〈 ;Re ;〉Þ
8 C DO πρf α ðdi , ;xi , ;εÞju−vi jðu−vi Þεf
1
using the initial values given by Eq. (6). Correspondingly, a transient,
Pressure gradient force f∇p,i − ∇ p ∙ Vp,i homogeneous diffusion equation is solved over the pseudo-time
Viscous force f∇∙τ,i −(∇ ∙ τ)Vp,i
period,τp. This porosity calculation method is applicable to different
where: mesh sizes and easy for parallelism. In addition, the volumetric



 ð1:5− log 〈 Re 〉Þ
2

β εf , 〈 Re 〉 ¼ 2:65 εf þ 1 − 5:3−3:5εf ε2f exp − 2

particle-fluid interaction force in the considered cell is calculated by

 0:5ð1þεf Þ

α di , xi , ε f ¼ xi þ 0:5yi þ 0:5 1−εf y2i 1 n

∑
i yi
2 Fpf ¼ ∑ f ð6Þ
" #−1 V cell i¼1 d,i
di εf ju−vi jhdi
hdi ¼ ∑xi =di , yi ¼ hdi
, h Re i ¼ v
i
  Note that corresponding to model A, the calculation of the volumet-
1−σ 2j
ð1−σ 2i Þ ln ðeÞ ric particle-fluid force needs to exclude the pressure gradient and vis-
1
E∗ ¼ Ei þ Ej , 1
R∗ ¼ R1i þ R1j , 1
m∗ ¼ m1i þ m1j , η ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
ffi
ln ðeÞþπ 2

2ð2þσ j Þð1−σ j Þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi cous forces. This is not the case for Model B, as detailed elsewhere [24].
1
G∗ ¼ 2ð2þσ iEÞið1−σ i Þ þ Ej , Sn,ij ¼ 2E∗ R∗ δn,ij , St,ij ¼ 28 R∗ δt,ij

2.4. Coupling scheme and numerical solution

convenience, the particle-particle/wall and particle-fluid force and The modeling of particle flow by the DEM is at an individual particle
torque models are listed in Table 1. level, while the fluid flow by the CFD model is at a computational cell
level. According to the work of Xu and Yu [21], their coupling is numer-
2.2. Fluid flow ically achieved as follows. At each time step, the DEM will provide infor-
mation, such as the positions and velocities of individual particles for
In the CFD model, the liquid flow is modeled by the continuum fluid the evaluation of porosity and volumetric particle-fluid force in a com-
method, the continuity of mass and momentum based on local mean putational cell. The CFD model will then use these data to determine
variables over a computational cell. The model formulation has two dif- the fluid flow field, which yields the particle-fluid forces acting on indi-
ferent forms due to different treatments of the pressure [24,27]. If the vidual particles. Incorporating the resulting forces into the DEM will
pressure is attributed to the fluid phase only, it is referred to as Model produce information about the motion of individual particles for the
B. If both the fluid and solid phases share the pressure, it is called next time step. The particle-fluid forces acting on individual particles
Model A. This difference corresponds to whether the void fraction is in- will react on the fluid phase so that Newton's third law of motion is sat-
cluded in the pressure gradient term of Navier-Stokes equations. Model isfied.
A is used in the current study. The fluid equations in (3) and (4) are solved with the finite volume
  method. Convection and diffusion terms are discretized second-order
∂ ρf εf   central schemes, and time integrations are based on a second-order im-
þ ∇∙ ρf εf uf ¼ 0 ð3Þ plicit scheme. A PISO (Pressure Implicit Splitting Operation) algorithm
∂t
is used for velocity–pressure coupling [46]. The equations for a particle
and are explicitly integrated. The DEM time step selection refers to the Ray-
  leigh time ΔtR:
∂ ρf εf uf  
 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ ∇∙ ρf εf uf uf ¼ −εf ∇p þ Fpf þ ∇∙ εf τ þ ρf εf g ð4Þ πr i 2ρp ð1 þ σ i Þ
∂t TR ¼ ð7Þ
ð0:1631σ i þ 0:8766Þ Yi
where uf,ρf and p are, respectively, the fluid velocity, density and
pressure; τ,εf and Fpf are the fluid viscous stress tensor, porosity and where ri,pp,Yi and σi are respectively, the radius, density, Young
the volumetric particle-fluid interaction forces, respectively. Note that modulus and Poisson's ratio of particle i. To prevent numerical
fluid flow velocities through screens are expected low [40]. To simulate instabilities and nonphysical results, the ΔtDEMis often set to be lower
field conditions, the fluid velocity is set to 0.005 m/s, as done in typical than TR. Based on the smallest particle diameter of particle size
experiments simulating sand retention [41–44]. Under this flow condi- distribution and particles properties used in the simulation, the TR is
tion, the Reynold number is smaller than 10; thus, the fluid flow is as- calculated as 5.0 × 10−6. Therefore, the ΔtDEMis set to 5.0 × 10−7
sumed laminar. while the CFD time step is set to 5.0 × 10−5 to minimize the computa-
tional loadings.
2.3. Calculation of porosity
3. Boundary and simulation conditions
In the CFD-DEM method, the coupling of fluid and particles is
achieved by solving the porosity (εf) and the fluid-particle interaction The geometry of the screen model used in the present study is
force term (Fpf), where CFD cells and particles are linked with each shown in Fig. 1. The wire-wrapped screen is represented by a rectangu-
other via their locations [23]. Various methods have been proposed to lar model consisting of three slot openings separated by wires with a
calculate porosity, particularly for CFD cells of irregular shapes and dif- width of 2.3 mm. The computational domain is meshed with 80,000
ferent sizes, to ensure numerical stability [15]. Here, the porosity is cal- hexahedra grid cells using a commercial software package ANSYS
culated through two steps. The first step divides each particle in a CFD ICEM™. As done in the model validation, the grids are finer near walls

606
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al. Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of the particles simulated.

1
pffiffiffiffiffiffi e−2ð σ Þ
1 x−μ 2
f n ðxÞ ¼ ð8Þ
σ 2π

where x is the particle diameter. The mean particle diameter studied is

192 μm, which represents a typical field sand size. The PSD width is de-
fined non-dimensionally as the standard deviation normalized by the
Fig. 1. Geometry and mesh representation of the computational model. mean diameter of particles (σ/μ). Fig. 2 shows the PSD widths investi-
gated here, with values ranging from 3 to 10%. Note that the size of
monodisperse particles is equivalent to the mean particle diameter of
and for slot openings compared with the remainder of the domain [19]. 192 μm. The screen geometry is fixed in the study of solid concentration
The widely used outflow boundary is applied at the outlet, where the and PSD effects, where the slot width (w) to mean particle diameter ra-
normal gradients of all variables are set to zero for the fluid phase, as- tio is 1.5. At this size ratio, sand retention by particle bridging is ex-
suming that the flow is fully developed there. Differently, when parti- pected [47]. Such a process is more complicated than sand retention
cles flow out of the outlet, they are removed directly from the by size exclusion. Furthermore, the screen geometry is modified and
simulation. For each simulation, a uniform fluid velocity profile is tested to mitigate non-uniform sand retention.
adopted at the inlet corresponding to the case of constant flow rate, fol- In each simulation, particles are loaded randomly into the flow
lowing the previous experiment [17] and particles are injected with the system near the inlet according to the specified solid concentration.
same velocity as the fluid. The number of injected particles varies ac- The particles descend under gravity, buoyancy and fluid forces. Once
cording to the fluid flow rate and solid concentration specified. No-slip particles flow out of the slots, those particles are regarded as pro-
boundary conditions are taken at the walls for the fluid flow. The front duced sand. The mass flow rate of produced sand particles is re-
and back sides take symmetric boundary conditions for the fluid corded with time for results analysis. Stable sand retention occurs
phase but periodic boundary conditions for particles. Facilitated with when no particles flow out of the slots while the height of the accu-
the above boundary conditions, the CFD-DEM model is solved using mulated particles over the screen continues to increase. The simula-
an in-house code. Fluid with properties of crude oil is adopted to simu- tions stop after 7 s or when the particle bed height reaches a pre-set
late the typical oilfield sand retention and production environments. level.
Table 2 lists the current simulation conditions.
Two variables are considered, including solid concentration (Cv) and 4. Results and discussion
particle size distribution (PSD) width, followed by a new screen design.
The values of solid concentration are in the range of 2 to 16%. The PSDs 4.1. Model validation
are characterized using the normal distribution function with a constant
mean diameter (μ) but different standard deviations (σ): To validate the current CFD-DEM model, the experimental data
from two different applications have been considered [19]. The re-
sults are summarized here. The first application focused on the dry
particles system, following the experimental work of Coberly [47].
Table 2 The predicted bridging criteria are the same as the criteria obtained
Simulation conditions in the current study.
experimentally. The particle retention process is simulated using
Solid phase Fluid phase mixtures of two different particle sizes following this experimental
Material Sand Fluid type Crude oil study. The predicted critical slot widths at which bridging occurs
Shape Spherical Fluid density (kg/m3) 825 are in good agreement with the experimental values. Further
Particle density (kg/m3) 2500 Fluid viscosity (kg/m.s) 0.003 model validation was conducted based on the experimental work
Particle diameter (μm) 166–220 Temperature (°C) 54 of Wu et al. [17], who studied sand retention over a wire-wrapped
Young's modulus (N/m2) 1 × 107 Mesh and geometry screen under slurry flow conditions. The predicted total mass of
Poison's ratio 0.3 Grid type Hexahedra sand produced reasonably accord with that measured in the experi-
Sliding friction coefficient 0.5 Grid number 80,000 ment, with the prediction errors range from −8% to 4%. All the re-
Rolling friction coefficient 0.1 CFD time step 5 × 10−5 sults obtained so far suggest that the current model is reliable for
Restitution coefficient 0.6 DEM time step 5 × 10−7 predicting the screen retention performance and particle-fluid flow
w/D50 1.5
behavior in sand screen, at least qualitatively.

607
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al.
Fig. 3. Comparison of the mass flow rate of produced particles at: (a) different grid
resolutions; (b) different drag models.
4.2. Sensitivity tests of grid resolution and fluid drag correlation
The independence of numerical results on grid resolution and fluid
drag model is examined under the Mode III (σ/μ = 3% and Cv = 10%),
where non-uniform sand retention is observed. For this purpose, three
grid solutions are considered, corresponding to the cell number of
180,000 (fine grid), 80,000 (medium grid) and 30,000 (coarse grid), re-
spectively. Also, three widely used fluid drag correlations are tested,
which were reported by Di Felice and Rosa [48], Gidaspow et al. [49]
and Rong et al. [26]. Fig. 3 (a) and (b) compare the mass flow rate of pro-
duced particles at different grid resolutions and drag correlations. It is of
interest to note that the numerical results do not show a significant dif-
ference with respect to grid solution and drag correlation. The following
results are generated based on the medium grid scheme and Rong
et al.'s drag correlation.
4.3. Sand retention modes and their transition
Fig. 4 presents representative variations of the mass flow rate of pro-
duced particles with time at different solid concentrations and PSD
widths. The corresponding particle patterns are given in Fig. 5. Five dis-
tinct sand retention modes can be identified according to the mass flow
rate characteristics:
i. No sand retention (Mode I): It is featured by a stable flow rate in the
entire simulation time (Fig. 4 (a)), which indicates a continuous
sanding event. The particle flow patterns in Fig. 5 (a) show that in
Mode I, no particle bridging forms over the three slots to stop the
608
Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617
particle flow, and thus a majority of particles can pass through the
screen, which is undesirable.
ii. Partial sand retention (Mode II): It is featured by single or two-time
drops in the flow rate, followed by a steady flow rate at the later
stage. The single drop in the flow rate corresponds to bridging for-
mation over one slot (Fig. 4 (b)) or simultaneous bridging over
two slots. Fig. 5 (b) demonstrates the partial sand retention where
particles bridge only one slot. As time evolves, particles accumulate
on the top of the blocked slot and build a small dune (t = 6.0 s).
Meanwhile, particle bridges fail to form on the other two slots, and
thus a steady particle flow is observed (t = 7.0 s). Note that stable
sand retention may be possible if the screen operation lasts for a
long time because the number of particles accumulated above the
screen increases with time, as observed experimentally by Wu
et al. [17]. This suggests that Mode II could take considerable time
to achieve stable sand retention, and thus the sand production is
high. Moreover, the wires of the remaining open slots are more vul-
nerable to erosion due to the passing particle-fluid flow with rela-
tively high velocities resulting from the slot plugging.
iii. Sand retention with slow sequential bridging (Mode III): It is fea-
tured by at least two or three-time drops in the flow rate to zero.
These drops correspond to the sequential formation of bridging
over two or three slots (Fig. 4 (c)). This sequential bridging is
shown in Fig. 5 (c). At the beginning, particles are produced through
the three slots. After a short period, one of the slots is bridged by par-
ticles, resulting in the first drop in the flow rate (e.g., t = 1.5 s). As
time evolves, another slot is bridged by particles, and thus the flow
rate drops for the second time. Then, particles are produced merely
from the remaining open slot while sand dune starts to develop over
the two blocked slots (e.g., t = 3.0 s). The slight increase in the flow
rate at t > 4.0 s is attributed to the increase in the particle velocities
from the remaining open slot. At the later stage, bridging forms on
the last slot and a complete stop of particle flow develop eventually
(t = 6.24 s). In Mode III, stable sand retention is achieved but not
uniform. The bridging forms in sequential order very slowly, partic-
ularly over the last slot that may be eroded significantly, hereby the
sand production is high.
iv. Sand retention with fast sequential bridging (Mode IV): This mode
resembles two-time drops in the flow rate to zero, corresponding
to the sequential formation of bridging over two slots, and the se-
quential bridging takes place very quickly (Fig. 4 (d)). As shown
from Fig. 5 (d), bridging forms almost at the same time over two
slots, resulting in a rapid drop in the flow rate at the first stage
(e.g., t = 1.46 s). Shortly after that, bridging forms on the last open
slot, and then the particle flow stops (e.g., t = 2.2 s). Because of
the fast formation of bridging over these slots, the sand retention
is nearly uniform in Mode IV. Also, the particle flow stops quickly,
and thus a majority of particles are retained. In this circumstance,
the screen sections are quickly covered by particles and protected
from erosion.
v. Sand retention with instantaneous bridging (Mode V): It is featured
by a single drop in the flow rate to zero, corresponding to the instan-
taneous formation of bridging over three slots (Fig. 4 (e)). As shown
in Fig. 5 (e), after the initial sanding, bridging forms instantaneously
over the three slots (t = 1.12 s) in Mode V, establishing rapid and
uniform sand retention (e.g. t = 1.5 s). This model produces mini-
mum sand production and prevents local erosion.
A phase diagram as given by Fig. 6 is proposed to predict the condi-
tions under which different sand retention models occur. It covers the
solid concentrations and PSD widths considered in the current study.
In this diagram, non-uniform and uniform sand retention can also be
identified. The non-uniform mode includes Modes II-IV, while the uni-
form one includes Modes I and V. As shown in Fig. 6, Mode I is dominant
at low solid concentrations such as 2 to 4% for both monodisperse and
polydisperse particles. However, at a slightly higher solid concentration
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al.
Fig. 4. Mass flow rates of produced particles during the retention process: (a) Mode I, (b) Mode II, (c) Mode III, (d) Mode IV and (e) Mode V.
such as 6%, this sand retention mode is only observed for monodisperse
and relatively small PSD widths (e.g., σ/μ ≤ 10 here). Mode II is observed
for both monodisperse and polydisperse particles at intermediate solid
concentrations such as 8%. However, it is also observed at a low solid
concentration, such as 6% for the widest PSD (σ/μ = 10%) and at a higher
solid concentration, such as 10% for monodisperse particles. Differently,
at a solid concentration of 10%, Mode III is observed for polydisperse
particles. High solid concentrations such as 13% and 16% lead to, respec-
tively, Mode IV and Mode V for both monodisperse and polydisperse
particles. Overall, with increasing solid concentration, the sand reten-
tion transits from Mode I to Mode V, which means that the sand reten-
tion is improved from no occurrence to non-uniform behavior, and
finally to uniform behavior. It is consistent with the experimental obser-
vation for the solid filtration system [47]. This has not been obtained in
the existing CFD-DEM studies of screen retention, as discussed previ-
ously. Fig. 6 also shows that the sand retention mode transitions to
Mode V faster with increasing PSD widths. Furthermore, at high solid
concentrations such as 13% and 16% where particle number is sufficient
for bridging, the sand retention mode does not change with increasing
PSD widths. The results highlight that sand retention is very sensitive
to solid concentration under the conditions considered, and the impact
of PSD widths is more pronounced at low to intermediate solid concen-
trations such as 6 to 10%.
4.4. Analysis of solid concentration effect
To understand the effect of solid concentration, the particle flow
patterns, together with the particle and liquid velocity vectors, are
609
Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617
examined. Figs. 7 and 8 show the representative results, which corre-
spond to the cases for the monodisperse particles at Cv = 10% and
Cv = 16%, respectively. In these figures, particles and their vectors
are colored by velocity magnitudes, while fluid velocities are shaded
by their axial component. This treatment applies other figures in the
following discussion. Fig. 7 shows the particle and fluid flow patterns,
whose sand retention is in Mode II. At the beginning of the sand re-
tention process (t = 0.7 s), as particles fall on the screen randomly,
some of these particles settle on the wires, forming small sand beds
and ridges, while particles above the slots would be produced along
with the fluid. At this stage, the fluid flow is well distributed along
the length of the screen, featured by similar velocity profiles inside
the three slots. As time evolves, the sand beds and ridges grow, and
at this stage (t = 1.02 s), bridging starts to form on the middle slot
(S2). It occurs when particles in the vicinity of the slot flow to the
slot after colliding with the descending particles. The particle flow
near the slot is evidenced by the fact that the particle velocity
vectors are pointing to the slot as shown in the Fig. 7. (ii). This phe-
nomenon is also observed by Wu et al. [17] in their experiment during
the initial stage of the sand retention process. At lower solid concen-
trations such as 2 to 6%, there is no particle accumulation on the
screen wall; thus, bridging does not occur. Another interesting obser-
vation is the slots are closed in succession, and the closing of each slot
influences the bridging on the neighboring slots. For example, when
no subsequent particles can pass through the S2, the sand dune starts
to develop on this slot, covering more area of the screen gradually.
After that (t = 1.58 s), bridging is formed on the S1. Meanwhile, the
fluid velocity inside the S2 slightly decreases because of the particle
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al.
Fig. 5. Snapshots showing particle flow patterns at different sand retention modes: (a) Mode I, (b) Mode II, (c) Mode III, (d) Mode IV and (e) Mode V.
accumulation over this slot, as shown in Fig. 7 (iii). This leads to a
small increase in the downward fluid velocity magnitude in the left
slot (S1) and the right slot (S3). After the bridge formation on the
Fig. 6. Phase diagram showing sand retention modes and their transition with respect to
PSD width and solid concentration.
610
Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617
S1 is completed, more particles are retained above the screen; thus,
the sand dune grows and span over the S1 and S2 (t = 3.0 s). This
causes an increase in the downward fluid velocity magnitude inside
the S3. At the later stage (t = 5.24 s), the fluid velocity in the S3 is sig-
nificantly increased as the sand dune continues to grow. Conse-
quently, the descending particles are entrained strongly by the fluid
and pass through the slot. This strong particle flow in this slot and
its neighboring region, featured by large particle velocities, hinders
the formation of particle bridges over this slot.
Fig. 8 shows the instantaneous formation of bridging over three slots
in Mode V, which occurs at the beginning of the retention process (t =
0.88 s). At a high solid concentration such as 16%, considerable particles
are transported to the screen at a time, increases the number of particles
arriving at the slot entrance and settling on the screen wall, as shown in
Fig. 8 (i). As a result, particles attempting to enter these slots are more
than those able to pass through, which facilitates rapid bridging (t =
0.88 s). After all, slots are closed, a uniform layer of sand forms on the
screen (t = 1.04 s and t = 1.5 s). Correspondingly, the fluid flow
along the length of the screen is evenly distributed and undisturbed,
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al. Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617

Fig. 7. Sand retention behavior for monodisperse particles at Cv = 10%: (a) particle flow pattern, (b) particle flow field and (c) fluid flow field.

Fig. 8. Sand retention behavior for monodisperse particles at Cv = 16%: (a) particle flow pattern, (b) particle flow field and (c) fluid flow field.

611
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al. Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617

Fig. 9. Evolution of inter-particle force network at different solid concentrations for monodisperse particles: (a) Cv = 10% and (b) Cv = 16%.

Fig. 10. Sand retention behavior at σ/μ = 10% and Cv = 6% corresponding to Mode II: (a) particle flow pattern, (b) particle flow field and (c) fluid flow field.

612
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al.
featured by similar and constant velocity profiles inside the three slots
throughout the retention process (Fig. 8 (iii)).
As shown in Fig. 9, the evolution of the inter-particle force network is
examined to understand the difference in bridging between Mode II and
Mode V, corresponding to the particle flow patterns shown in Fig. 7
(i) and Fig. 8 (i). Here, each stick represents one connection of two par-
ticle centers, and its thickness denotes the magnitude of the contact
force. The rectangular boxes S1, S2 and S3, are the left, middle and
right slots, respectively. As shown in Fig. 9 (a), for mode II, the first
bridging occurs over the S2 when small force chains appearing on this
slot; and these chains propagate horizontally and connect the force
chains at the left and the right sides of the slot, leading to the formation
of bridges. At the later stage, while the force chains on the S2 continue to
grow, small force chains start to appear on the S1 (t = 1.58 s), which
later also propagate over the entire slot. The result again shows
that bridging over these slots are formed in succession. However,
above the S3 region, contacts between particles cannot be apparently
observed, indicating that no bridge is formed here, so particles in this re-
gion can flow almost freely. Conversely, small force chains simulta-
neously appear on the S1, S2 and S3 at the very beginning (t = 0.88 s)
in Mode V, as shown in Fig. 9 (b). The particle flow stops after these
force chains propagate over these slots to form strong bridging. Note
that despite the retention modes, particles over the slots with bridging
experience large forces. This is due to the compression exerted by the
fluid flow through the slots.
4.5. Analysis of particle size distribution width effect
Fig. 10 demonstrates how the PSD width (σ/μ) affect the sand reten-
tion process at σ/μ = 10% and Cv = 6%. Under these conditions, sand
retention can occur in the form of Mode II. However, this does not
occur to the monodisperse particles and smaller σ/μ such as 3% and
5%. Note that a larger PSD width implies a bigger difference between
Fig. 11. Sand retention behavior at σ/μ = 10% and Cv = 10% corresponding to Mode III: (a) particle flow pattern, (b) particle flow field and (c) fluid flow field.
613
Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617
the smallest and largest particles. Therefore, the case of σ/μ = 10% con-
tains the largest particles under the current work, which underlies the
occurrence of sand retention on the screen. Such a result can be clearly
seen in Fig. 10 (i). It shows that different sized particles are widely
spread when flowing downward. Part of the particles flows out of the
slots at the early stage of the retention process (t = 1.0 s). Bridging is
hard to form because the number of particles is not sufficient. Only a
few particles arrive at the slot entrance at a time and settle on the
screen. Consequently, there is less particle-particle interaction near
the slot. However, at the later stage (t = 4.38 s), bridging occurs when
the largest particles bridge over the S1. This can happen because at a
given slot opening, increasing the particle diameter would reduce the
size ratio between particle and slot, which in turn increases the proba-
bility of bridging configuration. In this circumstance, the largest parti-
cles in the distribution are the controlling factor that causes sand
retention. These particles are the first to bridge and begin the formation
of sand bed on the screen, which is consistent with experimental obser-
vations by Ballard et al. [42,50]. Fig. 10 (iii) shows that after sand dune
forms over the S1 (t = 7.0 s), the magnitudes of the downward fluid ve-
locities inside this slot decrease, which causes an increase in the fluid
velocity magnitudes inside the S2 and S3. Such a situation could hinder
the formation of particle bridges on these two slots.
Another example that demonstrates a different bridging phenome-
non is shown in Fig. 11, which is in model III at σ/μ = 10% and Cv =
10%. In such cases, stable sand retention can occur to polydisperse
particles but not to monodisperse particles. As shown in Fig. 11 (i), at
t = 1.02 s, bridging begins from the middle slot (S2) when the largest
particles bridge over this slot. As the sand dune develops over the S2,
another bridging occurs over the S3. It also happens when the largest
particles bridge over this slot (t = 1.9 s). After that (t = 3.0 s), the
sand dune grows over the S2 and S3. Meanwhile, the fluid velocity
magnitudes inside these two slots decrease, which increases the
downward fluid velocity magnitudes inside the S1. Later, the fluid
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al.
Fig. 12. Mesh distribution of (a) the conventional wire-wrapped screen model, (b) θ = 2° and (c) θ = 10°.
velocity magnitudes inside the S1 increase significantly when the sand
dune grows larger. Despite the high flow velocities that develop inside
and surrounding the S1, bridging occurs over this slot (t = 5.24 s). It
happens when the largest particles initiate the bridge formation, as
demonstrated in Fig. 11 (iii). After that (t = 6.26 s), stable sand
retention is quickly achieved with no further particles can flow out of
the slot while the height of the accumulated particles continues
to increase. These results also suggest that the likelihood of sand
retention by bridging increases with the presence of large particles in
a distribution.
4.6. New screen design
As discussed previously, controlling bridging plays a critical role in
managing sand retention and mitigating sand production. In this direc-
tion, a novel screen system with a converging slot configuration is pro-
posed to facilitate bridging in this study. Unlike the conventional wire-
wrapped screens with straight or keystone shaped slots, the new screen
Fig. 13. Mass flow rates of produced particles (left) and particle flow patterns (right) at different angle of convergences for monodisperse particles at Cv = 6%: (a) θ = 0°, (b) θ = 2° and
(c) θ = 10°.
614
Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617
has slots with a “V” cross-sectional area, aiming to bring particles into
contact to bridge. The new screen with different angles of convergence
(θ) (see Fig. 12) is tested at different solid concentrations and PSD
widths. Based on the current concept, the conventional screen corre-
sponds to θ = 0°.
Fig. 13 shows some representative results of the new screen for the
monodisperse particle at Cv = 6%, including the mass flow rates of
produced particles and the corresponding particle flow patterns. At
θ = 0° (Fig. 13 (a)), particles flow out of the three slots continuously;
therefore, the flow rate is constant. This flow pattern corresponds to
Mode I, in which sand retention does not occur. However, at θ = 2°, par-
ticles flow out of the three slots only at the beginning (t > 2.0 s), and
then a complete stop of particle flow is established. The flow rate
quickly decreases to zero. This sand retention mode corresponds to
Mode IV, in which sand retention is nearly uniform. However, with in-
creasing angle of convergence (e.g., θ = 10°), sand retention occurs
but is not uniform. The flow rate drops when two slots (S1 and S2 in
Fig. 13 (c)) bridge by particles simultaneously (e.g., t = 4.0 s). After
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al. Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617

Fig. 14. Mass flow rates of produced particles (left) and particle flow patterns (right) at different angle of convergences for monodisperse particles at Cv = 8%: (a) θ = 0°, (b) θ = 2° and
(c) θ = 10°.

that, particles accumulate above these two slots, forming a thick sand Fig. 16 (a) for θ = 2°, the two particles initially flow parallelly inside
dune. However, bridges fail to form inside the S3 to stop the particle the slot (t = 0.6 s) and then bridge at the upper section where the
flow (t = 7.0 s). This sand retention mode corresponds to Mode II. slot is relatively confined (t = 0.62). The bridging is evidenced by a
Fig. 14 is another example to demonstrate the benefit of the new
screen. For monodisperse particles at Cv = 8%, sand retention occurs
but is not uniform at θ = 0°. The flow rate firstly drops (e.g., t = 5.0 s)
due to the bridges formed over the S1 and then drops again (e.g., t =
7.0 s) after the second bridge forms over the S3. However, bridges fail
to develop over the S2, and thus particles can flow through this slot.
This sand retention mode corresponds to Mode II. At θ = 2°, sand pro-
duction occurs only within a short period (t < 1.5 s) before the particle
flow stops completely. The flow rate drops to zero almost instantly
after the retention begins. This phenomenon is caused by the fast
bridging inside the three slots (e.g., t = 1.5 s). This sand retention
mode corresponds to Mode V, in which sand retention is uniform, as
demonstrated in Fig. 14 (b). However, when the θ continues to increase
(e.g., θ = 10°), sand retention becomes non-uniform, corresponding to
Mode III.
The phase diagram predicting sand retention modes is also estab-
lished for the new screen, as given in Fig. 15. The comparison of Figs. 6
and 15 suggests the new screens with θ = 2° and θ = 10° are better
in developing uniform sand retention than the conventional screen,
and the one with θ = 2° is more effective. Fig. 16 compares the particle
flows and inter-particle force network in the new screen system with
θ = 2° and θ = 10° to achieve a better understanding. The analysis fo-
cuses on one slot for clarity, and the results of the monodisperse parti-
cles at Cv = 8% are considered as an example. For the conventional
screen (θ = 0°), bridging forms over the slot, and it occurs only after
enough particles accumulate on the screen. Differently, as particles are
flowing in the new screen system, bridging forms inside the slot. It
occurs when particles enter the slot and flow parallel to each other
inside the slot. When the slot angle is narrow such as θ = 2°, bridging
forms very quickly. This happens because these particles cannot
reposition themselves inside the slot, thus they bridge when they Fig. 15. Phase diagram showing sand retention modes and their transition for the new
arrive at the confine section of the slot. For instance, as shown by screen system: (a) θ = 2° and (b) θ = 10°.

615
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al. Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617

Fig. 16. Development of particle behavior until bridging in the new screens with θ = 2° (left) and (b) θ = 10° (right): (a) particle flow pattern, (b) particle flow field and (c) force network.

large contact force appearing at the upper section of the slot, resulting
from the high-speed fluid flow there. After the bridging event, particles
pile up inside the slot and start forming a bed on the screen. However,
bridging inside a slot becomes harder when the angle of convergence
increases to θ = 10° (Fig. 16 (b)). Consequently, bridging occurs at the
lower slot section, where particle flow is relatively strong due to the re-
duced passage. Bridging could be hindered by high particle velocities,
which leads to the reduced sand retention performance at θ = 10°
than θ = 2°.
5. Conclusion
The non-uniform sand retention behaviors over wire-wrapped
screens are studied using a CFD-DEM model, considering the effects of
solid concentration, particle size distribution width and screen design.
The major findings of the current study can be summarized as follows:
(1) Five distinct sand retention modes can be identified from mass
flow rate characteristics of produced particles: Mode I, in which
sand retention does not occur; Mode II, in which sand retention
occurs only on one or two slots; Mode III and IV, in which sand
retention occurs via sequential bridging over three slots, and
this occurs much faster for the latter; and, Mode V, in which
sand retention occurs instantaneously over three slots, resulting
Declaration of Competing Interest
in uniform sand retention. A phase diagram has been established
to predict these sand retention modes with respect to solid con-
centration and PSD width. It is shown that the sand retention
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
transits from Mode I to Mode V with increasing solid concentra-
ence the work reported in this paper.
tions, and a larger PSD width enhances this transition.
(2) Increasing solid concentration enhances particle flow near slots,
which induces the instantaneous formation of particle bridges
on the three slots and the uniform sand retention. Also, bridging
depends on the fluid flow velocity in the slots, which changes
with the slot closure. Therefore, with the increasing proportion
of closed slots, the bridging in the remaining open slot needs a
longer time. By contrast, the introduction of polydispersity
helps increase the bridging probability at low to intermediate
solid concentrations. This is attributed to the presence of large
particles in a distribution, which helps initiate the bridging and
thus cause sand retention on the screen.
(3) A novel screen system with a converging slot configuration has
been successfully designed. New screens significantly improve
the sand retention with the angle of convergence of 2° and 10°,
in which uniform sand retention occurs at a much lower solid
concentration compared to the conventional screen. It is mainly
because bridging forms inside the slot in the new screen. How-
ever, when the angle of convergence changes from 2° to 10°,
the performance slightly drops. Correspondingly, the position
of bridging moves down from the upper section of the slot to
the lower section. The latter position has a relatively strong par-
ticle flow, hindering bridging to some extent.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

616
N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, M. Zhou et al.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Australian Research Council (ARC)
(IH140100035 and LP160100819) for the financial support of this work
and the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI) for the use of its
computational facilities.
References
[1] E. Khamehchi, E. Reisi, Sand production prediction using ratio of shear modulus to
bulk compressibility (case study), Egypt. J. Pet. 24 (2015) 113–118.
[2] N.N.A. Razak, S.J. Abdulkadir, M.A. Maoinser, S.N.A. Shaffee, M.G. Ragab, One-
dimensional convolutional neural network with adaptive moment estimation for
modelling of the sand retention test, Appl. Sci. 11 (2021) 3802.
[3] S. Hamid, S. Ali, Causes of sand control screen failures and their remedies, SPE
European Formation Damage Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1997.
[4] A. Procyk, M. Whitlock, S. Ali, Plugging-induced screen erosion difficult to prevent,
Oil & Gas J. 96 (1998) 80–90.
[5] T. Hallman, V. Yung, A. Albertson, Analysis of Wellbore Failures and re-Design of
Slotted Liners for Horizontal Wells Applied in a Heavy Oilfield, SPE Western Re-
gional Meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2015.
[6] D.L. Tiffin, M.H. Stein, X. Wang, Drawdown Guidelines for Sand Control Completions,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
2003.
[7] S. Mondal, C.-H. Wu, M.M. Sharma, R.A. Chanpura, M. Parlar, J.A. Ayoub, Character-
izing, designing, and selecting metal mesh screens for standalone-screen applica-
tions, SPE Drill. Complet. 31 (2016) 085–094.
[8] P. Jop, Y. Forterre, O. Pouliquen, A constitutive law for dense granular flows, Nature
441 (2006) 727–730.
[9] M. Wang, X.Y. Lan, C.X. Wang, J.S. Gao, A.B. Yu, S.B. Kuang, Numerical simulation of
the pilot-scale high-density circulating fluidized bed riser, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 60
(2021) 3184–3197.
[10] H. Zhu, Z. Zhou, R. Yang, A. Yu, Discrete particle simulation of particulate systems:
theoretical developments, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007) 3378–3396.
[11] H.P. Zhu, Z.Y. Zhou, R.Y. Yang, A.B. Yu, Discrete particle simulation of particulate sys-
tems: a review of mayor applications and findings, Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (2008)
5728–5770.
[12] S.B. Kuang, Z.Y. Li, A.B. Yu, Review on modeling and simulation of blast furnace, Steel
Res. Int. 89 (2018) 1700071–1700071/1700025.
[13] M. Sakai, Y. Mori, X. Sun, K. Takabatake, Recent progress on mesh-free particle
methods for simulations of multi-phase flows: a review, KONA Powder Particle J.
37 (2020) 132–144.
[14] Z. Peng, E. Doroodchi, B. Moghtaderi, Heat transfer modelling in discrete element
method (DEM)-based simulations of thermal processes: theory and model develop-
ment, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 79 (2020) 100847.
[15] S. Kuang, M. Zhou, A. Yu, CFD-DEM modelling and simulation of pneumatic convey-
ing: a review, Powder Technol. 365 (2020) 186–207.
[16] Y. Feng, X. Choi, B. Wu, C.Y. Wong, Evaluation of Sand Screen Performance Using a
Discrete Element Model, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers, 2012.
[17] B. Wu, S. Choi, Y. Feng, R. Denke, T. Barton, C. Wong, J. Boulanger, W. Yang, S. Lim, M.
Zamberi, Evaluating Sand Screen Performance Using Improved Sand Retention Test
and Numerical Modelling, Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Offshore Technol-
ogy Conference, 2016.
[18] S.N.A. Shaffee, P.F. Luckham, O.K. Matar, A. Karnik, M.S.A. Zamberi, Numerical inves-
tigation of sand-screen performance in the presence of adhesive effects for en-
hanced sand control, SPE J. 24 (2019) 2195–2208.
[19] N.I. Ismail, S. Kuang, A. Yu, CFD-DEM study of particle-fluid flow and retention per-
formance of sand screen, Powder Technol. 378 (2021) 410–420.
[20] F. Razavi, A. Komrakova, C.F. Lange, CFD–DEM simulation of sand-retention mecha-
nisms in slurry flow, Energies 14 (2021) 3797.
[21] B. Xu, A. Yu, Numerical simulation of the gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed by com-
bining discrete particle method with computational fluid dynamics, Chem. Eng.
Sci. 52 (1997) 2785–2809.
[22] S. Kuang, K. Chu, A. Yu, Z. Zou, Y. Feng, Computational investigation of horizontal
slug flow in pneumatic conveying, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (2008) 470–480.
[23] S. Kuang, A. Yu, Z. Zou, A new point-locating algorithm under three-dimensional hy-
brid meshes, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 34 (2008) 1023–1030.
617
Powder Technology 395 (2022) 604–617
[24] Z. Zhou, S. Kuang, K. Chu, A. Yu, Discrete particle simulation of particle–fluid flow:
model formulations and their applicability, J. Fluid Mech. 661 (2010) 482–510.
[25] S. Kuang, K. Li, R. Zou, R. Pan, A. Yu, Application of periodic boundary conditions to
CFD-DEM simulation of gas–solid flow in pneumatic conveying, Chem. Eng. Sci. 93
(2013) 214–228.
[26] L.W. Rong, K.J. Dong, A. Yu, Lattice-Boltzmann simulation of fluid flow through
packed beds of uniform spheres: effect of porosity, Chem. Eng. Sci. 99 (2013) 44–58.
[27] K. Chu, S. Kuang, Z. Zhou, A. Yu, Model a vs. model B in the modelling of particle-
fluid flow, Powder Technol. 329 (2018) 47–54.
[28] L. Ji, K.W. Chu, S.B. Kuang, J. Chen, A.B. Yu, Modelling the multiphase flow in
hydrocyclones using coarse-grained VOF-DEM and mixture-DEM approaches, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 57 (2018) 9641–9655.
[29] M. Zhou, S. Wang, S. Kuang, K. Luo, J. Fan, A. Yu, CFD-DEM modelling of hydraulic
conveying of solid particles in a vertical pipe, Powder Technol. 354 (2019) 893–905.
[30] M. Zhou, S. Kuang, K. Luo, R. Zou, S. Wang, A. Yu, Modeling and analysis of flow re-
gimes in hydraulic conveying of coarse particles, Powder Technol. 373 (2020)
543–554.
[31] Z. Qi, S. Kuang, T. Qiu, A. Yu, Lattice Boltzmann investigation on fluid flows through
packed beds: interaction between fluid rheology and bed properties, Powder
Technol. 369 (2020) 248–260.
[32] S.B. Kuang, K. Li, A.B. Yu, CFD-DEM simulation of large-scale dilute-phase pneumatic
conveying system, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59 (2020) 4150–4160.
[33] E.Z. Zheng, M. Rudman, S.B. Kuang, A. Chryssc, Turbulent coarse-particle suspension
flow: measurement and modelling, Powder Technol. 373 (2020) 647–659.
[34] E.Z. Zheng, M. Rudman, S.B. Kuang, A. Chryss, Turbulent coarse-particle non-
Newtonian suspension flow in a pipe, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 142 (2021) 103698.
[35] M.M. Zhou, S.B. Kuang, F. Xiao, K. Luo, A.B. Yu, CFD-DEM analysis of hydraulic con-
veying bends: interaction between pipe orientation and flow regime, Powder
Technol. 392 (2021) 619–631.
[36] Z. Qi, S.B. Kuang, L.W. Rong, A. Yu, Lattice Boltzmann investigation of the wake effect
on the interaction between particle and power-law fluid flow, Powder Technol. 326
(2018) 208–221.
[37] P.A. Cundall, O.D. Strack, A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies,
Geotechnique 29 (1979) 47–65.
[38] A. Di Renzo, F.P. Di Maio, Comparison of contact-force models for the simulation of
collisions in DEM-based granular flow codes, Chem. Eng. Sci. 59 (2004) 525–541.
[39] H. Kruggel-Emden, E. Simsek, S. Rickelt, S. Wirtz, V. Scherer, Review and extension
of normal force models for the discrete element method, Powder Technol. 171
(2007) 157–173.
[40] R.A. Chanpura, R.M. Hodge, J.S. Andrews, E.P. Toffanin, T. Moen, M. Parlar, A review
of screen selection for standalone applications and a new methodology, SPE Drill.
Complet. 26 (2011) 84–95.
[41] T. Ballard, S.P. Beare, Sand Retention Testing: The More you Do, the Worse it Gets,
SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Society
of Petroleum Engineers, 2006.
[42] T.J. Ballard, S.P. Beare, An Investigation of Sand Retention Testing with a View to De-
veloping Better Guidelines for Screen Selection, SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2012.
[43] A.M. Mathisen, G.L. Aastveit, E. Alteraas, Successful Installation of Stand Alone Sand
Screen in More than 200 Wells-the Importance of Screen Selection Process and Fluid
Qualification, European Formation Damage Conference, Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers, 2007.
[44] D.R. Underdown, S. Hopkins, Design and implementation of retention/filtration
media for sand control, SPE Drill. Complet. 23 (2008) 235–241.
[45] R. Sun, H. Xiao, Diffusion-based coarse graining in hybrid continuum–discrete
solvers: applications in CFD–DEM, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 72 (2015) 233–247.
[46] R.I. Issa, Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow equations by operator-
splitting, J. Comput. Phys. 62 (1986) 40–65.
[47] C. Coberly, Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated Sands, Drilling and pro-
duction practice, American Petroleum Institute, 1937.
[48] R. Di Felice, The voidage function for fluid-particle interaction systems, Int. J. Multi-
phase Flow 20 (1994) 153–159.
[49] D. Gidaspow, R. Bezburuah, J. Ding, Hydrodynamics of Circulating Fluidized Beds: Ki-
netic Theory Approach, Illinois Inst. of Tech., Chicago, IL (United States). Dept. of
Chemical …, 1991.
[50] T. Ballard, S. Beare, Media Sizing for Premium Sand Screens: Dutch Twill Weaves,
SPE European Formation Damage Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2003.