Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

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

Optimization of proppant size for frac pack completion using

a new equipment
Tiankui Guo n, Shicheng Zhang, Lei Wang, Weibo Sui, Heng Wen
MOE Key Laboratory of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: It is critical to optimize the proppant size for an effective sand control in weakly consolidated
Received 21 July 2011 formations and to obtain high productivity of medium-to-high permeability formations. Compared
Accepted 13 August 2012 with the gravel pack completion, the frac pack has a completely different sand control mechanism and
Available online 29 August 2012
pressure field on the proppant. To achieve effective sand control and stimulation, a treatment should be
Keywords: designed to obtain the maximum conductivity and optimize the proppant size for sand production. At
frac pack present, there are no unified criteria for proppant-size selection for the frac pack; neither is the
proppant size equipment for conducting such experiments available. In order to experimentally study the frac pack,
embedment we designed a special equipment called the ‘‘Frac Pack Sand Control Model’’ for the experiments in
sand control
which the proppant size was matched with the formation particle size. By measuring the fracture
conductivity
conductivity, sand production rate, and the size of the particles produced, we investigated the effect of
fluid viscosity, flow rate, median grain diameter of formation sand, and proppant concentration on sand
control and conductivity. We also studied the proppant embedment in unconsolidated formations and
the effects of combinations of proppants of different sizes on sand control and conductivity.
Experimental results show that the optimal proppant size for the frac pack is 6.8–9.7 times that of
formation sands. Compared with proppant of a fixed size, a combination of proppants of variable sizes
is preferred for a better sand control or higher conductivity, depending on the conditions of a particular
formation. In a weakly consolidated formation, proppant embedment can be very serious, and becomes
even more serious with an increasing proppant size. While ensuring the optimal size of proppant,
i.e. D50 ¼ (6.8–9.7)d50, a high proppant concentration is needed to obtain effective sand control in a frac
pack. The proppant concentration not less than 15 kg/m2 is usually recommended in a frac pack. The
finding in the research is significant for both theoretical study and field engineering.
& 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Advances in soft-rock stimulation technology have made the
frac pack one of the most effective sand control and stimulation
techniques. Compared to conventional gravel pack completions,
the sand control mechanism of a frac pack is to change the radial
flow pattern into bilinear flow pattern near the fracture; further-
more, the pressure field on the proppant pack is also completely
different from that on the gravel pack (Burton et al., 1996). Being
the theoretical basis of sand control and stimulation in a frac
pack, the index of bilinear flow is dimensionless conductivity, Cfd
(Xie et al., 2002). If the proppant size is too large, the sand control
effect will be weakened due to a high sand production rate; and if
the particle size is too small, the fracture conductivity will be
n
Correspondence to: Department of Petroleum Engineering, China University of
Petroleum, Fuxue Road No.18, Changping District, Beijing 102249, China.
E-mail address: guotiankui@126.com (T. Guo).
decreased, in which case bilinear flow will not occur. Therefore,
optimizing the proppant size is paramount in a frac pack. For frac
pack, the optimal proppant size means maximizing the conduc-
tivity and obtaining better sand control effect at the same time.
Thus, proppant-sizing criteria for the frac pack should be different
from the gravel pack.
The Saucier (1974) rule was once used for many years as the
perfect gravel-sizing criterion for gravel packs (5–6 times of the
median grain size of formation sand). Jennings (1996) increased
the criterion by 6–8 times. Although numerous gravel pack
experimental studies have also been carried out by a specially
designed equipment (Bouhroum and Civan, 1994; Tiffin et al.,
1998; Wang and Li, 2000), there are neither consistent proppant-
sizing criteria proposed for the frac pack nor a special equipment
to obtain the reference criteria, so further experimental and
theoretical work is needed. Some simple sand control experi-
ments on the frac pack were also conducted by using Fracture
Conductivity Evaluation System (Blauch et al., 1999), which
cannot meet some of the experimental conditions, such as high

0920-4105/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2012.08.007
2 T. Guo et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9
Nomenclature
d50 formation sand median grain size (mm)
D50 proppants median grain size (mm)
d75 the grain size at the 75% cumulative level from sieve
analysis plot
d25 the grain size at the 25% cumulative level from sieve
analysis plot
RS radius of frame sand composing rock (mm)
FG gravity of sand itself (N)
FA Van der Waals force (N)
FD repelling force of double electrical layer (N)
R radius of pack sand (mm)
flow rate and fluid viscosity, with very small scale of the test cell.
These problems often result in a very small sand production,
increasing the experimental error. Thus, this system is not
feasible for the study of sand control effect in a frac pack.
Weaver et al. (1999) focused on ‘‘Proppant Surface-Modification
Technology’’, i.e. a proppant coated with surface-modification
agent (SMA), which can increase the ratio of proppant size to
formation sand size up to 20:1 in frac pack sand control. However,
so far the application of SMA in oilfield has been rarely reported.
The most commonly used proppant is still non-SMA ceramic
proppant such as Carbolite, which definitely cannot achieve this
high ratio. For the frac pack, some different relaxation on the
Saucier rule was applied in the field practice: instead of 20/40
mesh (425–850 mm) sand, a 16/20-mesh (850–1180 mm) Carbo-
lite was used in the Campos Basin, Brazil (Rovina et al., 2000); 16/
20-mesh instead of 40/60-mesh (250–425 mm) in the Gulf of
Mexico (Hainey and Troncoso, 1992); 7–9 times that of the
formation median grain size (d50) in the Wilmington Field, Long
Beach, CA (Turnage et al., 2006); d50 ¼70 mm, 16/20-mesh in the
North Sea (Norris et al., 2007), and so on. Through these applica-
tions were successful, they need to be first verified before being
applied in other areas. Therefore, we developed a special equip-
ment, i.e. ‘‘Frac Pack Sand Control Model’’, which can be used to
study the sand control effect and simulate the status of proppant
pack, flow patterns and pressure field in a frac pack completion.
Using this equipment, the systematic experimental studies on
sand control effect and conductivity in a frac pack can be carried
out to establish a reliable proppant-sizing criterion for the
frac pack.
The research shows that the proppant embedment (Lu et al.,
2008; Wang and Zhang, 1998), the proppant concentration (Wen
et al., 2007) and the combination of proppants of different sizes
(Wang et al., 2005) have important influence on hydraulic
fracturing. Although there is significant research on the effects
of these factors on proppant conductivity, relevant studies are
still very few for the weakly consolidated formations (with the
static Young’s modulus less than about 2 million psi) in a frac
pack (Lacy et al., 1996, 1997). Moreover, we have found no
experimental studies on the effects of the combination of prop-
pants of different size and proppant concentration on sand
control effect in a frac pack.
With the purposes of maximizing conductivity and sand
production prevention, we performed the optimization experi-
ments of proppant size for a frac pack completion using a
specially designed equipment. Many experiments for matching
the proppant size with that of the formation particle were
conducted at different flow rates, fluid viscosities, proppant
concentrations and certain closure pressure. By measuring frac-
ture conductivity, sand production rate and the size of particles
AS constant that correlates with porosity
H d/R (d¼the shortest distance between two
particles, mm)
F1 (H) steam function [0.7431/(0.6376–0.2001 ln H)]/H
F2 (H) steam function 3.23
Greek letters
a included angle between the resistance induced by
other particle and thrust (1)
m viscosity of the fluid (mPa s)
y included angle between the radial axis and thrust
produced, we studied the effects of fluid viscosity, flow rate,
median grain diameter of formation sand and proppant concen-
tration on sand control effect and conductivity, respectively. We
also investigated proppant embedment in unconsolidated forma-
tions and the effects of the combination of proppants of different
sizes on sand control and conductivity. Finally, the proppant-
sizing criterion for a frac pack completion was established. These
findings will provide an important reference for future frac pack
designs.
2. Experimental process
2.1. New experimental equipment
At present, there are mainly two sets of experimental appara-
tuses used to study the sand control.
2.1.1. Linear flow test apparatuses
They include a conventional core holder (Tiffin et al., 1998;
Wang and Li, 2000), a sand-filled tube (Zhang, 2011), and some
specially designed apparatuses, such as visualization cells made
of plexiglas plates (Bouhroum and Civan, 1994), an experimental
unit for sand production simulation (Akin and Kovscek, 2002;
Tian et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2011). These apparatuses are usually
used to study sand control and the particle movement of gravel
pack in a linear flow model. Generally, the gravel and formation
sand are filled internally section by section, and these apparatuses
cannot simulate the in situ conditions, bilinear flow pattern, and
pressure field of frac pack. Therefore, they are not suitable for
studying the frac pack sand control.
2.1.2. Fracture conductivity Evaluation system
To simulate bilinear flow pattern, the API conductivity cell
needs to be modified (Blauch et al., 1999; Weaver et al., 1999).
Production from a reservoir into a propped fracture was simu-
lated with flow through the formation material into the proppant
pack. For the conventional test system, the experiments can be
only carried out with a KCl/NaCl brine mixture, without meeting
the requirement of high flow rate. There are only three flow
channels at each closure-stress piston of the conductivity cell,
resulting in an uneven distribution of flow rate. Moreover, the
scale of test cell is very small, test area being only about 64.5 cm2,
and there is only one outlet. All these lead to a very small sand
production, which increases the experimental error. Although it
can be used very conveniently in fracture conductivity test, it is
not applicable for the study of sand control effect.
In order to study the frac pack sand control method, we
specially designed an apparatus, ‘‘Frac Pack Sand Control Model’’
 T. Guo et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9
Fig. 1. (a) ‘‘Frac Pack Sand Control Model’’ designed for the experimental study of frac pack, (b) ‘‘Frac Pack Cell’’ as the key component of (a) can simulate the fracture
environment.
(Fig. 1(a)). The key component, ‘‘Frac Pack Cell’’, has an internal
test area of 800 cm2, 20 cm wide, 40 cm long and 11 cm high, as
shown in Fig. 1(b). ‘‘Frac Pack Cell’’ is combined with other
equipment, such as hydropress, plunger pump and differential
transmitter, to form a complete test system, i.e., Frac Pack Sand
Control Model. Frac Pack Cell consists of a tank and a top cap,
respectively, having 623 and 40 flow channels which are evenly
distributed at the bottom and front end of the tank. The top cap is
an independent component, and is integrated tightly with the
tank by an inbuilt sealing ring, inside of which 623 flow channels
are distributed evenly. In the frac pack cell, rock plates are placed
in front of, above and below the proppant pack layer to simulate
the two sides and tip of fracture. Three fluid inlets are located in
the front of the frac pack cell. The baffler with the length of
16.5 cm is located at the outlet. With a standard perforation
aperture, proppant backflow will occur at high flow rate, resulting
in the collapse of proppant pack and rock plate and affecting the
comparison of experimental results. To overcome these problems,
the shot with the aperture of 2.5 mm is chosen by experimental
testing. Thirty such shots are distributed evenly in a row in the
baffler. This special equipment can simulate the proppant pack
condition, flow pattern and pressure field of frac pack under a
given closure pressure, different flow rates and viscosities. The
apparatus can fully present the situation of proppant embedment
and formation sand invasion.
2.2. Experimental designs
1. The sand of 16 particle size intervals was obtained by sieving
the 70–325-mesh (A.S.T.M.MESH) quartz sand using the stan-
dard sieves. A poorly consolidated rock plate was made of the
sieved sand of one of 16 particle size intervals, 2% clay mineral
and gum. The median grain diameters (d50) of 16 rock plates
were about 202.4 mm, 185.0 mm, 162.7 mm, 158.6 mm,
147.2 mm, 135.6 mm,121.7 mm,110.6 mm, 103.2 mm, 94.3 mm,
85.8 mm, 77.8 mm, 69.1 mm, 62.6 mm, 53.9 mm, and ffi 45.3 mm,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
respectively. The sorting coefficient ‘‘S’’( d75 =d25 , where d75
and d25 are the grain sizes at the 75% and 25% cumulative level
from sieve analysis plot, respectively) of rock plate was about
1.2, which indicated a good sorting. An artificial fracture was
obtained by packing proppant between two rock plates, as
shown in Fig. 2 (a). The static Young’s modulus of the rock
plate was about 90,000 psi.
2. The short-term conductivity without embedment (China
National Petroleum Corporation, 1997) of 40/60-mesh,
30/50-mesh (300–600 mm), 20/40-mesh, 16/30-mesh (600–
1180 mm) Carbolite proppants was measured by the Fracture
Conductivity Evaluation System at proppant concentration of
15 kg/m2, at closure pressure of 10 MPa and 20 1C.
3. Under the same conditions, the size matching experiments were
carried out for 40/60, 30/50, 20/40, and 16/30 proppants
3
corresponding to all rock plates with different d50 less than
110.6 mm, 147.2 mm, 147.2 mm and 202.4 mm, respectively. We
first measured the conductivity with only proppant embedment,
and then examined sand control effects. Each size matching
experiment involved three groups. The first group used water
(1 mPa s) at the flow rate of 150 ml/min, 300 ml/min, 600 ml/min
and 900 ml/min (the equivalent flow rate was approximately
271.7 bbls/day, 543.4 bbls/day, 1086.8 bbls/day and 1630.2 bbls/
day, respectively, at the fracture height of 20 m) successively. The
100 l effluent was collected at each flow rate and fracture
conductivity was measured right after the experiment. The sand
production rate was analyzed after being collected from the
effluent, and the size of particles were determined by a Laser
Particle Size Analyzer. Then the second and third groups of the
experiment were carried out with polyacrylamide solutions of the
viscosities of 12 mPa s and 21 mPa s, respectively, after reassem-
bling the experimental equipment with the same proppants and
rock plates.
4. Some studies have shown that the combination of proppants
of different sizes can work well (Wang et al., 2005). In this
paper, the combinations of proppants of two different sizes
were studied by the means of sectional laying. The smaller-
sized proppants laid at fracture-tip supported the micro-
fractures and controlled sand production. The larger-sized
proppants in the fracture port enhanced the fracture conduc-
tivity. The proppant combinations were 16/30:20/40¼3:1 and
20/40:30/50¼3:1, respectively. The rock plates with 10 inter-
vals of median grain diameter d50 o 147.2 mm were selected.
The polyacrylamide solution with the viscosity of 21 mPa s
was used at the rates of 600 ml/min and 900 ml/min, respec-
tively. Other experimental conditions and procedure were the
same as mentioned above.
5. In this series of experiments, the effects of proppant concentra-
tions on sand control, conductivity and embedment were studied.
The short-term conductivities without embedment of 20/40-mesh
Carbolite proppants were measured at proppant concentrations of
5 kg/m2, 10 kg/m2 and 20 kg/m2, respectively, closure pressure of
10 MPa and temperature of 201. Then proppant embedment and
sand control experiments for 20/40-mesh proppant were carried
out using polyacrylamide solution with the viscosity of 21 mPa s
at the flow rate of 900 ml/min on the rock plates with the grain
sizes corresponding to the optimal intervals from the above
optimization experiment.
3. Experimental Results and discussion
3.1. Embedment experiments of proppants of different sizes
Experimental results show that d50 of rock plates has a very
little impact on proppant embedment. The same closure pressure,
4 T. Guo et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9
Fig. 2. (a) Artificial fracture by packing proppant between two rock plates, (b) appearance of serious proppant embedment in weakly consolidated sand formation.
Fig. 3. Conductivity comparison of proppants of different sizes with or without
embedment.
rock plate hardness, and contact area between proppant particles
and rock plate work together to get the same embedment depth,
but the degree of embedment is different for proppant of different
sizes. Fig. 3 shows the impact of proppant size on the embedment.
We can see that fracture conductivity shows a precipitous decline
as a result of serious proppant embedment in poorly consolidated
rock plates. The residual conductivities of 16/30, 20/40, 30/50
and 40/60-mesh are 46%, 56%, 67% and 83% of original values,
respectively. Serious proppant embedment is indicated, as shown
in Fig. 2 (b), and the embedment is augmented with an increased
proppant size. This is because the smaller the proppant size, the
larger the actual contact area between proppants and fracture
walls will be. As a result, the closure pressure undertaken by
single smaller-sized proppant particles becomes smaller. The soft
rock plates are almost compressed by the flat plate as in the
‘‘piston movement’’, so the embedment of smaller-sized prop-
pants is shallower. Meanwhile, due to the smaller intergranular
pores between smaller-sized proppants, relatively fewer particles
will be squeezed into the proppant pack layer upon contact. Thus,
smaller-sized proppants maintain a larger conductivity.
3.2. Sand control experiments
3.2.1. Sand production rate
We only list the experiment data of 20/40 mesh proppant in
Table 1 for illustration due to the limited space of this paper. The
median grain diameter of rock plates (d50) was measured by a
Laser Particle Size Analyzer.
1. As we can see from Table 1, at the same fluid viscosity, sand
production rate generally increases as the flow rate increases,
and it decreases with an increasing size of formation particle
at the same viscosity and flow rate. This trend becomes more
obvious for high viscosity fluids.
2. The larger the formation particle size, the higher the critical
flow rate of sand production will be. This trend is more
obvious for low viscosity fluids. According to the theory of
threshold flow velocity of sand production, we consider the
proppant pack layer as the frame sand, and invasive formation
particles as the pack sand. The flow velocity causing the
formation particles to move is called the ‘‘threshold flow
velocity of sand production’’ (Li, 1994),which is defined as
follows:
R2S ðF G þ F A F D Þcosa
VS ¼ 2
9 pmR AS ðH þ 1Þ½F 1 ðHÞsinysinaURS þ RðH þ 1ÞF 2 ðHÞcosycosa
ð1Þ
where RS is the radius of rock frame sand (mm); FG is the
gravity of pack sand (N); FA is the Van der Waals force (N); FD
is the repelling force of double electrical layer (N); a is the
included angle between the resistance induced by other
particles and thrust (1); m is the fluid viscosity (mPa s); R is the
radius of pack sand (mm); AS is a constant related to porosity.
H¼d/R (d is the shortest distance between two particles (mm));
F1(H) and F2(H) are the steam functions, F1(H) ¼[0.7431/
(0.6376–0.2001 ln H)]/H and F2(H)¼3.23 here, and y is the
included angle between the radial axis and thrust (1).
According to Eq. (1) we know that the larger the formation
particle size, the greater the hydrodynamic force becomes, and
thus the particles will move more easily. However, the experi-
mental result shows that more smaller-sized particles are
produced. The reason is that it is more difficult to pass through
the whole proppant pack for larger particles, although they start
to move more easily.
3. Table 1 can be roughly divided into three regions. When
d50 4110.6 mm, the sand production rate is fairly small,
indicating that the sand control effect is good. When
85.8 mm rd50 r110.6 mm, the increase in sand production
rate at early stage is obvious. However, the change of sand
production rate from 600 to 900 ml/min is very small, espe-
cially for the fluid with a viscosity of 21 mPa s, the rock plates
with d50 ¼85.8 mm and 94.3 mm. The sand production rate at
900 ml/min is even lower than that at 600 ml/min. When d50
decreases from 85.8 mm to 77.8 mm, the sand production rate
increases greatly at the same flow rate and viscosity. These
phenomena could be explained by the damage mechanisms of
the proppant pack (Fig. 4). For larger-sized particles, it is
difficult to pass through pore throats, and the particles just
deposit on the grain/pore surface. At this stage, very minimal
damage is caused. When 85.8 mmrd50 r110.6 mm, the
particle size is fit for pore-throat bridging and accumula-
tion. When pore-throat bridging occurs, the structure for
subsequent upstream accumulation of particles is formed.
 T. Guo et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9 5

Table 1
The results of sand production rate for 20/40-mesh proppants.

Rock plate d50 D50/d50 Sand production rate (g)

(mm)
Fluid viscosity, 1 (mPa s) Fluid viscosity, 12 (mPa s) Fluid viscosity, 21 (mPa s)

150 300 600 900 150 300 600 900 150 300 600 900
(ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (ml/min) (mml/min)

135.6 5.87 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.02 0.1 0.16 0.03 0.11 0.24 0.32
121.7 6.54 0 0 0 0.21 0 0.18 0.39 0.45 0.06 0.42 0.76 0.89
110.6 7.20 0 0 0.48 0.62 0.18 0.33 0.76 1.02 0.32 0.64 1.20 1.46
103.2 7.71 0 0 0.86 0.95 0.45 0.94 1.63 1.81 0.86 1.32 2.28 2.39
94.3 8.44 0 0.22 1.02 1.28 0.56 1.02 1.76 2.08 1.13 1.84 2.87 2.82
85.8 9.28 0 0.63 1.49 1.65 0.78 1.27 2.03 2.37 1.38 2.08 3.29 3.18
77.8 10.23 0 0.98 1.86 2.47 0.94 1.86 2.54 2.95 1.63 2.68 4.32 4.59
69.1 11.52 0.61 1.29 2.63 3.18 1.04 2.07 3.59 4.36 1.87 3.13 5.37 6.18
62.6 12.72 0.74 1.65 3.09 3.62 1.31 2.78 4.42 5.59 2.18 3.96 6.22 7.52
53.9 14.77 0.86 1.73 3.48 4.16 1.53 2.95 5.01 6.34 2.30 4.37 7.56 9.10

Fig. 5. Size composition of particles produced of rock plate with d50 ¼ 110.6 mm.

be 99–140 mm, 82–116 mm and 58–82 mm, respectively. It is

Fig. 4. Interpack damage mechanisms.
Once the formation of bridged pore throats reaches a critical
value, the pores will no longer connected, and thus we obtain a
critical damage depth. At this time, all of the incoming particles
accumulate not only in the immediate pore throats, but also
within all pore bodies still ready to flow, forming an internal
cake, which reduces downstream particle concentration rapidly.
This is the reason for fewer changes or even a reduction in sand
production rate at the later stage. The internal cake formation
requires adequate time for particle accumulation. However, the
process will be accelerated at higher fluid viscosity and flow rate,
and such trend becomes more evident at a later stage. The pore-
throat bridging dramatically decreases fluid flow rate through
these pores, so the permeability of proppant pack also decreases
markedly at the early stage. The permeability tends to be stable
with the internal cake formation, which can be verified by a
subsequent conductivity test. If particle size is smaller than this
interval, i.e. 85.8 mm rd50 r110.6 mm, the internal cake in the
shallow layer will not be formed, and sand will continue to be
produced. Therefore, it is not possible to achieve the purpose of
effective sand control. The intervals for internal cake formation
are 103.2–135.6 mm, 62.6–77.8 mm and 45.3–53.9 mm corre-
sponding to 16/30-mesh, 30/50-mesh, and 40/60-mesh, respec-
tively. Taking the mean value of two adjacent d50 at the boundary,
the intervals of 16/30-mesh (D50 ¼ 945 mm), 20/40-mesh
(D50 ¼796 mm) and 30/50-mesh (D50 ¼ 570 mm) proppants will
found by calculation that when D50 ¼(6.8–9.7) d50, the internal
cake will be formed. According to this criterion, the lower limit of
40/60-mesh (D50 ¼395 mm) proppant is 41 mm.
4. Fluid viscosity has an important influence on sand production.
As can be seen from Table 1, for the larger-sized particles with
the diameters of 121.7 and 135.6 mm, they cannot be pro-
duced using the fluid with the viscosity of 1 mPa s or 12 mPa s
at the low flow rate of 150 ml/min; but when fluid viscosity
increases to 21 mPa s, larger-sized particles can be produced.
So at the same velocity, a higher fluid viscosity usually leads to
higher sand production rate or proppant backflow rate. VS
calculated by Eq. 1 decreases as fluid viscosity increases.
During the sand production process, the fluid viscosity shows
two action mechanisms: (1) suspending and carrying sand,
(2) washing and corroding rock plates.
Because of the good sorting of formation sand, the sand
production rate shown in Table 1 is relatively low. For actual
formations, however, we consider not only the median grain
diameter of the formation sand (d50), but also the varying of sand
grain diameter. For the formation of high heterogeneity, we can
make reasonable decisions based on grain size distribution (Reza
et al., 2008; Turnage et al., 2006; Xiang and Wang, 2003).
3.2.2. Size of particles produced
From Table 1, we can see that larger-sized particles appear
gradually with an increasing flow rate and fluid viscosity, which
6 T. Guo et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9

Fig. 6. Microgram of formation sand invading into proppant pores and adhering to the proppant particle surface, greatly reducing the permeability of proppant pack.

indicates that the production of larger-sized particles requires

sufficient hydrodynamic force.
The proppant arrangement may be tetrahedron or hexahedron,
the corresponding pore diameters being 0.4142 time and 0.1547
time that of proppant diameter (D), respectively (this is the
theoretical basis of the Saucier formula). At certain closure pressure,
the proppant arrangement is generally considered to be a stable
hexahedron, so the particles with d4 0.1547D cannot pass
through the proppant pack. However, according to the measur-
ing results of particle size, we found that some particles with
0.1547Dodo0.4142D could be produced (the corresponding sand
production rate at d50 ¼135.6 mm in Table 1, for example). Fig. 5
shows the size distribution of the corresponding produced particles
with d50 ¼110.6 mm, when the fluid used is water. Median grain
diameter is 109.8 mm and the volume of particles between the two
structures is 24.8% of the total. These particles are quartz sand
instead of the broken ceramics. Therefore, at the closure pressure of
Fig. 7. Conductivity of 20/40-mesh proppants after sand invasion.
10 MPa, proppants are not arranged completely in a stable hexahe-
dral arrangement. Some tetrahedral structures still exist. Fig. 6
shows the microgram of formation sand invading into proppants experimental results:
pores. As can be seen from the figure, a lot of formation sand invades
into proppant pack and proppant arrangements are tetrahedral or 1. We studied the effect of each of the three parameters, namely,
hexahedral (the upper two pictures in Fig. 6). When using fluid fluid viscosity, flow rate and d50 on sand production rate and
of high viscosity, a lot of formation sand adheres to the particle fracture conductivity, respectively, by fixing the other two. We
surface, blocking the pores and greatly reducing the permeability of found that the quantity of particles invading into the proppant
proppant pack. pack increased with the decreasing d50 and increasing flow
rate and fluid viscosity. The fracture conductivity was also
gradually reduced due to the detention of the particles
(Rodriguez and Bryant, 2007).
3.2.3. Fracture conductivity 2. At the same fluid viscosity, when d50 of the formation sand is
To increase experimental fluid viscosity, we selected polya- larger than 110.6 mm, fracture conductivity decreases slowly
crylamide with smaller molecular weight. The tests indicated with the increasing flow rate because only a small amount of
that, when using 0.2% polyacrylamide solution with a viscosity of formation sand invades into the proppant pack. When
21 mPa s, the damage rate of proppant conductivity was less than 85.8 mmrd50 r110.6 mm, fracture conductivity decreases
3%, so the damage caused by polymer itself could be ignored. greatly at the early stage, but changes little from 600 ml/min
Fig. 7 shows the conductivity of 20/40-mesh proppants to 900 ml/min at the late stage. When d50 o85.8 mm, the
measured. The following conclusions are drawn based on the conductivity decreases rapidly with the increasing flow rate.
 T. Guo et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9 7

3. The results also indicate that the conductivity is not propor- proppant size should be (6.8–9.7)d50; if the overlap occurs, the larger-
tional to sand production rate. For example, for high viscosity sized proppant should be selected.
fluids, the sand production rate may be low at low flow rates,
but it will cause great damage to fracture conductivity, as
more formation sand particles adhere to the proppant surface 3.3. Combination of proppants of different sizes
(Fig. 6).
A sorting factor, or uniformity coefficient, can be calculated as
follows:
When 85.8 mmrd50 r110.6 mm, the comparison of sand produc-
tion rate and conductivity for 16/30-mesh, 20/40-mesh and 30/50- C ¼ d40 =d90 ð2Þ
mesh proppants is shown in Fig. 8. The D50/d50 ratios are (8.1–11.6),
where C is the sorting factor or uniformity coefficient; d40 is the
(6.8–9.7) and (4.9–7.0), respectively. When d50 ¼110.6 mm and
grain size at the 40% cumulative level from sieve analysis plot; d90
103.2 mm, the conductivity of 16/30-mesh proppants is obviously
is the grain size at 90% cumulative level from sieve analysis plot.
greater than the other two, while at 94.3 mm and 85.8 mm, the
If the formation sand is poorly sorted, e.g. C 45 (Xiang and
conductivity is similar for 16/30 and 20/40-mesh, but both are much
Wang, 2003), there exist a great deal of grains with median grain
greater than that of 30/50-mesh. By comparing the sand production
diameters far less than d50. In order to achieve better sand control
rate, we can see that for 16/30-mesh proppant and rock plates with
effect, a combination of proppants of different sizes may be used.
d50 ¼110.6 mm and 103.2 mm, and for 20/40-mesh with rock plates of
A certain proportion of smaller proppants is pumped first to the
d50 ¼94.3 mm and 85.8 mm, the sand production rate at 900 ml/min is
tip and periphery of fracture to achieve more effective sand
actually less than that at 600 ml/min. The reason is that the internal
control. The smaller-sized proppants may also play the role of
cake plays its role. Before it is formed, the formation sand invades
packing micro-cracks, reducing fluid loss, and better controlling
continuously into proppant pack, causing the permeability to
fracture morphology. The size of this part of proppants needs to
decrease dramatically. Once it is formed, the sand production rate
be determined reasonably according to size distribution of for-
becomes very small and the permeability is gradually stabilized. As
mation sand particles. However, a small part of conductivity will
can be seen from Fig. 8, for 16/30-mesh proppant, the sand produc-
be compromised, but as a return, we can achieve better sand
tion rate with d50 ¼94.3 mm and 85.8 mm is about two times that of
control. If higher conductivity is required and the majority of
20/40-mesh. The sand production rate of 30/50-mesh proppant is
formation sand has median grain diameter close to or greater
very small comparatively. The experience summarized by China
than d50, we can also consider pumping a part of larger-sized
National Offshore Oil Corporation in the long-term practice is that
proppants by tail-in method, which will not only increase fracture
the mass ratio of sand production rate to crude oil should be
conductivity, but also achieve an ideal sand control effect.
controlled in below 0.03%. On the other hand, the limited sand
In theory, such combination of proppants of three different
production in unconsolidated sand reservoir will enhance the pro-
sizes, namely, the smaller size in fracture tip, the optimal size in
ductivity (Dusseault, 1993; Papamichos and Malmanger, 2001). In
the middle and the larger size in the fracture port, is the optimal
view of possible higher flow velocity and crude oil viscosity in
proppant arrangement. However, the field operation of the above
practice and the demand for high conductivity of medium-to-high
pumping scheme is more complicated. In this paper, the combi-
permeability reservoir, we believe that the ratio enabling the forma-
nation effects of proppants of two different sizes were studied by
tion of the internal cake is best. In compliance with these rules, the
sectional laying. This method enables us to better understand the
optimal proppant-sizing result for the frac pack is shown in Table 2. If
characteristics of combining proppants of different sizes.
the size of formation sand is not within these ranges, the optimal
When 20/40:16/30¼3:1, i.e. (6.8–9.7)d50:(8.1–11.6)d50 ¼ 3:1,
the 16/30-mesh proppants were laid at fracture-port, and when
30/50:20/40¼1:3, i.e. (4.9–7.0)d50:(6.8–9.7)d50 ¼1:3, the 30/50-
mesh proppants were laid at fracture-tip. The results are shown in
Fig. 9. We can see that the conductivity at 20/40:16/30¼3:1
increases approximately by 13% and sand production rate also
increases by 20%. The conductivity at 30/50:20/40 ¼1:3 decreases
approximately by 10%, whereas sand production rate decreases
by 25%. Though the experiments we believe that compared with a
proppant of a fixed size, the combination of proppants of different
sizes can be applied according to different formation conditions to
achieve either better sand control or higher conductivity.

Fig. 8. Comparison of sand production rate and conductivity for proppants of

different sizes.

Table 2
New proppant-sizing criterion for frac pack completion.

Proppant size Formation median grain size

(mesh) (mm)

16/30 (600–1180 mm) 99–140

20/40 (425–850 mm) 82–99
30/50 (300–600 mm) 58–82
40/60 (250–425 mm) 41–58 Fig. 9. Comparison of sand production rate and conductivity of the combinations
of proppants of different sizes.
8 T. Guo et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9
3.4. Effects of proppant concentration on embedment
and sand control
In this paper, the experiments of the effects of proppant
concentration on conductivity and sand control were carried out
at proppant concentrations of 5–20 kg/m2. Fig. 10 shows the
influence of proppant concentration on the embedment by
comparing the changes of conductivity. From 20 kg/m2 to 5 kg/
m2, the residual conductivities are 67%, 59%, 48% and 43% of the
original values, respectively. The higher the proppant concentra-
tion, the lower the damage to fracture conductivity will be. At the
concentration of 10 kg/m2, the fracture conductivity decreases
from 450 mm2 cm to 217 mm2 cm due to the embedment. The
experiments of sand control are carried out on the 20/40 mesh
proppant at the optimal interval of 85.8–110.6 mm. The corre-
sponding conductivities and sand production rates at different
concentrations are shown in Fig. 11. We can see that sand
production rate increases slightly when the concentration
decreases from 20 kg/m2 to 15 kg/m2. However, it increases up
to 38% from 15 kg/m2 to 10 kg/m2. At the concentration of 5 kg/m2,
the proppant pack can hardly control sand production effectively, so a
large amount of formation sand is produced. Meanwhile, the sand
invasion further declines conductivity dramatically. However, the rate
of decline decreases with the increasing of proppant concentration.
From 20 kg/m2 to 5 kg/m2, the residual conductivities are about 52%,
38%, 25% and 18% of the original values, respectively. In particular, the
conductivity decreases by about 51% when concentration decreases
from 15 kg/m2 to 10 kg/m2.
At a very low proppant concentration (such as 5kg/m2), the
closure pressure can cause a severe proppant embedment. In this
case, formation sand tends to be squeezed into the pores of
Fig. 10. Comparison of conductivity at different proppant concentrations with or
without embedment of 20/40 mesh proppant.
Fig. 11. Comparison of sand production rate and conductivity at different
proppant concentrations (20/40 mesh).
proppant pack from both sides of the fracture and occupies a
certain thickness, resulting in a very thin thickness of the residual
proppant pack. For 20/40 mesh, the residual thickness may be
approximately equal to that of 2–4 proppant particles at the
concentration of 5–10 kg/m2. For such a thin thickness, it is
difficult to form the stable pore bridge and internal cake on either
side of the narrow proppant pack. Thus, the formation of internal
cake depends on certain thickness of the proppant pack layer.
While ensuring the optimal size of the proppant, i.e. D50 ¼(6.8–
9.7)d50, a high proppant concentration is needed to achieve
effective sand control in a frac pack, and Z15 kg/m2 is usually
recommended.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we present a special equipment called ‘‘Frac Pack
Sand Control Model’’, which is used in the experiments where the
proppant size is matched with the formation particle size. By
measuring fracture conductivity, sand production volume, and the
size of particles produced, we studied the effect of fluid viscosity, flow
rate, median grain diameter of formation sand, and proppant con-
centration on sand control and conductivity, respectively. We also
studied the proppant embedment in unconsolidated formations and
the effect of the combination of proppants of different sizes on sand
control and conductivity. The following conclusions are drawn:
1. In compliance with the principles of maximizing the conduc-
tivity and sand production prevention, the proppant-sizing
criterion in a frac pack should be D50 ¼(6.8–9.7)d50. When the
median size of proppant is about 6.8–9.7 times that of
formation sand, pore-throat bridging will occur; the internal
cake is formed, which effectively prevents formation sand
invasion.
2. Compared with a proppant of a fixed size, a combination of
proppants of different sizes is preferred for a better sand
control or higher conductivity, depending on the requirement
of a particular formation. In order to obtain a better sand
control effect, a certain proportion of smaller-sized proppant
should be pumped first to the front end and periphery of
fracture, and then the proppants with D50 ¼(6.8–9.7)d50 is
pumped. However, to obtain higher conductivity, we may
employ a ‘‘tail-in’’ method to pump a proppant slug of larger
size at later stage. This method not only increases the fracture
conductivity, but also achieves an ideal sand control effect.
3. In a poorly consolidated formation, proppant embedment is
very serious, and becomes even more serious with an increas-
ing proppant size. As a result of embedment alone, the
conductivity of 20/40 mesh proppant can be reduced by about
40% at the concentration of 15 kg/m2 and closure pressure of
10 MPa. In order to reduce the damage of embedment to
conductivity, proppant concentration needs to be increased.
4. While ensuring the optimal size of proppant, i.e. D50 ¼(6.8–
9.7)d50, a high proppant concentration is needed to obtain
effective sand control in a frac pack. If the concentration is low,
such as 5 kg/m2, it is difficult to form the stable pore bridge
and internal cake on either side of the narrow proppant pack,
resulting in ineffective sand control and low conductivity. The
proppant concentration not less than 15 kg/m2 is usually
recommended in frac pack.
References
Akin, S., Kovscek, A.R., 2002. Heavy-oil solution gas drive: a laboratory study.
J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 35 (1), 33–48.
 T. Guo et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 96–97 (2012) 1–9
Blauch, M., Weaver, J., Parker, M., Todd, B.,Glover, M., 1999. New insights into
proppant-pack damage due to infiltration of formation fines. In: SPE 56833,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3–6 October.
Bouhroum, A., Civan, F.,1994. A study of particulates migration in gravel pack.
In: SPE 27346, SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 7–10 February.
Burton, R.C., Rester, S., Dvais, E.R.,1996. Comparison of numerical and analytical inflow
performance modelling of gravelpacked and frac-packed wells. In: SPE 31102, SPE
Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14–15 February.
China National Petroleum Corporation, 1997. Recommended Methods for Short-
Term Sand Pack Conductivity Evaluation in Propped Fractures. Petroleum
Industrial Standard of P.R. China. SY/T6302-1997.
Dusseault, M., 1993. Cold production and enhanced oil recovery. J. Canad. Petrol.
Technol. 32 (9), 16–18.
Hainey, B. W., Troncoso, J. C., 1992. Frac-pack: an innovative stimulation and sand
control technique. In: SPE 23777, SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–27 February.
Jennings, Jr., A. R., 1996. Laboratory studies of fines movement in gravel packs.
In: SPE 36420, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 6–9 October.
Lacy, L.L., Rickards, A.R., Ali., S.A.,1997. Embedment and fracture conductivity in
soft formation associated with HEC, borate and water-based fracture designs.
In: SPE 38590, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 5–8 October.
Lacy, L.L., Rickards, A.R., Bilden, D.M.,1996. Fracture width and embedment testing
in soft reservoir sandstone. In: SPE 36421, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, 6–9 October.
Li, B.Y., 1994. Study of Mechanism of oil reservoir sand production. J. South-
western Petrol. Inst. 16 (1), 13–27.
Lu, C., Guo, J.C., Wang, W.Y., Deng, Y., Liu, D.F., 2008. Experimental research on proppant
embedment and its damage to fractures conductivity. Nat. Gas Ind. 28 (2), 99–101.
Norris, M.R., Plahn, S., Lowton, D., Tsangueu, B., 2007. Maximising ESP uptime in
forties field-introducing successful frac packs to the North Sea. SPE 109015,
Offshore Europe 2007, Aberdeen, Scotland, September, vols. 4–7.
Papamichos, E., Malmanger, E.M., 2001. A sand erosion model for volumetric sand
predictions in a north sea reservoir. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng., 44–50.
Reza, M.S., Juan, L.J., Pathmanathan, I., 2008. A case study in the successful design
and implementation of frac-pack treatments in a challenging workover
environment in Malaysia. In: SPE 116913, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 20–22 October.
Rodriguez, E., Bryant, S.L., 2007. Straining of fine particles in gaps in porous media.
In: SPE 110425, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim,
California, 11–14 November.
9
Rovina, P. S., Pedroso, C. A., Coutinho, A. B., Neumann, L. F., 2000. Triple frac-
packing in a ultra-deepwater subsea well in Roncador field, Campos basin-
maximizing the production rate. In: SPE 63110, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October.
Saucier, R.J., 1974. Considerations in gravel pack design. J. Petrol. Technol. 4,
205–212.
Tian, H., Deng, J.G., Meng, Y.S., Zeng, X.L., Sun, F.J., 2005. Laboratory simulation on
sand production of heavy oil reservoir in Bohai area. Acta Petrol. Sin. 26 (4),
85–87.
Tiffin, D.L., King, G.E., Larese, R.E., Britt, L.K.,1998. New criteria for gravel and
screen selection for sand control. In: SPE 39437, SPE Formation Damage
Control Conference, Lafayette, LA, 18–19 February.
Turnage, K.A., Palisch, T.T., Gleason, A.M., Escobar, D.G., Jordan, J.J., 2006. Over-
coming formation damage and increasing production using stackable frac
packs and high-conductivity proppants: A Case Study in the Wilmington Field,
Long Beach, California. In: SPE 98304, SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, 15–17 February.
Wang, H.X., Zhang, S.C., 1998. Numerical Calculation in Hydraulic Fracturing
Design [M]. Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, pp. 48–78.
Wang, L., Zhang, S.C., Zhang, W.Z., 2005. Experimental research on long term
conductivity of the proppant combination with different grain sizes in
complex fracturing. Nat. Gas Ind. 25 (9), 64–66.
Wang, L.H., Deng, J.G, Zhou, J.L., Liu, S.J., Li, P., Zhao, W.L., Liao, J.H., 2011. A physical
simulation experiment on sanding in weakly consolidated sandstone gas
reservoirs. Acta Petrol. Sin. 32 (6), 1007–1011.
Wang, Z.G., Li, A.F., 2000. Experimental study on pore-blocking mechanism in
gravel packs of sand control well. J. China Univ. Petrol. 24 (5), 49–51.
Weaver, J., Blauch, M., Parker, M., Todd, B., 1999. Investigation of proppant-pack
formation interface and relationship to particulate invasion. In: SPE 54771,
European Formation Damage Conference, Hague, Netherlands, 31 May–1 June.
Wen, Q.Z., Zhang, S.C., Wang, L., Liu, Y.S., Li, X.P., 2007. The effect of proppant
embedment upon the long-term conductivity of fractures. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 55
(3), 221–227.
Xiang, W.T., Wang, P.S., 2003. Application of bridging theory on saucier gravel to
examine the sand control effect. In: SPE 80450, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 15–17 April.
Xie, G.X., Li, X.C., Du, B.T., 2002. The research and application of FracPac technique
in Shengli oil field. Petrol. Explor. Dev. 29 (3), 99–101.
Zhang, Y.C., 2011. Research on Water Plugging and Sand Control Integration
Technique for Water Flooding Reservoirs with high Water Cut. Master Thesis,
China University of Petroleum, Qingdao, China.