ARMA 18–0165

From Wellbore Instability, Grain Mixing to Injectivity

Reduction: A New Damage Mechanism for Water Injectors
Chan, A.W.
Shell Exploration and Production Company, New Orleans, LA, USA

Yadav, S., and Mikulencak, D.R.

Shell Exploration and Production Company, New Orleans, LA, USA

Copyright 2018 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 52nd US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Seattle, Washington, USA, 17–20
June 2018. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Wellbore instability has been registered and expected as one of the risks for successful delivery of horizontal injectors
with open-hole stand-alone screens in depleted reservoirs. Special drill-in fluids and breaker fluids were designed to ensure stability
of these wells prior to screen installations. Borehole collapse was expected in most cases after the wellbore pressure dropped to
hydrostatic at the end of the drilling process. Unlike open-hole producers, the loose particles (or grains) trapped in the annulus of the
open-hole injectors will likely undergo constant mixing and resorting during each injection and shut-in cycles. In this study, we
examined the impacts of grain mixing on the reduction of porosity and permeability in the annulus using a simple binary mixing
model. Our preliminary results suggest that if the fines are 10 to 20 times smaller than the larger particles, the presence of a few
percent in volume fraction of fine particles can reduce permeability by an order of magnitude.

fines can be mixed and repacked in the annulus to create

1. INTRODUCTION
Horizontal wells with open-hole stand-alone screens have
been the preferred well and completion designs for water
injectors across the Shell Deepwater portfolio in recent
years. Wellbore instability has been registered as a
significant risk for drilling these horizontal injectors
especially in depleted reservoirs. One of the key
challenges during the drilling phase for some of these
wells is to manage the potential risks between wellbore
instability and severe mud loss due to fracture gradient
reduction. Numerous studies and efforts have been made
to ensure successful delivery of these wells. While
majority of these wells have been drilled and completed
successfully, some of the injectors have experienced
lower than expected injectivities upon start up. Their
damage mechanisms are often attributed to poor water
quality, water hammer effects, emulsion, intra-well
crossflows, shear failures or fluidization in the formation.
However, wellbore instability will likely occur once the
stand-alone screen is installed and during the subsequent
injection shut-in cycle as downhole pressure is reduced to
hydrostatic. The collapsed formation along with other
a permeability barrier that could lead to the observed
injectivity reduction. In this study, we investigated the
plausibility of this new impairment mechanism by
evaluating the impact of particle mixing on porosity and
permeability reduction in the annulus region of the
injector.
2. HYPOTHESIS OF A NEW DAMAGE
MECHANISM FOR WATER INJECTORS
Most of our horizontal injectors in depleted reservoirs
were drilled over-balanced with good filter cakes that
ensure stability before and during installation of screens.
However, when downhole pressure is reduced to
hydrostatic, wellbore instability will likely occur. Once
the wellbore collapsed, formation materials will have
fallen onto the screen, filling up the annulus and exposing
new formation. The cyclic nature of injection and shut-in
may have introduced a unique mechanism that ultimately
impaired the permeability of the annulus. While wellbore
instability during shut-in that leads to sand production is
 Fig. 1: A new mechanism for injectivity reduction due to wellbore instability and grain rearrangement through
multiple shut-in/injection cycles. Wellbore instability will likely occur during well shut-in when the downhole
pressure drops to hydrostatic, resulting in formation collapse onto the screen and filling up the annulus region. Grain
rearrangement occurs during subsequent injection cycles while new particles can be introduced into the system via
abrasion, fines from injected water, and continued wellbore collapse. Porosity and permeability reduction from
repacking of particles in the annulus region can lead to injectivity decline observed in open-hole injectors.

a well-known phenomenon (e.g., van den Hoek et al.,
2000; Santarelli et al., 2000), we propose that the
subsequent injection cycles may have worsened the
permeability (or increased skin) through particle mixing
and re-packing of the mobile materials inside the annulus.
Figure 1 illustrates how wellbore instability along with
particle mixing in the annulus can lead to permeability
reduction:
• When the well is shut in (or when downhole pressure
reduces to hydrostatic), formation failure will likely
occur and collapse onto the screen in the annulus.
• When injection restarts, pressure and velocity of the
injected water could mobilize the loose materials
inside the annulus, resulting in grain mixing.
• Subsequent injection and shut-in cycles continue to
mix movable particles. Additional materials may also
be introduced to the annulus via abrasion, grain
breakage, fines introduced from injected waters, or
continued borehole collapse.
• Loose particles under cyclic loading will continue to
rearrange and resort, causing a decline in porosity and
permeability in the annulus.
• Once the annulus is completely filled and packed, the
effect from this damage mechanism on injectivity
should stabilize.
Given the same stress condition, a reduction in
permeability should occur at a faster rate for an
unconsolidated formation relative to a friable formation
that has some cohesive strength. For a stronger formation,
the impact of stability may not be as severe as
unconsolidated sands partly due to the likely size of the
collapsed materials. Only if after more frequent shut-
in/injection cycles break the larger collapsed materials
down into smaller particle sizes will the same level of
impairment occur. Meanwhile, the amount of
permeability reduction caused by a packed (or fluidized)
annulus will depend on particle size distribution of the
packed materials. Mixing and packing should reach a
limit when no new materials are added to the annulus or
the available accommodation space is filled to capacity.
A longer shut-in period may result in more particle
settlement and may influence the amount of energy
required to restart the mixing process during the next
injection start-up. But once the mixing is restarted, the
injection rate should be stabilized. Diagenesis may further
reduce permeability, resulting in more severe injectivity
decline for a longer shut-in period.
It is also important to note that if the annular region is
packed with loose materials that result in lower
permeability than the reservoir, then injectivity decline
from solids in water becomes more severe, as the limiting
pore throat size will be that of the annular packed region
instead of the reservoir. In addition, Feia et al. (2015)
concluded from their experimental works that the
commonly used empirical rule of clogging only occurring
for a particle size/pore size ratio exceeding 1:7 cannot be
validated. They suggest that plugging can be reached for
smaller values of this ratio for a larger injected volume.
2.1. Wellbore Stability for Water Injectors
To evaluate the severity of wellbore instability for one of
our recently drilled horizontal injectors, the full stability
solution was used as described in Jaeger et al. (2007) or
Fjaer et al. (2008). We calibrated our rock properties
based on drilling results both from near-by offset wells
and the injectors. When the wellbore wall is assumed to
be impermeable, the initial failure zone around the
wellbore wall for a mud weight of 11.0 to 11.5 ppg is
negligible (no observable wellbore instability issue was
reported during drilling). However, severe wellbore
instability is expected once the wellbore wall becomes
permeable after breakers are spotted and wellbore
pressure drops to hydrostatic during shut-in.
2.2. Permeability Reduction and Equivalent Skins
Expressing the well skin, S, as an annular region of
reduced permeability as introduced by Van Everdinger
(1953), a link can be made between a packed annulus of
given permeability and expected equivalent skin from the
following equation:
𝐾𝑟𝑒𝑠 −𝐾𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑅 Fig. 2: The optimal packing porosity of a binary particle
𝑆= 𝐾𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠
log ( 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠
𝑅𝑤
) (1)
where Rw is the outer diameter (OD) of the screen, Rannulus
is the hole size, Kannulus is the permeability of the annulus
(varied from 1×10-2 to 1×10-3 mD), and Kres is the
permeability of the reservoir. For a horizontal well, Kres
can be expressed in terms of vertical and horizontal
permeabilities as:
𝐾
𝐾𝑟𝑒𝑠 = √𝐾𝑉 𝐾ℎ = √𝐾𝑉 𝐾ℎ 2 (2)
ℎ
Assuming a KV/Kh of 0.9 and the Kh for the target
reservoirs to be 110 mD, Kres is estimated to be 104 mD
based on Eqn. (2). If the observed equivalent skins for the
horizontal well of 10 to 90 are due to creation of a packed
annulus, the annulus permeability needs to be reduced by
2 to 3 orders of magnitude from the original reservoir
permeability based on the above equations.
2.3. Porosity and Permeability Reduction for
Particle Mixture
The influences of particle mixing on porosity and
permeability have significant engineering implications
such that numerous experimental and numerical works
have been conducted for applications in sedimentology,
chemical engineering, material sciences, filtration, water
resources engineering, and food sciences (e.g., Furnas,
1929; Westman & Hugill, 1930; Krumbein & Monk,
1942; McGeary, 1961; Beard & Weyl, 1973; Suzuki et al.,
1981; Han et al., 1986; Marion, 1990; Marion et al., 1992;
Koltermann & Gorelick 1995). Despite the broad
spectrum of studies, some of the key observations have
very consistent conclusions:
• Porosity is independent from grain size but highly
dependent on sorting. Porosity will also be affected
by grain shape and angularity (e.g., Furnas, 1929;
Beard & Weyl, 1973).
• A minimum packing porosity of binary mixtures can
be lower than the minimum packing porosity of those
of mixture with a homogeneous particle size (e.g.,
Marion et al., 1992; Koltermann & Gorelick, 1995).
Porosity of a binary mixture depends on the volume
fraction and the ratio of the particle populations
(Figure 2). This theoretical minimum will occur when
the finer particles completely pack the voids from the
larger grains (Clark, 1979).
mixture will typically be smaller than that of a mixture with a
homogeneous particle size.
 Fig. 3: Porosity and permeability as a function of volume fraction of fine particles for mixed binary spherical
mixtures. The continuous function is based on experimental works with glass beads by Mota et al. (2001). Other
distribution functions exist with different materials (see text for detailed discussions). Permeability estimates are
based on the Kozeny-Carman relationship with fitting parameters based on the same glass bead experiments.
• Porosity of the binary mixture is typically less than
the linear combination of the porosity of the larger
and smaller particles (e.g., Koltermann & Gorelick
1995).
• Mean grain diameter of the mixture alone will not
predict the porosity of the binary mixture.
• Permeability of unconsolidated sand can be related to
size and sorting (e.g., Krumbein & Monk, 1942;
Beard & Weyl, 1973).
• Kozeny-Carmen relationship can be used to estimate
the permeability of the uniform or binary mixture
(e.g., Koltermann & Gorelick 1995; Mota et al., 2001;
Dias et al., 2006).
• Permeability of unconsolidated sand decreases as
grain size becomes finer and as sorting becomes
poorer (e.g., Beard & Weyl, 1973).
Porosity for an idealized binary mixture, , can be
expressed as:
𝜙 = 𝜙𝐷 (𝑋𝐷 )𝜙𝑑 (𝑋𝑑 )
where XD and Xd are the volume fraction of the larger and
smaller particles and D and d are the corresponding
porosities of the larger and smaller particles. In a real
mixture, it has been noted that the presence of smaller
particles can influence the larger particle mixture by a
displacement effect,  = d/D, and can erroneously predict
the packing porosity of binary mixtures (Yu et al., 1996).
Different authors have introduced correction factors to
address the discrepancy. For example, Koltermann &
Gorelick (1995) propose a fractional packing model to
describe this phenomenon and calibrate their models to fit
observations from sediment mixtures based on
experimental works presented by Marion et al. (1992). In
this study, we utilize a continuous porosity distribution
function developed by Mota et al. (2001) to evaluate the
first-order effect of mixing particles with two different
grain sizes on porosity and permeability such that:
𝜙𝐷 (𝑋𝐷 ) = 1 − (1 − 𝜙𝐷0 )𝑋𝐷 ∙ 𝐹(𝛿, 𝑋𝐷 ) (4)
𝜙𝑑 (𝑋𝑑 ) = 𝜙𝑑0 + (1 − 𝜙𝑑0 )𝑋𝐷 ∙ 𝑓(𝛿, 𝑋𝐷 ) (5)
Combining Eqn. (4) and (5) with calibration to glass bead
experiments, Mota et al. (2001) propose a continuous
porosity function for binary mixtures such that:
f(δ)
ϕ={1-(1-ϕ0D )XD [1.35-XD∙F(δ)] }∙ [ϕ0D +(1-ϕ0D )XD ] (6)
where
1.55
𝐹(𝛿) = − [0.27 − 1+1 ]
⁄exp(𝛿+0.06) (7)
0.27
{ 𝑓(𝛿) = 5 − 4 ∙ √𝛿
(3) Figure 3 illustrates the porosity estimate for a binary
mixture based on these equations with an assumption that
both initial porosities for the large and small particles are
40%. It also shows the impact of volume fraction of fine
particles on the overall permeability of the mixture.
Numerous experimental and numerical studies have been
performed to study permeability for packed mixture from
homogeneous packing of spherical particles to wet
sand/shale mixtures (e.g., Beard & Weyl, 1973; Zaman &
Jalali, 2010). The well-known Kozeny-Carman
relationship is used in estimating permeability, k, of the
binary mixture. The relationship idealized the porous
medium as twisted circular pipes of known dimensions
and applied Darcy’s law for laminar flow through these
pipes to estimate permeability. Despite the assumptions,
 Fig. 4: The impacts of initial packing porosity of the homogeneous particles on the porosity and permeability of the
binary mixture.

Fig. 5: The impact of grain mixture on porosity and permeability based on reservoir sands (160 m) with
various particle sizes from the drilling mud used.

numerical simulations and experimental data suggested permeability as a function of a geometric factor, B,
that the relationship performs well in most porosity ranges tortuosity, T, surface area, S, and porosity:
for porous granular materials (e.g., Dias et al., 2006; 𝐵𝜙3
Zaman & Jalali, 2010; Koltermann & Gorelick, 1995). 𝑘 = 𝑇2𝑆2 (8)
Recall the Kozeny-Carman relationship predicts
Mota et al. (2001) expand Eqn. (8) to describe the binary
spherical mixture with their continuous porosity
distribution function such that:
2 reduce permeability at least by 1-2 orders of magnitude.
𝜙3 [𝑑𝑝 (𝑋𝐷 )]
𝑘 = 36𝐾 2 [𝑇(𝜙)]2
0 (1−𝜙)
1 1
with 𝑇(𝜙) = 𝜙0.4 = [𝜙 (𝑋 )𝜙 0.4 and 𝑑𝑝 (𝑋𝐷 ) =
𝐷 𝐷 𝑑 (𝑋𝐷 )]
𝐷 𝐷
given 𝑛 = and K0 =2.
𝑛−(𝑛−1)𝑋𝐷 𝑑
Figure 4 illustrates that the order of magnitude reduction
in porosity and permeability as a function of volume
fraction is not too sensitive to the initial packing porosity
of the coarse and fine particles, ϕD0 and ϕd0.
The modeling work performed in this study is based on
binary spherical particles. The equations used to model
porosity of the binary mixtures are calibrated to
incompressible glass bead experiments. A more realistic
particle size distribution may further impact porosity loss
during the repacking process. In addition to grain size and
sorting, porosity and permeability of mixtures can also be
impacted by grain shape (sphericity) and grain roundness
(angularity). However, Beard and Weyl (1973) suggest
that sphericity and angularity should only be of second-
order importance in comparison. Other methodologies
have been published to estimate the packing porosity of
natural materials.
2.4. Grain Size Distribution
In addition to formation particles that can contribute to
grain mixing in the annulus, special drill-in fluids used
while drilling can potentially contribute to mixing and
should be considered. The typical particle size
distributions of the drill-in fluids have average grain sizes
of 6 to 20 m, with the finer particles at about 1 m.
Assuming the mean grain size of the waterflooded
reservoirs is about 160 m with a small amount of clay
size particles (about 2-3%) of about 5%. Figure 5
summarizes the estimated porosity and permeability of a
binary mixture based on Eqn. (7) and (9) with the mean
grain size of the reservoir sands (160 m) as the diameter
of the larger grains. The left panels represent porosity of
the binary mixtures as a function of volume fraction of the
finer particles (with the lower panels as a zoomed-in
image of the first 20% volume fraction). The different
shades of green represent different D/d ratios. The six
finer particle sizes picked in these comparisons are based
on the typical 10, 50 and 90 percentile of representative
particle sizes used in drilling muds. The right panels in
Figure 5 represent the corresponding permeability
estimates.
A more general solution is made to illustrate the order of
magnitude reduction in porosity and permeability as a
function of grain size ratio and the volume fraction of fine
particle (Figure 6). The color contours on the right panels
in Figure 6 suggested that if the D/d ratio is high, a 5%
volume fraction of the finer particles in the mixture can
(9) Considering the presences of clay-sized particles and
shale, along with the small amount of finer particles from
the drill-in fluids and the fines within the injected water
(<5 m), packing the annulus with this mixture of
different particle sizes with a reduced permeability that
causes injectivity decline appears to be feasible and
should be considered as one of the plausible impairment
mechanisms.
3. DISCUSSIONS
To validate and examine the universality of the proposed
mechanism, a systematic comparison among our global
waterflood portfolio was commenced. These
investigations involve multiple components: geological
characterization, geomechanical analysis, reviews on
Engineering practices, injector performances and
laboratory experiments. A screening tool and integrated
workflow were developed based on the hypothesis
outlined in this paper to evaluate the potential impact of
stability, severity of skin development due to completion
design, well operations and particle size distributions.
3.1. Formation Characterization
One of the key components of our hypothesis is related to
grain mixing and how formation particles may be
repacked once they collapse into the annulus. Particle size
distribution analyses have been widely performed at all
reservoirs for completion design and screen selection. For
reservoir engineering purposes, the focus of the formation
has been on pore throat analysis. A systematic
comparison for all waterflood reservoirs can potentially
yield insights on the severity of porosity and permeability
reduction if mixing does occur in the annulus.
Experimental work using clastic sediments has also been
conducted to investigate porosity and permeability of
natural materials (e.g., Beard & Weyl, 1973; Gaither,
1953; Morrow et al., 1969; Krumbein & Monk, 1942).
Beard and Weyl (1973) artificially mixed and wet-packed
unconsolidated sands. For shaley sands, Revil and Cathles
(1999) built on Koltermann and Gorelick’s (1995) work
to model permeability by incorporating electrical
parameters similar to those found in Archie’s equation to
the Kozeny-Carman relationship. They modeled
permeability for sand shale mixtures as a function of shale
fraction and the permeability of the two end-members.
The additional electrical parameters separated pore throat
from total porosity, as the throats control the transport
properties. It is unclear if any petrophysical or rock
physics based correlations can be established to predict
the potential or impact of grain mixing on injectivity
 Fig. 6: Impact of grain size ratio on porosity and normalized permeability as a function of volume fraction. Bottom
panels are zoomed-in figures (0-20% volume fraction of fine particles) of the top panel. Note that if the D/d ratio is
high, a 5% volume fraction of fine particles can result in potentially 1- 2 orders of magnitude in permeability
reduction due to binary mixing.

reduction. barrier island sand samples to investigate the
impact of grain size and sorting on porosity and
permeability of
3.2. Wellbore Stability Reviews on Injectors
While grain size distribution and sorting can be used as a
potential indicator of the severity of permeability
reduction due to grain rearrangements, stability of the
injectors under hydrostatic condition is another key
parameter that needs to be thoroughly evaluated across
different assets. Mechanical strength of the formation
(such as cohesive strength) along with in-situ stresses and
pore pressure throughout the life of the injector can be the
differentiator on severity of permeability reduction. For
instance, two formations from two different basins may
have the same grain size distribution and classification;
however, under the same in-situ stress conditions, the
stronger formation may not collapse and hence will not
observe the same permeability reduction due to grain
rearrangement in the annulus as the weaker formation.
3.3. Chemistry, Fluids, and Mineralogy of
Formation Materials
If our proposed damage mechanism can occur during the
lifetime of an injector, chemical interaction between the
formation grains and fluids used during drilling,
completion, and injection can magnify this annular
damage. Permeability reduction can be amplified in the
annulus due to chemical interactions such as emulsion
formation or clay swelling.
3.4. Laboratory Experiments
A series of experiments were conducted to demonstrate
and evaluate how the proposed mechanism will occur
under controlled laboratory environments and is
presented in a companion paper (Golovin et al., 2018).
4. CONCLUSIONS
We presented a plausible damage mechanism that links
wellbore stability and grain mixing to porosity and
permeability reduction observed at some of our horizontal
injectors. Downhole pressures required to prevent the
wellbore from collapsing during drilling are typically
higher than hydrostatic pressure during well shut-in. The
collapsed formation then undergoes cyclic loading and
mixing inside the annulus from the continuous
injection/shut-in sequences during operation. A simple
binary mixing model suggested that if the difference in
sizes between the larger and smaller particles exceeds an
order of magnitude, only a few percent in volume fraction
of finer particles can result in an order of magnitude
reduction in permeability for the mixture. With the
geometry of the injector annulus, this amount of
permeability reduction can lead to the increase in
observed equivalent skins. Our proposed mechanism can
potentially amplify other impairment mechanisms that
lead to injectivity reduction.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Shell management for
permission to publish this work. We would also like to
acknowledge our colleagues from various assets and
project teams for their insights, criticisms and supports
during this study.
REFERENCES
Beard, D.C., and P.K. Weyl, 1973. Influence of texture on
porosity and permeability of unconsolidated sand. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 57(2), 349-369.
Clarke, R.H., 1979. Reservoir properties of conglomerates and
conglomeratic sandstones. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, 63, 799-809.
Dias, R., J.A. Teixeira, M. Mota, and A. Yelshin, 2006.
Tortuosity variation in a low density binary particulate bed.
Separation and Purification Technology, 51, 180-184.
van Everdinger, A.F., 1953. The skin effect and its influence on
the productive capacity of a well. Trans. AIME, 198, 171.
Feia, S., J.C. Dupla, S. Ghabezloo, J. Sulem, J. Canou, A.
Onaisi, H. Lescanne, and E. Aubry, 2015. Experimental
investigation of particle suspension injection and permeability
impairment in porous media. Geomechanics for Energy and the
Environment, 3, 24-39.
Fjaer, E., R. Holt, P. Horsrud, A.M. Raaen, and R. Risnes, 2008.
Petroleum related rock mechanics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier
Publication, pp. 491.
Furnas, C.C., 1929. Flow of gases through beds of broken
solids. Bull. U.S. Bur. Mines, 307, 144.
Gaither, A., 1953. A study of porosity and grain relationships
in experimental sands. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 23(3),
180-191.
Golovin, E., H. Zhang, A. Chudnovsky, J.W. Dudley, A.W.
Chan, and D. Mikulencak, 2018. Observations of injectivity
reduction from a near-wellbore mixing under cyclic injection
into unconsolidated sand. ARMA 18-164.
Han, D., A. Nur, and D. Morgan, 1986. Effects of porosity and
clay content on wave velocities in sandstones. Geophysics,
51(11), 2093-2107.
van den Hoek, P.J., A.P. Kooijman, F. de Bree, C.J. Kenter, Z.
Zheng, and M. Khodaverdian, 2000. Horizontal wellbore
stability and sand production in weakly consolidated
sandstones. SPE Drilling & Completion, 15(4), 274-283.
Jaeger, J.C., N.G.W. Cook, and R.W. Zimmerman, 2007.
Fundamentals of rock mechanics (4th ed.). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishing, pp. 475.
Koltermann, C.E., and S.M. Gorelick, 1995. Fractional packing
model for hydraulic conductivity derived from sediment
mixtures. Water Resources Research, 31, 3283-3297.
Krumbein, W.C., and G.D. Monk, 1942. Permeability as a
function of the size parameters of unconsolidated sand. Tech.
Publ. Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Eng., 1492, 11.
Marion, D., 1990. Acoustical, mechanical and transport
properties of sediments and angular materials. PhD dissertation,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, pp. 136.
Marion, D., A. Nur., H. Yin, and D. Han, 1992. Compressional
velocity and porosity in sand-clay mixtures. Geophysics, 57(4),
554-563.
McGeary, R.K., 1961. Mechanical packing of spherical
particles. Journal of American Ceramic Society, 44, 513-522.
Morrow, N.R., J.D. Huppler, and A.B. Simmons, 1969.
Porosity and permeability of unconsolidated upper Miocene
sands from grain size analysis. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, 39(1), 312-321.
Mota, M., J.A. Teixeira, W.R. Bowen, and A. Yelshin, 2001.
Binary spherical particle mixed beds: porosity and permeability
relationship measurement. Trans. Filtration Society, 1(4), 101-
106.
Revil, A. and L.M. Cathles III, 1999. Permeability of shaly
sands. Water Resources Research, 35, 651-662.
Santarelli, F.J., E. Skomedal, P. Markestad, H.I. Berge, and H.
Nasvig, 2000. Sand production on water injectors: How bad can
it get? SPE Drilling & Completion, 15(2), 132-139.
Suzuki, M., Makino, K., Yamada, M., & Iinoya, K. (1981). A
study on the coordination number in a system of randomly
packing, uniform-sized spherical particles. International
Chemical Engineering, 21(3), 482-488.
Westman, A.E.R., and H.R. Hugill, 1930. The packing of
particles. Journal of American Ceramic Society, 13, 767-779.
Yu, A.B., R.P. Zou, and N. Standish, 1996. Modifying the
linear packing model for predicting the porosity of non-
spherical particle mixtures. Industrial Engineering Chemistry
Research, 35(10), 3730-3741.
Zaman, E., and P. Jalali, 2010. On hydraulic permeability of
random packs of monodisperse spheres: Direct flow
simulations versus correlations. Physica A, 389, 205-214.