Proppant 

Transport
& 
Screenout Behavior
R.D. Barree
 In this session …
• Look at traditional proppant transport and its 
assumptions
• Look at common remedies for early screenout
• What factors actually affect proppant 
transport?

© 2009
 Proppant Transport & Settling
• Simple models assume 1‐D flow and model single 
particle settling (Stokes’ Law)
• Fluid and particle velocity profiles are much more 
complex in 3‐D flow.
– Slurry density gradients cause gravity under‐running, fluid 
shear, and non‐homogeneous concentration profiles.
– Fluid properties and leakoff cause transverse particle 
migration
– Lateral particle motion changes transport and leads to 
screenout

© 2009
 Traditional Prop Transport
Suspended proppant slurry Clean pad fluid to
(uniform concentration) create w=3-6xd

Frac height
(assumed to be
constant)

Fracture half-length
Settled sand bank
© 2009
 Common Assumptions: 
Fluid Loss/Transport/Screenout
• Proppant is homogeneously distributed
– Vertically, laterally, transversely
• Sand and fluid travel together
• Pad is required to open width for sand
• Pad is depleted by leakoff
• Screenouts caused by prop bridging
• Prop concentration increased by leakoff
False assumptions lead to 
failed remedies © 2009
Common Remedies for Early Screenout
(If caused by pad depletion and bridging)

• Pump more pad volume
• Increase pump rate
• Use higher viscosity fluids
• Use smaller proppants
• Use fluid‐loss additives

Sometimes they work, and sometimes NOT!

© 2009
 Factors Affecting Proppant Transport

• Particle velocity profile in fracture
• Concentration distribution across fracture width
• Slurry viscosity increase with solids addition
• Single particle “Stokes” settling velocity
• “Hindered” particle settling
• Convection from slurry bulk density gradients
• Proppant holdup
• Proppant bridging
© 2009
Velocity Distribution of Particles Between 
Parallel Plates
1.2

1 For a uniform particle

Cum. Particle Count

distribution, the velocity

0.8 profile is given by the
cumulative frequency
0.6
plot.
0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Particle Velocity, cm/sec © 2009
 Particle Velocity Profiles Normalized to 
Fluid Velocity
1.2

1
Cum. Particle Count

Cv=0%
0.8
Cv=10%
Cv=25%
0.6
Cv=35%
0.4 Cv=55%

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Relative Particle Velocity © 2009
 Proppant not
Homogeneously Distributed
6 Particles at low
concentration
5
Particles at high
Velocity, cm/sec

4 concentration

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized Slot Width
© 2009
 Single Particle 
Settling Velocity Predictions
• Terminal settling velocity for a single particle in an 
infinite fluid body:
– Stokes Law for laminar flow
– Allen’s Equation for transition flow
– Newton’s Equation for turbulent flow
• Terminal velocity can be modified for multiple 
particle interactions.
• Wall effects can be considered for narrow channels.  

© 2009
 Single Particle 
Terminal Settling Velocities
Stokes ‐ laminar flow regime
g ( ρ s − ρ l )d 2
vt =
18μ
Allen ‐ transition flow regime
0.20d 1.18
(g (ρ s − ρ l ) ρ l ) 0.72

vt =
(μ ρ )
l
0.45

Newton ‐ turbulent flow regime
⎛ g (ρ s − ρ l ) ⎞
0.5

vt = 1.74d 0.5
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ρl ⎠
© 2009
 Single Particle Settling Rates in a 1.0 cp 
Newtonian Fluid
100
Settling Velocity, cm/sec

10

Stokes
0.1 Allen
100 50 40 30 20 12
Mesh Size Newton
Actual
0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Particle Diameter, inches © 2009
 Single Particle Settling Rates in a 
55.0 cp Newtonian Fluid
100
Settling Velocity, cm/sec

10

Stokes
0.1 Allen
100 50 40 30 20 12 Newton
Mesh Size
0.01 Actual

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Particle Diameter, inches © 2009
 Slurry Settling Experiments 
in a Vertical Slot Model
• Parallel plate model 5 feet x 6 inches x 
0.25 inches
• 30% and 40% PEG solutions
• 30/50 mesh and 95 mesh silica sand 
slurries
• Volumetric concentrations from 0‐55% 
solids
• Slurry settling velocity compared to 
Stokes velocity © 2009
Slurry Settling Rates Controlled by 
Bulk Density Gradients
100
Settling Velocity, cm/sec

10

1 Vmeas(95)
Vmeas(40)
Stokes(40)
0.1
Stokes(100)
Vcalc
0.01

0.001
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Solids Concentration, Cv
© 2009
 Proppant Movement 
by Bulk Flow or “Convection”
• Convection[Phys]:”Transmission of energy or 
mass by a medium involving movement of the 
medium itself.”
– McGraw‐Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical 
Terms, Fourth Edition

w ∂ (Δρ f gh + Pf g c )
2
vs =
12μ a ∂z
For fluid flow between parallel plates.
© 2009
 Thin‐Fluid Transport is Different 
From Suspension Transport
Proppant drops out of fluid quickly. All solid transport
is in a thin “traction carpet”.

Bank height builds to an equilibrium based on fluid

velocity. A clear fluid layer is maintained above the
settled bank. The bank advances by “dune building”.
© 2009
Video of Slick‐Water 
Sand‐Transport

© 2009
 Proppant Bridging and Screenouts
• Proppant particles bridge in a circular orifice 
3‐6x the particle diameter
• Particles bridge in a slot when the gap equals 
the largest particle diameter

Stable Bridge Unstable-Flow

Dismantles Bridge
© 2009
 Variable‐Width Slot Apparatus
Model Width=18”

Variable Fracture Channel

Width = 0.3”
Slot Width

ΔP Slurry
Slurry Inlet
Outlet
4-12 ppa

Viewing direction in video

© 2009
 Slot Bridging Video
• Flow is left‐to‐right
• Borate x‐linked Guar fluid
• 8 ppa 20/40 Ottawa sand slurry
• Black 16/30 ceramic markers
• Slot width equals maximum (16 mesh) particle 
diameter

© 2009
Proppant Bridging Video

© 2009

Copyright B&A
 Summary of Bridging Studies
• Bridge stability in holes and slots is different
• Slurries up to 16 ppa were pumped through a 
slot 1+ particle diameter wide
• Proppant bridges are permeable and transmit 
fluid pressure
• Slight opening of fracture width releases 
bridge
• Bridging alone is a temporary and ineffective 
screenout mechanism
© 2009
 Annular Flow Apparatus

Bottom - Top –
Fluid In Fluid Out

Fluid
Frac fluid pressure Outer wall loss
Leakoff path Annular gap
Internal pressure Inner wall

© 2009
 Proppant Transport in 
the Presence of Fluid Leakoff
• Concentration profile 
across slot
• Transverse velocity from 
fluid loss
• Migration of entrained 
particles
• Force‐balance on 
particles at the wall

© 2009
 Particles Held 
Dynamically at the Fracture Wall
• Particles are pulled to 
the leakoff site
• Transverse fluid 
velocity generates lift 
and drag
• Leakoff velocity 
imposes stabilizing 
gradient

© 2009
 Sand “Node” Formation
• Flow is from bottom to top
• Fluid is typical of crosslinked guar
• Velocity is 1‐2 fps
• Prop concentration is 1.5 ppa
• Fluid efficiency is >90%

© 2009
Node Formation at Fracture Leakoff

© 2009
 Sand Accumulation: Low Cv

Leakoff Volume * Injected ppa

Mass of Sand in Node

© 2009
 Stable channel flow
• “Node” grows in length
• Fluid velocity in channel erodes sand
• Channel dimensions become stable
• Sand held in place dynamically
• Note effects of inhibiting leakoff

© 2009
Dynamically Stable Channel

© 2009
 Proppant Holdup in 
Fractured Systems ‐ Early Injection
Slurry injection at low concentration builds
“islands” or “nodes” of packed sand

© 2009
Proppant Holdup in Fractured 
Systems ‐ Continued Injection
Nodes interconnect and leave open
channels for all injection ‐ minimal
pressure rise noted at inlet

© 2009
 Proppant Holdup in Fractured 
Systems ‐ Incipient Screenout
Entire fracture is packed except for narrow 
flow channel <1”. Screenout occurs 
suddenly without warning

© 2009
 Interaction of Fissure Opening 
Mechanisms: PDL, Holdup and Storage
∂W/ ∂P

PDL and
Storage Q=T∂P/ ∂L

Vp

Vf ∂W/ ∂P~YME

© 2009
 Effects of Proppant Holdup
• First proppant in:
– accumulates at high leakoff sites
– becomes immobile at the frac wall
• Later injected fluid:
– flows in localized high velocity channels
– is less subject to heat‐up, aging, breaking
– remains near injected prop concentration

Tracer surveys show first proppant injected remaining

at wellbore. Does this indicate localized high leakoff?
© 2009
 Effects of Holdup (cont.)
• Leads to short propped length
• Yields a non‐uniform proppant distribution
• Can cause near‐well screenouts and 
perforation plugging
• Can be linked to proppant induced pressure 
increases
• Can substantially affect final conductivity and 
well performance

© 2009
 Example of Proppant Induced 
Pressure Increase Modeling
GOHFER Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) A GOHFER Surface Pressure (psi) A
GOHFER Slurry Rate (bpm) B GOHFER Surface Prop Conc (lb/gal) C
A GOHFER Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) A GOHFER Surface Pressure (psi) A B C
8000 16 6

7000 14
5

6000 12

4
5000 10

4000 8 3

3000 6
2

2000 4

1
1000 2

0 0 0
00:00 00:10 00:20 00:30 00:40
1/2/1970 1/2/1970
Time
Customer:
Well Description:
Proppant Holdup Factor = 1.2
Job Date:
UWI:
Ticket #:
GohWin v1.3.0
15-M ar-01 15:21
© 2009
 Mitigating Proppant Holdup
• High viscosity gels
– Minimize fluid loss
– Deep invasion of fracture system
– Possible severe productivity damage
• Particulate fluid loss additives
– Must bridge natural fractures
– Requires low permeability to stop leakoff
– Can minimize invasion of fractures
• Altered design philosophy
– Use clean, non‐damaging fluids
– Stay below critical sand input concentration
© 2009
Leakoff Control with 100‐mesh

© 2009
 Fluid Requirements for Transport
• Pad volume:
– Not determined by tip‐screenout criteria or fluid efficiency
– Unnecessary in water‐fracs and slick‐water jobs
– How much is enough?
• Fluid stability
– How much viscosity do you need?
– How long should the fluid remain “stable”
– What temperature profile should be used in break‐test 
design?
– What are the implications on cleanup and production?

© 2009
 Variable Fluid Rheology Leads to 
Channel‐Flow and Proppant Bypass
Fluid mobility decreases in
areas of high prop conc and
low shear
High-Leakoff

Fluid at frac tip is

Stagnant Fluid “new” and cold

Fluid travels through small channels

at high rate with little residence time
or formation contact © 2009
 Modeling Proppant Transport

• Model time‐dependent fluid rheology, especially 
low‐shear viscosity, during break
• Track local shear rates, fluid composition, age, 
and solids concentration
• Input proppant size and density and track slurry 
bulk density
• Check local, time‐dependent bridging constraints
• Determine pressure distribution from mobility 
distribution
• Feed‐back pressure distribution to fracture width 
profile, shear, and velocity profile

© 2009
 Closing Comments

• When jobs are difficult to place it is usually because of 
proppant transport and impending screenouts
• The mechanisms that lead to screenout must be 
understood and evaluated
• In many cases early screenouts are near‐well events 
caused by prop holdup and fissure leakoff
• These cases can be diagnosed and predicted and 
appropriate design changes can be made
• Making design changes based on incorrect models of 
the screenout process fails to provide solutions and 
may make things worse
• Don’t be too hasty to blame narrow frac widths or low 
fluid viscosity
© 2009