PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2008-025

Optimum Procedures for

Calibrating Acoustic
Sand Detector,
Gas Field Case
M. IBRAHIM
Suez Canal University

T. HAUGSDAL
ClampOn

This paper is accepted for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference/SPE Gas Technology Symposium
2008 Joint Conference (the Petroleum Society’s 59th Annual Technical Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 17-19 June 2008. This
paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and
subject to correction.

Abstract
Sand production from unconsolidated formations in oil and
gas wells has been a world-wide challenge for the petroleum
industry for many decades. The challenge is not merely to avoid
or stop sand production, but to be able to maintain commercial
well productivity after efforts to control sand are implemented.
At the same time, the control method selected must be justified
by a reasonable payback time of the investment cost.
Produced sand is a major problem in many production
situations since small amount of sand entrained in the produced
fluid can result in significant erosion and erosion corrosion
problems. Even in “sand free” or clean service situations where
sand production rate is only a few pounds per day, erosion
damage could be very severe at high production velocities.
Sand erosion can also cause localized erosion damages to
protective corrosion scales on pipe walls and result in
accelerated erosion-corrosion damage. In a high velocity gas
well sand erosion is a serious problem since it can erode holes
in the pipe work in a very short time period1.
Produced sand can result in serious damage to the
reservoir, where in some cases the reservoir collapses as a
result of the sand production. Again, this scenario is a costly
experience for the operator who has to overhaul and complete
the producing reservoir zone.
In this paper, we will present the optimum procedures for
calibrating ClampOn sand detector which will help us to detect
sand production. Also, we will present the effect of water
production and choke change in the sand detector response.
Introduction
Control of sand production is a major concern in Sun Gas
Company's offshore Gulf of Mexico operations. Sonic sand
detection systems now in service on several Sun operated
production platforms provide effective, relatively low cost

1
platforms provide an effective, relatively low cost method for
maintaining optimum production rates while minimizing
equipment erosion and well bore damage. A case history of
field application on one Sun platform as well as the theoretical
basis for the Sonic Sand Detector is presented2
The major advantage of using the ultrasonic sand detector to
detect sand is that sand monitoring has moved forward from a
level of production trend to actual quantification in real time.
The detector quantifies sand beyond its initial limit of profiling.
The principle adopted uses an iterative method to locate a
considerable threshold in the sand signature logged. Raw
signals, in energy/sec, were simulated to reflect true sand
production by marking up the background noise value, with
about 10% to achieve the true sand free level of the signals for
sand rate calculation3.
Some of the lessons learnt from the application of the DSP
Sand Monitor are; a single sample from a shakeout (Wellhead
Sample) may not represent the true sand characteristics of a
well. Average sand reading from the monitor should not be
expected to match a single value shake out. Successful use of
monitor requires teamwork and coordination among petroleum
engineers (PEs), Operators4.
Due to economic and safety considerations, a sonic sand
detection system was installed. The objective was to determine
the maximum flow rate at which each well could produce free
of sand.
Calibration of acoustic detectors is required when new
sensor installed in the first time so we can calculate the sand
rate and cumulative sand production. Also, calibration should
be performed so that appropriate alarm settings can be
determined. Calibration is undertaken by injecting known
amounts of sand into the system and then noting the sand
detector response which will be used as guide to detect sand
production in future5-6.
In this paper, the calibration procedures for dry and
condensate gas field will present. Also, the effect of water
production on sand detector will present.
Calibration of sand injections
The ClampOn Sand Injector Unit is a mobile piece of
equipment that is used to convey small quantities of sand into
oil and gas production streams. The injector unit was installed
on the top of the production wellheads and the sand was
injected into the fluid stream through the well's swab valve.
Liquid and gas production from the well is unaffected
throughout the operation.
The purpose of sand injection is to test and calibrate
ClampOn sand production monitoring equipment, installed in
the downstream gas production system. The ClampOn sand
detection system is able to detect the sound when produced sand
(from the reservoir formation) collides with the walls of the
pipe. The magnitude of the sound produced is mainly dependent
on the quantity of sand in the production fluids and the velocity
of the sand particles (since the particles are carried in the gas
production stream, their velocity is normally equivalent to that
of the flowing gas stream). Increases in either the quantity of
sand or the stream velocity have the effect of increasing the
magnitude of the sound produced.
By injecting known quantities of sand into gas streams, it is
possible to calibrate the sand monitoring equipment. In
addition, a positive response of the sand monitoring equipment
to sand injection provides conclusive proof (and hence
confidence) that the sand monitoring equipment is actually
capable of detecting sand carried in the gas production stream.
The formula for Sand Rate in gm/s is:
2
( RAW value − Zero)
Sand Rate = , gm/s (1)
Step
The raw value is simply the level of the acoustic signal the
sensor is reading. The zero is the background noise made from
the flow medium as it passes through the pipe, and the step is
the sensitivity factor for the specific flow velocity. For the sand
output to be accurate, the system needs to use correct zero and
step for the different flow velocities. Each flow velocity will
give a unique background noise (and zero) and a unique step
value. The result of the sand injection calibration we will be a
unique step table for each well.
Sand Type
Sand type used in the calibration should be the same as
reservoir sand type. If it is difficult to obtain clean reservoir
sand, we can use similar clean sand with the same diameter. In
this field “Barskarp 10” sand from Askania was used for the
calibration. The sand has grain sizes from 0.020 too 0.5 mm.
The most present grain size is 0.09 mm. This type of sand was
chosen because it is most similar to the sand in the reservoir
type.
Dry Gas Well Calibration
The calibration of dry gas well is done under the well
flowing condition as given in Table 1. This well is one of seven
wells in dry gas field with condensate-gas ratio less than 1.0
bbl/mmscf.
Effect of Sensor Location
Acoustic detectors ‘hear’ the impact of sand hitting the pipe
wall. They should be located as close to the tree as possible,
while satisfying following criteria:
Mount on the outside of a bend on the downstream
side of an elbow.
Use only vendor supplied mounting hardware. The
detector’s transducer must contact bare pipe.
There should be no flow direction changes for at least
5 pipe diameters upstream of the elbow.
An injection point upstream of the detector (as far as
possible) is required for calibration.
A location too close to the production choke may
cause background noise (no sand) to be too high
(recommend 10+ pipe diameters from choke).
The sensor was installed on the flow line of well 1, after the
second or third bend downstream choke. The placement was
decided based on were its physically possible, and then were the
background noise from the flow is lowest. Fig. 1 showed the
sensor in the flow line of Well-1.
Another sensor planned to install in another place in the flow
line for Well-1 to study the effect of sensor location in the Raw
value. This was done to compare two sensor locations during
the sand injection.
This will demonstrate how sand appears on the detectors vs.
other noise, establish raw value pattern, and a unique step value
will be found for each sensor.
In well-1 there is two ClampOn sensors mounted on the
same flow line. This makes it possible to compare the two
sensor locations. One sensor is mounted at the second bend
downstream choke; the other sensor is mounted at the third
bend downstream choke.
The background noise from the flow is high and a little
unstable (seen after the injections). Injected water before the
sand, and there were no response on the raw signal from the
water. The injected sand gives high response from the
background noise baseline. The zero level is set to be 61300 this
is 10% offset from the minimum raw value (55727) seen before
the sand injection started. All the injections except for the first
injection was giving a good response, and by using the same
zero and step value on all of them the calculated sand was
showing the same amount of sand as injected.
The flow velocity during the sand injection was 7.94 m/s.
The zero value is found to be 61300 and step value 12000. The
sensor is now calibrated with high accuracy at this flow
velocity, for other velocities use the zero and step velocities
suggested in the table below:
There is no sign of sand production from the reservoir during
the sand injection calibration. The background noise from the
flow on the second sensor is much lower (around 24000
compared with 61000) than the sensor mounted in the second
bend. The response from the sand is also lower than for the
sensor located at the second bend. This is logic because the
sensor is installed a place were the flow and also the sand
(which follows the flow) have lower energy. Fig. 2&3 showed
the calibration of Well-1 at location 1 and 2 in the flow line.
The zero level is set to be 24000 this is 10% offset from the
minimum raw value (21818) seen before the sand injection
started. All the injections except for the first injection was
giving a good response, and by using the same zero and step
value on all of them the calculated sand was showing the same
amount of sand as injected. The flow velocity during the sand
injection was 7.94 m/s. Zero value is found to be 24000 and
step value 6000. The sensor is now calibrated with high
accuracy at this flow velocity, for other velocities use the zero
and step velocities suggested in the Table 2.
The last injection was 30 gram sand; this injection was done
to find the threshold limit for the sand detection. 30 gram sand
was injected over 4 minutes at a production of 45.6 mmscf/d.
This gives the following average sand concentration:
During the injecting job the production was assumed to be
higher, because of this an injection with less sand was not done.
The lowest proved average sand concentration threshold limit
for the sensor is: 0.520 [lb/mmscf].
The calculation above is the average sand concentration
during the injection of 30 gram sand. The system will display a
sand rate also for lower sand production than 0.520 lb/mmscf.
The injector equipment was not able to inject the sand over
longer time period.
After some investigation of the background noise on both
sensors mounted on the well-1 flow line, it’s clear the location
at third bend downstream choke is best. This sensor has lower
background noise; the sand makes less response but the no
problem to detect the sand we inject.
Effect of Water Production on Sand
Detector for Dry Gas Well
Well-2 produced from the same reservoir as Well-1. During
the calibration of Well-2, there is no sign of water production
which confirm from the total dissolved solid of the water (TDS
= 1200 ppm). This low TDS value is for water vapor content.
The background noise from the flow on this sensor is low
and stable. There is no sign of sand production from the
reservoir during the sand injection calibration. Fig. 4 shows the
sand detector response for the injection of 400 and 20 gm of
sand.
The zero level is set to be 7000 this is 10% offset from the
minimum raw value (6363) seen before the sand injection
started. All the injections were giving a good response. By
using the same zero and step value on all of them the calculated
sand was showing the same amount of sand as injected. The
3
flow velocity during the sand injection was 16.12 m/s. The Zero
value is found to be 7000 and step value 42000. The sensor is
now calibrated with high accuracy at this flow velocity.
On December 2007, Well-2 start to produced formation
water as confirmed with the water analysis of TDS = 12000
ppm but there is no sign of sand production. Sand detector does
not effect of the water production as seen in Fig. 5. This
concludes that the acoustic sensor does not effect by the flow of
water in the flowline or water production.
Condensate Gas Well Calibration
The calibration of condensate gas well is done under the well
flowing condition as given in Table 3&4. There are two well in
this field Well-A and Well-B producing with condensate-gas
ratio greater than 55.0 bbl/mmscf.
Calibration of Well-A
The calibration of condensate gas well is done under the well
flowing condition is given in Table 2. This well is one of two
well in condensate gas field with condensate-gas ratio close to
60 bbl/mmscf of gas.
The sand injector was installed on wellhead-A. Pressure
tested our system, and started the sand injection. We did a few
test injections. One injection with 25 gm of sand at 40 mmscfd
of gas rate and another injection with 10.0 gm sand at 55
mmscfd of gas rate. The sand detector detects the 10.0 gm of
sand as you can see in Fig. 6 which it is easy to differentiate
between back noise and sand production.
All injections went well also the test injections with small
amount of sand. A problem here could be that the sensor
response was low and the signal not possible to separate from
the background noise. As you can see from the picture above it
is no problem to separate the injection from the background
noise. If the background noise don’t change munch the
ClampOn system will have no problem to detect 10.0 gm of
sand.
On late 2007, Well-A starts to produce formation water
which confirmed from the water analysis result. The sand
detector shows sand production compared with the calibration
trend of Raw value as shown in Fig. 7.
Calibration of Well-B
We installed the sand injector system on wellhead Well-B on
2005 which is the second gas well in this condensate gas field.
Pressure tested our system, and started the sand injection. We
did three (400g) sand injections on each gas rate of 20, 39 and
55 MMscf. We had no problems during the injecting. We could
see that we got higher background noise when they increased
the gas rate, this is normal. We compensate for this noise with
the zero values in ClampOn software. Fig. 8 showed the sand
detector during the calibration for Well-B.
On early 2006, Well-B production starts to decline sharply
due to production of formation water. This water production
associated with sand production as shown in Fig. 9. This well is
currently shut-down due the very low gas production.
Effect of Choke Change
Sand detector is very sensitive to choke change in case of gas
rate increase or decrease. The well choke back effect in Raw
value which make the Raw value to go up as it happen in case
of gas rate increased. Fig. 10 shows the well has been choked
back to deceased the gas rate. This make the Raw value to go as
it look like the well start to sanding but it does not because the
trend of Raw in case of sand production is different from sand
noise. Fig. 11 showed the wellhead flowing pressure (WHFP) Learned; SPENC, J. Technical Papers, SPE 88899,
and gas rate which showed the well has been choked back, these (2004) pp. 1-5.
changes in choke make the Raw value increased. 5. M.H. Stein, A.A. Chitale; G. Asher and H.
Vaziri, Y. Sun, J.R. Colbert, and F.A. Gonzalez, :”
Conclusion Integrated Sand and Erosion Alarming on NaKika,
Deepwater Gulf of Mexico,” SPE paper 95515
From this work, the following conclusions have been presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
reached. and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas 9-12 October 2005.
1. The calibration of new sand detector is very important
because it will give the base line for back noise under the 6. Anand, Jeevan:” Evaluation and Control of Sand
current flow condition Production in Gas Wells,” SPE paper 6531
2. The location of sand detector affects the Raw value but presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
does not effect on the performance of the sand detector. Bakersfield, California ,13-15 April 1977.
3. If the well flow conditions changed, we need to calculate
the new zero value and step rate.
4. The sand detector is not sensitive to the fluid type.
5. Acoustic sand detector can detect any amount of sand
production even with water production.
6. The acoustic sand detector is very sensitive to choke
change which could act like gas meter to track the change
in well rate and choke change.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Clampon for supporting this work.

NOMENCLATURE
Raw = the level of the acoustic signal the sensor is
reading
Zero = is the background noise made from the flow
medium as it passes through the pipe.
Step = is the sensitivity factor for the specific flow
velocity
TDS = Total dissolved solid in ppm.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp ×1.0 E-03 = Pa • s
ft ×3.048 E-01 = m
ft2 ×9.290 304 E-02 = m2
ft3 ×2.831 685 E-02 = m3
in. ×2.54 E+00 = cm
lbf ×4.448 222 E+00 = N
md ×9.869 233 E-04 = µm2
psi ×6.894 757 E+00 = kPa

REFERENCES
1. ClampOn AS, “Sand Detection in oil and gas wells –
how to optimise production by effective use of
ultrasonic sand monitoring equipment” ClampOn
document (May 9, 2001)
2. Foster, Charles R. and Thomas W., A METHOD OF
MONITORING SAND PRODUCTION IN A
FLOWING WELL STREAM; SPE paper 8214
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 23-26 September 1979.
3. Lazarus A. Musa, Tuoyo Temisanren, Warri and Dulu
Appah, Establishing Actual Quantity of Sand Using an
Ultrasonic Sand Detector; The Niger Delta Experience;
SPE paper 98820 presented at the 29th Annual SPE
International Technical Conference and Exhibition in
Abuja, Nigeria, August 1 -3, 2005.
4. Fariyibi, F. L, Umurhohwo, J. O., Olson, S. G.,
Scott, K. C., Acoustic Sand Monitor Trials in the
Offshore CVX-NMA: Results and Lessons

4
 Well WHFP Temp Gas rate ID Calc. Flow velocity
Tag Bar Deg C mmscf/d Inches m/s
Well 1 70.7 28.4 45.6 7.41 7.94
Well-2 46.03 33.28 47.97 7.41 11.93

Table 1 –Well-1 production data during the calibration.

FIGURE 1 – Shows the sand detector for Well-1.

FIGURE 2 – Shows the calibration for Well-1 in first location.

5
FIGURE 3 – Shows the calibration for Well-1 in second location.

Velocity Step
0 504
2.22 1225
4.44 2973
6.67 7219
8.89 17525
11.11 42548
13.33 103297
15.56 250782
17.78 608846
20 1478147

Table 2 –Step value at different flow velocity for Well-1.

6
FIGURE 4– Shows the calibration for Well-2 without water production.

FIGURE 5– Shows the sand detector reading for Well-2 with water production.

7
 Date Time Cum.Gas Sep.Press Sep.Temp THP FLT FLP Calc.Flow
veloc.
mmscf barg C° barg C° barg m/s
11:30
13.05.2005 AM 20.0 96.50 70.70 515.20 89.70 96.00 4.70
12:10
13.05.2005 PM 40.0 98.70 71.30 506.00 90.80 98.20 9.20
13.05.2005 1:45PM 55.0 100.00 72.40 497.00 94.00 106.00 11.92

Table 3 –Production data during the calibration for Well-A.

Date Time Cum.Gas Sep.Press Sep.Temp THP FLT FLP Calc.Flow

veloc.
mmscf barg C° barg C° barg m/s
10:45
11.05.2005 AM 20.0 96.50 66.0 404.30 72.0 96.87 4.45
12:50
11.05.2005 PM 39.0 98.0 68.0 377.00 82.30 98.30 8.82
11.05.2005 2:00 PM 55.0 99.60 70.0 351.00 89.30 100.00 12.46

Table 4 –Production data during the calibration for Well-B.

FIGURE 6 – Shows the calibration for Well-A.

8
FIGURE 7 – Shows the sand detector performance during the sand production for Well-A.

FIGURE 8 – Shows the calibration for Well-B.

9
FIGURE 9 – Shows the sand detector performance during the sand production for Well-B.

FIGURE 10 – Shows the effect of choke change in sand detector performance.

10
 70

Gas Rate
WHFP
65

60
Gas Rate, mmscfd & WHFP, barg

55

50

45

40

35

30
2/1/2008 2/6/2008 2/11/2008 2/16/2008 2/21/2008 2/26/2008 3/2/2008
Date

FIGURE 11 – Shows the well has been choked back.

11