SPE-182160-MS

A Novel Approach to Evaluate the Risk of Sanding for Optimum Well

Completion Design: A Deep-Water Case Study from Southeast Asia

A. Younessi and A. Khaksar, Baker Hughes Inc.

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 25-27 October 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Challenging environments, such as deep-water, require greater effort when designing wells and completion
systems. In such cases, hydrocarbon production associated risks must be evaluated from very early stages of
field development. Particularly, the risk of sanding should be investigated to select and define the optimum
well completion, and if required, the appropriate sand control options. This paper presents a novel approach
to predict the onset of sanding by describing a case study from a deep-water gas field in Southeast Asia.
Sanding analysis generally consists of either a numerical or analytical model calibrated against laboratory
tests and production histories. Here, both numerical and analytical models are implemented to achieve a
robust and reliable prediction in the absence of any production data. For this purpose, the numerical model
is prepared and run using a comprehensive material model considering poroelastic-plastic rock behaviour
with strain hardening. The rock is modelled from a combination of single-stage triaxial and advanced thick-
walled cylinder rock mechanical tests on representative samples from the target reservoirs. A poroelastic
analytical model calibrated against the numerical modelling results is then used to conduct sand production
predictions with sensitivity analyses for a number of well trajectory scenarios for both cased and perforated,
and open-hole completions.
Although the numerical and analytical models follow different assumptions, the sanding prediction
results from both models are consistent. Once a reliable validation is obtained, the analytical method
can be used with confidence for sand production prediction for future wells through its simplicity and
fast realization of various scenarios. The results show that a high risk of sanding exists for both cased
and perforated, and open-hole completion systems for the planned deviated wells. Hence, downhole sand
exclusion options are deemed to be required for the development wells.
Incorporating analytical poroelastic and numerical poroelastic-plastic sanding evaluations enhanced the
reliability of sanding prediction for development wells. This approach is particularly beneficial in the
absence of production data at appraisal or early development stages.

Introduction
Sand production is one of the most common geomechanics related problems observed during production
stage in sandstone reservoirs in Southeast Asia. This issue is even more pronounced when developing
2 SPE-182160-MS

deep-water fields, where the cost of drilling and completing the wells is significantly higher compared to
conventional wells. Hence, it is crucial to have a reliable model to predict and evaluate the risk of sanding in
these types of environments. The decisions for drilling and completion designs are made at the early stage
of development. At this stage, there are limited production data and there may not be any sand production
monitoring system in the well during tests conducted in the exploration and appraisal wells. Hence, a
physical or theoretical model must be implemented to predict and evaluate the risk of sanding based on
these limited data.
Numerous approaches have been developed by researchers to study the onset of sanding in
unconsolidated or weakly-consolidated sandstone reservoirs. These methods can be divided into three
main categories: a) experimental (Koojiman et al. 1992, Tronvoll et al. 1993, Khodaverdian et al. 1998,
Papamichos et al. 2001, Wu and Tan 2002, Nouri et al. 2006 and Younessi et al. 2013), b) analytical (Bratli
and Risnes 1981, Morita et al. 1989a, Weingarten and Perkins 1995 and Vaziri et al. 2002), and c) numerical
approaches (Morita et al. 1989b, and Vaziri et al. 2002 and Nouri et al. 2007). The experimental approaches
are mainly used to investigate the mechanism of sand production and they are usually conducted for research
purposes.
The analytical approaches are usually based on simplified assumptions and have the advantage of being
fast to prepare and solve. Therefore, a substantial amount of scenarios may be studied quickly enough using
these methods. However, to have a fairly reliable result the analytical models must be calibrated against
observations from the field, such as the occurrence of sanding at a specific drawdown and reservoir pressure.
In the absence of such data, the results of the analysis may not predict the actual reservoir rock behaviour
with sufficient accuracy.
On the other hand, the numerical approaches are relatively complex, either in terms of material models
or the geometry of the whole model. A comprehensive numerical model may be designed to capture both
the complexities of the rock behaviour and the geometry (particularly for cased and perforation completion
systems). The advantage of these types of models is that the material model is calibrated against the
laboratory tests, resulting in an acceptable range of accuracy.
Combining the analytical and numerical methods may give a robust tool to predict the risk of sand
production with acceptable accuracy in a timely manner. This is particularly useful in cases where no
production data are available from the field to calibrate the analytical model, e.g. at early stages of
development. In the following sections the workflow to combine an analytical and numerical method is
explained along with a real example from Southeast Asia. The example is from a deep-water green field
where a comprehensive set of data is available from two offset wells, but with no production data.

Analysis Workflow
The analytical and numerical methods may be combined to use the advantages of both methods, i.e. the
accuracy of numerical models in the absence of production data and the closed-form solution of analytical
models for a fast sensitivity analysis. The analytical and numerical approaches used in this study are based
on the methods proposed by Willson et al. (2002), and van der Zee and Brudy (2006), respectively. It is
essential to explain the theories and background of these methods before explaining the workflow used to
combine these approaches.
Analytical approach: the method proposed by Willson et al. (2002) and expanded later by Rahman et al.
(2010) compares the maximum compressive stress induced around a single borehole against the catastrophic
collapse pressure of the rock measured from the thick-walled cylinder (TWC) tests:
SPE-182160-MS 3

where ESF, effective strength factor, is the calibration coefficient and LF, loading factor, is the sanding
risk identifier. Rock failure and sand producion is predicted if the stresses exceed the calibrated effective
strength of the rock (i.e. LF ≥ 1).
The magnitude of the induced stresses around the borehole depends on the magnitude and direction
of the in-situ stresses and the orientation of the borehole. The borehole is the main opening in open-hole
completions, and the perforation tunnel in cased and perforated completions. The stresses are calculated
using the well-known Kirsch equations (Fjær et al. 2008) at the wall of the opening. A comprehensive
method has been introduced by Rahman et al. (2010) to calculate the maximum compressive stress around
deviated boreholes for the purpose of sanding analysis.
The ESF is used as a rock strength calibration coefficient to account for the borehole and boundary scale
effects of the TWC tests (Willson et al. 2002). Since the TWC tests are usually measured on samples with
outside diameter (OD) to inside diameter (ID) ratio of approximately 3, a scale factor is required to upscale
the measurements to borehole scale. The experimental results conducted on samples with ID close to typical
perforation diameter show that a scale factor of approximately 1.55 is needed to correct the TWC strength
measured from a sample with OD/ID of three (van den Hoek et al. 2000 and Willson et al. 2002). Moreover,
the elastic solution of the stresses in a TWC test (solution of the pressurised hollow cylinder, Jaeger et al.
2007) shows that the stresses induced around the internal borehole are two times greater than the confining
pressure at the boundaries. Hence, for a typical perforation tunnel the default ESF is approximately 3.1,
whereas this value reduces to approximately 2.5 for open hole. These default ESF values have been found
to be conservative in some cases (Rahman et al. 2010), since they do not take into account the effect of
the residual strength of the rock. Therefore, the model must be calibrated against actual production data to
obtain a reliable ESF and prediction model.
Numerical approach: a comprehensive finite element model has been developed by van der Zee and
Brudy (2006) using the Abaqus solver to predict the onset of sanding for both open hole and cased and
perforated completions. For this purpose, the maximum total plastic strain induced around the borehole
(main wellbore or perforation tunnel) is calculated numerically and compared with the total plastic strain
corresponding to onset of borehole failure in an advanced TWC test, referred to as the critical strain limit
(CSL). In general, sanding is expected if the total plastic strain around the borehole exceeds the CSL (or
portion of CSL in the case of open-hole completions).
The model uses a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with hardening as a default material model. However,
any other material behaviour and failure criteria may be used for the numerical modelling. It is essential to
have a set of laboratory triaxial tests to define the elastic properties, the hardening behaviour, and the failure
parameters of the rock. Apart from the conventional triaxial tests, a set of advanced TWC tests are required
to define the confining stress associated with the onset of borehole failure in the TWC. The TWC is then
simulated numerically, using the material model derived from the triaxial tests, to determine the total plastic
strain corresponding to the failure point in the actual TWC test. This total plastic strain is referred to as the
CSL, which is used as the failure criteria for the rest of analysis.
Apart from the material model, the finite element models (geometry and simulation steps) for the open-
hole and cased and perforated completions are different, and they are generated automatically based on
the well and reservoir data. Both models use a submodelling technique in which a coarse global model
is introduced to initialize and calculate the induced stresses around the main wellbore from the far-field
stresses, and then submodels are simulated to capture more details around the main wellbore and the
perforation tunnels (Figure 1). Several simulation steps are defined in the global model and submodels to
simulate the effect of drilling, mud weight and drawdown for both open-hole and cased and perforated
completions. In the cased and perforated completion models, additional steps and an additional submodel
are introduced to capture the effect of casing, cementing and perforation. The additional submodel in the
cased and perforated model captures the details of a tapered shape perforation with a round end cap (Figure
1). The details of this numerical modelling approach are presented in a separate paper by Feng et al. (2016).
4 SPE-182160-MS

Figure 1—The simulation models (global model and submodels) for the cased and perforation completion.

Combining these methods gives a strong tool to predict and evaluate the risk of sanding in cases where
no production data are available. Following is the summary of the steps taken to combine these methods
and carry out the analysis:

• The material model of the rock is defined from the laboratory triaxial tests conducted on the samples
from the reservoir section of the offset well. The material is Mohr-Coulomb poroelastic-plastic
with strain hardening;
• The triaxial tests are validated by numerical simulation and comparing the stress-strain curves;

• The TWC tests are numerically simulated using the material model to obtain the critical strain
limit (CSL);
• The CSL is used to carry out a robust numerical modelling for cased and perforated completion
for a vertical well;
• The results of the numerical model are used to calibrate the analytical model, i.e. determining the
effective strength factor (ESF). This is done by preparing an analytical model in the same condition
as the numerical model, i.e.
• A complete analysis is carried out for open hole completion and cased and perforated completion
for the studied reservoir using the calibrated analytical model.
In this approach, the numerical model is used as a calibration tool to calibrate the analytical model. The
analytical model is then used to carry out a wide range of sensitivity analyses. In the following sections
the workflow is explained in more detail using the actual data from the case study field in Southeast Asia.
However, before doing any sand production analysis it is necessary to define the mechanical parameters
and properties of the rock (particularly the thick-walled cylinder collapse pressure for the abovementioned
approaches) and the in-situ effective stresses within the reservoir section. Ideally, this must be done by
conducting laboratory rock mechanical tests and building a geomechanical model using the data from the
available offset wells, as explained in the following sections.

Rock Mechanical Properties and Parameters

A comprehensive laboratory test program is designed to define the mechanical properties and parameters of
the rock for the purpose of geomechanical modelling and conducting sand production prediction analysis.
SPE-182160-MS 5

The program consists of: single-stage triaxial (four tests for each set); uniaxial compressive strength (UCS);
thick-walled cylinder (TWC); and uniaxial pore-volume compressibility (UPVC) tests. These tests are
conducted on the core samples obtained from the reservoir interval of the offset wells.
The triaxial and TWC tests are the most important tests for the sanding analysis implementing the
abovementioned methods. Whereas the UCS tests are used to calibrate the geomechanical model (in
combination with the triaxial tests), and the UPVC tests are mainly designed for the compaction and
subsidence analysis. However, the UPVC tests results are also used to derive the Biot coefficient required
for the stress path analysis (used for the sanding analysis).
The TWC tests are conducted on 1.5 inch samples with a length to diameter ratio of two, and with an
internal hole diameter of 0.5 inch. Generally, the reported value of the TWC strength is the catastrophic
collapse pressure corresponding to the failure of the external boundary of the sample. This value is used
for the analytical method used in this study. However, the internal borehole failure initiation is required
to conduct the analysis using the abovementioned numerical method. This can be identified either by
monitoring the failed material using a collection chamber in an advanced TWC apparatus, or approximated
from the deviation of the volumetric strain-confining pressure curve from a linear trend in the later stages
of the test, when using a conventional TWC apparatus (Figure 2).

Figure 2—Example of TWC test showing the confining pressure corresponding to the initiation of
the internal hole failure and the catastrophic collapse pressure (usually referred as the TWC value).

The analytical method used in this study is heavily dependent on the TWC strength values. Hence, it
is crucial to determine the TWC strength profile of the reservoir sandstone. For this purpose, the porosity
based TWC strength correlation proposed for weak sandstone by Khaksar et al. (2009) is calibrated against
the laboratory TWC tests. The final correlation used for the calculations is:

where TWC is in psi, and PHIT is the total porosity inferred from petrophysical logs. Figure 3 shows
the calibrated TWC strength profile within the reservoir sections along with the laboratory measurements.
Figure 3 also shows the histogram and cumulative distribution function of the TWC strength profile.
Generally, the sanding analysis is conducted for a P10 TWC strength of the reservoir section. However, a
sensitivity analysis is conducted to take into account all possible TWC strength values within the reservoir
interval as explained in the analysis section.
6 SPE-182160-MS

Figure 3—TWC strength profile within the sandstone reservoir calibrated against the laboratory tests (left), and
the histogram (top–right) and the cumulative distribution function (bottom-right) of the TWC strength profile.

The triaxial tests are designed to capture the elastic properties, hardening behaviour and peak strengths
of the rock at different confining stresses, with the last confining stress designed to be close to the in-situ
effective stress. The triaxial and TWC samples should be selected in pairs, i.e. for each set of triaxial tests;
a TWC test should be conducted at the same depth.
Table 1 shows the mechanical properties and parameters derived from one set of tests. The measured
TWC catastrophic collapse pressure (2,520 psi) is very close to the P10 TWC (2,550 psi) from the TWC
profile shown in Figure 3. Hence, the values in Table 1 are used for the rest of analysis.

Table 1—Example of the results from triaxial, TWC and UPVC tests corresponding to a particular depth.

Confining Young's Catastrophic

Type Poisson's UCS Int. friction Int. hole failure Biot
Depth pressure modulus collapse
of test ratio (psi) angle (deg) initiation (psi) coef.
(psi) (106 psi) pressure (psi)

150 0.74 0.24

Single- 300 0.95 0.22
All samples Stage 2,748 43 - - -
approximately Triaxial 450 1.01 0.24
from same 2,350 1.60 0.20
depth
TWC - - - - - 2,200 2,520 -
UPVC - - - - - - - 0.93

Geomechanical Model
A geomechanical model is essential for any geomechanical related analysis. For the case of sanding analysis,
the main inputs from the geomechanical model are the magnitude and direction of the effective stresses
within the reservoir interval, for both analytical and numerical approaches. Using the data and logs acquired
SPE-182160-MS 7

in the offset wells, the stresses are estimated based on published approaches (Zoback 2007). Table 2
summarises the parameter values and methods used for the analysis.

Table 2—Parameters obtained from the geomechanical models, including the calculation method (at reservoir depth).

Parameter Values Calculation method

Integration of the density log. In the absence of density log in the shallower intervals, the
Vertical Stress, SV 6,320 psi
density is estimated by an extrapolation line.
Poroelastic equation (Zang and Stephansson 2010) calibrated against the upper bound of
Maximum Horizontal Stress, SHmax 5,180 psi
SHmax inferred from the absence of borehole breakouts in the image log.
Minimum Horizontal Stress, Shmin 4,900 psi Poroelastic equation (Zang and Stephansson 2010) calibrated against leak-off tests.
Pore Pressure, PP 3,960 psi Formation pressure tests form wireline measurements.
SHmax Azimuth 60° Fast & slow shear slowness anisotropy from cross dipole acoustic wireline log data.

The evolution of the magnitude of the stresses with depletion is one of the main parameters that have to
be calculated for any sanding analysis. This is required for predicting the risk of sanding for the future stages
of production. According to linear poroelasticity theory, this parameter is calculated from the Poisson’s ratio
and the Biot coefficient of the reservoir rock (obtained from the laboratory tests):

where ΔSh is the change in magnitude of the horizontal stresses (both minimum and maximum horizontal
stresses), α is the Biot coefficient, ν is the Poisson’s ratio and ΔPP is the change in pore pressure, i.e.
depletion of the reservoir. Although the other rock mechanical properties and parameters calculated in the
geomechanical model (e.g. UCS) may not be directly used in the sanding analysis, it is necessary to obtain
these profiles to validate the geomechanical model.

Numerical Model
Any finite element analysis consists of three stages of pre-processing, solving and post-processing. In the
pre-processing stage the material model, geometry and boundary conditions of each simulation step are
defined. The model developed by van der Zee and Brudy (2006) automatically generates the geometry
and boundary conditions by simple input data such as wellbore orientation, in-situ effective stresses and
drawdown pressure. However, more effort is needed to prepare the material model. The material model is
prepared using the stress-strain curves of the above mentioned triaxial tests as demonstrated in Figure 4.
After validation, the TWC test is simulated using the defined material model parameters. The total plastic
strain corresponding to the internal hole failure initiation (2,200 psi) of the TWC test is considered as the
critical strain limit of the rock (CSL = 0.09). It must be noted that for ease of calculation an associated plastic
flow rule is considered. Hence, the calculated plastic strain is overestimated for such material (Paterson and
Wong 2005). This may not generate any issue since the relative values of the total plastic strains is used in
the analysis rather that the absolute values.
8 SPE-182160-MS

Figure 4—Material modelling steps and defining the critical strain limit (CSL) from the TWC test.
SPE-182160-MS 9

Using the calculated CSL in the previous step, a vertical well with a cased and perforated completion
is simulated for different perforation orientations. At the post-processing stage, the maximum total plastic
strain at the perforation wall is extracted for a range of drawdown pressures (Figure 5-left). The total plastic
strain is then compared to the CSL to determine the critical drawdown pressure for a specific perforation
orientation. Figure 5-right shows the critical drawdown pressures calculated for all perforation orientations
with 15 degrees phasing. The results show that the average critical drawdown pressure is approximately
1,270 psi for a vertical well with a cased and perforated completion system. The average critical drawdown
pressure is then used to calibrate the analytical model as explained in the following section.

Figure 5—Calculated plastic strain versus drawdown for a perforation parallel to SHmax (left), and the calculated
critical drawdown pressure for all perforation orientation with 15 degrees phasing in a vertical well (right).

Analytical Model
Model calibration: an analytical model is prepared and run at the same condition as the numerical model
(i.e. cased and perforated vertical well with stress parameters tabulated in Table 2 and TWC strength of 2,550
psi) to calibrate the effective strength factor (ESF). Figure 6-left shows the calculated critical drawdown
pressures using the default ESF = 3.1 for all perforation orientation in a vertical well. The ESF is reduced to
3.02 to calibrate the model against the numerical model results, i.e. to achieve an average critical drawdown
pressure of approximately 1,270 psi. It must be noted that the trends of the numerical and analytical results
(i.e. the sinusoid curve of the critical drawdown pressure versus perforation orientation) are not exactly the
same. This is due to the fact that the analytical approach does not consider the effect of the main wellbore
for the stress calculation, while the numerical approach considers this effect.

Figure 6—Critical drawdown pressure verses perforation orientation using

the default ESF = 3.10 (left), and calibrated model with ESF = 3.02 (right).

Sanding prediction: the sanding analysis is conducted for both cased and perforated and open-hole
completion systems. A sensitivity analysis is carried out to define the optimum well azimuth with the least
10 SPE-182160-MS

sanding risk, for the cased and perforated completion system (Figure 7). The left plot shows the effect of
wellbore azimuth and perforation orientation on the critical drawdown for a 70° deviated well. Since there
is low far-field horizontal stress anisotropy, the azimuth of the well does not have a significant impact on the
critical drawdown. The right plot shows the effect of wellbore deviation and perforation orientation on the
critical drawdown. Higher critical drawdown pressures correspond to more stable conditions. The results
show that the best wellbore direction for a cased and perforated completion is an azimuth of 150° with a
deviation of 70°, and the best orientation for a perforation is the top and bottom of the borehole.

Figure 7—Effect of wellbore trajectory, i.e. azimuth (left) and deviation

(right) on critical drawdown pressure for cased and perforated completion.

The risk of sanding is then evaluated for the optimum wellbore trajectory. Figure 8 compares the operating
envelope for the perforations at the top/bottom and sides of a wellbore with 70° deviation parallel to Shmin
for a range of rock strength for the life of the field. The left plot shows that the top/bottom perforations can
produce sand free for the whole life of the field considering P10 TWC. For lower rock strength (P05 TWC)
sanding is expected near final stages of production. The right plot shows that for side perforations sanding
would be expected in very early stages of production for P10 TWC. Even P95 TWC is expected to produce
sand before the abandonment pressure. Therefore, sanding is expected from the early stages of production
for cased and perforated completion. For these types of reservoir rocks selective and oriented perforations
may delay and reduce the risk of sanding.

Figure 8—Comparison of the operating envelope for the perforations at the top/
bottom (left) and side (right) of the wellbore with 70° deviation parallel to Shmin.

Generally, the ESF for open-hole completions is considered to be 20% lower than the cased and
perforated completion because of the borehole scale effect. Hence, an ESF of 2.42 is considered for the
SPE-182160-MS 11

open-hole completion (compared to the default value of 2.50). Using this ESF and P10 TWC, the critical
drawdown pressures associated with sanding are calculated at different stages of production for all open-
hole trajectories (Figure 9). The left figure shows that at initial reservoir pressure (3,960 psi) open holes
with deviation less than 60° can produce sand free with the maximum planned drawdown pressure of 600
psi. The right figure shows that at the abandonment reservoir pressure (1,130 psi), only vertical open holes
(deviation less than 5°) can produce sand-free with the maximum planned drawdown. Therefore, a high risk
of sanding is predicted for deviated open holes with the expected depletions and planned drawdowns.

Figure 9—Critical drawdown pressure at initial reservoir pressure 3,960 psi (left), and
abandonment reservoir pressure 1,130 psi (right) for open holes in any direction.

Summary and Conclusion

A novel approach for sand production prediction analysis is introduced by combining numerical simulation
and analytical methods. The approach is particularly beneficial in the absence of any production data to
calibrate the analytical model, and is significantly faster compared to a full numerical simulation analysis.
The approach is presented using actual data form a deep-water field in Southeast Asia with the following
main conclusions.

• Calibrating the analytical approach with the numerical results gave an ESF of 3.02 for cased and
perforated completions (compare with default ESF of 3.10). Subsequently, the ESF for open hole
completions is assumed to be 20% lower, i.e. ESF = 2.42.
• Open-hole completions with deviations less than 60° can produce sand free at initial reservoir
pressure (3,960 psi). Generally, the risk of sanding is lower for vertical wells (deviation less than
5°).
• The best well orientation for cased and perforated completions is at an azimuth of 150° and
deviation of 70°. The risk of sanding is lower for perforations at the top and bottom of the wellbore.
• Due to the low stress anisotropy, well azimuth does not have a significant impact on the critical
drawdown pressures.
• The risk of sanding for open-hole completions is very high. Sand control measures would be needed
for deviated wells with open-hole completions.
• Sanding is expected from the early stages of production for cased and perforated completions.
Selective and oriented perforations may delay and reduce the risk of sanding.
12 SPE-182160-MS

Nomenclature
LF Loading factor
ESF Effective strength factor
TWC Thick-walled cylinder
ID Inside diameter
OD Outside diameter
CSL Critical strain limit
UPVC Uniaxial pore-volume compressibility
UCS Uniaxial compressive strength
PHIT Total porosity
SV Vertical stress
SHmax Maximum horizontal stress
Shmin Minimum horizontal stress
PP Pore pressure
α Biot factor
ν Poisson’s ratio
ΔPP Changes in pore pressure
ΔSh Changes in magnitude of horizontal stresses
Azi Well azimuth
Dev Well deviation
DD Drawdown pressure
CDD Critical drawdown pressure

Conversion Factors

1 in = 2.54 cm
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 psi = 6894.75 Pa
106 psi = 6.89475 GPa

References
Fjær, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M. and Risnes, R. (2008). Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, 2nd Edition.
Elsevier.
Gui, F., Khaksar, A., van der Zee, W. and Cadogaon, P. (2016). Improving the Sanding Evaluation Accuracy by Integrating
Core Tests, Field Observations and Numerical Simulation. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Perth, Australia.
van den Hoek, P.J., Hertogh, G.M.M., Koojiman, A.P., de Bree, P., Kenter, C.J. and Papamichos, E. (2000). A New
Concept of Sand Production Prediction: Theory and Laboratory Experiments, SPE Drilling & Completion, Vol. 15,
No. 4, pp 261–273.
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G. and Zimmerman, R.W. (2007). Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, 4th Edition. Blackwell
Publishing.
Khaksar, A., Taylor, P.G., Fang, Z., Kayes, T., Salazar, A. and Rahman, K. (2009). Rock Strength from Core and
Logs: Where We Stand and Ways to Go. SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Amesterbam,
Netherlands.
Khodaverdian, M., Abou-Sayed, A.S., Ramos, R., Guo, Q. and McLennan, J.D. (1998). Laboratory Simulation of Liner
Loading and Near-Wellbore Permeability Variation in Poorly Consolidated Sandstones. SPE/ISR MRock Mechanicsin
Petroleum Engineering, Trondheim, Norway.
SPE-182160-MS 13

Kooijman, A.P., Halleck, P.M., de Bree, P., Veeken, C.A.M. and Kenter, C.J. (1992). Large-Scale Laboratory Sand
Production Test. In: Proceedings of SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Washington, DC.
Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L., Fedde, Ø.P. and Løvik, T.H. (1989a). Parametric Study of Sand Production Prediciton:
Analytical Approach. SPE Production Eng, 4 25–33.
Morita, N., Whitfill, D.L., Massie, I. and Knudsen, T.W. (1989b). Realistic Sand-Production Prediction: Numerical
Approach. SPE Production Eng, 4, 15–24.
Nouri, A., Vaziri, H., Kuru, E. and Islam, R. (2006). A Comparison of Two Sanding Criteria in Physical and Numerical
Modeling of Sand Production. J Pet Sci Eng;50:55–70.
Nouri, A., Vaziri, H., Belhaj, H. and Islam, M. R. (2007). Comprehensive Transient Modeling of Sand Production in
Horizontal Wellbores. SPE Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 468–474.
Papamichos, E., Vardoulakis, I., Tronvoll, J. and Skjærstein, A. (2001). Volumetric Sand Production Model and
Experiment. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech; 25:789–808.
Paterson, M. S. and Wong, T. (2005). Experimental Rock Deformation – The Brittle Field, 2nd Edition. Springer.
Rahman, K., Khaksar, A. and Kayes, T. (2010). An Integrated Geomechanical and Passive Sand-control Approach to
Minimize Sanding Risk from Open hole and Cased and perforated wells. SPE Drilling & Completion, 25(2):155–67.
Tronvoll, J., Kessler, N., Morita, N., Fjær, E. and Santarelli, F. J.(1993). The Effect of Anisotropic Stress State on the
Stability of Perforation Cavities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci; 30:1085–9.
Vaziri, H., Xiao, Y., and Palmer, I. (2002). Assessment of Several Sand Prediction Models with Particular Reference to
HPHT Wells. SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas.
Weingarten, J.S., Perkins, T.K. (1995). Prediction of Sand Production in Gas Wells: Methods and Gulf of Mexico Studies.
J Petr Tech, 47, 596–600.
Willson, S.M., Maschovidis, Z.A., Cameron, J.R., and Palmer, I.D. (2002). New Model for Predicting the Rate of Sand
Production. SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas.
Wu, B., Tan, C.P. (2002). Sand Production Prediction of Gas Field – Methodology and Field Application. In: Proceedings
of SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, Texas.
Younessi, A., Rasouli, V., Wu, B. (2013). Sand Production Simulation under Ture-Triaxial Stress Conditions. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci, 61:130–140.
Zang, A. and Stephansson, O. (2010). Stress Field of the Earth’s Crust. Springer.
van der Zee, W. and Brudy, M. (2006). GMI-SandCheckTM User’s Manual.
Zoback, M.D. (2007). Reservoir Geomechanics. Cambridge University Press.