Considerations in Gravel Pack Design

R. J. Saucier, SPE-AIME, Shell Oil Co.

Introduction
Gravel packs have been used extensively along the
Louisiana Gulf Coast in an effort to reduce or avoid
sand production from unconsolidated formations.
Statistics show,l however, that through 1966, gravel
packs were only about 70 percent successful. *
The early literature on gravel pack design is based
primarily on the work of Coberly and Wagner2 and
of Hill. 3 Coberly's work in essence suggested that a
gravel pack having granular particles of diameter 10
times the formation grain size at the IO-percentcqarse point on a cumulative sieve analysis would
provide effective sand control. Numerous failures of
this criterion were noted, especially in the Gulf Coast
sands. Hill suggested that the ratio of lObe reduced
to 8. Failures were still noted in many applications.
At least one writer suggested concentrating on the
"fines" end of a cumulative sieve analysis. Winterbum4 states that "actual experience in the field has
shown that sand entry can virtually be eliminated by
the use of gravel which is approximately 10 times
the grain size of the 10 percentile of the finest sand
to be screened." Clearly a finer gravel will be more
effective in screening formation particles. However,
it must be evaluated in the light of how the finer
gravel affects permeability and reduces production.
Depending upon the writer, recommended ratios
of gravel to the IO-percent-coarse point may range
from 4 to 13. Other suggestions appear in the litera'Some liberty is taken with Mantooth's statistics; nevertheless,
the value is indicative of the problem.

ture; see, for example, the paper by Tausch and

Corley 5 for a summary of earlier gravel pack investigations.
In more recent literature, Sparlin6 has discussed
gravel placement rate and fluid viscosity in his recommendations for a "slurry pack." Schwartz7 recommends a size ratio of 6 at the 10-percent-coarse point
and at the 40-percent point for uniform and nonuniform sands, respectively. Williams 8 uses Schwartz's
grain-size ratio of 6 and finer and discusses well productivityas a function of perforation size and density.
In addition to the apparent disagreement on the
geometrical basis for gravel pack design, a more
subtle lack seems to exist. Few writers have explored
the influence of flow parameters on the functioning
of gravel packs. Sage and Lacy 9 appear to be the first
authors who attempt to take hydrodynamic (and
other) factors into consideration. We supposed that
under certain conditions, hydrodynamic factors could
possibly outweigh geometric factors in the functioning of gravel packs. This investigation, begun in 1967,
proceeds from that basic premise.

Laboratory Test and Evaluation Program

A large number of variables are involved both directly and indirectly in gravel pack behavior. Five
were considered to be most significant and fundamental to the stUdy. Therefore, the study was designed to explore the following functional dependence:

Tests with physical models have shown that sand production and pack impairment are
minimized when the ratio of pack median grain size to formation median grain size is
between 5 and 6. In a study of the inertia and viscosity effects of flow in gravel packed
wells it was found that increasing the size and the density of the perforations should
increase productivity.
FEBRUARY, 1974

205

(1)

where Y may be sand concentration,

sure drop, D.p, and

dt =
dp =

C, or pack pres-

median formation grain size

median pack grain size

mass flow rate of fluid

.w == time
rate of change of w
w

PgL = gas/liquid ratio

DAMPER

Fig. l-Lucite linear flow model and flow schematic.

INTENSIFIER

T
6"'

The median grain size of the formation, dt , was

selected because in practice this value may be more
readily available than other extreme values (e.g., 10percent-coarse fraction). The latter are subject to
sand sorting and hence not so readily estimated.
Two physical models were employed to evaluate
the influence of the selected variables on gravel pack
operation. A linear flow model of Lucite was designed to simulate a severe limiting case of sand
production through a packed perforated casing. This
model and flow schematic are shown in Fig. 1. A
full-scale gravel pack model representing a section
of 7-in. casing, a packed perforation, and a formation segment was used to verify the results from the
linear flow model. This model is shown in Fig. 2.
Fluids used in the tests were I-micron filtered deionized water and CO 2 to simulate gas evolution from
the liquid. The gravel was from commercial stocks
sieved to size and the formation sands were taken
from recent Miocene sands of the Brazos River. The
river sands were washed clean of clay particles (as
well as particles ~ 10 microns) and blended in appropriate proportions to reflect typical formation-grainsize distributions.
The models were packed mechanically in small

~
7"'
CASING

ELEVATION

'"'"'--+-_+,-F""OR.:..::M ATI ON

PLAN

Fig. 2-Gravel pack model.

206

85

90

Fig. 3-Concentration vs time-linear model.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

increments, and the cells were tamped and tapped

until the material reached an apparent minimum volume. During flow through the models, sand was collected from the gravel effluent over 5- to 10-minute
intervals, samples were weighed, and average sand
concentrations (C) were computed by weight. Flow
rates were 16 cc/sec (r-'8.7 B/D/perforation) or 26
cc/sec (r-' 13.5 B/D/perforation).
Typical examples of test results are shown in Fig.
3 for the linear flow model with 3 in. of pack length. *
Both a sharp increase and a sharp decrease in flow
rate (w) caused a temporary increase in sand production. If the rate was held uniform after the change,
the concentration of outflowing sand decreased continuously.
Controlled surges in the flow were generated to
simulate artificial lift. Surge was on the order to 70
psi and noticeable increases in sand production were
observed; a tenfold increase for Fpf = 6.7 and a
hundred-fold increase for F pf = 9.4.
Gas evolution from the flowing fluid had the most
significant effect on sand production. For F pf = 6.7,
sand production increased about 60 times as a result
of gas evolution in the pack. For F pf = 9.4, gas evolution caused a 2,000-fold increase in sand production. It was also noted that by reducing the fluid rate
and thus allowing the gas/liquid ratio (F 9L) to become
very large, sand production decreased. It should be
noted that virtually the same results were obtained
using consolidated packs * * and hence this behavior
was not the result of pack fluidization.
From the preceding, it appears that rate changes
affect pack behavior more significantly than. does the
magnitude of the flow rate. Generally, flow disturbances caused by rate changes, surging, and gas evolution all have a pronounced effect on gravel pack
behavior and could be grouped as w; the principal
distinctions among these three causes are the aT lplitude and the frequency of the disturbances. Thus, it
appears that for a given flow condition, primary and
secondary sand bridges form that are stable for the
existing geometries and hydrodynamic forces. As fluid
forces are altered, instabilities occur, bridges break
down, and more sand is produced until, if possible,
new bridges form under new conditions of stability.
Further evidence of the effects of grain-size ratios
under such disturbed (but realistic) flow conditions
is given in Table 1. As illustrated, previously advocated grain-size ratios (for example, 10.7 and 7.4)
failed to constrain formation sands under disturbed
flow conditions.
The final body of test results indicated that under
the tested conditions of operation, F pf must be less
than 6 to minimize sand production under disturbed
flow conditions. Because the ratio of pack grain size
to pore size for hexagonal packing of spherical particles is 6.46, this result suggests an absolute stoppage
criterion rather than a bridging criterion for gravel
pack design.
Other notable observations from the test data: (1)
'These results were similar to the results of verification tests
in the fullscale model and hence were typical.
"Eposand consolidation.

FEBRUARY, 1974

TABLE I-TYPICAL TEST RESULTS

Ratio of Pack
Median Grain
Size to
Formation
Median
Grain Size,
Fp1
14.3

Ratio of Pack
10% Coarse
Point to
Formation
10% Coarse
Point

14.3

7.4

5.7
5.7

4.5
3.2

Results of Test
Failed to constrain
formation
Failed to constrain
formation

10.7

Retained formation
Retained formation

pack length or thickness from 1 to 3 in. had a negligible effect on sand retention; (2) slight increases in
effective stress simulated by mechanical loading on
the sands during tests caused slight decreases in sand
production; (3) high starting rates caused higher initial
quantities of sand production and greater pack
impairment.

Gravel Pack Impairment

Pack permeability was noted in all tests. TypicaJ
observations are shown as Fig. 4 for linear model
tests. The test with the median-grain-size ratio of 9.4
had an initial permeability of 600 darcies, and the
test with the median-grain-size ratio of 6.7 had an
initial permeability of 300 darcies. Fig. 4 shows, however, that during the test the finer pack maintained
the highest permeability. Thus, if pack grain size is
too large, formation sand particles may enter the
pack and reduce the effective pack permeability (k e)
to a value less than that of a finer gravel pack that
undergoes less impairment. Further evidence of this
is reflected in the perforation pressure drop data from
the wellbore model (Table 2). Perforation pressure
drops for the coarse pack (ki c-:::: 700 darcies) are about
10 times those for the fine pack (k i c-:::: 150 darcies).
The degree of pack impairment is illustrated in
Fig. 5, which shows the ratio of effective to initial
pack permeability (ke/k i ) vs median-grain-size ratio
(F1,f). The data points are average values from multiple tests of the linear model at the two rates (8.7 and
13.5 B/D/perforation). For F pf less than 6, there is

600~

3 0 0 r ; j - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,

~306

\o~

--------."

250

200

~'"

Fpf =6.7

o~

33

O~o~--033

6---0
IOO~06

r-

Fpf =94

p - o _ o _ o _ o _ /0_0_""'0206

-/o-o__o__ O~\

27
'-- 0 - 0

50

___ -027

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fpf =94

F f=94
p

.1

.1

40 45
50
t, MINUTES

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Fig. 4-Permeability vs time-linear model.

207

-"

o~L-~L-T-L-T-L-T-L-~,o-L~-L-+,-L-+,~-+,~~

'pI

Fig. 5-Pack impairment vs median-grain-size ratio.

1 0 0 , - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,

virtually no impairment. As F pf increases from 6 to

10.5, formation sand enters the pack, reducing the
effective pack permeability significantly. For ratios
greater than 10.5, the behavior would be of only academic interest since, as already discussed, the formations sands would not be adequately constrained .
Relative pack impairment is not an adequate criterion by which to evaluate well performance. Indeed, as will be shown later, if pack grains are the
same size as formation grains, pack impairment will
be negligible, but so will well productivity.
The ratio of the effective pack permeability to the
formation permeability is related to production. To
define this ratio, we consider Krumbein and Monk's'O
expression for permeability*

140

(2)

130

where C is a function of the particle shape, packing,

and skewedness. Assuming that C for the pack and
formation may be taken as a constant average value
over a range of analysis, then the desired ratio is

120

.......

110

>-

100

:0

:x;

90

a = ke/kf =

,;'

60

o
o
~

(a1>f-

fp)

(Z:), . (3)

where the function (ke/k i ) may be obtained from

Fig. 5_
Using lI1>f = 0.7 and 0.2, and lI1>p = 0.2 in Eq. 3
results in Fig. 6. To maintain the highest pack-toformation permeability ratio and to minimize sand
production, the median-grain-size ratio, F pf , should
be between 5 and 6.

70

~
u

13l

80

:i

(~;r e

50 -

40

20
___ a-f=O.Z

Well Productivity

10

12

13

fpf

Fig. 6--Permeability ratio vs median-grain-size ratio.

JO~------------------_____,

The nature of the flow through gravel packed perforation tunnels (casing and cement thickness) is of
primary importance in the performance of gravel
packed wells. The pressure drop through gravel
packed perforations may often be considerably
greater than that predicted by Darcy's law.
The limit of applicability of Darcy's law is for
Reynolds number (N Re = ud p/ f-t) less than or equal
to 10.** For N Re > 10, inertia effects as well as viscous effects of flow must be accounted for. For one
dimensional flow, Greenberg et al. l2 suggest the following relationship between pressure gradient and
volumetric flow rate:
- dp/dx = Sf-t(q/ A)

(viscous)

+ (3p(q/ A)"

(4)

(inertia)

On integrating Eq. 4, equating the first term with

Darcy's law, and using convenient units, we obtain
for one-dimensional flow through a perforation,

20-40

o ..
o ..
x TEST

us

tlPpf
MESH SAND
"

OTTAWA FUNT

"

GLASS SPHERES

POINTS fROM PREV. GRAVEl.

PACK TESTS

= 0.888 L: ~ + 9.1 X 1O- ,3/1Lp(!)"

(5)

Values of the inertia coefficient, /1, extrapolated

from data by Tek et al. l3 are shown in Fig. 7, along
This relationship is oversimplified but is nevertheless assumed
to be valid.

k (dorcies)

Fig. 7-lnertia coefficient for sandstone.

208

Apparently. transition from laminar flow in porous media may

occur for NRE between 1 and 10 (see, for example, Ref. 11).

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

with coefficients calculated from the previously discussed test data. The multicycle extrapolation is sufficient cause for the lack of complete agreement.
Fig. 8 is a graphical display of Eq. 5 for typical
values of perforation size. The significant difference
between Darcy's law and actual perforation pressure
drop is evident. Fig. 8 also illustrates how great the
pressure drop can be across formation-filled perforations; this emphasizes the necessity of placing gravel
in the perforations.
From the foregoing, the productivity from gravel
packed wells compared with that from open holes
may now be calculated. For unconsolidated sands,
the perforation depth into the formation is assumed
to be negligibly small. If we further assume that the
pressure drops in a gravel packed well are due only
to the packed perforations (~Ppf) and the formation
(~Pfm)' * then the productivity ratio is
1 /l 0

factual

~Pfm

lopen hole -

UP!m

Ap
U

pf

~Pfm
= ~,
up""

(6)
where

~Ppf

is from Eq. 5 and

TABLE 2-PERFORATION PRESSURE DROP

MedianGrainSize
Ratio,

Perforation
Pressure
Flow Rate
Drop,
cc/sec B/D/perforation t.p p , (psi)
15.5
8.2
16
27.0
14.0
30
15.6
8.2
16

Fp ,

Test
Fine Pack
k i :::::; 150 darcies

6.0

Fine Pack
(Repeat)

6.0

15.5
26.6
15.5

8.2
13.8
8.2

20
39
18

Intermediate Pack
k i :::::; 270 darcies

8.5

14.8
25.
14.8

7.7
l3.
7.7

54
180
94

Coarse Pack
k, :::::; 700 darcies

12.8

15.7
21.6
15.5

8.3
11.2
8.2

160
397
270

900,--------------------,
PERFORATION FILLED
WITH 0 5 DARCY

LENGTH

OF

pf = 2"

FORMATION SAND

i
800i

3/8

f'-

=1 Cp

0.8

t3 ~ 2 3

10 4

_ q,u In(re/re)
Pfm 7.08 k f h

Fig. 9 shows 1 / 10 vs p"" for typical production interval data and various perforation sizes and densities. It is evident that increases in perforation size or
density should result in substantial increases in productivity. From Fig. 9 for the conditions assumed we
see that for a drawdown of 500 psi and four % -in.diameter perforations per foot only 46 percent of
open-hole productivity is available. Increasing the
perforation size to lh-in. diameter provides 63 percent of open-hole well productivity, and increasing it
to % -in. diameter provides 86 percent. Assuming no
casing or cement damage would result, 95 percent of
open-hole productivity could be obtained with eight
%-in.-diameter perforations per foot.
A previous evaluation by Muskat14 has indicated
that the flow resistance through perforated casing is
greater than the flow resistance of an open-hole completion. Thus, if in addition to ~Ppf and ~Pfm we
assume the perforated casing resistance of Muskat,
then Fig. 10 may be generated. It must be pointed
out that Muskat's relation for perforated casing is a
function of the perforation radius, whereas our analysis includes radius to the second power (area) hence
it is not completely consistent to combine the two.
However, it illustrates possibly the relative influence
of gravel packs on well productivity, assuming there
is some reduction due to perforated casing.
In the preceding examples, typical values were
used. It should be pointed out that for increasing
formation permeability (i.e., permeability greater than
the 0.5 darcies used) the curves of 1/ fo indicate a
lower percentage of open-hole productivity available.
Nevertheless, this still may be overcome to a large
degree by increasing perforation size and density, and

<l 400
I

i
300

3/4
200

,
100
I

______ -.L__

__

50
75
q[bpd/pf)

~~

100

125

Fig. 8-Pressure drop vs flow rate for

three perforation sizes.

PRODUCING

INTERVAL' 20'

k,'05dorc'.$
ki ,180 dore,n
,6.23.10

(I

=1

t:. (joB
PERFORATIONS FILLED WITH fORMATION SAN?

O~~1~OO--~2~OO~~m~~'~OO~~~=6~OO~~~~~~~~_~~,=
"From the tests, pressure drops through the gravel annulus and
the screen are indeed negligibly small. The effects of per
forated casing alone on well productivity is discussed in the
followi ng pa ragra phs.

FEBRUARY, 1974

Fig_ 9-J/J o vs drawdown for various perforation

sizes and densities.
209

1 0 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _-,

3/ .... ,ppf

------__

.----____.

PRODUCING

INTERVAl' 20'

-'--'-'-----112".ppl

3/8"4> pi

---'-.:....~-

kl .05 do",.,
ki =180 do,,;n

IJ =23"

lOA

-------

Cj '4

LH",f,l\Pp'+ t,Pf ...

900

1000

b,PCJgI

Fig. lQ--J/J csg vs drawdown for various

perforation sizes.

A FAIRLY ROUNDED

OTTAWA FLINT SLIGHTLY

MORE ROUNDED THAN ABOVE

~
<120

40

GLASS SPHERES- 50% MICROME$H

AND 50% SAllOTIN!

~I

<120

Equipment and Procedures for

Field Installations

15

10
q pf ( BPD)

Fig. ll-Pressure drop vs perforation flow rate for

various 2040 mesh granular materials.

1.0

r-------------------~

.9

.8

-:i .7
~ .6

~ .5

o .4

UNCORRKTED SW CORES
o CORRECTED SW CORES

:::;

~ .3

'"
o

The following are recommendations for field practice

in gravel pack installations:
1. Some method such as perforation backsurging
or its equivalent should be used to remove perforation debris.
2. Clean packing fluids (2-micron filtered) and
clean casing and tubing are considered mandatory.
3. Crossover tools (reliable commercial tools are
available) are recommended to reduce sand placement problems in high-angle holes, to promote cleanliness of packing fluid, and to minimize gravel segregation during placement.
4. Squeeze packing of the perforations at generally
1 to 2 bbl/min is necessary, with the rate increasing
as the open area of the perforation and the hole angle
increase.

Field Results

~ .2

.01 '-----_ _-'-,-J__'__-1r,-l~___L___L_

.009
6
9
10

_'______'____L_L___'____'____.J

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

MEDIAN GRAIN SIZE RATIO ( f pf )

Fig. 12-Probability of failure vs mediangrainsize ratio.

210

Application of the Test Results to

Gravel Pack Design
To apply the recommended design criteria, the most
important information required - knowledge of formation grain size - is also often the least available.
Formation grain size may vary considerably over an
interval to be gravel packed. Assuming the data are
available from some source, then the design should
be based on the finest segment of productive formation that is perforated.
Considerable judgment must be used in selecting
the formation grain size data. A paper by Maly15 discusses the subject. Both whole core and the generally
more available sidewall core data may be used, but
some correction must be applied for contamination.
Mud particles and filtrate contaminate both whole
cores and sidewall samples, the latter presumably
being more affected. The sidewalls also may be subject to some grain crushing, which would result in a
finer median formation size. A comparison for individual areas and drilled conditions between whole
core and sidewall data is recommended to establish
a correction factor that may then be applied to sidewall data. Judgment will not always be correct, but
the result will no doubt be better than if no efforts
were made at all.

GRAVEL PACK SAND

40

hence the conclusions remain the same.

One final comment should be made about the results from the test series: it appears that rounded
pack grains result, on the average, in lower pressure drops and apparently show less packing variance
than more angular materials. This is illustrated in
Fig. 11 for three materials evaluated. The behavior
is primarily due to the inertia effects of flow and
suggests that rounded gravel be used in gravel packing rather than angular materials.

To evaluate the criteria for grain-size ratio, the status

of 45 gravel packs was studied in terms of grain-size
ratio. This was a severe evaluation because some of
these gravel packs were completed before the recommendations derived from the tests were drawn up;
not only were some of them sized improperly, they
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

also were installed improperly (that is, they were circulated in place instead of being squeezed into the
interval).
Fig. 12 shows the probability of failure vs mediangrain-size ratio based upon the uncorrected sidewall
cores and also after an empirically defined correction
was applied. No failures occurred for Fpf less than 6,
with the probability of failure increasing with increasing Fpf These data support the laboratory findings
that the median-grain-size ratio should be less than 6
to prevent gravel pack failure.
It has also been noted that the productivity indices
of more recent wells are greater than those of wells
completed with the older conventional techniques.
However, gravel pack productivity still needs to be
improved, and increased perforation size and density
as well as improved gravel placement techniques are
being used toward that end.

Conclusions
From the preceding, we conclude the following:
1. To minimize sand prosuction, the ratio of pack
median grain size to formation median grain size
should be between 5 and 6 where there is severe
flow disturbance.
2. Bridging, though satisfactory for uniform undisturbed flow, is unsatisfactory for severe (but realistic) flow conditions.
3. Pack permeability impairment is minimized and
hence production is maximized if the median-grainsize ratio is 6 under severe flow conditions and with
given perforations.
4. Rounded grains appear to be better than angular grains for gravel packing.
5. Well productivity may be increased with increased perforation size or density.
6. Perforation tunnels must be tightly packed with
gravel to minimize impairment; therefore, squeeze
packing must be employed.
7. Before packing, perforation debris must be removed by backsurging or some equivalent method.
8. It is mandatory that completions be clean and
that packing fluids be compatible with the formation.
9. Crossover tools should be used in gravel placement.

Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area of a perforation
C = function of particle shape, packing and
skewed ness
C j = concentration of jets per foot
C = average sand concentration in gravel
pack effluent in time increment t1t
Cmax = maximum C value during test period
dp f dx = pressure gradient
d = mean particle diameter (general)
df = median formation grain size
dp = median pack grain size
FgL = gas-liquid ratio
F pf ~-= ratio f'f rnpd;afJ err;:,;" ,,;71' nf Dack to
median grain size of formation
h = net pertoratlon helgat
FEBRUARY, 1974

J = productivity index of gravel pack in perforated casing assuming flow resistance

due to packed perforations only
JCSg = productivity index in perforated casing
after Muskaf1 4
Jg = productivity index of gravel pack in perforated casing (J) plus added resistance
of perforated casing (JCSg)
Jo = productivity index of open-hole interval
k = permeability (general)
ke = effective total permeability of the gravel
k f = permeability of formation
k i = initial unimpaired total permeability of
the gravel
L = length
N Re = Reynolds number
pi = perforation
Pfi = probability of failure
t1p = pressure drop
t1pcsg = pressure drop due to open perforations
in casing (after Muskat14)
t1Pfn = pressure drop in formation
t1Ppf = pressure drop through gravel packed
perforation
t1pwf = drawdown
q = volumetric flow rate
rc = casing radius
re = reservoir radius
u = average pore velocity
w = mass flow rate of fluid
"IV = time rate of change of mass flow rate of
fluid
Y = general response as sand concentration
or pack pressure drop
a = permeability ratio kef k f
f3 = inertia coefficient
y = fluid specific gravity
S = constant assumed to be a function of the
medium matrix
fL = fluid viscosity
p = fluid density
O'rj>j = logarithmic standard deviation (sorting)
of granular material j
</> = units used to measure sorting </> = - log2 diameter (in mm)

Acknowledgment
I express my appreciation to Shell Oil Co. and Shell
Development Co. for granting permission to prepare
and publish this paper. I also acknowledge the subsequent work by R. S. Torrest on flow through gravel
packed perforations, which expanded this initial effort.
References
1. Mantooth, M. A.: "Statistical Analysis of Recent Sand
Control Work," API Paper 926-13-G, API Committee
on Sand Control (1968).
2. Coberly, C. J., and Wagner, E. M.: "Some Considerations in the Selection and Installation of Gravel Packs
for Oil Wells," Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1938) 1-20.
3. Hill, K. E.: "Factors Affecting the Use of Gravel in
Oil Wells," Oil Weekly (May 26, 1941) 13-20.

4. Winterburn, Read: "Control of Unconsolidated Sands

in Wilmington Oil Field," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API
(1947) 63-79.

211

5. Tausch, G., and Corley, C.: "Sand Exclusion in Oil

and Gas Wells," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1958)
66-82.
6. Sparlin, Derry: "Fight Sand With Sand-A Realistic
Approach to Gravel Packing," paper SPE 2649 presented at SPE-AIME 44th Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colo., Sept. 28-0ct. 1, 1969.
7. Schwartz, D. H.: "Successful Sand Control Design for
High Rate Oil and Water Wells," 1. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1968) 1193-1198.
8. Williams, B. B., Elliott, L. S., and Weaver, R. H.:
"Productivity of Inside Casing Gravel Pack Completions," 1. Pet. Tech. (April 1972) 419-425.
9. Sage, B., and Lacy, W.: "Effectiveness of Gravel
Screens," Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 89-106.
10. Krumbein, W., and Monk, G.: "Permeability as a
Function of Size Parameters of Unconsolidated Sand,"
Trans., AIME (1943) 151, 153-160.
11. Hassinger, R. C.: "Transverse Dispersion in Porous
Media," PhD thesis, Tulane U., New Orleans (1967) 22.

212

12. Greenberg, D., Cresap, R., and Malone, T.: "Intrinsic

Permeability of Hydrological Porous Mediums: Variation With Temperature," Water Resources Res., AGU
(1968) 4, No.4, 791-800.
13. Tek, M. R., Coats, K. H., and Katz, D. L.: "The Effect
of Turbulence on Flow of Natural Gas Through Porous
Reservoirs," 1. Pet. Tech. (July 1962) 799-806; Trans.,
AIME,225.
14. Muskat, Morris: Physical Principles of Oil Production,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1949) 216219.
15. Maly, G. P.: "Improper Formation Sampling Leads to
Improper Selection of Gravel Size," 1. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
JPT
1971) 1403-1414.
Paper (SPE 4030) was presented at SPEAIME 47th Annual Fall
Meeting, held in San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 811, 1972. Copyright
1974 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers, Inc.
This paper will be printed in Transactions volume 257, which will
cover 1974.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY