Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Sanding Process and Permeability Change

S. XUE

University of Petroleum

Y. YUAN

BitCan Geosciences & Engineering Inc.

Abstract
This paper first presents a consistent mathematical framework
to predict sand production volume, focusing on the coupling between hydro-mechanical factors, formation deformation and the
resulting permeability change. Two types of sand production
mechanisms are considered: production of coarse sands under
mechanical failure and production of fine sands under hydro-dynamical erosion. The Drucker-Prager constitutive law with cap
hardening is adopted to describe both dilative and collapsing deformation behaviour. The finite element method is used to solve
the coupled governing equation system.
After the model is validated with a field history case, it is used
to compute two examples of wellbore pressure drawdown and
the associated impact on the near-wellbore sanding process and
permeability change. The calculation indicates that the permeability can be modified any time during the sanding. For example,
under suitable reservoir depletion, the near-wellbore permeability
can increase by 30%. However, more drastic pressure depletion
under the otherwise identical in situ and operating conditions
causes compaction near the wellbore and permeability decline by
nearly 40%. Therefore, these simulated cases suggest that a balanced pressure depletion strategy should be used to manage the
sand production.

Introduction
Sanding becomes more critical as operators follow more aggressive production strategies. Sand production occurs when the reservoir fluid, under high production rates, dislodges a portion of the
formation solids leading to a continuous flux of formation solids
into the wellbore. As a result, the sanding may compromise oil
production, increase completion costs, and erode casing, pipes and
pumps, or plug the well if sufficient quantities are produced.
Moreover, the sanding process may cause complex temporal
and spatial changes in permeability in the near-wellbore region.
Generally, erosion during sanding increases permeability near the
wellbore and thus benefits the petroleum production. Therefore,
sand production has proven effective to increase well productivity,
both in heavy oil and light oil reservoirs.
However, stress concentration around the wellbore and/or perforation tips, if aggressive pressure drawdown is carried out, can
induce localized formation collapse and compaction. Such a collapse/compaction region may spread outwards deep into the formation as the fluid flow and sand production continues. The formation
compaction may lead to permeability impairment which is equivalent to formation damage, albeit mechanically induced. This is particularly serious for weakly consolidated sandstone reservoirs such
as in the Shengli Oil Field in China.

Therefore, however demanding operators are by wanting to


increase production, it is critical to design a proper production
strategy that minimizes the negative impact of sand production on
field operation and reservoir permeability change and/or maximize
its beneficial effect. This can only be achieved via an improved understanding of the sanding mechanism and associated permeability
changes; in particular, the need to understand the sanding process
under an integrated theoretical frame system(1, 2). The challenge is
to develop relevant mathematical models to quantitatively interpret the evolution of the sanding process so that the amount of sand
production can be predicted. A quantitative model will allow engineers to understand the complicated sanding phenomena, evaluate
the impact of sand production on reservoir production and provide an efficient measure to reduce unnecessary costs during field
operations.
From the mechanistic viewpoint, sand production mainly involves the following factors(3):
Inherent factors: including formation consolidation degree
and strength, failure properties, porosity, etc.
External factors: including in situ stress, fluid pressure and
flux, thermal effects, the wellbore structure and completion
technology.
Two types of sand production mechanisms are considered in this
paper: production of coarse sand grains under reservoir structure
failure and production of fine sand grains under reservoir erosion.
These two mechanisms have been proven in the field. In general, a
great amount of coarse sand grains in the produced sands indicates
a local formation structure collapse.
We further focus this paper on building a consistent mathematical framework describing the coupling influence between the
hydro-mechanical aspects of the sanding process and the wellbore
collapse or instabilities. Sand erosion is assumed to be a filtration
phenomenon in which transport of sand grains is initiated during
fluid flow through a porous solid matrix whose porosity, density
and permeability are being modified. The wellbore collapse model
includes fluid pressure, porosity factor and the associated rock
weakening, and stress concentration around the wellbore.

Geomechanical Model for the Coupled


Sanding Process
Basic Assumptions
To evaluate the sand production and wellbore stress in the
framework of continuum mechanics, a series of governing equations and initial/boundary conditions should be derived. In so
doing, however, if we consider all the influential factors in an allencompassing way, the results obtained will be so complicated that
practically no solutions can be found. Therefore, we have to make

PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
April 2007, Volume 46, No. 4

33

some basic assumptions about the sanding process. The basic assumptions in our model are described as follows:
1. A continuum medium is made of a mixture of saturated solid/
fluid phase, including formation matrix or skeleton, fluid and
sanding solids called fluidized sand. Overlay and representative
element volume (REV) concepts are used to build mass conservation equations for each phase.
2. Fluidized sand and fluid flow have the same Darcy velocity.
3. The elastoplastic behaviour of the solid matrix can be characterized by a perfect Drucker-Prager constitutive law with cap hardening in a small deformation state.
4. There are two kinds of sand production mechanisms considered
in this paper: coarse sand production induced by reservoir
structure failure and fine sand production under hydro-dynamical erosion.
To develop an effective prediction model for the sand production, we classify the complicated governing equations into two
parts. The first mainly deals with deformation/failure of the porous
solid matrix and stress concentration, and the fluid flow and sand
transport are included in the second part.

Equations for Deformation of the Solid


Matrix
1. If small deformation is assumed and the Eulerian form employed, mass conservation equation for the solid matrix, can be
written as follows(4):

1 s
t

+ s 1  v = m

1 s v i

dv =

x j

Where ij is the stress tensor and fi is the body force component,


such as gravity.
3. A general stress-strain constitutive equation for the porous solid
matrix is formulated in an incremental formula as follows:
d ij = Cijkl d kl dPij

Assuming that the parameter / f = (1 c) varies less with the


sand concentration c and porosity , it can approximately be
treated as a constant and Equation (6) thus becomes:

q = 0 .................................................................................................. (7)

This simplified fluid flux Equation (7) is widely used in practical numerical analysis(5).
2. Fluid flux is expressed using Darcys law which establishes its
relation with the pressure gradient p. Thus:
ki

p
............................................................................................ (8)

where ki is the effective permeability in direction i. In the current work, the permeability is related to porosity via the CarmenKozeny correlation. For example:

3

k = k0
1

...................................................................................... (9)

which is written for the permeability in any direction. In Equation (9), subscript 0 denotes the initial state.

Equations for Sand Production


1. Similar to the fluid phase, a mass conservation equation for the
fluidized sand phase is derived as follows:

cs
t


dv + cs q dv =

......................................................................... (4)

Equations for Fluid Flow


1. A mass conservation equation for the fluid phase is derived according to the overlay concept. The whole porosity volume in the
field domain is dv. In a REV, this volume is saturated with two
phases: the fluid phase whose volume fraction is (1 c)dv and the
fluidized sand phase whose volume fraction is cdv. Here, c is the

 v
md

................................................. (10)

in the integral form, and:



m
c
+ cq =
t
s

( )

where is Biots coupling coefficient, P is the pore pressure and Cijkl


is the constitutive tensor and depends on the particular constitutive
model to be used. In the current work, a Drucker-Prager model
with a hardening cap is employed to encompass all the possible
deformation modes including strain softening with dilation and
strain hardening with compaction.

34

+ q = 0
t
........................................................................................ (6)

+ fi = 0
........................................................................................... (3)

...................................................................... (5)

where = (1 c) f is the fluid phase density, f is the fluid density



and q is fluid flux with a unit of m/sec. Expressing the integral form
of Equation (5) into a differential Eulerian form results in:

....................................................... (2)

The corresponding equations of static equilibrium are obtained


by setting the velocity component, vi, to zero. Therefore, its Eulerian form is as follows:
ij

................................................................. (1)

x ij + fi dv

t dv + (q )dv = 0

qi =

where s is sand grain density, m is sand erosion rate, is porosity


and v is volumetric strain.
2. A general dynamic mechanics equation for the solid matrix
system, based on the second Newtons law, can be represented
as:

volumetric concentration of the fluidized sands. Mass conservation


of the fluid phase should be taken as the following:

..............................................................................(11)

in its Eulerian form.


2. Another important equation describes the sand erosion which is
driven by the discharge of the fluid flow and can be presented as
the following:
.

m
= 1
s

qi qi

cr

) c cc

................................................................. (12)

where is the sand production coefficient, m is the sand production rate, and ccr is critical sanding concentration.
From Papamichos and Malmanger, the erosion constant is defined
as(6):
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

= 1 p ppeak

if p ppeak

if ppeak p ppeak + 2 / 1
if ppeak + 2 / p

.......................... (13)

where 1 and 2 are two experimental coefficients, p is the maximum


plastic shear strain, and ppeak is the value of p at peak strength.
3. Equations for Failure of Coarse Sands: As described earlier,
sand production also comes from the failed coarse sands and
therefore, another dedicated equation set is needed to describe
this mechanism. This is derived using a combination of strength
theory for the solid matrix and a dedicated numerical scheme. Two
classical rock strength criteria are presented as the following:
a) Shear failureDrucker-Prager criterion
f = I1 + J 2 xk = 0
=

2 sin

......................................................................... (14)
6c cos
xk =
3 3 + sin

where I1 = 1 + 2 + 3, J2 = 12 + 23 + 31, c is cohesion and


is internal friction angle. 1, 2, 3 are the three principal stress
components, respectively.
b) Tensile failure
Because of the rock medias low resistance to tensile stresses,
it is always ruptured perpendicular to the direction of the maximum tensional stress, max,. For example:
f = +max Tcut = 0

Based on the incremental load scheme, the virtual displacement-based variation form for the general solid deformation equations can be written as follows:

(ij ) ( ij + ij ) dv (ij ) ij pdv

....................................................................................... (16)

Finite Element Method Formulations


Two-dimensional geometry is assumed although it is straightforward to extend it to three-dimensional geometry. The finite
element method (FEM) is employed to solve the above derived
governing equations which uniquely determine the unknowns if
appropriate initial and boundary conditions are given. These include: stress components (x, y, xy), two displacement components (ux, uy), fluid pressure (P), fluid flux (qi), porosity () and
April 2007, Volume 46, No. 4

........................................ (17)

(ij ) ij dv

(ij ) ij dv + (ui ) fi dv

( )(

( )

+ ui Ti + ni p ds + ui ij p,i dv

....................................... (18)

Fluid Flow
The fluid flow and sand production Equations (5) to (12) are
numerically solved by a least square-based FEM formulation in
which the classical Lagrange shape functions are retained in the
spatial discretization, but a fully implicit finite difference scheme
is used in the time domain. Description of such a numerical scheme
can be exemplified using the following generic functional of:

F ri , xi , t = f0

...................................................................................... (19)

where ri denotes the unknown variable(s), xi is the space coordinate, t is time and f0 is a stationary function. Equation (19) is discretized in the space and time domain, rendering the following
generic form:

( )

( ) ...................................................................................... (20)

W n+1 rin+1 = W n rin

where t is the current time and t0 is the initial time.

where ui is the variation of displacement components, ij is that


of strain components, 'ij are effective stress components at time
step tn, ij is increment of the effective stresses between time tn to
tn+1 and p is fluid pressure at time tn+1.
Taking stress increments ij as unknown variables, an initial stress
incremental load scheme leads to the following FEM formula:

where M1 is related to the failure development and:

 v dt
M 2 = md
t0

(ui ) fi dv + (ui ) Ti ds

=
............................................................................... (15)

where Tcut is cutoff strength.


The coupled flow-deformation equations as outlined in the
above are solved by numerical methods which yield the state of
stresses. The rock failure criteria in Equations (14) and (15), can
recognize the failure point and type near the wellbore and perforations. With the ever-changing pressure gradient, porosity, sand
erosion and load history during reservoir production, the state of
stresses evolves near the wellbore and perforations. So does the
coarse sand failure and it is therefore important to simulate this
dynamic process in order to predict the sand production volume.
A concept of failure elements is developed, implemented and
verified to address the evolution of the failure process. Because
of limited space, the relevant details are not described herein.
As a final note to the governing equations, the sanding mass
being produced is the sum of the eroded fine sands and failed
coarse sands. For example:
M = M1 + M 2

Elastoplastic Deformation of the Solid Matrix

3 3 + sin

sand concentration (c). Ultimately, the sand volume to be produced


is summed, which is integrated through space and time dimensions
as shown in Equation (16). Below, specific FEM formulations for
the various governing equation parts are discussed separately.
To solve the above equation system, an uncoupled numerical
scheme seems to be the only option available, i.e., the solid matrix
deforming part and the fluid flowing sand erosion part are devised
into two detached code modules(7).

in which Wn+1 and Wn are discrete functions for time steps tn+1 and
tn , respectively. Taking Wn+1 or Wn as the weighted residuals, a
new super-implicit iterative format about unknowns (ri) at time tn+1
is obtained as follows:

W n+1 W n+1dv = W n+1 W n dv

........................................................ (21)

or

W n W n+1dv = W n W n dv

............................................................. (22)
35

()

r = N j rj t
j

....................................................................................... (23)

where r stands for each of the field unknowns, r is the corresponding nodal unknown and Nj is the interpolation function. Summation is done over the number of elemental nodes.
Time discretization is accomplished by a fully implicit finite
difference scheme and therefore, the fluid flow and sand production Equations (5) to (12) are discretized into the following forms:
qin+1
xi

qin+1

6.00E-2

Predicted
Field data

4.00E-2

2.00E-2

0.00E+0
0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Production Time (days)


=0
.............................................................................................. (24)

k p n+1
= i
xi

................................................................................... (25)

c n+1 c n n n+1 n
c n+1
+c
+ n qin
t
t
xi

n+1 n
=
t

................................................ (26)

n+1 n
= 1 n+1
t

n+1 n
= 1 n+1
t

)
)

qin qin

.............................................................. (27)

cn
1 c n qin qin
c

cr

q n+1
W n+1 = i
1
xi

n
W
=
0
1
...................................................................................... (29)

k p n+1
W2N +1 = qxn+1 + x
x

N
W2 = 0

k y p n+1
N +1
n+1
W3 = q y +
y

W N = 0
3

FIGURE 1: Comparison between predicted sand production by the


current model and the field data. Y-axis has a unit of m3 per 1-m
reservoir thickness.
W N +1 = n c n+1 + c n n+1
4
c n+1 c n+1

t n+1
+ n qin
+

x
N
W4 = 2 n c n n
................................................. (31)

N +1
n+1
n n n+1
W5 = + t qi qi

W N = n + t q n q n
5
i i

............................................................. (32)

W N +1 = n+1 1 + t 1 c c n q n q n
i i
c

cr

cn
N
n
n
n n
W6 = + t 1 c qi qi
ccr

............................................. (33)

............................................. (28)

For each of the above temporally discretized Equations (24) to


(28), the corresponding least square-based FEM discrete functions
expressed in the generic forms in Equations (21) and (22) are given
by:

36

Average Sand Production Volume Each Well

Compared with the Newton-Raphson method, the above-derived least square-based FEM method does not need to calculate
the Jacobian matrix at every time step. At each element scale, the
unknown variables are approximated by using the classical Lagrange interpolation functions:

Numerical Examples and Analysis


The above-described model is first validated using field sand
production data collected from ten wells in Gudong (Shengli,
China) over a period of 30 days. Figure 1 shows the prediction
using the current model and its comparison with the historical field
data. The latter is an average sand production volume per well collected from the ten wells. As many of the geomechanical parameters were not well defined, the numerical results may only be
considered as a semi-quantitative study. However, the comparison
shown in Figure 1 shows a reasonable match.
To illustrate the impact of reservoir depletion on the near-wellbore deformation and associated permeability change, two cases of
wellbore load are simulated and discussed below.

Case I

...................................................................... (30)

A 5 MPa pressure drawdown is first imposed while a 10 MPa


initial pore pressure is maintained at the outer boundary. The
model geometry and relevant FEM meshes are shown in Figure
2. Note that a group of perforations are included in the model.
The wellbore pressure load history being simulated is depicted in
Figure 3. Some other relevant simulation parameters are listed in
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 4a: Maximum shear stress around the wellbore (time = 10


days, Case I).

FIGURE 2: Finite element meshes for the numerical analysis.

Wellbore Load (MPa)

25
Wellbore pressure

20

Wellbore stress

15

10

FIGURE 4b: Failure region around the wellbore (time = 10 days,


Case I).

Case I
5

Case II

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Production Time (days)

FIGURE 3: Wellbore pressure load history.

TABLE 1: Some numerical simulation parameters.


Outer boundary dimension
Wellbore diameter
Initial Wellbore stress
Middle Wellbore stress
Final Wellbore stress
Reservoir pressure
Final Wellbore pressure
Initial porosity
Initial permeability

10.0 m
0.1 m
20 MPa
10 MPa
5 MPa
10 MPa
5 MPa
0.25
300 mD

Table 1. Figures 4a, 4b and 4c illustrate the evolution of near-wellbore deformation and failure during the depletion and Figure 5
shows the associated permeability change. These results are discussed in more detail below.
Stress concentration near the perforation tips enhances plastic
shear deformation. Initially, this effect is limited close to the tip
region (Figures 4a and 4b). However, over time, it gradually expands and may eventually connect with similar failure regions
around the neighboring perforation tips. As a result, a ring of shearfailed region, which is more or less concentric with the borehole,
may be formed at a certain distance (equivalent to the perforation
penetration) away from the wellbore (Figures 4b and 4c). As the
April 2007, Volume 46, No. 4

FIGURE 4c: Failure region around the wellbore (time = 30 days,


Case I).

pressure depletion continues, the ring-shaped shear failure region


may emerge eventually with another failure region progressing
from the borehole wall and consequently, a circular patch of failed
region around the wellbore is formed (Figure 4c).
The above-described plastic deformation phenomenon causes
sand detachment and boosts up sand production volume. Meanwhile, porosity and permeability of the reservoir rock are modified
by the deformation. As shown in Figure 5, average permeability
37

Average Permeability
Around the Wellbore (mD)

5.00E+2

4.00E+2

3.00E+2

2.00E+2

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Production Time (days)


FIGURE 5: Computed permeability change vs. production time
(Case I).

FIGURE 7a: Failure region around the wellbore (time = 10 days,


Case II).

Average Permeability
Around the Wellbore (mD)

5.00E+2

4.00E+2

3.00E+2

2.00E+2

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Production Time (days)


FIGURE 6: Computed permeability change vs. production time
(Case II).

around a well can increase by up to 30% in a short production period (5 to 10 days in the current simulated case).

Case II
To understand the mechanism of permeability decline under depletion(8), the bottomhole pressure is drawn down to 0 in the current case.
All other relevant parameters are identical to Case I.
When the near-wellbore pressure drops down to zero, the region enters into compaction. As a result, the formation permeability decreases
due to the formation collapse. Calculated according to Boutcas correlation(8), which was derived from lab experiments and based on a
Drucker-Prager cap-hardening model, a quantitative evaluation of the
permeability decline is shown in Figure 6 and the associated failure distribution is shown in Figures 7a and 7b.
Figure 6 shows that permeability near the wellbore may decline
to 60% of the initial value under the currently assumed production
strategy. However, Figure 6 also conveys that an episode of permeability increase precedes the eventual decline. This correlates to the complicated deformation process. Figures 7a and 7b depict the fact that the
shear and tensile failure modes alternate in space and time, especially
near the perforation tips. This is caused by the combined effect of perforations and fluid flow. In all, the simulation shows that the compacting
38

FIGURE 7b: Failure region around the wellbore (time = 30 days,


Case II).

deformation further complicates the sanding process and the relevant


permeability change.

Conclusion and Discussion


Based on the theory of continuum mechanics, an integrated and
fully coupled flow-deformation sand production model is proposed
and its numerical calculation implemented. It also allows variation
of the permeability during the sanding process. The model is used
to simulate a field history case in Gudong (Shengli, China) and it
matches to the field data reasonably well.
The two simulation examples suggest a strong influence from
wellbore pressure drawdown on the near-wellbore permeability
change. The permeability increases by 30% in one computed case
involving a moderate pressure drawdown. However, more drastic
pressure depletion under the otherwise identical in situ and operating conditions causes compaction near the wellbore and results
in a permeability decline by nearly 40%.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

The permeability change is mainly controlled by the bottomhole


pressure history and mechanical properties of the reservoir sands.
One should not blankly assume that sanding always enhances permeability near the wellbore and thus promotes oil/gas production. The currently simulated complete drawdown of the reservoir
pressure (i.e. drawdown to 0) may represent one extreme scenario
for the field production strategy. However, the simulated compacting deformation and the relevant permeability decline suggests that too much pressure depletion during production may
cause compaction near the wellbore. The associated permeability
decrease is similar to commonly seen formation damage, although
it is stress-induced. Therefore, a balanced pressure strategy should
be employed to avoid the permeability decline.
The simulated failure progression and its resultant impact on
sand production and porosity/permeability alteration depend on
the in situ and operating conditions. Depending on individual operational objectives, one may manipulate the field operations particular to the corresponding in situ conditions to limit or promote
such failure development. This is where petroleum geomechanics
can be proactively utilized for production enhancement or cost
savings. Further details should be studied/designed pertaining to
particular reservoir geology.
It is also noticeable from the current work that some strong coupling effects exist between the permeability change and sanding
process during reservoir production. The coupling can be characterized by the stress/deformation near the wellbore. The simulation
further shows that for sanding-prone reservoirs, a detailed geomechanical analysis about the reservoir deformation process can aid
in designing a rational production scheme.

REFERENCES

Acknowledgements

ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Sanding Process


and Permeability Change (2004-118), first presented at the 5th Canadian
International Petroleum Conference (the 55th Annual Technical Meeting
of the Petroleum Society), June 8-10, 2004, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review December 3, 2003; editorial comments sent
to the author(s) November 23, 2006; revised manuscript received January
4, 2007; paper approved for pre-press January 4, 2007; final approval
March 1, 2007.

Financial support from Schlumberger Technologies (Beijing)


Ltd., the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and the
CNPC Innovation Foundation is greatly appreciated. Shifeng Xue
also thanks Professor Hongkui Ge for his technical guidance on
the project.

1. CHIN, L.Y. and RAMOS, G.G., Predicting Volumetric Sand Production in Weak Reservoirs; paper SPE 78169 presented at the SPE/ISRM
Rock Mechanics Conference, Irving, TX, 20-23 October 2002.
2. WAN, R.G. and WANG, J., Modelling Sand Production Within a
Continuum Mechanics Framework; Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 46-52, April 2002.
3. MORITA, N. and BOYD, P.A., Typical Sand Production Problems:
Case Studies and Strategies for Sand Control; paper SPE 22739
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX, 6-9 October 1991.
4. XUE, S.F. and SONG, H.Z., The Theoretical Formulation of Immiscible Saturated Two-Phase Flow in Deformed Porous Media II:
Uncoupling Equation by Finite Element Formulations; Seismological
Geology (Chinese), Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 253-260, 1999.
5. PAPAMICHOS, E. and STAVROPOULOU, M., An Erosion-Mechanical Model for Sand Production Rate Prediction; International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 531-532, June 1998.
6. PAPAMICHOS, E. and MALMANGER, E.M., A Sand Erosion
Model for Volumetric Sand Predictions in a North Sea Reservoir;
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 44-50,
February 2001.
7. WANG, Y. and XUE, S.F., Simulating Cold Production by a Coupled
Reservoir-Geomechanics Model With Sand Erosion; paper 2002-171
presented at the Petroleum Societys Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, AB, 11-13 June 2002.
8. BOUTCA, M.J., SARDA, J-P. and VINCKE, O., Constitutive Law
for Permeability Evolution of Sandstones During Depletion; paper
SPE 58717 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, LA, 23-24 February 2000.

NOMENCLATURE
c
ccr
c0
Cijkl
fi
ki
k0
m , M
p
P
qi
t
t0
Tcut
ui

vi
V

v
1, 2

f
s
ij

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

sand concentration
sanding critical concentration
cohesion
constitutive tensor
body force component
permeability
initial permeability
sanding rate and sanding mass
fluid pressure
pore pressure
fluid flux
time
initial time
Cut-off strength
solid matrix displacement components
Poissons ratio
velocity component
sanding volume
Biot coefficient
shear strain
volumetric strain
sand production coefficients
fluid viscosity
fluid density
sand grain density
stress tensor
internal friction angle
porosity
friction and dilatant angles

April 2007, Volume 46, No. 4

Authors Biographies
Dr. Shifeng Xue is currently a professor
at the China Petroleum University in the
Peoples Republic of China. He has a
Masters degree in applied mechanics from
Tianjin University and received his Ph.D.
in geomechanics in 2000. His research
also includes multiphase flow and rock
deformation, wellbore stability and sanding
mechanism, casing collapse analysis and
protection, characterization of fractured
reservoirs and hydraulic fracturing in fractured reservoirs.
Dr. Yanguang Yuan, P.Geol., P.Eng. is the
founder and principal of BitCan Geosciences & Engineering Inc. BitCan specializes in the simulation of nonlinear coupled
geomechanical reservoir processes near
the wellbore at reservoir scale and fracture/failure processes in rock formations.
The company provides innovative solutions
to enhance in situ oil sands development,
analysis and design of overburden/casing
integrity and the development of low-permeability fractured reservoirs. Dr. Yuan was initially educated in
China and finished his Ph.D. at the School of Petroleum & Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma. He has been an independent consultant to the petroleum industry worldwide since
2000. Dr. Yuan is a member of APEGGA, the Petroleum Society
and SPE.
39