SPE 27424
Simple Method Predicts Downhole Shaped-Charge Performance
R.E. Ott, SPE, Mobil E&P US Inc.; W. T. Bell, Consultant; J.W. Harrigan Jr., SPE, Schlumberger Wireline and Testing;
and T. G. Golian, Shaped Charge Specialist Inc.
Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review July 9, 1993.
Revised manuscript received April 12, 1994, and accepted for
publication April 25, 1994. Reprinted herein, the paper was
originally published in SPE Production & Facilities (August
1994), 171-178.
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain the conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications manager,
SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S. A. Telex,
730989 SPEDAL.
______________________________________________
Summary
A simple method is proposed for predicting downhole
shaped-charge gun performance based on the use of API
RP-43, Edition 5, Sec. 1 data. API Sec. 1 has been the
preferred method for assessing perforation gun system
performance because of the simplicity of the test and its
use of standard field guns fired at maximum shot densities
and positioned as they would be in an actual well. The
validity of the proposed method is demonstrated, allaying
past concerns regarding the translation of data from Sec. 1
nonrock, nonstressed concrete targets to downhole
conditions. The new method is based on an observed
linear relationship between Edition 5, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2
penetration information. The applicability of the well-
known Thompson relationship between formation
compressive strength and perforator penetration to Edition
5, Sec. 2 and therefore to Sec. 1 data is shown.
Incorporating necessary corrections for casing entrance
hole size, downhole effective formation stress, and casing
configurations different from those in the API test
completes the translation of surface data to downhole
conditions.
Introduction
Well performance is significantly affected by the extent of
perforated hole penetration into the formation and the
hole size in the casing, together with other fixed
geometric parameters, such as shot density and gun
phasing.1 Values of perforation penetration and hole size
commonly available to the completion designer are
provided by API RP-43, Edition 52 published data. These
data are derived from tests at the surface and provide only
limited simulation of subsurface conditions regarding
formation physical properties and stress. Surface data can
significantly vary from that to be expected downhole and
must be converted to in-situ values before proceeding
with well flow performance calculations.3 This
conversion of RP 43, Edition 5 surface test performance
to downhole involves consideration of the specific
downhole formation physical properties, formation in-situ
stress, casing properties, and the specific gun-to-casing
configuration.
This paper reviews the factors affecting downhole
penetration and casing entrance hole size for perforating
guns, discusses API data as a basis for predicting
downhole performance, reviews API test results and
results of tests performed specifically for this paper, and
proposes a procedure for translating surface API data to
downhole conditions.
Factors Affecting Downhole Performance of
Perforating Guns
Gun-to-Casing Clearance. Clearance, the distance
between the gun OD and the casing ID along the axis of
the shaped-charge jet, can have a significant effect on
total penetration, L, and casing entrance hole size, deh.4 As
Fig. 1 shows, the estimated downhole L/deh of a
commercial 3⅜-in. gun perforating 7-in. casing varies
from 14.45 in./0.35 in. to 7.65 in./0.21 in. when operated
in the common eccentric running position (Fig. 1a).
Values are constant when clearance is controlled (Figs. 1b
and 1c), typical methods for positioning guns. The
importance of the gun-to-casing arrangement is evident; it
is the estimated downhole L/deh used in mathematical
models to calculate will flow.1,5
Formation Strength. Compressive strength of the
formation being penetrated influences perforation
2 R.E. OTT, W. T. BELL, J.W. HARRIGAN Jr. AND T.G. GOLIAN
penetration depth. Thompson6 disclosed a semi-log
relationship between formation wet compressive strength
and total penetration depth (casing thickness + cement
thickness + formation penetration) for API Edition 4
Section 2 type targets. Penetration performance in
unstressed sandstones and limestones of different
compressive strengths is available in the literature.6,7
The high-strength end of Thompson’s relationship
(beyond 14,000 psi) was modified by data from Weeks’ 8
formula, resulting in the composite representation in Fig.
2. As Fig. 2 indicates, a perforating gun that provides a
penetration of 11.8 in. in rock with a wet compressive
strength of 7,000 psi (Point A) will penetrate less than 7
in. in a 14,000 psi formation (Point B). On the other hand,
it would penetrate 15 in. in a 3,000 psi material (Point C).
Use of mean wet uniaxial compressive strength, S, values
is suggested in applying the above relationship.9 S is
defined as the average of compressive strength values
taken perpendicular and parallel to the bedding plane of
saturated rock. It is related to the commonly used dry
compressive strength measured perpendicular to bedding
plane, Sd, as follows10:
S=0.73Sd. ……………...………………………….(1)
When the value of S is unavailable, it may be
approximated using formation porosity by means of Fig.
3, which is derived from the results of tests in several
sandstones and limestones.3,6,9,11 These tests were
performed in cores taken from surface outcrops, and
results might be somewhat different in downhole
formations. Data are limited below about 15% porosity
for sandstones. Additional work should be done to
improve the definition of the porosity/compressive
strength relationship over a broader range of porosity and
over a larger number of formation rocks. Nevertheless, in
the range of 18% to 23% porosity, substantial and
consistent data are available, providing a good curve fit.
Formation Effective Stress. Formation effective stress is
the overburden stress, po, minus the reservoir or pore
pressure, pp3,12:
σ=po-pp, ……………………………...……………(2)
where all factors are measured in psi.
Stress reduces penetration (Fig. 4).3,13,14 Conceptually,
increasing stress makes the formation appear stronger.
When predicting downhole performance from API test
results, the effect can result in either a reduction or a gain
in estimated penetration. The magnitude and nature of the
effect will depend on stress in the formation compared
with the stress in the RP 43, Edition 5 tests. Specifics are
developed later.
Hydrostatic Pressure. Although wellbore pressure tends
to reduce penetration, the correlation for these hydrostatic
SPE 27424
pressure effects is included in the formation effective
stress correction described above.15
Casing Strength. Casing grade affects perforation
entrance hole diameter, deh, to a significant degree but
exerts only a negligible effect on penetration across the
typical API Sec. 1 test range of single casing-wall
thicknesses.16
In single-casing completions, deh varies with the midrange
Brinell hardness, H, of the particular casing grade,
according to the following expression17:
dehdownhole=dehSec. 1[3,186.6/(2,250+4.2Hdownhole]0.5, ..(3)
where dehSec. 1 is measured in the Grade L-80 casing
specified in RP 43 Sec. 1, Edition 5. Fig. 5 provides a
graphical representation of Eq. 3. As Fig. 5 indicates, deh
in P-110 casing would decrease about 4.5% from the API
Sec. 1 reference value, while deh in Grade J-55 pipe would
increase about 3%. Table 1 provides the relationship
between casing grade and physical properties.17 Casing-
wall thickness typically manifests a negligible effect of
deh.16 However, the exit hole in the casing will decrease a
few percent in thicker casings.
Note that the literature sets forth three different
relationships for estimated downhole deh size. The one
indicated in Eq. 3 is most common; the second18 agrees
within about 2%. The third16 shows an effect that is
significantly greater than the others and is not supported
by data developed on today’s charges.
In multicasing completions, deh in the inner concentric
casing may be predicted from Eq. 3. Values of deh for the
second and third strings must be determined from tests
simulating downhole configurations because no simple,
reliable predictive relationships exist.
Penetration will be reduced by the presence of additional
strings. The reduction can be approximated by modifying
the API Sec. 1 penetration, LAPI, to take into account the
additional strings and cement, LAPI’. The remaining
penetration value is then translated downhole, as
discussed later. The most common approach for
addressing multiple casings is Eq. 4. LAPI’ for a three-
string configuration is:
LAPI’=LAPI-3.5(h1+h2)-htc, ……..…………………..(4)
where h1 and h2 are the first and second string wall
thicknesses and htc is the total cement thickness between
the first and third strings.
The approach involves the use of data generated in the
Exxon Perforator Evaluation.19
Predicting Downhole Performance From API Data
RP 43 Edition 5 procedures were developed primarily to
provide a basis for comparing performance levels of
different commercial charges under controlled surface test
SPE 27424 SIMPLE METHOD PREDICTS DOWNHOLE SHAPED-CHARGE GUN PERFORMANCE
conditions. The foregoing factors that influence L and deh
of the perforator downhole are only partially simulated,
depending on the particular API test (e.g., Sec. 1, Sec. 2).
Nevertheless, API tests are designed to measure
performance under specific reference conditions, and the
results of these tests can provide the basis for predicting
downhole performance.
API Section 1 – Evaluation of Perforating Systems
Under Surface Conditions: Concrete Targets. Shown
schematically in Fig. 6, the Sec. 1 test simulates the
important downhole gun-to-casing configuration depicted
in Fig. 1, providing directly the desired reference L and
deh. Specific formation strength and effective stress are
not simulated. The test provides data from standard field
guns fired at maximum shot densities through L-80 casing
into controlled-strength concrete where no less than 8 to
12 charges are fired under ambient-temperature and
atmospheric-pressure test conditions. The gun is
positioned as it will be run in the well (eccentered,
centralized, or positioned) to reflect clearance effects
accurately (Fig. 1).
Compressive strength of the concrete target is specified to
be 5,000 psi minimum based on dry test briquet
measurements made at the time that the shooting test is
performed. Compressive strengths have been seen to
range as high as 9,000 psi, which can give rise to
penetration differences with the same gun/charge as high
as 28% or about 7% per 1,000-psi change in dry
compressive strength.20
The actual internal dry compressive strength, Sdry, of the
target is different from the briquet value, Sdb. A replot of
data from the literature10 (Fig. 7) shows that internal
strength is very close to:
Sdry=0.67Sdb. ………..……………………………..(5)
The information presented in Fig. 7 is somewhat limited,
and additional work might be profitable directed toward
better defining briquet vs. target internal compressive
strengths for API Sec. 1 targets.
As will be seen later, the internal dry compressive stength
is further corrected to provide an equivalent, or pseudo,
mean wet compressive strength for use in predicting
downhole L. In terms of deh, the API-specified L-80
casing provides a good basis for predicting hole size in
other grades of pipe using Eq. 3.
In addition to providing the desired downhole
configuration, this test provides the most complete and
best measure of gun system performance of all the API
tests. It satisfies the concern that individually fired
charges may not always perform as they do within a gun
system at high shot density. Statistics also are better
because more data are provided at conditions of specific
interest.
3
In some instances, API data will not be available for a
particular casing size. For example, assume that data are
available on a 3⅜-in. gun eccentered in 5½-in. casing but
the downhole configuration involves 7-in. casing. In such
a case, there are two approaches for predicting downhole
L and deh performance. The preferred approach is to
request that the service company perform a Sec. 1 test in
the desired casing size. The second approach involves
estimating Sec. 1 performance in the casing of interest. L
values at the higher clearance can be estimated by
assuming that the distance from the center of the gun to
the end of the perforated hole is constant.21 The accuracy
of this approximating diminishes at higher clearances
(Fig. 1). Regarding deh, extrapolation of data to larger
gun-to-casing clearances is open to significant
inaccuracies, emphasizing the need for tests in the casing
of interest.
API Sec. 2 – Evaluation of Perforators Under Stress
Conditions: Berea Target. Designed to measure L under
simulated stress conditions, the Sec. 2 test uses a Berea
sandstone target. Use of the stressed target was intended
to provide penetration values representative of those
expected downhole. An effective stress of 3,000 psi was
selected as the best compromise between downhole
simulation and cost of testing. Fig. 8 compares the
Edition 5 stressed target configuration with the former
Edition 4 unstressed system. A mild steel target face plate
is used for both systems to simulate casing, and three
shots are made, one at a time. All shots are made at 0.5-in.
gun-casing clearance.
As indicated in Fig. 9, the 3,000 psi stress level accounts
for most of the effect expected in a reservoir. Fig. 9 is a
replot of Fig. 4 data normalized to the 3,000 psi stress
level and fitted to a single curve. The validity of the
information in Fig. 9 has been confirmed by recent test
data. Caution should be exercised at stress levels much
below 3,000 psi because the accuracy diminishes as a
result of perforator and rock strength dependency.
Translating Sec. 2 performance to downhole conditions
involves a number of considerations. The fixed 0.5-in.
clearance requires adjustments to L as described in the
previous section. Moreover, L values derived from the
Sec. 2 test are subject to variations in Berea target
properties. Berea porosity is controlled by API Edition 5
specifications to 19% to 21%, corresponding to an S range
of 6,100 to 7,900 psi. That range can give rise to a P
variation of 15% within the test specification.6,20 Thus,
any use of data for comparing competitive charges
directly or predicting downhole values must consider
target strength variations.
Entrance hole in the mild steel face-plate used in Sec. 2
testing cannot be converted to downhole conditions; the
Sec. 1 test must be used for hole size data.
4 R.E. OTT, W. T. BELL, J.W. HARRIGAN Jr. AND T.G. GOLIAN
API Sec. 3 – Evaluation of Perforator Systems at
Elevated Temperature Conditions. Although not
directly applicable to the context of this paper, Sec. 3
provides the basis for establishing that the perforator
system, including charges, will perform reliably at rated
temperature, pressure, and exposure time. Gun
performance, as measured under Sec. 3 simulated
downhole conditions of temperature and pressure, should
be within about 5% of performance at ambient
temperature and atmospheric pressure. Generally, Sec. 3
test results at temperature have been observed to be better
than those at ambient temperature by about 5% for
published exposure times.
Sec. 3 data may not always be available. The test is
optional under API Edition 5 procedures; i.e., the test is
not required, nor do the data have to be filed with the
API.2
API Sec. 4 – Evaluation of Perforation Flow
Performance Under Simulated Downhole Conditions.
Test configuration is similar to Sec. 2 (Fig. 8b). The test is
designed to provide a measure of perforation flow
performance in either quarry rock or an actual will core.
A set of standard conditions for testing in Berea is also
provided. Shots are made under site-specific simulated
conditions of overburden load and pore pressure. Tests
involve individual shots at a single clearance, as in Sec. 2,
but the Sec. 4 test clearance can be adjusted at the
discretion of the service company or operator.
When field cores are used, the test provides a direct
measurement of L under site-specific downhole
conditions subject to adjustments in L to accommodate
gun-to-casing clearance. If Berea is used, L must be
adjusted for rock compressive strength and clearance. In
either case, the deh data are unreliable, as in the Sec. 2 test.
Sec. 1 deh performance must be used for predicting
downhole values.
The Sec. 4 test includes provisions for measuring flow
performance of the perforation. Flow test results can be
used to determine the perforator damaged-zone
permeability reduction factor,2 a useful parameter in well
flow analysis.
Sec. 4 is also an optional test. Data are typically not
available on a gun of interest or in a specific formation at
unique downhole conditions. Edition 5 does not require
the test to be performed, not do the data have to be filed
with the API.2
A New Method for Predicting Downhole Performance
Sec. 1 has long been the preferred method for assessing
perforating gun system performance. Reasons for this
popularity include the simplicity of the test and the use of
standard field guns fired at maximum shot densities and
positioned as they would be in the well. Moreover, Sec. 1
SPE 27424
has always been relied on for casing hole size data.
However, questions have persisted regarding target
properties and stress effects. A particular concern was that
charges of different sizes and types might perform
differently in the nonrock, nonstressed, lower-strength
concrete target.
Consequently, the industry has continued to rely on Sec. 2
for penetration values because real rock (Berea) is used,
and the test has always been conducted under some
degree of downhole simulation – first pressure and
temperature, and now the effect stress elements of Edition
5. However, data recently developed by the RP 43
committee and the authors indicate that average Sec. 1
data can be used in lieu of Sec. 2 data for penetration
performance with essentially the same level of
confidence. As a result, a simplier method for predicting
downhole performance is proposed.
A review of published API data suggests a linear
relationship between Sec. 1 and 2 performance (Fig. 10).
Although there is dispersion in the data, a ratio of 0.69 fits
the data reasonably well, and the ratio is considered valid
in view of the large number of data points, which tend to
minimize the effects of variations in target physical
characteristics. Moreover, the ratio has been verified with
recent Edition 5 data together with the supplementary test
data presented in Table 2 and Fig. 11. The raw data in
Table 2 and Fig. 11, uncorrected for differences in target
physical properties, confirmed essentially the same linear
relationship with a ratio of 0.70. It is suggested that the
relative accuracy and reproducibility of Sec. 1 and 2 tests
are, for all practical purposes, identical. Consequently,
results from either test are applicable for converting API
data to downhole conditions.
A somewhat surprising observation is presented in Fig.
12. Significant differences are not observed between
results of tests in the unstressed Sec. 2, Edition 4 target
and the stressed Sec. 2, Edition 5 configuration. The
information in Fig. 12 suggests the penetration differences
expected to result from the use of Edition 5 with its
different target geometry factors compared with Edition
4,3.13,22 as well as the applied stress, are not materializing.
It appears that the target configuration for the Edition 4,
Sec. 2 test effectively simulates the effects of the 3,000-
psi applied stress of Edition 5. The steel container and
cement used for the Edition 4 target (Fig. 8a) apparently
reduces penetration in a manner similar to an applied
stress of 3,000-psi.
The significance of the observation is that Thompson’s
data (Fig. 2), which was generated using a target
configuration identical to Sec. 2, Edition 4, essentially
manifests an effective stress level of 3,000 psi. It follows
that Sec. 2, Edition 5 data can be applied directly to the
Thompson data in Fig. 2 to predict downhole L at
different levels of mean wet compressive strength.
SPE 27424 SIMPLE METHOD PREDICTS DOWNHOLE SHAPED-CHARGE GUN PERFORMANCE
Moreover, because Sec. 1, Edition 5 has been shown to
have a specific linear relationship to Sec. 2 (Fig. 11), the
Sec. 1 data may be applied directly to the Thompson
curves (Fig. 2) in place of the Sec. 2 information by
simply observing an appropriate target compressive
strength correction.
Fig. 13 shows an example of these relationships. Points A
and B represent Edition 5, Sec. 2 and 1 data, respectively,
from Table 2. For Point B (Sec. 1) to maintain the
Thompson relationship with Point A (Sec. 2), it will have
to be projected horizontally to the left until it intersects
the appropriate Thompson curve. The projection results in
Point C, which provides the equivalent, or pseudo, mean
wet compressive strength for Sec. 1.
Applying the foregoing procedure to the information in
Table 2, the average correction factor for determining
equivalent Sec. 1 mean wet compressive strength was
found to be 0.41. Thus,
Sw=0.41Sdb, ………………..………………………(6)
where Sw is the equivalent mean wet compressive strength
and Sdb is the compressive strength of the dry briquet. The
correction factor was applied to the dry-briquet
compressive strengths in Table 2 to determine the
calculated strengths. These data were used to predict Sec.
2 performance using the Thompson relationship. As
indicated in Table 2, agreement between the measured
Sec. 2 penetration and the penetration predicted by Sec. 2
from the corrected Sec. 1 data was generally quite good.
Further support for the validity of using the foregoing
procedure in predicting downhole penetration
performance, notwithstanding the small target
configuration of Fig. 8a, is evidenced by the equivalent
results obtained in the large tests described in the
literature.22
As indicated in Table 2, several perforators varied from
the average. While the information in Table 2 is published
API data, the manufacturers of the three perforators (B, D,
and O) expressed concern over the recorded target
strengths. Nevertheless, removing the three perforators
from the calculations does not change the overall average
significantly and does not in any way invalidate the
procedure. The variations support the earlier suggestion
that additional work should be directed toward better
defining briquet vs. internal target strength.
The logic underlying the procedure for predicting
downhole penetration performance from API Edition 5
data may be summarized as follows: Observation of a
linear relationship between Sec. 1 and 2 API data for both
Editions 4 and 5 (Figs. 10 and 11); essentially identical
results from Sec. 2 tests for both Editions 4 and 5 (Fig.
12); validity of applying Section 2 data to Thompson’s
curve because Thompson’s target configuration was
identical to Sec. 2, Edition 4 target; and validity of
5
applying Sec. 1, Edition 5 data directly to Thompson’s
curve, observing an appropriate compressive strength
correction (Fig. 13) that is confirmed by publishing
Edition 5, Sec. 1 and 2 data.
Once the Sec. 1, Edition 5 penetration is corrected for
strength, influence of stress levels higher or lower than
the reference 3,000-psi effective stress can be corrected
by means of Fig. 9, which provides good accuracy under
most downhole stress conditions, particularly at stress
levels of 3,000-psi or higher. As suggested by Fig. 4 and
the literature,3,13 the accuracy will be reduced at stress
levels below 3,000 psi.
The actual formation penetration required for prediction
of well flow performance can be determined by
subtracting the thickness of the cement sheath and casing
from the total penetration (corrected for API target
strength, downhole formation strength, and effective
stress) as follows for single casing strings:
Lp=Ls-0.5(dw-di), ………………………………….(7)
where Lp=downhole perforation length (in the formation),
Ls=penetration LAPI corrected for formation strength and
effective stress, dw=wellbore diameter, and di=casing ID.
For multiple casing strings, the first and second casing
strings and the cement between the first and third strings
must be subtracted from the API test penetration (use LAPI’
from Eq. 4) before applying corrections for downhole
conditions. Therefore, only the third casing string, di3, and
the thickness of the cement sheath remain to be subtracted
from the total penetration, LS’:
Lp=LS-0.5(dw-di3). …………………………………(8)
Although the multiple string method (using Eqs. 4 and 8)
provides a reasonable estimate for downhole Lp, accurate
test data should be obtained from the service company on
the multistring configuration of interest.
Finally, for deep penetrating perforators used in natural
completions, average casing entrance hole diameter, deh,
is determined by applying the correction factor from Fig.
5 to the Sec. 1, Edition 5 average deh data. If the downhole
casing ID is not more than about 1 in. larger than that
used in the API test (e.g., API casing was about 4½ in. in
diameter, downhole is 5½ in.), the API average deh may
be used for downhole deh determinations. However, if the
casing ID is more than 1 in. larger (e.g., API shot in 4½-
in. pipe, downhole is 7 in.), a special test must be
performed to ensure reasonably accurate downhole deh
predictions.
If the completion of interest involves a big-hole perforator
and a gravel pack or completion where gas flow is
anticipated, deh information must be determined in Sec. 1
tests in the specific casing of interest. Further, the
predicted downhole deh data must be determined using the
6 R.E. OTT, W. T. BELL, J.W. HARRIGAN Jr. AND T.G. GOLIAN
average of the squares of the diameters of the individual
entrance holes.
A Specific Example of the Procedure
A nomograph (Fig. 14) derived from the foregoing
relationships facilitates correcting Sec. 1, Edition 5 test
data to approximate downhole performance. Table 3
gives a hypothetical example.
Qualifications/Limitations
While the proposed method is approximate, the accuracy
of a downhole penetration prediction is entirely
acceptable in terms of well flow calculation differences
(e.g., in sensitivity analysis), assuming, of course, that
API test data are representative of production charges and
that the data are generated in accordance with API test
specifications. Such assumptions are entirely reasonable
in view of recent field audits23 that have checked
production-line quality control data against field charges
and API published data.
The data presented in this paper show that most charges
follow the general relationships quite well when using
raw information directly from the API data sheets or from
the different companies/manufacturers conducting the
tests. Only occasionally will a specific charge vary from
the general relationships to any significant degree.
Normalization of data (correction for different target
properties permitted within the API specification) is not
required when the proposed method is used to predict
downhole penetration. Actual target values are used
directly, with correction being made automatically by the
nomograph (using Thompson’s relationship). However,
normalization would be required when API data are used
directly to compare relative performance of commercial
charges.
Conclusions
1. API Sec. 1, Edition 5 test data are applicable to,
and recommended for, prediction downhole
values of shaped-charge gun penetration and
entrance hole size in casing.
2. A simple method for predicting the downhole
penetration and entrance hole size in casing is
proposed that is based solely on use of Sec. 1
data.
3. Use of Sec. 4 is recommended to verify
penetration predictions and to provide important
flow performance parameters.
4. Additional work should be performed to improve
the definition of the relationship of porosity and
compressive strength over a broader range of
porosity and over a larger number of formation
types.
SPE 27424
5. Additional testing should be done to define more
clearly briquet vs. target internal compressive
strength for API Sec. 1 targets.
Nomenclature
deh = entrance hole diameter, L, in.
di = casing ID, L, in.
di3 = ID of third casing string, L, in.
dw = wellbore diameter, L, in.
htc = total cement thickness between first and third
strings, L, in.
h1,h2 = first and second string casing thicknesses, L, in.
H= Brinell hardness, dimensionless
L= penetration, L, in.
LAPI = RP 43, Sec. 1 penetration, L, in.
L’API = LAPI adjusted for multiple casings
Lp = downhole perforation length, in.
Ls = penetration LAPI corrected for formation strength
and effective stress, in.
po = overburden stress, m/Lt2, psi
pr = pore pressure, m/Lt2, psi
S= average compressive strength, m/Lt2, psi
Sd = dry compressive strength measured
perpendicular to bedding plane, m/Lt2, psi
Sdb = compressive strength of dry briquet, m/Lt2, psi
Sdry = internal dry compressive strength, m/Lt2, psi
Sw = equivalent mean wet compressive strength,
m/Lt2, psi
σ= formation effective stress, m/Lt2, psi
Acknowledgements
We express our thanks to our respective companies for
supporting this work. Appreciation is extended to L.A.
Behrmann of Schlumberger for his insightful comments
regarding target and rock strength characteristics. Others
participating significantly include personnel from
Western Atlas, Goex, Jet Research Center, Owen Oil
Tools, and P.E. Moseley & Assocs., as well as various
members of the API RP 43 committee.
References
1. Karakas, M. and Tariq, S.M.: “Semianalytical
Productivity Models for Perforated Completions,”
SPEPE (Feb. 1991) 73; Trans., AIME, 291.
2. RP 43, Recommended Practices for Evaluation of Well
Perforators, fifth edition, API, Washington, DC (Jan.
1991).
3. Halleck, P.M.: “The Effects of Stress and Pore
Pressure on Penetration of Jet Perforators in Berea
Sandstone,” final report, API Project 86-36, API,
Dallas.
4. Bell, W.T.: “Perforating Techniques for Maximizing
Well Productivity,” paper SPE 10033, presented at the
1982 API Intl. Petroleum Exhibition and Technical
Symposium, Beijing, march 16-25.
SPE 27424 SIMPLE METHOD PREDICTS DOWNHOLE SHAPED-CHARGE GUN PERFORMANCE 7

5. Locke, S.: “An Advanced Method for Predicting the 18. Regalbutto, J.A., Leidel, D.J., and Sumner, C.R.:
Productivity Ratio of a Perforated Well,” JPT (Dec. “Perforator Performance in High Strength Casing and
1981) 2481. Multiple Strings of Casing,” paper presented at the
6. Thompson, G.D.: “Effects of Formation Compressive API Pacific Coast Joint Meeting, Bakersfield, Nov.
Strength on Perforator Performance,” Perforating, 1983.
Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1991) 31, 69- 19. “The Evaluation of the Potential Degradation of
75. Perforation Charges as a Result of Exposure to
7. Hallack, P.M., and Behrmann, L.A.: “Penetration of Elevated Temperature,” Exxon Perforator
Shaped Charges in Stressed Rocks,” Proc., Rock Performance Evaluation, Phase II report, Exxon,
Mechanics Contributions and Challenges, Colorado Houston (Oct. 1985).
School of Mines, Golden (1990). 20. Sukup, R.A. et al.: “Simple Method Tracks Charge
8. Weeks, S.G.: “Formation Damage or Limited Performance,” paper SPE 17172 presented at the 1988
Perforating Penetration? Test Well Shooting May SPE Formation Damage Symposium, Bakersfied, Feb.
Give a Clue,” JPT (Sept. 1974) 979. 8-9, Perforating, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
9. Behrmann, L.A., Pucknell, J.K., and Bishop, S.R.: (1991) 31, 197.
“Effects of Underbalance and Effective Stress on 21. Klotz, J.A., Krueger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: “Maximum
Perforation Damage in Weak Sandstone: Initial Productivity in Damaged Formations Requires Deep,
Results,” paper SPE 24770 presented at the 1992 SPE Clean Perforations,” paper SPE 4792 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1974 SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Washington, DC, Oct. 1992. New Orleans, Feb. 7-8.
10. Behrmann, L.A. and Halleck, P.M.: “Effect of 22. Halleck, P.M.: “Minimum Size and Stress
Concrete and Berea Strengths on Perforator Requirements for a Possible API Standard Test Target
Performance and Resulting Impact on the New API for Performance Evaluation of Shaped Charge Oil
RP-43,” paper SPE 18242 presented at the 1988 SPE Well Perforators in Stressed Rocks,” final report, API
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Project 88-36, API, Dallas.
Houston, Oct. 2-5; Perforating, Reprint Series, SPE, 23. Jimenez, M. Jr. et al.: “Tests Reveal Perforating
Richardson, TX (1991) 83. Charge Performance,” Oil & Gas J. (Jan. 6, 1992).
11. SPAN-PC Version 2A User Guide. C200358,
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Schlumberger Perforating and Testing Center,
Rosharon, Texas (1993). in. x 2.54* E+00=cm
12. Saucier, R.J. and Lands, J.F.: “A Laboratory Study of
Perforations in Stressed Formation Rocks,” JPT (Sept. psi x 6.894 757 E+00=kPa
1978) 1347; Trans., AIME, 265. * Conversion factor is exact. SPEPF
13. Halleck, P.M.: “Further Effects of Stress on
Penetration and Flow Performance of Jet Perforators,”
final report, API Project 87-36, API, Dallas.
14. Halleck, P.M. et al.: “Reduction of Jet Perforator
Penetration in Rock Under Stress,” paper SPE 18245
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5;
Perforating, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
(1991) 31, 105.
15. Behrmann, L.A. and Halleck, P.M.: “Effects of
Wellbore Pressure on Perforator Penetration Depth,”
paper SPE 18243 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct.
2-5; Perforating, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
(1991) 31, 98.
16. Robinson, R.L., Herrmann, V.O., and DeFrank, P.:
“How Well Conditions Influence Perforations,” Proc.,
12th Annual Technical Meeting, CIM Petroleum and
Natural Gas Div., Edmonton, Alta., Canada (May
1961).
17. Schlumberger Tubing-Conveyed Perforating,
Schlumberger, Houston (1988).
8 R.E. OTT, W.T. BELL, J.W. HARRIGAN Jr. AND T.G. GOLIAN SPE 27424

TABLE 1 – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASING GRADES AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Minimum Tensile
Rockwell Rockwell
Casing Brinell Yield Strength
“B” “C”
(kpsi) (kpsi)
H-40 114 to 171 40 60 to 84
J-55 152 to 209 55 75 to 98
K-55 68 to 87 14 to 25 203 to 256 55 95 to 117
C-75 81 to 95 14 to 26 203 to 162 75 95 to 121
L-80 93 to 102 14 to 23 203 to 243 80 95 to 112
N-80 93 to 103 16 to 25 209 to 254 80 98 to 117
C-95 93 to 100 18 to 25 219 to 254 95 103 to 117
S-95 95 to 102 22 to 31 238 to 294 95 109 to 139
P-105 96 to 102 25 to 32 254 to 303 105 117 to 143
P-110 27 to 35 265 to 327 110 124 to 154
Y-150 36 to 43 327 to 400 150 159 to 202

TABLE 2 – DATA FROM API RP 43 SUBCOMMITTEE TASK GROUP

Fifth Edition
Fourth Edition
Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Thompson Curve
Sec. 2
Gun/ On All Briquet Predicted
Explo- Total Calculated Total Calculated Ratio Total Ratio Ratio
Liner Gun/ Charge File Tests Compr. Porosity Sec. 2
sive PEN Strength PEN Strength Sec. 2/ PEN 5th/4th Predicted/
Type Charge Size With Same Str. (%) From
Weight (in.) (kpsi) (in.) (kpsi) Sec. 1 (in.) Sec. 2 Test Data
(in.) API? D.S.C.? (kpsi) Sec. 1
6.5 A 2 Yes 10.20 7.40 0.73 7.50 0.99
6.5 B 2 Yes ? 12.80 7.20 2.95 8.40 20.90 6.19 0.66 9.68 1.15
20 C 5 Yes 12.21 10.90 1.12
21 D 3-3/8 Yes Yes 22.80 8.64 3.54 14.70 21.00 6.11 0.64 18.28 1.24
Cu/Pb 32 E 4 Yes 17.30 15.40 1.12
13 F 3-1/8 ? 13.13 8.04 3.30 10.00 0.76
15 G 2-1/8 ? 14.80 8.49 3.48 10.97 19.75 7.21 0.74 10.74 0.96
19.5 H 4 ? 16.63 11.73 0.71 13.47 0.87
32 I 4 No 24.78 6.75 2.77 16.68 19.40 7.53 0.67 17.18 0.97 16.45 0.99
Average for Cu/Pb-type charges. 0.70 1.01
16 J 2-1/8 Yes 18.30 9.40 0.51
3.2 K 1-9/16 Yes Yes 6.67 6.26 2.57 4.17 20.00 6.98 0.63 4.56 1.09
7 L 2 Yes Yes 11.46 6.26 2.57 7.21 20.00 6.98 0.63 7.85 1.09
11.5 M 1-11/16 Yes Yes 12.14 5.45 2.23 9.17 20.00 6.98 0.76 8.08 1.13 8.07 0.88
15 N 2-1/8 Yes Yes 15.05 5.4 2.23 10.55 20.00 6.98 0.70 10.00 0.95
Tung.
19 O 4 Yes Yes 21.18 8.89 3.64 13.67 20.00 6.98 0.65 15.89 1.16
22.7 P 4-1/2 Yes Yes 18.17 6.22 2.55 13.04 20.00 6.98 0.72 13.50 0.97 12.41 0.95
22 Q 3-3/8 ? 20.30 6.32 2.59 14.36 0.71
25 R 4-5/8 Yes No 13.43 7.58 3.11 11.66 20.40 6.63 0.87 9.92 0.85
26 S 3-3/8 ? 17.75 9.52 3.90 13.05 0.74
Average for tungsten-type charges. 0.69 1.05
22.7 T 3-3/8 Yes ? 21.21 6.79 2.78 14.37 19.27 7.65 0.68 13.96 0.97
22.7 U 5 Yes ? 21.10 7.14 2.93 13.98 19.20 7.72 0.66 13.98 1.00
12.5 V 2-3/4 Yes ? 14.32 7.13 2.92 10.18 19.66 7.29 0.71 9.83 0.97
Unk.
22.7 W 3-3/8 Yes ? 17.49 7.38 3.03 13.40 20.00 6.98 0.77 12.44 0.93
32 X 4-5/8 Yes ? 23.62 8.22 3.37 17.06 20.60 6.45 0.72 18.12 1.06
32 Y 3-3/8 Yes ? 22.32 6.75 2.77 15.29 19.30 7.62 0.69 14.70 0.96
Average for unknown type charges. 0.70
Overall Averages: 0.697 1.024 1.01
 SPE 27424 SIMPLE METHOD PREDICTS DOWNHOLE SHAPED-CHARGE GUN PERFORMANCE 9

TABLE 3 – USE OF NOMOGRAPH

Sec. 1 data (from API sheet)
Briquet compressive strength, psi 7,560
Average total target penetration (LAPI), in. 15.6
Average casing entrance hole diam.,in. 0.28
Using the nomograph to
determine penetration
Point A Enter the nomograph with Section 1 briquet
strength (7560 psi) and progress horizontally to
right.
Point B Intersect line compensating for internal target
strength (Eq. 6). Project vertically downward.
Point C Enter Section 1 average total target penetration
(LAPI). For multiple casing strings, use modified
Section penetrations (LAPI’) per Eq. 4.
Point D Intersection of horizontal and vertical projections
represents Section 1 penetration at Section 1
equivalent target mean wet compressive strength
(3100 psi from Eq. 6).
Point E Enter mean wet compressive strength of
formation (7200 psi). If formation strength is not
available, it can be estimated from formation
porosity by entering nomograph at point G
(porosity of 19.7% determined from formation
logs or sidewall cores, etc.) and proceeding to
formation type (sandstone) at point H and
projecting vertically upward.
Point F Progressing from point D parallel to the family of
curves and intersecting the vertical line from point
E or point H provides downhole penetration
adjusted for mean wet compressive strength.
Downhole conditions
Mean wet uniaxial compressive strength
(from field cores), psi 7,200
Downhole effective stress (Eq. 2), psi 6,000
Combined casing/cement thickness –
0.5 (wellbore dia.-casing ID), in. 1.5
Casing grade P-110
Point I Project horizontally from point F and
intersect appropriate formation effective
stress line (6,000 psi).
Point J Project vertically downward to determine
total downhole penetration (10.1 in.).
Point K Continue vertical line to intersect combined
casing and cement thickness (1.5 in.).
Point L Project horizontally to read downhole
formation penetration (8.6 in.), which is
used in well flow calculations.
Using the nomograph to
determine casing hole size
Point M Enter nomograph with midrange Brinell
hardness of casing (P-110, 296 H from
Table 1). Proceed vertically downward.
Point N Intersect multiplier line and reflect
horizontally to left.
Point O Read multiplier (0.96), which is applied to
average entrance diameter for a single
casing string. Thus, API entrance hole of
0.28 is corrected to 0.27 in. downhole.

Perforation

7.63 in./0.21 in. Casing, 7-in.

Cement
Gun Clearance Borehole
9-5/8-in.
3-3/8 in. Formation
Gun
12.38 in./0.28 in. 12.38 in./0.28 in.

Avg. Pen. 11.71 in. Avg. Pen. 14.43 in. Avg. Pen. 11.03 in.
E.H. 0.28 in. E.H. 0.35 in. E.H. 0.26 in.
14.43 in./0.35 in. 14.43 in./0.35 in. 11.03 in./0.26 in.

A) Eccentered gun B) Positioned gun C) Centralized gun

(Variable clearance, (0-in. clearance, (1.56-in. clearance,
90° phasing) 0° phasing) 90° phasing)

Fig. 1 – Example effect of gun-to-casing clearance.

10 R.E. OTT, W.T. BELL, J.W. HARRIGAN Jr. AND T.G. GOLIAN SPE 27424

35

30
Total penetration (in.)

25

20

C
15

A
10

B
5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Mean wet compressive strength (kpsi)

Fig. 2 – Relationship of formation mean wet compressive strength to total shaped-charge penetration
(casing thickness + cement thickness + formation penetration).6

30
Mean wet compressive strength (kpsi)

25

20

Sandstone
15

10 Limestone

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity (%)

Fig. 3 – Mean wet compressive strength as a function of formation porosity.3,6,9,11

 SPE 27424 SIMPLE METHOD PREDICTS DOWNHOLE SHAPED-CHARGE GUN PERFORMANCE 11

Weights shown are

explosive load

0.9
Penetration multiplier

C (22 g)

0.8
B (22 g)

0.7
D (3.2 g)

A (3.0 g)

0.6

E (10 g)

0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Effective stress (kpsi)

Fig. 4 – Stress-induced penetration reduction ratio (reference, 0-psi stress).3,13,14

1.10

1.08

1.06

1.04
Entrance hole multiplier

1.02
L-80 Ref. (223 H)

1.00
J55
0.98

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.90 P110

0.88

0.86
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Brinell hardness

Fig. 5 – Entrance hole size in single casing string vs. Brinell Hardness H (reference, L-80 casing as
used in RP 43, Sec. 1, Edition 5).16
12 R.E. OTT, W.T. BELL, J.W. HARRIGAN Jr. AND T.G. GOLIAN SPE 27424

BRIQUET CASING
TEST
SPECIMEN WATER

STEEL
FORM

28-DAY
CONRETE

Fig. 6 – Sec. 1 RP 43 test.

2
Ratio "in situ" / briquet compressive strength

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8 Ratio = 0.67

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Cure time (days)

Fig. 7 – Actual (“in-situ”) dry compressive strength vs. briquet measurement: RP 43 Section 1 Target.10
SPE 27424 SIMPLE METHOD PREDICTS DOWNHOLE SHAPED-CHARGE GUN PERFORMANCE 13

Stressing fluid inlet Core vent

Pressure vessel

Well Pressure
1500 psi
3000 psi

Core Pressure
1000 psi
atmospheric

Berea
3-9/16-in OD Core
4-in or 7-in OD Core

Steel Container

Rubber stress sleeve

Cement

Gun

A B
Edition 4 Edition 5
0 applied effective stress 3000 psi effective stress

Fig. 8 – Sec. 2 RP 43 Test: Edition 4 vs. Edition 5.

1.4

1.3
Penetration multiplier

1.2

1.1

0.9

0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Effective stress (kpsi)

Fig. 9 – Effective-stress-induced penetration changes. Curve represents data from Fig. 4 normalized to
3,000 psi stress.3,13,14
14 W. T. BELL, T.G. GOLIAN, R.C. ELLIS AND P.E. MOSELEY SPE 60129

22

20

18
Section 2 Berea penetration (in.)

16

14

12

10

4 Line represents the average of

the Sect 2 / Sect 1 ratios.
2 Average Ratio = 0.692

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Section 1 concrete penetration (in.)

Fig. 10 – Comparative penetration data: Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 2, RP 43 Edition 4, plotted from published API
data on file in 1990.

20
Cu/Pb
18 Tungsten
Unknown
16
Section 2 Berea penetration (in.)

14

12

10

4 Line represents the average of

the Sect 2 / Sect 1 ratios.
Average Ratio = 0.697
2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Section 1 Concrete penetration (in.)

Fig. 11 – Comparative penetration data, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 2, RP 43 Edition 5, plotted from recent tests
(Table 2) and from published API data on file in 1992.
SPE 27424 SIMPLE METHOD PREDICTS DOWNHOLE SHAPED-CHARGE GUN PERFORMANCE 15

20
Cu/Pb
18 Tungsten
5th Edition Berea penetration (in.)

16

14

12

10

4
5th Edition / 4th Edition
2 Section 2 penetration
Overall Ratio = 1.02

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
4th Edition Section 2 Berea penetration (in.)

Fig. 12 – Comparative penetration data, Sec. 2, RP 43 Edition 4 vs. Sec. 2, Edition 5, plotted from recent
tests (Table 2).

35

30
Total penetration (in.)

25

C B
20

15 A

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Mean wet compressive strength (kpsi)

Fig. 13 – Relationship of data generated in API study (Table 2) to total penetration vs. mean wet
compressive strength curve.6,8
 16 W. T. BELL, T.G. GOLIAN, R.C. ELLIS AND P.E. MOSELEY SPE 60129

Common casing grades

16
H40 J55 L80 N80 S95 P110 Y150
1.1
14 M
1.08

Entrance hole multiplier

rete

L-80 Ref. (223 BHN)

1.06
Section 1 Briq. Cs (kpsi)

12
c

1.04
Con

1.02
10
1
0.98
8 A
B 0.96 O N
0.94
6
0.92

4 0.9
100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2 Casing Brinell hardness

0
35
16 & above
Effective stress 10 6 3
penetration correction lines 2
(Effective stress in psi/1000)
30 1
Test target average penetration, in.

0
25

20

C D
15

F I
10

E J
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Mean wet compressive strength, kpsi Downhole total target penetration, in.
30 30

Downhole formation penetration, in.

25 25
3.0 in.

2.0 in.
20 20
G H Sandstone 1.0 in.
Porosity, %

0 in. Casing plus

15
cement thickness 15

Limestone
K
10 L 10

5 5

0 0

Fig. 14 – Nomograph to predict downhole penetration and entrance hole size in casing.