Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2023 Oct 11;8(42):39807–39815. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c05826

Erosion Life Prediction of Metal Mesh Screen Pipes in Oil Wells Based on Numerical Simulation of Discrete Particle Flow

Yanfeng Cao †,‡,*, Min Wen †,‡, Hao Qiu †,‡, Yan Xinjiang †,‡, Xiaopeng Zhai §,∥,*
PMCID: PMC10600876  PMID: 37901581

Abstract

graphic file with name ao3c05826_0010.jpg

High-speed fluid-carried sand particles pose a significant challenge to oil well screen pipes, leading to sand control failure and adversely affecting the well’s production and recovery rates. This research targets the commonly used metal mesh screen pipe in oil well sand production and establishes a full-sized three-dimensional structure model. A fluid–solid coupling of discrete particle flow numerical simulation algorithm is incorporated to formulate a novel method for predicting the screen pipe’s erosion life. This method provides a solution to the complex task of predicting the pipe’s lifespan under oil sand fluid erosion. The analysis elucidates the impact of sand particles on the velocity distribution and erosion rate of the metal mesh at varying velocities, facilitating the prediction of the mesh screen pipe’s erosion life. Key findings reveal that the velocity and erosion rate vary across the different layers. The first layer screen experiences velocity and erosion rates that are 3.6–3.76 times and 2.45–2.50 times, respectively, higher than those at the inlet. The second layer screen undergoes velocity and erosion rates 2.32–2.43 times and 1.04–1.06 times, respectively, higher than those at the inlet. Erosion failure primarily occurs in the first layer screen due to velocity expansion instigated by the screen tube’s structure. The discrete flow numerical simulation method proves valuable in predicting the mesh screen’s erosion life at different flow rates, with a maximum error of 6.38% when compared with field monitoring life values. This method introduces a new technical approach to predicting the life span of metal mesh screens in oil wells. The study concludes by suggesting measures to extend the screen pipe’s lifespan, thereby enhancing oil recovery.

1. Introduction

Loose sandstone easily produces sand, and in offshore oil fields, metal mesh screens are one of the most frequently used sand control tools. The function of a metal mesh screen is to prevent reservoir sands from infiltrating the wellbore alongside crude oil during production, thus averting potential damage to oil production equipment. Failure in sand control by the metal mesh screen pipe can lead to sand production in oil wells, subsequently decreasing the production efficiency of oil fields significantly, which consequently impacts enhanced oil recovery.1−3

However, the causes of sand control failure in metal mesh screens are multifaceted and complex. Many investigations have concluded that erosion-induced metal mesh screen pipe failure is a primary reason for screen pipe failure.4

During the process of crude oil production, the fluid transports sand into the metal mesh screen. As a sand control tool, the metal mesh screen employs a protective shroud and multilayer screen to filter sands and inhibit their entry into the wellbore. Because the apertures in the protective shroud and the metal mesh screen are minuscule, they prevent a large quantity of sand from infiltrating the metal mesh screen, allowing only minute sand particles to traverse the screen into the wellbore. Concurrently, while the metal mesh screen hinders sand from entering the wellbore, sand accumulates on the metal screen surface. When some of the metal mesh apertures become obstructed, the flow velocity through the unblocked apertures increases. The high-velocity sand impacts the screen, resulting in abrasion and cutting of the screen, thereby leading to the metal mesh screen’s failure in preventing sand.

Therefore, finding solutions to sand control failure caused by erosion and accurately predicting the erosion life of screen pipes have become key measures in ensuring the stable production of oil fields.5

In recent years, researchers both domestically and internationally have conducted substantial numerical simulation and experimental simulation research on the erosion of sand control completion screens. Much of the present research concentrates on macro-destruction. In the experimental simulation of erosion of metal materials and sieve pipes, researchers typically utilize jet erosion and rotary erosion instruments to simulate the erosion process of metal surfaces and sand control sieve pipes.15−18,22 They carry out experimental research on the influence of factors such as flow rate, particle size, and production pressure difference on the erosion damage of sieve pipes.19−24 These experimental simulation studies, though simple to execute and intuitive in revealing the erosion wear law of sieve pipe samples, have limitations. Most notably, many experiments fail to simulate the erosion of screen pipes postclogging, which deviates from the erosion of actual bottom hole screen pipes, and they struggle to accurately represent the concurrent processes of actual bottom hole screen pipe erosion and formation sand plugging and their interaction.20,21,25,26

Contemporary research on the erosion of sand control screen pipes primarily concentrates on the performance evaluation of screen pipes.6 For instance, Mondal and colleagues employed a method that combined experimental research with numerical simulation to evaluate and optimize the screen.7 Gillespie and team developed a sand control screen pipe erosion model using Troika oilfield data to verify the screen pipe’s practical application, although this model still requires additional tests and evaluations for accurate prediction of screen pipe life.11 Cameron and colleagues derived a new mathematical erosion model based on fundamental erosion theory, accounting for factors such as sand particle size and impact angle, and developed a predictive formula for screen pipe life, setting a 2% mass loss limit as the sand control failure standard.17 Greene et al. used the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) numerical simulation method to examine the impact of annular velocity on screen pipe erosion rate, establishing a semiempirical erosion model.6 Procyk et al. affirmed the rationality of numerical simulation for screen pipe erosion rate through comparison with experimental data, but did not provide an in-depth explanation of numerical solution methods.7 However, existing erosion theories fail to account for the complexity of screen pipe structure,8,9 offer a quantitative indicator of oil well life under current flow conditions,11 or assess how oil well life diminishes with increased flow rates.12−16

In conclusion, current research on the numerical simulation and experimental simulation of screen erosion in sand control completion has enhanced our understanding of screen erosion and provided preliminary insights into the erosion mechanism and its governing laws. However, there are still urgent limitations and problems to be addressed. At present, experimental approaches cannot simulate the impact of sand blocking, clogging, and screen erosion postclogging in the actual bottom hole. Moreover, they cannot account for the effects of the sieve pipe’s complex structure on clogging. Numerical simulation is currently a potent method for predicting screen pipe erosion life, yet existing numerical simulations cannot emulate the influence of the screen structure on erosion. Additionally, a robust prediction method for erosion damage life is lacking.

Recognizing the difficulty in predicting the erosion life of sand control screen pipes, this article utilizes the metal mesh composite screen pipe as a model to construct a comprehensive screen pipe model. We conduct a numerical simulation based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and employ a discrete phase model (DPM) to simulate the effect of sand flow on erosion of the metal mesh screen pipe. The goal is to analyze the erosion law of metal mesh screen pipes under varying fluid velocities and sand concentrations and then predict the erosion life, thereby providing theoretical guidance for field application. It is expected that this study will offer theoretical support for effective sand control in oil wells. By analyzing the erosion mechanism of the screen pipe, we aim to effectively extend the screen pipe’s lifespan and enhance oil recovery.

2. Numerical Simulation of Erosion in Metal Mesh Screen Pipe Under the Influence of Oil Sand Solid–Liquid Two-Phase Fluid Coupling

2.1. Physical Model of metal mesh screen erosion with fluid–solid coupling

In an actual production well, the sand produced in the formation is carried by the fluid and impacts the screen surface, causing erosion. Concurrently, some fine sand passes through the Screen Pipe, while the coarse components in the formation sand are blocked by the Screen Pipe (Figure 1a). As sand production persists, part of the sand will obstruct the screen, and while the sand blocks the screen, the flow rate will increase for some unblocked screens. At this point, the screen may be susceptible to erosion and penetration damage (Figure 1b).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Diagrammatic sketch of protecting effect caused by sand accumulation in the sealing wellbore space.

2.2. Illustration of Erosion of Fluid–Solid Coupling Effect on Metal Mesh Screen Pipe

Figure 2 illustrates the erosion damage mechanism of the composite structure of a staggered outer protective cover and multilayer metal screen, elucidating the blocking and erosion process during erosion. When the fluid transports sand to impact the multilayer screen composite structure of the screen (Figure 2a), even if the outer protective cover remains undamaged by erosion, some formation sand particles will infiltrate the sand-retaining medium through the perforated side hole, resulting in a plugging effect that reduces the apparent permeability and increases the screen pressure during the experiment (Figure 2b). After traversing the outer protective cover, the sand-laden fluid begins to impact the inner sand-retaining medium layer, leading to damage and penetration of the sieve pipe (Figure 2c). Therefore, the frontal impact damage process of the multilayer screen composite screen can be divided into two stages: external protective cover erosion and screen medium erosion.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Diagrammatic sketch of screen plugging and erosion through.

2.3. Mathematical Model of Interaction Erosion of Fluid–Solid Coupling

The erosion process of a screen pipe with sand particles in an oil well represents a three-dimensional turbulent problem in liquid–solid two-phase flow. During sand production, the sand concentration is low; thus, the liquid–solid two-phase is considered as a continuous phase. The control of fluid is grounded in the fluid flow equation, while sand movement is based on the particle movement equation, treating the sand as a discrete phase.

The fluid control continuity equation (eq 1) and the momentum equation (eq 2) are presented below:10

2.3. 1
2.3. 2

where ρ is the fluid density, kg/m3. ui and uj are fluid velocity, m/s. p is the pressure, Pa. xi and xj are flow field coordinates, m. fi is the mass force, N.

The governing equation is13

2.3. 3
2.3. 4

where k is turbulence kinetic energy, J. μt is turbulent viscosity, Pa·s. σk and σε is the sum of turbulent Prandtl number of k equation and ε equation, σk is taken as 1.0, σε is taken as 1.3. Gk is turbulence kinetic energy generated by laminar velocity gradient, J. Gb is the turbulent energy generated by buoyancy force, J. ε is turbulent dissipation rate, and W/m3; C1ε, C2ε, and C3ε are empirical constants.

The force equation of discrete particles is15

2.3. 5
2.3. 6

where τr is the particle relaxation time, s. u⃗ is the vector velocity of fluid, m/s. μ is the viscosity of fluid, Pa·s. ρp is the fluid density, kg/m3. g⃗ is the gravitational acceleration, m/s2. F⃗ is the additional acceleration, m/s2. dp is the particle diameter,m.

The mass loss during erosion is calculated by the erosion rate formula:16

2.3. 7

where Er is erosion rate, kg/(m2·s). mp is the particle mass fraction, dimensionless. α is the impact angle, °. v is the impact velocity, m/s. Af is the impact area, m2. Cd is the particle concentration, %.

Sand particles continuously hit the screen during the erosion process. The force of sand particles on the screen is mainly the impact force between particles and the friction force between sand particles and the screen. This force varies randomly with the impact angle. Calculation formula of the particle impact rebound coefficient is as follows:17

2.3. 8
2.3. 9

where eN is the normal impact rebound coefficient and eT is the tangential impact rebound coefficient.

2.4. Life Prediction Model

The erosion rate of CFD is defined as the mass loss of metal material in units of time and unit area. The unit dimension is kg/m2·s. Taking 5% as the mass loss limit and the average erosion rate of the first layer of metal mesh as the calculation basis, the erosion life of the metal mesh composite screen pipe is calculated. The erosion life prediction formula is18

2.4. 10

where t is erosion failure time, s. Rerosion is Average erosion rate of the first layer screen, kg/m2·s. ΔGmax is 5% mass loss of the first layer screen, kg.

3. Validation Experiments on Erosion of Fluid–Solid Coupling of Metal Screen

Flow velocity directly influences the erosion rate of the sieve pipe. Hence, erosion experiments of the metal mesh screen under varying flow rates are conducted followed by numerical simulations according to the erosion experimental parameters. The experimental results are then compared with the numerical simulation results to verify the accuracy of the numerical simulation. For this purpose, the sieve pipe sample, which serves as the protective cover and consists of two screen layers, is sized at 20 × 10 mm with a screen size of 120 μm. Similarly, the screen used for numerical simulation also comprises a two-layer screen with model dimensions of 20 × 10 mm and a screen size of 120 μm. The experimental velocities, mirroring the numerical simulation velocities, are set at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 m/s.

3.1. Test Apparatus

The screen pipe erosion test was conducted by spraying a sand-containing liquid onto the surface of the test piece using a water jet. Post-experiment, the morphology of the screen test specimen was evaluated, the erosion damage time was recorded, and the influence of varying flow rates on the erosion life of the screen was analyzed. The flowchart of the erosion test device is depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of erosion experiment device.

3.2. Experimental Procedures

Test conditions: the test specimen is a metal mesh composite screen pipe slice, and the erosion specimen is directly cut on the on-site screen, with the specimen size of 200 × 115 mm and screen size 120 μm. As shown in Figure 4, the sand sand concentration is 5‰, and the sand particle size is 100–120 μm. The nozzle distance is 40 mm, and the simulation experiment speed are 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 m/s.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Erosion diagram of the metal mesh screen pipe.

During the test, according to the different impact speeds, it is divided into several rounds, each round is about 75 kg of sand, and each round of sand erosion lasts about 35 min. When the filter layer of the test specimen is completely damaged, there is obvious sand leakage at the bottom and the erosion damage test is completed. The accumulated effective erosion duration of the screen is the erosion life of the metal mesh screen.

3.3. Three-Dimensional Erosion Model and Boundary Conditions of the Metal Mesh Screen Pipe

The metal mesh screen pipe is composed of an outer protective shroud, an intermediate screen, and an internal base pipe. The structural diagram is illustrated in Figure 4.

Following sand production in the oil well, sand particles transported by the fluid enter the screen from the protective shroud and subsequently traverse the screen. Due to the sand retaining function of the screen, most of the sand particles are deflected back outside the screen, while some particles penetrate into the base pipe and flow into the wellbore through the base pipe.

The fluid erosion inlet is the external interface of the protective shroud, with an outer boundary condition of the velocity inlet, directed normally into the mesh flow channel. The erosion process of the metal mesh composite screen pipe under the influence of solid–liquid two-phase flow is simulated based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The primary simulation calculation involves the protective shroud and two-layer screens. The solid–liquid mixture impacts the screen pipe at a specific speed and infiltrates the screen mesh through the protective shroud, and due to the sand retaining mechanism of the screen mesh, direct collision of a significant number of sand particles with the screen mesh and subsequent rebound collisions at the base induce plastic deformation of the screen mesh. Some sand particles infiltrate the screen, causing an abrasive wear. The erosion inlet of the solid–liquid mixture is the external interface of the protective shroud, with the outlet being pressure outflow and elastic rebound characterizing the discrete phase and the erosion wall.

The creation of a 3D geometric model would result in an excessive number of meshes and computational load. Consequently, the calculation model is designed as a local model with its calculation parameters presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Geometry Parameters of the Computational Domain.

parameters computational domain geometry
width of computational model/mm 10
length of computational model/mm 20
external diameter of base pipe/mm 139
external diameter of protective shroud/mm 145
clearance of screen mesh/um 120
Open in a new tab

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Influence of Screen Structure on Erosion Velocity

The experimental device is utilized with the sand concentration set at 5‰. As the flow velocity changes between 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 m/s, the screen pipe sample is impacted and the sample of the same structure is subjected to erosion at different velocities. Under the impact of the experimental fluid, substantial changes in the wire diameter shape can be observed, as shown in Figure 4. At flow rates of 0.5 and 1.0 m/s, damage points appear on the first layer screen, while the second layer screen remains undamaged. At velocities of 2.0 and 5.0 m/s, both the first- and second-layer screens show damage points (Figure 5). These results suggest that as the flow rate increases, the mass loss of the screen pipe sample accelerates until the local wire is completely broken and perforated.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Erosion test results of screen specimens at different velocities.

Under the scrutiny of the SEM microscope, considerable wire diameter deformation is evident with the impact of the experimental fluid. As illustrated in Figure 6, the screen wire initially exhibits obvious yield deformation under the impact of fluid flow. The wire diameter section distorts from a regular shape to an irregular shape, and the local aperture vanishes. It is speculated that after the termination of the wire diameter yield deformation stage, mass loss will accelerate until the local wire is completely broken and perforated. These observations align with the impact extrusion theory of ductile materials in the erosion damage theory.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

SEM scanning of the metal screen.

The numerical simulation model calculates the velocity distribution at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 m/s. As per the cloud diagram of erosion velocity distribution (Figure 7), different velocity distributions are apparent for the screen pipe protective shroud, the first screen, and the second screen. The average velocity distribution pattern is as follows: first layer screen velocity > second layer screen velocity > protective shroud velocity. According to the average velocity statistics of the protective shroud, the first screen, and the second screen (Table 2), at velocities of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 m/s, the velocity of the first layer screen is 3.60–3.76 times that of the initial velocity, while the velocity of the second layer screen is 2.32–2.43 times that of the initial velocity.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Erosion velocity distribution with different velocity.

Table 2. Average Erosion Velocity of Screen Elements under Different Impact Velocities.

impact velocity/m·s–1 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 SD
average velocitym·s–1 protective shroud 0.50 1.00 2.00 5.00 2.01
the first layer screen 1.80 3.66 7.51 18.53 7.49
the second layer screen 1.16 2.38 4.86 11.88 4.79
average erosion velocity ratio the first layer screen/protective shroud 3.60 3.66 3.76 3.71 0.07
the second layer screen/protective shroud 2.32 2.38 2.43 2.38 0.05
the first layer screen/the second layer screen 1.55 1.54 1.55 1.56 0.01
Open in a new tab

The erosion damage of the metal mesh screen primarily occurs in the first layer of the screen, a result that aligns with the experimental observations. The erosion velocity concentration is primarily found in the first screen layer, situated at the corresponding location of the protective shroud. This is primarily because the fluid flow direction is altered after it enters the protective shroud flow channel. The inflow fluid from multiple protective shroud flow channels concentrates at each protective shroud flow channel’s intersection, leading to a considerable increase in erosion intensity in this region. The main reason for screen erosion is that the inlet flow velocity multiplies on the screen after the screen structure changes, and the excessive flow velocity carries sand for erosion, thereby accelerating the erosion rate and leading to screen damage.

4.2. Influence of Erosion Velocity on the Erosion Rate of Each Layer of Screen

The numerical simulation model calculates the erosion rate distribution at velocities of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 m/s, with a sand concentration of 5‰ (Figure 8). As illustrated in the cloud diagram of the erosion rate distribution, the maximum erosion rate is concentrated on the first layer of the screen, especially in the staggered area beneath the inflow channel of the protective shroud (Figure 8). This can be attributed to the protective shroud’s unique structure that causes fluid to flow through it and enter the metal mesh, changing the fluid’s direction. Solid particles form local hotspots at the intersection between the first layer screen and the protective shroud, making this area more susceptible to erosion damage. The results of the numerical simulation align with those of the physical simulation experiment, with localized damage observed in both cases.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Erosion rate distribution with different velocity.

The cloud chart reveals that the second layer’s erosion rate is lower than that of the first layer, implying that the first layer of the screen effectively blocks a significant amount of sand particles during fluid flow, resulting in a substantially lower erosion degree on the second layer of the screen. The average erosion rates were then calculated at impact speeds of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 m/s, and the erosion rule between each element was analyzed, as presented in Table 3. The results show that the average erosion ratio of the first layer of the screen and the protective shroud ranges from 2.45 to 2.50. The average ratio of erosion rate between the second screen and the protective shroud is 1.04–1.06. The average erosion rate ratio between the first and second layers of the screen is between 2.33 and 2.37. This indicates that the first layer of the screen is primarily eroded during the erosion process.

Table 3. Average Erosion Rate of Screen Elements under Different Impact Velocities.

impact velocity/m·s–1 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 SD
average erosion rate ×10–4/kg·m–2·s–1 protective shroud 0.06 0.31 1.09 2.15 0.94
the first layer screen 0.15 0.76 2.71 5.33 2.33
the second layer screen 0.06 0.32 1.15 2.28 0.10
average erosion rate ratio the first layer screen/protective shroud 2.46 2.45 2.50 2.48 0.02
the second layer screen/protective shroud 1.05 1.04 1.06 1.06 0.01
the first layer screen/the second layer screen 2.33 2.35 2.37 2.34 0.17
Open in a new tab

The relationship between the erosion life of the screen pipe and the flow rate was established, resulting in a correlation between the life of the screen pipe and the flow rate (Figure 9). The change curve between the erosion damage time and the erosion speed of the filter metal mesh specimen reveals a robust power exponential relationship between the erosion life and the erosion speed of the filter metal mesh specimen. By extending the experimental curve point backward, it is possible to predict the erosion life of the metal mesh specimen under different flow velocity conditions.

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Comparison of failure time between numerical simulation of specimen erosion and the erosion experiment.

4.3. Application of the Model in Engineering

In accordance with the actual circumstances on site, the well depth of the oil well in Block A ranges between 1400 and 2800 m, with the completion method being open-hole completion. The completion string is composed of a high-quality metal mesh screen with a precision of 120 μm, and the well structure is a horizontal well. Considering each well’s oil and liquid production, in conjunction with the rate of water content, the density of the produced liquid at each wellhead is calculated. From this, the mass flow, volume flow, and flow rate of each well are ascertained. Existing field data from sand producing wells are utilized to determine the particle size distribution of sand in the field sand producing wells via the Rosin–Rammler model. Information such as the density and viscosity of the oil–water mixture at the sand producing well site is determined, and simulation parameters are set accordingly. The median particle size is 120 μm, and the sand concentration is set at 5‰.

The results from a comparison between the life prediction obtained through simulation calculations and on-site monitoring data are presented in Table 4. It has been discovered that the error of the erosion life prediction model established in this research is less than 6.38% in practical application when comparing the predicted life of a metal mesh screen with the actual monitoring life. This degree of accuracy meets the requirements of engineering life prediction.

Table 4. Life Comparison Table of Simulations and Field Monitoring.

no. of well screen size /μm sand concentration impact velocity/m·s–1 life prediction by simulation/years field monitoring life/years average error /%
I02H 120 5 ‰ 0.35 2.5 2.4 4.00
J10H 0.71 1.88 1.76 6.38
J34H 0.96 1.8 1.72 4.44
J23H 1.57 1.62 1.59 1.85
H20H 1.33 1.1 1.15 4.55
Open in a new tab

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, we established a 3D fluid–solid coupling numerical simulation method of discrete particle flow for metal mesh screen pipes to predict their erosion life. This addresses the challenge of predicting the erosion life of metal mesh screens and provides a theoretical foundation for forecasting their service life.

Our research has revealed that erosion damage to screens occurs first in the first layer. The screen structure results in the flow velocity and erosion rate of the first layer being approximately doubled compared with the initial velocity and erosion rate. Specifically, the erosion velocity of the first layer of the screen is 3.6–3.76 times the initial erosion velocity and the erosion rate of the first layer of the screen is 3.6–3.76 times the initial erosion rate. These findings are the primary explanations for the mesh screen erosion damage.

By applying this method to predict the life of metal mesh screen pipes in the field, we found the error to be just 6.38%. Furthermore, by reduction of the flow velocity of the sieve pipe, the service life of the sieve pipe can be effectively extended, which in turn enhances oil recovery.

The 3D metal mesh screen numerical simulation model’s life prediction model that we developed in this study only considers a small size. The error in the screen pipe life prediction increases under low-velocity erosion conditions, suggesting that the calculation model could benefit from further improvements.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the Fragmented Reservoir Research Center of Beijing LihuiLab Energy Technology Co., Ltd. for providing independent and innovative testing equipment. This laboratory is an internationally recognized permeability measurement institution (CNAS) and also the Key Laboratory for Comprehensive Utilization Research and Application of Chemical Sealaplugging Materials of Hebei Chemical Industry Society. I would also like to thank the experts from the Sealaplugology Professional Committee of the Hebei Chemical Industry Society for providing on-site data assistance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.C., M.W., and X.Z.; methodology, Y.C., and X.Z.; validation, X.Y.; formal analysis, X.Z.; investigation, H.Q.; resources, M.W. and H.Q.; data curation, Y.C., M.W., and H.Q.; writing – original draft preparation, X.Z. and Y.C.; writing – review and editing, X.Z.; visualization, X.Z.; supervision, X.Z.; project administration, X.Z. and Y.C.; funding acquisition, X.Z. and Y.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The authors thank the State Key Laboratory of Offshore Oil Exploitation (No. CCL2023RCPS0168RQN) and PetroChina Innovation Foundation (2019D-5007–0206) for financial support.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Lihua W.; Yishan L.; Jingen D.; Xiaoyong M.; Yu C. Optimizationg of sand control methods and parameters selection for shallow-gas fields in deep-water. Pet. Drill. Tech. 2013, 41 (01), 98–102. 10.3969/j.issn.1001-0890.2013.01.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhang L. F.; Mou J. Y.; Cheng X. Z.; Zhang S. C. Evaluation of ceramsite loss control agent in acid fracturing of naturally fractured carbonate reservoir. Nat. Gas Ind. B 2021, 8, 302–308. 10.1016/j.ngib.2021.04.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Liu Z.; Han B.; Zhang K. Erosion Test Device of the Sand Management for Oil and Gas Well. Hydraul. Pneum. Seals 2015, 35 (06), 35–38. [Google Scholar]
  4. Liu X.; Zhang H.; Li X.; et al. Influence factors study on screen erosion of offshore heavy crude thermal extraction. Oil Drill. Prod. Technol. 2012, 9 (34), 88–90. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kumar D.; Malbrel C.; Xu Z.. Erosion Resistance of Sand Screens in Gas Wells. In SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition; SPE: 2018, D021S009R004, 10.2118/192001-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Greene R.; Moen T.. The Impact of Annular Flows on High Rate Completions. In SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control; SPE: 2012, SPE-151817, 10.2118/151817-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Procyk A.; Gou X.; Marti S. K.; Burton R. C.; Knefel M.; Dreschers D.; Wiegmann A.; Cheng L.; Glatt E.. Sand Control Screen Erosion: Prediction and Avoidance. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; SPE: 2015, D011S003R005, 10.2118/174837-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mondal S., Wu C. H., Sharma M. M., et al. Characterizing, Designing, and Selecting Metal Mesh Screens for Standalone Screen Applications. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2014, October 27. doi: 10.2118/170935-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rui Z. H. A. N. G.; Sizhen H. A. O.; Yanan Y. U. Simulation Experiment of Erosion of Sand Control Screen in Deep Water Gas Well Based on CFD. Res. Explor. Lab. 2019, 38 (11), 73–77. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cadogan P.; Hall S.; Jackson R.; Meschke F.; Read T.; Gundemoni B.; Barth P.. Ceramic Sand Screens: Qualification Strategy for a High Rate Gas Application. In SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition; SPE: 2018, D021S009R001, 10.2118/191931-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gillespie G.; Jones C.. Sand Control Screen Erosion- When are you at Risk? In Society of Petroleum Engineers: 2009, SPE-122269, 10.2118/122269-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. King G. E., Wildt P. J., O'Connell E.. Sand Control Completion Reliability and Failure Rate Comparison with a Multi-Thousand Well Database. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?; SPE: 2003, SPE-84262, 10.2118/84262-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mondal S.; Sharma M. M.; Hodge R. M.; Chanpura R. A.; Parlar M.; Ayoub J. A.. A New Method for the Design and Selection of Premium/Woven Sand Screens. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?; SPE: 2011, SPE-146656. 10.2118/146656-PA. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gillespie G.; Angel K.; Cameron J.; Mullen M.. Troika Field: A Well Failure, and Then a Successful Workover. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition?; SPE: 2005, SPE-97291, 10.2118/97291-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Pan C.; Zhang X.; Yang F.; et al. Corrosion and Cavitation Erosion Behavior of GLNN/Cu Composite in Simulated Seawater. Acta Metall Sin 2022, 58 (5), 599–609. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chengman D. E. N. G.; Zhe L. I. U.; Da-Hai X. I. A.; et al. Localized Corrosion Mechanism of 5083-H111 Al Alloy in Simulated Dynamic Seawater Zone. J. Chin. Soc. Corros. Prot. 2023, 43 (4), 683–692. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cameron J. A.; Jones C.. Development, Verification and Application of a Screen Erosion Model. In Development, Verification and Application of a Screen Erosion Model; SPE: 2007, SPE-107437, 10.2118/107437-MS. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Xiaopeng Z.; Wenbo M.; Xiangji K.; et al. Study on Erosion Life Prediction of Metal Mesh Sand Control Screen Pipe in Gas Well Based on DPM Numerical Simulation Method. Oil Drill. Prod. Technol. 2020, 42 (5), 668–672. [Google Scholar]
  19. Morsi S. A.; Alexander A. J. An investigation of partical trajectories in two-phase flow systems. J. Fluid Mech. 1972, 55 (2), 193–208. 10.1017/S0022112072001806. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Liu H. Y.; Wei N. Study on erosion damage of solid particles to oil and gas well tubing. China Min. Mag. 2018, 27 (02), 157–162. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhang J.; Kang J.; Fan J.; Gao J. Study on erosion wear of fracturing pipeline under the action of multiphase flow in oil & gas industry. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 32, 334. 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.04.056. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang Y.; Reuterfors E. P.; Mclaury B. S.; et al. Comparison of computed and measured particle velocities and erosion in water and air flows. Wear 2007, 263, 330. 10.1016/j.wear.2006.12.048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hualin L.; Lin D.; Jilei N. An experimental study on plugging and erosion failures of sand screen in sands-packing conditions. J. China Univ. Pet., Ed. Nat. Sci. 2019, 43 (3), 90–97. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhang Y.; Mclaury B. S.; Shirazi S. A. Improvements of particle near-wall velocity and erosion predictions using a commercial CFD code. J. Fluids Eng. 2009, 131 (3), 031303. 10.1115/1.3077139. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hussainova I.; Kubarsepp J.; Pirso J. Mechanical Properties and Features of Erosion of Cermets. Wear 2001, 250 (1), 818–825. 10.1016/S0043-1648(01)00737-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang R.; Hao S.; et al. Analysis and simulation of erosion of sand control screens in deep water gas well and its practical application. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 189, 106997. 10.1016/j.petrol.2020.106997. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES