Chapter 5

GRAVEL PACK SAND DESIGN

Introduction
As discussed previously, a gravel pack is simply a downhole filter designed to prevent the
production of unwanted formation sand. The formation sand is held in place by a properly sized
gravel pack sand and the gravel pack sand is held in pla ce with a properly sized screen. To
determine what size gravel pack sand is required, samples of the formation sand must be
evaluated to determine the median grain size diameter and grain size distribution. With this
information a gravel pack sand can be selected using the technique outlined by Saucier.1 The
quality of the sand used is as important as the proper sizing. The American Petroleum Institute
(API) has set forth the minimum specifications desirable for a gravel pack sand in their
Recommended Practices 58 (RP58).2

Formation Sand Sampling

Improper formation sand sampling techniques can lead to gravel packs which fail due to plugging
of the gravel pack or the production of sand. Because the formation sand size is so important, the
technique used to obtain a formation sample is also important. With knowledge of the different
sampling techniques, compensations can be made in the gravel pack sand size selection if
necessary.

Produced Samples. In a well producing sand, a sample of the formation sand is easily obtained
at the surface. Although such a sample can be analyzed and used for gravel pack sand size
determination, produced samples will probably indicate a smaller median grain size than the
formation sand. The well’s flow rate, produced fluid characteristics and completion tubular design
will influence whether a particular size of formation sand grain is produced to surface or settles to
the bottom of the well. In many cases, the larger sand grains settle to the bottom, so that a
sample that is produced to the surface has a higher proportion of the smaller size of sand grains.
This means that the surface sample probably is not a good representation of the various sizes of
formation sand which are present. Also, the transport of a sand grain through the production
tubing and surface flow lines may result in small corners being broken from the sand grains,
causing the presence of more fines and smaller grains. This is sometimes called grain shattering.
Grain shattering also reduces the quantity of larger formation sand grains, giving the impression of
a smaller median grain size than the formation sand actually has. The use of produced sand
samples may result in the use of smaller gravel pack sand than required.

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-1

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

Bailed Samples. Samples collected from the bottom of a well using wireline bailers are also
relatively easy to obtain, but these also are probably not representative of the actual formation
sand. Bailed samples will generally consist of the larger size sand grains, assuming that more of
the smaller grains are produced to surface. Bailed samples may also be misleading in terms of
grain size distribution. When closing the well in to obtain a sample, the larger sand grains will
settle to the bottom of the well first, and the smaller sand grains will fall on top of the larger ones.
This results in a sorting of the formation sand grains into a sample which does not representative
the formation sand. The use of bailed samples may result in the design of larger than required
gravel pack sand which can result in sand production (small formation particles passing through
the gravel pack) or plugging of the gravel pack (small formation particles filling the spaces
between the gravel pack sand grains).

Sidewall Core Samples. Sidewall core samples are obtained by shooting hollow projectiles from
a gun lowered into the well on an electric line to the desired depth. The projectiles remain
attached to the gun via steel cables, so that when pulling the gun out of the well, the projectiles are
retrieved with a small formation sample inside. Taking sidewall core samples is generally included
in the evaluation stages of wells in unconsolidated formations and these are the most widely used
sample type for gravel pack sand design. Although more representative than produced or bailed
samples, sidewall core samples can also give misleading results. When the projectiles strike the
face of the formation, localized crushing of the sand grains occurs, producing broken sand grains
and generating more fine particles. The core sample may also contain drilling mud solids that can
be mistaken for formation material. Experienced lab analysts can separate the effects of crushing
and mud solids to some degree prior to evaluating the sample, thus improving the quality of the
results.

Conventional Core Samples. The most representative formation sample is obtained from
conventional cores. In the case of unconsolidated formations, rubber sleeve conventional cores
may be required to assure sample recovery. Although conventional cores are the most desirable
formation sample, they are not readily available in most cases due to the cost of coring operations.
If available, small plugs can be taken under controlled circumstances at various sections of the
core for a complete and accurate median formation grain size and grain size distribution
determination.

Sieve Analysis
Sieve analysis is the typical laboratory routine performed on a formation sand sample for the
selection of the proper size gravel pack sand. Sie ve analysis consist of placing a formation
sample at the top of a series of screens which have progressively smaller mesh sizes. The sand
grains in the original well sample will fall through the screens until encountering a screen through
which that grains size cannot pass because the openings in the screen are too small. By weighing
the screens before and after sieving, the weight of formation sample retained by each size screen
can be determined. The cumulative weight percent of each sample retained can be plotted as a
comparison of screen mesh size on semi-log coordinates to obtain a sand size distribution plot as
shown in Figure 5.1. Reading the graph at the 50 percent cumulative weight gives the median
formation grain size diameter. This grain size, often referred to as D50, is the basis of gravel pack

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-2

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

sand size selection procedures. Table 1.1 provides a reference for mesh size versus sieve
opening.

Figure 5.1
Sand Size Distribution Plot from Sieve Analysis

The samples used for sieve analysis must be representative of the formation if the analysis data is
expected to provide accurate gravel packing information. If possible, a sample should be taken
every 2 to 3 feet within the formation or at every lithology change. The minimum size of the
formation sample required for sieve analysis is 15 cubic centimeters. Sieving can be performed
either wet or dry. In dry sieving (the most common technique), the sample is prepared by
removing the fines (i.e., clays) and drying the sample in an oven. If necessary, the sample is
ground with a mortar and pestle to insure individual grains are sieved rather than conglomerate
grains. The sample is then placed in the sieving apparatus, which uses mechanical vibration to
assist the particles in moving through and on to the various mesh screens. Wet sieving is used
when the formation sample has extremely small grain sizes. In wet sieving, water is poured over
the sample while sieving to ensure the particles do not cling together.

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-3

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

Table 5.1
Standard Sieve Openings

U.S. U.S.
Series Sieve Sieve Opening Series Sieve Sieve Opening
Mesh Size Opening (in.) (mm) Mesh Size Opening (in.) (mm)
2.5 0.315 8.000 35 0.0197 0.500
3 0.265 6.730 40 0.0165 0.420
3.5 0.223 5.660 45 0.0138 0.351
4 0.187 4.760 50 0.0117 0.297
5 0.157 4.000 60 0.0098 0.250
6 0.132 3.360 70 0.0083 0.210
7 0.111 2.830 80 0.0070 0.177
8 0.0937 2.380 100 0.0059 0.149
10 0.0787 2.000 120 0.0049 0.124
12 0.0661 1.680 140 0.0041 0.104
14 0.0555 1.410 170 0.0035 0.088
16 0.0469 1.190 200 0.0029 0.074
18 0.0394 1.000 230 0.0024 0.062
20 0.0331 0.840 270 0.0021 0.053
25 0.0280 0.710 325 0.0017 0.044
30 0.0232 0.589 400 0.0015 0.037

Gravel Pack Sand Sizing

There have been several published techniques for selecting a gravel pack sand size to control the
production of formation sand. The technique most widely used today was developed by Saucier.1
The basic premise of Saucier’s work is that optimum sand control is achieved when the median
grain size of the gravel pack sand is no more than six times larger than the median grain size of
the formation sand. Saucier determined this relationship in a series of core flow experiments
where half the core consisted of gravel pack sand and the other half was formation sand as
illustrated in Figure 5.2. The ratio of median grain size of the gravel pack sand and median grain
size of the formation sand was changed over a range from two to ten to determine when optimum
sand control was achieved.

Figure 5.2
Saucier’s Experimental Core

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-4

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

The experimental procedure consisted of establishing an initial stabilized flow rate and pressure
drop through the core and calculating an effective initial permeability (ki). The flow rate was
increased and maintained until the pressure drop stabilized followed by a decrease in flow rate
back to the initial value. Once again, pressure drop was allowed to stabilize and an effective final
permeability (kf) of the core was calculated. If the final permeability was the same as the initial
permeability, a conclusion was made that effective sand control was achieved with no adverse
productivity effects. If the final permeability was less than the initial permeability, the conclusion
was made that the formation sand was invading and plugging the gravel pack sand. In this
situation sand control may be achieved, but at the expense of well productivity. Figure 5.3
illustrates the results of the core flow experiments. As can be seen from the plot, the ratio of kf to
ki decreases as the ratio of media n gravel pack sand size to median formation sand size increases
above six. Note that as the ratio of median gravel pack sand size to median formation sand size
increases, the ratio of kf to ki begins to increase again. This indicates that the formation grain size
is so small that formation grains begin to flow through the gravel pack sand without obstruction.
This phenomena is known to occur, but was not verified as part of Saucier’s work.

1.2

1.0
Ratio of Final Permeability to
Initial Permeabilit (kf / ki)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Ratio of Median Gravel Pack Sand Diameter to

Median Formation Sand Diameter (D50 / d50)

Figure 5.3
Results of Saucier’s Gravel Size Experiments1

In practice, the proper gravel pack sand size is selected by multiplying the median grain size of the
formation sand by four and eight to achieve a gravel pack sand size range whose average is six
times larger than the median grain size of the formation sand. This calculated gravel pack sand
size range is compared to the available commercial grades of gravel pack sand. The available
gravel pack sand that matches the calculated gravel pack size range is selected. In the event that
the calculated gravel pack sand size range falls between the size ranges of commercially available
gravel pack sand, the smaller gravel pack sand is normally selected. Table 5.2 contains
information on commercially available gravel pack sand sizes.

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-5

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

Table 5.2
Commercially Available Sand Sizes

Gravel Size ( U.S. Mesh) Size Range (inches)

8/12 .094 - .066
12/20 .066 - .033
20/40 .033 - .017
40/60 .017 - .0098
50/ 70 .012 - .0083

Note that Saucier’s technique is based solely on the median grain size of the formation sand with
no consideration given to the range of sand grain diameters or degree of sorting, present in the
formation. The sieve analysis plot discussed earlier can be used to get an indication of the degree
of sorting in a particular formation sample. A near vertical sieve analysis plot represents a high
degree of sorting (most of the formation sand is in a very narrow size range) versus a more nearly
horizontal plot which indicates poorer sorting as illustrated by curves “A” and “D” respectively in
Figure 5.1. A sorting factor, or uniformity coefficient, can be calc ulated as follows:

D 40
Cµ =
D 90

where: Cµ = sorting factor or uniformity coefficient

D40 = grain size at the 40% cumulative level from sieve analysis plot
D90 = grain size at the 90% cumulative level from sieve analysis plot

If Cµ is greater than five, the sand is considered to be poorly sorted and the next smaller size
gravel pack sand than calc ulated using Saucier’s technique may be justified. Another method
which can be applied when poorly sorted sand is encountered is to use the D75 grain size instead
of D50 to calculate the appropriate gravel pack sand size.

Gravel Pack Sand

Gravel pack well productivity is sensitive to the permeability of the gravel pack sand. To ensure
maximum well productivity only high quality gravel pack sand should be used. The API RP582
establishes rigid specifications for acceptable properties of sands used for gravel packing. These
specifications focus on ensuring the maximum permeability and longevity of the sand under typical
well production and treatment conditions. The specifications define minimum acceptable
standards for the size and shape of the grains, the amount of fines and impurities, acid solubility,
and crush resistance. A summary of the API gravel test procedures and specifications are given
in Table 5.3. Only a few naturally occurring sands are capable of meeting the API specifications
without excessive processing. These sands are characterized by their high quartz content and
consistency in grain size. A majority of the gravel pack sand used in the world is mined from the
Ottawa formation in the Northern United States. Table 5.4 gives the permeability of common
gravel pack sand sizes conforming to the API RP58 specifications.

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-6

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

Table 5.3
API Specifications for Gravel-Pack Sand2

Sieve Analysis A minimum of 96% by weight of the tested sand sample should
pass the designated course sieve and be retained on the
designated fine sieve (with the designated course and fine sieves
defined for specific size gravels in the RP58). Not over 0.1% of the
total tested sample should be retained by the most course
designated sieve and not over 2% of the total tested sample pass
through the most fine designated sieve. No more than 1.9% of the
total by weight should be retained by the second sieve screen
(100% - 0.1% - 2% - 1.9% = 96%).

Sphericity and Roundness Gravel pack sand should have an average sphericity of 0.6 or
greater and an average roundness of 0.6 or greater as determined
by visual analysis using the chart developed by Krumbein and
Sloss 3 (see Figure 5.4).

Acid Solubility A 5 gram sand sample is added to 100 ml of 12%-3% HCl-HF acid
and allowed to sit for one hour at 72°F to allow dissolution of
contaminates (carbonates, feldspars, iron oxides, clays, silica fines
etc.). The sand is then removed and dried. The before and after
weights are compared to determine acid solubility. The acid
soluble material in gravel pack sand should not exceed 1.0% by
weight.

Silt and Clay Content A 20 ml sample of dry sand is mixed with 100 ml of demineralized
water and allowed to sit for 30 minutes. The sample is then
shaken vigorously for 30 seconds and allowed to sit for 5 minutes.
A 25 ml sample of the water-silt suspension is removed and the
turbidity is measured. The resulting turbidity of tested gravel pack
sand should be 250 NTU's or less.

Crush Resistance A sand sample is sieved to remove all fines and weighed. The
sample is then exposed to 2,000 psi confining stress for two
minutes. The sample is resieved to determine the weight of fines
generated. Gravel pack sand subjected to this test should not
produce more than 2% by weight fines. For large sand sizes, 12/20
U.S. Mesh and 8/12 U.S. Mesh, the amount of fines produced
should not exceed 4% and 8% respectively.

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-7

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

Table 5.4
Permeability of Gravel Pack Sands

Permeability Permeability Permeability

U.S. Mesh Range (Darcy’s)4 (Darcy’s)5 (Darcy’s)6
6/10 2703 - -
8/12 1969 - -
10/20 652 500 -
12/20 - - 668
16/30 - 250 415
20/40 171 119 225
40/60 69 40 69
50/70 - - 45

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-8

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

.9

.7
Sphericity
.5

.3

.1 .3 .5 .7 .9
Roundness

Figure 5.4
Chart for Visual Estimates of Sphericity and Roundness of Sand Grains 3

Gravel Pack Sand Substitutes

Although naturally occurring quartz sand is the most common gravel pack material used, a number
of alternative materials for gravel pack applications exist. These alternative materials include
resin coated sand, garnet, glass beads, and aluminum oxides. Each of these materials offer
specific properties that are beneficial for given applications and well conditions. The cost of the
materials will range from 2 to 3 times the price of common quartz sand. Table 5.5 summarizes
the alternative gravel pack materials, their applications and limitations.

Resin coated gravel pack sand consist of standard gravel pack sand coated with a thin layer of
resin. When exposed to high temperatures, the resin cures resulting in a consolidated sand pack.
As discussed briefly in Chapter 4, resin coated gravel has been used on occasion as a sand
control technique. The primary application of resin coated sand is in prepacked screens as
discussed in Chapter 6.

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-9

Rev. 2 / June 1995
Gravel Pack Sand Design Chapter 5

Table 5.3
Gravel-Pack Sand Substitutes

Resin Coated Gravel Used primarily in prepacked screens. Also used in thermal wells
where the resin is thought to protect the sand grains from
dissolution by high pH steam. High temperature required to cure
resin. Strength of consolidated pack is dependent on curing
temperature and time. Consolidated pack will lose compressive
strength when exposed to HCl-HF mud acid.

Garnet Complex silicate. High specific gravity (3.4 to 4.3). Primary

application is thermal wells due to resistance to dissolution by high
pH steam. Resistant to HCl-HF mud acid. Grains are angular
reducing permeability.

Glass Beads Processed product. Grains are extremely round. Permeability is

extremely high. Highly soluble in HCl-HF mud acid. Predecessor to
Aluminum Oxides.

Aluminum Oxides Processed product. Grains are extremely round. Permeability is

extremely high. Permeability of 20/40 mesh sample is ±400
darcies. Primary application is intermediate to high strength
proppants in hydraulic fracturing. Numerous proprietary
formulations are available. Moderately to highly soluble in HCl-HF
mud acid. Gravel packing applications include frac-packing and
thermal wells.

References
1. Saucier, R.J., “Considerations in Gravel Pack Design”, SPE Paper 4030, Journal of
Petroleum Technology (February 1974), 205-212.
2. “Recommended Practices for Testing Sand Used in Gravel Packing Operations”, American
Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice 58 (RP58), March 1986.
3. Krumbien W.C. and Sloss, L.L., Stratigraphy and Sedimentation, Second Edition, W.H.
Freeman and Company, 1963.
4. Sparlin, D.D., “Sand and Gravel - A Study of Their Permeabilities”, SPE Paper 4772, SPE
Symposium on Formation Damage Control, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 7-8,1974.
5. Gurley, D.G., Copeland, C.T., Hendrick, J.O. Jr., “Design, Plan, and Execution of Gravel-
Pack Operations for Maximum Productivity”, SPE Paper 5709, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (October 1977), 1259-1266.
6. Cocales, B., “Optimizing Materials for Better Gravel Packs”, World Oil (December 1992),
73-77.

Completion Technology for Unconsolidated Formations 5-10

Rev. 2 / June 1995