Chapter II.
Engineering Research
Screening Effect of Gravel on Unconsolidated Sands
By BEN GU~fi'ERTZ*
(Los Angeles Meeting. October 1939)
THE important factors in any study of
the screening of sand with a gravel enve-
lope, as applied to use in oil wells, are: (1)
sand size and shape, (2) gravel size and
shape, (3) ratio of gravel size to sand size,
(4) flow velocity, (5) viscosity of the fluid.
Perhaps the first extensive investigation
of the function of gravel in screening sand
was performed by Coberly and Wagner,l
from which the following conclusion was
drawn: "The diameter of the largest grains
in a single classified sand suitable for
gravel packing is approximately 13 times
the grain size at the ten-percentile analysis
of the formation sample." This applies
to sands classified by Tyler screens and is
for gravel grains of the maximum size
that could be used to form a stable bridge.
Field practice has shown that the screening
effect of a given gravel for a given sand
apparently varies with the flow velocity. 2
Also, it has been assumed by some opera-
tors that the thickness of the walls of the
gravel envelope surrounding the well has
little effect upon the screening process.
It is thought by others that a narrow
envelope of gravel might form an ineffec-
tive screen. Thus the purposes of this work
are:
1. To investigate the effect of gravel-
sand size ratio upon screening action under
the condition of varying flow velocities.
2. To investigate the effect upon screen-
ing action of varying the thickness of the
gravel screen.
Manuscript received at the office of the Institute
Oct 24, 1939. Issued as T.P. 1195 in PETROLEUM
TECHN!lLOGY. May 11140 ..
* Umvennty of CalifornIa. Berkeley, California.
I References are at the end of the paper.
3. To investigate sand migration in the
gravel screen and the effect of flow velocity
and gravel size upon sand migration.
DESCRIPTION OF ApPARATUS
In an attempt to reproduce field condi-
tions for the purposes of this investigation,
a flow tube was constructed, according
to the manner of Uren,3 to represent a
radial drainage segment of an oil sand.
To arrive at the dimensions of the flow
tube, a radial drainage segment of rectan-
gular cross section was assumed to define
an area of 2 sq. in. on the face of a well 6 in.
in diameter. From this the dimensions of
the segment were calculated out to a
distance of 5 ft. from the face of the well.
By computing cross-sectional areas at a
number of sections along the rectangular
segment and transforming these areas into
the circular form, a drainage cone was
obtained having everywhere the same
cross-sectional area as the drainage ele-
ment of rectangular cross section.
To construct the apparatus, two sections
of pipe of 7%-in. inside diameter, one
13 in. and the other 4 ft. long, were joined
by a bolted flange. A mandrel having the
dimensions of the drainage cone was
centered in the pipe and a neat cement
mixture was cast around it. A protective
gasket was placed between the two sections
of pipe so that the cement body could be
separated at that point. When the mandrel
was withdrawn a drainage cone was ob-
tained (Fig. 1).
A round slotted screen, which could be
screwed up against the end of the drainage
cone, held the gravel in place.
76
 BEN GUMPERTZ 77

The purpose of the short section of the
tube was to contain the gravel serving as a
screening medium; the long section of the
"".~
~I---------------------.~
ungraded sand. In the gravel section this
would have the effect of preventing migra-
tion of the sand along the walls of the tube.
..... ....,

rLDN AREA
SECTION DIt.4ENSCNS

SECTION DIAU[T£A AREA

INQ£S SQ. IN.

I I.fiO 2

$ 3.58 10

14 7.3.2 42

FIG. I.-FLOW TUBE FOR GRAVEL-PACK INVESTIGATION.

tube contained the sand representing the The tube was mounted on a pivot, so that
producing formation. The gravel section it could be swung into the vertical position
of the tube could be removed from the long for packing. Four pressure gauges were
section, the gravel changed, and the gravel provided, one at each end of the tube

A
B

TWO STAGE

c;ouPR[IKD GAl 10 OIL ItUtllVOIR

COMPRESSOR

R£S£RVOIR IS F"LLEO WITH

OIL FR0t.4 SUMP. VALVE"...,S NATU~ GAS "N)M MAIN LINE
THEN CLOSED AND VALVE"'-
OPENED, COMPRESSED GAS
DRIVING OIL THROUGH FLOW
Q
TUBE.
F
~

STORAGE
FLOW TUBE
SUMP

FIG. 2.-FLOW CHART.

section replaced without the necessity of and two adjacent to the sand-gravel inter-
changing the whole sand body. face (one on each side of it).
The cement surface of the drainage cone Pressure was provided by a Rix two-
was brushed with shellac and coated with stage compressor. Two pieces of Io-in.
78 SCREENING EFFECT OF GRAVEL ON UNCONSOLIDATED SANDS
casing, each 4 ft. long and joined by a
short length of % -in. pipe, comprised the
oil reservoir. The compressor, oil reservoir,
and flow tube were connected in series
(Fig. 2).
Metal receptacles fitted with wire screens
were provided to receive the oil and to
separate from it any sand that might be
produced. Other equipment consisted of
thermometers and graduate cylinders, with
a stop watch for measuring the rate of
flow of the oil.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
In packing the flow tube, the sand to be
used was mixed with a predetermined
amount of oil, the tube was raised to the
vertical position on its pivots, and the sand
tamped into the tube. The short section
of the tube was then packed with gravel,
the long section lowered into the horizontal
position, and the two sections bolted
together.
Calibration of the tube (determination
of the rate of flow for different pressures
and choke sizes) was accomplished by
leaving the choke size constant for a series
of rate-of-flow measurements at different
pressures. This procedure was repeated for
a number of different choke sizes.
The calibration was performed to enable
measurement of the desired quantities at
comparable flow velocities. However, in
performing the actual experiments the
flow velocities obtained did not always
correspond with the calibration data. This
was due perhaps to the fact that, in cali-
brating the flow tube, sufficient time may
not have been allowed between runs at
different pressures, with the result that the
pressure was changing along the length
of the tube during the calibration runs.
Lag in the pressure gauges and probable
mechanical errors in them may account in
part for this difference, although the gauges
were calibrated frequently. It was also
difficult to duplicate flow velocities in
different runs because pressure control
was delicate at the low pressures used in
most of the runs.
For making an experimental run, the
oil reservoir was filled and compressed
natural gas was admitted until the desired
pressure was attained. The oil was then
admitted to the flow tube, the adjustable
choke having been previously set for a
given rate of flow. The compressor was
operated for the duration of the run,
compressed gas being supplied to the oil
reservoir at a rate adjusted to keep the
pressure as nearly constant as possible.
The oil was allowed to flow for a meas-
ured number of minutes from the tube
through a fine screen into a receptacle.
The screen held any sand that might be
produced. The receptacles and the screens
were changed at definite time intervals
during one run, so that the time-rate of
sand production might be observed. The
quantity of oil in each receptacle was
measured and the flow velocity of the oil
for that time interval was computed at
the face of the well. This procedure was
repeated at different velocities, using
separately two graded sands of different
grain size, with graded gravels of four
different sizes as the screening mediums.
Although the driving force was derived
from soluble natural gas under compression,
the oil was essentially" dead," the amount
of gas going into solution being negligible.
The oil was of 22° A.P.I. gravity and
I.I4 poises absolute viscosity.
For the first series of runs the sand
section of the tube was packed with
Monterey Beach sand of 35 to 48 grain
size to a porosity of 36.7 per cent. The
gravel section was packed with 8 to Io-mesh
gravel, and the sand production was ob-
served at different flow velocities. The
porosity of the gravel never varied more
than 0.1 per cent from 43.4 per cent.
Observations were continued with the
35 to 48 sand at different velocities, using
separately two more gravels of 6 to 8 and
4 to 6 grain size. The same procedure was
 BEN GUMPERTZ
repeated with a -l~ to 65 grain size white
river sand packed to a porosity of 42.2 per
cent. All grain sizes refer to Tyler Standard
screens.
The grains of the Monterey Beach sand
varied in shape from oblong to those
approaching roundness. The corners and
edges were well rounded. The white river
sand consisted almost entirely of quartz
grains, sub angular, fairly well rounded to
well rounded.
The grains of the 3 to 4 and 4 to 6 grain-
size gravel were angular, with the corners
and edges mostly well rounded. The grains
of the 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 grain-size gravels
were sub angular, with mostly well rounded
corners and edges.
After each run the sand body was care-
fully inspected at the interface and back
into the tube for some distance. Before a
new run was made the sand was cleaned
out back into the tube until firm, undis-
turbed sand was encountered. This part
of the tube was then repacked with fresh
sand.
During each run the rate of oil produc-
tion and the sand production were meas-
ured at intervals of 5, 10, 15, 25, and 40
min. Flow velocities were computed for the
periods of maximum rate of oil production,
so that the velocities listed in Tables 2
and 3 represent the maximum flow veloci-
ties for each run.
The gravels used as the screening
mediums were each graded to a single
classification.
Sand Migration
To investigate sand migration in the
gravel screen under the conditions of the
various tests described herein, the gravel
section of the flow tube was divided into
12 imaginary sections along the longi-
tudinal axis of the tube, each I in. long.
These imaginary sections were numbered
consecutively from 1 to 12, beginning
with the section adjacent to the sand-gravel
interface. Beginning with the second
7q
section, the contents of every third sec-
tion (the second, fifth, eight, and eleventh)
were removed from the tube, the sand was
separated from the gravel and the weight
of sand per unit volume of the section
from which the sand came was computed.
Effect of Length of Grar'cl Screen
To determine the effect of the length
of the gravel screen, a number of runs
were made as before, except that the gravel
section of the tube was packed with gravel
to depths of 10 in., 6 in., and 3 in. The longi-
tudinal distribution of sand in the gravel was
not measured for these runs. Another sand
was prepared for this series of runs by mix-
ing graded portions of the Monterey Beach
sand and the white river sand.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Gravel-sand Size Ratio and Velocity Effect
To establish a practical range of flow
velocity, assume that a well of 6-in.
diameter produces 1000 bbl. of oil per
day from a sand 10 ft. thick. The velocity
of the oil at the face of such a well would
be approximately 4 X 10- 3 ft. per sec.,
which is to be taken in this paper as the
upper limit of the practical velocity
range.
To compute the ratio of gravel size to
sand size, the method of Coberly and
Wagner! was used, which means that the
diameter of the gravel grains was taken
as the width of the opening in the screen
through which these grains passed, while
the diameter of the sand grains was
TABLE I.-Gravel-sand Size Ratios
Sand Grain Size
Gravel
Grain Size
I 48-65
- - - - - - - - - - 1 _ _ _ _ _ __
8-10
6-8 11.3
II·3
16.0
4-6 16.0 22.6
3-4 22.6
80 SCREENING EFFECT OF GRAVEL ON UNCONSOLIDATED SANDS

taken as the width of the openings in the
screen on which these grains were retained.
Consider first runs I and 2 and runs 13
and 14, Table 2. The sand used in runs I
and 2 was Monterey sand of 35 to 48 grain
size; the ratio of gravel to sand size was II.
In those two runs the flow velocities were
tremendously greater than those encoun-
tered in actual practice, yet the gravel
formed a very effective screen, allowing
hardly a trace of sand to go through at
these excessive velocities.
The flow velocities in runs 13 and 14,
while much lower than in runs I and 2,
velocity, the gravel at a ratio of 16 ceased
to form an effective screen. A further
increase in velocity increased the produc-
tion of sand through the gravel. Thus it
is evident that at a gravel-sand size ratio
of 16 the flow velocity that would limit
the use of this gravel as a screening medium
lies somewhere between I.25 X 10- 3 ft.
per sec. and 4.0 X 10- 3 ft. per sec., being
probably close to the smaller value. Runs
3 and 4 also serve to demonstrate the fact
that the gravel-sand size ratio of 16 is
unsatisfactory outside of the practical
range.

TABLE 2.-Comparison of Gravel-sand Size Ratios, Flow Velocities and Screening Ability
12-INCH GRAVEL PACK. RUNS GROUPED ACCORDING TO SIZE RATIOS
~

Flow Velocity,
Run Gravel Sand Size, Ratio Ft. per Sec. at Remarks
Size; In. In. Well Face
-- --- ---
I 0 .. I3I 0.oII6 II·3 I35.0 X IO-' Made only a trace of sand. Satisfactory screen.
2 O. I3I 0.oII6 I1.3 II5.0 X IO-' Made hardly a trace. Good screen.
I3 0.093 0.008. II·3 I6.6 X IO-' Good screen.
I4 0.093 0.008. I1.3 I6.8 X IO-' Good screen.
3 o. I85 0.oII6 I6.0 6. I X IO-' Gradual decrease in sand production but con-
tinued to make a little sand. Unsatisfactory.
4 0.I85 0.oII6- I6.0 3'1. 0 X IO-' Poor screening action.
7 o. I3I 0.0082 I6.0 1.2 X 10-' Good screening action.
9 O. I3I 0.0082 I6.0 II.5 X 10-' Not a good screen.
II o. I3I 0.0082 I6.0 I. 2 X IO-' Very good screen.
12 O. I3I 0.0082 I6.0 4.3 X 10-' Gradually bridged but continually made very
small amount. Doubtful.
5 0.263 0.oII6 22.6 I9· 3 X IO-' Gradually bridged to form a good screen.
6 0.263 0.oII6 22.6 I05·0 X 10-' Unsatisfactory.
IS o. I85 0.0082 22.6 2.5 X IO-' Very poor screening action.
I6 o. I85 0.008. 22.6 1.0 X IO-' Continually made small amount of sand. Unsatis·
factory. At end of this run flow rate was double:!
without stopping flow. Within a short time sand
started to flow freely.

still greatly exceeded the practical range.
The sand used in these runs wa:s white river
sand of 48 to 65 grain size and the ratio again
was II. In both of these runs an effective
bridge was formed in a short period of
time, after which no sand was produced.
In runs 7, I I, 12 and 9 (in order of increas-
ing flow velocity) the 48 to 65 white river
sand was also used, the ratio being 16.
The velocities for runs 7 and I I are close
together and well within the practical
range. In these two runs an effective screen
was formed. However, when the flow
velocity was increased to a point near the
upper limit of the practical range of
Run 5 presents an anomaly that the
writer cannot explain. With a gravel-sand
size ratio of 22 an effective bridge evidently
was formed at a velocity far out of the
practical range. This is the only case of its
kind encountered throughout the work. Yet
run 5 gave every evidence of gradually
forming a stable bridge and becoming an
effective screen.
In run 15, with a velocity at the well
face of 2.5 X 10- 3 ft. per sec., a large
amount of sand was produced in the first
4 min. of the run, after which the sand
flowed freely through the gravel. The
gravel-sand size ratio in this C2.se was 22.
 BEN GUMPERTZ 81

For the next run (16) at the same ratio, The character of the curves seems to
the flow velocity was reduced by more than bear no relation whatever to the gravel-
one-half to 1.0 X 10- 3 ft. per sec. In this sand size ratio or to flow velocities. In
run, although the value of the gravel to Fig. 3 the curve for run 7 falls above that

z
o
3.0
, RUN
q
FLOW VELOCITY.
FT. PER SEC.
11.5 x 10-j-
0
RUN
FLOW VELOCITY,
FT. PER SEC. _

9 2.5
12
1
4.3x I0- 3 _
U~ Ilg~3 \. q
5
11.5,10-:
19.3 x 10- 3 -

"\\,\\ \
II)
II 16.6 x 10- 3
w Il I 13
~ 1 \ \ ! i
~<I) 2.0
~c
3~ 4
GRAVEL-SAND SIZE RATIO: 16
"'- """,-I
...........
'I,
RJN 9 SIZE iRATIOo 16 t--
1
~& 1.5
\ '\ 1 1'-0.. RJNI '
t:: ...
"\ --....::.-.§...:t%-'i~!N2.6
zo::
~
",iii
~~ 1.0
....
\ ~ " i'-.. Rul9 t-- .-.

-
........... Ii!!..tvi2 5

-
o x
z ~ .. -
~ f--
1\ "'I'-.. 1 ""'- RUN 13 SIZE RATIO: 11.3
~ 0.5 ......... RUN 7
\ I Z 3 4 S 6 1 8 9 10 11
........ POSITION IN GRAVEL PACK,INCHES MEASURED FROM INTERFACE
RUN 11
o "'" "1 8 9 10 Il
FIG. 4.-DISTRIDUTION OF SAND IN GRAVEL

--
I 2 3 4 5 6
PACK.
POSITION IN GRAVEL PACK,INCHES MEASURED fROM INTERFACE
100
FIG. 3.-DIST1.IBUTION OF
PACK.
SAND IN GRAVEL

90 v
serve as a screen at this velocity is doubt- /'
80
ful, only a small amount of sand was r-
produced steadily, in contrast to the freely ~70 f
u
flowing sand of run 15. After producing a I
ffi 60
a..
small amount of sand steadily for some
~ 50
minutes, when apparently there would be
no further bridging action, the flow velocity :sF 40 I
::J
again was doubled without stopping the :3 30
run. Within a short period of time sand u j
again started to flow freely. 20
Thus the gravel with a size ratio of I I to 10 /
/
that of the sand is seen to operate success- oo ..a'
,..,.,
~g;~b)g:g ~
N
fully as a screen over the entire velocity r<>
L!)
N o o
o 0 qqqqq q 0 o o
range, and considerably above it, while the d d 00000 a d d ci
gravel with a size ratio of 16 to that of the SIZE,INCHES
FIG. 5.-DISTRIDUTION OF GRAIN SIZE, MIXED
sand is seen to operate successfully as a
SAND.
screen only over the lower regions of the
practical velocity range. of run 11. Though the velocity for run 7
is very little below that for run II, the
Sand Migration in Gravel Screen curves are displaced by a comparatively
The weight of sand per unit volume of large distance. Likewise, the curve for
the gravel section was measured along the run 9 crosses the curves for runs 7 and 12,
length of the gravel section of the flow tube both having lower flow velocities than run
for each run to and including run 16. These 9. The curves of Fig. 3 all represent runs
measurements are represented graphically with the same gravel-sand size ratio, at
ill Figs. 3 and 4. different velocities.
 SCREENING EFFECT OF GRAVEL ON UNCONSOLIDATED SANDS

The curveg of Fig. 4 represent runs at not greatly <lfff'C't t he ~rreenin!t action of
velocities of approximately the same t.he gravel.
magnitude but with different gravel-sand Considering the 3-in. gravel pack with
size ratios. Neither do they fall in any gravel-sand size ratio of 16 (Table 3), it
particular order, since the curve for run 5, can be seen that screening action was
the run having the highest flow velocity satisfactory at a velocity of 1.6 X ro- 3 ft.
and the largest ratio of the three, falls per sec., while at a velocity of 4.0 X ro-"
between the other two curves. However. ft. per sec. the screening action became oi
the curves do show that the bridging proc- doubtful value. This action corresponds
ess is cumulative back into the gravel. closely to that of the 12-in. gravel pack with
They also show that in no case did bridging gravel-sand size ratio of 16.
TABLE 3.-Comparing Results of Different Lengths of Gravel Packs
-
Length of
Gravel Sand
I Flow Velocity.i
Run Gravel Ratio I Ft. per Sec. Remarks
Pack. In. Size. In. Size, In. at Well Face
-- ---- --- .-

17 10 0.185 ungraded -:;:;:;:-1 0.8 X 10-' Produced no sand.

action.
Good screening
18 10 0.185 ungraded 14· 21l 2.2 X 10- 3 Nat a good screen.
19 10 0.185 ungraded 14·2 1l 3.6 X 10-' Unsatisfactory.
20 6 0.131 0.0082 16.0 0.6 X 10-' Bridged in short time. Satisfactory screen.
21 6 0.131 0.0082 16.0 2·3 X 10-' Bridged to form satisfactory screen.
22 6 0.131 0.0082 16.0 3·9 X ro-' Continually made trace. Satisfact0v,'
23 6 0.131 0.0082 16.0 7.5 X 10-' Continually made small amount. matis-
factory.
24 6 0.131 0.0082 16.0 10. 5 X 10-' Unsatisfactory.
25 6 0.131 ungraded 10.0 11 10. 5 X 10-' Gradually bridged until very small amount
of sand was being made. Doubtful.
26 6 0.131 ungraded 10.Oa 3· 5 X 10-' Bridged in short time until making only
very slight trace of sand. Satisfactory.
27 6 0.263 ungraded 20.0 11 1. 2 X 10-' Made large amount of sand. Unsatis-
factory.
28 3 0.131 0.0082 16.0 1.6 X 10-' Made slight trace. Satisfactory.
29 3 0.131 0.0082 16.0 4.0 X 10-' Continually produced small amount.
U nsa tisfactory .
30 3 0.131 0.0082 16.0 6.2 X 10-' Unsatisfactory.
31 3 0.131 0.0082 16.0 0.8 X 10-' Satisfactory screen.
32 3 0.131 ungraded 10. Oil 1.8 X 10-' Bridged to produce no sand. Good screen.
33 3 0.131 ungraded 10. all
I
4.6 X 10-' Gradually bridged until a very small
amount of sand was being produced.
II i Doubtful.
I i
G Ratio of size of gravel to sand size at 10 per cent point.

begin at the sand-gravel interface to A gravel-sand size ratio of 10 is the

prevent sand from entering the gravel.
Screening action in a gravel, then,
appears to be due to the bridging of the
larger grains of sand against the gravel,
with cumulative bridging of the smaller
grains of sand against the larger. It appears
from this action that the necessary width
of gravel to form an effective screen could
be measured in terms of a few grains of the
gravel, or it is that width just sufficient to
start bridging action.
Variation of Length of Gravel Pack
Table 3 shows that for graded sands the
length of the gravel pack above 3 in. does
largest that will successfully screen the
ungraded sand over the full range of practi-
cal flow velocities. The sand size in this
case is taken as that at the 10 per cent
point of analysis, 0.013-in. dia. (Fig. 4)
With a gravel-sand size ratio of 14 the
screening action becomes doubtful at a
flow velocity of 2.2 X 10- 3 ft. per sec.
This is with a 10-in. gravel pack. Thus to
cover the whole practical range of flow
veloci ties, a gravel-sand size ratio of 10
would be preferable for screening this sand.
while for velocities below 0.8 X 10- 3 ft.
per sec. at the well face a gravel-s~Ild size
ratio of 14 would be satisfactory.
 DISCUSSION
The limiting width of the walls of a
gravel pack necessary to form a satis-
factory screen, which within the practical
range of velocity is below 3 in., was not
reached in this work. However, the results
of this particular series of tests would tend
to confirm the previous assumption that
the width of the pack need be only suffi-
cient to start bridging action.
CONCLUSIONS
I. The largest grains of a gravel to
be used for screening unconsolidated sand
over the entire range of flow velocities
should bear a diameter ratio of I I to the
diameter of the sand at the 10 percentile
analysis. For velocities below 1.0 X 10- 3 ft.
per sec. at the well face this ratio can be
increased to 16. This in a large measure
agrees with the theory and results of
Coberly and Wagner.1
2. The minimum width of the walls of
a gravel pack, to give good screening
action, seems to be that just sufficient
to start bridging action. This width may
be that of several grains of the gravel.
3. In a gravel pack there is no relation
between flow velocity and gravd-sand size
ratio, and the distribution of sand in the
pack. Some sand was found to migrate
the length of the pack in all cases.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to express gratitude
for the assistance offered during the course
of this work, to Mr. E. L. Davis of The
Texas Company (California) and to Mr.
E. M. Wheeler, graduate student at the
University of California. Thanks are due
especially to Prof. L. C. "["ren, of the
Petroleum Engineering Department of the
College of Mining, University of California,
and to Mr. Bachman, mechanic of the Min-
ing Department of the University of
California, whose aid in the construction
of the apparatus was invaluable.
REFERENCES
I. C. J. Coberly and E. M. Wagner: Some Considera-
tions in the Selection and Installation of Gravel
Pack for Oil Wells. A.I.M.E. Tech. Paper 960
(1938) 1.
2. Information from Mr. E. L. Davis. The Texas
Company (California). Los Angeles. California.
3. L. C. Uren and E. J. Bradshaw: Trans. A.I.M.E.
(1932) 98, 438-466.
DISCUSSION
C. J. COBERLY,* Huntington Park, Calif.-
Mr. Gumpertz has added some valuable ma-
terial on a subject that is of particular interest
in unconsolidated sand areas of the Gulf Coast
and California.
The difficulty of getting the sand face in
contact with the gravel without some initial
cavity that has to be filled in after fluid flow
starts suggests the advisability of filling the
short section first, assembling the long section
in place and then filling and tamping the sand
over the gravel. This may be the reason for
some inconsistencies in bridging, and particu-
larly the migration of sand through the gravel.
In tests made by Coberly and Wagner, no
evidence was found of sand migration beyond
two or three gravel grain diameters. Some varia-
tions in r\!sults are to be expected in bridging
tests, owing to the shape factor of both the sand
and gravel grains. For this reason averages are
desirable from a number of runs under the
same conditions to permit accurate conclusions,
particularly in regard to amount of sand that
migrates into the gravel. Mr. Gumpertz's third
conclusion would be in some doubt because of
lack of sufficient data to be certain of an average
result.
E. M. WAGNER, t Huntington Park, Calif.-
Some experimental inconsistencies were noted
by Mr. Gumpertz. These might be explained by
considering three items: method of packing the
sand in the tube; mechanism of bridge forma-
tion (bridging range); and effect of grain shape
(also might be included in bridging range).
The gravel and sand sections of the tube were
packed and then put together. This is bound to
cause some shifting of the sand at the interface,
as the grains will not be stably interlocked at
the first contact. As the pressure differential
across the interface is changed by varying
flow rates, the sanr! pack will shift, causing
erratic results.
* President. Kobe. Inc.
t Kobe. Inc.
 SCREENING EFFECT OF GRAVEL ON UNCONSOLIDATED SANDS
Since bridging will or may occur over a range
of conditions, a single test will not suffice as a
basis on which to draw any general conclusions.
Different types of bridging will alter the flow
conditions. 4 •5 The probability of repeating a
given bridge is remote. Averages of a number of
flow and bridging tests must be used to obtain
representative results.
The method of packing the sand also is impor-
tant. Tamping the sand by vibrating has led to
the most reproducible results. Hand tamping
has not in general led to reproducibility.
In conclusion 3, some mention of the effect of
grain shape should be made. Similarity of grain
shape is as important as flow velocity and
gravel-sand size ratio in formulating any broad
conclusions such as this.
The graphs showing the distribution of sand
in the gravel pack would be more useful if the
amount of sand in the gravel were expressed as
a percentage of the pore space of the gravel, or
in some concrete units, as cubic inches per
cubic inch, along with the porosity of the gravel
pack, so that some idea of the relative amounts
of sand and gravel could be obtained.
In discussing the effect of velocity and bridg-
ing, it might be pointed out that there are two
extremes-a velocity of flow so low that no sand
is carried regardless of bridging conditions, and
a bridge so stable that no sand is carried regard-
less of velocity. In the regions explored these
conditions seem to be' mixed. It would be inter-
esting in interpreting the results to know what
the two limits are for some of the sands and oil
used.
Mr. Gumpertz has made a considerable con-
tribution in his investigation on the effect of
fluid velocity on the stability of sand bridges
on gravel beds.
In all work on bridging of unconsolidated
sands, there is need for a better definition of
what may be considered "bridging." The upper
and lower limits of the bridging range need more
specific definition than is now in common use.
Lacking such definitions, it is difficult to com-
pare results under different conditions. In any
event, consideration must be given to the
fact that bridging can occur over a considerable
range and allowance must be made for this
4 R. L. Chenault: Experiments on Fluid Capacity
and Plugging of Oil Well Screens. Amer. Petro Inst.
Drill. and Prod. Practice (1938) 292-306.
'C. J. Coberly: Selection of Screen Openings for
Unconsolidated Sands. Amer. Petro Inst. Drill. and
Prod. Practice (1937) 189.
fact when interpreting results of experimental
work. Some of the inconsistencies noted in
experimental work can be explained if this is
done.
It is suggested that the definition of stability
of bridging can be approached by making use of
the statistical probability of bridging as related
to sand size as a function of average size of the
openings to be bridged.
Because of the influence of grain shape and
size distribution (even in a classified sand of one
screen size), it is doubtful whether there are
enough elements of similarity present in sands
and gravels of different sizes to make more than
a rough comparison of the effects of single
variables. All variables but the one being
investigated must be held in correct dimensional
relation to do so. Without such strict control,
only broad trends may be defined.
Mr. Gumpertz has investigated the effect
of depth of gravel necessary to form a good
screen. I do not believe that the function of
screen formation is one of depth; rather, it is a
surface effect. The only influence of depth is
that there must be sufficient depth to take care
of the chance occurrence of "cubical" grain
packing on the surface among the more stable
"hexagonal" packing. There must be enough
depth to ensure a "hexagonal" opening behind
the "cubical" opening, so that a bridge may
form. The minimum depth of well-graded
gravel of reasonably spherical grain shape is
probably of the order of five grains.
If screening is a depth function when gravel
is selected according to the thirteen times rule,
the selection of the gravel should be changed
to make it a surface function and the definition
of a stable bridging range changed to conform
to the experimental facts. Otherwise the gravel
bed will gradually fill with sand and finally
reach a permeability that may be less than if the
sand were directly against the liner. Stable
bridging might be set at values that allowed
continual production of small amounts of fines,
which would be transported through the gravel
bed and not be dropped out in the continual
change of direction of flow through the bed.
From the standpoint of the possibility of filling
the gravel bed with fines, this bed should be as
shallow as is consistent with safety. In pre-
packed gravel liners, as shallow a bed as is safe
is important also from the standpoint of "wash-
ing" through the bed.
 DISCUSSION 85
.In ~dedil1g gravel to holt! sand of a !(ivCIl to make usc of SOllie mclhod of eliminating ati
size, it would appear that the maximum possi- many of the indeterminate variahles as possihle.
ble ope'1ing between the grains would govcrn It appears desirable to use spherical grains of
and not the average openings. If the maximum some sort for primary investigations for formu-
size is used, the data resulting are not as much lation of general rules, and then to shift to
restricted to the particular screen scale used, sands and commercial gravels to reduce to
but are of more general nature. commercial usefulness the rules and trends so
It is also important in the study of bridging discovered.