URTeC: 2668525
 
Quantitative Real-Time DAS Analysis for Plug-and-Perf Completion
Operation 
Yijie Shen*, Eric Holley, and Mikko Jaaskelainen, Halliburton
Copyright 2017, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2017-2668525

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Austin, Texas, USA, 24-26 July 2017.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper
have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is
subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information herein does not
necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Abstract

Fiber-optic sensing technology has become a valuable in-well monitoring and diagnostic tool for unconventional
reservoirs. Distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) is a quickly maturing fiber-optic technology that detects acoustic
signals in real time along the wellbore. DAS has been used to monitor wells during hydraulic fracturing including
fluid injection points, ball seats, perforation gun locations, and isolation between plugs and packers. Additionally,
quantitative flow rates at individual perforation clusters can be evaluated from DAS signals in real time (Stokely
2016).

Estimating perforation erosion and its effect on perforation pressure drop and fluid distribution can be vital to
successful hydraulic fracture fluid distribution for limited entry completions. This paper presents real-time
estimations of perforation diameter and pressure loss of individual perforation clusters using DAS data. A case study
illustrates how the perforation diameter of individual perforation clusters changes because of erosion during
hydraulic fracturing. Additionally, the perforation pressure loss of each cluster, combined with surface pressure and
treatment injection rates, provides real-time insight into treatment efficiency. DAS real-time diagnostic capability
during stimulation can result in immediate improvement on treatment design and help enable decisions to improve
hydraulic fracture fluid distribution, with the end goal of creating a more evenly distributed fracture geometry along
the lateral. More evenly distributed fracture geometry should promote more even distribution of drainage and
production contribution across the pay zone.

Introduction

Downhole monitoring is important for understanding the efficiency of plug-and-perf completion with multiple
perforation clusters. Real-time information of quantitative flow allocation across perforation clusters can provide
significant improvements in terms of stimulation design. This can result in immediate decisions that help reduce
costs as well as increase efficiency, ultimately achieving a more evenly distributed fracture geometry along the
wellbore (Sanematsu et al. 2015). Uniform cluster efficiency should help generate more even drainage distribution
patterns during production. Traditionally, radioactive and chemical tracers, production logging, and microseismic
mapping have often been performed during downhole wellbore and reservoir monitoring. Limitations of these
methods are that only a snapshot of the condition can be acquired and well intervention is necessary.

Fiber-optic technology is quickly becoming popular within the industry. It provides nonintrusive, continuous, real-
time and high-resolution measurements along the wellbore. A permanently deployed fiber-optic cable can be placed
behind casing in the wellbore to provide distributed temperature and acoustic signals throughout the entire wellbore
life cycle. Distributed temperature sensing (DTS) can provide injection locations, qualitative flow estimates, and
zone isolation effectiveness. DTS data during warm-back provide quantitative flow allocation across clusters based
on thermo-hydraulic modeling (Kalia et al. 2014). DTS, however, does not offer the real-time capability to quantify
flow analysis during treatment. DAS is a relatively new technology that has been developed to offer real-time
URTeC 2668525 2

monitoring capabilities for hydraulic fracturing. Stokely (2016) presents a workflow to derive quantitative results,
including flow allocation, proppant allocation, and perforation diameter from DAS measurements. Both DTS and
DAS have been used to analyze stimulation and completion efficiency. The literature presents analysis results from
plug-and-perf and packer-and-sleeve operations determined from fiber-optics measurements (Holley and Kalia
2015). Analysis shows uneven fluid distribution across clusters because some clusters are not taking any fluid and
some clusters stop taking fluid during various times in the treatment. Additionally, results show increasing the
cluster number often decreases efficiency. However, most published works focus on cumulative flow distribution of
the entire treatment period (i.e., not within each stage), and most of this work is performed as post-treatment
analysis.

This paper focuses on real-time prediction of flow and proppant distribution across multi-clusters during treatment.
DAS measurement offers the real-time capacity to predict flow rate, perforation diameter, and perforation pressure
loss of each individual perforation cluster. The quantitative real-time DAS analysis helps identify when screenout
occurs at which cluster, when erosion occurs at which cluster, and how perforation diameter changes resulting from
erosion effects. Combing real-time DAS analysis with surface data including pressure, proppant concentration, and
injection rates provides a detailed explanation of uneven flow and proppant distribution across multi-clusters during
treatment. Immediate decisions on injection rate, treating pressure, or diversion can be made to improve the
uniformity of flow distribution. Theoretically, a uniform fracture geometry helps create even production distribution
and drainage patterns, ultimately resulting in higher production rates.

DAS Fiber-Optic Monitoring

DAS is a passive fiber-optic sensor technology that records acoustic signals, including phase and frequency, along
the length of fiber with high-frequency response. The distribution measurements allow the entire fiber to be
measured continuously. In DAS measurements, a laser is pulsed down the fiber and the intensity of the
backscattered light is recorded. The dynamic strain along the fiber caused by turbulent flow creates small changes in
the refractive index. The backscattered light consists of three different components, Rayleigh, Brillouin, and Raman
backscattered light, shown as Figure 1. The Rayleigh band is used for DAS.

Figure 1: Backscattered Rayleigh, Brillouin, and Raman light in optical fibers

There are many applications of DAS, including hydraulic fracture monitoring, well integrity monitoring, vertical
seismic profiling, production profiling, and sand detection. The most common oilfield application of DAS is
hydraulic fracture monitoring, and has been used to successfully monitor ball seats, perforation locations, plug
setting, and isolation between plugs or packers (Cannon and Aminzadeh 2013). Additionally, it is possible to
quantify the amount of fluid each cluster is taking during the treatment based on location and intensity from DAS
measurements. Paleja et al. (2015) demonstrate that the speed of sound and bulk velocity can be calculated from
DAS signals, which are useful for performing production profiling, determining fluid compositions, and monitoring
gas lift.
URTeC 2668525 3

Flow loop testing was performed to correlate acoustic signals with fluid flow rates, as detailed by Stokely (2016).
Large-scale flow loop experiments were conducted to record acoustic signals generated by fluid flowing through
perforations. Fluids consisted of water, water/polymer mixtures, and water/polymer/proppant mixtures with
proppant. Flow rates, perforation diameter, the number of clusters, the number of perforations per cluster, fluid
viscosity, and fluid density were varied in a controlled way. Analytic expressions were derived relating the root-
mean-square of the acoustic signal to flow velocity per perforation.

c
v  a  b * RMS  ...................................................................................................................................................... (1)
RMS

Here a, b, and c are determined from surface injection rate and acoustic signals. Perforation erosion caused by
proppant was observed in the flow loop and was incorporated into the model. Based on the injected proppant
concentration value and acoustic signals, perforation diameter, discharge coefficient, and perforation pressure loss
can be solved dynamically as erosion is occurring.

Perforation Erosion and Perforation Friction Loss

During a fracturing treatment, the bottomhole pressure is calculated from the following equation:

Pbh  Pw  Ph  Pf  Ppf ........................................................................................................................................................ (2)

Where Pbh is bottomhole pressure outside of the casing, Pw is wellhead pressure, Ph is hydrostatic pressure, Pf is
fluid friction pressure in the wellbore, and Ppf is perforation pressure loss. Reliable and real-time calculation of
bottomhole pressure is an essential part of predicting fracture propagation. In Equation (2), the wellhead and
hydrostatic pressure can be accurately obtained. Additionally, friction pressure can be accurately predicted based on
fluid and wellbore properties. The perforation pressure loss is unknown and is usually assumed or estimated. During
limited entry design, determining the pressure loss across the perforations is an essential part of the design and
execution of hydraulic fracturing treatments. If the perforation pressure changes during a limited entry treatment, the
desired injection profile might not be achieved.

The pressure drop estimate across the perforations is normally calculated from the following equation (Crump and
Conway 1988):
0.2369Q 2 
Ppf  ................................................................................................................................................................... (3)
N 2 D 4C 2

Where Q is flow rate,  is fluid density, N is number of perforations, D is average diameter of perforations, and
C is coefficient of discharge. C is a dimensionless kinetic energy correction factor that represents the effect of the
perforation entrance shape on pressure drop. Among all parameters used to compute Ppf , D and C increase during
injection because proppants erode perforations as they pass through them. D and C values can dramatically affect
the predicted perforation pressure loss.

Several researchers presented work to quantify D and C during treatment. Willingham et al. (1993) conducted
experiments to measure perforation pressure drop by varying gel concentration, sand concentration, proppant size,
and perforation diameter. A correlation to predict the discharge coefficient change caused by proppant erosion was
developed from experimental data. El-Rabaa et al. (1997) propose a model to predict the discharge coefficient with
more variables, including flow rate, fluid viscosity, fluid density, proppant concentration, etc. In both the
Willingham et al. (1993) and El-Rabaa et al. (1997) workflows to predict the discharge coefficient, perforation
diameter was assumed as a known or constant value. The discharge coefficient and diameter change simultaneously
during the erosion process. Cramer (1987), shortly after the initial (1986) publication of Crump and Conway’s work
(before its Journal publication), proposed a new value combining D and C together as H:
URTeC 2668525 4

H D C ................................................................................................................................................................................. (4)

Here, H is related to the accumulative proppant mass through a linear relationship. The linear relationship simplifies
the dynamics of perforation erosion caused by the injection of proppant. Long et al. (2015) developed a more
complex model to quantify D and C together based on an erosion mechanism. Overall, research efforts have
focused on deriving empirical equations from experiments to quantify the discharge coefficient and perforation
diameter caused by perforation erosion.

DAS measurement offers the capability to quantify the dynamic change of the average perforation diameter.
Because of the presence of proppant during injection, the acoustic signal degrades for a constant volumetric flow on
one cluster. The decline is caused by increasing perforation diameter reducing wellbore pressure. As the perforation
diameter increases because of erosion, the linear velocity through perforations decreases. The perforation diameter
at each cluster can be solved based on surface injection data and DAS measurement data. In this work, the discharge
coefficient is solved using the El-Rabaa et al. (1997) correlation based on proppant concentration, average
perforation diameter, and fluid viscosity.

Screenout

Screenout is a situation where proppant added into a hydraulic fracture treatment fluid to hold the fracture open can
no longer be transported through the perforation tunnel and into the formation and begin to bridge off. These near
wellbore screen-outs can negatively impact well productivity and reduce the effectiveness of the fracturing
operation. Additionally, screenout, especially of more than one cluster, can be an operational risk because it can
cause treatment pressure trends on the surface that exceed safety limitations, requiring the premature termination of
the stimulation treatment stage. This often results in costly cleanout runs with coiled tubing and a substantial amount
of nonproductive time (NPT). It is difficult to predict screenout because it is caused by various downhole conditions,
including treating fluid, proppant size and concentration, the number of separate fractures actually accepting fluid,
and reservoir conditions.

The net-pressure plot method is the most widely used real-time diagnostic and control method for avoiding a
propped fracture treatment screenout (Nolte and Smith 1981). A unit slope in the log-log plot of treating pressure
versus treatment time implies that a significant flow restriction has formed in the fracture, potentially leading to a
screenout. However, there are many assumptions with this method, including ignoring near-wellbore friction,
assuming perforation friction is constant throughout the treatment, and assuming net-pressure decreases linearly to
the tip of the fracture. Additionally, it is difficult to characterize individual clusters based on the surface pressure
response.

Simulation work has been performed to characterize proppant and flow behavior in multi-cluster completions. Most
recently, Wu et al. (2017) simulated proppant distribution in plug-and-perf completions having multiple perforation
clusters. Results showed that proppant concentration in the toe-side clusters can be several times higher because of
proppant particles inertia causing higher proppant concentrations to be carried toward the toe cluster. This higher
proppant concentration increases the screenout risk of the toe-side clusters.

Field Case Analysis

DAS data used in this work were acquired from a horizontal well. The well was completed with a plug-and-perf
completion having a total of 14 stages. The number of clusters per stage varied from two to four and the number of
perforations per cluster varied from four to eight. Approximately 3,000 to 5,000 bbl of fracturing fluid with 170,000
to 350,000 lbs of proppants were placed per stage. The fiber-optic cable deployed was permanently installed behind
the casing and oriented perforating was performed for each interval. Perforation phasing was set to 0° and oriented
180° away from the optical cable.

Figure 2 shows the DAS waterfall plot recorded during treatment of one stage in middle section of wellbore. This
stage consisted of four clusters from toe to heel. Each cluster had four perforations. As the fluid entered the reservoir
through the perforation clusters, the noise generated from turbulent flow was recorded by DAS. Once the DAS raw
data, including phase and frequency, was acquired, real-time data reprocessing was performed and the acoustic
URTeC 2668525 5

intensity plot was generated in real-time, shown as Figure 2. The red indicates the high noise intensity, while the
blue refers to the low intensity. Cluster 1 is nearest the toe.

Figure 2: Waterfall plot of DAS recorded during treatment of one stage

A quantitative flow and proppant allocation of each cluster was generated based on acoustic signal and surface
treatment data. The cumulative flow allocation results, shown in Figure 3, indicate that a majority of fluid and
proppant was taken by Cluster 3 and 4 in the heel-side and a small amount of fluid was taken by Cluster 1 and 2 in
the toe-side.

Figure 3: Percentage of flow and proppant allocation across clusters of one stage
URTeC 2668525 6

Figure 4 plots the low rates of each cluster in terms of time. The dynamic flow rate of each cluster shows that, at the
beginning of treatment (~10:20 to ~10:30), all of the clusters are taking fluid because they all show acoustic energy.
The flow rate of Cluster 1 reduces significantly during the latter portion of the treatment (~10:35), as no acoustic
energy appears. This indicates that screenout occurred and Cluster 1 stopped taking fluid. Similarly, the flow rate of
Cluster 2 reduces significantly later (~10:45), as no acoustic energy appears. Both clusters at the toe-side indicate
that screenout occurred prematurely near-wellbore, resulting in heel-side clusters taking more fluid and proppant
cumulatively compared to toe-side clusters. Heel-side clusters take fluid until the end of the treatment.

Figure 4: Flow rate versus time of each cluster

In the DAS waterfall plot, the acoustic energy of Cluster 4 reduces at approximately 10:35, and the acoustic energy
of Cluster 3 reduces at approximately 10:45. These reductions are caused by perforation erosion. The velocity
flowing through perforations reduces as the perforation diameter increases because of erosion. As screenout occurs
in toe clusters, more treatment fluid with proppant is taken by heel clusters, and high proppant concentration results
in more erosion. The average perforation diameter of each cluster after erosion is calculated based on proppant
concentration, acoustic energy, and initial perforation diameter, shown as Table 1.

Table 1: Initial perforation diameter and perforation diameter after erosion of each cluster
Cluster Number Initial Perforation Diameter (in.) Perforation Diameter After Erosion (in.) Change (%)
1 0.42 0.44 5
2 0.42 0.46 9
3 0.42 0.66 57
4 0.42 0.63 50

The perforation pressure loss of each cluster is calculated based on flow rate, perforation diameter, and the number
of open clusters discussed (Figure 5).
URTeC 2668525 7

Figure 5: Perforation pressure loss versus time of each cluster

Combining the DAS waterfall plot, perforation pressure loss, and surface treatment data provides a detailed
understanding of the dynamic behavior of flow allocation during treatment.
Figure 6 shows the combined plot with a synchronized time scale. Cluster 1 screenout occurs when injected
proppant begin to reach injected clusters. This observation is consistent with conclusions of Wu et al. (2017) that the
screenout risk is high during the early proppant stage and in toe-side clusters with high proppant concentrations. In
that work, Cluster 4 experiences erosion immediately after the Cluster 1 screenout because flow rate of treating
fluid with proppant increases in Cluster 4. The Cluster 4 flow rate and proppant concentration increases resulting in
an increase of perforation pressure loss, and the following perforation erosion then causes a decrease of perforation
pressure loss. The same pressure trend, which is a brief pressure increase with pressure reduction following, is also
observed during the same time period on the surface treatment pressure because the proppant concentration increase
injected downhole causes the screenout of Cluster 2. Similarly, more fluid with proppant is taken by Cluster 3 and
results in increased perforation pressure loss. The following perforation erosion causes the reduction of pressure.
The same pressure trend is observed on the surface treatment pressure.
URTeC 2668525 8

Figure 6: Combined plots of DAS waterfall, perforation pressure loss, and surface treatment data

Summary and Conclusions

DAS is an important real-time diagnostic tool to evaluate treatment efficiency and allow immediate decisions to
achieve a more uniform flow distribution and fracture geometry.

The case study predicts dynamic perforation diameter and perforation pressure loss and provides understanding of
the impact of perforation erosion and screenout on flow allocation and treatment efficiency in real time. DAS signal,
coupled with perforation pressure loss and surface treating pressure, provides a detailed real-time analysis. DAS
real-time analysis showed a toe-side cluster screenout at the early time of proppant pumping. Heel-side clusters take
more fluid than toe-side clusters. The perforation pressure change caused by screenout and perforation erosion
matched the surface pressure change.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Halliburton management for the opportunity to publish this work. Gratitude is also extended to
Jerit Wilson and Victor Irwin for helping access the data.
URTeC 2668525 9

References

Cannon, R.T. and F. Aminzadeh (2013). Distributed acoustic sensing: state of the art. SPE Digital Energy
Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Cramer, D. (1987). The application of limited-entry techniques in massive hydraulic fracturing treatments. SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Crump, J. and M. Conway (1988). "Effects of perforation-entry friction on bottomhole treating analysis." Journal of
Petroleum Technology 40(08): 1,041-041,048.

El-Rabaa, A., et al. (1997). New perforation pressure loss correlations for limited entry fracturing treatments. SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Holley, E. and N. Kalia (2015). Fiber-optic Monitoring: Stimulation Results from Unconventional Reservoirs,
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTEC).

Kalia, N., et al. (2014). Wellbore Monitoring in Unconventional Reservoirs: Value of Accurate DTS Interpretation
and Risks Involved. SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Long, G., et al. (2015). Modeling of Perforation Erosion for Hydraulic Fracturing Applications. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Nolte, K. G. and M. B. Smith (1981). "Interpretation of fracturing pressures." Journal of Petroleum Technology
33(09): 1,767-761,775.

Paleja, R., et al. (2015). Velocity Tracking for Flow Monitoring and Production Profiling Using Distributed
Acoustic Sensing. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Sanematsu, P., et al. (2015). "Image-based Stokes flow modeling in bulk proppant packs and propped fractures
under high loading stresses." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 135: 391-402.

Stokely, C. L. (2016). Acoustics-Based Flow Monitoring During Hydraulic Fracturing. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing
Technology Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Willingham, J., et al. (1993). Perforation friction pressure of fracturing fluid slurries. Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Wu, C.-H., et al. (2017). Proppant Distribution Among Multiple Perforation Clusters in a Horizontal Wellbore. SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers.