IADC/SPE 155879

Simulating Experiments of Hydrajet Perforating Process

Qiangfa Hu, China University of Petroleum, Beijing and Jianghan Machinery Research Institute,DR,CNPC;
Feng Zhu and Weiping Lv, Jianghan Machinery Research Institute

Copyright 2012, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Tianjin, China, 9–11 July 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Experimental researches introduced in this paper combined the fracturing technology, which was
needed in Chang-6 stratum of Changqing Oilfield, were carried out with full-size and holo-authentic.
and used field jetting tools, parameters and equipments to simulate the process of hydrajet perforating
and fracture initiation. All of these were different from the previous.
A real-hole shape and crack structure of the near-wellbore were obtained while dissection 9
experimental samples by special tools.
The experiment results shown that: The whole jetting hole is tear-drop shaped, including four parts:
casing perforation, entrance sputtering section, cement necking section and main section. When fracture
initiates, a slim channel with gladiate shape is extended in the end of the hole. Secondly, the sample will
fracture when jetting velocity is high enough under test condition. It indicates that pressure in jetting
hole increases obviously when jetting velocity increases. Thirdly, jetting flow erodes out a slim channel
along crack propagate direction when fracture initiates, which increases the jetting hole length doubly
and enhances the penetration efficiency. Finally, six individual channels are connected by crack when
fracture initiates. It indicates that jetting channels can guide the crack initiation and extension near the
well bore under the test condition.
The results of the simulating experiments could be used as the design reference when jetting and
fracturing in the similar stratum.
2 IADC/SPE 155879

Introduction
Hydrajet Perforating uses high-pressure liquid with sand to penetrate the casing, cement and
formation at one time and erodes into large diameter channels. This technology began to be applied to
petroleum industry from 1950-1960 or even earlier, which mainly is used to remove plugging. Now it is
used to gain greater penetration depth in situation like the serious-polluted formation, hard rock
formation when conventional explosion perforating cannot satisfy the demands of oil-gas well
development [1]. Hydrajet perforating and fracture initiation technology, which is put forward by
Halliburton, came into use in large scale from 2002. In this period, several service companies developed
various technologies, such as fracturing-after-perforating technology, fracturing-when-perforating
technology and so on, which makes sand jet assisted fracturing a widely applied technology[2-3].
With the development of application[4], we suggest an issue that hydrajet perforating and fracturing
technology be further studied combined with field fracturing construction in order to optimize the
technology parameters. Simulating experiments of hydrajet perforating and fracture initiation process in
this paper are important content of the study. This research not only examines the depths and types of
the single abrasive perforating channel, but also the relationship of these channels and their impacts on
the fracture initiation process near the well bore.

Experimental analysis in China and abroad

Since the 1990s, a large number of ground simulating experiments on sand jet perforating have
been performed both in China and abroad. These experiments were carried out to study the depth and
diameter of the perforation channels and their affecting factors.
Professor Li Gensheng[5], from China University of Petroleum, have performed the sand jet
perforating simulating experiment to the natural sandstone with a single-jet nozzle. A 5.5" (139.7mm)
casing was put into a cubelike sandstone core with 400mm side length , and consolidated the casing by
cement with the other two sandstones side by side. 4 tests were performed under the pressure ranged
from 23MPa to 24MPa with the 3.7 mm single-jet nozzle. One test with deepest perforation depth lasted
for 34 min and penetrated a channel with diameter of 90 mm, and depth of 780 mm. The conclusion that
the sand jet perforating can jet over 1m by raising the jetting pressure was clearly put forward and
widely cited. Figure 1 shows the streamlined channel structure, which has become a widely cited model.
However, since the targets have been cracked and broken during the test, the channel parameters could
not fully reflect actual channel shape.
Similar experiments were performed by Liu Yaming[6], from Oil Technology Research Institute of
Xinjiang Oilfield, in a larger scale. 4 simulating experiments were performed with a group of cement
trucks which were used for the actual construction. The cylindrical target, with the diameter of 2.54m,
was assembled by the cement whose compressive strength was about 44MPa. The target was cemented
with casing in the center and covered with steel plate 4 mm thick. The test which penetrated the deepest
channel was performed by hydrajet for 24 min under the pressure in a range from 40MPa to 50MPa with
a 8mm nozzle. The diameter of this channel was in a range from 140mm to 160mm, and its depth was
620mm. This experiment had two main insufficients : (1) the target was assembled by components.
Seams between components affected the channel shape significantly; (2) since most of the targets had
IADC/SPE 155879 3

been cracked or broken during the test, the channel parameters could not fully reflect the actual channel
shape.
Experiments by A.D.Nakhwa[7] from Oklahoma University was performed in order to provide
evidence for oriented sand jet perforation with the coiled tubing (Fig 2). The 4.5"(114.3mm) P-110
casing sample was placed between two pieces of Jack Fork sandstone samples and encapsulated with
Class H cement. The perforator used was dressed with two 0.125"(3.175mm) orifices phased 0 and
180DEG. The experiments were jetting at 1bbl/min(159L/min) and 540ft/s (165m/s) with 2500psi
(17.2MPa) and continued 10min. The pentration depth of 27"(685mm) was measured from the
centerline of the casing to the end of the edge of the cement wall (included the broken parts). The depth
of the teardrop-shaped channel body was about 30mm from the outer surface of casings, which could be
calculated according to the proportion of sample picture (Fig 2).
The effect of the penetration depth, channel structure and other parameters of sand jet perforating
on the channel formation is researched systematically in these experiments, providing a sound
foundation for development of this technology. Experiments on the effect of confining pressure indicates
that: since confining pressure underground is extremely high (no less than 15 to 30MPa when it's 1500
to 3000 meters deep), sand jet perforating simulating experiments without confining pressure erode out a
much deeper channel than actual sand jet perforating underground. According to the experiment results
of Liao hualin[8], channel depth will decay to half when confining pressure is over 15MPa.
Since the condition of these experiments above had large difference, these results could only be
regarded as a reference of qualitative analysis, but quantitative analysis could hardly be based on it. It is
worthwhile to note that the most important factor is the perforating depth and channel shape before
fracture initiation process when sand jet perforation is studied combined with fracturing technology.
And in several experiments channel depth was over 600mm and the targets had been broken, which
decreased the reference value of channel depth and channel shape. Besides, these experiments mainly
researched individual channels, but didn't cover the correlation of each channel and their compact on
fracture initiation.
The experimental scheme and simulation conditions
In order to further research hydrajet fracturing in low permeability reservoir, this paper proposes
the conception of “full-size and holo-authentic” physical model test. In this experiment, field jetting
tools, parameters and equipments are used. And also the core samples are corresponding to the main
target formation and are used to completely simulate the structure of the real borehole, including the
main compositions such as the casing pipe, cement sheath, formations and so forth. This test not only
examines the depths and types of the single abrasive perforating channel, but also examines the
relationship of these channels and their impacts to the fracture initiation process near the wellbore.
These studies researched the shape of single perforating channel and compare the real shape before and
after the fracture initiation.
The target formation of this experiment is Chang 6 formation of Pangu Liangxi Wu 420 area. After
investigating on the spot and horizon comparative analysis and taking the west-dipping homocline
structure in Erdos basin into consideration, we decided to gather the Chang 6 rock sample in the area of
Sishilipu, north of Suide County. Eight samples are gathered by the combined methods of hydraulic
4 IADC/SPE 155879

cutting and explosion, Six of them are made into cubic type in the size of 500mm×500mm×1000mm,
the other 2 are made in the size of 1500mm×1500mm×1000mm (Fig 3). Besides, a number of small
samples are gathered for sample physical parameters test and hydrajet performance test.
The experiment is conducted in the dedicated experimental drilling site, where well head assembly
are installed, the manifold is joined and fracturing trucks is arranged (Fig 4). The equipments mainly
includes a set of well head, three fracturing trucks of 2000-type, a measuring truck, a manifold truck, a
fracturing blender truck and three fracturing tanks with 40 cubic meters volume. Besides, eight tank
trucks, two filtering tanks, a cementing truck of 400-type are also needed in the site to transport the
liquid waste.
The structure of the jet nozzle in the experiments is combination of streamline inlet and straight
hole section. The jetting tools in the experiments have two structures (Fig 5). The jets with symmetrical
double-nozzles are used for single abrasive perforation test, while the jets with symmetrical 6 nozzles
are used for fracture initiation test.
The abrasive perforation test targets are prepared (Fig 6): Six cement targets are approximate
2000mm long with the diameter of 426 mm, two rock sample targets are 600mm×600mm×2200mm.
And the fracture initiation test target box is 1600mm×1600mm×1800mm which was included
1500mm×1500mm×1000mm of the rock.
Brief introduction of experimental procedures
Based on the procedures of field construction, the simulating experiments with 9 samples last for
two days. The base solution used in the experiment is guanidine gum fracturing fluid with a
concentration of 0.4%; the abrasive is quartz sand of 20-40 meshes with a concentration of 150 kg/m3。
The test parameters was in table 1.
According to the dissection result and the experiment process, the channels can be divided into 3
types: normal cavity created with abrasive perforating at intending time, cracked cavity created with
abrasive perforating before intending time, fractured cavity created with hydrajet-assisted fracturing,
which will be elaborated and analyzed concretely as follows.
(1) Characters of normal cavity
Experiment on 5 targets (4 cement targets and 1 formation rock sample target) finished at intending
time, and 10 normal cavities were obtained. Please see the table 2.
The shape of these cavities showed a common feature that they are basically olivary or tear-drop
shaped, and the cavities can be divided into four parts:
1) The first part is casing perforation section, which cross-section are oval and the diameter is about
3.5 times of nozzle diameter.
2) The second part is entrance sputtering section. The jet flow hit the cement sheath and then
backwash the casing exine to form a short inverted flared cavity in entrancement of cement sheath. In
most samples, the entrance sputtering depth k is about 10 mm, with a trend to widen with jetting time
passing. The diameter of this section is about 2 or 3 times of casing perforation, where there is a trend of
extending with the increase of displacement.
3) The third part is cement necking section. Its diameter is relatively small which is 10~15 mm less
than the diameter of the entrance sputtering section and its radian is relatively flat.
IADC/SPE 155879 5

4) The fourth part is the main section, which represents the major structure of the cavity shape. This
olivary (or tear-drop shaped) cavity is 100~170mm long. Its maximum diameter is about 2~3 times that
of casing perforation, which increases with the displacement.
It is found that the cavity structure formed by jetting, if the target does not break, is not the
streamlined structure as people usually imagined. The reason is the existence of the entrance sputtering
section between casing and cement sheath, which leads the formation of a big mutation in the whole
cavity structure behind the casing perforation section. The structure of entrance sputtering section had
not been reported in the literature description. However, by retrospectively observing jetting targets with
small parameters (2.5mm jetting nozzle and 80L/min of displacement) under this laboratory conditions,
it is found that this structure exists commonly. It would be easily ignored for its small length and
diameter with small parameters. In Fig 2, which shows the results of Oklahoma University's experiment,
the entrance sputtering section also exists.

(2) Characters of cracked cavity created before intending time

After enhancing the displacement and increasing the jetting theory velocity exceed 200 m/s as
designed, fractures will initiate in the sample within one minute by jetting perforation. As soon as
fracture initiated, pumps should be stopped for the sake of safety thus jetting didn't continue as designed.
During the experiment, as there is little difference between annular pressures of these cracked cavity and
that of normal cavity, it is concluded that the main reason for the crack cavity before intending time is
the partial pressurization caused by enhanced jetting velocity.
In this experiment, totally 8 cavities in 3 targets formed before intending time, including 4 cavities
in one sample. The characteristics of the main section of these cavities are obviously different from the
normal ones (Fig 8). When fracture initiated, high speed jetting flow jets along crack propagate direction
and erodes out a narrow and sword-shaped channel, whose length is obviously larger than normal ones.
The shape of cement sheath around pore entrance is cylindrical without obvious necking. And the main
section is flat sword-shaped channel. While entrance sputtering section can be observed although it is
quite narrow. For the jetting time is very short, which is about one minute, the channels don't develop
very well and there are huge difference among 8 cavities. Some of them just forms 100mm shallow
grooves, while others have already eroded out a flat cavities over 360 mm long along fracture. Please
see the table 3.

(3) Characters of the fractured cavity created with hydrajet-assisted fracturing

In the 6 nozzles jetting test, the displacement increased step by step from 1.5m3/min to 2.34m3/min
until fracture initiated in the target when the pressure reaches 32MPa. Hydrajet lasted for 20 minutes and
created 6 fractured cavities (Fig 9).
The shape of fractured cavity had combined characteristics of normal cavity and cracked cavity.
Before fracture initiated, jetting flow and backflow mixed and eroded out the olivary cavity. But once
fracture initiated, jetting flow with high velocity erodes out a slim and flat channel along crack
propagate direction.So the fractured cavity included into five parts: (1) casing perforation; (2) entrance
sputtering section; (3) cement necking; (4) olivary main section; (5) gladiate channel. The shape and size
6 IADC/SPE 155879

of the first 4 parts were very similar with that of the normal cavity, while the length of most gladiate
channel was in range from 250mm to 300mm, with minimum of 180mm and maximum of 350mm.
Please see the table 4.
Six nozzles eroded out six individual channels, which extend along crack propagate direction when
fracture initiated (Fig 10). Although six channels weren’t in the same level, but after fracture initiation
the horizontal crack cohered the six channels and formed into a big successive crack which divided the
target to two pieces. The results shown that the jetting holes, which were created with hydrajet-assisted
fracturing, can guide the fracture initiation and extension near the well bore. Since this experiment was
conducted without confining pressure and triaxial stress, further experimental researches are needed to
confirm the effect of multiple fracture cavities on fracture initiation near wellbore with stress.The
dissected process of the No.9 target is shown in Fig 11.
Analysis about cavity depth
According to the experiment results, normal cavity depth was about 100~160mm, and cracked
cavities’s and fractured cavities were up to 300mm or so in this experiment condition. The cavity depths
in this experiment were obviously lower than which is presented in relevant literatures about simulating
experiments of hydrajet perforation. Three main reasons are listed as follows:
The first one is the difference of experiments conditions, among which the difference of rock
samples has the greater effects on cavity depth. The rock targets with low permeability in this
experiment are compact and have high hardness, which decreases the cavity depth.
The second one is the difference of the experiment methods. The experimental study present in this
paper focused on the cavity depth and shape before fracture initiation, since the pumps were stopped
immediately when fracture initiates in this experiment in order to intentional limit the perforating
extension along the fracture surface. In the experiments introduced in relevant literatures, sand jet
perforation lasted for predesigned time and would go on after fracture initiation and as a result the
perforated cavities along the fracture surface will extend more when compared with this experiment.
The third one is the difference of the statistical and measurement methods. The cavity depth in this
paper is measured from the outer edge of casing, and does not include the length of cracks which is
different form relevant literatures. For example, the cavity depth in the experiment of Oklahoma
University, which is 685mm, is measured from the center of the casing and includes the length of crack.
According to some researches on how confining pressure influences hydrajet perforating, cavity
depth in underground test is much lower than that in ground test. So it is advisable to take the influence
of confining pressure into consideration, when this technology is applied in formation with low
permeability.
Conclusions
(1) Experimental researches introduced in this paper selected samples from Chang-6 formation of
Changqing Oilfield, used field jetting tools, parameters and equipments to simulate the process of
hydrajet perforating and fracture initiation. After the test, the targets are dissected with special tools to
get the actual shape and parameter of the cavities, in order to provide guidance for the improvement of
field technology and the adjustment of construction parameters.
(2) The sample will fracture when jetting velocity is high enough in test condition. It indicates that
pressure in jetting hole increases obviously when jetting velocity increases.
IADC/SPE 155879 7

(3) The shape and structure of normal cavity without hydrajet-assisted fracturing is completely
described. The structure of entrance sputtering section is first proposed, which leads the formation of a
big mutation between casing and cement sheath and makes the cavity structure different from the
streamlined structure as people usually imagine.
(4) The shape of fractured cavity, which added the gladiate cavity to normal cavity after fracture
initiation, had combined characteristics of normal cavity and cracked cavity. Six nozzles eroded out six
individual channels, which extended along crack propagate direction without mutual erosion when
fracture initiated. After fracture initiation the horizontal crack cohered the six channels and formed a big
successive crack, which indicated that jetting hole guided the fracture initiation and extension near the
well bore in test condition.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Changqing Oilfile for Support of this test.
Reference
[1] James S. Cobbett,Consultant．Sand Jet Perforating Revisited [R]．SPE39597，1998．
[2] Surjaatmadja, J.B., Grundmann, S.R., McDaniel, B., Deeg, W.F.J., Brumley, J.L., Swor, L.C．
Hydrajet Fracturing: An Effective Method for Placing Many Fractures in Openhole Horizontal Wells
[R]．SPE48856，1998．
[3] Loyd East,Ron Willett,Jim Surjaatmadja, B.W. McDaniel．Application of New Fracturing
Technique Improves Stimulation Success for Openhole Horizontal Completions [R]．SPE86480，
2004．
[4] Li Xianwen, Zhao wenzhen. Application of hydraulic perforation jet fracturing technology in
Changqing Oilfield[J]. Oil Drilling & Production Technology, 2008, 30(4): 67-70.
[5] Li Gensheng, Niu Jilei, Liu Zekai, Zhang Yi. Experimental study on mechanisms of sand jet
perforating [J]. Journal of the University of Petroleum, China (Edition of Natural Science), 2002,
26(2):31~34.
[6] Liu Yaming, Yuan Xinsheng, AiLi. Experimental analysis on technology of sand jet perforating [J].
Ai Li. Xinjiang Petroleum Science & Technology, 2005, 15(2): 7-9.
[7] A.D.Nakhwa，S.W.Loving，A.Ferguson，S.N.Shah．Oriented Perforating Using Abrasive
Fluids Through Coiled Tubing[R]．SPE107061，2007．
[8] Liao Hualin, Li Gensheng,Yi Can,Liu Jilei. An Experimental Study the Impact of Ambient Pressure
on Rock Breaking by Water Jet [J]. Petroleum Drilling Techniques, 2007, 35(5):46-48.
8 IADC/SPE 155879

Table 1 Designed parameters of test

Theoretical Theoretical
Displacement Jetting time nozzle
Sample number jetting velocity operating pressure
m3/min min mm
m/s MPa
1 15 2×Φ6.4 158 12.5
0.6
2 20 2×Φ6.4 158 12.5
Cement 3 15 2×Φ6.4 210 22
0.8
targets 4 20 2×Φ6.4 210 22
5 15 2×Φ6.4 158 12.5
0.6
6 15 2×Φ4+2×Φ3.5 225 25.4
Chang-6 7 0.6 15 2×Φ6.4 158 12.5
formation 8 0.8 20 2×Φ6.4 210 22
rock target 9 2.2 20 6×Φ6.4 200 20

Table 2 Field test parameters and measured data of normal cavities

Max Cement
Entrance Entrance
Jetting Casing hole necking Max channel
Sequence pump sputtering sputtering
Sample number
time
pressure
diameter
diameter depth
section diameter depth
min d1 diameter d4 h
MPa d2 k
d3
11.7×23 70 7 46 54 103
1# 15 19.22
23×23.5 55 5 36 55 105
21×19 66 14 50 67 124
2# 20 20.26
Cement 24×25.5 55 12.5 50 70 120
targets 22×29 95 5 82 87 160
3# 16 31.54
22×27 78 9 65 81 164
19×21 48 9 40 55 110
5# 15 14.65
18.6×20.5 58 7 43 57 108
Rock 19.2×22 60 7 43 57 121
sample 7# 15 17.75
target 22.7×24 45 8 40 62 133
IADC/SPE 155879 9

Table 3 Field test parameters and measured data of cracked cavities

Cement
Max Entrance Entrance
Jetting Casing hole necking Max channel
Sequence pump sputtering sputtering
time diameter section diameter depth Remarks
number pressure diameter depth
min d1 diameter d4 h
MPa d2 k
d3
Fracture along the channel axis;
14.7×17.4 35 2 20 35 360 Lots of water come in; Sword-
shaped channel
4# 1 31.61
Fracture and water seepage along
14.3×17.4 40 5 32 47 90.5 the outer suface of the cement
sheath and along the pore axis
5×7.5 15.3 15.3 32
Not jet though the cement sheath;
7×9 18.3 20 32
very small bore
6# - 29.52 6×7.5 17 17 20
Fracture along the channel axis;
7×9 17 17 125 Lots of water come in; Sword-
shaped channel

Fracture along the channel

20×16 59 4 45 45 104 radical; Not crack along axis;
Carrot-shaped channel
8# 0.5 30.09
Fracture along the channel axis;
20×17 38 4 33 33 160 Lots of water come in; Sword-
shaped channel

Table 4 Field test parameters and measured data of fractured cavities

Max Cement
Entrance Entrance
Jetting Displace Casing hole necking Max
Sequence pump Channel sputtering sputtering Hole depth
time ment diameter section diameter
number direction diameter depth h
min m3/min pressure d1 diameter d4
MPa d2 k
d3

N 24×27.8 53 9 44 60 181

NW 21.5×27.5 42 6 35 50 354

SW 22.5×25 48 6 43 48 268
9# 20 1.5-2.4 32.1
S 23×28 68 5 49 53 279

SE 20×27 56 8 44 51 290

NE 23×29 59 9 40 43 230
10 IADC/SPE 155879

Fig.1 Principle Schematic of Sand Jet Perforating

Fig.2 Oklahoma Test Sample and Tear Drop Pattern of Erosion Effects

Fig.3 Sampling location and completed rock sample of Chang 6 formation

Fig.4 Sketch of test equipment

Fig.5 Drawings of nozzle structure and jet tools

IADC/SPE 155879 11

Fig.6 Schematic of test assembly

Fig.7 Shape of normal cavity created with abrasive perforating at intending time

Fig.8 Shape of cracked cavity created with abrasive perforating before intending time

Fig.9 Shape of fractured cavity created with hydrajet-assisted fracturing

12 IADC/SPE 155879

Fig.10 Distribution of fractured cavities created with hydrajet-assisted fracturing

Fig.11 Dissected process of the No.9 test assembly with rock sample