Sand Control Screen Erosion: Prediction and Avoidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Erosion of sand control screens in oil and gas wells can lead to catastrophic completion failures, substantial production losses and damage to downstream facilities. Screen erosion can be caused by a number of completion design and environmental factors. However, the dominant failure mechanism is production of small solids through the screen openings, leading to development of localized high-velocity hot spots in the screen filter media and subsequent failure of the media. The current work discusses a detailed screen erosion study conducted to evaluate screen flow parameters leading to erosion and to provide safe operating guidelines for wells completed using cased hole perforated frac-pack (CHFP) and cased hole perforated gravel-packed (CHGP) completions with premium wire-mesh sand control screens. The erosion study consisted of both experimental work to determine erosion damage in screen samples and computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations to help visualize particle flow paths through the metal-mesh sand control media and determine local flow velocities and erosion-induced wear patterns. The experimental erosion tests and CFD modeling were performed on a specific screen configuration used in a number of subsea gas wells subject to high velocity flow conditions and associated high screen erosion potential. An empirical erosion model was then developed to translate short-term, high-velocity laboratory test results into field erosion predictions and well flow guidelines to minimize erosion potential. This paper presents results of the experimental work and associated CFD modeling as well as completion flow guidelines developed for field operation of subsea gas wells.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".