Factors Influencing Optimum Ball Sealer Performance

ROBERT W. BROWN
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME

THE WESTERN CO.

DALLAS, TEX.

GEORGE H. NEill

FORT WORTH, TEX.

RAYMOND G. LOPER
MEMBERS AIME

1L\BSTRACT
All facets of ball sealer behavior must be known and
understood to design for their optimum use in well treat/nents.
The down-hole factors including the inertial forces, drag
forces and holding forces have been discussed. Equations
have been developed and presented for these forces. The
use of these equations in this process will contribute to the
/rLost efficient use of an economical and proven ball sealer
process.
The procedure presented has been used to successfully
analyze field results indicating problems involving the use
of ball sealers. These problenls have been isolated and corrected in future treat/nents by using the procedure presented to revise the perforating progranz, the injection rate,
the design of ball sealer stages and/or the type and size
of ball sealers. The procedure presented also indicates that
dislodgenlent of ball sealers occurs priJnarily in ultra slinzhole completions.

INTRODUCTION
The perforation sealing proces's has been proven highly
successful and economical since it was introduced to the
oil and gas industry in early 1956. 1 Since it has proved so
successful in multistage fracture treatments at a 'much
lower cost' than conventional packers, the ball sealer process has become a byword in well completions.:! Not only
has it changed the design of fracture treatments, it has
changed the concepts of selectively perforating and has
greatly aided the success of the single-point and limitedentry techniques.:l
Yet with all the advantages, there are still facets of ball
sealer behavior that are not widely recognized. These must
be known and understood to better design and execute
the optimum ball sealer treatment.
The down-hole behavior of ball sealers is influenced by
a number of factors including an "inertial force", a "drag
force" and a "holding force". These are considered in two
phases-the initial seating of the ball and the forces tending to unseat the ball after contact has been made (see
Fig. 1).
This paper presents a theoretical study of these factors
and formulas for predicting their influence. The authors
acknowledge the fact that the flow equations presented
herein describe the behavior of Newtonian fluids and do
not cover the so-called power-law fluids. The assumptions
made, however, are reasonable and well within practical
limitations of the conditions encountered during field application. For example, it is assumed that the perforations
are round with a discharge coefficient of 0.82. While this
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office
Jan. 3, 196,3. Revised manuscript received March 18, 1963.
lReferences given at end of paper.

SPE 553

450

WESTON, W. VA.

nlay not be exactly true, it has been verified within practical field limitations. 3 The discharge coefficient would not
vary significantly even if the perforation size or configuration varied pronouncedly. The approach of assuming uniform perforation size is not as strained as it might first
appear. Normally, a perforator contains charges equally
spaced with the same number in each vertical (or horizontal) plane. If the perforating gun is not centralized, the
holes in one plane will be smaller than average, while the
holes in opposing planes will tend to be larger than
average. The net result is that the two effects tend to
balance.
FACTORS AFFECTING CONTACT WITH
PERFORATION
Ball sealers are injected into well treating fluids for the
purpose of contacting and sealing those perforations which
are accepting the fluid flow. The efficiency of the sealers
is primarily influenced by: (1) the velocity of the balls
down the pipe, and (2) the fluid velocity through the perforations. To divert the sealer to the perforation, the inertial force of the ball must be overcome by the drag force
created by the fluid velocity through the perforation.
BALL VELOCITY

The final, or stable, velocity of the ball is the sum of

the actual fall velocity and the fluid velocity. This will be
(2)

(1)

Ud ~

~ +

F,

t6+

i/!
fY + ~

t t ~

t t t

J9)~

l\ \

Y'v+
~

Drag I'orce

Inerlial forc('

Sealing
Balafl(~e

FIG.

(4)

(3)

I-SIMPLIFIED

of f'" a IIII f',

~
t

\) !

{(; ~
Holding I"Olce

F.

(Tmwaling I'orce

lJnsealing
Balance of F. and f'1/

SKETCH OF THE BASIC FORCES

BALL SEALER EFFICIENCY.

GOVERNING

JOURNAL OF PETROI.. EUM TECHNOLOGY

points with the plot of fD vs Re (Fig. 2) will give the

value of Re and fD incorporating the value of Vs. V s
may then be calculated from the basic Re equation.

used as the initial velocity of the ball sealer as it enters

the perforated interval of the casing.
V.r == Vi + Va
(1 )
The actual fall velocity is computed by first establishing
the theoretical fall velocity (terminal velocity) and correcting this value for prevailing well conditions.
The terminal fall velocity of the ball through the treating fluid is primarily influenced by the density and diameter of the ball sealer and the fluid density.

Re = 7.72X 10' ( D:,PJ ).

or

V, = 1.89.../(PB-~I)D .
(2)
,
PI D
The drag coefficient fD varies with the Reynolds number.
This relationship is shown in Fig. 2. Since V s and f Dare
both unknown, a trial-and-error solution is suggested.
The trial-and-error procedure of solving for V s can be
eliminated by combining the equations for fD and Re and
eliminating the term V s. 4, 5

log f/) = -2 log Re+log

== 1,
== (_4

(PII-~::, gD PJ)

V;=13.5( Q/A,) =17.2( Q/Dc') .

In order to divert the ball from its vertical path down

the casing and to permit the ball to contact a perforation,
the vertical component of ball velocity must be reduced
to zero. The inertial force which must be overcome to
effect this velocity reduction is represented by the equation.

(pn - PI) g D:JpI )

3p.,'2
,

(plI~PI) P1 D3
3p.,'2

Re = 1.46XlO'

F/S=;

g)lh,

CPlI-P~ PfD'f'

(4)

100

10

't-

a:::

\\
\
-----

<t

LL.

i=
u
0:
l..L.

~~

.5

0.1

(V/-O").

The effects of a perforation on flow in the pipe are dissipated over a distance (5) of about 1 to 2.5 pipe diameters fron1 the perforation:; The lower value of one pipe
diameter, or Dc was selected to represent extrceme coneditions. The selection of the lower value results in a
higher inertial force which must be overcome to change
the direction of ball travel.

The intersection of the straight line through these two

(7)

INERTIAL FORCE AS A FACTOR OF BALL VELOCITY

fD=-=I,

(6)

when

(I +~/d)

d == 4 (hydraulic radius) == D (' - D, and

Va ==V s in laminar flow.
The fluid velocity V i is expressed simply as

(3)

(4

V.

V" =

or

R e ==

where

when
Re

Re

== 1.295 X 10- D

p.,
(5)
PI
Correcting V s for wall effects of the treating pipe string,
in turbulent flow the equation becomes

Vs

~~

\~

10

10

:3

10
REYNOLDS

FIG. 2-DRAG COEFFICIENT

APRIL, 1963

NUMBER 'I

10
Re --

~
M

--

10

~5

(!D) VS REYNOLDS NUMBER (Re).

451

F[ = 3.52X

103e:')

(V/) .

(8)

As the ball traverses a perforated interval, V f and F I

decrease because of the decrease in flow caused by a loss
of injected volume into the upper perforations. Provided
the perforations are at least one diameter (Dc) apart,
each perforation will behave as a single isolated channel
with respect to inertia. The following calculations can
then be made. Correcting Vi for the effects of decreasing
flow,
Qz
(9)
Vi == 17.2-~
Dc n
Since V f is the initial velocity at the entrance of the perforated interval, and substituting V f == Vi + Va, the corrected inertial force becomes

D
3

B
Qz
F I == 3.52X10 -:l-PD
- [ 17 .2 -D.2

("

+ V] (l

( 10)

Eq. 10 permits calculation of F I at any point within the

perforated interval. Eq. 8 calculates the maximum inertia
and would apply for single plane perforating or for instances where the flow per perforation is sufficient to divert
the ball regardless of its point within the interval.

near the casing center, and in turbulent t10w the ball is

continually moving with a horizontal component. This
indicates that for laminar flow when 'Pn 2 F[ the ball will
hit, and for turbulent flow the ball should hit when F n == F I ,
or perhaps some degree less.
FORCES ACTING ON THE BALL
ON THE PERFORATION
The force tending to remove the ball from the perforation is created by the fluid drag upon the exposed portion
of the ball. The force tending to hold the ball on the
perforation is proportional to both the area of the perforation and the pressure differential across the ball (or
perforation). In order to dislodge the ball from the perforation, the fluid drag on the ball must exceed the vertical vector of the holding force.
FORCE TENDING, TO UNSEAT THE BALL

Neglecting the unexposed area of the ball inside the

perforation, the existing fluid drag tending to unseat the
ball is

F"
and

DRAG FORCE ON THE BALL VS

PERFORATION FLOW VELOCITY

Re = 7.72X 10

To calculate the drag force created on the ball by the

fluid flow through a perforation, it is assumed that the
horizontal component of fluid velocity varies fron1 zero,
a distance of Dc away, to the maximum velocity VII'
through the perforation. The velocity used in the equations is the average of these values, or V p j2. It is further
assumed that the relative drag velocity between the fluid
and the ball is in a horizontal plane.
The velocity of fluid through each perforation is shown
relative to total injection rate.

Qc

(11)

n
rl
The drag on the ball tending to divert it from the center of the flow channel toward the perforation is shown
in the following equation.
}9

nl A
FJ) == C dT
nV- R ,
.j

Pf D Q~c)
n~D/ C/

In

(12)

The drag coefficient If) varies with the Reynolds number as

shown in Fig. 2. The Reynolds number is calculated from
the expression
.

Re==6~65XIO,"1( D~9~).
nIL

Assuming no deformation of the ball against the perforation, the following equations correct for the area inside
the perforation.

F ==5.28XlO-: 1npf V. [D
1

2
2

_D ,fJ

180

D11(D2_D2)1J:I]

7r

( 14)

and

Re

V~~[D'_ ~~~ + ~P(D'-D/)%r

= 7.72X10"

.
Dp
h
were
SIne 8 ==

v.

FORCE TENDING TO HOLD THE BALL

The force holding the ball on the perforation is created

by the differential pressure across the perforation. This will
be at a minimum the instant of sealing and will increase
therefrom due to subsequent bleed-off of fracture fluids
to the matrix of the formation. Under normal conditions
the change in holding force due to this bleed-off is nominal
and is neglected in the follo\ving analysis.
The holding force is represented by the following
equation.

(13)

P II == :

II

When P J) is greater than FI, the ball will divert from

the central flow channel to contact the perforation. This
is based on the assumption that the force component of
the velocity acts or dissipates over a distance of one casing diameter (D c) and that the ball enters the force system a vertical and horizontal distance of Dc from the perforation. This develops the theory that the net velocity
tending to pull the ball into the perforation varies from
o at the distance D (; to V p at the perforation with an average drag velocity of V p j2. (The drag force calculated by
Eq. 12 represents the "exact" pull that would be applied
to the ball at the casing center line.) With this in mind
it is suggested that, if the ball remains at the extreme
casing wall throughout the entire interval of Dc, it is
probable that P n would not divert the ball. However, it
is probable that the ball would never remain at this distance; e.g., in laminar flow the ball should remain at or
452

(D:iPI ).

(15 )

V p == 17.2 D 2D

F n == 0.391

V/D')

= 5028X10''(fvPJ

DfI".! !SP p

and
f:lP"

= 1~9( VJ"~- V,'+ kV,.')

where
1
k == C/ - 1 = 0.062,
since, for practical purposes, C v can be estirnated(j,7 to
equal 0.97.
Then,
1.062 Q('2
Q('2 )
( 16)
~Pfi = 1_99 PI ( -".!D Ie
--D~ .
n II .(/
At the instant of impact of the ball against the perforation.
the holding-force equation becon1es
".!-

FH

== 1.56 pfD

?(1.062 Q('~
---:F
etC:!
n D 1J d

p-

Q/)

-D4

(17)

('

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

To remove the ball from the perforation during the treatment, the drag force F u must exceed the vertical vector
of F ll Then,

F~u.'>
./

Dp
F
(D'2_D/)l/:l H,

or
1.56pt D p:: (1.062 Q/
F >(D'2_D p '2)% n 2D p 4C rl '2
U

Q/)
-Jj:

(18)

Eq. 14 permits calculation of existing fluid drag and Eq.

18 determines the fluid drag required to unseat the ball.
If the existing F u, (Eq. 14) is less than that required to
dislodge the ball (Eq. 18), the ball will remain seated.
Actually, to insure that the ball remains seated once it
hits a perforation, FJ[ must exceed F u + F[ which introduces a correction for the event that the seated ball is
struck by a second ball traveling down the casing. The
probability of one ball hitting another is relatively low;
however, this possibility should be recognized.

Ball sealer performance was significantly Improved on following treatments by either: (1) changing the perforating
program, (2) increasing injection rate (and, thus, "catch
drag"), (3 ) changing size and/or type ball (minimize
inertial force), or (4) improving ball stage design (recognizing that only lowermost perforations were being sealed).
It should be recognized that, in many cases, increasing
the injection rate alone will not improve the catch efficiency. While this practice will increase the catch drag, it
also increases the ball inertia.
In only a few of the cases considered was there indication that the ball becan1e dislodged from the perforation
once it had "hit". This occurrence was further limited to
ultra slim-hole con1pletions.
Thus, we have a proven process for designing and predicting ball sealer performance.
NOMENCLATURE
Vf

Vi

The proper selection of the ball size is important due

to the effect of ball diameter on the afore-mentioned
equations. Several sizes are available in several compositions and combinations of materials.
Based on test data with 90 durometer solid rubber balls,
the following relationship was established for the conditions where D '2.1.25 D p and the bottom-hole treating temperature is within the range of 60 to 200F. The equation
calculates the maximum pressure differential which the
ball will withstand for one hour (under the described
conditions) without extruding through the perforation.

6.Pl'=4 (

D ")1
-;;l',L
"[1800-15(T-llO)]

D"

(19)

This equation can be rearranged to calculate the minimumsize baH required to withstand a given pressure differential
against a given size perforation at the designated bottomhole treating temperature.
'2

D -

D p '2 tiP]I'2

+D

16 [1800-15(T-I10)f

'2
]/.

(20
.)

The factor 1,800 is characteristic of a particular rubber formulation, as is the temperature factor 15 (T - 110). These
values are determined empirically for a given rubber compound. Similar factors are available for other types of
rubber, but only one is presented here for brevity.
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered the factors affecting the performance
of a ball sealer, it is possible to select the optimum conditions required for a successful ball sealer treatment. These
conditions include size and type of ball, perforation size
and number, injection rate and type of fluid. In addition,
some insight can be derived regarding the size and number
of ball stages required to obtain the desired diversion of
treating fluid. These factors have provided a useful aid
to the design and operation of successful ball sealer treatInents. It should be recognized that the equations are, in
general, conservative; in isolated instances, a successful
job could result where a failure is predicted.
Ball sealer treatments performed in the field have been
successfully analyzed with these equations. Tteatments
which had been considered failures were systematically
inspected and the cause of failure determined. On the
nine wells considered, this design proced~re did not fail
to locate the problem area. In nearly all instances the
inertial force on the ball was greater than' the drag force,
thus causing the ball to either 'miss the perforations completely or, at best, catch only the lowermost perforations.
APRIL, 1963

==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==

final vertical ball velocity, ft/sec

fluid velocity in casing, ft/sec
Va
corrected terminal fall velocity, ft/sec
Vs
terminal fall velocity of ball, ft/sec
pn
specific gravity of ball
Pt
specific gravity of fluid
D
diameter of ball, in.
ff)
drag coefficient
Re
Reynolds number
I),
fluid viscosity, cp
g
gravitational constant, lb mass/lb force/sec'2
d
equivalent diameter, in.
Q('
casing injection rate, bbl/min
A(.
cross-sectional area of casing, sq in.
F1
inertial force of ball, lb force
S
distance over which F 1 is reduced to zero, in.
In == mass ball, lb force sec'2/ft
z == perforation number (lowermost == No.1,
consider only those taking fluid)
n == total number of open perforations existing
at a given time
C el == discharge coefficient of perforation
F D == drag force tending to divert ball to perforation,
lb force
V R == relative velocity between fluid and ball, ft/sec
A B == cross-sectional area of ball
F u == drag force tending to unseat ball, lh force
Dc == diameter of casing, in.
e == angle representing ball area within perforation,
degrees
V]) == fluid velocity through perforation, ft/sec.

SELECTION OF BALL SIZE

k
Cv
D.Pp

F Il

==
==
==
==

T ==
D]I

constant
coefficient of velocity for perforation discharge
pressure differential across perforation, psi
force tending to hold ball on perforation,
lb force
temperature, OF

== diameter of perforation, in.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I he authors wish to extend their appreciation to the

management of The Western Co. for permission to publish this information.
453

REFERENCES

1. Kastrop, J. E.: "Newest Aid to Multi-Stage Fracturing", Pet.

Eng. (Dec., 1956).
2. Neill, George H., Bro,vn, Robert Wade and Silnmons, CharI.e!"
M.: "An Inexpensive Method of Multiple Fracturing", D'rill.
and Prod. Prac. API (1957).
3. Brown, Robert Wade and Loper, Raymond G.: "Stimulation
Treatment Selectivity Through Perforation Ball Sealer Technology", Pet. Engr. (June, 1959).
4. Brown, G. G., et al: Unit Operations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
N. Y. (1950).
5. Gray, Kenneth E.: "The Cutting Capacity of Air at Pressure!"
Above Atmospheric", Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 180.
6. Perry, John H.: Chemical Engineers Handbook, IVlcGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc.N. Y. (1950).
7. Daugherty, R. L.: Hydraulics, l\1cGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.
N. Y. (1937) 118-126.

APPENDIX
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
The following example problem will aid in understanding the foregoing equations and discussion. This example
will be worked on the basis of the following assumptions:
rn == J .28, Pi == 1.07, fl- == 1.0, D == 0.875, D(' == 5.0 (ID),
Q == 30, n == 50, D]) == 0.375.
The first step is to calculate the final velocity (Vi) of
the ball. This is acconlplished as follows. When Re == 1,

til = 2.13Xl0' [~1.28~~I~072 ~0.875)3J~~2~]

(3)

3.84X 10i
When Iv == 1,
Re == (3.84X 10i ) %
(4)
== 6.2 X 10::.
A straight line drawn through these two points (on Fig. 2)
intersects the If) vs Re curve at a Re equal to 1 Xl 0 1
Use of this value in Eq. 5 permits calculation of the terminal velocity for laminar flow.
Vs

== 1 295X 10 (10,000) ( 1)

4
(5)
.
. ( 0.875) ( 1.07 )
1.38 ft/sec.
At the assumed injection rate of 30 bbl/min, the flow in
the casing would be turbulent. Correcting the terminal
velocity for turbulent conditions,
1
Va == 1.38 1 + 0.875/4.125 == 1.135 ft/sec
(6)

Since Vi is the sum of Va and Vi' it remains to deternline Vi'

Vi =

17.2(~~)=

20.6 ft/sec;

(7)

then,
VI == 21. 735 ft/sec
(1 )
This velocity is used to calculate F I which is the inertial
force of the ball.
F 1 = 3.52X 10-'( (1.28)

~0.875)') (21.735)'.

(8)

== 0.284 lb force.
This is the maximum inertial force and is not corrected
for the decrease in flow rate through the perforated interval. Since the assumed conditions indicate that the drag
force will be relatively large, this force will be computed
prior to correcting Fl. If F D is greater than 0.284 lb
force, it will not be necessary to consider the reduced
inertia.
The drag force tending to seat the ball is calculated
from Eqs. 13 and 14.
454,

Re

(0.875) (1.07) (30)

== 6.65XI0 (50)(1)(0.375)2(0.82)

(13)
3.24X 105 ;
hence, 1/)==0.2 from Fig. 2. This value is used in Eq. 12.
,( (0.2) (1.07) (0.875)2(30)2)
F n == (0.391)
(50)2(0.375)4(0.82)2
(12)
== 1.74 lb force.
Since F D is greater than FI, the ball will contact the perforation-probably the uppermost. It will not be necessary to correct F I since F D is significantly larger in magnitude. Under these conditions, the ball sealers would have
(statistically) 100 per cent efficiency.
It has been established that the balls will "hit" the perforation. The next step is to ascertain that the ball will
remain se~ted once it hits. Arbitrarily, the force tending
to unseat the ball will be calculated first. Eqs. 14 and 15
are provided for this purpose.

Re =

7.72XIO:(21.7\(1.07)[(0.875),~
(0.875)2(25.40)
180

==

(0.375)(0 8752-O.375:!) %]1/

+ 3.14 .
(15 )
17.8 X lOt (0.873) == 1.55 X 10";

from Fig. 2,
If) == 0.47.
Then, using this value in Eq. 14,
F u == 5.28 X 10-:; (0.47) (1.07) (21.7) :!(0.873):!
( 14)

== 0.934 lb force.
The holding force tending to overcome this force is calculated from Eq. 17.
,,(
(1.062) (30) 2
F II == (1.56) ( 1.07) (0.375) - ( 50) :! ( 0.375 ) 4 ( O. 8 2)~
(30):!)
- ---(5)1

(17)

6.38 lb force.
The holding force F II is a normal force while the F u calculated above is a vertical force. The vertical vector of
FJ[ which resists motion can be calculated from Eq. 18.
(0.375)
F Il == (0.875 2-0.375 2)%(6.38)
(18)

== 3.03 lb force.
Since F u is less than the vertical vector of F JI , the ball
will not be dislodged from the perforation. (It should be
recognized that an extreme case was selected. That is, the
maximum unseating force was equated to the minimum
holding force. These conditions depict a situation where
the top perforation is sealed and the ball is exposed to the
full casing flow rate. The actual unseating force can be
calculated at any perforation through use of the z/n correction factor. Likewise the existing holding force can be
determined at any time by reducing n as perforations
are sealed.) The ball would remain seated even if it were
struck by a second ball traveling down the casing. This is
verified because FJ[ is greater than the sum of F u + Fl'
The selection of ball size will not be necessary since:
( 1) the treatment can be performed as assumed, (2) the
0.875-in. balls are standard and (3) experience has established that the 0.875-in. balls will not extrude through
the 0.375-in. perforations.
Careful consideration of this example will reveal the
importance of the many parameters influencing a successful ball sealer treatment. Familiarity with these equations
will enable the engineer to design successful ball sealer
treatments under virtually any conditions.

***

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY