SPE 68420
Using an Artificial Neural Network to Develop a Wall-Loss Model for Coiled Tubing
Fracturing Operations
Keith Rispler, SPE, Joanne McNichol, SPE, Kevin Matiasz, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and Mark
Rheinlander, SPE, Quality Tubing
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in
Houston, Texas, 7-8 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented,
have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.
Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A, fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Coiled tubing (CT) erosion can occur during CT fracturing
operations. Resulting wall loss and fatigue can limit CT life and
prevent safe wellsite operations. An artificial neural network
(ANN) has been successfully developed for accurately predict-
ing wall loss resulting from erosion.
This paper presents a case history in which ANN technol-
ogy was used to successfully manage tubing strings during CT
fracturing operations. During these operations, wall loss affects
CT pressure ratings, tensile strength, and fatigue, all of which are
critical performance parameters used for determining CT life and
identifying a safe operating envelope. An ANN can predict
erosional wall loss and quantify critical performance parameters
for specific applications.
Introduction
Hydraulic fracture-stimulation treatments performed through
CT provide a cost-effective method of stimulating wells in which
producing intervals have multiple stringers. This technique is
being successfully applied in many areas and is being used on a
daily basis in the shallow gas fields of southern Alberta. Fractur-
ing operations in these shallow gas fields typically require a
2 3/8-in. (0.203-in.) QT-900 tubing string that is 2,625 to 2,789 ft
(800 to 850 m) in length. The zones targeted for stimulation are
located at depths of 984 to 2,362 ft (300 to 720 m). Typical
treatments involve three to eight stages in which a total of
110,231 to 220,462 lb (50 to 100 tonnes) of proppant is pumped.
In addition, most treatments involve the use of a gas-assist with
either carbon dioxide or nitrogen added to the stimulation fluid.
References at the end of the paper.
Operating within the safe working envelope of the CT is
critical to the success of these operations. Wall loss from ero-
sion affects operational CT parameters, and previously identi-
fied patterns of erosion1 required a better understanding of this
phenomenon. Three of the 35 strings used during CT fracturing
operations performed in the year 2000 were evaluated for wall
loss. Magnetic wall-loss detection was performed with Hall-
effects sensors. The strings were measured at 82-ft (25-m) inter-
vals and at 30° intervals around the circumference of the string.
The data from one string clearly indicate maximum erosion loss
on the outer radius of the pipe and minimal wear on the inner
radius of the pipe (Table 1). Wall thickness for all three strings
is plotted in Figs. 1, 2, and 3. The wall loss from the tests
demonstrates a repetitive pattern similar to those previously
identified.1 Pipe thickness affects critical CT operating param-
eters, including fatigue, internal pressure capacity, and tensile/
compressive loading. A method for accurately predicting ero-
sion could help operators use traditional CT pipe-management
simulators to effectively manage CT fracturing strings.
Using an ANN to Develop a Wall-Loss Model
Several technical papers have been written about the develop-
ment of ANNs. Neural nets have been given many different names,
including black boxes, empirical models, universal approximators,
and parallel models. The basic function of an ANN is to map data
from one multidimensional space to another. Fig. 4 shows an
example of a simple ANN with three inputs, two hidden layers with
two neurons in each layer, and one output. The example has 12
unknown weights. The weights must be determined so that the
inputs can be properly mapped to the corresponding outputs.
ANNs are constructed of neurons organized in layers. An
ANN can consist of a single layer or multiple layers, and each
layer consists of one or more neurons. Artificial neurons receive,
consider, and calculate input from other sources. This informa-
tion is then displayed by an algorithmic process or transfer
function. The number of layers, neurons in each layer, and
connecting transfer functions depend on the problem that must
be solved.
Data from both the CT fracturing-service treatments and CT
wall-measurement tests were compiled for analysis. All data
 USING AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK TO DEVELOP A WALL-LOSS
2 SPE 68420
MODEL FOR COILED TUBING FRACTURING OPERATIONS
collected were initially used as “input” for building a neural net
model. The “output” was the wear measurements. After each
neural-net operation, data were correlated for determining the
model’s ability to accurately predict wall reduction. Parameter
responses were charted for determining the data fields that
affected pipe wear. These interpretations were used for deter-
mining the parameters that most affected pipe erosion:
• core-end measurement (Fig. 5)
• total volume of sand pumped through a given core (Fig. 6)
These parameters were used as the input data in a neural
network developed for String 13358_B. The correlation of pre-
dicted wear vs. actual wear had an R2 match of 0.96 for the string
(Fig. 7). The predicted and actual wear values were very similar
(Fig. 8). Numerous variations were run, and this model was
determined to be capable of accurately predicting erosion on the
other strings. This model never significantly underestimated
erosion (Figs. 9 and 10). In addition, this model was capable of
using data from strings used the previous year to accurately
predict erosion.
Correlating Critical Performance Parameters to Wall
Loss
Yield- and tensile-strength tests were performed on the string
sections exhibiting maximum erosion (Table 2). These data dem-
onstrate that a trend of yield strength compared to average wall
thickness was observed. The samples used in these tests exhib-
ited significant cyclic softening; the load-displacement traces
exhibited significant curvature during the elastic-to-plastic tran-
sition.
Surprisingly, the yield strength exhibited during the tests
correlated more strongly to wall loss than to predicted fatigue
(Table 3). However, both wall loss and fatigue were shown to
impact the tensile strength of the pipe. These data appear to
support combined-loading calculations derived from average
wall-thickness values run in a CT simulator. The data collected
from these strings indicate that the average wall thickness (12
points) of the pipe in the most highly eroded sections is 4%
greater than the average of nominal and minimum wall thickness.
Therefore, an average of nominal and minimum wall thickness
appears to be an appropriate calculation for predicting tensile
strength.
High treating pressures are typical during CT fracturing
operations, and screenouts and pressure spikes can occur under
these conditions. Therefore, operators must understand the
pressure ratings of CT fracturing strings. Fig. 11 shows that the
internal yield-strength capacity of 2 3/8-in. (0.203-in.) eccentri-
cally eroded pipe with a wall thickness of 0.12 to 0.16 in. is
750 psi greater than that of uniformly eroded pipe with a similar
ID and wall thickness. For new pipe with a wall thickness of
0.133 in. and an internal yield pressure of 10,000 psi, a 0.015-in. or
1,000-psi variance exists, which corresponds to a minimum wall-
thickness variance of approximately 20% for eccentrically and
uniformly eroded tubing. Therefore, the wall thickness for eccen-
tric tubing can be determined from a uniform wall-thickness
calculation based on 80% of the predicted wall loss of uniformly
eroded tubing.
Pressure ratings estimated by the CT simulator4 (including
varying amounts of accumulated fatigue) have also been plotted
in Fig. 11. A pressure rating has also been calculated from
measured average wall thickness and tensile strength from the
samples tested to failure. These curves show a good correlation
based on average thickness values. The calculated curve repre-
sents samples with fatigue ranges from the curves calculated by
the CT simulator. Pressure-testing all samples to 10,000 psi
further validated these curves.
Cumulative fatigue for the three strings tested has been
calculated by the CT simulator4 (Figs. 12, 13, and 14). These
values include progressive wall-reduction factors. However,
this model cannot easily simulate nonuniform wall loss, and all
strings were modeled assuming uniform wall loss along the
entire length and circumference of the string. Sections from the
maximum erosion points of these strings were cycled to failure
for estimating the CT simulator’s4 ability to accurately calculate
fatigue and verify that a correct application or safety factor is
being used. The tests were performed on a 72-in. radius goose-
neck, but actual field operations included a reel with a 110-in.
diameter and a gooseneck with a 96-in. radius, resulting in a
predicted fatigue variance of approximately 6% at the 750-psi
test pressure. These tests indicated that the CT simulator4 accu-
rately calculated fatigue for these strings and allowed an appro-
priate safety factor (Fig. 15).
Managing Pipe with the ANN Model
Before ANNs were used for predicting wall loss, the primary
method of managing CT fracturing strings was to use a CT
fatigue simulator as the single determining factor. The intent of
managing these fracturing strings is to calculate the fatigue
throughout the life of the CT string by relating travel path across
the gooseneck and reel so that safe working parameters can be
maintained. The wall reduction per treatment was based on
previous measurements1 and entered as a minimum wall thick-
ness.
The addition of the ANN model complements the fatigue
simulator by providing a predicted input for fatigue calculations
and a safe operating envelope for combined tubing loading. The
ANN model predicts wall reduction by correlating the volume of
sand pumped with the corresponding string positions. Wall
reduction and associated fatigue calculations are then used as
input for the CT simulator.4 The ANN model uses this input to
determine a maximum wall reduction that can be used in the
fatigue simulator. The fatigue simulator then applies this reduc-
tion to the entire length and circumference of the string. How-
ever, string measurements indicate that most string erosion
occurs on the reel after the core wrap and on the outside curve
of the pipe. Therefore, applying the maximum wall reduction to
the entire length and circumference of the string may be conser-
SPE 68420 K. RISPLER, J. MCNICHOL, K. MATIASZ, M. RHEINLANDER
vative. Perhaps a more accurate approach would be to adjust the
predicted wall thickness to an average wall thickness based on
nominal and minimum thicknesses for calculation of critical
parameters.
The wall thickness of a CT fracturing string should allow the
string to withstand pressures and tensile stresses encountered
during normal fracturing operations. Often, working pressures
reach 40 to 45 MPa, and sudden screenout conditions can
produce pressure spikes as high as 70 MPa. In addition, situa-
tions arise during which a significant tensile strength is required
to either allow the BHA to be moved or to be able to part the shear
assembly if the BHA cannot be moved. Therefore, CT should
have a minimum wall thickness capable withstanding pressure
spikes or increased tension without experiencing catastrophic
failure. The objective of managing a CT fracturing string is to
complete as many wells as possible within safe operating param-
eters. Effective string management depends on accurately pre-
dicting wall-loss erosion and resulting fatigue.
Conclusion
The ANN developed from analysis of three CT strings can be
used to determine wall loss resulting from erosion for CT strings
3
used in similar applications. Because the treatments pumped
through the three CT strings had limited variability, factors such
as pump rate did not appear to have a significant effect on wall
loss. Consequently, this model is limited in scope and may only
be applicable to treatments that fit within the window of inves-
tigation.
The nondestructive and destructive tests that were per-
formed on these strings indicate that using an effective wall
thickness calculated from wall-loss predications from the ANN
model can accurately predict CT pipe parameters.
References
1. Kazakov, S. and Rispler, K.: “Optimizing and Managing Coiled
Tubing Frac Strings,” paper SPE 60747 presented at the 2000
SPE/IcoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, April 5-6.
2. Coiled Tubing Technical Catalog, Quality Tubing Inc., Houston
(1997).
3. Engineering Design, Second Edition, Faupel, J.H. and Fisher,
F.E., John Wiley and Sons, New York (1981).
4. Cerberus Coiled Tubing Modeling Software Version 5.0 with
Halliburton Fatigue Module. [CD-ROM] Conroe, Texas: Coiled
Tubing Engineering Services (1999).
 USING AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK TO DEVELOP A WALL-LOSS
4 SPE 68420
MODEL FOR COILED TUBING FRACTURING OPERATIONS

Table 1 String 1117A UT Thickness Survey

Meters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 0.196 0.198 0.198 0.199 0.2 0.203 0.204 0.214 0.205 0.206 0.205 0.2
12.5 0.188 0.194 0.196 0.2 0.202 0.209 0.214 0.223 0.208 0.203 0.202 0.198
37.5 0.176 0.188 0.198 0.21 0.216 0.218 0.215 0.22 0.21 0.194 0.191 0.182
62.5 0.168 0.17 0.18 0.197 0.207 0.214 0.214 0.213 0.202 0.192 0.181 0.175
87.5 0.165 0.172 0.185 0.2 0.207 0.22 0.214 0.212 0.206 0.202 0.192 0.18
112.5 0.162 0.168 0.189 0.197 0.204 0.215 0.212 0.213 0.202 0.2 0.191 0.18
137.5 0.142 0.163 0.192 0.202 0.206 0.209 0.212 0.206 0.202 0.19 0.173 0.187
162.5 0.147 0.149 0.17 0.189 0.195 0.2 0.204 0.191 0.19 0.185 0.161 0.16
187.5 0.161 0.165 0.17 0.189 0.2 0.202 0.202 0.205 0.2 0.198 0.185 0.175
212.5 0.146 0.149 0.151 0.189 0.2 0.202 0.202 0.195 0.185 0.177 0.165 0.155
237.5 0.148 0.152 0.171 0.191 0.198 0.198 0.2 0.195 0.192 0.18 0.16 0.152
262.5 0.152 0.175 0.189 0.189 0.201 0.201 0.201 0.195 0.19 0.185 0.18 0.163
287.5 0.154 0.169 0.19 0.19 0.202 0.202 0.202 0.192 0.19 0.186 0.178 0.157
312.5 0.166 0.174 0.184 0.195 0.2 0.204 0.206 0.192 0.19 0.186 0.171 0.166
337.5 0.176 0.184 0.19 0.19 0.198 0.2 0.201 0.201 0.204 0.195 0.184 0.174
362.5 0.186 0.188 0.195 0.197 0.202 0.205 0.204 0.203 0.2 0.198 0.193 0.186
387.5 0.196 0.194 0.194 0.197 0.2 0.203 0.206 0.193 0.196 0.198 0.196 0.196
412.5 0.197 0.196 0.2 0.203 0.2 0.206 0.21 0.193 0.193 0.197 0.195 0.196
437.5 0.198 0.198 0.2 0.2 0.204 0.201 0.2 0.195 0.192 0.197 0.198 0.199
462.5 0.2 0.2 0.197 0.2 0.199 0.204 0.209 0.208 0.204 0.202 0.201 0.201
487.5 0.199 0.197 0.197 0.2 0.198 0.202 0.202 0.208 0.202 0.202 0.2 0.2
512.5 0.196 0.2 0.198 0.196 0.198 0.198 0.195 0.193 0.196 0.197 0.198 0.197
537.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.199 0.2 0.197 0.198 0.193 0.201 0.202 0.202
562.5 0.197 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.201 0.2 0.193 0.195 0.199 0.2 0.198 0.198
587.5 0.177 0.18 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.199 0.195 0.2 0.201 0.202 0.203 0.197
612.5 0.198 0.198 0.198 0.2 0.201 0.194 0.205 0.2 0.195 0.196 0.198 0.198
637.5 0.198 0.198 0.197 0.198 0.198 0.196 0.195 0.2 0.205 0.202 0.2 0.2
SPE 68420 K. RISPLER, J. MCNICHOL, K. MATIASZ, M. RHEINLANDER 5

Table 2 Yield and Tensile Strength Data

Tensile
Avg.Min Wall Avg. Wall Avg. OD, Area Yield Strength, Yield Strength,
Sample Strength
(in.) (in.) (in.) (in.2) psi (0.2% Offset) psi (1.0% Offset)
(psi)
A-1 0.149 0.194 2.391 1.339 84,800 94,400 100,600
A-2 0.169 0.189 2.38 1.301 84,600 95,800 103,500
A-3 0.159 0.193 2.374 1.322 82,500 93,200 101,900
B-1 0.134 0.176 2.384 1.221 78,900 89,900 97,600
B-2 0.132 0.181 2.381 1.251 75,800 93,100 95,400
B-3 0.122 0.18 2.392 1.251 79,600 88,500 95,400
C-1 0.155 0.186 2.382 1.283 81,100 80,000 99,600
C-2 0.157 0.189 2.388 1.306 79,100 89,100 98,700
C-3 0.155 0.182 2.392 1.264 81,200 93,000 100,900

Table 3 Fatigue, Wall Thickness, and Tensile Strength

String Avg. Fatigue Avg. Wall Thickness Avg. Tensile Strength
13358_A 12% 0.159 83966
13358_B 31% 0.129 78100
13358_ 31% 0.155 80466

Fig. 1—String 13358 wall thickness.

 USING AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK TO DEVELOP A WALL-LOSS
6 SPE 68420
MODEL FOR COILED TUBING FRACTURING OPERATIONS

Fig. 2—String 13358_B wall thickness.

Fig. 3—String 13358_C wall thickness.

SPE 68420 K. RISPLER, J. MCNICHOL, K. MATIASZ, M. RHEINLANDER 7

Fig. 4—Simple artificial neural network (ANN).

Fig. 5—Neural response curve.

 USING AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK TO DEVELOP A WALL-LOSS
8 SPE 68420
MODEL FOR COILED TUBING FRACTURING OPERATIONS

Fig. 6—Neural response curve.

Fig. 7—Actual wear vs. ANN predicted wear for Model 13358_B C&T 96.
SPE 68420 K. RISPLER, J. MCNICHOL, K. MATIASZ, M. RHEINLANDER 9

Fig. 8—Model 13358_B C&T 96.

Fig. 9—Model 13358_ C&T 96, predicted 13358_A vs. actual 13358_A.
 USING AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK TO DEVELOP A WALL-LOSS
10 SPE 68420
MODEL FOR COILED TUBING FRACTURING OPERATIONS

Fig. 10—Model 13358_B C&T 96, predicted 13358_C vs. actual 13358_C.

Fig. 11—CT Yield and burst pressures for eroded QT-900 2.38 x 0.203w.
SPE 68420 K. RISPLER, J. MCNICHOL, K. MATIASZ, M. RHEINLANDER 11

Fig. 12—String 13358 2 3/8-in. 0.203 wall fatigue.

Fig. 13—String 13358_1 2 3/8-in. 0.203 predicted fatigue.

 USING AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK TO DEVELOP A WALL-LOSS
12 SPE 68420
MODEL FOR COILED TUBING FRACTURING OPERATIONS

Fig. 14—String 13358_B 2 3/8 -in. 0.203 wall fatigue.

Fig. 15—Fatigue, simulated vs. test.