Tracer-.

Piacement Techniques fOr

ImproVed Radioactive-Tracer Logging
A.D. Hill, SPE, U. of Texas
Kathryn E. Boehm,* SPE, U. of Texas
~T.J. Akers,** SPE, U. of Texas

Summary. The accuracy of a radioactive-tracer log depends on the tracer rapidly mixing with the wellbore fluid and traveling
with the same velocity as the wellbore fluid. In addition, log quality depends on the ability to measure the tracer transit time from
the gamma ray detector responses accurately; the tracer must maintain a sharp peak, or sharp leading edge, for reliable transit-time
measurement. We conducted experiments in a model wellbore to determine the factors affecting tracer slug distribution and the
responses at tracer detectors resulting from these factors. Tracer-placement parameters studied included tracer shot. velocity, shot
duration, wellbore flow rate, and tracer viscosity. When wellbore flow was laminar, the tracer dispersion could be predicted with a
theoretical model and the experimental results compared well with the theory. As would be expected, optimal results were obtained
when the bulk of the tracer was placed in the high-velocity, central region of the wellbore. In turbulent flow, a fairly low ejection
rate and large shot size most consistently yielded sharp slugs that were maintained at both detectors.

Introduction
Radioactive-tracer logs are commonly used to measure injection
profiles by timing the passage of a slug of radioactive tracer be-
tween two gamma ray detectors (the velocity-shot log). Tracer log
accuracy depends on the t.racer rapidly mixing with the wellbore
fluid and traveling with the same velocity as the wellbore fluid.
In addition, log quality depends on the ability to measure the tracer
transit time from the gamma ray detector responses accurately; the
tracer must maintain a sharp peak, or sharp leading edge, for reliable
transit-time measurement. A new tracer logging method, the two-
pulse log, also depends on the maintenance of sharp peaks of the
tracer slugs. The accuracy of a radioactive-tracer log thus depends
on the way in which the tracer is introduced into the wellbore and
how it mixes and disperses in the wellbore fluid.
We conducted experiments in a model wellbore to determine the
factors affecting tracer slug distribution and the responses at tracer
detectors resulting from these factors. The tracer-placement param-
eters studied included tracer shot velocity, shot duration, and well-
bore flow rate. In addition, the viscosity of the tracer was varied
to determine if this would decrease the dispersion of the tracer slug.
A blue dye was used as tracer, and two detectors downstream of
the injection point measured tracer concentration on the basis of
attenuation of light passing through the clear pipeline. Tracer slugs
were also videotaped to determine their distribution across the
wellbore.
In the analysis of detector responses, the relative sharpness of
tracer slugs was quantified by normalizing the width of the tracer
slugs with the peak heights and measuring the spread of the tracer
as it passed from the first detector to the second. When wellbore
flow was laminar, the tracer dispersion could be predicted with a
theoretical model and the experimental results compared well with
the theory. As would be expected, optimal results were obtained
when the bulk of the tracer was placed in the high-velocity, central
region of the wellbore. In turbulent flow, a fairly low ejection rate
and large shot size most consistently yielded sharp slugs that were
maintained at both detectors. A high-viscosity tracer also performed
better than a tracer with about the same viscosity as the wellbore
fluid. Accordi~g to these results, it is clear that radioactive-tracer
log quality can be significantly improved by using the newer log-
ging tools that allow for careful control of shot duration. With a
few test shots in the upper part of the wellbore, optimum tracer
placement techniques for a given well can be determined.
Radioactive-tracer logging is common for me~~1,1rement of flow
profiles in wells, primarily water-injection wells. Two logging
*Now with Mobil E&P Co.
**Now with Exxon USA
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers
methods are prevalent: the tracer-loss and velocity-shot methods.
In the tracer-loss method, a single slug of tracer is ~jected into the
wellbore above all zones of fluid loss; the amount of tracer in th~
wellbore is then measured as a function of depth by repeatedly pass-
ing a gamma ray detector through the tracer slug as it moves down
the wellbore. The amount of tracer remaining in the wellbore at
any depth is assumed to be proportional to the flow rate in the well-
bore at that depth. A velocity-shot log consists of measuring the
transit time of a tracer slug passing between two points (usually
between two gamma ray detectors, but sometimes between the tracer
ejector and one gamma ray detector). From the transit time, the
wellbore fluid velocity is calculated. By repeating such velocity
measurements at numerous locations in the well, the flow proftle
can be constructed.
Of the two common ·radioactive-tracer-logging techniques, Hill
and Solares 1 have shown that for virtually any well conditions, the
velocity-shot method will provide the more accurate flow proftle.
A proposed new logging method, the two-pulse log, FJ appears to
have greater accuracy than the tracer-loss log and advantages over
the velocity-shot log in wells with varying cross-sectional areas.
To run a two-pulse log, two slugs of tracer are ejected a known
distance apart above all fluid exits, either by firing two ejectors
sin1ultaneously or by sequentially ejecting two slugs with one ejec-
tor and then logging through the slugs with a gamma ray detector
to determine the initial spacing between the pulses. The log is then
run in the same manner as a tracer-loss log. The distance between
the peaks of the tracer slugs are measured as a function of depth
as they move down the wellbore by repeatedly logging through the
tracer slugs with a gamma ray detector. As fluid is lost to the for-
mation, the two pulses of tracer will move closer together; the dis-
tance between the pulses is proportional to the wellbore flow rate.
Because of their greater accuracy compared with a tracer-loss log,
the effects of tracer placement on the velocity-shot and two-pulse
logs are the focal points of this paper.
A velocity-shot log is analyzed by measuring the transit time be-
tween two detectors, ilt, and then calculating fluid velocity as
L
v=- .......................................... (1)
ilt'
where v is velocity and L is the spacing between detectors. The
velocity calculated may be either the maximum, center-line veloc-
ity or the average velocity, depending on whether the flow is lami-
nar or turbulent and on the manner by which the transit time is
measured.

1484 Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988

 \
\
\ t
'\.
' -
l --RADIATION INT£NSITY---+
DETECTOR 1 RESPONSE
DETECTOR 2 RESPONSE
Fig. 1-Transit times used in radioactive tracer logging
analysis.
The accuracy of a velocity-shot log depends directly on the ac-
curacy with which tbe.tracer transit time between detectors can be
measured from the recordings of gamma ray intensity by the two
detectors. Several methods of measuring transit time are in use,
with the two most common techniques being measuring the time
difference between the arrivals of the tracer concentration peaks
at the two detectors, .1tp-p• and the time difference between th~ ar-
rivals of the first detectable tracer at the two detectors (the leadmg-
edge transit time, .1tze), as illustrated in Fig. 1. In turbulent flow,
these two transit times are of similar accuracy, with .1tp-p perhaps
preferable because the velocity calculated with this transit time will
be the average velocity (volumetric flow rate divided by cross-
sectional area). In laminar flow, increased dispersion makes both
the leading-edge and the peak-to-peak transit time more difficult
to measure accurately (Fig. 2); if a reasonable peak is obtained at
both detectors, the peak-to-peak transit time is preferable because
ofthe adverse effect of forerunning gamma rays on the leading-
edge transit time. 4 The accuracy of a velocity-shot log, particu-
larly in laminar flow, is thus enhanced when sharp tracer concen-
tration peaks are maintained at both detectors.
With a two-pulse log, the difference between the peaks of two
tracer slugs must be measured repeatedly. For accurate interpreta-
tion, sharp, distinct tracer peaks are needed; to make the log prac-
tical, they must be maintained for a significant distance as they travel
down the well.
In summary, the accuracies of both velocity-shot and two-pulse
logs are improved by having initially sharp slugs of radioactiye tracer
that do not disperse greatly as they move down the wellbore. For
this reason, radioactive-trace-logging accuracy depends strongly on
the manner in which the tracer is introduced into the wellbore fluid
because the initial tracer pl~cement will strongly influence the sub-
sequent dispersion of the tracer as it moves down the wellbore. We
considered the problem of tracer placement both theoretically, par-
ticularly for the case of laminar flow in the wellbore, and experimen-
tally in a model wellbore.
Initial Tracer Placement
With a typical radioactive-tracer tool, the aqueous solution of radi-
oactive material is ejected from a single port perpendicular into the
flow stream by the activation of a piston or pump from a surface
electrical signal. For a velocity-shot log, the duration of ejection
is short, typically 1 second or less; with some tools, shot duration
can be carefully controlled, while others are not precise. The be:-
havior of the tracer as it enters the flow stream is similar to that
of a steady-state turbulent jet in the presence of a flowing stream
Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988
time___.
Fig. 2-Tracer response in laminar flow.
transverse to the jet axis, as described in Refs. 5 through 7. The
jet is initially horizontal, but is then deflected downward~ by t~e
flowing stream as it loses velocity (Fig. 3). Eventually, t~e Jet fl~Id
loses all horizontal momentum and travels downward, mixmg With
the ambient stream. The trajectory of the jet fluid is a function of
both the jet velocity and the ambient stream velocity.
The tracer ejection process is similar in many ways to the steady-
state jet, and with longer shot times may actually develop a steady-
state jet. The tracer eject~on process differs in that the jet velocity
is varying during the periods of jet creation and disintegration. The
geometry in the wellbore is also different from that pictured in Fig.
3 because the tracer is ejected into an annular flow stream between
the logging tool and the casing wall if the tool is centralized .. If
the tool is not centralized, the jet will resemble the steady-state Jet
if the ejector port happens to be aimed at the center of the pipe.
However, with a decentralized tool, ejector-port orientation can-
not be controlled, and ejection of the tracer directly against the casing
wall may occur, which will lead to an unpredictable distribution
of tracer.
The features of jet behavior that are most significant to the sub-
sequent dispersion of the tracer are the amount the jet is deflected
and the distance from the ejection point required for the tracer to
become well mixed with the wellbore fluid. On the .basis of the
behavior of steady-state jets, the following factors will affect the
initial tracer distribution: (1) tracer ejection rate, (2) tracer ejec-
tion time, (3) ejection-port diameter, (4) tracer density, (5) tracer
viscosity, (6) wellbore fluid density, (7) wellbore fluid viscosity,
(8) wellbore flow rate, and (9) wellbore diameter. Of these fac-
tors, the last four, the wellbore flow conditions, are not controlla-
ble. By manipulating the physical properties of the tracer and the
ejection technique, it should be possible to optimize the initial dis-
tribution of tracer. We studied experimentally the effect of the tracer
properties and ejection conditions on the shape of the tracer slug
at points downstream from the ejection location.
Tracer Dispersion
The sharpness of the tracer peaks observed at the gamma ray d~­
tectors will depend strongly on the dispersion of the tracer as It
moves down the pipe. The dispersion of a miscible fluid in another
fluid of approximately the same density and viscosity during pipe
flow is well characterized and depends on whether the flow is lami-
nar or turbulent.
Turbulent Flow. The dispersion of a solute during turbulent flow
in a circular pipe was first described theoretically by Taylor, 8 with
his result later confirmed by Aris. 9 Their analyses showed that
tracer is dispersed longitudinally primarily by eddy diffusion. For
a solute initially concentrated at positionx=O at time t=O, Taylor
derived
exp( -(:~: ) 1 2
C= ; ). ......................... (2)
1485
 l = 0

DOWNWARDS fLOWING OISTAHC( ALOHG PIPE zc

STREAM

COR£
ITHIS CASE CAN6E REPRESENTED 6Y TWO CASE A2'S I
COHC.

JET AXIS

DISTANCE ALONG
PIPE AXIS zc

r:JOUNOARY·- THIS GIVES THE RESULT .

LAYER
REGION

Fig. 3-Turbulent jet In a transverse flowing stream. Fig. 4-Theoretical tracer dispersion In laminar flow.

where the concentration is obs~rved at a point as ~e tracer slug passes

C = concentration,
A = constant depending on initial amount of tracer,
v = average velocity,
t =time,
x = distance from the initial position of the tracer, and
D = effective coefficient of diffusion.
This shows that a tracer slug in turbulent flow is normally distrib-
uted longitudinally, with the peak concentration, which moves at
the average velocity, v, decreasing proportionately to t- h . When
1
by, as is done in a radioactive-tracer log, the concentration history
observed will be sharper at the front because the tracer slug is con-
stantly spreading. Taylor also concluded ~at the wiclth of the slug
will grow proportionately to t lh •
Laminar Flow. Whe~ the wellbore flow is laminar, tracer will be
dispersed longitudinally much more rapidly than in turbulent flow
because. of the wider range of velocities across the pipe cross sec-
tion. To understand the dispersion of a tracer in laminar flow, it
is useful to first consider the dispersion of an initially uniform slug

CONC CON C. CONC

15
--DISTRIBUTION 1
---DISTRIBUTION 2
--·--DISTRIBUTION 3

I
OI"AMC(
AlOMC 12
PIP(
UJ
(/)
z-
oa..
ffi 9
a:
a:
O(T(CTOI! O(T(CTOI!
~tii
0 6

to

50 100 150 200 250 300

COMC
TIME (SECONDS)
I
- fiM(- Fig. 6-Effect of initial concentr~ttion dlstrlbu~)on on detec-
tor response. ··
Fig. 5-Tracer slug as seen by a detector.

1486 Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988

 Distribution 1
50
0
w r·······-····
z
~ 40 - r·············"'
(f)
(f)
!
<( i!
z ~istributio'2._2 ................. .4

0 30
~
a:
1-
z
w
()
20 _ r. . . . ..I
z
0 10 ~ .............. J
()
Distribution 3

I I I I

0 20 40 60 80 100
STREAMLINE VELOCITY (O/o Vmax)
Fig. 7-lnitial tracer distributions for Fig. 6.

of tracer and then include the effect of a nonuniform initial distri-

. bution. y-ray intensity
Taylor 10 artalyzed the dispersion of a uniform slug of tracer, as-
suming negligible molecular diffusion, compared with the longitu- Fig. &-Comparison of tracer simulator with field data.
dinal dispersion caused by the flow field. We follow his work here.
The initial slug condition and the concentration profiles of the
tracer slugs along the pipe axis at later times is illustrated in· Fig.
4. Taylor developed the following equations, which describe the
concentration profile for times t>Lrilvmax:

C=C0 (-x-)for O<x<Lri, ....................... (3)

Vmaxt 0 36
w
z
(!J
en
(/)
C=C0 ( LTi )for LTi<x<vmaxt, ................... (4)
Vmaxt
~ 27
0
and ~
a:
1-
a:i
0
18
z
0
0

where 9
C0 = initial tracer concentration,
C = tracer concentration at any later time,
LTi = initial length of tracer slug,
Vmax = maximum (center-line) velocity, and 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 ,0.8 1.0
x = distance from initial tracer slug position.
VIVmax

Taylor's equations describe the shape of the tracer slug as it moves

down the pipe. A gamma ray detector, however, views the disper-
sion of the slug from a fixed point with time as the dynamic varia-
ble. Fig. 5 illustrates this transformation. The peak response occurs
at the back of the front concentration ramp and the beginning of
the concentration plateau because the concentration of the plateau
is decreasing with time, as described by Eq. 4. Beyause the entire
front ramp is moving at the maximum velocity, Vmax' a peak-to-
peak transit time will correspond to the maximum velocity in lami-
nar flow, as opposed to the average velocity in turbulent flow. Tay-
lor's equations also show that in laminar flow, the peak concentration
will be decreasing proportionately with lit; in turbulent flow, the
peak concentration decreases with 11-...ft. Thus, even with an
initially uniformly distributed tracer slug, dispersion will be much
more rapid in laminar flow than in turbulent flow. Experiments in
· Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988
Fig! 9-lnitial tracer distribution used for simulator match of
field data.
a model wellbore with an initially uniform tracer slug have con-
firmed the predictions of Taylor's theory. 4
The initial distribution of tracer significantly affects longitudi-
nal dispersion in laminar flow because there is little dispersion nor-
mal to the flow direction. Akers 11 simulated the detector responses
that would occur downstream of a tracer-ejection location, consider-
ing a wide range of initial distributions of the tracer across the well-
bore cross section. These simulations also accounted for the fact
that gamma rays will reach the detector before the tracer actually
arrives. For a detector spaced 4ft [1.22 m] below the ejector, a
1487
 weter tldJUSttltlle
tenk pressure
/ (0- 500 PSI)

gete
velve
~
·~

l - opento , ( /

1
otmosphe/·
T
~
three-we/
Ln volve
co eery! i c
trecer
1njector ~
1 <D
colibrtlted
p1pe

1
gouge
--
:

glt:lSS
f1rst
detector • v
-
trecer
Input
/
solenoid vtllve
(normtllly closed)
/
needle
(nozzle)

second
detector
•• ....
Fig. 11-Tracer ejection system.

....... +- 3.5" 1.0 .
gete
velve
to dro1n < ~
~
T constructed. Tracer was displaced from a calibrated gauge glass
Fig. 10-Model well bore for tracer experiments.
tool OD of 1.75 in. [4.44 em], a casing ID of7 in. [17.8 em], and a
wellbore flow rate of 100 B/b [15.9 m 3 /d], the detector responses
shown in Fig .. 6 are predicted for the initial distributions of tracer
given in Fig. 7, which shows the relative amount of tracer placed
in different regions of the flow stream. For example, Distribution
1 represents a case where a relatively large portion of the tracer
was initially in the low-velocity region near the wall, while in Dis-
tribution 2, the tracer was initially unifomily distributed across the
pipe cross section. It is clear that the initial distribution of tracer
significantly affects the sharpness of the tracer slug, with the best
results obtained when a large proportion of the tracer is placed in
the highest-velocity portion of the flow stream. It appears that tracer
placement is particularly important in low-flow-rate wells or the
lower region of high-rate weUs, where the flow will be laminar.
To check the tracer simulator and to estimate the initial distribu-
tion of tracer in a field application, the tracer simulator was used
to match a velocity-shot mea~urement from a low-rate injection well
in a Kansas waterflood. Fig. 8 shows the actual tracer responses
at two detectors and the simulated tracer responses. An excellent
match was obtained by assuming the initial tracer distribution shown
in Fig. 9. Apparently, much of the tracer was placed in the low-
velocity region near the casing wall.
To determine the optimal procedures for tracer ejection to
minimize the dispersion of the tracer slug, we conducted a sefies
of experiments in a model wellbore.
Experimental Procedures
The experimental study involved measuring the effects of tracer
ejection rate, shot size, and tracer viscosity on the placement and
dispersion of the tracer in both laminar and turbulent flows of water
1488
in the wellbore. A blue dye was used as the tracer and ejected into
a model wellbore upstream of two photoelectric detectors, as shown
in Fig. 10. Both a 3.5-in. [8.9-cm] -ID wellbore, as shown in Fig.
10 and a 0.95-in. [2.41-cm] -ID wellbore were used. The distribu-
tion ofthe tracer was monitored with the photoelectric detectors,
whose responses correspond to the concentration of tracer oppo-
site the detectors, and by videotaping the tracer slug as it enters
the wellbore and begins to disperse. To vary the ejection rate and
shot size easily, the tracer ejection apparatus shown in Fig. 11 was
by high-pressure gas. The shot duration was controlled by elec-
tronically opening a solenoid valve, and ejection rate was controlled
by varying the pressure of the drive gas. The base tracer was a
blue food:..color dye. Its viscosity was varied by adding either
methanol to lower viscosity or a polyacrylamide solution to raise
viscosity. Tracer viscosities ranging from 0.66 to 100 cp [0.66 to
100 mPa · s] were tested.
Experiments were run varying the wellbore flow rate from 36
to 266 B/D [5.7 to 42.3 m 3 /d] (wellbore Reynold's number from
950 to 7 ,000), the tracer ejection rate from 0.09 ·to 2.3 cm 3 /s, and
the duration of ejection from 0.1 to 1.5 seconds for each tracer test-
ed. In each run, the responses at the two tracer detectors were
recorded and videotapes of the tracer slug were made for selected
runs. A typical set of detector responses is shown in Fig. 12. These
responses were then analyzed to quantify th,e sharpness of the tracer
response at each detector.
Discussion of Experimental Results
Laminar Flow. As predicted by Taylor's theory, sharper tracer
slugs will be maintained when the majority of the tracer is placed .
in the highest.:. velocity streamlines in the center of the pipe. In our
experiments, we varied ejection rate, fluid velocity, and shot time
to determine the conditions that place more tracer in' the center of
the pipe.
In the tracer placement experiments, three general categories of
tracer placement and slug shape were observed, as illustrated in
Fig. 13. Slugs ejected with a low momentum oozed down the tool
side of the pipe in the region of high shear, These tracer slugs quick-
ly dispersed and were difficult to observe at the detectors. As the
momentum was increased, the slug was placed in the main path
of the flow stream and developed a characteristic shape. As the shot
momentum was further increased, the tracer drifted into the oppo-
site wall and dispersed into a cloud. At the highest momentums,
the ejected stream impacted directly opposite the ejection nozzle
and formed a cloud of dye enveloping the entire pipe cross sec-
Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988
 VOLTAGE
DETECTOR 1
DETECTOR 2
~ ,-- ,-'~
1
I
' For a given ejection rate, the longer the shot time, the farther the
''
\
' jet at longer shot times. When this occurs, a further increase in
'
\
''
''
Fig. 12-Typical experimental detector response.
tion. The tracer slugs placed in the center of the pipe yielded the
sharpest detector responses, followed by those that reached the far
wall.
To quantify the effects of ejection and wellbore flow conditions
on tracer placement, we measured the maximum penetration dis-
tance of the tracer into the flow stream, X, by examining video-
tapes of the tracer slug using a freeze frame. The fractional distance
across the pipe diameter penetrated by the tracer, Xld, could then
be plotted as a function of the ejection variables. A value of Xld
of one indicates that tracer reached the far wall, while a value of
Xld <0.5 shows that the tracer never reached the maximum-velocity
flow stream in the center of the pipe. The sharpest tracer responses
at the detectors were obtained when Xld was slightly greater than 0.5
Fig. 14 illustrates the effect of ejection rate on tracer penetra-
tion. As expected, higher shot rates placed the tracer further away
from the tool. Up to an ejection rate sufficient to place the tracer
in the maximum-velocity stream (XId=0.5), tracer penetration de-
Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988
EJECTION
PORT
..J
..J ..J
..J. <
< ):
): (!J
..J z
0 en
o· <
1- u
_. ..... _.. ... Fig. 13-Siug shapes observed in laminar flow.
pends linearly on ejection rate. _Above this ri:tte, a lesser depend-
ence on ejection rate is observed because of the more pronounced
deflection of the jet. The effect of shot time is shown in Fig. 15.
tracer will penetrate through the flow stream. At a low ejection
rate (0.09 cm 3 /s), the tracer behaves like a steady-state deflected ·
shot time will not result in any deeper penetration of tracer. Fig.
16 illustrates the influence of wellbore fluid velocity on tracer place-
\
ment. For a given ejection rate and shot duration, the tracer penetra-
tion decreases almost linearly as wellbore velocity increases,
I
reflecting increasing deflection of the tracer jet.
''·
'' \
Turbulent Fiow. As in laminar flow, tracer dispersion was mini-
mized when the bulk of the tracer was placed in the center, highest-
velocity region of the pipe. At a low ejection rate, the tracer does
not reach the center of the pipe, while at a high ejection rate the
tracer travels through the center region and impacts the far wall.
An intermediate rate places the tracer optimally in the center of
the pipe. This optimal ejection rate will depend somewhat on the
wellbore flow rate and on the ejector nozzle size. Because of in-
creased transverse mixing, the tracer slug shape in turbulent flow
was not as sensitive to the initial tracer distribution as in laminar
flow, though there was still a significant influence. In turbulent flow,
we concentrated more on the effect of the tracer viscosity on the
subsequent dispersion of the tracer slug because a viscous tracer
might be dispersed less rapidly.
The analysis of the detector responses was aimed at determining
what conditions yielded the sharpest tracer peaks and for what con-
ditions the peaks were best maintained between detectors. Tracer
slug sharpness was characterized by measuring the slug width at
90% of the peak concentration and was usually normalized by divid-
ing by the peak height (Fig. 17). Tracer dispersion between detec-
tors was measured by the ratio of the normalized peak width at the
second detector to the normalized peak width at the first detector.
These measures of the tracer peak sharpness were plotted against
duration of ejection (shot size), tracer ejection rate, and tracer vis-
cosity.
1489
 0
0 0
0

.I
I
..,
0
I
I
I 0.024 Inch Oia. Nozz1e
Cf"
w I Q = 5.1 Liter/Min.
..... I 3.5 Inch Oia. \../el1borc
Wo
~.., ~
~0
c I/·. I

--
_J
< I
Shot time= 0.55 seconds ~~ I
Wellbore flow rate= 4 Umln i=·
(.)0

~·
Wellbore diameter= 3.5 in.
!:!:. /
x:
"Co

Rate•0.35 cm 3 /s
Rate•0.23 cm 3 /s
Jj•·-JA . . . . . . Rate-0.14 cm 3 /s
0
I- I-- I Rate-0.09 cm 3 /s
0 0
0
0~-------~------~-------~------~------~~ 0. )0 0.60 O.QO 1.20 1. ~0
0.00 0.00 O,HI 0.1~ 0.)2 0.~0
EJECTION RATE (cm3/s) SHOT T]M( (SECONDS)

Fig. 14-Effect of ejection rate on tracer penetration. Fig. 15-Effect of shot time on tracer penetration.

The longer tracer ejection times, 1 to 1.5 seconds, gave the sharp-
est tracer peaks, as illustrated in Fig. 18 for the 11-cp [11-mPa · s]
tracer. This result was consistent for all the tracer viscosities test-
ed. The optimal ejection rate for the longer ejection times was found
to be 0.25 to 0.60 cm3 /s.
For most ejection conditions, the highest-viscosity tracer (100
cp [100 mPa · s]) yielded the sharpest detector responses. Fig. 19
shows the normalized slug width at 90% of the peak concentration
as a function of ejection rate for tracer viscosities of 0. 66, 2. 2, 11 ,
and 100cp [0.66, 2.2, 11, and 100mPa·s]. The 100-cp [100-mPa·s]
tracer generally had the smallest peak width over a wide range of
ejection rates. The entire tracer slug can be represented by plot-
ting the slug width as a function of the percent of the peak height
or maximum concentration. This is illustrated in Fig. 20, which
shows the width of the detector-respoQse curve as a function of the
percent of the peak height at both the first and second detectors.
Again, the 100-cp [100-mPa · s] tracer is sharper overall than the
other viscosities tested.
These tests have shown that it is possible to influence the tracer
response characteristics significantly by manipulating the tracer ejec-
tion technique and tracer properties. In turbulent flows, it may be
advantageous to viscosify the tracer when a sharp tracer peak is
desired, such as when running a two-pulse log. Because of the varia-.
bilities of wellbore geometry when actually running a radioactive
tracer log (whether the tool is centralized or not, the annular space
between tool and casing wall, etc.), it is difficult to predict a priori

:
0

0
00

0
Shot time= 1.0 seconds
Ejection rate-0.046 cm 3 /s
0.024-in. nozzle, 0.95-in. wellbore

09h

h
J
T.. ··-·· ..... ~ ....... !....
w
1................ ___ ....... .

cb.oo 2.00 ~.00 6.00 .0.00 10.00

AVERAGE FLUID VELOCITY, ft/mln

Fig. 16-Effect of wellbore fluid velocity on tracer penetration.

Fig. 17-Measurement of tracer dispersion.

1490 Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988

 1.2
First Detector
12
• o 0.66 cp
o 1=0.25 mVs
10 • 2.2 cp
• •1=0.60 mVs
•1=0.93 mVs • 11 cp
1.0 ~1=1.8 mVs
Ol=2.3 mVs
!.. 8 o 100 cp
~ )o

I
1-
~
~
6
0 [J 0
§ 0.8-
~
• &;

i)I
4
us • ~
a.. 2
.0 0
UJ
N e Q
•
:::i 0
<(
:::1E 0.6-
!CI
• Q
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
a:
0
z 0
• Percent of Peak Height

•
c Second Detector
0.4 [J
•c 30~----------------------------~
0 0.66 cp
• 2.2 cp
0.2 ......______......_._ _ ____.,...__ _ ___....__ _-'----' •
0
11 cp
1oo cp -
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
EJECTION DURATION (SEC.)

Fig. 18-Effect of shot time on tracer dispersion.

1.0 r---------------------.
[J
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
[J
Percent of Peak Height
0.8
[J i=0.93 ml/s ts =0.3 s
• •
.-
0

:c Fig. 20-Shape of tracer slug as a function of tracer viscosity.

1-
0
• Iii 0
•
§: 0.6
::.::::
•
usll. • 2. Initial tracer placement is affected by the tracer ejection rate,
0 shot size, tracer viscosity, and wellbore flow rate. ·
w
N
:J
3. In turbulent flow, a high-viscosity (100-cp [100-mPa · s]) tracer
a:
< 0.4
~ • • 0
generally maintained a sharper tracer slug than did tracers with vis-
0 cosities closer to that of the wellbore fluid. For logs needing sharp
z
peaks maintained over significant distances, such as a two-pulse
log, viscosifying the tracer may improve logging results.
4. With a logging tool that allows for careful control of tracer
0.2 0
0
ell= 0.66cp ejection rate and/or shot duration, a few test shots in the upper por-
+I-' =2.2cp
•ll=11cp tion of the wellbore should determine optimal tracer-placement tech-
01-''"100 cp niques for a given well.
I
0.0 Nomenclature
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
EJECTION RATE (mVsec) A = constant depending on Initial amount of tracer
C = tracer concentration at a later time, g/mL
Fig. 19-Effect of tracer viscosity on tracer dispersion. C0 = original tracer concentration, g/mL
d = pipe diameter, in. [em]
D = effective diffusion coefficient
the optimal ejection technique for a particular well. However; with h = height of tracer-concentration peak, in. [em]
a logging tool that allows for careful control of ejection duration i = tracer ejection rate, mL/s
and perhaps even ejection rale, a few test shots in a well should
L = spacing between detectors, in. [em]
indicate the optimal tracer ejection technique for that well.
LTi = initial length of the tracer slug
Conclusions NRe = Reynolds number
o =origin
1. The shape of the tracer slug detected downstream of the ejec-
tor, particularly_ the sharpness of the concentration peak, depends t = time, 'seconds
sttqngly on the ihitial distribution of the tracer in the wellbore flow !:J.t = transit time between two detectors, seconds
streani. The sharpest tracer slugs will be obtained when the bulk !l.tte = leading edge transit time, seconds
of the tracer is placed in the maximum-velocity portion of the flow !:J.tp-p = difference between the arrival times of the tracer
stream. concentration peaks at the two detectors

Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988 1491

 t8 = duration of tracer ejection, seconds
to, It··
t2,13 = times corresponding to each tracer slug, seconds
v = velocity, in./sec [cm/s]
v =·average ·velocity, in./sec [cm/s]
vmax = maximum centerline velocity, in./ sec [em/ s]
w = tracer concentration slug width at 90% of the peak
height
x = distance from initial position of the tracer
X = maximum distance of tracer penetration into flow
stream
p. = viscosity, cp [~Pa · s]
Acknowledgments
We thank the Texas Petroleum Research Committee and the spon-
sors of the Stimulation, Logging, and Formation Damage Research
Program at the U. of Texas at Austin for support of this work.
References
1. Hill, A.D. and Solares, J.R.: "Improved Analysis Methods for Radi-
oactive Tracer-Injection Profile Logging," JPT(March 1985) 511-20.
2. Hill, A.D.: "Two-Pulse Tracer Ejection Method for Determining In-
jection Profiles in Wells," U.S. Patent No. 4,622,463 (Nov. 11, 1986).
3. Anthony, J .L. and Hill, A.D.: ''An Extended Analysis Method for Two-
Pulse Tracer Logging," SPEPE (March 1986) 117-24.
1492
4. Akers, T.J. and Hill, A.D.: "Radioactive Tracer Logging in Laminar
Flow,'' Proc., Tenth Formation Evaluation Symposium, Canadian Well
Logging Symposium, Calgary (Sept. 29-0ct. 2, 1985), Paper 0.
5. Schetz, J.A.: Injection and Mixing in Turbulent Flow, American lnst.
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New York City (1980).
6. Rajaratnam, N.: Turbulent Jets, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New
York City (1976).
7. Ger, A.M.: ''Turbulent Jets in Crossing Pipe Flow,'' PhD disserta-
tion, U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (Aug. 1974).
8. Taylor, G.l.: "The Dispersion of Matter in Turbulent Flow Through
a Pipe," Proc., Royal Society, London (1954) A223, No. 1155,446-68.
9. Aris, R.: "On the Dispersion of a Solute in a Fluid Flowing Through
a Tube," Proc., Royal Society, London (1956) A235, No. 1200,67-77.
10. Taylor, G.l.: "Dispersion of Soluble Matter Flowing Slowly Through
a Tube," Proc., Royal Society, London (1953) A219, No. 1137,
186-203.
11. Akers, T .J.: ''Radioactive Tracer Logging in Laminar Flow,'' MS the-
sis, U. of Texas, Austin (Aug. 1985).
51 Metric Conversion Factors
cp X 1.0* E-03 Pa · s
in. X 2.54* E+OO em
psi X 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
*Conversion factor is exact. JPT
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 10; 1988. Paper accepted for publica·
lion June 24, 1988. Revised manuscript received Aug. 8, 1988. Paper (SPE 17317) first
presented at the 1988 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference held in Mid-
land, March 10-11.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988