№85-6
Justification of rational parameters of a device for hydrodynamic treatment of the near‑wellbore zone of hydrogeological wells
Ye. Koroviaka1, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2675-6610
A. Rybak1 https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7886-5525
1Dnipro University of Technology, Dnipro, Ukraine
Coll.res.pap.nat.min.univ. 2026, 85:73–91
Full text (PDF)
https://doi.org/10.33271/crpnmu/85.073
ABSTRACT
Purpose. Calculation of rational design and operational parameters of a hydrodynamic device that ensures maximum restoration of near‑wellbore zone permeability with minimal energy consumption and preservation of the well filter stability.
The methods. The calculation was performed using a mathematical model of transient filtration, accounting for permeability changes due to decolmatation. The model combines a modified Darcy-Forchheimer law, the continuity equation, and the kinetics of colmatant degradation under pulsation. The numerical solution was implemented using the finite difference method and CFD modeling in ANSYS Fluent. Verification using benchtop experiments revealed an error of up to 15%.
Findings. The rational parameters of the device are respectively: nozzle diameter – 10–12 mm, number of nozzles – 3, inclination angle to the horizontal – 45°, operating pressure – 1.2–1.6 MPa, pulsation frequency – 10–12 Hz, treatment duration – 20–25 min. The permeability recovery coefficient of the near‑wellbore zone reaches 0.78–0.82, the effective cleaning radius – 1.0–1.2 m. The specific energy consumption is 0.48 arbitrary units (40 % lower than in the high‑frequency mode). The filter safety factor (ratio of the destructive load to the maximum working load) under the recommended parameters is at least 1.6, which guarantees the integrity of the structure.
The originality. A relationship was established between the pulsation frequency and the decolmatization radius, taking into account the wave propagation of pressure in a cellular medium. An expression was derived for the critical frequency at which the skin effect limits the processing depth. A resonant range of 10–12 Hz with maximum recovery was identified, and a comprehensive efficiency criterion was proposed that takes into account energy consumption, cleaning radius, and filter durability.
Practical implementation. The calculation results allow for informed selection of device parameters for hydrodynamic treatment without full-scale testing. The recommended operating modes can be used to restore the productivity of water intake and drainage wells. Using the device reduces environmental impacts and shortens well downtime by 2–3 times.
Keywords: physical and mechanical properties, safety factor, hydrodynamic treatment, bottomhole zone of the well, decolmatation, pulsation mode.
References
1. McCartney, E., Al‑Othman, M., Alam, A., Nino‑Penaloza, A., Pirogov, A., Nagarkoti, M., Gupta, D. V., & Mendez, A. (2017). Enhanced acid fracturing with improved fluid loss control and near wellbore diversion increases production in Kuwait. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SPE. https://doi.org/10.2118/187444-ms
2. Li, J., Qiu, Z., Zhong, H., Zhao, X., Huang, W., & Yang, Y. (2020). Parametric study on near‑wellbore fracture geometry for wellbore strengthening in anisotropic formation. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 184, 106549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106549
3. Zhang, G., Wang, P., Huang, X., Wang, H., & Wang, L. (2025). Overview of blockage mechanism and unblocking technology in wellbore and reservoir near wellbore zone. Coatings, 15(11), 1293. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15111293
4. Nowrouzi, I., Mohammadi, A. H., & Manshad, A. K. (2020). Effect of a synthesized anionic fluorinated surfactant on wettability alteration for chemical treatment of near‑wellbore zone in carbonate gas condensate reservoirs. Petroleum Science, 17(6), 1655–1668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-020-00446-w
5. Petrakov, D. G., Loseva, A. V., Jafarpour, H., & Penkov, G. M. (2024). Experimental evaluation of effective chemical composition on reservoir quality of bottomhole zone of low permeability terrigenous reservoirs.International Journal of Engineering, 37(8), 1547–1555.https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2024.37.08b.08
6. Alharith, A., Albassam, S., & Al‑Zahrani, T. (2021). A novel approach for near wellbore stimulation and deposits removal utilizing thermochemical reaction. In SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference. SPE. https://doi.org/10.2118/204771-ms
7. Evans, R. N., & Dawe, R. A. (1994). The danger of neglecting nodal crossflow in heterogeneous near‑wellbore conditions. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 11(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0920-4105(94)90033-7
8. Voroshchuk, V., Kravets, O., Drozdziel, P., & Rudawska, A. (2025). Specific aspects of hydrodynamic cavitation in water treatment. An overview. Economics and Environment, 95(4), 1363. https://doi.org/10.34659/eis.2025.95.4.1363
9. Koroviaka, Ye.A., O. A. Pashchenko, O.A., Rastsvietaiev, V.O., Rybak, A.V. (2025). Development and justification of technical solutions for hydrodynamic treatment of hydrogeological wells. Іnstrumentalne materialoznavstvo: Zbirnyk naukovykh prats INM im. V.M. Bakulia NAN Ukrainy, 28, 54-67. https://doi.org/10.33839/2708-731Х-28-1-54-67
10. Bargole, S., George, S., & Kumar Saharan, V. (2019). Improved rate of transesterification reaction in biodiesel synthesis using hydrodynamic cavitating devices of high throat perimeter to flow area ratios. Chemical Engineering and Processing – Process Intensification, 139, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2019.03.012
11. Mohod, A. V., Teixeira, A. C. S. C., Bagal, M. V., Gogate, P. R., & Giudici, R. (2023). Degradation of organic pollutants from wastewater using hydrodynamic cavitation: A review. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 11(3), 109773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.109773
12. Tran, D., & Kang, J.‑H. (2013). Optimal design of a hydrodynamic separator for treating runoff from roadways. Journal of Environmental Management, 116, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.036
13. Houlker, S., Pasing, A., & Gesterding, M. (2022). Evaluation and sizing of proprietary sedimentation devices for decentralised stormwater treatment. Water Science & Technology, 86(9), 2071–2088. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2022.342
14. Kim, H., Sun, X., Koo, B., & Yoon, J. Y. (2019). Experimental investigation of sludge treatment using a rotor‑stator type hydrodynamic cavitation reactor and an ultrasonic bath. Processes, 7(11), 790. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7110790
15. Pashchenko, O. A., Borodina, N. A., Yavorska, O. O., Ishkov, V. V., & Cherniaiev, O. V. (2024). Application of polymer flooding to increase oil recovery. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1415(1), 012054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1415/1/012054
16. Wilson, M. A., Mohseni, O., Gulliver, J. S., Hozalski, R. M., & Stefan, H. G. (2009). Assessment of hydrodynamic separators for storm‑water treatment. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 135(5), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)hy.1943-7900.0000023
17. Fu, S., Lu, J., Zhou, F., Yuan, H., Wang, Y., & Dai, C. (2022). Study on the performance of a novel hydrodynamic cavitation device for treatment of wastewater. Asia‑Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2752
18. Rybak, A.V., & Koroviaka, Ye.A. (2025). Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of hydrodynamic treatment versus traditional methods for cleaning the bottomhole zone in hydrogeological conditions. Naukovyi visnyk DonNTU, 2(15), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.31474/2415-7902-2025-2-15-59-71
date of first submission of the article to the publication – 10.04.2026
date of acceptance of the article for publication after review – 20.05.2026
date of publication – 30.06.2026