SPE 165119

Particle Size Analysis For Sand Control Applications

Tracey Ballard and Steve Beare, Weatherford
Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference and Exhibition held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 57 June 2013.
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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Sand screen selection relies on accurate particle size information for the sands that need to be controlled. Within the oil
industry there is awareness of the differences between dry sieve analysis and laser particle size analysis (LPSA), but there can
also be wide variations between LPSA performed in different laboratories even when such variables as sample preparation
are taken into consideration. Recent work by the authors has shown that such variables as sonication time and amplitude can
have a significant effect on certain sands, and there is evidence to indicate that the sensitivity to sonication is dependent on
the mineralogy of the sand. Other factors have also been examined to address the widespread view within the oil industry that
LPSA exaggerates the fines content, whereas the opposite view is held in sedimentology and soil science in that the coarse
fraction is believed to dominate. Work has been performed to examine which view might be most relevant for reservoir
sands, and guidelines for performing LPSA are proposed.
Introduction
The particle size of reservoir rocks is routinely measured for a number of reasons, including sand control selection, and as
such is probably considered a straightforward process. Most of the literature concerning grainsize analysis of geological
materials comes from the fields of sedimentology and soil science. Historically, particle size was measured by a mixture of
dry sieving (for grain sizes above 45 microns), and sedimentation (for the less the 45 micron fraction). Sedimentation
measures the settling velocity of particles through fluids to infer particle size. However, the oil industry dry sieving without
any further analysis for the less than 45 micron fraction was most often utilised. More recently laser light scattering (LPSA)
has become the preferred method of particle sizing, since it is quick to perform and covers the entire size range in a single
measurement.
All methods of particle sizing have their disadvantages and the two methods used in the oil industry do give different results,
in part due to particle shape and also degree of dispersion. Geological materials have wide grain size distributions and are
typically composed of irregular shaped particles, and so the particle size obtained during analysis depends on which aspect of
the particle is measured. Different methods of analysis measure different aspects of size and so would not be expected to give
the same results. Dry sieving generally only measures down to 45 micron, and has a lower resolution than LPSA. There is
also a common perception within the oil industry that laser light scattering exaggerates the fines in a distribution. Sampling
may also be an issue, especially for LPSA which typically requires less than 1 gram of sand for each measurement.
This paper explains the inherent difficulties of particle sizing and summarises the expected differences between dry sieving
and LPSA. However, the authors have been aware for some time that there can be a variation in the laser particle size data
measured on the same sand in different laboratories which cannot be totally attributed to sampling issues. The work described
here concerns a reservoir sand which gave very variable LPSA results. Laser particle size measurements under various
conditions on two different instruments provided insights into the causes. Further detailed work on other reservoir sands has
identified analysis procedures commonly used in the field of soil science which are not appropriate to the measurement of
reservoir rocks for the purposes of identifying optimum sand control options. This paper describes commonly-used LPSA
procedures and their potential effect on the measured grain size distributions. In the light of these results a method believed
more appropriate to sand control work is suggested.

SPE 165119

Particle measurement theory and practice

Concept of equivalent sphere (equivalent spherical diameter (esd))
Particle sizing relies on defining the size of a three dimensional particle with a single measurement of diameter, which is only
truly valid for a sphere. Most particle size measurement methods measure one characteristic of a grain and use that
characteristic to infer the grain size. With irregular shaped particles (as almost all sands are) the particle diameter obtained
will depend on the method of measurement. This is one reason different methods of particle sizing give different results. For
instance, during dry sieving the particles are shaken on each sieve until they pass through. With irregular grains this will
measure their second smallest dimension; although for the purposes of measurement the particle is assumed to be a sphere of
that diameter. The sphere is termed the equivalent sphere, and the measured diameter is the equivalent spherical diameter.
Laser light scattering gives an estimate of the volume of the particle, which is translated into a sphere of that volume. All
particle size methods (apart from image analysis) produce particle size distributions in terms of equivalent spherical
diameters calculated from a different characteristic of the sand grains. Figure 1 below shows how the same particle gives a
different size (esd) with different measurement methods.
Image analysis

Sphere of same
maximum diameter
Sphere of same
Sedimentation rate

Sphere of same
minimum diameter

Sphere of
Same volume
(LPSA)

Sphere of passing
same sieve opening

Figure 1. Illustration of different equivalent spheres for one irregular shaped particle (from Malvern4)
Measurement Techniques: Dry sieving
Dry sieving was traditionally used to measure particle size in the oil industry before the widespread use of LPSA. Dry sieving
works well for coarse sands with little fine material.
The sample is placed on the top sieve of a stack of sieves arranged in order of decreasing aperture size. Usually the sieve
stack is placed on a mechanical sieve shaker for a set time. The contents of each sieve are then weighed. However, samples
with high fines contents often blind off the finer sieves and require manual brushing to force them through. This aspect
introduces an operator-dependent feature to the process. Dry sieving is a dusty, rather time-consuming, process so the results
often depend on the diligence of the operator.
An alternative to a mechanical sieve shaker is the sonic sifter is an instrument which potentially provides a more efficient
method of dry sieving. The particles are lifted and forcibly dropped in a column of oscillating air at a frequency of thousands
of cycles per minute, which encourages better dispersion and helps prevent the sieves blinding off. Sonic sifters are able to
handle much finer dry powders than standard sieving, and a smaller sample is required (around 10g). But with samples
containing significant fines it is noticeable that fines will coat the sides of the sieves after use.
Measurement techniques: Laser Particle Sizing
Laser diffraction is more properly called laser light scattering and works on the principle that particles scatter light in all
directions with an intensity pattern that is dependent on the particle size. The angle of scatter is inversely proportional to
particle size, and the intensity of the diffracted beam at any angle is a measure of the number of particles with a specific cross
sectional area in the beams path2.
A sample dispersed in a suitable fluid, usually water, is passed through a beam from a monochromatic light source, usually a
laser. The light scattered by the particles at various angles is focused by the Fourier lens onto a specific spot irrespective of
the particles position or velocity. Therefore a single, composite diffraction pattern is formed containing a contribution from
all the particles in the measurement cell. The diffraction pattern is measured by multi element detectors placed in appropriate
positions. Numerical values relating to the scattering pattern are recorded and then transformed using an appropriate optical
model and mathematical procedure into a volumetric size distribution3 related to grain size by assuming the particles to be
spheres.

SPE 165119

Sonic
probe

sample
reservoir

detector

Projection
lens

Fourier
lens

laser

measurement
cell
pump

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of BeckmannCoulterTM LS230 measurement system

The general procedure for LPSA measurements is as follows. The instrument first measures the background then invites the
introduction of the sample. Sample size is very small (around 1g), but depends on the number of particles present and
therefore particle size affects the amount of sample needed. The sample is added to the water reservoir of the sample module
and there is an option to use ultrasonic agitation to help disperse the sample. Ultrasonic agitation is available for use before
and/or during sample measurement. The instrument will indicate when enough sample has been added by indicating the
obscuration. The sample is pumped around the instrument and generally measurements are taken every second or so for a
fixed measurement time; the time can be varied but is generally around 1 minute. These individual measurements are
averaged to give the final measurement. The same sample can then be either re-measured or the system rinsed ready for
another sample. The whole routine takes approximately 5 minutes.
There are a number of sample preparation and instrument run conditions that can be varied; a brief description of each is
given below.
Chemical dispersant. A chemical dispersant, for example sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP, sometimes known as Calgon),
can be added to the sample prior to its introduction into the instrument in order to aid disaggregation and dispersion. The
strength of the dispersant and stand times prior to introduction can be varied, but in soil science SHMP is commonly used at a
concentration around 0.5%. Sometimes the sample is left to soak overnight, but SHMP can be added to the instrument sample
reservoir immediately before measurement. SHMP replaces divalent ions with sodium.
Volume of sample: The amount of sample added to the instrument is measured by the reduction in laser intensity passing
through the sample cell. As more particles are added to the instrument the laser beam is increasingly obscured from the
detectors. There is a percentage of obscuration, between certain limits, recommended by the instrument manufacturer.
Adding too little sample gives insufficient material for a reliable measurement, whilst adding too much runs the risk
(according to the manufacturers) of multiple scattering which may over estimate fines. Finer samples cause greater
obscuration and therefore a smaller sample size is required.
Ultrasonication: An ultrasonic treatment before and/or during the sample measurement is often used to aid disaggregation and
dispersion of the sample. However, some particles may disintegrate if sonicated for too long. Also, certain types of sample
experience agglomeration during ultrasonication.
Length of measurement time: Longer run times provide a more precise calculation of the particle size distribution, although
delicate particles may begin to disintegrate with time. The usual measurement time is one minute.
Pump speed: The speed of fluid circulation through the sample cell can be varied; it should be such that that all particles are
entrained into the flow while ensuring they are randomly orientated. A very high pump speed may cause particles to orient
themselves parallel (rod-shaped particles) or perpendicular (plate-shaped particles) to the direction of flow. High pump speed
can also entrain air bubbles. Other researchers1 have found that pumping the particle dispersion at the most appropriate pump
speed is crucial to prevent (i) dramatic underestimating coarser particles when ineffective pumping and stirring allow particle
sedimentation; (ii) overestimating coarser particles when ineffective pumping and stirring allow transient particle stagnation
within the measurement cell; (iii) underestimating coarser particles when fast pumping and stirring produce significant
particle size reduction in low strength material during measurement.

SPE 165119

Optical model: The scattering model that is generally used is Mie theory. Mie theory predicts both the intensity of light
scattered from the particle surface, as well as the behaviour of light which is transmitted and refracted through the particle. In
order to use this model correctly the complex refractive index of the particle is required. This complex refractive index
comprises a real and imaginary part. The real part (commonly called the refractive index of the material) predicts the
diffraction from the particle surface, and can be easily measured. The imaginary refractive index accounts for the attenuation
of light as it passes through the particle, and is commonly referred to as the absorption of the material4. For the purposes of
laser diffraction, the absorption of a material only has to be specified to an accuracy of an order of magnitude; instruments
give options from .001 to 1. Absorption depends on the transparency of the particles and also surface roughness, and can be
estimated by comparing the volume of particles calculated by the instrument to the real volume of particles using different
absorption values. The absorption value giving the closet correlation will be the correct value (Malvern application note ref
4). Generally for geological materials absorption values of 0.1 are used. The scattering pattern can be re-analyzed with
different optical models without having to re-run the sample, making it straightforward to examine the sensitivity of the
distribution to various optical parameters.
Commonly used LPSA procedures for measuring geological materials
The procedures used for LPSA measurement of geological samples have often originated in soil science or core analysis,
since that is generally the background of the commercial labs offering such a service. Particle size is used to characterise and
classify soils and requires that clays are dispersed as much as possible. So the methods employed tend to be fairly aggressive.
A normal soil science technique could comprise the following steps:

Carefully disaggregate the sample in a mortar and pestle

Pre-soak the sample in SHMP solution
Some labs sonicate for 30 minutes in an ultrasonic bath
Transfer to LPSA instrument.
Measure repeatedly with sonication until the size distribution no longer changes

However, the authors laboratory came to PSD analysis purely for sand control purposes, and adopted the following method
for LPSA measurements

Carefully disaggregate the sample in a mortar and pestle

Pre-wet the sample with methanol (to mitigate an residual oil-wetting tendency)
Transfer to LPSA instrument with sonication whilst loading.
Measure the sample twice
Repeat the measurement with a second disaggregated sample

This technique gave 4 measurements for each sand, and was intended to identify any non-reproducibility in the measurement.

Comparison of sieving and LPSA

Differences between sieve and LPSA distributions on the same reservoir sand are to be expected. These are in part due to the
different size parameter each method measures. Sieving measures the second smallest diameter and LPSA estimates the
equivalent spherical diameter based on the particle volume, which will typically be larger for irregular shaped particles. The
effect of particle shape can be illustrated by comparing the size distributions of sieve cuts of natural sand and Ballotini (glass
spheres) measured by LPSA. Figure 3 shows the results obtained on three sieve cuts; the distributions measured on the
spheres match the sieve sizes, whereas the irregular sand samples tend to appear larger.
Similar results were recorded by Blott and Pye6 who found that the mean average particle size of a natural sand was always
finer when measured by sieve compared to LPSA.

SPE 165119

30

25

75-125um ballotini

volume %

20

75-125um sand
212-300um ballotini

15

212-300um sand
500-710um ballotini
500-710um sand

10

10

100
Diameter (microns)

1000

Figure 3. Comparison of LPSA data on sand and glass spheres

Another difference between sieve analysis and LPSA is related to sample dispersion. Where sands contain significant fines
the small particles become attached to the coarser grains by electrostatic forces, and therefore do not pass properly down
through a sieve stack. However, in an LPSA measurement the sample is dispersed in water, which breaks down these forces
allowing the fines to be detected and resulting in LPSA measuring more fines than dry sieving. These two effects (sample
dispersion and grain shape) mean that one would expect a bigger D10 and smaller D90 from an LPSA measurement
compared to the dry sieve analysis of the same sand; Figure 4 gives typical examples.
100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60
depth A: LPSA

50

depth A: sieve

40

depth B: LPSA

30

depth B: sieve

20
10
0
1000

100

diameter (microns)

10

Figure 4. Comparison of sieve and LPSA data on reservoir sands.

Does LPSA exaggerate fines?

The previous section explains some differences between distributions obtained by sieve and LPSA, but further to that there is
a suspicion within the field of soil science that LPSA underestimates fines6,7, whereas if anything the reverse is true in the oil
industry where sieving is sometimes preferred over LPSA because LPSA is thought to exaggerate fines.
This has been investigated by other workers6, who analysed bimodal distributions of Ballotini (glass spheres). They measured
50:50 mixtures by weight of two sizes of Ballotini, which should give the equivalent volume (since all particles have the
same density). They found that the coarse fraction was over-estimated, with the degree of over-estimation dependent on the
size of the coarse fraction. This work has been repeated by the authors with similar results. Figure 5 shows the measured
cumulative particle size distributions for 3 Ballotini mixtures, each containing equal amounts of both components. The fine
fraction has the same size range in all the mixtures, whist the coarse fraction varies. The over-estimation of the coarse
fraction increases as its size increases, as found by Blott and Pye6. The measurements in Figure 5 and those measured by
Blott and Pye6 both use the same instrument from the same manufactuer. To check that this phenomenon is not an artefact of
the instrument these measurements were repeated using an instrument from another manufacturer, which gave similar results.

SPE 165119

Blott and Pye6 reasoned that the results are explained by greater noise in the diffraction data collected at low angles (that is
from coarse particles) compared with high angles (fine particles). Therefore there is potential for over-estimation of the
proportion of coarse particles.
In practice, these extreme bimodal distributions are not very representative of real geological materials, and so some other
mixtures were prepared to give a wider, continuous distribution more similar to a poorly sorted sand sample. Figure 6 shows
the comparison between sieve analysis and LPSA for four mixes with different amounts of fines present. The results show
good agreement between sieve and LPSA for low fines contents. With high fines the LPSA measurement becomes more
variable, but still with reasonable agreement with the sieve measurement.
100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60

50
40

45um-63um + 250um-355um

30

45um-63um + 710um-840um

20

45um-63um + 1000um-1180um

10
0

1000

100
Diameter (microns)

10

Figure 5. Comparison of LPSA data on bimodal glass sphere mixtures

100
90
80
70

Mix 5 LPSA

cumulative %

60

Mix 5 sieve

50

Mix 1 LPSA

40

Mix 1 sieve

30

Mix 4 LPSA
Mix 4 sieve

20

Mix 6 LPSA

10
0

Mix 6 sieve

1000

100
diameter (microns)

10

Figure 6. Comparison of LPSA and sieve data on glass sphere mixtures

Laser Particle Size Analysis variation between laboratories
The main consideration of this paper is directed towards a study undertaken after a particularly large variation was observed
between data measured by LPSA at three laboratories (including that of the authors). There is an awareness that sometimes
there can be differences in the PSD measured by LPSA in different labs on the same sands. However, a particular sand gave
very different LPSA distributions from two commercial laboratories, and a measurement by the authors produced a third
distribution. Because the differences were so large and it wouldnt be expected that the instruments themselves would give
significant variations, an in-depth investigation into the effects of sample measurement procedures was undertaken. The
results highlighted that some common practices used when measuring the grain size of geological materials are almost
certainly not suitable for particle size analysis when the data are to be used for sand control selection.
An extreme example of variation in distributions measured by LPSA
Figure 7 shows sand X measured by two commercial labs, Lab A and Lab B, and the authors (labelled lab C). The
measurements from the commercial labs show very strongly bi-modal distributions, which is not evident in the initial Lab C

SPE 165119

measurement. Bi-modal distributions are difficult to measure and the authors were less concerned about the apparent
variation between Lab A and Lab B and more concerned that our measurement was not bi-modal as well. Varying the
instrument settings did not reproduce the commercial labs bi-modal distributions; modifying the refractive indices in the Mie
optical model did not greatly affect the shape of the distribution, and reducing the pump speed simply reduced the coarse end
of the distribution (Figure 8). Also increasing the sonication strength and time did not create the bimodal distributions seen in
the other lab measurements .
The instrument used by the authors is from a different manufacturer to the instruments used by both Lab A and Lab B. We
will call the instrument used by ourselves instrument C and that used by Labs A and B instrument AB. Since changing the
settings in instrument C did not reproduce the measurements made in Labs A and B some tests were done on an instrument
made by the same manufacturer as instrument AB. The same basic principles and algorithms are used by all manufacturers,
and so the purpose was to examine whether different instrument components (pump, sonicator, etc) could affect the
distribution obtained or whether some aspect of sample preparation influenced results. This alternative instrument was an old
model which only measured up to 300 microns, and so the sample was passed through a 250 micron sieve and the <250
micron fraction was analysed. The sonication on instrument AB caused the sample to become bimodal, this sample was
collected from the instrument and re-measured in instrument C and again gave a bi-modal distribution, Figure 9.
Measurements with no sonication gave good agreement between both instruments (Figure 9). These results showed that
there is little difference in PSDs measured on a sample in the same state, and so it was inferred that the sonication strength is
greater on instrument AB. To confirm this, in a subsequent test a bi-modal distribution was also obtained by placing the
sample in an ultrasonic bath in our own lab (rather than using the sonicator built into the instrument) and then measuring it in
instrument C; this measurement is also shown in Figure 9. Further work with maximum sonication strength of this sieve
fraction on our own instrument (C) was still not powerful enough to create a bi-modal distribution (Figure 10)
100
90
80

Cumulative %

70

60
Lab A

50
40

Lab B

30

Lab C

20
10
0

1000

100
Diameter (microns)

10

Figure 7. Comparison of LPSA measurements in different laboratories on sand X

100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60

Lab A

50

Lab B

40

Lab C - run 1: pump speed 75

30

Lab C - run 2: pump speed 26

20

Lab C - run 3: pump speed 50

10

Lab C - run 4: pump speed 20

1000

100
Diameter (microns)

10

Figure 8. Effect of instrument pump speed on size distribution measured for sand X

SPE 165119

100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60

50

instrument AB - no sonication

40

instrument C - no sonication

30

instrument AB - with sonication

20

sample from instrument AB

measured in instrument C
sonicated in ultrasonic bath and
measured in instrument C

10
0
1000

100

Diameter (microns)

10

Figure 9. Size distribution measured for <250um fraction of sand X on instrument AB and instrument C
100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60
50
instrument AB - no sonication

40

instrument C - no sonication

30

instrument AB - with sonication

20

instrument C - 1 min sonication

instrument C - 2 min sonication

10
0

instrument C - 7 min sonication

1000

100
Diameter (microns)

10

Figure 10. Effect of instrument sonication on size distribution measured for sand X
Obtaining a bi-modal distribution suggests that grains of a particular size are affected by the sonication, since a narrow range
of grain sizes (between approximately 70 micron and 140 micron) are absent from the measurement. To further examine the
effect of sonication the sample was divided into sieve fractions by wet sieving (to minimise fines retention). Each sieve
fraction was sonicated in the ultrasonic bath and then examined under a microscope. Figure 11 shows the results for the 6390 micron sieve fraction for this sand. In the non-sonicated sieve fraction there are many brown grains which when sonicated
have been broken down. Further sonication turns these grains into a fine powder. Therefore sonication was able to break
down specific grains in the sand, but the sonicator in instrument C was not powerful enough to produce the effect.

No sonication
1 min sonication
Figure 11. Effect of increasing sonication time on sand X 63-90 micron fraction

30 min sonication

SPE 165119

In addition to sonication Lab A also used SHMP during the measurement process. As mentioned previously, this is
commonly used as a dispersant and works by exchanging divalent ions such as calcium for sodium on mineral surfaces,
specifically clays. Figure 13 shows that after treatment with SHMP the distribution is bimodal. XRD analysis indicated this
sample contains a relatively high proportion of mixed layer clays which will be very sensitive to this type of treatment. As in
the sonication tests individual sieve fraction were treated with SHMP, and it was found by XRD that most of the grains in the
63 90 micron size range are brown clay aggregates which are dispersed by the SHMP. Figure 12 shows the 63 90 micron
sieve fraction after treatment with SHMP. Overall, the delicate grains (which were believed to be mixed-layer clays)
dispersed by SHMP and broken down by sonication were very prevalent from 45 micron to 180 micron in size. The effective
removal of these grains by both sonication (Lab A uses sonication until there is no change in the distribution) and SHMP
creates the bi-modal distributions.
It was possible that the clay aggregates could have been created as a result of the cleaning and drying process during the
sample preparation which baked the clay into aggregates. If this were the case then the aggregates would be expected to
separate in other aqueous fluids. Some measurements after soaking in synthetic formation water were performed; the result is
shown in Figure 13 and indicates that dispersion in pore water (as would occur in the field) has a less pronounced effect than
SHMP.

63-90um sieve fraction

63-90um sieve fraction after soaking in SHMP
Figure 12. Effect of SHMP treatment on sand X 63um-90um fraction
100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60
50
40

Lab C - no sonication

30

LAB A

20

Lab C : no sonication, SHMP added to sample

10
0

Lab C: formation water soak no sonication

1000

100

10

Diameter (microns)

Figure 13. Effect of SHMP treatment on sand X size distribution.

The effect of sonication and SHMP on other sands
Sand X is quite unusual, but the authors are aware of other differences in LPSA measurements from different labs, and

10

SPE 165119

therefore the effect of sonication and SHMP was investigated on a range of reservoir sands to see how significant their
influence is on more typical sands.
The authors standard measurement routine was to pre-wet the sand sample with methanol before adding it to the sample
reservoir. Sonication was used during the loading of the sample to speed up dispersion, and also for one minute before
measuring the sample. For the study described below the samples were pre-soaked in demineralised water overnight to aid
dispersion without the use of sonication. To do this the amount of sample required to give the correct obscuration for the
instrument is required so that the whole soaked sample can be used in the measurement.
1.
The effect of sonication
Figures 14 to 17 show the effect of progressive sonication on four sands. The sample was introduced into the instrument and
sonicated for 1 minute before each measurement. A total of 20 measurements were made on the same sample. As a control, a
duplicate sample was measured without sonication but including 1 minute wait between each measurement to give both
samples the same time in the instrument to take into account any effect of degradation by the pump.
1000

1000

100

100
d10: no sonication

d10: no sonication

d50: no sonication

d50: no sonication

d90: no sonication

d90 no sonication

d10: sonication

d10: sonicated
d50: sonicated

d50: sonication
d90: sonication

10

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 14. Effect of sonication on sand S990 (North Sea)

d90: sonicated

10

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 15. Effect of sonication on sand S655 (Australia)

1000

1000

100

100

d10: no sonication

d10: no sonication

d50: no sonication

d50: no sonication
d90: no sonication

d90: no sonication

d10: sonicated

d10: sonicated
d50: sonicated

d50: sonicated
d90: sonicated

10

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 16. Effect of sonication on sand S1472 (Australia)

d90: sonicated

10

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 17. Effect of sonication on S77 (Africa)

Figures 14 to 17 show that soley circulating the sample through the system tends to increase the fines content and sonication
further increases this effect. Generally the d50 and D10 are relatively unaffected; only in one instance was the whole
distribution made finer. Because the finer fractions are preferentially affected compared to the coarser grains this can lead to
significant changes in the uniformity with relatively small changes to the D90 of the sand. Table 1 shows how the changes
alter the uniformity coefficient for the North Sea sand S990. Based on Weatherfords screen selection criteria the appropriate
sand control changes from wire wrap screens to metal mesh screens over the measurement time. Tables 2 to 4 show the
results for the other sands tested. The effect of sonication may well be more pronounced with other instruments if they have
more powerful sonic probes.

SPE 165119

11

Table 1. The effect of circulation and sonication on the calculated PSD parameters for S990
Time
(mins)

D90

D50

76

232

10

68

20

62

30
40

No sonication
D10

1 min sonication before runs

D50
D10
Uc

Uc

<45 m

D90

514

3.55

6.4

58

219

529

4.44

8.2

232

566

3.94

7.4

44

207

571

5.51

10.1

229

566

4.34

8.2

38

205

578

6.37

11

59

226

556

4.52

8.6

35

205

581

7.03

11.5

55

225

543

4.79

9.0

32

204

580

7.62

12

<45 m

Table 2. The effect of circulation and sonication on the calculated PSD parameters for S655
No sonication

1 min sonication before runs

Time
(mins)

d90:

d50:

d10:

Uc

<45 m

d90:

d50:

d10:

Uc

45 m

90

383

848

4.8

8.6

61

350

791

6.5

8.6

10

63

382

873

6.9

10.3

41

349

849

9.6

10.3

20

40

377

855

10.6

11.6

28

346

825

14.0

11.6

30

31

378

872

13.9

13.1

19

340

778

20.5

13.1

40

26

378

881

16.5

13.7

16

339

771

24.5

13.7

Table 3. The effect of circulation and sonication on the calculated PSD parameters for S77
No sonication

1 min sonication before runs

Time
(mins)

d90:

d50:

d10:

Uc

<45 m

d90:

d50:

d10:

Uc

45 m

12

125

282

12.6

25

15

134

333

10.9

21.2

10

12

127

327

13.1

25.1

12

113

288

12.1

26.4

20

12

125

316

13.4

25.8

10

98

246

12.3

29.9

30

11

122

309

13.8

26.7

10

93

238

12.4

31.5

40

11

120

304

14.1

27.2

89

231

12.6

32.8

Table 4. The effect of circulation and sonication on the calculated PSD parameters for S1472
No sonication

1 min sonication before runs

Time
(mins)

d90:

d50:

d10:

Uc

<45 m

d90:

d50:

d10:

Uc

45 m

27

279

681

12.1

11.3

42

286

771

7.9

10.2

10

29

290

888

11.9

11

38

294

847

9.1

10.4

20

22

293

911

15.7

11.5

33

296

890

10.5

10.7

30

19

292

845

18.4

11.9

34

299

838

10.3

10.6

40

17

291

810

20.2

12

29

293

757

11.7

11

Both sonication and circulation though the system reduce the sand D90, apart from S1472, where it increases. This is an
artefact of the shape of the distribution, Figure 18 shows that the effect of increasing the amount of very fine material shifts
the D90 upwards in this sample.

12

SPE 165119

100
90
80

cumulative %

70
60
50
40

no sonication

30
20

sonicated

10
0
1000

100

diameter (microns)

10

Figure 18. The effect of circulation and sonication on the S1472 sand

100

100

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

cumulative %

cumulative %

To investigate whether the effect of sonication is due to dispersion or breaking up of grains it is useful to examine sieve
fractions. Figures 19 to 22 show the LPSA analysis on sieve fractions obtained by a process of wet and dry sieving on sand
S1472 (The effect of sonication on this sand is shown in Figure 16). The material was wet sieved through a 45 micron sieve
to remove all fines then dry sieved into fractions. Figures 19 to 22 show a progressive increase in fines in the 45 and 63
micron sieve fractions with sonication, this is less apparent for the 90 micron sieve fraction and the 180 micron fraction does
not change.

no sonication
no sonication

50

1 min sonication

40

2 min sonication

60

no sonication
no sonication

50

1 min sonication

40

2 min sonication

30

3 min sonication

30

22 min sonication

20

23 min sonication

20

32 min sonication

33 min sonication

10
0
1000

100

10

42 min sonication

10
0
1000

100

100

100

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

no sonication

50

no sonication

40

1 min sonication
2 min sonication

30
20

10
diameter (microns)

Figure 21. Sonication of sand 1472 90 micron fraction.

no sonication

50

no sonication

40

1 min sonication
2 min sonication
12 min sonication

20

32 min sonication

10

60

30

22 min sonication

100

Figure 20. Sonication of sand 1472 63 micron fraction

cumulative %

cumulative %

Figure 19. Sonication of sand S1472 45 micron fraction

0
1000

10
diameter (microns)

diameter (microns)

22 min sonication

10
1

0
1000

100

10

diameter (microns)

Figure 22. Sonication of sand S1472 180 micron fraction

To ensure these changes are attributable solely to sonication a control was performed in a similar way as the sonication tests

SPE 165119

13

shown in Figures 14-17. A sieve fraction was measured 20 times without sonication then the same sample measured a further
20 times with 1 minute sonication before each measurement. The final measurement would therefore have had a total of 20
minutes sonication. Figures 23, 25 and 27 show the cumulative particle size distribution from these measurements. In all
cases sonication increases the fines compared to merely pumping the sample around the measurement system.
To find out if the sonication is aiding dispersion or breaking the grains the sonication probe was removed from the instrument
and set up in a system to mimic the sample vessel of the instrument, and so give equivalent sonication. Figures 24, 26 and 28
show sieve fractions of each sand before sonication and after sonication for 1 minute and 5 minutes. It is apparent that there
are more fines with the sonicated samples and grains have broken. The degree of fines production in the photomicrographs
reflects the LPSA measurements, in that for example in sample S1472 there are less fines and this sample shows least affect
of sonication.
100
90
80

cumulative %

70
60

no sonication

50
40
sonicated

30

20
10
0
1000

100

10

diameter (microns)

Figure 23. S1472 63micron sieve fraction measured 20 times without sonication, then the same sample sonicated for 1 min
before 20 further measurements.

no sonication

1 min sonication

2 min sonication

Figure 24. Photomicrographs of the 63-90 micron sieve fraction of sand S1472, with different amounts of sonication.

14

SPE 165119

100
90
80

cumulative %

70
60
50

no sonication

40
30
sonicated

20
10
0
1000

100

10

diameter (microns)

Figure 25. S655 125-180 micron sieve fraction, measured 20 times without sonication, then the same sample sonicated for 1
min before each of 20 further measurements.

no sonication

1 min sonication

5 min sonication

Figure 26. Photomicrographs of the 125-180 micron sieve fraction of sand S655, with different amounts of sonication.
100
90
80

cumulative %

70
60
no sonication

50
40
30

sonicated

20
10
0
1000

100

10

diameter (microns)

Figure 27. S77 90-125 micron sieve fraction measured 20 times without sonication, then the same sample sonicated for 1
min before each of 20 further measurements.

SPE 165119

15

no sonication

1 min sonication

5 min sonication

Figure 28. Photomicrographs of the 90-125 sieve fraction of sand S77, with different amounts of sonication.
It should be noted that the shape of the particle size distribution curves means that differences that look small when the data
is plotted can become quite significant when translated into parameters such as the uniformity coeffient or sorting coefficient.
Where the distribution intersects the 90% gridline at a shallow angle, small changes in the visual appearance of comparison
plots can actually be quite large numerically. Where samples are bi-modal (or become bi-modal during measurement) this
effect can be very significant if the data is used to calculate parameters used in criteria for sand screen selection.
2.
Effect of SHMP
The same samples used to examine the effect of sonication were also treated with SHMP to determine whether it affects all
sands. The samples were soaked in SHMP overnight then measured without sonication. Table 5 summarises the results, they
indicate that for the sands tested SHMP has very little impact on the particle size.
Table 5. Summary of measurements made after the sample was soaked in SHMP and demin water
SHMP
B77

Demineralised water

d90:
11.7

d50:
118

d10:
247

<45 m
26.6

d90:
13.5

d50:
125

d10:
294

45 m
24.4

S655

72

359

797

8.4

69

373

813

8.5

S1472

36

259

620

7.8

27

279

681

11.3

S990

64

236

529

7.8

76

232

514

6.4

Differences between instruments

During this study all measurements unless otherwise stated have been made on instruments from the same manufacturer. The
earlier investigation on sand X indicated that the sonicating power of different instruments varies, but also suggested that if
sonication was not used similar results were obtained. LPSA systems are general purpose instruments, and manufacturers
recommend developing test methods for specific applications. It is therefore to be expected that if peripheral dispersion
methods were not employed similar results would be obtained irrespective of instrument manufacturer. This aspect was
further examined with the test sands used in the sonication and SHMP study. Measurements were made without sonication
on both instrument AB and instrument C after soaking the sample in demineralised water overnight (to help dispersion).
The results are compared in Figures 29-32. Where available measurements from external labs using their own procedures are
also shown for comparison. The plots show that in the absence of sonication generally similar results are obtained, but where
a standard procedure has been used (by the outside labs) pronounced differences occur. This suggests that variations in
results are largely caused by differences in the specification and use of ancillary equipment such as sonicators and not the
instruments optical design or algorithms.

16

SPE 165119

100
90
80

Cumulative %

70

60
50
40
30

Instrument C - demin soak, no sonication

Instrument AB - Demin soak, no sonication

20

external lab

10
0
1000

100

Diameter (microns)

10

Figure 29. S77 measured on different instruments with an additional measurement from an external lab with a different
procedure.
100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60
50
40
Instrument AB - demin soak, no sonication

30
20

Instrument C - demin soak, no sonication

10
0

1000

100
Diameter (microns)

10

Figure 30. S990 measured on different instruments

100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60
instrument AB - demin soak, no sonication

50
40

instrument C - demin soak, no sonication

30
external lab measurement (30 min soniation)

20
10

1000

Figure 31. S655 measured on different instruments

100
Diameter (microns)

10

SPE 165119

17

100
90
80

Cumulative %

70
60

Instrument C - no sonication

50

Insturment AB - no sonication

40
30

External Lab

20
10

1000

100
Diameter (microns)

10

Figure 32. S1472 measured on different instruments

However, although the measurements in Figures 29-31 without sonication are similar there can still be significant differences
in the d90 values especially in instances where the distribution intersects the 90% gridline at a shallow angle.
Discussion and recommendations for LPSA for sand control
The data presented here indicate that SHMP generally has little effect on the particle size distribution measured by LPSA.
However, in certain sands the effect can be a dramatic increase in fines content and the generation of a bi-modal size
distribution. This occurs in sands with a high clay content and appears to result from exchange of interlayer cations
dispersing mixed layer clays.
Sonication can have a significant effect on the particle size distribution measured by LPSA. In addition to aiding dispersion
sonication can break the grains, generating fines that were not in the original sample. The degree to which this occurs
depends on the strength of the sonication and the time period. Storti and Balsamo1 also found significant particle size
reduction on carbonate cataclastic breccias caused by sonication on carbonate cataclastic breccias . There appears to be two
mechanisms by which grain size is reduced; weak grains can break up, and edges can break off very angular quartz grains as
a result of collisions between grains caused by the sonic agitation. In susceptible sands the effect is often greater on particular
grain sizes, probably due to the mineralogy. Conversely, in some sands sonication appears to cause agglomeration of the
grains leading to an increase in measured grain size.
The effects of sonication go some way to explaining the differences in size distribution measured on different instruments
since the sonication systems vary in strength, and the design of the sample reservoir can also influence sonication effects. In
addition, with weak grains the action of the circulating pump can cause size reduction, and pump design and rate will also
vary between instruments.
The requirements for PSD data for sand control are different to those for soil science and geological description purposes.
Whereas maximum dispersion is generally desirable, for sand control ideally the sand would be in a similar state to that
occurring downhole. In reality, it is not possible to match the downhole dispersion state, but artificially introduced changes to
the sand can be minimized, and the following recommendations are suggested

Do not use chemical dispersants

Minimise the time the sample spends circulating in the instrument
Use minimum sonication

This approach may, impact on the sample dispersion achieved, and so some steps can be taken to aid measurement. The
sample can be pre-wetted with methanol; this is useful especially with reservoir sands which may be intermediately wetting
even after cleaning. Samples for measurement could also be pre-soaked (for 2 to 3 hours or overnight in water) to ensure they
are fully wetted. Gentle agitation in a shaker bath could also assist wetting/dispersion. The difficulty with this approach is
that the amount of sample prepared must be correct for the measurement since all the sample needs to be used to ensure
reproducibility. This problem can be addressed by preparing multiple smaller samples and adding them until the correct
sample loading is achieved. For the actual measurement, it is beneficial to measure the sample initially without sonication,

18

SPE 165119

and then repeat the measurement with sonication. This allows the sonication effects to be observed for instance an increase
in grain size resulting from agglomeration.
Even with careful sample preparation and measurement there will still be some natural variation in the particle size
distribution obtained, and different laboratories will still have some differences in results. These variations tend to occur at
the fine end of the distribution, which can significantly impact on sand screen selection when it is based purely on some
criteria derived from size parameters. Differences in size distributions which look small when plotted can be significant in
terms of selection criteria. For example, a change in D90 from 10 micron to 5 micron may not look large in a plot of data,
but would double the uniformity coefficient of the distribution and could increase the measured fines content. Either of these
effects could change the preferred sand control from stand-alone screens to gravel packing. Since it is difficult to accurately
measure the complete size distribution, and in any case the exact state of the sand downhole is generally unknown, it may be
beneficial to move away from screen selection based only on criteria that rely on the fine end of a distribution, which is the
hardest to measure.
Conclusions
Based on the work described here, the following conclusions can be drawn:

In general, different instruments give similar results if ultrasonic dispersion is not used.
In itself LPSA does not exaggerate fines content (<45 mcron fraction), however, some of the procedures associated
with laser particle sizing can increase the fines content.
o Sonication can break up grains, and
o The use of water softeners such as SHMP can have a dramatic affect on samples containing significant
amounts of mixed layer clays.

The effects of sonication cannot be predicted:

The amount of destruction increases with sonication time, and also strength.
Different sonication efficiency between instruments, even from the same manufacturer, will add to discrepancies in
measurements.
Some sands are more susceptible than others and within a sand sample some grains sizes are more susceptible than
others, probably due to the mineralogical make up of different size fractions.
Sometimes sonication can increase the grain size presumably by aggregating the grains, but encouraging the
formation of bubbles is also a possibility.
The variation in LPSA measurements at the fine end of the distribution can cause significant variation in calculated PSD
parameters.
Small changes in D90 can cause large changes in uniformity coefficient
Screen selection may then be affected as a result
Further Work
The suggested procedure for LPSA measurement for sand control selection without the use of sonication and dispersants
needs to be validated by round robin testing.
Identification of which minerals are most susceptible to breaking up during LPSA measurements will help in identifying
sensitive formations where more care is required in particle sizing.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

F. Storti and F. Balsamo - Particle size distributions by laser diffraction: sensitivity of granular matter strength to
analytical operating procedures. Solid Earth, 1, 2548, 2010 19 April 2010
Eshel, G; Levy, G, J; Mingelgrin, U and Singer, M,J. - Critical Evaluation of the Use of Laser Diffraction for
Particle-Size Distribution Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 68 (736-743) 2004
ISO 13320
Malvern Mastersizer 2000 application note: Determination of the particle absorption for laser diffraction size
calculations. MRK1308-01
Blott, Simon J; Croft, Debra, J; Pye, Kenneth; Saye, Samantha, E and Wilson, Helen, E. Forensic Geoscience:
Principles, Techniques and Applications, ed Pye K and Croft D J, Geological Society of London , Special

SPE 165119

6.
7.

Publications, 232, 63-73 2004.

Blott, Simon J and Pye, Kenneth - Particle size distribution analysis of sand sized particles by laser diffraction: an
experimental investigation of instrument sensitivity and the effects of particle shape. Sedimentology (2006) v53,
671-685
Campbell, J. R Limitations of the laser particle sizing of soils Advances in Regolith, pp 38-42, ed, Roach 1. C.
2003.

19