Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 25324

Why Control Cement Slurry Density?

T.E. Allen and F.L. Sands, Halliburton Services
SPE Members
Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition held in Singapore, 8-10 February 1993.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its ollicers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

INTRODUCTION
The well cementation design process includes
slurry design, spacer design, hole conditioning
program design, casing attachments selection, and
placement procedure design.
This paper is
concerned with slurry design and more
particularly, the effects of deviations in mixed
slurry density from the design point. Concern
over these effects has been increasing in recent
years. In 1987 an API Task Group in the Eastern
Hemisphere Cementing formed a work group to
study "the effect of poor density control on cement
This group also
slurry properties..... ".'
investigated measurement and control of density.
There were wide differences of opinion as to how
well density was being controlled in the field and
also what was necessary. Additional data and
analysis will be presented which will help clarify
some of the density slurry property relationships
and therefore provide additional means to make
rational decisions relative to density control
specifications.
Density as a slurry property is significant to
wellbore hydrostatic pressure.
However,
deviations from design density may cause changes
in all other slurry properties which mayor may
not cause future well problems. The relationships
defining slurry property dependence on slurry
density are important when establishing meaningful
density control limits. However, closer limits
117

generally mean higher mixing system and

operation costs. Thus, there is an economic
motivation for understanding how deviations effect
slurry properties. The knowledge of the cost to
obtain a specific density tolerance can be weighed
against its benefit. More appropriate specifications
can be developed to match job requirements. The
end result could be a change in the way slurry
properties are specified.
Knowledge of the sensitivity of the designed slurry
to density variation will make selection of surface
mixing equipment more meaningful. Batch mixing
gives the ultimate in control but cost more.
Offshore, batch mixers take up valuable rig space
and add weight.
The purposes of this paper are to (l) define the
significance of slurry property variation with
density deviations, (2) present laboratory data
which shows the property dependence on density,
and (3) describe mathematical correlations for the
data. With these correlations, the variation in
slurry properties with density deviation can be
estimated.
It is recognized that slurries mixed with liquid
additives can have greater property variations than
with dry-blended slurries of equal density error .,,2
The effects of liquid additives will not be
addressed in this paper. Historical data has been
reviewed and new data has been collected to aid in

WHY CONTROL CEMENT SLURRY DENSITY?

this investigation. Variations in slurry properties

with density, compressive strength, viscosity, free
water, fluid loss, thickening time and gel strength
are reported.
JOB EVALUATION
When evaluating a problem job, there are a
number of possible contributing factors. Some are
measurable at the surface and others are difficult,
if not impossible, to measure due to their location
downhole. Density variations from the design
target is an easy factor to identify but the amount
of deviation mayor may not have had a significant
effect on a job problem. To blame density effects
without specific knowledge of their effect is
speculative. Density errors could possibly cause
less than desired results such as (1) lower than
expected compressive strength, or (2) excessive
free water. A 0.3 Ib/gal error on one job may be
significant and on another it may not. Individual
slurry designs may be very forgiving and others
may require close control ( 0.1 Ib/gal) for
success.
DENSITY MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL
"Density error" is actually made up of errors in
measurement and control. Measurement error
comes from the instrument, the operator, and the
sample being measured. The sample must be
representative of the process. Cement commonly
contains air. If the amount of air is significant
relative to the pressure at which the density
measuring instrument operates, then the instrument
output will be in error. 3 The standard mud
balance operates at atmospheric pressure and
therefore will give the greatest error with air
entrainment. The pressurized mud balance is best
but is not a continuous measuring device and
therefore is hard to use as a control device. It is
best to use it as a check for batch systems and to
check for offset errors with continuous mixing
systems (Le., recirculating mixers). U-tubes and
nuclear densometers, which are continuous reading
devices, are used to control the mixing process.
However, the U-tube is affected by pressure and
therefore cannot compensate for air entrainment.
118

SPE 25324

The nuclear densometer can be pressurized -- thus

compensating for air; normally these devices,
which are used for control means, operate at
relatively low pressure (20 to 50 psi). Thus, they
are also subject to air-entrainment density errors
but, if the air is less than 6% of the volume,
density errors should be less than 0.1 Ib/gal.
More recent models of recirculating mixers should
have air entrainments of less than 6% although the
actual amount is slurry dependent.
The nuclear densometer will have statistical
variations while measuring a constant sample and
all instruments are subject to calibration errors.
Commonly, these measuring devices contribute
less density error than that of the control system,
whether it is manual or automatic.
Process control errors mayor may not be
significant. If the density oscillates about the
desired density, the averaging effects in the pipe
will take care of these errors. However, an offset
which is consistent over a large volume may be a
problem. The amount of averaging that occurs in
the pipe will be affected by the depth, volume to
be placed, and the flow regime.
DENSITY DEVIATION ERRORS
Density errors with lightweight slurries are likely
to be more sensitive to density variations since a
greater change in the water cement ratio will occur
with a given error in density than with higher
density designs. In other words, as the design
weight approaches the weight of water, increasing
amounts of water will need to be added to change
the density a given amount. In this case slurry
properties are being diluted. On the other hand,
high-density designs can also be sensitive to
density errors but for other reasons.
It is common today to try to achieve zero "free
water" in certain designs. With some slurries, it
is possible to have the viscosity increase rapidly
with only small changes in density on the heavy
side using less mixing water. Thus, it can be
concluded that specific knowledge of the slurry
design sensitivity to density errors is required.

SPE 25324

TOM E. ALLEN AND F. LOYD SANDS

However, it is not suggested that every design be

tested at levels above and below the design point.
General classes of slurries with similar
compositions should be tested and new designs
with newly introduced material should be
evaluated.
SLURRIES TESTED
Table 1 describes the various slurry designs tested.
TEST PROCEDURES
Slurries "A" through "E" were prepared using
procedures found in API Spec 10.
Slurry
properties were measured using equipment and
procedures specified in API Spec 10. Each of the
slurries represented a fixed blend which was mixed
at five different densities, two above, two below,
and one at the designed setpoint. The density was
varied by changing the amount of water used to
mix the blend. This procedure was repeated in
triplicate. Each slurry was mixed and slurry
properties were measured immediately.
Data for slurries "F", "G", and "H" was obtained
from historical data.
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Figure 1 illustrates typical data for compressive
strength as a function of density deviation. Figure
2 shows the variations in compressive strength
with density. The symbols are data points and the
continuous lines are curve fits. It has been found
that the curve fit form of CS=A*(

y~r5

best approximates all sets of data.

Where CS is Compressive Strength,
A is a Constant, and
YLD is the Yield of the Slurry
Although slurries "F" and "G" (Figure 2) suggest
that the curve fit can at times be applied over a
wide range of densities, the principal intent is to
use this curve fit for the normal excursions of

density error. With this assumption, errors of less

than 10% will be realized. The power can be
varied for better fits for individual slurries but the
object is to provide a tool which can approximate
compressive strength errors without the need for a
lot of testing. The basis of the relation is that
compressive strength is obtained from cement
alone and therefore strength will be in proportion
to the reciprocal of yield, Lb of cement/ftl slurry.
The coefficient "A" can then be calculated
knowing the compressive strength with a given
yield or density. Changes in CS can now be
calculated for assumed mixed density errors. If
the data set used to calculate constant "A" is in
error, then the fit will be in error.
Assuming the general form of the CS-density
relationship, the percent change in compressive
strength with a corresponding 0.1 lb/gal change in
density can be calculated. Figure 3 shows that the
percent change in CS with 0.1 Ib/gal change in
density varies from 5 to 10% depending on the
operating density. In other words, a controlled
density error of +0.1 lb/gal will generate a 24-hr
compressive strength deviation of 5 to 10% from
the expected value. What may be concluded is
that for the higher weight slurries, the variation is
probably not important.
With a 0.3 Ib/gal
deviation, only a 15% error in CS is likely. If the
expected CS is 5000 psi and 4250 psi is realized,
this variation is not significant. However, for a
lightweight slurry which is close to a requirement
of 500 psi, a 30% lower than expected CS (due to
a 0.3 lb/gal error on the low side) may cause this
requirement not to be met. 2
VISCOSITY
Figure 4 illustrates typical shear stress curves as a
function of shear rate. Figure 5 shows the
viscosity as a function of density for fixed shear
rates. Data points are shown by symbols and a
curve fit is shown by a continuous line without
symbols.
Investigation of numerous slurries
suggest that viscosity (at a given shear rate) can be
characterized for perturbations about a design
density by an exponential function, p.=Ae(p-s.33)
where p is density, lb/gal, A is a constant, and p.
119

SPE 25324

WHY CONTROL CEMENT SLURRY DENSITY?

is viscosity. The derivative of this function will

provide the rate of change of viscosity with
density. But since the derivative of an exponential
is equal to itself, then it can be seen that the
percent change in viscosity for a 0.1 lb/gal change
in density is a constant. Percent change in pJO.l
lb/gal = 10%. This means that the rate of change
in viscosity per 0.1 lb/gal density is constant and
is not a function of operating density. Curve A on
Figure 3 illustrates this point. Of the slurries
investigated errors are usually less than 10% with
this method.
With only one unknown, the value for "A" can be
calculated from a single data set of viscosity and
density. This expression can then be used to
estimate the changes that will occur in viscosity
with variations in density from a design point.
The most significant result of these effects is that
which occurs on bottomhole pressure. Increases
in density cause an increase in hydrostatic pressure
and an increase in friction pressure; effects of
these are additive. Using the previously described
relationship for viscosity as a function of density,
an estimated change in friction pressure can be
calculated. The following simplifying assumptions
for the purpose of calculating Reynolds Numbers
are used: (1) the fluid is Newtonian; (2) the pump
rate is constant; and (3) the hole diameter does not
change. The Reynolds Number calculation is
reduced to:
NRc = constant
cp)/47,880,

p/k; where k = JL(in

Friction pressure, .1p = const

* p*f,

Fanning Friction Factor, f =

0.303/NRcO.16I2 for turbulent non bentonite
slurries and

Laminar:

Turbulent flow for non-bentonite slurries:

[P2).8388

RatiO of lip= PI

(e(P2-8.33).1612

* -(PI-8.33)
-e

If density changed from 15.6 lb/gal to 15.9 lb/gal

for the laminar flow case, a 35 % increase is
predicted; for turbulent flow case, a 6.6% increase
is predicted. The conclusions that can be drawn
from the calculations are that:

1.
Density changes will not affect friction
pressures significantly when in turbulent flow with
non-bentonite slurries
2.
Density changes will affect friction
pressures significantly (up to 35% for a 0.3 lb/gal
density change) when in laminar flow. Thus,
operators should be aware of the fact that density
variations cause much higher friction pressure
changes when in laminar flow as compared to
turbulent flow.
The ratio of hydrostatic pressure due to a density
increase = P2/PI' Using the same density change
as in the above example, the ratio is 1.019 or a
1.9% increase. Thus, density deviations have a
more significant effect on friction pressure than
hydrostatic pressure.
Similar calculations can be made for Reynolds
Numbers using the same assumptions used above.
The ratio of Reynolds numbers for two different
operating densities is:

Fanning Friction Factor, f = 16/NRc for

laminar flow. 4
Then substituting for NRc, K and the new
expression for JL, the following expressions are
developed for the ratio of friction pressures for the
different regimes:
120

Assuming PI = 15.6 lb/gal and P2 = 15.9 lb/gal,

then the NRc ratio = 0.75. Thus a 0.3 lb/gal
increase in density will result in a 25 % decrease in

SPE 25324

TOM E. ALLEN AND F. LOYD SANDS

Reynolds Number, which could move the flow

regime from turbulent to laminar flow regime.

water and thus a significant decrease in free water

was realized when the density was increased. In
summary, deviations in density do affect free
water and can be significant particularly when the
slurry is on the verge of containing too much
water. In this case, a deviation in density to the
low side could cause a significant increase in free
water. On the other hand, deviations in density to
the high side will decrease free water and this
effect is always beneficial except in the extreme
case when the slurry becomes excessively viscous.

FLUID LOSS
Lower fluid loss values will result from higher
mix densities with the same blend (lowering the
mix water/cement ratio will yield lower fluid loss
values).
Figure 6 illustrates typical data for fluid loss as a
function of density variation. Table 2 shows the
rate of change of thickening time per 0.1 Ib/gal
change in mix density. The average percent
change per 0.1 Ib/gal for slurries" A", "C", "0",
and "E" was 4.85%. The highest value was
7.8 %. Thus, it appears that fluid loss is not
dramatically affected by density errors. It appears
that the percent change in fluid loss follows
linearly with the percent changes in mix water but
too little data has been examined to make
generalizations. Considering the effect of a 0.3
Ib/gal density error on the tested slurries, it can be
seen that fluid loss may vary as little as 3.9% with
slurry "0" to a high of 23.4% with Slurry "C".
The variation in Slurry "C" could possibly cause
an excessive fluid loss, particularly if a greater
error in density occurred, such as a 0.5 Ib/gal.

THICKENING TIME
Lower thickening time values will result from
higher mix densities with the same blend (lower
amounts of mix water will yield shorter thickening
times).
Figure 8 illustrates typical data for
thickening time as a function of density variation.
Table 2 shows the rate of change of thickening
time per 0.1 Ib/gal change in mix density. The
average percent change per 0.1 lb/gal for slurries
"A", "B", "C", and "E" was 3.9%. Thus, even
with a mixing density error of + 0.3 Ib/gal, only
a 11.7 % error in the expected thickening time
would occur.
Variances of this order of
magnitude are not significant. Note, however that
in Slurry "0" there was a 35% change per 0.1
Ib/gal. This is very significant. What actually
happened was that the lowest density, 12.3 Ib/gal,
became so diluted with water that the thickening
time exceeded 18 hrs.
This illustrates an
important point -- that specific knowledge about
the particular slurry being mixed is necessary.
Most slurries will not have a significant thickening
time change with small density variations, but
some might. It would be desirable to select slurry
designs which exhibit characteristics more like
Slurries "A", "B", "C", and "E", thus helping
avoid potential problem jobs.

FREE WATER
Slurry free-water values decrease with increasingly
higher densities, (decreasing the mix water/cement
ratio will decrease the amount of free water).
Figure 7 illustrates typical data for free water as a
function of density deviations. Table 2 shows the
rate of change of free water per 0.1 Ib/gal change
in mix density. These values vary from 0 for
Slurry "C" to 12.8% for Slurry "0". This data
seems quite irregular but there is an explanation
behind these variations.
Slurry "C" had
essentially zero free water and therefore percent
change was meaningless. Slurries "A" and "E"
were more typical of what might be expected.
Slurry "B" had less than 1% free water at the
lower density and thus a small decrease in free
water translated into a high percent change.
Slurry "0" was a case of initially having too much

GEL STRENGTH DEVELOPMENT

Higher gel strength values will be realized with
increasingly higher mix densities with the same
blend (lower amounts of mix water will result in
higher gel strength values). Figure 9 illustrates
typical data for "lO-second" and "lO-minute" gel
121

WHY CONTROL CEMENT SLURRY DENSITY?

strength tests. Table 2 shows the rate of change of

gel strength per 0.1 lb/gal change in mix density.
The average percent change per 0.1 lb/gal at 10
seconds was 5.12 %. The average percent change
per 0.1 lb/gal at 10 minutes was 5.34%. Since
batch-mixing systems can maintain a 0.1 lb/gal
density tolerance, it can be concluded that with
batch mixers, the average gel strength variance
will be 5 %. With recirculating mixing systems,
that typically control density within . 0.3 lb/gal,
the gel strength should not vary more than 15%.
These variations should not be of particular
concern.

SPE 25324

It is concluded that density control can be a critical

factor in controlling other slurry parameters.
Fortunately slurry density is a controllable factor.
When designing slurries and job specifications,
sensitivity to density errors should be known so
that allowable density variance can be specified.
By knowing the allowable density variance, mixing
equipment can be selected so that the allowable
deviation from the design density is not exceeded.
Present day technology generally does not allow us
to relate slurry density variation with job success
or failure.
REFERENCES

CONCLUSIONS
Very limited laboratory data shows how individual
slurry characteristics vary with slurry density.
Means for estimating compressive strength and
slurry viscosity deviations with density have been
presented. Slurry parameters of fluid loss, free
water, gel strength, and thickening time have been
investigated for selected compositions. Percent
change in these parameters per 0.1 lb/gal density
deviation have been calculated. The magnitude of
these changes were generally small and would not
be cause for alarm. However, slurries may be
close to a limit where a significant change in a
property could occur.
Therefore, it is
recommended that knowledge of the effects of
density deviation be known to avoid problems
during the cementing process. Tests should be
conducted for general classes of designs and when
new products are being contemplated.

1.

Will, J., Bjorheim, S.; "Study Evaluates

Cement Slurry Density Measurement and
Control", Petroleum Engineer
International, September 1990.

2.

Grant, W.H., Rutledge, J.M. and Christy,

R.H.; "Field Limitations of Liquid
Additive Cementing System", SPE
Drilling Engineer (December 1990) 331.

3.

Smith, D.K.; Cementing, Monograph

Service, SPE, New York (1987).

4.

Stegemoeller, C., Allen, T., Pitts. A.;

"Automatic Density Control and High
Specific Mixing Energy Deliver Consistent
High-Quality Cement Slurries", Offshore
Technology Conference, May 1992.

TABLE 1
Slurry
Identification

Mean
Density, lb/gal

-SlurriGeneral Description

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

16.46
14.56
16.5
12.8
17.3

I~oarse Premium With 0.1 % Fluid Loss Additive

I\..-oarse PremIUm, 4% Gel with Fnction Reducer
I~oarse PremIUm WIth 0.5% FlUid Loss AddItIve
I~oarse PremIUm, Gel and PozzoTan
I\..-oarse PremIUm with 0.2 % Retarder
I~oarse PremIUm with varIOUS amounts of Bentomte
IStandard Cement with lightweIght additive 10 sea water
PremIUm FlOe

12.5
15.8

122

Table 2
7000

FJm
Free
Water Loss %
%

ThIckenmg
Time
%

C'-l

Crulll ~

Mean
Density,
lb/gal

6000
~

5000

'iii

Q.

4000

~ 1'72 """

.........-::::

0.

i 3000

I~

"-

iii

N
.J:i.

24 It' utA 5......,

'24 ......

1% Ir utA. SI'....
lIE
CrYltlSlf'....

2000
1000

-1

-0.5

0.5

Slurry .. E..
Density Deviation, Ib/ gal
Tcrget Density: 17.3 1b/ga1

Percent change in property per 0.1 lb/gal change in density.

tT1

Figure 1: Effect of Density Deviation on Strength

>
Z

I\)

c.J

X CHANGE IN PROPERTY '1/0. I LB/GAL IF DENSITY

~

CHG COMP
12

V)

STR

CHG

"r1
VISCOSITY
i 12

~,

11

11

0-

Curve "A"

10

10

I'

0Z

..

a:

l-

V)

::::

'.

Slurry "c"

'~

'.

V)
V)

VISCOSITY
-; 9
0- GEl-VARIOUS :t:
- AOOITIVE-VARIOUS :t:
~8
X - ow WIFLUID LOSS AOOITIVE
+ - oW WIlIEIGHT AOOITIVE
--l 7

..
+,

a:

'

0-

::;
0

'

3
10

11

12

13

14

15

DENSITY, LB/GAL

Figure 2: Compressive Strength vs. Density

16

17

18

19

~-

C'-l

>
Z
o
en

~~~~

4
o

.. .
. .._-

-+----+---""

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

DENSITY. LB/GAL
Figure 3: Percent Change in Property with 0.1 lb/gal of Density

4
'3
19
-..l

280

500

00

240

i..

400 L-

0200
0

~ 160

,_N,
.....

iii
~

a.
u
.00

II~b/"'l

f-

... 120

fJ)

Vi

...c

fJ)

200

80

>

Cl>

J:

VI

40

o-f': l100

Slurry "E"

100 L-

200

300

400

500

600
a

Shear Rate, l/s

10

Torgel Density: 17.3 Ib!gd

Figure 4:

Jf
,

>-'

"

Effect of Density Deviation on Rheology

"

'~

"

11

SLURRY "G"

4>

13

14

DENS I TY,
SLURRY "0"

~l?

,.

"

17

LSI GAL

~SLURRY "E"

,.

>-<:

"

+ SLURRY "H"

Figure 5: Viscosity Correlation - Class "A" with 2% Light Weight Additive in Sea
Water

......
I\)

-l:>-

50

E40
iii

230
T

~2

tj

.:Ql
ii

CI)

tT.I

.~

Ql
Ql

...

20

CI)

i:l

g
~

60

..,)

u..

10

-1

-0.5

Slurry .. E ..

0.5

Density Deviation, Ib/ gal

Target Density : 17.3 b!gal

Figure 6:

Effect of Density Deviation on Fluid-loss

-1

-0.5

Slurry "E"

0.5

Density Deviation, Ib/ gal

Target Density: 17.3 Ib!gal

Figure 7:

Effect of Density Deviation on Free Water

CI)

VI

CI:l

12
10

"

....

,/s.

Tw

WliGlSeI

.~

I-

50

tv

g 40
",Q
.30
.I:
0,
~ 20

-1

-0.5

.-------.J

r---T. T.
'-----~

SlJrry .. E ..
Density Deviation,
Target Density: 17.31b/gal

Figure 8:

0.5
Ib/ gal

Effect of Density Deviation on Thickening Time and Initial Set

,J:o.

IOIf'ftlM~

l,....---""
+

4
~

I\:l
01

~
W

I ~k'~ 1

:I

.I:

60

---

,........

~
--------:

10 mlrU,
I ........

iii
Q;

D 10

-1

-0.5

Shsry " [ "

Target Density: 17.3 Ib/gal

Figure 9:

0.5

Density Deviation, Ib/ gal

Effect of Density Deviation on Gel Strength

>

z
>

"!j

t"'"

CI:l

>

CI:l

\0