SPE

SPE 15578

Specific Mixing Energy: A Key Factor for Cement Slurry Quality

by J.:, Orban, Anadrill Schlumberger, and P.A. Parcevaux* and D.J, Guillot, *
Dowell Schlumberger
●SPE Members

Copyrighl 1986, Society of Petroleum Er@ineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at tha 61at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibitionof the Sociel\ of Petroleum Engineers held in Naw
Orleana, LA October 5-9, 1986.

This paper wes selected for preaenlalion by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract : ..bmilted by the
author(a). Contents of fhe paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineera and are subject to c; rection by the
author(s).The ma!erial, aa presented, does not neceaaarily reflect any positionof the Sociely of Petroleum Engineers, ita officers, or members. Papera
presented at SPE maetings are s~+.,...0, f. publi~ali~n review by Erjilorial Commitleea of the Society of Pefroleurn Engineers. permission to coPYia
reafricled fo an abstract of not mora than 300 words. Illualralions may not be copied. i r,e abatract ehould contain conspicuousacknowledgmentof
where and by whom the paper is prasenfed. Write PublicationsManager, SPE, P,O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75063.3836. Telax, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT As a consequence it is recommended to increase ihe

field specific mixing energy to a value as close as possible
In this paper, the relations! ips between cement mixing to the API one. This provides optimum slurry quality a td
and cement slurry quality are investigated. Laboratory good similarity between laboratory and field conditions.
mixing conditions, using a high shear mixer, are com-
pared to field mixing conditions, including conventional
jet mixer, recirculating type mixer and batch mixer,
INTRODUCJ1’ION
AH the mixing conditions can be reduced according
to a 6ingle parameter, the specific mixing energy, that Both in the construction and the oil industry, the con-
allows the comparison of laboratory and field mixing with sistency of fresh concrete and cement paste is known to
confidence. be dependant on the mix’ng conditions 1’2, The API rec-
ommends the use of a very precise procedure - including
Typical cement slurry properties, like rheology, free the equipment - to mix an oil well cement slurry in the
water, fluid loss, thickening time and compressive strength, laboratory 3, But little attention has been paid in the
are meaaured as a function of the specific mixing energy, paat to adjust mixing conditions used in the laboratory
All these properties improve when the specific mixing en- to field ones.
ergy increases. The efficiency of cement additivea, like
dispersant and fluid-loss agents, is also found to vary In the present study, we investigate the influence of the
significantly with the energy. A tentative explanation is mixing procedure, not only on the theological properties
proposed through a mechanism of particle deflocculation of cement slurries, but also on other properties of primary
and dissolution, leading to an increase in the available importance such as: free water, fluid loss, thickening time
specific surface area. and compressive strength. In the laboratory, mixing con-
ditions are changed by varying the rotational speed of
Optimal slurry properties are obtained at specific ener- the mixing device as well as the duration of mixing, all
gies close to that imparted by a laboratory mixing follow- other parameters being kept constant, In order to be able
ing the API Specification 10. The specific mixing energy to compare the results, we try to normalize the different
parameter has been quantified for different pieces of typ- mixing conditions by a single parameter based on a me-
ical field equipment and conditions, from mixers to cen- chanical energy balance. A tentative explanation is then
trifugal and high premure positive displacement pumps, proposed for the variation of cement slurry properti~e as
and pumping through orifices, Current standard field a function of the intensity of mixing.
practices can represent aa low as 10 Yof the specific energy
imparted by the API procedure, Comparative measure- Then we present the properties of cement slurries when
ments in the field have shown that the cement slurries mixed using several types of field equipment. An equiva-
mixed then in these conditions have considerably poorer lent approach is attempted to norrr- a.lize <he large variety
properties than the same ones mixed in the laboratory. of conditions encountered in the fiekl. T’>;s permits a di-
.—. ——.——— ——_—_. rect comparison between a cement sl::wy as designed in
References and illustrations at end of paper. the laboratory according to the A F; specifications, and
the actual one which is pumper’ h the well.
.-
 ‘R
LABORATORY STUDIES
Experiment al Procedure
Cement slurries cre prepared by mixing Class G cement
with tap water using a propeller-type mixer, M per the
.4PI Specification 10, second edition, Section 5 ‘, The
volume of mixed slurry is keLJt,constant at 600 mL for all
the tests performed. The mixer’s blades are thoroug$”’y
weighed every 10 tests and char:.ged when the weight loss
is larger than 5%,
The mech~nical mixing power it. in this case the :o-
tatioiml speed o! the blade and the duration of mixing
are varied in the following respective range: [4000-12000]
rpm, [10-360] s\ c, The cement powder is poured into the
mixer bowl within 15 seconds, while the system is rotating
at 4000 rpm, then the speed is set at the desired value.
Reported durations of mixing do not include these first
15 seconds.
Following mixing, the cement slurry is conditioned in
an atmospheric conslstometer rotating at 150 rpm for 20
rein, at 20 or 85 deg. C Aepending on the series of experi-
mer.ts,
All physical testing following cement slurry mixing and
conditioning is performed according to reference 3.
Effect of mizing on slurry theological properties
The effect of the mixing procedure on cement slurry
properties has been first evaluated through theological
measurements made with a rotational viscometer accord-
ing to API specification 10 Appendix H, Results are then
analyzed using the Bingham plastic model,
The authors are aware of the limitations of the equip-
ment, of the experimental procedure, and of ‘he theolog-
ical model used 4, but it is not the purpose of this paper
to go into details of this specific subject. This procedure
was adopted because it is to-date the one most commonly
used in the oil industry, and because it permits an easy
comparison from one test to another,
When plotted as a function of the duration of mix-
ing, for any constant rotational speed of the propeller,
the plastic viscosity (PV expressed in cP) and the yield
value (TY expressed in lbf/100 ftz) of a neat Class G ce-
ment slurry first decrease and then increase (Fig. 1), This
relationship is also strongly dependant on the rotational
speed used, thus time or speed alone can not be used to
normalize the data.
Normalization of mixing conditions
To allow for a comparison between the different mixing
procedures, we have tried to reduce the theological data to
a single master curve using the mechanical work provided
by the mixer to the slurry during time t:
E= Txwxt (1)
FOR. CEMENT SL!lgRy QIJAL~JY SPE 15578
It has been experimentally observed that ths torque T
exerted on the propellor of the miwi is, as a first ~pproxi-
mation, proportional to the rotational speed w arid to the
specific gravity p of the mixed fft.;d, as shown in figure 2.
So, the expression {or the mechanical work becomes:
E-~kxpxw2xt (2)
where k was experimentally t’,wnd to be equal to:
6.410-9 N.m/kg.rc-3/rpm
Such experimental results were obtained by directly
measuring the torque exerted by the nj~tor of the mixer
on the axis of the propelier when running the mixer at a
given rotational speed with water first, then with cel lent
slurries of specific gravity varying between 1.44 and ;..;!7.
Torque measurements were corrected for friction in the
Learings.
The chosen reducing parameter then is defined as the
mechanical work per mass ot’ slurry:
kxpxw2xt
E/M = ~x;2xt (3)
pxv=
So if the volume of slurry V is kept constant, which is
the case in this study, E/M is proportiona 1to the duration
of mixing and to the square of the rotational speed.
When plotted as a function of E/M, the two theological
parameters plastic viscosity (PV) and yield value (TY)
fall respectively on a single curve (Fig.3;,. This shows
that., although the chosen parameter is baaed on a crude
approximation - it is assumed that the work provided to
the fluid is entirely spent in shearing the slurry - it permits
a reasonable reduction of the theological data.
According to equation (3), the energy per mass corre-
sponding to API mixing of a cement slurry is 5.5 kJ/kg. In
the following, the energy per mass of slurry is adimention-
alized by making the ratio with the value corresponding
to the API laboratory procedure, i.e. 5.5 kJ/kg, and is
referred as the specific mixing energy or SME.
It is to be noticed that the rheology of a neat cement
slurry is optimum for an SME value in the range of 1,
close to the API procedure, as shown in figure 3. For a
dispersed slurry (I?ig.4) the plastic viscosity continuously
decreases, while the yield stress stays close to a minimum
value up to a critical specific mixing energy around 1,
and then diverges for higher values. T’. :se results are in
qualitative agreement with the one obtained by D.M. Roy
and K. Asaga in 2.
----
.<PF ----
lfi5?~ -J.[)RRAN.
. -,,-...-, P.PA??CFVAIIX
. . . . ... . . . . ..
Baaed on these results and rheology-wise, it appears
that the quality of a cement slurry is improving with in-
creasing specific mixing energy, and is opt’mum at an
SME around 1, e.g. close to the API mixing, but that
this quality can be degraded by too high energy levels,
allove 2.
InjZuence of the specific mixing energy
on other cement properties
The specific mixir.g energy not only affects the rheology
of cement slurries but also other characteristics of slurries
and of set cements, Typical examples are given in table 1.
The free water content of two cement slurry composi-
tions has been me,wmred at 20 and 85 deg.C. It ir observed
that the free watt r of the neat cement remains unchanged
when increasing the mixing energy, while for the dispersed
systerri at 85 cleg. C, it decr~ J’ es by a factor 4 from 22 to
5 mL/250 mL between an c$ME of 0,1 and I.
Fluid loss IS also extremely sensitive to mixing energy
below 1 API. The efficiency of an organic fluid loss agent
is affected by the level of energ~ during the mixing phase,
since for an SME of 1 the value obtaired is good (90
mL/30 rein), while for an SME of 0.1 we get hardly any
fluid loss cmtrol (320 mL/30 rein).
Thickening time and compressive strength, although
not being as sensitive as free water and fluid loss, do
evolve with the spe~ific mixing energy, Thickening time is
reduced by 15 to 20% when SME increases from 0,1 to 1,
while compressive strength is only marginally affected in
this range, Improving significantly compressive strength
requires much more energy to be spent i,e. 3 to 4 times
the API one,
These results show that the efficiency of cement ad-
ditives, such as fluid loss agents and dispersant, varies
substantially with the specific mixing energy. In most
cases the quality of cement slurries waa found to improve
significantly when increasing the SME from O to 1, to sta-
bilize between 1 and 2, and then to possibly deteriorate at
higher levels above 2, with the exception of compressive
strength development.
PROPOSED MECHANISM FOR CE MENT MIXING
It is well accepted that dry cement powder is composed
of aggregates of cement particles held together by electro-
static, capillary, and/or chemical forces, When measuring
the particle size distribution of cement powders, through
laser scattering or sedimentometry, these aggregates are
first destroyed by preparing the Si .rnple in an ultrasonic
bath.
A possible explanation for the described phenomena
and may be for cement mixing in general is that the aver-
age size of cement particle aggregates is reduced when the
mixing energy increases, promoting, then, a better con-
tact between water and cement. A reduction in cement
apparent particle size would be perfectly in line with the
.. f. n. . C11711(IT
“.,.-’-”.
27
effects observt?d on all the physical properties: lower parti-
cle sizes would promttte lower viscosities, lower free water
content, better fluid 10SScontroi, ~hortw thickening time,
and improved compressive strength,
Measurements of specific surface area with a laser gran-
ulometer have proven the existence of cement agglomer-
ates which can be broken through ultrasonic stirring. For
this the specific surface area of cement grains in a slurry
mixed at different levels of energy has been measured un-
der the same conditions, without and with ultrasonic stir-
ring. This apparent specific surface area has then been
normalized by the valt~e obtained after 1 min ultrasonic
stirring, and plotted as a function of the specific mixing
energy (Fig,5). It is oh-. ious that the apparent specific
surface arez increases with the specific mixing energy, and
levels off toward 1 when the SME increases above 1 (API
value of the SME). 1 his definitely shows that mechanical
stresses do destroy the agglomerates of cement powder
during mixing, thus reduce the apparent cement parti-
cle size, Once again the cptimum dispersion is obtained
for an S?VIE close to the API value, At S.ME values well
above 1, a divergence is seen between neat am’ dispersed
cer.lent slurries. This might suggest that mechanical dis-
persion can not totally compensate for chemical disper-
sion as provided by organic dispersant,
The degradation in some cement properties at high lev-
els of specific mixing energies can be explained b;~ a pos-
sible increase in the dissolution rate of fine partic!w, that
would increase the early cement reactivity and promote
higher viscosities. However this hypothesis has not yet
been experimentally verified,
LARGE SCAL E STUDIES
After defining this concept of mixing energy in the lab-
oratory with the API recommended mixer, attempts have
been made to generalize it to larger scale mixing.
For this, a series of large scale tests were performed,
using real field mixers. Between 10 to 20 ms of cement
slurry are mixed each time, Cement slurry samples are
taken at different places on the mixer and at different
times during mixing, and their theological properties im-
mediately measured in the laboratory.
These properties are then compared to the properties
of the same slurries, mixed in the laboratory at different
mixing energies, using the same materials, cement and
mix water, aa for the large scale test. All the mbdng en-
ergies are normalized aa per the API one. Mixing energies
provided to the cement slurry during large scale tests are
computed using a very simple mechanical energy balance,
by summing the mechanical works separately provided by
a) flow through orifices; b) rotating agitators; c) centrifu-
gal pumps.
The total mechanical energy is then given by an ~x-
pression of the form:
E/M= E*=Z~ (4)
pxv pxQ
 4 SPECIFIC ,UIXIIJG ENERGY: A KEY
—.
where P is the power, Q the flow rate, t a time, V the
slurry volume and p its specific gravity,
Mixing energies directly related to the effect of jetting
water againsta dry cement flow inthejet mixer itselfand
to the flow of cement slurry through a positive displace-
ment pump have been empirically derived from correla-
tions of cement slurry properties with laboratory mixed
slurries. The sum of both devices that is a constant in all
the tests performed is found to b? aa small aa 10% of the
API mixing energy, M shown in 5qure 6.
Conventional jet mixer, recirculating type mixer, and
batch mixer have been used. Forthese large scale tests,
cement slurries, neat and dispersed, have been mixed at
, design specific gravity varying be~ween 1.87 and 1.94.
In table 2 are presented the computed mechanical en-
ergies provided by several of the mixing set-ups used for
this study. In addition, the extra mechanical energy that
can be imparted to a cement slurry through a choke de-
vice is presente ~ in table 3. It is clear that any range of
mechanical energy, from a level as low as one tenth of the
API one, up to very high i es like 3 or 4 tiines the API
one, can be imparted to a cement slurry, depending on
the mixer and possibly chokes used.
The similarity between laboratory mixing and field scale
mixing, when using mechanical energy aa the normalizing
parameter is shown in figure 6 and table 4 for various mix-
ing set-ups such as a simple jet mixer followed by pumping
through positive displacement pump, recirculating mixer,
and choke devices.
Not only are the theological properties of cement slur-
ries mixed at a normalized energy of 1, both in the lab-
oratory and in large scale with various field mixers, very
close from to each other, aa demonstrated in table 4, but
this similarity is still valid throughout the whole range of
energy, from 0.1 to 1.5, aa shown in figures 6. This shows
that field mixing of cement slurries can be modelled very
simply, and that the cement slurry aa designed in the lab-
oratory can exhibit the same properties as the field mixed
one provided this model is used.
CASE HISTO RIES
As a consequence of such an interesting correlation be-
tween small and large scale mixing, and because of the
observed implications of mixing energy on other cement
slurry properties, the mixing energy concept was later
used and evaluated during cement jobs.
This concept haa been extensively used during the past
few years, especially when cementing critical production
strings. More than 200 of such jobs have been done to
date, In most situations, the additional mechanical en-
ergy required to optimize cement slurry quality was input
through simple jets m through special choke manifolds.
FACTOR FOR LEMENT SLURRY QUALITY SPE 15578
The following examples taken from Gurope are repre-
sentative cases of how additional mt~chanical energy can
improve cement slurry properties.
Ca8e 1
A 9 5/8 in. casing wu set at 650 m in a 12 1/4 in. ver-
tical open hole (average hole diameter was 13 in.). Previ-
ous casing was a 13 3/8 in. sel at 150 m . BHCT was 35
deg,C. The well had been drilled with a fresh water-base
bentonitic mud at 1.25 s.g., and wss to be cemented to
suiface with a tail in slurry at 1,89 s.g. with dispersant
and fluid loss control, and a lead dispersed slurr~l also at
1.89 s.g.
Both slurries were low pressure jet mixed in a 6 bbl
recirculating type mixer, but the tail in slurry was then
pumped into a batch tank where it was recirculated once
across 1/2 in. jets, while the lead slurry was pumped
down hole on-the-fly,
A sample of tail in slurry taken in the recirculating
mixer gave the following results : PV 22,4, TY O, tem-
perature 28 deg,C, free water after 2h30min 10 mL/2:0
mL, s.g. 1.86, The same sample was remixed on location
with a laboratory mixer for 35 seconds at 12000 rpm, and
gave : PV 21,8, TY 1, temperature 29 deg.C, free wa-
ter after 2h30min O mL/250 mL. Obviously the quality of
the slurry in the mixer was poor, and improved a lot after
enough mechanical energy was added to it,
A sample of tail in slurry taken in the batch tank after
circulation through the jets gave : PV 33, TY 2,8, tem-
perature 29 deg.C, s.g. 1.89, free water dfter 2h20min O
mL/250 mL.This sample remixed in the laboratory mixer
gave PV 29, TY 3.0, temperature 29 deg.C, free water 0.5
mL/250 rnL showing almost no change in properties.
A SIUXry sample wss then mixed on location with tne
laboratory mixer at 1,89 s.g. using dry cement from the
silo and mix water, and gave : PV 32, TY 3, temperature
25 deg,C, This shows that the slurry in the batch tank
was similar to design, and increasing further on the me-
chanical energy did not change significantly its properties.
Finally, a sample of lead slurry was then taken from the
return line and gave : PV 14,5, YV O., temperature 25
deg.C, s.g. 1,87, free water after lh 25 mL/250mL. Such
a result tends to show that if the quality of the slurry is
no good at mixing stage, the shearin[: energy down the
casing and up the annulus is not enough to improve it.
Case 2
A 13 3/8 in. casing was set at 3100 m in a 17 1/2 in.
vertical open hole (average hole size 19 1/2 in). BHCT
was 100 deg.C. Previous casing was a 20 :n. at 400 m. 6
centralizers were run in the open hole sectio,l and the the-
oretical annular volume was 450 m3. The well had been
drilled with a 1.78 s.g. bentonitic water-base mud. The
annulus was to be cemented over 1000 m with neat class
E cement at 1.98 s.g., using 40 m3 of spacer ahead. Slurry
was low pressure jet mixed into two 50 bbl recirculating
type mixers at a total rate of 4 tonnes/rein injected at 14
bpm, and displaced at 12 bpm.
arL#JJt” .Z. VOW. IIT, f .rnr-. -v, v?...? C. w...- ..*--v I z
I

Samples were taken at the goose neck, or from a butter- . Similarity between drastically different mixing scales
fly sampling valva in the recirculating mixer, then cast in and procedures was proved to be possible by summing the
1 in, cylindrical perspex tubes and cured for 8 days at am- mechanical work provided by the mixing devices used in
bient conditions. Upon unmoulding, samples were tested the laboratory and in the field.
for compressive strength, permeability and porosity. Al-
though the overall cement properties were of low values, . Optimum cement slurry quality is generally obtained
as curing had been performed at ambient conditions, a sig- for a mixing energy close to the one corresponding to the
nificant improvement was noticed on samples taken from API laboratory procedure,
the recirculating mixer compared to samples taken at the
, In some field situations, this high level of energy can-
goose neck: compressive strength was increased by 100%,
not be provided by conventional jet mixers. Recirculation
permeability decreased by 50% and porosity decreased by
jets or choke manifolds through which the slurry is circu-
17%.
lated, are thus needed to optimize cement slurry quality
Following the job, cement slurries were mixed in the in the field.
laboratory according to the API procedure at the same
When a specific mixing energy close to the API one
slurry density as recorded on location, cast and cured sim-
can not be obtained in the field, the cement slurry would
ilarly for the same period of time, and tested for the same
be best designc 3 in the laboratory using a mixing proce-
properties. Cement properties were further improved by
dure that provides the same level of energy as the one to
another order of magnitude, This can be attributed to two
be used in the field.
main reasons: one is air entrapment that could have been
much lower for laboratory experiments, the other is me- NOMENCLATU~
chanical mixing energy. When computing the mechanical
mixing energy imparted by the recirculating type mixer, M mass of slurry
it turned out to be only 30% of the API mixing energy, P power of a mixing device
Ca9e 3 Q flow rate
T torque on a mixer propeller
A 7 in. casing was set at 1000 m in an 8 1/2 in. t duration of mixing
open hole with a 40 deg v~’erage deviation. BHCT was V volume of slurry
35 deg.C. Previous casing wa a 9 5/8 in. set at 690 m. P specific gravity of slurry
The well had been drilled with 1.1 s.g. fresh water ben- W rotational speed of a mixing device
tonitic mud, and was to be cemented to surface with tail PV plastic viscosity
in slurry at 1.89 s.g. and a lead slurry at 1,65 s.g. both TY yield value
with fluid loss control and dispersant. Both slurries were
jet mixed into a batch tank and subsequently sheared one
full volume through 1/2 in. jets at 1000 psi differential CONVERSION FACTOR
pressure. Slurries were pumped downhole at 7 bpm and
1 HP.min/ppg.bbl = 2,34 kJ/kg
displaced at 10 bpm.

Samples were taken at various stages of mixing and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

pumping, and observed for free water development. Both
tail in and lead slurries from the goose neck developed
about 10% (25 mL/250 mL) free water in 3 hours. Tail
in and lead slurries after circulation through the jets, just
prior to pumping, as well aa the lead slurry returning via
the annulus, developed no free water at all in 3 hours,
Rheology and specific gravity of the lead slurry were -
PV 28 ; TY O ; s.g. 1.65- at the goose neck, - PV 17 ; TY
1 ; s.g. 1.65- after shearing through the jets, and - PV
22 ; TY 5 ; s.g. 1.65- on return. Rheology and specific
gravity aa per laboratory design waa meant to be - PV
15 ; TY 2 ; s.g, 1.65 -, well in line with the rheology of
the slurry just prior to pumping. The increase of plastic
viscosity on the returning sample could be due to a minor
contamination with spacer.
CONCLUSIONS
The properties of cement slurries and set cements,
especially rheology, free water and fluid loss, are found
to vary a lot with the intensity of mixing, It is believed,
alt bough not 100% proved, that a deflocculat ion process,
due to mechanical stresses during the mixing phase, is the
baais of this sensitivity.
The authors wish to thank the management of Dowell
Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper, They
are pleased to acknowledge the contribution of M. Belharizi
who performed the theological measurements in the lab-
oratory.
REFERENCES
1. Papadakis, M. :’Recherches sur le malaxage a haute
turbulence des suspensions de ciment’, Revue des Mate-
riaux de Construction, No.498, pp 69-78, 1956.
2, Roy, D, M,, and Asaga, K. :’Theological properties
of cement mixes: 111,The effects of mixing procedures on
viscometric properties of mixes containing superplaaticiz-
ers’, Cement and Concrete Research, VOI.9, Pp 731-739,
1979.
3. API Specification 10, Second Edition, June 15,
1984 :’API Specification for Materials and Testing for
Well Cements’.
4. Grban, J,, and Parcevaux, P. :’Viscometers evalu-
ated for accurate determination of cement slurry rheol-
ogy’, Oil and Gas Journal, June 30, pp. 94-100, 1986,
 SE 15578

TA8LE 2: Mechanical energy per mass gi.mn by f iald mixers

TABLE 1: Properties of slurries and set cernan$eversus SME to cement alurrien
(Class G cement mixed with fresh water at 1.89 s .g. )

----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------------------

0.10 I I [ I
I TEST I SUE 1.0 4.0 I
I Mixer I Mixing rate I Mechanical energy I
l---------------- l----------------------------------------l
I in I in I
i API Free water 1 Neat Slurry 4 6 41 bpm YP.min/ppg. bbl I
I I I
I at 86 deg.C I Dispersed 22 6 31
I ------------- _-----------_ ---l ___--_ -------- l----__ -_-----------l
~ m md.(250 ML I Slurry (
l---------------- l----------------------------------------l
I Jet mixer + triplax pump I 4 I 0.46
I API Fluid Loss I Slurry with
I 16 I 0.3 I
I at 86 deg. C I Fluid Loss 320 80 60 I
I 10 I 0.2
I in mL/ 30 min I Additive
I I I
f---------------- i----------------------------------------;
I mixer + triplex
Jet pump + I 4 I 0.75
I API Thickening I Neat Slurry 145 120 100 I
I 6 bbl recirculating mixe I 8 I 0.38 I
i time in min I Dispersed 160 130 105 i
I I I
I at 86 dag. C I Slurry
I Jet mixer + triplex pump + I 4 I 1.76 I
l---------------- l ---------------------------------------- i
I 26 bbl recirculating mixer I 6 I 0.90 I
I API Compressive I Neat Slurry I
I I I
I Stren@h in MPaI After 3 days 12 13 16 I
I Jet mixer + triplex pump + I 4 I 1.80 I
I I After 10 days 19 20 26 I
------------------------------------- ------------- --------- I 60 bbl recirculating mixer I 8 I 0.90
I I I I
I API laboratory procedure I --- I 2.41
l ----------------------------- [-----___ ------ l------___ ----------l

TABLE 3: 14echanical enargy par mass given by chokes

to cement slurries TABLE4: Similarity between field and laboratory mixing

--------------------------------------------------------- . -------------------------------------------- ------------------------

I I I I I I I I I FIELD I LAB I
Choke lEfficirmcy I Flow rate I Mechanical energy I I l___ -___ -._-------_ --_-----_ -__-l
I diamater in lcoeff icient I in I in I Mixing I Cement Slurry I Pv I TY I Pv [ TY I
inches I I b>m I HP.min/ppg .bbl I system I slurry S!4E I llbf/iOOl llbf/1001
------_ --_--- l ----------- _____________________________ I I a.g. I CP Isqftl CP Isqftl
l___ -____ l-------- ___---_-_-l---l------- l-__ -_-- i---_--_l
24/64 I 0.76 2.1 2.41 I I
I 0.75 3.0 4.82 Iill I 1.87 1.2 26.2 7.0 26.0 7.0 I
I I I
24/64 I 0.86 2.4 2.41 1212 I 1.90 1.0 26.7 26.2 27.6 2361
I 0.85 3,4 4.82 I I I I
I 1212 i 1.95 1.0 34.0 38.3 33,6 40.0 I
36/64 I 0.75 4.8 2.41 I
I 0.76 6.8 4.82 I 1212 I 1.86 I 1.0 I 18.6 12.4 19.7 10.5
I i I I I
I 36/64 I 0.86 6.6 2.41 I 13 I 1.94 I 1,0 I 33.1 32.1 34.0 30,5
I I 0.85 I 7.7 4.82 I l----_ ---1 -.--!--- l-l-___ -Al_------ l------- ------ ------- -------
l---------_____ l-----_ ----_ l_-_ ----___ l-_---__ -__--_ ----_-l
Mixer 1 : Jat mixing in a 6 bbl tank recirculation for 10 min with a 5x6
centrifugal pump, then pumping with triplex pump

Slurry 1: Class A cement with 0.12 gal/sk dispersant and 0.02 gal/sk
anti foaming agent mixed with fresh water

Mixer 2 : Jet mixing in a 6 bbl recirculating mixer then pumped through

a low pressure choke

Slurry 2: Claas G cement, 0.06S gal/sk dispersant, 0.02 gal/sk antifoaming

agent, fresh water

Mixar 3 : Jet mixing ,then pumped with a triplex pump through a high
pressure choke

Slurry 3: Class G cement, 0.06 gal/sk dispersant, 0.02 gal/sk antif oaming
agent, f reah watar
 m-
SPE 15578
s2-

w-
1’ I
I
%
s $s-
I
I
~

~ ‘-
! u

40-

s-

o Ullca=
so- < 1
0 ma o 2CQ Ibw 1s00
WW%N Of MIXINOIn%mt$ DURATION
OFMXINOh Socvnds

Fig. l–lntluence of laboratorymixing time and speed on nc?t cement slurry rhezkgy.

200
?
$80
1 I
I

2:- 0
O&%

Fig. 2-Calibr8tlon
in’~x
wo020000ss0ww
ROTAllONAL
SFEEOIn rpm

of the torque exerted on the Ialmrakq

mixer’s propeller.

s-

W. /9
u-
/
/
s
40.

I
//

Z
s /’
/
‘“ 7
‘w
/“
I?/
m: /

F@. 3-lrdlu.nco of the mixing my on rwxt comont slurry rhdogy.

 /p
s~E 15578

/P

r
/“’

/ Legend
■ ci08s GNw.
❑ C43** c Ckmrd

0.00 J , ~
0 1 s
SFSC& MIXMG &

Fig. 4-influence of SME on the rfrwkrgy of a dleperwd CO. Fig. 5—Relatlonshlp between cement spwiflc surface area
ment slurry. and SME.

80- ..:.. n-
,,...:,
.....
CLASSQ NEAT41% N20
Rt?SOLO@Y
AFTERMfXlfW
.?..
MIXING EQUIPMENT
.,..,:., ■ WAF41N13SU!NDOR “!
%
nFE1.DMfxER
———— ———— .

~.: i ‘b
t4- :.,,.,
:,:.:. ........
,,,..,, %....
::,, 5
..:,.,
,:...... ,.::::,
0-+.”. ..
I f m-+. a r f
0 2 0 2
SP&~C Ml)ilNE! EN:QY SP&m MlA3 E?&c3Y

Fig. 6-SimllwNy bwtwwn field wrd laboratory mlxlng as a furrctlon of SME,