SPE 140805

Improved Spacer Rheology Model for Cement Operations

Kolawole Olowolagba and Krishna Babu Yerubandi, SPE, Halliburton

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 2729 March 2011.
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
In the cementing industry, it is known that zonal isolation is dependent on a successful cement job. To achieve zonal
isolation, effective mud removal is recommended (Crook et al. 2001). Efficient mud displacement can be achieved with the
use of spacers and flushes before cement is placed. With an increasing need to successfully complete a well on the first try,
accurately modeling the spacer rheology has become key.
This paper presents results from a comparison of two rheological models. The Bingham plastic and Generalized Herschel
Bulkley (GHB) models examined in this work are both used to model rheologies of spacers. For most field operations, the
Bingham plastic model is used to model rheologies; however, studies have shown that using this model can lead to overpredicting yield point. The GHB model is used to model non-Newtonian fluids by incorporating the possibility that the fluid
might or might not have a yield stress and that the shear stress might be a nonlinear function of shear rate.
Spacers are used to separate one fluid from another. They are designed to be compatible with the mud being used in the
well. This paper compares the performance of spacer and spacer/mud rheologies at different elevated temperatures (200, 300,
and 350F) with measurements from a Model 75 HP/HT viscometer.
Results have been modeled in a computational fluid-dynamics simulator to illustrate the effects of each rheological model
used to describe the well-completions fluids. The simulator modeled displacement and intermixing of wellbore fluids
downhole, and these are investigated in the annulus for the simulated case.
Introduction
Cementing a wellbore is a major stage in well completion and an initiation for production operations. The objectives of
cementing operations include casing support and protection and zonal isolation. To achieve successful zonal isolation, the
drilling fluid should be completely removed or displaced from the annulus where cement is intended for placement. This can
be challenging because of mud gellation that can form during drilling operations. Several techniques and practices have been
employed to help achieve this type of mud removal (Crook et al. 2001; Crook et al. 1998). Industry practices include:
Conditioning the drilling fluid, chemically and physically.
Use of spacer and flushes capable of mud removal.
Optimizing cement-slurry viscosity to maximize displacement and safe circulating pressures.
Centralization of the pipe.
Pipe movement: reciprocation, rotation, or both.
Displacement rates to provide optimum displacement efficiency.
Use of proper cementing systems.
From industry practices, the use of spacers and their design have become important for proper mud displacement and
zonal isolation. Spacers are designed as an interface to separate the mud and cement from contact.
Aside from this, spacers also play an important role in (1) helping to ensure complete displacement of the mud, and (2)
removal of gelled mud developed along formation walls (Gordon et al. 2008).
Spacer design becomes complex considering that they have to be compatible with both the displaced fluid (mud) and the
displacing fluid (cement). It becomes more complex when the drilling fluids or muds to be displaced could be water, oil, or
synthetic-based muds. For a spacer to completely remove the mud and achieve zonal isolation, certain properties are
expected. Spacer designs can change depending on the job design; however, it should be robust in nature and designed for a
specific density, rheology, temperature, mud system, and cement system (Gordon et al. 2008). Therefore, to be able to obtain

SPE 140805

a good spacer, certain important factors should be considered, including design and rheology. Rheology, in this case, will be
modeled according to the Bingham plastic and GHB models.
Rheology and Rheological Models
Rheological measurements normally consist of imposing a strain and measuring a stress, or imposing a stress and measuring
strain. Viscosities and yield stresses are rheological characteristics that need to be measured for a given fluid, especially
during displacement. These fluid characteristics determine how well a fluid can displace that ahead of it.
Viscometers and rheometers are instruments used to measure rheological properties of fluids. In the oil industry,
specialized, concentric cylinder couette viscometers are used to determine rheological properties of drilling fluids, spacers,
and slurries.
For this study, the Fann Model 35 and the Fann Model 75 viscometers were used to obtain rheologies.
Determination of rheological behavior is essential for the proper evaluation of fluid displacement for optimum cement
placement (Becker et al. 2003). Fluid behavior and the methods to measure fluid flow are two important aspects to consider
when measuring spacer rheology.
Generally, fluid behavior can be mathematically modeled using viscometric models.
Viscosity equations (Gucuyener 1983) for some of these models include:
Newtonian model:

= = constant....................................................................................................................................................... (1)

Power law model:
n p 1

PL = = p .............................................................................................................................................. (2)

Bingham plastic model:

YP
BP = = + PV

........................................................................................................................................... (3)

Casson model:
2

2
1
C = = O + O 2 ................................................................................................................................... (4)

Herschel Bulkley model:

n H 1

.............................................................................................................................. (5)
HB = = + k HB

SPE 140805

GHB model:

GHB

m n n
+ n m
O
ref

= =

..................................................................................................... (6)

This paper, however, focuses on two model equations: (3) and (6), the Bingham plastic model and the GHB model
(Becker et al. 2003).
Rheological Testing of Fluids
Experimental tests and rheological measurements were conducted on a designed 16-lbm/gal Tuned Spacer A. Rheological
measurements were carried out at 80F using the Model 35 viscometer at atmospheric pressure. Measurements at elevated
temperatures of 200, 300, and 350F were taken using the Model 75 automatic viscometer at a pressure of 12,000 psi. The
spacer A was designed to displace a 15.5 ppg drilling mud. To help ensure complete displacement analysis, rheologies of
100% mud, 100% spacer, and compatibilities of the mud and spacer systems were also measured at 25% mud and 75%
spacer, and 50% mud and 50% spacer; and 25% mud 75% spacer were measured at temperatures of 200, 300, and 350F .
Data collected was analyzed using the Bingham plastic model and the GHB model.
Figs. 1 and 2 show viscometer equipment used for rheological measurement.

Fig.1Fann Model 35 viscometer.

SPE 140805

Fig.2Fann Model 75 viscometer.

Test Procedure
The following steps describe the test procedure.
Spacer Blend A and drilling mud were prepared and samples were measured using Model 35 and Model 75
viscometers.
Ratios of mixture of Spacer A and mud were prepared by volume using 25:75, 50:50, and 75:25 spacer and mud
ratios.
Rheologies of pure samples (spacer and mud) were measured at 200, 300, and 350F; compatibility rheologies of
contaminated samples at mentioned temperatures were also measured.
Dial/angle deflections were recorded at speeds of 3, 6, 30, 60, 100, 200, and 300 rev/min; these were measured
during a ramp up and ramp down of the speed schedule.
From the angle and speed readings, shear stress and shear rates were calculated. Model equations determined the
parameters of the Bingham plastic and GHB model; these parameters were used in the three-dimensional numerical
simulation of the fluids studied.
Computational Fluid Dynamics
An internally developed 3-D computational fluid dynamics simulator was used for characterizing the effects of different
rheological models in hole cleaning. The computational fluid-dynamics simulator (Savery et al. 2007) solved the momentum
equations (Equations 7, 8, and 9) for velocity profiles on a 3-D grid of a given wellbore.
(vr /t + vr vr /r + v /r vr / v2/r + vz vr /z) = Fr p/r + 1/r (r Srr)/r + 1/r Sr / 1/r S + Srz/z........ (7)
(v /t + vr v /r + v /r v / + vrv /r + vz v /z) = F 1/r p/ + 1/r2 (r2 Sr)/r + 1/r S / + Sz/z ...... (8)
(vz /t + vr vz /r + v /r vz / + vz vz /z) = Fz p/z + 1/r (r Szr)/r + 1/r Sz / + Szz /z .............................. (9)
In the above equations, vr, v, and vz represent the velocities in radial, azimuthal, and axial direction respectively. is the
pressure. Fr, F, and Fz are the forces in the radial, azimuthal, and axil directions respectively. is the density of the fluid, and
is the deviatoric stress tensor and is calculated from a fluid constitutive relationship.
Continuity equation (Equation 10) is solved for the pressure profile.
vr /r + vr /r + 1/r v / + vz /z = 0 ............................................................................................................................ (10)

Fluid-volume fractions are calculated by solving a convection diffusion equation (Savery et al. 2008) using the velocity
profiles calculated from the previous equation system.

SPE 140805

Displacement Efficiency
Displacement efficiency is a measure of the percentage fill of the hole by cement. The mathematical definition of
displacement efficiency is the ratio of the area of the annular gap filled by cement to the total area of the annulus (Fig. 3).
The simulator reports this value as a function of depth and time.

Fig. 3Illustration of displacement efficiency.

Channel Length
This is a measure of extent of one fluid penetration into the other. Channel length is defined as the difference between 90%
displacement efficiency depth to the 10% displacement efficiency depth for a given fluid in the wellbore.

Fig. 4Illustration of channel length.

SPE 140805

Well Information
Numerical simulation was performed on a slimhole cased well with a measured depth of 17,760 ft. The outer diameter of
wellbore was 6 in. and the inner casing diameter was 4.5 in. Standoff varied with 80 bbl of spacer volume pumped at 5
bbl/min. Using the Bingham plastic model and the GHB rheology model, rheological and numerical results were presented
for the spacer fluid during displacement.
Discussion and Results
Rheological Results. Rheology curve fitting results were presented for spacer fluid temperatures of 200, 300, and 350F.
Log-log comparison plots of measured shear stress and shear strain are shown below for the Bingham Plastic and GHB
models. Pure and mixed fractions of spacer: mud ratios are shown at 200F. One hundred percent spacer rheology curve fits
are shown for 300 and 350F with similar results observed for higher temperatures of 300 and 350F for the mixture fluid
composition ratios.
Figs. 5 through 10 illustrate graphical results of comparison of experimental data and model predictions at 200, 300, and
350F.

Fig. 5Log-log comparison plot of shear rate (gamma) vs shear stress (tau) for 100% spacer at 200F.

SPE 140805

Fig. 6Log-log comparison plot of shear rate (gamma) vs shear stress (tau) for 75% spacer and 25% mud at 200F.

Fig. 7Log-log comparison plot of shear rate (gamma) vs shear stress (tau) for 50% spacer and 50% mud at 200F.

SPE 140805

Fig. 8Log-log comparison plot of shear rate (gamma) vs shear stress (tau) for 25% spacer and 75% mud at 200F.

Fig. 9Log-log comparison plot of shear rate (gamma) vs shear stress (tau) for 100% spacer at 300F.

SPE 140805

Fig. 10Log-log comparison plot of shear rate (gamma) vs shear stress (tau) for 100% spacer at 350F.

From the above graphical results, the GHB model shows consistent and accurate model predictions with observed
experimental results.
Numerical Results
Computational fluid-simulation results were presented for the channel lengths and narrow length heights of the simulated
spacer fluid. The mud, spacer, fluid pure fractions, and mixture-compatibility composition of 75:25, 50:50, and 25:75 were
entered alongside the different temperatures that the fluid rheologies were measured to give a more accurate computational
simulation.
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate channel lengths and narrow lengths height for the Bingham Plastic model and the GHB model at
different standoffs of 70, 80, 90, and 100%.
TABLE 1CHANNEL AND NARROW LENGTHS OF NUMERICAL SIMULATION FOR BINGHAM PLASTIC MODEL AT
DIFFERENT STANDOFFS
Bingham Plastic Model
Standoff, %

Channel Length, ft

Narrow Length, ft

100

1,257

7,341

90

4,334

3,474

80

6,389

2,038

70

7,892

880

10

SPE 140805

TABLE 2CHANNEL AND NARROW LENGTHS OF NUMERICAL SIMULATION FOR GHB MODEL AT DIFFERENT
STANDOFFS
GHB Model
Standoff, %

Channel Length, ft

Narrow Length, ft

100

1,400

7,181

90

4,880

3,020

80

6,821

1,764

70

8,080

952

Fig. 11 graphically illustrates spacer channel lengths with standoff for the test well case.

Fig. 11Channel length of spacer fluid at different standoffs.

Results illustrate lower channel lengths with the Bingham Plastic model; this is as a result of consistent overprediction of
the yield points of the spacer fluids. This overprediction can falsely indicate better displacement in numerical results with the
lower channel lengths in the wellbore.
To effectively displace the mud from the wellbore, the GHB model can give an improved, conservative, and more
accurate prediction for the fluid rheology and numerical simulations.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are a result of this work:
Based on rheological results, it can be illustrated that the GHB model is a better model fit compared to the Bingham
plastic model for spacer rheologies at different fluid compositions and temperatures.
From numerical results, the Bingham plastic rheological model predicts lower channel length at all times, which
might not be accurate. By not accurately modeling the rheologies, the operator can overestimate the performance of
the spacer fluids, as shown by the simulation.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the management of Halliburton for permission to publish this paper.

SPE 140805

11

Nomenclature
Where: = Newtonian viscosity
= Viscometric shear stress

= Viscometric shear rate

PL = Apparent viscosity for power law model

k p = Power law consistency index
n p = Power law shear thinning index

BP

= Apparent viscosity for Bingham plastic model

YPBP = Bingham plastic yield point

PV BP = Bingham plastic viscosity

HB = Apparent viscosity for Herschel Bulkley model

k HB = Herschel Bulkley consistency index
n H = Herschel Bulkley shear thinning index

o =Yield stress or yield point

GHB = Apparent viscosity for GHB model

m = Shear stress exponent

n = Shear rate exponent /shear thinning index
O = Limiting viscosity
= Finite high shear limiting viscosity
ref = 47.88 Pa (=1lbf/ft2)
References
Becker, T.E., Morgan, R.G., Chin, W., and Griffith, J.E. 2003. Improved Rheology Model and Hydraulics Analysis for Tomorrows
Wellbore Fluids. Paper SPE 82415 presented at the Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2225 March.
doi: 10.2118/82415-MS.
Crook, R.J., Wilson, J.M., Heathman, J.F., and Carpenter, R. 1998. Spacer Tech Saves. Hart's Oil & Gas World (Apr) 5.
Crook, R.J., Faul, R., Benge, G., and Jones, R.B. 2001. Eight Steps Ensure Successful Cement Jobs. Oil & Gas J 99 (27).
Gordon, C., Lewis, S., and Tonmukayakul, P. 2008. Rheological Properties of Cement Spacer: Mixture Effects. Paper AADE 08-DF-HO09 presented at the AADE Fluids Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 89 April.
Gucuyener, I.H., 1983. A Rheological Model for Drilling Fluids and Cement Slurries. Paper SPE 11487 presented at the Middle East Oil
Technical Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 1417 March. doi: 10.2118/11487-MS.
Sarap, S.D., Sivanandan, M., Patil S., and Deshpande A.P. 2009. The Use of High-Performance Spacers for Zonal Isolation in High
Temperature High Pressure Wells. Paper SPE/IADC 124275 presented at the Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and
Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, 2628 October. doi: 10.2118/124275-MS.
Savery, M., Chin, W., and Darbe, R 2007. Modeling Fluid Interfaces During Cementing Using a Three Dimensional Mud Displacement
Simulator. 2007. Paper OTC 18513 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 30 April3 May. doi:
10.4043/18513-MS.
Savery, M., Chin, W., and Yerubandi, K.B. 2008. Modeling Cement Placement Using a New 3-D Flow Simulator. 2008. Paper AADE 08DF-HO-08 presented at the AADE Fluids Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 89 April.