Comparison of Various Particle-Size Distribution-Measurement Methods
- Morteza Roostaei (RGL Reservoir Management Inc.) | Seyed Abolhassan Hosseini (University of Alberta and RGL Reservoir Management Inc.) | Mohammad Soroush (University of Alberta and RGL Reservoir Management Inc.) | Arian Velayati (University of Alberta) | Ahmad Alkouh (College of Technical Studies) | Mahdi Mahmoudi (RGL Reservoir Management Inc.) | Ali Ghalambor (Oil Center Research International) | Vahidoddin Fattahpour (RGL Reservoir Management Inc.)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- June 2020
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 2020.Society of Petroleum Engineers
- sieving, laser diffraction, sedimentation, dynamic image analysis, particle size distribution
- 21 in the last 30 days
- 79 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Sieve analysis, sedimentation, and laser diffraction (LD) have been the methods of choice in determining particle-size distribution (PSD) for sand control design. However, these methods do not provide any information regarding the particle shape. In this study, we introduce the application of dynamic image analysis (DIA) to characterize particle sizes and shape descriptors of sand-bearing formations.
DIA, which is an advanced method of particle size and shape characterization, along with other PSD measurement methods, including sieving, sedimentation, and LD, were used to study size and shape variations of 372 unconsolidated formation sand samples from North America, Latin America, and the Middle East. Different methods were compared in the estimation of PSD and fines content, which are the primary factors important in sand-control design.
Through minimizing the sampling and measurement errors, the deviation between different PSD measurement techniques was attributed solely to the shape of the particles and the amount of fine fraction. For fines-content measurement, the values obtained through Feret min parameter values (the minimum size of a particle along all directions) calculated by DIA and sieving measurement are comparable within a 5% confidence band. The deviation between the results of different methods becomes more significant by increasing fines content. Moreover, this deviation increases for less isodiametric grains. The fines and clay content show higher values when measured by any wet analysis. LD also tends to overestimate the fines fraction and underestimate silt/sand fraction compared with other dry techniques. By comparing the deviation of the DIA and sieving at standard mesh sizes, an algorithm has been developed that chooses the equivalent sphere sizes of DIA with minimum deviation from sieving.
This study performs several measurements on formation sands to illustrate the real advantage of the new methods over traditional measurement techniques. Furthermore, particle-shape descriptors were used to explain the deviation between the results of different PSD measurement methods.
Correction Notice: This paper has been updated from its originally published version to correct the provenance statement on page 1. No other information was changed.
|File Size||19 MB||Number of Pages||21|
Allen, T. 1997. Particle Size Measurement. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Allen, T. 2003. Powder Sampling and Particle Size Measurement. New York, New York, USA: Elsevier.
API RP40, Recommended Practices for Core Analysis. 1988. Washington, DC, USA: API.
ASTM D1210-05, Standard Test Method for Fineness of Dispersion of Pigment-Vehicle Systems by Hegman-Type Gage. 2005. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA: ASTM International.
ASTM E11-04, Standard Specification for Wire Cloth and Sieves for Testing Purposes. 2004. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA: ASTM International.
Barmpounis, K., Ranjithkumar, A., Schmidt-Ott, A. et al. 2018. Enhancing the Detection Efficiency of Condensation Particle Counters for Sub-2 nm Particles. J Aerosol Sci 117: 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.12.005.
Barth, H. G. 1984. Modern Methods of Particle Size Analysis. New York, New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Beddow, J. K. 1997. Image Analysis Sourcebook. Santa Barbara, California, USA: American University of Science and Technology Press.
Bernhardt, C. 1994. Particle Size Analysis, Classification and Sedimentation Methods. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
BS 1796-1, Test Sieving—Part 1: Methods Using Test Sieves of Woven Wire Cloth and Perforated Metal Plate. 1989. London, UK: British Standards Institution (BSI).
Califice, A., Michel, F., Dislaire, G. et al. 2013. Influence of Particle Shape on Size Distribution Measurements by 3D and 2D Image Analyses and Laser Diffraction. Powder Technol 237: 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2013.01.003.
Campbell, G. S. and Shiozawa, S. 1992. Prediction of Hydraulic Properties of Soils Using Particle-Size Distribution and Bulk Density Data. Proc., The International Workshop on Indirect Methods for Estimating Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils, Riverside, California, USA, 317–328.
Cepuritis, R., Jacobsen, S., and Onnela, T. 2015. Sand Production with VSI Crushing and Air Classification: Optimising Fines Grading for Concrete Production with Micro-Proportioning. Miner Eng 78: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2015.03.025.
Chien, C.-H., Theodore, A., Wu, C.-Y. et al. 2016. Upon Correlating Diameters Measured by Optical Particle Counters and Aerodynamic Particle Sizers. J Aerosol Sci 101: 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2016.05.011.
Cleyn, E. D., Holm, R., and Mooter, G. V. D. 2019. Size Analysis of Small Particles in Wet Dispersions by Laser Diffractometry: A Guidance to Quality Data. J Pharm Sci 108 (5): 1905–1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2018.12.010.
Coberly, C. J. 1937. Selection of Screen Openings for Unconsolidated Sands. Presented at the Drilling and Production Practice, New York, New York, USA, 1 January. API-37-189.
Cooper, L. R., Haverland, R. L., Hendricks, D. M. et al. 1984. Microtrac Particle-Size Analyzer: An Alternative Particle-Size Determination Method for Sediment and Soils. Soil Sci 138 (2): 138–146.
Dahneke, B. E. 1983. Measurement of Suspended Particles by Quasi-Elastic Light Scattering. New York, New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Domaschke, M., Lübbert, C., and Peukert, W. 2019. Analysis of Ultrafine Metal Oxide Particles in Aerosols Using Mobility-Resolved Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry. J Aerosol Sci 137: 105438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2019.105438.
De Boer, G. B. J., De Weerd, C., Thoenes, D. et al. 1987. Laser Diffraction Spectrometry: Fraunhofer Diffraction Versus Mie Scattering. Part Part Syst Charact 4 (1–4): 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppsc.19870040104.
Ðordevic, D., Ðuricic-Milankovic, J., Pantelic, A. et al. 2019. Coarse, Fine and Ultrafine Particles of Sub-Urban Continental Aerosols Measured Using an 11-Stage Berner Cascade Impactor. Atmos Pollut Res 11 (3): 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2019.11.022.
Eshel, G., Levy, G. J., Mingelgrin, U. et al. 2004. Critical Evaluation of the Use of Laser Diffraction for Particle-Size Distribution Analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68 (3): 736–743. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.7360.
Fermaniuk, B. 2013. Sand Control in Steam Assisted Gravity (SAGD) Wellbores. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (May 2013). https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/27707.
Gillespie, G., Deem, C. K., and Malbrel, C. 2000. Screen Selection for Sand Control Based on Laboratory Tests. Paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 16–18 October. SPE-64398-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/64398-MS.
Goossens, D. 2008. Techniques To Measure Grain-Size Distributions of Loamy Sediments: A Comparative Study of Ten Instruments for Wet Analysis. Sedimentology 55 (1): 65–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00893.x.
Hartman, A. W. 1985. Investigations in Array Sizing 2. The Kubitschek Effect. Powder Technol 42 (3): 269–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-5910(85)80063-2.
Hinds, W. C. 1999. Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles. New York, New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
ISO 1524, Paints, Varnishes and Printing Inks—Determination of Fineness of Grind. 2000. Essex, UK: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 2591-1, Test Sieving—Part 1: Methods Using Test Sieves of Woven Wire Cloth and Perforated Metal Plate. 1988. Essex, UK: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 565, Test Sieves—Metal Wire Cloth, Perforated Metal Plate and Electroformed Sheet—Nominal Sizes of Openings. 1990. Essex, UK: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 9276-6, Representation of Results of Particle Size Analysis—Part 6: Descriptive and Quantitative Representation of Particle Shape and Morphology. 2008. Essex, UK: International Organization for Standardization.
Kaye, B. H. 1994. A Random Walk Through Fractal Dimensions. New York, New York, USA: VCH.
Kumara, W. A. S., Elseth, G., Halvorsen, B. M. et al. 2010. Comparison of Particle Image Velocimetry and Laser Doppler Anemometry Measurement Methods Applied to the Oil–Water Flow in Horizontal Pipe. Flow Meas Instrum 21 (2): 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2010.01.005.
Kuo, W.-Y., Ilavsky, J., and Lee, Y. 2016. Structural Characterization of Solid Lipoproteic Colloid Gels by Ultra-Small-Angle X-Ray Scattering and the Relation with Sodium Release. Food Hydrocoll. 56: 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.12.032.
Li, L., Yang, K., Li, W. et al. 2018. A Regularization Algorithm for Estimating the Multimodal Size Distribution of Nanoparticles from Multiangle Dynamic Light Scattering. Particuology 41: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2017.12.015.
Liu, X., Doub, W. H., and Guo, C. 2010. Evaluation of Droplet Velocity and Size from Nasal Spray Devices Using Phase Doppler Anemometry (PDA). Int J Pharm 388 (1–2): 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2009.12.041.
Martín, J. C. G., Guirado, D., Zubko, E. et al. 2020. Computational Study of the Sensitivity of Laser Light Scattering Particle Sizing to Refractive Index and Irregularity. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transf 241: 106745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106745.
Mergheni, M. A., Sautet, J. C., Godard, G. et al. 2009. Experimental Investigation of Turbulence Modulation in Particle-Laden Coaxial Jets by Phase Doppler Anemometry. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 33 (3): 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2008.11.004.
Merkus, H. G. 2009. Particle Size Measurements: Fundamentals, Practice, Quality. New York, New York, USA: Springer Science & Business Media.
Miyagawa, Y., Morisada, S., Ohto, K. et al. 2016. Hydrodynamic Chromatography Using Flow of a Highly Concentrated Dextran Solution through a Coiled Tube. Carbohydr Polym 146: 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.02.078.
Mori, S. and Barth, H. G. 2013. Size Exclusion Chromatography. New York, New York, USA: Springer Science & Business Media.
Müller, E. and Mann, C. 2007. Resin Characterization by Electro-Acoustic Measurements. J Chromatogr A 1144 (1): 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2006.11.103.
Nakatuka, Y., Yoshida, H., Fukui, K. et al. 2015. The Effect of Particle Size Distribution on Effective Zeta-Potential by Use of the Sedimentation Method. Adv Powder Technol 26 (2): 650–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2015.01.017.
Percival, J. B. and Lindsay, P. J. 1996. Measurement of Physical Properties of Sediments. In Manual of Physico-Chemical Analysis of Aquatic Sediments, ed. A. Mudroch, J. M. Azcue, and P. Mudroch, 21–344. New York, New York, USA: Lewis Publisher.
Pieri, L., Bittelli, M., and Pisa, P. R. 2006. Laser Diffraction, Transmission Electron Microscopy and Image Analysis To Evaluate a Bimodal Gaussian Model for Particle Size Distribution in Soils. Geoderma 135: 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.11.009.
Pons, M., Vivier, H., Belaroui, K. et al. 1999. Particle Morphology: From Visualisation to Measurement. Powder Technol 103 (1): 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-5910(99)00023-6.
Rogers, E. 1971. Sand Control in Oil and Gas Wells. Oil Gas J 69 (Nov): 54–60.
Roostaei, M., Soroush, M., Hosseini, S. A. et al. 2020. Comparison of Various Particle Size Distribution Measurement Methods: Role of Particle Shape Descriptors. Paper presented at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 19–21 February. SPE-199335-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/199335-MS.
Sang-Nourpour, N. and Olfert, J. S. 2019. Calibration of Optical Particle Counters with an Aerodynamic Aerosol Classifier. J Aerosol Sci 138: 105452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2019.105452.
Sklar, L. A. 2005. Flow Cytometry for Biotechnology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sloane, J., Smith, E., and Sedwick, R. 2018. Validation of a Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer Using an Ionic Liquid Ion Source. Int J Mass Spectrom 432: 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijms.2018.07.001.
Sugasawa, H. and Yoshida, H. 2017. Estimation of Particle Size Distribution Using the Sedimentation Method Enhanced by Electrical-Potential. Purif Technol 187: 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.06.003.
Suman, G., Ellis, R., and Snyder, R. 1985. Sand Control Handbook. Houston, Texas, USA: Gulf Publishing Company.
Syvitski, J. P. M. 1991. Principles, Methods and Application of Particle Size Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tompkins, J., Williams, P. I., Trembath, J. et al. 2018. Multiport Particle Chamber Validation for Particle Number Concentration Using Condensation Particle Counters. Measurement 124: 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.04.035.
Vajda, J., Weber, D., Brekel, D. et al. 2016. Size Distribution Analysis of Influenza Virus Particles Using Size Exclusion Chromatography. J Chromatogr A 1465: 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2016.08.056.
Van Duynhoven, J. P. M., Goudappel, G. J. W., Van Dalen, G. et al. 2002. Scope of Droplet Size Measurements in Food Emulsions by Pulsed Field Gradient NMR at Low Field. Magn Reson Chem 40 (13): S51–S59. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrc.1115.
Weatherford Guidelines. 2010. Sand Screen Selector, https://www.weatherford.com/getattachment/970d911c-1ac7-49d1-9273-ca0d5bf1df80/Sand-Screen-Selector.pdf (accessed May 2020).
Weinbuch, D., Jiskoot, W., and Hawe, A. 2014. Light Obscuration Measurements of Highly Viscous Solutions: Sample Pressurization Overcomes Underestimation of Subvisible Particle Counts. AAPS J 16 (5): 1128-1131. https://doi.org/10.1208%2Fs12248-014-9629-0.
Whiting, J. G., Tondare, V. N., Scott, J. H. J. et al. 2019. Uncertainty of Particle Size Measurements Using Dynamic Image Analysis. CIRP Ann. 68 (1): 531–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.04.075.
Wu, Y., Lin, Z., Wu, X. et al. 2019. Dual-Beam Interferometric Particle Imaging for Size Measurement of Opaque Metal Droplet. Powder Technol 356: 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.07.027.
Xia, L. and Dutta, D. 2017. High Efficiency Hydrodynamic Chromatography in Micro- and Sub-Micrometer Deep Channels Using an On-Chip Pressure-Generation Unit. Anal Chim Acta 950: 192–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2016.11.014.
Xu, Y. 2008. Particle Size Analyses of Porous Silica and Hybrid Silica Chromatographic Support Particles. J Chromatogr A 1191 (1–2): 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.01.051.
Yang, H., Su, M., Wang, X. et al. 2016. Particle Sizing with Improved Genetic Algorithm by Ultrasound Attenuation Spectroscopy. Powder Technol 304 (December): 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2016.08.027.
Yang, M. 2011. Measurement of Oil in Produced Water. In Produced Water, ed. K. Lee and J. Neff, Chap. 2, 57–88. New York, New York, USA: Springer.
Zhang, W., Shen, J., Thomas, J. C. et al. 2019. Particle Size Distribution Recovery in Dynamic Light Scattering by Optimized Multi-Parameter Regularization Based on the Singular Value Distribution. Powder Technol 353 (July): 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.05.040.