Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
You are here: HomeLab ReportEngineering
6 pages/≈1650 words
3 Sources
Lab Report
English (U.S.)
MS Word
Total cost:
$ 32.4

Lab #5 Writing Assignment: Thinning Agents Objectives (Lab Report Sample)


read the lab manual for lab 5 Thinning Agents + read the lab experiment carefully, there are 3 questions also answer them . ill attach an example for the old lab report to give an idea for how to write (read carefully to see the steps). ill attach the tables and charts add them to the report i need 7 pages 1700-1900 words but with the charts and table it will be more around 13-15 pages. from the lab manual: 2) Objective of the experiment and brief introduction. 3) Short, step-by-step outline of the procedure. (Do not itemize the procedure, use properly structured sentences.) 4) All measurements and data taken in the lab. 5) A sample calculation 6) Results in a table form. 7) Drawings of equipment used in the experiment. 8) Answers to questions, additional problems, and graphs that may be needed as specified in that lab. 9) Discussion of results 10) Sources of error 11) Conclusions. 12) References one of the references is the lab manual.

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Title
Date of Submission
Lab #5: Thinning Agents
The experiment aimed at enabling the students to understand how to control the properties of drilling fluid using chemical agents referred to as thinners. The learners were expected to understand some kinds of thinners as well as their characteristics as applied to drilling fluid. During this experiment, the learners were expected to understand some characteristics of drilling fluids such as the volume of filtrate, viscosity, and density. The students were supposed to interpret the effect of the thinners into the fluid based on their characteristics CITATION Fat15 \l 2057 (Fatemeh and Belyadi).
In this experiment, the students were arranged into four groups of three students. Each of the four groups was assigned different sample compositions of Aquagel and Zeogel added to Carbonox (for the Aquagel mud), and Q-Broxin (for the Zeogel mud) to observe the mud properties such as temperature, viscosity, density, and filtration properties CITATION Fat15 \l 2057 (Fatemeh and Belyadi).
At the start of the experiment, the learners were required to calculate the amount of the clay required (Aquagel and Zeogel) to obtain the desired density of the mud equal to 22.5 ppb. Firstly, each of the samples was weighed to attain a specific amount of the clay (in grams) using a digital weighing scale. The weight of the clay was determined by the required concentration (ppb) of each sample that was convertible during the calculations.
When all the samples were prepared, each of them was dissolved in 500ml of water using a blender cup. The water was measured using the calibrated cylinder to get the required concentration in ppb. The dissolving process was carried out using a mud mixture for some more minutes until a uniform mixture was obtained to allow the particles of clay to get into good contact with the water molecules. The required amount of the specific thinner was added during mixing.
After obtaining a uniform mud, the mud balance was used to measure the density of the mud. The mud balance’s cup was filled with the mud and then a lid was used to cover it so that only a small portion of the mud would escape. Then, the arm of the mud balance was set on the pivot while the sliding load was adjusted until both sides were at equilibrium. After that, the density of the mud was recorded in ppg from the left of the sliding mass. After measuring the mud density, the clay was taken back to blender cup.
The next step was to measure the resistivity and the temperature of the mud by application of direct-reading from the resistivity meter. To utilize the device, the dry resistivity cell was filled with the mud and then stirred. The cell was connected to the post of the meter. The device was turned on and the choice of the scale for the measurement was made. Two measurements of temperature and resistivity were involved. In measuring the resistivity, the scale was positioned to the left and reading the data was begun. The units for the resistivity used was the ohm-m, whereas, that of temperature was Fahrenheit CITATION Fat15 \l 2057 (Fatemeh and Belyadi).
In the next step, the viscosity was measured using the viscosimeter. The viscosimeter is made up of a rotor sleeve which revolves at a constant speed, and an inner bob that has torsion spring to hold it in position. The mud was filled into the mud cup until the content reached the top limitation line. The cup was later positioned under the rotor sleeve, and the rotor inserted up to the second line in the cup. The rotational velocity of the rotor was adjusted to the required valued off 600 rpm, 300 rpm, for the first and final trial that allowed the mud to stir and made reading steady. All the readings were read and recorded to facilitate the calculations.
The filter loss was later measured by application of the filter press made up of the cylinder, rubber boots for holding the fluid into the steel container, and a small calibrated cylinder ( with units of 10ml) to allow the measurement of the water loss. The following were the dry parts assembled systematically; a base cap, a rubber gasket, a screen, a filter paper, and a cell. The cell was placed onto the base cap. Then, the cup was filled with the mud, while the rubber gasket was placed onto the top of the cell prior to placing it at the top cap. The press was put in place on its stand and hooking up of the pressure apparatus followed. The sample was subjected to a pressure of 100 psi and the water loss was measured using the calibrated cylinder placed under the press. The amount of the water lost was recorded after every minute for 7.5 minutes taken using a stopwatch.
After the process of filtration, the filter paper was evacuated and placed on a flat area to measure the thickness of the mud cake using the caliper. The filtrate’s resistivity, as well as the mud cake’s temperature, were measured as described earlier. The above procedure and steps were repeated for the other compositions using the 2nd and 3rd samples. At the end of the experiment, all the equipment were cleaned and stored accordingly. The data observed were exchanged among the various groups.
Group 1:
a) Aquagel
b) Aquagel plus 8g of Carbonox
c) Zeogel plus 4g Q-Broxin
Group 2:
a) Aquagel plus 2g of Carbonox
b) Zeogel
c) Zeogel plus 8g Q-Broxin
Group 3:
a) Aquagel plus 4g of Carbonox
b) Zeogel plus 10g of Q-Broxin
c) Zeogel plus 2g Q-Broxin
Group 4:
a) Aquagel plus 12g of Carbonox
b) Zeogel plus 12g of Q-Broxin
c) Aquagel plus 10g Q-Broxin
The following equipment was used in the experiment;
Data and Measurements
The following table (Table 1) shows the required concentration of all the samples that were prepared. The weight of the clay needed in the concentration preparation was calculated using the equation below (equation 1). More details concerning the data are covered in the results and calculations.
Weight gm=Concentration ppbx1gm350cc 1ppbx500cc--->1 pp=1gm350cc……Equation 1
NB. The required volume of water for all samples was 500cc.
Table 1: Data Measurements
Table 2: Viscosity Measurements
Table 3: Water Loss Filtration Measurements
Table 4: Resistivity, Temperature, and Mud Thickness Measurements
Results and Calculations
The conversion of the required concentration into mass of clay with the 500cc of water
Weight gm=Concentration ppbx1gm350cc 1ppbx500cc--→1 pp=1gm350cc
Weight gm=22.5ppb x 1gm350cc 1ppbx500cc
Calculation of viscosity
Using sample 1(a), (Aquagel)
Plastic Viscosity
Apparent viscosity
Calculation of Yield Point
Calculation of the 30 minutes loss of water
The water lost in 30 minutes for each sample was calculated using the equation below (equation 2).
t30=2(t7.5-tspurt)+ tspurt(cc)………Equation 2
where t30 is the water lost after 30 minutes, t7.5is the water lost after 7.5 minutes,
and the tspurt refers to the initial water loss.
Using sample 1(a) (Aquagel) as indicated in table 3;
t30=28.5-1+ 1=16 cc
The table below, (table 5) indicates the 30 minutes loss of water for each sample.
Table 5: Calculated 30-minutes loss of water
Aquagel plus Thinner Concentration (Carbonox)
Graph 1: Concentration of Carbonox vs. Plastic Viscosity (Aquagel Mud)
Graph 2: Concentration of Carbonox vs. Apparent Viscosity (Aquagel Mud)
Graph 3: Concentration of Carbonox vs. Yield Point (Aquagel Mud)
Graph 4: Filtrate volume vs. Root of time (Aquagel Mud plus Carbonox Concentration)
Zeogel plus the thinning concentration (Q-Broxin)
Graph 5: Concentration of Q-Broxin vs. Plastic viscosity (Zeogel Mud)
Graph 6: Concentration of Q-Broxin vs. Apparent viscosity (Zeogel Mud)
Graph 7: Concentration of Q-Broxin vs. Yield Point (Zeogel Mud)
Graph 8: Filtrate volume vs. Root of time (Zeogel Mud plus Q-Broxin Concentration)
Looking at Graph 1 and 2, the plastic viscosity, as well as the apparent viscosity of the Carbonox concentration in the Aquagel mud, tended to decrease at the low rate. However, for the higher concentration (10-12 gm of the Carbonox) the viscosity seemed to increase. The yield point for the Carbonox concentration in the Aquagel Mud increased with the increase in the Carbonox concentration as shown in graph 3.Considering graph 5 and 6, the apparent and plastic viscosity for the Q-Broxin concentration in the Zeogel mud seemed to decrease rapidly up to the min point and then remain constant. Graph 7 also indicates similar results whereby the yield point for the Q-Broxin concentration in the Zeogel mud decreased rapidly up to the minimum point and then remained constant at the higher concentration.
Considering graph 4 the volume of the filtrate increased for certain co...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Other Topics:

Need a Custom Essay Written?
First time 15% Discount!