PetroCalcHub
All workflow tools

Cement Volume and Sacks Calculator

Calculate annular cement volume, planned excess, whole sacks and mixing water from hole geometry and laboratory slurry yield.

Inputs

Results

Calculate to view linked results. Default values are examples, not recommended operating inputs.

Learn, compare and practice

Worked explanations, controlled studies and printable exercises connected to this calculation.

Calculation sequence

  1. Subtract casing cross-sectional area from the hole or casing-ID area, then multiply by the cemented measured length. The library uses the rounded field constant 0.7854/808.5 to return barrels.
  2. Apply the selected excess to this annular interval only. Convert 42-US-gallon barrels to cubic feet before dividing by slurry yield in ft3 per sack.
  3. Show both fractional demand and sacks rounded upward. Mixing-water demand uses the rounded whole-sack count, not the fractional requirement.

Worked check

An 8.5-in hole around 5-in casing over 1,000 ft has about 45.900 bbl of annular volume. At 20% excess, demand is 55.080 bbl, or 309.25125 ft3. At 1.32 ft3/sk this is 234.28125 sacks, rounded to 235; 6.3 US gal/sk requires 1,480.5 US gal of water.

Synthetic examples for reproducibility, not measured field results.

Assumptions and limitations

  • One uniform concentric interval only. Add shoe-track, rat-hole and other volumes separately; washouts and caliper data are not inferred.
  • Yield and water demand must come from the actual slurry design. This does not design a cement blend, predict losses, displacement pressure or cement placement success.
  • The excess percentage is a user assumption, not a recommended safety margin.

Implemented equations

Annular Volume Capacity of Pipe

Va=0.7854(Dh2−Do2)L808.5V_a=\frac{0.7854(D_h^2-D_o^2)L}{808.5}

Cement Sacks Required from Slurry Volume

N=VcYN=\frac{V_c}{Y}

Total Required Mixing Water for Cement Job

Vw=NQwV_w=NQ_w

Sources and maintenance

Published by PetroCalcHub Team. Implementation and source checks: . This does not claim independent expert review.

Report a correction

Related tools and references