Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section
Joint Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A., 2022 May 2002.

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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In recent years specialized cements have been developed for
use in the oilfield. These cements have ranged from very
lightweight to very heavy cements. They have included
additives such as glass or ceramic beads to alter their
properties. With an increased use of these cements, concerns
have risen about the cement evaluation. Quite often the
question is asked, Can we evaluate these cements? rather
than, How do we evaluate these cements? This paper will
discuss some logging techniques that can be used to evaluate
these new cements.

The desire to cement longer casing intervals without
exceeding the formation fracture gradient has led to the use of
very light weight cements. These cements have low acoustic
impedance values that are not much higher than the acoustic
impedance values of drilling fluids. The compressive strength
of these cements can also vary significantly. Acoustic
impedance and compressive strength are the properties that
cement evaluation tools use to differentiate between the fluids
and the solids in the casing formation annulus. To identify
these differences it is critical that the proper logging
techniques and input parameters are selected for the sonic and
ultrasonic tools. A statistical analysis of acoustic impedance
measurements from the ultrasonic tools has also proven to be
valuable for the evaluation of these special cements.

Examples from Alaska, and other areas where these
types of cements are being used to solve difficult completion
problems, will be shown to demonstrate the use of these
cement evaluation techniques.
Introduction
Since the 1960s sonic logging tools have been used to evaluate
the placement of cement for hydraulic isolation of formations
in both production wells and injection wells. Since this time,
there have been several advancements in the logging tools that
improved the ability to evaluate the cement sheath. During the
same period of time the cements being used changed little.
During the past few years however, there has been an
emphasis on optimizing the cementing operation and reducing
the overall cost of the completion. To the cementing
operation, this meant developing lightweight and specialized
cements that would allow setting casing strings deeper without
worrying about lost returns. Other gains in efficiency were
also achieved using lighter cements while drilling and
completing weak formations. Changes in these cements, and
their properties, have also brought about the need for re-
evaluating the techniques and tools used for the evaluation of
these cements with the sonic logging tools currently available.

The Cement Bond Log (CBL), while still in existence
in the same form it was originally developed, has also evolved
into several other cement logging tools using the same physics
of measurements with improved measurement outputs. The
first tool of this type uses two transmitters and three receivers
to make a direct measurement of attenuation that compensates
for many of the problems observed in the basic CBL
measurement of amplitude. This measurement was then put
into another tool that could measure the attenuation in six
sectors around the circumference of the casing. Since the use
of the Cement Bond Log first began, there have been several
different versions of the standard CBL tool to measure the
amplitude in different sectors around the casing.

Perhaps the most significant development in cement
evaluation technology was the ultrasonic logging tools. These
tools were first used in the early 1980s and originally had 8
fixed ultrasonic transducers spaced at 45 degree intervals
around the tool. This allowed for higher resolution cement
evaluation of the cement sheath. The weaknesses of this tool
were the inability to log in high density borehole fluids, and
the lack of full radial coverage of the casing circumference.
These problems were mostly overcome with the second
generation of ultrasonic cement evaluation tools. These tools
have a single rotating transducer that provides full coverage of


SPE 76713
The Evaluation of Specialized Cements
R.J. Butsch, SPE, and C.W. Morris, SPE, Schlumberger, R. Wydrinski, SPE, BP, and M.J. Kasecky, Schlumberger
2 R. J. BUTSCH, C. W. MORRIS, R. WYDRINSKI, M. J. KASECKY SPE 76713
the circumference of the casing as well as the ability to log in
all but the heaviest borehole fluids.

The change in cement properties required for making
the lightweight cements has created the perception that the
evaluation of these cements is very difficult for all logging
tools. In fact, the current logging tools with only minor
changes in the parameters can evaluate these new lightweight
cements with few problems. By understanding what the
differences are between the tools, and how each of the logging
tools is interpreted one can choose the tools and parameters to
best evaluate these cements.

The Logging Tools
It is not the intent of this paper to discuss in great detail the
various logging tools and all of the parameters, inputs and
outputs, associated with each tool. This information can be
found in the references. The paper will discuss the general
principles of the different type tools and how the differences
in the tools and their interpretation can be a benefit or
detriment in the evaluation of lightweight cements.

The CBL type tools, which include all tools that
measure amplitude or attenuation, have common theory of
measurement, interpretation principles, strengths, and
weaknesses. The principle of measurement of these tools is to
measure the amplitude of a sonic signal, produced by a
transmitter emitting a 20 kHz acoustic wave, after it has
traveled through a section of the casing. This amplitude is
then converted into attenuation by either using a ratio of
multiple transmitter and receiver amplitudes, or using chart
book conversions. The percent of the circumference of the
casing bonded is then computed by calculating a Bond Index
(BI) where:

BI = Measured Attenuation / Attenuation in 100%
bonded casing

At this point the interpreter has to select a value for the
attenuation of a 100% bonded interval. This can be done
based on the CBL data collected in the well or it can come
from the cement properties provided by the cementing
company. The value for the attenuation in a 100% bonded
interval is the key to the interpretation of this type of log.
Cement properties are the key to the interpretation of the CBL
type tool. It is important to make accurate estimates of the
properties if they are not known from the cementing company.
These tools also provide a qualitative indication of bond to the
formation through the use of a VDL waveform.

The ultrasonic type tools are designed to measure the
acoustic impedance of the material on the outer surface of the
casing. This is accomplished by using a transducer to project
a short pulse of acoustic energy with a bandwidth of 200 kHz
to 700 kHz toward the casing. The transducer then becomes a
receiver and measures the returning echo from the casing. The
analysis of the returning wave can be performed in several
different ways with the outputs being acoustic impedance of
the material on the outside surface of the casing and thickness
of the casing. Early tools of this type had eight transducers
spaced at 45 degree intervals around the tool. Current
versions of the ultrasonic tools have a rotating transducer that
provides full radial coverage of the casing circumference.
These tools have far better vertical and radial resolution than
the CBL type tools. The interpretation of the cement bond for
the ultrasonic tools is determined by the selection of a
liquid/cement threshold for acoustic impedance. Where the
acoustic impedance is greater than the liquid/cement
threshold, the casing is interpreted as cemented. Where the
acoustic impedance is less than the liquid/cement threshold,
the casing annulus is interpreted to be fluid. An image of the
acoustic impedance measurements and an image of the
interpreted data is then created to provide a visualization of
the cement in place.

The parameter that is key to the interpretation of the
ultrasonic tools is the selection of the liquid/cement threshold,
which is based on the acoustic impedance of the liquids that
could be outside the casing, rather than the cement that might
be in contact with the casing. Therefore, it is not really
necessary to know the acoustic properties of the cement in
great detail when logging with ultrasonic tools. It is always
good to be able to compare the measured response of the
acoustic impedance with the expected acoustic impedance, but
these properties are not needed for the interpretation. There
are several approaches used by the service companies to
enhancing the interpretation of ultrasonic logs where gas-
contaminated cement, gas-filled microannulus, or liquid filled
microannulus are present.

Comparing the different type cement logging tools,
the main advantage the CBL type tools have over the
ultrasonic tools is the small affect of the borehole fluids.
These tools can be run in very heavy mud. The ultrasonic
logs cannot be run in very heavy drilling mud, but heavy mud
will rarely be used in wells utilizing lightweight cements. The
CBL tools provide qualitative information about the bond to
the formation through the use of the VDL waveform, where
the ultrasonic logs provide no information about the cement to
formation bond. The ultrasonic tools have two main
advantages. First, the ultrasonic logging tools are capable of
much better vertical and radial resolution. This provides the
interpreter an improved picture of what the cement sheath
looks like. Second, the interpretation of the cement is not
dependant on the acoustic properties of the cement. The
ultrasonic interpretation is sensitive to the acoustic properties
of the fluids. The only requirement is there must be at least a
0.5 MRayl difference between the acoustic impedance of the
fluid and the acoustic impedance of the cement. This is
considered to be the accuracy of the acoustic impedance
measurement.

SPE 76713 THE EVALUATION OF SPECALIZED CEMENTS 3
The Cement
The development of lightweight cements has been aimed at
allowing more efficient and economic completion operations
especially in low strength formations. By using lightweight
cements, casing could be set deeper or a casing string could be
eliminated. These new lightweight cements exhibit
outstanding performance at densities as low as 10 lbm/gal.
For the proper evaluation of these lightweight cements, the
changes in acoustic properties must be considered for each
evaluation tool type.

Lightweight cements are achieved by either adding
low density materials to the cement such as glass or ceramic
beads, using gases to create a foamed cement, or by
controlling and proportionally mixing the size of graded
aggregates within the cement. Table 1 provides a comparison
of the common acoustic impedance values for many of the
materials and cements. The data from this table illustrates the
wide range of values in acoustic impedance for various
cements. Since many CBL interpretation charts still use
compressive strength rather than acoustic impedance, Ref. 4
provides an empirical conversion from acoustic impedance to
compressive strength for standard cements.

The variation in acoustic impedance or compressive
strengths of different cements can cause problems with the
evaluation for those tools that depend on knowledge of the
cement acoustic properties to interpret the log data. The CBL
type tools require the interpreter to determine a maximum
attenuation or minimum amplitude for the interpretation of the
cement sheath. This is based on the acoustic properties of the
cement and is a function of the casing size and thickness. A
selection of the wrong acoustic properties of the cement would
cause the interpretation to be in error. The interpretation of
the ultrasonic tools is based on the acoustic properties of the
fluid rather than the cement. Since +/-0.5 MRayl is
considered to be the accuracy of the ultrasonic tools in this
part of the measurement range, all that is required is that there
be at least 0.5 MRayl difference between the fluid acoustic
impedance and the cement acoustic impedance. Cements that
may not have sufficient difference with the fluids are usually
foamed cements or have some gas-contamination. These
cements are best evaluated using techniques such as discussed
in Ref. 2.

Examples

Lightweight cement with microannulus. A USIT

/CBL log
combination was run in a well cemented with 12.0 lbm/gal
mixed aggregate lightweight cement. The drilling mud system
in the wellbore was 10 lbm/gal brine. The measured acoustic
impedance of the cement solids is in the range of 3-5 MRayl
and the USIT could easily distinguish solid, liquid, and gas
behind casing. Fig. 1 shows the USIT and CBL log results

Mark of Schlumberger
across one interval with good zone isolation. The logs were
run with the wellbore under zero applied wellhead pressure
and with 2000 psi applied pressure to remove possible micro-
annulus conditions.

There are three bond index curves shown in Fig. 1.
On the USIT presentation, the bond index (A) from the CBL
field analysis (obtained under pressure) is shown. The CBL
presentation gives a bond index (B) from both a wellbore
pressure applied pass and a no pressure pass. The CBL
interpretation requires some knowledge of the cement
properties and a pick of the 100% cement bond amplitude.
The difference between the two bond index curves obtained
under pressure represents the result of different 100% bond
end point picks used to perform the calculations. The two
bond index curves from the CBL show that the measurements
are affected by a micro-annulus at zero applied pressure,
whereas, the USIT measurements are not affected.

Gas-generating cement mixture. This job was performed in
a well with 7-5/8, 33.7 lbm/ft casing cemented with an anti-
gas migration agent. This cement is designed to produce gas
from the cementing material as it cures, creating a positive
pressure in the annulus space to prevent formation gas
migration from contaminating the cement. It is perceived by
some that this type cement sheath has bubbles and/or voids
that will affect the measurements. However, the gas bubbles,
under downhole conditions, are very small (below the level of
resolution for any ultrasonic tool).

The USIT and CBT
*
logs were run in 9.9 lbm/gal
brine without pressure being applied to the borehole. The
results across one interval are shown in Fig. 2. The gamma
ray curve indicates the oil production interval with a short 10
ft gas cap at the top. Good zone isolation was achieved during
this operation as indicated by both tools. The USIT shows a
general cement acoustic impedance of 4-7 MRayl and 100%
bond. The gas zone shows some limited cement
contamination, but the micro-debonding processing shows
solid material around the circumference of the annulus. The
CBT also indicated good casing bond with an attenuation
range of 8-9 DB/ft and a bond index from 80-90%. The VDL
display shows no pipe ringing and good formation arrivals.
The gas zone is well isolated from the oil zone.

Gas-contaminated cement. This well was completed with a
12.2 lbm/gal mixed aggregate lightweight cement. The
wellbore was constructed of 7, 29 lbm/ft casing in an 8-1/2
borehole. Fig. 3 shows the USIT log results over an interval
of about 200 feet with a known gas sand across the top
section. The log is presented in two parts the left part is a
standard cement evaluation and the right part is the micro-
debonding processing of the same data. The cement, being a
higher density mixture, shows an acoustic impedance range
from about 4-6 MRayl and a bond index near 100%. The
upper section shows the response of a cement sheath that has
been severely gas contaminated by the migration of formation
4 R. J. BUTSCH, C. W. MORRIS, R. WYDRINSKI, M. J. KASECKY SPE 76713
gas into the annulus. The micro-debonding processing
2
(green
color image) clearly indicates the gas contaminated solids and
produces a bond index very similar to the CBL log
measurement (black curve in bond index track). Zone
isolation has been achieved across this interval.

Zone isolation evaluation. Fig. 4 shows log data from a
USIT run to evaluate the primary cement job of a 7 26 lbm/ft
production casing. The cement was a mixed aggregate
lightweight cement of 11 lbm/gal. The fluid in the wellbore
while drilling and cementing this well was an 8.8 lbm/gal oil
base mud system. The average deviation throughout this
section is approximately 73 degrees. The cementing
procedure was to first inject an annular flush to remove
drilling fluids and foreign materials in the 8-1/2 borehole to
7casing annulus prior to cementing. The next step was to
pump 40 barrels of diesel, followed by 40 barrels of mud
displacement fluid. This was followed by 92.4 barrels of 11.0
lbm/gal cement and the plug was bumped with 8.8 lbm/gal oil
base mud.

The USIT log was run 4 days after pumping the
cement. Of primary concern was a comprehensive cement
evaluation to diagnose if remedial cementing was necessary to
provide hydraulic isolation of the production perforations from
the water-bearing reservoir below it. The gamma ray curve in
Fig. 4 shows the location of the oil productive interval, a shale
break and the water sand at the bottom of the interval. The
proposed production perforations were all the way to the lower
portion of the oil zone. The USIT shows an adequate cement
sheath in the 7 casing annulus across the shale section to
provide hydraulic isolation from the water reservoir below.
The acoustic impedance measurements are in the 3-5 MRayl
range. Nearly 100% cement sheath coverage was obtained
with no continuous channels up to the base of the production
perforations. Production test results showed no water
production, confirming zone isolation.

Two-slurry cement operation. Fig. 5 shows log data from a
USIT run to evaluate the primary cement job on a 7-5/8
production casing cemented with a two-slurry single stage
cement job. This portion of the log is the upper section of the
well across the permafrost layer. The cement slurries
designed for use in permafrost are a unique blend of
lightweight cements; these cements ultimately develop
compressive strengths in the range of 500 to 800 psi. Due to
the lower compressive strength, these cements have much
lower acoustic impedance properties and can be extremely
difficult to evaluate using conventional sonic bond logging
techniques. To date, the USIT has been used with very
favorable results in instances where a quantitative evaluation
of these cements is required. The casing is a 7-5/8, 29.7
lbm/ft casing and the well was drilled with an 8-1/2 drill bit.
The drilling fluid in the well during the drilling and cementing
process was a 9.6 lb/gal lignosulfonate mud. The deviation in
this section of the well is nearly vertical. The cement job was
designed for an annular flush of the 8-1/2 borehole to 7-5/8
casing annulus to remove drilling fluids and drill cuttings.
This was achieved by pumping 20 barrels of wash and 40
barrels of 10.5 lbm/gal mud displacement spacer.
Immediately following the annular flush was 504 barrels of
the lightweight special blend cement and 70 barrels of 15.8
lbm/gal class G cement. The plug was bumped with a 9.6
lbm/gal lignosulfonate mud.

The USIT was run several months later during the
completion process. The primary objective was to provide a
quantitative evaluation of the two slurry, single stage cement
job. Prior to pumping this particular cement job in a single
stage, the common cementing practice had required more
complex multi-stage operations. These previous operations
required more rig time as well as additional cementing
hardware. The primary cement job showed full returns to
surface. No remedial cementing operation was undertaken
prior to the drilling rig moving off the well. The top part of
Fig. 5 shows the interval where the port collar is located. This
port collar was run such that it could be shifted open and more
cement could be pumped if remedial cementing operations
were required. The log shows cement with no continuous
channels from lower intervals towards the surface indicating
good hydraulic isolation. This condition meets the regulatory
requirements for surface casings with continuous cement from
the shoe to surface. At some point during the completion
operations the port collar was somehow shifted open. In
preparation for the hydraulic fracture stimulation of the
production interval, the 7-5/8 casing and 3-1/2 fracture
string annulus was pressure tested. This pressure test showed
that the port collar had been shifted open. Although they were
able to pump into the annulus at the port collar, no pressure
response was seen in the 7-5/8 casing-to-conductor annulus,
confirming the isolation between the port collar and surface.

The lower part of Fig. 5 shows the second stage
cement interval. The class G cement, with the higher acoustic
impedance values (5-7 MRayl), is clearly channeling through
the annular space. This indicates that the higher density
cement did not efficiently displace the light cement/fluids in
the annulus. However, there does appear to be zone isolation
with no continuous fluid channels across the interval.

Time lapse logging. Because lightweight cements normally
have acoustic impedance properties that are in the 3-5 MRayl
range, it is important that the cement be well cured in order to
differentiate between the cement and other fluids. The
temperature, pressure and the additives in the cement mixture
determine the curing rate of the cement mixture in the
wellbore and ultimately the acoustic impedance values at the
time of logging. The following example provides a
comparison of cement evaluation logs obtained over several
different times.

This well was completed with 7, 26 lbm/ft casing
using a mixed aggregate lightweight cement of 10.0 lbm/gal.
The fluid in the wellbore while cementing this well was an 8.6
SPE 76713 THE EVALUATION OF SPECALIZED CEMENTS 5
lbm/gal brine. USIT and CBL logs were run 12, 18 and 27
hours after the cementing operation. Fig. 6 shows one
representative interval. The USIT (after 18 hours) shows
some cement is present in the annulus and a calculated bond
index of 50-60%. But there are clearly short sections within
the interval with potential for liquid channels. The CBL
showed generally poor bond with an amplitude of about 50
mv. The VDL display shows some formation signal arrival
but with strong casing signals. With time, the cement
continues to cure and increase in acoustic impedance and
compressive strength. The last USIT log, obtained at 27
hours, shows that the cement has improved to a 60-80% bond
index and most of the fluid channels are reduced or eliminated
from this interval. The last CBL log (not shown) indicated no
change in amplitude attenuation or in the VDL response.

Conclusions
The quantitative evaluation of lightweight and specialized
cements is possible by logging tools currently available.
Ultrasonic logging tools are more qualitative than CBL type
tools because their interpretation is based on the fluid
properties rather than the cement properties. The CBL type
tools compliment the ultrasonic tools but are less quantitative
because of the uncertainty of the cement properties.

References
1. Hayman, A.J., Hutin, R., and Wright, P.V.: High-
Resolution Cementation and Corrosion Imaging
By Ultrasound, SPWLA 32
nd
Annual Logging
Symposium, June 16-19, 1991 paper KK.
2. Butsch, R.J.: Overcoming Interpretation Problems
of Gas-Contaminated Cement Using Ultrasonic
Cement Logs, SPE paper 30509, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX,
October 22-25, 1995.
3. Morris, C.W., Zanutto, S.L., Dacres Jr., W.G.,:
Lightweight Cement Evaluation Using Ultrasonic
Measurements, SPE paper 62517, SPE/AAPG
Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, CA, June
19-23 2000.
4. Cement Sheath Evaluation, American Petroleum
Institute, Technical Report 10TR1, First Edition, June
1996.





Table 1 Common Acoustic Impedance Values
3


Material Acoustic
Impedance
(MRayl)

Fresh Water 1.5
Free Gas 0.1
Steel 46.0
12 lbm/gal Drilling Mud 2.16
15 lbm/gal Drilling Mud 2.70
17 lbm/gal Drilling Mud 3.06
9 lbm/gal Foamed Class C (250 psi) 2.19
9 lbm/gal Foamed Class C (1000
psi)
2.69
10.5 lbm/gal LiteCRETE 3.4
12 lbm/gal LiteCRETE 3.6
13 lbm/gal Cement (500 psi) 3.37
13 lbm/gal Cement (2000 psi) 4.42
16.5 lbm/gal Cement (500 psi) 4.38
16.5 lbm/gal Cement (2000 psi) 5.62

6 R. J. BUTSCH, C. W. MORRIS, R. WYDRINSKI, M. J. KASECKY SPE 76713








Fig.1 Cement evaluation of a lightweight cement mixture with a microannulus.
B
o
n
d

I
n
d
e
x
-
B

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

B
o
n
d

I
n
d
e
x
-
A

C
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
p

C
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
p

w
/

M
i
c
r
o
-

d
e
b
o
n
d
i
n
g

F
i
e
l
d

C
B
L
-
B
I

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

Pressure
No Pressure
SPE 76713 THE EVALUATION OF SPECALIZED CEMENTS 7









Fig. 2 Cement evaluation of a gas-generating cement mixture.


Cement
Map
Bond
Index
Acoustic
Impedance
Image
Variable
Density
Attenuation
Bond Index
Gamma Ray
CCL
G
a
s

Z
o
n
e

8 R. J. BUTSCH, C. W. MORRIS, R. WYDRINSKI, M. J. KASECKY SPE 76713










Fig. 3 Gas-contaminated lightweight cement evaluation.

A
c
o
u
s
t
i
c

I
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e

I
m
a
g
e

B
o
n
d

I
n
d
e
x

C
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
p

C
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
p

C
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
p

w
/

M
i
c
r
o
-

d
e
b
o
n
d
i
n
g

B
o
n
d

I
n
d
e
x

w
/

M
i
c
r
o
-

d
e
b
o
n
d
i
n
g

G
a
s

Z
o
n
e

Standard USIT Processing USIT Micro-debonding Processing
CBL-BI
SPE 76713 THE EVALUATION OF SPECALIZED CEMENTS 9












Fig. 4 Production zone isolation from water sand.


A
c
o
u
s
t
i
c

I
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e


I
m
a
g
e

C
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
p

B
o
n
d

I
n
d
e
x

G
a
m
m
a

R
a
y

C
C
L

A
c
o
u
s
t
i
c

I
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e

C
a
s
i
n
g

C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

Bottom of
productive
interval
Top of water
zone
10 R. J. BUTSCH, C. W. MORRIS, R. WYDRINSKI, M. J. KASECKY SPE 76713











Fig. 5 Evaluation of a two-slurry single stage cement operation.

Acoustic
Impedance
Image
Acoustic
Impedance
Image
Cement
Map
Bond
Index
Acoustic
Impedance
Cement
Map
Bond
Index
Acoustic
Impedance
Port Collar
SPE 76713 THE EVALUATION OF SPECALIZED CEMENTS 11










Fig. 6 Time lapse evaluation of a lightweight cement job.


I
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e

I
m
a
g
e

B
I

I
m
p
e
d
a
n
c
e

I
m
a
g
e

B
I

C
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
p

C
e
m
e
n
t

M
a
p

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

USIT 18 hr. CBL 18 hr. USIT 27 hr.