SPE 150345

Centralizer Selection and Placement Optimization

Gefei Liu, Pegasus Vertex, Inc. and Lawrence Weber, Chevron Energy Technology Company

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference held in Galveston, Texas, USA, 20–21 June 2012.

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
Casing centralization is one of the key elements to ensure the quality of a cementing job by preventing mud channeling and
poor zonal isolation. Centralizers can also assist in running of the casing and prevention of differential sticking. The
challenge that both operators and service companies face is to place the right amount of centralizers at the optimum positions
on the casing. While operators may be conservative, service companies tend to be liberal, in selecting the number of
centralizers for a given application.

Casing standoff depends on well path and hole size, casing size, centralizer properties, and many other variables, but most
importantly, centralizer placement. Experience plus computer modeling enable both centralizer vendors and operators to
conduct centralizer optimization prior to field execution. One approach is to specify spacing using our experience, then let
software check if it yields satisfactory standoff profile. Alternatively, we can specify required standoff and let the software
tell us how to space centralizers. “Specify spacing” mode gives the simple-to-install centralizer placement because of its
constant spacing result. However, this method may compromise the quality of standoff or quantity of centralizers. “Specify
standoff” mode ensures the minimum standoff of casing between centralizers, while yielding difficult-to-follow placement
program.

To get the best elements from both approaches, we have developed an optimum placement solution, which is specifying
standoff with incremental spacing requirement. For high impact operations such as deepwater and use on inline bowspring
centralizers, once a casing schematic is available, the centralizer placement is re-evaluated to optimize exact placement of
each centralizer.

With the help of computer modeling, centralizer placement can be evaluated and optimized. This practice will result in better
cementing job and cost-effective centralizer placement for directional wells. This paper will report examples of how such
optimization can be achieved.

Introduction
Centralizers placed on casing string keep the casing away from wellbore while trying to center the pipe as much as possible.
Casing centralization is one of the key elements to ensure the quality of cementing job, because severe pipe eccentricity
causes mud channeling and poor cement bond. Centralizer also helps in running casing and preventing differential sticking.

There are 3 types of commonly used centralizers:

1. Bow-spring centralizer’s steel bows act as spring to push the pipe away from wellbore. The shape and stiffness of
bows determine the restoring force, which is defined as the resistance force when a bow is compressed 1/3 of its
uncompressed height. The effectiveness of this type of centralizer is heavily dependent on the restoring force. For a
casing in a deviated well, the side force, which pulls the pipe to either higher or lower side of borehole, varies along
the depth, causing the variation of standoff at the centralizers along the pipe. API has minimum requirements on
restoring forces. For example, for centralizers on 9 5/8” casing, the minimum restoring force at 67% standoff is 1,600
lbf. Most centralizer vendors exceed API requirements on restoring force.
2 SPE 150345

2. Rigid body centralizer uses solid blades to support pipe. Because of the fixed blade OD, the standoff at the
centralizers is the same even in a deviated well. Keep in mind that the casing between rigid body centralizers still
sags.
3. Semi-rigid centralizer combines the benefits of restoring force and blade. When the side force is big enough to
compress bow severely, it turns itself into a rigid type blade or blade takes over supporting role.

The challenge that both operators and service companies face is to place right amount of centralizers at right positions, while
operators may be conservative, service companies may be liberal, in using more centralizers.

People use the term of standoff (SO) to describe how much the pipe is centered (Fig. 1). If a casing is perfectly centered, the
standoff is 100%. Standoff of 0% means the pipe touches the wellbore. Regardless of centralizer type (bow or rigid), the
mission is to provide positive standoff, preferably above 67%, throughout casing string.

Fig.1 Definition of standoff

Casing deflection between centralizers obeys the laws of physics and engineering analysis can help both operators and
service companies arrive at optimized number and placement of centralizers for a particular well.
Casing standoff depends on the following conditions:
 Well path and hole size
 Casing OD and weight
 Centralizer properties
 Mud and cement slurry position and densities (Buoyancy)

Well Path and Side Force

Casing inside a perfectly vertical well is theoretically centered. However, it is very difficult to encounter a truly perfect
vertical well, using current drilling technology. As a consequence, the casing strings in any well, if not supported by
centralizers will have 0% standoff. In other words, all casing strings need centralizers in order to get satisfactory cementing
job.

In a typical wellbore (build-and-drop), the standoff profile of casing without looks like the following:
SPE 150345 3

Fig. 2 Standoff profile without centralizers

One can see that except a few points along the wellbore, casing touches the wellbore. When a piece of pipe is inside a build-
up section of wellbore, the weight of pipe pulls the pipe toward to the lower side of hole. The tension, however, pulls the pipe
toward the upper side of hole. Depending on the net result of these 2 forces, the pipe touches either upper or lower side of
wellbore, as shown in the Fig. 3. The forces vary along the casing.

Fig. 3 Side force acting on a pipe

Any fluids present in wellbore create an up-lifting force (buoyancy force) on casing, making casing light. During cementing
job, when heavy cement slurry is inside casing, and drilling mud is in annulus, casing is at its “heaviest”. As cement slurry
turns corner and light displacement fluid occupies the casing interior, casing is at its “lightest”. Luckily, when designing
centralizer placement, we need only consider this “lightest” casing condition. Fig. 4 illustrates the buoyancy conditions at
various stages of cementing job.

Fig. 4 Casing deflection between centralizers

4 SPE 150345

To better design centralizer placement, we need to know the top of cement (TOC), cement slurry densities, mud weight, etc.
The density differential of cement slurry and mud improves the standoff profile.

Case study
With the help of computer modeling, centralizer placement optimization becomes easy to perform for all types of wells.
Ideally, this kind of optimization should be done before each casing job. Here is an example of optimization.

Fig. 5 Example well

The example well has a kick-off point at 2,000 ft. The previous casing (ID = 8.535”) was set at the same depth. Our goal is to
centralize the 12,345 ft of 4 1/2” casing, deviated from 0o to 90o. The centralizer considered is bow spring type with
restoring force of 800 lbf.

Specify spacing.
One approach to centralizer placement optimization is to specify spacing using our experience, then let software check if
it yields satisfactory standoff profile. In our case, we use 40 ft for the centralizer spacing (1 centralizer per joint). Fig. 6
shows the resulting standoff profile. The blue line is the standoff at the centralizer, while the red line is the standoff at the
middle point between centralizers, which is always lower than that of at centralizers. Since we are using the bow spring
centralizers, the standoff at the middle point between centralizers is the summation of casing sagging between centralizers
and the bow spring compression at the centralizers. For this approach, the number of centralizer required is 309.
SPE 150345 5

Fig. 6 Standoff profile (specified spacing = 40 ft)

From 2,000ft to 7,000 ft (deviation from 0o to 30o ), the standoff is between 100% and 70%, which meets industry
standard of 67%. From 7,000ft to 12,345 ft (deviation from 30o to 90o ), the standoff drops from 70% to 20%, which is
problematic: poor standoff profile at this section may cause potential cementing problem.

Now, let us try 2 centralizers per joint (spacing of 20 ft). Fig.7 shows the resulting standoff profile. The number of
centralized needed is 617.

Fig. 7 Standoff profile (specified spacing = 20 ft)

The new standoff profile is much better than normal industry standard, but with the number of centralizer doubled than
previous method, this new approach may be too conservative leaving doubts in engineer’s mind: am l using too many
centralizers?

Specify standoff.
Alternatively, we can specify required standoff and let the software tell us how to space centralizers.

With the required 70% standoff throughout 4 1/2” casing, CentraDesign displays the following spacing necessary to
achieve the specified standoff. The total number of centralizers used is 230, a significant reduction from previous
approaches.
6 SPE 150345

Fig. 8 Calculated spacing required to achieve 70% standoff

Logically, as the well builds up from 0o to 90o inclination angle, the spacing decreases: liner needs more support in more
deviated or horizontal section. But, putting centralizers strictly following the placement required by Fig.8 is somewhat
impractical. This leads to a more considerate placement design.

Optimum placement.
“Specify spacing” mode gives the simple-to-install centralizer placement because of its constant spacing result. However,
this method may compromise the quality of standoff or quantity of centralizers

“Specify standoff” mode ensures the minimum standoff of casing between centralizers, while yielding difficult-to-follow
placement program.

To get the best elements from both approaches, we have designed the optimum placement solution, which is specifying
standoff with incremental spacing requirement.

Applying this method to our case study with incremental spacing of 20 ft, we arrived at the flowing graphs.

Fig. 9 Optimum placement – standoff profile

SPE 150345 7

Fig. 10 Optimum placement – spacing

As shown is Fig. 9 & 10, this method meets the standoff requirement and gives easy-to-follow spacing. The total number
of centralizers resulted is 360.
The results of the three placement modes illustrated above are summarized in the following table (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11 Centralizer placement table

Conclusion
Theory and equations determining casing deflection between centralizer are well established, even though hand calculation
for a deviated well is impractical. Experience plus software technology enable both centralizer vendors and operators to
conduct centralizer optimization prior to field execution. When optimizing centralizer placement, consider the following:
 Select proper type of centralizer and properties for your particular well.
 Use software to check the standoff profile for a given placement or spacing.
 Optimize the placement by maintaining the standoff level and simplicity of field installation.
 Well path, hole and pipe sizes and fluid densities affect centralizer placement.
 Computer modeling is not only an easy but also a necessary step to achieve optimization of centralizer usage.
References
1. API Specification 10D, 2002: “Casing Centralizers”, Sixth Edition
2. Juvkam-Word, H.C. and Wu, Jiang 1992: “Casing Deflection and Centralizer Spacing Calculations,” SPE Drilling Engineering,
P. 268 – 274, December.
3. Lee, H. K., Smith, R. C., and Tighe, R. E., 1986: “Optimal Spacing for Casing Centralizers”, SPE Drilling Engineering, P. 122 –
130, April.
4. Wu, Jiang, Chen, P., and Juvkam – Word H. C., 1991: “Casing Centralization in Horizontal Wells”, Popular Horizontal, P. 14 –
21, April/June.
5. C.A. Johancsik, et al, Torque and Drag in Directional Wells – Prediction and Measurement, SPE Reprint Series, No. 30,
Directional Drilling, 1990, P. 130