OTC 17083

Cementing Casing Equipment: Proper Selection Vital to Success

H. Rogers and J . Heathman, Halliburton
Copyright 2005, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, TX, U.S.A., 25 May 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper addresses specific casing equipment concerns and
provides a flow of the decision-making process needed in the
designing phase before a cementing operation. A plan for
success is also included that can be applied to any
conventional cementing job.
An essential factor in successful zonal isolation operations
is the proper selection and use of the cementing casing
equipment. This selection and design process requires a
cooperative team effort with members from the operating
company, the drilling staff, the drilling contractor, and the
service companies. Key elements of this process that will be
discussed include:
A cementing plan that addresses the specific
parameters of the well. A cookie-cutter approach
requires less planning time, but can ultimately result
in higher costs and longer cementing operations
because of unexpected problems.
Appropriate cementing floating equipment to help
ensure fewer problems when running casing, greater
efficiency, proper mud conditioning with less risk of
excessive surge on the formation, and greater
drillability is maintained.
Appropriate cementing plugs to help maintain fluid
separation during cementing, minimized cement
sheath inside the casing, reduced need for scraper
trips, reduced shoe track contamination, and improved
annular cement quality near the shoe.
Appropriate casing centralization helps ensure fewer
problems, reduced risk of sticking, adequate standoff,
and improved overall displacement efficiency.

This paper was prepared to train inexperienced personnel
in the proper selection and use of cementing casing
equipment. Such training helps ensure adequate skills in
prejob planning and onsite operations.

Introduction
During the initial phase of planning an oil or gas well, many
factors must be considered. Factors include lease details,
partner relationships, and job execution details. Related to
factors to be addressed during the actual well construction
phase of the well, cementing is one key component that affects
the life of the wellnot only during the production phase, but
also during abandonment. For the purpose of this paper,
cementing will relate to the placement of a settable cement
slurry in the annular space around the casing for the purpose
of zonal isolation. Zonal isolation is required to prevent inter-
zonal fluid communication behind the casing. Such
communication can cause problems over the life of the well
that can be costly to repair. In the grand scheme, it is much
less expensive to perform a good primary cement job than to
conduct future remedial operations.
Cementing operations consist of three main components:
(1) the fluids to be pumped (slurry/spacers/flushes),
(2) surface mixing/pumping equipment, and (3) downhole
tools such as cementing casing equipment. The cementing
service company generally provides the knowledge and
expertise for Items 1 and 2. However, there are many suppliers
of cementing casing equipment and a lack of industry
standards for cementing casing equipment. Purchasing agents
and drilling engineers are often left to their own devices to
make decisions as to what and how cementing casing
equipment will be used.
This paper discusses the selection and application of
cementing casing equipment in three main categories:
(1) floating equipment, (2) cementing plugs, and (3) casing
attachments. Selection criteria will be discussed along with
applicable industry standards that are currently available to aid
in the decision process.
1

Float Equipment
Cementing floating and guiding equipment comes in many
forms and configurations. Figs. 1 and 2 show various types of
equipment available. Floating equipment generally has a
check-valve design that allows fluid flow out of the casing, but
does not allow fluid to enter the casing once slurry placement
is complete.
2 OTC 17083


Fig. 1Typical float collars and float shoes.



Fig. 2Typical insert flapper valve and seat.

Floating equipment can be supplied as shoes to be attached
to the lowermost portion of the casing or as collars to be
attached a short length above the shoe. The case material and
threads used to manufacture floating equipment generally
matches the casing itself. The space between the shoe and
collar is commonly called the shoe track or shoe joint. Either
term is commonly recognized by those personnel involved in
casing cementing operations.
The shoe track is filled with tail slurry after the top
cementing plug lands on the float collar. The tail slurry
displaced just ahead of the top cementing plug is usually
contaminated by mud film or mud sheath wiped from the
inside casing surface ahead of the top cementing plug, thereby
commingling with the tail slurry. This contamination reduces
the potential compressive strength that can be achieved. Thus,
it is not desirable for contaminated slurry to be displaced from
the casing. The purpose of the shoe track is to help ensure that
contaminated cement it is not displaced into the annulus of the
casing being cemented.
After displacement of the slurry is complete, the check
valve in the float equipment must retain the cement in place.
Hence, the check valve must be capable of surviving the
abrasive fluid flow of mud conditioning and slurry placement
under bottomhole conditions.
Two prominent organizations aid in the casing-equipment
selection process. The API (American Petroleum Institute) is
an organization of petroleum industry professionals who work
together to provide industry recommendations and
specifications for a wide range of products. ISO is an
international standards organization that has documents or
standards roughly equivalent to those of the API. The API and
ISO have created two equivalent documents that are relevant
to cementing floating equipment.
API RP (Recommended Practice) 10F (ISO 10427-3)
provides recommended test and evaluation procedures for
cementing floating equipment.
2,3
These documents specify
how type parts will be tested and rated based on testing
performed. Specifically, this document does not require
production testing, only type testing, to qualify the design used
to manufacture the equipment being tested. For example, a
part tested to a category II-B would be required to withstand a
12-hour flow test with a specified fluid followed by a 3,000
psi backpressure test (Table 1). Subsequently, the same part
would be required to withstand an 8-hour heat soak at 300F,
followed by a 3,000 psi backpressure test (Table 2). If
successfully completed according the required test procedures,
the API/ISO rating of II-B could be applied to the part or
associated documentation. If the production design passes type
testing, it can be approved for production with the achieved
rating until the form, fit, or function of the design is
changed.

Table 1Flow Durability Evaluation/Summary
Category
Duration (hr) Forward
10 bbl/min
Pressure Test
(psi)
I 8 1,500
II 12 3,000
III 24 5,000
The flow rate is 10 bbl/min with 12- to 12.5-lb/gal water-
based mud containing 2 to 4% by volume of 80- to 200-
mesh sand.

Table 2Static HTHP Evaluation Summary
Category Temperature (F)
Pressure Test
(psi)
A 200 1,500
B 300 3,000
C 400 5,000
Heat-soak the flow-tested float collar at the designated
temperature for 8 hours. Pressure up to 500 psi, and
increase the pressure by 500 psi every 15 minutes until
the minimum pressure is reached, while maintaining the
desired temperature.

The documents RP 10F and ISO 10427-3 should not be
considered all-inclusive specifications because many other
factors affect float equipment performance. Proper selection
and use of float equipment should:
Enable the casing to be run in the hole (RIH) without
problems.
Use self-fill float valves to allow faster running speeds
with less pressure surge on the formation.
OTC 17083 3
Allow ample mud conditioning (time and pump rate-
dependent) without risk of affecting float valve
performance.
Retain cement in place (prevent reverse U-tubing)
after displacement is complete.
Function under anticipated bottomhole conditions
(temperature and backpressure).
Enable desired drillout at a reasonable time with
desired bits.
Be chemically compatible with all wellbore fluids.

Once these basic performance criteria are addressed, there
is a host of other options that must be reviewed:
Valve type (ball, flapper, or poppet).
Single or double valve assembly.
Standard, down-jet, side or up-jet, enclosed down-jet
float shoe options.
Pressure deactivated or flow deactivated auto-fill.
Standard nose, tapered nose, offset tapered, or
eccentric nose.
Casing drilling capability.

See Figs. 1 and 2 to review schematics of various float
equipment types.

Cementing Plugs
The use of cementing plugs or mechanical fluid
separating/cleaning devices during cementing operations has
long been a practice with proven benefits. Cementing plugs
were first used early in the 20th century by W.C. Perkins and
E.P. Halliburton. Today, the use of cementing plugs is even
more important because of the increased focus on job quality.
Generally speaking, cementing plugs are expected to provide
the following:
Fluid separation inside the tubular being wiped.
Mechanical wiping of tubular to prevent the
deposition of film or scale from settable fluids
displaced ahead of the cementing plug.
Hydraulic seal with float collar or landing collar.

These three basic functions provided by cementing plugs
have become key deliverable requirements specified, or at
least expected, by users when selecting cementing plugs
either directly or inferred. However, there exists a general
perception that all cementing plugs are alike. This perception
is further amplified by the fact that there is no API/ISO
document created by industry professionals to provide testing
or performance requirements that would help define plug
performance. Until an industry standard can be created, it is up
to manufacturers and users to become familiar with how
design and material selection affect cementing plug
performance. Further, the user should become familiar with
the risks associated with plug failure resulting from improper
selection.
In this paper, the term cementing plugs refers to any
mechanical device used to provide fluid separation inside
casing. Cementing plugs come in many forms. Figs. 3 and 4
show various types of cementing plugs for tubing and casing.
The bottom plug is displaced ahead of the cement and
followed by cement. Top cementing plugs are generally
displaced behind the cement and followed by the displacement
fluid. The wipers of the cementing plugs mechanically contact
the casing ID such that a wiping effect occurs. This wiping
effect helps ensure separation of fluids ahead of and behind
the cementing plug. Once landed, the bottom cementing plug
has a bypass mechanism that allows the cement to pass,
thereby allowing the cement to flow out of the casing into the
annulus. When the top cementing plug lands, generally on top
of the bottom plug if applicable, it prevents further fluid flow.
Thereby a surface pressure indication occurs, indicating
displacement is complete.



Fig. 3Typical cementing top and bottom wiper plugs.



Fig. 4Other types of cementing plugs.

It is worth noting that when displacement volume
calculations are based solely on published casing tables, for
which internal diameters are calculated based on a nominal
wall thickness that can vary between plus 0% and minus
12.5% and still be within API specifications, erroneous results
can occur. These results can be manifest as either the plugs
landing much earlier than expected or, conversely, the
appearance of not landing at all. This issue often gives rise to
concerns that wiper plugs are not sealing. Field data have
shown that randomly calipering as few as 10% of the casing
4 OTC 17083
joints before they are run in the well can alleviate much of this
concern (Table 3).


Table 3Nominal Pipe ID Versus Actual
Casing OD
inches
Casing
weight
lb/ft
Published
ID
inches
Measured
ID
inches
Displacement
difference for
10,000 ft
c

7.0
a
32.0 6.094 6.137
5.1
9.875
b
62.8 8.625 8.752
24.8
10.75
b
71.1 9.450 9.547
17.8
13.625
a
88.2 12.375 12.336
10.2
a Based on wall thickness evaluation from pipe yard.
b Based on average of maximum and minimum diameters for 20% of
casing footage on pipe racks prior to jobs.
c Does not allow for mud compressibility.

On some wells, the cementing plugs are used to pressure-
test the casing immediately after displacement is complete. In
such case, the cementing plugs and their landing seat,
generally a float collar, must be capable of withstanding the
load resulting from the differential pressure at the float/plug
interface.
Cementing plugs are available in many different design
configurations and made from several different materials. The
authors do not intend to recommend one type over another, but
rather want to identify pertinent questions the user should ask
in his selection process.
Generally, the following materials are used to manufacture
the mechanical core or insert used to provide the structural
component of cementing plugs (Figs. 3 and 4).
WoodThis material is generally used in the
manufacture of cementing plugs for low-cost
environments where nominal tubular cleaning and
little more than a surface indication of the plug bump
is required. Generally assembled with nails or screws,
wooden plugs are ideal for use with hammer or
roller-cone bits. No reliable pressure test or
containment should be expected.
Cast or wrought aluminumThese materials are
generally considered low to moderate cost though
high performance can be expected. Pressure integrity
of the aluminum insert should be dependable even at
elevated temperatures. However, pressure-holding
capability would be dependent on the elastomeric
material used to establish the hydraulic seal on the
landing seat.
Hard elastomer or rubberOne such material,
urethane, is commonly used to manufacture cores for
cementing plugs. Such materials provide moderate
structural strength at temperatures to 175F and low
structural strength above 200F compared to other
material options available. The pressure integrity of
cementing plugs made with hard elastomer or rubber
cores are considered to be moderate at temperatures
below 175F and low above 200F.
Phenolic plasticThis material type is used to
manufacture cementing plug cores for a broad range
of service environments. Lower-cost, general-
purpose phenolic materials are used for the
manufacture of cementing plug cores designed for
use in low to moderate service environments.
Engineered phenolic plastic materials are used for the
manufacture of cementing plug cores designed for
use in moderate to extreme service environments.
During manufacturing, both material types require
injection, transfer, or compression molding
equipment to create the insert. Once molded, the
phenolic insert provides good to excellent
structural integrity at elevated temperatures to 400F
and above. Pressure integrity of the phenolic insert
should be dependable, even at elevated temperatures.
However, pressure-holding capability is more
dependent on the outer elastomeric material used to
establish the hydraulic seal.

Note that each of the materials specified above must be
evaluated for chemical compatibility with the fluids with
which the cementing plug will be used.
4
Once the performance requirements for the cementing plug
insert are determined and the insert material specified, the
elastic material used to create the wiper component of the
cementing plug must be determined. The following materials
are commonly used to create the wiper portion of the
cementing plug assembly.
Natural rubberThis material requires a transfer or
injection molding process and has been used
successfully for many years at service temperatures
up to 300F and above. Natural rubber has been used
successfully for many years with water-based mud
systems. The increased use of synthetic- or oil-based
drilling fluids requires the user to consider fluid
compatibility when selecting cementing plugs.
Natural rubber provides excellent wear resistance and
pressure-holding capabilities from low through high
temperature applications with water-based drilling
fluids.
UrethaneThis material is generally considered a
less expensive material that may not require the same
type of high pressure/high temperature molding
equipment used with the manufacture of other
elastomeric materials. Urethane generally has good to
excellent wear resistance at low temperatures.
However, mechanical properties fall significantly
above 200F resulting in low pressure holding
capability at temperatures above 200F. When used
at temperatures above 200F, excessive wear on the
wipers can compromise the effectiveness of the plug.
Synthetic rubberThis material requires a transfer or
injection molding process and has been used
successfully for many years at all service
temperatures. Synthetic rubber has been used
successfully for many years with natural mud
systems as well as OBM/SBM. The increased use of
synthetic or oil-based drilling fluids has forced the
increased use of synthetic rubber in the manufacture
of cementing plugs. Synthetic rubber provides
excellent wear-resistance and pressure-holding
OTC 17083 5
capabilities from low- through high-temperature
applications with most any type of drilling fluid.

As with the inserts, each of the materials specified above
must be evaluated for chemical compatibility with the fluids
with which the cementing plug will be used.
If a cementing plug fails to maintain its structural integrity
during displacement, the three functional performance
requirements listed on Page 3 may not be achieved, potentially
causing or allowing:
Severe sheath deposition on the casing ID.
Inaccurate and/or overdisplacement.
Plugging of float valves.
Poor quality cement or poorly placed cement caused
by intermixing of fluids.
Annular or casing plugging because of a significant
volume of incompatible fluids becoming intermixed.

Casing Attachments
Casing attachments is a term that describes an entire family
of products, including centralizers, stop collars or limit
clamps, baskets, and scratchers. Each item is designed for a
specific purpose to enhance the capability to obtain good zonal
isolation. For instance:
Centralizers are designed to help center the casing in
the wellbore. Centralizer spacing varies based on
hole size, hole angle, mud weight, depth, build
sections, etc. Better centralization improves
displacement efficiency of the drilling fluid and
placement of cement (Fig. 5).



Fig. 5Common centralizer types.

Stop collars or limit clamps are used to attach
centralizers or other casing attachments to the casing
OD to prevent movement on the casing (Fig. 6).



Fig. 6Typical centralizer clamps.

Scratchers improve filter-cake removal from the
wellbore by mechanically contacting the wellbore as
pipe movement occurs. This action effectively
removes filter cake from the wellbore (Figs. 7 and
8).




Fig. 7Typical cable and wire scratchers for rotating application.

6 OTC 17083


Fig. 8Typical cable and wire scratchers for reciprocating
application.

Baskets are used to limit downward annular fluid
movement past the basket. Though baskets are not
designed to hold high differential pressures, they can
effectively prevent fluid movement (fallback) caused
by density differences or seepage losses to weak
formations (Fig. 9).



Fig. 9Typical cement baskets.

Within each of the casing-attachment product categories
listed, there is a host of options that require further study to
determine which option best suits the users needs.
CentralizersRigid, bow, welded, non welded, dual
bow, slip-on, free fitting, spiral, hinged, slip-on.
Within the bow-spring category, API or non API
must be decided.
Stop collarsHinged, slip-on, set screws, dog grip.
Determine how much holding force is required.
ScratchersRotating or reciprocating.
BasketsCanvas or metal type.

API specification 10D (ISO 10427-1) provides minimum
performance requirements and test procedures for bow-spring
centralizers used in the oil and gas industry.
5
This
specification is not applicable to rigid or positive centralizers.
This specification requires testing to be performed per
specified procedures annually.
The API Monogram Program is a quality program
developed by industry professionals to be a benchmark for
measuring manufacturing quality and consistency commonly
referred to as API Q1.
6
ISO 9001 is an international standards
document equivalent to API Q1.
7
Proper placement of centralizers helps ensure that the
casing can be run to the desired depth. Once total depth (TD)
is reached, the centralizer, if properly placed can provide
adequate casing standoff to enable effective mud removal, a
key to proper slurry placement. Figs. 10 through 12 show how
proper centralizer selection and placement influence adequate
casing standoff.
A predominant cause of cementing failure is the presence
of channels of gelled drilling fluid in the annulus after the
cement is in place. If drilling-fluid channels are eliminated,
any number of cementing compositions will provide an
effective seal. In evaluating drilling fluid displacement, the
flow pattern in an eccentric annulus (i.e., where the pipe is
closer to one side of the hole than the other) must be
considered. Flow velocity in an eccentric annulus is not
uniform, and is highest in the side of the hole with the largest
learance (Fig. 10).
Fig. 11 shows the effect of casing standoff on cement
displacement. Fig. 12 shows the effectiveness of centralizers
on cement displacement on crooked or deviated wellbores.
Fig. 13 shows the effect that increased well deviation has
on centralizer spacing.
In a notable case history involving centralizer placement in
a well of complex geometry, the vendors centralizer-
placement program correctly applied the wellbore deviation,
but failed to consider the wellbore azimuth. The resultant
casing standoff was inadequate for the tortuous well path
because centralizer selection and placement were improper.
Remedial cementing was required to establish adequate zonal
isolation.



Fig. 10Typical flow velocity in an eccentric annulus.

OTC 17083 7


Fig. 11Effect of standoff on displacement. Note that cement
builds higher on the wide side of the casing-to-wellbore annulus.



Fig. 12Effecti veness of centralizers on displacement in
nonstraight holes.




Fig. 13Effect of deviation on centralizer spacing.


Casing While Drilling Considerations
Casing while drilling is an emerging drilling practice that
provides cost advantages over conventional well-construction
methods. However, when the drilling with casing process is
used, standard floating equipment generally cannot be used
because the float valve does not have the flow capacity to
survive the entire drilling process. Therefore, special
technologies have been developed to enable the use of a check
or float valve to retain slurry in place after displacement is
complete. One solution that has been used successfully several
times for a South Texas operator is to run a modified squeeze
packer on wireline, set off bottom. A standard tubing float
shoe is attached to the squeeze packer that meets the selection
criteria listed in this paper. When the modified squeeze packer
is used, standard cementing plugs can also be used (Fig. 14).



Fig. 14Float packer shoe.

8 OTC 17083


Fig. 15Drill to TD
with bit on casing.




Fig. 16Shoot bit off
using wireline-
conveyed explosives.



Fig. 17Lower and
set float packer shoe
on wireline.



Fig. 18Pump
cement.



Fig. 19Job
complete. Packer and
bit remain downhole.

A typical casing while drilling procedure is shown in Figs.
15 through 19.
The use of casing attachments (e.g., centralizers) during
casing drilling is often not possible, or at least can pose risks
to successful casing placement; such risks are not justifiable in
light of the diminished benefits that can exist as compared to a
conventional casing running and cementing operation. When
casing is drilled in and promptly cemented, the long static
periods normally associated with tripping drillpipe and
running casing that allows drilling muds to develop substantial
gel strength, is eliminated. Progressive gel strength
development by the drilling fluid is often the greatest
hindrance to a successful cement job. By removing this issue
from the well construction process, it becomes more difficult
to justify mechanical centralizers on the casing. However,
improved standoff between the casing and borehole wall can
still provide benefits such as reduced running forces, reduced
risk of differential sticking, and ensuring complete cement
coverage of the annulus.

Closing Comments
When selecting cementing casing equipment, attention should
be given to the performance requirements that the equipment
must meet based on the job that is to be performed. Imposing
additional performance requirements upon equipment does not
benefit the user in any way nor does it supply greater
assurance problems will not occur. On the contrary, as long as
equipment is properly selected and used within the specified
operating limits of the equipment being used, confidence in
the equipment should be high. Imposing performance
requirements above what is necessary for the job being
performed only adds additional cost to the equipment being
supplied and does not add additional benefit to the end user.
Personnel training is key to the successful selection and
use of any product or service. Cementing casing equipment is
no different. The user should know the equipment options
available and be familiar with the performance of the available
options. Only then can proper equipment be selected.
If properly selected and used, the casing equipment
products discussed in the review can help ensure successful
cementing operations are performed, from (1) ensuring that
the casing can be run successfully to the desired depth to (2)
holding cement in place after displacement is complete.
Casing equipment is only one small piece of the entire puzzle
that makes up a completed drilling program. Though the
casing equipment piece is small compared to the whole
drilling program, it will nonetheless be addressed, either
intentionally or accidentally. Cementing best practices require
that the casing equipment is addressed in the best possible
manner with the most appropriate equipment available.
Finally, it is not the intention of the authors to complicate
the selection process for cementing casing equipment. On the
contrary, it is the intention of the authors to provide
information as to how broad the scope of options are for
cementing casing equipment. Many of the options discussed
OTC 17083 9
have a very specific application. Hence, those charged with
the selection of cementing casing equipment should educate
themselves such that they can make educated decisions. Input
from the cementing service company should be obtained as
well since the overall success of their services relies heavily
on the performance of cementing casing equipment. One
option to be considered is to have the cementing service
company provide the cementing casing equipment as part of
the cementing services package, thereby ensuring their input
and approval for equipment being used in conjunction with
their services.

References
1. Giroux, R.L. and Sullaway, Bob: Proper Casing
Equipment Can Reduce Completion Costs, paper SPE
89-40-40 presented at the 40th Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Banff,
Canada, May 28-31, 1989.
2. API Recommended Practice 10F (ANSI/API 10F/ISO
10427-3) Recommended Practice for Performance
Testing of Cementing Float Equipment, American
Petroleum Institute, Copyright 2003.
3. Giroux, R.L. and Sullaway, Bob: API Recommended
Practices Used for Testing of Float Equipment, paper
presented at the Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
Texas Tech University, 1989.
4. Bodepudi, et al.: Drilling fluid type affects elastomer
selection, Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 26, 1998, pages
75-79).
5. API Recommended Practice 10D (ANSI/API 10D/ISO
10427-1-2001, Specification for Bow-Spring Casing
Centralizers, American Petroleum Institute, Effective
Date: September 1, 2002.
6. API Specification Q1 (ISO/TS 29001:2003) Petroleum,
Petrochemical and Natural Gas IndustriesSector
Specific Quality Management SystemsRequirements
for Product and Service Supply Organizations, 7th
edition, June 15, 2003.
7. ISO 9001, Quality Management Systems
Requirements, Third edition, Dec. 15, 2000, Copyright
ISO 2000.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Halliburton for
permission to publish this paper. The able assistance of Mr.
Richard Vargo is sincerely appreciated.