SPE 62517
Lightweight Cement Evaluation Using Ultrasonic Measurements
C.W. Morris, SPE, S.L. Zanutto, and W.G. Dacres Jr., Schlumberger
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting
held in Long Beach, California, 19–23 June 2000.
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
Hydraulic isolation of wellbore casing and cement is critical
for the completion of petroleum wells. Zonal isolation
prevents contamination of groundwater by fluids in the
wellbore and allows conformance control of1,2the injected
fluids. New lightweight cement formulations have been
developed to allow more efficient completion operations
especially in low-strength formations. These cements,
although less dense (<13 lbm/gal) than conventional cements,
actually provide higher acoustic impedance, lower porosity,
and lower permeability material properties.
Cement evaluation is routinely performed in wells using
sonic and ultrasonic tools. The latest generation of ultrasonic
cement evaluation tools can provide high quality
measurements of casing dimensions and cement acoustic
impedance properties. To investigate the ultrasonic tool
response to lightweight cement compositions, experiments
were run in 5 ½-in. casing sections to measure the acoustic
characteristics of many of the new cement compositions.
Depending on the density of the composition, the measured
acoustic impedance values ranged from 3 to 7 MRayls. For
completeness, other cement compositions tested in this project
included standard neat cements, foam cements, and high-
density cement mixtures. Additional experiments confirmed
the importance of the preflush fluid in removing drilling mud
from the casing surface (especially for oil-base mud systems).
The results from this project are compared to the sonic and
ultrasonic data acquired from actual wellbore completions
using the new lightweight cements. Although lightweight and
foam cements have generally lower acoustic impedance
properties, they can be evaluated with current logging tools.
Introduction
Cement bond logging tools have been used successfully for
many years to evaluate casing and cement conditions in
production and injection wells. These tools use either sonic or
ultrasonic measurement techniques designed for the
conventional steel casing and cement environment.
The Ultra Sonic Imager (USI∗) tool, a second generation
logging device, provides full azimuthal coverage for casing
and cement sheath evaluation. It uses a single rotating
transducer measurement system and a novel full waveform
processing technique that employs a three-dimensional
physical model. Cement quality and casing condition are
determined using ultrahigh-frequency acoustic pulses. The
actual acoustic properties (velocity of sound and acoustic
impedance) of the borehole fluids are measured versus depth
so that an accurate model can be developed. The results are
presented as high-resolution color images. The acoustic
impedance color image along and around the casing are then
interpreted in terms of cement distribution and hardness.
The principle of measurement of the USI tool was
3
described by Hayman, et al. The transducer emits high-
frequency ultrasonic pulses that travel through the liquid and
into the casing wall, resonating the casing. The returning
waveform is the summation of the echo waveform from the
original burst and an exponentially decaying waveform from
the resonant energy trapped between the inner and outer
casing walls. The initial acoustic response consists of a large
reflection from the internal surface of the casing. The time of
arrival of the initial reflection depends on the standoff distance
from the transducer to casing and the mud acoustic velocity.
The time separation of the train of negative impulses is equal
to the travel time inside the casing and is a function of the
casing thickness and acoustic velocity in the casing material.
The casing radius is determined from the measured time for
the first echo to return. The process window selects the initial
reflection and the early part of the resonance for analysis. The
usual process window length (peak to end of window) is
between 6 and 8 periods of resonance. Casing thickness is
determined from the value of the fundamental frequency in the
exponentially decaying part of the waveform.
∗
Mark of Schlumberger
2 C.W. MORRIS, S.L. ZANUTTO, W.G. DACRES JR.
Finally, cement acoustic impedance is determined from the
rate at which this fundamental frequency decays. Variations in
the rate of decay of this waveform represent changes in the
acoustic impedance contrast at the casing/annulus interface,
with harder annular material producing a faster decay. A
three-dimensional model is applied to the full waveform data
set to determine the radius, thickness, and acoustic impedance.
Gas, liquid, or cement at the outer surface of the casing are
then differentiated using an impedance threshold cutoff on the
measured acoustic impedance. The acoustic impedance
measurement is relatively insensitive to a small liquid annulus
at the outer surface but is affected detrimentally by a dry gas
annulus.4
Discussion of Results
Experiments were performed in different fluid environments
and with different casing/cement sheath materials, including
new lightweight cements, to determine the practical operating
limits of ultrasonic tools. The acoustic attenuation limits of the
tool were investigated in both heavy oil-base and water-base
drilling mud systems. These tests were performed in a special
test apparatus at ambient temperature and pressure conditions.
The logs presented later represent a single depth measurement
in the test chamber.
New Cement Systems. In recent years, the industry has
introduced several new formulations for conventional and
lightweight cement used in petroleum wells. These new
lightweight cements exhibit outstanding performance at
densities as low as 10 lbm/gal. By proportionately mixing
carefully graded aggregates, the resulting system achieves a
lower porosity blend for a similar cement density. Table 1
gives a brief comparison of the properties of different types of
cement. Table 2 gives a comparison of the common acoustic
impedance values for many materials. Reference 5 provides an
empirical conversion from acoustic impedance to compressive
strength for conventional cements.† The lightweight cements
have generally higher compressive strengths for the same
conditions of density and acoustic impedance. Therefore this
correlation cannot be used for these high performance cement
systems.
Table 3 describes the specific composition of the cements
investigated in this project. The cement evaluation tests were
performed using 5 ½-in., 17-lbm/ft casing with water as the
wellbore fluid. A small water channel of about 40° was
deliberately created in the cement along the outer casing wall
to provide a measurement contrast between good cement bond
and free pipe.
Fig. 1 shows the results obtained for the conventional
18.5-lbm/gal cement. Good acoustic signals were obtained.
The cement acoustic impedance ranged from about 4 to 8
MRayls with an average cement acoustic impedance of
†
This empirical correlation was derived for cementing
materials that have reached their ultimate strength. Therefore
it is not valid for the period of strength development.
SPE 62517
6.7 MRayls. The free pipe channel, located near the center of
the acoustic impedance image, shows up as a small band of
contaminated cement because solid material did leak into the
interval. On both sides of the channel the high acoustic
impedance values are characteristic of the cement system used
and, therefore, it can be concluded that this cement is well
bonded to the casing.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the cement interpretation for two high-
performance lightweight cement (10 and 12 lbm/gal) systems.
These new lightweight cements use the specially sized
aggregates to achieve a cement matrix with low permeability
and good compressive strength. As seen on the ultrasonic log
outputs, these systems show an acoustic impedance (3 to
5 MRayls) typical of what is expected from laboratory
measurements. A good cement bond was obtained with these
cements with the manufactured channel clearly visible.
An 18.5-lbm/gal high performance cement system is
shown in Fig. 4. A good cement bond is shown with acoustic
impedance values in the 5 to 7 MRayls range. The free pipe
channel is clearly shown near the center of the acoustic
impedance image and in the cement map. This cement mixture
has acoustic impedance characteristics very similar to those of
conventional cement.
Fig. 5 shows the results for a 12.5-lbm/gal conventional
cement system. A good cement bond was obtained on the test
casing with the acoustic impedance values in the range of 2 to
5 MRayls. The water-filled channel is located near the center
of the cement map.
A 12.0-lbm/gal foamed cement system, shown in Fig. 6,
was also created for these tests. This cement sample was
prepared and tested under ambient conditions only. The results
do show the acoustic impedance ranging from 2 to 4 MRayls,
which is also close to the expected value. Therefore, this solid
cement material is also well bonded to the casing.
Casing Surface Conditions. Three additional tests were
performed using a 14.8-lbm/gal Type C neat cement system.
These tests investigated the cement bond effects caused by
inadequate removal of the drilling mud from the outer casing
surface. To this effect, the casing sections were deliberately
soaked in drilling fluids before casting the cement. The layer
of mud left on the wall of the casing was on purpose not
removed, as it was the objective of these tests to measure its
effect.
Figs. 7a-7c show the results for a clean casing surface, a
heavy water-base mud coating, and a heavy oil-base mud
coating, respectively.
For a clean casing surface, in Fig. 7a, the Type C cement
shows a good bond, with an acoustic impedance range from
about 4 to 8 MRayls. The free pipe channel can be seen near
the left edge of the acoustic impedance image.
A coating of heavy water-base mud (Fig. 7b) on the casing
outer surface does not provide the same results. The water
channel is still distinguishable, but the cement sheath material
appears to have lower acoustic impedance values than
expected. This is the consequence of the mud residue that
SPE 62517 LIGHTWEIGHT CEMENT EVALUATION USING ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENTS
prevented a clean metal surface contact with the cement giving
a poor bonding of the cement to the casing.
Although oil-wetting mud properties may be beneficial for
drilling operations, they are detrimental to well completion
operations. Oil-base muds leave a strong oil-wet surface on
the casing and formation, which reduces the cement bond
strength. A coating of the casing surface with oil-base mud
residue (Fig. 7c) appears to reduce the measured acoustic
impedance of the cement even further than in the previous
case (water-base mud). The 2-in.-thick cement sheath was
easily removed from the casing.
The test results show that the interpretation of the
ultrasonic measurement should be done with caution because
the presence of a thick mud layer on the surface of the casing
can significantly reduce the measured acoustic impedance
even though good, strong cement occupies most of the
annulus.
Consequence for cement operations. Without efficient mud
displacement from the annulus and effective removal of the
mud layer from the casing wall, cement evaluation logs are
difficult to interpret in terms of cement quality and bonding to
the casing. Mud removal is therefore an essential process in
the cementing operation. Casing centralizers, preflush fluid
volume, fluid chemistry, and fluid contact time are all part of
the cement job parameters designed to give the cement
material a clean surface on which to bond. This volume of
clean, unweighted or weighted preflush fluid is usually
designed for at least 700 ft of annular length when displacing
mud in effective laminar flow or 10 minutes of contact time,
when using turbulent flow mud displacement.
In addition for oil-base mud, the preflush spacer fluid must
de-emulsify the mud into an aqueous phase (primarily with
surfactant additives), displace the mud layer, and water-wet
the casing and formation surfaces to achieve a good cement
bond. These tests clearly illustrate the importance of the
preflush pad in efficiently displacing the drilling mud from the
annulus area and cleaning the exterior casing surface.
Lightweight Cement Jobs. Rather than just present examples
of good lightweight cement jobs, the following examples show
cement evaluation data from wells where less-than-perfect
conditions were achieved. These conditions better illustrate
the range and accuracy of the cement evaluation techniques.
A USI/cement bond log combination was successfully run
in a well cemented with a 12.0-lbm/gal high performance
lightweight cement. The drilling mud system in the wellbore
was a 10-lbm/gal brine. The acoustic impedance of the cement
solids are in the range of 3 to 7 Mrayls.
The results across two depth intervals are shown in Figs. 8
and 9. The conventional USI interpretation using acoustic
impedance thresholds identifies solid, liquid, and gas or gas
microannulus behind casing, as shown on the left tracks. But
this process sometimes shows cement maps that are very
difficult to interpret; for example, in part of Figs. 8 and 9, gas
coexists with liquid in a patchy way that is difficult to justify
physically. An advanced processing based on an earlier
3
publication4, but improved from its original interpretation,
shows such areas of variable low-acoustic impedance as
weakly-bonded solids. The algorithm uses the magnitude and
variance of the acoustic impedance in a small area around
each pixel. Results of the advanced processing are discussed
below.
In the first interval, the cement achieved very good bond
above X000 ft. Below this depth, there are many patches of
gas/gas microannulus indicated. Traditionally, this would be
interpreted as gas-cut cement (cement invaded by gas from the
formation), but it is more likely that the cement is partially
debonded from the casing, producing patches of dry
microannulus. The advanced processing results (the green area
shading shown in Tracks 7 and 9 of Fig. 8) indicate that
cement is present all around the casing and weakly bonded to
it. Hence, it can be concluded that there is still good zonal
isolation across the interval, and a cement squeeze operation
would not be recommended.
A second interval at X800-X900 ft seems to have less
well-bonded cement, as displayed in Fig. 9. The ultrasonic log
on this interval measures low acoustic impedance material,
which is traditionally interpreted as poor cement. The CBT*
Cement Bond Tool log shows relatively low attenuation but
the VDL* Variable Density Log shows some good attenuation
of the complete waveform. The new advanced interpretation
processing shown by the green shading in Tracks 7 and 9
again confirms the presence all around the casing of solid set
cement, which is not well bonded to the casing.
Example 2 in Fig. 10 shows the cement log results from a
12.5-lbm/gal lightweight cement job. The USI and CBT
results are in good agreement as to the poor cement conditions
seen in the 100-ft interval of Fig. 10. The CBT (not run under
pressure) shows very low attenuation. The USI shows the
cement tended to channel by the noncentralized casing to a
low-strength formation interval located about 2,000 ft higher.
When the lead cement slurry was pumped, the well bridged
over and high pressure was required to breakdown the
blockage. No cement returns were seen at the surface. Several
gas-bearing formations also caused gas contamination of the
cement sheath. Nevertheless, the deeper main production zone
was found to be isolated.
Conclusions
1. The quantitative evaluation of lightweight cement sheath
conditions can be made using standard ultrasonic logging
procedures.
2. The cleanup of the drilling mud on the exterior casing
surface is critical to achieving good cement bond.
3. The sonic log measurements complement the ultrasonic
log results but provide less quantification of the cement
bond conditions. When possible, sonic logs should be run
under pressure.
4. For ultrasonic logs the new interpretation based both on
the magnitude and variance of the acoustic impedance
provides a clearer picture of the material behind the pipe
in the annulus, even though the bonding condition might
be weak.
4 C.W. MORRIS, S.L. ZANUTTO, W.G. DACRES JR. SPE 62517

5. This interpretation is necessary with lightweight materials SI Metric Conversion Factors

0
when the acoustic impedance of both the fluids and solids F (0F-32)/1.8 = 0C
behind the casing are low. ft x 3.048* E –01 = m
gal x 3.785 412 E –03 = m3
Acknowledgments in x 2.54* E +00 = cm
The authors thank the many people who helped with these kg m-2 sec-1 x 10 E +06 = MRayl
tests at the Schlumberger Wireline & Testing Liberty District lbm x 4.535 924 E –01 = kg
and the Dowell Technology Applications Center of the psi x 6.894 757 E +00 = kPa
Americas. We especially thank Terry Woods, John Crawford,
Art Milne, Alan Gilmore, and Jack Maberry. *Conversion factor is exact

References
1. Moulin, E., Revil, P. and Jain , B.: “Using Concrete Technology
to Improve the Performance of Lightweight Cements,” paper
SPE/IADC 39276, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology
Conference, Bahrain, November 23-25, 1997.
2. Toukam, E.: “New Cement Improves Costs, Operations in
Northern Africa,” Petroleum Engineer International (March 99).
3. Hayman, A.J., Hutin, R., and Wright, P.V.: "High-Resolution
Cementation and Corrosion Imaging By Ultrasound", SPWLA
32nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 16-19, 1991, paper KK.
4. Butsch, R.J.: “Overcoming Interpretation Problems of Gas-
Contaminated Cement Using Ultrasonic Cement Logs,” SPE
paper 30509, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, October 22-25, 1995.
5. API: “Cement Sheath Evaluation,” American Petroleum
Institute, Technical Report 10TR1, First Edition, June 1996.
SPE 62517 LIGHTWEIGHT CEMENT EVALUATION USING ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENTS 5

Table 1—Cement Properties

Properties High Conventional Conventional High

Performance performance
12.0 lbm/gal 12.0 lbm/gal 15.8 lbm/gal 17.5 lbm/gal
_______________________________________________________________________________

Permeability (mD) 0.0069 0.2 0.1 0.007

Porosity (%) 18-24 - 32-34 18-24

API FL (mL/30 min) 80 150 110 50

24-hr CS (psi @185 oF) 3232 1170 3550 3800

3
Table 2—Common Acoustic Impedance Values

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
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 C.W. MORRIS, S.L. ZANUTTO, W.G. DACRES JR. SPE 62517

Table 3—Cement Sample Properties

1. Mud test casing: Type C cement neat at 14.5 lbm/gal.

2. Conventional lightweight (extended with sodium silicate) cement at 12.5 lbm/gal.

3. Conventional heavyweight (with hematite) slurry at 18.5 lbm/gal.

4. High performance heavyweight slurry at 18.5 lbm/gal.

5. High performance lightweight slurry at 12.0 lbm/gal

6. High performance lightweight slurry at 10.0 lbm/gal

7. Foamed cement at 12.0 lbm/gal: base slurry prepared using Type C cement.

8. Coated pipe tests: Type C cement neat at 14.8 lbm/gal.

All slurries mixed with fresh water and cured at room temperature (78 oF).
 SPE 62517

Channel
Channel
Channel

Cement Map
CementMap Cement Map
Cement
Cement
Cement Map
CementMap
Map
Map
LIGHTWEIGHT CEMENT EVALUATION USING ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENTS

Fig.
Fig. 11—Conventional
– Conventionalheavyweight
18.5 lbm/gal cement Fig. 2—High performance lightweight cement Fig. 3—High performance lightweight cement
(18.5 lbm/gal). (10.0 lbm/gal). (12.0 lbm/gal).
cement.
7
 8

Channel

Channel

Channel
Cement Map Cement Map
Cement Map
C.W. MORRIS, S.L. ZANUTTO, W.G. DACRES JR.

Fig. 4—High performance heavyweight cement Fig. 5—Conventional lightweight cement Fig. 6—Foamed cement (12.0 lbm/gal).
(18.5 lbm/gal). (12.5 lbm/gal).
SPE 62517
 SPE 62517

Channel
Channel

Channel
Cement Map
Cement Map Cement Map
LIGHTWEIGHT CEMENT EVALUATION USING ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENTS

Fig. 7a—Type C 14.8-lbm/gal neat cement. Fig. 7b—Type C 14.8-lbm/gal neat cement with Fig. 7c—Type C 14.8-lbm/gal neat cement with
WBM coating. OBM coating.
9
 10

X000

X100
C.W. MORRIS, S.L. ZANUTTO, W.G. DACRES JR.

Acoustic BI Cement map VDL Debonded cement processing

impedance

Fig. 8—Example 1; 12.0-lbm/gal lightweight cement job with partially debonded cement zones overlain by well-bonded cement.
SPE 62517
 SPE 62517

X800

X900
LIGHTWEIGHT CEMENT EVALUATION USING ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENTS

Acoustic BI Cement map VDL Debonded cement processing

impedance

Fig. 9—Example 1; 12.0-lbm/gal lightweight cement job with debonded cement.

11
 12
X000

NATN

DATN
C.W. MORRIS, S.L. ZANUTTO, W.G. DACRES JR.

X100

Acoustic BI Cement map VDL

impedance

Fig. 10—Example 2; 12.5-lbm/gal lightweight cement job with fluid loss zones.
SPE 62517