SPE 162839

The Effect of Hole Angle and Cementing Complications on HPHT Well

Integrity
Zhaoguang Yuan, Jerome Schubert, Texas A&M, Catalin Teodoriu, TU Clausthal

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 October–1 November 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
The failure probability of wellbore is high in HPHT gas wells because of the effect of the hole angle, the cementing
complications and the high pressure high temperature environment. However, most of the researches about the cement
problems are studied by two dimensional modeling. The effect of hole angle and cement complications on HPHT well
integrity in three dimension is hardly studied.
In the analysis, the finite element method was used to build a three dimension simulation model where the hole angle, casing
eccentricity, and cement channels are considered. One cement system (118-lbm/ft3) commonly applied in oil field is used to
study the effect of cement complications on the wellbore integrity. The hole angle, cement channel angle, and casing
eccentricity are the variables taken into account and an attempt is made to which parameter is the most important and its
effects on wellbore failure.
In the cement channeling, the casing has highest von Mises stress at the hole angle of 90°, and the cement tends to fail in
tension. The casing eccentricity tends to reduce cement shear stress, and tensile stress but increase cement compressive stress.
The cement has the highest compressive failure probability in casing eccentricity condition. At the casing eccentricity lower
than 40%, for different hole angle, the casing eccentricity has minor effect on the casing.
This paper presents the sensitivities of the variables and gives a better understanding of the effect of hole angle and cement
complications on the HPHT well integrity.

Introduction

Due to the high costs associated with HPHT wells, finding ways to reduce the failure probability and increase the wellbore
life are high-priority items. In the completion process, cementing complications may occur although the best efforts are being
used. Determining the effect of cementing complications and identifying methods to mitigate or avoid wellbore failure is
highly important. Casing eccentricity is usually a function of the wellbore angle, the number of casing centralizers, and the
wellbore dimensions. The higher the wellbore inclination angle is usually leads to a higher value of casing eccentricity (Ferda
et al. 2004). The effect of casing eccentricity on a cementing operation was investigated by Courturier et al. (1990) and Silva
et al. (1996). When the casing is not centered in the wellbore, the fluid favors the path of least resistance and flows more
rapidly on the wide side rather than on the narrow side. These conditions result in a distorted velocity distribution and the
displaced fluids may bypass the slow moving drilling mud on the narrow side. At the conclusion of the displacement process,
the annulus may contain a long strip of inefficient cement displacement of the drilling mud in a given interval, depending on
the local geometry. If casing eccentricity occurs, cement channeling tends to build up simultaneously, which allows cavities
to be filled with drilling mud, unset cement, or formation fluids. To prevent cement channeling, mud, spacers, and the cement
properties must be designed properly as defined by Christopher et al. (1990). A number of techniques can be used to detect
and repair cement channels (Hart et al. 1990).
It is also very important to know the effect casing eccentricity and cement channeling have on wellbore integrity if the
cementing problems exist. Finite element methods (FEMs) are helpful in studying cementing complications resulting from
complex conditions. Using FEMs, the stress distribution in the cement and the casing under perfect conditions was well
analyzed (Rodriguez et al. 2003). There is a significant difference for the von Mises stress distribution in the casing between
2 SPE 162839

the cements having high-thermal properties with a thermal conductivity of 2.4 /Wm-1K-1 and the cements having low-
thermal properties with a thermal conductivity of 0.66 /Wm-1K-1 (Manoochehr et al. 2010). The maximum von Mises stress in
wellbore casing in cemented using high-thermal property cements does not increase significantly by increases the degree of
casing eccentricity. However, the maximum von Mises stress in cemented wellbore casing using the low-thermal properties
cements increases by increasing the casing eccentricity. In reality, most of the cements fall into the category of low-thermal
property cements. The effect of casing eccentricity, voids, cement channels, and pore pressure decrease on the collapse
resistance of casing was studied by Berger et al. (2004). The presence of voids and cement channels can significantly increase
the casing failure probability. The casing eccentricity has a minor effect on casing collapse resistance; however, the voids
sizes, location, and sensitivity analysis was not considered. A study by Nabipour et al. (2010) showed the same results; i.e.,
the casing eccentricity has a minor effect on casing collapse resistance. Yuan et al. (2012) studied the the sensitivity of
mechanical properties to stress distribution in casing-cement-formation systems. The stress developed in the cement is
sensitive to cement Young’s modulus and formation Young’s modulus.
On the other hand, the effects of hole angle on casing-cement-formation systems are seldom studied, and they are important
parameters in the cementing operation. In the analysis being reported here, the hole angle, cement channel angle, and casing
eccentricity are the variables taken into account and an attempt is made to which parameter is the most important and its
effect on wellbore failure.

Cement and Casing Failure Modes

Cement failure risk is calculated based on a performance function of the type:

g ( X ) = R( X )− S ( X ) (1)

where R(X) is a random function describing the resistance or strength of the component or constituent; S(X) is the response of
the structure, also a random variable; and X is the vector of random variables. A negative or zero g(x) represents a failure
event. The probability of failure, pf, is defined as follows:

p f = p ( g ( X ) ≤ 0) (2)

The cement’s usual failure modes are compressive failure, shear failure, and tensile failure. The cement and rock compressive
strength increases significantly under confining pressure. The relationship between the confining pressure and compressive
strengths can be expressed as follows:

2S0 cos φ 1 + sin φ

σ= + σ3 (3)
1 − sin φ 1 − sin φ
The cement compressive failure, shear failure, and tensile failure are expressed in Equations (4), (5), and (6).
1. Compressive failure

g1 (σ , σ s ) = −σ + σ s (4)

2. Shear failure (Jaeger 1969)

1 1
1 ⎡ 2 ⎤ 1 ⎡ 2 ⎤
g2 ( S0 , µ , σ 1 , σ 3 ) = S0 − σ 1 ⎢(ν + 1) −ν ⎥ + σ 3 ⎢(ν + 1) 2 +ν ⎥
2 (5)
2 ⎣ ⎦ 2 ⎣ ⎦
3. Tensile failure

g3 (σ tensile , σ t ) = −σ tensile + σ t (6)

When the von Mises stress developed in the casing reaches the casing yielding stress, the casing tends to failure. Casing
yielding failure is expressed in Equation (8).
4. Yielding Failure
2 2 2

σ eqv =
(σ 1 − σ 2 ) + (σ 1 − σ 3 ) + (σ 2 − σ 3 ) (7)
2
SPE 162839 3

g 4 (σ y , σ eqv ) = −σ eqv + σ y (8)

Cementing Complications

The size of the cement channel is described by the cement channel angle β (Figure 1) with range between 0 and 360°. The
other factor to affect the size of the cement channel is the height of cement channel. In this study, the height of cement
channel is set to be 2-in. Figure 2 presents the casing eccentricity which is calculated by equation (9).

2ε
e= (9)
Wellbore ID - Casing OD
where ε is the distance between the center of the casing and the center of the wellbore.

Figure 1 Cement channel Figure 2 Casing eccentricity

Finite Element Methods

The stress and strain developed in the casing, cement, and formations are evaluated using FEM analysis. The 3D models
were built from the borehole angle of 0 to 90º. ANSYS was the platform used to develop code for the FEM analysis. The
types of elements used include SHELL63, SHELL93, SOLID45, and SOLID95. SOLID45 is used for the 3D modeling of
solid structures. This element is defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node. SOLID95, a higher
order version of the 3D 8-node solid element SOLID45, can tolerate irregular shapes without as much loss of accuracy. The
element, defined by 20 nodes having three degrees of freedom per node, may have any spatial orientation. Both the SOLID45
and SOLID95 elements have the capabilities of plasticity, creep, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain. Because
of the higher accuracy, more time is required for element SOLID95 to complete the solution than element SOLID45.
In the meshing process, the first step is to mesh the top surface area by SHELL63 and SHELL93 elements. The VSWEP
command was then used to mesh the volumes. The formation top surface area was meshed by the SHELL63 element, and
then the SOLID45 element was used for the volume sweep made from the top surface to the bottom. The SHELL93 element
was used for meshing the casing and the cement top surface area, and then elements of SOLID95 were used for the volume
sweep made from the top surface to the bottom. The benefit achieved by using the SHELL93 element is to keep the middle
node for the SOLID95 element. For the case of using the SHELL63 to mesh area and using SOLID95 to perform the volume
sweep, the meshed element is still SOLID45 because the middle node in the element cannot be kept. Finally, the meshed
casing and cement elements are SOLID95, and the meshed formation elements are SOLID45.
4 SPE 162839

Figure 3 Casing, cement, and formation system elements

To reduce the boundary effect for different wellbore angles, the results from the middle element located in the half height are
used to study the cement stress and strain (see Figure 3). In the analysis, the casing was 23.2lbm/ft, P-110 grade with a 5-in.
OD, and the wellbore diameter was 6 in. The formation Young’s modulus was 3E6 psi and the Poisson’s ratio was 0.27. The
measured depth of the wellbore was 16,117 ft with the true vertical depth of 12,562 ft, and the wellbore angle was 90º. The
minimum effective horizontal stress, the maximum effective horizontal stress, and the effective vertical stress were 6,000 psi,
4,000 psi and 3,800 psi respectively. The pore pressure was 10,000 psi. In the cement channeling, the 10,000 psi pressure was
applied in the channel to simulate the fluid flow from the reservoir to the wellbore. The cement was cured 60 days under the
temperature of 300°F. The cement density is 118-lbm/ft3 whose Young’s modulus is 2.32E6 psi, and the Poisson’s ratio is
0.219.

Effects of Cement Channel and Wellbore Angle

Figure 4 presents that at zero degree wellbore, as the cement channel angle increases from zero to 360°, the maximum casing
von Mises stress happens at the cement channel angle of 120°. For different wellbore angles, the maximum casing von Mises
stress occurs between the cement channel angle of 80 and 120°. As the wellbore increases from 0 to 90°, the maximum
casing von Mises stress tends to increase too. At the wellbore angle of 90° and channel angle of 80°, the maximum casing
von Mises stress reaches 6.7E4 psi, which is 47% larger than the stress developed at the concentric condition without cement
channel.

Figure 4 The effects of cement channel angle and wellbore angle on casing von Mises stress
SPE 162839 5

It is shown in Figure 5 that with the same wellbore angle, the cement maximum shear stress happens at the channel angle
between 40 and 50°. At the channel angle beyond 50°, the cement maximum shear stress remains constant. It is interesting
that with the same channel angle, the cement maximum shear stress occurs at the wellbore angle between 40 and 50°. At the
wellbore angle of 40° and channel angle of 40°, the cement maximum shear stress reaches 4.5E4 psi, which is 114% larger
than the stress developed at the concentric condition without cement channel.  

Figure 5 The effects of cement channel angle and wellbore angle on cement shear stress

Figure 6 shows that with the same wellbore angle, the cement maximum tensile stress happens at the channel angle between
40 and 50°. At the channel angle beyond 50°, the cement maximum tensile stress remains constant. As the channel angle
approaches to 360°, the cement maximum tensile stress increases a small amount. With the same channel angle, the cement
maximum shear stress occurs at the wellbore angle of 40°. At the wellbore angle of 40° and cement channel angle of 40°, the
cement maximum tensile stress reaches 2.7E4 psi, which is 440% larger than the stress developed at the concentric condition
without cement channel.   Figure 7 presents that the cement maximum radial stress has the same trend as the cement
maximum shear stress. At the channel angle beyond 50°, the cement maximum radial stress remains constant. At the wellbore
angle of 40°, the cement maximum radial stress reaches 8.5E4 psi, which is 55% larger than the stress developed at the
concentric condition without cement channel.  

Figure 6 The effects of cement channel angle and wellbore angle on cement tensile stress
6 SPE 162839

Figure 7 The effects of cement channel angle and wellbore angle on cement radial stress

Effects of Casing Eccentricity and Wellbore Angle

It is clearly shown from Figure 8 that at the casing eccentricity lower than 40%, for different wellbore angle, the casing
eccentricity does not have much effect on the casing von Mises stress. As the casing eccentricity approaches to 90%, at the
wellbore angle between 30 and 50°, the casing maximum von Mises stress reaches 7.5E4 psi, which is 67% larger than the
stress developed at the concentric condition.  

Figure 8 The effects of casing eccentricity and wellbore angle on casing von Mises stress
SPE 162839 7

Figure 9 presents that the casing eccentricity tends to reduce cement shear stress. At the wellbore angle of 90°, with 84%
eccentricity, the cement maximum shear stress is 2.4E4 psi, which is 17% smaller than the stress developed at the concentric
condition. With the same eccentricity, as the wellbore angle increases from 0 to 40°, the cement maximum shear stress
reduces and reaches the lowest value at the wellbore angle of 40°, after that, the cement maximum shear stress tends to
increase and reaches the highest value at the wellbore angle of 90°.

Figure 9 The effects of casing eccentricity and wellbore angle on cement shear stress

Figure 10 shows that at the wellbore angle of 50°, the cement develops the highest tensile stress, which is 52% larger than
the stress developed at the concentric condition in the vertical well. The casing eccentricity also tends to reduce cement
tensile stress, which is clear in the vertical well. In the vertical well, at the eccentricity of 84%, the cement maximum tensile
stress is 20% smaller than the stress developed at the concentric condition.  

Figure 10 The effects of casing eccentricity and wellbore angle on cement tensile stress
8 SPE 162839

Figure 11 presents that the cement maximum radial stress slightly increases with the wellbore angle. The cement radial stress
reaches the highest value at the wellbore angle of 90°. For the same wellbore angle, as the casing eccentricity increases, the
cement radial stress increases too. At the same wellbore angle, with the eccentricity of 84%, the cement maximum radial
stress is 36% larger than the stress developed at the concentric condition.  

Figure 11 The effects of casing eccentricity and wellbore angle on cement radial stress

Effects of Casing Eccentricity and Cement Channel Simultaneously

In the vertical wells, at the casing eccentricity lower than 60%, the eccentricity alone has minor effect on the casing von
Mises stress. In Figure 12, it is almost a horizontal straight line for the casing von Mises stress under the condition of
eccentricity alone. However, under the condition of eccentricity and channel, the casing von Mises stress is 56% larger than
the concentric condition without cement channel.

Figure 12 The effects of casing eccentricity and cement channel on casing von Mises stress (vertical well)
SPE 162839 9

Conclusions

(1) For different wellbore angles, the maximum casing von Mises stress occurs between the cement channel angle of 80 and
120°. As the wellbore increases from 0 to 90°, the casing maximum von Mises stress tends to increase too. At the
wellbore angle of 90°, the casing von Mises stress has the highest value.
(2) With the same wellbore angle, the cement maximum shear stress, tensile stress, and radial stress happen at the channel
angle between 40 and 50°. At the channel angle beyond 50°, the cement maximum shear stress, tensile stress, and radial
stress remain constant. With the same channel angle, the cement maximum shear stress occurs at the wellbore angle
between 40 and 50°.    
(3) The cement has the highest tensile failure probability in cement channeling condition. At the wellbore angle of 40°, the
cement maximum von Mises stress reaches 2.7E4 psi, which is 440% larger than the stress developed at the concentric
condition without cement channel.  
(4) At the casing eccentricity lower than 40%, for different wellbore angle, the casing eccentricity has minor effect on the
casing von Mises stress. As the casing eccentricity approaches to 90%, at the wellbore angle between 30 and 50°, the
casing maximum von Mises stress reaches 7.5E4 psi, which is 67% larger than the stress developed at the concentric
condition.    
(5) The cement has the highest compressive failure probability in casing eccentricity condition. The casing eccentricity
tends to reduce cement shear stress, and tensile stress but increase cement radial stress (which is also compressive stress).

Nomenclature

σ1 = first principal stress, psi.

σ2 = second principal stress, psi.
σ3 = third principal stress, psi.
σeqv = equivalent stress, psi.
σs = compressive strength, psi.
σt = tensile strength, psi.
σtensile = tensile stress, psi.
σy = yielding strength, psi.
µ = internal frictional coefficient
φ = internal frictional angle, degree.
e = casing eccentricity, percent
S0 = cement uniaxial compressive strength, psi.
X = the vector of random variables
ε = distance between the center of the casing and the center of the wellbore

Acknowledgements

The authors thank to Crisman Institute from Texas A&M University. We appreciate the support.

References

Berger A., Flecknestein W. and Eustes A. 2004. Effect of Eccentricity, Voids, Cement Channels, and Pore Pressure Decline
on Collapse Resistance of Casing. Paper SPE 90045 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, 26-29 September.
Christopher L., Ryan D. and Marcus G. 1990. Cement Channeling: How To Predict and Prevent. SPE Drilling Engineering,
5, 201-208.
Couturler M., Guillot D., Hendriks H. and Callet F. 1990. Design Rules and Associated Spacer Properties for Optimal Mud
Removal in Eccentric Annuli. Paper SPE 21594 presented at the CIM/SPE International Technical Meeting, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 10-13 June.
Ferda A., Shedid A. and Hamed A. 2004. Simulation Investigation of Casing Eccentricity Estimation for Different Inclination
Angles and Tensile Forces Using Finite Element Method. Paper SPE 91811 presented at the SPE International Petroleum
Conference in Mexico, Puebla Pue., Mexico, 7-9 November.
10 SPE 162839

Hart P.E. and Wilson L.C. 1990. Improved Channel Repairs with Small-Phased Circumferential Perforating Guns. Paper
SPE 20424 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 23-26 September.
Manoochehr S., Min J., Yang J., Ahmed R. and Bahman T. 2010. Effect of Casing Eccentricity on Casing Stability Analysis
in Wellbores Drilled in Gas Hydrate Bearing Sediments. Paper SPE 131236 presented at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual
Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 14-17 June.
Nabipour A.and Joodi B. 2010. Finite Element Simulation of Downhole Stresses in Deep Gas Wells Cements. SPE Paper
132156 presented at the SPE Deep Gas Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, 24-26 January.
Rodriguez W.J., Fleckenstein W.W., and Eustes A.W. 2003. Simulation of Collapse loads on Cemented Casing Using Finite
Element Analysis. Paper SPE 84566 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
5-8 October.
Silva M., Martins A., Barbosa B. and Garcia H. 1996. Designing Fluid Velocity Profiles for Optimal Primary Cementing.
Paper SPE 36136 presented at the SPE Latin America/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad, 23-26 April.
Yuan Z., Schubert J., Teodoriu C., and Gardoni P. 2012. HPHT Gas Well Cementing Complications and its Effect on Casing
Collapse Resistance. SPE 153986 presented at SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, 28-30
March.