Cement

Evaluation
Logging
 Diagnostics
• A successful squeeze cannot be performed without first diagnosing the
problem
• Diagnostic methods include:
– Acoustic cement evaluation logs
– Temperature logs
– Pressure integrity tests

– Production data
– Production logs

– Pulsed neutron logs

– Casing caliper (mechanical or ultrasonic)
– Downhole camera

– Injection tests
 Lesson Objectives

• Tools used for evaluation

• Describe purposes of cement evaluation

• Interpret logs to determine cement quality

Cement Job Evaluation
 Cement Evaluation – Goal

• Determine if the material behind the pipe is a solid

or liquid

• Is there isolation in the annulus

• Where is the cement (TOC)

• There is no such a thing as “bad cement” or “good

cement”
 Evaluation Techniques

1. Radioactive Tracer Survey

2. Hydraulic Testing

3. Temperature Survey

4. Acoustic Logging
 Radioactive Tracers

• Radioactive tracer work is very rare in cementing evaluation and

requires specialty equipment and personnel

• Generally used only in very special applications

– Well control – flow determination
– Lost circulation – identify loss zones

• More common in fracturing applications to determine if prop stayed in

zone
 Pressure Evaluation

• The most common method of cement evaluation is

to perform some type of pressure evaluation to
determine if isolation has been achieved
• Perforation Pressure test
• Casing test
• Liner top test
 Temperature Logs

• Temperature surveys (logs) are very effective but

must be run within a specific time window to be
valid

• Very cost effective

• Limited application
– Generally used for determining top of cement or lost
circulation zone

– Can be used to determine underground flow

 Temperature Survey

• The heat of hydration causes a

temperature rise

• Need to compare the results with caliper

or breakout areas

• Look for a change in slope to a different

temperature gradient or a spike in the
temperature

• Gives approximate location of cement –

it is not a precise measurement due to
temperature diffusion up the well
Is this temperature change due to the
top of cement, or a change in the
hole size?
 Temperature Logs

• Temperature logs may show too much detail when

viewed on a small scale

• Taking the full wellbore data from the ASCII file

and plotting it out for the full wellbore can give
information that is easier to interpret
 Full Well Temperature Survey (from Piceance Creek)

120

115

110

105

100

95

Probable Top of Cement

90

85

80
2.75 65.3 128 190 253 315 378 440 503 565 628 690 753 815 878 940 1003 1065 1128 1190 1253 1315 1378 1440 1503 1565
 Temperature Logs

• The lighter the slurry – the less exotherm will be

present when the cement sets

• The higher the wellbore temperature, the more

difficult it will be to see a change in temperature
from the cement

• The smaller the annulus, the less the mass of

cement, the more difficult it will be to see a change
in temperature from the cement
Acoustic Logging
 Acoustic Logging

• Noise Logging

– Detects noise from moving fluids

– Not continuous

– Used to detect flow behind pipe

• Sonic Logs

– Conventional bond logs

• Ultrasonic Logs

– USIT, CAST V, ISO Scanner

 Conventional Cement Bond Log

• “A Sonic Method for Analyzing the Quality of

Cementation of Borehole Casings” SPE-1512,
Oct. 1960

• “The amplitude of a sound signal after it has

traveled in a firmly cemented pipe is only a
fraction of that recorded by the same device in
free pipe.”
 Amplitude vs. Attenuation

• Amplitude (mV) – the magnitude of acoustic

energy at the receiver

• Attenuation (dB/ft) – energy loss from a wave

propagation during transmission across a
space
 Sonic Log – Principle of Operation

• Measures the amplitude of a 20 kHz acoustic wave

after it has traveled through a section of casing

• The amplitude is converted to attenuation by

using either values from chart or book conversions
or using the ratio of multiple transmitter and
receiver amplitudes

• The percent of the circumference of the casing

bonded is then computed by calculating a “Bond
Index”
 Conventional CBL
Casing
Cement
Formation

20 kHz
Amplitude
Transmitter

3 ft.
receiver

VDL
5 ft.
receiver
CBL (Sonic) Signal Transmission

Mud

Casing

Cement

Formation

Composite
CBL (Sonic) Signal Transmission

Raw Amplitude Waveforms

Signal Processing into a VDL

Raw Waveform

Half Wave Rectified and Shaded

Stacked Shading
 Conventional CBL
• Assumes the cement is homogeneous – same density, same
strength throughout the well
• Signal is transmitted and picked up on receivers spaced at
3 and 5 feet from the transmitter
• 3 foot receiver used for pipe / cement “bonding”
• 5 foot receiver used to get a qualitative indication of
formation bonding
• Processed signal is an average over the 3 or 5 foot interval
• Cement properties are key to the interpretation of CBL
Logs
 CBL – Bond Index
• What is needed?

– Expected cement impedance - amplitude for 100% bond: E100%

– Free pipe amplitude: EFree

– Measured amplitude: EMeas

• Bond index:

BI = log10(Emeas/Efree)
log10 (E100%/Efree)

• Conventional thought (wrong, but conventional)

– 80% < BI < 100%: “Good” cement

– 80% > BI: “Bad” cement
CBL Interpretation Chart

Original nomograph
developed in 1963

Nomograph is tool specific

Normal assumption is the

cement has a strength of
3,000 psi
Typical CBL Presentation
Free Pipe

Transit Time

Gamma Ray

Amplitude Curve

Casing Collars
Microannulus – zero pressure
Microannulus – 1,500 psi

Cycle Skip
 Transit Time Stretch / Cycle Skip

E1
Detection Level

Transit Time Time

Stretch
 Eccentering – Effects on CBL

Relative
Response
0.8

Eccentering
0.6

+
+
0.4

0.2

1/2 1/4 0 -1/4 -1/2

Courtesy of Atlas Wireline Services Division
Western Atlas International, Inc.
Eccentering (inches)
 CBL

Strengths

• Works in most well fluids, tolerates corrosion

• Responds to solidity (shear coupling)

• Qualitative cement-formation bond from VDL

• Inexpensive

• With sufficient data base, can be quite accurate

 CBL

Weaknesses

• High CBL amplitude can be ambiguous

– liquid microannulus (shear coupling lost)

– Channel

– Contaminated cement

• Low amplitude doesn’t ensure 100% bond

• Vertical Resolution ~ 3 ft.

• Knowledge of cement properties is key

 Other Sonic Tools

• Segmented Bond Tool (SBT)

• Radial Analysis Cement Bond Log (RAL)

 Segmented Bond Tool

• Pad Mounted Radial Tool – 6 pads, 60 degree

investigation angle

• Attenuation measurements are made in two directions

using steered transmitters and receivers on adjacent
pads

• Effective acoustic energy is increased by a factor of 4

• Derives a compensated value that does not depend on

receiver sensitivities or transmitter power

• Vertical Resolution ~ 6 inches

 Segmented Bond Tool

Transmitter - Receiver
T1 Sequence
T T5
3

R2 R4 R6

5 6 1 2 3 4

R1 R3 R5

T2 T4 T6
T1 → R2 →R3 T4 → R3 → R2
A12 A13 A43 A42
H24-H3 Liner Severely Channeled Cement
H24-H3 Liner High-Side Cement Channel
 Radial Analysis Cement Bond Log (RAL)

• Not a pad tool

• Single Transmitter
• Ten Crystal Receivers
– One at 3 and 5 ft. Eight at 3.25” from transmitter
– Can plot each of the 8 receivers on a separate track
• Downhole calibration reference signal
– No assumption of 100% bond
• Output includes detailed cement map
Ultrasonic Tools
Ultrasonic Tools
USI Logging Procedure

1. Measure fluid properties using

reference plate while running into
well:
- velocity FVEL
- acoustic impedance ZMUD

2. Enter ZMUD and FVEL

parameters. Flip transducer to face
casing and log up.
 Ultrasonic Logging Principals
• Logs scan around the wellbore and take 36, 72 or
100 readings

• Readings are processed into a cement map that is

color coded with the colors indicating the relative
range of the readings

• Many logs use a cut off point for cement at 2.6

Acoustic Impedance
Acoustic Impedance of Various Materials

Acoustic Impedance
Material 106 kg.m2 sec

Fresh Water 1.5

Free Gas 0.1

Steel (casing) 46.0

12 lb/gal Drilling Mud 2.16

15 lb/gal Drilling Mud 2.70

17 lb/gal Drilling Mud 3.06

9 lb/gal Foamed Class C (250 psi) 2.19

9 lb/gal Foamed Class C (1000 psi) 2.69

13 lb/gal Cement (500 psi) 3.37

13 lb/gal Cement (2000 psi) 4.42

16.5 lb/gal Cement (500 psi) 4.38

16.5 lb/gal Cement (2000 psi) 5.62

Fluid Behind Pipe
Cement Behind Pipe
USIT Log Header – Cement Presentation
USIT - Cement Presentation
 Isolation Scanner

• New tool from Schlumberger

• Similar ultrasonic measurement to USIT, but

signal is not sent at 90° to the casing

• Resulting measurement is a flexural wave

• Designed to determine solid, liquid or gas

• Effective in very low cement densities

ISO Scanner – Evaluation of Annular Material

Decay Rate 1

Decay Rate 2
ISO Scanner Header
 ISO Scanner Log Example

Well Data QC Data Casing Data Cement Data

 USIT vs. ISO Scanner

Response to materials with low acoustic impedance

Resolution of the measurement
Relative Response

USIT (Resolution = 0.5 MRayl)

ISO Scanner (Resolution = 0.2 MRayl)

2.0 Acoustic Impedance 3.2

 Ultrasonic Tools

• Tolerate liquid (wet) microannulus (vibrations normal to surface)

• Full coverage, 30 mm resolution image

– Detailed picture of material distribution: solid, liquid, gas

– Detects narrow channels

• Less uncertainty than sonic logs (CBL/CBT) ?

• Casing inspection in same pass

 Summary

Sonic Tools Ultrasonic Tools

u Limited mud weights

• Work in any mud u No formation evaluation
• Qualitative formation evaluation u Insensitive to microannulus
• Sensitive to microannulus u Independent of cement properties
u Can include casing inspection
• Sensitive to the material in contact
with the pipe u No averaging of the wellbore
u Preferred for low density, low
• Very limited in lightweight strength cement systems
cements
• Average over 3’ of wellbore (can
vary with some tools)
Ultrasonic and Sonic logs are sensitive to the cement/casing
bond but in different ways - complementary evaluation tools
 Summary

Sonic Tools Ultrasonic Tools

Think:
Think:
When does the signal come back?
How Loud is the signal?
 Summary

• In the absence of cement job data, the slurries

pumped, and formations involved, cement
evaluation is very difficult and subject to extreme
interpretation errors.

• For optimum evaluation, cement job data must be

included in the evaluation because cement does
not disappear.