Optimal Spacing for

Casing Centralizers
H.K. Lee, SPE, Amoco Production Co.
R.C. Smith, SPE, Amoco Production Co.
R.E. Tighe, SPE, Amoco Production Co.

Summary. In the placement of centralizers on casing, it is necessary to integrate information on hole

trajectory, casing properties, and centralizer performance. This paper summarizes the basic theory and
algorithms for optimizing centralizer spacing based on these considerations. The algorithm predicts the wall
forces in a three-dimensional (3D) borehole.
Although centralizer placement is important in all wells, it is especially important for highly deviated bore-
holes and deep, heavy strings. With the detailed approach described here, centralizer placement design gives the
operator greater confidence in the prediction of minimum standoff distance for these types of wells.
Some examples of field applications are presented. Also, cementing results from field wells support the
conclusion that good cement placement is obtained when adequate centralizers are used.

Introduction
Centralizing the casing in the borehole is essential to ob-
tain effective cement placement around the casing string.
This is particularly true for deviated holes. Spring-bow
centralizers or positive-standoff devices improve the
cement-flow pattern for better mud displacement and pro-
vide better cement-sheath coverage around the casing cir-
cumference. Most flow calculations relating to mud
displacement efficiency assume the casing is centered in
the wellbore.
It is necessary for the engineer conducting casing-
cementing operations to integrate the axial and weight load
forces and the bending forces caused by hole curvature
into a centralizer placement schedule that provides ade-
quate pipe standoff based on the restoring force exerted
by the centralizers.
API Specification 10D 1 contains a recommended
procedure for the calculation of lateral forces exerted by
the casing on centralizers in a two-dimensional (2D) in-
clined borehole. We present an approach that permits anal-
yses for 3D borehole trajectories and provides a complete
design for centralizer placement. The algorithm used in
the centralizer-spacing program is based primarily on API
Specification 10D for lateral-load calculation. 1,2 It uses
Lubinski's 3D dogleg-severity criterion for handling the
curvature changes in the borehole. 3 In addition, the ef-
fect of buoyancy on casing weight and the effective lateral
load on centralizers are considered in the spacing al-
gorithm. Furthermore, pipe deflection (sagging) between
the centralizers is analyzed with Timoshenko's method 4
to arrive at the effective standoff clearance.
Discussion
The lateral load imposed on a casing centralizer is the
combined effect of centralizer spacing, casing weight,
hole-inclination angle, hole curvature, and tension from
the pipe hanging below the centralizer.
Copyright 1986 Society of Petroleum Engineers
The equations presented in API Specification 10D sum-
marize the forces that act on a centralizer as follows.
Ws j sin 0 j + Ws j+ 1 sin 0 i+ 1
- - - - - - - - - - - +2T sin 0 j
2
Nj=-----~----------- . (1)
cos OJ
and
Tj-l
Tj=cos OJ +WSj cos OJ
[
cos OJ-1
sjsinO ]
+W 2 (tan oj-tan OJ-I) ........... (2)
At 0,
Nj=Ws sin 0+2T j sin OJ ................... (3)
and
Tj=Tj_ 1 +WS cos OJ ....................... (4)
The equations used in API Specification 10D are based
on Ref. 2. Use of the positive or negative sign before the
tension term or tensile: load depends on the direction of
the dogleg. The positive sign is used in the API's publi-
cation to arrive at a consistently conservative figure for
the force on a centralizer because of the various unknowns
in a typical deviated hole-e.g., the degree of angle
change between two survey points.
Buoyancy Effect on Casing Weight
It is appropriate to use the effective casing weight rather
than the air weight of the casing as presented in API Spec-
ification lOD; Le., the buoyancy effect on the casing string

122 SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986

 Fig. 2-0ogleg-severity analysis (after Gutsche et al. 5 ),

severity calculations is used. Hole curvature is calculat-

ed for individual sections between directional survey
points to account for the borehole path represented by
Fig. 1.
In a general case, the lateral load imposed on a cen-
tralizer will include gravitational, hole-curvature, and
axial-load forces. Hole curvature is calculated for in-
dividual sections and takes into account the 3D borehole
path indicated by Fig. 1.
The hole curvature 20 is affected by both vertical and
horizontal angle changes (see Fig. 2). The following
known formula is used to determine hole curvature:

20=2 arc sin [sin 2 (~O)

Fig. 1-30 well bore trajectory (after Gutsche et al. 5 ).
+sin 2 (~rt) sin OJ' sin OJ-l Y' .......... (7)

caused by the density of drilling mud is considered. The Referring the hole curvature to a standard length of 100
buoyancy factor and effective weight of casing can be cal- ft [30.48 m], Lubinski 3,6 introduced the term dogleg
culated as follows: severity in connection with his well-known contribution
to analysis of drill string fatigue.
Fb= (1- Pm)Ps
........................... (5) Total hole angle 20 and the radius of the hole curva-
ture r are interrelated by the following equation. Let

!lL=r20.
and
Then
We = (Fb)(Ws ), ........................... (6)

where Ps is about 65.4 Ibm/gal [7836 kg/m3]. 20(100)

OOLS = ........................... (8)
!!.L
Dogleg Severity Caused by 3D Borehole
Curvature Changes and
One of the assumptions in Specification IOD is that bore-
hole curvature changes only in a single vertical plane. The (OOLS)(!lL)
API algorithm has been modified here to consider 3D 0= , ........................... (9)
borehole curvature changes caused by simultaneous 200
changes in the hole inclination and hole direction, and the
ensuing influence on casing string external loads. As where 100 becomes 30.48 and 200 becomes 60.96 when
Gutsche et al. 5 proposed, Lubinski's criterion for dogleg expressed in SI metric values.

SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986 123

 TABLE 1-CALCULATIONS FROM 20 BOREHOLE CONFIGURATION
Depth Deviation Azimuth Dogleg Severity Lateral Load Tension Spacing
~ (degrees) (degrees) (degrees/l00 tt) (Ibfljoint) (Ibf) (tt)
0 0.00 0.00 0.50 827.2 236,600 56
1,000 5.00 0.00 0.62 941.6 214,000 51
1,800 10.00 0.00 0.71 997.2 196,000 49
2,500 15.00 0.00 0.37 538.0 180,500 65
3,300 18.00 0.00 0.22 388.4 163,000 72
4,200 20.00 0.00 0.38 518.5 143,600 62
5,500 25.00 0.00 0.38 521.4 116,000 59
6,800 30.00 0.00 0.71 659.8 89,390 54
7,500 35.00 0.00 0.71 668.0 75,690 51
8,200 40.00 0.00 0.42 638.2 62,730 51
9,400 45.00 0.00 0.00 640.0 41,600 51
10,250 45.00 0.00 0.00 640.0 28,000 49
10,750 45.00 0.00 0.00 640.0 20,000 49
11,250 45.00 0.00 0.00 640.0 12,000 49
12,000 45.00 0.00 0.00 640.0 1,160 49

With the dogleg severity calculation, the capability of Casing Deflection Between Centralizers
the API algorithm is enhanced to handle 3D curved
The approximate sag (maximum downward deflection on
boreholes.
the casing between centralizers) of pipe is given by the
Calculated results from both 2D and 3D algorithms are
following equations, which are based on Timoshenko's4
shown in Tables 1 and 2. Results indicate that the 3D data
analysis for a tie rod under uniform lateral load with ten-
that consider the variation of the borehole azimuth will
sion force. The maximum deflection, Ymax, occurs at the
generate greater dogleg severity and accordingly require midpoint of the casing string between centralizers-Le.,
closer centralizer spacing.
Ymax =(Y)x=tl2, where is the centralizer spacing.
Effective Lateral Force on Centralizers 1 u2
---1+-
(3845D ' [COSh 2]
If the 3D effect of the borehole curvature change is ig- 4
nored, a decrease in the calculated lateral load caused by N eS ) u
... (13)
the method used in Ref. 2 for dogleg-severity calculation Ymax = (5/24)4
results. This can make a significant difference in the num-
ber of centralizers required in the upper part of the hole. and
With the 3D dogleg-severity calculation, the algorithm
gives a better approximation of the curvature effect on S2
borehole. The effective load is defined as the root mean U= (Te )Ih, .......................... (14)
square of the gravitational, hole-curvature, and axial-load 4EI
forces.
where E=30x 10 6 psi [206.8 x 10 3 MPa].
N e =[(We )2+(Te )2J'h, ................... (10)

We=(Fb)(Ws)(S)' sin 0, .................. (11) Centralizer Placement Program

A computer program was developed for centralizer place-
and ment on the basis of the algorithm discussed in this paper.
The program has the capability to calculate both constant
Te =2T sin o. . ........................... (12) spacing and variable spacing for centralizers. It calculates

TABLE 2-CALCULATlONS FROM 3D BOREHOLE CONFIGURATION

Depth Deviation Azimuth Dogleg Severity Lateral Load Tension Spacing
~ (degrees) (degrees) (degrees/l00 tt) (Ibfljoint) (Ibf) (tt)
0 0.00 0.00 0.50 826.1 236,300 56
1,000 5.00 30.00 0.70 1045.0 213,700 49
1,800 10.00 50.00 0.85 1172.0 195,600 46
2,500 15.00 65.00 0.65 855.1 180,100 51
3,300 18.00 80.00 0.58 726.2 162,600 56
4,200 20.00 95.00 0.48 594.6 143,200 59
5,500 25.00 105.00 0.80 771.4 115,500 51
6,800 30.00 125.00 1.68 1155.0 88,920 42
7,500 35.00 145.00 1.87 1129.0 75,220 42
8,200 40.00 165.00 0.83 696.7 62,380 51
9,400 42.00 180.00 3.53 1221.0 41,820 40
10,250 44.00 135.00 6.21 1400.0 27,990 40
10,750 46.00 90.00 6.42 1139.0 20,130 40
11,250 48.00 45.00 4.35 778.6 12,580 46
12,000 48.00 0.00 4.35 778.6 1,160 44

124 SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986

 Measured Oog-Leg Inclination Azimuth
Well: Louisiana No.1 Depth
(Ft)
Severity
(Deg/l00F)
Angle
(Oeg)
Angle
(Oeg)
Hole Size: 9-7/8" Drilled 5107.0 0.31143 2.0 N70E
5199.0
g::. 2.3 N75E
Casing Size: 7", 29#/ft and 32 #/ft 5292.0
5384.0
547'.0
0.3259
0.0000
2.0
2.'
23
N75E
NI1 E
NnE
55eI.0
Centralizer Program: 51&1.0
5753.0
1.1047
0.3010
2.3
3.3
NnE
NUE

...
0.9125 3.3 NI7E
584'.0 0.50" '.0 NIt E
1 Centralizer/Jt (40'):3000'-TD 5937.0
e030.0
8122.0
0.5C35
0.0000 '.0
NICE
NnE
0.0000 '.0 NnE
5214.0
.....
0.2274 '.0 NnE
e30M 0.5882 '.0 N 71e
8399.0 1.1505 NnE
6491.0 14144 N'3E
8583.0 1.4288 e. N 75
8675.0 0.&307 7. NilE
6788.0
68110.0
6952.0
0.7924
0.827' 7'
'.0
NeH
N5IE
15816 7.3 NICE
7065.0
1151.0
72....0
18722
29650
3.2625
,.7e
9.3
N 73
N'H
snE
73410 21206 10.3 SUE
7433.0 11735 11.3 SOlE
75250 '."22 12.3 551 E
76110 1.2073 13.5 5 ..1
77090 15039 14.5 547
7801.0 0.1677 15.5 S43E
78930 03042 '8.3 S44E
79650 0._ 16.3 S43E
10780 008119 18.0 S43E
81100 0392e 15.0 S43E
e... o 0.3928 15.3 S44E
113540
.,..60
0.2717
0.2717
'.0
14.8
545
S45E
85380 0.0000 14.5 5.5
eeoso 0.0000 '4.5 S45E

Fig. 3a: Directional Survey Data

45OO~----~--~-----T----~~----~--~~----~----~----~----,

5000

5500

6000
-
-~-=
~
po-.
~--.

~
-==--:-

~. r===,. ))
_6500'
:s
:$7000
a.
Q)
Cl
c= ~c
-<
"l
'k--
~

~.
--~
~
.5
~
-
r
I-'"
7500
-
~
8000
t--
8500 I~
~

9000
0 200 400 600 8000 100 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0:.
Lateral Load per Joint (Ib) MiIIvoIts Stand-Off (fraction)

Fig.3b: Lateral Load on Fig.3c:CBL,mv. Fig. 3d: Minimum

Centralizers-per Standoff
Joint (40 ft)

Fig. 3-Loulslana No.1.

the dogleg severity and lateral and axial loads on the cen-
tralizer. It also computes the standoff in the annulus, the
spacing, and the number of centralizers required for each
borehole section. The program generates lateral load as
well as a standoff diagram when constant spacing is re-.
quested. If the variable-spacing option is exercised, a spac-
ing diagram instead of standoff diagram will be generated
by the program because standoff is the predetermined pa-
rameter specified by the user.
The restoring force is the force exerted by a centraliz-
er against the borehole to keep the pipe away from the
borehole wall. API assumes that bow centralizers will
deflect one-third of the theoretical radial clearance while
the specified restoring force is developed. The actual
restoring force should be provided by the manufacturer
through a standard testing procedure. The API minimum
values of restoring force for various casing/hole size com-
binations are listed in Ref. 1.
The variation of the lateral load generally reflects the
dogleg severity effects in the borehole (see Fig. 3). The
lateral load tends to deflect the pipe, whereas the tensile
force tends to straighten the pipe and counter the sag
deflection. Therefore, with a slant hole that has constant
dogleg severity-Le., both inclination and azimuth angle
are constant-the casing near the bottomhole requires
closer centralizer spacing than that in the upper hole be-
cause of the lower tensile effect near the bottom.
The sagging (deflection) prediction is based on the com-
bination of lateral load and tensile force from the pipe
hanging below the centralizer. In the determination of
minimum standoff, the sag deflection is additive to any
lateral deflection in the centralizer that occurs in the de-
velopment of the centralizer restoring force.

SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986 125

 Well: Louisiana No.2 Measured
Depth
Dog-Leg
Severity
Inclination
Angle
Azimuth
Angle
Hole Size: 12-1/4" Drilled (Ft) (Deg/l00F) (Deg) (Deg)
23140 0.5376 20,3 Nll W
Casing Size: 9-5/8", 43.5#/ft 2407.0
25010
0.0000
0.2688
20.8
20.8
NllW
Nll W
2594.0 05376 21.0
Centralizer Program: 26870
27810
0.4702
04716
21.5
21.3
NllW
NllW
N lOW
1 Cent. @ 4087' 28740
29670
30610
0.6589
04560
07872
21.0
20.5
20.3
NIl W
N lOW
Nll W
2 Cent. @ 3405'-3448' 3154.0
32470
33400
0.2688
0.0000
02660
20.0
19.8
19.8
N 9W
N 9W
N 9W
CTC Pkr. @ 3354'-3406' 34340
35270
36200
0.4502
06464
07014
19.5
19.8
19.3
N 9W
N 8W
N 9W
1 Cent./JT: 2940'-3354' 37140
38070
04431
0.5376
0.0000
19.3
19.0
N 7W
N 6W
3900 0 19.5 N 6W
1 Cent./JT: 2660'-2860' 39950
40970
0.4902
00000
19.5
20.0
N 6W
N 6W
41280 00000 20.0 N 6W
1 Cent./JT: 2300'-2540' 41320 00000 20.0 N 6W

Fig. 4a: Directional Survey Data

2000 -r----,...----,.---r---, r---~- ---, .------:-----,.--....,...--....

L
.--
,~,
~
.",'': -
-& --;:"
2500 t-----i----i---+--+---II-~"_+=_=--/I_--+--+_--l_+--
--~:-
,1 -'-
:1 t~~r-
i-~-
3000 I----+---+--*--+---/I--::-::~T.o:-~:+----/ I - - - - + - - - - ! - - - I - + - - I

f ~'~-r-
.""':'" --;:-
3~r---+---+-~+~--~~-~'---~~I----+---+---~---~

4000r--~---+-~-+---- I----+--_/~--+--+---~--I

4~0~-~2~OO---~400~--~600*---~800~0~--~----~~0~-~0.-2--0~.4--~O~.6--~O.8
Lateral Load per Joint (Ib) Millivolts Stand-Off (fraction)

Fig. 4b: Lateral Load on Fig.4c:CBL, mv. Fig. 4d: Minimum

Centralizers-per Standoff
Joint (40 ft)
Fig. 4-Loulsiana No.2.

Field Case Histories the centralizer-placement program to a well in Louisiana.

To calculate centralizer-placement spacing, the desired
minimum standoff must be determined. Although there
is no known minimum standoff distance that is absolute-
ly necessary to achieve a good cement job, our approach
could be used to develop a correlation on the basis of mini-
mum standoff and successful field jobs. The industry
seems to have accepted a minimum standoff ratio of 0.67
for centralizer deflection under load; however, this is
generally conservative compared with actual centralizer
performance. Our calculations permit use of any centraliz-
er standoff desired but default to a minimum of 0.67 if
a higher degree is not specified. The minimum standoff
for centralizer-placement design is based on the cumula-
tive deflection in the centralizer plus pipe sag.
Figs. 3 through 5 present data from wells cemented with
good centralizer programs. The graphics show the cal-
culated lateral load and the standoff for both 2D and 3D
hole-direction changes. Fig. 3 shows the application of
126
Hole inclination was a nominal 4 to about 6,300 ft [1900
m], and it gradually increased to 16 at 7,900 ft [2400
m] before it dropped to 14.5 at 8,600 ft [2600 m]. The
typical inclination change was about 0.8 /1 00 ft
[0.8130.48 m]. The maximum hole curvature was about
3.2 /100 ft [3.2 /30.48 m] at a depth of 7,450 ft [2270
m]. Centralizer-placement spacing of one per joint be-
tween total depth (TD) and 5,000 ft [1500 m] generally
*
provided a minimum standoff of in. [1.91 cm], accord-
ing to program calculations. The well was cemented with
a two-stage slurry design. The lead slurry was extremely
lightweight cement and was scheduled to be placed be-
tween 4,500 and 6,700 ft [1400 and 2050 m]. On the bond
log, it appears that the bottom of the low-strength cement
is at about 6,750 ft [2060 m]. The poor bond at 8,300
ft [2500 m] is opposite a washed-out section that shows
more than 16 in. [40.6 cm] on the caliper log. Note that
at about 7,250 ft [2210 m] there is a large lateral load
SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986
 Measured Dog--Leg Inclination . Azimuth
Well: New Mexico NO.3 Depth
(Ft)
Severity
(Deg/100F)
Angle
(Deg)
Angle
(Deg)
Hole Size: 7-7/8" Drilled 15910
1695.0
0.6919
1.0462
13
08
S 12 E
S19W
17570
Casing Size: 5-1/2", 15.5#/ft 1819.0
18810
6.4207
36962
12439
03
40
63
S76W
N20W
N 15W
1942.0 16129 70 N 14W
Centralizer Program: 2()(M 0
2066.0
21420
20161
80
9.3
N 14W
N 11 W
2128.0 16419 '05 N 11 W
1 Centralizer/Jt(40'):1580'-4460' 21900
22520
23130
25139
24589
24561
115
130
145
N 12W
N lOW
N lOW

Stage Cement Tool at 3433' 23750

24370
24990
24634
20161
24193
160
175
18.8
N 9W
N lOW
N lOW
25610 74674 203 N lOW
26230 05875 210 N 23W
26e. 0 6640 210 N22W
27460 23140 21.3 NlOW
28080 08064 200 N28W
28700 12056 205 N28W
29320 08064 208 N28W
29940 04098 20.3 N28W
30550 04032 205 N28W
3117 0 08064 203 N28W
31790 19877 198 N28W
3196 0 12315 198 N 25 W
32630 00000 205 N28W
33240 25718 205 N28W
33s. 0 20985 220 N 27 W
34440 24339 230 N 25w
35050 08333 2' 3 N27W
35650 08022 2' 8 N27W
36260 12500 250 N 28w
3686 a 43166 258 N28W
3746 a 48012 2' 3 N33W
38070 00000 235 N40W
3867 a 04098 235 N40W
39280 08333 233 N40W
39880 00000 228 N40W
Fig. Sa: Directional 40480
41090
00000
07703
228
228
N40W
N40W
41690 00000 230 N41 W
Survey Data 42300
42900
14141
06712
230
238
N41W
N 42 W
43500 04098 238 N41W
44110 00000 2' 0 N41W
44260 00000 2' 0 N41W

1500,...------r----r------,
'~
.....,..... r--...,..--...,..--...,..--....
r---.,...........=/. ~

2000 t-'-- "'-j~.-+-.-------::-...--.---+-::.--------I/ ~;,""".'.-;+: --I t--~--..,~--==--=.--::;;.-tt-=-I~~l------i

2500t--.,.,._".,.;.+~__=__"'__,..,__..,,,-+c-.-,.,--1 I-~-==~---I t--1;;;;::===3b~~I-1
~ -~ ,~=-~ ~ "---,,/'
13000 I=-~[I'- "- -."~.- j'----+----H---:-~-:c?,~"".~"..-+--- --~
35OO1 __t"'-/f-i_--+-__-+_ _ _ 1 ~,~ .~ :i- _- -_-
t - - - I _ _-+_ _ +-_-=1~'J+____ 1

4000 1_+t_1_f--_--t_ _ _1 :~ =-_

~~,:"f-
1--_-t-_--if--_t{_'H---1

45OO~0----~*----~---~~---:~-'~-"~~----~I~--~-----+--_I~----~
500 1000 1500 0 100 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Lateral Load per Joint (Ib) Millivolts Stand-Off (fraction)

Fig.Sb: Lateral Load on Fig.Sc:CBL,mv Fig. Sd: Minimum

Centralizers-per Standoff
Joint (40 ft) .

Fig. 5-New Mexico No.3.

predicted for the 3D trajectory. Because pipe deflection
is a fourth-power function of the lateral load, however,
the decrease in standoff was only 10%. Generally, the
centralizer spacing of one per joint was adequate; in con-
junction with other cement-placement practices, a good
cement job was obtained. .
The example shown in Fig. 4 is an offshore well with
good gauge 12%-in. [31.4--cm] hole and uniform 20 hole
inclination throughout the cement--casing interval. An in--
flatable ECP was placed between 3,360 and 3,400 ft [1020
and 1040 m] to cover the primary completion interval.
Centralizers were run at an interval of one per joint be--
tween 2,300 and 3,448 ft [700 and 1050 m]. The wave-
form display on the cement bond log (CBL) showed good
SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986
formation signals from TD to 2,600 ft [800 m], except
for the interval between 2,750 and 3, 100ft [840 and 950
m]. In this well, the hole inclination is almost constant
and the lateral load and standoff are very uniform.
Fig. 5 shows the centralizer-program information for
San Andres completion in New Mexico. At 3,650 to 3,750
ft [1110 to 1140 m] there is a 0.8 /100-ft [0.8/
30 .48--m] change in hole inclination and a 4 /1 00--ft [4 /
30.48-m] 3D dogleg. Similarly, there is a 1.5/100--ft
[l.5 /30.48-m] change in hole inclination at 2,250 ft [690
m], while a 7.4/100-ft [7.4/30.48-m] dogleg is indi-
cated for the hole trajectory. Reduced standoff is predicted
for both locations. Below 2,750 ft [840 m], the program
predicts more than *-in. [1.91-cm] standoff. The effort
127
to achieve good pipe centralization is aimed at placing a
good sheath of gas-blocking cement around the casing.
Cement was circulated to the surface. The CBL shows
the effect of some gas cutting as well as reduced bonding
and salt and anhydrite sections in the well. Above 1,620
ft [490 m], the centralizers were not used. The CBL shows
clear indications of uncemented pipe and collars above
1,700 ft [520 m]. At the dogleg locations mentioned
above, there is some suggestion of poorer cement,
although poor bond is also indicated for locations believed
to have good standoff.
Unfortunately, there is no way to measure standoff for
casing in the well. CBL's can indicate good cement place-
ment, but poor cementing results can be caused by con-
ditions other than standoff. The detailed calculation
procedure described here does provide more assurance
to the operator that adequate consideration is given to
standoff. Perhaps additional studies on a large number of
past and future cementing jobs could be made with the
standoff-calculation procedure presented here to help de-
fine the minimum standoff required for successful cement-
ing jobs.
Nomenclature
e = distance, in. [cm]
C = coefficient
E = Young's modulus, psi [Pal
F b = buoyancy factor
1 = moment of inertia for casing string, in.4
[cm4]
L = length of borehole section between two
survey points, ft [m]
N = lateral load (or force) on centralizer, Ibf/in.
[N/m]
P = force, Ibf [N]
r = radius of curvature
s = centralizer spacing or casing length
between centralizers, in. [cm]
T = tension (or tensile load) of pipe hanging
below the centralizer, lbf [N]
u = strain energy
W = casing weight, Ibf/ft [N/m]
x = /2, where is the centralizer spacing, in.
[cm]
y = deflection, in. [cm]
Ymax = maximum deflection, in. [cm]
o = one-half the change in angle in borehole
(or between centralizers)
ODLS = dogleg severity, degrees per 100 ft
[degrees per 30.48 m]
T/ = hole direction angle, degrees
ilT/ = change of hole direction (azimuth) between
two survey points, degrees
() = hole inclination angle (at the centralizer),
degrees
il8 = change of hole inclination between two
survey points, degrees
Pm = mud density, Ibm/gal [kg/m3]
Ps = steel density, Ibm/gal [kg/m3]
128
Subscripts
e = effective
i = increment
s = steel
Acknowledgments
We thank Amoco Production Co. for permission to pub-
lish this paper . We also express appreciation to Alan
Pierce of Amoco for his assistance in the mathematical
analyses in this paper.
References
1. "API Specification for Casing Centralizers," API Specification
100, second edition, API, Dallas (1973).
2. Myers, G.M. and Sutko, A.A.: "The Development and Application
of a Method for Calculating the Forces on Casing Centralizer,"
paper 851-42-H presented at the 1968 API Spring Meeting of the
Mid-Continent Dist., Amarillo, TX, April 3-5.
3. Lubinski, A.: "Maximum Permissible Dog-Legs in Rotary Bore-
holes," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1961) 175-94; Trans., AIME, 222.
4. Timoshenko, S.: "Strength of Materials," Advanced Theory and
Problems, second edition, D. Van Nostrand Co. (1956) II, 43.
5. von Gutsche, W., Bushati, C.M., and Weichold, U.: "Placement
of Casing Centralizer in Borehole Sections with Dog-Leg Severity,"
Erdoel-Erdgas Zeitschrift (May 1978) 94.
6. Lubinski, A.: "How to Spot Dog-Legs Easily," Oil and Gas J.
(Feb. 4, 1957) 129-33.
Appendix-Detailed Deflection Anal,sis
for Casing String
Timoshenko' s 4 comprehensive analysis is used for the
centralizer-spacing program to estimate the downward
deflection of a casing segment between the centralizers.
This criterion models a tie rod under uniform lateral load
with tension force on both ends of the rod.
Combined Direct Compression and Lateral Load. Con-
sider the simple problem of a strut with hinged ends loaded
by a single force, P, and centrally compressed by two
equal side forces, S (Fig. A-I). Assuming that the force
P acts in one of the principal planes of the strut, we see
that the bending proceeds in the same plane. The differ-
ential equations of the deflection curve for the two por-
tions of the strut are
d2 y Pe
EI-=-Sy--x .................... (A-la)
dx 2
and
d2y P(-e)
EI dx
2
=- (-x) , ................ (A-lb)
where is the centralizer spacing and S is effective ten-
sile force.
With the notation
S
- =p2 .............................. (A-2a)
EI
and
p24 S2
u 2 =-4-= 4EI' ...................... (A-2b)
SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986
 S A PBS
----~~--------_-------~~------x

Cr- c
f
y

Fig. A-1-Strut. Fig. A-2-Tie rod.

we represent the solutions of Eqs. A-I a and A-I b in the The corresponding expressions for the second portion
following form: of the strut are obtained by substituting (f-x) for x and
(f-c) for c in Eq. A-4. These substitutions give
Pc
y=C 1 cos Px+C z sin Px--x .......... (A-3a)
Sf P sin P(f-c) . P(f-c)
y= sm P(f-x)---(f-x) . . (A-5)
SP sin Pf Sf
and

. P(f-c) If, instead of concentrated forces, there is a uniform

y=C 3 cos Px+C4 sm Px---(f-x) . .. (A-3b) load of intensity q acting on the strut, each element qdc
Sf of this load, taken at a distance c from the right end, can
be considered as a concentrated force. By integration, we
Because the deflections vanish at the ends of the strut, obtain the following expression for the deflection curve:
we conclude that
sin Px Ji-X x Je-x
y= q sin Pc dc-- qcdc
SP sin Pfo Sfo
and

+
sin P(f-x) ri
J q sin P(f-c)dc
SP sin Pf i-x
The remaining two constants of integration we find from
the conditions of continuity at the point of application of
the load P, which require that Eqs. A-3a and A-3b give
f-x ri
- - J q(f-c)dc,
the same deflection and the same slope for x=f-c. We Sf i-x
obtain
where q is the effective lateral load. Integrating the above
C z sin P(f-c)=C4 [sin P(f-c)-tan Pf cos P(f-c)] gives

and
COS(Pf -px)
CZP cos P(P-c) = C4 P[cos P(f-c) y =q-
SpZ
[2 Pf
-1 ] q
--x(f-x)
2S
.. (A-6)
P cos-
+tan Pf sin P(f-c)] + -,
S 2
from which and
P sin Pc
C z =-------
SP sin Pf
q
Ymax=(Y)x=i1Z=--
SpZ
(1 u
- - - - - 1 -U- )
cos 2
Z

and
1 uZ
---I--
P sin P(f-c) 5 qf4 cos u 2
C4 =- SP tan Pi .
=-_. . ............ (A-7)
384 EI (5/24)u 4

Substituting in Eq. A-3a, we obtain for the first por-

tion of the strut, Tie Rod With Lateral Loading. If a tie rod is submitted
to the action of tensile forces S and a lateral load P, we
P sin Pc Pc can write the differential equation of the deflection curve
y= sin Px--x . ............... (A-4) for each portion of the rod in exactly the same manner
SP sin Pf Sf as we did for a strut (Fig. A-I). It is only necessary to

SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986 lZ9

change the sign of S. In such a case, instead of quantities and the maximum deflection is
p2 and u 2 defined by Eqs. A-2a and A-2b, respective-
ly, we shall have _p2 and -u 2 , and instead of P and Ymax = (Y)x=f/2
u, we shall have P( -1) 'h =Pi and u( -1) 'h =ui. Sub-
stituting -S, Pi, and ui in the place of S, P, and u in the 1 u2
fonnulas obtained for the strut in Fig. A-I, we obtain nec- ---1+-
essary formulas for the tie rod in Fig. A-2. To make this 5 qi 4 cosh u 2
=---_. . . .... (A-I0)
substitution, we use the known relations sin ui=i sinh u, 384 EI (5/24)u 4
cos ui = cosh u, and tan ui = i tanh u. In this way, we ob-
tain for the left portion of the tie rod in Fig. A-2, from
A-4, The first factor in Eq. A-I0 represents the deflection
produced by the lateral load q acting alone. The second
P sinh Pc Pc factor indicates that the deflection produced by q is re-
y= - sinh Px+ -x. . .......... (A-8)
SP sinh Pi Si duced by the axial tensile force S.
Similar formulas can also be obtained for the right por-
tion of the tie rod by use of Eq. 3. With the deflection
curve for the case of one load, P, acting on the tie rod, 81 Metric Conversion Factors
we can readily obtain the deflection curve for any other
ft x 3.048* E-01 =m
kind of loading by using the method of superposition.
Considering, for example, a uniformly loaded tie rod
in. X 2.54* E+OO = cm
lbf X 4.448222 E+OO N
and using Eq. A-5 for a strut, we obtain
lbm/ft X 1.488 164 E+OO kg/m

cosh (Pi - px) Conversion factor is exact. SPEDE

y =q- [ 2 -1 ] +-x(i-x)
q
Sp2 Pi 2S'
Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office Sept. 16,
cosh- 1984. Paper accepted for publication Sept. 18, 1985. Revised manuscript received
2 Feb. 10, 1986. Paper (SPE 13043) first presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical
............................ (A-9) Conference and Exhibition held in Houston. Sept. 16-19.

130 SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986

Discussion of Optimal Spacing for
Casing Centralizers
Hans C. Juvkam-Wold, SPE, Texas A&M U.
Richard L. Baxter, SPE, Texas A&M U.
In "Optimal Spacing for Casing Centralizers" (April 1986 SPEDE,
Pages 122-130) Lee et al. present equations for the calculation of
casing deflection between centralizers. We believe that some of their
assumptions and equations are incorrect and can lead to significant
errors in calculating casing deflection, standoff, and, consequently,
optimal spacing for casing centralizers. These errors are of par-
ticular concern because the equations given in their paper hitve been
adopted by the API in their Spec. lOD. 1
First, we agree with the authors that "it is appropriate to use
the effective casing weight rather than the air weight of the
casing.,,2 However, they recommend the use of the following
equation for calculating the buoyancy factor (Eq. 5).
In our opinion, this equation is generally not appropriate for use
in cementing applications. This equation is valid only if the density
of the fluid inside the casing is the same as the density of the fluid
outside the casing. When calculating load on centralizer or casing
deflection between two centralizers, a more appropriate equation
for the buoyancy factor is
i
(1- PePs )_(dde )2(1_ PPi)
_ s
F b2- ................. (D-l)
1-( dY
de
i
Is the difference significant? We believe it is. For example, con-
sider a string of 7-in. [18-cm] -OD, 20-lbm/ft [30-kg/m] casing
being cemented with 15.6-lbm/gal [1869-kg/m3] cement that has
just been displaced by lO-lbm/gal [1198-kg/m3] mud. (Pipe
ID=6.456 in. [16.4 cm].)
In this case Lee et al. 's Eq. 5 gives a buoyancy factor as follows.
=0.847.
Eq. D-l gives a significantly different answer.
(
1_~)_(6.456)2(1_~)
65.4 7.000 65.4
Fb= - - - - - - - - - - - -
1_(6.456 )2
7.000
=0.274.
These answers differ by a factor of approximately 3.
Second, Eq. A-7 was derived by Timoshenk0 3 for the case of
a laterally loaded tie rod with hinged ends and is clearly not ap-
'Now with Tenneco.
SPE Drilling Engineering, December 1988
plicable for the calculation of casing deflection between two cen-
tralizers because the casing is not hinged at each centralizer. A
different solution is given by Timoshenk0 3 for the case of a
laterally loaded tie rod with built-in ends. This equation is, in our
opinion, appropriate for calculating the maximum deflection of
casing between centralizers.
Ymax =~(24)(U2 _
4
U cosh u-u) . .......... (D-2)
384 EI u 2 sinh U
Eq. D-2 predicts a casing deflection that differs significantly from
the value predicted by Eq. A-7. When there is negligible tension
in the casing, the two answers differ by a factor of five.
Note that the buoyancy factor actually changes quite significantly
during the cementing operation. For example, consider the case
of lO-li:>m/gal [1198-kg/m3] mud at a particular location outside
the casing when there is 15.6-lbrn/gal [1869-kg/m3] cement inside
the casing. At this time, the i:>uoyancy factor is 1.33 at that par-
ticular location. If the fluid on the outside is an 8.4-lbm/gal [1007-
kglm 3] water flush and the cement is on the inside, the appropriate
buoyancy factor is about 1.5. This factor would be used for cal-
culating load on centralizer and deflection between centralizers. A
different, weighted buoyancy factor would be used for calculating
the axial tension at any point in the casing.
Nomenclature
de = OD of casing, in. [cm]
d i = ID of casing, in. [cm]
E = Young's modulus, psi [kPa]
Fb = buoyancy factor normally used for calculating
effective weight of casing string
Fb2 = proposed buoyancy factor for calculating lateral
force on centralizer or deflection of casing
between centralizers
I = moment of inertia for casing string, in. 4 [cm4]
i = centralizer opening
q = effective lateral load
U = strain energy
Ymax = maximum deflection, in. [cm]
Pe = density of fluid on outside of casing (e.g., cement
slurry), Ibm/gal [kg/m3]
Pi = density of fluid inside casing (e.g., drilling mud),
Ibm/gal [kg/m3]
Pm = mud density, Ibm/gal [kg/m3]
Ps = density of material in casing (e.g., steel), Ibm/gal
[kg/m3]
Reference.
I. Spec. lOD, Specification for Casing Centralizers, third edition, API,
Dallas (1986).
2. Lee, H.K., Smith, R.C., and Tighe, R.E.: "Optimal Spacing for Casing
Centralizers," SPEDE (April 1986) 122-130.
3. Timoshenko, S.: "Strength of Materials," Advanced Theory and
Problems, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co. Inc., Malabor, FL (1983)
43,45-46.
(SPE 18730) SPEDE
419