1

PETE 411
Well Drilling
Lesson 18
Casing Design Example
2
Casing Design Example
Example Problem
API Design Factors
Worst Possible Conditions
Effect of Axial Tension on Collapse Strength
Iteration and Interpolation
Design for Burst, Collapse and Tension
3
Read:
Applied Drilling Engineering, Ch.7
HW #9 - Velocity Profiles
Due 10-18-02
PETE 411 Lessons can be found at:
http://pumpjack.tamu.edu/~juvkam-wold/
Multimedia Programs can be found at:
Network Neighborhood / juvkam-wold2 / Multimedia
4
Casing Design Example
Design a 9 5/8-in., 8,000-ft combination
casing string for a well where the mud wt.
will be 12.5 ppg and the formation pore
pressure is expected to be 6,000 psi.
Only the grades and weights shown are
available (N-80, all weights). Use API
design factors.
Design for worst possible conditions.
5
Casing Design - Solution
Before solving this problem is it necessary to
understand what we mean by Design Factors
and worst possible conditions.
API Design Factors
Design factors are essentially safety factors
that allow us to design safe, reliable casing
strings. Each operator may have his own set
of design factors, based on his experience,
and the condition of the pipe.
6
Casing Design
In PETE 411, well use the design factors
recommended by the API unless otherwise
specified.
These are the API design Factors:
Tension and Joint Strength: N
T
= 1.8
Collapse (from external pressure): N
c
= 1.125
Burst (from internal pressure): N
i
= 1.1
7
Casing Design
What this means is that, for example, if we
need to design a string where the maximum
tensile force is expected to be 100,000 lbf,
we select pipe that can handle 100,000 * 1.8
= 180,000 lbf in tension.
Note that the Halliburton Cementing Tables
list actual pipe strengths, without safety
factors built in.
8
Casing Design
Unless otherwise specified in a particular
problem, we shall also assume the following:
Worst Possible Conditions
1. For Collapse design, assume that the
casing is empty on the inside (p = 0 psig)
2. For Burst design, assume no backup
fluid on the outside of the casing (p = 0 psig)
9
Casing Design
Worst Possible Conditions, contd
3. For Tension design,
assume no buoyancy effect
4. For Collapse design,
assume no buoyancy effect
The casing string must be designed to stand up to the
expected conditions in burst, collapse and tension.
Above conditions are quite conservative. They are also
simplified for easier understanding of the basic concepts.
10
Casing Design - Solution
Burst Requirements (based on the expected pore
pressure)
The whole casing string must be capable of
withstanding this internal pressure without failing in
burst.
psi 600 , 6 P
1 . 1 * psi 000 , 6
Factor Design * pressure pore P
B
B
=
=
=
D
e
p
t
h
Pressure
11
Casing Design - Solution
Collapse Requirements
For collapse design, we start at the bottom of
the string and work our way up.
Our design criteria will be based on
hydrostatic pressure resulting from the 12.5
ppg mud that will be in the hole when the
casing string is run, prior to cementing.
12
Casing Design
Collapse Requirements, contd
severe less are
ts requiremen collapse the hole the up Further
. bottom the at d ' req psi 850 , 5 P
125 . 1 * 000 , 8 * 5 . 12 * 052 . 0
factor design * depth * weight mud * 052 . 0 P
c
c
=
=
=
D
e
p
t
h
Pressure
13
Casing Design
Reqd: Burst: 6,600 psi Collapse: 5,850 psi
14
Casing Design
Note that two of the weights of N-80 casing
meet the burst requirements, but only the
53.5 #/ft pipe can handle the collapse
requirement at the bottom of the hole (5,850
psi).
The 53.5 #/ft pipe could probably run all the
way to the surface (would still have to check
tension), but there may be a lower cost
alternative.
15
Casing Design
To what depth might we
be able to run N-80, 47
#/ft? The maximum
annular pressure that this
pipe may be exposed to,
is:
psi 231 , 4
125 . 1
760 , 4
factor design
pipe of pressure Collapse
P
c
= = =
D
e
p
t
h
Pressure
16
Casing Design
First Iteration
At what depth do we see this pressure (4,231
psig) in a column of 12.5 #/gal mud?
ft 509 , 6
5 . 12 * 052 . 0
231 , 4
5 . 12 * 052 . 0
P
h
h * 5 . 12 * 052 . 0 P
c
1
1 c
= = =
=
17
Casing Design
This is the depth to which the pipe
could be run if there were
no axial stress in the pipe
But at 6,509 we have (8,000 - 6,509) =
1,491 of 53.5 #/ft pipe below us.
The weight of this pipe will reduce the
collapse resistance of the 47.0 #/ft pipe!
8,000
6,509
18
Casing Design
Weight, W
1
= 53.5 #/ft * 1,491 ft
= 79,769 lbf
This weight results in an axial
stress in the 47 #/ft pipe
psi 877 , 5
in 13.572
lbf 769 , 79
area end
weight
S of
2
1
= = =
19
Casing Design
The API tables show that the above
stress will reduce the collapse resistance
from 4,760 to somewhere between
4,680 psi (with 5,000 psi stress)
and 4,600 psi (with 10,000 psi stress)
20
Casing Design
Interpolation between these values shows
that the collapse resistance at 5,877 psi
axial stress is:
psi 148 , 4
125 . 1
666 , 4
P
psi 666 , 4 ) 600 , 4 680 , 4 ( *
) 000 , 5 000 , 10 (
) 000 , 5 877 , 5 (
680 , 4 P
cc1
1 c
= =
=

=
With the design factor,
( )
2 1
1 2
1
1 c1
P P P
S S
S S
P
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
21
Casing Design
This (4,148 psig) is the pressure at a
depth
Which differs considerably from the
initial depth of 6,509 ft, so a second
iteration is required.
ft 382 , 6
5 . 12 * 052 . 0
148 , 4
h
2
= =
22
23
24
Casing Design
Second Iteration
Now consider running the 47 #/ft
pipe to the new depth of 6,382 ft.
psi 378 , 6
in 572 . 13
lbf 563 , 86
S
lbf 563 , 86 5 . 53 * ) 382 , 6 000 , 8 ( W
2
2
2
= =
= =
25
Casing Design
Interpolating again,
This is the pressure at a depth of
( ) psi p
cc
140 , 4 600 , 4 680 , 4 *
5000
5000 378 , 6
680 , 4
125 . 1
1
2
=
)
`

=
ft 369 , 6
5 . 12 * 052 . 0
140 , 4
h
3
= =
( )
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
2 1
1 2
1
1 c1
D.F.
1
P P P
S S
S S
P
26
Casing Design
This is within 13 ft of the assumed value. If
more accuracy is desired (generally not
needed), proceed with the:
Third Iteration
psi 429 , 6
572 . 13
259 , 87
S
lbf 259 , 87 5 . 53 * ) 369 , 6 000 , 8 ( W
' 369 , 6 h
3
3
3
= =
= =
=
P
cc3
= ?
27
Casing Design
Third Iteration, contd
2
3
140 , 4
) 600 , 4 680 , 4 ( *
000 , 5
000 , 5 429 , 6
680 , 4
125 . 1
1
cc
cc
P psi
P thus
= =
)
`

=
28
Casing Design
Third Iteration, contd
This is the answer we are looking for, i.e.,
we can run 47 #/ft N-80 pipe to a depth of
6,369 ft, and 53.5 #/ft pipe between 6,369
and 8,000 ft.
Perhaps this string will run all the way to the
surface (check tension), or perhaps an even
more economical string would include some
43.5 #/ft pipe?
29
Casing Design
At some depth the 43.5 #/ft pipe would be
able to handle the collapse requirements,
but we have already determined that it will
not meet burst requirements.
! NO
30
N-80
53.5 #/ft
N-80
47.0 #/ft
N-80
43.5 #/ft?
Depth = 5,057?
5,066?
5,210?
Depth = 6,369
6,369
6,382
6,509
8,000
Burst?
31
N-80
53.5 #/ft
N-80
47.0 #/ft
N-80
53.5 #/ft?
Depth = 6,369
6,369
6,382
6,509
8,000
Tension?
32
Tension Check
The weight on the top joint of casing
would be
With a design factor of 1.8 for tension, a
pipe strength of
weight actual 602 , 386
) / # 5 . 53 * 631 , 1 ( ) / # 0 . 47 * 369 , 6 (
lbs
ft ft ft ft
=
+
required is lbf 080 , 695 602 , 386 * 8 . 1 =
33
Tension Check
The Halliburton cementing tables give a
yield strength of 1,086,000 lbf for the pipe
body and a joint strength of 905,000 lbf for
LT & C.
surface to OK is ft / # 0 . 47
34
Casing Design Review
We have 4 different weights of casing
available to us in this case:
1. Two of the four weights are unacceptable
to us everywhere in the string because
they do not satisfy the burst
requirements.
2. Only the N-80, 53.5 #/ft pipe is capable of
withstanding the collapse requirements
at the bottom of the string
35
Casing Design Review
3. Since the 53.5 #/ft pipe is the most
expensive, we want to use as little of it
as possible, so we want to use as
much 47.0 #/ft pipe as possible.
4. Dont forget to check to make sure the
tension requirements are met; both for
pipe body, and for threads and
couplings (T&C).
36
Casing Design Review
The collapse resistance of N-80, 47 #/ft will
determine to what depth it can be run. Two
factors will reduce this depth:
Design Factor
Axial Stress (tension)
Halliburton collapse resistance: 4,760 psi
Apply design factor:
psi 231 , 4
125 . 1
760 , 4
=
37
Casing Design Review
To determine the effect of axial stress
requires an iterative process:
1. Determine the depth capability without
axial stress
2. Determine axial stress at this point
ft 509 , 6
5 . 12 * 052 . 0
231 , 4
depth = =
38
Casing Design Review
3. Determine corresponding collapse resistance
4. Determine depth where this pressure exists
5. Compare with previous depth estimate
6. Repeat steps 2-6 using the new depth
estimate
7. When depths agree, accept answer
(typically 2-4 iterations) (agreement to
within 30 ft will be satisfactory)
39
Linear Interpolation
(iii) C mS P
(ii) C mS P
(i) C mS P
c mx y
2 2
1 1
+ =
+ =
+ =
+ =
40
Linear Interpolation
= ) S S ( m P P ) ii ( ) iii (
1 2 1 2
1 2
1 2
S S
P P
m

=
) ( ) ( P ) ( ) (
1
1 2
1 2
1 1
S S
S S
P P
S S m P ii i
|
|
.
|

\
|

= =
41
Linear Interpolation
( )
1 2
1 2
1
1
P P
S S
S S
P P
|
|
.
|

\
|

+ =
With design factor:
( )
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
2 1
1 2
1
1 cc
P P
S S
S S
P
. F . D
1
P
42
43