Casing Design Guide

MANUAL (SAMPLE)
CASING DESIGN GUIDE
PTS 40.018
DECEMBER 1992
PREFACE
PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS) publications reflect the views, at the time of publication,
of PETRONAS OPUs/Divisions.
They are based on the experience acquired during the involvement with the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of processing units and facilities. Where appropriate they are based
on, or reference is made to, national and international standards and codes of practice.
The objective is to set the recommended standard for good technical practice to be applied by
PETRONAS' OPUs in oil and gas production facilities, refineries, gas processing plants, chemical
plants, marketing facilities or any other such facility, and thereby to achieve maximum technical
and economic benefit from standardisation.
The information set forth in these publications is provided to users for their consideration and
decision to implement. This is of particular importance where PTS may not cover every
requirement or diversity of condition at each locality. The system of PTS is expected to be
sufficiently flexible to allow individual operating units to adapt the information set forth in PTS to
their own environment and requirements.
When Contractors or Manufacturers/Suppliers use PTS they shall be solely responsible for the
quality of work and the attainment of the required design and engineering standards. In
particular, for those requirements not specifically covered, the Principal will expect them to follow
those design and engineering practices which will achieve the same level of integrity as reflected
in the PTS. If in doubt, the Contractor or Manufacturer/Supplier shall, without detracting from his
own responsibility, consult the Principal or its technical advisor.
The right to use PTS rests with three categories of users :
1)
2)
3)
PETRONAS and its affiliates.

Other parties who are authorised to use PTS subject to appropriate contractual
arrangements.
Contractors/subcontractors and Manufacturers/Suppliers under a contract with
users referred to under 1) and 2) which requires that tenders for projects,
materials supplied or - generally - work performed on behalf of the said users
comply with the relevant standards.
Subject to any particular terms and conditions as may be set forth in specific agreements with
users, PETRONAS disclaims any liability of whatsoever nature for any damage (including injury
or death) suffered by any company or person whomsoever as a result of or in connection with the
use, application or implementation of any PTS, combination of PTS or any part thereof. The
benefit of this disclaimer shall inure in all respects to PETRONAS and/or any company affiliated
to PETRONAS that may issue PTS or require the use of PTS.
Without prejudice to any specific terms in respect of confidentiality under relevant contractual
arrangements, PTS shall not, without the prior written consent of PETRONAS, be disclosed by
users to any company or person whomsoever and the PTS shall be used exclusively for the
purpose they have been provided to the user. They shall be returned after use, including any
copies which shall only be made by users with the express prior written consent of PETRONAS.
The copyright of PTS vests in PETRONAS. Users shall arrange for PTS to be held in safe
custody and PETRONAS may at any time require information satisfactory to PETRONAS in order
to ascertain how users implement this requirement.
CASING DESIGN GUIDE

GENERAL
Contents
A.0
Overview
A.1
Foreword
A.2
Acknowledgements
A.3
Change control form
1.0
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
1.2
Purpose of casing
1.3
Casing types and functions.
1.4.
1.3.1
Stove pipe, marine conductor or foundation pile.
1.3.2
Conductor string
1.3.3
Surface string
1.3.4
Intermediate string
1.3.5
Production string
1.3.6
Liner
The design process

1.4.1
1.4.2
Preliminary design
1.4.1.1
Data collection
1.4.1.2
Casing scheme selection
Detailed design
1.4.2.1
Selection of relevant load case
1.4.2.2
Uniaxial design
1.4.2.3
Triaxial design
1.4.2.4
Further design considerations
1.5
References
1.6
Appendix 1: International standards for tubular goods

1.6.1
Introduction
1.6.2
American Petroleum Institute (API)
1.6.3
1.6.2.1
API Committee 5 - tubular goods specifications and publications.
1.6.2.2
API : Committee 5 documents
1.6.2.3
Items under review
1.6.2.4
Shortcomings of API standards
International Standardisation Organisation (ISO)

1.6.3.1
1.7
ISO Technical Committee 67 (ISO/TC 67) oil industry matters.
1.6.4
Committee for European Normalisation (CEN)
1.6.5
Cooperation between ISO, CEN and API
References.
2.0
Introduction
3.0
Design parameters
3.1
Introduction
3.2
Lithological column
3.3
Formation-strength profile
3.3.1
Introduction
3.3.2
Borehole failure
3.3.3
Formation-strength gradient and equivalent mud weight
3.3.4
Measuring the formation strength

3.3.4.1
Introduction
3.3.4.2
Available measurement methods
3.3.4.3
Choosing the right method
3.4
Pore-pressure profile
3.5
Temperature profile
3.6
Hydrocarbon properties
3.7
H2S, CO2 and non-hydrocarbon formation fluid composition
3.8
References
4.0
Casing-scheme selection
4.1
Introduction
4.2
Minimum casing diameter
4.3
4.2.1
Design criterion
4.2.2
Well configuration and minimum casing diameter

4.2.2.1
Exploration and appraisal wells
4.2.2.2
Development wells
Minimum casing-shoe setting depth

4.3.1
Design criterion
4.3.2
Determination of wellbore pressure load
4.3.3
4.3.2.1
Pressure loading during drilling, mud circulation and tripping
4.3.2.2
Pressure loading during well control
Determination of wellbore strength
4.4
References
4.5
Appendix 2 : Well information forms
4.6
4.5.1
Exploration drilling information summary
4.5.2
Well summary
4.5.3
Well summary prognosis and results
Appendix 3 : Basic aspects of rock mechanics

4.6.1
Introduction
4.6.2
State of stress
4.6.2.1
Definitions, conventions
4.6.2.2
In situ-stress state
4.6.2.3
Pore pressure
4.6.3
4.6.4
Borehole failure - rock mechanics

4.6.3.1
Rock tensile strength
4.6.3.2
Theoretical relationship : wellbore strength - state of stress..
4.6.3.3
Fracture propagation
4.6.3.4
Wellbore strength in fractured formation
Other effects
4.6.4.1
Healing
4.6.4.2
Borehole fluid penetration
4.6.4.3
Depletion
4.6.4.4
Borehole shape
4.6.4.5
Chemical interaction
4.7
References
4.8
Appendix 4 : Procedures for leak-off and limit tests
4.9
4.8.1
Introduction
4.8.2
Testing procedure
4.8.2.1
Planning the test
4.8.2.2
Execution
4.8.2.3
Interpretation of the Leak-off graph
4.8.2.4
Formation breakdown, fracture re-opening
4.8.2.5
Reporting
4.8.2.6
Repeating a test
Appendix 5 :
Specimen calculation of formation strength
4.9.1
Exploration well - example calculation
4.9.2
Appraisal well - example calculation
4.9.3
Development well - example calculation
5.0
Introduction
6.0
Load cases
6.1.
Introduction
6.2.
Pressure loads
6.2.1
Introduction
6.2.2
Collapse loads
6.2.2.1
Evacuation during drilling

a) Internal pressure profile
b) External pressure profile
c) Special cases
Air, foam or aerated drilling
Salt loading
Formation compaction
Blowout
6.2.2.2
6.2.3
6.3
Evacuation during production

c) Special cases
Artificial-lift wells
Salt loading
Blowout
Burst loads
6.2.3.1
Burst during drilling

c) Special cases
Over-pressured aquifer in borehole below casing
Salt loading
6.2.3.2
Burst during production

c) Special cases
Gas-lift wells
Salt loading
Gas-lift pressure on intermediate casing
Installation loads
6.3.1 Introduction
6.3.2 Dynamic loads
6.3.3 Static loads
6.4
Service loads
6.4.1 Introduction
6.4.2 Pressure loads
6.4.3
6.4.2.1
Actual axial forces
6.4.2.2
Collapse and burst loads
6.4.2.3
Reduced axial forces
Temperature loads
6.4.3.1
Actual axial forces
6.4.3.2
6.4.3.3
6.4.4 Point loads
6.5
6.4.4.1
Production packer
6.4.4.2
Retrievable packer
6.4.4.3
Conductor casing
6.4.4.4
Reference
7.0
Load determination
7.1
Introduction
7.2
Pressure loads on casing
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.2.1
Collapse load
7.2.2
Burst load
7.2.3
Formation load
Installation loads
7.3.1
Self-weight (in air)
7.3.2
Pressure (buoyancy)
7.3.3
Bending load
7.3.4
Dynamic drag
7.3.5
Shock load
7.3.6
Point load
7.3.7
Static drag
7.3.8
Temperature load
7.3.9
Maximum installation load
Service loads
7.4.1
Changes in tangential stress
7.4.2
Changes in radial stress
7.4.3
Changes in axial stress

Fundamental equation
7.4.3.2
Increase in internal pressure with fluid density and/or surface pressure
7.4.3.3
Reduction in internal pressure due to (partial) evacuation or reduced fluid

density
7.4.3.4
Increase in external pressure with annulus pressure
7.4.3.5
Reduction in external pressure with annulus fluid level or fluid density
7.4.3 6
Increased internal pressure due to pressure test with retrievable packer
7.4.3.7
Temperature induced change in axial stress
7.4.3.8
Point-load-induced changes in axial stress
Load on stove pipes foundation piles, marine and conductor strings

7.5.1
Introduction
7.5.2
Stove-pipe, foundation-pile or marine-conductor design
7.5.3
Axial load and strain in conductor casing
7.5.4
7.6
7.4.3.1
7.5.3.1
Land wells or wells with subsea wellheads
7.5.3.2
Offshore wells with surface wellheads

a) Casing hangers at surface
b) Casing hangers at seabed
Thermal growth of wellhead
References
8.0
Load-bearing capacity
8.1
Determination of the different types of casing strength

8.1.1
Collapse strength
8.1.2
Burst strength
8.1.3
Axial strength
8.1.4
Triaxial strength
8.2
References
9.0
Corrosion, wear and fatigue
9.1
Influence of corrosion on casing strength

9.1.1
Introduction
9.1.1.1
9.1.2
Casing materials
9.1.3
Common types of corrosion
9.1.4
9.1.5
9.2
Site of downhole casing corrosion
9.1.3.1
General corrosion
9.1.3.2
Galvanic corrosion
9.1.3.3
Pitting
9.1.3.4
Differential-aeration corrosion
9.1.3.5
Carbon-dioxide corrosion
9.1.3.6
Hydrogen-sulphide corrosion
9.1.3.7
Chloride-stress-corrosion cracking
9.1.3.8
Bacterial corrosion
9.1.3.9
Erosion/corrosion
9.1.3.10
Intergranular corrosion
Prevention and control of casing corrosion

9.1.4.1
Internal corrosion due to reservoir fluids
9.1.4.2
Internal and external corrosion due to drilling workover and completion fluids
9.1.4.3
External corrosion due to reservoir fluids, formation. fluids and surface water
9.1.4.4
All-round corrosion
9.1.4.5
Special forms of corrosion
New developments
Influence of wear on casing strength

9.2.1
Introduction
9.2.2
Site and timing of casing wear
9.2.3
Effect of wear on different types of casing strength

9.2.3.1
Collapse strength
9.2.3.2
Burst strength
9.2.3.3
Axial strength
9.2.3.4
Strength of connections
9.2.4
9.2.5
9.2.6
9.3
9.2.4.1
Two-body adhesive wear
9.2.4.2
Two-body abrasive wear
9.2.4.3
Three-body abrasive wear
Modelling the wear process

9.2.5.1
Contact pressure
9.2.5.2
Contact surfaces
9.2.5.3
Relative velocity and contact time of mating surfaces..
9.2.5.4
Drilling-fluid composition
9.2.5.5
DRAGTORQ wear model
Controlling casing wear

9.2.6.1
Contact load
9.2.6.2
Hardfacing of tool joints
9.2.6.3
Drilling fluids
9.2.6.4
Wear-track length (WTL)
9.2.7
Designing for wear
9.2.8
Wear monitoring programme
9.2.9
New developments
Influence of fatigue on casing strength

9.3.1
Introduction
9.3.2
Fatigue failure parameters
9.3.3
9.4
Wear mechanisms
9.3.2.1
Number of cycles to failure
9.3.2.2
Stress history
9.3.2.3
Stress concentrations
9.3.2.4
Residual stress
9.3.2.5
Range of stress
9.3.2.6
Loading method and sample size
9.3.2.7
Combined stress
9.3.2.8
Surface conditions
9.3.2.9
Corrosion fatigue
Specific issues
9.3.3.1
Externally generated loads
9.3.3.2
Internally generated loads
References
Click to jump to Chapter 10 - Chapter 21
10.0
Buckling
10.1
Introduction
10.2
Fundamental equation for reduced axial force
10.3
Resistance to buckling
10.3.1 Introduction
10.3.2 Vertical wellbore sections
10.3.3 Inclined straight wellbore sections
10.3.4 Curved wellbore sections
10.4
10.3.5
Use of top of cement to prevent buckling
10.3.6
Use of centraliser spacing
10.3.7
Use of surface force to prevent buckling
Post-buckling analyses
10.4.1 Introduction
10.4.2 Helical buckling
10.5
References
11.0
Design factors
11.1
Introduction
11.2
Collapse design factor
11.3
Burst design factor
11.4
Tension design factor
11.5
Compression design factor
11.6
Triaxial design factor
11.7
Summary
11.8
References
12.0
Connections
12.1
Introduction
12.2
Connection types
12.2.1
General remarks
12.2.2
Integral connection
12.2.3 Threaded and coupled connection

12.2.4 Comparison of integral and threaded/coupled connections
12.2.5
12.3
12.4
12.5
Thread forms
Connection sealing
12.3.1
Tapered interference-fit thread seal
12.3.2
Metal-to-metal seal
12.3.3
Resilient seal
Thread compounds
12.4.1
General remarks
12.4.2
Lubricating and sealing properties
12.4.3
Environmental aspects
12.4.4
Recommended thread compounds
Surface treatments
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.5.1
Process descriptions
12.5.2
Effect on galling resistance
12.5.3
Effect on sealing capability
12.5.4
Effect on corrosion resistance
Realiability and structural integrity of connections

12.6.1
Imposed loads
12.6.2
Structural integrity
12.6.3
Sealing capacity
12.6.4
Effect of bending loads
12.6.5
Failure mechanisms
Testing and qualification

12.7.1
Qualification tests
12.7.2
Other evaluation techniques
12.7.3
SIPM database
Thread protectors
12.8.1
General remarks
12.8.2
Performance criteria
12.9
Selection and ordering
12.10
References
13.0
Detailed casing design example
13.1
Introduction
13.2
Casing scheme and design parameters
13.3
Intermediate/production casing
13.4
13.3.1a
Pressure loads - drilling phase
13.3.1b
Pressure loads - production phase
Production liner
13.4.1
13.4.2
Installation loads
13.4.2.1
Axial loads
13.4.2.2
Pressure loads
13.4.3 Service loads
13.5
13.4.3.1
Pressure loads
13.4.3.2
Temperature loads
13.4.3.3
Point loads
13.5.1
Pressure loads
1.3.5.2.1 Axial loads
13.5.2.2
Pressure loads
13.6
13.5.3.1
Pressure loads
13.5.3.2
Temperature loads
13.5.3.3
Point loads
Surface casing
13.6.1
Pressure loads - drilling phase
13.6.2
Installation loads
13.6.2.1
Axial loads
13.6.2.2
Pressure loads
13.7
13.6.3.1
Pressure loads
13.6.3.2
Temperature loads
13.6.3.3
Point loads
Conductor casing
13.7.1
Pressure loads -drilling phase
13.7.2
Installation loads
13.7.2.1
Axial loads
13.7.2.2
Pressure loads

13.7.3.1
Pressure loads
13.7.3.2
Temperature loads
13.7.3.3
Point loads
14.0
Appendix 6 : Theories and definitions
14.1
Introduction
14.2
Definitions
14.3
Stress analysis theories

14.3.1
Introduction
14.3.2
Sign conventions
14.3.3
Lam equations
14.3.4
The axial stress equation
14.3.5
The shear stress equation
14.3.6
Hooke's Law
14.3.7
The principle of superposition
14.4
Failure theory
14.5
Buoyancy theory
14.6
14.5.1
Introduction
14.5.2
Pressure (buoyancy) load
14.5.3
Buoyancy factor
14.5.4
Neutral point for actual axial force (Fa = 0)
Simple stress analysis example
14.7
Buckling theory
14.7.1
Introduction
14.7.2
Buckling potential of pipe in air
14.7.3
Buckling potential of pipe in fluids
14.7.4
Neutral point for reduced axial force (Fa* = 0)
14.8
References
15.0
Appendix 7 : Calculation of axial and normal forces
15.1
Introduction
15.2
Straight inclined casing
15.3
Curved casing
16.0
Appendix 8 : Shock loads in casing
16.1
Introduction
16.2
Shock-load quantification
16.3
Concurrent drag and shock loads
16.4
References
17.0
Appendix 9 : Pressure build-up in heated sealed annuli
17.1
Introduction
17.2
Basic model for the annular pressure increase
17.3
Thermal expansion of the casing steel
17.4
Hydraulic expansion of the casing steel
17.5
Application of the models
17.6
Shortcomings of the models
17.7
References
18.0
Casing design in special cases
18.1
Introduction
18.2
High-pressure/high-temperature well
18.2.1
18.3
Squeezing salt well

18.3.1
18.4.
References
Permafrost well
18.7.1
18.8
References
Slimhole well
18.6.1
18.7
References
Horizontal well
18.5.1
18.6
References
Steam well
18.4.1
18.5
References
References
Gravity structure
18.8.1
References
18.9
Reservoir compaction environment

18.9.1
18.10
References
Deep-water well
18.10.1 References
18.11
Gas-lift well
18.11.1 References
19.0
Operational aspects
19.1
Introduction
19.2
Ordering casing
19.3
Storage, handling and transport
19.4
Preparation for running
19.5.
Running and testing
19.6
Monitoring the condition of installed casing
19.7
Equipment Newsletters on issues relating to tubular goods
19.8
References
20.0
List of symbols used in text
21.0
List of abbreviations used in text
A.0
Overview
A.1
Foreword
Casing design is an integral part of the effort required to design, build and operate Quality
Wells, contributing monetary value over their entire life cycle, without compromising
safety and environmental standards.
Effective casing design is aimed at:
Optimisation of the technical integrity of the Quality Well during:

a) the drilling phase, to cope with anticipated pressures and
b) the total life cycle (usually equal to the field life), to minimise intervention.
Time related aspects such as wear, corrosion and fatigue, which influence the load bearing
capacity of the casing strings, require particular attention.
Extremely important is also that good documented information on the casing design intent
is known at the wellsite, in order to ensure that the operating envelope remains at all times
within the design criteria.
Optimisation of the commercial aspects, i.e. ensuring fit for purpose, cost effective designs
and standardisation. In 1991, some $350 million was spent on casing/tubing (16% of the
Group's drilling expenditure), hence a determined effort will lead to considerable savings.
Early involvement of the Operations disciplines in greenfield exploration ventures and field
development plans is regarded as the prime vehicle for the preliminary casing scheme
optimisation. Computing tools now available will speed up the subsequent detailed design
calculations, allowing the casing designer to concentrate on high value input and alternative
design options. They also support triaxial stress analysis which will permit further optimisation.
The material presented in this Guide is aimed at the Drilling Engineer with a knowledge of casing
design equivalent to that provided in Round II. It is recommended that a Casing Design focal
point be established in each Opco to collate relevant local expertise, develop it further where
required, and address more complex issues.
This Guide interfaces with other SIPM supported documents, to which reference is made where
appropriate. Due attention has been paid to relevant international standards. Local Opco staff
may depart from the advice given in this Guide, provided the proper control procedures are
followed and documented.
This Casing Design Guide is one of the functional documents issued by and with the authority of
EPO/51, the Head of Drilling Engineering. Any comments or observations for subsequent
revisions are to be documented on the enclosed "change control form" and forwarded to SIPM.
This Guide replaces the Casing Design Manual, report EP-50600 of May 1980, which has
become obsolete.
A.2
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank all staff in SIPM, KSEPL and Opcos, who have contributed to the
compilation of this Guide.
He would like to extent this especially to KSEPL staff, who have contributed to the writing of the
relevant status documents. In particular are mentioned:
D.J.M. Bax, RR/62, on connections
G.M. Bol, RR/53, on drilling fluids
P.J. Bontenbal, RR/62, on connections
F.J. Klever, RR/63, on structural engineering
P.J.M. Marchina, RR/55, on rock mechanics
R.J. Ooms, RR/63, on structural engineering
P. Oudeman, RR/57, on thermodynamics
J.H.G. Surewaard, RR/52, on gas kick modelling
J.P.M. van Vliet, RR/53, on drilling fluids
J.A. Wind, RR/52, on drilling engineering
H.W.M. Witlox, RR/63, on structural engineering
Special thanks goes to M. Wilcox, RR/52, for coordinating the efforts at KSEPL.
Review of the presented material has been conducted by several SIPM staff of whom the
following are mentioned for their contributions, constructive comments and remarks:
A.L. Carmona da Mota, EPO/51, on drilling engineering
T.S. Collard, EPO/53, on production operations
J.L. Beijering, EPO/51, on drilling engineering
R.G. Dodsworth, EPO/51, on transport and storage
R.A.W. Dubbers, EPD/52, on structural engineering
H.A. van den Hoven van Genderen, EPD/41, on production technology
P.J.P.A. Menger, MAIP/12, on materials procurement
D.E. Milliams, EPD/63, on corrosion and materials
N.E. Shuttleworth, EPO/51, on drilling engineering
Finally, special thanks are due to the sections of R.M. Holsnijders, EPF/54, and J.W. Burggraaff,
EPX/39, who prepared the text and supporting figures.
P.J.J. Vullinghs
The Hague, December 1992
CHANGE CONTROL FORM CASING DESIGN GUIDE, EP 92-2000
1.0
Introduction
1.1
Introduction
Field experience and the results of research carried out both within and outside the Group
indicate that casing costs for both exploration and development wells can be cut without
compromising safety, and without adverse effects on the environment over the entire life cycle of
the well, if an approach to "fit-for-purpose" casing design embodying the following features is
adopted:
-
early collection of all the relevant data by a multi-disciplinary team [1,2];
selection of the casing scheme which is most cost-effective over the entire life cycle of the
well [2];
accurate definition of the various load cases to which each casing string is likely to be
subjected [3,4];
accurate evaluation of the ability of the casing string to withstand the applied loads, using:
conventional uniaxial design methods to determine the overall resistance to internal and
external pressure loads, and to the axial loads encountered during installation of the
casing, and
triaxial design methods involving detailed calculation of the radial, tangential and axial
stresses on each volume element of the casing to determine the resistance to the actual
service loads experienced after the casing has been cemented in place.
New design tools [3,4] and technology spearheads [5,6,7] support this approach.
This Guide gives full details of SIPM-approved casing design methods having the above
characteristics, together with all the background information required for their effective
deployment.
The present chapter discusses the various functions which casing has to perform, defines the
different types of casing used in a well, and describes the casing design process with its
different elements - which will be dealt with in full in subsequent chapters.
1.2
International standards relevant to casing design are currently in a process of evolution. The
position of the various standardisation bodies involved is explained in Appendix 1. Departure
from these external standards is acceptable provided this is properly documented and
discussed.
Purpose of casing
For drilling and completing a well it is usually necessary to line the walls of the hole with steel
pipe called casing. This casing, together with the cement which holds it in place and seals the
annulus [8], performs one or more of the following important functions (see Figure A-1):
-
to keep the hole open from sloughing and swelling shales;
to keep the hole open from moving salt formations;
to prevent contamination of fresh-water horizons;
to provide a means of controlling fluid influxes;
to provide a container for drilling and completion fluids;
to confine produced fluid to the wellbore;
to provide a smooth conduit for drilling, logging and completion tools;
to provide a smooth conduit for future casing and tubing strings;
to support wellhead equipment and subsequent casing strings;
to provide a means of anchoring the blowout preventers and Xmas tree.
FIGURE A-1 : PURPOSE OF CASING
1.3
Casing Types And Functions.

The total length of casing run in the well and hung off at the wellhead during a single operation is
called a casing string. A liner is a string of casing which does not extend all the way to surface,
but is suspended a short distance above the previous shoe. There are five principal types of
casing string:
1.
Stove Pipe, Marine Conductor or Foundation Pile;
2.
Conductor String;
3.
Surface String;
4.
Intermediate String(s);
5.
Production String.
The function of these strings is described below and summarised in Panel A-1. See also Figure A-2.
1.3.1
Stove pipe, marine conductor or foundation pile

The purpose of this first string of pipe is primarily to protect the incompetent surface soils from
erosion by the drilling fluid and, in the event of an offshore application, reduce the wave and
current loads imposed on the inner strings. Where the formation is sufficiently stable, this string
may be used to install a full mud circulation system. It also serves to guide the drillstring and
subsequent casing into the hole. The name given to this string is primarily related to the type of
drilling operation:
Stove Pipe
Onshore drilling.
Marine Conductor
Offshore drilling with surface BOPs.
Foundation Pile
Offshore drilling with subsea BOPs.
Stove pipes and marine conductors are either driven, drilled/driven or cemented in a pre-drilled
hole. The stove pipe often carries the subsequent conductor casing, but once the latter string is
cemented the stove pipe is released from this axial load. Therefore, subsequent casing strings
will be hung off the conductor casing string.
Marine conductors may form a part of the piling system for a wellhead jacket or piled platform
and are therefore often designed by the structural engineers. They provide centralisation for the
inner casing strings against column buckling, but do not carry direct axial loads except during
initial installation of the conductor string. The marine conductors serve to reduce the wave and
current loads imposed on the inner casing strings and provide sacrificial protection against
oxygen corrosion in the splash zone.
On gravity structures, they are also required to minimise the transfer to the inner casings of
stresses resulting from platform settlement and rotational movement of the platform.
Foundation piles are usually either jetted into place or cemented in a pre-drilled hole. If no
Temporary Guide Base is used, they support the Main Guide Base which carries and aligns all
future wellhead components, BOPs, Xmas tree and casing/tubing strings for both the drilling and
production phases. If a Temporary Base Guide is used, the foundation pile is landed in tension.
The foundation pile directly carries both the axial and bending loads imposed on the wellhead by
the environment via marine riser and BOP.
PANEL A-1 : CASING TYPES AND FUNCTION
FIGURE A-2 : TYPES OF CASING STRING AND LINERS
1.3.2
Conductor string
The conductor string is used to prevent poorly consolidated formations from sloughing into the
hole, to provide a full mud-circulation system, to protect fresh water sands from contamination by
the drilling mud and to provide protection against shallow hydrocarbons. This string is usually
cemented to surface or seabed and is always the first casing on which one or more BOPs are
mounted.
For onshore wells the conductor string usually supports the wellhead, the BOP, the Xmas tree
and subsequent casing strings.
For offshore wells with a surface BOP, the conductor string also usually supports the wellhead,
the BOP, the Xmas tree and subsequent casing strings. Compressional loads are therefore often
the most critical design parameters for this casing. Above the top cement, the conductor must be
centralised to prevent column buckling. The annulus between the marine conductor and
conductor string is usually left uncemented above the mudline, in order to minimise load transfer
from the environment and hence bending stresses in the conductor string.
For offshore wells with a subsea BOP, the conductor string is landed on the foundation pile, and
stays in tension.
1.3.3
Surface string
The next string is the surface string which provides blowout protection during deeper drilling. Its
setting depth is often chosen so that it also isolates troublesome formations, loss zones, shallow
hydrocarbons, water sands, or protects the build-up section of deviated wells.
1.3.4
Intermediate string
This string is used to ensure adequate blowout protection for even deeper drilling, and to isolate
formations or deeper hole profile changes that can cause drilling problems. It is recommended to
set an intermediate casing string whenever there is a chance of encountering an influx that could
cause breakdown at the previous casing shoe, and/or severe losses in the open hole section. A
string is therefore nearly always set in the transition zone above or below significant
overpressures, and in any potential cap rock below a severe loss zone. Similarly, it is good
practice when appraising untested, deeper horizons, to case off the known hydrocarbon intervals
as a contingency against the possibility of encountering a loss circulation zone. Obviously this
latter advice applies primarily to massive reservoir sections rather than sand-shale sequences
with numerous small reservoirs and sub-reservoirs.
An intermediate string may also be set to shut off a swelling shale, a brittle caving shale, a
creeping salt, an over-pressured permeable stringer, a build- up or drop-off section, a highpermeability sand or partly depleted reservoir that causes differential sticking. The designer
should design the well to combine many of these objectives in a single casing point. A liner may
be used instead of a full intermediate casing, and difficult wells may contain several intermediate
casing strings and/or liners.
1.3.5
Production string
This is the string through which the well will be completed, produced and controlled throughout
its service life. While on some exploration wells this will amount to only a short testing period, on
most development wells it will span a significant number of years during which many
recompletions may be performed. In most cases, the production casing will serve to isolate the
productive intervals, to facilitate proper reservoir control and to prevent the influx of undesired
fluids. In other cases, accumulation conditions are such that the well can be left with an openhole completion below the production string.
It is also possible that the casing itself could be used as a conduit for maximising well
deliverability, for minimising pressure losses during a frac job, for injecting inhibitor or for lift gas.
This may require Annular Safety Valves, which impose severe loads on the uncemented casing.
It should be remembered that production operations will affect the temperature of the production
casing and impose additional thermal stresses. The loads to which a production casing is
subjected are therefore quite different from those imposed during drilling.
Care has to be taken in the selection of the steel type and the connections for a production
string. Special consideration is required where drilling takes place below the production casing
since it may suffer some damage, e.g. in barefoot completions, open-hole gravel packs, liner
completions and deep- zone appraisal. In a liner completion both the liner and casing form the
production string and must be designed accordingly.
The quality of the primary cement job is of paramount importance for the production casing,
especially where zonal isolation is critical. It is therefore strongly recommended that the
production casing should be rotated and/or reciprocated during cementing. This imposes
additional design requirements.
1.3.6
Liner
As discussed before, a liner is a string of casing which does not extend all the way to surface, but
is suspended a short distance above the previous casing shoe. It is usually cemented over its
entire length to ensure a seal with the previous casing string. It is indeed important to ensure that
the liner overlap has a good seal. In cases of suspected cement seal quality a mechanical seal,
in the form of a liner packer, should be installed.
Drilling from a production liner is becoming a common practice. This is an important feature of
slimhole and monobore designs, where multiple liners may be used [2].
Although in principle the same types exist as discussed for the casing string above, an additional
distinction is usually made between drilling liners and production liners, which are defined as
follows.
Drilling liners are set:
- to provide a deeper and hence a stronger shoe;
- to keep the hole open from unstable formations;
- to achieve a drilling casing at low cost;
- because of rig limitations on tensional loads;
- to minimise the effect of a reduced internal diameter on drilling hydraulics.
Production liners are set:
- to achieve a production casing at low cost;
- because of rig limitations on tensional loads;
- to allow the installation of a larger flow conduit.
Either type of liner may subsequently be tied back to surface with a string of casing stabbed into
the top of the liner.
1.4
The design process

The objective of casing design is to design a set of casing strings, capable of withstanding a
variety of external and internal pressures, thermal loads and loads related to the self-weight of
the casing. These casing strings are subjected to time-dependent corrosion, wear and possibly
fatigue, which downrate their resistance to these loads during their service life. The interaction
between the casing strings - which may lead e.g. to annular pressure build-up or wellhead
movement [9,10] also merits attention.
This section briefly surveys the structure of the process used to arrive at a technically and
economically sound casing design.
Casing design as described in this Guide is divided into two main phases, preliminary design and
detailed design, with the former further subdivided into data collection and casing-scheme
selection. As illustrated in Flowchart A-1, it will generally be necessary to repeat these phases in
an iterative process to obtain an optimum design [2].
1.4.1 Preliminary design

1.4.1.1 Data collection
The outcome of the casing design process is strongly influenced by the quality of the initial datacollection exercise. Chapter C (Design parameters) addresses this issue and reviews the tools
required to obtain the necessary information.
To be effective, data collection must be carried out at an early stage in the design process, by
means of a multidisciplinary team including local Opco staff from the Petroleum Engineering and
Operations departments in addition to the casing designer. Recent developments in downhole
technology will lead to the introduction of novel ideas resulting in reduced well costs. The casing
designer should be familiar with these developments and evaluate their merits for application in
his specific case [5,6].
FLOWCHART A-1 : OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE CASING PROCESS
1.4.1.2 Casing-scheme selection

Selection of the optimum (most cost-effective) casing scheme for the anticipated development
plan can play a major role in cutting overall well costs, and guaranteeing formation integrity
during drilling under all realistic loading conditions [2]. The structure of the selection procedure is
illustrated in Flowchart A-2.
Casing-scheme selection is a complex matter involving the global issues of well configuration,
which are mainly driven by the well objectives and field- development economics. Continual
vigilance is required to avoid overdesign and other forms of unnecessary expenditure. It would
go beyond the scope of the present Guide to deal fully with all the considerations leading to
proper choice of the casing scheme; however, the main lines of this topic are dealt with in
Chapter D.
FLOWCHART A-2 : GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR CASING-SCHEME SELECTION
The outcome of the casing-scheme selection is a specification of the minimum external diameter
and minimum casing-shoe depth for each casing section in the proposed well. The casing
diameter is mainly determined by the availability of downhole drilling equipment and logging
tools, and by production requirements determining the sizing of the production or evaluation
conduit. The casing-shoe setting depth is usually a function of the strength of the formation to be
drilled through and the loads on the wellbore during drilling or lithological/geological related
considerations. The total depth of the well will be mainly determined by the well objectives.
In general, the preliminary casing scheme selection should be addressed by considering the
casing diameters from the inner strings towards the outer strings and by evaluating the casing
setting depths from the total depth upwards to surface.
The preliminary casing scheme may have to be modified on the basis of the results of later
stages of the design process.
1.4.2
Detailed design
In the detailed design phase, the casing designer determines the material grade and casing wall
thickness for each section of the casing scheme selected, which will allow it to withstand all
realistically expected loads throughout the life of the well. The structure of this phase is illustrated
in Flowchart A-3. In general, it will be most effective to design the individual casing sections in
the order specified in Flowchart A-4.
1.4.2.1 Selection of relevant load

Before design calculations can be performed for a given casing section, the casing designer
must decide which load cases can realistically be expected to occur. This topic is dealt with in
Chapter F.
1.4.2.2 Uniaxial design
The design loads for the load cases selected are determined with the aid of the relevant data
(see Chapter G). They are compared with the resistances to burst or collapse tabulated in API
Bull. 5C2 [11] on the basis of the formulae published in API Bull. 5C3 [12] (see Chapter H), after
these values have been corrected to take the influence of corrosion, wear and fatigue (see
Chapter I) into account and divided by the relevant design factor (see Chapter K). The casing
design obtained in this way is then checked to see whether the casing selected can withstand the
loads occurring during installation (in particular the axial forces due to the total weight of the
casing string down to the depth considered, and the shock and torsional loads experienced
during setting the casing).
FLOWCHART A-3 : STRUCTURE OF DETAILED DESIGN PHASE
FLOWCHART A-4: DESIGN SEQUENCE FOR CASING STRINGS OR LINERS
FIGURE A-3 : PRINCIPLE OF UNIAXIAL CASING DESIGN
The principle of this uniaxial design Process is illustrated in Figure A-3, and the design
calculations involved are dealt with in sections 2 and 3 of Chapter G, and sections 1.1 to 1.3 of
Chapter H. In general, uniaxial design often leads to a conservative choice of tubular grade and
wall thickness.
1.4.2.3 Triaxial design
With increasing acceptance of triaxial stress analysis and the appearance of commercial casingstress-analysis software [4,13,14], use of triaxial analysis to optimise casing design is becoming
increasingly common. The interrelationship of design loads can now be analysed using a
combination of Hooke's law, the Lame equations and the Von Mises yield criterion. These
computer analyses relieve the designer of a lot of repetitious calculations and allow him to
concentrate on more accurate estimation of the service-life load conditions - a task for which
computer software has also been developed [3,4]. As with the uniaxial approach, the influence of
corrosion, wear and fatigue should be taken into account before the triaxial design factor is
applied. This extension of the design process, made possible by the advent of desktop
computing power, should lead to an optimised casing design fine-tuning the simplified
conventional approach [4]. Designs that previously did not meet the uniaxial design rules may
know be acceptable following a detailed triaxial stress analysis.
The principle of triaxial design is illustrated in Figure A-4. The design calculations involved are
dealt with in Appendix 6.
1.4.2.4 Further design considerations
Connections
It is important to ensure that the connections between successive lengths of casing should also
withstand the loads to which they are subjected. Recent developments have led to a wide
diversity of connection types and sealing compounds for use with casing connections. The
salient aspects of connection design are highlighted in Chapter L, with ample references to the
relevant literature, as a basis for technically justified selection of the right connection types [15].
Design for special cases
The design steps outlined above are applicable to any casing string or liner. However, special
design measures are needed to ensure adequate design in special cases such as hightemperature/high-pressure wells, squeezing salt wells and horizontal wells. The special design
considerations applicable to such cases are discussed briefly, with ample references to the
literature, in Chapter N.
FIGURE A-4 : PRINCIPLE OF TRIAXIAL CASING ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Operational aspects
Practical details which need to be taken into account in the design of any casing string are
discussed in Chapter O. The casing designer should be familiar with the relevant purchasing
specifications [16,17] and should be aware of the procedures and tools available to help the
operator responsible for installing and maintaining the casing strings. Early incorporation of these
aspects into the design process will yield an optimum design.
Probabilistic approach to casing design
Probabilistic methods of risk analysis now under development may become applicable to casing
design in the future [18,19]. Such methods, permitting quantification of the risk of failure
associated with a given casing design, might allow further rationalisation to be brought about.
1.5.
References
[1]
SIPM, EPO/51
Proceedings of the PW82 Well Design Workshop - 1-5 October 1990
EP 90-3460
[2]
SIPM, EPO/51
Making the most of well planning
EP 92-2500
[3]
SIPM, EPO/51
OSCP User Guide - version 2.3
EP 91-2156
[4]
Pittman, W.
Commercial casing design software - detailed evaluation
EP 92-0473
[5]
SIPM, EPO/5
Management, Technology and Human Resources, Programme 1991-1993
EP 91-3000
[6]
SIPM, EPD
Technology development programme 1992-1994
EP 92-0350
[7]
SIPM, EPO/51
Drilling Spearhead Documentation, Volume 1, 2 and 3
EP 89-0115
[8]
SIPM, EPO/51
Cementing Manual, Volume I - Primary Cementing of Casing
EP-50500
[9]
MacEachran, A. and Adams, A.J.

Impact on casing design of thermal expansion of fluids in confined annuli
SPE/IADC 21911
[10]
Adams, A.J.
How to design for annulus fluid heat-up
SPE 22871
[11]
American Petroleum Institute

Bulletin on performance properties of casing and tubing
Bull. 5C2, Twentieth edition, 31 May 1987
[12]

Bulletin on formulas and calculations for casing, tubing, drillpipe and line pipe properties
Bull. 5C3, Fifth edition, July 1989
[13]
Klementich, E.F. and Jellison, M.J.

A service-life model for casing strings
SPE 12361
[14]
Klementich, E.F., Jellison, M.J. and Johnson, R.

Triaxial load capacity diagrams provide a new approach to casing and tubing
analysis
SPE/IADC 13434
[15]
Bax, D.J.M. (SIPM) and Bontenbal, P.J. (KSEPL)

Casing connections
Contribution to the upgrade of the SIPM Casing Design Manual
EP 92-1563
[16]

Specification for casing and tubing
Spec. 5CT, Third edition, 1 December 1990
[17]
SIPM, EPO/512
Technical suggestions for ordering non-API tubulars
DEN 17/92
[18]
Payne, M.L. and Swanson, J.D.

Application of probabilistic reliability methods to tubular design
SPE 19556
[19]
Reeves, T.B., Parfitt, S.H.L. and Adams, A.J.

Casing system risk analysis using structural reliability
SPE/IADC 25693
1.6
Appendix 1: International standards for tubular goods
1.6.1
Introduction
Opcos may depart from international standards relevant to casing design when it can be well
documented that less conservative casing designs still meet stringent demands on safety and
environmental friendliness, and comply with local legal requirements.
SIPM is working with industry partners (and competitors) to make these international standards
reflect this new vision. However, the process of change is justifiably a slow one.
This Appendix describes the framework within which these changes will have to be made.
The oil and gas exploration and production industry uses a great number of standards developed
by a range of organisations and national, regional and international standardisation bodies.
A standard is a document providing rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their
results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context [1]. The
industry uses standards with the specific aim of providing a means to enhance technical integrity,
transfer knowledge and carry out business efficiently.
It is the E&P industry's goal to foster the development of standards on an international level for
the broadest possible application. Worldwide use of the standards is seen as being for the
mutual benefit of users and manufacturers [3,8]. The E&P industry has in many areas adopted
local, national or regional standards for non E&P-specific equipment such as pressure vessels,
lifting equipment, materials, electrical gear, etc. Certain regional or national standards have
proven so useful to the E&P industry that they are extensively used and hence basically adopted
by this industry.
In many areas, American standards and in particular API (American Petroleum Institute), ASME
(American Society for Mechanical Engineers), ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials),
NACE (National Association of Corrosion Engineers) and NFPA (National Fire Protection
Agency) Standards provide the upstream industry with standards that support activities
worldwide. ANSI (American National Standards Institute) is the recognised standardising body
for the USA [2].
However, new developments are underway, as explained hereafter. The E&P industry is
adapting to the changing political and economic climate. Until recently the API was the leading oil
industry organisation. With the upcoming European Market the situation is changing. The
Committee for European Normalisation (CEN) and the International Standards Organisation
(ISO) seem to be setting the pace [3,4].
For many years, API's Committee 5 the Committee on standardisation of Tubular Goods has
been involved with the international use of its standards. The manufacturing and use of tubulars
has recently expanded to all corners of the world. Committee 5 has extended its membership to
qualified users and manufacturers regardless of their location. As a result, the tubular- goods
standards have developed the necessary provisions needed in any international standard. During
the recent years Committee 5 has worked with CEN representatives from the European
Community (EC) to prepare for EC 1992. Some progress has been made [5]. Topics that have
been discussed include Oil-Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) and line-pipe items, and the
Committee 5's goal is to review all the topics and to handle the higher priority items that might
help the EC transition before the opening of the European Common Market in 1992 [5].
Committee 5's latest effort is to gain ISO approval and acceptance of many of the existing API
standards. Several Committee 5 documents are now under review [5].
SIPM has a clear view on standardisation, as defined in [1,6,7]. SIPM uses so called Group
Standards. Group Standards are generated with the specific aim of providing a means to
enhance technical integrity, transfer knowledge and carry out business efficiently.
It is Group policy:
to rely, to the maximum possible extent, on External Standards;
to aim for minimum additional requirements in Group, Opco and Project Standards;
to actively, pursue the proper technical/commercial authorisation processes whereby
variations are justified, both for technical and business reasons;
to consistently improve the quality of Group Standards by creating/ maintaining feedback

loops between users and Custodians of Standards;
to positively influence External Standards bodies, thereby increasing the number and
improving the quality of External Standards applicable to Group use.
In the next paragraphs the organisations that have developed and are maintaining E&P
standards are reviewed in more detail.
1.6.2
American Petroleum Institute (API)

Some of the equipment used for exploration and production is highly specialised and designs
were developed, based on many years of experience, to cater for the specific needs of this
industry. The API in particular has played a significant role in developing standards for those
areas which are unique to this specialised industry. API has served the E&P industry since 1923
and developed standards initially for domestic U.S. use, and later for broad international use as
the industry spread around the world [8]. API is involved in International Standards through its
activities as Technical Advisory Group Administrator to ANSI [2].
1.6.2.1 API Committee 5 - tubular goods specifications and publications

The API has appointed a Committee, named Committee 5, on Standardisation of Tubular Goods
which publishes, and continually updates, a series of Specifications, Standards, Bulletins and
Recommended Practices covering the manufacture, performance and handling of tubular goods.
They also license manufacturers to use the API Monogram on material that meets their published
specifications, so that field personnel can identify materials that comply with the standards. Their
pronouncements are almost universally accepted as the basis for discussions on the properties
of tubulars. However, this does not mean that everyone accepts the published performance data
as the best theoretical representation of the parameters. The forum consists both of users and
manufacturers.
1.6.2.2 API Committee 5 documents
The documents published by Committee 5 of particular relevance to casing design and
specification are described below.
1. API SPEC 5CT, "Specification for casing and tubing". Covers seamless and welded casing
and tubing, couplings, pup joints and connectors in all grades. Processes of manufacture,
chemical and mechanical property requirements, methods of test and dimensions are
included.
2. API STD 5B, "Specification for threading, gauging, and thread inspection for casing, tubing,
and line pipe threads". Covers dimensional requirements on threads and thread gauges,
stipulations on gauging practice, gauge specifications and certifications, as well as
instruments and methods for the inspection of threads of round thread casing and tubing,
buttress thread casing, and extreme line casing, and drill pipe.
3. API RP 5A5, "Recommended practice for field inspection of new casing, tubing, and plain
end drill pipe". Provides a uniform method of inspecting tubular goods.
4. API RP 5Bl, "Recommended practice for thread inspection on casing, tubing and line pipe".
The purpose of this recommended practice is to provide guidance and instructions on the
correct use of thread inspection techniques and equipment.
5. API RP 5Cl, "Recommended practice for care and use of casing and tubing". Covers use,
transportation, storage, handling, and reconditioning of casing and tubing.
6. API RP 5C5, "Recommended practice for evaluation procedures for casing and tubing
connections". Describes tests to be performed to determine the galling tendency, sealing
performance and structural integrity of tubular connections.
7. API BULL. 5A2, "Bulletin on thread compounds". Provides material requirements and
performance tests for two grades of thread compound for use on oil field tubular goods.
8. API BULL. 5C2, "Bulletin on performance properties of casing and tubing". Covers
collapsing pressures, internal yield pressures, and joint strengths of casing and tubing and
minimum yield load for drill pipe.
9. API BULL. 5C3, "Bulletin on formulas and calculations for casing, tubing, drillpipe and line
pipe properties". Provides formulas used in the calculations of various pipe properties, also
background information regarding their development and use.
10. API BULL. 5C4, "Bulletin on round thread casing joint strength with combined internal
pressure and bending". Provides joint strength of round thread casing when subject to
combined bending and internal pressure.
1.6.2.3 Items under review

In 1987 Committee 5 formed an ad hoc group to develop a list of topics that caused difficulties
with the application of specifications in the use and the ordering of products. Enquiries under
consideration that will have substantial impact on the specifications are listed below [5].
1. The adoption of a super-K grade in the minimum strength level of 65,000 to 70,000 psi and
the elimination of grade K-55.
2. Combination of Grades P105 and P110 into a single grade with modified strength levels.
3. Evaluation of test frequency on tubular goods and couplings.
4. The effect of full-body normalising on corrosion.
5. Better methods of evaluating electric resistance weld tubular seams.
6. Inspection methods to include transverse and ID inspections.
7. Premium connections for casing and tubing.
8. Toughness requirements for casing, tubing, drillpipe, and couplings.
9. Suitability of NACE testing of C-90 and T-95 thin-wall tubulars.
10. Quality limits.
11. A complete revision of STD 5B.
1.6.2.4 Shortcomings of API standards
The API emphasises "voluntary, consensus standards." The consensus results from the
participation of manufacturers and users. However, manufacturers generally oppose any
additional specification restrictions. Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) manufacturer attendance
significantly exceeds user attendance at committee meetings. This continues to lead to products
that are several years behind those currently being purchased by knowledgeable operators using
their upgraded specifications.
1.6.3
International Standardisation Organisation (ISO)

ISO describes itself as "the specialised international agency for standardisation". Its members
are the national standards organisations of 91 countries. ISO publishes International Standards
emanating from several Technical Committees and sub-committees.
ISO is governed by a Technical Board comprising one representative from each national body.
The Central Secretariat coordinates ISO operations, administers voting and approval procedures,
maintains and interprets the Directives that set out the procedures and rules, and publishes the
International Standards.
ISO is responsible for all fields of international standardisation except electrical and electronic.
1.6.3.1 ISO Technical Committee 67 (ISO/TC 67) oil industry matters

ISO/TC 67 was reactivated in 1988, because the international upstream industry was
increasingly recognising the need for good international standards that could be accepted and
applied worldwide.
As part of the reactivation, the scope of ISO/TC 67 was extended to the standardisation of the
materials, equipment and offshore structures used in drilling, production, refining and the
transport by pipelines of petroleum and natural gas. The work programme developed was
primarily in the fields of drilling and production but also includes machinery and equipment used
in refining and petrochemicals.
1.6.4
Committee for European Normalisation (CEN)

CEN is the European counterpart of ISO. It consists of the members of the national standards
organisations of the EC countries. It aims to achieve the goal of the EC, i.e. to improve the
international competitive position of European industry.
One of the methods to achieve this is the removal of technical trade barriers by:
- harmonising standards (with emphasis on health, safety and environment) into European
Norms (ENs);
- introducing directives (which will become law at national level, referring to relevant ENs);
- harmonising certification.
Testing and certification in Europe are reviewed in [9].
1.6.5
Cooperation between ISO, CEN and API

As all CEN-members are also ISO members, a close cooperation exists. The cooperation
between ISO and CEN has been formulated as follows:
"It is declared policy of the community that whenever possible CEN/CENELEC shall implement
international standards in a uniform way but where international standards have not yet been
developed or where existing standards need to be adapted to European situations, CEN and
CENELEC will develop ENs in anticipation of international ones."
As part of the Harmonisation Legislation for Europe 1992 the EEC commission requested the
CEN to introduce ENs. As the upstream oil and gas industry is dominated by API standards, the
CEN requested the ISO to investigate the feasibility of converting API standards into ISO
standards and subsequently into ENs.
It was decided to divide the API standards into three classes:
-
Class 1: API standards to be circulated by the ISO central secretariat under the "fast-track"
procedure, meaning 1-2 years [10].
Class 2: API standards to be further discussed to modify them prior to submittal to the ISO.
Class 3: API standards requiring significant study prior to moving forward as international
standards.
In 1988 API offered more than 70 of its Standards to ISO, to be the basis of International
Standards. In 1989 an ISO Advisory Group classed several of these as suitable for adoption
without technical modification and ISO/CS agreed to "fast-track" these to become International
Standards. "Fast-Track" means that the API document is given an ISO Number, front cover and
foreword but is otherwise presented as is. So far API Bull. 5C3, API RP5Cl and API Std 5B
have been "fast-tracked".
The ISO foreword addresses issues such as equivalent references to American national
references, certification and the API Monogram.
The industry is now three years into the process of "transferring" API Standards. It is no longer
seen as appropriate that all the API Standards offered should become ISO Standards. Some
may be better left with API because the helpful and discursive style of many (RPs and Bulletins
in particular) is lost when re-formatted to comply with ISO Directives.
1.7
References
[1]
SIPM, MFSO/3
Procedural Specification - DEP Publications
DEP 00.00.00.30-Gen.
[2]
Wilson, D.E.
Internationalisation of oil industry standards
OTC 6921
[3]
Arney, C.E.
Toward one set of international standards for the petroleum industry worldwide
OTC 6922
[4]
Thomas, G.A.W., Throp, G. and Jenham, J.B.

The upstream oil and gas industry's initiative for international standards
OTC 6920
[5]
Bartlett, L.E., Kohut, G.B, Dabkowsky, D.S. and McGill, R.

Activities of the API Committee on Standardisation of Tubular Goods
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1991, 215-218
[6]
SIPM, EPO/7
Standardisation Spearhead-Standardisation Pointers
EP 90-3300
[7]
SIPM, EPD/15
Standardisation Spearhead - A Progress Report
EP 90-3301
[8]
E & P Forum
Position Paper, Development and Use of Standards
March 1992
[9]
Gundlach, H.C.W.
Testing and certification in Europe
OTC 6924
[10]
E& P Forum
Report of Status of "Fast - Track" API Standards in ISO (monthly report)
January 1992
2.0
Introduction
This part of the Casing Design Guide deals with two important operations which must precede
the detailed casing design calculations: data collection (Chapter C) and preliminary selection of
the casing scheme for the planned well, specifying the minimum casing diameter and minimum
casing shoe setting depth for all strings (Chapter D).
Fit for purpose design is impossible without early collection off all the relevant data. This should
be done by a multidisciplinary team. Chapter C discusses the types of data required for casing
scheme selection and the subsequent detailed design calculations, and indicates briefly how
these data should be processed to produce suitable input for the design process. Appendix 2
shows, by way of example, a number of data-collection sheets for single-string ventures.
As discussed in Chapter D, casing diameters should be the minimum feasible given the
formation evaluation requirements and drilling and production equipment sizes. Recent
developments in drilling, evaluation and completion techniques have increased the application of
slimhole drilling and monobore completions to allow for slimmer casing-scheme selection.
Casing setting depths are determined by comparing formation strength with the loads to which
the formation may be subjected. The primary method of estimating formation strength is still the
use of leak-off and limit tests, though other methods are available and under development. The
main means of determining wellbore pressure loads during drilling, mud circulation and tripping is
physical modelling. SIPM recommends use of the HYDRAUL and SWABSURGE computer
models, available via OSCP, for this purpose. For the modelling of wellbore pressure loading
during well control Shell Research, Rijswijk, has developed the relevant software, WELLPLAN/
WINDOWS, which will be available by mid-1993.
The basic elements of rock mechanics are reviewed in Appendix 3. Leak-off and limit tests are
discussed in Chapter C, and recommended procedures for carrying them out are given in
Appendix 4. Appendix 5 gives an example of the calculation of for Nation strength from the
results of leak-off tests.
3.0
Design parameters
3.1
Introduction
Considerable effort is required from the Petroleum Engineering and Operations departments
when planning, designing and drilling/completing a well. In view of the high costs of these
operations and the severe penalties attached to failure, the data set used for casing design must
be as complete as possible right from the start. Some of these data are laid down in the
development plan, well proposal or well objectives. However, in depth and "fit-for-purpose"
casing design demands more detailed information on all strata to be penetrated.
This chapter is specifically aimed at stressing the importance of a good, complete data set,
collected by a multidisciplinary team, prior to the design of a well.
The relevance of the data set will be addressed and examples will illustrate how the data can be
presented. The topic of data collection is not covered exhaustively in this chapter; it is the task of
the Opco to establish a structured data-collection organisation including at departments involved,
and to arrange for internal audits to highlight shortcomings in the data flow [1].
The parameters involved will be called the design parameters. This chapter will mainly address
the basic geological and reservoir related design parameters that the casing designer requires
from various departments prior to the design of a well. These are: the lithological column, the
formation-strength, pore-pressure and temperature profiles, the hydrocarbon composition and
the H2S/CO2 concentrations.
Derived design parameters such as required mudweight or gaslift pressure will not be discussed
here.
It will be clear that the design parameters can be obtained either from actual measurements or
from (computer-based) modelling tools. Reworking and translating these data into a usable
format will obviously assist all parties involved. Several Opcos are now streamlining their data
flow [2], others have developed special data-collection sheets (see Appendix 2).
In simple terms, casing design then involves use of the relevant design parameters, as discussed
in this chapter, in the design equations presented in Chapters G, H and J, for the relevant load
cases discussed in Chapter F.
3.2
Lithological column
The lithological column is the description of the sequence of formations that are prognosed to be
present in the well to be drilled.
Every formation has its characteristic properties with regard to formation strength, drilling
problems , reservoir potentials, etc. Advanced knowledge of these properties will be time and
cost saving.
Lithological information is important in casing design for the following reasons:
-
The column may provide a warning for potential drilling and casing hazards (see Figure C-1).
The parameter will assist the Drilling Engineer in making a tentative design of the depth for
the various casing shoes, as the type of formation and its depth will give a good indication of
formation strength. More details are to be found in the formation breakdown profile
paragraph.
The presence (if an aerobic environments can be an indicative for H2S which may be formed
by bacterial action. More details to be found in the H2S/CO2 profile paragraph.
In combination with offset well pore pressure profiles potential over/under pressure zones
may be predicted. More details on this topic are to be found in the pore pressure profile
paragraph.
In case of an exploration well the casing designer may not have much information available. Well
planning and design will be based entirely on information from seismic and regional geological
information. However, with the progress of time and the increase of the available data the
geological prognosis can be compared to the actual lithological column as shown in Figure C-2.
The geological summary sheets reflect in a concise way all the relevant mud logging data.
Common data bases, like EPIDORIS, will supply more detailed information on the drilling related
activities. This local information could be further summarised to reflect a base case lithological
column. Figure C-1 gives an example.
Note that the predicted depths always have an error margin. The reason is that the prognosed
depth is derived from a two way travel time of a soundwave through the various formations.
Seismologists and geophysicists quantify these margins leading to a shallow or deep estimation.
Narrowing this margin down will lead to a more "fit-for-purpose" well design.
3.3
Formation-strength profile
3.3.1
Introduction
Formation strength refers to the ability of rock to withstand a certain load without failure. Rock
failure and the opposite, formation integrity are important phenomena in Petroleum Engineering.
Different measures of formation strength are used in the different disciplines in the industry:
Geology, e.g. modelling of geological structures, trapping mechanisms of hydrocarbon

accumulations and mechanisms of overpressures.
Drilling Operations, e.g. casing setting depth, maximum safe drilling depth and losses
caused by circulating pressures, surge pressures, and cementing operations,
Production Operations, e.g. well killing, sand control operations and well stimulation.
FIGURE C-1 : LITHOLOGICAL COLUMN
FIGURE C-2 GEOLOGY SUMMARY SHEET OF WELL 14/25a-3
For a complete theory of Rock Mechanics we refer to a suitable textbook or manual [271. A good
summary of the aspects relevant to the Drilling Engineer is presented in Appendix 3 [3].
The main importance for casing design is the relation between wellbore pressures and the ability
of the borehole wall to contain wellbore fluids, both for an intact and a fractured borehole. The
following paragraphs will address the relevant definitions, followed by the evaluation and
description of the different formation strength test methods. The preferred test method will be
discussed to offset the accuracy of the results against the risk to reduce the formation strength.
3.3.2
Borehole failure
The mechanism of borehole failure can be shown and discussed with the results of a typical
formation breakdown test, (see Figure C-3). In a plot of the downhole pressure exerted on the
formation of a closed-in well versus time (or volume pumped), several characteristic points can
be identified.
Figure C-3 Relation between leak-off, formation-breakdown, fracture-propagation, fractureclosure and instantaneous shut-in pressures.
FIGURE C-3 : RELATION BETWEEN LEAK-OFF ,FORMATION-BREAKDOWN,FRACTURE
PROGRATION, FRACTURE-CLOSURE AND INSTANTANEOUS SHUT-IN PRESSURE
Initially, the pressure - time relationship is linear. The Leak-Off Pressure (LOP) is the pressure at
which the curve deviates from the initial linear build-up.This deviation is associated with a
noticeable intake of fluid into the formation either by filtration through the mudcake or by the
formation of small cracks in the borehole wall.
At the Formation Breakdown Pressure (FBP) the borehole wall fails and a major fracture is
initiated. Powered by the decompression of the wellbore fluid, this fracture grows almost
instantaneously and the wellbore pressure reduces sharply. The stress concentrations around an
intact borehole provide the strength of a borehole. Once formation breakdown has occurred,
these stress concentrations disappear, and the strength of the borehole is reduced to the
minimum in situ stress of the formation. This explains the reduction in strength of a fractured
borehole.
If pumping is continued, the fracture propagates into the formation in a controlled manner, and
the pressure stabilises at the Fracture Propagation Pressure (FPP). Due to the frictional pressure
losses in the fracture, the FPP will increase if the flowrate increases.
When pumping is stopped, flow into the well and into the fracture stops almost immediately;
frictional pressure losses disappear, and the pressure drops to a value called the Instantaneous
Shut -In Pressure (ISIP). At this stage, the fracture is open, but does not propagate any more.
The fluid in the fracture then leaks away, through the faces of the fracture into the formation, and
the pressure decreases. The pressure at which the fracture closes is the Fracture Closure
Pressure (FCP). It can be shown that this pressure is equal to the minimum in-situ stress.
After the fracture has closed the fluid leaks away very slowly, through the mud cake into the
formation. The pressure will, given enough time, reduce to the hydrostatic pressure of the mud
column. There is no clear transition between these last two situations on the pressure decay
curve. Techniques have been developed to derive the FCP, by determining the intersection
between the two "trend" lines in the pressure time plot.
If the fractured borehole is pressured up again, the fracture opens up at the Fracture Reopening
Pressure (FRP), which in most cases is equal to the FCP. The fracture continues to propagate at
the FPP. The original FBP will not be reached anymore; the strength of the borehole is reduced
compared to the original unfractured situation. In some situations the strength of the borehole
may be restored. This process is called "clay-healing". However, the mechanism is not
understood, and should not be relied upon.
3.3.3
Formation-strength gradient and equivalent mud weight

Formation strength is often expressed as a gradient by dividing the pressure by the true vertical
depth relative to a reference level. This way formation strength measurements at different depths
can be compared and formation strength can be related to mud weight. The different conventions
are given below.
In geophysics and rack mechanics, the Formation Breakdown Gradient (FBG) is calculated by
dividing the FBP by the true vertical thickness of the overburden. This way formation strength
and overburden gradient can be compared. The conversion is different for land and offshore
wells, (see Figure C-4):
Land wells : FBG =
Offshore : FBG =
FBP
d form dfe
(relative to surface)
FBP sw x (d seabed d FWL )

d form d seabed
(C-1)
(C-2)
(Similar expressions can be given for LOG, FPG and FCG.)

However, for Drilling Engineering in casing design and for well control, the Formation
Breakdown Pressure is expressed as an equivalent mud gradient. This is the mud
gradient of a mud that will give a hydrostatic pressure equal to the FBP at the formation
of interest. This can be calculated as follows:
FB form =
FBP
d form
(relative to derrick floor) (C-3)
(Similar expressions can be given for LO, FP and FC , for LOP, FPP and FCP resp.)
where:
3.3.4
dform
dfe
dFWL
dseabed
sw
=
=
=
=
=
FB,form.
true vertical depth of the formation below derrick floor

drillfloor elevation above reference level (usually ground surface)
true vertical depth of Free Water Level, below derrick floor
depth of seabed below derrick floor
seawater density (equivalent mud gradient)
equivalent mud gradient of the FBP.
Measuring the formation strength
3.3.4.1 Introduction
Formation strength measurements are performed to determine the strength of the wellbore. This
information is used for planning of subsequent downhole operations and provides a database for
future well designs in the area.
Different methods exist for determining the strength of a formation:
Limit Test or Leak-Off Test - During these tests the well is slowly pressured up, taking care
not to break down the formation. As soon as a predetermined pressure is reached or when
leak-off is observed, the test is stopped. These tests confirm that the wellbore can withstand
the test pressure without breakdown of the formation.
FIGURE C-4a : DEFINITION OF FORMATION-STRENGTH AND PORE-PRESSURE GRADIENTS

(LAND LOCATION )
FIGURE C-4b : DEFINITION OF FORMATION-STRENGTH AND PORE-PRESSURE GRADIENTS

(OFFSHORE LOCATION)
Formation Breakdown Test - The well is pressured up until formation breakdown is

observed. The test is sometimes continued with a series of fracture opening and closing
cycles (microfrac, minifrac test). The results of these tests will give information on the state of
stress of the formation, (e.g. minimum and intermediate in-situ stress, see Appendix 3).
Measurements on core material - These measurements will give additional information on

rock properties and the orientation of the in-situ stress.
Wireline testing - Several new wireline tools for improved rock property evaluation or
formation strength measurement are under development and will become available in the
near future.
Analysis of loss events - The strength of the open hole can be inferred from a careful
analysis of any operational event that causes losses. If losses occur, they should be treated
as an opportunity to derive valuable information.
The different tests are carried out with different objectives. In this paragraph, the methods and
objectives of each type of test will be addressed, and the advantages and disadvantages of each
type will be discussed.
3.3.4.2 Available measurement methods
Limit tests and leak-off tests
Leak-off and Limit tests are carried out during the actual drilling of the well. The BOP is closed
around the drillpipe, and the well is slowly pressured up, using mud. Usually the pressure is
measured and recorded at surface, but for high mud weights the application of downhole gauges
with a surface read out should be considered. At the first indication of fluid leak-off into the
formation the pumping is stopped. Limit tests are carried out until a predetermined test pressure
is reached. The test pressure is usually determined by the minimum formation strength required
to drill the next open hole section. Leak-off tests are carried out until leak-off is observed. In
Appendix 4 a detailed procedure is given for the preparation, execution and reporting of Limit and
Leak-off tests. An example of a typical trend curve for a leak-off test is shown in Figure C-5.
The formation should not be fractured during a Limit or Leak-off test. If the pressure suddenly
drops during the test, this may be an indication of formation breakdown. This should be treated
as an opportunity to determine FBP and FCP (see formation breakdown test on next page).
The objective of a Limit or Leak-off test is to:
investigate the capability of the formation in open hole below the casing shoe to withstand
pressure;
confirm the quality of the cement bond around the casing shoe.
FIGURE C-5 : TYPICAL TRENDS FROM LEAK-OFF TEST
The results of the tests will be used to plan the operations in the next hole section and design
subsequent wells in the same area by:
-
calculating the Maximum Allowable Annular Surface Pressure (MAASP) for well control
purposes;
confirming the soundness of the well design by checking the maximum safe drilling depth,
against the planned depth;
preventing losses to the formation during subsequent drilling operations (during circulating,
tripping, running casing and cementing);
storing and analysing the information in a database, for future well design optimisation,
contingency planning and regional geological studies. This will result in graphs like Figures
C-6, C-7 and C-8.
Formation breakdown test

During a formation breakdown test, the well is closed in at the BOP or wellhead, and is slowly
pressured up until formation breakdown is observed. Then pumping is stopped, and the pressure
decay curve is recorded until the pressure stabilises. The test may be continued with another
pumping period, to determine when the fracture re-opens.
This test will determine some real strength properties of the borehole and the formation (FBP,
FCP and FRP ). If the pore pressure and overburden stress are known, the minimum and
intermediate in situ stress can be estimated, using Eq. App. 3-6 to Eq. App. 3-9.
FIGURE C-6 : MINIMUM HORIZONTAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH FOR US Gulf

Coast, North Sea and onshore Netherlands
FIGURE C-7 : LEAK-OFF PRESSURE FROM NORTH SEA CENTRAL GRABEN AS A FUNCTION OF
DEPTH
These data can be used to:

- plan the operations in the next openhole section;
- design subsequent wells in the same area;
- construct a regional in-situ stress model and provide a good formation strength prediction.
A simple example calculation is provided in Appendix 5. 'This shows how the FBP for a future
well can be predicted based on a given dataset. Note the dependency of the FBP on the hole
angle.
It should be noted that after a formation breakdown test the maximum pressure to be applied to
the formation in the FCP.
Microfrac test, minifrac test
During a microfrac or minifrac test a fracture will be created and a series of fracture opening,
fracture propagation and fracture closing cycles are carried out. The pressure at which the
fracture opens and closes will be measured over a number of cycles. For a minifrac test, the
injection rate during each of the pumping cycles is higher , and the injection volume larger than
for a microfrac test.
Methods and procedures for carrying out these tests are described in [4].
A micro-frac test requires little more effort than a formation breakdown test, but provides more
accurate data on in-situ stress and additional data on fracture propagation. It is therefore
preferred to carry out micro frac tests. Mini-frac tests also provide accurate data, but will only be
carried out for well stimulation planning. Results are used to:
- construct a regional in-situ stress model and provide a good formation strength prediction;
- design well stimulation treatments by the determination of the fluid loss coefficient.
Measurements on cores
More information on the ratio of horizontal in-situ stress and the properties of rock can be
obtained with rock mechanical measurements on core samples. Examples of such
measurements are:
- thick walled cylinder tests;
- unconfined compressive strength tests;
- triaxial strength test;
- differential strain analysis;
- inelastic strain recovery tests;
- compaction experiments.
Wireline testing
Some wireline evaluation tools may offer additional information related to in-situ stress and
formation strength:
- With Borehole Geometry Surveys inferences can be made about the orientation of the in-situ
stress.
- Sonic Evaluation - Measurement and processing of shear wave and compressional wave
velocities may give some elastic rock properties (Poisson's ratio and Young's modulus).
Under some specific assumptions, the ratio between the effective vertical stress and the
minimum horizontal effective stress can be derived from these measurements. This allows
the minimum in-situ stress to be calculated.
New concepts and tools for improved formation strength testing are under development:
- Several service contractors are developing tools to perform a small formation breakdown test
downhole between inflatable packers. Typical results are formation breakdown, fracture
propagation and fracture closure pressures.
- Downhole acoustic emission measurement techniques may offer a better way to determine
impending formation breakdown during a formation strength test. This method has so far
only been proven under laboratory conditions, and is not yet commercially available.
Analysis of "loss events"

Formation strength may also be inferred from a careful analysis of some "drilling events". These
could be situations where losses are observed during drilling, tripping, cementing or a well
control situation. These events should be treated as an opportunity to derive some real formation
strength data [26].
The mechanism that induced the losses should be identified, and the pressures that occurred at
the moment the losses started will be an indication of the FBP. The sequence of events after
formation breakdown, may give some information about the minimum in-situ stress.
There is no uniform method to perform the analysis. It requires common sense, and a
commitment to improve the regional strength model. A system should be in place to gather and
process formation strength data acquired this way.
3.3.4.3 Choosing the right method
The process of deciding which formation strength testing method to choose is characterised by
two, usually conflicting considerations:
the required accuracy and significance of the results;
the requirement to avoid the risk of reduced formation strength, caused by formation
breakdown.
In the design stage a trade-off has to be made between the risk of formation strength reduction
and the need for realistic formation strength data. These two aspects are discussed below.
Accuracy of formation strength testing method
The different methods for formation strength testing are summarised in the table below. They are
given in order of increasing accuracy and significance of the results. Laboratory tests and
wireline testing methods are not mentioned here, because they only offer additional information
or are not yet operationally available.
A successful Limit test only confirms that the Formation Breakdown Pressure of the formation
below the casing shoe is higher than the limit pressure (LP). If the required capacity is confirmed,
drilling can continue. However, little is actually learned about the formation itself, and therefore,
this information cannot be transferred to other wells.
The occurrence of Leak-off is the first indication related to the strength of the borehole and the
mudcake. It is traditionally used as an indication of impending formation breakdown, and the LOP
has been often used as an estimate of FBP or minimum in-situ stress. However, the use of the
Leak-off test as a method to characterise formation strength has the following drawbacks:
-
Sometimes breakdown occurs without indications of Leak-off.
Leak-off is dependent on parameters that are not related to formation strength (e.g. mud
type, length (if the open hole section, whether any natural or drilling induced fractures are
exposed, borehole condition).
Leak-off testing relies on subjective interpretation of the engineer. Interpretation is difficult,

especially in unconsolidated formations.
Leak-off tests do not repeat well. Leak-off pressures tend to increase with time, especially in
sandstone.
Leak-off pressures have been shown [5] not to correlate closely with other, more significant
formation strength parameters (for example FBP and FCP or minimum in-situ stress).
During a Formation Breakdown test, the FBP is determined, and the FCP can be estimated.
The FCP is equal to the minimum in-situ stress, which is to be preferred as a measure of
formation strength. Its value is not dependent on the mud or the borehole orientation or
geometry, and can be correlated regionally from well to well. Knowledge of the minimum in-situ
stress also offers the possibility to predict FBP for nearby wells at different deviations (see Eq.
App. 3-6 to Eq. App. 3-9).
A micro-frac or mini-frac test allows the minimum in-situ stress to be derived with a higher
degree of accuracy. Data from these tests can be used to derive regional models of in-situ stress
and formation strength. Additional information about fracture propagation is obtained from these
tests. This can be used to design well stimulation treatments.
TABLE OF TEST TYPES AND USES
Operational considerations
The main consideration that constrains the selection of the formation strength testing method is
the risk that the reduction in formation strength of a fractured wellbore, jeopardises the success
of the well.
The magnitude of the reduction in strength after formation breakdown is unknown, and it is not
certain that "clay healing" will restore the strength of the wellbore.
For an optimum well design, the predictions of the formation strength at the scheduled casing
shoes must be as accurate as possible. The accuracy of the prediction depends on the validity of
the formation strength model and the accuracy, significance and amount of available formation
strength data.
If no data are available, assumptions have to be made about the state of stress and only a rough
estimate can be made of formation strength. This will usually result in a sub-optimal well design,
(either conservative or over-optimistic).
If data from one or more offset wells are available, the basic assumptions on the state of stress
can be confirmed, and the accuracy of the prediction increases. If enough high quality data (e.g.
micro frac, mini frac or formation breakdown data) are available, a regional strength model can
be derived, which will allow a more optimal well design. For some areas in the world formation
strength data have been used to determine the relationship between minimum horizontal stress,
depth and pore pressure (see Figure C-8). Correlation formulae exist for the Gulf Coast,
Venezuela, Brunei, the North Sea and The Netherlands [6,7]. The application of numerical
programs, like STABOR [8], will assist in the model formulation, since wellbore collapse case
analysis can be performed and add to the understanding.
FIGURE C-8 : MINIMUM HORIZONTAL STRESS, CORRECTED FO PORE

PRESSURE AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH, US Gulf Coast
In area where formation strength determines well design, it is recommended that Opcos develop
similar correlations. To enable this, it is recommended that formation breakdown tests or
microfrac tests are carried out, to determine FBP and FCP, (and the state of stress). If
operational considerations do not allow these tests to be performed during drilling, it should be
considered to do these tests on abandonment of wells, or in existing wells.
In view of the importance of stress and strength data, not only for subsequent wells, but also for
the production phase (e.g. sand failure, compaction, stimulation, etc.) no opportunities should be
missed to perform these tests which are relatively cheap in the drilling phase.
3.4
Pore-pressure profile
The pore pressure profile is an important design parameter for casing design, in terms of both
setting depth selection, and required casing capacity for burst as well as collapse loading. See
Figure C-9 for an example of the influence of the pore pressure profile on the required number of
casing strings.
FIGURE C-9 : PRESSURE-DEPTH GRAPH FOR CHAMPION ULTRA DEEP(CP-236)
The pore pressure is the pressure of the fluid in the pore spaces of the formation. Pore pressures
are often expressed as gradients relative to a reference level. In geophysics and rock mechanics,
this is the "Free Water Level" FWL, (i.e. seawater level offshore or ground water level on land,
see also Figure C-4). The pore pressure gradient can be expressed as follows:
PPG =
Po
d form dFW L
(C-4)
However, for Drilling Engineering, and for well control specifically, the pore pressure is expressed
as an equivalent mud gradient relative to the derrickfloor:
o =
Po
d form
(C-5)
where:
o
equivalent mud gradient of pore pressure
Po
pore pressure
dform
dFWL
Note that pore pressure gradients should not be confused with the density gradient of the pore
fluid which is discussed in the hydrocarbon profile paragraph.
For Drilling Engineering purposes pore pressure regimes are classified by their equivalent mud
gradients:
A discussion of the geological cause of the different pore pressure regimes falls outside the
scope of this chapter; for reviews see [9,10,11]. The frequently occurring mechanisms are
summarised below.
Pressure anomalies can be caused by a number of reasons:
Hydrocarbon column - One of the important causes of overpressures experienced in the
industry is the presence of oil and gas. The magnitude of the over-pressure is determined by
the length of the column and the difference in density between formation water and
hydrocarbons.
Compaction dis-equilibrium - Over-pressures may be caused if formation fluids can not be
expelled at a rate in balance with normal compaction of sediments. As a result a substantial
part of the will be carried by the pore fluid and a reduced part by the rock matrix. As a result
pore pressures may be very high, potentially up to lithostatic gradients. This type is usually
associated with rapid sedimentation rates.
Aquathermal pressuring - Over-pressures may be caused when the temperature of a

sealed body of water filled sediments is increased. The thermal expansion of water is
substantially higher than that of rock, which subsequently causes an increase in pore
pressure.
Clay diagenesis - Clay diagenesis is the release of interlayer water from certain clays due to
a combination of temperature, ionic activity and, to a lesser extent, pressure. This process
results in a net increase in volume or, if the expansion is restricted, in an increase in pore
pressure. Other types of phase change are also associated with over-pressures (e.g.
Gypsum to Anhydrite, ice to water, Serpentine dehydration).
Mechanical uplift - Mechanical uplift (tectonic activity, diapirism, faulting/erosion) of isolated
reservoir sections without pressure release may result in over-pressures.
Charging - Pressures may be transmitted through permeable layers. Formations at a

considerable distance from the origin of the over-pressures may be charged. This
mechanism may also be man-induced (e.g. internal blowouts, loss of formation fluids,
bullheading).
Pressure depletion due to formation fluid production - The production of hydrocarbons

normally lead to a reduction in the pore pressure below its original value.
Information on pore pressures may be derived from offset wells and from regional geological
models. Various other techniques may give indications of over pressures,
(geophysical/geological
studies,
seismic
interpretation
studies).
Software,
like
DRILLWORKS/PREDICT, has been developed to assist in this evaluation [12]. In addition, most
mudlogging contractors offer pore pressure evaluation services. These are based on an analysis
of drilling data, mud properties, gas indications, cuttings and cavings observations. Most of the
techniques have been developed for pore pressure evaluation in areas where over pressures are
related to undercompaction (Gulf Coast), and may not work in other environments (for example
the North Sea).
During the drilling of a well, pore pressures can be inferred from an analysis of the drilling
operation during a reservoir fluid influx (e.g. drilling kick or swabbed kick).
In reservoirs of sufficient porosity and permeability, pore pressures can be measured with
wireline tools (e.g. RFT ) after the well has been drilled. Evaluation of petrophysical (wireline and
MWD) data allows the determination of the behaviour of pore pressures in shales [13].
While drilling an exploration well there is virtually no pore pressure information available. The
only indication for pressure anomalies then consists of velocity anomalies on seismic profiles.
After a first well has been drilled, a base case pore pressure profile is available. Limited data
correlation may then be possible (see Figure C-10 for an example).
However, for appraisal and development wells the available pore pressure data will have
increased and possible special studies will have been carried out. Based on this data set an
accurate presentation of the pore pressure profile can then be constructed. See Figure C-9 for
example. Recently attempts have been made to address the frequency distribution of
overpressures in an area [2]. This would permit creation of a tool for risk management and
optimised design. Figure C-11 shows a typical pressure prediction sheet for such a distribution
and allows for the quantification of a worst case or most likely design scenario.
FIGURE C-10 : EXAMPLE OF A PORE PRESSURE PROFILE
FIGURE C-12 :REGIONAL GEOPRESSURE MAP BELOW BASE CRETACEOUS,NORTHERN NORTH SEA
FIGURE C-11 : TYPICAL PRESSURE PREDICATION SHEET FOR AN OVERPRESSURE

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
Especially in areas where over pressures are expected, an extra effort is required to generate
accurate pore pressure profile [14].
By combining pore pressure data of several wells regional geopressure maps for each important
formation may be created (see Figure C-12).
The most recent advances and problems in the understanding off overpressures are evaluated in
a KSEPL report [1-5].
3.5
Temperature profile
The earth's core is a heat source. This energy flows from the molten interior to the crust,
resulting in a temperature gradient with reducing depth. Hence, with increasing depth the
temperature of a formation and the pore fluid it is containing increases.
Temperature depth data eventually results in a geothermal gradient map (see Figure C-13).
FIGURE C-13 : PRESENT-DAY NORTH SEA GEOTHERMAL GRADIENTS(C/km)
During drilling and subsequent operations on a well (e.g. production, injection, fraccing/acidising,
etc.) temperature changes from static geothermal gradient will induce thermal loads on casing
strings.
FIGURE C-14 : PRE-CRETACEOUS RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE
FIGURE C-15 : TEMPERATURE PROFILE FOR BU Hasa Field (F)
The forces/displacements caused by these changes in temperature can be of considerable

importance for:
-
Laterally unsupported sections of casing which may buckle due to the forces resulting from
thermal expansion/contraction of the strings.
In sealed annuli, the pressure changes caused by thermal expansion/contraction of the fluids
between the casings can lead to collapse/burst of strings.
Well growth due to thermal expansion must be taken into account in e.g. platform and
facilities design.
Reduction of yield strength hence reduction of pipe load bearing capacity at elevated
temperature has to be taken into account.
The above effects will be of particular importance in development wells in which the
temperatures during drilling/completion are widely different from the temperatures under
production/injection conditions, e.g.:
Large temperature changes do occur in:
- High pressure/high temperature wells in which near surface temperatures, initially as low as
60F (15C) or less may eventually approach temperatures over 350F (177C) after
prolonged periods of production.
- Steamsoak operations, in which the wells are cycled over a large temperature range.
- Injection wells, where during Prolonged injection the temperature at bottom will approach the
temperature of the liquids at surface.
Temperature predictions are also important for sour service casing design, as the grade selection
is a function of the temperature.
In order to make the predictions as accurate as possible, various computerised prediction
programs have been developed [16,17,18,19].
By providing such programs (e.g. TEMPEST) with offset measured well data and regional maps
(Figures C-14 and C-15) as input, accurate temperature profile predictions may be obtained (see
Figure C- 16).
3.6
Hydrocarbon properties
The exact hydrocarbons properties are dependent on the type of buried organic matter, time of
burial and pressure and temperature after this burial (metagenesis). Hydrocarbons encountered
may consist of fluid or a mixture. Under reservoir conditions the hydrocarbons will have other
properties than under surface conditions. A good description of the relevant fundamental
knowledge of reservoir engineering can be found in [20].
FIGURE C-16: TEMPERATURE-PROFILE PREDICATION GENERATED BY THE TEMPEST
PROGRAM
The casing designer uses the hydrocarbon properties to calculate the burst design loads. The
load resulting from the complete displacement of the casing to gas or the pressure loads
resulting from an influx circulation during well control are dependent on these properties.
An important design parameter is the average density of the hydrocarbons when completely
filling the wellbore. Figures C-17 and C-18 are summaries of specific Opco data for average gas
gradients. These clearly show the dependency of gas gradients of composition, pressure and
depth and hence temperature. Therefore, it might be required that offset well samples from
production tests are analysed for the specific PVT data to establish the area specific values.
Another design parameter of interest is the compressibility factor (Z-factor). The compressibility
factor can be interpreted as a term by which the pressure must be corrected to account for the
departure from the ideal gas equation. This correction can have a significant influence on the
design pressure value when, for example, calculating the kick-pressure profile. Figure C-19 gives
the compressibility factor as a function of reduced pressure and temperature [21].
FIGURE C-17 GAS GRADIENT AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH WITH RESERVOIR PRESSURE AS

PARAMETER, FOR PURE METHANE
FIGURE C-18 : PRESSURE LOSS DUE TO WEIGHT GAS COLUMN
FIGURE C-19 : COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR AS A FUNCTION OF REDUCED PRESSURE

AND TEMPERATURE
3.7
H2S, C02 and non-hydrocarbon formation fluid composition

H2S and CO2 are gases which have a strong corrosive effect on tubulars. Forecasting their
presence and concentration is essential for a choice of a proper casing grade and wall thickness
and for operational safety purposes [22]. Tentative forecasts can be made after data gathering
and a presentation on the basis of regional occurrence maps like in Figure C-20.
FIGURE C-20 : REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF H2S LEVELS (FROM TESTS )
Carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide are commonly associated products of decomposed
organic matter such as hydrocarbons. Both components can be formed while hydrocarbons are
migrating through gypsum from the source rock to the reservoir. Also the type of formation can
give an indication with regard to the presence of H2S. In anaerobic environments like black
carbonaceous shales, hydrogen sulphide can be formed by the action of certain bacteria.
The presence of H2S is of particular concern because of the rapid occurrence and potentially
disastrous consequences of sulphide stress corrosion cracking in casing. The NACE definition
for these "sour" conditions is an H2S partial pressure over 0.05 psia (0.34 kPa [23]. For a well with
a bottomhole pressure of 10,000 psi 168,950 kPa), this represents an H2S concentration of 5
ppm.CO 2 is a potential threat if it is dissolved in water.
Combined information of H2S and CO2 concentration bottomhole pressure and temperature will
provide all information necessary for future sour service and corrosion design. These data
usually becomes available after analysis for samples from production tests of offset wells.
Apart from the gases mentioned above, casing can also be subjected to corrosive attack
opposite formations containing corrosive fluids. Corrosive fluids can be found in water rich
formations and aquifers as well as in the reservoir itself [24].
Corrosion Management in Operations is a fully SIPM supported development to structure
corrosion control in the Opcos [25]. Specially developed databases can assist in the reduction of
related problems.
3.8
References
[1]
NAM
Technical Safety Audit report on well planning process
30 October - 7 November 1989
[2]
Shell Expro Aberdeen

Prospect Data Package: Guidelines and Example
[3]
Wind, J.A. and Marchina, P., KSEPL

Formation strength for casing design
Building Blocks for the Update of the 1980 Casing Design Manual
EP 92-1454
[4]
de Bree, P. and Walters, J.V., KSEPL

Micro / Minifrac test procedures and interpretation for in-situ stress de termination
Int. J. Rock Mechanics, Mining Science and Geom Abs. 26, No.8, 1989, 515-521
[5]
Davies, D.R., KSEPL

Effect of (estimated) formation strength parameters on casing design policy and,
practice, notably exploration and appraisal
Contribution to 1984 production technology conference, 1984 drilling conference, BSP,
Brunei, July 1984
[6]
Breckels, I.M., KSEPL

Relationship between horizontal total stress and depth in sedimentary basins, Part II
Brunei,Venezuela, the North Sea and the Netherlands
EP 08-4153
[7]
Breckels, I.M. and van Eekelen, H.A.M., KSEPL

Relationship between horizontal stress and depth in sedimentary basins
EP-52950
[8]
Wong, S.W. and Kenter, C.J., KSEPL

Borehole stability analysis part 1: theoretical formulation of STABOR
RKRS 91.15, 59-64
[9]
Mouchet, J.P. and Mitchell, A.

Abnormal pressures while drilling
Elf, Boussens, 1989
[10]
Fertl, W.H.
Abnormal formation pressures
Developments in Petroleum Science Engineering
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1976
[11]
Bourgoyne, A.T., Chenevert, M.E., Milheim, K.K. and Young, F.S.

Applied drilling engineering, Vol. 2
SPE text book series, Richardson, Texas, 1986
[12]
Alixant, J.L., KSEPL

DRILLWORKS /PREDICT. Software for interactive pore-pressure and fracture-gradient
evaluation
EP 92-0322
[13]
Eaton, B.A.
The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs
SPE 5544,1975
[14]
Alixant, J.L., KSEPL

Pore pressure evaluation while drilling - notes on KSEPL visit to SFDC
EP 91-1792
[15]
KSEPL, various authors

Pressures Research Workshop abstracts
KSEPL, Rijswijk, 20-22 November 1991
[16]
Oudeman, P., KSEPL

Casing temperature calculations with TEMPEST
Contribution to the revised Casing Design Manual
EP 92-0521
[17]
Marsden, G., KSEPL

THERMOSTAT - A program for probabilistic subsurface temperature mapping
RKRS 92.GY1, 1-6
[18]
van Kleef, R.P.A.R. and van Lieshout, J.B.

CEMTEMP User Manual
EP 88-0983
[19]
Pittman, W.
EP 92-0473
[20]
Dake, L.P.
Fundamentals of reservoir engineering
[21]
Redlich, 0. and Kwong, J.N.S.

On the thermodynamics of solutions: V. An equation of state. Fugacities of gaseous
solutions
Chem. Rev. 44,1949,233-244
[22]
SIPM, EP
Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) in production operations
EP 55000-32
[23]
National Association of Corrosion Engineers

Sulphide stress cracking resistant metallic materials for oilfield equipment
MR0175-91, Houston, Texas
[24]
Tuttle, R.N.
Corrosion in oil and gas production
J.Pet.Tech., July 1987, 756-762
[25]
Evans, B., Hamer P. and Milliams, D.

Corrosion Management in Operations
Production Newsletter, March 1992, 5-6
[26]
Wind, J.A., KSEPL

Lost circulation, one -opportunity to derive formation strength data
EP 92-2508
[27]
Veeken, C.A.M., KSEPL

Rock Mechanics Manual
SIPM/KSEPL (in preparation, issue date end 1993)
4.0
Casing-scheme selection
4.1
Introduction
Casing-scheme selection can have a substantial effect on the overall well costs and should be
considered with the greatest effort and depth having due regard to issues relating to safety and
the environment. While the detailed design phase dealt with in Chapters E to M wi11 address the
structural integrity of the well, casing-scheme selection is based on evaluation of more global
issues of well configuration which are driven by field development economics [1].
The basic sequence of events in the casing-scheme selection process is illustrated in Flowchart
D-1. The output of this process is a preliminary well configuration specifying the minimum casing
diameter and the minimum casing-shoe setting depth for all strings. This serves as input for the
detailed design phase.
The casing diameter is mainly determined by the availability of downhole drilling equipment,
logging tools and production requirements. The casing shoe setting depth is usually a function of
the strength of the formation to be drilled through and the loading the wellbore will be subjected
to during the drilling operation.
This chapter does not describe the casing-scheme selection process in full. The objective here is
merely to give the casing designer a basic understanding of the structure of this process and the
nature of its output
4.2
Minimum casing diameter

The determination of the preliminary casing sizing is the most important phase of casing design
in terms of well costs [1].
Below the screening criterion is presented against which the initial casing scheme should be
compared. Latest relevant developments and considerations for well configuration improvements
have been summarised. If any further information regarding specific problems or scenarios is
required, Opcos are advised to contact SIPM for further assistance. The latest technology
development programs are documented in [2] and [3]
4.2.1
Design criterion
The preliminary casing scheme selection should contribute maximum monetary value, without
compromising safety and environment, to the total field development. This rule is applicable to
exploration and appraisal as well as development wells. By considering the well objective in
detail this requirement can be achieved for exploration and appraisal wells by taking the latest
evaluation techniques into account [4]. For development wells alternative completion systems
should be considered [5]. Consequently, by determining the well configuration from the inside
working outwards, the most cost effective casing scheme should be selected [6].
FLOWCHART D-1 GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR PROCEDURE FOR

CASING-SCHEME SELECTION
4.2.2
Well configuration and minimum casing diameter

The final hole size or production tubing determine the well configuration. It will be clear that the
production conduit diameter may not necessarily be small.
It is the task of the casing designer to engineer the most cost effective well around the final hole
size or the production conduit. Such a design would be called a Slimline well design, which
should be differentiated from the term Slim Hole Drilling, Evaluation and Completion (SHDEC).
SHDEC is drilling, evaluation and completion technology which allows fully engineered 6 in
(0.1588 in) and smaller holes, while a Slimline well is a well with a cost effective design around
an optimal production conduit or hole size. It should be noted that in some Opcos the term Cost
Effective Casing Design (CECD) or Tight and Small Clearance Casing Design is used instead of
Slimline well design.
Within Shell, the SHDEC development has been associated with small diameter holes (6 in
(0.1588 in) and smaller) and has meant a general break-through in drilling, evaluation and
completion technology [19]. Small hole sizes can now be reliably planned in the preliminary
design phase or as a contingency. While 6 in (0.1588 m) and 5 7/8 in (0.1492 in) holes are
3
already, routine in. some Opcos, 4 /4 in (0.1207 m) and smaller holes represent a more
significant challenge. Annular clearances will obviously reduce in these tighter casing schemes.
The Section on Slimhole casing design in Chapter N will guide the casing designer to which
aspects to be addressed.
Panel D-1 [1] shows various casing schemes for various conduit sizes together with some critical
5
parameters. It will be clear that even an optimised 9 /8 in (0.2445 m) tubing well can be called a
Slimline well. Further optimisation will be possible by adopting tighter clearances, upgrading
tubular strength due to tighter manufacturing tolerances, etc.
Contingencies should be justified on the basis of an explicit probability analysis. It is perceived by
many that frequently too much contingency is included in designs at unnecessary cost.
Slimming down requires a more widespread use of drilling and production liners. The improved
integrity of liner hangers and reduction of casing wear due to the use of mud motors support a
careful re-consideration of established principles.
In the following paragraphs a range of options for well improvement initiatives is shown. An
attempt has been made to cover extreme ends of the scale, from conventional to highly
advanced. Not all the options are fully mature. They are shown to stimulate thought and
discussion and are waiting on a profitable application.
For Exploration and Appraisal wells mainly the advances on evaluation techniques have been
summarised. For Development the improvements on well completion techniques has been
displayed.
PANEL D-1 WELL CONFIGURATION
4.2.2.1 Exploration and appraisal wells

Major advances in evaluating small hole sizes have created a situation in which little compromise
is necessary compared to old fashioned hole sizes. See Panel D-2 [1] for an overview of the
available slimhole logging tools.
The ability to test the well at adequate flow rates represents perhaps the most critical factor with
respect to the conduit size and well configuration. See Panel D-2 [1] for the available slimhole
size production test strings.
Also the minimum diameter of core material may play a role in selecting the hole size across
coring intervals it is recommended to critically review the requirements and possibly consult Shell
Research, Rijswijk, before committing to costly hole sizes. Panel D-2[l] gives an overview of the
required core sizes as a function of the core measurement. Coring After Drilling (CAD) is
emerging as a valuable option. This technology allows full mud log and electric log evaluation
before picking core intervals.
4.2.2.2 Development wells
To facilitate a structured explanation of key factor, a production well is visualised as an inflow
system and an outflow system.
Inflow system
Technological advances allow boosting of the well inflow to a considerable extent, all be it at a
cost. In many cases, it will be profitable to maximise well inflow. Panel D-3 [1] illustrates it variety
of options together with some critical parameters.
The Well Inflow Quality Indicator (WIQI) is a measure of impairment. For oil wells, this factor
equates to the ratio PI (actual)/PI(theoretical, excluding any avoidable inflow damage). The
Productivity Index (PI) is the production rate per unit applied drawdown. Hence, the WIQI can be
interpreted as the actual stabilised production rate divided by the ideal production rate at the
same drawdown. The ideal rate is derived by excluding any avoidable inflow damage. The
determination of the WIQI is not always unambiguous, but a consistent method of calculation will
provide valuable trend information.
Another factor is the Production Improvement Factor (PIF). The PIF is the ratio PI (horizontal)/PI
(vertical), or more generally PI (new inflow system configuration/PI (conventional vertical.
Note that WIQI and PIF are two independent factors, each of which offer a tremendous
optimisation potential. However, as explained earlier an overall project net present value (NPV)
generation, duly accounting for costs, should be used as a decision yardstick, not the Absolute
value of the WIQI or PIF.
PANEL D-2 SLIMHOLE EVALUATION
PANEL D-3 INFLOW SYSTEMS
Outflow system
The outflow system is essentially a conduit with flow controls and, where necessary - artificial lift
or pressure boosting facilities. Figure D-1 [1] provides an indication of the flaw rates that can be
achieved as a function of conduit size, Figure D-1 Approximate flow rates for liquid and gas as
functions of conduit size
FIGURE D-1 : APPROXIMATE FLOW RATES FOR LIQUID AND GAS
AS FUNCTIONS OF CONDUIT SIZE
The smallest suitable conduit diameter should normally be selected to handle current and future
well flow to permit the design of the most economic well configuration around the conduit.
Sensitivity analysis taking due account of the estimating accuracy should provide the clue to the
most profitable conduit diameter selection. Selecting a universal conduit character for an entire
field based on the maximum flow rate may be wasteful.
It is essential when considering a well's full life cycle that future artificial lift be addressed up
front, as this may have a major impact on well design (minimum acceptable casing diameter,
conduit size, sand control policy). Artificial lift systems include screw pumps, intermittent gas lift,
plunger lift, beam pumping, hydraulic jet pumping, through to higher horse power advanced
multiphase ESPs and gas lift.
Selection of an artificial lift system will be influenced by several factors; principally the production
rate and depth, but also existing infrastructure, like gas availability, electrical power, hydraulic
power, and reservoir parameters (productivity, GOR, sand, depletion policy). A manual on
artificial lift is artificial being developed in SIPM.
PANEL D-4 : OUTFLOW SYSTEM
As for pipeline technology, the concept of ullage, unused capacity, may be considered. Ideally
development wells would operate with a low ullage, which would indicate that the selected
conduit diameter closely matches the well inflow.
In high ullage wells, i.e. poor producers it should be considered to create, when possible more
inflow in order to use the tubing capacity and to enhance vertical flow stability. In some instances
it may be more advantageous to drill a larger number of lower capacity, low cost development
wells rather than a small number high cost high capacity wells.
The completion is the hardware of the outflow system. Some recent developments are
summarised on panel D-4 [1]. The monobore completion (MB) is a completion with fullbore
access across the payzone, without diameter restrictions, but not necessarily with a constant
diameter from top to bottom [5]. Several Opcos have now successfully implemented this system.
The MB concept optimises the opportunity for well intervention through the Xmas tree, i.e. rigless, and is applicable to any completion diameter. By working through the Xmas tree, many
operations can be conducted without killing the well, which mitigates impairment.
The MB concept in conjunction with High Integrity Corrosion Resistent (HICR) tubing may offer
very profitable characteristics in situations with high rig re-entry costs. The low job cost sand
relatively light rig-less well intervention equipment will facilitate a rapid response to changing well
conditions. Production losses during concurrent operations may be lower compared to major
workovers.
MB technology and modern tools allow better measurement and control of multiple zones in the
same wellbore. Established principles must be reconsidered in the light of these new options.
4.3
Minimum casing-shoe setting depth

The minimum casing shoe setting depth is usually driven by several considerations as for
example:
- to isolate overlaying instable formations;
- to isolate overlaying shallow hydrocarbons;
- to isolate overlaying lost circulation zones;
- to isolate overlaying fresh water horizons;
- to prevent failure of formations by induced circulating pressures during drilling operations like
circulating, drilling and tripping;
- to prevent failure of formations by induced circulating pressures during well control
operations when closing in and circulating out an influx.
The first four considerations depend on local Opco procedures and are location specific. The last
two considerations will be discussed in depth in this chapter. These are applicable for all casing
strings. Additional requirements for marine conductors are discussed in [7,8].
During the last two events the wellbore below the actual casing shoe under consideration will be
subjected to several different types of pressure loads. These pressure loads will have to be
compared to the capacity of the wellbore to be able to contain these pressures or, in the event of
wellbore failure, not to result in uncontrollable fracture propagation. The comparison of the
greatest loading on the wellbore with the wellbore strength will lead to the determination of the
minimum casing setting depth.
Below the SIPM criterion for casing shoe setting depth for these considerations is explained. This
is followed by a discussion on the wellbore loading resulting from well control, drilling, circulating
and tripping operations. The design parameter which finally defines the wellbore strength will be
expanded upon.
4.3.1
Design criterion
The primary consideration is to prevent failure of the formation at the casing shoe and the
formation in the open hole section below must remain intact under all realistic load conditions.
Additionally, if the wellbore fails, the well design must allow a stable situation to exist for the
damaged well. These two requirements can be expressed as a relation between the pressures in
the well, the load, and the strength of the wellbore. These are:
-
The estimated Formation Breakdown Pressure (FBP) of any formation below the casing
shoe should not be exceeded during normal operating conditions, including well control,
drilling, circulating and tripping.
The mud weight gradient, required to balance the anticipated pore pressures in the open
hole section, should never be higher than the estimated equivalent mud gradient of the
Fracture Closure Pressure (FCP) in any of the formations in the open hole section.
If these requirements are met, the well bore will not fracture, and the well will not experience
uncontrolled losses under design conditions. These design conditions relate to the maximum
influx that can be closed in and circulated out, and to the maximum circulating rate and trip speed
to be experienced. In addition, if the formation accidentally fractures and a loss or kick/loss
situation develops, it will be possible to return the damaged well to a stable situation, without
significant gains or losses, once the well has been circulated to mud.
This procedure is to be followed for any casing string, usually starting at the total depth (TD) and
working upwards.
The following two tables present a few scenarios and most likely consequences of bore hole
failure [9]. From these tables above dual requirement has been derived. Additional literature
about the consequences of wellbore failures can be found in [10,11,12].
TABLE 1 : FAILURE SCENARIOS WHILE TRIPPING OR CIRCULATING (DRILLING)
TABLE 2 : FAILURE SCENARIOS WHILE CIRCULATING OUT AN INFLUX
4.3.2
Determination of wellbore pressure load

As discussed in the previous paragraph the wellbore will be subjected to several pressure loads
during drilling operations. This paragraph will address the determination of these loads by
dividing them into two groups:
-
Pressure loading during drilling, circulating and tripping operations.
Pressure loading during well control operations.
4.3.2.1 Pressure loading during drilling, mud circulation and tripping

The determination of the pressure loading on the wellbore when drilling, tripping or circulating
can be established by applying physical models. The presently available SIPM supported
computer models are HYDRAUL and SWABSURGE, available via OSCP [13]
Swab and surge experiments have been performed in oil based mud to validate these models
[14]. It was established that transient pressures induced by pipe accelerations can be much
higher than the pressures created by constant tripping speeds. The pressures induced at the bit
due to tripping will propagate through the whole well to bottom. Gelling does not seem to have
a significant effect on the swab and surge pressures induced. Both swab and surge pressures
are induced in either of the pipe movement directions.
SWABSURGE is capable of estimating swab and surge pressures reasonably accurately as long
as the tripping speed is constant.
4.3.2.2 Pressure loading during well control
The determination of the pressure loading on the wellbore when circulating out an influx can be
divided into two aspects influx volume determination and wellbore pressure calculation. Recent
advances in Shell Research Rijswijk on the topic have been documented in [15].
For the determination of the well specific design influx and for the calculation of the wellbore
pressure loading, the kick pressure profile, an integrated single bubble model has been
developed [16]. The casing designer is responsible for establishing this design influx and the
relevant wellbore pressure. The locally applied detection techniques, shut-in procedures and
level of training all influence the value of this volume. Therefore a computer program,
WELLPLAN/WINDOWS, will be made available to assist in the calculations. The implemented
model contains the following features.
1) Influx volume calculation for kicks during drilling, after pump shutdown or for a swab kick,
taking into consideration:
- transient production behaviour of the reservoir;
- the rate of penetration into the reservoir;
- the detection of the kick on flow rate out increase or pit volume increase including the
hidden volume factor [17];
- the effect of loss of annular friction on the production rate of the reservoir when the
pumps are shut down after detection of the kick;
- the reaction time of the drilling crew after detection of the kick;
- the shut-in method [18].
This model makes it possible to calculate the design influx under a given set of circumstances,
instead of relying on a default value such as 100 bbls (16m) or a 12" hole.
As illustrated in Figure D-2, taking a more realistic locally established estimate of the well influx e.g. 4 bbls (0.6 m) assuming fast kick detection and control response or 55 bbls (8.7 M)
assuming slow response has an appreciable effect on the calculated kick pressure profile and
hence on the casing setting depth selected.
FIGURE D-2 : EFFECT OF WELL INFLUX ON KICK PRESSURE PROFILE
2) Wellbore pressure, i.e the kick pressure profile, calculation during the killing phase with a
kick volume obtained from above calculation. The kick pressure profile is calculated
considering:
- a temperature profile in the well during mud circulation;
- the gas compressibility factor : Z-factor;
- the wellbore deviation in the planned trajectory.
The effect of this advanced model on the kick pressure profile is illustrated in Figure D-3 and
shows a reduction in the design pressure load compared to the description of the gas
behaviour as per PV = Constant.
FIGURE D-3 : ADVANCED WELLBORE PRESSURE MODEL REDUCES DESIGN PRESSURE LOAD
With the increase of data above calculations may have to be repeated during the well drilling
phase [19].
4.3.3
Determination of wellbore strength

Formation strength, as discussed in detail in Chapter C, is the other critical design parameter for
casing shoe setting depth. With respect to this parameter two significantly different phases can
be distinguished:
Well design phase: In this phase the preparation of the best estimate of the lithological model,
formation strength profile and pore pressure profile is addressed. This will determine the number
and setting depths of casings.
Well drilling phase: In this phase the measuring and reporting of formation strength parameters is
addressed. Confirmation and updating of the well design assumptions, if necessary, can change
the well design. In addition, the data should be properly documented and stored.
Formation strength
Prediction
Gathering of data on formation strength is an integral part of casing design. It is important
during both the design and the drilling phase. The establishment of a good regional model of
formation strength is of great importance for the optimisation of future wells and for optimal
field development planning. This data gathering has extensively been addressed in the
Chapter C on Design Parameters [9].
In the design phase, a best possible estimate will have to be made of the formation strength.
This may be done using an advanced regional formation strength model, offset well data, or
a simple empirical relationship for those wells, where no other data is available.
However, in the absence of a more accurate formation strength model, the leak off pressure
(LOP) of offset wells should be used as a conservative approximation for the formation
breakdown pressure (FBP). Also the minimum in-situ stress, i.e. the fracture closure
pressure (FCP), can be approximated using this LOP value in the equations derived in the
Chapter C on Design Parameters.
Measurement
During the drilling phase, the assumptions of the FBP made during the casing design phase
must be checked by carrying out Limit or Leak-off tests. For every well, a Limit or Leak-off
test should be carried out at each casing shoe. If drilling through a BOP from the conductor
casing will be done, a test below this conductor casing shoe should be scheduled. If drilling
will be carried out below a production casing, it should be considered as another
intermediate casing and a normal Limit or Leak-off test should be carried out. In addition, a
Limit or Leak-off test should be repeated at every formation where the FBP can be expected
to be significantly less than the strength measured during the previous test, and where
further drilling will be done in that section. Note that during a Leak-off test, the exposed
formations have been subjected to higher pressures than the LOP. The highest pressure
applied during the test could be used as a less conservative estimate for the FBP, because it
has been confirmed that the formation still does not break down under this load. If this FBP
estimate is used, also a less conservative value for the minimum in-situ stress (FCP) can be
determined. If a Leak-off test is repeated, the last observed result should be used as the
maximum pressure that the formation can be subjected to, because this measurement will
give the beat indication of the current strength of the open hole [9]. The Chapter C on Design
Parameters expands on the relevant aspects of (repeat) testing and reporting.
In general the above methods for establishing the formation strength result in a conservative
value. When drilling wells in new areas, or in those cases where additional regional
information is valuable, it should always be considered to carry out a more complete
formation strength test, including formation breakdown. This way, useful data on formation
breakdown, fracture closure and in-situ stress can be obtained. The advantage of a good
theoretical/empirical formation strength model, may well offset the risk associated with a
small reduction in formation strength caused by a fractured casing shoe. If operational
considerations do not allow these tests to be performed during drilling, it should be
considered to conduct these tests on abandonment of wells.
4.4
References
[1]
SIPM, EPO/51
Making the most of Well Planning
EP 92-2500
[2]
SIPM, EPD
Technology development programme 1992-1994
EP 92-0350
[3]
SIPM, EPO/5
Management, Technology and Human Resources, Programme 1991-1993
EP 91-3000
[4]
Worrall, R.N, van Luijk, J.M., Hough, R.B., Rettberg, A. and Makohl, F., KSEPL
An evolutionary approach to slimhole drilling, evaluation and completion
SPE 24965, KSEPL Publication 1129, 1992
[5]
Ross, B., KSEPL
Innovative slimhole completions
SPE 24981, KSEPL Publication 1130, 1992
[6]
SIPM, EPO/51
Drilling Spearhead Documentation, Vol. 1, 2 and 3
EP 89-0115
[7]
SIPM, EPD/5
Practice for the analysis and design of marine conductors
EP 87-0160
[8]
SIPM, EPD/51
Conductor setting depth
EP 89-1245
[9]
EP 92-1454
[10]
Kooijman, A.P., KSEPL
A review of the literature on cratering related to subsurface safety valve setting depth
EP 90-3071
[11]
Walters, J.V., KSEPL
Internal blowouts, cratering, casing setting depths, and the location of subsurface safety
valves
SPE 20909
[12]
Kooijman, A.P., KSEPL
Simulation of cratering related to internal blowouts - Small- scale tests
RKRS.92.DW1
[13]
SIPM, EPO/51
EP 91-2156
[14]
Surewaard, J.H.G., KSEPL
Preliminary study of swab and surge pressures in oil-based mud
EP 91-0253
[15]
Hage, J.I., Surewaard, J.H.G. and Vullinghs, P.J.J.
Application of research in kick detection and well control
KSEPL Publication 1116, 1992
[16]
Improvements to the influx volume calculations and the single bubble kick model
EP 92-0984
[17]
Progress report on Well Control
Part 1: Kick detection and shut-in procedures
EP 91-2404
[18]
Comparison of well-control shut-in procedures
RKRS.92.DW2
[19]
SIPM, EPO/51
Pressure control manual for drilling and workover operations
EP 89-1500
4.5
Appendix 2 : Well information forms

This appendix presents, by way of example, a number of date-collection sheets developed by
various Opcos to support the structured collection of well data to be used for casing-design and
other tasks.
For the sake of simplicity, the examples presented here are for single-string ventures. Larger
projects would require more complex data collection sheets.
4.5.1
EXPLORATION DRILLING INFORMATION SUMMARY
4.5.2
WELL SUMMARY
4.5.3
WELL SUMMARY PROGNOSIS AND RESULTS
4.6
Appendix 3 : Basic aspects of rock mechanics
4.6.1
Introduction
This section addresses the mechanical behaviour of a fluid filled borehole in an elastic isotropic
homogeneous rock formation. It focuses on the failure mechanism of a borehole and on the way
various parameters can affect the integrity of the borehole wall.
From [1,2,3,4] it can be concluded that the borehole pressure required to reach tensile failure
depends on:
- tensile strength of the rock
- state of stress in the formation;
- orientation of the wellbore with respect to the state of stress;
- shape of the wellbore cross section;
- wellbore fluid penetration into the rock;
- chemical interaction between the wellbore fluids and the rock.
4.6.2
State of stress
4.6.2.1 Definitions, conventions

State of stress: The state of stress is a description of the internal loads in a solid (for example a
rock), generated by external loads acting on the solid. For an elementary volume element with
perpendicular planes and a given orientation the state of stress is described by the normal
stresses and shear stresses on each of its planes. It can be shown that there is a certain
orientation of this volume element, for which only normal stresses exist. These stresses are
called the principal stresses, and their orientations are called the principal stress directions.
In rock mechanics most of the stresses are compressive (for example, overburden in the field
and confining stress in the laboratory). It is therefore convenient to chose compressive stresses
and pore pressures as positive. In order to be consistent with the literature [1,2], this convention
is used in this guide.
Effective stress: Schematically, external forces applied on a rock will be of "carried" partly by the
grains of rock and partly by the pore fluid. The stress induced in the rock grains is called the
effective stress. It is denoted with a "dash", and can be expressed according to Terzaghi's
relationship as follows:
'= - po
(App. 3-1)
where :
'
=
effective stress
po
the stress corresponding to the external force (total stress)

the pore pressure.
=
=
This concept is very important in rock mechanics because the overall behaviour of rocks is
governed by the effective stresses.
4.6.2.2 In situ-stress state

The in-situ stresses are the stresses present in an undisturbed virgin formation. They are a result
of the combination of the weight of the overburden, the elastic behaviour of the rock and the
effect of the tectonic regime.
Geological zones can be classified as normally stressed or tectonically stressed. In a normally
stressed formation, the major principal stress is usually vertical, and equal to the overburden.
The two other principal stresses are then horizontal, and their magnitudes are (slightly) different.
In this report we use the following convention:
Normally stressed :
overburden, vertical
2, 3 horizontal
1 > 2 > 3
Tectonically stressed areas will typically be zones where there are active faults, salt domes, or
zones with compressive regimes (e.g. foothills). In these zones, the principal stress directions
may not be vertical or horizontal and their determination, although more important in such a
case, may be more difficult than in a normally stressed zone.
Methods exist to determine the state of stress in a formation. The vertical stress (the stress
exerted by the overburden) can be obtained by the integration of a density log. Fracture closure
data (from formation breakdown tests, mini or micro-frac tests or well stimulation operations) will
give the magnitude of the minimum in-situ stress. The intermediate in-situ stress magnitude and
orientation can be deduced using a variety of laboratory techniques (e.g. Differential strain
analysis or Acoustic velocity anisotropy).
In many cases the in-situ stress is not known. For wells where no formation breakdown data from
offset-wells is available, regional stress models and stress trend curves may be used. These
curves give the magnitude of the minimum in-situ stress with depth from correlations based on
regional data [10,11]. They are representative for certain tectonic conditions only, and may not
be generally applicable.
It is recommended that Opcos develop these regional stress models and trend curves as a joint
effort between petrophysics, geology and operations departments.
4.6.2.3 Pore pressure
The pore pressure is the pressure of the fluid in the pore spaces of the formation. Pore pressures
are often expressed as gradients relative to a reference level. In most disciplines in the industry,
this is the "Free Water Level" FWL, (i.e. seawater level offshore or ground water level on land,
see also Figure C-4). The pore pressure gradient can be expressed as follows:
PPG =
po
d form dFW L
(App. 3-2)
For drilling operations, and well control specifically, the pore pressure is often expressed as an
equivalent mud gradient relative to the derrickfloor:
o =
Po
d form
where:
o
Po
dform
dFWL
=
=
=
=
(App. 3-3)
equivalent mudweight of pore pressure

pore pressure
Pore pressure gradients should not be confused with the density gradient of the pore fluid.
Pore pressure regimes are classified by their pore pressure gradients:

TABLE OF PRESSURE REGIMES TYPES AND PORE PRESSURE GRADIENTS
A discussion of the geological causes of the different pore pressure regimes falls outside the
scope of this report; for reviews, see [5,6,7].
Especially in areas where over pressures are expected, an extra effort is required to predict an
accurate pore pressure profile. Information on pore pressures may be derived from offset wells
and from regional geological models. Various other techniques may give indications of over
pressures, (geophysical/geological studies, seismic interpretation studies).
During the drilling of the well, pore pressures can inferred from an analysis of the drilling
operation during a reservoir fluid influx (e.g. drilling kick or swabbed kick). In addition, most
mudlogging contractors offer pore pressure evaluation services. These are based on an analysis
of drilling data, mud properties, gas indications, cuttings and cavings observations. Most of the
techniques have been developed for pore pressure evaluation in areas where over pressures
are related to undercompaction (Gulf Coast), and may not work in other environments (for
example the North Sea).
In reservoirs of sufficient porosity and permeability, pore pressures can be measured with
wireline tools (eg. RFT) after the well has been drilled. Evaluation of petrophysical (wireline and
MWD) data sometimes allows the determination of the behaviour of pore pressures in shales [8].
4.6.3
Borehole failure - rock mechanics
4.6.3.1 Rock tensile strength

Borehole failure is usually governed by tensile failure. Tensile failure is defined to occur when the
wellbore fluid pressure is such that the minimum effective stress at the borehole wall reaches a
negative value, :equal to the rock tensile strength (T):
'r,,z = - T
(App.3-4)
where:
r,,z are the coordinates of the "borehole coordinate system", (see Figure App. 3-1).
FIGURE APP. 3-1 : BOREHOLE STRESSES AND COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION OF IN-SITU
STRESS
Although intact rocks do have a tensile strength (tensile stress needed to fail a rock
sample), this strength is generally small. In addition, any small defect in the rock
structure (e.g. a natural fracture) considerably lowers this value.
Therefore, in this chapter, the rock tensile strength is assumed to be zero, and failure is
assumed to occur when:
'r,,z = 0
(App. 3-5)
This is a conservative assumption for formations with a certain tensile strength. For other
formations however, (e.g. naturally fractured carbonate rock and shales, or
unconsolidated formations,) this assumption is certainly realistic.
4.6.3.2 Theoretical relationship : wellbore strength - state of stress

Appendix A of [9] gives the equations for the effective stresses at the borehole wall as a function
of the (far-field) in-situ stresses (Equation A.4 in [9]). From these equations, it can be seen that
the orientation of the wellbore with respect to the in-situ stress influences the state of stress at
the borehole wall.
If a perfectly cylindrical borehole is drilled in a normally stressed formation without fractures, and
a perfect mud cake prevents flow of fluids into the formation, it is possible to calculate the FBP
for a few simple cases. Results derived in [9] are repeated below:
vertical well,and
FBP = 23 - po
2 = 3 :
(App. 3-6)
vertical well, and 2 > 3 :

FBP = 33 - 2 - po
(App. 3-7)
deviated well and 2 = 3, ( where z = deviation) :

FBP = 23 - (1 - 3) sinz - po
(App. 3-8)
for a well deviated in the direction of 2, and 2 > 3:

FBP = 33 - 2 - (1 - 2) sinz - po
(App. 3-9)
This shows that FBP data from one well can not be used for casing design of another well,
without taking into account the orientation of the in situ stresses with respect to the wellbore. Eq.
App. 3-6 to Eq. App. 3-9 can be used for converting FBP data from one well to the other. If the
well is not deviated into 2 the direction the more advanced literature should be addressed [9].
Examples of analysing and correcting FBP data from other wells are given in Appendix 5.
In some situations it is possible that the FBP is lower than the minimum in-situ stress for
example if 2 is considerably larger than 3 (see Eq. App. 3-7), or in a highly deviated well, (see
Eq. App. 3-8).
If this is the case, a fracture will be initiated but may not propagate away from the wellbore. This
is because the state of stress around a borehole reaches the far field stress state only a short
distance away from the wellbore, (typically within two wellbore diameters).The maximum
allowable wellbore pressure in this case is determined by the minimum in-situ stress.
FIGURE APP. 3-2 : FORMATION BREAKDOWN GRADIENT AS A FUNCTION OF HOLE DEVIATION
This is illustrated in Figure App. 3-2 which shows the behaviour of the formation breakdown
gradient (FBG) with deviation for two different in-situ stress conditions,
(2 > 3 and 2 = 3 ).
It should be realised that the FBP is strongly dependent of the condition of the borehole and the
mud cake. Borehole rugosity or the presence of natural or drilling induced fractures will
significantly lower the FBP.
4.6.3.3 Fracture propagation

If the wellbore pressure exceeds the FBP, a fractures is initiated from the borehole wall, in a
direction determined by the orientation of the in-situ stresses in the near wellbore region. After
the fracture propagates away from the wellbore, it will always be oriented in a plane
perpendicular to the minimum stress [2].
The stress acting across the faces of a closed fracture is equal to the minimum in-situ stress. A
fluid filled fracture will close when the pressure in the fracture drops below the minimum in-situ
stress (FCP), and an existing fracture will reopen when the fluid pressure in the fracture becomes
higher than the minimum in-situ stress (FRP).
An existing fracture, in communication with the wellbore, starts propagating when the wellbore
pressure exceeds the ISIP. The difference between FCP and ISIP depends mainly on the
characteristics of the rock (i.e. fracture toughness and Young's modulus).
The FPP increases with an increase in injection rate. The difference between ISIP and FPP is
mainly caused by fluid friction in the fracture.
4.6.3.4 Wellbore strength in fractured formation
A fracture in the borehole wall usually reduces the strength of the wellbore. If the fracture is in
communication with the wellbore, it will reopen when the wellbore pressure exceeds the stress
normal to the fracture which is often the minimum in situ principal stress: '3. It will not start
propagating until the pressure exceeds the ISIP. For practical purposes, to avoid opening the
fracture at all, it is recommended to limit the maximum pressure in a fractured borehole to the
FCP.
Theoretically, for a vertical well in a tectonically relaxed area (Eq. App. 3-6), the difference
between the FBP and the FCP is equal to the minimum effective principal stress ('3). For a
deviated well (Eq. App. 3-7), or a well in a tectonically stressed area (Eqs. App. 3-8, App. 3-9),
the difference will be even less.
4.6.4 Other effects

4.6.4.1 Healing
It has been observed that, with time, the strength of some formations after the initial reduction in
strength caused by formation breakdown. In some cases the strength of the formation returns
completely, in others only partially.
This process has been called "clay healing", because it only occurs in shales and not in
carbonates. There are indications that it only occurs with water-based muds, and not with oilbased muds. The mechanism is not very well understood, and Opcos are invited to share their
experiences with healing of formations.
The phenomenon can not be relied on, but justifies a repeat Leak-off test some time after
formation breakdown has occurred.
The strength of a fractured borehole may be improved by squeezing cement in the fracture.
Theoretically, if the fracture is perfectly isolated from the wellbore, the original FBP will return.
This may never be achieved, even after several squeeze jobs. In addition, the strength of a
borehole can never be improved to above the original FBP with cement squeezes.
4.6.4.2 Borehole fluid penetration
In the preceding sections it s been assumed that the borehole does not penetrate the formation.
When borehole fluid does invade the formation pore space, the near wellbore effective stresses
will change as a consequence of pore fluid pressure modification near the wellbore. This
phenomenon will reduce the strength of a wellbore. The magnitude of the reduction in strength
depends on the quality of the mudcake, the permeability and the poro-elastic properties of the
formation.
Most casing shoes are set in low permeability rock (shale) and the equations of section 3.2
apply. If more permeable formations are drilled, a mudcake will form on the borehole wall which
will prevent further penetration of fluid into the formation. The pressure in the permeable
formation will remain unchanged, and the formulas of section 3.2 will remain valid.
However, depending on the effectiveness of the mudcake, fluid may penetrate formations. This
may be the case when clear fluids without fluid loss control are used (for example during workover). If no mudcake is formed due to the low permeability of the formation ( for example in
shales), borehole fluid may slowly enter the pore space and in time, the pore pressure will
increase. This mechanism is thought to be responsible for time dependent shale instability
problems. Because of capillary pressures, penetration of oil-based muds (OBM) is less than of
water-based muds (WBM). This explains the better performance of OBM. Improved
understanding of these phenomena is the subject of ongoing research.
4.6.4.3 Depletion
During reservoir depletion the in-situ stresses change. The total overburden stress will remain
constant, which means that the effective vertical stress increases (see Eq. App. 3-1). The two
horizontal stresses will reduce, and the effective horizontal stresses increase. This will reduce
the formation strength. It may have additional consequences like the initiation of shear fractures,
sand failure or compaction.
If we assume that the formation behaves in a linear poro-elastic manner, we can calculate the
change in the horizontal stresses using :
2,3
x po
(App. 3-10)
According to the poro-elastic theory, the depletion constant can be expressed as follows:
=
(1 ) x (1 2 )
1
(App. 3-11 )
where :
=
=
ratio of rock grain compressibility to rock matrix compressibility,

Poisson's ratio.
This depletion constant can be determined from in-situ stress measurements at different stages
of reservoir depletion. For sedimentary basins, values of the depletion constant have been
reported between 0.4 and 0.6 [10,11,12]. The reduction in formation strength caused by
depletion can be calculated using the reduced minimum in-situ stress from Eq. App. 3-10. The
same approach can be used to correct for the effects of inflation.
4.6.4.4 Borehole shape

The formulas for wellbore strength, given in section 3.2, have been derived for circular boreholes.
If the borehole is not round, the borehole possibly will fail at a lower pressure. No similar
equations exist for out-of-shape boreholes (except for an elliptical Shape). For such cases, the
use of numerical programs is required, for example STABOR [13]. For the purpose of casing
design however, it can be assumed that the equations given in section 3-2 are still valid.
4.6.4.5 Chemical interaction
The chemical interaction between formation rock and the wellbore fluid (e.g. a sensitive shale
and a water based mud) will also alter the conditions under which breakdown occurs. However,
the mechanisms and parameters affecting those mechanisms are still under investigation
[4,14,15].
4.7
References
[1]
Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W.
Fundamentals of rock mechanics
Chapman and Hall, London, 1971
[2]
Brady, B.H.G. and Brown, E.T.
Rock mechanics
George Allen & Unwin, London, 1985
[3]
Veeken, C.A.M., KSEPL
Rock mechanics manual
SIPM/KSEPL (in preparation, issue date end 1993)
[4]
Bol, G.M., KSEPL
The interaction between shales and fluids, Parts I to V
EP 87-1171, EP 87-1451, EP 87-2672, EP 87-2748, EP 88-1563
[5]
Mouchet, J.P. and Mitchell,A.
Abnormal pressures while drilling
Elf, Boussens, 1989
[6]
Fertl, W.H.
Abnormal formation pressures
Developments in Petroleum Science Engineering
[7]
Bourgoyne, A.T., Chenevert, M.E., Milheim, K.K. and Young, F.S.
Applied drilling engineering, Vol. 2
SPE textbook series, Richardson, Texas, 1986
[8]
Eaton, B.A.
The equation for geopressure prediction from well logs
SPE 5544,1975
[9]
Wind, J.A. and Marchina, P , KSEPL
Formation strength for casing design Building Blocks for the Update of the 1980 Casing
Design Manual
EP 92-1454
[10] Breckels, I.M., KSEPL
Relationship between horizontal total stress and depth in sedimentary basins, Part II
Brunei Venezuela, the North Sea and the Netherlands
EP 05-4153
[11] Breckels, I.M. and van Eekelen, H.A.M., KSEPL
Relationship between horizontal stress and depth in sedimentary basins
EP-52950
[12] Veeken, C.A.M., Hertog, G.M.M., Hydendaal, H.G.C. and van der Meulen, J.T., KSEPL
Groningen sand failure study status report part 2: rock stress and rock strength in
Groningen /Annerveen fields
EP 90-3389
[13] Wong, S.W. and Kenter, C.J., KSEPL
Borehole stability analysis part 1: theoretical formulation of STABOR
RKRS 91.15, 59-64
[14] Hale, A.H. and Irani, F.K., BRC
DEA 22 report on the effects of drilling fluids on shale stability
BRC 12.89
[15] Hale, A.H,, Irani, F.K. and Albrecht, M.E.S., BRC
Hydration characteristics of shale, Parts I to IV
BRC 43.87, 50.88, 13.89, 14.89
4.8
Appendix 4 : Procedures for leak-off and limit tests
4.8.1
Introduction
Leak-off and Limit tests are carried out during the drilling phase of the well. The BOP is closed
around the drillpipe, and the well is slowly pressured up, using mud. At the first sign of fluid leak
off into the formation the pumping is stopped. Leak-off tests are carried out until leak-off is
observed; limit tests are carried out until a pre-determined test pressure is reached.
Leak-off and Limit tests are carried out to:
-
confirm the strength off the cement bond around the casing shoe and to ensure that no flow
path is established to formation above the casing shoe or to the previous annulus;
investigate the capability of the wellbore to withstand additional pressure below the casing
shoe in order to assess the competence of the well to handle an influx, and to allow proper
well design with regard to the safe drilling depth of the next hole section;
collect regional data on formation strength for the optimisation of future well design.
These tests are sometimes called casing seat, formation intake, formation strength or formation
integrity tests.
Proper planning, execution, interpretation and reporting of these tests is essential for well safety
and in order to gain maximum benefit from the experiment.
4.8.2
Testing procedure
4.8.2.1 Planning the test

The quality of the formation strength data measured during a leak-off test will improve by careful
planning of the operation. It is recommended to carry out the following work prior to the execution
of a Limit or Leak-off test:
Estimate the surface leak-off pressure as follows :

Based on the estimate of the FBG used for the casing design phase, calculate the
(downhole) FBP using the following formulas:
Land
: FBP = FBG x (dshoe - dfe)
(App. 4-1)
Offshore
: FBP = FBG x (dshoe - dseabed) + sw x (dseabed - dFWL)
(App. 4-2)
The surface -pressure at which fracture breakdown is expected can be calculated as follows:
pFB,surf = FBP - mud x (dshoe - dgauge)
(App. 4-3)
pFB,surf may be used as a high estimate for surface Leak-off.
Calculate surface limit pressure. For a Limit test the Limit Gradient (LG) For a Leak-off test
it is recommended to may be given in the well program. For a Leak-off test it is
recommended to the limit the test pressures to a maximum of the over burden gradient or to
another realistic limit. This is done to reduce the chance of untoward formation breakdown.
Calculate the downhole Limit Pressure (LP) as follows :
Land
: LP = LG x (dshoe - dfe)
Offshore : LP = LG x ( dshoe - dseabed ) + sw x (dseabed - dFWL)
(App. 4-4)
(App. 4-5)
The surface Limit Pressure can be calculate :

plim,surf = LP - mud x (dshoe - dgauge)
(App. 4-6)
Confirm the accuracy of the pressure gauges that will be used for the experiment. The
absolute accuracy of the gauges should be 0.5% of the expected downhole test pressure.
The resolution (relative accuracy) of the gauges should be 2% of the expected surface test
pressure. Calibrate the mud balance to confirm its accuracy (0.5% for a pressurised
mudbalance).
Usually the pressure is measured and recorded at surface, but for high mud weights the
application of downhole gauges with surface read-out should be considered.
The pressures exerted during a Limit or Leak-off test should never exceed the maximum
burst pressure of the casing and the associated surface equipment. Calculate the maximum
allowable surface pressure for casing burst, using the recommended design factor
(DFburst) for casing burst. To calculate the pressure at the outside of the casing, assume a
fluid gradient equal to the mud gradient that the casing was run into. Add the test pressure
to the static mud column on the inside, to calculate the pressure at the inside of the casing.
Estimate the volume of mud to be pumped, and determine the increment volume. To be able
to establish a clear trend in trend in the test results, a minimum of about 8 equal increments
should be pumped before the (expected) test pressure is reached. It is possible to make an
estimate of the amount of mud required to reach a certain surface test pressure :
Vtest = Vhole x Cwell x Psurf
(App. 4-7)
where :
Vtest = Volume of mud required for Psurf,
Vhole = Total volume of mud in drillpipe, annulus
and pocket below the shoe,
(bbl)
(m)
(bbl)
(m)
Cwell = combined compressibility of mud, and hole,
(1/psi)
psurf = surface test pressure,
(psi)
(1/kPa)
(kPa)
Typical values for mud compressibility are given in the table below. Observed values may be
higher due to additional expansion of the casing and line. The combined compressibility of
well and mud can be calculated with the results of a previous leak-off test or casing pressure
test after the cementation. If the actual volume x pressure relationship during the test is
radically different from Eq. App. 4-7, this might indicate that the pump unit is not lined up
properly, the BOP stack not properly closed, a leak in the surface lines or a very porous
formation.
TABLE OF TYPICAL MUD COMPRESSIBILITY VALUE
Complete the pre-test part of the test report (attached). Prepare a large scale graph (e.g.
A3) to plot the results during the test. Draw the expected volume x pressure line and the
surface limit pressure and the casing burst pressure in the same plot.
4.8.2.2 Execution
The following Leak-off test procedure should be applied :
1. Drill out cement plus ca. 20 ft (6 m) of new formation. (Consider to repeat the experiment
when the first sand is encountered, or when a weak formation is penetrated.)
2. Circulate and condition mud.
- while circulating the hole clean of cuttings, treat the mud to achieve a low gel strength;
(excessive gels may reduce the pressure transmitted down the well to the formation). To
prevent the hole from washing out, it could be considered to pull the bit into the casing
shoe;
- accurately measure the mud weight with a recently calibrated pressurised mud balance;
- confirm that mud weight in is equal to mud weight-out;
- do not change the mud weight until after the test.
3. Pull the bit back into the casing shoe. If high leak-off pressures are expected consider the
use of a downhole packer to isolate the cement sheath to prevent micro-annuli development
during the test.
4. Make sure the hole is filled up and close the BOP around the drillpipe. Where practicable,
open and top up the annulus between the last and previous casing string, and check for
returns during the test.
5. Use a high pressure, low volume pump (usually the cement unit; rig pumps are unsuitable).
Line up to establish a clear flow path from the pump to the open hole annulus. Do not
attempt to test through a mudmotor or a non return valve.
6. Line up calibrated pressure gauges, covering various pressure ranges and preferably
mounted on a special manifold. The standard gauges on the drilling console or the cement
unit are not accurate enough four these measurements. Usually the pressure is measured
and recorded at surface, but for high mud weights the application of downhole gauges with
surface read-out should be considered.
7. Pump mud slowly (< BPM, 80 1/min.) until the pressure builds up. Record and plot the
volume pumped against pressure.
8. Pump a small increment of mud, and wait for 2 minutes or the time required for the pressure
to stabilise in case this takes longer.
9. Record the cumulative volume pumped, the initial static pressure and the final static pressure
after the waiting period. The initial static pressure is the pressure immediately after pumping
has stopped and the transients have died out.
10. Repeat items 8 and 9 and plot both pressure values against cumulative mud volume for each
increment until leak off is observed, or until the predetermined limit pressure has been
reached. Keep the waiting period and the volume increments constant.
Leak-off is defined as the first point on the volume/pressure plot where either the initial static
pressure or the final static pressure deviates from the trend observed in the previous
observations.
If the pump pressure suddenly drops, stop pumping but keep the well closed in. This
indicates a leak in the system, cement failure or formation breakdown. Record the pressures
every minute until they stabilise. If the drop in pressure is related to formation breakdown,
this data can be used to derive the minimum in situ stress.
11. Keep the well closed in to verify that a constant pressure has been obtained. Record and plot
the closed in pressure every minute. If the pressure does not stabilise, this may be an
indication of a system leak or a bad cement bond.
12. Bleed off the pressure and establish the volume of mud lost to the formation.
13. Top up and close the annulus between the casing and the previous casing string.
4.8.2.3 Interpretation of the Leak-off graph

Results should be plotted and interpreted on the large scale volume versus pressure plot during
the test. "Leak-off is a downhole event, indicated in the leak-off graph by the first deviation from
the trend of either the initial static pressure or the final static pressure. In many cases it can only
be identified positively if two points on the curve deviate from the trend. The "surface leak- off
pressure" (pLO, surf.) is the (interpolated) value of the initial static pressure at the first indication
of leak-off.
In a successful limit test no leak-off is observed when the initial static pressure reaches the
"surface limit pressure" (Plimsurf). It is confirmed that the borehole is strong enough to hold
this additional pressure without formation breakdown (see Figure App. 4-1).
FIGURE APP. 4-1: LEAK-OFF GRAPH INDICATING ADEQUATE FORMATION STRENGTH
Various types of volume versus pressure plots can be encountered, depending on the kind of
formation being tested as shown in the following three figures.
For a hard impermeable formation (eg. a shale) the pressure increases linearly with volume.
Leak-off is simple to identify, (Figure App. 4-2). For a permeable formation with an ineffective
mudcake, the mud leaks away slowly, the graph is slightly curved, and the final static pressure
curves away from the initial static pressure. Leak off should now be identified either by the
change in curvature, or from the increasing difference between initial static and final static
pressures (see Figure App. 4-3).
Especially in non-consolidated, plastic, loose or highly permeable formations where even low test
pressures cause loss of mud the exact determination of the leak-off point is difficult. The initial
static pressure will always be considerably higher than the final static pressure, and the graph
will be curved considerably. Leak-off can only be established approximately from the leak-off
graph, as shown in Figure App. 4-4. (In many cases the information
FIGURE APP. 4-2: LEAK-OFF GRAPH FOR IMPERMEABLE FORMATION
FIGURE APP. 4-3 LEAK-OFF GRAPH FOR PERMEABLE FORMATION
FIGURE APP. 4-4 LEAK-OFF GRAPH FOR UNCONSOLIDATED FORMATION
that no breakdown is observed will suffice, since it is obvious that the formation is weak and the
main purpose of the test is to establish the absence of communication around the casing.)
4.8.2.4 Formation breakdown, fracture re-opening
Formation breakdown during a Limit or Leak-off test should be prevented, because a fracture
may permanently impair the capability of the wellbore to withstand pressure . However, if
breakdown occurs, it should be treated as an opportunity to derive real formation strength
parameters.
"Formation breakdown" is indicated by a sharp pressure drop on surface (see Figure App. 4-5).
The highest pressure recorded immediately before the pressure drop, is the "surface
breakdown pressure", (pFB,surf).
If formation breakdown occurs, pumping should be stopped, but the well should be kept closedin, and the pressure decay curve should be recorded. "Fracture closure" is indicated by the
stabilisation of the pressure decay curve to a constant pressure value. The FCP can be
determined from the "surface fracture closure pressure", (pFC,surf). The results may be used
to determine the in-situ stress, which may be very useful for future operations.
To confirm these observations, the test may be continued with a fracture re-opening cycle (see
Figure App. 4-6). After the pressure is released, and the well is flowed back, the well is pressured
up in steps. When the fracture re-opens, the pressure volume graph deviates from the trend
(similar to leak-off), and the "surface fracture re-opening pressure", (pFR surf) can be
determined. After re-opening, the well is shut-in and the PCP is again determined from the
pressure decline. Theoretically the FRP and the FCP are equal, but differences may occur.
If the first and second FCP and the FRP are not consistent enough another cycle should be
considered.
FIGURE APP. 4-5 LEAK-OFF GRAPH SHOWING FORMATION BREAKDOWN
FIGURE APP. 4-6 :LEAK-OFF GRAPH SHOWING FORMATION BREAKDOWN AND FRACTURE
REOPENING
4.8.2.5 Reporting
Formation strength tests should be reported in a consistent manner. It is recommended to
complete part 1 of the attached example report form before the test.
Actual measurements of pressures and volumes and an interpretation of the results should be
reported as indicated in part 2 of the attached example report form. An accurate graph on a large
scale of volume pumped versus surface pressure should be included in this report. It should be
indicated whether leak-off or formation breakdown was observed.
Surface measurements of formation strength are converted to downhole pressures, assuming
that the measurements relate to the formation just below the casing shoe:
pshoe = psurf + mud x (dshoe - dgauge)
(App. 4-8)
Downhole pressures can be converted to gradients or equivalent mud gradients using the
conventions given in Chapter C section 3.3.
For Formation Breakdown the conversions are given below:
Formation strength gradients result from Eq. C-1 and Eq. C-2:
Land wells : FBG =
FBP
d shoe dfe
Offshore
FBP sw X ( dseabed dFWL )

dshoe dshoe
(relative to seabed)
: FBG =
Equivalent mud gradient results from Eq. C-3 :

FB,shoe =
FBP
d shoe
(relative to derrick floor)
(Similar expressions can be given for Limit, Leak-off and Fracture Closure pressures).
If the measurement relates to a formation some distance below the casing shoe, the conversion
may be slightly inaccurate (see the plots of FBP* versus FBP, FBG* versus FBG, *FB versus
FB in Figure App. 4-7). In practice this difference is not taken into account, except when a leakoff test is repeated at a different depth.
FIGURE APP. 4-7A : DEFINITION OF FORMATION-STRENGTH AND PORE-PRESSURE GRADIENTS

(LAND LOCATION)
FIGURE APP. 4-7B : DEFINITION OF FORMATION-STRENGTH AND PORE-PRESSURE

GRADIENTS (OFFSHORE LOCATION)
4.8.2.6 Repeating a test

A leak-off or limit test may be repeated some distance below the previous measurement. This
maybe done to confirm that the strength of a new formation still satisfies the requirements for
safe drilling, or to gain some additional formation strength data.
It is recommended not to exceed the previous downhole test pressures unless there are reasons
to assume that the formation strength has increased (for example after a change in mud system).
If leak-off or formation breakdown is observed during a subsequent test, it is difficult to identify
the formation and the exact depth that the measurement relates to. The test can be used to
define a "safe" area on a depth pressure plot (see Figure App. 4-8). There is no clear cut method
to generate such a chart. Common sense should be used to interpret the measurements to
determine the safe drilling envelop in which no formation breakdown will occur.
FIGURE APP. 4-8 DETERMINATION OF SAFE DRILLING ENVELOPE FROM RESULTS OF
MULTIPLE LEAK-OFF TESTS
LEAK-OFF, LIMIT TEST REPORT, (part 1), field units
LEAK-OFF, LIMIT TEST REPORT, (PART 2), FIELD UNITS
LEAK-OFF, LIMIT TEST REPORT, (PART 1), METRIC UNITS
LEAK-OFF, LIMIT TEST REPORT, (part 2), metric units
4.9
Appendix 5 : Specimen calculation of formation strength
4.9.1
Exploration well - example calculation

In the following example it is assumed that the formation is normally stressed, an average
overburden gradient is present, and that the reservoirs are normally pressured:
2
PPG
1.000 psi/ft
[23.0.kPa/m]
=
=
0.465 psi/ft
[l0.5 kPa/m]
(Note : In this example stress gradients ( , "striped"), pressure gradients and formation strength
gradients are used instead of stresses, pressures, and strength. It is further assumed that
stresses, pore pressures and formation strength are relative to the same reference level. This
assumption is realistic for onshore wells, with a free water level close to surface. For offshore
wells actual downhole pressures should be used.)
The minimum horizontal stress must now be related to the overburden. If it is assumed that
sedimentary rock in a tectonically relaxed area can be modelled as a horizontally constrained,
elastic medium, the effective horizontal stress can be expressed as a formation of the effective
vertical stress and Poisson's ratio () with the following expression:
'
3
'
x 1
1
(App. 5-1)
Poisson's ratio for sedimentary rocks is about 0.25. The minimum in-situ stress gradient (and
FCG) .can then be estimated as follows:
3 - PPG =
3 =
x ( 1 - PPG)
1
x ( 1 - PPG) + PPG
1
3 =
(App. 5-2)
x ( 1 - PPG) + PPG
1
0.25
x (1.0 - 0.465) + 0.465
1 0.25
= 0.643 psi/ft
0.25
x ( 23.0 - 10.5 + 10.5 ]
1 0.25
[ = 14.7kPa/m]
[=
The Fracture Breakdown Gradient for a vertical well can now be estimated with Eq. App. 3-6:
FBG
2 3 - PPG
=
=
2 x 0.643 - 0.465
0.822 psi/ft
[ = 2 x 14.7 - 10.5]
[ = 18.9 kPa/m]
The Formation Breakdown Gradient (FBG) for a deviated well can be estimated with Eq. App. 3-8:
FBG
2
2 3 - ( 1 - 3 ) x sin z - PPG
2 x 0.643 - (1.0 - 0.643) sin2 z - 0.465 psi/ft
[=
2 x 14.7 - (23.0 - 14.7) sin z - 10.5 kPa/m]
Substitution of different values for the hole angle leads to the values of formation breakdown
gradient FBG, given in the table below:
It can be seen that with inclinations above 45, the FBG drops to below the FCG. For these wells
a fracture is initiated at the wellbore if the pressure exceeds the FBP, but is not propagated away
from the wellbore provided the pressure remains below the minimum in-situ stress. For wells with
inclinations above 45, it is recommended not to exceed the FCP.
4.9.2
Appraisal well - example calculation

In this example it is planned to set casing in a moderately overpressured share section. From two
previous wells, the pore pressure gradient in the shale is estimated to be 0.55 psi/ft [12.5 kPa/m].
Leak-off tests in these wells gave the following values of LOG. Hole deviation in the third well is
Planned to be 45. What are the estimated FCG and FBG at the casing shoe?
Well A: LOG = 0.90 psi/ft [20.5 kPa/m] (vertical hole)
Well B: LOG = 0 85 psi/ft [19.0 kPa/m] (30 deviation)
We assume that Leak-off can be seen as an indication of impending formation breakdown, and
that the FBG can be closely approximated by these values. We assume a normal overburden
gradient of:
1.00 psi/ft
[23.0 kPa/m]
Using Eq. App. 3-6 and Eq. App. 3-8 we can derive 3 :
vertical well
0.90 = 2 3 - 0.55
[ 20.5 = 2 3 - 12.5]
deviated well
0.85 = 2 3 - ( 1.00 -3) sin 30 - 0.55

[19.0 = 2 3 - (23.0 - 3) sin 30 - 12.5]
it follows :
vertical well
deviated well
= 0.725 psi/ft
[ 3
[ 3 =
16.56 kPa/m]
and therefore :
0.725 FCG 0.733 psi/ft
0.733 psi/ft
16.50 kPa/m]
[16.50 FCG 16.56 kPa/m]
Substituting the values for 3 back into Eq. App.3-8 for a 45 well gives the following range for
the Fracture Breakdown Gradient:
0.763 FBG 0.783 psi/ft
[17.3 FBG 17.4 kPa/m]
For setting depth purposes, the lower value should be used for burst calculations, the higher
value should be used.
4.9.3
Development well - example calculation

In this example a series of five production wells have been drilled from an off-shore platform.
Intermediate casing has been set in a hard shale. The pore pressure gradient in the first sand
below the casing shoe has been determined with RFTs and is 0.600 psi/ft, [13.5 kPa/m]. From
density logs the overburden is estimated to be 0.995 psi/ft, [22.5 kP a/m]. Leak-off tests have
been carried out on each well in the first sand below the casing shoe, with the following results.
Four more wells at deviations up to 50 will be drilled from the same platform. What will be the
formation strength at these angles?
We assume again that the Leak-off pressures give a good estimate of the FBG. Plotting the leakoff test results as in Figure App. 5-1 shows a fairly smooth trend and interpolation for casing shoe
strengths in casing design would seem acceptable. Data of this nature can also be used to
estimate the in-situ stresses, allowing extrapolation of the data with reasonable confidence.
The leak-off pressures lie on a fairly smooth curve, which indicates that the FBG is independent
of hole azimuth. The simplification that 2 = 3 appears to be justified. If we substitute the values
of the FBG in Eq. App. 3-8, we can estimate the minimum in-situ stress for each of the wells. In
the table above we can see that the variation in the minimum in-situ stress is not too large. We
therefore assume that we can take the average of the five measurements to make an estimate of
the actual minimum in-situ stress. With Eq. App. 3-8 we can make an estimate of the FBG for the
remaining wells e.g. at 45
FBG
2 3 - ( 1 - 3 ) - sin z - PPG
2 x 0.695 - (0.995 - 0.695) sin z - 0.600psi/ft
[=
2 x 15.75 - (22.50 - 15.75) sin z - 13.5 kPa/m]
Note however, that the FCG in this case is 3 = 0.695 psi/ft, [15.75 kpa/m]. This value may be
used as the lower limit of the casing shoe strength for kick control purposes. The maximum mud
gradient in circulation should also be checked against FCG.
FIGURE APP. 5-1 : INTERPRETATION OF LEAK-OFF TEST DATA
5.0
Introduction
Once the casing scheme has been selected as described in Chapter D, the casing designer must
design the individual strings, i.e. determine the wall thickness and material (grade) each one
should be given to ensure that the string can withstand the loads that occur during drilling,
installation and service (operation). The fundamental design criterion used here is that, for each
load case considered,
L
C c, w , f
DF
where L is the load for the load case in question, Cc,w,f is the load-hearing capacity of the
proposed casing corrected for the effects of corrosion, wear and fatigue, and DF is the design
factor to be applied to take strength and load variations into account.
The load cases to be taken into consideration in casing design are reviewed in Chapter F, while
expressions for load determination are presented in Chapter G. Determination of the loadbearing capacity is considered in Chapter H, and the design factors currently recommended for
use within the Group are reviewed in Chapter K. The influence of corrosion, wear and fatigue on
load-bearing capacity is the subject of Chapter I.
Chapter J deals with the probability of buckling in the casing string and ways of preventing it,
while Chapter L discusses ways of ensuring that the connections used in the casing string do not
compromise its integrity. Appendices 6 to 9 present theories and definitions, and the derivation of
a number of fundamental equations, used in casing design.
The design methods presented in Chapters F to K are illustrated with the aid of frequent short
examples in the text, and a full-length example in Chapter M. In line with SIPM policy to support
the use of SI units, all examples are in both field units and SI units.
A further important issue is the distinction between uniaxial and triaxial design. When the
previous Casing Design Manual was published, uniaxial casing design methods were still used
almost exclusively. As discussed in Chapter A, uniaxial design consists in comparing a uniaxial
load (such as a pressure, an axial force or a torque) with a uniaxial load-bearing capacity.
Triaxial design methods compare the combined effect of radial, tangential and axial stresses in
the casing wall with the material yield strength and represent a more realistic assessment of the
ability of the casing to withstand a given load. The stresses can be analysed by using a
combination of Hooke's law, the Lam equations and the Von Mises yield criterion. However,
triaxial casing design involves many more calculations than uniaxial design, and is only practical
with the aid of suitable computer programs. Now that such programs are commercially available,
SIPM recommends the use of triaxial casing design methods especially for the analysis of
service loads. A casing design and analysis software package for use with in the Group will be
implemented. The contents of the following chapters will support a manual verification of the
output generated by this software.
6.0
Load cases
6.1.
Introduction
Before carrying out detailed design calculations for a given casing string defined by the casingscheme selection procedure (see Chapter D), the casing designer has to decide which load
cases need to be taken into consideration. This decision will depend an the likelihood of
occurrence of the individual load cases (as assessed by the Opcos), and on the risks involved if
they do occur. This chapter presents a structured review of the overall range of load cases which
might have to be considered, for the three types of loads indicated in Flowchart F-1
burst/collapse loads, installation loads and service loads. In each case, the downhole scenarios
likely to lead to the load case in question are indicated.
6.2.
Pressure loads
6.2.1
Introduction
To establish the burst and collapse loads in a given situation, the casing designer determines the
internal and external pressure profiles for each load case of interest and takes the difference (PiPe) between them. If the resulting load line comprises mainly positive net pressures, it is called a
burst load line (BLL) if it comprises mainly negative pressures it is called a collapse load line
(CLL). The net pressures (positive or negative) occurring on the relevant BLL or CLL are then
compared with e.g. the API burst or collapse ratings for various grades of casing as given in [1].
Collapse or burst loading can occur both during drilling (affecting the design of the conductor
casing, surface and intermediate casing) and production (where the design of the production
casing is likely to be the only one affected). Some intermediate strings are also used as
production casing both the drilling and the production phase should be considered in their
design. Collapse and burst loads will be considered separately below.
The line of reasoning followed in distinguishing the various relevant load cases, as indicated in
Flowcharts F-2 to F-5, will now be explained briefly. When considering an internal pressure
profile (whether for burst or collapse) in the drilling phase, only one situation need be taken into
account (see e.g. Flowchart F-2). In the production phase, a distinction must be made between
the internal pressure profiles above and below the packer (see e.g. Flowchart F-3). When
considering the Internal pressure profile for burst in the production phase, a further distinction
must be made according to the type of well involved production well or injection well.
When considering an external pressure profile, two factors need to be taken into account in all
the load cases discussed in this chapter the quality of the cement column between the casing
and the formation (which determines the extent to which reservoir pressures are passed on to
the casing), and the quality of the fluid in the annulus between casing and formation above the
top of cement. (Deterioration of this fluid in the course of time can lead to a drop in its density,
and hence to a steeper external pressure profile and higher annulus to distinguish between
exploration wells (with a relatively short life) and development wells (typically with a much longer
life) in this context.
FLOWCHART F-1 STRUCTURE OF DETAILED DESIGN PHASE
The number of base cases to be considered in a given situation may be determined from
inspection of the bottom row of boxes in the corresponding flowchart. For example, Flowchart F-2
shows that only two load cases need be considered for collapse in the drilling phase different
external pressure profiles will be obtained depending on whether the cement column is good or
bad. In both cases, the annulus fluid may be assumed to have its original density, and the
internal pressure profile will be determined by mud losses to a level where the mud column finally
balances the pore pressure.
The special cases to be considered in addition to the base cases are indicated along the bottom
of each flowchart. It should be emphasised that in all cases the casing designer is looking for the
most realistic highest loading taking into account local Opco experience.
6.2.2
Collapse loads
6.2.2.1 Evacuation during drilling

Collapse loads occurring during drilling are usually the result of borehole evacuation due to
natural or induced losses. There are however a number of special cases to be considered. The
base case and the special cases will be addressed in this section. See Flowchart F-2.
FLOWCHART F-2 : DECISION TREE FOR COLLAPSE LOAD CASES, DRILLING PHASE APPLIES TO
CONDUCTOR CASING, SURFACE OR INTERMEDIATE CASING/LINER
a)
Internal pressure profile

As mentioned above, it may be assumed that the internal pressure profile in this case
corresponds to a losses situation [2]. The internal pressure profile may be constructed as
follows (see Figure F-1). The pore-pressure profile (available to be casing designer as one of
the design parameters, see chapter C) determines the pressure in the formation and hence
in the borehole down to total depth (TD). In a losses situation, the mud column will drop until
the pore pressure at section TD is just balanced by the pressure due to the mud column (see
Figure F-1a). The evacuation level can be found by drawing the mud pressure line (whose
gradient is determined by the mud density) back from the pore pressure at TD to the depth
axis. The resulting pressure profile is shown in this figure and in all other figures in this
chapter by the thick grey line.
To construct the internal pressure profile for losses at a depth above TD, one draws the mad
pressure line from the point on the pore-pressure profile corresponding to the depth in
question. Such hypothetical mud-pressure lines are represented by a sloping broken line in
Figure F-1a and in other figures in this chapter. The solid line represents the actual mud
pressure line to be used for the design.
The evacuation level chosen should always be the deepest that can occur due to drilling
below the casing shoe. Thus, if the pore pressure in a certain formation through which the
borehole passes is sub-normal, e.g. because of a depleted horizon, the mud-pressure line
will be drawn from the point on the pore-pressure profile which gives the lowest evacuation
level (see Figure F-1b), and not from TD. As Figure F-1c shows, abnormally high pore
pressures do not form an exception in this methodology.
b)
External pressure profile

The external pressure profile for collapse during drilling should be constructed in two
sections that for the cement column and that for the annulus fluid column as described
below.
i)
Cement column
Set cement behaves as a porous matrix of low permeability (in the microDarcy to
milliDarcy range) containing a pore fluid at a certain pressure. As indicated in Figure F-2,
the permeability of the cement around the casing is usually intermediate between those
of a high-permeability and of a low-permeability formation. Where the cement column is
set across a high-permeability formation (millidarcy and above), the pressure in the
cement will be equal to the pore pressure in the formation. Where the cement column is
set across a low-permeability formation (microDarcy and below), the pressure will
depend on its quality [3]. Local experience will determine whether to choose a good
cement column or a poor-cement-column scenario.
FIGURE F-1 :
CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILES FOR COLLAPSE IN

DRILLING PHASE
FIGURE F-2 : RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES OF CEMENT COLUMN AND SURROUNDING

FORMATION
It is assumed below for the sake of simplicity that the cement column only passes
through one high-permeability formation. If it passes through more than one, the
procedure described for external pressure profiles in section 2.2.2 should be followed
Good cement column
Here the cement column acts as an effective seal between the high-permeability
formation and the top of cement. The cement pore-pressure profile in the segment of
cement column across the low-permeability interval will then be such as to connect the
pore pressure at the top of the high-permeability formation with the pressure at the top of
cement due to the hydrostatic pressure of the annulus fluid (see Figure F-3). The cement
pore-pressure profile across the low-permeability interval is thus semi-static.
Poor cement column
In this case, the cement column no longer acts as am effective seal between the highpermeability formation and the top of cement. The pressure gradient in the cement
across the low- permeability interval will then be equal to the cement mixwater gradient.
The pressure at the top of cement is therefore determined by drawing a pressure line
with this gradient upwards from the pressure at the top of the high-permeability formation
(see Figure F-4). As a result, the annulus pressure line will be shifted to lower pressure
in low-pressure reservoirs and to higher pressures in high-pressure reservoirs. This
leads to an annulus level drop or an annulus pressure build- up.
No matter whether the cement column is good or bad, the cement pore-pressure profile
below the high-permeability formation is given by a line of slope equal to the cement
mixwater gradient extending downwards from the pressure at the bottom of the highpermeability formation to the casing shoe (compare Figures F-3 and F-4).
For the determination of the cement pore-pressure profile in the cement column opposite
a previous casing, this previous casing should be treated as a low-permeability
formation.
In the event that the cement column does not pass through a high- permeability
formation anywhere, the cement mixwater gradient may be assumed to extend
downwards from the top of cement to the casing shoe, no matter whether the quality of
the cement is high or low. The pressure at the top of cement will be equal to the
hydrostatic pressure of the annulus fluid. See Figure F-5.
ii)
Annulus fluid column

In View of the relatively short duration of the drilling phase, deterioration of the annulus
fluid during drilling should not be taken into account, either for exploration or for
development wells [3]. The pressure gradient in the annulus fluid will therefore be
determined by the density -of the fluid used at the time of the cement job.
In the case of a high-quality cement column over a high-permeability formation, the
annulus fluid pressure line extends downwards with the above mentioned gradient from
zero pressure at the wellhead to the top of cement (see Figure F-3). For a low-quality
cement column across a high-permeability formation, the annulus fluid pressure line
extends upwards with the same gradient from the pressure at the top of cement towards
the wellhead. As Figure F-4 shows, this can lead to annulus pressure in a high-pressure
reservoir, or to annulus fluid drop in a low-pressure reservoir.
If the cement column does not pass through any high-permeability formations, the
annulus fluid pressure line extends downwards from zero pressure at the wellhead to the
top of cement, no matter what the quality of the cement (see Figure F-5).
c) Special cases
Air, foam or aerated drilling
When air drilling is applied, the wellbore pressure could become atmospheric in the event of
system failure. Similarly, foam drilling is subject to the hazard that the foam can lose stability
and the liquid phase can drop out. If these scenarios are considered likely, the casing should
therefore be designed to withstand full internal evacuation unlike the base case, where
evacuation is likely to be only partial.
FIGURE F-3 :CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILES FOR COLLAPSE IN DRILLING

PHASE, WITH HIGH-QUALITY CEMENT COLUMN AND A SINGLE HIGH-PERMEABILITY
FORMATION
FIGURE F-4: CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILES FOR COLLAPSE IN DRILLING

PHASE, WITH LOW-QUALITY CEMENT COLUMN AND A SINGLE HIGH-PERMEABILITY
FORMATION
FIGURE F-5 :CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE FOR COLLAPSE IN DRILLING

PHASE, WHEN CEMENT COLUMN DOES NOT PASS THROUGH A HIGH-PERMEABILITY
FORMATION
For aerated drilling, the designer should consider the internal evacuation level that can be
based on the pore -pressure profile in the event of a system failure preventing fluid supply.
In all these cases, the external pressure profile will be as described in section 2.2. 1 b).
Salt loading
Salt loading is modelled as if it were an external fluid pressure equal to the overburden
pressure at the depth of the salt formation. The external pressure profile will therefore be as
described in section 2.2.1b), but now with the salt loading giving rise to a step change in the
external pressure profile at the top and bottom if the salt formation. See Figure F-6.
Salt loading is a time dependent phenomenon but since its onset cannot be accurately
predicted, the loading should always be assumed when designing for collapse in the drilling
phase. This case is dealt with in Chapter N.
The internal pressure profile will be as described in section 2.2.1 a.).
FIGURE F-6 : CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILES FOR COLLAPSE IN
DRILLING PHASE, WITH SALT LOADING
External loading due to formation compaction should replace, where applicable, that
resulting from annulus fluid and cement-column pressures as described in section 2.2.1b).
This case is dealt with in Chapter N.
The internal pressure profile wilI be as described in section 2.2.1 a).
Blowout
If the casing design is to cater for a blowout scenario, full evacuation of the string to
atmospheric pressure must be assumed for the internal pressure profile. This condition
represents a blowout where the open hole formation bridges and the gas pressure at surface
is allowed to bleed to zero.
The external pressure profile will be as described in section 2.2.1 b).
It should be noted, however, that during the actual blowout preceding the full evacuation, the
casing integrity might be reduced. To make the design for this scenario fit for purpose, a
realistic wear margin should be taken into account when selecting the casing.
6.2.2.2 Evacuation during production
Collapse loads during the production phase generally occur as a result of evacuation resulting
from natural or induced losses during workover of the well. There are also, however, a number of
special cases to be considered. The base case and the special cases will be addressed in this
section. See Flowchart F-3.
FLOWCHART F-3 :DESIGN TREE FOR COLLAPSE LOAD CASES, PRODUCTION PHASE APPLIES
TO PRODUCTION CASING/LINER
a)

Below the production packer
The casing below the production packer must always be designed to withstand full internal
evacuation to atmospheric pressure. This is to account for high drawdowns, differential
depletion, and back-surging operations.
Above the production packer
Casing above the packer is usually not subject to critical collapse loading during normal
production operations.
During completion and workover, however, mud/brine losses may lead to evacuation of the
upper section of the production casing. The deepest possible evacuation level should be
calculated based on the pore pressure profile and the fluid density in use. See Figure F-7.
Special cases like gas lift and pump- off are dealt with later.
FIGURE F-7: CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILES ABOVE AND BELOW PACKER
FOR COLLAPSE IN PRODUCTION PHASE

The external pressure profile for collapse during production should be constructed in two
sections that for the cement column and that for the annulus fluid column as described
below.
i)
Cement column
Set cement behaves as a porous matrix of low permeability (in the microDarcy to
milliDarcy range) containing a pore fluid at a certain pressure. As indicated in Figure F-2,
the permeability of the cement around the casing is usually intermediate between those
of a high-permeability and of a low-permeability formation. Where the cement column is
set across a high-permeability formation (milliDarcy and above), the pressure in the
cement will be equal to the pore pressure in the formation. Where the cement column is
set across a low-permeability formation (microDarcy and below), the pressure will
depend on its quality [3]. Local experience will determine whether to choose a good
cement column or a poor-cement-column scenario.
It is assumed below that in the production phase the cement column passes through
more than one high-permeability formation.
Good cement column
Here the cement column acts as an effective seal between the high- permeability
formations) and the top of cement. The pressure profile in the segment of cement
column across the low-permeability interval above the shallowest high-permeability
formation will then be semi-static, connecting the spore pressure at the top of this highpermeability formation with the pressure at the top of cement due to the hydrostatic
pressure of the annulus fluid. The pressure profile in the segment of cement column lying
across the low-permeability interval between two high-permeability formations will also
be semi-static, connecting the pore pressures at the bottom and top of the highpermeability formations it straddles (see Figure F-8).
Poor cement column
In this case, the cement column no longer acts as an effective seal between the highpermeability formations) and the top of cement. The pressure gradient in the cement
across the low-permeability interval above the shallowest high-permeability formation will
then be equal to the cement mixwater gradient. The pressure profile in the segment of
cement column lying across the low-permeability interval between two high-permeability
formations will be semi-static, connecting to the pore pressures at the bottom and top of
the high-permeability formations it straddles. The pressure at the top of cement will
therefore be determined by drawing a pressure line of slope equal to the cement
mixwater gradient upwards from the pressure at the top of the shallowest highpermeability formation (see Figure F-9). This leads to an annulus level drop or an
annulus pressure build-up.
FIGURE F-8 CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE FOR COLLAPSE IN

PRODUCTION PHASE, WITH HIGH-QUALITY CEMENT COLUMN AND MULTIPLE HIGHPERMEABILITY FORMATIONS
No matter whether the cement column is good or bad, the cement pore-pressure profile
below the deepest high-permeability formation is given by a line of slope equal to the
cement mixwater gradient extending downwards from the pressure at the bottom of the
high-permeability formation to the casing shoe (see Figures F-8 and F-9).
For the determination of the pore-pressure profile in the cement column opposite a
previous casing, this previous casing should be treated as a low- permeability formation.
ii)
Annulus fluid column

Since casing strings can have a much longer service life in the production phase than in
the drilling phase, deterioration of the annulus fluid should be taken into account in
production casing design for development wells The pressure gradient in the annulus
fluid in such cases may thus be determined by the density of the fluid used at the time of
the cement job, or by the density of the deteriorated fluid, depending on the elapsed time
and on the inherent stability of, the annulus fluid. While brines and bentonite/water-based
muds are stable with time, the density of oil based and polymer/water-based muds is
liable to drop to that of the base fluid [3].
In the case of a high quality cement column over a high-permeability formation, the
annulus-fluid pressure line extends downwards with the above mentioned gradient from
zero pressure at the wellhead to the top of cement (see Figure F-8).
For a low-quality cement column across a high-permeability formation, the annulus-fluid
pressure line extends upwards with the same gradient from the pressure at the top of
cement towards the wellhead (see Figure F-9).
Exploration wells
For exploration wells used for short-term production tests, it can be assumed that the
annulus fluid pressure gradient is determined by the fluid density at the time of
cementation.
FIGURE F-9A : CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE FOR COLLAPSE IN

PRODUCTION PHASE, WITH LOW-QUALITY CEMENT COLUMN AND MULTIPLE HIGHPERMEABILITY FORMATIONS RESULTING IN ANNULUS FLUID LEVEL DROP
FIGURE F-9b CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE FOR COLLAPSE IN

PRODUCTION PHASE, WITH LOW-QUALITY CEMENT COLUMN AND MULTIPLE HIGHPERMEABILITY FORMATIONS RESULTING IN ANNULUS PRESSURE
Development wells
For development wells it may be assumed that the annulus-fluid pressure gradient will be
equal to that for the base fluid for oil-based or polymer/water-based muds (which are
liable to deterioration), but will remain at the value prevailing at the time of the cement
job for brines and bentonite/water based muds (which are inherently stable.).
c) Special cases
Artificial-lift wells
Gas-lift well production casing above the packer should always be designed for complete
internal evacuation to atmospheric pressure, to account for complete venting of the
tubing/production-casing annulus as a result of surface equipment failure.
For artificial lift equipment working in pump-off mode, where usually no downhole packer is
installed, the casing should also be designed for complete internal evacuation to account for
the low annulus working pressure.
Salt loading
Salt loading is modelled as if it were an external fluid pressure equal to the overburden
pressure at the depth of the salt formation. The external pressure profile will therefore be as
described in section 2.2.2 b), but with the effects of the salt loading giving rise to a step
change in the external pressure profile at the top and bottom of the salt formation.
Salt loading is a time-dependent phenomenon but since its onset cannot be accurately
predicted, the loading should always be assumed when designing for collapse in the
production phase. This case is dealt with in Chapter N.
The internal pressure profile will be as described in section 2.2.2 a).
External loading due to formation compaction should replace, where applicable, that
resulting from annulus fluid and cement column pressures. This case is dealt with in
Chapter N.
Blowout
If the casing design is to cater for a blowout scenario, full evacuation of the string to
atmospheric pressure must be assumed for the internal pressure profile. This condition
represents a blowout where the internal pressure due to an uncontrolled gas flow is very low.
It should be noted, however, that during the actual blow-out preceding the full evacuation,
the casing integrity might be reduced. To make the design for this scenario fit for purpose, a
realistic wear margin should be taken into account when selecting the casing.
6.2.3
Burst loads
6.2.3.1 Burst during drilling

Burst loads can occur during the drilling phase due to displacement of the borehole to
hydrocarbons. Theere are, however, a number of special cases to be considered. The base case
and the special cases will be addressed in this section. See Flowchart F-4.
FLOWCHART F-4 : DECISION TREE FOR BURST LOAD CASES, DRILLING PHASE APPLIES TO
CONDUCTOR CASING, SURFACE OR INTERMEDIATE CASING/LINER

The worst-case internal pressure loading is that following a complete loss of primary control
[4] corresponding to full displacement of the casing to gas and the well closed-in at surface.
The internal pressure profile is based on a gas gradient taken from the pore pressure at TD.
If the gas water contact (GWC) in the structure is known, the chosen gradient should be
assumed to originate from this depth. See Figure F-10.
Where more information is available about the behaviour of the hydrocarbon phase, e.g. via
PVT data from offset wells, a field-specific gas gradient should be used (see Chapter C).
When hydrocarbons with a very low gas/oil ratio are encountered, the relevant oil gradient
may be used (see Figure F-11). Although hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will
separate out once the well is shut in, it is very difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure
profile for this case. Hence, the approach for the worst-case internal pressure loading
described above should be used.
FIGURE F-10 CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE FOR BURST IN DRILLING
PHASE DETERMINED BY GAS GRADIENT

PHASE DETERMINED BY OIL GRADIENT
The resultant pressure at the casing shoe should be compared with the formation breakdown
pressure (FBP) at that depth. If the pressure is in excess of the highest anticipated FBP the
internal pressure profile should be reduced accordingly. The hydrocarbon gradient will then
extend upwards from this highest anticipated FBP at the casing shoe. See Figure F-12.
(See section 2 2.1 b).
c) Special cases
Over-pressured aquifer in borehole below casing
When only an over-pressured aquifer is encountered, the internal pressure profile will be that
due to full displacement of the wellbore to formation water, with the well closed in at surface.
The pressure calculations are based on a pressure line with the formation-water gradient,
drawn from pore pressure at the top of the aquifer.
The resultant pressure at the casing shoe should be compared with the formation breakdown
pressure (FBP) at that depth. If the pressure is in excess of the highest anticipated FBP the
internal pressure profile should be reduced accordingly. The pressure line with water
gradient will then extend upwards from this highest anticipated FBP at casing shoe. See
Figure F-13.
FIGURE F-12 CORRECTION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE FOR BURST IN DRILLING PHASE
See section 2.2.1 (b) for the construction of the external pressure profile.
Salt loading
Salt loading is a time-dependent phenomenon and since its onset cannot be accurately
predicted, it should be assumed absent when calculating the external pressure profile for a
burst scenario. This is just the opposite of the rule given in section 2.2 for collapse scenarios.
The internal pressure profile is that resulting from displacement of the casing to
hydrocarbons as described in section 2.3.1 a) or to water as described for the case of the
overpressured acquifer above.
6.2.3.2 Burst during production
Burst loading during the production phase will generally depend on whether the load is above or
below the production packer. Burst loads above the production packer are usually a result of
tubing failure. There are however, a number of special cases to be considered. The base case
and the special cases will be addressed in this section. See Flowchart F-5.
FLOWCHART F-5 : DECISION TREE FOR BURST LOAD CASES, PRODUCTION PHASE APPLIES TO
PRODUCTION CASING/LINER

PHASE, WITH OVERPRESSURED AQUIFER

Above the production packer
The maximum internal pressure profile experienced by the production casing will be that
resulting from a leak in the production/injection tubing or test string at or near the surface.
The appropriate surface pressure will then be imposed on the packer fluid. The gradient of
the pressure line is determined by the density of the fluid between the tubing and the casing
at the time.
For production wells, the maximum surface pressure will be the closed-in tubing-head
pressure (CITHP), which should be based in the worst case on a column of gas extending
from the pressure at TD. If the gas-water contact (GWC) in the structure is known, the
pressure line with the chosen gradient should be assumed to originate from this depth. See
Figure F-14.
Where more information is available about the behaviour of the hydrocarbon phase, e.g. via
PVT data from offset wells, a reservoir specific gas gradient should be used. See Chapter C.
may be used. Although hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will separate out once the
well is shut in, it is very difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure profile for this case.
Hence, the maximum CITHP based on a gas column extending from the pressure at TD
should be assumed. A suitable margin should be included in the CITHP if squeeze kill
operations are to be considered.
FIGURE F-14 CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE FOR BURST IN PRODUCTION
PHASE, WITH PRODUCTION-TUBING FAILURE AT SURFACE
For injection wells, or wells where stimulation treatment may be performed, the maximum
surface pressure will be the injection-tubing-head pressure (ITHP) during the respective
operations. See Figure F-15. The ITHP resulting from stimulation treatment need only be
considered when annuli cannot be monitored.
FIGURE F-15: CONSTRUCTION OR INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILES FOR BURST IN

PRODUCTION PHASE, WITH INJECTION-TUBING FAILURE AT SURFACE
Below the production packer

The internal pressure profile below the packer for a production well is that corresponding to
full displacement of this section of the casing to hydrocarbons. Worst-case pressure
calculations should be based on a pressure line with gas gradient extending from the
pressure at TD. If the GWC in the structure is known, the chosen pressure line should be
assumed to originate from this depth.
Where more information is available about the hydrocarbon phase behaviour, e.g. via PVT
data from offset wells, a reservoir-specific gas gradient should be used. See Chapter C.
may be used. Although hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will separate out once the
well is shut in, it is very difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure profile for this case.
Hence, the maximum loading based on a gas column extending from the pressure at TD
should be assumed. A suitable margin should be included if squeeze kill are to be
considered. See Figure F-14.
For an injection well, or wells where stimulation treatment may be performed, the internal
pressure profile below the packer should be that resulting from injection operations. See
Figure F-15.
b)

See section 2.2.2 (b).
c)
Special cases
Gas-lift wells
For gas lift completions, the most severe internal pressure loading above the packer is that
generated during the kick-off process, when the kick-off pressure is applied to the top of the
packer fluid.
Salt loading
Salt loading is a time-dependent phenomenon and since its onset cannot be accurately
predicted, it should be assumed absent when calculating the external pressure profile for a
burst scenario.
Gas-lift pressure on intermediate casing
In gas-lift wells, a leak in the production casing may impose the lift-gas injection pressure on
the annulus fluid column between the production casing and the intermediate casing. Special
attention should be paid to the internal pressure profile for this latter casing in subsea well
design where control of this pressure is not possible [5].
6.3
Installation loads
6.3.1
Introduction
Now that the casing string has been designed to withstand the anticipated collapse and burst
loads, it should be checked against the loads (resulting in the stresses a, t, r, ) that will be
experienced during the installation of this pressure vessel, and against the loads experienced
during cementation and pressure testing (resulting in the stresses r, t, a). Such loads are
calculated on the basis that the string is fixed (suspended) at surface but free to move at the
shoe. See Figure F-16.
These loads should include:
a)
self weight (in air) loads;
b)
pressure (buoyancy) loads;
c)
bending loads;
d)
dynamic drag loads;
e)
shock loads;
f)
point loads;
g)
static drag loads.
Temperature effects do not lead to additional stresses in the installation phase since the casing
is free to move at the shoe.
Below a brief description of the origin of these loads is included. The resulting stresses have
been indicated in between brackets. See Figure F-17.
a) Self weight (in air) loads
The self weight load is the load imposed on the string by gravitational effects (a). This load
depends on the weight per unit length of the string and the suspended vertical length below a
point at the pipe axis.
b)
Pressure (buoyancy) loads

The pressure load, which results when casing is submerged in the drilling fluid, mud and/or
cement, is generally referred to as the buoyancy load (a, r, t). This load is the result of the
integration of the hydrostatic pressure over the submerged internal, external and free-end
surface of the casing. It will depend on the density of the fluid(s) in which the casing is
submerged, the presence of any applied surface pressures, and the vertical depth of the
casing.
FIGURE F-16 : DESIGN LOADS AND RESULTING STRESSES FOR THE THREE DESIGN STAGES
FIGURE F-17 STRESSES IN CASING WALL
Typical examples are the dynamic pressure loads generated when circulating mud prior to a
cement job and during the actual cementation. The hydrostatic pressure load caused by the
difference in fluid densities, acting on the sealing casing shoe after the cementation, also
falls in this category.
c)
Bending loads
Bending of the pipe through any curved portion of the hole will induce bending stresses in
the pipe walls (a). Such stresses will be tensional in the outer or convex wall and
compressional in the inner or concave wall. Bending is induced directly by the well path. The
drilled well trajectory may be intentional, as with a build-up or drop-off, hut may equally be
inadvertent due to changes in formation, dip, drilling assembly, or applied drilling operation.
d) Dynamic drag loads

Dynamic drag loads are the result of sliding resistance between the casing and the borehole
wall. The velocity profile at the point of contact results in axial and tangential drag force
components. Hence, drag loads may result in torsional () and axial stresses (a). Drag loads
can vary considerably as a function of hole conditions, hole and casing geometry, and the
mud system in use.
e) Shock loads
When a casing that is being run into the hole is suddenly obstructed at a point somewhere
along the casing, two shock waves will be generated an upward travelling compression
wave above the contact point and a downward travelling tension wave below that point (a).
A similar effect occurs when the casing is being pulled out-of-hole and it is suddenly stopped.
Then the tension wave will travel upwards the compression wave downwards. The origin of
shock load can be found in for example the spider elevator early closing or the casing string
hanging up on a ledge.
f)
Point loads
Point loads, in the installation phase, result usually from operational activities related to
pressure testing (a, r, t). For example, pressure testing using retrievable packers or
directly after the cement displacement.
g) Static drag loads

These drag loads, referring to the remaining stresses after casing movement, have an
influence on the distribution of stresses within the casing after it has stopped moving (a).
Evaluation of these loads requires a knowledge of the movement "history" of the casing.
Subsequent behaviour of the casing depends on the magnitude and direction of these
"sliding resistance' loads.
The casing design should be checked against the combination of these loads that result
when the string is moving, i.e. being run, and against the combination that result when the
string is stationary, i.e. landed off. The applicable loads during these dynamic and static
phases can be determined from the following table:
The following criteria, together with the design parameters, should be used to generate the
load conditions against which the capacity of the earlier generated pressure vessel design
should be checked.
6.3.2
Dynamic loads
The earlier generated casing string should be checked to confirm that it is capable of
withstanding the sum of the loads (a, r, t) within the pipe wall resulting from self weight,
pressure (buoyancy), bending, drag or shock. Any rotational loads () which are experienced
while running the casing to its setting depth should also be checked. Pipe reciprocation/rotation
during cementation is considered part of this phase and is subjected to the same check criteria.
The individual loads should be established applying the following rules:
Self weight (in air) loads
Self weight loads should be calculated from the product of nominal unit weight and the vertical
projection of the well trajectory.
Pressure (buoyancy) loads
Pressure (buoyancy) loads should be based on the lowest anticipated mud/cement pressure
gradient and the vertical projection of the well trajectory.
Bending loads
Bending loads should be based on the planned rate of curvature for a well trajectory increased
with an additional dogleg severity. This additional dogleg severity value should be based on local
Opco-specific experience.
In the absence of such knowledge an additional dogleg severity of 2/100 ft, above the planned
value of rate of curvature for any point in the well trajectory, should be used.
Dynamic drag loads
The incremental axial load, experienced over the self weight load plus the pressure (buoyancy)
load and bending load, due to drag while both running and pulling casing should be estimated.
Additional rotation of casing strings introduces a torque load, the values of which should be
estimated.
In the absence of local Opco-specific knowledge on friction coefficients to establish these loads
the following empirical values should be used:
Water based mud with barytes
Water based mud with dolomite
Oil based mud with barytes
Brine or water
open hole/cased hole

0.30/0.30
0.30/0.25
0.20/0.15
0.30/0.50
Shock loads
Shock loads are to be calculated from the peak casing running velocity which is assumed to be
one and a half times the average casing running speed.
In the absence of Opco-specific information on average running speeds an average running
speed of 13 seconds per 40 ft joint, giving a peak velocity of 4.5 ft/second, should be used. If
such loads are found to be excessive, the casing running speed should be reduced accordingly,
rather than adjusting the casing design.
Potential shock loads during reciprocation are not as severe as those that may be encountered
during installation due to the reduced velocities involved. Here a similar approach should be
followed.
While it is possible that shock and drag loads may occur at the same time, they usually act in the
opposite direction, see Chapter G on Load Determination. For example, while running in, the
drag force gives rise to a compressive load, while a surface shock load caused by kicking in the
slips will give rise to a tensile shock load. On the other hand a compressive shock load, caused
by running into a ridge with the casing shoe, will be damped out rapidly due to the high wall
contact forces that exist in those parts of the casing which experience high drag loads. As a
result, shock and drag loads can be considered to be mutually exclusive, and the larger of the
two should be used in calculating the total dynamic load.
In summary, the maximum expected axial load during the dynamic phase of the installation
phase is the greater of :
The pressure related radial (r) and tangential stresses (t) are usually compared to the axial
stress (a). However, for completeness they may be analysed to derive the Von Mises equivalent
stress (VME).
6.3.3
Static loads
The casing string designed as described above should be checked for ability to with stand the
loads (a, r, t) within the pipe wall resulting from self weight, pressure (buoyancy), bending and
static drag loads. Any point (pressure ) loads (a, t, t) arising during pressure testing should
also be checked, not to exceed the capacity of the casing.
The self-weight, pressure (buoyancy), and bending leads should be analysed as described in
section 3.2. The static drag load is not well known. The design factor, as discussed in Chapter K,
takes this unknown into account. The point (pressure) loads should be analysed for:
i)
any pre-cementation pressure test load (against a retrievable packer);
ii)
any post-cementation pressure test load (against the sealed float shoe).
In summary the maximum expected axial load (a) during the static phase of the installation
phase is the greater of:
The pressure related radial (r) and tangential stresses (t) are mostly low compared to the axial
stress (a). However, for completeness they may be analysed to derive the equivalent stress
(sVME). Specially for the larger OD casing strings the post-cementation collapse load should be
evaluated.
6.4
Service loads
6.4.1
Introduction
The initial casing design, as discussed in section 2, is not an exact reflection of the service loads,
as it assumes that the casing string is not fixed at either end. The pressure loads, on which the
initial design is based, will only occur once the casing has been cemented in place. Under these
circumstances the string is axially fixed at the cemented interval and at the wellhead for subsea
or land wells, while for offshore platform wells some vertical movement is possible. See Figure
F-16.
It must be ensured that the incremental stresses (a, t, r) in the pipe body resulting from
changes in pressure, temperature, and applied point loads relative to the as cemented condition
( a, t, r), do not cause the casing to fail. Also instability, i.e. occurrence of buckling, should
be checked for. Its consequences in terms of additional stresses a) or obstructing geometry for
future operations should be evaluated and corrected, if required.
With respect to stress in the axial direction, the as cemented axial stress, upon which all
subsequent changes are superimposed, is that due to the static load immediately after the
cement slurry has been displaced to its final position. The effect of cement gellation on buoyancy
is not well known [3].
The design factor, as discussed in Chapter K, takes these unknowns into account.
For the uniaxial analysis, calculation of the resulting incremental axial force will enable the total
actual axial force to be compared against the pipe axial capacity. Also the reduced axial force,
Fa*, as introduced in Appendix 6, can then be compared to the critical buckling force. The
collapse and burst loads can be compared to the uniaxial collapse and burst capacities as
documented in API Bull. 5C3 [1] or internal documents [6]. For the more advanced analysis the
equivalent stress (VME) should be compared to the yield strength (y).
The following sections describe the pressure, temperature, and point loads that may result in
incremental stresses for which a design check is required.
Flowchart F-6 gives an overview of the relevant aspects.
6.4.2
Pressure loads
6.4.2.1 Actual axial forces

a) The actual axial force within both uncemented and cemented sections of the casing should
be determined for the burst and collapse load cases as established in the initial pressure
load design.
b) The actual axial force resulting from anticipated changes to the as cemented internal and
external fluid densities should be calculated e.g. increased internal fluid density for deeper
drilling, reduced external fluid density due to mud deterioration with time.
c) The actual axial force resulting from anticipated changes to the as cemented internal and
external surface pressures must be calculated e g. increased external surface pressure due
to a live annulus, increased internal surface pressure due to a pressure test against a
retrievable packer.
6.4.2.2 Collapse and burst loads
a) If in the initial design the poor cement bond scenario was used in the collapse design, the
possibility of a live annulus has already been taken into account.
If however, the good cement bond scenario was adopted, but possible annulus pressures
are to be checked for, a check should be made of the maximum allowable annulus pressure.
Depending upon this pressure, a judgement must be made between design of the casing
and control i.e. bleed-off of any such pressures. Also possible leak off at the casing shoe will
limit the pressure development in the annulus under consideration.
FLOWCHART F-6 : PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE AND POINT LOADS THAT RESULT IN

SIGNIFICANT INCREMENTAL STRESSES
Possible burst of the outer casing and collapse of the inner casing should be addressed
under such circumstances.
b) Some well servicing operations e.g. stimulation treatments result in a considerable increase
in the bottomhole pressure. Any communication path behind the pipe will allow possible
pressurisation to extend outside the zone that is directly affected. This may result in a
collapse load being applied to any casing section which is not itself internally pressured, e.g.
casing above the packer or bridge plug.
It is therefore advisable that the design of the production casing, to be set across the
reservoir subject to stimulation operations, is checked for ability to withstand these
pressures.
6.4.2.3 Reduced axial forces
a) The value of reduced axial force, Fa*, in the uncemented section resulting from changes in
pressure as mentioned in section 4.2.1 should be checked against the critical buckling force.
6.4.3
Temperature loads
6.4.3.1 Actual axial forces

a) The axial force within both cemented and uncemented sections of the casing, resulting from
linear thermal expansion caused by a change in temperature of the casing material, should
be determined. Specially the forces generated by injecting cold fluids can be considerable.
The effect of wellhead thermal growth for offshore platform wells should be taken into
account in such calculations.
b) The axial force resulting from thermal expansion of fluids contained in sealed annuli should
be determined. Whether the casing should be designed to withstand these loads will depend
on the ability to bleed off these pressures. Such pressures will not return once bled off. This
in contrast to pressures caused by a live annulus.
6.4.3.2 Collapse and burst loads
a) Burst and collapse loads resulting from thermal expansion of fluids contained in sealed
annuli should be determined. Whether the casing should be designed to withstand these
loads will depend on the ability to bleed off these pressures. Such pressures will not return
once bled off. This in contrast to pressures caused by a live annulus.
Possible burst of the outer casing and collapse of the inner casing should be addressed
under such circumstances.
a) The value of the reduced axial force in the uncemented section resulting from temperature
changes as mentioned in section 4.3.1 should be checked against the critical buckling force.
6.4.4
Point loads
6.4.4.1 Production packer

The most common example of a point load is that due to a production packer set in the
production casing and to which a load is applied by landing the tubing in compression/tension.
The resulting actual axial force, both above and below the production packer, should be checked.
6.4.4.2 Retrievable packer
A pressure test with a retrievable packer does not only introduce pressure loads onto the casing
but also a change in the axial stress. The resulting axial stress, both above and below the
retrievable packer should be checked.
6.4.4.3 Conductor casing
One particular form of a point load is the surface loading of the conductor casing of any well. The
applied load in this instance is the weight of the inner casing strings, the wellhead and BOP or
Xmas tree, and the completion tubulars.
The value of the reduced axial force in the uncemented section resulting from paint loads as
mentioned in sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 should be checked against the critical buckling
force.
6.5
Reference
[1]
[2]
Wind, J.A., KSEPL
Casing collapse design criteria, partial evacuation., building blocks for the Casing Design
Manual
Note for file 5 DRIG111, 1 June 1992
[3]
Bol, G. and van Vliet, J., KSEPL
Aspects design related to drilling fluids and cement
EP 92-0616
[4]
SIPM, EPO/51
EP 89-1500
[5]
de Meyer, T., Shell Expro
Subsea development casing design
Shell Expro Well Engineering Information Note 177, EP 92-1684
[6]
Ooms, R.J. and Klever, F.J., KSEPL
Evaluation of casing collapse strength formulae
EP 92-0888
7.0
7.1
Load determination
Introduction
This chapter presents the methods for calculating the magnitude of the loads imposed on the
casing as a result of the various load cases described in Chapter F.
The structure of this present chapter parallels that of chapter F with a breakdown into;
a) pressure loads (i.e. burst and collapse)
b) installation loads
b) service loads.
This reflects the overall structure of the casing design process as illustrated in Flowchart G-1.
Pressure loads and installation loads are addressed independently of each other and in a
uniaxial manner. The service loads are calculated by determining the tangential, radial, and axial
stresses in the cemented casing string and string and performing a triaxial stress analysis. The
use of a software program to determine these service loads is demonstrated in Chapter M.
The types of stresses resulting from the three kinds of loads are shown in Figure G-1.
Load determination for the particular cases of stove pipes, foundation piles, marine conductors
and conductors strings is also addressed.
7.2
Pressure loads on casing

Internal and external pressure profiles are generally independent and therefore separate design
loads will be generated following the design criteria as laid down in the relevant chapter. The
comparison of the internal and external pressure loads results in either a collapse load line or in
a burst load line.
In the following paragraphs the methods to quantify the relevant loads will be presented.
FLOWCHART G-1 : STRUCTURE OF DETAILED DESIGN PHASE
FIGURE G-1 DESIGN LOADS AND RESULTING STRESSES FOR THE THREE DESIGN STAGES
7.2.1
Collapse load
The collapse load at any vertical depth z, is the difference between the external pressure and the
internal pressure at that depth.
i.e. Pc(z) = Pe(z) - Pi(z)
for Pe > Pi
(G-1)
The external pressure profile results from the design criterion selected and could be;
Pe(z) = Pes + e.z
where
Pes =
e
external surface pressure
= external fluid density (full fluid column)
Similarly, the internal pressure profile could be given by;

Pi(z) = Pis + iz
where
Pis =
i
internal surface pressure
internal fluid density ( full fluid column)
The collapse pressure profile at any vertical depth z is therefore

Pc(z) = Pe(z) - Pi(z) = (Pes - Pis) + (e - i) z
(G-2)
When represented graphically , this is termed the Collapse Load line
(CLL).
The resulting collapse load line can have one gradient or is composed of sections with different
gradients. The chosen design criterion defines its shape.
Example
Consider a 10,000 ft (3,048 m) vertical string of casing vertical has been partially evacuated. For
simplicity the external fluid gradient is taken at 0.6 psi/ft (13.58 kPa/m). The internal fluid level,
due to evacuation to a loss zone, is 4,000 ft (1,219 m) and the internal fluid density is 0.65 psi/ft
(14.70 kPa/m).
In field units, the external pressure profile is given by;
Pe(z) = ez = 0.6z psi
for 0 < z < 10,000 ft
The internal pressure profile is given by;

Pi(z) = 0 psi
and Pi(z) = i ( z - 4,000 ) = ( 0.65z - 2,600 ) psi
for 0 < z < 4,000 ft

for 4,000 < z < 10,000 ft
The collapse toad line is therefore (from Eq. G-2);

Pc(z) = 0.6z psi
for 0 < z < 4,000 ft
Pc(z) = 2,600 - 0.05z psi
for 4,000 < z < 10,000 ft
Thus the collapse pressure at 4,000 ft will be 2,400 psi, and the collapse pressure at 10,000 ft
will be 2,100 psi (see Figure G-2).
FIGURE G-2: COLLAPSE LOAD LINE CORRESPONDING TO ACCOMPANYING EXAMPLE
In SI units the external pressure profile is given by;

Pe(z)
= ez
for 0 < z < 3,048 m
13.58z kPa
The internal pressure profile is given by;

Pi(z) = 0 kPa
Pi(z)
for 0 < z < 1,219 m
= i ( z-1,219 ) = ( 14.7z - 17,919 ) kPa
The collapse load line is therefore;

Pc(z) = 13.58z kPa
Pc(z)
for 1219 < z < 3,048 m

for 0 < z < 1,219 m
for 1,219 < z < 3,048 m
= 17,919 - 1.12z kPa
Thus the collapse pressure at 1,219 m will be 16,554 kPa, and the collapse pressure at 3,048 m
will be 14,505 kPa.
7.2.2
Burst load
The burst load at any vertical depth, z, is the difference between the internal pressure and the
external pressure at that depth.
Pb(z)
Pi(z) - Pe(z)
for Pi > Pe
(G-3)
Using the design criteria for the internal and external pressure profiles from the previous chapter
that could result in the following burst pressure profile.
Pb(z) = Pi(z) - Pe(z) = (Pis - Pes) + ( i - e) z
(G-4)
When represented graphically, this is termed the Burst Load Line (BLL).
The resulting burst load line can have one gradient or is composed of sections with different
gradients. The chosen design criterion defines its shape.
Example
Consider the case of a vertical 10,000 ft (3,048 m) casing string. For simplicity, the external fluid
gradient is taken at 0.55 psi/ft (12.44 kPa/m). The internal mud weight is then raised to 0.7 psi/ft
(15.83 kPa/m ) for drilling of the next section.
Since the surface pressures are zero, in field units the burst pressure profile is given (from Eq. G4) by;
Pb( z) = ( i - e ) z = 0.15z psi
Thus at 10,000ft the burst load is 1,500 psi (see Figure G-3).
In SI units, the burst pressure profile is given by;
Pb(z) = (i - e) z = 3.39z kPa
Thus, at 3,048 m, the burst load is 10,333 kPa.
7.2.3
Formation load
Laterally moving formations, such as salt, exert a collapse loading on casing. The loading is
generally modelled as a uniform fluid pressure load with a pressure equal to the overburden
pressure. No account is taken of the non-uniformity of these types of loads. See Chapter N
(Special Designs) for more detail.
FIGURE G-3 : BURST LOAD LINE CORRESPONDING TO ACCOMPANYING EXAMPLE
Near-vertical formation loads, such as compaction are complex and usually estimated using
computer models. The program CASINT is available for these purposes [l]. See Chapter N
(Special Designs) for more detail.
7.3
Installation loads
Loads, which are relevant for the installation in phase are made up of some or of the following.
According to the principle of superposition, see Appendix 6, these loads can be added
algebraically. Chapter F (Design Loads) defines which loads should be considered for the
dynamic or the static load determination.
- self-weight (in air) loads
- pressure (buoyancy ) loads
- bending loads
- dynamic drag loads
- shock loads
- static drag loads
- temperature loads
In the following paragraphs the methods to quantify the relevant loads will be presented.
7.3.1
Self-weight (in air)

The self weight (in air) load is the load imposed on the casing string by gravitational effects. This
load depends on the weight per unit length and the suspended length below the point under
consideration.
When referring to casing weight, it is common practice to use the API Nominal Unit Weight as
defined in API Bull. 5C3 [2]. This figure is based on the calculated theoretical weight of a 20 ft
length of threaded and coupled pipe divided by its length. Together with the allowable
dimensional tolerances, according to API Spec. 5CT [3], this means that the actual measured
unit weight of an individual pipe length may vary from -4% to +8%. However, the design factor
will allow for this variation and for the calculation of the self-weight (in air) load the nominal value
can be used.
The calculation of the self-weight (in air) load of a curved casing string, in a frictionless hole
ignoring the additional normal force created by the stiffness of the pipe, is addressed in Appendix
7. In this appendix it is demonstrated that the contribution of the self-weight (in air) load to the
total axial force can be calculated from the vertical projection of the well. Thus, wells A, B, C and
D shown in Figure G-4 would all make the same contribution to the axial force at any vertical
depth. Find below the application of Appendix 7 for three specific cases.
FIGURE G-4 : AXIAL FORCE DUE TO SELF-WEIGHT OF CASING IN AIR DEPENDS ONLY ON
VERTICAL PROJECTION
a) Vertical well
For a vertical well, the string weight in air at any point in the string is simply the product of
the nominal weight per foot and the length of casing below that point:
Fa (z) = wn (ZL-z)
(G-5)
b) Straight inclined well

For a straight inclined well , consider a section of casing inclined at an angle to the vertical
as illustrated in Figure G-5 . The weight of the section is the measured length, L, multiplied
by the nominal weight, Wn: WnL. The component of this lead along the axis of the casing is
given by wnL cos and must be balanced by the force at surface, Fa. The component of the
weight normal to the casing axis, WnL sin, must be balanced by a reaction force from the
borehole wall. L cos is equal to the true vertical projection of the section Z L. Thus, the axial
force at surface resulting from the weight of the casing is given by:
Fa(o) = wn ZL
Thus, for straight but inclined wells, the axial force at surface resulting from the weight of the
casing is the product of the nominal weight per foot and the true vertical projection of the
casing length. Similarly, for any point along the casing, corresponding to a true vertical depth
z, the axial force at that point is the nominal weight multiplied by the true vertical length of the
casing below that point:
Fa(z) = wn (ZL-z)
FIGURE G-5 : WEIGHT IN AIR FOR VERTICAL WELL, STRAIGHT INCLINED

WELL AND CURVED WELL
c)
Curved well
Analysis of the axial load due to self-weight in air in a curved well is demonstrated in
Appendix 7. By ignoring the fluid densities and the surface pressures, it can be derived from
Eq. App. 7-3 that the axial load due to self-weight at any point, s, along the casing is:
Hence for any point along the casing, corresponding to a true vertical z, the axial force at
that point is the nominal weight multiplied by the true vertical length of the casing below that
point:
Fa (z) = wn (ZL-z)
7.3.2
Pressure (buoyancy)
In Appendix 6, buoyancy related loads have been explained as a result of hydrostatic pressures
acting on the casing surfaces. Appendix 7 calculates these pressure loads and derives the
general equation for the axial lead in a submerged curved casing string, suspended in a
frictionless hole ignoring the additional normal force created by the stiffness of the pipe.
In this Appendix 7, it is demonstrated that the contribution of the pressure loads to the axial force
can be calculated from the vertical projection of the well. Find below the application of Appendix
7 for three specific cases.
It should be noted that the as landed pressure (buoyancy) load is always calculated from the fluid
columns present at the end of the casing cementation. The effect of cement gelation on
buoyancy loads are not well known [4]. The design factor, as discussed in Chapter K, takes
these unknowns into account.
a)
Vertical well
For an open-ended casing of length L, wall cross-sectional area As, suspended in a fluid of
density f, the upward pressure (buoyancy) load, FB, is given by Eq. App. 6-16;
FB = f ZL As
The axial force at any depth, z, is given by Eq. App. 6-18;
Fa (z) = wn (ZL - z) - f ZL As
At the end of a casing cementation however, before the cement sets, the pressures exerted
by the hydrostatic columns inside and outside the casing will generally be different. See
Figure G-6. The pressure, Pe, due to the contents of the casing annulus (cement and mud)
will be higher than the pressure, Pi, due to the contents of the casing (mud). This differential
pressure will be exerted across the sealing float shoe, and will affect the pressure
(buoyancy) load acting upon the casing. This pressure (buoyancy) load, FB, is now given by
Eq. App. 6-19 ;
FB = [PeAe - PiAi] L
where the subscript L denotes that the pressure term is evaluated at L and
Pe = mud Zc + (ZL - Zc) cem
Pi = ZL mud
where Zc is the depth of the top of cement.
Thus the general expression for the axial force at a depth, z, is (from Eq. App. 6-20);
Fa(z) = wn (ZL - z) - [PeAe - PiAi] L
FIGURE G-6
FLUID COLUMNS AFTER COMPLETION OF CEMENT JOB
b) Straight inclined well

For a straight inclined well, as for a vertical well, the buoyancy (pressure) load acting on the
casing is the integral of the pressure loads acting normally to the exposed surfaces of the
casing. Consider a section of open-ended inclined casing, of measured length L at an angle
to the vertical of , suspended in a fluid of density f (as illustrated in Figure G-7).
FIGURE G-7 PRESSURE (BUOYANCY) LOAD FOR VERTICAL WELL, STRAIGHT INCLINED WELL
AND CURVED WELL
The resulting pressure load acting along the casing axis will be given by Eq. App.6-16;
FB = f ZL As
Thus the axial force at surface Fa, will be given by Eq. App. 6-17;
Fa(o)= wnL cos - f ZL As = wnZL - f ZL As
Thus the axial force at surface is equal to the axial force for a vertical casing string of length
ZL, i.e. the vertical projection of the measured length L.
Since the pressure load acts along the entire length of the casing, the axial force at any
depth z is given by Eq. App. 6-18;
Fa(z) = Wn (ZL - z) - f ZL As
In the event that the casing has a closed end, the force is given by Eq. App. 6-20;
Fa(z) = wn (ZL - z) - [PeAe - PiAi] L
where Pe and Pi are evaluated at vertical depth ZL.
Integration of the pressure loads normal to the circumference of the inclined casing does
give a resultant load normal to the axis of the casing as shown in Appendix 7.
Summarising, for a straight but inclined well, the submerged weight at any point in the casing
string can be calculated by considering the vertical projection of the well.
c)
Curved well
Analysis of the axial load in a submerged casing string in a curved well is demonstrated in
Appendix 7. It can be derived from Eq. App. 7-3 that the axial load at any point along the
casing is:
Hence, for any point along the submerged casing string in a curved well is vertical depth z,
the axial force at that point can be calculated by considering the vertical projection of the
well:
Fa(z) = wn (ZL - z) - [Pe Ae - Pi Ai] L
7.3.3
Bending load
Bending affects axial force by increasing tension in the outer, convex casing wall and by reducing
tension in the inner concave wall. By the principle of superposition, as explained in Appendix 6,
the axial force caused by bending can be added to those due to self-weight (in air) and pressure
(buoyancy) loads.
The maximum additional axial stress due to bending can be calculated as follows. See Figure G8.
From simple proportions it follows that;
L L R d0 / 2
=
L
R
Hence, bo =
d
L
= 0
L
2R
(G-8)
where bo is the strain due to bending at the external casing surface of the outer convex casing
wall.
FIGURE G-8: MODEL FOR CALCULATING EFFECT OF BENDING ON STRESS IN CASING WALL
From Hooke's Law (Eq. App. 6-5), it follows that the stress due to bending at the external surface
of the convex wall is:
bo =
Ed 0
2R
(G-9)
The stress due to bending at the external surface of the concave wall has the same magnitude,
but opposite sign.
Since it is customary to work with the dogleg severity, rather than the radius of curvature, R, an
expression in the dogleg severity will be derived for this bending stress.
With expressed in degrees it follows that:
R=
360
L
2
In field units, for steel and with a dogleg severity, in /100 ft, it can be derived that:
R=
360
68,755
x 100 x 12 =
[in]
2
Then:
bo = 218 do [psi]
Expressing this bending stress as an equivalent axial force, with do in inches and A, in inches,
results in:
Fb = 218 do As [Ib]
(G-10)
In SI units, for steel and with a dogleg severity, , in /10 m, it can be derived that:
R=
360
573
x 10 =
[m]
2
Then:
bo = 183 x 106 do [Pa]
Expressing this bending stress in an equivalent axial force, with do in m and As, in m2 results in:
Fb = 183 x 106 do As [N]
Example
(G-11)
For a 9-5/8in ( 0.2445 m ) 47 lb/ft ( 69.9 kg/m) casing with As = 13.57 in (8.754 x 10-3 m ) bent
through a dogleg of 5/100 ft (1.64/10 in), the equivalent axial bending force would be, in field
units, using Eq. G-10;
Fb = 218 x 9.625 x 5 x 13.57 = 142,366 lb
In SI units using, Eq. G-11;
6
-3
Fb = 183 x 10 x 0.2445 x 1.64 x 8.754 x 10 = 642,363 N
If the above casing already had a tensile load of 500,000 lb (2,224,000 N), then the maximum
load experienced would be an equivalent force of 642,366 lb (2,866,363 N) at the external
surface of the convex wall. At the external surface of the concave wall, the equivalent force
would be reduced to 357,634 lb (1,581,637 N).
It should be noted that bending loads are independent of well inclination.
Current design methods rarely take into account any casing ovality that may occur in high dogleg
severities and influence collapse capacity. Casing ovality that occurs as a result of manufacturing
tolerances and doglegs is included in the recent work by Shell Research, Rijswijk on collapse
strength [5].
The high additional bending stresses in high dogleg severities created by non-externally flush
casing couplings due to Bending Stress Magnification [6] - can be estimated using the computer
program CASBEND.
7.3.4
Dynamic drag
Dynamic drag loads should be estimated using the DRAGTORQ computer program part of
OSCP [7]. The theory of drag loading is briefly discussed below, followed by an example.
The total friction force, Ffric is the product of the total force normal to the axis of the casing, F n,
and the friction coefficient . The direction of the total friction force is opposite to the direction of
velocity.
The velocity profile at any point of the casing may consist of two components;
- tripping speed
- rotating speed.
In the majority of casing design applications, rotation will not be present, and hence the total
friction force will act entirely in the axial direction. This is usually called drag. When the pipe is
rotated only, as for a liner cementation with a rotating liner hanger the total friction force will be
manifested as torque at surface. There is no axial drag force because there is no movement in
the axial direction.
For simultaneous rotation and reciprocation of a liner during a cementation, the size of the axial
component of the total friction force (the drag) and the torque will depend on the relative
magnitudes of the rotating and reciprocating speeds.
Consider a horizontal pipe being pulled at a velocity Vtrip, and then the same pipe being pulled at
Vtrip and rotated simultaneously at rotations per unit time. See Figure G-9. In both cases a)
and b) the total normal load acting at the contact surface is W, the weight of the pipe, and the
magnitude of the resulting total friction force will be the product of W and the friction coefficient .
The direction of this force will however, be different. Consider the respective velocity and force
vector diagrams in Figure G-9.
In case b), since the direction of the total friction force is opposite to the direction of velocity, the
angle defining the velocity direction will be determined by the relative magnitudes of the
rotational and axial velocities, i.e.
tan =
V trip
Vrot
Vtrip
d
where do is the outer pipe diameter and the number of rotations per unit time.
Thus, the axial component, Fax, of the total friction force, Ffric, is given by:
FIGURE G-9 : TOTAL FRICTIONAL FORCE
The rotational component, Frot, of the total frictional force, Ffric, is given by :
Hence the torque, included by the total friction force is :

T = Frot x do/2
(G-14)
This torque, as discussed in Appendix 6, will result in a shear stress at radius r within the casing
material.
Example
Consider a 7 in (0.1778 m) liner being pulled at a constant velocity of 1 ft/sec (0.3048 m/sec) and
a total friction force of 50,000 lb (222,400 N) is calculated at the liner top. If the pipe is rotated at
30 r.p.m., the axial component of the total friction force would be (from Eq. G-12);
In field units:
The torque component of the total friction force would be (from Eq. G-14):
At the top section of this 29 lb/ft liner, the calculated shear stress (from Eq. App. 6-4):
at r = ro = 3.500 in
2 x 12 x 9850 x 3.50
(3.50 4 3.092 4 )
=4,490 psi
at r = ri = 3.092 in
2 x 12 x 9850 x 3.092
(3.50 4 3.092 4 )
= 3,966 psi
In SI unit ;
The torque component of the total frictional force would be ;
At the top section of this 43.1kg/m liner, the calculated shear stress is (from Eq. App. 6-4);
at r = ro = 0.0889 m
2 x 13,357 x 0.0889
= 30,871 kPa
(0.0889 4 0.0785 4 )
at r = ri = 0.0785 m
2 x13,357 x0.0785
= 27,259 kPa
(0.0889 4 0.0785 4 )
7.3.5
Shock load
When a casing that is being run into the hole is suddenly obstructed at a point somewhere along
the casing, two shock waves will be generated: an upwards travelling compression wave above
the contact point and a downwards travelling tension wave below that point. A similar effect
occurs when the casing is being pulled out-of-hole and it is suddenly stopped. Then the tension
wave will travel upwards and the compression wave downwards. The origin of shock load can be
found in for example the spider elevator early closing or the casing string hanging up on a ledge
or the casing string jumping off a ledge.
The velocity of the shock wave is equal to the speed of sound in steel, and the stress associated
with this shock wave, s, is given in Eq. App. 8-2.
From this equation it follows that the highest possible additional axial force in the pipe due to the
shock load, Fs, is:
(G-15)
where
s =
the density of steel
Vp =
Young's modulus
As = wall cross-sectional area
peak velocity of pipe
Since the peak velocity, Vp, can generally be assumed to be one and a half times the average
casing running speed, Vav, the maximum axial force due to shock loading is:
For steel an in field units this results in:

Fs = 2700 x Vav As [lb]
(G-16)
with Vav in ft/s and As in inch.

For steel and in SI units this results in:
7
Fs = 6.1 x 10 x Vav As :[N]
(G-17)
with Vav in m/s and As in m.

This analysis gives a conservative estimate since it assumes a deceleration of the casing string
in a infinitely short time. In reality this will not be the case since the object that stops the casing
will always have some degree of flexibility. However, it is extremely difficult to estimate the
amount of conservatism and it is advised that above approach is adhered to.
Example
For 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) 47 lb/ft (69.9 kg/m) casing, with As = 13.57 inch (8.754 x 10 -3 m), run at
20 seconds per 40 ft (12.2 m) joint the maximum additional axial force due to shock loading is
given by;
In field units, using Eq. G-16:
Fs = 2700 x 2 x 13.57 = 73,278 lb
In SI units, using Eq. G-17:
Fs = 6.1 x 107 x 0.61 x 8.754 x 10-3 = 325,736 N
7.3.6
Point load
A point load is typically that due to a packer set in the casing and to which a tensile or
compressive load has been applied. Alternatively, the applied load could be a pressure load, eg.
during a pressure test against a packer. For all these situations the string is only suspended at
surface and not yet cemented in place, i.e. there is no fixed end downhole.
Consider the situation where a packer has been set on drillpipe at a true vertical depth Zp in a
casing string of total vertical depth ZL suspended in a fluid of density f. An upward load of Wp is
then applied to the packer. The axial force at any depth z below the packer is given (as before)
by Eq. App. 6-18;
Fa = Wn (ZL - z) - FB
for Zp < z Z L
Above the point load, the axial force is given by;

Fa = Wn (ZL - z) - FB - W p
for 0 z < Zp
(G-18)
If a surface test pressure, PT, is applied across the full internal cross-sectional area, Ai, above a
packer the axial force above the point load is (see Figure G-10);
Fa = Wn (ZL - z) - FB + P TAi
7.3.7
for 0 z < Z p
(G-19)
Static drag
These are drag loads which continue to have an influence on the distribution of forces and
stresses within the casing after it has stopped moving. Evaluation of these loads requires a
knowledge of the movement history of the casing. Subsequent behaviour of the casing depends
on the magnitude and direction of these loads. These loads are assumed to be absent in vertical
wells.
This area of analysis is complex and at present can only be performed by computerised
numerical techniques [11].
7.3.8
Temperature load
Increased temperature causes the casing to increase in length, and the ability of the casing move
to accommodate this change determines the resulting stresses. In the installation phase, for
uncemented casing which is free to elongate, no additional stress will result. The amount of
elongation is derived below.
FIGURE G-10 VARIATION WITH DEPTH OF AXIAL FORCE DUE TO A POINT LOAD APPLIED ABOVE
A PACKER
If an element, of casing length dz, is subjected to a temperature increase T, the element will
expand by an amount given by;
T dz
where is the coefficient of linear expansion of the material. A value of 6.9 x 10 per degree
-5
Fahrenheit (1.24 x 10 per degree Centigrade) is appropriate for steel.
-6
Since the change in temperature, T , will generally be different for each element, dz, the above
expression must be integrated over the entire length of the casing to find the total change in
length.
If we consider a situation in a vertical well where the surface temperature is Ts, then the change
in temperature at depth z will be given by;
T = (Ts + g iz) - Ts = giz
(G-20)
where gi is the thermal gradient of the hole into which the casing is run.
Integrating over the whole length L to find the length change L
Example
For a 10,000 ft (3,048 m) string run into a hole with a thermal gradient of 0.02F/ft, (0.036C/m)
then the change in length is (from Eq. G-21), in field units;
-6
6.9 x 10 x 0.02 x 10,0002
L =
6.9 x 10 6 x 0 .02 x 10,000 2

= 6.9ft
2
In SI units;
L=
7.3.9
1.24 x 10 5 x 0.036 x 3,048 2

= 2.1m
2
Maximum installation load

For each point along the string, it must be confirmed that the casing can accommodate the
maximum force that the string at that point will have seen during installation. This is best
achieved by considering self-weight, buoyancy, and bending first, and then adding shock or drag
loads later by the principle of superposition.
Consider a point X in a vertical casing string, an arbitrary distance y from the shoe. As the string
is run, the axial force at point X is illustrated in Figure G-11. As described earlier, the axial force
at any point is given by the weight in air of the casing below that point corrected for the pressure
(buoyancy) load. As a string is run deeper into a well, and the hydrostatic pressure at the shoe
increases, the pressure (buoyancy) load will increase. As a result, since the weight in air below X
is constant, the axial force at point X will decrease. The maximum static axial force experienced
by any point in the string during installation, therefore, is the force present when that point is at
surface. If the maximum static axial force experienced by any point in the string during
installation is plotted against its final as landed depth, line 4 results.
This holds for a vertical well. For deviated wells, the true vertical projection of the casing length
should be used in all calculations.
In a deviated well, or vertical well with localised doglegs, all casing that has to pass through a
dog leg must be designed to withstand the bending loads imposed. For each point in the string it
is necessary to calculated the sum of the buoyant axial load and the bending load as that point
passes through the dogleg. Since the bending load will be constant through the dog leg, the
maximum combined load will coincide with the maximum buoyant axial load over the dogleg
interval. This latter load will always be at the top of the dogleg interval, when the string is landed.
In Figure G-12, for a well which has a constant dog leg of 5/100 ft (1.64/10 m) below the kickoff point, line 5 represents the maximum installation axial force, i.e. buoyant weight plus bending
experienced by each point along the casing referenced to its final depth. It can be seen that
adding the bending force to line 4 overestimates the maximum load by a constant amount.
Similarly, adding the bending force to line 3, gives a line that corresponds to the axial force at
each point in the casing once installed, but underestimates the maximum axial force
experienced by each point in the casing during installation- except at the top of the build-up
section.
FIGURE G-11: MAXIMUM STATIC INSTALLATION LOAD AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH FOR A

VERTICAL WELL
For a combination string, which will experience different bending loads and will have different
tensile capacities along its length, it will be necessary to plot the maximum experienced load line
when installing the string to ensure sufficient capacity is present at all depths. This is specially
important for the running of liners through high build-up sections into straight inclined sections.
Example
Consider the following example as an illustration of the difference between installation axial
loads and as landed axial loads.
A well has the profile shown in Figure G-13. It is necessary to examine the axial loads in a
string of 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) 47 lb/ft (69.9 kg/m) casing run in 0.65 psi/ft (14.7 kPa/m) mud to
8,000 ft TVD(2,438 m).
FIGURE G-12: MAXIMUM STATIC INSTALLATION LOAD AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH FOR A

DEVIATED WELL
FIGURE G-13: WELL PROFILE CORRESPONDING TO ACCOMPANYING EXAMPLE
The force due to bending is given, in field units, by Eq. G-10;

For = 5/100 ft
Fb = 218 x 9.625 x 5 x 13.57 = 142,366 lb
For = 2/100 ft
Fb = 218 x 9.625 x 2 x 13.57 = 56,947 lb
In SI units, using Eq. G-11;

For = 1.64/10 m
Fb = 183 x 106 x 0.2445 x 1.64 x 8.754 x 10-3 = 642,363 N
For = 0.66/10 m
Fb = 183 x 106 x 0.2445 x 0.66 x 8.754 x 10-3 = 258,512 N
All casing that will eventually sit below 2000 ft TVD (610m) will have to pass through the 5/100 ft
(1.64/10 m) dog leg and must be designed accordingly. It can be shown that the static forces
experienced during installation (excluding drag and shock loads) are greater than those as
landed, particularly for those sections that will eventually be below 4,000 ft TVD (1,219 m).
Consider such a point in the casing which, when landed, will be 2000 ft TV (610 m) above the
shoe. As the casing is run, the maximum force experienced by that point will be as the point
passes the kick-off depth. For the purpose of this example, assume that the point of interest,
when at the kick-off depth, is 2400 ft TV (731 m) above the shoe. At that time, the axial force at
that point is given by the weight in air of the string below that point, minus the buoyancy force. In
field units, from Eq. App. 6-18;
Fa = (2400 x 47) - (4400 x 0.65 x 13.57) = 73,990 lb
The bending force due to the 5/100 ft dogleg must be added to give a total force of 216,356 lb.
When that point is in the as landed condition the axial force due to the buoyant weight will be,
from Eq. App. 6-18;
Fa = (2000 x 47) - (8000 x 0.65 x 13.57) = 23,436 lb
The bending force due to the 2/100 ft dogleg must be added to give a total of 80,383 lb.
In SI units;
With the point of interest at the kick-off depth:
3
-3
Fa = (731 x 9.8 x 69.9) - (1341 x 14.7 x 10 x 8.754 x 10 ) = 328,185 N
The bending force due to the 1.64/10 in dogleg must be added to give a total force of 970,548
N.
When that point is in the as landed condition:
Fa = (610 x 9.8 x 69.9) - (2438 x 14.7 x l03 x 8.754 x 10-3 ) = 104,131 N
The bending force due to the 0.66/10 in dogleg must be added to give a total force of 362,643
N.
7.4
Service loads
The previous section presented the methods to quantify the installation and as-landed loads. The
purpose of this section is to present methods to quantify the changes in stress in the cemented
casing due to departure from the as-cemented conditions caused by changes in pressure and
temperature. The temperature related service loads and the estimation of the increase in annulus
pressures is discussed in detail in Appendix 9.
The resulting changes in stress should be added to the as-cemented stress to result in a new
stress state.
The as-cemented stress state should be calculated using the casing weight and pressures
resulting from fluid columns present at the end of the casing cementation. This is because the
effects of cement gellation on buoyancy loads are not well known [8]. The design factor, as
discussed in Chapter K takes these unknowns into account.
In the following paragraphs the methods to quantify the changes in stresses will be presented for
a limited number of service loads. However, it will become clear that the manual solution of these
problems is cumbersome. The presented equations are meant to allow a first order
approximation of the relevant stresses, but computing tools should assist where in depth analysis
is required [9, 10, 11].
7.4.1
Changes in tangential stress

As described in Appendix 6 the tangential stress, t , is solely dependent on the internal and
external pressures.
As a result, change in this stress, can only result from pressure changes. Thus, from the Lam
equations(Eq. App. 6-1 and Eq. App. 6-2);
t =
7.4.2
Pi A i Pe A e
A A
+ ( Pi - Pe ) e i
AsA
As
( G-22 )
Changes in radial stress

As described in Appendix 6 the radial stress, r, is solely dependent on the internal and external
pressures.
As a result, change in this stress, can only result from pressure changes. Thus, from the Lam
equations again;
r =
Pi A i Pe A e
A A
+ ( Pi - Pe ) e i
As
AsA
( G-23 )
7.4.3
Changes in axial stress

The general equation will be developed for the change in axial stress in a partially cemented
string due to a departure from the as-cemented conditions. A modified form of this general
equation will then be presented for a variety of common drilling and production operations
conditions.
The following analysis is based on a number of assumptions. See Figure G-14.
i)
the cement sheath fully restrains the cemented section of casing in the axial direction. Hence
the following applies over the cement sheath:
a(z) = 0;
ii) the uncemented section has two fixed points: one at surface and one at the top of cement.
Hence the following applies over the uncemented section:
iii) The cement sheath prevents large radial displacements but allows small radial
displacements, i.e. buckling and bending are not allowed but ballooning is. Hence the
following applies for the total string: equal to 0.
FIGURE G-14: MODEL FOR CALCULATION OF AXIAL STRESS CHANGES
The same considerations, as described in Appendix 7, with respect to well profile (vertical,
inclined, and curved sections) apply to the uncemented sections as to the suspended casing in
the installation phase. That is, inclined sections should be projected into the vertical such that
true vertical depths are used in the following analysis. The behaviour of curved uncemented
phase sections when subjected to changing conditions is much more complex and requires
computerised solution techniques [11]. However, a first approximation can be made by also
projecting the curved section into the vertical plane.
Well profile is not a consideration in cemented sections since the casing is assumed to be axially
restrained. The wellpath can therefore be projected into the vertical for all profiles. It is
highlighted that the point where the casing is axially fixed, Zc, is selected with due attention.
7.4.3.1 Fundamental equation

From Hooke's Law we have Eq. App.6-6 ;
Similarly ;
From Eq. App. 6-9 we can obtain :

r + t =
2 (Pi A i APe A e )
As
So ;
Generally ;
i(z) = zi + i+is
for 0 < z ZL
e(z) = ze + es
for 0 < z ZL
where i , e are the changes in fluid density (and are assumed to be independent of z) and
is, es are the changes in surface pressure.
Thus;
This equation is valid for vertical and inclined sections as long as true vertical depths are used.
a)
Uncemented section (0 z < Z c)

For a fixed wellhead the governing condition is that the total length change is zero, i.e.
where Zc is the depth of the top of cement.

Therefore, inserting Eq. G-26;
Giving, a is constant over the uncemented length :
Therefore;
a =
A e
A i
( Z c i + 2Pis )
( Z c e + 2Pes )
AS
As
for 0 < z < Zc (G - 27)
For a non-fixed wellhead, e.g. offshore platform wellhead, the change in axial stress will
depend on similar changes in the other interdependent casing strings. However, the fact that
the wellhead is free to move, and thus minimise the additional stresses in all the strings,
means that a for such a wellhead system will always be lower than that for a fixed
wellhead. As such, the expression for a for a fixed wellhead should be used as a worst
case approach. This argument should be applied for all the following cases.
b)
Cemented section (Zc < z ZL)

The governing condition aver the cemented section, from the top of cement at Zc to the
casing shoe at ZL, is that no movement is allowed at any point, i.e.
a(z) = 0
for Zc< z< Z L
Thus it follows from Eq. G-25 that:
a =
2
(PiAi - PeAe)
As
2
( ziAi + PisAi - zeAe -PesAe )
As
( G-28 )
Below the application of these general equations will be demonstrated for a variety of
common drilling and production operations. lt should be noted that the complexity of the
calculations rapidly increases. The support of computerised solution techniques is therefore
required [9, 10, 11]. Solving the complex string interaction effects is manually not possible.
7.4.3.2 Increase in internal pressure with fluid density and/or surface pressure
Fluid densities are often increased for deeper drilling, and a pressure test may be carried out
once the cement has set, prior to drilling out the shoe. The resulting changes in axial stress may
be derived from the general equations generated in the previous section.
a) Uncemented section
In this case, there are no changes in external pressure, i.e. e and Pes are both zero.
Therefore, from Eq. G-27;
a =
A i
As
( Zci + 2Pis )
for 0 <z < Z
(G-29)
b) Cemented section
From Eq.G-28;
a =
2A i
( zi + Pis)
As
for Zc<z < ZL
( G-30 )
It should be noted that there will be a discontinuity in the axial stress at the top of cement
(see Figure G-15). The magnitude of this change is;
A i
As
Zci
Example
Consider a vertical, 10,000 ft (3,048 m) string of 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) 47 lb/ft (69.9 kg/m)
casing with a top of cement at 5,000 ft (1,524 m).
After the cement has set, a 3000 psi (20,685 kPa) pressure test is performed. What is the
resulting change in axial stress in the casing?
FIGURE G-15 : EFFECT ON AXIAL STRESS OF INCREASE IN INTERNAL FLUID DENSITY AND/OR
SURFACE PRESSURE
For the uncemented section ;

A i
( Zc i + 2Pis )
As
a =
where
= 0.3
Zc = 5,000 ft (1,524 m)
Ai = 59.19 in (38.18 x 10 m)
i = 0
As = 13.57 in (8.754 x 10-3 m)
Pis = 3,000 psi (20,685 kPa)
-3
In field units:
a =
0.3 x 59.19
[(5,000 x 0) + (2 x 3000)] = 7,851psi
13.57
In SI units:
a =
0.3 x 38.18
[(1,524 x 0) + (2 x 20,685)] = 54,130 kPa
8.754
For the cemented section ;
a =
2A i
( zi + Pis )
As
In field units:
a =
2 x 0.3 x 59.19
= [(z x 0 + 3,000)] = 7,851 psi
13.57
In SI units:
a =
2 x 0.3 x 38 .18
8.754
[(z x 0) + 20,685] = 54,130 kPa
This represents an additional axial force of 106,542 lb (473,854 N).

Note that there is no stress discontinuity at the top of cement in this case because
the fluid density has not changed.
7.4.3.3 Reduction in internal pressure due to (partial) evacuation or reduced fluid density
The change in axial stress due to a reduction in fluid density can be calculated from the general
equations: Eq. G-27 and Eq. G-28.
The change due to lost circulation requires a modification to the general equation Eq. G-25. This
is expanded upon below.
Consider an evacuation level, Ze, above the top of cement Zc. The internal pressure at depth. z
will be;
Pi = 0
for 0 z < Ze
Pi = i (z-Ze)
for Ze < Z < ZL
Thus the change in internal pressure is given by;
i = -iz
for 0 z < Ze
i = -iZe
for Ze < Z < ZL
Thus assuming Pe = 0, the change in strain is, (from Eq. G-25):
and
Since the total change in length must be zero;
Giving, since a is constant over the uncemented length :
Therefore:
In the case of full evacuation of the uncemented section, i.e. Ze greater than or equal to Zc,
a is calculated from Eq. G-31 by setting Ze = Zc, giving
a = -
A i i Z e
As
(G-32)
b) Cemented section
For such sections, (from Eq. G-28)
a =
2A i Pi
AS
When the evacuation level is above Zc, then
Pi = -iZe
for Zc < z < ZL
Thus;
a =
2 A i i Z e
As
(G-33)
In the case of full evacuation (i.e. Ze greater than or equal to ZL), then
Pi = -iz
for 0 < z < ZL
Thus;
a = -
2 A i i z
As
(G-34)
For an evacuation level within the cemented section, the value of Pi and therefore a will
depend upon the position of the point of interest relative to the evacuation level.
For a point in the cemented section above Ze:
Pi = -iz
while for a point in the cemented section below Ze:
Pi = -iZe
Example
Consider a vertical 10,000 ft (3,048 m) string of 95/8 in (0.2445 m) 47 lb/ft (69.9 kg/m) casing
with a top of cement at 5,000 ft (1,524 m). The casing is initially full of 0.65 psi/ft (14.7 kPa/m)
drilling fluid. What will be the changes in axial stress due to:
i)
partial evacuation (Ze = 2,500 ft, 762 m)
ii)
full evacuation
(Ze = 10,000 ft, 3048 m)
i)
Partial evacuation (Ze = 2,500 ft, 762 m, Ze < Zc)

For the uncemented section, using Eq. G-31;
where;
i = 0.65 psi/ft (14.7 kPa/m)
= 0.3
-3
Ai = 59.19 in (38.18 x 10 m)
-3
As = 13.57 in (8.754 x 10 m)
Ze = 2,500 ft (762 m)
Zc = 5,000 ft (1,524 m)
In field units:
In SI units :
This gives a reduction in tensile axial force of 43,283 lb (192,451 N).

For the cemented section, using Eq. G-33 ;
a = -
2 A i i Z e
AS
In field units :
a =
2 x 0.3 x 59.19 x 0.65 x 2,500

= -4.253 psi
13.57
In SI units:
a =
2 x 0.3 x 38.18 x 14.7 x 762

= -29,313 kPa
8.754
This represents a reduction in tensile axial force of 57,710 Ib (256,606 N).
ii)
Full evacuation (Ze = 10,000 ft, 3048 m, Ze > Zc)

For the uncemented section, using Eq. G-32;
A i i Z c
As
a = -
In field units:
0.3 x 59 .19 x 0.65 x 5,000
= -4,253 psi
13 .57
a = -
In SI units:
0.3 x 38 .18 x 14 .7 x 1524
= -29,313 kPa
8.754
a = -
This gives a reduction in tensile axial force of 57,710 Ib (256,606 N).

For the cemented section, using Eq. G-34;
a = -
2 A i i z
As
In SI units:
a = -
0.3 x 38.18 x 14.7 x 1524

8.754
= -29,313 kPa
This gives a reduction in tensile axial force of 57,710 Ib (256,606 N).

For the cemented section, using Eq. G-34;
2 A i i z
As
a = -
In field units:
a = -
2 x 0.3 x 59.19 x 0.65 x z

= -1.701z psi
13 .57
a = -8,506 psi
at z = 5,000 ft
a = -17,010 psi at z = 10,000 ft
(-115,420 Ib additional force)

(-230,826 Ib additional force)
In SI units:
a = -
2 x 0.3 x 38 .18 x 14 .7 x z
= -38.47z kPa
8.754
a = -58,628 kPa at z = 1524
(-513,232 N additional force)
a = -1 17,257 kPa at z:= 3048 m (-1,026,464 N additional force)
7.4.3.4 Increase in external pressure with annulus pressure

Increased external pressures usually result from a live annulus, and the expression for the
resulting changes in axial stress can be derived from the general equations (Eq. G-27 and Eq. G28) by setting Pis, i, and e to zero.
a) Uncemented sections
2 A e Pes
As
a = b)
for 0 < z < Zc
(G-35)
Cemented sections
For the change in axial stress over the cemented section the general equation applies by
setting i and Pis is equal to zero:
a = -
2 A e Pes
As
for Zc < z < ZL
(G-36)
Pe will depend on assumptions made regarding the pressure seal at the top of cement and
the pressure profile within the cement column.
Example
5
For a 9 /8 in (0.2445 m) 47 Ib/ft (69.9 kg/m) casing, an increase in external surface pressure
of 1000 psi (6,895 kPa) produces a change in axial stress over the uncemented interval
given by Eq.G-35;
a = -
2 A e Pes
As
where;
Ae = 72.76 in (46.937 x 10-3 m)
-3
As = 13.57 in (8.754 x 10 m)
Pes = 1000 psi (6,895 kPa)

= 0.3
In field units:
a = -
2 x 0.3 x 72 .76 x1000

= -3,217 psi
13 .57
In SI units ;
a = -
2 x 0.3 x 46.937 x 6895

8.754
= -22,182 kPa
This represents a reduction in tensile axial force of 43,656 Ib (194,178 N).
7.4.3.5 Reduction in external pressure with annulus fluid level or fluid density
The change in axial stress due to a reduction in external fluid density, e.g. mud solids settlement,
can easily be calculated from Eq. G-27 and Eq. G-28.
If the pressure in the annulus was to reduce due to a drop in annulus fluid level (to a depth Za),
then by analogy with the internal evacuation situation, the change in axial stress is;
a) Uncemented sections
For Za = Zc, then
a =
2 A e Pe
As
for 0 < z < Zc
(G-38)
b) Cemented sections
For the change in axial stress over the cemented section Eq. G-28 applies and by setting i
and Pis equal to zero;
a = -
2 A e Pe
As
for Zc z ZL
Pe will depend on assumptions made regarding the pressure seal at the top of cement and
the pressure profile within the cement column.
Example No. 1
Consider a vertical, 10,000 ft (3,048 m) string of 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) 47 Ib/ft (69.9 kg/m)
casing with the top of cement at 5000 ft (1524 m). The annulus fluid has a density of 0.60
psi/ft (13.57 kPa/m). What is the change in axial stress in the uncemented section due to the
reduction in density of the annulus fluid to 0.45 psi/ft (10.18 kPa/m)?
From Eq. G-27, with Pis, es, and i all zero;
a =
A e Z c e
As
for 0 < z < Zc
where;
Ae = 72.76 in (46.937 x 10-3 m)
e = -0.15 psi/ft (-3.39kPa/m)
As = 13.57 in (8.754 x 10-3 m)
Zc = 5000 ft (1524 m)
= 0.3
In field units:
a =
0.3 x 72.76 x 5000 x 0.15

= 1,206 psi
13.57
In SI units:
a =
0.3 x 46.937 x 1524 x 3.39

= 8,310 kPa
8.754
This gives an increase in tensile axial force of 16,371 Ib (72,748 N).
Example No. 2
For the same string as in the above example, what is the affect on the axial stress in the
uncemented section of a drop in level of the original 0.60 psi/ft (13.57 kPa/m) annulus-fluid to
3000 ft (914 m)?
Using Eq.G-37;
where ;
Za = 3000 ft (914 m)
e = 0.6 psi/ft (13.57 kPa/m)
Zc = 5000 ft (1,524 m)
In field units:
In SI units ;
This represents an increase in tensile axial force of 55,025 Ib (244,552 N).

7.4.36 Increased internal pressure due to pressure test with retrievable packer
Consider a retrievable packer set in the casing at a depth Zp above the top of cement. A pressure
P1 is applied above the packer and pressure P2 below the packer. See Figure G-16. What are
the changes in axial stress above and below the retrievable packer?
FIGURE G-16 : AXIAL STRESS CHANGES DUE TO PRESSURE TEST ON RETRIEVABLE PACKER
From Hooke's Law we have Eq. App. 6-6;
From Eq. App. 6-9 we derive ;
r + t =
2P1 A i
As
above the packer
r + t =
2P2 A i
As
below the packer
For force equilibrium (see Fig. G-16) it follows that

As a1 + 2 Ai = As a2 + 1 ( Ai Adp )
where Adp is the cross-sectional area of the packer running string.
So ;
and;
For a fixed wellhead the governing condition is that the total change in length is zero. Since
the change in pressure is uniform over the length of each section, the strain will also be
constant over the length of each section.
Therefore
Zp a1 + (Zc-Zp) a2 = 0
for Zp < Zc
Thus;
Resolving this expression gives ;
a1 = a2+(1 2)
A i P1 A dp
AS
AS
(G-40)
b) Cemented section
From the general equation for the cemented section;
a =
2 P2 A i
AS
( G-41 )
Example No. 1
Consider a vertical 10,000 ft (3,048 m) string of 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) 47 Ib/ft (69.9 kg/m)
casing with a top of cement at 5,000 ft (1524 m). A retrievable test packer is run on 5 inch
drillpipe and set at 4,000 ft (1219 m). The casing below the packer is pressured up, against
the sealed shoe, to 3,000 psi (20,685 kPa). The casing above the packer is pressured to
6,000 psi (41,370 kPa). What are the resulting changes in axial stress?
Below the packer, but above the top of cement, the change in axial stress is given by Eq.
G-39 ;
where;
Ai = 59.19 in (38.18 x 10-3 m)
Adp = 19.63 in (12.66 x 10-3 m)
As = 13.57 in (8.754 x 10-3 m)
Zp = 4000 ft (1219 m)
Zc = 5000 ft (1524 m)
P1 = 6000 psi (41,370 kPa)

P2 = 3000 psi (20,865 kPa)
= 0.3
Therefore, in field units:
In SI units :
This is equivalent to an increase in axial tensile force in the casing of 143,937 Ib (640,094N).
Above the packer the change in axial stress is given by Eq. G-40;
a1 = a2 + ( P1 P2)
A dp
Ai
P1
AS
AS
In field units:
In SI units ;
This is equivalent to an increase in axial tensile force of 203,726 1b (906,103 N ).
In the cemented section, Eq. G-41 applies;
a = 2 P2
Ai
As
In field units:
a =
2 x 0.3 x 3000 x 59.19

= 7,851 psi
13.57
In SI units:
a =
2 x 0.3 x 20,685 x 38.18

= 54,130 kPa
8.754
This is equivalent to an increase in axial tensile force of 106,542 Ib (473,852 N).

Example No. 2
Consider the above case again, but pressure applied below the packer, i.e. P2 = 0. From
Eq. G-39
a2 =
P1 Z p
A s Zc
[Adp - (1-2) Ai]
In field units :
a2 =
6000 x 4000
[19.63 - (1- 0.6) x 59.19] = -1,431 psi
13.57 x 5000
In field units :
a2 =
41,370 x 1219
[12.66x10-3-(1-0.6) x 38.18x10-3] = -9873 kPa
3
8.754 x 10 x 1524
This is equivalent to reduction in axial tensile force of 19,421 Ib (86,433 N). From Eq. G-40;.
This is equivalent to an increase in axial tensile force of 217,941 Ib ( 969,334 N )

For the cemented section (Eq.G-41),it follows that, a = 0
The results of these two examples are tabulated below ;
7.4.3.7 Temperature induced change in axial stress

Increased temperature can affect a cemented casing string in two ways. Firstly, stresses will
increase due to steel linear expansion effects. Secondly, an increase in fluid pressure will occur
in sealed casing annuli, resulting in stress changes as described in the previous sections.
i)
Linear expansion effects

The change in axial strain, a, due to a temperature rise, T, is given by;
a = T
(G-42)
where is the coefficient of linear expansion, taken as 6.9 x 10 /F (1.24 x 10-5 /C) for
steel.
Thus the change in axial strain for casing subject to pressure and temperature changes can
be written using Eq. G-24 as;
-6
a)
Uncemented section
For a fixed wellhead the total length change must be zero, i.e.
Therefore, considering temperature effects only (r and t zero) ;
T will be depth dependent, as illustrated in Figure G-17. In drilling the operating bottomhole temperature (ToTD) at ZTD will be lower than the initial undisturbed temperature (TiTD) due
to the flow of cool mud from surface. However, the mud will then carry heat up from the
bottom of the well, and in the shallow portions of the well the operating temperature will
exceed the undisturbed temperature. For production of reservoir fluids, the operating
temperature at ZTD is usually equal to the undisturbed temperature. Both operations will
result in a change in the initial temperature profile Ti(z) to a new operating profile To(z) as will
be discussed below.
FIGURE G-17 : TEMPERATURE CHANGE AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH
The initial temperature at depth z will be;

Ti(z) = Ts + giz
The operating temperature at depth z will be
To(z) = Ts + giZTD + TTD - go (ZTD - z)
; TTD = ToTD - TiTD
Where go can be the new drilling temperature gradient (god) or the new production
temperature gradient (gop). The initial temperature gradient is gi.
The change in temperature at depth z will be;
T(z)
= To(z ) - Ti(z) = gi (ZTD - z) g0 (ZTD - z) + TTD

= (gi go) (ZTD - z) + TTD
Therefore, inserting in the integral expression and assuming gi and go to be independent of z;
Giving ;
Thus ;
It should be noted that the term
is equal to the temperature change at the mid-point of the uncemented section provided that
the temperature gradients are linear. Therefore the above expression for a can also be
written as;
where
T1 = change in temperature at the top of the uncemented interval (i.e. z = 0)

T2 = change in temperature at the bottom of the uncemented interval (i.e. z = Zc)
Where the temperature profiles are not linear (i.e. go and gi are depth dependent ) the above
integration can be performed once the relationship between g and z is known. Alternatively,
the string can be divided into a large number of short sections and the mean temperature
change for each of these sections averaged for the entire string.
Such temperature changes can be obtained from the ICEPE temperature simulation program
TEMPEST [12].
b)
Cemented interval
Over this section, a must be zero. Thus;
a =
a
+
E
T = 0
A discontinuity in the change of axial stress will occur at the top of cement. See Figure G-18.
The magnitude of this discontinuity is
FIGURE G-18 : EFFECT ON AXIAL STRESS OF AN INCREASE IN OPERATING TEMPERATURE
Example
Consider a vertical 10,000 ft (3048 m) 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) 47 Ib/ft (69.9 kg/m) casing string
with a top of cement at 5,000 ft (1524 m). The as-cemented (i.e. the initial) temperature
gradient was 0.02F/ft (0.036C/m). The 8 in (0.2159 m) hole is drilled to 13,000 ft (3962
m) and the subsequent heating up leads to a temperature gradient (from that depth) of
0.01F/ft (0.018C/m) The bottom-hole temperature while circulating at 13,000 ft (3962 m) is
measured at 250F (212C). See Figure G-19. The ambient surface temperature is 40F
(4C). What is the resulting change in axial stress in the 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) casing?
Above the top of cement, using Eq. G-44:
where;
6
8
E = 30 x 10 psi (2.1 x 10 kPa)
= 6.9 x 10-6 F (1.24 x 10-5 /C)

gi = 0.02F/ft (0.036C/m)
go = 0.01F/ft (0.018C/m)
ZTD = 13,000 ft (3962 m)

ZC
5,000 ft (1524 m)
TTD = - 50F (-27.8C)
FIGURE G-19 : INITIAL AND OPERATING TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS USED IN ACCOMPANYING

EXAMPLE
Thus, in field units ;
In SI units :
This is equivalent to a reduction in axial tensile force in the casing of 154,500 Ib (679,303 N).
Below the top of cement, using Eq.G-45:
In field units:
a = -30 x 6.9 x [(0.02 - 0.01) (13,000 - z) - 50] = -16,560 + 2.07z psi

Thus ;
a = -6210 psi at z = 5,000ft (reduction in tensile force of 84,270 Ib)

a = 4,140 psi at z = 10,000 ft (increase in tensile force of 56,180 Ib)
In SI units :
= -2.1 x 108 x 1.24 x 10-5 [(0.036-0.018)(3962-z) - 27.8]

= -113,316 + 46.87z kPa
Thus :
a = 41,886 kPa at z = 1524 m (reduction in tensile force of 366,671 N)

a = 29,544 kPa at z = 3048 m (increase in tensile force of 258,626 N)
ii)
Annulus fluid expansion

So far only the steel linear expansion has been addressed. The effect of annulus pressures
due to fluid thermal expansion can be calculated from the expressions derived from earlier
sections.
However, the calculation of these annulus pressures is an iterative process since the
pressure developed in one annulus will influence the pressures in adjacent annuli. Analysing
the total casing scheme in a global approach is a complex task most suited to computerised
solution techniques [13]. Appendix 9 gives an indication of the evaluation involved.
7.4.3.8 Point-load-induced changes in axial stress

The most common example of point loading in a cemented casing string is the application of a
tubing compressive or tensile load to a Annular Safety Valve, suspension packer or production
packer set in the casing. Analysis of the resulting additional stresses in the casing depends on
the location of the point load.
i) Point load applied in the uncemented section
Consider a point load W p applied at a depth Zp which is above the top of cement. See Figure
G-20.
FIGURE G-20 : CHANGES IN AXIAL STRESS DUE TO POINT LOAD
From Hooke's law we have Eq. G-24
Since there are no pressure changes, r = t = 0

Hence;
a1 =
a1
E
; a2 =
a 2
E
For force equilibrium

As 1 + W p = Asa2
Thus;
a1 =
a1
;
E
a2 =
a1 + Wp / A s
E
For a fixed wellhead, the total change in length must be zero. Therefore,
Zp a1+(Zc- Zp) a2 = 0
Thus ;
Resolving this expression gives ;
Which leads to
Wp Z p
a2 =
As Z c
(G-48)
b) Cemented section
ii)
At the top of cement a2 will be taken up as a shear force in the cement. Therefore,
there will be no change in axial stress in the cemented section.
Point load applied in the cemented section
The same considerations apply as described as in b) above. There will be no change in axial
stress in the casing.
7.5
Load on stove pipes foundation piles, marine and conductor strings
7.5.1
Introduction
The load determination for a stove pipe, foundation pile or marine conductor is a complex issue.
This determination is usually followed by specialised stress analysis resulting in the involvement
of the local or SIPM Structural Engineering department.
The load determination and related stress analysis for a conductor casing is less complex, but
still requires a good knowledge of the boundary conditions.
This chapter will expand on the issues involved and presents, where possible, methods for
manual, first order, calculations related to axial load, wellhead settlement and wellhead growth
determination.
7.5.2
Stove pipe, foundation pile or marine conductor design

For land wells, the stove pipe is usually driven or cemented to surface. Without a landing plate,
such strings then carry the buoyant weight of the conductor casing until the cement is set and the
landing ring removed. The weight of all subsequent inner strings, wellhead, BOP, Xmas-tree and
any tubing-to-packer force is taken by the conductor casing. Shear forces between the conductor
casing and the cement will transmit loads to the stove pipe. If a full analysis of the effect of these
shear forces is required, the local or SIPM Structural Engineering Department should be
consulted.
For subsea wells, the foundation pile is usually cemented to seabed. Therefore these strings
might be considered as a rigid foundation, which will permanently carry the total buoyant weight
of inner strings, the wellhead, the BOP, the Xmas-tree, and any tubing to packer force. Shear
forces between the foundation pile and the cement will transmit these loads into the soil. For full
analysis of the stresses in the foundation pile the local or SIPM Structural Engineering
Department should be consulted.
For offshore wells with surface wellheads, a marine conductor is installed to protect the other
casings from lateral environmental loading. The marine conductor is usually not designed to
withstand the axial loads carried by the conduct or casing. In order to prevent lateral loads being
transferred from the marine conductor to the conductor casing, and axial loads being transferred
from the conductor casing to the marine conductor, the conductor casing should not be
cemented above seabed or mudline suspension system, if present. The design of these marine
conductors is laid down in [14] and should be carried out by the local or SIPM Structural
Engineering Department.
7.5.3
Axial load and strain in conductor casing

Apart from the design criteria as laid down in the pressure vessel design criteria, the conductor
casing is usually subjected to axial loading, caused by the weight of subsequent casings, BOPs,
tubing and Xmas-tree. Also possible future work-over operations like compressive loads
generated by snubbing units when in operation, should be considered here.
These surface point loads introduce compressive forces and axial strain as a function of material
properties and geometries.
It has to be checked whether these compressive forces cause yielding or buckling. The wellhead
settlement calculation is required to check whether interference will occur with the stationary
surrounding structures as for example marine conductor or well bay area.
Because of the distinct difference in length of the uncemented sections between land/subsea
wellhead systems and platform/mudline wellhead systems these will be addressed separately.
7.5.3.1 Land wells or wells with subsea wellheads (no free-standing conductor string)
For land wells, the conductor casing is cemented over its entire length but is not directly
supported by the stove pipe. The conductor casing alone will carry the total buoyant weight of
the inner strings, wellhead, BOP, Xmas-tree and any tubing-to-packer force. If a full analysis of
the stresses in the conductor casing is required, the local or SIPM Structural Engineering
Department should be consulted.
For subsea wells, the conductor casing is cemented over its entire length and may be
considered as a rigid foundation with the foundation pile which will carry the total buoyant weight
of the inner strings, the wellhead, and any tubing-to-packer force. Shear forces between the
conductor casing and cement will transmit these loads via the foundation pile into the soil. If a
full analysis of the stresses in the conductor casing is required the local or SIPM Structural
Engineering Department should be consulted.
7.5.3.2 Offshore wells with surface wellheads (with free-standing conductor string)
If the conductor casing is not entirely cemented, e.g. for an offshore platform well, the
uncemented portion will initially compress elastically. Any such compression will transfer some of
the total load to the inner strings.
For a mudline suspension system, the casing strings are hung off at seabed. Only the surface to
seabed tie-back section of each casing, together with the wellhead load and the tubing load, is
supported by the conductor casing. This assumes a correctly designed tie-back system where
overpull does not remove load from the mudline suspension system.
The distribution of applied loads between the conductor string and any inner strings must be
known in order to check the ability of each string, but particularly the conductor string, to
withstand those loads. The resulting wellhead movement must be known to ensure sufficient
clearance when designing the wellhead area of the platform [15].
The load distribution between the strings can be calculated by considering the behaviour of the
casings already in place as a set of parallel springs. Below, firstly, the platform wellhead
behaviour is studied followed by the tie-back system from a mud line casing suspension.
a) Casing hangers at surface
Firstly, consider the behaviour of the conductor casing alone. See Figure G-21.
The incremental strain in the conductor string, resulting from an applied end load, W1, clue to
the buoyant weight of the next string, is given by;
01 =
Z 1
Zc o
where Z1 is wellhead movement due to W1 and Zco is the uncemented length of the
conductor casing.
FIGURE G-21 : INCREMENTAL LOADING MODELLED AS COMBINATION OF PARALLEL SPRINGS
From Hooke's Law (Eq. App. 6-5);
01=
W1
=
E
EA so
Thus;
W 1 = - EASO
Z 1
Z co
where Aso is the conductor casing cross-sectional area.

Next consider the behaviour of the conductor casing together with the first inner string, as
another string is landed, giving an additional load W2.
The additional incremental strain in the conductor string resulting from the additional applied
end load W2 is given by
02 =
Z 2
Zc o
where Z2 is the additional wellhead movement due to W2.

The incremental strain in the first inner string is similarly given by
12 = Z 2
Zc1
where Zc1 is the uncemented length of that string.

From Hooke's Law again, for force equilibrium
Rearranging gives ;
(
For the general case, therefore ;
where;
W n = applied load due to next string or wellhead /BOP installation
Zn = wellhead movement resulting from Wn

Asn = cross-sectional area of the nth string
th
Zcn = top of cement for the n string
The total wellhead movement will be given by;
= 1+ 2 + n
(G-50)
The change in axial force generated in the ith string as a result of its final displacement is given
by
Fi = iAi =
EZ i( TOT ) A si
Z ci
(G-51)
where Zi(TOT) is the total movement of that string. This change in force should be added to
the initial force within that string.
From the above expression, it can be seen that the axial force generated in each string is
proportional to the final vertical displacement and inversely proportional to the uncemented
length. The displacement of the conductor string will be larger than any other string, the
uncemented length shorter than for any other string and the cross-sectional area larger than
for any string. Therefore, the compressive loads generated in the conductor casing will be
considerably higher than in the other casings.
This method of predicting wellhead movement has been verified by comparison with actual
data and found to be highly accurate. For deviated wells, having inclinations in the range 2045 degrees, use of true vertical depths in the calculations again gave highly accurate results
[15].
There are several general points that can be drawn from the above analysis. Firstly, the
vertical movement observed at the wellhead is inversely proportional to the combined casing
stiffnesses.
i.e. Zn =
Wn
K o + K 1 + K 2 + K 3 + ...K n 1
where the stiffness, K, of the ith string is given by;

Ki =
EA si
Z ci
(G-52)
The stiffness of a conductor casing is generally much larger than that of the other strings, as
illustrated below:
As a result, it will be the stiffness of the conductor casing that dominates the response to the
various loads applied. Since this stiffness varies linearly with the depth of the top of cement,
wellhead movement is almost a linear function of the uncemented length of the conductor
casing.
By monitoring the wellhead movement due to the landing of subsequent casings, the above
calculations can be used to check the actual location of the top of cement. Remedial
cementing action can then be taken, if necessary, before the later strings are landed.
Example
Consider the following example, which illustrates the step-wise procedure that should be
adopted. The results of the calculations are summarised in Figure G-22.
FIGURE G-22 : RESULTS OF TYPICAL CALCULATION OF AXIAL WELLHEAD MOVEMENT
Consider a well where the following casing scheme will be used,
Assume that the 18 /8 inch conductor casing has just been cemented in place and the
support ring to enable the casing to hang from the marine conductor during cementing has
been removed. The following sequence of operations will occur:
a)
Installation of 21/ inch BOP

Wellhead movement due to this operation ZBOP1 is (from Eq. G-49);
b)
Landing 13 3/8 inch casing

Wellhead movement due to this operation Z1 is (from Eq. G-49);
Z1 =
W1Z co
EA so
where;
W1
=
173,153 Ib (770,144 N)
Aso
=
24.8 in (0.0160 m)
Thus, in field units:
Z1 =
173,153 x 600
30 x 10 6 x 24.8
Zco = 600 ft (183 m)
= -0.140ft
In SI units:
Z1 =
770,144 x 183
= - 0.042 m
21 x 1011 x 0.016
c) Removal of 21 1/4 inch BOP and installation of 13 3/8 inch BOP

Wellhead movement due to this operation ZBOP2 is (from Eq. G-49);
where;
W BOP = weight of the l3 3/8 inch BOP less the weight of the 21 inch BOP
= -30,000 lb (-133,440 N)
Aso
= 24.8 in ( 0.0160 m)
Zco = 600 ft (183 m)
As1
= 15.51 in (0.0100 m)
Zc1 = 1500 ft (457 m)
Thus, in field units;
In SI units ;
d)
Landing 9 5/8 inch casing

Wellhead movement due to this operation Z3 is (from Eq. G-49)
where ;
W 2 = 242,134 Ib (1,077,012 N)
Aso = 24.8 in (0.0160 m)
As1 = 15.51 in (0.0100 m)
Zco =
Zc1 =
600 ft (183 m)
1500 ft(457 m)
In SI units
e) Landing production tubing

Wellhead movement due to this operation Z3 is (from Eq. G-49);
where;
= 179,832 lb (806,422 N)
W3
= 24.8 in (0.0160 m)
Aso
As1 = 15.51 in (0.0100 m)
As2 = ll.45 in (0.0074 m)
Zco = 600 ft (183 m)

Zc1 = 1500 ft (45 7 m)
Zc2 = 6000 ft (1829 m)
Thus, in field units
In SI units ;
Assuming that the Xmas tree will not be heavier than the 13 5/8 in BOP, this will be the
maximum loading and the maximum displacement.
The total displacement is given by the sum of
ZBOP1
Z1
ZBOP2
Z2
Z3
- 0.081 ft
( - 0.024 m )
- 0.140 ft
( - 0.042 m )
+0.019 ft
( + 0.006 m)
-0.156 ft
( - 0.047 m )
-0.11 ft
( - 0.034 m )
Thus Ztot
-0.469 ft
(-0.141 m)
The additional axial forces, Fa, generated in each of the casing strings is calculated
using Eq. G-51 as follows;
It can therefore be seen that in this instance 581,560 Ib (2,592,525 N) of compressional

load is generated in the conductor casing equivalent to 87% of the total applied load
3
(BOPs, casing and tubing). Around 12% of the load is carried by the 13 /8 in casing, and
5
the remaining 1% by the 9 /8 in casing. Although there is a reduction in the tension, the
total tension at the surface in the latter two strings stays positive.
b) Casing hangers at seabed

Firstly, consider the behaviour of the conductor casing alone. The incremental strain
resulting from an applied load W1, due to the weight of the first tie-back string, is given by;
01 =
Z1
Z ch
where;
Z1 is the wellhead movement due to W1 Zch is the distance from surface wellhead to casing
hangers at mudline suspension system.
From Hooke's law (Eq. App. 6-5);
01 =
W1
=E
EA so
Thus ;
W 1 = -EAso
Z1
Z ch
where Aso is the conductor casing cross-sectional area.

Next consider the behaviour of the conductor casing together with the first tie-back string, as
another tie-back string is landed, giving an additional load W2.
The additional incremental strain in the conductor, resulting from the applied end load W2 is
given by;
where Z2 is the wellhead movement due to W2.
The incremental strain in the first inner string, is similarly given by;
12 =
Z 2
Z ch
From Hooke's Law again, for force equilibrium,
Rearranging gives;
Z2 =
W2
EA so EA s1
+
Z ch
Z ch
For the general case, therefore
Zn =
W2
E
( A S 0 + A S1 + ... + A S (n1) )
Z ch
( G-52 )
where;
applied load due to next (tie-back) string or wellhead/BOP installation
Wn =
distance from wellhead to casing angers at mudline suspension system
Zch =
th
cross-sectional area of the n string
Asn =
wellhead movement resulting from W n
Zn =
The total wellhead movement will be given by
ZTOT = Z1+ Z2 + ... Zn
(G-53)
The additional axial force generated in the ith string as a result of its final displacement is
given by;
Fi = iAi =
EZ i ( TOT ) Ai
Z ch
where Zi(TOT) is the total movement of that string.

This additional force should be added to the initial force within the string.
(G-54)
7.5.4
Thermal growth of wellhead

Consider a system of casing and tubing strings which are interconnected at surface, each having
an uncemented section as shown in Figure G-23. Below the simplified behaviour of this system is
considered addressing linear thermal expansion of the steel only. The effect of thermal
expansion of the annular fluids on the wellhead growth is complex, and can only be addressed
with computing tools [11, 13] considering a global approach to the problem is required.
FIGURE G23 : THERMAL GROWTH DUE TO LINEAR EXPANSION OF CASING STRING
If the well is placed on production, such that there is a temperature rise in each string, then the
change in axial force, assuming that no wellhead movement is allowed, is given for the ith string
(using Eq. G-45) by;
Fi = -EAsi Ti
(G-55)
where Ti is the average temperature change in the uncemented part of string i.

Now consider the change in axial force in each string due to an increase in length Z. See
Figure G-23.
From Hooke's Law, this change in length in each string will cause a Change in axial force given
by;
Fi = E Asi i = E Asi
Z
Z ci
(G-56)
where Zci is the original uncemented length of the ith string.

For overall equilibrium of the system, the total change in axial force for all the strings due to
temperature effects, must equal the total change in axial force for all the strings due to thermal
wellhead growth.
Therefore, combining Eq. G-55 and Eq. G-56 ;
This equation can be used to determine Z. The actual change in axial force in the ith string can
then be determined from ;
Example
Consider the following casing scheme again;
It is assumed that the tubing is latched into packer. Temperature Changes can be determined by
use of the ICEPE computer program TEMPEST [12]
Using Eq. G-57;

n
A
i =1
si
Ti = E Z
i =1
A si
Z ci
For this particular case in field units

2234.7 E = 0.0546 EZ
Z =
2234.7 x 6.9 x 10 6
= 0.282 ft
0.0546
In SI units :
0.8 E = 11.569 x 10
Z =
-5
EZ
0.8 x 1.24 x 10 5
= 0.086m
11.569 x 10 5
The change in axial force in each string is given by Eq. G-58;
Fi = EAsi
Ti
Z ci
Thus, in tabulated form ;
It can be seen that the high stiffness of the 18 5/8 in conductor casing limits the wellhead growth,
leading to a large increase in tension in the conductor casing itself, but additional compression
in the other casings and tubing.
7.6
References
[1]
Fokker, PA., Klever, F.J. and Marchina, P.J.M.
User manual and background theory to program CASINT
EP 92-196l
[2]
Bulletin an formulas and calculations for casing, tubing, drillpipe and line
pipe
properties
[3]
Spec. 5CT, Third edition, 1 December, 1990
[4]
Drilling fluid and cement related aspects of casing design
E.P 92-0616
[5]
E.P 92-0888
[6]
Cernocky, E.P. and Paslay, P.R., BRC
The importance of bending in burst and collapse design with particular application to
horizontal wells based an the computer program
CASBEND
EP 90-3011
[7]
SIPM, EPO/51
E.P 91-2156
[8]
Clinedinst, W.O.
A rational expression for the critical collapse pressure of pipe under external pressure
th
Proceedings of the 20 Annual API Meeting, November 1934
[9]
Triaxial load capacity diagrams provide a new approach to casing and tubing analysis
SPE/IADC 13434
[10]
SPE 12361
[11]
Pittman, W.
Commercial casing design software detailed evaluation
BP 92-0473
[12]
Oudeman, P., KSEPL
Casing temperature calculations with TEMPEST: contribution to revised Casing Design
Manual
EP 92-0521
[13]
Adams, A.
SPE 22871
[14]
SIPM, EPD/5
EP 87-0160
[15]
McCabe, A.C.
Well vertical movement on platform wells
SPE 19241
8.0
Load-bearing capacity
8.1
Determination of the different types of casing strength

The uniaxial casing strength is usually defined by the formulae given in API Bull. 5C3 [1], or other
formulae approved by SIPM [2].
This chapter explains the background of the various API casing-strength formulae, and
comparisons are drawn with triaxial stress analysis. It should be noted that the strengths require
downrating to account for the effects of wear, corrosion and fatigue (see Chapter I) and for the
effect of temperature on yield strength.
The appearance of commercial casing analysis software has made triaxial stress analysis
possible [3,4,5]. The allowable value of the Von Mises equivalent stress is usually the yield
strength of the material adjusted for temperature effects. However, it should be noted that for
collapse loading, corrections are required to allow for the elastic behaviour of thin walled pipe.
The issues discussed in this chapter could be used to challenge the tabulated values provided
by API Bull. 5C2 [6] and by the manufacturers. This could result in a less conservative approach
to casing design.
8.1.1
Collapse strength
A casing experiences a collapse loading when the external pressure exceeds the internal
pressure. The magnitude of the collapse load is generally taken as the difference in pressure, i.e.
Pe-Pi. In the uniaxial design this load is compared to the uniaxial collapse capacity.
API Bull. 5C3 [1] contains four formulae to calculate the external pressure, the collapse capacity
at which a casing will collapse in ribbon type mode. See Figure H-1 for an illustration of collapse
failure modes.
In this section the background to these four formulae will be expanded upon by addressing the
behaviour of the extreme geometries first, i.e. do/t > 25 and do/t < 15. This will be followed by a
discussion on the transition zone.
Loaded by external pressure only, a thin-walled tube (do/t > 25) will collapse as a result of elastic
instability of the wall, before yield occurs. The theoretical pressure at which this elastic collapse
occurs is given by Clinedinst [7] as;
Pec =
2E
1
.
2
(1 ) ( do / t ) ( d o / t 1) 2
where
do
outer diameter
wall thickness
FIGURE H-1 : CASING COLLAPSE MODES
(H-1)
It can be seen that the elastic collapse pressure is independent of the material yield strength,
but highly dependent on the casing dimensions: i.e. the geometry.
However, for thick-walled tubes (do/t < 15) yield of the casing wall occurs before instability. As
shown in Appendix 6, the highest tangential stress t always occurs at the inside wall even for
collapse loading. Thus, by assuming a to be zero, and r negligible, the collapse capacity can
be assumed to be reached when the inner wall tangential stress reaches the material yield
strength, y.
From the Lam equation for tangential stress (Eq. App. 6-2) at A = Ai and for external pressure
only, it follows then:
t = -2Pe
Ae
do 2
= 2Pe
As
do 2 di 2
With di = do - 2t
t =
Pe (do / t )2
2 (do / t 1)
(H-2)
Hence, the external pressure at which the tangential stress reaches the material yield strength is:
Pyc = 2y
(d o / t 1)
(do / t ) 2
(H-3)
The collapse pressure, termed yield strength collapse pressure, thus is dependent on the casing
dimensions and the material yield strength.
For a particular casing to collapse in elastic mode, the elastic collapse pressure
Thus for a material, with a given yield strength, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio, elastic
collapse occurs for values of do/t above a certain value. This behaviour is shown in Figure H-2.
API Bull. 5C3 [1] lists, for each grade of material, the do/t ratio above which the casing will
collapse elastically.
FIGURE H-2 : CASING COLLAPSE STRENGTH
Actual behaviour, however, differs from the theoretical as is illustrated in Figure H-2.
No satisfactory analytical model has been found to describe the collapse pressure in the
transition between the two basic modes of collapse. Accordingly, the API have adopted two
empirically derived equations spanning the transition based on laboratory collapse tests reported
by Clinedinst [7]. The API refer to these equations as describing the transition collapse pressure
and the plastic collapse pressure. In deriving the empirical equations, statistical regression
analysis was used to determine minimum performance properties from the collapse test data. In
order to provide a smooth progression from the minimum properties in the transition zone to the
properties in the zone of elastic instability, the theoretical elastic collapse values have been
reduced to obtain minimum values. See API Bull. 5C3 [1] for an example.
By using this approach, the API collapse performance properties in the "Plastic collapse",
"Transition collapse", and "Elastic collapse" ranges are, in effect, corrected for the spread in the
dimensional and metallurgical properties that may effect the tubular strength in collapse. This
does not apply for "Yield strength collapse" range.
The API Bull. 5C3 [1] thus contains four different collapse formulae, and for each formula a table
is presented showing for each casing grade the do/t range for which the formula is applicable.
Selected examples are given below;
For the common casing sizes, it can be seen that collapse mode will generally be Plastic or
Transition. Refer to Table H-1 for typical do/t ratios.
It should be noted that if the material yield strength is downrated due to high temperatures, the
downrated yield strength must be inserted into the relevant collapse pressure formulae.
Many casing manufacturers market what they claim to be "high collapse" resistance casing. The
basis of the claims, usually tight manufacturing tolerances, should always be thoroughly checked
before the claimed performance ratings are accepted and used in design calculations [8].
TABLE H-1 : EXTERNAL-DIAMETER/WALL-THICKNESS (DO/T) RATIOS FOR VARIOUS

CASING SIZES
Recent work by Shell Research, Rijswijk [2] has demonstrated that an alternative collapse
capacity equation can be used for do/t ratios larger than 20. This equation takes into account
casing ovality and bending. This new formula for the collapse pressure, Pc is ,
Note that the value of y used in the expression for Pyc should be downrated in the presence of
axial tension and the resulting tangential stress at yield, ty, used instead. See Eq. H-7.
A comparison of the above collapse pressure with that calculated according to the API formulae
for various casing sizes, in the absence of curvature and axial tension, is given in Table H-2. For
do/t ratios greater than 20, this new formula gives higher collapse resistance figures than the API
formulae.
Alternatively, the formula can be used to specify the acceptable ovality, , in the purchase order
in order to achieve a desired collapse pressure, Pc [8]. Care should always be taken not to
increase the pipe ovality during transit from its original manufacturing tolerance.
In field units, and using dogleg severity (DLS) instead of curvature, the expression is;
where ;
pressure are in psi
dimensions are in inches
DLS is /100ft.
TABLE H-2 : COMPARISON OF API AND SHELL RESEARCH RIJSWIJIK COLLAPSE-STRENGTH FOEMULAE
In SI units the expressive is ;
where ;
pressure are in Pa
dimensions are in meters
DLS is /10 m.
The above approaches are, however, lacking in four respects:
i)
any internal pressure is not accounted for
ii)
the effect of axial load is not accounted for
iii) ribbon-type collapse is the considered mode

iv) non-uniform loading is not considered.
i)
Effect of internal pressure on collapse capacity

In the event that the collapse load consists of an external pressure and a smaller internal
pressure, the Lam equation for the resulting tangential stress can be set against that same
tangential stress derived for external pressure only, using an effective external pressure, Peff.
This equation is given in API Bull. 5C3 [1] and is to be used to determined the suitability of
casing when subjected to a collapse loading in the presence of internal pressures.
Example
5
A 9 /8 in (0.2445 in) 47 lb/ft (69.9 kg/m) L80 casing has an API collapse rating, see API Bull.
5C2 [6], when subject only to external pressure of 4,750 psi (32,751 kPa).
With an internal pressure of 5,000 psi (34,475 kPa), the allowable external pressure, Pe, can
be calculated in the following way from Eq. H-6;
where;
Peff = 4,750 psi (32,751 kPa)
Pi
= 5,000 psi (34,475 kPa)
do = 9.625 in (0.2445 m)
t
= 0.472 in (0.0120 m)
From the above example, note that the allowable differential pressure (4260 psi, 29367 kPa)
is lower than that for external pressure only. This results from the fact that the absolute value
of t increases faster due to increased external pressure than the corresponding decrease in
t due to increased internal pressure.
ii)
Effect of axial load on collapse capacity

The bi-axial equivalent of Von Mises yield criterion, see Appendix 6, is given by (Eq. App. 615);
y = [a - a . t + t]
By examining points, which lie on the yield boundary, it can be seen that yield can occur for
different combinations of collapse pressure and axial load. The greater the tensile load within
a tubular, the lower the collapse pressure that will cause yield at the internal wall. Disregard
of this fact may lead to under-designs. As a result, API Bull. 5C3 [1] contains a formula to
modify the yield stress in the tangential direction for tubulars under axial load. It is derived by
solving the bi-axial Von Mises yield criterion for the negative solution of t, and then
reversing the signs, i.e.
where y is the absolute value of tangential stress at yield.

For a given axial stress a, the value of ty should be calculated from Eq. H-7, and then
entered in the API collapse formulae instead of uniaxial yield strength y . The resulting
correction to the API collapse rating is illustrated in Figure H-3
FIGURE H-3 : API COLLAPSE STRENGTH UNDER AXIAL LOADING
It should be noted that a small negative axial load, i.e. small amount of compression,
increases the allowable collapse pressure. However, the formula is not frequently used in
such circumstances since its omission gives additional conservatism.
It is important to note that since this API correction procedure is based on the bi-axial Von
Mises yield criterion, it relates only to the yield strength type of collapse. The API suggests,
however, that their axial load correction factor be applied for all casing regardless of do/t
ratio. In reality, the correction is only truly applicable for do/t ratios less than about 15, i.e.
thick-walled tubulars which fail by yield at the inner wall [1]. For increasing do/t ratios, the
effects of elastic instability progressively reduce the amount of correction required, until for
complete elastic collapse, there is no correction for axial load at all. This is demonstrated in
Figure H-3.
iii) Collapse mode
In general, ribbon-type mode of collapse is chosen to quantify the collapse capacity since it
requires less energy than trough-type collapse. See Figure H-1 for the different collapse
modes. API collapse tests are performed in a pressure vessel such that there is sufficient
clearance for the pipe to collapse in ribbon-type mode. However, for most casing/hole size
combinations, ribbon-type collapse is impossible, because of the restraining hole wall.
3
Consider a 13 /8 in diameter casing in a 17 in diameter hole. For ribbon collapse, the
width of the collapsed casing is given by do/2, which in this case is 21 in. As a result,
trough-type collapse is a more realistic assumption in a gauge hole and the figures published
in API bulletin 5C2 [6] can be regarded as conservative in this respect.
The effect of a cement sheath around the casing on collapse capacity has been the subject
of research, however no clear conclusions can yet be drawn [9].
iv)
Non-uniform loading
Research [10] shows that a do/t ratio of about 4 or less is necessary to support a non-uniform
salt load. Since this would lead to impractical casing schemes, it is attempted to avoid nonuniform loads by implementing suitable operational practices introducing uniform loads like
minimising wash-outs and placing cement over salt intervals. All relevant casing design is
therefore based on uniform loads.
8.1.2
Burst strength
A casing experiences a burst loading when the internal pressure exceeds the external pressure.
The magnitude of the burst load is generally taken as the difference in pressure, i.e. Pi - Pe. In the
uniaxial design this load is compared to the uniaxial burst capacity.
As shown in Appendix 6, the highest t always occurs at the inner wall. Thus, by assuming a is
zero and r, is negligible, the burst capacity can be assumed to be reached when the inner wall
tangential stress, t, reaches the yield strength y. From the Lam equation for tangential stress
(Eq. App. 6-2) at A = Ai and for internal pressure only it follows then:
Applying, the above approximation again gives
t =
Pi d o
2t
(H-8)
Hence the internal pressure at which the tangential stress reaches the material yield strength is:
Pi =
2t y
do
(H-9)
The API version of this formula that appears in API Bull. 5C3 [1] incorporates a factor of 0.875 in
recognition of the -12.5% tolerance permitted on wall thickness as per API Spec. 5CT [11].
The basic API burst formula is lacking in three respects:
i)
any external pressure is not accounted for
ii) the effect of axial load is not accounted for

iii) the effect of the cement sheath is disregarded.
i)
The effect of external pressure on burst capacity

Using the Lam equations, the tangential stress at the inner wall surface in the absence of
external pressure can be set against the full expression for the same tangential stress in the
presence of both internal and external pressure, and an expression for an effective internal
pressure, Peff, can be derived.
The tangential stress in the presence of external and internal pressure is (from Eq. App. 6-2);
This equation does not appear in API Bulletin 5C3 [6], apparently because its omission gives
more conservative capacity figures.
Example
5
A 9 /8 in (0.2445 m) 47 Ib/ft (69.9 kg/m) L80 casing has a burst rating for only internal
pressure of 6,870 psi (47,369 kPa).
With an external pressure of 5,000 psi (34,475 kPa), the allowable internal pressure, Pi, can
be calculated in the following way from Eq. H-10;
Peff = Pi -
Pe
1 2 /( d o / t )
where;
Peff
6,870 psi (47,369 kPa)
do
9.625 in (0.2445 m)
Pe
5,000 psi (34,475 kPa)
0.472 in (0.0120 m)
Note from the above example that the allowable differential pressure (7414 psi, 51121 kPa)
is higher than for internal pressure only. This results from the fact that t increases more
slowly due to increased internal pressure than the corresponding decrease in t due to
increased external pressure.
ii)
The effect of axial load on burst capacity

The maximum burst loading usually occurs at surface, as does the maximum tensile loading.
There would therefore appear to be a case for applying a bi-axial correction to the burst
rating at the top of the string.
As can be seen from the ellipse representing the Von Mises yield criterion, see Figure H-4,
an increase in burst resistance occurs at moderate levels of tension, while a decrease occurs
in compression and at high levels of tension.
FIGURE H-4 : API BURST STRENGTH UNDER AXIAL LOADING
The conservative approach of using the burst rating for zero axial load is most often adopted,
although this approach is only conservative if compression or high tension is avoided.
Compressive loads can arise in production strings, for example, in high pressure/high
temperature wells, where thermal expansion of the steel is significant. Under these
circumstances the burst rating should be reduced by determining a maximum allowable
value of t in the presence Of a in analogy with the correction discussed in the paragraph on
collapse capacity.
iii) The effect of the cement sheath around the casing
The effect of the cement sheath around the casing on the burst capacity has been the
subject of research, however, no clear conclusions can yet be drawn [9].
8.1.3
Axial strength
The API Bull. 5C3 [11 formula for pipe body yield strength is the cross-sectional area multiplied
by the minimum yield strength, i.e.
where do and di are the specified external and internal diameters. As with the API burst and
collapse formulae, this value is based on the minimum yield strength, but no allowance is made
for wall thickness variations. It is left to the casing designer to use appropriate diameters. It
should be noted that the pipe body axial yield strength data in API Bulletin 5C2 [6] are based on
nominal dimensions. As a result, the pipe body yield strength value could be less than this
nominal value depending on the actual dimensions following the manufacturing process.
8.1.4
Triaxial strength
The triaxial capacity, for comparison with the Von Mises Equivalent stress, VME , is taken as the
minimum yield strength of the casing material, y,
Manufacturers or API Spec. 5CT [11] can provide detailed information on the value of the
minimum yield strength. It should be noted that the yield strength is temperature dependent. For
most steels the yield strength decreases as temperature increases. For some low strength
casing grades (J55) yield strength will initially decrease as temperature increases, but as
temperature further increases, the yield strength could rise to a level above that evident at room
temperature.
Lowest estimates for yield strength correction with temperature are collated from casing
manufacturers [12] and presented below by way of example. The values apply to L80, C95, P110
and Q125 material.
Temperature (C/F)
Yield strength correction factor
20/68
1.00
50/122
0.95
100/212
0.88
150/302
0.84
200/392
0.81
This data is given by way of example only. Actual yield strength reduction factors should be
obtained from the manufacturer of the material to be used.
8.2
References
[1]
[2]

EP 92-0888
[3]
Pittman, W.
EP 92-0473
[4]
Klementich, E.F., Jellison, M.J. and Johnson, R

Tri-axial load capacity diagrams provide a new approach to casing and tubing analysis
SPE/IADC 13434
[5]

A service - life model for casing strings
SPE 12361
[6]

[7]
Clinedinst, W.O.
A rotational expression for the collapse pressure of pipe under external pressure
Proceedings of the 20th Annual API Meeting, November 1934
[8]
SIPM, EPO/512
DEN 17/92
[9]

EP 92-0616
[10]
Cheatham, J.B. and McEver, J.W.

Behaviour of casing subjected to salt loading
EP/10, September 1963
[11]

[12]
Krus, H., Shell Expro

High pressure task force report
9.0
Corrosion, wear and fatigue
9.1
Influence of corrosion on casing strength
9.1.1
Introduction
Corrosion can pose a major threat to the Group's installations whether above or below ground.
The management of this threat is dependent on the following factors [1]:
-
the awareness of all staff involved of the importance of corrosion as a factor in design;
the awareness of all staff involved of the importance of corrosion control during operations;
the feedback of corrosion experience both to guide immediate operations and to influence
design standards for the future.
With particular respect to casing, corrosion can impair the ability of the casing to perform its
functions in two ways. Firstly, metal loss will reduce the wall thickness of the casing and hence
its capacity to withstand the design loads [2]. Secondly, corrosion can weaken the casing
material so that it can no longer withstand the design loads.
In many Operating Companies specialist corrosion engineers are available to assist in all phases
of the corrosion management process. It is therefore the intention of this chapter to provide basic
guidance for the casing designer in recognising corrosion threats and in identifying possible
solutions that can be applied at the design stage.
Section 1.1.1 pinpoints the location of corrosion in a downhole environment. Section 1.2 provides
brief information on materials used for casing, while section 1.3 addresses the forms of corrosion
most likely to be encountered during drilling and production operations. Section 1.4 addresses
casing-corrosion prevention and control, and section 1.5 introduces on-going developments in
this area.
More information concerning materials and corrosion in general terms is available in the latest
edition of the Production Handbook (Volume 9) [3]. The appropriate sections of this volume are
indicated in brackets where applicable.
9.1.1.1 Site of downhole casing corrosion
In casing design there are three basic causes for corrosion that should be considered (see
Figure I-1):
a) internal casing corrosion due to reservoir fluids within the well;
b) internal and external casing corrosion due to drilling, workover, and completion fluids;
c) external corrosion due to formation fluids, reservoir fluids, and surface water.
FIGURE I-1 SOURCES OF (A) INTERNAL CORROSION, (B) INTERNAL/EXTERNAL CORROSION
AND (C) EXTERNAL CORROSION
a) Internal casing corrosion due to reservoir fluids in the well

Reservoir fluids can be corrosive; this is one of the reasons why these reservoir fluids are
normally contained within the tubing. Generally, the only internal part of the casing in contact
with the reservoir fluids is the part below the production packer. Nevertheless, there are
circumstances where other internal parts of the production casing may be exposed to
reservoir fluids e.g. beam pump operations, a tubing/packer leak, or during workover and
remedial operations. The intermediate casing may be similarly exposed e.g. during
circulating out an influx.
b) Internal and external casing corrosion due to drilling workover completion and
stimulation fluids
Fluids used during the drilling and completion phases can be corrosive, or can become
corrosive when exposed to high temperature for extended periods. Examples of corrosive
fluids are muds and brines with a low pH, while packer fluids and mud left in annuli can
become corrosive due to a drop in pH with time and/or increased temperature. Also,
stimulation fluids should be assessed for their corrosive nature.
c) External casing corrosion due to fluids fluids external sources
Uncemented casing opposite formations containing corrosive fluids can be subject to attack.
Corrosive fluids can be found in water rich formations and aquifers as well as in the reservoir
itself. At surface, all wells will be exposed to rain water and air moisture. For offshore wells,
the combination of salt water and oxygen gives a particular problem in the splash zone.
9.1.2
Casing materials
Steels for use in casing are supplied by manufacturers in a wide variety of grades. The materials
can be differentiated in terms of chemical constituents and also in terms of method of
manufacture (heat treatment). API Specification 5CT [4] sets out composition and heat treatment
requirements for the API grades. However manufacturers also produce their own proprietary (i.e.
non-API) grades with claimed performance advantages over the equivalent API tubulars.
The great majority of casing materials are carbon steels [3(S5.1)]. Casing steels differ from
current pipeline steels in that they contain rather larger quantities of elements such as carbon
which allow higher strength grades to be produced, often by heat treatment.
The welding of casing is a very specialised process involving both pre- and post-weld heat
treatment. Without this approach welds will be very hard and subject to cold cracking due to
hydrogen and brittle fracture. Welding of casing should not be attempted in the field and the
practice of welding casing head housings should be strongly discouraged.
Corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) casing materials often achieve the required strength levels by
cold working (e.g. 145,000 psi (999,775 kPa) yield strength for Incoloy 825). Their corrosion
properties usually reflect those of the corresponding lower strength materials [3(S5.2 and S6)].
9.1.3
Common types of corrosion

The following provides a brief outline of the forms of corrosion which can occur in, but are not
limited to, casing. For further information, the Production Handbook [3] should be referred to.
9.1.3.1 General corrosion

This is a reaction between a metal and any corrosive well or formation fluid which leads to
general rather than localised metal loss. The fluids may be muds or brines, produced fluids or
formation fluid which are allowed into contact with the casing steel.
9.1.3.2 Galvanic corrosion
This form of corrosion results from the differing electrochemical potentials of different metals or
different areas of the same metal in an electrolyte (an electrically conductive fluid) which also
contains a corrosive agent such as oxygen or carbon dioxide. The potential differences create a
cathode-anode pair and metal loss from the anode results [3(S2.3, S2.4, S2.5)].
9.1.3.3 Pitting
As casing corrodes, the resulting corrosion product may adhere to its surface thus limiting further
attack. Subsequent local layer breakdown due to electrochemical effects or physical removal can
expose bare metal to the electrolyte. This exposed area becomes anodic with respect to the
protected surrounding metal. Galvanic corrosion at these areas can cause pitting damage
[3(S2.5)].
9.1.3.4 Differential-aeration corrosion

When different areas of a carbon steel casing are exposed to electrolytes with different oxygen
concentrations, a galvanic cathode-anode pair is generated and metal loss from the anode
results [3(S2.5 and S2.6)].
9.1.3.5 Carbon-dioxide corrosion
When C02 dissolves in water it leads to the attack of carbon steel through a series of complex
reactions. Temperature of exposure and the partial pressure Of C02 play important roles in
determining the degree of corrosivity [3(S3.1)].
9.1.3.6 Hydrogen-sulphide corrosion
Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) can produce many forms of corrosion - general attack, pitting, hydrogen
embrittlement (HE), hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC) and sulphide-stress-corrosion cracking
(SSCC) [3(S3.5)].
The first two of these are considered above. The last three are all related to the uptake of
hydrogen into the metal lattice.
a) Hydrogen embrittlement (HE)
Hydrogen atoms generated by galvanic action at a metal surface can absorb into the
structure of the metal where they increase the strain in the lattice. This reduces the ductility
and the metal can fail in a brittle manner, failure often originating at stress concentrations.
For high strength steels, highly alloyed materials are often more resistant to SSCC (see
below) than similar strength carbon-manganese steels but can be susceptible to hydrogen
embrittlement when, for example, hydrogen charging results from galvanic corrosion.
b) Hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC)
Hydrogen atoms absorbed into a metal lattice can collect in areas of inclusions forming gas
molecules. Over time the gas pressure can rise until it is great enough to cause the grains to
part and cracks to initiate (usually initially parallel to the metal wall). Crack propagation along
and particularly through the wall (step wise cracking) can lead to sudden failure.
c) Sulphide-stress-corrosion cracking (SSCC)
Stress corrosion cracking requires a high level of applied or residual stress in a corrosive
environment. High strength carbon-manganese steels are particularly vulnerable to this form
of attack in H2S containing media. Hydrogen uptake embrittles the material in the area of
stress concentration at crack tips which then can propagate in the corrosive environment.
SSCC becomes less likely to occur at temperatures permanently above about 150F (65C)
[5].
9.1.3.7 Chloride-stress-corrosion cracking (SCC)
This form of attack, most commonly referred to as stress corrosion cracking, involves an anodic
corrosion process in which corrosion occurs at stress induced failures in a passive metal surface
film. The process is stimulated by the presence of chloride ions but its propagation requires the
presence of a corrosive agent such as oxygen. The best known example of this type of damage
is chloride stress corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steels such AISI 316. Unlike SSCC,
the risk of SCC increases with increasing temperature above a threshold of about 140F (60C)
[3(S6.3)].
9.1.3.8 Bacterial corrosion
Sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) can produce hydrogen sulphide when under anaerobic
(oxygen free), sulphate containing conditions. This can happen in the ranges of pH 5.5-9 and, in
general, only at temperatures less than about 176F (80C) [3(S4.4)].
9.1.3.9 Erosion/corrosion
Fast moving fluids and solids can strip a metal of its protective oxide, sulphide or carbonate
layer. The exposed surface then reacts to reform this protective layer and this cycle is repeated
producing a high rate of attack [3(S3.2)].
9.1.3.10 Intergranular corrosion
During heat treatment, either during or after manufacture, metallurgical changes can result in a
lower corrosion resistance at material grain boundaries than in the matrix. Exposure to a
corrosive environment can then cause intergranular attack through local galvanic corrosion
reactions [3(S6.4)].
9.1.4
Prevention and control of casing corrosion

The following sections address the most common corrosion and materials problems which are
met in casing and conductors. Possible solutions to these problems, often involving
implementation at the design stage, are put forward.
Forms of corrosion which can lead to sudden and rapid failure (SSCC, SCC, HE) should always
be designed for. In dealing with gradual metal loss corrosion, engineering judgement must be
used to determine whether the extent, and consequences, of a loss of wall thickness justify a
change in casing thickness or material.
For further advice, the Opco corrosion specialist should be consulted or reference made to the
Production Handbook [3].
9.1.4.1 Internal corrosion due to reservoir fluids

a) Production casing below production packer
Unlike the rest of the production casing, the part below the production packer is continuously
exposed to the (flowing) reservoir fluids and, unlike the production tubing, no internal
corrosion inhibitor can be applied nor can the casing be readily retrieved for maintenance.
If the fluids locally lead to water wetting of the casing material, corrosion of carbon steel will
take place. CO2, H2S or O2 (in the case of the injection of untreated water) can all lead to
corrosion or corrosion-erosion [3(S3.1, S3.5, S3.6)]. The levels of water required before
water wetting of steel occurs vary. Water cuts above 30% and in deviated wells flow
velocities below 3.3 ft/sec (1 m/sec) for any water level, are liable to lead to corrosion. For
certain oil compositions evidence suggests that, even at levels of about 1% water, corrosion
can occur for velocities possibly as high as 6.5 ft/sec (2 m/sec).
To prevent corrosion in this part of a casing the same material selection criteria should be
applied as would be used for long life production tubing under the same conditions. No
general rules have yet been formulated to guide this choice and expert advice should be
sought. Any possible requirement for formation stimulation by acidization and its likely effects
on the materials used must also be borne in mind. For example, use of a stimulation fluid
such as HCI may result in severe corrosion of CRA tubulars.
b) Production casing above production packer
Normally the exposure time of the production casing (with an inhibited packer fluid ) to
corrosive conditions will be too short to result in serious weight loss corrosion on the inside of
the casing.
However, the result of extended contamination of a chloride-containing packer fluid with H2S
can lead to pitting corrosion which will become more severe with increasing temperature
[3(S3.5)]. If applicable, maintaining a pH> 10 can prevent this form of corrosion.
Whilst contamination of an annulus with CO2 in the packer fluid will lead to attack, rates in an
essentially stagnant environment are likely to be relatively low [3(S3.1)]. Assuming such
faults are corrected in the short term, damage will remain limited.
Contamination of an annulus with O2 for long periods is generally improbable and corrosion
forms involving this corrosive, such as pitting (of steel or CRAs) or chloride stress corrosion
(of CRAs) are unlikely [3(S3.6, S3.7)]. For beam pumped wells oxygen contamination is a
risk and corrosion is possible. It is likely, however, that the use of carbon steel casing will still
represent the most economically attractive approach.
In the event that a CRA is used for the production casing, the possibility of chlorides in the
packer fluid supporting stress corrosion cracking by, for example H2S, must be considered
(SSCC).
c) Casing materials liable to attack by H2S

All casing strings which may be exposed to sour gas (H2S) should consist of material which
is resistant to SSCC at the conditions in which it will be used.
NACE (National Association of Corrosion Engineers) document MR 0175-91 defines a sour
gas environment as one where the total pressure exceeds 65 psia (448 kPa) and the H2S
partial pressure exceeds 0.05 psia (0.34 kPa) [5,3(S3.5.1)].
The immersion of stressed, high strength casing materials in such an environment can lead
to the rapid and sudden failure of those materials due to SSCC. The ability of the casing
material to resist SSCC increases with temperature.
The risk of SSCC therefore increases with:
- increasing H2S partial pressure;
- increasing steel hardness (and hence strength);
- increasing stress (residual or applied);
- decreasing pH of the solution;
- decreasing temperature.
The need to design for sour conditions will primarily depend on the wellbore pressure and
the H2S concentration.
The table below shows, for various well pressures, the H2S concentration above which sour
service materials are required.
The relationship between SSCC, heat treatment, and steel hardness has been documented
by laboratory and field service data [5]. Since hardness testing is non-destructive, it is used
by manufacturers as a quality control method, and by users as a field inspection method.
Although a maximum hardness of 22 Rockwell C is specified by NACE, use of API grades up
to and including L80, which has a maximum hardness of 23 Rockwell C [3], is accepted
based on laboratory evaluation and field experience [5].
Materials which do not meet this hardness requirement, generally all steels with a minimum
yield strength greater than 80,000 psi (551,600 kPa), can be qualified for sour service using
laboratory-based testing procedures. NACE document TM 0177-90 describes four such
SSCC resistance testing procedures [6]. The first of the procedures - known as the NACE
Standard Tensile Test - is most commonly applied, although there is discussion within the oil
industry as to which of the four test methods is most suitable and reliable [7]. The NACE
Standard Tensile Test requires demonstration that the material is resistant to SSCC at an
applied level of tensile stress. It is the purchaser's responsibility to specify the required stress
level. Manufacturers typically supply proprietary, i.e. non-API sour-rated materials having
minimum yield strengths of 80,000 psi (551,600 kPa) and above, which have been qualified
using the tensile test at 80%, 85%, or 90% of the minimum yield strength.
The second test method - known as the NACE Standard Bent Beam Test or Shell Bent
Beam Test - involves stressing the sample specimen beyond its yield strength. A critical
stress (Sc) value is calculated from the test data and is used to relate resistance to SSCC.
Manufacturers should demonstrate the ability of their material to reach the minimum Sc
values indicated in the table below:
Minimum yield strength (x 10 psi)
75-90
90-105
100-115
110-125
Minimum Sc value (x 104 psi)

10
12
13.2
14.7
API Spec 5CT C95 (quenched and tempered) material is acceptable for sour service if
supplied to Shell Standard Specification Dr-1-2/3 [8]. This specification includes a
requirement for qualification by the Shell Bent Beam Test with a minimum Sc value of 12.
It is important to note that proprietary sour service materials qualified by the NACE Standard
Tensile Test method only cannot necessarily be safely used to their full minimum yield
strength under sour conditions.
It is current Shell policy therefore, to require qualification using more severe testing methods.
Results of the NACE Standard Tensile Test are not considered an adequate guide to field
performance. Whilst alternative tests are being investigated, the Shell Bent Beam Test is
currently recommended.
To illustrate the large number of proprietary sour service tubulars available, the table below
shows those products supplied with a 95,000 psi (655,025 kPa) minimum yield strength.
Prior to the inclusion of any of these products, or any other proprietary sour service
materials, in a casing design, satisfactory Shell Bent Beam Test results must be obtained.
Manufacturer
British Steel Corp.
Dalmine
Mannesmann
NKK
Sumitomo
Tamsa
Vallourec
Kawasaki
Lone-Star
NSC
Product
BSC SR-95
D 95-SG
MW-95SS
NK AC95, NK AC95S, NK AC95MS
SM 95S, modified SM 95S
TC 95
C-95 VH-1, C-95 VH-2
KO 95S
LSS 95 SGS
NT 95SS, NT 95SSS
It is often argued that the control of mud pH or the use of H2S scavenging muds make the
use of such special casing materials unnecessary. However, studies have shown [8] that
when the wellbore is displaced to gas, drilling fluids cannot be relied upon to prevent SSCC.
The risk of SSCC decreases with increasing temperature. As a result, high strength, hence
high hardness, materials that are not qualified for sour service at low temperatures can be
used in parts of the well where the minimum continuous temperature exceeds 150F (65C).
Still higher strength materials can be used for minimum temperatures exceeding 175F
(80C) [5].
The application of casing materials in sour service conditions, where SSCC can occur, is
summarised in the following SIPM approved table [5,8]:
Note that selection of materials in accordance with the above table does not offer protection
against hydrogen induced cracking (HIC).
Where a corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) is to be used in a H2S environment the NACE
guidelines are less reliable and expert advice should be sought [1(S3.5)].
9.1.4.2 Internal and external corrosion due to drilling workover and completion fluids
a) Annuli between casing strings
Some muds or brines left in annuli after the completion of a well can degrade with time,
especially at elevated temperature [9]. This degradation can lead to a decrease in pH and
the associated increase in corrosivity. Casing exposed to such acid muds/brines (pH < 7) will
suffer attack until the acid formed has been depleted.
The presence of sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) in muds or brines containing sulphates
with a pH below about 9 can lead to the generation of H2S [10] and a further lowering of pH
[3(S4.4)].
Highly alkaline (pH > 10), thermally stable muds/brines should, where possible, be selected.
Such high pH muds/brines also prevent SRB activity [11] and corrosion by residual oxygen.
Where such muds cannot be used, treatment of the mud during drilling should take account
of possible H2S removal.
Alkaline brine (circulated into a well as soon as possible after completion) assists in
corrosion prevention but may be highly damaging to in-flow in certain types of reservoir.
Such brines should be selected only in close consultation with the Production Chemistry
Department.
b) Tubing/production-casing annulus used for gas lift
Two possible sources of corrosion in a tubing-casing annulus used for gas lift must be
considered: the use of water wet injection gas and the presence of a water pocket above the
packer but below the injection valve.
The injection of water wet gas can lead to corrosion of both the inside of the casing and the
outside of the tubing. Any liquid water which is introduced as a result of condensation in gas
lift supply lines or in the annulus itself will tend to drop out in the annulus and will be
particularly aggressive. The corrosion mechanisms will depend on the gas composition, with
C02 often playing an important role [3(S3. 1)].
The injection of water-dry gas will not lead to the occurrence of corrosion whatever the gas
composition involved if the annulus is also water free.
For gas lifted wells corrosion has been observed in the water pocket above the packer but
below the gas injection valve. Corrosion may be accelerated by galvanic effects if the tubing
is a CRA whilst the casing in this region remains carbon steel.
The corrosion can be prevented, when dry gas lift gas is used, by the initial displacement of
the water pocket to a non-conducting fluid, such as diesel. Where a CRA tubing is present
the use of CRA casing up to a point above the gas injection valve could also be considered.
Contamination of lift gas with O2 can lead to very corrosive gas mixtures, especially where
water is present [3(S3.6)].
9.1.4.3 External corrosion due to reservoir fluids, formation fluids and surface water
a) Outside of casing exposed to reservoir fluids
The same considerations apply as for the inside of production casing below the production
packer.
b) Outside of casing strings exposed to formation fluids
Casing may be exposed to water rich formation zones or aquifers. If the water phase is
contaminated with CO2, H2S, O2 or other corrosive agents, corrosion may result [3(S3. 1,
S3.5, S3.6)].
Particular attention must be paid to zones where H2S may occur, at a level above a partial
pressure of 0.05 psi (0.34 kPa) (the NACE MR.01.75 threshold [5]) and at temperatures
below 150F (65C). Such conditions can produce sulphide stress corrosion cracking
(SSCC) in high strength casing steels (see Section 1.4.1) [3(S3.5)].
Differences in levels of such dissolved gases between zones, or other differences in
formation water compositions can also lead to galvanic cells which further accelerate
corrosion [3(S2.6)].
The primary barrier to corrosion is adequate cementation with a suitable cement which
provides an alkaline environment next to the steel surface. At a pH greater than or equal to
10 none of these corrosives (H2S, CO2, O2) will cause attack. However, as even the best
cement is considered permeable the pH will stabilise at lower values, because of the
interaction with the formation. Poor cement jobs (or not cementing at all) can leave the
external surface of a casing exposed to corrosive attack.
If circulation problems occur preventing an effective cement job, and serious corrosion of the
casing is expected as a result, remedial action should be taken.
Whilst not routine practice within the Shell Group, some Opcos apply cathodic protection
[3(S7.1)] in special cases. If there is clear evidence of the corrosivity of some formations, and
there are no intervening strata of such low electrical conductivity that the penetration of
sufficient current to achieve cathodic protection is not feasible, this approach can provide a
means of preventing corrosive attack.
c) Conductor casing
Current designs for offshore platform wells and land wells involve having an open annulus
between the marine conductor or stove pipe and the conductor casing. This annulus
inevitably becomes filled with (salt) water which promotes oxygen corrosion on the outside of
the conductor casing and the inside of the marine conductor or stove pipe, particularly close
to the water level. Where a marine conductor is perforated near the mudline this problem is
made worse by the inflow and outflow of oxygenated sea water with wave and tidal
movements [3(S3.6)]. The design manual for marine conductors [12] is being updated to
address this problem.
Possible solutions will include cementing the annular space to the highest possible level or
sealing the unfilled annulus against oxygen ingress. The former will ensure that any
corrosion (of the inside of the marine conductor or stove pipe and outside of the exposed
conductor casing) which occurs will be limited to the zone above the top of the cement and
should be relatively accessible for inspection (usually by external ultrasonic techniques). The
latter solution would also involve resealing any perforations of the marine conductor required
during drilling.
At present, little is known about the long term stability of alternative "safe" liquids such as
inhibited water or gels (especially when oxygen is not also excluded) and they cannot be
recommended.
d)
Marine conductors
Internal corrosion of marine conductors is addressed in Section 1.4.2. This section will deal
with external corrosion of marine conductors.
A marine conductor can be divided into three zones with different environments: a zone
exposed to the atmosphere, the splash zone and the submerged zone. All zones are subject
to oxygen attack which can take the form of general corrosion or pitting [3(S3.6)].
In the zone exposed to the atmosphere above the conductor guides, corrosion can be
prevented/controlled by painting [3(S8.4)].
In the splashzone, where corrosion is most severe because of constant rewetting of the
steel, maintenance coating of the conductor is difficult. In addition, coatings cannot withstand
the sliding forces as the conductor passes through the guides and coatings applied initially
are scraped off. Often no coating is applied for this zone but use is made of a substantial
corrosion allowance. Information concerning splash zone corrosion rates can often be
obtained from jacket inspection data available locally and these should be used to set the
corrosion allowance. (As an example, a pitting/general corrosion rate of the order of 0.02
in/year (0.5 mm/year) was found during a review carried out in the early 1980s). Guide
damage and difficulty in predicting the exact depth to which conductors will penetrate
preclude the use of the splashzone protection methods used for flowline risers.
In the submerged zone corrosion is prevented by cathodic protection and allowance should
be made for the conductors in the cathodic protection design for the platform [3(S7.1)].
The marine conductor design manual [12] is currently being updated to address a number of
corrosion issues in more detail.
9.1.4.4 All-round corrosion

Certain forms of corrosion can arise in any part of a casing string.
a) Galvanic corrosion
If different metals are used within the same string (either for the casing tubulars or the
couplings) or adjacent casing strings, and are in electrical contact with each other via an
annulus fluid contaminated with a corrosive agent such as CO2, H2S or O2, galvanic
corrosion might occur [3(S2.5)]. Under similar circumstances galvanic cells can develop
between differently heat-treated zones of the same material. For example "ring worm" attack
can occur at the metallurgical different zone produced at the transition between the end and
body of a tubular during upsetting. Full length heat treatment after upsetting avoids this
problem. In general avoidance of contamination with CO2, H2S or O2 should be achieved to
prevent this form of attack.
9.1.4.5 Special forms of corrosion
a) Liquid-metal embrittlement
Several unexplained high strength casing failures have occurred in deep wells at
temperatures above 330F (165C) [13]. In one case, the tubular connections had been tin
plated, and in others, thread lubricant containing lead, tin and zinc had been used.
Laboratory testing at the temperatures to which the connections had been exposed in the
well resulted in rapid cracking of the collars. Metallurgical examination showed that the
cracking was the result of liquid metal embrittlement. This is a form of intergranular attack.
When heated to sufficiently high temperatures, metals such as tin and zinc (which are in
connection thread compounds) will melt and flow along the grain boundaries of adjacent
metals which have not melted. The grain boundary zone is then weakened and the metal
becomes brittle. These results indicate that lubricants should only be applied at temperatures
below the melting point of any metallic components they contain.
9.1.5
New developments
Two trends in drilling with potentially major impacts on the casing materials used are:
- deeper, high pressure and high temperature wells are being drilled, the well fluids sometimes
being very corrosive;
-
wells are being drilled in more and more remote areas and hostile environments (e.g.
deepwater and Arctic wells).
The first trend requires higher strength steel grades for casing. This represents a problem for
sour service. At present API is involved with a project to qualify C90 and T95 API grades for sour
service (Project 2151). The acceptability of these grades for Shell use will be dependent on the
qualification tests and criteria for acceptance used. Until now, qualification for inclusion in NACE
MR0175 has been based on the NACE TM0177 tensile test at a stress level which is a proportion
(e.g. 85%) of the minimum specified yield strength. This is not considered acceptable since in
practice stress levels higher than this level may occur, particularly at couplings.
The current SIPM view is that the qualification of this and higher grades (100,000 psi (689,500
kPa) and 110,000 psi (758,450 kPa) minimum yield strength) for sour service should be based
on the Standard/Shell Bent Beam Test. It is realised that for some applications involving low
amounts of H2S this may be rather conservative. Since the costs of repair and workover
operations tend to be very high in remote areas and in hostile environments, wells in such areas
should be designed with the aim of low maintenance costs in mind. If conditions are such that
casing corrosion can be expected, it might be economically attractive to spend more money at
the design/initial construction stage to achieve corrosion prevention than might be the case for
wells in more usual areas and environments, in order to avoid the future need for expensive
repairs and workovers. This consideration might lead to the use of CRAs for applications where
normally low alloy steels are used. Documents describing the application limits of individual
CRAs will gradually become available within SIPM.
Although the use of Fiber Glass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) has been widely accepted in many
surface applications, there is little experience with the materials downhole. Theoretically the
material offers excellent opportunities for both Capex and Opex reductions due to its light weight
and corrosion resistance over the life cycle. In practice, however, the low pressure rating and the
sensitive handling/make-up procedures make application difficult. However, it is perceived that
as the experience with and the development of the material increases more applications will be
found. As such the API is currently developing specifications for FRP products. At present the
use of FRP tubulars is mainly in shallow low pressure water disposal and gaslift wells [13A].
9.2
Influence of wear on casing strength
9.2.1
Introduction
The burst, collapse and axial strengths of casing are directly related to wall thickness, and hence
are reduced by wear. The casing must therefore be designed so that wear will not reduce the
strength of the casing below that which will enable the well to be drilled and operated safely and
efficiently.
This chapter describes when and where casing wear is likely to be a problem, the mechanism of
wear, models developed to predict casing wear, and practical solutions that can be adopted both
at the design stage and during drilling.
Unless there is well documented evidence that wear is not a problem, the amount of wear should
be monitored closely during the drilling of the well, so that if it becomes excessive appropriate
action can be taken.
Wear should not be confused with friction. Friction is partially determined by surface roughness.
Since surface conditions are strongly affected by the wear process, wear and friction will
influence each other. However there is no general, unambiguous relationship between the two.
This means that wear and friction have to be evaluated separately.
9.2.2
Site and timing of casing wear

It is generally concluded [14,15,16] that the major cause of casing wear is by a rotating drillstring
which is pulled firmly against the casing in the curved parts of the wellbore as a result of the
tension in the drillstring. Wear due to drillpipe tripping has been calculated to represent
approximately 1% of total wear. Wear due to wireline is somewhat greater than that of drillpipe
tripping but still of the same order of magnitude. As a result of these observations, research
aimed at understanding, reducing or eliminating casing wear has been based almost exclusively
on the study of drillpipe rotating in casing.
Wear, then, is the result of contact between the rotating drillstring and the casing. In deviated
wells this will occur over the build-up, drop-off and tangent sections, and also where casing
buckling may have occurred i.e. at the top of cement.
In vertical wells, wear points could also develop at the top of cement if casing buckling occurs.
Otherwise, wear is likely to be small and uniformly distributed unless there are severe local
doglegs.
Deep wells are of particular concern. Firstly, drilling time increases, increasing the time for wear.
Secondly, the longer drillstrings will cause greater tension and thus generate higher contact
forces.
Wear is often found in the casing joints just below the hanger [17]. This is thought to be caused
by misalignment of the rotary table relative to the wellhead and less than perfect alignment of
casing and wellhead housings aggrevated by the high tension in the drillpipe resulting in high
contact loads. If the conductor casing and BOP are inclined with respect to the (rig-) vertical the
wellhead can be seen as a severe dogleg. The resultant wear to the casing is aggravated by
tong marks, caused by make-up and break-out of the drillpipe [18]. These tong marks will wear
off, but mainly in the top part of the casing string they cause more than average wear to the
casing, casing hanger and wear bushing in the wellhead. A larger wear design margin for 5-10
casing joints just below the hanger may be considered to counter act the reduction in wall
thickness. It is also important to ensure that the casing housing, wear bushing, casing hanger,
and the first few joints below the hanger have a common internal diameter. Achieving the same
throughbore for these components eliminates high localised contact loads.
9.2.3
Effect of wear on different types of casing strength
9.2.3.1 Collapse strength

The collapse capacity of worn casing is directly related to the remaining wall thickness. The
collapse capacity should be calculated by using the minimum remaining wall thickness in the
appropriate collapse formula from API Bull. 5C3 [19]. Since the wall thickness is not usually
reduced in a uniform manner, use of the minimum value will give a conservative estimate of the
remaining capacity.
The stress concentration that may arise from wireline wear does not affect collapse resistance
[20].
9.2.3.2 Burst strength
The burst capacity of worn casing is proportional to the remaining wall thickness and should be
calculated from the burst formula in API Bull. 5C3 [19] using the minimum wall thickness. This
typically applies to drillpipe generated wear.
For wireline wear, the reduction in burst pressure is the result of two factors. The first is the
reduction due to the reduced wall thickness and the second is due to the stress concentration
resulting from the sudden change in geometry.
15
For a groove created by /32 in (11.91 mm) open hole logging cable, the stress concentration
factor ranges from ca. 1.2 to 1.4 [14,20]. The burst capacity of casing worn by such wireline is
thus the burst strength as determined from reduced wall thickness divided by 1.4. Wireline wear
in the vertical part of well is normally negligible, and the reduction in burst resistance due to
logging is, in such cases, trivial. In the build-up, drop-off and tangent sections of the well, wireline
wear could be greater, but still small compared to that caused by drillpipe rotation.
Note that the burst capacity formula for casing is based on yield of the pipe. In fact, failure will not
occur until the pipe material reaches its ultimate strength [2,21]. As a result, the capacity
calculated from minimum remaining wall thickness (and any stress concentration factor) can be
regarded as conservative.
9.2.3.3 Axial strength

Since the resistance of casing to axial loading is the product of the material yield strength and the
cross-sectional area of the steel, any uniform (i.e. covering the entire circumference) or localised
(i.e. only part of the circumference) reduction in wall thickness will affect this resistance.
However, the effect of a given localised reduction in wall thickness on collapse and burst
capacity will be much more severe than on the axial load capacity.
9.2.3.4 Strength of connections
Connection axial strengths are also calculated based on cross-sectional areas. The axial
strength of an internally worn connection should be calculated using the formulas given in API
Bull. 5C3 [19] for round thread, buttress thread, and extreme line connections based on the
maximum internal diameter of the pin.
For premium connections the calculation of remaining strength will vary with connection type and
the manufacturer should be consulted.
Little analysis has been performed on the internal leak resistance of internally worn casing
connections. Early work on this topic (based on the contact stress in API connections) concluded
that the internal leak pressure will be independent of casing wall reduction due to wear as long
as the wear has not cut through the first sealing point of the connection [22].
In general it is recommended to contact the manufacturer to establish the remaining connection
strength for a worn connection.
9.2.4
Wear mechanisms
Wear is the result of a complex tribological process taking place in the contact area between the
drillstring and the casing, with mud generally present as the intermediate medium.
Contact between drillstring and casing can occur at the drillpipe tool joint and along the drillpipe
body.
At moderate drillpipe tension, using Range 2 drillpipe, and dogleg severities less than 6/100 ft
(2.0/10 m), pipe body contact with the casing is minimal [23]. In most cases, therefore, wear due
to pipe body rotation will be negligible. The main point of contact between the drillstring and the
casing will be the drillpipe tool joints, Most research into casing wear, therefore, is based on
contact between casing material and tool joint material.
Parameters such as contact load, surface roughness, hardness, geometry and chemical
composition of both the tool joint and the casing, and the mud composition will determine what
kind of wear mechanism occurs.
The three types of wear mechanism are [24,25,26];
- two-body adhesive wear;
- two-body abrasive wear;
- three-body abrasive wear.
The rate of wear depends upon the wear mechanism. Laboratory tests using smooth steel tool
joints to examine the variation in wear rate, volume of steel per unit of time, with increasing
contact pressure [27] show a distinct change in wear rate at a contact pressure around 200 psi
(1,379 kPa) (see Figure I-2).
FIGURE I-2 CASING WEAR RATE AS A FUNCTION OF CONTACT PRESSURE
Contract pressure is the contract load divided by the contract area. It is used, instead of contact
force, to eliminate the effect of changing contact area during the wear process. For a constant
contact load, the volumetric wear rate decreases with time. This is due to the fact that as the
casing wears, the resulting groove causes an increase in contact area, and thus a decrease in
contact pressure. The wear rate, however, is proportional to contact pressure.
At low pressures, three-body abrasive wear dominates with the use of smooth steel tool joints
while at higher pressures two-body adhesive wear is the primary mechanism. Within the range
150-250 psi (1,034-1,724 kPa), either mechanism may occur.
9.2.4.1 Two-body adhesive wear
Adhesive wear is the dominant wear mechanism for smooth steel tool joints at high contact
pressures. It is also termed "galling". It is a mechanism characterised by local solid phase
welding which occurs when the two bodies are in intimate contact. The welds are sheared off by
the relative motion of the mating surfaces and metal is transferred from the low strength body
(casing) to the high strength body (tool joint). The bond of the material to the tool joint is however
temporary and ultimately results in the production of flake-like wear debris [18,25].
9.2.4.2 Two-body abrasive wear
This type of wear, also known as "chipping", occurs when sharp particles on a tool joint (e.g.
exposed hardfacing material) cut into the casing material as a result of high local contact stress
between the sharp particle and the casing. This type of wear produces fine cuttings or chips
similar to machining on a lathe [18,25].
9.2.4.3 Three-body abrasive wear
In the case when the smooth tool joint and casing surfaces are separated by solid particles
contained in the drilling fluid, e.g. barites, a three-body abrasive wear mechanism occurs. It is
also referred to as "grinding" [25,26]. The casing surface is cyclically loaded by the solid particles
due to the drillpipe rotation. This causes fatigue and embrittlement of the metalwhich ultimately
leads to microfractures at the surface. The rate at which these fatigue cracks develop depends
on the peak loads and is thus related to the hardness of the solid particles. The microfracturing
process produces a powder-type wear debris.
An extreme case of three-body abrasive wear known as "polishing" occurs when the hard
particles contained in the drilling fluid can be embedded in one of the contacting surfaces i.e.
when a rubber drillpipe protector is used. Now the peakloads are governed and limited by the
forces required to push the hard particles into the rubber surface rather than by the particle
strength. Consequently a very fine powder-type debris is produced [18].
Three-body abrasive wear represents mild wear conditions and will not usually result in
excessive casing wear.
The above mechanisms can be characterised by wear factors. The wear factor represents the
amount of wear that takes place with each mechanism for a given set of operating conditions the larger the wear factor, the greater the amount of wear.
Typical wear factor values for the various wear mechanisms are given below. These factors are
normalised such that polishing has a maximum wear factor of 1.
Wear mechanism
Debris
Wear factor
Two-body abrasive
Cuttings
400-1800
Two-body adhesive
Flakes
20-50
Three-body abrasive
Powder
0.1-10
In a new casing the initial contact area between smooth tool joints and casing is very small, i.e.
line contact, resulting in high contact pressures. In addition, mill scale and irregularities of the tool
joint surfaces, e.g. tongmarks, contribute to severe initial wear conditions. Consequently a high
wear rate occurs (two-body adhesive) which results in a rapid increase of the contact area, and
thus a reduction of the contact pressure to a level that enables mild wear conditions to occur
(three body abrasive).
This implies that during the first bit run through a new casing, large volumes of steel filings, i.e.
flakes, may be produced initially, after which the wear process stabilises at mild wear conditions.
During successive bit runs the wearing down of tongmarks may cause accelerated casing wear
as well at the start of the runs.
Note that the wear rate has so far been expressed in terms of volume casing material removed
per unit of time. A more usable and understandable form is to refer to wear depth per unit of time,
since this enables the calculation of the remaining collapse, burst or axial capacity of the worn
casing. Wear volume and wear depth are related by the geometry of the contacting surfaces.
See Figure I-3 [30].
Thus, for the first bit run through a new casing as described above, wear depth will initially
increase rapidly due to the high contact pressures. As the wear depth and contact area increase,
mild wear results. It results that the rate of increase of wear depth drops dramatically.
9.2.5 Modelling the wear process
The aim of wear modelling is to be able to predict in advance where casing wear will occur and
how severe it will be. The technique most commonly adopted is to modify theoretical models,
usually by the use of wear factors, so that they match field and laboratory observations.
A considerable amount of the early laboratory casing wear modelling produced conflicting results
and conclusions, with differing solutions proposed.
FIGURE I-3 : WEAR DEPTH AS A FUNCTION OF WEAR VOLUME
Shell Research, Rijswijk, and the Bellaire Research Centre, Houston both conclude that these
variations are a result of the testing equipment and methods used, and that those results should
be used with caution [24,28].
There is general agreement, however, that casing wear models have to take into account the
following:
- the magnitude of the tool joint - casing contact pressure;
- the geometry of the contacting surfaces;
- the relative roughness of the contacting surfaces;
- the material of the contacting surfaces;
- the magnitude of the relative velocity and the time the mating surfaces are in contact, i.e. the
wear track length;
- the drilling fluid composition.
The affect of each of these variables on the wear depth rate is now discussed individually in
qualitative terms, and then the computer model for quantification of these effects will be
introduced.
9.2.5.1 Contact pressure
As described earlier, the wear mechanism and therefore the wear rate for smooth tool joints is
determined by the contact pressure. During the initial "breaking-in", the wear mechanism is
adhesive due to the small contact area and resulting high pressure. As the casing rapidly wears,
the contact area increases and the reduced contact pressure means that the wear mechanism
returns to a mild three-body abrasive wear. See line A in Figure I-4.
If the contact loads are very high, a significant wear depth may be experienced before the
contact area is large enough to reduce contact pressure to a level where mild wear occurs. See
line B in Figure 1-4.
FIGURE I-4 : REDUCTION IN WEAR RATE WITH TIME
For two body adhesive wear, due to exposed rough tool joint hardfacing material, severe wear
results from the extremely high localised contact pressure. Mild wear conditions are never
achieved. See line C in Figure 5.
For smooth tool joints in weighted mud systems it has been experimentally determined [29] that
the contact load must remain below 2,200 lbs (10,000 N) for the mild three body abrasive wear
mechanism to be prevalent. Above this contact load, the protective mud solids film fails and
adhesive wear occurs.
High contact loads can also cause uncemented casing to deflect elastically against the hole wall.
For casing with non-flush connections, this causes bending to be concentrated near the
connection, as illustrated in Figure I-5.
Since the drillstring follows the gradual curvature of the borehole, the tool joints will be parallel to
the casing for the majority of the casing joint length. However, in the vicinity of the casing
connection the drillpipe tool joints become tilted with respect to the casing and wear increases
dramatically. Rough edges on the tool joint further increase the wear rate at these points.
FIGURE I-5 : HIGH CONTACT LOADS CAN LEAD TO CONCENTRATION OF BENDING NEAR
CONNECTION
9.2.5.2 Contact surfaces

a) Geometry
Studies on casing wear generally concentrate on the volume of steel removed from the
casing wall. As discussed earlier, this volume must be converted to a loss of wall thickness
so that the remaining casing capacity can be determined.
The depth of wear is related to the volume of wear by means of the curvature of the
contacting surfaces. For a tool joint of a given size, the initial wear depth will be greater for
large casing sizes than small casing sizes. This results from the fact that for the larger casing
sizes, a greater wear depth has to be achieved to increase the contact area sufficiently such
that mild wear conditions occur [30].
Furthermore, the relationship between wear depth rate and casing sizes is very non-linearly
dependent on the current depth of wear. If the current wear depth is low, the contact area is
small (almost line contact) and the influence which casing size has on the subsequent wear
rate is negligible. If the wear depth is high, the casing size becomes more significant in
determining contact area, and thus contact pressure and wear rate.
Uncemented casing will bend under drillpipe contact loads as described in Section 3.1.
Because casing size determines its bending stiffness, the wear in the vicinity of casing
connections will be lower for large diameter uncemented casing and higher for small
diameter uncemented casing.
b) Roughness
Casing wear depends strongly on the type of tool joint used. Plain steel tool joints, or tool
joints with smooth hardfacing, give rise to severe wear in brines or unweighted muds, but
only mild wear in oilbase muds or weighted waterbase muds. See Section 2.5.4 for effects of
drilling fluids. Tool joints with exposed rough hardfacing lead to severe wear irrespective of
the drilling fluid.
The following types of tool joint can be distinguished (see Figure I-6):
Plain steel
The tool joint surface is not protected which results in relatively low wear rates of the
casing in weighted muds (except for that caused by tong marks). In unweighted mud
systems however the smooth tool joints are prone to two body adhesive wear.
Tungsten-carbide hardfacing
Protection is provided by tungsten-carbide particles which may be deposited on the tool
joint surface in an alloy matrix. This type of hardfacing is characterised by a rough and
eccentric surface which leads to two body abrasive wear and has to be worn smooth in
the open hole before the tool joints can be run in casing. Alternately, the surface can be
machined smooth prior to use.
Two-phase hardfacing
To avoid wear of casing caused by rough tungsten-carbide hardfaced tool joints, an
overlay can be applied to give it wear characteristics similar to that of smooth steel tool
joints. However proper inspection and maintenance is required to prevent tungstencarbide from contacting the casing as the overlay wears down.
Alloy hardfacing
An alloy hardfacing is a one-layer application without tungsten carbide.
To prevent rapid wear, it is essential that only smooth hardfacing is used and that this
hardfacing is flush with the body of the tool joint. If the hardfacing stands proud, the contact
area is reduced and the contact pressure increases leading to higher rates of wear. Shell
Research, Rijswijk, have made recommendations on acceptable tool joint hardfacing as a
result of laboratory tests [31,32,33,34,35] and have also produced a specification for such
hardfacing [34]. It is SIPM's standard to only use tool joints with smooth hardfacing flush with
the tool joint O.D. [36,37].
FIGURE I-6 : TYPES OF TOOL JOINT HARDFACING
Acceptable hardfacing materials are [34] ;
All other hardfacing materials must be machined in order to meet the specification.
Laboratory tests [35] revealed that in a barite weighted waterbase mud the wear rate is
negligible provided the smooth tool joints have a total circumferential load-carrying area of at
least 46 in (300 cm) (see Figure I-7).
Only drillpipes of which the tool joints meet this criterion are acceptable for use in cased hole
sections.
FIGURE I-7: EFFECT OF LOAD-CARRYING AREA OF TOOL JOINT ON CASING WEAR
The load-carrying area of tool joints can be measured using the contact print technique
developed by Shell Research Rijswijk. This technique is available as a service from Vetco. In
addition to the above, the edges of the hardfaced area on the tool joints must also be
inspected for smoothness. See Figure I-8. Hard particles exposed at these edges may
contribute to excessive casing damage in the area of the connection. See Section 2.5.1.
FIGURE I-8 : INSPECTION OF TOOL JOINT HARDFACING FOR SMOOTHNESS
c) Material
Laboratory wear tests [26,28] examined the role of wear as function of the casing grade and
metallurgy. Carbon content of the steel was the only metallurgical property that correlated
with wear i.e. the rate or amount of wear decreases as the carbon content (and grade)
increases. As the casing strength, and therefore hardness, increases towards that of the tool
joint then abrasive wear will decrease. Adhesive wear, however, will increase as the
hardness of the contacting surfaces becomes similar.
Although the rate of wear was found to vary with grade it was concluded that grade is not a
dependable measure of wear resistance. Care should be exercised when taking wear data
corresponding to one grade, e.g. P110, and applying it to a different grade, e.g. N80. This
should not be done unless there is no other data available.
It can be said, however, that when plain steel tool joints are in use, the difference in strength
(hardness) between the tool joint and the casing material is important in avoiding adhesive
wear. As a result, when designing the casing for burst and collapse, an increase in wall
thickness is preferable to an increase in grade.
Studies have also shown [26] that casing wear is reduced by internally coating the casing
with chrome. Chrome tool joint coatings also reduce casing wear. Hardening or nitriding of
the inside of the casing surface has proven ineffective in reducing casing wear.
9.2.5.3 Relative velocity and contact time of mating surfaces
The volume of wear "cuttings" is proportional to the rotary cutting distance ( rpm x contact time
x tool joint OD). As a result, for a given tool joint, casing wear is proportional to the drillstring
rotation speed and the number of rotating hours. The rate of penetration is also an important
factor in that it determines the length of time that a tool joint is in contact with any particular point
in the casing. One of the failings of earlier laboratory studies was the omission of axial movement
in the testing equipment.
To simulate an actual number of field drilling hours, the Wear Track Length (WTL) was
introduced [18]. The WTL is defined as the length of tool joint surface passing along a certain
point of the casing due to rotation and translation. The WTL should be identical in the field and in
the test facility for a representative simulation of casing wear.
9.2.5.4 Drilling-fluid composition
Generally rough tool joints, which result in locally very high contact pressures, cause local
ruptures in protective mud layers and films. As a result, wear rates will remain high and the
drilling fluid composition will have little influence. Only when smooth tool joints are used will the
fluid type, and its weighting material, be important.
For smooth tool joints in both unweighted and barite-weighted oil base muds (OBM), wear is very
low in all cases [24,26,38]. The combination of oilwetting agents and emulsifiers present in
unweighted oilbase muds is already sufficient to create a film with a protective action similar to
that of barite. Barite addition does not increase the degree of protection.
Smooth tool joints in unweighted waterbase muds (WBM) cause severe adhesive wear. See
Figure I-9. In barite-weighted waterbase muds however, a protective barite layer is formed that
prevents metal-to-metal contact and casing wear is low and identical for all mud weights
[24,26,38].
FIGURE I-9 : EFFECT OF MUD DENSITY ON CASING WEAR FOR BARITE-WEIGHTED MUDS
(CONTACT FORCE 8 KN, 115 RPM, 5 M/HR ROP, SMOOTH TOOLJOINT)
Barite is the most effective mud weighting material for reducing casing wear. Tests using various
weighting materials have been performed [24] and the results are shown in Figure I-10. Threebody abrasive wear increases with particle hardness in the sequence barite, iron oxide and
quartz. Chalk and drilled solids (clays) have particle sizes significantly smaller than those of the
other three materials and do little to reduce casing wear.
Tests have been carried out [24,39] to examine the effect on casing wear of muds containing
additives (such as lignosulphonate, starch, sulphonated lignite and salts) and various types of
lubricants (see Figure I-11). For weighted muds, no additional effect of additives or lubricants on
wear was found. For unweighted muds the following observations can be made:
- Few of the additives tested significantly improved the lubricity of the seawater/lignosulfonate
muds and as a result reduced the casing wear. However, all really effective lubricants
identified sofar are more toxic than could be tolerated for use [39].
- The addition of diesel oil (10%v) has no effect on wear. Diesel oil is unable to create a
chemically bound lubricant film, since it does not contain any reactive components.
FIGURE I-10 : EFFECT OF WEIGHTING MATERIAL ON CASING WEAR (CONTACT FORCE 8kN,
115 RPM, 5 M/HR ROP, SMOOTH TOOLJOINT)
FIGURE I-11 : EFFECT OF LUBRICANT ON CASING WEAR (CONTACT FORCE 8kN, 115 RPM, 5
M/HR ROP, SMOOTH TOOLJOINT)
1 mm diameter glass beads (up to 6%w) has no effect on wear at all. The glass beads were
simply unable even to reach the contact area, because of their size.
The addition of salt reduces casing wear. Possibly, salts aid in the formation of a corroded
layer that (partially) prevents adhesive wear. The addition of 10%w sodium chloride to a
bentonite base mud has a similar effect on casing wear as the addition of 2%v lubricant.
The addition of mud additives, such as lignosulphonates, starches and other polymers to a
bentonite suspension causes a reduction of wear. The effects, however, are difficult to
reproduce with any accuracy and are less pronounced than those obtained with lubricants
and high salt concentrations. A different case is the addition of Resinex or gilsonite-type
materials. When added in sufficient concentration (1.0-2.0%w), these small insoluble
asphaltic particles give a protection similar to that of barite.
With respect to drilled solids it is observed that small quantities of drilled solids i.e. sand and/or
silt (2-4%v) have no, or hardly any, effect on wear [24]. In unweighted simple waterbase muds,
adhesive wear is so severe that no abrasive contribution of the sand (silt) can be observed. In
unweighted, film-forming muds (salts, lubricants, oilbase muds) an occasional increase in friction
coefficient was observed when sand reached the contact area. No effect of small sand additions
on the overall wear rate as observed, however. In weighted waterbase muds, the sand is so
much "diluted" by weighting material that again no effect was observed. However, optimal
operation of the solids-removal equipment is required to keep the sand/silt content at these
acceptably low levels.
The table below illustrates the relationship between wear, tool joint hardfacing, and fluid content.
Summarising for smooth tool joints, mud types and additives can make a significant difference to
wear rates. For rough tool joints however, they have no influence as the tool joint surface
roughness dominates the wear process.
9.2.5.5 DRAGTORQ wear model

A predictive casing wear model can be used to optimise the mud type, mud solids, casing
weight, and well path in order to render wear insignificant in the most cost-effective manner.
Because of the complexity of the wear process (both abrasive wear and adhesive wear), the
wear model must combine computational predictions of the drillpipe contact loads which act on
the casing with laboratory measured wear rates (wear factors) which in turn are functions of the
contact loads, mud composition, cutting distance (WTL), and the geometry of the contacting
surfaces.
The program DRAGTORQ, part of the OSCP portfolio, is primarily intended to calculate
drillstring drag and torque. However, it also contains a wear calculation model [14,40]. The wear
model can be used both as a planning tool during the design of a well, or as a monitoring tool
during drilling of the well.
In the first of these modes, the wear model will estimate wear depth, together with the amount of
metal cuttings, based on a user-input wear factor corresponding to the particular tool joint and
drilling fluid combination in use.
Used as a monitoring tool, the wear model uses the actual recovered amount of metal cuttings
to calculate the wear depth. An estimate of wear factor is also made.
The first operation of the program is to calculate the contact force between tool joints and
casing, and the variation of this force with depth. This is currently achieved using a method
which models the drillstring as a cable in a three-dimensional borehole [23].
The wear depth is then calculated based on the contact force, ROP, RPM, the dimensions of
the tool joint and casing, and either the wear factor or the mass of recovered metal-depending
upon the mode in which the program is being used. The program also calculates any wear
concentrations in the vicinity of casing connections resulting from the bending of uncemented
casing caused by the contact forces. See Figure I-5.
It should be noted that the program does not calculate the rapid breaking-in wear that occurs
due to the "line" contact area in new casing.
DRAGTORQ presents wear as percentage wall thickness worn away as a function of depth,
alongside other plots. See Figure I-12 for an example application of this package, which is
completely worked out in the OSCP guideline [41].
The program cannot however be used for the tapered drill strings, or for strings with rubber
protectors installed. The reliability of the results depends on the accuracy of the well survey data
input and the accuracy of the steel weight recording procedure.
9.2.6
Controlling casing wear

From the previous sections, it is apparent that casing wear is primarily affected by contact load,
tool joint hardfacing condition, mud properties, and wear track length. Elimination or reduction of
casing wear therefore must concentrate on these four factors.
9.2.6.1 Contact load

Wear will be proportional to contact load - although not linearly. It has been determined that the
protective layer provided by the mud starts to fail when the contact forces exceed 2,200 lbs
(10,000 N), and the wear rate increases significantly at that load. Therefore contact load should
be kept below this value. Contact loads, and their influence on casing wear, can be minimised in
a number of ways.
FIGURE I-12 : TYPICAL OUTPUT OF THE DRAGTORQ PROGRAM
Well path selection

High contact loads occur when the tool joints are pulled firmly against the casing over a dogleg
zone, i.e. build-up or drop-off section, or a localised drilled dogleg. Thus contact loads can be
minimised by ensuring that dogleg severity in the build and drop sections of deviated wells is as
low as possible, and that localised drilled doglegs in vertical or straight sections are avoided.
Minimising casing wear should be one of the considerations when designing the wellpath, and
this can be achieved by using DRAGTORQ to analyse the contact loads and resulting wear for
the proposed well path [41]. While the well is being drilled, the actual wellpath can be similarly
analysed and the hole plugged back if the actual doglegs will lead to excessive contact loads and
hence unacceptable wear during drilling of the next section.
Rubber drilling protectors
Drillpipe protectors can be used to distribute the contact load over a larger area. By mounting
one protector per single (at midjoint) the contact load at the tool joint is reduced by 50%. Two
protectors per single triple the load carrying capacity which implies that the maximum acceptable
dogleg is three times the maximum obtained when protectors are not used. The wear caused by
rubber drillpipe protectors is approximately 5% of that due to plain steel tool joints under the
same conditions [42]. Rubber drillpipe protectors are also used (particularly in the USA) to
prevent contact between tool joint and casing surfaces [43]. This is achieved by placing a
protector, having an OD at least 0.4 inches greater than that of the tool joint, approximately 1 foot
above the pin tool joint. However, it is the SIPM's view that such a practice does not prevent
casing wear and should not be adopted [17,44]. If applied, the drillpipe protectors should be
mounted in the middle of the drillpipe, where their deformation underloading does not negate
their purpose, because of the increased allowable compression compared to a position close to a
tooljoint.
There are significant disadvantages associated with the use of drillpipe protectors, even for load
distribution purposes. As the surface of the protector becomes impregnated with sand it will start
to add to casing wear. In addition, there is concern about operational problems caused by the
presence of protectors i.e. the danger of closing the pipe rams on a protector which has slipped,
and the extra time required for stripping operations. Slippage of protectors can however be
prevented by rotating the drillpipe through doglegs when running-in and pulling-out since this will
reduce the drag.
In general, it is recommended that casing wear is minimised by use of smooth tool joint
hardfacing, optimum well path design, and film-forming muds, rather than by using drillpipe
protectors [44]. However, for special conditions, after a thorough evaluation and with extra
attention for the operational aspects, special types of drillpipe protector can be used. The drilling
industry in developing non-rotating protectors, which could assist in the reduction of casing wear.
Bending of casing under high contact loads
Wear associated with bending of casing in the vicinity of casing collars can be eliminated in a
number of ways:
i)
Cement the casing over the interval where high contact loads will be experienced.
ii)
Install steel rings on both sides of the collars - the thickness of the rings should be slightly
less than that of the collar in order to create a gradual transition. These rings should be
located at a distance of 6 ft (2 m) from the collars. Rigid centralisers may also be used for
this purpose.
iii) Use internally/externally flush casing.

iv) Ensure that the tapered sections of tool joints are ground smooth.
9.2.6.2 Hardfacing of tool joints
Rough tool joint hardfacing is the most dominant cause of catastrophic casing wear, and hence
it must not be used inside casing. Only smooth (machined or field worn) hardfacing is
acceptable and the drilling contract must specify quantitatively the smoothness of the
hardfacing. For new drillpipe this has been done in the SQAIR document for drillpipe [37]. This
document is also applicable for used drillpipe and can be referred to in the drilling contract. It
includes the description of inspection techniques for tool joint hardfacing.
In the past, common practice has been to run drillpipe with new rough hardfacing exclusively in
open hole to wear-in the hardfacing. However, besides the complicated pipe handling, a
judgement must still be made as to when the hardfacing is smooth enough. Such practices are
therefore not recommended.
9.2.6.3 Drilling fluids
Wear is small, with the application of smooth hardfacing when using oilbase drilling muds and
weighted waterbase drilling muds due to the development of a protective film. The absence of
this protective film causes rapid casing wear. Drillstring rotating hours in unweighted waterbase
muds and also in brine should therefore be limited unless effective lubricants are used [39].
Lubricants can significantly reduce wear in the low solids muds. Wear decreases with increasing
lubricant concentration up to 2% by volume. Concentrations of over 2% by volume may cause oil
wetting and clogging up of mud solids. It is advised that for critical wells Shell Research will be
approached for laboratory wear measurements.
9.2.6.4 Wear-track length (WTL)

As described earlier, the volume of wear is proportional to the rotary cutting distance or wear
track length. This length is a function of the tool joint dimensions, the drillstring rotation speed,
the number of rotating hours, and the rate of penetration. Given that the rate of penetration is, for
the sake of argument, fixed, then the casing wear can only be minimised by reducing the rotation
speed or by reducing the number of rotating hours. This is best achieved by use of a downhole
motor so that it is not necessary to rotate the drillstring.
Consideration should also be given to possible severe casing wear while drilling out cement
plugs. Plugs which have a tendency to rotate should be avoided wherever possible because this
can lead to a significant amount of time rotating the drillpipe at the same depth.
9.2.7
Designing for wear

Casing wear should be allowed for in the casing design process as described in Flowchart I-1.
In the event that the casing wear is significant but not sufficient to justify increased casing wall
thickness or immediate use of alternative drilling methods (e.g a downhole motor to avoid
drillstring rotation), a wear monitoring programme should be implemented while drilling.
FLOWCHART I-1: DESIGNING FOR WEAR
9.2.8
Wear monitoring programme

Ongoing wear monitoring is best performed by use of the DRAGTORQ casing wear prediction
model [29,41]. As discussed earlier, DRAGTORQ can be used at the casing design stage by
input of a wear factor. It can also be used to calculate the amount and distribution of casing wear
based on the amount of steel recovered at surface. The main input parameters for the
DRAGTORQ model when used for monitoring are the wellbore survey and the weight of
recovered steel.
The steel removed from the casing has to be collected. For this purpose a number of bar-shaped
magnets may be used which are positioned diagonally in the flowline. The ditch magnets should
be stacked so that the mud passes more than one magnet [40]. A plastic sheet or bag placed
over the magnet enables the steel to be more easily removed.
Recording of the weight of steel filings taken from each individual magnet enables the efficiency
of the steel collection and possible saturation of the magnets to be assessed. The weight
measurements for each individual magnet can also be used to determine the minimum
measuring frequency to avoid magnet saturation. Such services can often be obtained as part of
a mud-logging contract.
The shape of the recovered filings should also be recorded since this can give an indication of
the wear mechanism.
A plot of the amount of metal recovered versus rotating hours should be used to estimate the
final amount of worn steel by extrapolation towards the planned drilling time. This extrapolated
value is then input in the DRAGTORQ wear model.
If the anticipated wear reduces the strength capacity of the casing below that required to allow
safe drilling and operation of the well, appropriate measures, such as the use of a mud motor,
should be taken (see Figure I-13).
Wear can also be evaluated by the use of wireline logging tools. These services can give an
accurate measure of remaining wall thickness. It is strongly recommended that a base log is run
prior to commencing drilling operations. This is especially the case for drilling operations
conducted inside the production casing.
It is evident that measurement of actual wear should be performed with wireline logging tools in
order to calibrate the results of DRAGTORQ estimations. Such logging runs should be performed
at regular intervals during drilling of the section and the final wear predictions based on
DRAGTORQ simulations adjusted accordingly. If it is found that the DRAGTORQ output closely
matches the log results, then it may be possible to rely solely on the computer model. See the
chapter on Operational Aspects for information on suitable logging tools.
FIGURE I-13 : PREDICTING TOTAL WEAR FROM CUMULATIVE RECOVERY OF STEEL CUTTINGS
9.2.9
New developments
Most developments in the field of casing wear are related to tool joint hardfacing materials. A
new hardfacing material - Armacor - has been shown in tests to reduce both casing wear and
drillstring friction relative to current hardfacing materials [26]. This material forms a very hard,
thin, glass-like layer. When the surface is worn away a new layer is formed.
The industry is developing non-rotating drillpipe/casing protectors, which could further assist in
the reduction of casing wear.
The modelling of axial forces, and hence contact forces, within DRAGTORQ is being enhanced,
and development of a computerised wear model capable of accounting for breaking-in wear is
also ongoing [30].
9.3
Influence of fatigue on casing strength
9.3.1
Introduction
Casing failure can have various causes. Casing may fail after one single load exceeding the
ultimate tensile or compressive strength, but also after repeated load cycles below the ultimate
tensile or compressive strength. This phenomenon is known as fatigue, and practically all
materials are subject to it.
The effects of surface condition, corrosion, temperature, etc., on fatigue properties have been
well documented over the past decades, but only in recent years has the microscopic
mechanism of fatigue damage been identified as cyclic plastic deformation of the material at the
source of a fatigue crack (crack initiation) or at the tip of an existing fatigue crack (crack
propagation) [45].
This chapter describes the various kinds of fatigue mechanisms that can cause casing failure.
Possible solutions are mentioned, but the treatment is not exhaustive. Opco structural engineers
should be called in at an early stage if fatigue loading is expected.
9.3.2
Fatigue failure parameters

This paragraph gives a general overview of the parameters which can influence fatigue failure.
More basic and indepth knowledge is provided in the literature [46,47,48,49,50].
9.3.2.1 Number of cycles to failure

Most data concerning the number of cycles to failure are presented in the form of an S/N curve
where the cyclic stress amplitude is plotted on log-log paper versus the number of cycles to
failure (Figure I-14). Ferrous metals in air show a lower limit to the stress amplitude called the
fatigue limit, or endurance limit as illustrated in Figure I-14. This generally occurs after 105 to
107 stress-reversal cycles. Stress reversals below this limit will not cause failure regardless of
the number of repetitions. Ferrous metals in seawater, however, do not show this cut-off : S
tends to zero with increasing N.
Several modified forms of the Goodman diagram (Figure I-15) are used for predicting the stress
levels at which cracks will form, but other more extensive plots such as the Haigh diagram can
be used to predict in addition the stress level for which cracks, once formed, will propagate.
FIGURE I-14 VARIOUS POSSIBLE FORMS OF S/N CURVE SHOWING CYCLIC STRESS AMPLITUDE
S AGAINST NUMBER OF CYCLES TO FAILURE N IN LOG-LOG PLOT
FIGURE I-15 : GERBER'S GOODMAN'S AND SMITH'S MODELS FOR PREDICTION OF THE STRESS
LEVELS LEADING TO FATIGUE FAILURE
9.3.2.2 Stress history

A very important question and one that has been given much attention is the influence of
previous stressing on fatigue strength. One theory that has had considerable acceptance is the
linear damage law (Miner's law); here the assumption is made that the damage produced by
repeated stressing at any level is directly proportional to the number of cycles. It implies that the
effect of a given number of cycles is the same, whether they are applied continuously or
intermittently, irrespective of the order in which high- and low-stress cycles occur. The linear
damage law is not reliable for all stress conditions. Regarding truly random loading, i.e. random
distribution of smaller and larger cycles such as due to waves, the theory is reasonably reliable.
The fatigue accumulation rules become unreliable for cases where cycles of different magnitudes
appear in blocks. For example, the theory cannot distinguish between cases where first all larger
cycles and later the small ones occur, as opposed to the reverse.
9.3.2.3 Stress concentrations
Fatigue failures occur at stress levels below those necessary to produce the gross yielding which
would blunt the sharp rise in stress at a stress concentration. In particular, badly dressed welds
form a potential source of stress concentrations. It is important to minimise the number of
notches and sharp edges on the casing to maximise to endurance limit. It is also important to
treat the object with care as improper handling can also lead to deformation and thus stress
concentrations.
9.3.2.4 Residual stress
Since residual stresses, whether deliberately introduced or merely left over from manufacturing
processes, will influence the mean stress, their effects can be accounted for. The knowledge
regarding residual stresses is very limited. Their magnitude heavily depends on the
manufacturing process.
9.3.2.5 Range of stress
Stressing a ductile material beyond the elastic limit or yield point in tension will raise the elastic
limit for subsequent cycles but lowers the elastic limit for compression. A single extreme load,
causing plastic deformation at the tip of a crack, leaves a residual compressive stress after
unloading. This has a beneficial effect on the endurance as the average and effective peak
stress level may be reduced during subsequent stress cycles.
9.3.2.6 Loading method and sample size

A uniaxial stress as created in a bench test can be produced by axial load, bending or a
combination of both. Since fatigue properties of a material depend upon the stochastic
distribution of defects throughout the specimen, it is apparent that the three methods of loading
will produce different results.
Similarly the size and geometry of a specimen influences the maximum endurance limit.
9.3.2.7 Combined stress
Uniaxial stress is not a common feature. Usually an object will be subjected to triaxial or biaxial
stress. [49] gives a detailed description of a procedure for designing for fatigue under conditions
of combined stress. The procedure described also considers the effect of mean stress on the
cyclic stress range.
9.3.2.8 Surface conditions
Surface roughness constitutes a kind of stress raiser. Even particle size unsmoothnesses can act
like notches or sharp edges and thus cause stress concentrations.
9.3.2.9 Corrosion fatigue
Under the simultaneous action of corrosion and repeated stress, the fatigue strength of most
metals is drastically reduced, sometimes to a small fraction of the strength in air, and a true
endurance limit can no longer be said to exist.
9.3.3
Specific issues
Casing fatigue failure can be directly related to casing dimensions, material properties, number of
load cycles and types of load amplitudes exerted on the casing. In return the last two are
dependent on several other parameters, e.g. movements and mechanical properties of all
components connected to the casing.
From publications on this subject, it appears that research on casing fatigue has been restricted
to rather specific topics, usually vortex shedding and subsea wellhead design in relation to riser
movement [51].
However, a separation in two groups of possible fatigue related issues can be made by making a
distinction between externally generated loads and internally generated loads on the casing and
components coupled to it. External loads are usually caused by waves and currents; while
internal loads are induced by the internal fluid flow. Both loads can occur during either Drilling
Operations or Production Activities.
Below these loads and possible solutions to avert casing fatigue failures will be addressed.
9.3.3.1 Externally generated loads

External loads are usually associated with offshore structures. While the current design
procedures covering fatigue loading seem to be sufficiently developed for onshore wells enabling
the casing designer to work separately on the casing string design, this is not possible any more
with the complex offshore wells in hostile environments. An integral design of the whole marine
drilling and production system is necessary, requiring a coupled analysis approach to the total
system (see Figure I-16). General fatigue theory is still developing and finite element programs
are expected to be marketed shortly [52,53]. System integrated calculations are possible.
Examples of model systems and load calculations are given in Figures I-17 and I-18. API
addresses matters related to offshore design in [54,55,56].
FIGURE I-16 : OVERALL ORGANISATION OF WELL DATA AND ANALYSIS
Wave and current loads induce stresses, either directly in the casing assembly (above the sea
bed, incl. the marine conductor), or indirectly in the suspended strings (below the sea bed)
through forces being transferred by the subsea wellhead.
a) Directly generated loads
With respect to direct loads two causes of fatigue can be distinguished:
i)
action of waves and (tidal) currents;
ii) vortex shedding.
FIGURE I-17 : THREE WAYS OF MODELLING THE CONDUCTOR FOUNDATION
FIGURE I-18 : LOAD CALCULATIONS FOR AN OFFSHORE STRUCTURE
Waves and (tidal) currents

Waves and tidal currents apply a direct force on the marine riser/conductor, by intermittently
exerting a sideward force on the marine riser/conductor surface.
If these loads exceed the actual technical and/or economic design limits, alternative
measures can be taken, for example by defining user limitations. Drilling activities may be
limited to spring and summer in order to reduce the environmental loading on the structure.
For permanently installed production facilities such limits obviously do not apply, as the
structure will be exposed all year round.
Vortex shedding
During fluid flow around a body laminar and turbulent flow patterns can be observed. Usually
the flow will become turbulent at the downstream side of the body and vortices will then be
created. At low Reynolds numbers (i.e. relative low flow velocities) vortices are
simultaneously shed from each side of the cylinder causing forces in line with the flow. At
higher Reynolds numbers the vortices are shed alternately. This will cause forces
perpendicular to the main flow. When the frequency of shedding becomes equal to the
frequency of the oscillating cylinder, i.e. a structural natural frequency, large hydrodynamic
forces will arise.
Possible solutions to avert fatigue failures consist of:
- detuning of the natural frequency, by for example changing the diameter or applying toptension;
- disruption of the excitation by streamlining the flow for example by shaped buoyancy
material, i.e. fairings.
- disruption of the excitation by breaking the vortex pattern by for example mounting
helical strakes.
Some documented practical experiences with vibration-induced failure of the conductor
casing have been included in [57] and [66].
SIPM guidelines for design and analysis of marine conductors are laid down in [59].
b) Indirectly generated loads
Waves, winds and currents do not only act directly on the casing assembly, but also
indirectly by exerting loads on other structural components, being the subsea wellhead or
mudline suspension system to which the marine riser/conductor is connected. The unit's type
will determine the severity of the load. As we are dealing with offshore units we can
distinguish:
-
floating unit (semi-submersibles, drill ships);
fixed unit (fixed platforms, jack-up rigs).
Floating-unit movements
Again, a subdivision can be made into:
a) lateral movement;
b) vertical movement.
Lateral movement of floating unit
The floating unit and the attached riser system may be oscillating laterally due to the
combined action of currents, waves and winds. This results in loading of the subsea
wellhead, foundation pile and casing system.
The movement of the subsea wellhead is limited due to the presence of a template, the
presence of soil and cement around the foundation pile and the weight of the casing strings.
If the soil is relatively strong, the location of the effective reactions of the foundation pile will
be near the mudline. If the soil is weak these effective reaction points will be lower and thus
the maximum internal loads in the subsea wellhead/casing string assemblies will be higher
due to the longer effective lever arm. These conditions will create bending moments (M) and
shear forces (F) on the subsea components (see Figures I-19 and I-20). These bending
moments and shear forces can be transferred to the seabed through the following
mechanisms [60].
FIGURE I-19 : CONVENTIONAL WELLHEAD SYSTEM
FIGURE I - 20 STABILISED WELLHEAD SYSTEM
Reactive shear at the template

A template which is connected to seabed by a long spudcan or driven piles can exert a
significant reactive shear on the subsea wellhead(s). This shear reduces the effective
movements of the casing assembly below the template. A single well completion without
this template or a non rigid template will not have this reactive shear.
The conductor string and foundation pile load paths

There are two possible load paths. The first load path is through the wellhead housing,
into the foundation pile suspension joint, and then into the seabed. This is the strongest
and most desirable load path. The second load path is through the wellhead housing via
the conductor string below, and then through the cement to the foundation pile to the
seabed. [60] discusses the problem in more detail. Figure I-21 [61] illustrates the
possible lateral displacements as a function of riser loads and conductor string supports.
A solution to reduce the conductor string loading consists of introducing a two-point
contact between the subsea wellhead/foundation pile combination and the conductor
string allowing for load transfer through the foundation pile to the seabed [61].
Apart from the above solution the movement of a floating unit may be reduced by
increasing the number of anchors. Floating units are often equipped with dynamic
positioning systems, aiming to minimise lateral movements.
Once the well is taken in production the relatively stiff marine drilling riser may be
replaced by a flexible production riser. This will reduce the loads exerted on the
foundation pile and wellheads. On the other hand the flexible riser strength will have to
be evaluated [62,63,64].
Vertical movement of floating unit

This movement induces a movement of the marine riser which will subsequently cause cyclic
axial stresses in the connected components.
A solution is to apply constant tension to the marine riser by applying active heave
compensation systems and decoupling the rig motion from the riser by application of a
telescopic riser joint. Another possibility is to limit the vertical platform movement by the fixing
the floating unit to the sea bottom with tension cables.
Fixed-unit movements
Lateral movement of fixed unit
A fixed platform is usually connected to the sea floor by piles running through the jacket legs.
The same environmental loads act on marine conductors as on the floating unit. SIPM
guidelines for design and analysis of marine conductors are laid down in [25] and expert
advice should be sought for detailed studies if required. The platform's structure will also be
subjected to a cyclic movement. As a platform is not floating there is only a lateral
movement. In case of shallow waters this movement will be small. In case of the deepwater
fixed platforms, this lateral movement can be considerable and may have to be accounted
for in the design of the subsea components. Although the lateral movements of deep water
platforms may be more as compared to shallow water platforms, this does not necessarily
imply that the situation is less favourable for the marine conductor. The induced stresses do
not depend on the overall height of the platform, i.e. the distance between marine conductor
guide frames.
FIGURE I-21 : VARIOUS POSSIBLE FORMS OF BENDING-MOMENT AND LATERAL FORCE

TRANSFER FROM CONDUCTOR STRING TO FOUNDATION PILE
9.3.3.2 Internally generated loads

Contrary to external loads, the internal loads are not a function of the location type, but are
caused by fluid movement and temperature cycles inside the casing. We can distinguish the
following possible load causes on a casing: internal fluid flow induced vibration, pressure surges
and thermal stresses.
a) Fluid-flow-induced vibration
Fluid particles of the internal flow experience a dynamic force generated by centrifugal and
Coriolis accelerations as they travel inside the curved path along the deflected fluid path, eg.
deflected production riser. Riser deflection is caused by the combined forces of the currents,
winds, and waves. Internal fluid flow and external vortices may occur simultaneously,
causing vibrations in the riser [65,66]. Several documents exist about the riser equation of
vibration [58]. The influence of production riser tension and internal fluid density on the
natural riser frequency is evaluated in [67]. [65] deals with the natural frequency and the
mode shape of a marine production riser with an internal flow.
b) Pressure surges
A casing may be subjected to cycles of pressure changes through the intermittent use as an
injection and production well. This is the case for cyclic steam injection during steam soaking
operations. Another, though minor, cause for pressure surges of very small amplitude can be
the production of oil with sucker rods through non sealed-off tubings. The casing is then
continuously subjected to oil level changes. The effect will be minimal and may generally be
disregarded.
c) Thermal stresses
Thermal stress cycles are imposed on casing during steam soaking operations. Large
temperature fluctuations may occur.
Similarly to pressure surge-related stresses, thermal stresses may be imposed to a casing
due to production shutdowns.
Figure I-22 [68] illustrates the effect of temperature cycles on the axial stress in a specimen.
The magnitude of the temperature cycle is a function of several design parameters [69]. Also
here the number of cycles has to be significant to lead to fatigue failure.
The Chapter O on Special Cases considers these stresses in more depth in the section on
steam well design.
FIGURE I-22 : EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE-CYCLING HISTORY ON AXIAL STRESS IN A K55
STEEL SAMPLE. TEMPERATURE-STRESS CYCLES ARE SHOWN
9.4
References
Corrosion
[1]
Evans, B., Hamer, P. and Milliams, D.,
Corrosion Management in Operations
Production Newsletter, March 1992, 5-6
[2]
Klever, F.J., KSEPL

Burst strength of corroded pipe: "flow stress" revisited
OTC 7029, May 1992
[3]
SIPM, EP
Introduction to materials and corrosion engineering in production operations
Production Handbook, Volume 9
[4]

[5]

Sulphide stress cracking resistant metallic materials for oilfield equipment
MR 0175-91, Houston, Texas
[6]

Laboratory testing of materials for resistance to sulphide stress cracking in H2S
environments
TM 0177-90, Houston, Texas
[7]
Asashi, H., Tsukano, Y. and Ueno, M.

Sulfide stress cracking resistance evaluation methods for steels used in oil field
environments - features and problems
NACE Annual Conference and Corrosion Show Paper No. 29,
March 1991
[8]
SIPM
C-95 Casing and tubing for sour (H2S) service (quench and temper process)
Standard Specification DR-1-2/3, November 1984
[9]

Shell Expo Well Engineering Information Note 23, EP 90-2572
[10]
SIPM, EP
Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) in production operations
EP 55000-32
[11]
Bich, N.N., Kosugi, B.J. and Woodland, D.C.

External casing corrosion by drilling muds
Part 1: Effects of thermal degradation and sulphate-reducing bacteria contamination
EP 87-0108
[12]
SIPM, EPD/5
Conductor design and installation manual for offshore platforms
EP-52510
[13]
Tuttle, R.N.
Corrosion in oil and gas production
J.Pet.Tech., July 1987, 756-762
[13A]
Silverman, S.A., Ender, D.H., WRC

Survey of the use of FRP tubing and casing for downhole applications
EP 92-1491
Wear
[14]
Bradley, W.B. and Fontenot, J.E.

The prediction and control of casing wear
Volume VI of EP-45335
[15]
Fontenot, J.E. and McEver, J.W.

Tripping is not a key cause of casing wear
Oil and Gas Journal, 27 January, 1975, 148-163
[16]
Bradley, W.B.
Experimental determination of casing wear by drillstring rotation
EP-45615
[17]
Schoenmakers, J.M.
Casing wear revisited
Production Newsletter, June 1991, 8-9
[18]
Best, B., KSEPL

Casing wear caused by tool joint hardfacing
SPE 11992, October 1983
[19]

Bulletin on formulas and calculations for casing, tubing, drillpipe, and line pipe properties
[20]
Bradley, W.B.
Statistical burst strength of worn and unworn casing
EP-45512
[21]
Song, J.S, Bowen, J. and Klementich, F.

The internal pressure capacity of crescent-shaped wear casing
IADC/SPE 23902, February 1992
[22]
Bradley, W.B.
Here's how casing wear affects joint leakage
Oil and Gas Journal, 29 December 1975, 170-173
[23]
Best, B. and Hordijk, M.J., KSEPL

Theory and user's guide to the computer program CASWIN for analysis of the contact
forces between tool joints and casing
EP-56078
[24]
Bol, G.M., KSEPL

Effect of mud composition on wear and friction of casing and tool joint
EP 06-3746
[25]
Best, B., KSEPL

Casing wear caused by tool joints
EP-59631
[26]
Maurer Engineering Inc.

Project to develop improved casing wear technology Drilling Engineering Association Project No. 42 (1989-1992)
[27]
Williamson, J.S
Casing wear: the effect of contact pressure
[28]
LaManque, R.G. and Cernocky, E.P., BRC

1988 casing wear project
EP 89-0683
[29]
Schoenmakers, J.M.
Prediction of casing wear due to drillstring rotation: field validation of laboratory
simulations
[30]
Cernocky, E.P. and Pasley, P.R., BRC

Casing wear: Results of laboratory casing wear tests and user manual for the non-linear
casing wear model WEAR90
EP 91-0265
[31]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing wear: tool joint hardfacing
DEN 13/85
[32]
KSEPL
Selection of suitable tool joint hardfacing reduces casing wear
Advances in EP Research 1987-1988
[33]
SIPM, EPO/512
Tool joint hardfacing
DEN 38/85
[34]
SIPM, EPO/512
Tool joint hardfacing specification
DEN 60/86
[35]
Schoenmakers, J.M., KSEPL

Tests of casing wear caused by tool joint hardfacing
RKRS.86.06
[36]
SIPM, EPO/51
EP 89-1500
[37]
SIPM, MAMS/43
SQAIR for drillpipe
AA 0330001110 Revision 01-90
Best, B., KSEPL
The effect of portafter H-38 and Magcoferrox iron oxide weighting material on casing
wear
EP-59497
[38]
[39]
Clark, R.K. and Almquist, S.G., BRC

Evaluation of lubricants in a seawater/lignosulfonate mud
BRS P3-92
[40]
Schoenmakers J.M. and Zwarts, D.KSEPL

Monitoring casing wear while drilling with the computer program
CASWER
EP 87-1276
[41]
SIPM, EPO/51
User guide - OSCP Version 2.3
EP 91-2156
[42]
Corbett, K.T. and Dawson, R.

Rubber drillpipe protectors reduce rotary torque
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1988, 269-274
[43]
Schneider, F.F. and Collins, G.J.

Drillpipe protectors successfully used to reduce casing wear in deep, directional wells
[44]
SIPM, EPO/512
Drillpipe /casing protectors
DEN 37/38
Fatigue
[45]
American Society for Testing Materials
Fatigue crack propagation
Spec. Tech. Publ. 415, 1966
[46]
Sandor, B.I.
Fundamentals of cyclic stress and strain
University of Wisconsin Press, 1972
[47]
Fuchs, H.O. and Stephens, R.I.

Metal fatigue in engineering
John Wiley & Sons, New York and Chichester., 1980
Young, C.W.
Roark's formulas for stress and strain
McGraw Hill, New York, Sixth edition, 1989
[48]
[49]
Society of Automotive Engineers

Fatigue design handbook
1968
[50]
Sines, G. and Waisman, J.L. (eds.)

Metal fatigue
McGraw Hill, New York, 1959
[51]
King, G., Burton, K. and Hodgeson, T.

A coupled analysis approach to the analysis of marine drilling systems
[52]
Chen, L.Y. and Williams, M.R.

On the fatigue analysis of a differential thread connector
SPE 11897/1, September 1983
[53]
Pittman, W.
Casing design software - screening exercise
EP 92-0472
[54]

Recommended Practice for design and operation of marine drilling riser system
RP2Q, Second edition, 1984, Section 8.4.12
[55]

Recommended Practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms
RP2A, Nineteenth edition, 1991
[56]

Recommended Practice for design, rating and testing of marine drilling riser couplings
RP2R, First edition, 1984
[57]
Brown, D. and Bartle, M.

The cause and cure of vibration-induced failure of drill casing in high tidal currents
EUR 338, European Petroleum Conference, London, 1982
[58]
Morgan, G.W. and Peret, J.W.

Applied mechanics of marine riser systems (series of articles)
Petroleum Engineer, October 1974-January 1975
[59]
SIPM, EPD/5
EP 87-0160
[60]
Valka, W.A. and Fowler, J.R.

The design and analysis of a TLP subsea wellhead
OTC 4983, 1985
[61]
Boehm, C.F.
Severe environment 18 3/4 in., 15,000 psi wellhead
OTC 5152,1985
[62]
Bouvard, M., Mollard, M. and Rigaud, J.

Specifying, monitoring and verifying quality and reliability of flexible pipe
OTC 6873,1992
[63]
Sdahl, N., Hanson, T.D., Otteren, A. and Fylling, I.J.

Influence from non-elastic material modelling in computer simulation of flexible rise
system verified by full-scale measurements
OTC 6874,1992
[64]
Fuka, T., Ishii, K., Tada, H. and Matsui, Y.

Fatigue properties and analysis of flexible riser
OTC 6876,1992
[65]
Chen, B.C.M.
A marine riser with internal flow-induced vibration
OTC 6893,1992
[66]
Hopper, C.T.
Vortex induced oscillations of long marine risers
Paper presented at the second international Deep Offshore Technology Conference,
Valletta, Malta, 17-19 October 1983
[67]
Dareing, D.W. and Huang, T.

Natural frequencies of marine drilling risers
J.Pet.Tech., July 1976, 813-818
[68]
Cernocky, E.P., BRC

Thermal cycling behaviour K55, L80, N80 and C95 casing steels for steam well casing
design
EP 87-0045
[69]
Davison, P.
Well completions for possible thermal recovery projects in South Oman
EP-60285
10.0
Buckling
10.1
Introduction
The treatment of buckling given in this chapter is based on use of the fundamental equation for
the reduced axial force at any point in the casing string. The underlying theory is presented in
section 7 of Appendix 6. Equations for calculating the resistance of casing to buckling as a
function of well bore geometry are also presented. If the calculated reduced axial force exceeds
the calculated buckling resistance, buckling of the casing is likely to occur. Methods of
preventing buckling (by raising the top of cement, by use of centralisers or by applying surface
forces) are described.
It should be realised, however, that the onset of buckling is not synonymous with casing failure.
The amount of buckling that can be tolerated can be estimated by post-buckling analysis
involving a first-order calculation of the stresses caused by the geometry changes involved.
Such calculations are complex, and detailed studies are only possible with the aid of computer
tools [1]. The basic equations that can be used for post-buckling analysis are briefly introduced
at the end of this chapter.
10.2
Fundamental equation for reduced axial force

By examining the reduced axial force, Fa*, in a casing string, the operating conditions under
which the uncemented portion of the casing will buckle are defined. This leads directly to
methods of preventing buckling.
As described in a previous section, the axial force is influenced by changes in pressures and
temperature that can occur once the string has been constrained by cementing.
The actual axial force, Fa, at any depth, z, in a casing string above the top of cement usually
depends on;
(i)
the cemented-in buoyant weight
(ii)
changes in fluid gradients and surface pressures from the cemented-in case (i)
(iii)
changes in temperature from the cemented-in case (i)
(iv)
changes in surface force from the cemented-in case (i).
Thus;
Fa(z) = Wn (ZL - z) - [PeAe - PiAi]L
(i)
(from Eq. App. 6-20)
+ Fap
(ii)
(from Eq. G-27 )
+ Fat
(iii)
(from Eq. G-44 )
+ Fs
(iv)
where [PeAe - PiAi] L is the pressure (buoyancy) load evaluated once the cement slurry has been
displaced to its final location.
Expressions for Fap and Fat can be obtained from those derived in Section G for a in
uncemented sections of casing (Eq. G-27 and Eq. G-44). This is the only part of the casing of
concern in buckling analysis.
For the uncemented casing section with a fixed wellhead the following holds:
The pressures Pib and Peb in this expression are those acting at the time of the buckling
potential determination and are not necessarily the same as those at the end of the
cementation. Therefore we must define the pressures as:
Pib(z) = Pi(z) + Pis + i z
and
Peb(z) = Pe(z) + Pes + ez
where Pi(z) and Pe(z) are the pressure at the end of the cementation and Pis, Pes, i, and
e are the changes from the as-cemented conditions.
where e and i are the external and internal fluid densities in the uncemented section
immediately after cementation.
This is the reduced axial force at depth z which must be compared to the casing buckling
capacity as discussed in the next paragraph.
It can be seen from this general equation that the reduced axial force at the lower end of the
casing string is more likely to become negative if:
-
the change in internal fluid gradient (i) and internal fluid surface pressure (is) from
the cemented-in case are sufficiently large and positive;
the change in external fluid gradient (e) and external fluid surface pressure (es) from
the cemented-in case are sufficiently large and negative;
the change in temperature from the cemented-in case is sufficiently large and positive;
the change in surface force (Fs) from the cemented-in case is sufficiently large and
negative.
Example
5
Consider a vertical 10,000 ft (3,048 m) string of 9 /8 in ( 0.2445 m) 47 lb/ft ( 69.9 kg/m) casing
with a top of cement at 5,000 ft ( 1,524 m ). The mud density at the time of casing installation
was 0.6 psi/ft (13.57 kPa/m) and the cement slurry density 0.8 psi/ft ( 18.10 kPa/m ).
For drilling of the next section to a total depth of 16,000 ft (4877 m), the mud weight is raised to
0.70 psi/ft (15.83 kPa/m). See Figure J-1. Annular pressure build-up due to fluid expansion is
controlled by bleeding off and is therefore equal to zero. Also the change in annular fluid
gradient is ignored because of its stability.
During drilling of that section the average change in temperature of the uncemented section of
5
5
the 9 /8 in casing is 27.5F (15.3C). See Figure J-2. Will these conditions cause the 9 /8 in
casing to buckle?
The change in reduced axial force is expressed as per Eq. J-3, whereby Eq. G-45 is substituted
for that part of Eq. J-3 dealing with the effects of temperature.
Since e , is, es
equations reduces to;
and Fs are all zero, and the initial densities, e and pi, are equal, this
FIGURE J-1 DATA FOR BUCKLING - POTENTIAL CALCULATION IN ACCOMPANYING EXAMPLE
FIGURE J-2 : TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR BUCKLING - POTENTIAL CALCULATION IN

ACCOMPANYING EXAMPLE
Therefore the uncemented section the reduced axial force is ,in field units;
10.3
Resistance to buckling
10.3.1
Introduction
The buckling theory, described in Appendix 6, showed that for buckling to occur, the reduced
axial force, F*a, must be negative. However, it is not necessarily the case that buckling will occur
if the reduced axial force is less than zero. The capacity of the pipe to resist buckling will
depend upon its dimensions, material properties, the well profile and the supports. Below the
different sections of the well trajectory and their influence on the buckling capacity are
addressed.
10.3.2
Vertical wellbore sections

A distinction is made between the conductor casing buckling capacity and the other casing
string buckling capacity, because of the relatively short unsupported length and larger crosssectional area of the conductor casing .
i)
Conductor casing
A conductor casing may fail in an elastic or plasting buckling mode when subjected to
compressional loads. The applicable failure mode is determined by the geometry of the
free standing portion of the conductor casing. This geometry is expressed in the
slenderness ratio. As demonstrated in Appendix 6, a conductor casing will fail in elastic
buckling mode (Euler mode), rather than in yield mode, provided that for the
slenderness ratio it holds that (from Eq. App. 6-26):
If this is the case elastic buckling will occur, as illustrated in Figure J-3, when (Eq. App.
6-31):
Fa*= Fa + PeAe PiAi < -
2 EI
2 2
kl
The capacity of the conductor casing to resist buckling is thus determined by I and 1
(assuming k and E are given).
A conductor casing will fail in yield mode if,
FIGURE J-3 : FACTORS GOVERNING BUCKLING IN A VERTICAL WELL
If this condition is fulfilled the calculation of how to increase the capacity of the conductor
casing to resist buckling becomes rather complex. Hence, expert advice should be
sought from the local or SIPM Structural Engineering Department [2, 3].
Example
5
Consider a vertical 18 /8 in (0.4731 m) 87.5 1b/ft (130.2 kg/m) K55 conductor casing
having an unsupported length of 600 ft (183 m).
For this material, having a minimum yield strength of 55,000 psi (379,225 kPa), the
critical slenderness ratio is (in either unit system):
For this pipe, where k is taken as 0.7 the actual slenderness ratio ( in either unit system ):
This particular conductor casing will therefore fail in elestic ( Euler ) buckling model
before yield occours. The buckling capacity is then, in yield occours. The buckling
capacity is then , in field units
As demonstrated in the above example, the usually low value of the conductor casing to
resist buckling is not sufficient to carry the compressive load of the subsequent strings.
For this reason, lateral support is to be provided to reduce the slenderness ratio. This is
usually achieved by introducing cross bracing and/or centralisers. The calculations of the
required spacing will be addressed in a following paragraph.
ii)
Surface, intermediate, and production casing

For these long casing strings, the term EI/k1 is negligible in comparison to the other
terms in the buckling condition. The capacity to resist buckling is therefore zero. For
buckling to occur the following condition (Eq. App. 6-32) is to be fulfilled:
Fa* = Fa + PeAe - PiAi < 0
10.3.3 Inclined straight wellbore sections

In an inclined wellbore, where the casing lies against the low side of the borehole, a restraint is
effectively provided against lateral displacement. As a result, the capacity of the casing to resist
buckling is higher than that given by the Euler buckling force.
It is assumed that the unsupported, i.e. uncemented sections of conductor casing are always
near vertical, and therefore are not included in this paragraph.
For straight, inclined wells, the critical reduced buckling force, Fc*, for drillpipe is generally
accepted as [4]:
where
inclination angle
rc
radial clearance between pipe and hole
(dh-do) / 2
reduced weight of pipe per unit weight
W n + iAi - eAe
internal, external fluid densities for the conditions being analysed for buckling.
W n*
and
i, e
This equation is not fully applicable to a partly cemented casing string due to the assumed end
conditions. Here it has been assumed that the lower end of the pipe is free to rotate around an
axis perpendicular to the axis of the borehole. However, the cemented lower end of a casing
string is not free to rotate in this manner. It has been shown that for the case of a tubing string
stabbed into a packer bore, which more closely resembles the casing situation, the critical
reduced (non-helical) buckling force for inclined wells is [5]:
This is illustrated in Figure J-4 where the well has a vertical, build-up and straight tangent
section. The critical reduced buckling force for the onset of full helical buckling is defined as [5]:
These equations (Eq. J-4, Eq. J-5 and Eq. J-7) indicate clearly that with a small radial clearance,
rc, between the casing under consideration and the hole or previous casing a very high
resistance against buckling can be achieved.
Example
5
It can be seen from the table below that for 9 /8 in (0.2445 m), 47 1b/ft (69.9 kg/m) casing, inside
a 12 in (0.3111 m) hole in 0.48 psi/ft (10.86 kPa/m) mud, the critical reduced buckling force
calculated using Eq. J-5 and Eq. J-7 becomes large even at low inclinations.
FIGURE J-4 FACTORS GOVERNING BUCKLING IN A CURVED WELL
The example demonstrates that even if the reduced axial force in a casing string is negative,
buckling is unlikely to occur in the deviated portion of a well.
10.3.4
Curved wellbore sections

The topic of casing buckling in curved well bore sections is complex and subject of recent
studies [6]. The analysis requires computerised solution techniques and specialist knowledge
[7].
10.3.5 Use of top of cement to prevent buckling

The required top of cement, Zc, to prevent buckling can be obtained by setting z = Zc, in the
general reduced axial force equation, Eq. J-3. The condition that the reduced axial force must be
greater than or equal to the critical reduced buckling force at that depth must then be fulfilled.
Since the top of cement is not known, the loads which are a function of Zc, i.e. buoyancy and
temperature loads, must be written in full. Solving this equation will lead to the required top of
cement.
Thus, for the buoyancy load;
[PeAe - PiAi] L = Ae [ e Zc + c (ZL - Zc)] - AiiZL
where c is the cement slurry density.
If Fa* (Zc) F c* (Zc), no buckling can occur in the uncemented section. Since Fc* is generally a
function of z (assuming inclination varies with depth), solving for Zc will be an iterative process.
For the chosen value of Zc, Fa* (Zc) can be calculated and compared with Fc* (Zc). If the required
condition is not met, a new value of Zc should be chosen and the calculations repeated.
In the case of a vertical well, i.e. Fc* (Zc) = 0, the above expression can be solved for Zc .Hence,
the expression for Zc to prevent buckling is:
Zc
ZL A + B + C
A +D
(J-9)
Example
Using the same example as in the previous section (see Figures J-1 and J-2), where e, Pis,
Pes, and Fs are all zero, the condition for no buckling is given by Eq. J-9;
Zc
ZL A + B + C
A +D
10.3.6
Use of centraliser spacing to prevent buckling

The positioning of centralisers in the casing annuli will prevent the helix, which would occur
without centralisers, from establishing. Obviously, onset of buckling must have occurred as
discussed in the previous paragraphs. In this section the positioning of centralisers to suppress
(Euler) buckling of the conductor casing and the other casing strings is addressed.
i)
Conductor casing
The compressive load on conductor casing can be very large due to the suspended
weight of the subsequent strings. Especially in offshore platform developments
placement of centralisers is therefore required to prevent buckling of this string. Since in
general the acting compressive stresses are larger than half the yield strength the
spacing of the centralisers is based on the theories for plastic buckling mode. These
advanced theories are rather complex and expert advice should be sought from the
local or SIPM Structural Engineering Department to establish a centraliser spacing [2,
3].
ii)
Surface, intermediate, production casing

For these slender strings mostly the elastic buckling mode (Euler mode) does apply
since the acting compressive stresses are smaller than half the yield strength. The
spacing of the downhole centralisers to prevent buckling is therefore based on the elastic
buckling theory and is applied below.
As given in Appendix 6 the buckling length for a given reduced axial force for hinged (k =
1) pipe is (from Eq. App. 6-30):
Placement of the centralisers at a spacing of 82% of this buckling length is generally

accepted and results in a buckling design factor of 1.5 [3].
FIGURE J-5 : USE OF CENTRALISER SPACING TO PREVENT BUCKLING
To prevent buckling by the use of centralisers rather than by cement, the required
centraliser spacing, s, is therefore generally taken as see Figure J-5
Note that Fa* will become less compressive at shallower depths and thus the centraliser
spacing may be increased.
Example
5
Consider a string of 9 /8 in (0.2445 m) 47 1b/ft (69.9 kg/m) casing for which Fa* at the
TOC is -100,000 lb (-444,800 N). Using Eq. J-10;
10.3.7 Use of surface force to prevent buckling

From the expression for reduced axial force Fa* (Eq. J-3), it can be seen that this force is directly
influenced by Fs, the change in surface force.
By determining the critical reduced buckling force Fc* for the casing in question, the casing
hanger can be landed (after the cement has set) with an additional surface force such that the
reduced axial force is greater than the critical reduced buckling force at all points in the
uncemented portion of the string.
Example
If the reduced axial force in a string at the top of cement is -100,000 lb (-444,800 N) and the
critical reduced buckling force at that point is -50,000 lb (-222,400 N), then the buckling potential
can be eliminated by introducing at least 50,000 lb (222,400 N) of tension into the string at
surface. Note that the effects of drag should be taken into account to ensure that sufficient
additional axial force is transmitted to the casing at the top of cement.
10.4
Post-buckling analyses
10.4.1
Introduction
The onset of buckling does not necessarily mean pipe failure. The acceptability of buckled
casing must be assessed in two ways, i.e. the resulting stresses in the casing wall, and the
access through the buckled casing for drilling and production tools.
Stresses resulting from buckling must be added to those existing in the casing prior to the onset
of buckling.
However, post-buckling analysis is complex and the use of computing tools for detailed
analyses is required [1, 8]. This section will only give a first approximation of the relevant
stresses and geometry changes. It should be noted that the presented theory is only valid for
the elastic buckling mode (Euler mode). The advanced theories for the plastic buckling mode,
which should be applied when the compressive stresses are larger than half the yield strength,
should be studied in cooperation with the local or SIPM Structural Engineering Department.
A distinction is made between the helical buckled casing and the non-helical buckled casing.
However, it should be understood that the non-helical buckling mode occurs prior to the helical
buckling mode. Refer to Figure J-6 for the description of the relevant geometrical parameters.
FIGURE J-6 : GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS RELEVANT TO PIPE BUCKLING
10.4.2 Helical buckling

The bending stress, b is given by Eq. G-9;
b =
Ed o
2R
where R is the radius of curvature.

A helix of radius rc, i.e. the radial clearance, and pitch has a radius of curvature R given by
[5, 9];
R=
2
4 2 rc
The pitch of the helix is given by [5, 9];
where
Fa* (z) is in lbs
rc
is in inches
is in (inches)4
is in psi
I
E
The corresponding dogleg severity in SI units is given by:
= 287
F *a ( z ) rc
EI
where
F*a
(z)
is in Newton
rc
is in metres
is in (metres)4
is in Pa
( /10 m)
( J-16 )
10.4.3
Non-helical buckling
For non-helical buckling, the wave amplitude is approximately proportional to the square root of
the loading in excess of the critical load, Fc*, the load at which non-helical buckling occurs [5].
From this in follows that the bending stress due to non-helical buckling, bnh, can be
approximated by:
where
F*ch (z) is the reduced axial force at the onset of helical buckling at depth z.
Fc* (z) is the reduced axial force at the onset of non-helical buckling at depth z.
Note that for Fa* equal or larger than Fc* no buckling related stresses occur.
Once the reduced axial force Fa* is equal to F*ch, the stress becomes equal to that for full helical
buckling.
As for bending stress, the curvature for non-helical buckling is that for helical buckling multiplied
by the same factor, [5].
10.5
References
[1]
Pittman, W.
EP 92-0473
[2]
SIPM, EPD/5
EP 87-0160
[3]
American Institute of Steel Construction

Manual of Steel Construction
Ninth edition, Chicago, 1989
[4]
Dawson, R. and Paslay, P.R.

Drillpipe buckling in inclined holes
SPE 11167
[5]
Stillebroer, C.
Forces and pipe-body stress in tubing strings - Parts I and II
EP 44706
[6]
Schuh, F.J.
The critical buckling force and stresses for pipe in inclined curved boreholes
SPE/IADC 21942
[7]
Love, A.E.H.
Treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity
(Reprint of original 1927 edition) Dover, New York, 1944
[8]
Kwon, Y.W.
A precise solution for helical buckling
IADC/SPE 14729
[9]
Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.S. and Logan, J.L.

Helical buckling of tubing sealed in packers
J. Pet. Tech., June 1962, 655-670
11.0
Design factors
11.1
Introduction
This chapter gives the uniaxial collapse, burst, axial and compression design factors, and the
triaxial design factor, recommended for use within the Group, together with a brief overview of
the considerations which led to the choice of the currently accepted values. Each uniaxial
design factor is defined as the minimum ratio required between the corresponding casing
strength tabulated in API Bull. 5C2 [1] on the basis of the formulae of API Bull. 5C3 [2]
(corrected to take into account the effects of corrosion, wear and fatigue as indicated in Chapter
1) and the estimated design load calculated as indicated in Chapter G. The triaxial design factor
is defined as the minimum ratio required between the yield strength (similarly corrected for the
effects of corrosion, wear and fatigue) and the Von Mises equivalent stress as described in
Appendix 6.
These design factors are "combined" design factors, taking into account both the uncertainties
in the manufacturing process leading to variations in casing strength, and those in the designload estimation process.
Such a combined design factor should not be confused with a safety factor, which is a multiplier
to be applied to the maximum design load. The former is based on scientific considerations,
while the latter is usually arbitrarily chosen to give a certain resiliency to the design. For casing
design within the Group, this safety factor should be set equal to unity.
Historically there has been very little rationale behind the choice of casing design factors [3].
The values used in the drilling industry vary quite widely between operators - usually because of
variations in the design method used. For instance, some operators include wear or wallthickness tolerances in the design factors for casing strength, while others do not. On the other
hand, some operators assume full evacuation to calculate the design load for collapse, while
others apply a partial evacuation rule. This difference in approach should be considered when
comparing the design factors used by different companies.
In view of the current low casing failure rate within the Group, it may be presumed that the
design factors used so far are about right or too high. With advances in computing tools and
increased knowledge of the subsurface, the anticipated design loads can be estimated more
accurately resulting in a more realistic load distribution [4,5]; see Chapter G. Tighter controls in
the pipe-manufacturing process have led to an improvement in metallurgical and dimensional
properties and hence to more accurately defined casing strengths [6,7].
The above considerations might suggest that the design factors could be reduced. However,
there are very few internal or external data on which such a reduction could reliably be based. A
full probabilistic evaluation of the existing design code would be required to make technically
justified changes in the value of the relevant design factors. However, it is confidently expected
that in the coming years the upcoming application of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) will
shed more light on design factors [3,8].
11.2
Collapse design factor

With the change from a full evacuation to a partial evacuation Design Load case, the load
distribution along the casing string is considered more realistic. Also the behaviour of cement
and annular fluids with time is documented and applied in the new Design Load cases [9]. The
other Design Load cases have not been changed. In general it can be concluded that the
Design Load distribution on a casing string will be more realistic.
The reliability and characteristics of casing collapse capacities is high as a function of the more
tightly controlled manufacturing processes [6,7]. API Bull. 5C2 presents the relevant values for
the collapse capacity of the casing, but recent studies reveal that these values are occasionally
conservative [3,10].
Based on the above, and since corrosion, wear and downrating because of tension and
temperature should be treated separately, the uniaxial Collapse Design Factor of 1.0 is
recommended to be kept for collapse design.
11.3
Burst design factor

The burst Design Loads have not significantly changed, except for the introduction of cement and
annular fluid behaviour. However, the expected Design Loads from possible field scenarios can
be refined due to the accumulation of experience and application of prediction techniques as
discussed in the chapter on Design Parameters, Chapter C.
As is documented in API Bull. 5C3 [2], the burst capacity of a casing is related to the yield
strength of the material. Hence a conservatism is built into the values as tabled in API Bull. 5C2
[11], since initial yielding in burst loading will not rupture the pipe. However, the whole of the
casing design is predicted upon the avoidance of yielding. Therefore, no allowance should be
made for the fact that rupture of the casing is unlikely even if the burst rating is slightly exceeded.
Also, when evaluating the burst capacity of a casing, a down rating because of wear, corrosion,
temperature and applied compression is required before the design factor is introduced.
While a collapse failure would normally be expected deeper down the wellbore, the rupture of a
casing will most likely be a near-surface event. Hence, the consequences are more severe for
such a failure. Based on this consideration, although the probability of the failure mode is low, it
is recommended that an unixial Burst Design Factor of 1.1 is kept for burst design.
11.4
Tension design factor

Software applications can assist in the tension load prediction during the installation phase as
well as during the service life time. Accounting for the weight in air load, the pressure (buoyancy)
load, the bending load, the dynamic loads like drag- and shock loads, and the changes in axial
load by changes in temperature and pressures is now possible [4,5]. However, it should be
highlighted that the static drag loads are more difficult to quantify.
The uncorrected value for the tension capacity of a casing string is presented in API Bull. 5C2
[11]. However, when evaluating the tension capacity of a casing a down rating because of wear,
corrosion and temperature is required before the Tension Design Factor is applied.
Based on these considerations, it is recommended that an uniaxial Tension Design Factor of 1.3
is kept in casing design.
11.5
Compression design factor

It has been demonstrated that casing failure due to compressive loading will be mainly a result of
elastic or plastic instability, i.e. helical buckling. Hence a pure compression failure, i.e. casing
squashing, is most unlikely in most cases.
The casing resistance against buckling can be significantly increased by the placement of
centralisers. If the relevant casing is rigidly supported by centralisers, very high compression
loads can be carried before buckling occurs.
It can be seen that two Design Factors result:
If buckling is not possible because of the placement of centralisers between the casing string
under consideration and the previous casing string it is recommended that a uniaxial
Compression Design Factor of 1.0 is used. This can be justified because the calculated
centraliser spacing inherently covers a buckling Design Factor of 1.5.
If buckling is acceptable a post-buckling analysis should be carried out to establish the

relevant triaxial stress state. In analogy with the discussion on the triaxial Design Factor
below, the same Triaxial Design Factor of 1.25 is recommended for these situations.
11.6
Triaxial design factor

The increasing acceptance of triaxial stress analysis results in a requirement for a triaxial design
factor [11,12].
Translation of the load conditions into a three-dimensional stress state is currently possible with
the advance of computing tools. As discussed earlier, the refinement of the Design Load cases
and the Design Parameter, due to the accumulation of experience and prediction techniques,
leads to a smaller distribution in the Design Loads. Wear and corrosion related wall thickness
reductions should be taken into account in this stage. As a result the three- dimensional stress
state is more realistic.
A comparison of this resulting three-dimensional stress state with the, for temperature corrected,
yield strength value of the unixial test is commonly achieved via the von Mises Yield criterion.
This yield criterion has been extensively used and repeatedly verified. The direct comparison of
this von Mises equivalent stress to the yield strength of the material provides a single design
factor.
Based on field experience with triaxial analyses in tubing design and the analogy with casing
design, it is recommended that a Triaxial Design Factor of 1.25 is used for casing design
analyses.
11.7
Summary
Summarising, the following design factors are applicable:
-
Uniaxial collapse design factor:
1.0
Uniaxial burst design factor:
1.1
Uniaxial tension design factor:
1.3
Uniaxial compression design factor:
1.0
Triaxial design factor:
1.25
11.8
References
[1]

[2]

Bull .5C3, Fifth edition, July 1989
[3]
Payne, M.L. and Swanson, J.D.

Application of probabilistic reliability methods to tubular design
SPE 19556
[4]
SIPM, EPO/512
EP 91-2156
[5]
Pittman , W.
EP 92-0473
[6]

Spec. 5CT, Third edition, l December 1990
[7]
SIPM, EPO/512
DEN 17/92
[8]
Reeves, T.B., Parfitt, S.H.L. and Adams, A.J.

Casing system risk analysis using structural reliability
SPE/IADC 25693
[9]
Bol, G. and Vliet, van J., KSEPL

EP 92-0616
[10]

EP 92-0888
[11]
Klementich, E.F. and Jellison, M J.

SPE 12361
[12]

Triaxial load capacity diagrams provide a new approach to casing and tubing analysis
SPE/IADC 13434
12.0
Connections
12.1
Introduction
The connections between successive lengths of casing play an important rle in determining the
overall technical integrity of the casing string. The casing designer should be aware of the major
categories of connections, the different sealing mechanisms used, their strength and the effect of
different loads on their performance. All well designed connections form seals when specific
make-up requirements are met. Leakage of connections is normally caused by:
-
improper design;
failure to meet manufacturing tolerances;
damage due to handling;
failure to comply with the make -up requirements;
loading above the rated capacity or downhole operations.
Structural failure of connections may manifest itself as galling or other deformation of thread or
sealing area during make-up, or in the worst case as parting of the connection. Since thread
compounds have a direct influence on most of these failure modes, advice is provided in this
chapter on which compound to use in a given case, and how to apply it. Details are also given of
the SIPM database on approved connection types (CONNEX), the approval procedure for
connections and the approval tests involved, and the SIPM- recommended working range for
various types of connections. Advice is also given on protection of the threaded parts and seal
area of the connection during transport to and use on the rig. For further information on the care,
inspection and use of casing connections, see Chapter O (Operational Aspects).
A good summary of information on connections can be found in [1].
12.2
Connection types
12.2.1 General remarks

It is desirable that the casing connection satisfies several functional and operational
requirements.
Functional aspects
-
to provide a leak resistance to internal or external fluid pressures;
to have sufficient structural rigidity to transmit externally applied loads;
to have a good geometry in order not to increase the outer diameter or reduce the inner
diameter of the casing string significantly.
Operational aspects
-
easy to make-up in the field;
easy to break-out in the field;
reusable.
To fulfil these aspects, the connections are provided, in almost all cases, with connection
threads. Connections based on welding or glueing techniques and snap-on connectors are
available for casing but will not be dealt with here.
For many years the API thread connections, with or without a resilient seal ring, have been the
standard in well casing strings. These standardised connections are (see Figure L-1):
-
the API round thread connection for casing application;
the API buttress thread connection for casing application;
the API extreme line connection for casing application.
FIGURE L-1 : API STANDARD CASING THREADS
However, during the last decades there has been a shift away from relatively simple and
inexpensive shallow wells to complicated completions for deep, often corrosive and high
pressure/temperature wells. This trend entailed the need for connections with better seals than
the API connections, and led to the development of the so-called Premium connections.
All connections that have one or more special features, such as higher strength, better sealing
properties, faster make-up, smaller outer diameter of the coupling, internally streamlined and
recess free, etc. as compared with API connections, are collectively called Premium connections.
Threaded casing connections can be divided in two groups, namely the integral connections and
the threaded and coupled connections. Each group can further be divided into several types,
depending on the sealing mechanism and the existence of a torque shoulder as summarised
below.
12.2.2
Integral connection
The principle of the integral connection is shown in Figure L-2. The geometry of the pipe ends
are different so that they can be connected without using an intermediate part. Two types of
integral connections are common:
Upset type connection : this type of connection has pipe ends with an increased wall
thickness. The pipe may be externally upset, internally upset or both.
FIGURE L-2 : INTEGRAL CONNECTION WITH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY UPSET PIPE ENDS
Non-upset or flush type connection (see Figure L-3) : this type of connection has pipe
ends with the same OD and ID as the pipe. It has a reduced strength efficiency, compared to
upset type of connections, in all cases. Sometimes the pin-end is swaged to a slightly
smaller diameter, which will then affect the drift diameter. Other connections have an
increased box diameter or designs with combinations of these.
FIGURE L-3: FLUSH INTEGRAL CONNECTION WITH SWAGED PIN
12.2.3
Threaded and coupled connection

The principle of the threaded and coupled connection is shown in Figure L-4. The casing joint is
externally threaded on both ends of the pipe. The single joints are joined by an internally
threaded coupling, to form the connection.
FIGURE L-4 :
THREADED AND COUPLED CONNECTION
The coupling can be made with several varying outer diameters, the following having its
influences on the dimension:
Regular, as specified in API Spec 5CT [2].
Special clearance, which have a smaller OD than the regular coupling. In most cases this
coupling will have a reduced strength efficiency. However, a coupling with a higher yield
strength material might be considered to negate this.
Resilient seal, in order to incorporate a resilient seal and maintain the required crosssectional area to keep the same capacity, it is sometimes required to increase the OD of the
coupling.
Matched strength, these couplings are designed in order to achieve a 100% efficiency.
These optimum couplings may have an external diameter larger or smaller than the API
couplings.
12.2.4 Comparison of integral and threaded/coupled connections

In recent years there has been a move, in many Group Opcos, away from integral type
connections, towards the use of threaded and coupled connections. Listed below are the
characteristics of the integral connections and those of the threaded and coupled connections:
Integral connections
-
Integral connections halve the number of threaded connections, and thus the number of
potential leakage paths.
There is no possibility of receiving a coupling made of a different, and thus wrong,

material
In general, the integral type of connections has higher torque capacity than the threaded
and coupled connection. This is because integral connections are generally designed
with an external torque shoulder, while for most threaded and coupled connections the
torque shoulder is located at the pin nose.
There is a risk of "ringworm" corrosion. This corrosion can occur at the upset region of
joints in the presence of CO2. During the upsetting process the pipe ends are heated and
heavily deformed, which results in a difference in steel microstructure compared to the
pipe. It has been found that this microstructure is highly sensitive to CO2 corrosion so
that pits can form quite rapidly. The observed corrosion has a characteristic morphology
called ringworm attack [3]. To avoid this problem it is necessary to use tubulars which
have been fully heat treated after upsetting.
Threaded and coupled connections

-
Threaded and coupled connections are generally cheaper to produce and the pipe ends
can be re-cut should the threads be damaged.
The manufacturing process of threaded and coupled connections is a lot simpler than
that of integral connections as no upsetting or swaging is required.
With threaded and coupled connections there is less risk of leakage due to geometric
errors in the machined connection parts. Generally, the geometric error in machined
couplings is smaller than the error in machined pipe ends. Pins and boxes, machined on
long tubulars, may show geometry errors in the shape of a clover leaf [4]. This is usually
caused by movements of the long unsupported section of the casing joint.
There has also been a move towards the use of more highly alloyed steel grades which
cannot be satisfactorily hot-worked to produce the upset pipe ends necessary for an
integral connection.
12.2.5
Thread forms
The following thread forms are commonly manufactured today:
API round type thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 30 and
rounded crests and roots.
API buttress type thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 10 and 3
respectively, and flat crests and roots, parallel to the thread cone.
API extremeline thread, a tapered thread with stabbing and loading flanks of 6, and flat
crests and roots parallel to the pipe axis.
Modified buttress threads, used for Premium connections. Several thread forms have
been developed which are provided with one of the following modifications or combinations
thereof:
-
the thread profile has thread crests and roots parallel to the pipe axis rather than being
parallel to the thread cone;
a clearance at the pin thread crest (see Figure L-5), in order to ensure a better control
of the thread friction during make-up;
a change in the angle of the stabbing flank, ranging from +10 to +45 (see Figure L-5)
in order to improve the connection stabbing performance;
a change in the angle of the loading flank, ranging from +3 to -15 (see Figure L-5) in
order to increase the tensile capacity of the connection;
a change in the pitch of the threads (single or double pitch change) (see Figure L-6) in
order to provide a more uniform stress distribution in the connection threads under
tensile or compressive loads.
Two step thread, has two sections of different diameter, each provided with free running,
non interfering, threads either straight or tapered (see Figure L-7). The figure shows a
design with three shoulders which has the advantage of an increased over-torque capacity.
In contrast, a non-interfering thread has the risk of inadvertently backing-out of the
connection.
Wedge shape thread, is based on an interlocking dovetail thread profile. The loading flank
is machined with a greater pitch than the stabbing flank (see Figure L-7) to produce a
thread that wedges together during make-up, eliminating the need for an additional torque
shoulder. The applicable make-up torques of these connections tend to be higher than that
of connections with modified buttress thread profiles and a shoulder.
FIGURE L-5: MODIFIED BUTTRESS-THREAD FORMS
FIGURE L-6: CONNECTION WITH SINGLE OR DOUBLE PITCH CHANGE
FIGURE L-7 : TWO-STEP AND WEDGE THREADS
12.3
Connection sealing
Threaded casing connections utilise three basic mechanisms to establish a leak tight joint.
These mechanisms are:
12.3.1
tapered interference fit thread seal;
metal-to-metal seal;
resilient seal.
Tapered interference-fit thread seal

Tapered interference fit thread seals, such as the API round and API buttress threads, are not
inherently leak tight, but have helical leak paths included in the design. Leak tightness of these
connections is thus obtained by establishing a high contact pressure on the thread flanks and
sealing the remaining leak path(s) with a thread compound [5].
API round thread: Both thread flanks act as sealing surfaces. They are to be loaded by the
make-up torque to such an extent that the contact pressure is greater than the fluid
pressure to be retained. The two small leak paths of the API round thread are at the crest
and the root of the thread. These paths are very long, approximately times the thread
diameter times the number of threads engaged. The smaller the tolerance, the smaller the
cross-section of the leak path (see Figure L-8). Sometimes a soft metal thread surface finish
may help in reducing the size of the leak path. Under high axial and bending loads, the
sealing capabilities of the API round thread will be strongly reduced because box and pin
thread will deform, causing the leak paths to increase in size.
API buttress thread: In made-up condition, contacts between the loading flanks and the
crest and root of the threads form the seal. The leak path in the buttress thread form is
along the stabbing flank and the crest and root radii, and is bigger than that for the API
round thread (see Figure L-8). So, more than the API round thread, this type of thread relies
on the compound to seal the leak paths. Under certain conditions, like for instance
compressive loads the thread contact can change from the loading flank to the stabbing
flank. This shift can result in leakage of the connection [6,7].
FIGURE L-8 : LEAK PATHS IN API THREAD
It should be noted that no amount of torque applied to the connection can close the leak paths
in round or buttress threads. Added torque sometimes stops leaks in connections with round
thread, but doesn't close the leak path. However, once the elastic limit of the material is
reached, the additional torque cannot help and may damage the connection. Hence, in many
cases, particularly at high temperatures, with alternating load conditions and/or under gas
pressure, these types of connections are not capable of providing a reliable seal. Research
performed has led to the conclusion that the amount of pressure a connection can hold,
depends on the gap width between the threads. The smaller the size of this gap , the higher the
pressure it can hold [8]. Therefore small thread tolerances should be requested, so as to
increase connection sealing performance. It has not yet been shown that it is possible to design
a thread profile that is capable of providing a reliable gas-tight seal on its own, although some
manufacturers have made this claim.
12.3.2 Metal-to-metal seal

Connections provided with metal-to-metal seals are commonly referred to as Premium
connections [9). Sealing relies on metal-to-metal contact between the two mating sealing
surfaces from both pin and box. Therefore, the thread itself does not have a primary sealing
function but serves to transmit externally applied loads. At the sealing contact area the surfaces
will deform elasticly, so as to be able to seal under changing loads without having a permanently
deformed seal. No plastic deformation of the sealing area should occur due to these changes in
loads.
Although many Premium connections are based on a similar design principle, the details of the
design in many cases result in very different characteristics [9,10]. Often this is a result of the
compromise necessary to ensure good sealing integrity and acceptable running characteristics in
the field. For example, radial seals (see Figure L-9) may be more prone to damage due to galling
as a result of the long sliding contact of the seal surfaces during make-up or break-out.
Increasing the seal interference, in an attempt to improve the sealing performance, will tend to
increase the galling tendency. At the other hand, high angle tapered seals (see Figure L-10) tend
to be less prone to galling although there may be a greater risk of losing sealing integrity under
high tensile loads or following compression- tension cycles, which may cause the tapered faces
to separate.
12.3.3
Resilient seal
The API round and API buttress thread connections as well as the Premium connections can all
be applied with an additional seal made from polymeric material. Their sealing function is either
primary or secondary. In almost all cases the polymeric seal ring is incorporated in the threaded
part of the box (see Figure L-11).
-
Polymeric seal materials can be divided into two groups [11,12]:
elastomeric materials;
plastomeric materials.
Both these groups react differently to the downhole conditions. The properties of these materials
will tend to change with the time of exposure to these conditions, although at a decreasing rate.
Both groups of materials will tend to absorb hydrocarbons over long periods of time, thus
affecting the properties. However, this occurs in the plastomeric materials to a lesser extent.
FIGURE L-9 : PREMIUM CONNECTION WITH RADIAL (FRANK) METAL-TO-METAL SEAL
FIGURE L-10 : PREMIUM CONNECTION WITH CONICAL METAL-TO-METAL SEAL
FIGURE L-11: ROUND-THREAD CONNECTION WITH RESILIENT SEAL RING
The polymers which are used most as sealing material within casing connections are the
plastomeric materials [12], for instance, virgin Teflon or reinforced Teflon.
There is a general recommendation not to use the same seal ring twice. This represents an
operational problem since from testing it has been found out that the use of a new ring, installed
prior to re-using a connection, will increase the risk of galling [13], since a new ring may cause
misalignment of the pin as a result of grease trapped behind the ring. Therefore, the seal ring
should preferably be installed at the factory, because of the need for an absolutely clean
environment. The fact that the boxes may not be cleaned any more, once the rings have been
installed will lead to additional operational problems.
From the viewpoint of design and operational aspects, SIPM does not encourage the use of
resilient seals. However couplings with resilient seals may be used as remedial action to solve
operational problems with API type connections.
12.4
Thread compounds
12.4.1
General remarks
Thread compounds are used for three distinct purposes:
-
to prevent corrosion of the connection parts during storage;
to facilitate the running of connections during make-up/break-out;
to seal the helical paths in the thread profile of tapered interference fit thread seals.
To serve the first purpose, storage compounds were developed. These compounds can only be
used to protect against corrosion during the storage of the tubular, and should never be used as
running compound.
To serve the second and third purposes, running compounds were developed. These running
compounds have to fulfil the following functions:
-
during make-up: prevent metal-to-metal contact and thus protect the threads and seal
areas from galling and wear;
in made-up condition: seal the helical paths between mating threads to make the nonPremium connection leak tight;
during break-out: ensure that the connection can be broken out, after having served for a
long period, without galling and at torques which do not differ excessively with the applied
make-up torque.
There has always been a definite distinction between the two sorts of compounds. However, some
manufacturers claim to have developed running compounds which offer corrosion inhibition,
equivalent to that of a good storage compound. These compounds are called hybrid or
multipurpose compounds.
In the following two paragraphs, the lubricating, sealing and environmental properties of the running
compound will be discussed. At present, the use of running compounds conforming to API Bull. 5A2
[14] is generally recommended. Although the API compounds were developed for API round and
buttress thread connections for which the solid constituents have a sealing function, it is also used
for connections with metal-to-metal seals.
A table of the SIPM recommended storage, running and hybrid compounds will be mentioned.
12.4.2 Lubricating and sealing properties

Conventional thread compounds contain relatively weak, ductile, solid particles, suspended in
heavy grease [8]. Therefore the compound can be split up in grease base and suspended solid
particles. Both of these components have a distinct function.
The functions of the grease are:
-
to act as a carrier to hold the solid particles in a stable dispersion and permit even
distribution over the surface of the connection;
to act as an adhesive to ensure that the coating sticks to the metal surface under condition of
application;
to provide sufficient lubricity to overcome the initial friction between the connection thread
and seal surfaces during make-up.
The solid particles have two functions:

-
To provide reserves in lubrication in extreme operating conditions, where the boundary

lubrication regime prevails and the grease component has leached out. If, after some time,
the connection will have to be broken out, the solids will act as lubricants. They will then
prevent excessive torque required for breaking out, by deforming when the thread surfaces
move over them.
To seal the helical leak paths of API type connections. These paths should be sealed by the
compound [6,15]. While being made up, the grease will tend to get forced into the leak paths
of the particular thread. It has been suggested that over time the grease base will tend to
disappear by leaching and evaporation of the volatile parts or fluidization due to exposure to
elevated temperatures [6,16]. The solids will be left as sealers. The amount of pressure
which can be withstood by the solids, seems to depend on their particle size [8] and the
amount of solids suspended in the grease [17,18]. Sealers used are for instance lead
powder, copper flake, zinc dust or chunks of Teflon. The latter is only to be used in
combination with API buttress and round thread connections, for which it is reported that the
"chunky" material performs better than the "flaky" material [8].
Each compound will have a characteristic friction correction factor, which depends on the
compound composition. Grease, oil, high pressure additives, Teflon, copper flakes, graphite and
certain sulphur compounds decrease the friction coefficient [16,18]. Metal oxides and silicates
increase the friction coefficient. The friction correction factor also depends on the hardness, the
size and shape, and the number of particles suspended in the grease base.
However it is now thought that the effect of different types of thread compound on the make-up
characteristics of connections may be smaller than would be suggested by the differences in the
friction correction factors [19]. Nevertheless, in the absence of specific recommendations to the
contrary from the connection manufacturers, it is recommended that a compound with a quoted
friction correction factor of 1.0 be used.
The use of too much compound on a Premium connection, in order to increase the lubrication,
can have adverse effects. With certain connection types it has been shown that the pressure built
up by the thread compound during make-up may have an adverse effect on the sealing
performance of the connection [20]. In such instances, more care should be taken in applying the
right amount of compound. Based on qualification testing, the manufacturer should provide a
value for the amount of compound to be applied. The chapter on Operational Aspects will give
advice on the available tools.
For better leak testing results, it has been suggested to use a thin oil or diluted compound for the
make-up of Premium connections. The Premium connection relies on the metal-to-metal seal for
sealing, and not on the compound. When testing this type of connection on its seal, the oil or
diluted compound would not influence the result and hence it will be easier to assess whether the
metal-to-metal seal leaks [21].
API Bull. 5A2 [14] states the specifications which a thread compound should meet, e.g. a
compound should perform up to 300F (150C). It has been noted that compounds perform even
above this limit. However, one should keep in mind that most of these high temperature results
were obtained under laboratory conditions, and may not reflect the actual field conditions. From
field experience, a maximum working temperature of 250F (120C) evolved, which is the limit
SIPM recommends.
12.4.3 Environmental aspects

Conventional running compound contains about 64% metal solids by weight. According to API
Bull. 5A2 [14], the API Modified thread compound consist of :
-
grease;
lead powder;
zinc dust;
copper flakes;
powdered graphite.
However, thread compounds can contain a whole range of other chemicals [15], harmful to the
environment, like Arsenic, Antimony and Molybdenum disulphide.
Concern over the escape of these and also of lead into the environment led to a second
generation of compounds without lead [22]. However, although several additives seal nearly as
well as lead, they tend to create their own environmental problems.
Therefore, apart from other initiatives, the Drilling Engineering Association, Europe (DEA(E)), has
started research into metal-free thread compounds, which are environmentally friendly. This is
carried out under project DEA(E)-037E. As components which would act as sealers/lubricants
ceramic material, graphite and polymers (teflon) have been looked at.
The use of biodegradable grease bases has been researched as well, but the problem is that this
type of grease is not stable at high temperatures, and therefore not applicable in deep wells. As a
result of this study, four hybrid compound compounds are considered to be acceptable and their
introduction is recommended. These are:
-
Mercasol 633SR Multimake White;
Kendex Enviro Seal;
Bestolife copperfree PTC;
Shell Francaise SF 3646.
The Shell Development Company has done research into a non-lead thread compound: Bestolife
2000 5% copper [23]. Their results are very positive and this compounds is now recommended as
an optional replacement for Shell's high pressure API modified, lead bearing thread compound.
Also Cats Paw Black 712 S is achieving acceptable results.
12.4.4 Recommended thread compounds

In summary, the following list of SIPM-recommended thread compounds is given. It should be
noted that a storage compound is not to be used as running compound, and that a running
compound is not to be used as a storage compound. Mistakes are still occurring [19]. The amount
of compound to be applied is a function of connection sealing mechanism and geometry. The
actual value should be acquired from the connection manufacturer.
Storage compound
Shell Rhodina Grease 2
Geveko Mercasol 630
Jet Marine Imperator 1078
Kendex OCTG corrosion inhibitor
TSC thread storage compound
Cortec VCl-369
Rust Veto heavy
RD5
Running compound (conform to API Bull. 5A2)
Calcium hydroxy stearate grease base
Aluminium stearate grease base
Calcium stearate grease base
Thread Kote no 706
Hybrid compound
Kendex Enviro Seal
Mercasol 633 SR Multimake White
Cats Paw black 712 S
Bestolife copperfree PTC
Bestolife 2000 5% copper
Shell Francaise SF 3646
12.5
Surface treatments
In order to ensure the functional efficiency of a connection, even after multiple make-up
operations, surface treatments are applied to the box, the pin or to both. The surface treatments
are applied to improve:
the resistance to galling;
the sealing capability;
the resistance to corrosion.
Below the effect of the different surface treatments on these phenomena is highlighted. First a
brief description of the most common treatment is given.
12.5.1
Process descriptions
The following surface treatments are used [24]:
Phosphating
Phosphating is the process by which the steel is dipped into a boiling, almost saturated,
acidic solution of metal phosphate, for instance zinc phosphate or manganese phosphate.
Reaction of the steel with the solution causes metal phosphate to precipitate and adhere on
to the steel surface.
Lacquer coating
Anti-friction lacquer, for instance a molybdenum disulphide, is sprayed evenly on pin and box
surfaces, which have been heated to harden the lacquer in a short time. In order to provide a
good base for the adhesion of the lacquer, the sliding surfaces are roughened by means of
grit blasting.
Oxalating
Oxalating is the process in which a thin layer of oxalate is applied to steels with a high
chrome or nickel content, by dipping the steel into a hot oxalic acid solution. The process is
more or less similar to phosphating.
Electrochemical treatments
Electrolytic plating can be done with a wide variety of materials such as: gold, silver and its
alloys, cobalt, nickel, chromium, copper, zinc, cadmium and tin. The materials deposited by
the plating tend to be more finely grained, are usually harder and more brittle than wrought
materials.
Ion deposition
For high-alloy materials and nickel based alloys the application of a metallic surface coating
via ion implantation process is used. Normally, in such case the pin is left untreated. During
the ion implantation process, a microscopically thin film of ions from dissimilar metals, such
as gold, chromium, copper or aluminium, is diffused into the base material [25].
Grit blasting glass-bead peening

Grit blasting and glass-bead peening are performed on the threaded area as well as on the
sealing area. The treatment converts the smoothly machined surfaces into surfaces
containing pits for oil and grease retention.
12.5.2
Effect on galling resistance

Bare tapered threads are extremely prone to galling during power make-up. This galling starts
with the occurrence of high contact pressures, which are able to destroy the lubrication film and
thus causing a direct metal-to-metal contact. The following treatments are given to improve the
galling resistance of the connection during make-up [26,27,28].
Phosphating
The phosphate layer improves the compound retention and surface hardness. Phosphating
is commonly applied to carbon steel connections which are less susceptible to galling
problems than more highly alloyed steels. For these materials other techniques have been
developed. There is some evidence that manganese phosphate offers better galling
resistance than zinc phosphate.
Lacquer coating
Lacquer coatings have been applied on connections made from high-alloy steels. However
the number of problem-free make-up operations which could be achieved was limited.
Oxalating
This process is applied to high alloy steels. The oxalate layer improves the surface hardness
and the capacity to hold on to a thin layer of compound.
Electrochemical treatments
The most common electrochemical plating treatments used for casing connections are:
Copper plating: The most attractive electrochemical surface treatment in terms of galling
resistance is copper plating to a thickness of approximately 10 m.
Tin plating: Tin plating is an excellent coating material. However, too high contact
stresses can pulverise the tin layer and destroy the inter- metallic bonding, effecting the
reusability of the connection. Furthermore, there is the risk of liquid metal embrittlement
that might occur in the base material at temperatures above 350F (175C) [29].
Zinc plating: Conventional zinc plating baths produce fine-grained, smooth and brittle
deposits, which however have poorer lubricant-retention properties than tin plating.
Ion deposition
It is considered that the process has some potential for reducing the risk of galling for critical
applications, particularly for high alloy tubular.
Grit blasting, glass-bead peening

As galling may be promoted by too fine a surface finish, it is thought that a slightly rough
surface aids lubrication by the thread compound trapped in the surface indentations [10].
12.5.3
Effect on sealing capability

The general consensus is that the best surface treatment for Premium connections in terms of
galling is copper coating. However, it has been reported that tin plating is more effective than
copper in improving the sealing capability of API connections [5]. This is apparently the result of
the greater thickness of tin plating which can be achieved, thereby providing an additional filler
for the small clearances between the pin and box threads.
12.5.4 Effect on corrosion resistance

Find below the effect of the different surface treatments on the corrosion resistance.
Phosphating
The effects of phosphating treatment in inhibiting corrosion are attributed to the ability of the
phosphate layer to hold compound. If the connections are cleaned with a solvent and the
compound layer is not replaced, the protection is largely lost. It is common practice for some
manufacturers to apply phosphating to the field pin ends only as an anti-corrosion treatment.
However, SIPM recommends that the same surface treatments should be applied to both
ends of the tubular.
Oxalating
The effect of oxalating is similar to the effect of phosphating.
Copper plating
A layer of copper on top of the steel will increase the risk of bimetallic corrosion. The
potential for bimetallic corrosion occurring downhole is, however, limited since oxygen would
be required. During storage and transit, it is important to provide adequate protection against
the ingress of moisture.
Tin plating
The electrochemical potential between steel and tin is small and the risk of bimetallic
corrosion can practically be ignored, therefore tin plating gives good protection against
general corrosion. However, the designer should be aware of possible liquid-metal
embrittlement corrosion. See Chapter I.
Zinc plating
Zinc is anodic to steel and sacrifices itself to protect the steel.
12.6
Realiability and structural integrity of connections

This section addresses the possible loads on a connection and its sealing and structural
capacity. It should be highlighted that these capacities do not always produce the same value.
Hence, two different paragraphs are dedicated to the topics. The special phenomenon of bending
stress magnification is then followed by some possible failure mechanisms.
12.6.1 Imposed loads

In general a connection is subjected to two types of load:
12.6.2
Make-up load: Making the connection parts up will impose stresses in the connection. In
general, the stress levels are related to the make-up torque applied. Stresses should be
sufficiently high to generate good contact between the sealing surfaces, but below yield to
avoid plastic deformation.
Service load: The connection is subjected to the same loads as can be derived from the
design criteria for the total casing string.
Structural integrity
In this context it is important to know that there is only one way of expressing the connection
structural capacity. The stresses in a loaded connection should be compared to the actual yield
strength of the material in use.
However, to present a simple means of assessing a connection capacity the term "efficiency"
has been introduced. The efficiency is always expressed as the ratio between an uniaxial
capacity of the connection and the pipe body to which it is attached. Hence the efficiency of a
connection can be expressed as a tensile -, pressure -, compression -, bending -, or torque efficiency.
Since SIPM does not promote to operate a casing string outside the minimum yield envelope,
care should be taken when applying the tabulations of API Bull. 5C2 [30] for API connections or
when accepting performance values of Premium connection manufacturers.
With respect to the API it is imperative to know that this institute defines casing and tubing by
providing a cut off based on outer diameter (OD). The API Bull. 5C2 [30] considers 4 in
(0.1143 m) OD and larger as casing and 4 in (0. 1143 m) OD and smaller as tubing. This API
Bull. 5C2 [30] is based on equations formulated in API Bull. 5C3 [31] where two different
equations appear: one for casing connections and one for tubing connections. Here the tensile
joint strength of a casing connection is based on the ultimate tensile strength while the tensile
joint strength of a tubing connection is based on the minimum yield strength. As the pipe body
yield strength is based on the minimum yield strength this will result in two values for the tensile
- efficiency as demonstrated in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 CASING VS. TUBING CONNECTION TENSILE STRENGTH
As SIPM's position is not to operate a casing string outside the minimum yield envelope, care
should be taken when applying the tabulations in API Bull. 5C2 [30]. The industry in general is
aware of this discrepancy and has introduced the following terms to describe the tensile capacity:
-
Parting load: Load under which the connection will suffer from tensile failure.
Joint Elastic Limit: Tensile load under which the connection will yield.
Thus, for 4 in (0.1143 m) OD and larger API casing connections the "parting load" is quoted
in API Bull. 5C2 [30]. Most premium connection manufacturers are quoting both limits.
It follows that when designing a casing string for the production phase it is important to check
with the manufacturer what definition has been used to quote the tensile capacity. Here the
"joint elastic limit" should be used. For the casing string to be used in the drilling phase the
same rule is strongly recommended. However, the designer should be aware that this will
downrate the values quoted for 4 in (0. 1143 in) or larger OD API connections in API Bull.
5C2 [30].
The best approach is to request a full qualification test as described in the following chapter.
This would reveal the connection capacity under triaxial load conditions.
12.6.3
Sealing capacity
The sealing capacity of a connection is the ability to prevent leakage while subjected to any of
the imposed loads [32,33]. Here, leakage is defined as the inability of a connection to withstand
a pressure differential over it. Normally a qualification test generates the values for the sealing
capacity.
-3
It should be noted SIPM accepts a maximum leakage rate of 1 x 10 std cm gas/sec at the
manufacturer's specified pressure rating. For API connections it should be highlighted that the
tables in API Bull. 5C2 [30] only quote the structural and not the sealing capacity of a
connection.
12.6.4
Effect of bending loads

In a deviated hole, the casing will tend to take the same bend as the hole. However, due to the
couplings, the pipe will stand off from the wall (see Figure L-12). The clearance, created by the
couplings or centralisers, allows tension to pull the midspan of the pipe inward toward the wall,
while the end of the pipe is still offset by the couplings.
This causes the pipe to have a different curvature than that of the hole. This difference in
curvature increases the bending stress at the ends of the pipe, just outside the couplings, far
beyond the stress normally associated with bending through a dogleg. This is called the
Bending Stress Magnification (BSM) effect [34]. This BSM effect does not require pipe body
contact to occur before the stress is magnified, it begins as soon as tension or compression
changes the curve of the pipe. This leads to the advice to try to keep the casing as centralised
as possible with centralisers, equally spaced between the couplings. As the distance between
couplings and/or centralizers decreases, the size of the BSM effect decreases. With flush
connections, the BSM effect will not occur.
FIGURE L-12 POSSIBLE TYPES OF CASING-BOREHOLE CONTACT
The influence of bending on the stresses in a casing and its connections can be evaluated with
the computer program CASBEND [34]. CASBEND calculates the yield pressure envelope of
casing based on axial load, torque and stress from bending through a dogleg. Operating outside
this envelope will cause yielding the pipe body.
Examples of results of CASBEND and the effect of the BSM factor, can be seen in Figure L-13.
CASBEND is written in terms of casing but applies just the same to tubing.
CASBEND as well as other casing design software programs, has been evaluated in a screening
exercise by SIPM [351.
12.6.5
Failure mechanisms
A threaded connection may fail [36] under one or more load conditions. The failure could be a
leakage failure or a structural failure. The following failure mechanisms are common:
Plastic deformation of the sealing area

Can be the result of excessive make-up torque or a result from external loads on the casing.
Once the sealing area has been plastically deformed and the load conditions are changed
again, the seal area will not return to its original state. This will give a reduction in the
effectiveness of the seal.
FIGURE L-13: INFLUENCE OF A) BENDING AND B) COUPLING ON BURST - COLLAPSE DESIGN
Belling out the coupling

Under high tensile or compressive loads, while using an API round thread, the box area may
start to bell out. The first thread on the pin stays engaged while the box starts to yield, also
the last engaged thread stays engaged. The threads in the middle do not grip into each other
any more. For buttress threads this may occur under compression due to the wedging action
of the stabbing flank.
Jumping out or "unzipping" of the thread

This unzipping of the thread is caused by high axial loads and external pressures [37] and is
generally only seen for thick walled connections. The use of too much thread compound
might increase the risk of jump out occurring.
Shear of the threads

This sort of failure is not very common, certainly not when API buttress thread or modified
buttress thread connections are used.
Splitting of the box

This can occur when a tapered pin is screwed into a tapered box. It may happen by overtorquing of API connections (no torque shoulder) and when the coupling is made of high
grade (more brittle) steel [38] .
Circumferential fracture of the pipe end or coupling

High strength connections, e.g. provided with a buttress thread or a modified buttress thread,
may fail either by fracture of the pipe end or the coupling, both occuring near the last
engaged thread (see Figure L-14).
FIGURE L-14: CRITICAL CROSS-SECTION OF A CONNECTION
12.7
Testing and qualification
12.7.1 Qualification tests

The general accepted method for the qualification of casing connection designs is, at the
moment, the conducting of tests on a number of full scale specimens. The aim of such an
investigation is to assess the following primary characteristics [28,39]:
-
the galling tendency;
the sealing capacity;
the structural load bearing capacity.
The tests to be performed simulate a number of load conditions which can be imposed on
connections during service. In general the test programmes comprise:
-
repeated make-up and break-out tests at various make-up specifications;
internal pressure sealing tests under different combinations of loading;
internal pressure sealing tests during thermal cycling;
external pressure sealing tests under axial loading;
tensile or burst tests to failure.
In the past, the old test procedure API RP 37 has been used as the basis for the test
programmes. In 1990, API RP 37 was succeeded by API RP 5C5 [40]. This document specifies
four test classes and a relationship is suggested between the test classes and the service
applications. Class I connection tests are intended for the most severe field applications, whilst
Class IV connection tests are intended for the least severe applications. See Figure L-15.
SIPM recommended [41] that the Class I test procedures should be replaced by an even more
stringent set of procedures (Class A) (see Figure L-16), including internal pressure sealing tests
under bending and anti-clockwise torsion and an extension of the thermal cycle tests which, in the
past, have proved to be very informative.
One Opco had a Premium connection tested according to this new procedure. Their experience
was that this Class A procedure was too labour-intensive and time-consuming, and this Opco has
now established a new test procedure for tubing and production casing connections. See Figure
L-17 [42]. This procedure has been approved and accepted by SIPM. Therefore connections
planned to be used in the casing string for the production phase are required to comply to this
new testing scheme. For connections which may be subjected to gas, in the drilling phase, it is
strongly recommended that this testing scheme be used as well.
FIGURE L-15 EXAMPLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEST CLASSES AND SERVICE APPLICATIONS
- API RP 5C5
FIGURE L-16 : DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PREVIOUS SIPM - RECOMMENDED CASINGQUALIFICATION TEST PROCEDURES (INCLUDING NEW, MORE STRINGENT CLASS A TESTS
REPLACING API CLASS I) AND API RP 5C5 TEST PROGRAMMES
FIGURE L-17 LATEST SIPM CASING - QUALIFICATION TEST PROGRAMME
At present, there is no recognised way of generalising test results for a particular connection
to the same type of connection but having a different size, weight, grade/alloy composition or
surface treatment. SIPM therefore does not accept the scaling of results to different sizes or
grades. Therefore, each connection will have to be tested for approval. However, the
following trends may be observed [10]:
Size
Typically, smaller sizes are more susceptible to over-torquing and hence correct make-up
torque becomes more important.
Weight
Lighter weights of tubing are also more susceptible to over-torquing and tend to be more
susceptible to leakage problems because of connection deformation, especially valid for
Premium connections with a limited seal lip thickness.
Grade/alloy composition
The effects of plasticity in more highly alloyed steels may be more damaging owing to
reduced work-hardening. Such steels also tend to be more prone to galling and therefore
connection design, surface treatment and handling become more critical.
Surface treatment
Generally these treatments have beneficial effects on both the galling resistance and the
sealing performance of a connection [43]. Consequentially, successful sealing tests on
connections with a typical surface treatment should not be extrapolated to connections with a
different surface treatment.
It is to be mentioned that connection failures are still frequently encountered, both during
field application and during connection tests. Therefore SIPM recommends that:
All production casing connections to be used in critical applications are to be qualified prior to
use [42]. For drilling casing connections which may be subjected to gas, it is strongly
recommended that qualification according to above procedure [42] is also followed.
12.7.2
Other evaluation techniques

So far qualification tests were performed with full scale connections under actual loads. There
are also other ways of evaluating the connection, although SIPM do not regard these as a
qualification, if used in isolation.
These methods are:
Strain gauge measurements, which provide information on surface strains and thus stresses
in the connection at applied load conditions, such as make-up and combined axial and
pressure loads.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA), which is a calculation method [37,44] for the determination of
the deformation and stresses in a connection, in particular contact stresses at the sealing
surfaces. It can give a fundamental engineering understanding of the connection design and
its behaviour and provide the ability to make detailed comparisons between designs.
However, at the moment there are still some difficulties in the use of FEA:
so far the models used in the computer are axi-symmetric, which means that for instance the
effect of ovality cannot yet be assessed. It has not been proven possible yet, to input a
model which is identical with the three-dimensional connection configuration;
-
modelling contact problems with friction is difficult, there is no unique solution and the
model may converge to the wrong solution;
it is difficult to assess the accuracy of the models;
there are no sealing criteria yet, i.e. what should be the contact pressure between the
sealing surfaces, the contact width, the surface finish, the surface treatment and what is
the exact role of the thread lubricant.
Nevertheless there are some software packages available on the market to perform FEA on
connections which can predict the stresses of the connection under certain load conditions. It
should be kept in mind however, that at the moment these FEA cannot replace the actual
laboratory testing [45]. So far they should be considered as an assistance to the actual
testing.
Some Operators have developed an evaluation procedure based on the combination of full
scale tests and FEA [44]. They have also used FEA to develop a new make-up method for
API round connections [46].
12.7.3
SIPM database
SIPM is developing a database on all available connections, identified by type, size, weight,
grade, and surface treatment, which are:
-
API tested;
tested by other operators;
SIPM (Shell Research) tested.
This database is compiled from information gathered from manufacturers world-wide and is
called CONNEX [47]. The data base will be available to all Opcos. Naturally other oil companies
also perform tests on connections, and SIPM also looks at their results. A document is available
which lists tests performed by other oil companies, on casing and tubing connections [48].
12.8
Thread protectors
12.8.1 General remarks

Before casing joints are installed in a well, they are exposed to a variety of harsh conditions
during transport, handling and storage. The threaded pipe ends frequently have to withstand
accidental impact loading during shipment from the mill to the wellsite and once at the wellsite,
during handling, cleaning and running into the hole. In addition, these threaded ends are often
exposed to corrosive environments during storage. Therefore, it is of vital importance to protect
the threads and seals against impact loading and water penetration all the way from the mill up to
the drill floor, with a thread protector. These thread protectors can be divided into two types:
Threaded protector or transit protector :
This type of protector for both pin and box, can be used from the mill onwards up to the moment
the joint is laid down on the casing rack at the location, where it is taken off to allow removal of
the storage compound. Most of these heavy-duty-type of protectors are composed of a moulded
polymer body reinforced with a cylindrical steel insert. However they can also consist of a 100%
polymer.
Non-threaded protector or handling protector:
This type of protector is installed on the pin prior to lifting the casing joint up to the drill floor. It is
usually either a clamp-on type or an inflatable type.
12.8.2
Performance criteria
Until recently there have been no generally accepted performance criteria for protectors and
selection of a suitable product has been left to the manufacturer or the customer. From research
done at Shell Research [49,50] and by others [51], on protectors for 3 in (0.0889 m) tubing
and 7 in (0.1778 m) tubing, a suggestion for acceptance criteria came forward. These criteria
were proposed for thread protectors, installed on Premium connections, and were generated on
the basis of conditions expected to occur in the field. Find below a summary of these criteria:
Impact resistance: A protector must be able to absorb impact energy in the axial and radial
direction and also in the angular direction, without damage being inflicted on the threads or
sealing area of the pipe. Also the protectors should be able to meet these requirements
under extreme temperature conditions, as stated in API Spec 5CT-[2].
Protection against water penetration: The protector should be able to prevent water
penetration along the threaded area in order to prevent a potential corrosive attack on
thread and seals. This criterion must be met with or without the presence of suitable storage
grease.
Resistance to thread stripping: A protector should be able to sustain an axial load,

uniformly applied around the inner perimeter.
Resistance to vibrational loading: The protector must be able to sustain vibrational loads
such as can occur during transport.
Chemical resistance: If subjected to oil field chemicals, like degreasers, and solvents, the
volume of the protector should not increase by more than 10%, and the hardness should
not change significantly.
Weathering resistance: The protector should not show sensitivity to ageing as caused by
climate,
Thread profile: The thread profile of the protector should provide a number of basic
functions:
it is the primary barrier to moisture, therefore a good match between protector and
threads is essential. Storage grease is considered to be an additional secondary barrier;
the profile should provide a locking fit between the protector and the pipe;
a protector should have a threaded profile all along the threads of the pipe;
the general fit of a protector should be satisfactory, which means that the threads of the
protector should have a pitch, a taper and diameter that corresponds within reasonable
limits to those of the pipe end.
Additional criteria: The protector should bottom out near the sealing area of the pipe to
protect the seal from the inside.
Since the time these criteria were suggested new protectors have been designed and
marketed. Although they may not be threaded, they do meet the rest of the above
mentioned criteria.
See Chapter O on Operational Aspects for details on the recommended types and
procedures associated with protectors.
12.9
Selection and ordering

When selecting a casing connection the actual load on the connection should be compared to
the connection's capacity. This is applicable for all types of wells: exploration-, appraisal- and
development wells.
Design load
The load can be derived from the same design loads as laid down for the complete casing string
in Chapter F: Load cases.
With respect to the strength of the connection two aspects should be considered:
Structure load bearing capacity
With the manufacturer's information (see for example Figure L-18) or the tables in API Bull. 5C2
[30] the structural load bearing capacity of a connection can be obtained. Specific qualification
testing is strongly recommended to obtain these values as a function of size, weight, grade/alloy
composition and surface treatment [42].
Sealing capacity
The sealing capacity of a connection is a function of many factors as discussed in the previous
chapters. These include geometrical as well as running thread compound related aspects. The
sealing capacity of Premium connections should result from qualification testing. Specific
qualification testing is strongly recommended to obtain these values as a function of size, weight,
grade/alloy composition and surface treatment. For API connections it should be noted that the
tables in API Bull. 5C2 [30] only quote the structural capacity and not the sealing capacity.
Therefore SIPM has derived, based on an in-house study [1], the following limits with respect to
the field of application of an API connection (see also Figure L-19):
-
If the connection could be exposed to an appreciable gas pressure loading for a prolonged
period of time then a Premium connection with a metal-to-metal seal should be selected.
This applies to all hydrocarbon gasses with or without traces of H2S/CO2.
If the differential burst/collapse pressure is in excess of 4,000 psi (27,580 kPa) then a
Premium connection with a metal-to-metal seal should be selected.
If, the temperature is in excess of 250F (120C) then a Premium connection with a metal-tometal seal should be selected.
FIGURE L-18 : TYPICAL CONNECTION PERFORMANCE ENVELOPE (PROVIDED BY

MANUFACTURER), COMPARED WITH VON MISES YIELD ELLIPSES FOR PIPE BODY
FIGURE L-19 : WORKING RANGE OF API CONNECTIONS USED WITH API THREAD COMPOUNDS
As explained above, these limits do not so much reflect the structural limitations of API
connections, which can be far in excess of these values, but the limitations to the application of
the compound as the sealing mechanism.
It should be pointed out that these limits reflect field experience and are widely used throughout
the industry. Although the working range defines a sharp cut off to the use of API connections,
special applications, based on thorough testing and qualification, form an exception to this
general rule. It is worth mentioning that recent research on the sealability of API round
connections under special make up conditions [46] has upgraded this connection to application
for maximum 6,000 psi (41,370 kPa). Other research into thread compounds is ongoing, like API
PRAC-51 [52] and DEA(E)-037E project, to further expand the working envelope of API
connections.
12.10
References
[1]

Casing connections
Contribution to the upgrade of the SIPM Casing Design Manual
EP 92-1563
[2]

[3]
Waard, de C., Geelen, P.M.H., Smith, L.M., Robbe, C., Thomas,

M.J.J. and Ashton, S.A.
Principles of materials engineering and corrosion control in E & P operations
EP 87-1780
[4]
Otten, G.K. and Cernocky, E.P., BRC

Gas leakage of inspected, 9-5/8". VAM casing connections due to machining defects,
and recommendation of new inspection equipment
MRS 9-85
[5]
Allen, M.B., Schwind, B.E. and Wooley, G.R.

Investigation of leak resistance of API 8-round connector
Report from Enertech Engineering and Research Company to API
Production Department, 24 May 1985
[6]
Raulins, M.
How loading affects tubular thread shoulder seals
Petroleum Engineer International, March 1984
[7]
Maruyama, K., Tsuru, E., Ogasawara, M., Inoue, Y. and Peters, E.J.
An experimental study of casing performance under thermal cycling conditions
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1990, 156-164
[8]
SIPM, EPO/512
Sealing ability of pipe thread compounds
DEN 19/86
[9]
Weekers, E.E.A.J. and Graaf, van der W.J.A., KSEPL

Premium tubing and casing connections: state of the art and a selection of candidates for
testing at KSEPL and use by Group Companies,
EP-63893
[10]
Snaith, N.N., KSEPL

Summary of KSEPL tubing and casing connection tests 1982-1988,
EP 90-1862
[11]
Ender, D.H. and Allen, R.A., WRC

Elastomeric seals for deep sour gas applications, evaluations of O-ring seals
EP-65422
[12]
Ender, D.H., WRC

User guide - Polymeric seals for oil field applications
EP-63396
[13]
Weekers, E.E.A.J., KSEPL

Performance of 7-inch, 29 Ib /ft N80 NL-ATLAS Bradford TC45
tubing/casing connections extended API RP37 tests
EP-63001
[14]

Bulletin on thread compounds, for casing, tubing and line pipe
Bull. 5A2, Sixth edition, 31 May 1988
[15]
Bollfrass, C.A.
Sealing tubular connections
J.Pet.Tech., June 1985
[16]
Prengaman, D.R.
Anatomy of a thread compound,
Drilling, August/September 1986
[17]
Allen, F.J. and Noffke, R.B.

Thread compounds: where are we and where are we going
Drilling, November/December 1987
[18]
Prengaman, D.R.
Thread compounds - How do they work?
Petroleum Engineering International, October 1981
[19]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing and tubing thread compounds
DEN 4l/88
[20]
Snaith, N.N., KSEPL

Influences of thread compounds on tubing/casing connections
EP 90-0572
[21]
Gaudet, D.R., Scherschel, S.R. and Standen, R.

The effects of pipe dope on tubing leak detection
Paper No. 87-38-86, presented at 38th annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Calgary,
7-10 June 1987, Vol. 3, 1417-1436
[22]
Jacobs, N.L. and Stringfellow, W.D.

New standards required for environmental thread compounds
58th Annual Meeting of the National Lubricating Grease Institute
(Kansas City, MO), Phoenix, Ariz., October 1991
[23]
Cernocky, E.P., Otten, G.K., Valigura, G.A. and Peterson, J.L., BRC
Evaluation tests of Bestolife-2000 nonlead thread compound for OCTG service
BRS P 3-92
[24
International Research & Development Co. Ltd.

Wear resistant surfaces
A guide to their production, properties and selection1977
[25]
White, G.W.
Eliminating galling of high-alloy tubular threads by high energy ion deposition process
SPE 12209
[26]
[27]
Snaith, N.N. and Weekers, E.E.A.J., KSEPL

Evaluation of the comparative anti-galling properties of three methods for applying thread
compounds to premium connections
RKRS.86. 11
Weatherford
Tubular Running Manual
WF-TR-MAN, August 1991
[28]
SIPM, EPO/512
VAM AG
DEN 43/91
[29]
Krings, R.
Coating of gastight special connections to prevent the occurrence of galling
Mannesmann, report No. 6336 E
[30]

Bulletin on performance properties of casing, tubing and drillpipe
[31]

Bulletin on formulas and calculations for casing, tubing, drillpipe and fine pipe properties
[32]
Kastelein, H.J. and Snaith, N.N., KSEPL

The application of laboratory tests to the selection and use of premium tubing and casing
connections
EP 88-2041
[33]
Kelley, J.W., Cernocky, E.P., Peterson, J.L. and Merritt, B.K., BRC
Tubular connection evaluation procedures
EP-63043
[34]

The importance of bending in the burst and collapse design with particular application to
horizontal wells - based on the computer program CASBEND
EP 90-3011
[35]
Pittman, W.
Casing design software - screening exercise
EP 92-0472
[36]
Singer, E., Cernocky, E.P. and Visser, F.J., BRC

Development of a method to determine the quantitative reliability of casing and tubing
connections based on failure test data
EP-64498
[37]
Morita, Y., Kawashima, H. and Ishihara, K.

Finite element simulation of jumpout behaviour of threaded pipe joints used in oilproducing wells
J. Energy Resources Technology, March 1988
[38]
Rowlands, G.W. and-Booth, N.R.

Planning for deep high pressured wells in the northern North Sea
EUR244, European Petroleum Conference, London, 1980
[39]
SIPM, EPO/512
Qualification of some premium connections
DEN 39/91
[40]

Recommended practice for evaluation procedures for casing and tubing connections
RP 5C5, First edition, January 1990
[41]
Snaith, N.N., KSEPL

Amendments to API Recommended Practice 5C5 (RP 5C5), Recommended Practice for
evaluation procedures for casing and tubing connections
EP 93-0109
[42]
Snaith,N.N., NAM
Test procedure for tubing and production casing connections
EP 92-0147
[43]
Cernocky, E.P., BRC

Ranking of casing connections based on phase I and phase II evaluation tests
EP 87-0175
[44]
Hilbert Jr, L.B. and Kalil, I.A.

Evaluation of Premium Threaded Connections Using FiniteElement Analysis and Full-Scale Testing
IADC/SPE23904
[45]
van der Valk, C.A.C., KSEPL

A state-of-the-art finite element technique for the analysis of Premium tubing connections
RKRS.92.01
[46]
Day, J.B., Moyer, M.C. and Hirschberg, A.J.

New make-up method for API connections
SPE Drilling Engineering, September 1990
[47]
Chelliah, J.C. and Carmona da Mota, A.

Acceptance of tubular threaded connections by "CONNEX" programme
Production Newsletter, March 1991
[48]
Scholibo, F.C. and Cernocky, E.P., BRC

Abstracts of non-SHELL tests of casing and tubing connections
EP-65514
[49]
Spruijt, E.J.C., KSEPL

Performance evaluation of commercially available thread protectors
EP 86-0727
[50]

IADC/SPE 17209
[51]
Dale, B.A., Moyer, M.C. and Sampson, T.W.

A test program for the evaluation of oil-field thread protectors
IADC/SPE 11396
[52]
McDonald, H.
API PRAC 91-51 Status Report
American Petroleum Institute, June 1991
13.0
Detailed casing design example
13.1
Introduction
The purpose of this example is to illustrate the application of the preceeding chapters relating to
detailed design and analysis. The highly important preliminary design phase is not covered in this
example.
It covers the design of all the strings in the well, from production liner to conductor casing, and
approaches the strings in the sequence described in Chapter A.
For each string, the design parameters are combined with the load cases, firstly to generate
burst and collapse pressure loads. These loads are compared to uniaxial casing ratings and the
lightest suitable casing chosen.
The capacity of the selected casing to withstand installation loads is then examined to check for
a possible under-design.
Finally, the ability of the cemented-in casing string to withstand service loads is analysed for
potential over-design. This is achieved using triaxial stress analysis. Since such analysis is
laborious when performed by hand, it is only illustrated for one load case for the intermediate
casing. The other load cases for this string have been analysed using the WELLCAT casing
stress analysis software package, and the ability to perform design changes is demonstrated.
The potential for buckling as a result of these service loads is also addressed.
It should be noted that the well configuration chosen for this example is only intended to illustrate
the techniques for detailed design and analysis (if casing, and does not aim to represent the
optimum casing scheme.
13.2
Casing scheme and design parameters

A deviated development well is to be drilled from an offshore gas production platform. Based
upon the given pore pressure profile (Figure M-1) and the required wellpath (Figure M-2), the
following casing scheme is proposed:
FIGURE M-1 PORE PRESSURE PROFILE
Provided that the 9 /8 in (0.2445m) casing can withstand the production related loads, a 7 in
(0.1778) tubing string will be stabbed into the top of a production liner - thus achieving a monobore
completion design.
It is assumed that it is possible to bleed off all annuli at surface.
A detailed design must now be performed to establish the required casing wall thickness and
material grade. Checks must then be carried out to ensure that the selected casing strings can
withstand the installation and service loads.
The geothermal temperature profile is shown in Figure M-3.
The H2S concentration of the reservoir fluids is 15 ppm. Thus at reservoir pressure (5000 psi,
34,475 kPa) the H2S partial pressure is 0.075 psi (520 Pa). This exceeds the NACE-defined
threshold of 0.05 psi (345 Pa), and thus sour conditions are said to exist.
The formation breakdown gradients at each casing shoe depth are estimated as below:
The drillfloor elevation is 150 ft (46 m) and the water depth is 450 ft (137 m).
The following information on temperature dependent yield strength has been obtained from the
casing manufacturer (all grades):
FIGURE M-2 : WELL TRAJECTORY (TV DEPTH ROUNDED TO NEAREST 100 FT (30 M) )
FIGURE M-3 : GEOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE PROFILE
13.3
INTERMEDIATE/PRODUCTION CASING
13.3.1a Pressure loads - drilling phase

FIGURE M-4 : INTERMEDIATE CASING - DRILLING PHASE
Collapse design load

a)
Internal
Evacuation based on pore pressure profile.
b)
External
Annulus fluid -
original fluid density (i.e. drilling mud).
Cement
good cement bond.
a.
( Figure M-5 )
The pore pressure (at 8400 ft, 2560 m TV) in next hole section resulting in the deepest
evacuation level
= 3671 psi (25,310 kPa)
Column of mud to balance this pressure
= 3671 = 5874 ft (1790 m)
0.625
Thus, evacuation level = 8400 - 5874 = 2526 ft (770 m)
FIGURE M-5 : INTERMEDIATE CASING - DRILLING PHASE COLLAPSE - INTERNAL PRESSURE

PROFILE
FIGURE M-6 : INTERMEDIATE CASING - DRILLING PHASE COLLAPSE - EXTERNAL PRESSURE

PROFILE
b.
External pressure profile (Figure M-6)

Annulus fluid
: 0.580 psi/ft (13.12 kPa/m) drilling mud
Cement column : Since there are no permeable intervals opposite the intermediate
casing cement column, the pressure gradient in the cement column
will be equal to that of the cement mixwater (0.433 psi/ft, 9.79
kPa/m).
Collapse load line
The collapse load line (obtained by subtracting the internal pressure profile from the
external pressure profile) is illustrated in Figure M-7.
FIGURE M-7 : INTERMEDIATE CASING - DRILLING PHASE COLLAPSE LOAD LINE AND
DOWNRATED CASING CAPACITIES
It can be seen that the maximum collapse load is 1,465 psi (10,101 kPa) at the
evacuation level.
As such the following 9-5/8 in ( 0.2445 m) OD casings would be suitable (prior to
downrating for design factor and temperature effects).
During drilling at TD of the next (8 in, 0.2159 m) hole section, the temperature profile in
the 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) casing is as shown in Figure M-8.
FIGURE M-8 INTERMEDIATE CASING - DRILLING PHASE TEMPERATURE PROFILE
The maximum temperature to which the casing will be exposed during drilling operations
(when the collapse load can occur) is 136F (57.8C). The collapse capacity derating
factor for this temperature is 0.94. The revised collapse ratings (using a design factor of
1.0) are therefore:
These ratings are then compared with the collapse load line in Figure M-7.
The selected casing to withstand the anticipated collapse loading is;
Burst design load

a.
Internal
Gas from GWC to surface. Well closed in at surface
b.
External
Annulus fluid - original mud density (i.e. drilling mud)

Cement
- good cement bond.
a.
Internal pressure profile (Figure M-9)

Pressure at GWC (9600 ft, 2926 in TV) = 5205 psi (35,888 kPa)
Surface pressure
= 5205 - (9600 x 0.15) = 3765psi
(25,960 kPa)
Casing shoe pressure (8000 ft, 2438 m TV) = 3765 + (8000 x 0.15) = 4965psi
(34,234 kPa)
This compares to the estimated FBP at the shoe of 5808 psi (40,046 kpa).
b.

The external pressure pressure profile is the same as for the collapse design
(Figure M-6).
FIGURE M-9 INTERMEDIATE CASING - DRILLING PHASE BURST - INTERNAL PRESSURE FILE
FIGURE M-10 INTERMEDIATE CASING - DRILLING PHASE BURST LOAD LINE AND DERATED
CASING CAPACITIES
Burst load line

The burst load line (obtained by subtracting the external pressure profile from the internal
pressure profile) is illustrated in Figure M-10.
The maximum burst loading is 3,765 psi (25,960 kPa) at surface. The following 9 5/8 in
(0.2445 m) casings would be suitable (prior to downrating by the design factor and for
temperature effects) :
As with the collapse design, these ratings should be downrated due to temperature
effects by a factor of 0.94. The use of a design factor of 1.1 gives a total derating factor
of 0.855.
The revised burst ratings are:
These ratings are then compare with the burst load line in Figure M-10
The casing selected to withstand the anticipated burst loading is:
Combining collapse and burst designs

Combining the two designs, and eliminating the 850 ft (259 m) section of K55 40 1b/ft
(59.52 m) gives
In this example it is assumed that the pipe manufacturer has qualified the L80 material
according to the Shell Bent Beam test for application in a sour environment.
13.3.1b Pressure loads - production phase (Figure M-11)

FIGURE M-11 : INTERMEDIATE CASING AND PRODUCTION LINER - PRODUCTION PHASE
A design is now carried out on the basis that the intermediate string will also act as the
production string, together with a production liner. The top of the 7 in (0.1778 m) liner is assumed
5
to be 500 ft (152 m) AH inside the 9 /8 in (0.2445 m) casing (at 7650 ft, 2332 m TV).
a.
Internal
: Evacuation based on pore pressure profile
b.
External
: Annulus fluid - deterioration of drilling mud to base fluid

Cement - good cement bond.
a)

Losses of 0.625 psi/ft (14.14 kPa/m) fluid to reservoir pressure was the same criteria
used in the drilling phase design of the intermediate string. The internal pressure profile
(down to the top of the liner at 7650 ft, 2332 m) will be as in Figure M-5.
b)

Annulus fluid : Deterioration of 0.58 psi/ft (13.12 kPa/m) waterbase mud to 0.445 psi/ft
(10.07 kPa/m) seawater.
Cement : Cement mixwater gradient between top of cement (annulus fluid pressure) and
shoe.
FIGURE M-12 INTERMEDIATE CASING - PRODUCTION PHASE COLLAPSE - EXTERNAL

PRESSURE PROFILE
Collapse load line

The collapse load line is illustrated in Figure M-13. The maximum collapse loading
is 1,124 psi 7,750 kPa) at the evacuation level.
FIGURE M-13 INTERMEDIATE CASING - PRODUCTION PHASE
COLLAPSE LOAD LINE AND DERATED CASING CAPACITIES
The collapse loading is reduced in comparison to the drilling phase because of the degradation
with time of the annulus fluid.
Taking a geothermal temperature at the top of the liner of 181F (82.8C) gives a capacity
derating factor of 0.90. Geothermal temperature is used since evacuation of the production string
is most likely to occur during workover operations when little circulation has taken place. A
design factor of 1.0 is used. Because of the low collapse loading, the previously selected
intermediate casing is suitable even after the derating factor is applied (see Figure M-13).
Burst design load

a.
Internal : Near surface tubing leak giving CITHP on top of packer fluid.
b.
External : Annulus fluid - deterioration of drilling mud to base fluid

Cement
- good cement bond.
a.

The internal pressure profile down to the top of the liner will be as in Figure M-14.
BURST - INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE
b)

The external pressure profile will be as for the collapse loading (see Figure M-12).
Burst load line
The burst loading is illustrated in Figure M-15. The casing capacity temperature derating
factor used for the production phase burst loading (based on an operating temperature at
the top of the liner of 200F, 93.3C - see Figure M-18 ) is 0.89. Combining this with the
burst design factor of 1.1 gives a total capacity derating factor of 0.81.
Thus for the casing used in the intermediate casing the revised ratings are :
FIGURE M-15 : INTERMEDIATE CASING - PRODUCTION PHASE

BURST LOAD LINE AND DERATED CASING CAPACITIES
Thus, it can be seen from Figure M-15 that if the intermediate casing is upgraded to L80
40 1b/ft (59.52 kg/m) throughout its length, it can be used as a production casing, with a
production liner across the reservoir.
The selected casing is therefore:
Since the casing is designed to withstand full displacement to gas, qualified premium
connections with a metal-to-metal seal should be selected.
The L80 material must pass the Shell Bent Beam Test to verify its suitability for sour
service in the upper section of the well where temperatures below 65C (150F) may
exist.
13.4
Production liner
13.4.1

a.
Internal
Full evacuation
b.
External
Annulus fluid
Cement
a.
Internal pressure load
not present
good cement bond.
Since the production tubing is stabbed into the top of the liner, the entire liner length
forms part of the production conduit. As such, it should be designed for full evacuation.
b.

Pore pressure is taken opposite permeable (reservoir) intervals. The cement mixwater
gradient is used between the bottom of reservoir and liner shoe, and between the top of
reservoir and the top of liner (top of liner assumed to be sealed).
FIGURE M-16 : PRODUCTION LINER - PRODUCTION PHASE
COLLAPSE - EXTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE
Collapse load line

The collapse load line is shown in Figure M-17.
FIGURE M-17 PRODUCTION LINER - PRODUCTION PHASE
The maximum collapse load is 5426 psi (37,412 kPa) and the following 7 in (0.1778 m) casings
would be suitable (prior to downrating by the design factor and for temperature effects):
The production temperature profile for the production liner/casing is shown in Figure M-18.
FIGURE M-18 : PRODUCTION TEMPERATURE PROFILE
The temperature derating factor for a bottom hole temperature of 230F (110C) is 0.87. The
design factor is 1.0. The revised casing capacities are:
Thus the casing selected for the anticipated collapse load is (see Figure M-17)
a.
Internal
Displacement to gas from GWC. Closed in at surface.
b.
External
Annulus fluid
not present
Cement
good cement bond.
a.

The internal pressure profile (below the liner top at 7650 ft, 2332 m) will be as shown in
Figure M-19.
FIGURE M-19 : PRODUCTION LINER - PRODUCTION PHASE
b.

The external pressure profile is the same as that derived for the collapse design (see
Figure M-16).
Burst load line

The burst load line is illustrated in Figure M-20.
FIGURE M-20 PRODUCTION LINER - PRODUCTION PHASE
BURST LOAD LINE
Between the liner top and the top of the reservoir, the maximum burst load is 212 psi (1,462
kPa). Between the top of the reservoir and the liner shoe, the internal and external pressure
profiles are identical and therefore there is no loading.
Any 7 in (0.1778 m) casing will be able to withstand this loading.
Combining burst and collapse designs
Combining the two designs gives;
Note that since the minimum temperature at the top of the liner (the geothermal temperature) is
greater than 65C, 150F (see Figure M-18), the L80 material does not have to be qualified for
sour service.
Since the liner forms part of the production conduit, it must have qualified premium connections
with a metal-to-metal seal.
13.4.2 Installation loads

13.4.2.1 Axial loads
a.
Loading when suspended at surface

i)
Self-weight
Measured length of liner
= 12636 9165
= 3,471 ft (1,058 m)
Vertical depth corresponding to 3,471 ft (1,058 m) AH = 3,453 ft (1,052 m) TVD.

Self-weight in field units = 3,453 x 29 = 100,137 lb
Self-weight in SI units = 1,052 x 43.15 x 9.8 = 444,859 N
ii)
Pressure load (while suspended in mud)

From Eq. App. 6-16, FB = f As ZL
In field units, FB
= 0.625 x 8.45 x 3453 = 18,236 lb
In SI units, FB
= 14.14 x 10 x 5.45 x 10 x 1052 = 81,070 N
-3
iii) Bending load

The bending load is given in field units by (Eq. G-10);
Fb = 218 do As [lb]
and in SI units by (Eq. G-11);
6
Fb = 183 x 10 do As [N]
from surface to 2500 ft (762 m) TVD, max. allowable dogleg severity = 2/100 ft
(0.66/10 m).
Thus in field units Fb = 218 x 7 x 2 x 8.45 = 25,789 lb
In SI units Fb = 183 x 106 x 0.1778 x 0.66 x 5.45 x 10-3 = 117,037 N
from 2,500 ft (762 m) TVD to liner shoe, max. allowable dogleg severity = 5/100
ft (1.64/10 m).
Thus in field units Fb = 218 x 7 x 5 x 8.45 = 64,475 lb
6
-3
In SI units Fb = 183 x 10 x 0.1778 x 1.64 x 5.45 x 10 = 290,819 N

iv) Dynamic drag load
These loads should be calculated using the computer program DRAGTORQ. In this
instance, drag loads are assumed to be small compared to the shock loads.
v) Static drag load
It is not possible to calculate these loads by hand at present.
vi)
Shock load
When the liner is suspended at surface (from its top) the shock load, Fs, is given in
field units by (Eq. G-16);
Fs = 2700 VAV As, [lb]
Fs = 6.1 x 107 VAV As [N]
If it is assumed that a 40 ft (12.2 m) joint is run in 13 seconds, then VAV is 3.1 ft/s
(0.94 m/s).
Fs = 2700 x 3.1 x 8.45 = 70,727 lb
In SI units:
7
-3
Fs = 6.1 x 10 x 0.94 x 5.45 x 10 = 312,503 N
Summary of dynamic axial installation loads

The total dynamic installation load consists of the buoyant weight together with the
bending load and the larger of the drag load and shock loads (in this case, the shock
load).
Axial capacity
Casing tensile capacity (body yield strength) = 676,000 lb (3,006,848 N).
Derating using a design factor of 1.3 gives a capacity of 520,000 lb (2,312,760 N)
The axial installation loads when the liner is at surface are well within the casing
capacity.
b.
Loading when top of liner at kick-off depth

i)
Self weight
True vertical length of liner when suspended (on drillpipe) from the kick-off point is
2888 ft (880 m).
Self-weight in field units = 2888 x 29 = 83,762 lb
Self-weight in SI units = 880 x 43.15 x 9.8 = 372,236 N
ii)

TV depth of liner shoe = 2500 + 2888 = 5388 ft (1642 m)
In field units, FB
= 0.625 x 8.45 x 5388 = 28,455 lb
In SI units, FB = 14.14 x 103 x 5.45 x 10-3 x 1642 = 126,537 N

iii) Bending load
From the kick-off point to the end of the build-up section, the max. allowable dogleg
severity = 5/100 ft (1.64/10 m).
From before Fb = 64,474 lb (290,819 N).
In the tangent section, the max. allowable dogleg severity = 2/100 ft (0.66/10 m)
From before Fb = 25,789 lb (117,037 N)
iv)
Dynamic drag load

It is assumed for simplicity that all the drag loading is taken by the drillpipe rather
than the liner. More accurate analysis will require the use of the DRAGTORQ
program.
v) Static drag load

vi) Shock load
Although the liner is now suspended on drillpipe, shock waves will still travel through
the liner. Thus, from before:
Fs = 70,727 lb (312,503 N)
These axial loads are still well within the capacity of the selected casing.
c.
Loading when liner at setting depth

i)
Self-weight
True vertical length of liner at setting depth = 2450 ft (747 m).
Self-weight in field units = 2450 x 29 = 71,050 lb
Self-weight in SI units = 747 x 43.15 x 9.8 = 315,884 N
ii)

TV depth of liner shoe
From Eq. App. 6-16, FB =
10,100 ft (3078 m)
f As ZL
In field units, FB = 0.625 x 8.45 x 10,100 = 53,341 lb

3
-3
In SI units,FB = 14.14 x 10 x 5.45 x 10 x 3078 = 237,200 N
iii)
Bending load
In the tangent section, the max. allowable dogleg severity = 2/100 ft (0.66/10 m).
From before Fb = 25,789 lb (117,037 N)
iv) Dynamic drag load

It is assumed for simplicity, as before, that all the drag loading is taken by the
drillpipe rather than the liner.
v) Static drag load
vi) Shock loads
As before: Fs = 70,727 lb (312,503 N)
Summary of dynamic installation loads
Summary of static-post cementing loads

The total static post-cementing load consists of the buoyant weight in mud and
cement, together with the bending load.
The buoyancy force is given by Eq. App. 6-19;
FB = PeAe - PiAi
If the cement slurry density is 0.8 psi/ft, (18.10 kPa/m) and the top of cement is at
7650 ft (2332 m) then; in field units
Pe = (7650 x 0.625) + (2450 x 0.8) = 6741 psi
Pi = 10,100 x 0.625 = 6313 psi
Thus, PeAe - PiAi = (6741 x 38.48) - (6313 x 30.04) = 69,751 lb
In SI units:
Pe = (2332 x 14.14) + (747 x 18.10) = 46,495 kPa
Pi = 3078 x 14.14 = 43,523 kPa
Thus, PeAe - PiAi = (46,495 x 103 x 2.48 x 10-2 ) - (43,523 x 103 x 1.94 x 10-2 ) =
308,730 N
With the addition of a 3000 psi (20,685 kPa) pressure test on bumping the cement
plug, the buoyancy force is:
In field units:
FB = ( 6741 x 38.48) - (9313 x 30.04) = -20,369 lb
In SI units:
-3
-3
-3
-3
FB = (46 495 x 10 x 24.8 x 10 ) -(64,208 x 10 x 19.4 x 10 ) = -92,559 N
These static post-cementing axial forces are now used as the base case for all
subsequent service load checks.
13.4.2.2
Pressure loads
a)
At the end of cementing

Internal pressure at shoe = f ZL
In field units : Pi = 0.625 x 10,100 6313 psi
In SI units : Pi
= 14.14 x 3,078 = 43,523 kPa
External pressure at shoe = fZc + c (ZL - Zc)

In field units : Pe = (0.625 x 7,650) + (0.8 x 2,450) = 6741 psi
In SI units : Pe = (14.14 x 2332) + (18.1 x 747) = 46,495 kPa
Collapse load at shoe = 428 psi (2,972 kPa)
Casing capacity
= 6,107 psi (42,108 kPa)
b)
During pressure test at end of cementing

The typical test pressure of 3000 psi (20,685 kPa) is smaller than the nominal
burst rating for the selected casing of 8160 psi (56,263 kPa).

13.4.3.1 Pressure loads
a)
Triaxial stress analysis

A triaxial stress analysis should now be performed to determine whether the cemented
casing is overdesigned for the load conditions it may experience. This involves
calculating the tangential, radial, and axial stresses within the pipe, which are
determined by the internal and external pressures and the axial force.
Due to the complex external pressure profile for the liner (see Figure M-16), this is a
calculation best performed by computer. An example hand-calculation of triaxial stress
analysis is performed for the intermediate casing.
b)
Buckling potential analysis

Since the liner is cemented over its entire length, buckling cannot occur, and the
reduced axial force is thus of no interest.
13.4.3.2 Temperature loads

a)

Introduction of temperature effects during for example stimulation operations will have a
significant effect on the axial stresses in a casing, which in turn affect the triaxial stress.
Because of the complexity of the liner external pressure profile, a hand calculation
example of temperature effects is presented for the intermediate casing only.
b)

As discussed under Pressure loads above.
13.4.3.3 Point loads

Loads applied to production packers when installing the completion are typically 30-50,000 lb
(130,000-220,000 N). However, for the cemented liner, such loads are taken up as a shear
force in the cement. There is no change in the axial force in the casing.
13.5
13.5.1
Pressure loads
This has already been covered in Section 3.1.
13.5.2
Installation loads

i)
ii)
Self weight
Self-weight in field units
= 8,000 x 40 = 320.000 lb
Self-weight in SI units
= 2.438 x 59.52 x 9.8 = 1,422,076 N

From Eq. App. 6-16. FB
In field units.
In SI units.
iii)
FB
FB
f As, ZL
=
0.58 x 11.45 x 8000 = 531,128 lb
= 13.12 x 103 x 7.40 x 10-3 x 2.438 = 236,700 N
Bending load
Fb = 218 do As, [1b]
and in SI units by (Eq. G-11):
6
Fb = 183 x 10 , do A s, [N]
From surface to 2500 ft (762 m) TVD, max, allowable doglet severity = 2/100 ft
(0.66/10 m).
Thus, in field units, Fb = 218 x 9.625 x 2 x 11.45 = 48,050 lb
Fb = 183 x 106 x 0.2445 x 0.66 x 7.4 x 10-3 = 218,527 N
In SI units
-
From 2500 (762 m) to 4500 ft (1372 in) TVD, the max. allowable doglet severity = 5/100
ft (1.64/10 m).
In field units., Fb
218 x 9.625 x 5 x 11.45 = 120,125 lb
In SI units,
183 x 106 x 0.2445 x 1.64 x 7.4 x 10 -3 = 543,007 N
Fb
From 4500 ft (1372 m) to 8000 ft (2438 m) TVD, the max. allowable doglet severity =
2/100 ft (0.66/10 m)
Thus Fb = 48,050 lb (218,527 N).
Note that all casing that will eventually sit below 2,500 ft (762 m) TVD will have to pass
through the 5/100 ft (1.64/10 in) build section and must be designed accordingly.
However, the maximum combination of bending and tensile loads will occur in the aslanded condition at the top of the build section (i.e. the kick-off point). Thus, a check at
this point will be sufficient since the string is uniform below this depth.
iv)
Dynamic drag load

From DRAGTORQ the following values were obtained,
Ffic = 39,000 lb (173,366 N) pulling out full string
= 32,000 lb (142,249 N) running in full string
v)
Static drag load

vi) Shock load

The maximum shock load, Fs,is given in field units, by (Eq. G-16);
Fs = 2700 VAV As [lb]
Fs = 6.1 x 107 V AV As [N]
If it is assumed that a 40 ft (12.2 m) joint is run in 13 seconds, then VAV is 3.1 ft/s (0.94 m/s).
Fs = 2700 x 3.1 x 11.45 = 95,837 lb
In SI units:
Fs =
-3
6.1 x 10 x 0.94 x 7.4 x 10 = 424,316 N
Summary of dynamic axial installation loads (for full string, at as-landed depth)
The total dynamic installation load consists of the buoyant weight in mud together with the
bending load and the larger of the drag and shock loads (in this case, the shock load).
Summary of static post-cementing axial loads

The total static post-cementing load consists of the buoyant weight in mud and cement, with
and without a 3000 psi (20,685 kPa) pressure test, together with the bending load.
While suspended in 0.58 psi/ft (13.12 kPa/m) mud and 0.75 psi/ft (16.97 kPa/m) cement
slurry (top of cement at 6000 ft, 1829 m) the buoyancy force is given by (Eq. App. 6-19);
FB = PeAe - PiAi
In field units:
Pe = (6000 x 0.58) + (2000 x 0.75) = 4980 psi
Pi = 8000 x 0.58 = 4640 psi
Thus FB =
(4980 x 72.76) - (4640 x 61.31) = 77,866 lb
In SI units:
Pe
= (1829 x 13.12) + (610 x 16.97) = 34,348 kPa
Pi
= (2438 x 13.12) = 31,987 kPa
Thus FB (34,348 x 103 x 46.95 x 10-3 ) - (31,987 x 103 x 39.55 x 10-3 ) = 347,553 N
With the addition of a 3,000 psi (20,685 kPa) pressure test on bumping the cement plug, the
buoyancy force is:
In field units:
FB = (4980 x 72.76) - (7640 x 61.31)
= -106,064 lb
In SI units:
FB = (34,348 x 103 x 46.95 x 10-3 ) - (52,672 x 103 x 39.55 x 10-3 ) = -470,539 N
The static axial load without the pressure test is now used as the base case for all
subsequent service load checks.
See Figure M-21 for a plot of dynamic and static axial load, against depth.
FIGURE M-21 : AXIAL LOADS IN 9 5/8 IN (0.2445 M) INTERMEDIATE CASING
Axial capacity
The minimum axial capacity of the casing (body yield strength) is 916,000 lb (4,074,370 N).
Downrating of this capacity by the design factor (1.3) gives 704,615 lb (3,134,130 N)
Further downrating of the axial capacity due to temperature effects is not necessary at
surface where the temperature of the casing will still be at ambient when landing. Deeper in
the well, the casing temperature will rise to the geothermal temperature at that depth. The
maximum downhole axial force is the dynamic loading at the top of the build-up section
(2,500 ft, 762 m TVD). The geothermal temperature at this depth (from Figure M-18) is 78F
(25.6C). At this temperature the derating factor is 0.99, giving an axial capacity of 697,570
lb (3,102,790 N).
Thus the selected casing is easily capable of withstanding the axial installation loads.
13.5.2.2
Pressure loads
a.
b.
At end of cementing
Internal pressure at shoe
4640 psi (31,987 kPa)
External pressure at shoe
4980 psi (34,348 kPa)
Collapse load at shoe
340 psi (2361 kPa)
Casing capacity at shoe
2905 psi (20,027 kPa)
During pressure test at end of cementing

The applied pressure is less than the burst capacity of each section in the string.
The fluids internally and externally are either the same or give a collapse loading
and thus only help the situation.
13.5.3
Service loads
13.5.3.1 Pressure loads

a)

A triaxial stress analysis should now be performed to determine whether the cemented
casing string is, in reality, overdesigned for the load conditions it may experience. At
each depth of interest this involves calculating the tangential, radial, and axial stresses in
the pipe.
An example hand calculation is performed for the drilling phase collapse load, followed
by a computerised analysis using the WELLCAT software package.
i)
Tangential stress
The tangential stress, t , is given by Eq. App. 6-2;
t =
AeAi
Pi A i Pe A e
+ ( Pi - Pe )
AsA
As
where
Ai
61.31 in (39.55 x 10-3 m)
Ae
72.76 in (46.95 x 10-3 m)
As
11.45 in (7.4 x 10-3 m)
From Figures M-6 and M-7, the values of Pi and Pe are tabulated below:
Inserting these pressures in the expression for t gives the following value :
ii)
Radial stress
The radial stress, r, is given by Eq. App. 6-1 ;
Inserting the collapse load pressure into the above expression for t gives the
following value :
iii)
Axial stress
The axial stresses can be calculated from the static post-cementing axial forces
together with the changes to these forces that occur as a result of new internal
and external pressure profiles (relative to those existing at the end of the
cementing process). In this case, the changes in these profiles can be
summarised as follows:
Internally :
Externally
change in mud density from 0.58 psi/ft

(13.12 kPa/m) at the time of cementing to 0.625 psi/ft
(14.14 kPa/m) during deeper drilling.
evacuation of 0.625 psi/ft (14.14 kPa/m) mud to 2526 ft
(770 in) during deeper drilling
reduction in fluid density below the top of
cement from a slurry density of 0.75 psi/ft
(16.97 kPa/m) to a cement mix water density
of 0.433 psi/ft (9.79 kPa/m)
a)
Increase in internal fluid density

Above the top of cement, Fa due to increase in fluid density is given (from
Eq. G-29) by;
Fa = Ai Zc i
Fa = 0.3 x 61.31 x 6,000 x 0.045 = 4,966 lb
In SI units
Fa = 0.3 x 39.55 x 10-3 x 1829 x 1.02 x 103 = 22,135 N
Below the top of cement, Fa due to the increase in fluid density is given
(from Eq. G-30) by:
Fa = 2 Ai i z
where z is the depth of interest
Fa = 2 x 0.3 x 61.31 x 0.045 x z = 1.66 z lb
Thus, at 6000 ft, Fa = 9,960 lb
at 8000 ft, Fa = 13,280 lb
In SI units:
Fa = 2 x 0.3 x 39.55 x 10-3 x 1.02 x 103 x z = 24.2z N
Thus, at 1829 m, Fa = 44,262 N
at 2438 m, Fa = 59,000 N
b)
Partial evacuation
Above the top of cement, Fa due to the drop in fluid level is given (from
Eq. G-31) by:
Below the top of cement, Fa due to the drop in fluid level is given (from
Eq. App. G-33) by :
Fa = -2Ai i Ze
Thus in field units:
Fa = -2 x 0.3 x 61.31 x 0.625 x 2526 = -58,076 lb
In SI units:
Fa = -2 x 0.3 x 39.55 x 10-3 x 14.14 x 103 x 770 = -258,368 N
c)
Reduction in external fluid density

Below the top of cement, Fa due to the reduction in fluid density is given
(from Eq. G-28) by:
Drilling phase - collapse:
Division of the final axial force by the casing wall cross-sectional area As
gives the axial stress in the outer wall of the casing (A = Ae). This is
because the effects of bending loads are calculated at the outer wall. To
determine the axial stress at the inner wall (A = Ai), the bending stress at
the inner wall needs to be used. This has been done in the tabulation of
VME below.
iv)
Von Mises Equivalent stress

The Von Mises Equivalent stress, VME, which is to be compared with the casing
material yield strength, y, is given by Eq. App. 6-14;
By inserting the values determined above for t, r, and a in this equation, the
following values of VME are obtained :
Drilling phase - collapse
v)
Use of the WELLCAT program

The above casing design software program was used to analyse the same
collapse load condition.
The program output is summarised below :
Drilling phase - collapse
It should be noted that the program calculates VME at both the inner wall (A =
Ai) and the outer wall (A = Ae) of the casing and presents only the highest
value. The triaxial design factor is the ratio of the material yield stress to VME.
The software alone has been used to calculate the axial forces and triaxial
stresses for the drilling burst load condition. The output data is presented
below.
Drilling phase - burst
The program also provides a plot of triaxial design factor against depth. Such a
plot for both collapse and burst loads during the drilling phase, together with the
landing condition, is shown in Figure M-22.
TRIAXIAL DESIGN FACTOR VS. DEPTH

DESIGN LIMIT PLOT
Figure M-23 represents a plot of the load conditions, in terms of pressure and
axial force, relative to the casing capacity as stated in API Bulletin 5C2 and also
relative to the material yield elipse. These limits have been downrated by the
appropriate design factors. The plots are called Design Limit Plots.
The program has also been used to analyse the triaxial stresses for the
production phase collapse and burst loads.
The results are tabulated below and also presented in Figures M-24 and M-25.
Production phase - collapse
Production phase - burst
FIGURE M-24 : INTERMEDIATE CASING - PRODUCTION

PHASE TRIAXIAL DESIGN FACTOR VS. DEPTH

DESIGN LIMIT PLOT
From the triaxial design factors generated by the program for the four load
cases, it appears that there is scope for using a lighter casing or using material
of a lower grade. Figure M-26 illustrates the variation of triaxial design factor with
depth for the production load cases (since they are the most severe) for a 9-5/8 in
(0.2445 in) 40 1b/ft (59.52 kg/m) string with 75,000 psi (517,125 kPa) yield
strength material. Figure M-27 is the same plot for a similar string with 55,000
psi (379,225 kPa) yield strength material.
Figures M-28 and M-29 are the Design Limit Plots for these cases.
FIGURE M-26 - INTERMEDIATE CASING (75,000 PSI (517,125 KPA)) - PRODUCTION PHASE
FIGURE M-27 INTERMEDIATE CASING (55,000 PSI (379,225 KPA)) - PRODUCTION PHASE
FIGURE M-28 INTERMEDIATE CASING (75,000 PSI (517,125 KPA)) - PRODUCTION PHASE DESIGN
LIMIT PLOT
FIGURE M-29: INTERMEDIATE CASING (55,000 PSI (379,225 KPA)) - PRODUCTION PHASE DESIGN
LIMIT PLOT
It can be seen that reducing the material yield strength to 75,000 psi (517,125
kPa) would be acceptable, but a further reduction to 55,000 psi (379,225 kPa)
yield strength material would give triaxial design factors very close to, and on
occasions below, the triaxial factor of 1.25.
Note that if the unit weight of the casing is changed at this stage, then the
installation load checks must be performed for the new string.
b)

The most likely subsequent operation to cause buckling is an increase of internal fluid
density during deeper drilling.
Ignoring temperature and applied surface load the expression for the reduced axial force,
Fa*, at any depth, z, is (from Eq. J-3);
Fa* = Wn (ZL-z) - [PeAe - PiAi] L + z ( eAe - iAi) - (1 - 2v)
( PisAi - PesAe) + (vZc- z) ( iA i - eAe)
Since Pe, Pis, and Pes are all zero, this reduces to
Fa* = Wn (ZL - z) - [PeAe - PiAi] L + ze (Ae - Ai) + (vZc - z) (iAi)
where [PeAe - PiAi] L is the cemented-in pressure (buoyancy) load and has a magnitude
of 77,866 lb (see calculation of installation loads)
Therefore;
Fa* = 247,100 - 36.12z lb
At the top of cement ( 6000 ft) this gives;
Fa* = 30,380 lb
In SI units
where [PeAe - PiAi] L is the cemented-in pressure (buoyancy) load of 347,553 N.

Thus:
Fa* = 1,097,420 - 526.5 z N
At the top of cement (1829 m) this gives:
Fa* = 134,452 N
Since the reduced axial force Fa* is positive, buckling cannot occur.
13.5.3.2
Temperature loads
a)

i)
Linear casing expansion

The thermal linear expansion of the casing will depend on the change in
temperature between the as-cemented conditions and those temperatures
generated either while drilling at TD, or during production. Determination of
which case (drilling or production) provides the most severe loading will
require a simulation of the respective temperature profiles. It is assumed
for the purposes of this example that the drilling case is the most severe.
The relative temperature profiles are illustrated in Figure M-8.
For the uncemented interval the change in axial force is given (from Eq. G45)
Where;
T1
= change in temperature at the top of the uncemented interval
T 2 =
change in temperature at the bottom of the uncemented

interval (i.e. the top of cement).
From Figure M-8,
T1 = 80F (44.4C)
T2 = -17F (-9.4C)
Below the top of cement, the change in axial force at any depth z is given
(from Eq. G-46) by;
Fa = -E T As
where T is the change in temperature at depth z.
Thus at the top of cement (from Figure M-8)
T = -17F (-9.4C)
Thus, in fields units:
Fa = 30 x 106 x 6.9 x 10 -6 x 17 x 11.45 = 40,293 lb
In SI units:
Fa = 2.1 x 1011 x 1.24 x 10-5 x 9.4 x 7.4 x 10-3 = 181,134 N
At the casing shoe (from Figure M-8)
T = -52F (-28.9C)
Fa = 30 x 106 x 6.9 x 10-6 x 52 x 11.45 = 123,248 lb
In SI units:
Fa = 2.1 x 1011 x 1.24 x 10-5 x 28.9 x 7.4 x 10 -3 = 556,891 N
The final axial forces due to these temperature effects are tabulated
below:
It can be seen that temperature reduction in the cemented portion of the

string caused an increase in tensile force, while the uncemented portion
experiences a decrease in tension. These changes in axial force (and
therefore axial stress) due to temperature loads should be added to the
changes resulting from pressure loads. The resulting axial stress is then
used in the triaxial stress analysis.
Note that during production, when all the strings are interconnected at
surface, the change in axial forces due to thermal effects in the
uncemented sections are interdependent. The change in axial force (and
hence stress) in each string should therefore be calculated as in Chapter
G, section 5.4.
b)

i)
Reduced axial force

The reduced axial force in the uncemented casing as a result of the change in
temperature and the change in fluid density resulting from deeper drilling is given
by;
Fa* = Wn (ZL - z) - [PeAe - PiAi] L + ze (Ae - Ai) + ( Zc - z) (iAi) EAsV
This the same calculation as performed when analysing pressure loads, but with
the additional term, - EAsV
In field units:
Thus, the total reduced axial force is, in field units:

Fa* = 247,100 - 36.12z - 74,660 lb
Fa* = 172,440 - 36.12z lb
At the top of cement (6000 ft) this gives;
Fa* = -44,280 lb
The total reduced axial force in SI units is:
Fa*
= 1,097,420 - 526.5z - -337,218 N

= 760,202 - 526.5z

Fa* = -202,767 N
ii)
Buckling resistance
The critical buckling load, Fc*, for the casing at the top of cement is given by Eq. J5;
It can therefore be seen that the reduced axial force at the top of the cement is
greater (more positive) than the critical buckling load at that point and therefore
buckling will not occur.
13.5.3.3
Point loads
There will be no point loads applied to this casing string.
13.6
Surface casing
13.6.1 Pressure loads - drilling phase

FIGURE M-30 :SURFACE CASING - DRILLING PHASE

a.
Internal
Evacuation based on pore pressure profile
b.
Annulus fluid - original annulus fluid (i.e. drilling mud)

Cement - poor cement bond.
a.
External

Pore pressure gradient in next hole section
= 0.445 psi/ft (10.07 kPa/m)
Mud weight in use in next hole section
= 0.58 psi/ft (13.12 kPa/m)
Pore pressure at TD of next hole section
= 3493 psi (24,086 kPa)
Column of mud to balance this pressure 3493
3493
0.580
= 6022 ft (1835 m)
FIGURE M-31: SURFACE CASING - DRILLING PHASE

COLLAPSE - INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE
FIGURE M-32 : SURFACE CASING - DRILLING PHASE

b. External pressure profile (Figure M-32)

Annulus fluid
0.52 psi/ft (11.76 kPa/m) drilling mud.
Cement column
Since there are no permeable intervals opposite the surface

casing cement column, the pressure gradient in the cement
column will be equal to that of the cement mixwater (irrespective
of the cement bond quality).
Collapse load line

The collapse load line is illustrated in Figure M-33.
It can be seen that the maximum collapse load is 987 psi (6,789 kPa) at the evacuation level.
As such the following 13 3/8 in (0.3397 m) OD casings would be suitable (prior to downrating
by design factor and temperature effects).
During drilling at TD of the next (12 in, 0.3111 m) hole section, the temperature
profile in the 13 3/8 in (0.3397 m) casing is illustrated in Figure M-34.
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
The maximum temperature to which the casing will be exposed during drilling
operations (when the collapse load can occur) is 112F (44.4C). The collapse
capacity derating factor for this temperature is 0.96. Using a design factor of 1.0,
The casing selected to withstand the anticipated collapse loading is :
Burst design load

a)
Internal
Gas from TD to surface. Well closed in at surface
b)
External
Annulus fluid - original mud density (i.e. drilling mud)

a)

Pressure at next section TD (8,000 ft, 2438 m), = 3493 psi (24,086 kPa)
Surface pressure
= 2293 psi (15,810 kPa)
Casing shoe pressure (5,000 ft, 1524 m),
= 3043 psi (20,981 kPa)
This casing shoe pressure compares to the estimated FBP at the shoe of 3375
psi (23,271 kPa).
b)

The external pressure profile will be the same as that used in the collapse
design (Figure M-32).
Burst load line

The burst load line is illustrated in Figure M-36. The maximum burst loading is 2,293
psi (15,810 kPa) at surface.
FIGURE M-35 SURFACE CASING - DRILLING PHASE

BURST LOAD LINE AND DERATED CASING CAPACITIES
The following 133/8 in (0.3397 m) casings would be suitable (prior to downrating by

the design factor and for temperature effects):
As with the collapse design, these ratings should be downrated due to temperature
effects by a factor of 0.96. The use of a burst design factor of 1.1 gives a total
derating factor of 0.87.
The revised burst ratings are;
These ratings are then compared with the burst load line in Figure M-36. The
selected casing is;

The two designs are identical and therefore do not need modification. The material
yield strength is sufficiently low to with stand sour service stress corrosion cracking.
13.6.2
Installation loads

i)
ii)
Self-weight
Self-weight in field units
= 5000 x 54.5
= 272,500 lb
= 1524 x 81.1 x 9.8
= 1,211,245 N

In field units, FB = 0.52 x 15.51 x 5000 = 40,326 lb
In SI units, FB = 11.76 x 103 x 0.01 x 1524 = 179,222 N
iii)
Bending loads
Fb = 218 do f As [lb]
Fb = 183 x 106 x do A s [N]
From surface to the kick-off point at 2500 ft (762 m) the maximum allowable dogleg
severity is 2/100 ft (0.66/10 m).
In field units, Fb = 218 x 13.375 x 2 x 15.51 = 90,447 lb
In SI units, Fb = 183 x 106 x 0.3397 x 0.66 x 0.01 = 410,290 N
Over the build-up section from 2500 ft (762 m) to 4500 ft (1372 m) TVD the maximum
allowable dogleg severity is 5/100 ft (1.64/10 m).
In field units, Fb = 218 x 13.375 x 5 x 15.51 = 226,116 lb
In SI units, Fb = 183 x 106 x 0.3397 x 1.64 x 0.01 = 1,019,508 N
Over the tangent section from 4500 ft (1372 m) to 5000 ft (1524 m) TVD the maximum
allowable dogleg severity is 2/100 ft ( 0.66/10 m).
The forces due to bending will be as given above.
Note that all casing that will eventually sit below 2,500 ft (762 m) TVD will have to pass
through the 5/100 ft (1.64/10 m) build section and must be designed accordingly.
However, the maximum combination of bending and tensile loads will occur in the aslanded condition at the top of the build section (i.e. the kick-off point). Thus, a check at
this point will be sufficient since the string is uniform below this depth.
iv)
Dynamic drag load

These loads should be calculated using the computer program DRAGTORQ. In this
instance drag loads are assumed to be small compared to the shock loads.
v)
Static drag load

vi)
Shock load
The maximum shock load, Fs, when the string is suspended from surface is given, in
field units, by (Eq. G-16);
Fs = 6.1 x 107 V AV A, [N]
If it is assumed that a 40 ft (12.2 m) joint is run in 13 seconds then VAV is 3.1 ft/s (0.94
m/s).
Fs = 2700 x 3.1 x 15.51 = 129,819 lb
In SI units:
Fs = 6.1 x 107 x 0.94 x 0.01 = 573,400 lb

The total dynamic axial installation load consists of the buoyant weight in mud together with the
bending load and the larger of the drag and shock loads (in this case, the shock load).

The total static post-cementing load consists of the buoyant weight in mud and cement, with and
without a 1000 psi (6,895 kPa) pressure test, together with the bending load.
While suspended in 0.52 psi/ft (11.76 kPa/m) mud and 0.64 psi/ft (14.48 kPa/m) cement slurry
(top of cement at 1500 ft, 457 m) the buoyancy force is given by: (Eq. App. 6-19);
FB = PeAe - PiAi
In field units:
Pe = (1500 x 0.52) + (3500 x 0.64) = 3020 psi
Pi = 5000 x 0.52 = 2600 psi
Thus FB (3020 x 140.50) - (2600 x 124.99) = 99,336 lb
In SI units:
Pe = (457 x 11.76) + (1067 x 14.48) = 20,824 kPa
Pi = 1524 x 11.76 = 17,922 kPa
3
Thus FB = (20,824 x 10 x 0.091) - (17,922 x 103 x 0.081) = 443,302 N
With the addition of a 1,000 psi (6,895 kPa) pressure test on bumping the cement plug, the
buoyancy force is:
In field units:
FB = (3020 x 140.50) - (3600 x 124.99) = -25,654 lb
In SI units:
FB = (20,824 x 103 x 0.091) - (24,817 x 103 x 0.081) = -115,193 N
The static axial load without the pressure test is now used as the base case for all subsequent
service load checks.
See Figure M-37 for a plot of dynamic and static axial load against depth.
FIGURE M-37 AXIAL LOADS IN 13 3/8 INCH (0.3397 M) SURFACE CASING
Axial capacity
The minimum axial capacity of the casing (body yield strength) is 853,000 lb (3,794,144 N).
During installation and cementation the temperatures close to surface, where the maximum axial
loads occur, will be relatively low. As a result, the capacity is not derated for temperature.
Derating by the design factor of 1.3 gives 656,154 lb (2,918,572 N).
It was shown in the design of the intermediate string that, at the kick-off point, where forces are
also high, the downhole temperature has a very minor affect on the casing capacity.
13.6.2.2
Pressure loads
a)
At end of cementation
2,600 psi
( 17,922 kPa )
External pressure at shoe
3,020 psi
( 20,824 kPa )
420 psi
( 2,902 kPa )
1,085 psi
( 7,479 kPa )
Derated casing capacity at shoe =

b)
During pressure test at end of cementation

The applied pressure (1000 psi, 6895 kPa) is less than the derated burst capacity of
the string (2735 psi, 16376 kPa). The fluids internally and externally are either the
same or give a collapse loading and thus only help the situation.
13.6.3
13.6.3.1
Service loads
Pressure loads
a)

See the intermediate casing design for an example of triaxial stress analysis by hand
calculation and by the application of computerised techniques.
b)
Reduced axial force

A buckling potential may be created by the increase of internal fluid density during
deeper drilling. Ignoring the effects of temperature, the reduced axial force is given by
Eq. J-3;
where [PeAe - PiAi] L is the cemented-in pressure (buoyancy) load and has a
magnitude of 99,336 lb (see calculation of installation loads).
Therefore Fa* = 176,539 - 53.93 z
At the top of cement (the point of least reduced axial force)
Fa* = 95,644 lb
In SI units
where [PeAe - PiAi]L is the cemented-in pressure (buoyancy) load and has a magnitude
of 443,302 N (see calculation of installation loads).
Therefore Fa* = 783,045 - 787.4z
At the top of cement (the point of least reduced axial force)
Fa* = 423,203 N
Since the least reduced axial force is positive, there is no buckling potential.
13.6.3.2
Temperature loads
a)

i)
Linear casing expansion

The thermal linear expansion of the casing will depend on the change in
temperature between the as-cemented conditions and those temperatures
generated either while drilling at next section TD, or during production.
Determination of which case (drilling or production) provides the most severe
loading will require a simulation of the respective temperature profiles for the
surface casing. It is assumed for the purposes of this example that the drilling
case is the most severe.
For the uncemented interval the change in axial force is given (from Eq. G-45)
by:
where
T1 = change in temperature at the top of the uncemented interval
T2 = change in temperature at the bottom of the uncemented interval (i.e. at
the top of the cement.
Below the top cement, the change in axial force at any depth z is given (from Eq.
G-46) by;
Fa = -E T As
where T is the change in temperature at depth z.
Thus at the top of cement (from Figure M-34)
T = 44F (24.4C)
In field units : Fa, = -30 x 106 x 6.9 x 10 -6 x 44 x 15.51 = -141,265 lb
In SI units : Fa = -2.1 x 1011 x 1.24 x 10
-5
x 24.4 x 0.01 = -35,376 N
At the casing shoe (from Figure M-34)

T = -16F (-8.9C)
In field units : Fa = 30 x 106 x 6.9 x 106 x 16 x 15.51 = 51,369 lb
In SI units : Fa = 2.1 x 1011 x 1.24 x 10- 5 x 8.9 x 0.01 = 231,756 N
The final axial forces due to these temperature effects are tabulated below:
Thus, in the uncemented section and at the top of cement the loading becomes
less severe than initially. At the casing shoe the loading will change from a small
compressive load to a slightly larger tensile load. These changes in axial force
(and therefore axial stress) due to temperature loads should be added to the
similar changes resulting from pressure loads. The resulting axial stress is then
used in the triaxial stress analysis.
Note that during production, when all the strings are interconnected at surface,
the change in axial forces due to thermal effects in the uncemented sections are
interdependent. The change in axial force (and hence stress) in each string
should therefore be calculated as in Chapter G Section 5.4.
ii)
Annulus fluid expansion

Since the top of the cement outside the surface casing is above the conductor
casing shoe, the fluid trapped in that annulus will expand as the well is heated
by deeper drilling or production. A collapse pressure load will then be imposed
on the surface casing.
Calculation of such pressures is complex and ideally requires computerised
models, see Appendix 9.
For the purpose of this example, it is assumed that control procedures are in
place such that the annulus pressure will be bled of when it reaches 500 psi
(3,448 kPa) - compared to the derated casing collapse capacity of 1085 psi
(7,479 kPa.
The change in axial force in the uncemented casing resulting from the annulus
pressure is given (from Eq. G-35) by:
Fa = 2 Ae Pes
In field units : Fa = -2 x 0.3 x 140.5 x 500 = -42,150 lb
In SI units : Fa = -2 x 0.3 x 0.091 x 3,448 x 103 = -188,261 N
Thus the axial loading over the uncemented sections becomes less severe due
to the annulus pressure. The resulting axial stress in the casing should then be
used in the triaxial stress analysis together with the appropriate radial and
tangential stresses.
b)

i)
Reduced axial force

The reduced axial force in the uncemented casing as a result of the change in
temperature and the change in internal fluid density resulting from deeper
drilling is given by:.
Fa* = Wn (ZL - z) - [PeAe - PiAi] L + ze (Ae - Ai) + ( Zc - z)
( iAi) - E As TAV
This is the same calculation as performed when analysing pressure loads, but
with the additional term, - E As TAV
In field units :
Thus the total reduced axial force in field units is:

Fa* = 176,539 - 53.93z - 166,950 lb
= 9589 - 53.93 z lb
At the top of cement (1500 ft) this gives;
Fa* = -71,306 lb
The total reduced axial force in SI units is:
Fa* = 783,045 - 787.4 z - 751,254 N
= 31,791 - 787.4 z N
Fa* = -328,051 N .
ii)
Buckling resistance
The condition for buckling to occur in this vertical section of the wellbore is;
Fa* < 0
Thus, there is a potential for the surface casing to buckle when drilling the next
(12 in, 0.3111 m) hole section.
To prevent buckling, rigid centralisers will be placed on the surface casing
above the top of cement at a spacing, s, given by Eq. J-10;
where
Fa* = the reduced axial force at the top of cement:
In field units:
=
4
4
(13.375 - 12.615 ) = 327.75 in4
64
Thus for a joint length of 40 ft (12.2 m), a rigid centraliser should be placed on
every other joint.
13.6.3.3
Point loads
There will be no point loads applied to this casing string.
13.7
Conductor casing
13.7.1 Pressure loads - drilling phase

FIGURE M-38 CONDUCTOR CASING - DRILLING PHASE
Collapse design criteria

a.
Internal
: Evacuation based on pore pressure profile
b.
External
: Annulus fluid - original annulus fluid (i.e. drilling mud)

a.

Pore pressure gradient in next hole section,
= 0.445 psi/ft (10.07 kPa/m)
Mud weight in use in next hole section,
= 0.52 psi/ft (11.76 kPa/m)
Pore pressure at TD of next hole section,
= 2158 psi (14,879 kPa)
Column of mud to balance this pressure,
2158
= 4150 ft (1265 m)
0.52
FIGURE M-39 : CONDUCTOR CASING - DRILLING PHASE

COLLAPSE - INTERNAL PRESSURE PROFILE

b.

Annulus fluid
: 0.48 psi/ft (10.86 kPa/m) drilling mud
Cement column
: Since there are no permeable intervals opposite the conductor

casing cement column, the pressure gradient in the cement column
will be equal to that of the cement mixwater (irrespective of the
quality of the cement bond).
Collapse load line

The collapse load line is illustrated in Figure M-41.
COLLAPSE LOAD LINE AND CASING CAPACITIES
It can be seen that the maximum collapse load is 396 psi (2,730 kPa) at the evacuation
level.
5
As such the following 18 /8 in (0.4731 m) OD casing would be suitable (prior to

downrating by design factor and temperature effects).
During drilling at TD of the next (17 in, 0.4445 m) hole section, the temperature profile
in the conductor casing is illustrated in Figure M-42.
TEMPERATURE PROFILE
The maximum temperature to which the casing will be exposed during drilling operations
(when the collapse load can occur) is 66F (18.9C). The collapse capacity at this low
temperature does not need to be derated due to reduction in yield strength. The design
factor for collapse is 1.0.
The selected casing to withstand the anticipated collapse loading is
Burst design load

a)
Internal
Gas from TD to surface. Well closed in at surface
b)
External :
a)
Annulus fluid - original annulus fluid (i.e. drilling mud)

Cement
- poor cement bond
Pressure at next section TD (5,000 ft, 1524 m) = 2158 psi (14,879 kPa)
Surface pressure = 1408 psi (9,708 kPa)
Casing shoe pressure (2,000 ft, 610 m) = 1708 psi (11,777 kPa)
This compares to the estimated FBP at the shoe of 1250 psi (8,619 kPa). As a
result, the pressure in the gas column will leak off at the casing shoe until the
pressure at that depth equals 1250 psi (8,619 kPa). The surface pressure will
then be 950 psi (6,550 kPa).

b)

The external pressure profile will be the same as that used in the collapse design
(Figure M-40).
Burst load line
The burst load line is illustrated in Figure M-44. The maximum burst loading is 950
psi (6,550 kPa) at surface.
BURST LOAD LINE AND DERATED CASING CAPACITY
The following 18 5/8 in (0.4371 m) casing would be suitable to withstand this load
(prior to downrating by the design factor and for temperature effects):
As stated in the collapse design, the capacity of this casing does not need
downrating for temperature effects. The use of a burst design factor of 1. 1 gives
the following revised capacity.
This rating can be seen (from Figure M-44) to be sufficient to withstand the
design burst loading
The two designs are identical and therefore do not need modification.
13.7.2
Installation loads

i)
ii)
Self weight
Self-weight in field units =
2000 x 87.5
175,000 lb
610 x 130.2 x 9.8
778,336 N

From Eq. App. 6-16, FB = f As, ZL
In field units: FB = 0.48 x 24.86 x 2000 = 23,866 lb
In SI units: FB
iii)
= 10.86 x 10 x 0.016 x 610 = 105,994 N
Bending load
Fb = 218 do As [lb]
Fb = 183 x 106 do As [N]
The maximum allowable dogleg severity in this vertical hole section is 2/100 ft (0.66/10
m)
The axial force due to this bending is given by:
In field units: Fb = 218 x 18.625 x 2 x 24.86 = 201,876 lb
In SI units: Fb
iv)
= 183 x 106 x 0.4731 x 0.66 x 0.016 = 914,256 N
Dynamic drag load

It is assumed that there will be no dynamic drag loads in this vertical hole section.
v)
Static drag load

It is assumed that there will be no static drag loads in this vertical hole section.
vi)
Shock load
The maximum shock load, Fs, when the string is suspended from surface is given by in
field units by (Eq. G-16);
Fs = 6.1 x 107 V AV As [N]
If it is assumed that a 40 ft (12.2 m) joint of casing is run in 13 seconds, then VAV is 3.1
ft/s (0.94 m/s)
Fs = 2700 x 3.1 x 24.86 = 208,078 lb
In SI units:
Fs = 6.1 x 107 x 0.94 x 0,016 = 917,440 N

The total dynamic axial installation load consists of the buoyant weight in mud together
with the bending load and the larger of the drag and shock loads (in this case, the shock
load).

The total static post-cementing load consists of the buoyant weight in mud and cement,
together with the bending load. While suspended in 0.48 psi/ft (10.86 kPa/m) mud and
0.64 psi/ft (14.48 kPa/m) cement slurry (top of cement at 600 ft, 183 m), the buoyancy
force is given by (Eq. App. 6-19);
FB = PeAe - PiAi
In field units:
Pe = (600 x 0.48) + (1400 x 0.64) = 1184 psi
Pi = 2000 x 0.48 = 960 psi
Thus FB = (1184 x 272.45) - (960 x 247.59) = 84,894 lb
In SI units:
Pe = ( 183 x 10.86 ) + (427 x 14.48) = 8,170 kPa
Pi = ( 610 x 10.86 ) = 6,625 kPa
Thus FB = (8170 x 10 x 0.176) - (6625 x 10 x 0.160) = 377,920 N
This static axial load is now used as the base case for all subsequent as-service load
checks.
See Figure M-45 for a plot of dynamic and static axial load against depth.
FIGURE M-45 : AXIAL LOADS IN 18 5/8 IN (0.4731 M) CONDUCTOR CASING
Axial capacity
The minimum axial capacity of the casing (body yield strength) is 1,367,000 lb
(6,080,416 N) During installation and cementation, the temperatures will be relatively low
and the capacity need not be derated for temperature. Derating by the design factor of
1.3 gives 1,051,539 lb (4,677,243 N)
13.7.2.2
Pressure loads
a)
At end of cementation
= 960 psi (6,625 kPa)
External pressure at shoe = 1,184 psi (8,170 kPa)

= 224 psi (1545 kPa)
Casing capacity at shoe
= 630 psi (4,344 kPa)
The collapse capacity of the casing is capable of withstanding the collapse loading
at the shoe.
13.7.3
13.7.3.1
Service loads
Pressure loads
a)

See the Intermediate casing design for an example of triaxial stress analysis by hand
calculation and by the application of computerised techniques. The axial force (and
stress) should be calculated taking account of the temperature loads and point loads
discussed below.
b)

Since the conductor casing carries the buoyant weight of the inner strings, the
wellhead, and BOP or Xmas tree, it is during application of this total surface load that
buckling is most likely to occur. Pressure loads are generally negligible due to the
shallow depth of the top of cement and the low fluid densities.
13.7.3.2
Temperature loads
a)

During drilling of the next hole section, heat up of the conductor casing will cause an
unrestricted elongation of the casing since it is not fixed at surface. Therefore there will
be no additional axial stresses.
During production, temperature changes will occur for all strings in the well. The
resulting changes in axial stress for each string and the resulting wellhead movement
for this well is calculated in the example in Chapter G Section 5.4. This indicates an
increase in axial force in the conductor casing of 272,676 lb (1,231,440 N).
b)

The change in axial force in the conductor casing due to production-related
temperature changes is 272,676 lb (1,231,440 N). This additional tension will reduce
the buckling potential.
13.7.3.3
Point loads
Point loads will be applied to the conductor casing at surface as successive casing and
tubing strings, as well as BOPs, are landed on it. The resulting change in axial force and
wellhead movements resulting from these loads is calculated for this well in the example in
Chapter G Section 5.3.2. The change in axial force for the conductor casing is -581,560 lb (2,592,525 N).
Although this compressive force is well below the axial capacity of the casing material, it may
lead to buckling. For the conductor casing to be liable to elastic buckling, rather than by
plastic buckling, the following condition (from Eq. App. 6-26) must hold:
This particular casing will therefore fail by elastic (Euler) buckling and the load to cause
buckling can be calculated as below.
If the self weight of the conductor casing (52,500 lb, 233,520 N) is neglected, together with
the pressure loads, the axial force at the onset of buckling is; (from Eq. App. 6-25);
Fa =
2 EI
I2
In field units:
I=
4
(18.6254 - 17.7554) =1028.7 in
64
The compressive load in the conductor casing greatly exceeds the buckling load. Buckling
can be prevented by the use of centralisers.
The axial loading of -581,560 lb (2,592,525 N) is 43% of the body yield strength of 1,367,000
lb (6,080,416 N). Since this loading is less than half the yield strength, the centraliser
spacing, s, can be calculated based on elastic (Euler) buckling using Eq. J-10;
Thus, assuming a joint length of 40ft (12.2 m), a centraliser should be placed on every joint.
This approach to the calculation of centraliser spacing leads to a first-approximation solution.
The use of centralisers means that lateral loads will be transferred from the marine conductor
to the conductor casing. As a result, advice should be sought from the Structural Engineering
department on the resulting stresses in the conductor casing.
14.0
Appendix 6 :
14.1
Introduction
Theories and definitions
Casing design is basically a problem in stress analysis. Stresses in a casing wall can result from:
-
self-weight (in air) loads
pressure (buoyancy) loads
bending loads
dynamic drag loads
shock loads
point loads
static drag loads
temperature loads
buckling loads.
Triaxial stress analysis allows the effect of these loads on the selected casing to be assessed in
terms of a single stress, which is then compared to the yield strength of the casing material.
The complexity of a full and detailed triaxial stress analysis means that, in practice, it is only
performed in special cases. As its name implies, it is also analysis rather than design, and
material strength and dimensions have to be chosen before the process can begin. The vast
majority of designs are therefore performed by separately comparing uniaxial loads with casing
uniaxial capacity - calculated in accordance with the formulae in API Bull. 5C3 [1]. These casing
capacities are tabulated in API Bull. 5C2 [2].
However, the introduction of computerised casing analysis and design programs will significantly
reduce the work involved in performing triaxial stress analyses [3]. As a result, this type of
analysis will become more and more commonplace and an understanding of this approach will
be essential. Such an understanding will also serve to make the casing designer more aware of
the background and limitations of the uniaxial approach.
The objective of this appendix is, therefore to present:
i)
stress analysis theories as applicable to casing design and analyses,
ii)
casing material failure theory,
iii)
the general theory on buoyancy related aspects,
iv)
the general theory on buckling related aspects.
Text books [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] can provide more in-depth knowledge on these subjects.
14.2
Definitions
Prior to examining stress analysis techniques, it is first necessary to define the terms commonly
used in mechanical engineering and thermodynamics.
Load
The term load is used to describe the effect on the casing of its operating environment. Such
loads may be static or dynamic in nature. Static loads comprise self-weight, pressure,
temperature, point loads, bending, and static drag. Dynamic loads are shock loads and dynamic
drag.
Force
A force within the casing wall results from the imposition of a load as described above.
Stress ( , )
Stress is the force per unit area exerted by one of the adjacent parts of a body upon the other
across an imaginary plane of separation. When the forces are parallel to the plane the stress is a
shear stress (). When the forces are normal to the plane the stress is a normal stress () and
is either compressive when acting inwards or tensile when acting outwards (see Figure App. 6-1).
FIGURE APP. 6-1 NORMAL STRESSES () AND SHEAR STRESSES ()
Principal Stress ( 1,2, 3)

Through any point in a stressed body pass three mutually perpendicular planes, the stress on
each of which is purely normal, i.e. there are no shear stresses. The stresses on these Principal
Planes are the Principal Stresses 1,2, 3 When one of the principal stresses is zero, the
condition is one of biaxial stress, and, where two principal stresses are zero, the condition is one
of uniaxial stress.
Strain ()
Strain is the deformation resulting from imposed loads. Elongation (positive) or contraction
(negative) is caused by normal forces and is measured in terms of the change in length per unit
of original length (see Figure App. 6-2a). Shear forces cause a shear strain measured, for small
strains, in terms of the change in angle (radians) between two lines originally at right angles (see
Figure App.6-2b).
FIGURE APP. 6-2 : ELONGATION STRAIN AND SHEAR STRAIN
Elasticity
Elasticity is the ability of a material to sustain stress without permanent deformation. For linearly
elastic materials a proportionate relationship exists between stress and strain (Hooke's Law).
Plastic Deformation
Plastic deformation is the permanent deformation of the material occurring at stresses above the
elastic limit.
Elastic Limit
The Elastic Limit is the least stress that will cause a permanent deformation (see Figure App. 63). This will occur at a total strain of between 0.12% and 0.2%, depending on steel grade, i.e. the
yield strength.
FIGURE APP. 6-3 : STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP IN CASING MATERIAL
Ductility
Ductility is the ability to sustain appreciable plastic deformation without rupture. Non-ductile
materials are referred to as being brittle.
Modulus of Elasticity or Youngs Modulus (E)
The Modulus of Elasticity is the rate of change of stress with strain in an uniaxial condition within
the Elastic Limit. In general the modulus of elasticity is the same in tension and compression. For
isotropic materials, such as steel, E is the same in all directions. A value of 30 x 10 psi (2.1 x
108 kPa) is usually used for tubular steel. At yield strength the actual value will be lower than the
published value, but this is usually ignored in calculations.
Poisson's Ratio ()
Poisson's Ratio is the ratio of lateral strain to longitudinal strain under uniform, uniaxial
longitudinal stress within the elastic limit. For steel a value of 0.3 is usually taken.
Yield Strength or Yield Stress ( )
The Yield Strength or Yield Stress is the uniaxial stress at which the material exhibits a specific
deformation (see Figure App. 6-4). The yield stress is taken as a measure of the maximum
allowable stress for most engineering applications, including casing design.
FIGURE APP. 6-4 : DEFINITION OF API YIELD STRENGTH, VALID UP TO 95,000 PSI (655,025 KPA)
API Spec. 5CT [10] defines the yield strength as uniaxial nominal stress occurring at 0.5% total
strain for materials up to 95,000 psi (655,025 kPa) minimum yield strength, at 0.6% total strain
for 110,000 psi (758,450 kPa) minimum yield strength, and at 0.65% total strain for 125,000 psi
(861,875 kPa) minimum yield strength. In many other engineering applications a 0.2%
permanent deformation is used to establish the yield strength, and this will sometimes be found
in non-API publications on tubular performance (see Figure App. 6-4).
Yield strength is temperature dependent. For most steels the yield strength decreases as
temperature increases [11, 12]. For some low strength casing grades (J55) yield strength will
initially decrease as temperature increases, but as temperature further increases, the yield
strength will rise to a level above that evident at room temperature.
Lowest estimates for yield strength corrections with temperature are collected from casing
manufacturers [12] and presented below by way of example. The values apply to L80, C95, P110
and Q125 material.
Temperature (C/F)
Yield strength correction factor
20/68
1.00
50/122
0.95
100/212
0.88
150/302
0.84
200/392
0.81
Such data should be obtained from the manufacturer of the casing material in use.
Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS)
The ultimate tensile strength is the maximum nominal stress that a material can sustain under
uniaxial loading. It is calculated on the basis of the ultimate load and the original unstrained
dimensions (see Figure App. 6-3).
Fatigue
Fatigue is the tendency of materials to fracture under repeated loading to a stress below the
ultimate tensile strength.
Second Moment of Area, or Moment of Inertia of an Area (I)
The second moment of area, with respect to an axis in the plane of that area, is the sum of the
products obtained by multiplying each element of the area by the square of its distance from the
axis.
For an annular ring with outer diameter do and inner diameter di:
This second moment of an area should not be confused with polar moment of inertia.
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ()
The coefficient of thermal expansion defines the (linear) relationship between a temperature
change and the resulting thermal strain in a homogeneous body subjected uniformly to that
temperature change, i.e.
= T
-6
A value of 6.9 x 10 /F(1.24 x 10-5 /C) is usually taken for tubular steel.
Volume Thermal Expansivity (CT)

Volume Thermal Expansivity of a fluid is the expansion per unit of original volume caused by a
unit increase in temperature
Volume Compressibility (Cp)
Volume Compressibility of a fluid is the compression per unit of original volume caused by a unit
increase in pressure.
14.3
Stress analysis theories
14.3.1
Introduction
Casing stress analysis requires the determination of the stresses that exist within a casing wall.
These stresses are the axial stress (a), the tangential (or hoop) stress (t), the radial stress (r)
and the three shear stresses (at, tr,ta). See Figure App. 6-5.
FIGURE APP. 6-5 : STRESSES IN CASING WALL
The above stresses, and changes in these stresses, can be analysed with the use of the
following ;
-
the sign convention
the Lam equations ( t, r)
the equation for axial stress (a)
the equation for shear stress (at, tr, ra)
Hooke's Law
the principle of superposition
The following paragraphs will address these topics.

14.3.2
Sign conventions
In rock mechanics, a compression positive sign convention is often adopted, whereas in
structural engineering and most mechanical engineering work, a tension positive sign
convention is usual.
Since casing string design is primarily concerned with stress within a steel tubular member, the
normal sign convention for mechanical and structural engineering will be adopted here, i.e.
tension
positive
elongation
positive
fluid pressure -
positive
14.3.3
Lam equations
The Lam equations are derived from the differential equation of equilibrium, the compatibility
equation and the boundary conditions expressed in polar coordinates. For a hollow cylinder
submitted to uniform pressure on the inner and outer surfaces, the radial and tangential
stresses within the cylinder walls are given by [6]:
These are known as the Lam equations. It should be noted that r and t are not a
function of the axial stress, a. It also follows that the sum of r and t is constant over
the wall thickness.
In the case of a cylinder subjected to equal internal and external pressure, P, the radial and
tangential stresses are;
r = P
( Ai Ae)
= -P
As
t = P
( Ai Ae)
= -P
As
Thus the radial and tangential stress are equal, and are constant through the casing wall. It is
also important to note that radial and tangential stresses still exist in the absence of a
differential pressure. They will only be zero when both Pi and Pe are zero.
In the case of a cylinder subjected only to external pressure, Pe, the radial and tangential
stresses are;
Similarly, for the case of a cylinder subjected only to internal pressure, Pi, the stresses are;
Two important observations can be made at this stage. Firstly, the normalised value of t is
always largest at the inner surface of the casing wall (A = Ai). Secondly, the tangential stress is
much larger than the radial stress. Indeed, to simplify stress analysis, the radial stress is often
ignored.
Note that in order to simplify manipulation of the Lam equations, it is best to work in areas, i.e. Ae,
Ai, As, rather than diameter or radius.
14.3.4
The axial stress equation

In general, the axial stress is given by;
a =
Fa
As
(App. 6-3)
where;
Fa is the actual axial force resulting from some or all of the following;
- self-weight
- pressure (buoyancy) loads
- bending loads
- drag loads
- shock loads
- point loads
- temperature loads
- buckling loads
It should be noted that due to the principle of superposition (see Section 3.7) axial stress is best
treated by addressing the individual components. Temporary loads such as shock loads and
dynamic drag loads can also be added in this manner.
14.3.5 The shear stress equation
In general in casing design the shear stresses tr and ra are usually negligible compared to the
other stresses. However, special cases, like compaction require their inclusion.
The torsional shear stress at at radius r is given by [8];
at =
2Tr
4
4
(ro ri )
where;
T
torque (moment causing torsion of casing along centre-line axis)
ri
inner wall radius
ro
outer wall radius
radius at which the stress is being evaluated.
(App. 6-4)
14.3.6
Hooke's Law
For small strains, steel behaves as a linearly elastic material. This means that the components of
stress are related to the components of strain by Hooke's Law. This law states that for an
uniaxial stress, the magnitude of the unit elongation of an element is given by;
a =
a
E
(App. 6-5)
where E is Young's Modulus.
Extension in the axial direction is also accompanied by lateral contractions in the radial and
tangential directions. For isotropic materials, E is the same in all directions and therefore;
r = -
a
a
and t =
E
E
where;
is Poisson's ratio.
If the element is simultaneously subjected to normal stresses a, r and t, the resultant
components of strain can be obtained by superimposing the strain components produced by
each of the three stresses;
The strain component of particular interest to the casing designer is in the axial direction.
An application is the integration of this strain over the total length of a suspended uncemented
casing string which would give the total length change:
Using the above equation for the axial strain and given that the sum of the radial and tangential
stresses, following the Lam equations, is:
For an axially constrained, i.e. cemented casing, L= 0. Hence a relation between the change in
pressures and change in axial tension results. This leads to the link between the change in
radial, tangential and axial stresses in a casing which is axially constrained.
14.3.7 The principle of superposition

This principle states that the stress, strain, or deflection produced on an elastic system by any
final state of loading is the same whether the loads are applied simultaneously, or in any
sequence, and the total result is the algebraic sum of the effects that the several loads would
produce if acting alone.
The principle is only valid for linear systems having small deformations and linearly elastic
material behaviour. It cannot be applied for systems having large deformations (geometrical nonlinearity), non-linear elasticity, and/or plasticity (material non-linearity).
14.4
Failure theory
Casing design is presently based on the stresses remaining below the yield strength, and by
assuming an ideal elastic/plastic material behaviour (see Figure App. 6-6). The API yield strength
is taken as a measure of the maximum allowable stress. This is a simplified assumption of actual
material behaviour as illustrated by Figure App. 6-4. In reality, exceeding the Yield stress, does
not necessarily lead to failure of the casing material, and in some special cases yield may be
tolerated, or even designed for.
FIGURE APP. 6-6 : IDEAL ELASTIC/PLASTIC BEHAVIOUR, VALID UP TO 95,000 PSI (655,025 KPA)
The yield strength or yield stress is derived from uniaxial tests. To relate this uniaxial yield stress
to the three dimensional stress system that exists in reality, the concept of "strain energy of
distortion" is used. The yield of ductile material such as steel occurs at a critical value of this
strain energy of distortion.
The strain energy of distortion per unit volume of material, UD is given by [4];
where 1, 2 ,3 are the three principal normal stresses.

For steel, it is usually assumed that yielding is defined by the Von Mises yield criterion. This
criterion states that yielding starts when UD reaches a critical value.
This critical value Of UD is determined from the uniaxial test in which 1 = y at yield and all other
stresses are zero, whence
UD =
(1 + )
2
[ 2y ]
6E
Thus for a three-dimensional system, the yield locus is;

2y = [( 1 - 2) + ( 2 - 3) + (3 - 1)]
The above relationship, known as the Von Mises yield criterion, can be diagrammatically
represented as a cylindrical yield envelope, passing through the origin of the 1,2,3 coordinate
system and being inclined at equal angles to the three axes. See Figure App. 6-7. Points
calculated to represent the stresses within a material, that lie inside the cylinder have not
reached yield, whereas yielding has occurred for all points that are calculated to fall on the
surface of the cylinder.
FIGURE APP. 6-7 : VON MISES CYLINDRICAL FAILURE ENVELOPE
It should also be noted that yield occurs as a result of differences between the principal stresses,
and not as a result of their absolute values.
With particular reference to casing string analysis, the normal stresses a,t and a, and shear
stresses, at, tr, and ra must be included in the Von Mises yield criterion.
It can be derived that the Von Mises yield criterion expressed in these stresses is:
Thus for determining whether a material has a sufficient yield strength to withstand the stresses
induced in the material by imposed loads, the Von Mises Equivalent (VME) stress, VME, is
calculated and compared to the yield stress.
So,
This approach should be handled with care, but if acceptable the problem has been reduced to
one of two dimensions and represents a biaxial approach. The new relationship defines a 'slice'
through the triaxial cylindrical yield envelope at r = 0. The result is an ellipse as shown in
Figure App. 6-8.
FIGURE APP. 6-8 : VON MISES ELLIPTICAL FAILURE ENVELOPE FOR r = 0
14.5
Buoyancy theory
14.5.1
Introduction
It is important to realise that buoyancy related loads occur as a result of hydrostatic pressures
acting on surface areas. The use of 'Archimedes Law'- that the buoyancy load is equivalent to the
weight in air of the fluid displaced - often gives an incorrect answer for calculating the axial forces
in a casing since it is only valid for objects that are completely submerged [13]. Consider the
example presented in Figure App. 6-9.
FIGURE APP. 6-9 : EFFECT OF EXPOSED SURFACE AREA ON PRESSURE (BUOYANCY) LOADS
An open ended hollow steel cylinder has been given an external chamfer at one end, and an
internal chamfer at the other. In situation A, the cylinder is held down and the annulus filled with
mercury. The hydrostatic pressure of the mercury will be applied to the cross-sectional area of
the cylinder, resulting in a buoyancy load. When the cylinder is released, it will rise and then float.
If the cylinder is then inverted, as in situation B, and the same procedure carried out, the cylinder
will not rise when released because there is no end area for the hydrostatic pressure of the
mercury to act against.
In both situations a similar related amount of fluid was displaced, but only in situation A was a
pressure (buoyancy) load observed at surface.
This chapter is meant to clarify the general aspects of this phenomenon. Appendix 7 gives a
complete detailed analytical derivation of pressure (buoyancy ) loads acting on a submersed
curved casing.
14.5.2
Pressure (buoyancy) load

Buoyancy is the integral effect of the pressures exerted by a fluid (or fluids) on the surface of an
internal and external body immersed in that fluid (or fluids).
Consider an open-ended casing of length L, and weight per unit length Wn suspended vertically
at the surface of a fluid of density Wn psi/ft, as shown in Figure App. 6-10. Fluid pressure loads
will act normal to all exposed surfaces. As such all the loads acting in a horizontal plane (acting
normal to the vertical casing walls) will be balanced by equal loads diametrically opposite.
FIGURE APP. 6-10 : AXIAL FORCES IN SUBMERGED OPEN-ENDED CASING
However, load acting in a vertical direction on the submerged end of the cylinder, of crosssectional area As, will not be balanced by similar loads at the opposite end. As such, there will be
an upward pressure load. The magnitude of this upward pressure (buoyancy) load, FB, is given
by the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid, P, at vertical depth ZL, multiplied by the cross-section
area As:
FB = PAs = f ZLAs
(App. 6-16)
Thus the total axial force at the surface,Fa, resulting from the weight of the casing in air, W, and
the pressure (buoyancy) load,
FB, will be given by
Fa = W - FB = WnZL - fZLAs
(App. 6-17)
Hence, the axial force at any depth, z, in a vertically submerged open-ended casing is given by
the weight in air of the casing below that point minus the pressure (buoyancy) load acting on the
end of the casing (see Figure App. 6-11).
FIGURE APP. 6-11: AXIAL FORCES IN CASING SUSPENDED IN AIR AND SUBMERGED IN FLUID
Thus;
Fa(z) = Wn, (ZL - z) - FB = Wn (ZL - Z) - fZLAs
(App. 6-18)
When the casing shoe is sealed, closed-ended casing, the upward pressure (buoyancy) load is
given by;
FB = PeAe - PiAi
(App. 6-19)
where P, and Pi are the external and internal fluid pressures at the vertical casing shoe depth
(see Figure App. 6-12).
FIGURE APP. 6-12 : PRESSURE (BUOYANCY) LOADS ON CLOSED-ENDED AND
OPEN-ENDED CASING
Hence, the axial force at any depth, z, can then be expressed as

Fa(z) Wn (ZL - z) - FB = Wn (ZL - z) - PeAe + PiAi
(App. 6-20)
In the event that P, and Pi are equal, then the buoyancy load becomes;
FB = P (Ae Ai ) = fZLAs
which is as for the open-ended casing.
The casing collars also present horizontal surfaces for hydrostatic pressure (buoyancy) loads to
act upon. However, because of the relatively short interval of these outer diameter changes,
their effect can be neglected compared to the pressure (buoyancy) loads exerted at the casing
shoe.
Example:
Consider a vertical 10,000 ft (3048 m) string of 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) 47 1b/ft (69.9 kg/m) casing
with Buttress connections, in a drilling mud of density 0.75 psi/ft (16.97 kPa/m). The upward
pressure (buoyancy) load at each collar will be the product of the extra cross-sectional area
and the pressure increment over the length of the collar. If each collar is approximately 1 ft long
(0.305 m), this pressure increment will be 0.75 psi (5.2 kPa).
The extra cross-sectional area A of the coupling (OD = 10.625 in, 0.270 m) is given, in field
units by
A=
2
2
2
( 10.625 - 9.625 ) = 15.90 in
4
In SI units:
A=
(0.270 - 0.2445) = 0.010 m

4
Thus the upward load at each coupling is given, in field units by:
F = 15.90 x 0.75 = 11.93 lb
In SI units:
F = 0.010 x 5.2 x 10 = 51.7 N
For a 10,000 ft (3048 in) string, made up of 40 ft (12.2 m) joints, the number of couplings is
approximately 250.
The total upward pressure (buoyancy) load FB caused by the casing collars is, in field units:
FB (collars) = 250 x 11.93 = 2,982 lb
In SI units :
FB (collars) = 250 x 51.7 = 12,940 N
This compares to a buoyancy load at the casing shoe given by;
FB (shoe)
= f ZL As
In field units:
FB(shoe) = 0.75 x 10,000 x
(9.625 - 8.681) = 101,793 lb

4
In SI units:
FB(shoe) = 16.97 x 10 x 3,048
(0.2445 - 0.2205) = 453,368 N

4
14.5.3
Buoyancy factor
The axial force at surface for an open-ended casing resulting from the weight of this casing in
air, W, and the pressure (buoyancy) load, FB, is often conveniently calculated by using buoyancy
factors.
Using, Wn = sAs and Eq. App. 6-17, the axial force at surface can be written as;
These factors are usually tabulated for various values of f.

It is important to note that buoyancy factors only apply to the actual force observed at surface for
an open-ended casing. This reduction in weight at surface is equivalent to the pressure load at
the open-ended shoe. However, this load applies throughout the entire string, as illustrated in
Figure App. 6-10.
14.5.4 Neutral point for actual axial force (Fa = 0)
The neutral point, defined as the point where the actual axial force is zero, can be determined by
setting Fa(z) equal to zero. This point should not be confused by the neutral point relevant to
buckling, i.e the point where the reduced axial force, Fa*, is zero. This will be discussed in the
Section 7.4.
For example, for the neutral point for actual axial force in a submerged casing it follows from Eq.
App. 6-18 that:
W n (ZL - z) = fZLAs
Since Wn = sAs, where s is the density of the casing steel, the above expression becomes:
s (ZL -z) = f ZL
Thus, the depth of the neutral point is;
Example,
For steel casing (density 3.41 psi/ft, 77.13 kPa/m) in fresh water (density 0.433 psi/ft, 9.79
kPa/m), the point of zero axial force will be located 87% of the total casing length from surface.
For a heavy drilling mud of density 0.85 psi/ft (19.23 kPa/m), the neutral point will be located 75%
of the total length from surface.
14.6
Simple stress analysis example

The application of the previous theories will be demonstrated in the following simple example.
However, the same theories hold and could be applied to more complex cases.
This example addresses a triaxial stress analysis at surface and at 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of a 10,000
5
ft (3,048 m) string of 9 /8 in (0.2445 m) 47 1b/ft (69.9 kg/m) L80 casing suspended in 0.6 psi/ft
(13.57 kPa/m) mud and subject to a 3,000 psi (20,685 kPa) pressure test against a packer at the
casing shoe. See Figure App. 6-13.
FIGURE APP. 6-13 : DATA FOR ACCOMPANYING STRESS - ANALYSIS EXAMPLE
To calculate the triaxial stresses at surface, first t and r will be calculated from the Lam
equations (Eq. App. 6-1 and Eq. App, 6-2) using;
Pi = 3000 psi (20,685 kPa)
Ai = 59.19 in (38.18 x 10-3 m)
Pe = 0 psi
As = 13.57 in (8.75 x 10-3 m)

A e = 72.76 in (46.94 x 10-3 m)
r =
Pi A i
A A
- Pi e i
As
AsA
t =
Pi A i
A A
- Pi e i
As
AsA
For the casing in question:

r
t
= 0
at A = Ae
= -3000 psi (-20,685 kPa)
at A = Ai
= 26,171 psi (180,515 kPa)
at A = Ae
= 29,171 psi (201,224 kPa)
at A = Ai
The axial force at surface is given by the string weight in air minus the pressure (buoyancy) load
acting on the casing.
The Von Mises Equivalent stress (from Eq. App. 6-14) is;
It can seen that at both the internal and external casing wall surface the equivalent stress is not
greater than half of the yield stress of 80,000 psi (551,600 kPa).
Using the two-dimensional biaxial version of the yield criterion for the same example;
r
26,171 psi (180,515 kPa)
at A = Ae
29,171 psi (201,224 kPa)
at A = Ai
41,720 psi (287,494 kPa)
These calculations indicate the stress in the casing at surface only. To determine the stress in
the casing at 5000 ft (1,524 m), for example, the calculations must be repeated based on the
internal and external pressures and on the axial load at that point.
To calculate the triaxial stresses at 5000 ft (1,524 m), first t and r, will be calculated from the
Lam equations (Eq. App. 6-1 and Eq. App. 6-2) using the internal and external pressure at that
depth;
Pi
6000 psi
(41,370 kPa)
Pe
3000 psi
(20,865 kPa)
For the casing in question:

r
t
-3000 psi
(-20,685 kPa)
at A = Ae.
-6000 psi
(-41,370 kPa)
at A = Ai
23,171 psi
(159,830 kPa)
at A = Ae
26,171 psi
(180,515 kPa)
at A = Ai
Note that the radial stresses are equivalent to the imposed pressures, and that the tangential
stresses are 3000 psi (20,685 kPa) lower than at surface. This latter fact arises due to the
presence of hydrostatic pressures, and illustrates that tangential stress is dependent on
absolute pressure values, not pressure differentials.
The axial stress at 5,000 ft (1,524 m) is given by the weight in air of the casing below that point
minus the buoyancy load.
In field units:
Weight of casing below 5,000 ft = 5000 x 47
= 235,000 lb
Buoyancy load, FB (at 10,000 ft)
= -96,150 lb (as before)
Total load at 5000 ft, Fa
= weight in air - FB =331,150 lb
Axial stress, a =
Fa
= 24,403 psi
As
In SI units:
Weight of casing below
1,524 m
Buoyancy load, FB (at 3,048 m)
= 1524 x 69.9 x 9.8 = 1,043,970 N

= -427,630 N (as before)
Total load at 1524 m, Fa= weight in air - F B =1,471,600 N

Axial stress, a =
Fa
= 168,183 kPa
As
The Von Mises Equivalent stress (from Eq. App. 6-14) is
A comparison of the results of these two stress analysis examples is given below:
It can be seen that the Von Mises Equivalent stresses are lower at 5000 ft than at surface where
the pressures are lower but the tension is higher.
For the calculation of the neutral point, where Fa(z) = 0, the following two cases will be
considered:
Neutral point before pressure test;
Neutral point during pressure test.
The general equation for the actual axial force is (Eq. App. 6-20):
Fa(z)
W n (ZL - z) - FB
W n (ZL - z) - PeAe + PiAi
W n (ZL - Z) - f ZL As
Solving for Fa(z) = 0 gives, in field units

0 = 47 (10,000 - z) -( 0.6 x 10,000 x 13.57)
In SI units:
0 = (69.9 x 9.8) (3,048 - z) - (13.57 x 103 x 3,048 x 8.754 x 10-3 )
It follows that the neutral point occurs at z = 8268 ft (2519 m).

During the pressure test, solving for Fa(z) = 0 gives, in field units
0 = 47 (10,000 - z) - (6000 x 72.76) + (9000 x 59.19)
In SI units:
6
-3
-3
0 = (69.9 x 9.8) (3,048 - z)-(41.37 x 10 x 46.94 x 10 )+ (62.05 x 10 x 38.18 x 10 )

It follows that the neutral point occurs at z = 12,046 ft.(3672 m)
This neutral point is deeper than the casing shoe at 10,000 ft (3,048 m). Hence, during the
pressure test, there is no neutral point in the casing string.
14.7
Buckling theory
14.7.1
Introduction
Consider a vertical cylindrical pipe of length L, pinned at both ends, to which an end force Fa is
applied (see Figure App. 6-14).
FIGURE APP. 6-14 : EULER BUCKLING
For small compressive values of Fa, elastic axial strain will result. When Fa reaches a certain
critical compressive values, a sideways displacement will occur. This behaviour is known as
buckling.
Buckling is a stability failure, and can occur at stress levels well below the yield strength of the
material. The total potential energy of the system determines whether a tube immersed in a fluid
will buckle. A true minimum system potential energy corresponds to a stable equilibrium, and it
can be shown that this exists if the reduced axial force, Fa*, in the tube is positive [9]. However,
buckling will occur if the system is in unstable equilibrium, and for this it is a necessary, but not
sufficient, condition that the reduced axial force is negative. In the literature the reduced axial
force, Fa*, is also called fictitious or effective force.
The following paragraphs describe the relevant buckling aspects.
14.7.2
Buckling potential of pipe in air

The helical buckling of vertical weightless pipes in the absence of pressure is determined from
the beam-column equation as follows [9]:
where (see Figure App. 6-14);

Fa is the externally applied load causing buckling
u is the pipe sideways displacement
z is the vertical depth
Solution of this equation for the fundamental buckling mode gives, for a pipe of length L hinged at
both ends [14];
Fa = -
2 EI
(the Euler buckling load)
L2
(App. 6-24)
where I is the second moment of area given by;

I=
4
4
(do - di )
64
Because, in reality, both ends of a pipe may not be hinged, an "effective length" factor, k, is
introduced, [15] such that;
L = kl
where (see Figure App. 6-15);
L
effective column length
actual column length
In addition, a term, r, known as the "radius of gyration", is introduced such that the critical Euler
buckling stress can be written as follows:
FIGURE APP. 6-15 : EFFECTIVE LENGTH FACTOR, K
FIGURE APP. 6-16 :THEORETICAL EULER CURVE
In Figure App. 6-16, this critical buckling stress is plotted against kl/r, which is known as the
"slenderness ratio".
It can be seen that for slenderness ratios less than a certain value, the material will yield
compressively before the critical buckling load is reached. The transition between yield and
elastic instability occurs at a slenderness ratio which is dependent on the yield strength.
However, experimental results show a smooth transition between the two types of failure, as
illustrated in Figure App. 6-17, due to non-ideal elastic/plastic material behaviour and pipe
imperfections.
FIGURE APP. 6-17 : CORRECTED EULER CURVE
This means that for slenderness ratios in the region of the transition, failure is likely to occur at a
stress lower than anticipated. As a result of this, a critical slenderness ratio is generally defined
as corresponding to a Euler buckling stress of 50% of the yield strength [15].
The critical slenderness ratio, C, is given by;
For slenderness ratios less than or equal to this value, the failure is effectively one of yield If this
condition is fulfilled the calculation of the stress at which buckling will occur is rather complex.
Hence, expert advice should be sought from the local or SIPM Structural Engineering
Department [15, 16].
For slenderness ratios larger than C, failure will be due to elastic instability, and will occur at
(from Eq. App. 6-25);
Fa = -
2E
. As
(kl / r ) 2
The critical slenderness ratio, C, varies with yield strength, y, as shown below:
The slenderness ratio per unit length, i.e. k/r, for common casing sizes, together with the critical
length, i.e. when kl/r = C, is shown below. A value for k of 0.7 is used corresponding to being
fixed in terms of axial translation and rotation at the lower end, and fixed in terms of axial
translation only at the top end. See case (b) in Figure App. 6-15.
The above table shows that for all common casing design sizes, failure due to compressive
loading in air will be as a result of elastic instability (buckling) rather than yield provided that the
unsupported length is more than one or two joints, assuming a joint length of approximately 40 ft
(12.2 m). To prevent elastic buckling, the unsupported length must be kept below the critical
length indicated in the table.
14.7.3
Buckling potential of pipe in fluids

The presence of external and/or internal hydrostatic pressure complicates the issue by
introducing an additional force in the pipe in the event of curvature. This force, Fn, is normal to
the casing centreline, acts downwards for upwardly curving pipe and upwards for downwardly
curving pipe, and the vertical gradient of this force is expressed by [9];
where Pe, and Pi are the external and internal pressures at depth z.
The effect of this force is either to restore the pipe to its original straight condition or to increase
the buckling tendency, depending on its magnitude and direction.
If this fluid force term is added to the beam-column equation (Eq. App. 6-23), then;
The term Fa* is known as the reduced axial force although it is also referred to as the fictitious or
effective force.
The solution of the beam-column equation is now
A general conclusion can be drawn from this statement, namely:

-
buckling is more likely to occur as internal pressure increases;
buckling is less likely to occur as external pressure increases.
For surface, intermediate, and production casing, the combination of casing dimensions and
2
unsupported length means that the term EI/kI is negligible in comparison to the pressure
terms.
Thus for these casing strings the condition for buckling is;
Fa* < 0
or
(App. 6-32)
Fa + PeAe - PiAi < 0
2
For conductor strings, which are shorter, the EI/kI term must be retained.
The practical consequences of the foregoing are best described graphically in the following
example.
Consider a vertical string of casing of length L, of wall cross- sectional area As, in a fluid of
density f . The actual axial force, Fa, within the casing is due to the casing self weight and the
pressure (buoyancy) load, FB. See line 2 of Figure App. 6- 18. Now the condition for buckling to
occur at any depth, z, is (from Eq. App. 6-32);
Fa* = Fa + PeAe - PiAi < 0
If the density of the fluid inside the casing is the same as that outside, then this condition is
reduced to;
Fa* = Fa + f As z < 0
(App. 6-33)
By plotting this condition on the axial force graph, i.e. by adding lines 2 and 3 to give line 4 in
Figure App. 6-18 it can be seen that at no point along the string this condition is met. Therefore
buckling will not occur for such a freely suspended string.
It should be noted that line 4 of Figure App. 6-18, which represents the reduced axial force, is
equivalent to that obtained by multiplying the weight in air at any depth z, line 1, by the buoyancy
factor for the fluid density in use.
This can be shown to be the case as follows;
Actual axial force (from Eq. App. 6-18):
Fa = Wn (ZL - z) - pf As ZL
(line 2)
FIGURE APP. 6-18 : REDUCED AXIAL FORCE IN SUBMERGED

UNCONSTRAINED OPEN-ENDED CASING
14.7.4
Neutral point for reduced axial force ( Fa* = 0)

If the string is fixed at its lower end and a uniform compressive load, F, is imposed on the string,
due to thermal effects for example, the actual axial force changes by an amount of F throughout
the length of the casing (see line 3 of Figure App. 6-19).
FIGURE APP. 6-19 : REDUCED AXIAL FORCE, IN SUBMERGED FIXED-END CASING WITH
COMPRESSIVE LOAD, F, IMPOSED ON STRING
It can be seen, by adding lines 3 and 4 to give line 5, the reduced axial force, that, due to the
shift of the actual axial force line, the buckling condition is satisfied at all depths below point P. At
point P the reduced axial force is equal to zero.
Point P, where the reduced axial force is zero, is the neutral point with respect to buckling, while
point Q is the point of zero actual axial force.
Note that if the imposed load, F, is large enough, the buckling condition will be satisfied along the
entire string. See Figure App. 6-20.
The common assumption that buckling can only occur in sections of the casing that are in
compression can also be shown to be incorrect.
FIGURE APP. 6-20 : REDUCED AXIAL FORCE, IN SUBMERGED FIXED-END CASING WITH LARGE
TEMPERATURE-INDUCED COMPRESSIVE FORCE, F, IMPOSED ON STRING
FIGURE APP. 6-21: REDUCED AXIAL FORCE, IN SUBMERGED FIXED-END CASING WITH
INCREASE IN INTERNAL MUD WEIGHT IMPOSED ON STRING
If it is assumed that during deeper drilling the mud weight is increased considerably such that
PiAi > PeAe, but that the original buoyant weight axial forces are "locked in" by the cementing
process, buckling can occur in sections of the casing that are in tension. See Figure App. 6-21.
In this case, the neutral point for buckling, P, is shallower than the point of zero axial force, Q.
This means that the section between P and Q, although in tension could buckle since the
reduced axial force is smaller than zero. Note that the actual axial force will in fact be different
from the as-cemented case due to the change in internal fluid density. This does not, however,
affect the principle illustrated.
14.8
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

Pittman, W.
EP 92-0473
Case, J. and Chilver, A.H.
Strength of materials - an introduction to the analysis of stress and strain
E. Arnold, London, 1971
Benham, P.P. and Crawford, R.G.
Mechanics of engineering materials
Longman, London, 1987
Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N.
Theory of elasticity
McGraw-Hill, New York, Third edition, 1970
Love, A.E.H.
Treatise on the mathematical theory of elasticity
(Reprint of original 1927 edition), Dover, New York, 1944
Young, W.C.
Roark's formulas for stress and strain
McGraw-Hill, New York, Sixth edition, 1989
Bazant, Z.P. and Cedolin, L.
Stability of structures
Oxford University Press, 1991
Specification for Casing and Tubing
Holliday, G.H.
Casing design for thermal recovery wells - a preliminary report
EP-36299
Goins, W.C.
Better understanding prevents tubular buckling problems
World Oil, January 1980
Boef, W.J.C., KSEPL
Effective tension and its influence on the behaviour of pipes, risers and hoses
EP 88-0547
SIPM, EPD/5
EP 87-0160
American Institute of Steel Construction
Manual of Steel Construction
Ninth edition, Chicago, 1989
15.0
Appendix 7 : Calculation of axial and normal forces
15.1
Introduction
This appendix describes the calculation of the axial forces (along pipe axis) and normal forces
(perpendicular to pipe axis) in a casing suspended stationary from surface in a fluid. Find below
the model assumptions.
Consider a pipe cross section (perpendicular to pipe axis) at a certain depth (distance s to
surface, measured along pipe axis). Let F(s) be the total load exerted by the lower part of the
string upon the upper part of the string at point s. This total load is the sum of the following
constituent forces:
-
The weight Fw(s) of the lower part of the string.
The load Fpi(s) at the lower part of the string resulting from the internal pressure Pi (exerted
by fluid inside casing); the fluid is assumed to have a uniform density i throughout the
casing.
The load Fpe(s) at the lower part of the string resulting from the external pressure Pe (exerted
by fluid outside the casing); the fluid is assumed to have a uniform density e.
The "buoyancy load" FB acting at the casing shoe; this load is the sum of the load due to the
internal pressure Pi (acting at inside of shoe) and the load due to the external pressure Pe
(acting at outside of shoe).
The load Freact(s) at the lower part of the string resulting from the reaction force exerted by
the well bore on the outer part of the pipe (normal to pipe axis).
The shear stresses normal to the pipe axis resulting from e.g. bending. This load should be
taken into account in case of large doglegs for pipes with a large bending stiffness. In this
Appendix it has been assumed that this load can be neglected, i.e. the casing string is
modelled as a cable.
The load at the lower part of the string resulting from the friction force exerted by the well
bore on the outer part of the pipe (parallel to pipe axis) has been neglected.
Other types of loads e.g. shock loads, point loads, dynamic drag loads, etc. have not been
taken into account in this appendix and should be added to complete the evaluation.
Since shear stresses (resulting from bending and/or friction) are neglected, it follows that we
assume that the force F(s) points along the axial direction.
The following paragraphs contain detailed calculations of the above loads for the cases of a
straight inclined casing and a curved casing, respectively.
15.2
Straight inclined casing

FIGURE APP. 7-1 : DEFINITION FOR STRAIGHT INCLINED WELL
FIGURE APP. 7-2 : PRESSURE DEFINITIONS
FIGURE APP. 7-3 : LOAD DEFINITIONS
15.3
Curved Casing
FIG APP.7-4 : DEFINITION FOR CURVED WELL
The above formulas provide expressions for the axial force F(s) = Fa(s)es and the normal
reaction force Freact(s).
For straight casing, R = , = constant, integration of the above formula leads to the formulae
quoted for straight casing.
16.0
Appendix 8 : Shock loads in casing
16.1
Introduction
When a casing that is being run into the hole is suddenly obstructed at a point somewhere
between the top end and the bottom end of the casing, two stress wave will be generated: an
upward travelling compression wave above the
contact point and a downwards
travelling tension wave below that point. A similar effect occurs when the casing is being pulled
out-of-hole and is suddenly stopped. Then the tension wave will travel upwards and the
compression wave downwards. In this appendix the quantification of these shock loads will be
addressed followed by a qualitative evaluation of concurrent shock and drag loads.
16.2
Shock-load quantification
The propagation of the stress waves is discussed in [1]. The main argument of the article is as
follows:
When a casing string being run into the hole is abruptly stopped, shock waves start travelling
through the string with an acoustic velocity, co, given by:
Co = (E/p)
(App. 8-1)
where E is Young's modulus and where is the specific density.

The stress associated with these shock waves, s, is given by:
s = v Co = V (Ep)
(App. 8-2)
where v represents the velocity of the casing string before it was suddenly stopped.
These stresses should be superimposed on the axial stress due to weight of the casing. The
running speed v is the only parameter that can be controlled to avoid excessive shock loads
while running casing.
The generation of shock waves as described above relies on the conservative assumption that a
perfect impact occurs, i.e. that the velocity of the casing at the impact point is reduced to zero in
an infinitely short amount of time. In reality, the deceleration will take place in a finite amount of
time, due to e.g. the elasticity of the rock that is being hit by the casing collar. The stress waves
will then not be step functions, but a somewhat more gradual increase in tension or compression.
Furthermore, the finite impact time may be longer than the time needed for a wave to travel to
one of the ends of the casing and to return to its starting point. In that case the stress level will be
lower than when the impact has completely taken place before return of the stress wave. This is
caused by the sign conversion of the returned wave.
For impacts that occur close to the top end of the casing, no matter whether pulling-out-of-hole or
running in, it seems reasonable to assume that the impact time vastly exceeds the return time of
the stress wave in the top part of the casing, and therefore the stress wave in the top part can be
disregarded.
A similar argument holds for the stress wave in the bottom part of the casing when the impact
occurs dose to the bottom end.
As observed earlier, a recent study of shock loads in wellbore tubulars confirms that the running
speed v is the major factor to control to avoid high dynamic stress [2].
16.3
Concurrent drag and shock loads

Although high drag loads and high shock loads may occur at the same time, it can be argued that
it is improbable that they act in the same direction.
Especially in the top part of the casing, where high drag loads are present due to high axial
tension, one can reason as follows. While running in, the drag gives rise to a compressive force,
i.e. reduces the tension caused by the casing's own weight, while a shock load caused by
suddenly stopping the string at a point dose to the top-end gives rise to a significant tension force
(and an insignificant compression force). While pulling out of hole a similar argument holds.
Downhole, the drag loads are in general much lower because the axial force is much lower.
Although they may now act in the same direction as the shock loads, it should be noted that the
shock load calculation is conservative.
Finally, high drag loads are indicative of high wall contact forces. Therefore, stress waves will
damp out rapidly in those parts of the casing that experience high drag loads.
16.4
References
[1]
[2]
Vreeland, T.
Dynamic stresses in long drillpipe strings
Petroleum Engineer, May 1961, 58-60
Lubinski, A.
Dynamic loading of drillpipe during tripping
IADC/SPE 17211
17.0
Appendix 9 : Pressure build-up in heated sealed annuli
17.1
Introduction
The problem of annular pressure build-up due to heating of the casing string and the (packer)
fluids it contains, when producing the well, will typically arise in HP/HT wells with subsea
completions [1]. In such completions one or more of the annuli are usually sealed, at top and
bottom, and bleeding off the pressure, as done routinely for surface wells, is impossible. Hence
for such wells the casing design should take into account that high pressures may develop in
the tubing/casing and casing/casing annuli.
A first order description of the phenomenon consists basically of an evaluation of the pressure
increase of a heated fixed volume of fluid, corrected for the thermal and hydraulic expansion of
the vessel in which the fluid is contained [2]. These corrections are in principle straightforward
applications of the laws of thermal volume expansion for steel and mechanical expansion due to
pressure differences between the fluids in and outside the casing. Since the latter depends on
the thermally induced pressure increase this results in a linear set of equations, implicit in the
pressure rise [3]. This will be discussed in sections 3 and 4. Finally, to demonstrate the
magnitude of the resulting pressure increase, example calculations will be carried out for a
simple case. These calculations will also demonstrate that for complicated multi-string casing
designs, manual evaluation of the pressure increases in the various annuli and their
consequences for the mechanical integrity of the string, will be cumbersome and timeconsuming. Hence such analysis is best carried out with an appropriate numerical package [4].
A comparison between the results of crude manual calculations and results obtained with a
computer program may however serve to eliminate errors, either in the program input or the
program logics.
Effects which are more difficult to quantify, but nevertheless of considerable potential
importance, will be discussed briefly in the concluding section. These effects merit further
investigation, possibly by conducting dedicated field tests with instrumented casing strings, over
the coming years. Such tests are expected to contribute to improved casing design, reducing
completion costs and safeguarding the mechanical integrity of wells.
17.2
Basic model for the annular pressure increase

Consider an annulus between two casings, filled with a drilling fluid, closed- in at surface. At
bottom the annulus is sealed by the cement between the casings, which allows no radial or axial
movement of the strings. At surface the wellhead of the subsea well is axially fixed by the
cemented foundation pile, which, likewise, allows no axial displacement and consequently no
transfer of axial forces between the casings.
Initially the casings are considered to have assumed the geothermal gradient. Note that owing
to the circulation of drilling fluids prior to cementation, actual temperatures downhole can be
considerably lower than geothermal. If this is considered of interest, an estimate for circulating
temperatures can be obtained with a well performance simulator such as TEMPEST [5]. When
the well is produced over a prolonged period, the hot well effluent, in particular in a HP/HT well,
will increase the temperature of the annulus. Since axial displacements are not allowed in the
geometry described, both the annular fluids and the annulus walls will tend to expand. Thermal
expansion of the base fluids of which drilling mud consists, Vfluid (T), is considerably larger
than the thermal expansion of carbon steel,Vcas(T), i.e. the pressure in the annulus will rise to
the extent that volume increase of the annulus fluid is suppressed by compression, Vfluid(P).
In itself this pressure increase will give rise to some ballooning of the casing walls, which
creates some extra volume for the liquid to expand, Vcas(P). Eventually a new equilibrium
between the casings is obtained.
Mathematically this can be expressed as follows:

Vfluid (T) + Vfluid (P) = Vcas (T) + Vcas(P)
(App. 9-1)
In order to evaluate the resulting pressure increase, P, the volume changes, , have to be
expressed as functions of the (known or estimated) temperature change, V, the unknown
pressure change, P, the properties of the annular fluids and the casing steel, and the annulus
geometry. For the first term of the L.H.S. of Eq. App. 9-1, this is simply the thermal expansion of
the initial volume of the annular fluids:
Vfluid (VT) = Vfluid.CT. T
(App. 9-2)
where CT is the coefficient of thermal expansion of the annular fluids. Similarly the fluid volume
change caused by the increase in annular pressure can be expressed in terms of the isothermal
fluid compressibility, Cp :
Vfluid (P) = -Vfluid.Cp. P
(App. 9-3)
Note that in a completely rigid, non-expanding casing string the terms of the R.H.S. of equation
Eq. App. 9-1 would vanish. By inserting Eq. App. 9-2 and Eq. App. 9-3 we then obtain for the
pressure increase:
P =
CT
.T (completely stiff casing )
CP
( App.9-4 )
Typical values for the properties of some fluid systems are listed below.
An extensive overview of properties of drilling fluids and their dependence on pressure and
temperature can be found in [6], a description of the program MUDPACK which calculates these
properties for subsequent use in TEMPEST, e.g. to evaluate circulating temperatures during
drilling. For quick-look calculations the values listed in the table below can be used.
However, the following additional information should be noted:

-
These thermal properties of water based muds occasionally vary unpredictably with
temperature. Additives give rise to this behaviour.
For pure brines the thermal expansion is hardly pressure dependent, the increase with
temperature is approximately 0.4%/K. Compressibility decreases with pressure, at pressures
of 14,500 psi (100,000 kPa) values are roughly 20% less than those at ambient pressure.
Oil base muds behave similar to the base oil of which they consist. A PVTPACK run can be
made as input for MUDPACK for such systems.
Inserting the values for water based mud in Eq. App. 9-4 and assuming an average temperature
increase in the casing/casing annulus of ca. 125F (70C), an increase in annulus pressure of
more than 12,000 psi (82,740 kPa), would be predicted. This indicates that the pressures that can
develop in sealed annuli can indeed be substantial and unless measures are taken to prevent
pressure build-up, the well design has to take this effect into account.
In practice, both terms of the R.H.S. of Eq. App. 9-1 are non-vanishing. Their evaluation however
is less straightforward than the other terms. This will be discussed in the next sections.
17.3
Thermal expansion of the casing steel

If the thermal volume expansion of the annular fluids would equal thermal expansion of the
casing steel the two terms of Eq. App. 9-1, depending on T, would cancel. Since the remaining
terms are both linear in the pressure increase, this pressure increase would effectively vanish.
Thermal expansion of steel is considerably less however than that of e.g. a water based mud.
Hence, even in the absence of elastic effects (ballooning) a pressure rise would develop in a
sealed annulus which is heated by the well effluent.
To evaluate the casing steel expansion first note that all casings have been considered fixed at
both ends. This implies that only radial expansion has to be taken into account. In general the
increase in diameter, d, of a cylinder which is raised in temperature is given by:
d = d.. T
(App. 9-5)
where is the coefficient of linear thermal expansion of the steel. A typical value for carbon steel
-6
-5
is 6.9 x 10 /F (1.24 x10 /C). In terms of the resulting volume change of the cylinder:
Vcyl =
2
2
. L . [ ( d + d) - d ]
4
(App. 9-6)
By neglecting the quadratic term, d, in Eq. App. 9-6 and inserting Eq. App. 9-5 we obtain for
the volume change of a cylinder fixed at both ends:
Vcyl = 2.Vcyl..T
(App. 9-7)
The total change in the volume of an annulus between an outer and an inner cylinder on heating
is given by:
Vcas = Vcyl.o - Vcyl.i
(App. 9-8)
By inserting Eq. App. 9-7 and assuming that the temperature change and steel properties in both
casings will be the same, which is correct in most cases, the change in the annular volume
caused by thermal expansion can be written as:
Vcas(T) = 2.Vcas..T
(App. 9-9)
Note that this result can be included easily in Eq. App. 9-4 by replacing the annular fluid
coefficient of thermal expansion by a corrected coefficient, CT-2. i.e.:
P =
C T 2.
T
CP
17.4
Hydraulic expansion of the casing steel

With increasing pressure in the annulus the confining casings will tend to balloon, which gives the
fluid additional volume to expand. Again no axial displacement is owed: fixed-fixed casings. This
implies that only radial expansion has to be taken into account. The change in diameter
corresponding to a tangential strain change, t, caused by the pressure change, is given by:
d = d . t
(App. 9-10)
This strain has to be expressed as a function of the pressure change in and outside the cylinder.
Assuming that most casings can be treated effectively as thin-walled cylinders and neglecting the
effect of axial stresses [2], the change in casing diameter can be written as [7,8]:
d =
d 2 . P
2 .E . t
(App. 9-11)
where E is Young's modulus and t is the casing wall thickness. In the case considered so far the
pressure change is the increase inside the cylinder. If pressure also builds up outside this
pressure change has to be subtracted from the inside to obtain an effective pressure change.
This applies to both the inner and outer casing of the annulus. At this stage only pressure change
inside the annulus is assumed. Similar to Eq. App. 9-7 the change in diameter can be converted
to change in cylinder volume:
Vcyl = Vcyl .
d . P
E.t
(App. 9.12)
For the resulting total volume change of the annulus the contraction of the inner cylinder and the
expansion of the outer cylinder have to be added:
assuming that the elastic properties of both casings are equal. This expression can be inserted
for the second term of the R.H.S. of Eq. App. 9-1, which can now be solved for the case of a
single annulus in which pressure build-up occurs. For more annuli a simultaneous solution should
be sought as will be indicated in the next section in which application of the equations will be
demonstrated.
17.5
Application of the models

To illustrate application of the models presented in the foregoing the casing scheme used to
demonstrate the use of TEMPEST [5] will be examined. The annuli between casings 2, 3 and 4,
containing water based mud, will be considered sealed. The geometrical, fluid and steel data
are as follows:
Initially the well is at the geothermal gradient 0.018F/ft (0.033C/m) with an ambient temperature
of 40F (5C). Hence the average temperature of annulus 2/3 is ca. 55F (13C), the average of
the annulus is ca. 93F (34C). For a worst-case estimate it is assumed that during prolonged
production both annuli assume reservoir temperature 260F (126C). Thus annulus 2/3 heats up
about 205F (113C) and annulus heats up about 166F (92C). With the data from the above
table the volumes of the non- cemented sections of the two annuli can be worked out. First the
annuli between casings 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 will be considered in isolation.
2
The volume of the /3 annulus is Oven by:
In field units :
Hence the volume increase of the annular fluids (unconstrained) when subjected to this
temperature rise would be (from Eq. App. 9-2):
2
Vfluid (T) = V /3 CT T
In field units:
Vfluid (T) = 1514 x 3 x 10 x 205 = 93 ft3
-4
In SI units:
Vfluid (T) = 42.88 x 5.4 x 10 x 113 = 2.62 m
-4
Since casing 2 is cemented to surface, this casing is assumed not to expand or balloon.
Thermal expansion of casing 3 will actually reduce the annulus volume. This volume is given
(from Eq. App. 9-7) by:
VCAS (T) = 2Vcyl
In field units:
The volume change of the annular fluids with pressure is (from Eq. App. 9-3):
Vfluid (P) = -V 2/3 Cp P
In field units:
-6
-3
3
Vfluid (P) = -1514 x 3.1 x 10 P = -4.7 x 10 P ft
In SI units:
Vfluid (P) = -42.88 x 4.5 x 10
-10
P = -1.93 x 10 P m
-8
The volume change of casing 3 due to the pressure build-up is (from Eq. App. 9-13):
The terms for the change in volume can now be brought together (as in Eq. App. 9-1) to
determine a value for P.
Vfluid (T) + Vfluid (P) = VCAS (T)+ VCAS (P)
In field units:
93 - (4.7 x 10-3 P) = -4. 46 + (1.37 x 10-3 P)
Giving P = 16,056 psi.
In SI units:
2.62 - (1.93 x 10-8 P) = -0.125 + (5.56 x 10-9 P)
Giving P = 110,418 kPa.
The volume of annulus is 1895 ft (54.31 m). Unconstrained thermal expansion would give a
volume increase of 94.4 ft (2.70 m). Thermal expansion of casings 3 and 4, over the
uncemented sections, changes this to 92.1 ft (2.64 m). Fluid compression gives a volume
-3
-8
change of -5.87 x l0 ft/psi (-2.44 10 m/Pa). Ballooning of casing 4 (uncemented section)
-8
-3
-9
gives 1.58 x 10-3 ft /psi (0.635 10 m/Pa), and 1.37 x 10 ft/psi (5.56 10 m/Pa) for the
uncemented section of casing 3. A pressure increase of 10,700 psi (74,900 kPa) is estimated.
In the above the interaction between the annuli has been neglected, leading in both cases to
lower pressures than actual since the ballooning of casing 3 has been considered beneficial for
pressure relief for both annuli. Since pressures in both annuli are seen to build up to similar
values a crude estimate for the effect of interaction is obtained by neglecting the hydraulic
expansion/contraction of casing 3. This raises the pressure in annulus 2/3 by 29% and the
2
pressure in annulus by 15%. Pressure in the annulus /3 is higher than in casing so that this
overestimates somewhat for the former annulus and underestimates for the latter annulus. The
exact solution of the problem of pressure interaction is complicated, since it involves Eq. App. 9-1
for multiple annuli simultaneously. This is best done with an appropriate software package [4].
Calculations as carried out above serve to check on the numbers generated with such a
numerical tool, e.g. to detect false input data, logical errors, etc.
The example calculations indicate that in sealed annuli a temperature increase can give rise to
considerable pressure build-up, which in most cases will exceed casing capacities. Hence proper
attention should be given to this phenomenon where it is likely to occur, e.g. by providing means
of pressure relief in the design of the casing string.
17.6
Shortcomings of the models

Annular fluid heat-up may give rise to considerable pressure increase in closed annuli. The
equations presented to estimate the magnitude of the pressure rise are however based on a
number of assumptions of which the validity is hitherto unknown:
-
The cement closing off the annuli at the casing shoe is considered perfectly sealing and
impermeable. Obviously leak-off of annular fluids to the surrounding formations could have a
large impact on pressure build-up.
Similarly the casings have been considered perfectly leak tight. Again, transfer of limited
amounts of annular fluids between casings would have a large impact on eventual pressure.
The annuli were assumed to be filled completely with fluid, so that small temperature
changes give large pressure rises, due to the low compressible nature of fluids. The
beneficial effect of the presence of more compressible fluids or components needs to be
investigated.
17.7
References
[1]
MacEachran, A. and Adams, A.J.

Impact on casing design of thermal expansion of fluids in confined annuli
SPE/IADC 21911
[2]
Oudeman, P., KSEPL

Pressure build-up in heated sealed annuli
EP 92-1696
[3]
Adams, A.
SPE 22871
[4]
Pittman, W.
EP 92-0473
[5]
Oudeman, P., KSEPL

Casing temperature calculations with TEMPEST: contribution to revised Casing Design
Manual
EP 92-0521
[6]
van Zandvoord, W.E.J.J., KSEPL

Mud circulation in TEMPEST using a new program (MUDPACK) to calculate mud
properties
EP 91-0668
[7]
Benham, P.P. and Crawford, R.G.

Mechanics of engineering materials
Longman, London, 1987
[8]
Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N.

Theory of elasticity
McGraw-Hill, New York, Third edition, 1970
18.0
Casing design in special cases
18.1
Introduction
The core text addresses the detailed aspects of casing design and analysis for the standard
well. Application of this knowledge will lead to a casing scheme of acceptable technical integrity.
Special design considerations are required in a number of more complex cases. In the following
paragraphs issues relevant to these cases are addressed and highlighted in a qualitative
manner. Detailed information is available in the EP-reports referenced. It is stressed that the
information presented is not complete and a full open-literature search is required to add the
industry experience on these topics.
The casing designer is invited to apply the relevant knowledge to his specific case. Only such
an approach, in a project environment, will lead to a complete review of the existing experience
resulting in an optimised design.
To enhance the dissemination of information, Opcos are invited to pass relevant reports on to
SIPM for further distribution.
18.2
High-pressure/high-temperature well
In such environments, high differential pressures often lead to the use of high strength, thickwalled, and occasionally nonstandard, casing [1,2,3]. High temperatures compound the design
problem by reducing the yield strength of the casing steel, by causing significant thermal linear
expansion of the steel, and by generating high pressures in sealed annuli due to thermal
expansion of the trapped fluid.
The following areas should be given particular attention. They have been divided into factors
which affect the load experienced by the casing, and factors which influence the capacity of the
casing to resist loads.
Casing loading
-
The effects of high tensile or compressive axial forces on the ability of the casing to resist
collapse and burst pressures. Although the effects occur in all wells, they are more
significant in HP/HT wells because of the high forces and pressures involved. A triaxial
stress analysis is therefore recommended.
Build up of annulus pressures due to thermal expansion of fluid in sealed annuli which
cannot be bled off, e.g. subsea wellheads [5]. Such pressures, which may become very high
with continued production, are best estimated using computerised programs [6].
High buckling potential due to the linear expansion resulting from large temperature
increases [4] during deeper drilling and subsequent testing/production. The increase in
internal fluid density during deeper drilling adds to this potential.
The testing programme to ensure the casing is capable of withstanding the anticipated burst
loads need careful design when combination strings are used. The axial loading resulting
from use of retrievable test packers should be checked as part of the pressure test
preparation.
Casing load bearing capacity
High H2S partial pressures, i.e. sour conditions. Due to the high pressures involved, the
partial pressure for H2S which defines sour conditions (0.05 psia) is achieved for relatively
low H2S concentrations. Because of the high temperatures in the well, sour-rated tubulars
are usually only required at shallow depths, however, due to the high pressure loads heavy
wall pipe could result.
The requirement for gas-tight connections operating at high temperatures and differential
pressures is not easily satisfied. Only suitably qualified connections should be selected
[7,8,9].
Effects of dimensional tolerances on casing performance influences casing selection. Rather

than use non-standard casing sizes, the desired casing rating may be achieved by a
tightening of manufacturing tolerances.
Reduction of casing material yield strength at high temperatures. The capacity of the casing
should be downrated according to the downhole operating temperature [1].
Several drilling liners might be required to allow for deeper drilling. This is because the
anticipated mud gradients to balance the high pore pressures are usually close to the
formation breakdown gradient [10,11].
18.2.1
References
[1]
[2]

Well Engineering Information Note 23: High pressure task force report
EP 90-2572
Wind, J.A., KSEPL
Notes on the high pressure drilling forum, held at KSEPL
Rijswijk, 30.10-1.11.1989
EP 90-0131
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Wind, J.A., KSEPL

Research related to high temperature/high pressure operations
EP 92-0032
Oudeman, P, KSEPL
Casing temperature calculations with TEMPEST, contribution to the revised Casing
Design Manual
EP 92-0521
Oudeman, P., KSEPL
Pressure build-up in heated sealed annuli of subsea wells
EP 92-1696
Pittman, W.
EP 92-0473
Snaith, N.N., KSEPL
Test procedure for tubing and production casing connections
EP 92-0147
Qualification testing of the 9-5/8 inch new VAM connection and the 97/8 inch VAM ACE
connection for HP wells
EP 91-1283
Casing connections
EP 92-1563
EP 92-1454
Hage, J.I., Surewaard, J.H.G. and Vullinghs, P.J.J.
Application of Research in kick detection and well control
KSEPL Publication 1116, June 1992
18.3
Squeezing salt well

When a hole is drilled through a salt formation, and subsequently casing is set, the salt will
gradually move and make contact with the casing. The following paragraphs describe the loading
on the casing, and then the capacity of the casing to withstand such loading.
Casing loading
The plastic behaviour of salt formations may result in casing opposite this formation being
subjected to the full formation overburden gradient. The value of the overburden gradient will
vary with depth but may be as high as 1 psi/ft (22.6 kPa/m). As such, the collapse loads, whether
designing for full or partial evacuation, will be extremely high.
This phenomenon is time dependent such that during the drilling phase increased external
loading due to moving salt may be minor, while in the production phase, however, salt loading
might play a greater role.
Another important factor is that the loading that results from the moving salt is not uniformly
applied. If the hole is washed-out unevenly and the casing is not perfectly cemented, the salt will
reach the casing at different times. This will cause one side of the casing to be exposed to the full
overburden gradient, while the other side is completely unsupported. This type of point loading,
resulting in high shear stresses, can cause casing failure at much lower loads than when applied
uniformly [1].
It is also possible that, even if the casing does not immediately collapse, it may start to bend into
the wash-out opposite the moving salt. The resulting increase in axial stress on one side of the
casing may lead to a reduced collapse pressure or the casing may fail due to bending stresses
alone.
Studies have shown that to withstand this type of non -uniform loading, the diameter/thickness
(d/t) ratio of the casing would have to be less than 4 [2]. The thick-walled casing often used to
withstand the high (uniform) collapse pressures have d/t ratios between 9 and 11. At present, it is
seen as impractical and uneconomical to design the casing to withstand these forces [3,4].
Instead, non-uniform loading effects are reduced by operational practices such as minimising
hole enlargement during drilling, and ensuring that the casing is cemented over the entire salt
interval in order to distribute the load uniformly over the casing circumference [3,5,6,7].
Following this approach, the casing is designed to withstand a concentrically uniform external
pressure - equivalent to the overburden pressure at the depth of the salt formation - in the same
manner as for fluid pressure.
18.3.1 References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Muecke, N.B., NAM

Heated mud systems: the solution to squeezing salt problems
SPE/IADC 25762
Cheatham, J.B. and McEver, J.W.
Behaviour of casing subjected to salt loading
EP-103
NAM
A review of the use of MUST casing strings across salt intervals
Report 18.464 (not an EP report yet), November 1992
Cernocky, E.P., Nordgren, R.P. and Scholibo, F.C., BRC
Interim guidelines for Cognac casing design
EP 87-1779
van Kleef, R.P.A.R. and van Oers, P.J.M.
Setting properties of saline cement slurries and dissolution
rates of formation haline salts during primary cementations
EP 88-1364
van Kleef, R.P.A.R.
Optimised slurry design for salt zone cementations
EP 88-2627
Brakel, J.D.
Drilling through squeezing salts
EP 89-1957
18.4.
Steam well
Casing in conventional wells is designed to be capable of resisting burst, collapse, tensile and
compressive loads while remaining in the elastic range of the casing material.
However, the design of steam wells is complicated by the fact that the axial stress exceeds the
yield strength in compression during heating and exceeds the yield strength in tension during
subsequent cooling. As such, a design is required which incorporates post yield behaviour of both
casing and connections [1,2].
A brief discussion of the issues involved in steam well design is given below, firstly dealing with
the loading of the casing, and then its capacity to withstand these loads.
Casing loading
i)
Axial loads
Casing in high temperature (steam) wells is generally cemented from TD to surface for a
number of reasons [3,4]:
-
it prevents loads resulting from the thermal linear expansion and contraction of the
casing being transmitted to the wellhead;
it avoids the problem of annulus pressures resulting from thermal expansion of fluids in a
sealed annulus;
it prevents buckling.
However, the cement prevents elongation of the casing during heating and this causes large
axial stresses which yield the casing in compression. Similarly, the cement prevents
contraction of the casing during cooling, causing large tensile stresses close to or above
yield [5].
Current steam well casing design models are based on the isotropic hardening plasticity
theory [6,7]. The basic features of this theory are the 1 non-ideal elastic/plastic behaviour
and stress relaxation under conditions of constant high temperature and pressure. The
behaviour of different grades of steel means that the maximum loads are not constant but
are a function of grade [8]. Generally, higher grade materials give higher loads. The
computer program STEAM85 is based upon this theory [7] and can be used to determine
maximum tensile and compressive stresses during the operating cycle [9,10].
The computer program CASINT [11] can also be used to evaluate the casing behaviour.
Refer to the section on Reservoir Compaction for more details.
ii)

Precise collapse and burst loading conditions will depend on the well type. In general, it is
the collapse loading which determines casing wall thickness and grade for steam injection
wells.
iii)
Biaxial effects
Selection of casing for steam well application is based on a requirement to withstand
collapse loads while subject to axial stress near or beyond yield in a high temperature
environment.
API Bull 5C3 provides guidance on the biaxial derating of casing collapse capacity in the
presence of tension. However, this approach is based on theoretical behaviour in the elastic
range only, and the collapse capacity is assumed to be zero when axial tension reaches
yield strength. Casing does, in fact, retain some collapse capacity once tensile yield is
reached, although the degree to which this occurs depends on the material grade [1].
At tensile yield, about 65% of the uniaxial collapse strength remains in K55 casing, and at
approximately 145% of tensile yield, about 40% of the uniaxial collapse strength remains.
For C95, however, only 15% of collapse strength remains at 105% of tensile yield.
Biaxial test data indicate that compression does not decrease collapse strength.

i)
Yield strength reduction

At high temperatures, casing materials exhibit a decrease in yield strength [11]. The derated
collapse capacity should be obtained by substituting the new yield strength into the
appropriate collapse formula and the corresponding regression coefficients.
The reduction in collapse capacity due to temperature is usually small in comparison with
the reduction due to tension.
ii) Casing connections

The production casing connection must provide reliable structural strength and gas tight
sealing under the high temperatures and loads of the steam well operating cycle [13]. Gas
tight sealing is required to seal the steam (in the event of a tubing leak) and also to seal
nitrogen sometimes used as a packer blanket. Because of these severe conditions, a
connection should not be used unless it has been tested and qualified accordingly [12,14].
18.4.1 References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
Cernocky, E.P.
Guideline for the design of steam well casing
EP 89-0682
Smith, R.A.
Improved well model for thermal stimulation
EP 88-1144
Zijlker, V.A.
Review of thermal casing design in PDO, past, present and future
EP 89-1372
van Bevervoorde.B.S.
Thermal well completion for steam injectors - a state-of-the-art for conditions in the
Schoonebeek oil field, the Netherlands
EP-50317
Prats, M., BRC
Casing shear failures in steam drives
TIR-1862
Accuracy and implications of different casing design models for steam wells
EP-63405
Cernocky, E.P. and Scholibo, F.C., BRC
Explanation of the isotropic hardening steam well casing design model
EP-64596
Cernocky, E.P., BRC
Thermal cycling behaviour of K55, L80, N80 and C95 casing steels for steam well casing
design
EP 87-0045
Zijlker, V.A.
Thermal casing design - an implementation
EP 89-2513
van Bevervoorde, B.S.
New selection criteria for thermal casing according to Cernocky, E.P. implications for the
Schoonebeek high temperature steam flood wells
EP 89-1479
Fokker, P.A., Klever, F.J. and Marchina, P.J.M.
User manual and background theory to the program CASINT
EP 92-1961
Cernocky, E.P., BRC
Evaluation of casing connections for thermal well applications
EP-63404
Cernocky, E.P., BRC
Increasing the casing wall thickness can fail steam well casing connections
EP 86-1066
Cernocky, E.P., BRC
Limited tests of thread compound sealing capabilities in API buttress casing for medium
and high temperature steam well service
TIR-1729
18.5
Horizontal well
There are a number of areas in horizontal well casing design that may differ from a standard well
[1,2,3,4,5,6]. These mostly relate to the casing loading, although there can be instances where the
capacity of the casing is purposely reduced.
Casing loading
Firstly, for the horizontal section itself, the stability of the formation must be determined in order to
assess whether the casing in this section has to withstand the full overburden pressure [7]. The
computer program STABOR [8] has been developed by Shell Research, Rijswijk, for this purpose.
In the case that the casing will be subject to formation loading, the computer program CASINT [9]
should be used to determine the casing behaviour. Refer to the section on Reservoir Compaction
in this Chapter for more details.
For short radius build-up sections, the bending stresses can be significant. For particularly high
build rates, localised bending stress concentrations can occur near casing couplings due to the
difference in outer diameter of the casing body and the coupling. The magnitude of these bending
stresses, and their effect on the collapse and burst capacities of the casing, can be determined
from the computer program CASBEND [10]. Note that all casing that has to pass through these
high doglegs must be designed to withstand the bending stresses generated.
Due to the high contact forces between the casing and the borehole wall in highly deviated
sections of the well, dynamic drag and torque loads will be high [11]. Drag loads may be such that
once the casing string passes a given depth, the total axial force required to pull the string
upwards exceeds the axial capacity of the pipe.
Optimum cementation of the casing in the horizontal section is obtained by rotating the casing/liner
[12,13]. Thus consideration must be given to the torque required to achieve this rotation, and the
ability of the selected couplings to withstand this torque. Selection of couplings should be based on
the maximum anticipated torque [14].
Drag and torque loads can be simulated using the computer program DRAGTORQ, part of the
OSCP portfolio [15]. The program STUCK is a tool to quantify the ability to run the next work string
or casing if high doglegs are to be considered, taking into account bending stiffness [16].
Liners set in horizontal sections are often pre-drilled or slotted to avoid the need for complicated
perforating operations [13,17]. When running these liners, the reduction in axial capacity due to the
holes should be considered. This is best achieved by calculating the stress concentration factor
that results, from the presence of the hole and comparing the resulting stress with the casing
material yield stress.
18.5.1
References
[1]
SIPM, EPO/51
Drilling and completion of horizontal wells
EP-64354
[2]
SIPM, EPO/51
Drilling spearhead documentation, Volume 1, 2 and 3
EP 89-0115
[3]
SIPM, EPO/51
Maersk DAN-field horizontal well project
EP 87-1477
[4]
Maersk Olie og Gas A/S
Tyra field development plan, Denmark
EP 92-1857
[5]
Sabah Shell Petroleum Co.
ERB West-126 horizontal well: drilling and completion operations, ERB West field, Sabah,
East Malaysia
EP 89-1218
[6]
de Jong, W. and de Blok, G.L.J.
Review of the drilling operations for a large radius horizontal well, Dan field, Denmark
EP 87-1565
[7]
Shell Oil Co., Houston
1992 Geological and Petrophysical Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas, 6-8 April
1992
EP 92-1146
[8]
Wong, S.W. and Kenter, C.J., KSEPL
Borehole stability analysis
Part 1: Theoretical formulation of STABOR
RKRS 91.15, KSEPL, February 1992, 59-64
[9]
Fokker, P.A., Klever, F.J. and Marchina, P.J.M., KSEPL
EP 92-1961
[10]
Cernocky, E.P., BRC
The importance of bending in the burst and collapse design of casing with particular
application to horizontal wells - based on the computer program CASBEND
EP 90-3011
[11]
Driessen, R.W.J.
Buoyant casing and its impact on extended reach drilling
EP 89-1063
[12]
de Jong, J.W. and Ashley, P.
Liner rotation contributes to success of liner cementation
EP 87-1575
[13]
Pastor Sanz, G., KSEPL
A review of cementing and perforating technology for horizontal wells
EP 92-1953
[14]
Green-Armytage, D.
DA-42 horizontal well, Dunlin Alpha, UK North Sea, planning and operations report
EP 90-3474
[15]
SIPM, EPO/51
EP 91-2156
[16]
Cernocky, E.P., Paslay, P.R., Sims, N.L. and Wahleithner, J.P. BRC
The computer program STUCK: a model to quantitatively estimate the ability to run a work
string into a well with kinked casing or to run casing into a well with a severe dogleg Explanation and User Manual
EP 92-1507
[17] M.E. Amory
Sand control in PDO : A framework for the Nineties
EP 91-1911
18.6
Slimhole well
The determination of casing sizes is the most important phase of casing design in terms of well
cost. This is part of the preliminary design phase and is performed well in advance of the detailed
casing design.
The final hole size or production tubing size determines the well configuration. It is the task of the
casing designer to engineer the most cost- effective well around this final hole size or production
conduit [1]. Reduction of the final hole size will therefore lead to significant cost savings. New
drilling, formation evaluation and completion techniques have made smaller hole sizes possible
across the reservoir [2,3,4,5,6].
The difference between a possible slim hole casing scheme and a conventional casing scheme for
a deep high pressure/high temperature well is illustrated by way of an example below [7,8]:
For a shallower, lower pressure reservoir the difference in casing scheme between a slim hole and
a conventional design could be as follows :
For a slim hole casing design all the design loads, inclusive burst, collapse, and tensile load
requirements, should be determined as for all other wells. For a fixed influx volume and assuming
a single bubble of gas, the smaller annular cross section causes a greater influx height than in
conventional holes. This might influence the casing setting depth and indicates the need for more
sensitive kick detection techniques [9].
It is important, especially where non-standard casing sizes are introduced, that geometrical
clearances, drilling hydraulics, and cementing hydraulics are closely examined:
Geometrical clearances
The following checks should be made for all proposed casing schemes:
-
clearance between the bit and the drift diameter of the casing
clearance between the open hole and casing connections.
Drilling hydraulics
Pressure losses in slim hole drilling, both in the annulus and in the drill string, are higher than for
conventional hole sizes where 5 in drill pipe is used and large annular clearances exist [10]. The
computer programs HYDRAUL and SWABSURGE, part of the OSCP portfolio [11], should be
used to calculate pressure losses and resulting equivalent circulating densities. The rheology of
the mud should be carefully selected, and then controlled, to ensure pressure losses are
minimised.
Selection of casing and drillpipe sizes should be made such that the low flowrates required for
drilling small holes do not cause problems with respect to hole cleaning. Introduction of several
drilling liners might be a solution.
Cementing hydraulics
Because of the high density and viscosity of cement slurries, pressure losses can be high in slim
hole wells with small annular clearances. In some instances this may restrict pumping rates such
that the slurry flow is not turbulent [10]. Low pump rates may mean long pumping times and
cement properties should be adjusted accordingly.
The computer program MUCEDI, also part of the OSCP portfolio [11], should be used to predict
cementation pressures at different pump rates.
Attempts should also be made to include casing couplings in computer program string descriptions
where annular clearances are small. The result of these simulations may indicate the requirement
for flush couplings to reduce pressure losses [10].
A good review of drilling/cementing hydraulics in slim well design can be found in [10].
18.6.1 References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
SIPM, EPO/51
Making the most of well planning
EP 92-2500
Worrall, R.N., van Luijk, J.M., Hough, R.B., Rettberg, A. and Makohl, F., KSEPL
An evolutionary approach to slim hole drilling, evaluation and completion
SPE 24965, KSEPL Publication 1129
van Hoogstraten, J.W,
Technical and economic aspects of slim hole drilling
EP 90-2947
Ross, B., KSEPL
Innovative slim hole completions
SPE 24981, KSEPL Publication 1130
Kroell, E.
Drilling and production aspects of slim hole wells, 41/8 inch and smaller wellbores
EP 90-3138
SIPM, EPO/51
Drilling spearhead documentation, Volume 1, 2 and 3
EP 89-0115
Wind, J.A.
Notes on the High Pressure Drilling Forum, held at KSEPL
Rijswijk 30 October till 1 November 1983
EP 90-0131
Well Engineering Information Note 23: High Pressure Task Force Report
EP 90-2572
Hage, J.1., Surewaard, J.H.G. and Vullinghs, P.J.J.
Application of research in kick detection and well control
KSEPL Publication 1116, June 1992
Eide, E., Shell Expro
Well Engineering Information Note 139: Review of slimhole casing schemes, drilling
hydraulics, cement hydraulics
EP 93-0104
SIPM, EPO/51
OSCP User Guide - Version 2.3
EP 91-2156
18.7
Permafrost well
Permafrost is defined as permanently frozen soil. Soil at temperatures below freezing point may or
may not contain ice, depending upon pare fluid salinity, pore pressure, and soil type. Permafrost
can be continuous from the surface or discontinuous with intermittent unfrozen zones.
The presence of permafrost, and particularly the consequences of permafrost thaw resulting from
increased surface temperatures during drilling and production, affect casing design in a number of
ways [1,2,3,4].
The following practices are taken from the Shell Canada procedures for permafrost well casing
design. They directly influence casing setting depths (part of the preliminary design phase) and
casing load determination. Casing capacity is assumed to be unaffected.
The experimental data upon which these practices are based is mostly location-specific and
should not be assumed to be generally applicable.
Casing setting depths
i)
Stove pipe
As the well is drilled and produced, heat generated will cause the permafrost to thaw around
the wellbore, thereby reducing or eliminating any cement- formation bond within the
permafrost interval. This in turn may cause casing subsidence and/or annular gas migration,
as well as a disturbance to the permafrost environment. To offset this effect, the stove pipe,
usually set at around 60 ft (18 m), consists of :
ii)
One or more joints of insulated casing made by welding a joint of 26 in (0.66 m) casing
inside a joint of 30 in (0.762 m) casing and either leaving a dead air space or placing
insulation material in the annular area between the casings.
One joint of refrigerated casing at surface made by a process similar to the insulated
casing but instead running a number of refrigeration coils in the annular area between
the casings. A refrigeration unit is used to continually circulate a refrigerant through the
coils during both the drilling and production phases to ensure no permafrost melting.
Conductor casing (permafrost casing)

A string of 20 in ( 0.508 m) conductor casing, also known as permafrost casing is required
by Canadian government regulations when the permafrost is in unconsolidated formations
and/or is more than 500 ft (150 m) deep. This requirement is also recognised as prudent
operating practise in order to limit exposure of permafrost to the warm drilling mud and
hence minimise hole enlargement and subsequent hole cleaning/cement displacement
problems. The string is set at 500 ft (150 m).
iii)
Surface casing
Assuming permafrost casing is set, a 16 in (0.406 m) surface casing is set to ensure all
remaining permafrost is cased off as soon as possible. Canadian government regulations
require this string to be set between 500 ft (150 m) and 1650 ft (500 m). To allow for the
greatest flexibility in setting the intermediate casing, the surface casing is usually set at 500
m.
Detailed casing design

Two effects have to be taken into account when designing casing set in permafrost.
i)
External freezeback
When a well is shut-in during or after drilling, or after a short production period, thawed
permafrost and waterbase fluids outside the casing will refreeze and generate inward radial
loads around the wellbore. This process, referred to as "external freezeback", can produce
significant collapse pressures.
The difference between the external freezeback pressure and the internal fluid pressure
must not exceed the casing collapse pressure.
This problem can be overcome in three ways:
ii)
modify drilling practices to limit permafrost thaw and freezeback [5];
cement any annulus within the permafrost zone;
if not cemented, ensure the annulus is displaced to high salinity waterbased fluid or
non-freezing fluid.
Axial strain resulting from permafrost thaw subsidence

Experience indicates that stove pipe, conductor casing and surface casing failures may
occur as a result of thaw-subsidence generated compressive and tensile loads [6]. As the
pore ice melts and reduces in volume, a decrease in pore pressure results. This in turn leads
to an increase in intergranular stress, and soil compaction takes place. This compaction is
not reversible during external freezeback.
Permafrost lithology determines the nature of loads induced by such thaw subsidence and
field tests indicate the presence of both compressive and tensile loads within a string depending on depth and formation.
Strain, not stress, is the governing criterion for axial load design of permafrost casing. As a
result, it is the casing strain limit, not the yield stress, which is important for casing design.
Since the movement is gradually imposed, and also limited, large post-yield pipe body
strains can be sustained without catastrophic failure.
The computer program CASINT [7] can also be used to evaluate the casing behaviour due
to such formation movement. Refer to the section on Reservoir Compaction for more details.
18.7.1
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Atlantic Richfield Corp.

Prudhoe Bay field permafrost casing and well design for thaw subsidence protection
EP-44918 Volume 85
Completion Technology Co.
Exploratory drilling permafrost data for design of development wells - Beaufort Sea and
Bethel Marsh
EP-44918 Volume 118
Garrett, D.L.
Effects of permafrost on Arctic development
EP-48509
McLellan, P.J.
Survey of geomechanics research on wellbore stability and well stimulation conducted in
Canadian universities
EP 90-2662
Cook, R.L.
Arctic drilling practices to control hydrate gas influx and internal/external freezeback
EP 89-1244
Fischer, F.J., BRC
Permafrost subsidence and associated casing strain
BRC-38
EP 92-1961
18.8
Gravity structure
With time, a concrete gravity platform structure will induce considerable deformation within the
supporting soil. The casing, particularly the marine conductor, will have, at least in part, to follow
the displacements that take place in the soil.
The marine conductor and possibly the conductor casing therefore have to be designed such that
the loads caused by soil settlement shear forces does not cause yield to occur [1,2]. Casing
capacity is not affected by this environment.
Modelling of these shear forces is generally performed by computer analysis. Within Shell, the
program CASINT is available for such analysis [3]. External consultants can also provide
computerised analysis.
In their analysis, such programs take into account:
-
self weight of marine conductor or conductor casing;
any loading from other strings and the wellhead/BOP;
temperature changes due to production;
platform settlements;
frictional forces from guides due to platform settlements;
bending moments due to platform rotation.
The loads are applied chronologically according to their appearance.

It should be noted that, as well as specifying the well geometry, the program user has to provide a
production mode temperature profile. A soil settlement profile and soil/cement properties are also
necessary.
The output typically consists of a plot of axial stress against depth, which can then be compared
with the marine conductor or conductor casing yield strength.
While yield of the marine conductor may be tolerable, the conductor casing should be designed to
withstand a combination of loads from the inner strings, wellhead, and soil settlement without
yielding.
This can be achieved either by selection of an appropriate steel grade for the conductor casing, or
by setting the marine conductor some 100 ft (30 in) below the depth of the deepest soil
displacement, so that the conductor casing does not experience any soil settlement.
Transfer of settlement loads from the marine conductor to the conductor casing will, however,
result from the existence of cement between the two pipes. Careful consideration should therefore
be given to the cementation programme for the conductor casing, and this aspect should be
included in computer simulations.
18.8.1
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
Potts, D.M.
Calculation of stresses in a well installed underneath a gravity structure
EP-49196
Stage 2 design study of condeep T-300 for the Troll field, Block 31/2,
Norway North Sea - conductor stress analysis
EP-58227
EP 92-1961
18.9
Reservoir compaction environment

Production of hydrocarbons will, in time, lead to a reduction in reservoir pore pressure if pressure
is not maintained by a drive mechanism. The resulting increase in effective stress leads to
reservoir compaction and deformation of the overburden [1,2].
The vertical strain caused by this compaction of the producing interval is transferred to a certain
extent to the casing string(s) set across that interval. This casing will thus undergo axial
deformation and, in the case of deviated wells, lateral deformation, such as bending, ovalisation
or crushing. These lateral loads are comparable in type to lateral loads in squeezing salt
formations but are thought to be significantly less in magnitude. Excessive overburden
deformation can lead to localised slip across faults and bedding planes. This results in shearing of
casing [3,4,5].
These effects are briefly dealt with below, followed by guidance on how compaction loads can be
allowed for in the detailed casing design, and possible operational techniques to minimise their
impact. Casing capacity is not affected by this environment.
i)
Axial deformation
Axial compression will take place over compacting intervals, while axial tension will be
induced over any decompacting intervals, i.e. formations overlying and underlying the
reservoir. The transfer of strain from the formation to the casing will depend upon the
behaviour of the formation/cement/casing interface. Generally, the casing strain can be
assumed of similar magnitude as the formation strain.
Axial compression will tend to initiate buckling. The extent and type of buckling will depend
on the amount of lateral support the casing receives. Column-like buckling will only occur in
zones where support is small or non- existent e.g. long, badly cemented intervals or zones
with cavities due to sand production. After the onset of buckling, deformation of the casing
will depend on annular clearance. The local mode of buckling or bulging occurs where the
cementation is locally bad, e.g. geometrical irregularities such as casing collars and casing
transitions. Also a weak, low strain resistant, box/pin design could lead to these failure
modes [6].
Axial extension may occur if surface subsidence is not equal to the amount of compaction in
the producing intervals. The resulting tension may reduce the collapse strength of the casing
or even cause tensile failure.
ii)
Bending
Bending of the casing in deviated wells occurs due to different compaction strains above and
below the reservoir boundary [7]. Excessive bending may lead to loss of roundness or, at an
extreme stage, tensile failure on the convex side. The transition interval length determines
the dogleg severity.
iii)
Ovalisation
Lateral loads resulting from reservoir compaction will depend on the rock type, in-situ
stresses, and the tectonic setting. Although this type of loading is less severe than
experienced in squeezing salt formations, any non- uniformity of the radial load distribution
will result in a stress concentration that may lead to failure. Experiments show the diameter
reduction to be in the order of the compaction strain if well cemented.
iv)
Shearing
Due to slip of formations in the overburden or reservoir, significant shear stresses can
develop in the casing wall. Experience shows that the risk for shear failure increases within
thick and relatively shallow reservoir sections.
Detailed casing design

Analysis of the stresses and strains in casing set across compacting and decompacting intervals is
complex [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The computer program CASINT [19] has been
developed and experiments have been carried out by Shell Research for this purpose.
The program CASINT comprises two modules. The first, CASINT1, is a one- dimensional program
that calculates axial stresses and strains in a homogeneous casing string. The only external
loading considered is the (vertical) compaction of the reservoir. Lateral loadings (perpendicular to
the axis of the wellbore), nor bending moments in deviated casings are considered. The modelled
casing can have any deviation.
The second module, CASINT2, determines analytically the onset of buckling due to axial loads and
internal pressure loads for a given external lateral support.
As a result, CASINT can, for a given casing scheme, a given compaction profile, and a given set of
mechanical and geometrical data, determine when and where casing buckling will be initiated.
Operational techniques
It can be shown that at typical casing depths and stress conditions, axial deformation of the casing
cannot be avoided. Therefore, solutions must be designed to accommodate it with a minimisation
of associated damage. The concept common to most of these techniques is to localise axial casing
deformation in given zones, which will by design not undergo severe damage. The deformation of
the remaining length of casing is therefore limited. Proposed techniques involve sliding couplings,
partly corrugated casing joints, and external sleeves sliding along the casing [20]. These solutions
add operational constraints and no field evidence of successful implementation has yet been
reported.
With regard to bending, careful selection of well trajectory offers the best solution. However, if
severe doglegs can not be avoided, the program STUCK [21] offers a tool to quantify the ability to
run the next work string or casing, taking into account bending stiffness.
Ovalisation can either be accommodated by more flexible casing and larger clearance or resisted
by stronger casing. In the latter case the casing should be designed for full overburden load, as in
the case for squeezing salts.
18.9.1
References
[1]
Hansen, K.S., Mody, F.K. and Shew, R.D.

Compaction subsidence estimates and rock properties, Canyon
Block 194, Cognac field, Mississippi, USA
EP 92-1624
[2]
Bonnie, J.H.M., KSEPL
Deep compaction monitoring: a scouting study for alternative techniques
EP 91-2078
[3]
Veeken, C.A.M. and Wahleitner, J.P., BRC
Casing deformation in a compaction reservoir
BRC 88-92
[4]
Wahleithner, J.P. and Young, L.M., BRC
Casing damage study for the Cognac field
BRC 104-92
[5]
Veeken, C.A.M.
Review of Tyra gas field chalk production, offshore Denmark
EP 92-0927
[6]
Wahleithner, J.P., BRC
Testing of LTC connections in axial compression
BRC 101-92
[7]
Fokker, P.A., KSEPL
The modelling of deviated wells in compacting areas
RKSR.90.024
[8]
Marchina, P.J.M., KSEPL
Casing integrity in the Tyra fields offshore Denmark
EP 92-1554
[9]
Kenter, C.J., Fokker, P.A., Marchina, P.J.M., Klever, F.J. and Quint, E.N.M.,
KSEPL
Casing integrity in compacting reservoirs
RKRS.92.DW1
[10] Cernocky, E.P., BRC
Casing compaction design: Development of guidelines for the ability of casing to resist
cross-section deformation under non-uniform transverse load and pressure acting on the
cross-section
EP 87-2172
[11] Cernocky, E.P., BRC
Casing compaction design: Development and calibration of a finite element model of
casing cross-section subjected to non-uniform transverse loads
EP 88-0034
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
Cernocky, E.P., BRC

Casing compaction design: Influence of internal and external fluid pressures on the crosssectional deformation of casing subjected to non- uniform transverse loads
EP 88-1070
Cernocky, E.P. and Scholibo, F.C., BRC
Status of research into casing design for compacting reservoirs
BRC-2422
Cernocky, E.P., BRC
Casing compaction design: Crushing resistance of casing in the presence of axial tensile
and compressive loads
EP 90-3172
Peterson, J.L.
Casing design: Deformation considerations and transverse loading design
recommendations
EP 91-0003
Cernocky, E.P., Nordgren, R.P. and Scholibo, F.C., BRC

Interim guidelines for Cognac casing design, Canyon field, Mississippi, USA
EP 87-1779
Maersk Olie og Gas A/S
Study of perforating damage on chalk formations
EP 92-1886
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
18.10
Cernocky, E.P., Mai, H. and Wong, G.K., BRC

Influence of perforation holes on the ability of casing to resist non- uniform, transverse
point loads induced by formation compaction
EP 87-2028
User Manual and background theory to the program CASINT
EP 92-1961
Wicks, M., WRC
Physical and mathematical modelling of the fluid flow characteristics of a casing bellows
for project Auger
WRC-2252
Cernocky, E.P., Paslay, P.R., Sims, N.L. and Wahleithner, J.P., BRC
The computer program STUCK. a model to quantitatively estimate the ability to run a work
string into a well with kinked casing or to run a casing into a well with a severe dogleg Explanation and User Manual
EP 92-1507
Deep-water well
Deepwater wells present two problems for the casing designer, casing setting depth, and
environmental loading above the seabed.
Firstly, these environments have lower fracture gradients than equivalent depths for land wells, or
offshore wells in shallow water. As the water depth increases, fracture gradients are significantly
different, particularly in the shallow sections of the well. Selection of casing setting depths must
take into account these reduced fracture gradients [1,2].
Secondly, current and wave loading can result in direct and indirect loading on the marine
conductor, subsea wellhead system and foundation pile [3,4]. Generated fatigue loads should be
addressed in dose cooperation with the Structural Engineering Department.
Since it is not desirable to cement the conductor casing-marine conductor annulus above seabed,
a centralisation program will be required which also takes into account the transfer of loading
between conductor casing and marine conductor. Also here the Structural Engineering
Department should assist.
18.10.1 References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
SIPM, EP/29
Effect of abnormal pore pressure on deepwater drilling
EP-47228
Merer, Y. and Assen, G.
1984 deepwater campaign, operations review well Z2-lx and well Kn-lx, offshore Brunei,
N.W. Borneo
EP-62152
Novacek, L.L.
Exploratory drilling experience with moored semi submersibles in 1100 ft deep water
EP-48196
Rhind, P.B.
Performance of the Petrel - a dynamically positioned drillship drilling on wells 206 / 2-1 and
206 / 2- la, N.W. of the Shetlands Isles, Summer 1980
EP-54256
18.11
Gas-lift well
Casing designs for wells in which gas-lift completions are to be installed are based upon different
design load cases from standard wells [1,2]. They have to be treated differently from standard
wells in two respects:
(i)
definition of the possible pressure profiles within the "live" tubing/production casing annulus
(A-annulus).
(ii)
design of the intermediate casing to withstand the consequences of a leak in the production
casing for subsea wells.
A-annulus pressure profiles for the production phase should be constructed, in close cooperation
with the Production Technologist, for the following production-mode cases [3,4]:
-
kick-off;
gas lift;
closed in, and assuming a leaking gas lift valve;
evacuation to unpressured injection gas.
Casing design for the drilling phase is based on the standard design criteria.
18.11.1 References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
de Meijer, T.
Well Engineering Information Note 177:
Subsea Development Casing Design
EP 92-1684
Hombroek, J.A.R., Hartog, J.J., Carmona da Mota, A.L. and Gresham, J.S.
Maraven, Lagunillas, Maracaibo, Venezuela: lake well completions review
EP-6071
Nederveen, N. and Overboom, G.R., KSEPL
Heat transfer calculations in TEMPEST for gas-lifted and dual string production wells
EP 90-2942
Oudeman, P., KSEPL
TEMPEST: a computer program for the prediction of well temperature and pressure
profiles for production, injection, dual string, and artificial lift wells - User Manual 1990
version
EP 90-3023
19.0
Operational aspects
19.1
Introduction
Once the casing design has been completed, the casing still has to be purchased, transported,
installed and monitored (see Figure O-1). During each of these stages, correct procedures and
practices must be implemented to ensure that the capability of the casing to perform its designated
functions is not reduced. Early awareness of these considerations during the design phase is
important and can have a substantial impact on overall well costs.
Technological advances, meanwhile, have led to improvements in the safety and efficiency of
casing-handling operations.
This chapter therefore examines the following post-design aspects:
-
ordering casing;
storage, handling and transport of casing;
preparation of casing prior to running;
running and testing casing;
condition monitoring of installed casing.
It should be emphasised that this chapter is not intended as an operational manual, nor as a
replacement for Opco-specific operation manuals addressing these issues. It serves mainly to
increase awareness of available reports and manuals, and to highlight areas where improvements
can be made by adding to specifications and introducing new equipment or techniques.
19.2
Ordering casing
i)
Timing
Casing is one of the most critical well consumables with respect to timing. Total elapsed
time for procurement of Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTGs) varies from 6-8 months. This
includes tendering procedures, placing of the purchase order, manufacturing and delivery
to the required location.
Normal delivery time from a mill once an order has been placed is in general, 3-4 months
far API materials J55 and K55, 4-5 months for materials N80, L80, P110, and Q125, and
six months for C95. Casing with premium connections requires approximately two weeks
more than API connections. Group Materials can provide up-to-date information on
delivery times [1].
In case required delivery times cannot be met by the mills, the following options are
available:
-
order from a stockist (but selection may be limited and the cost higher);
borrow from other Opcos or operators;
use surplus of other Opcos - Group Materials can provide details of available surplus
[2].
FIGURE O-1: SEQUENCE AND LOCATION OF CASING-RELATED OPERATIONS
SIPM MAIP/12, The Hague have agreements with Japanese and European mills for
Opcos in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. These agreements provide security of
supply by guaranteeing a maximum delivery time of 3-4 months, a maximum price and
flexibility in terms of allowing late changes to order specifications. For other Opcos,
MAIP/12 tenders worldwide.
ii)
Vendor selection
Four criteria have to be met by vendors, i.e.:
- commercially attractive;
- quality management system as per ISO 9001;
- technically acceptable to manufacture OCTGs;
- acceptable delivery performance.
Refer to SIPM MAPC/3, The Hague for vendor information.
iii)
Buying description
Reference should be made to API Specification 5CT [3] and API Standard 5B [4]. These
documents contain specifications for casing, tubing and threads and should be referred to
in purchase orders. Additional information can be found in a specially prepared DEN [5].
API Specification 5CT also includes suggestions for the minimum contents of a casing
purchase order (with references to the appropriate sections of the Specification) together
with a list of optional specifications which may be selected. Optional specifications are
available in Specification 5CT for such areas as pipe coatings, drift requirements,
hydrostatic test pressures and thread protectors. Refer to the specification for a full list of
options.
Materials departments within the Opcos and Group Materials in SIPM use standard buying
descriptions consisting of the basic pipe and thread requirements in accordance with
Specification 5CT and Standard 5B, together with selected options from those documents.
Operational requirements should also be addressed during preparation of the buying
description as described below.
Where handling and storage arrangements permit, API "long" casing (Range 3) should be
specified to minimise the number of connections, the running time and, as a consequence,
the overall cost of a casing string. Note that API Specification 5CT gives the maximum
allowable length of Range 3 casing as 48 ft. In certain cases pipe of this length may cause
handling and transport difficulties and transport surcharges may be imposed. Under such
circumstances a maximum Range 3 length of 45 ft is often specified in the purchase order.
7
3
In order to eliminate the need for odd bit sizes (e.g. 5 /8 in, 8 /8 in and 12 in), " alternate
drift" casing should be specified whenever possible. Standard drift sizes are given in API
Specification 5CT Section 5, while sizes for alternate drift casing are given in Section 6.
Pipe which is drifted with the larger mandrels should then be marked as such as in
accordance with Section 10 of the same document.
At the time of ordering it should be checked that all eventual components of the casing
string are dimensionally compatible with the selected pipe and couplings. It may be
necessary to specify smaller dimensional tolerances than are given in API Specification
5CT in order to ensure compatibility and sealability, specially for premium connections. For
example, API Specification 5CT cites pipe body outside diameter tolerances as +1.0%/0.5%. Reduction of the pipe body tolerances to +0.75%/-0.5% will eliminate these
problems [5] and improves the collapse load bearing capacity.
It should also be ensured that, where necessary, these components are at least as strong
as the weaker of the pipe or the connections [6,7,8,9,10,11]. Such components include
pup joints, crossovers, casing hangers, liner hangers, tie-back packers, float equipment
and multi-stage cementing equipment. A minimum check on these components should
include:
-
through bore;
body and coupling OD;
tensile, collapse and burst rating;
material specification;
thread type;
temperature rating.
Suppliers of accessories (e.g. float equipment) should be encouraged to purchase
threaded casing and pup joints for use in their products direct from the mill which supplied
the casing to Shell. Otherwise, the cost of cutting threads on the finished product is often
excessive.
Drift mandrels for casing as set out in API Specification 5CT, are a minimum 12 in
(0.3048 m) in length, whereas those for tubing are a minimum 42 in (1.0668 m) in length.
It should be noted that this is based on API nomenclature where tubulars having a body
outer diameter off less than 4 in (0.1143 m) are referred to as tubing and larger sizes
are termed casing. In Shell's worldwide operations however, 5 in (0.1397 m) and 7 in
(0.1778 m) OD pipe is often used as tubing and pipe having an OD of 4 in (0.1143 m)
or less may be used as casing in slimhole drilling. Thus, drifting practices should be
based on the application of the tubular rather than purely on size. Casing drift mandrels
should ideally be at least 36 in (0.9144 m) in length to confirm passage for long full-bore
tools [12].
It should be ensured that the connection thread is concentric with the pipe internal
diameter. One way to achieve this is to specify that the machine tool chuck is placed on
the internal diameter of the pipe body when cutting the thread.
19.3
Storage, handling and transport

The following is taken from the Group Materials document Guide to Materials Administration [13].
Particular reference should be made to Chapter 10 "Warehouse and Yard Operations".
i)
Storage
The design of pipe racks is largely dependent on local conditions, such as the required
load bearing capacity and the degree of permanency.
Racks can be made with pipe supports (known as stringers) set on concrete, or on large
wooden bases provided with recesses to accommodate the stringers. They should be
spaced in such a way as to adequately support the longest as well as the shortest joint in
stock. This requires a spacing of around 6.5 ft (2 m) which allows 20 ft (6.1 in) joints to be
stared on two stringers and 40 ft (12.2 in) joints on four stringers. For temporary stringers
timber is often used. The dimensions will depend on the soil bearing capacities but 10 x 10
in (25 cm x 25 cm) is generally sufficient.
Casing should be stacked with separators between layers. Tubulars should never be
nested. Separators in successive layers should be vertically in line to avoid bending
moments on the pipes. As separators, timber of around 2 x 3 in (5 x 7.5 cm) can be used
with a wedge at both ends. The use of fresh timber should be avoided as the moisture in
the timber is squeezed out by the weight of the tubulars causes local corrosion and pitting
of the casing in contact with the separators.
Where casing is stored for long periods in wet climates, it is advisable to separate the
joints on the racks to allow for drainage. This is achieved by use of a plastic wedge or Tpiece. Furthermore, the rack should be tilted towards the pin-end to enhance self drainage
(open-ended thread protectors should be used in this instance).
In determining space requirements for casing, the following points are to be considered:
-
height of stack;
diameter of casing (including coupling);
range of casing and total footage;
size of pipe racks;
working space.
In accordance with API Recommended Practice RP 5Cl [14], Section 3, the height of the
stack should not exceed 10 ft (3 in) including the pipe rack. If the height of the rack above
the ground is taken to be 20 in (0.5 m) then the maximum height of casing on the rack
should not exceed 8 ft (2.5 m). In case of temporary storage where casing is stacked on the
ground, it is even more advisable for safety purposes, to limit the height of the stack.
The length of each pipe rack should be sufficient to accommodate Range 3 tubulars. The
width of the rack can vary, but for the limited quantity of each type of casing held in stock,
the width should not be more than 40 ft (12 m) nor less than 20 ft (6 m).
A lane not less than 20 ft (6 m) wide should be allowed on either side of the racks for
transport and handling operations, with a space of approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) between
racks.
For small quantities, particularly small diameter casing/tubing it is impractical to build a
stack to the maximum height. Here the stacking height must be reduced and the stack
width increased in proportion. (A rough guide is that the height of tubulars in a stack should
not exceed the base width). Therefore when planning pipe racks, allowance must be made
for small quantities which require more space than the table indicates.
ii)
Preservation
The corrosivity of the atmosphere depends on the degree of contamination which can
vary considerably from place to place even though they may only be a few hundred
metres apart. Significant corrosion occurs if the air is polluted. The usual contaminants
are the result of domestic and industrial combustion and when close to the sea, wind
borne salt. The presence of moisture alone, even prolonged rain, will not cause
significant corrosion of steel. Sand and dirt collecting on steel can increase corrosion by
holding contaminants on the surface.
Cost should be taken into account when choosing a preservative. Some types are
expensive and can only be justified by the high cost or critical nature of the material to be
protected. It does not always follow that the most expensive method of preservation is the
most suitable.
There are publications on methods of preservation, and systems change from time to
time as new products become available or new demands occur. In this section only the
broad outlines will be touched upon. Detailed information is available from SIPC [15].
a)
Pipe body
Unless otherwise requested at the time of purchase, casing is ordered in
accordance with API Specification 5CT and therefore the pipe body will have a
mill coating. The purpose of the mill coating is to protect the casing from rusting
in transit. Since API is not specific in this respect, the type and quality of these
coatings vary as does the length of time the coatings gives protection in storage.
If casing is to remain in storage for a long period, the mill coating could be
supplemented or the casing completely cleaned from the mill coat and re-coated.
The internal and external surfaces of production tubulars may be grit blasted and
then re-coated prior to storage. This cleaning minimises any loose material that
might cause problems during completion, the operation or workover of the well.
There is evidence to suggest that mill coatings and other applied coatings affect
the signals from acoustic cement evaluation devices such as CBL, CET, and SBT
(Atlas Wireline's Segmented Bond Tool) [16]. The log will indicate weak or even
no cement bond when this is not in fact the case. There is also some evidence
that the presence of an external coating might adversely affect the actual
hydraulic bond [16]. As a result, for casings where it is important to be able to
detect the quality of the cement bond accurately, all mill coating should be
removed by grit blasting but no coating should then be applied unless necessary
for corrosion purposes. Where coatings are applied, this fact should be recorded
on the headers of cement bond logs.
Whenever grit blasting is carried out, extreme care should be taken to ensure
that the proper thread protectors are fitted to prevent damage to the threaded
connections during the blasting operation.
Where internal surface coating is required, the use of coatings which give a thick
film should be avoided because of potential problems running wireline tools.
Particular care is required to prevent the corrosion of notch-sensitive casing such
as C95 and P110. If storage for more than three months is foreseen, unless
adequately coated when delivered, casing of these grades should be cleaned
and coated internally and externally.
As already mentioned thorough cleaning is essential for effective conservation
and all scale, rust, dirt, oil and grease should be removed before any coating is
applied. If any deposits on or in the tubulars have contained salts, such as from
sea water spray during shipment, the surfaces should be washed with fresh
water and then dried.
Recommended storage coatings for internal and external casing surfaces are
given below.
Pipe body storage compound
Internal
External
:
:
Blacksmith CP 914
Agma 273
Agma 865
Agma 5601
Shell Ensis HP
Several external coatings have been identified as acceptable only provided that
the tubulars are covered (with a tarpaulin). These are:
b)
Malacote 400
Oil Centre Research Inc. 911
Shell Ensis MD
Threaded connections
Recommended storage compounds for thread corrosion protection are given
below [17,18]. Whilst in storage, thread protectors should be removed from time
to time to check that the thread compound is in good condition. If in doubt,
washing, brushing and re-application of the compound should be carried out.
Thread storage compound
Shell Rhodina Grease 2
Geveko Mercasol 630
Jet Marine Imperator 1078
Kendex OCTG corrosion inhibitor
TSC thread storage compound
Cortec VCl-369
Rust Vetco heavy
RD5
It should be noted that a storage compound is not to be used as a running
compound and that a running compound is not to be used as a storage
compound [18,19].
There are hybrid compounds available which can be used for both storage and
running. The recommended products are:
Hybrid compound
Kendex Enviro Seal
Mercasol 633 SR Multimake White
Most running compounds contain chemicals that are harmful to the environment
such as lead, copper, zinc, arsenic, antimony and molybdenum disulphide. The
Drilling Engineering Association (Europe) has carried out research into metal-free
compounds, which can be used for both storage and running [17]. See Chapter
on Connections for details.
iii)
Handling in the pipeyard

Reference should be made to the Guide to Materials Administration [13], Chapter 10,
"Warehouse and Yard Operations".
iv)
Transportation
Road
Always ensure that tubular goods are adequately secured, irrespective of how short the
journey may be.
Forces are generated on the load when a vehicle brakes, accelerates, changes direction
or crosses road undulations. These forces are frequently greater than the frictional
restraint between load and platform which means that all loads must be secured by a
restraining device. The device must be sufficient to withstand a force equal to not less than
the total weight of the load forward and half of the weight of the load backwards and
sideways.
The design and construction of anchorage points through which the securing device can
be attached must allow twice the specified capacity acting in any direction. Anchorage
points must be firmly attacked to the chassis or to a metal cross member or outrigger and
where practical with doubling plates.
Prior to moving off with the loaded vehicle all tensioning devices should be checked by the
driver and after a few miles the lashings should again be checked, thereafter at regular
intervals during the journey.
Water
The stowage and transportation of casing by marine craft will be the sole responsibility of
the Master. The safe handling of tubulars to/from the vessel will follow closely the
guidelines indicated above.
It is good operating practice to ensure that casing, where possible, be bundled in
preparation for handling offshore. When bundled the slings are doubled wrapped and
secured with a bulldog grip and a plastic tie-wrap. The bulldog stops the loops of the sling
round the bundle from becoming loose during transit, the tie-wrap is an extra precaution to
stop the bulldog from slipping.
The reason why the joints are bundled in this way is in case there is a snatch- lift, i.e. while
the load is being unloaded from the vessel, the vessel heaves and dips due to wave action
leaving the load to be supported by the crane suddenly, the load will be secure and joints
will not become loose and fall.
v)
Identification
Electronic tagging of casing is a development that will improve pipe identification and
inventory control. This involves attaching to the casing a small passive electronic chip
which has a unique identity number. Against that number the user can store any
information he chooses, e.g. pipe dimensions, material grade, date of manufacture, thread
inspection records.
Electronic tagging devices are under development by, among others, Den-Con Tool
Company of Oklahoma, USA, and Eur-Tra of The Netherlands.
vi)
Low-temperature environments
Low ambient temperatures substantially reduce the size of the flaw necessary to cause
failure. The following procedures, while being applicable in all circumstances, are
particularly important for low temperature environments:
-
Do not drop, bend, or scratch the pipe. If lengths of pipe have to be forcibly separated
due to ice accumulation, take care not to scar the metal surface.
Thread protectors should be removed without hammering or shock loading.
Extra precautions should be taken when stabbing the pipe, since low temperatures
reduce the impact resistance of the metal.
Box and pin should be of equal temperature to ensure proper make-up. Use Arctic
grade thread lubricant.
19.4
Preparation for running

Proper preparation of casing before running serves two purposes [17]. Firstly it should ensure that
the pipe body and threads are adequately protected from possible damage when being moved to
the drill floor. Secondly, the preparation should be such that handling of the casing on the drill
floor (and hence the time to run the casing) is kept to an absolute minimum.
These goals can be achieved by use of the following equipment and procedures:
a)
Identification and measurement

Electronic tagging will eliminate the need for casing length measurement at the wellsite.
Numbering of each joint with paint will still be necessary, however, to enable quick visual
identification.
b)
Bucking units
These should be used in the pipe yard or at the wellsite to make up casing accessories
such as float collars which are time consuming to install at the rotary table.
c)
Cleaning of threads
Prior to inspection of the casing threads, the storage compound should be fully removed
from the threads using fast drying solvents. The threads should then be blowdried,
making sure no excess solvent is left on the threads.
Diesel should not be used as a cleaning agent. The subsequently applied dope may be
contaminated and will have difficulty adhering to a surface cleaned by diesel.
Furthermore working with diesel can be detrimental to health by contact and inhalation of
the fumes. Also, diesel should be disposed of in a controlled environmentally friendly
way.
Hybrid (i.e. multi-purpose) thread compounds eliminate the need for this cleaning
process.
d)
Inspection
With the casing still on the pipe rack, the threads should be inspected for damage to the
thread itself or to the sealing area [20].
While the casing is being run, an inspection party could be considered to check that the
casing is run according to approved practice, including whether the coupling has moved
during make-up (by reference to a pre-marked scribe line) and whether the torque-turn
graph is within specification.
All inspection could be performed by an independent quality control surveyor, often a third
party [21].
e)
Dope applicators
To eliminate the need to manually apply thread running/sealing compound (dope) at the
drillfloor and to improve the quality (and quantity) of its application, automatic dope
applicators can be used while the casing is still on the pipe rack.
Portable equipment, such as Weatherford's Accukote Applicator [22], can be used to apply
lubricant to the box thread of pipe ranging from 2 3/8 in (0.0603 m) to 20 in (0.5080 m)
O.D. As well as saving time, such a method offers the following additional advantages:
-
accurate control of the volume applied and thus reduction of downhole contamination
by internal extrusion;
uniformity of application (i.e. not operator dependent);
lubricant temperature can be controlled for colder climates, making it easier to apply;
filtering mechanisms ensure lubricant consistency and cleanliness.
f)
Thread running compounds

The recommended running compounds to be applied to the threaded connections are
listed below [17,18]. All conform to API Bull. 5A2 [19].
Running compound
Calcium hydroxy stearate grease base
Aluminium stearate grease base
Calcium stearate grease base
Thread Kote No. 706
It should be noted that a running compound is not to be used as a storage compound and
that a storage compound is not to be used as a running compound.
Hybrid compounds which can be used for both storage and running do exist. The
recommended compounds are:
Hybrid compound
Kendex Enviro Seal
Mercasol 633 SR Multi make White
No distinction is currently made between the type of connection (premium, buttress, API
round) in selecting thread running compounds.
Most running compounds contain chemicals that are harmful to the environment such as
lead, copper, zinc, arsenic, antimony and molybdenum in disulphide. The Drilling
Engineering Association (Europe) has carried out research into metal-free compounds,
which can be used for both storage and running [17]. See Chapter on Connections for
details.
g)
Thread protectors for handling casing

The basic function of a thread protector is to protect threads and seals against impact
loading and corrosion.
Thread protectors can be divided into two types:
Threaded or transit protector
This type of protector, for both pin and box, can be used from the mill up to the moment
the joint is laid down on the pipe rack, where it is taken off to allow removal of the storage
compound. Most of these heavy-duty type of connectors are composed of a moulded
polymer body reinforced with a cylindrical steel insert. However they can also consist of
100% polymers.
Shell Research, Rijswijk, and Exxon Production Research (among others) have
performed evaluations of such commercially available thread protectors [23,24].
In general, the installation procedures for these protectors, as stated by the
manufacturers, are poorly defined. A clear description is of particular importance since
proper functioning of a protector is closely allied to the way it is fitted on the pipe end.
Figures for the required installation torque, are available from some manufacturers, whilst
from others no figures are available but simply definitions like: "handtight followed by a
sudden tightening with a steel bar".
Note that transit protectors are guaranteed to protect only individual lengths during
movement. Protection is not guaranteed, when joints are bundled together, since the
applied impact load experienced by the protector on a single protruding joint will be
considerably greater.
Handling or non-threaded protector

The non-threaded protector, also called handling protector, is installed on the pin prior to
lifting the joint up to the drillfloor. In most cases it is either a clamp-on type or an inflatable
type.
Clamp-on style protectors designed for API connections can cause seal area damage
when used for premium connections. The operating mechanism can contribute to seal
area damage if the protector is incorrectly installed.
A recommended alternative protector which has been field proven is the Klepo Inflatable
Thread protector. This protector, available in sizes from 2 3/8 in (0.0603 m) to 30 in
(0.7620 m) pipe, is a solid circular ring manufactured from polyurethane. It is inflated
using rig air supply once it has been installed over the pin end threads. The protector
then provides a uniform 360 degrees grip and is independent of thread type. Once the
joint is ready for stabbing, the protector is deflated and removed [25,26].
h)
Centralisers
A11 centralisers must be qualified by test for the application in question [27-30].
Centralisers should be installed while the casing is on the pipe rack whenever possible.
A development by Weatherford in the area of casing centralisation are centralisers which
can be activated once they are downhole. This can be achieved either by pressure,
temperature or chemical activation. These centralisers will reduce drag forces while the
casing is being run, will pass through casing spiders, will prevent damage to wellheads,
but will still provide centralisation of the casing during cementing.
i)
Float equipment
Float equipment should always be qualified by test prior to use [11,31-371.
For situations where tubulars can be run without a BOP, automatic-fill float equipment
may be used. This equipment is available in casing sizes from 4 in to 20 in and allows
the casing to be filled from below while being run. Conversion from the "open"
configuration to conventional mode is achieved (depending on the type) either by
dropping a ball or by circulating at a predetermined rate.
j)
Magnetised casing joints

Magnetised joints of casing, placed at the shoe, have been identified by Shell Research,
Rijswijk, as increasing the range of passive homing-in tools used in relief well drilling [383
40]. For casing ODs from 4 in (0.1143 m) to 13 /8 in (0,3397 m) detection ranges
between 75 and 140 ft (23 to 42 m) can be obtained with regular electronic magnetic
surveying tools. Especially for slimhole projects artificial magnetisation is required to keep
the option of magnetostatic homing-in.
The magnetising procedure can be carried out by preparing the casing in a shop or on
site before it is run. Tuboscope offer these services.
Tests have shown that the accuracy of neither logging tools nor surveying tools is
adversely affected by running through one or two magnetised casing joints. However, the
azimuth accuracy of some gyrotools may be affected when they perform their initial
North-alignment downhole in close proximity of these joints. An along-hole distance of
130 ft ( 40 m) to the nearest pole is regarded a safe spacing.
19.5
Running and testing

To ensure that the casing is run efficiently to the correct depth and in the desired condition, use of
the following equipment and techniques should be considered in the design phase [17]:
a)
Rig hoisting capacity

The casing designer should be aware of the hoist capacity of the rig which is to drill the
well. Where deep, heavy strings are required, it may be necessary to set a liner and tieback instead of a complete string. Alternatively, the drilling sequence may be rearranged
to allow the use of a larger rig for a particular well. Floating devices, different from the float
shoe/collar, could be considered. However, thorough evaluation of these tools and their
applications is required in the design phase.
b)
Handling
Handling of casing between pipe deck and drillfloor should be carried out in accordance
with the EP Safety Manual [41].
Particular care should be taken when handling casing hangers and housings with pup
joints above and below, that the lifting point is above the centre of gravity. This ensures
that the load is stable when lifted.
Some service companies have developed in-house tubular handling and running manuals
[42].
c)
Safety clamp
The traditional type of safety clamp, mainly used when running extreme line casing,
requires manual tightening of a torque nut - invariably using a sledge hammer. This
technique inevitably leads to variations in the amount of "set" taken by the clamp and can
be time consuming.
The Clamp Master from Bros Services uses a hydraulic piston instead of the torque nut
which ensures that the clamp is always tightened to the same degree. It is also quicker,
safer (since no hammering is required), requires fewer personnel and reduces the risk of
dropping tools downhole.
d)
Casing hand slips and casing spider

Poorly fitting slips or bushings could cause severe damage to the casing which may not be
noticed while running. Make sure this is thoroughly checked at the early stages of the job.
Before use check whether:
- the size of the slip assembly matches the casing OD;
- there are sufficient segments to grip the casing all around;
- all dies are present;
- all segments are in full contact with the casing.
e)
Single joint weight compensator

Positioning of the pin in the box during make-up is critical. If no weight is transferred to the
box, make-up cannot take place. If too much weight is transferred, stabbing and alignment
becomes difficult and galling may occur due to high contact loads. It is extremely difficult
for the driller to achieve accurate weight transfer with the standard rig hoisting system. The
same problems also apply to connection break-out.
Although the susceptibility of connections to stabbing damage and galling can be
minimised in the connection design process, controlled and accurate weight transfer is the
key to successful make-up.
By the installation of a compensating device between the rig's travelling block and the
single joint elevator, the weight of the pipe is neutralised and controlled downward
penetration of the pipe is possible during make-up.
This is highly recommended for both make-up and break-out of premium connections
and/or corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) tubulars.
Casing service companies can supply single joint compensators in different weight ranges
to cover all casing sizes.
f)
Multi-size rig tongs

Automatic rig tongs are now available which can make up and break out drill pipe, drill
collars, casing and tubing in one machine. The size range is 2 3/8 in (0.0603 m) to 21 in
(0.5334 m), and torques of up to 140,000 ft.lbs (189,805 Nm) are possible. Associated
computer equipment monitors and records each make-up.
One example is the Weatherford Torque Wrenching Machine.
g)
Non-marking jaws
In corrosive operating environments where defects or stress concentrations in the casing
may have catastrophic consequences, the use of non-marking jaws should be considered,
not only on the rig floor (tongs, slips, elevators) but also in the threading plant.
Such jaws, based on elastomers, are available from Weatherford in sizes up to 7 in
(0.1778 m) casing.
Frank's International and Weatherford can supply power tongs which grip the entire
circumference of the pipe by means of fluid pressure applied to a non-metallic gripping
surface. As a result, the tubular surface is not penetrated, and stress concentrations are
avoided.
Low stress tong dies are available from, amongst others, Cousino (USA).
h)
Connection make-up torque

Reference should be made to Shell Research, Rijswijk, connection qualification tests for
selection of optimum make-up torque to allow for adequate sealing capability [17]. This
torque is often significantly different from those quoted by manufacturers. It should also be
noted that make-up torque will vary with different thread compounds and may also vary for
different manufacturing batches of the same compound (see Chapter L on Connections).
The correct make-up of any threaded connection cannot, however, be judged on torque
alone. Correct make-up torque can be reached under a variety of unacceptable
circumstances such as crossed, dirty, or galled threads. Surface finish variations may also
influence the required torque. It is important that adequate pin penetration into the box is
achieved to assure design stress levels are achieved in the connection. As a result,
torque-turn data are published by the connection manufacturers and can be compared
with that measured in the field using portable equipment (e.g. Weatherford JAM system).
These data are usually based on the use of an API 5A2 formulated compound. The use of
a thread compound other than this requires the use of a correction factor to accommodate
the differences in friction coefficient. Critical on-site analysis of torque-turn graphs is, at
present, seen as the best practical means of identifying potentially leaking connections
before they are run into the hole.
Even with premium seal connections incorporating a torque shoulder, in which final torque
is a reasonable indicator of adequate seal pressure, torque- turn measuring equipment is
recommended because of the accuracy of the torque gauge.
i)
Soft-torque tongs (from Camco/Bilco or Frank's International) and/or Weatherford's A-QTork system are recommended to prevent overtorque due to the inertia of the rotating
pipe/tong mass.
Connection leak testing
Field leak detection equipment is mainly used while running tubing, although it would also
be highly applicable to production casing in gaslift wells. Evidence to date concludes that
gas-based leak detection tools, which use a spectrometer to detect the leak, work better
than the hydrostatic pressure leak detection tools [43,44].
Examples of such gas-based tools are the HOLD and Supra HOLD, both manufactured by
Weatherford [45].
The HOLD system works with a gas mixture of 99% Nitrogen and 1% Helium. It requires a
considerable amount of gas and strict safety measures. The SUPRA HOLD uses a small
volume of pure Helium gas. Water is used to pre- pressure up the system, after which
Helium is used to attain the required test pressure. The advantage of the SUPRA over the
older HOLD system is that as less gas required, it is safer and more sensitive. A pressure
test can be performed on the connection from both sides, i.e. from the inside to the
outside, or from the outside to the inside.
Field leak detection equipment may not be capable of detecting all leaking connections
within a reasonable period of time, since it may take a considerable amount of time for the
gas to percolate through the running compound trapped between the threads. The
response time can be improved by limiting the quantity of thread compound applied to the
connections but this increases the risk of galling and may result in high shouldering
torques.
The use of ultrasonic measurements of contact stresses to assess the sealing integrity of
connections in the field is being investigated. A field trial on a prototype tool was
successful, although further work is necessary. The tool was developed to be able to
check Finite Element Analysis stress predictions.
j)
It is based on the fact that the amplitude of an ultrasonic beam reflected from an interface
is dependent on the contact pressure at that interface [46].
Polymeric seals
k)
Connections that incorporate polymeric seals will require a high degree of on-site
supervision of the installation procedures to ensure that the seal is present, clean and
undamaged [47].
Mill-end leakages
The major cause of mill-end leakage appears to be improper make up at the mill as
indicated by the movement of the mill-end during field connection make-up. This can be
detected by observing a scribe line marked across the coupling/pipe body interface. The
movement causes an unfavourable redistribution of the thread compound solids which
were originally plated on the threads when the mill installed the couplings. Field tests
indicate that floating on the coupling, with make-up occurring simultaneously at both ends
of the coupling, eliminates the tendency for leakage to occur on the mill- end, provided
fresh thread compound is used [48,49]. This, however, necessitates the use of slip-type
elevators and safety clamps rather than collar elevators when lowering the string for the
next connection.
API Specification 5CT recognises the leakage problem encountered with mill- installed
couplings, and states that cleaning and inspecting threads and applying fresh thread
compound before using the pipe results in less chance of thread leakage. These
standards make provision for ordering API tubular goods with couplings screwed on hand
tight or shipped separately from the pipe. However, it is recommended that casing the
ordered with mill-installed couplings; but if any movement of the coupling is observed
during field make-up, the connection should be backed out, cleaned, re-doped and remade.
l)
Casing running speeds

Use should be made of swab/surge calculations to determine the maximum allowable
running/pulling speeds. Note that swab and surge pressures are exerted upon the
formation irrespective of the location of the casing being run relative to the previous shoe.
This means that care should be taken even when still inside cased hole.
Since shock load calculations used in designing the string are based on typical running
speeds, it may be necessary to run casing slowly to reduce these potential loads.
m)
Drifting casing while running

Although not always recommended, when making up connections to torque values
significantly greater than the manufacturers recommended figures, a check should be
made for reduction of internal diameter at the connections.
This can be achieved by vertically drifting the casing after (for example) every ten
connections.
Since the API casing drift is short 6-12 in (0.1524-0.3048 m), relative to some downhole
tools, it can be useful to construct a long dummy tool, 42 in (1.0668 in), in aluminium for
drifting purposes.
n)
Circulating devices
For rigs with top drive, the TAM or La Fleur casing circulating packers allow casing to be
circulated through tight sections of open hole without the use of a circulating head. It is
made up to the top drive via a drill pipe pup joint. As each casing joint is made up, the
packer is stabbed into the top of the joint as the elevators are lowered. This casing is filled
through the uninflated packer as the joint is lowered. At tight sections the packer is inflated
to seal to internal diameter of the casing and circulation can then be established. The
packer can later be returned to filling mode if desired.
For rigs without top drive, a Kwik Koupler circulating head is available from Baker Oil Tools
which uses a seal pack-off unit to seal over the casing collar. (Similar equipment is
available from other companies such as Halliburton and Dowell Schlumberger). This
simplifies installation compared to threaded connection circulating heads and minimises
stoppage time. This tool can also be used as a cement head. It is available in sizes
ranging from 2 3/8 in (0.0603 in) to 13 3/8 in (0.3397 m).
o)
One-way strings
Use should be made of the DRAGTORQ program within OSCP to predict drag forces
while running in or pulling back a casing string. In some instances, the load required to pull
back the casing, once it reaches a certain depth, will exceed the tensile capacity of the
casing at surface. Such a string is known as a "one-way" string [50].
Drag forces can be minimised by optimising the wellpath design. This will generally be
achieved by use of the lowest possible dogleg severity in build and drop sections. Drilling
equipment and practices should be implemented so as to accurately follow the desired
wellpath and to eliminate severe localised doglegs [51].
p)
Pressure testing
Pressure testing of a cemented casing string (either immediately after installation or during
a workover) will be limited by a number of factors, namely:
i)
the pressure rating of exposed cementing accessories;
ii)
the minimum burst rating of the casing (taking into account any suspected wall
thickness reduction due to wear or-corrosion);
iii)
the tensile load that results from the pressure test;
iv)
the possibility of damaging the cement bond during pressure testing as the casing
expands radially;
v)
the pressure rating of the surface equipment.

Pressure tests for combination strings, where the burst rating and tensile rating vary
along the string, need to be carefully planned and usually require a retrievable
packer to be used to isolate the weaker sections. Also damage to the cement sheath
can be avoided by application of such tools.
q)
Perforating
A good overview of perforating techniques and related operations is given in [63].
It is concluded that a significant part of the explosive energy of a shape charge is
absorbed by the production casing. As a result damage may occur in the form of
deformation and cracks or splits in the casing. Several authors have investigated casing
damage caused by jet perforating, and their main findings and recommendations are
summarised:
- Hollow carrier steel shaped charges cause little casing deformation and no significant
damage.
- Large expendable guns of charge loads >20 gram are likely to cause damage if the
casing is in poor condition and/or unsupported.
- All types of shape charge guns can be used in well cemented casing with minimal
damage.
In cases where it is suspected that the condition of the production casing is poor or the
casing is unsupported, it is recommended to (re)perforate using hollow carrier guns.
19.6
Monitoring the condition of installed casing

Once a casing string has been successfully cemented in place and tested, subsequent operations
must be planned to ensure that the casing remains fit for purpose. Condition monitoring systems
should be implemented to highlight the potential problems so that timely action can be taken.
a)
Drillpipe tool joint hardfacing

Tool joint hardfacing on drillpipe should be designed so as to minimise casing wear (see
Chapter on Casing Wear). Acceptable specifications, hardfacing techniques, and
inspection procedures have been recommended by Shell Research, Rijswijk [52].
Hardfacing specifications are also included in the SQAIR for drillpipe [53].
These requirements should be included in all drilling contracts, and the condition of the
hardfacing should be checked once the rig comes under contract, and at regular intervals
thereafter. Field re-hardfacing is a problem and can now be eliminated by the use of a
new material.
This new hardfacing material - Armacor - has been shown in tests to reduce both casing
wear and drillstring friction relative to current hardfacing materials [54]. The material
forms a very hard, thin, glass-like layer. When the surface is worn away a new layer is
formed, i.e. it is self repairing. The manufacturer is Amtech, based in Houston.
b)
Drillpipe casing protectors

Rubber casing protectors can be placed close to the drillpipe tool joints with the aim of
preventing contact between the tool joint hardfacing and the casing wall. Alternatively,
they can be placed in the middle of the pipe, thus increasing the number of contact points
with the casing wall and hence lowering the contact forces that lead to wear.
Tests and field studies have lead to the understanding that drillpipe protectors will not
prevent severe casing wear when placed next to the tool joint [55-58]. It has been found
that the protectors themselves wear quickly and deform enormously under loading.
Loss of protectors is common, due to the weak gripping mechanism and the
"snowballing" of protectors can lead to well control problems due to annulus pack-off.
They also create complications when closing pipe rams in a well control situation. If the
protector location is not measured, or the protector has slipped, there is a risk of closing
the pipe rams on a protector and deforming the pipe body. The duration of stripping
operations will be extended by the presence of protectors and the task made more
complex if their location is not accurately known.
Hence, in general, drillpipe protectors should not be used for casing wear prevention.
Alternative approaches to reducing casing wear - such as the use of machined-smooth
tool joint hardfacing - are preferable. Protectors may have an application, however, in
reducing torque and drag in extended reach drilling. Specially the development of nonrotating protectors is mentioned here.
c)
Monitoring and predicting wear while drilling

The computer program DRAGTORQ (part of the OSCP portfolio) can be used to predict
casing wear at the well design stage and to monitor casing wear while the well is being
drilled. It can model the wear distribution, wall thickness reduction and metal recovery at
surface.
The DRAGTORQ program should be re-run once the casing has been installed and a
survey has been performed to determine the actual wellpath.
Magnets should be installed in the mud flowline upstream of the shale shakers to collect
steel. They should be cleaned regularly to avoid the collected steel being washed off.
Recovered steel should be weighed and compared with the computer predictions.
Removal of steel filings from the mud will have the additional benefits of improved survey
quality and increased pump life.
Once casing wear has been identified as a problem, appropriate drilling techniques
should be implemented to minimise wear (e.g. use of downhole motors). However, it is
essential that this is considered in the well design phase.
d)
Wear/corrosion logging
Reduction in casing wall thickness due to wear or corrosion can be established using
wireline logging tools and calipers. They are used mainly as repair-decision tools. In areas
where casing corrosion is a known or potential problem, such logs can be included in
workover programmes as appropriate. These logging tools fall into three categories:
i)
Electromagnetic tools
Electromagnetic tools are further divided into three types:
-
Cathodic protection profile tools: Such tools are used to predict rather than
measure corrosion. This is achieved by measuring the casing potential drop
between the tool sensors and from this, calculating the current flow in the
casing wall. The presence of such current flow indicates that corrosion is
taking place.
These tools can be used to determine a potential profile for casing in its native
state and also when protection systems (such as cathodic protection [59]) are
in place. For the latter case, they will give an indication of the effectiveness of
the protection.
Examples of such tools are Schlumberger's Corrosion and Protection
Evaluation Tool (CPET) and the Atlas Casing Potential Profile (CPP)
instrument.
Flux leakage tools: These tools use a combination of electromagnetic flux

leakage and induced eddy current measurements to detect localised problems
(such as pits and holes) on both internal and external surfaces. The size and
depth of pits can be determined.
Examples of such tools are Schlumberger's Pipe Analysis Log (PAL) and
Atlas's Vertilog [60].
3
The PAL tool has an outer diameter of 3 /8 in (0.0857 in) and can be used in
casing sizes up to 10.2 in (0.2591 m) internal diameter. It will detect defects
greater than 0.3 in (7.6 mm) in diameter. The flux leakage response is
proportional to the depth of the defect.
The Vertilog instrument comes in a number of sizes and can be run in casing
3
ranging from 4 in (0.1143m) to l3 /8 in (0.3397m) outer diameter. The depth
of any defect is expressed as a percentage penetration.
-
Electromagnetic thickness tools: These tools utilise an induced eddy

current system to detect areas of general metal loss both internally and
externally. Low vertical resolution means this method is best suited for
detection of large scale wall loss such as generalised thinning, large holes, or
vertical splits.
When combined with acoustic thickness measurement, this device can be
used to detect metal loss from casing outside the one in which the tool is run.
Examples of such tools are Schlumberger's Multifrequency Electromagnetic
Thickness Tool (METT) and Atlas's Magnelog.
The METT comes in two sizes. The 2 in (0.0699 in) OD tool is suitable for
casing sizes up to 9 5/8 in (0.2445 m) OD, while the 4 in (0.1143 m) OD tool
is suitable for casing up to 13 3/8 in (0.3397 m) OD. The tools can measure
casing internal diameter with an accuracy of 0.025%.
The Magnelog also comes in two sizes. The 3 in (0.0889 m) OD tool can be
used in casing ranging from up to 7 5/8 in (0.1937m) OD, while the 5 in
(0.1397 m) tool can be used in casing sizes from up to 13 3/8 in (0.3307 m)
OD. Accuracy of measurement of the casing diameter is again 0.025%.
ii)
Ultrasonic tools
These are often based on tools originally designed for other purposes, e.g.
cement bond evaluation.
Acoustic cement evaluation tools can be used to determine the location and extent
of metal loss by analysis of the waveforms of reflected signals. They are most
suited to the detection of general wall loss, large holes, internal scaling and casing
deformation. An example of these tools is Schlumberger's Cement Evaluation Tool
(CET).
Other ultrasonic acoustic tools measure transit time and amplitude of a reflected
signal and provide information on the condition of the internal casing surface. No
information is given on wall thickness (although see below). These tools are
generally used to evaluate short sections of corroded or damaged casing that
have been identified as such from earlier runs with other tools. An example of this
type of tool is Schlumberger's Borehole Televiewer Tool (BTT), which provides a
"visual" image of the casing internal surface. It can only be run, however, in solidsfree fluids (e.g. brine).
A recent development from Schlumberger is the Ultrasonic Imager (USI) which
combines the capabilities of the CET with those of the BTT. As a result wall
thickness information is available as well as a "visual" image of the internal casing
surface.
iii)
Mechanical tools
These are mechanical caliper tools which directly measure the internal diameter of
the casing at a number of points around its circumference (depending on the
number of caliper arms). No direct information is provided on wall thickness. The
vertical resolution is dependent on the running speed.
Examples are Schlumberger's Multi-Finger Caliper (MFC) and Tubing Geometry
Tool (TGS), and Atlas's Multi-Finger Caliper. The Kinley caliper is also available
from a number of sources.
The Schlumberger MFC tool is available in three sizes which cover casing ranging
rom 5 in (0.1270 m) to 13 3/8 in (0.3397 m) OD. Smallest vertical resolution is 0.2
in (5.1 mm), while maximum radial accuracy is 0.01 in (0.3 mm).
3
The Atlas' MFC tool comes in five sizes and covers casing from 2 /8 in to 10 in
OD. Radial accuracy is 0.02 in (0.5 mm) for the smallest tool and 0.05 in(1.3mm)
for the other sizes.
iv)
Visual techniques
In a limited number of cases downhole video camera techniques can be used.
These cameras can be run on coiled tubing or wireline. Applicability is restricted to
cases where a clear fluid is present (e.g. gas or clear brine) and work best when
detecting "large" damage or leaks.
The application of the tools mentioned above can be summarised as follows:
Corrosion prediction
-
CPET,CPP
Small localised pitting or small holes

-
PAL, Vertilog (internal and external surfaces).
BTT, USI (internal surface and qualitative only).
General metal loss, large holes, or splits

- METT, Magnelog, USI, CET (internal and external surfaces).
- MFC, TGS, Kinley (internal surface only).
Since each of the above tools is generally more suited to detecting one form of
metal loss than another, some prior knowledge of the nature of the problem is
necessary when selecting logging tools. It may be necessary to combine several
tools or to make a number of runs with different tools to properly determine the
condition of the casing.
Consideration should also be given to the capability for real-time display. Some
tools (e.g. Kinley caliper) have no real-time output and cannot be readily
processed on site. The importance of this capability will depend upon the
operation. Real-time display does allow extra passes to be made over intervals
that are identified as experiencing metal loss.
If casing wear or corrosion is anticipated from the outset, it is advisable to run a
base log immediately after the casing is installed. This will allow manufacturing
defects to be differentiated from in-situ wear or corrosion.
e)
Pressure testing
Pressure testing of worn or corroded casing is often a cost-effective alternative to wireline
logging. However a successful pressure test only indicates the minimum casing strength
(and thus the minimum wall thickness) at the time of the test. No information is gained on
the presence or rate of any corrosion which may reduce the casing strength with time.
The test pressure should be chosen so as to ensure that the casing is capable of
withstanding any loads to which it may be subjected in subsequent operations, together
with a margin to allow for any further wall thickness reduction during that time.
f)
Casing patches
Internal casing patches [61] generally must have an ID large enough to allow the passage
of large tools or packers. As a result the relatively thin wall means that they have little
collapse resistance. The patches thus collapse or leak when exposed to external pressure
or drawdown and must be avoided where these conditions will or can exist.
An alternative solution to an internal patch is to cut and retrieve (if possible) the damaged
casing and then run new casing with an external casing patch [62]. Unless such a patch
contains a tested metal-to-metal seal, it cannot be considered gas tight.
Tristate (amongst others) can provide selective back-off tools that enable damaged joints
to be unscrewed and retrieved and then new joints run and screwed back in.
19.7
DRILLING EQUIPMENT NEWSLETTERS ON ISSUES RELATING TO TUBULAR

Frequent reference has been made throughout this chapter to Drilling Equipment Newsletters
(DENs) issued by SIPM. There are a number of these DENs which are not directly relevant to the
operational aspects covered in this chapter, but which do cover OCTG-related matters. These
DENs are listed below:
#01/83
20 in ERW/SAW casing
#08/83
Ultrasonic pipe tally
#12/84
Testing of casing and tubing rams
#13/84
5
API casing out of OD tolerance (2 x 9 /8 in + 7 in)
#16/84
3
More API casing out of tolerance (13 /8 in)
#18/84
Gauge rings x packer runs
#51/85
Casing and accessories specs (colour code)
#52/85
Talon connectors remedial treatment
#19/86
Sealing ability of thread compounds (API PRAC 84-51)
#34/86
ERW (types of heat treatment)
#47/86
API Specification 5 (June 1986 standardisation conference)
#01/87
7 in VAM ACE qualification test (unsuccessful)
#30/87
Insulated steam injection tubing
#39/87
COM 13-3/8 in ERW 54.5# X56 BTC casing
#45/87
Conductor cementing/centralising practices EP 87-0160
#49/87
Tubular preservation field trials
#51/87
Downhole failure of a 20 in94#K55 ERW API BTC connection
#56/87
Explosive cutters (9-5/8 in)
#69/87
Casing cutting, section milling and casing milling
#07/88
Loss of 20 in Weatherford centralisers and stop collars
#10/88
Tubular specification API Spec 5 CT and 5 D
#24/88
IADC/SPE 1988 Drilling Conference (Dallas, Texas)

#17177
30% evacuation OK @ Philips
#17208
Influence of quantity of grease compound @ NSteel
#17209
Evaluation of thread protectors @ Shell's RnD
#17222
Gear oil replacing API thread compound @ O-G-S
#17255
Magnetised shoe track @ Shell's RnD
#38/88
Gearhart tubing - chemical and jet - cutters
#47/88
Casing stabbing board incident
#57/88
Sidetracking in casing using AZ packstock
#60/88
Optimisation of sidetracking workovers (Metal Muncher)
#61/88
Perforating heavy-wall casing/limited penetration charges
#26/89
PDC drillable float equipment/cement plugs
#27/89
Performance properties of casing (API Bull. 5C2 misquoted)
#39/89
Fasdrop cementing head
#42/89
API LTC casing versus gaslift
#44/89
Baash Ross casing spider derating
#46/89
2-7/8 in 8.7# NK3SB-SS connection qualification (Class 111)
#58/89
4.5 in 12.75# L 13% Cr NK3SB connection selection
#76/89
SOC Drilling Engineering Conference

#508
Annulus pressures
#601
Unusual casing schemes
#602/608
Casing collapse
#83/89
5
9 /8 in casing body leak
#03/90
Follow-up #44/89 - Baash Ross casing spiders derating
#12/90
Follow-up #83/89 - 9-5/8 in casing body leak
#39/90
Another stabbing board incident
#02/91
Collar type air operated elevator
#03/91
Slip type elevator upgrade
#07/91
Sumitomo's VAM-AG mod KO (5 inl5# 7 in32#13%Cr)
#13/91
Mechanical casing cutters vs. subsea heads
#16/91
Setting modified Teledyne Merla casing patches
#39/91
Qualification of premium connections 13%Cr L 80

4.5 in 12.75# Hydril CS mod OK; 7 in 29# Hydril 500/563 KO
5.5 in 17#+15.5# Hunting For mod OK and Vallourec NV KO
5.5 in 15.5# Mannesmann BDS-SC OK if min. seal compound
#43/91
Qualification of premium connections (5.5 in 17# 13%Cr L 80 VAM AG; VLRC

torque=leak)
#51/91
CPH liner top packer obsolescence
#54/91
13-3/8 in Halliburton Float Equipment
#02/92
Plug container systems
#03/92
#06/92
TAM inflatable casing circulating packer

Hydraulic Power Tong (field modification)
#08/92
Parallel perforating system
#17/92
Technical Suggestions for ordering Non-API Tubulars
19.8
References
[1]
SIPM, MAPC/3
Schedule of delivery times for materials and equipment
Quarterly publication
[2]
SIPM, MAPC/3
Selected surplus
Quarterly publication
[3]

[4]

Specification for threading, gauging and thread inspection of casing, tubing and line pipe
threads
Std. 5B, Twelfth edition, 1987
[5]
SIPM, EPO/512
DEN 17/92
[6]
SIPM, EPO/512
Coupling line connections on housings and hangers
DEN 26/85
[7]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing and tubing tensile properties
DEN 9/86
SIPM, EPO/512
Change of casing OD tolerances us. wellhead seal pockets
DEN 8/88
[8]
[9]
SIPM, EPO/512
Follow-up to DEN 8/88
DEN 32/88
[10]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing hanger through bore
DEN 60/90
[11]
SIPM, EPO/512
Cementing float valves and rubber plugs
DEN 1/84
[12]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing drift (effective diameter vs. apparent diameter)
DEN 8/86
[13]
SIPM, MA
Guide to Materials Administration
Note that this document is gradually being updated and replaced by the Guide to Materials
Management
[14]

Recommended practice for care and use of casing and tubing
RP 5C1, Sixteenth edition, 31 May 1988
[15]
Shell temporary protectives for corrosion prevention

SIPC Booklet
[16]
Rambow, F.H.K. and Cowan, K.M., BRC

Bond log quality: effects of mill varnish left on casing
P5-91
[17]
Bax, D. (SIPM) and Bontenbal, P.J. (KSEPL)

Casing connections
Contribution to the update of the SIPM Casing Design Manual (EP 50600)
EP 92-1563
[18]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing and tubing thread compounds (storage and running)
DEN 41/88
[19]

Bulletin on thread compounds
Bull. 5A2, Sixth edition, 31 May 1988
[20]
Hill, T. H.
What you should know about OCTG inspection
World Oil, August-September-October 1984
[21]
SIPM, EPO/512
Cleaning and inspection services for tubular goods
DEN 14/85
[22]
SIPM, EPO/512
Weatherford dope applicator
DEN 69/88
[23]

EP 86-0727
[24]
Dale, B.A., Moyer, M.C. and Sampson, T.W.

A test program for the evaluation of oil-field threaded protectors
IADC/SPE 11396
[25]
SIPM, EPO/512
Klepo thread protectors
DEN 29/86
[26]
SIPM, EPO/512
Field experience with 9-518" Klepo inflatable protectors
DEN 46/86
[27]

Specification for bow spring casing centralisers
RP 10D, Fourth edition, January 1991
[28]
SIPM, EPO/512
Centralisers
DEN 4/85
[29]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing centraliser
DEN 2/87
[30]
SIPM, EPO/512
Centralisers update
DEN 31/85
[31]
SIPM, EPO/512
Cement float equipment and plugs
DEN 5/85
[32]
SIPM, EPO/512
Baker float equipment
DEN 49/85
[33]

Recommended practice for performance testing of cementing float equipment
34 RP 10F, First edition, June 1989
[34]
SIPM, EPO/512
Float equipment information
DEN 3/86
[35]
SIPM, EPO/512
Float equipment (follow-up)
DEN 6/86
[36]
SIPM, EPO/512
Float equipment
DEN 51/86
[37]
SIPM, EPO/512
Float equipment
DEN 34/91
[38]
Lange, de J.1. and Darling, T.J.

Improved detectability of blowing wells
IADC/SPE 17255
[39]
Lange, de J.1. and Darling, T.J.

KSEPL Publication 821, December 1987, EP 88-0068
[40]
Lange, de J.I. and Darling, T.J.

EP 88-2042
[41]
SIPM, EP
EP Safety Manual
EP 55000-34, revision July 1991
[42]
Weatherford
Tubular Running Manual
WF-TR-MAN, August 1991
[43]
Weekers, E.E.A.J. and Kastelein, H.J., KSEPL

Performance testing of well completion components under simulated downhole conditions
SPE 13066
[44]
SIPM, EPO/512
Helium leak detection
DEN 43/85
[45]
Snaith, N.N. and Kastelein, H.J., KSEPL

Field tests on Weatherford's leak detection system (HOLD) for premium tubing and
casing connections
RKRS.86.07
[46]
Slack, M.W., Salkin, H. and Langer, F.H.

Technique to assess directly make-up contact stress inside tubular connections
IADC/SPE 19924
[47]
Ender, D.H., WRC

User guide - polymeric seals for oil field applications
EP-63396, WRC 305-84
[48]
SIPM, EPO/512
Tubular mill end leaks
DEN 14/88
[49]
SIPM, EPO/512
Tubular mill end leaks (follow-up to DEN 14/88)
DEN 33/88
[50]
SIPM, EPO/51
ABC of stuck pipe
EP 91-1908
[51]
SIPM, EPO/51
Borehole surveying manual
EP 05-9300
[52]
SIPM, EPO/512
Tool joint hardfacing specification
DEN 60/86
[53]
SIPM, MAMS/43
SQAIR for drillpipe
AA 0330001110, Revision 01-90
[54]
Maurer Engineering
Drilling Engineering Association - project 42: casing wear
[55]
SIPM, EPO/512
Tool joint hardfacing vs. casing wear
DEN 13/85
[56]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing wear - case history
DEN 22/86
[57]
SIPM, EPO/512
Monitor casing wear while drilling
DEN 53/87
[58]
SIPM, EPO/512
Drillpipe I casing protectors
DEN 37/88
[59]
SIPM, EP
Introduction to materials and corrosion engineering in production operations
Production Handbook, Volume 9
[60]
SIPM, EPO/512
Casing corrosion logging - Schlumberger PAL (Pat E)
DEN 17/91
[61]
SIPM, EPO/512
Internal casing patch
DEN 04/86
[62]
SIPM, EPO/512
External casing patches
DEN 6/87
[63]
SIPM, EPD/41
Completion design - perforating
EP 92-1455
20.0
List of symbols used in text

dform
= true vertical depth of the formation below derrick floor
Dfe
= drillfloor elevation above reference level (usually ground surface)
dFWL
= true vertical depth of Free Water Level, below derrick floor
dseabed
= depth of seabed below derrick floor
dgauge
= depth of gauge below derrick floor
sw
= seawater density (equivalent mud gradient)
FB,form
= equivalent mud gradient of the FBP
= minimum horizontal stress
dh
= hole diameter
1,2,3
= principal stresses
= gas compressibility factor
Pr
= reduced pressure
Tr
= reduced temperature
FB,shoe
= equivalent mud gradient of FBP at shoe
LO,shoe
= equivalent mud gradient of leak-off at shoe
lim,shoe
= equivalent mud gradient of limit test at shoe
mud
= mud density
kill
= density of fluid used in kill operations
dyn
= equivalent circulating density
'
= effective stress
= total stress
= stress gradient
Po
= pore pressure
x, z
= hole inclination in x and z planes
= tensile strength (of rock)
= depletion constant
= ratio of rock grain compressibility to rock matrix compressibility
Vtest
= volume of mud required for Psurf
Vhole
= total volume of mud in drill pipe, annulus and pocket below the shoe
Cwell
= combined compressibility of mud and hole
Psurf
= surface test pressure
PLO,surf
= surface leak-off pressure
Plim,surf
= surface limit pressure
PFB, surf
= surface breakdown pressure
PFC,surf
= surface fracture closure pressure
PFR,surf
= surface fracture re-opening pressure
or
= Poisson's ratio
Pi
= internal pressure
Pe
= external pressure
= axial stress
= radial stress
= tangential stress
VME
= Von Mises equivalent stress
= yield strength
= Shear stress
PC
= collapse pressure
Pb
= burst pressure
Pis
= internal surface pressure
Pes
= external surface pressure
PT
= test -pressure
= internal fluid density
= external fluid density
= steel density
= fluid density
cem
= cement density
Wp
= point load (at packer)
= total normal load acting at contact surface
Wn
= nominal weight per unit length
Ai
= internal cross-sectional area
Ae
= external cross-sectional area
As
= wall cross-sectional area
Adp
= drillpipe external cross-sectional area
do
= outer diameter
di
= inner diameter
UTS
= ultimate tensile strength
= bending stress
bo
= bending stress on outer fibre
= torque
= modulus of elasticity
= dogleg severity
= radius of curvature
Fa
= downward axial component of force which is exerted by lower part of string

on upper part of string.
Fb
= force due to bending
Fn
= downward normal component of force extended by lower on upper part of

the string
FB
= force due to buoyancy load
Fs
= force due to shock load
Ffric
= total frictional force
Fax
= axial component of total frictional force
Frot
= rotational component of total frictional force
= angular velocity (force per unit length)
= velocity direction
= friction coefficient
= total measured length
= vertical depth
ZL
= vertical depth at total measured length
ZTD
= vertical depth at TD
Za
= vertical depth of annulus fluid level
Ze
= vertical depth of evacuation level
ZP
= vertical packer setting depth
Zc
= vertical depth of top of cement
Zch
= vertical distance from wellhead to casing hanger (mudline suspension

system)
VP
= pipe velocity
Vtrip
= axial tripping velocity
Vrot
= rotational velocity
VAV
= average casing running speed
= inclination angle of a string
gi
= initial thermal gradient
go
= operating thermal gradient
god
= drilling operations temperature profile
gop
= drilling production temperature profile
TAV
= average temperature
Ti
= initial temperature
To
= operating temperature
Ts
= Surface temperature
TTD
= temperature at TD
= coefficient of linear thermal expansion
= stiffness (force per unit length)
Peff
= effective pressure
Pec
= elastic collapse pressure
Pyc
= yield strength collapse pressure
= ovality
= wall thickness
ty
= tangential stress at yield (in the presence of axial tension)
Sc
= critical stress related to sulphide corrosion testing
bh
= bending stress due to helical buckling
bnh
= bending stress due to non-helical buckling
= stress due to shock wave
co
= acoustic velocity of the string
rc
= radial clearance
Fap
= changes to Fa resulting from pressure changes
Fat
= changes to Fa resulting from temperature changes
Fs
= Change in applied surface force
Fa*
= reduced axial force
Fc*
= reduced axial force at onset of non-helical buckling
Fch*
= reduced axial force at onset of helical buckling
Fyb
= pipe body yield strength
k*
= effective length factor
wn
= reduced weight of pipe per unit length
= radius of gyration
= critical slenderness ratio
= sideways displacement
= unsupported length (buckling analysis)
= centraliser spacing
= r/R (r = pipe radius)
= axial strain
= radial strain
= tangential strain
= shear strain
= second moment of area
UD
= strain energy of distortion per unit volume
= measured length
CP
= isothermal fluid compressibility coefficient
CT
= fluid thermal expansivity coefficient
ro
= outer radius
ri
= inner radius
F(s)
= force exerted by the "lower" part of the string on the upper part of the string
Fw
= load due to weight of steel
Fp
= load due to internal and external pressures
= coordinate along pipe axis
es
= unit vector in y-z plane pointing parallel to axis (downward)
en
= unit vector in y-z plane pointing normal to axis (downward)
n()
= normal to pipe axis, which makes angle to x-axis
xc(s)
= position of pipe axis [ = ses]
x(s,)
= position of a point on the -pipe
m(s)
= centre of curvature of pipe
= angle between normal to pipe axis and x-axis
Vcas
= change in casing volume due to either pressure or temperature
Vfluid
= change in fluid volume due to either pressure or temperature
Vcyl
= volume of cylinder
21.0
List of abbreviations used in text

AISI
American Iron and Steel Institute
AH
along hole
AHBDF
along hole below derrick floor
AHD
along-hole depth
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
API
ASME
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM
American Society for Testing Materials
bbl
barrels
BBL
burst load line
BOP
blowout preventer
BPM
barrels per minute
BRC
Bellaire Research Center
BSM
bending-stress magnification
BTT
borehole televiewer tool
Bull.
Bulletin (series of API publications)
CAD
coring after drilling
CBL
cement-bond log
CECD
cost-effective casing design
CEN
Committee for European Normalisation
CENELEC
Committee for European Normalisation (Electricity)
CET
cement-evaluation tool
CITHP
closed-in tubing-head pressure
CLL
collapse load line
CONNEX
SIPM connection data base
CPET
corrosion and protection evaluation tool
CPP
casing-potential profile
CRA
corrosion-resistant alloy
CS
Central Secretariat (part of ISO)
CSG
casing
DEA(E)
Drilling Engineering Association (Europe)
DEN
Drilling Engineering Newsletter (series of SIPM publications)
DEP
design engineering practices
DF
design factor
DLS
dogleg severity
DS
drilling supervisor
DST
drill string test
EC
European Community
EN
European Norm
EPIDORIS
Exploration and Production Drilling Operations Reporting System
ERW
electric resistance welding, now EW (electrical welding)
FBG
formation breakdown gradient
FBP
formation breakdown pressure
FCG
fracture closure gradient
FCP
fracture closure pressure
FEA
finite-element analysis
FIT
fluid intake test
FPP
fracture propagation pressure
frac
fracturing
FRG
fracture reopening gradient
FRP
fracture reopening pressure
FRP
fiber glass reinforced plastic
FWL
free water level
GOR
gas-oil ratio
GWC
gas-water contact
HE
hydrogen embrittlement
HIC
hydrogen-induced cracking
HICR
high-integrity corrosion-resistant (grading for tubular goods)
HTHP
high-temperature/high-pressure
IADC
International Association of Drilling Contractors
ICEPE
Integrated Computing Environment for Petroleum Engineers
ID
inner diameter
IOEM
invert oil emulsion mud
ISIP
instantaneous shut-in pressure
ISO
International Standardisation Organisation
ITHP
injection-tubing-head pressure
KOP
kick-off point
KSEPL
Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produktie Laboratorium
kN
kiloNewton
LG
limit gradient
LHS
Left hand side (of equation)
LOG
leak-off gradient
LOP
leak-off pressure
LOT
leak-off test
LP
limit pressure
MAASP
maximum allowable annular surface pressure
MB
monobore (completion)
METT
multifrequency electromagnetic thickness tool
MFC
multi-finger caliper
MWD
measuring while drilling (logging tool)
NACE
NFPA
National Fire Protection Agency
NPV
net present value
OBG
overburden gradient
OBJ
objective
OBM
ail-based mud
OCTG
oil-country tubular goods
OD
outer diameter
OSCP
operations subsurface computing portfolio
OTC
Offshore Technology Conference
OWC
oil-water contact
Pa
pascal
PAL
pipe analysis log
Pi
productivity index
PIF
production improvement factor
PPG
pore-pressure gradient
ppm
parts per million
PRAC
Production Research Advising Committee (API)
psi
pounds per square inch
psia
pounds per square inch, absolute
PVT
pressure-volume-temperature
QRA
quantitative risk assessment
RHS
Right hand side (of equation)
RFT
repeat formation tester
ROP
rate of penetration
RP
Recommended Practice (series of API publications)
RPM
revolutions per minute
RT
rotary table
SAW
submerged are welding
SBT
segmented bond tool
SCC
stress-corrosion cracking
SG
specific gravity
SHDEC
slimhole drilling, evaluation and completion
SI
systme internationale
SIPC
Shell International Petroleum Company
SIPM
Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij B.V.
SN
cyclic stress amplitude/number of cycles
SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Spec.
Specification (series of API publications)
SQAIR
Shell quality and inspection requirements
SRB
sulphate-reducing bacteria
SSCC
sulphide stress-corrosion cracking
STD
Standard (series of API publications)
SWS
sidewall sample
TC
Technical Committee (part of ISO)
TD
total depth
TGS
tubing-geometry sensor
TOC
top of cement
TVBDF
true vertical depth below derrick floor
TVD
true vertical depth
USI
ultrasonic imager
VME
Von Mises equivalent (stress)
WBM
water-based mud
WIQI
well-inflow quality indicator
WSDE
well site drilling engineer
WTL
wear track length
Xmas
Christmas (tree)

Casing Design Guide

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Casing Design Guide

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MANUAL (SAMPLE)

CASING DESIGN GUIDE

PETRONAS and its affiliates.

CASING DESIGN GUIDE

Change control form

Casing types and functions.

Stove pipe, marine conductor or foundation pile.

The design process

Casing scheme selection

Selection of relevant load case

Further design considerations

Appendix 1: International standards for tubular goods

American Petroleum Institute (API)

API Committee 5 - tubular goods specifications and publications.

API : Committee 5 documents

Items under review

Shortcomings of API standards

International Standardisation Organisation (ISO)

ISO Technical Committee 67 (ISO/TC 67) oil industry matters.

Committee for European Normalisation (CEN)

Cooperation between ISO, CEN and API

Formation-strength gradient and equivalent mud weight

Measuring the formation strength

Available measurement methods

Choosing the right method

H2S, CO2 and non-hydrocarbon formation fluid composition

Minimum casing diameter

Well configuration and minimum casing diameter

Exploration and appraisal wells

Minimum casing-shoe setting depth

Determination of wellbore pressure load

Pressure loading during drilling, mud circulation and tripping

Pressure loading during well control

Determination of wellbore strength

Appendix 2 : Well information forms

Exploration drilling information summary

Well summary prognosis and results

Appendix 3 : Basic aspects of rock mechanics

Borehole failure - rock mechanics

Rock tensile strength

Theoretical relationship : wellbore strength - state of stress..

Wellbore strength in fractured formation

Borehole fluid penetration

Appendix 4 : Procedures for leak-off and limit tests

Planning the test

Interpretation of the Leak-off graph

Formation breakdown, fracture re-opening

Specimen calculation of formation strength

Exploration well - example calculation

Appraisal well - example calculation

Development well - example calculation

Evacuation during drilling

Evacuation during production

Burst during drilling

Burst during production

Actual axial forces

Collapse and burst loads

Reduced axial forces

Actual axial forces

Collapse and burst loads

Reduced axial forces

6.4.4 Point loads

Reduced axial forces

Pressure loads on casing