PETE 411
Well Drilling
Lesson 18
Casing Design Example
1
Casing Design Example
Example Problem
API Design Factors
“Worst Possible Conditions”
Effect of Axial Tension on Collapse Strength
Iteration and Interpolation
Design for Burst, Collapse and Tension
2
Read:
Applied
HW Drilling Engineering,
#9 - Velocity ProfilesCh.7
Due 10-18-02
PETE 411 Lessons can be found at:
[Link]
Multimedia Programs can be found at:
Network Neighborhood / juvkam-wold2 / Multimedia
3
Casing Design Example
Design a 9 5/8-in., 8,000-ft combination ca
sing string for a well where the mud wt. will
be 12.5 ppg and the formation pore pressu
re is expected to be 6,000 psi.
Only the grades and weights shown are av
ailable (N-80, all weights). Use API desig
n factors.
Design for “worst possible conditions.”
4
Casing Design - Solution
Before solving this problem is it necessary to un
derstand what we mean by “Design Factors” an
d “worst possible conditions”.
API Design Factors
Design factors are essentially “safety factors” tha
t allow us to design safe, reliable casing strings.
Each operator may have his own set of design fac
tors, based on his experience, and the condition o
f the pipe.
5
Casing Design
In PETE 411, we’ll use the design factors recommen
ded by the API unless otherwise specified.
These are the API design Factors:
Tension and Joint Strength: NT = 1.8
Collapse (from external pressure): Nc= 1.125
Burst (from internal pressure): Ni = 1.1
6
Casing Design
What this means is that, for example, if we n
eed to design a string where the maximum t
ensile force is expected to be 100,000 lbf, w
e select pipe that can handle 100,000 * 1.8 =
180,000 lbf in tension.
Note that the Halliburton Cementing Tables
list actual pipe strengths, without safety fact
ors built in.
7
Casing Design
Unless otherwise specified in a particular pro
blem, we shall also assume the following:
Worst Possible Conditions
1. For Collapse design, assume that the casi
ng is empty on the inside (p = 0 psig)
2. For Burst design, assume no “backup” flui
d on the outside of the casing (p = 0 psig)
8
Casing Design
Worst Possible Conditions, cont’d
3. For Tension design,
assume no buoyancy effect
4. For Collapse design,
assume no buoyancy effect
The casing string must be designed to stand up to the exp
ected conditions in burst, collapse and tension.
Above conditions are quite conservative. They are also si
mplified for easier understanding of the basic concepts.
9
Casing Design - Solution
Burst Requirements (based on the expected pore pres
sure)
B
P pore
pressure
*Design
Factor
Depth
6
,000
psi
*1
.1
B
P 6,600
psi
Pressure
The whole casing string must be capable of withstandi
ng this internal pressure without failing in burst.
10
Casing Design - Solution
Collapse Requirements
For collapse design, we start at the bottom of
the string and work our way up.
Our design criteria will be based on hydrostat
ic pressure resulting from the 12.5 ppg mud t
hat will be in the hole when the casing string
is run, prior to cementing.
11
Casing Design
Depth
Collapse Requirements, cont’d Pressure
c
P 0.052
*mud
weight
*depth
*design
factor
0.052
*12
.5*8
,000*1.125
c
P 5,850
psi req
'datthebottom
.
Further
up
thehole
thecollapse
requireme
ts
are
less
severe
12
Casing Design
Req’d: Burst: 6,600 psi Collapse: 5,850 psi
13
Casing Design
Note that two of the weights of N-80 casing
meet the burst requirements, but only the 5
3.5 #/ft pipe can handle the collapse require
ment at the bottom of the hole (5,850 psi).
The 53.5 #/ft pipe could probably run all the
way to the surface (would still have to check
tension), but there may be a lower cost alter
native.
14
Casing Design
Depth
To what depth might we b
e able to run N-80, 47 #/ft
? The maximum annular Pressure
pressure that this pipe ma
y be exposed to, is:
Collapse
pressur
of
pipe
4,
760
P
c 4
,
23p
design
factor
1.
125
15
Casing Design
First Iteration
At what depth do we see this pressure (4,231
psig) in a column of 12.5 #/gal mud?
c
P 0
.052
*12
.5
*h1
P 4,231
h1
c
6
,509
ft
0
.052
*12
.5 0
.052
*12
.5
16
Casing Design
This is the depth to which the pipe
could be run if there were 6,509’
no axial stress in the pipe… 8,000’
But at 6,509’ we have (8,000 - 6,509) = 1,4
91’ of 53.5 #/ft pipe below us.
The weight of this pipe will reduce the colla
pse resistance of the 47.0 #/ft pipe!
17
Casing Design
Weight, W1 = 53.5 #/ft * 1,491 ft
= 79,769 lbf
This weight results in an axial st
ress in the 47 #/ft pipe
weight
79
,
769
lbf
of
S1
2
5,
87ps
end
area
13.57
in
18
Casing Design
The API tables show that the above stres
s will reduce the collapse resistance from
4,760 to somewhere between
4,680 psi (with 5,000 psi stress)
and 4,600 psi (with 10,000 psi stress)
19
Casing Design
Interpolation between these values shows th
at the collapse resistance at 5,877 psi axial
stress is:
S
P P
S
1
PP
c1 1 1 2
S2 S
1
(5,
877
5,000
)
1
P 4
,680 *(
4
,680
4 )
,600
4,666
ps
c
(
10,000
5,000
)
4,666
With the design factor, P
cc1 4
,
148
psi
1 .125
20
Casing Design
This (4,148 psig) is the pressure at a d
epth
4,
148
h
2
6,
382
ft
0
.
052*12
.
5
Which differs considerably from the init
ial depth of 6,509 ft, so a second iterati
on is required.
21
22
23
Casing Design
Second Iteration
Now consider running the 47 #/ft p
ipe to the new depth of 6,382 ft.
2
W (
8,
000
6
,382
)*53
.
5 86
,
563
lbf
86
,
563
lbf
2
S 2
6,
378
psi
13
.
572
in
24
Casing Design
Interpolating again,
1
P
P
1
S S
1
P
P
c1 1 2
D.F.
S
2 S
1
p
cc
2
1
4
,
6
,
378
680
5000
*
4
,
680
4
,
60
4
,
1 p
1
.
125 5000
This is the pressure at a depth of
4,
140
h
3
6,
369
ft
0
.
052*12
.
5
25
Casing Design
This is within 13 ft of the assumed value. If
more accuracy is desired (generally not need
ed), proceed with the:
Third Iteration
h36,369
'
3
W (8 6
,000,369 .587
)*53 ,259
lbf
87
,259
S3 6
,429
psi
13
.572
Pcc3 = ?
26
Casing Design
Third Iteration, cont’d
1 6,
4295
,
000
thus
P
cc
3 4,
680 *
(4
,
680
4,
60
)
1
.
125 5
,
000
4,
140
psi
Pcc
2
27
Casing Design
Third Iteration, cont’d
This is the answer we are looking for, i.e., w
e can run 47 #/ft N-80 pipe to a depth of 6,3
69 ft, and 53.5 #/ft pipe between 6,369 and
8,000 ft.
Perhaps this string will run all the way to the
surface (check tension), or perhaps an even
more economical string would include some
43.5 #/ft pipe?
28
Casing Design
At some depth the 43.5 #/ft pipe would be
able to handle the collapse requirements,
but we have already determined that it will
not meet burst requirements.
NO
!
29
N-80 Burst?
43.5 #/ft?
Depth = 5,057?
5,066?
5,210?
N-80
47.0 #/ft
Depth = 6,369
6,369
6,382
6,509
N-80
53.5 #/ft
8,000
30
N-80
53.5 #/ft? Tension?
N-80
47.0 #/ft
Depth = 6,369
6,369
N-80 6,382
53.5 #/ft 6,509
8,000
31
Tension Check
The weight on the top joint of casing woul
d be
(
6,
369
ft
*
47.
0#
/ft
)(1
,
631
ft
*
53
.5
#/ft
)
386
,602
lbs
actua
we
With a design factor of 1.8 for tension, a pi
pe strength of
1
.
8
*
386
,
602
695
,
080
lbf
is
re
32
Tension Check
The Halliburton cementing tables give a yi
eld strength of 1,086,000 lbf for the pipe bo
dy and a joint strength of 905,000 lbf for LT
& C.
47
.
0
#/
ft
is
OK
to
su
33
Casing Design Review
We have 4 different weights of casing availabl
e to us in this case:
1. Two of the four weights are unacceptable
to us everywhere in the string because
they do not satisfy the burst
requirements.
2. Only the N-80, 53.5 #/ft pipe is capable of
withstanding the collapse requirements
at the bottom of the string
34
Casing Design Review
3. Since the 53.5 #/ft pipe is the most
expensive, we want to use as little of it
as possible, so we want to use as
much 47.0 #/ft pipe as possible.
4. Don’t forget to check to make sure the
tension requirements are met; both for
pipe body, and for threads and
couplings (T&C).
35
Casing Design Review
The collapse resistance of N-80, 47 #/ft will
determine to what depth it can be run. Two
factors will reduce this depth:
• Design Factor
• Axial Stress (tension)
“Halliburton” collapse resistance: 4,760 psi
• Apply design factor: 4 ,760
4,231psi
1.125
36
Casing Design Review
To determine the effect of axial stress req
uires an iterative process:
1. Determine the depth capability without
axial stress
4,
231
depth 6
,
509
ft
0.
052*12
.5
2. Determine axial stress at this point
37
Casing Design Review
3. Determine corresponding collapse resistance
4. Determine depth where this pressure exists
5. Compare with previous depth estimate
6. Repeat steps 2-6 using the new depth
estimate
7. When depths agree, accept answer
(typically 2-4 iterations) (agreement to
within 30 ft will be satisfactory)
38
Linear Interpolation
y
mxc
P
mSC (i)
P1 1
mS C (ii)
2
P 2
mS C (iii)
39
Linear Interpolation
P2 P1
(
iii
)(
ii
)P
Pm
(
S
S)m
21 21
S2 S1
PP
(
i
)
(ii
) P
P
m(
S
S)
2
1
(
S
S)
1 1 1
S
2S
1
40
Linear Interpolation
S
P
P
S
1
P
P
1 2 1
S
2 S
1
With design factor:
P
1
P
SS1
P
P
cc 1 1 2
D.
F. S2 S
1
41
42
43