Key Factors Affecting Landing of Casing?

W. R. Cox*
ABSTRACT In 1955, the A P I Southwestern District Study Committee on Casing Landing Practices recommended that special consideratioil be given to landing of casing in wells where design factors a r e low, where extreme pressures a r e encountered, where escessive mud weights a r e necessary o r where other unusual circumstances exist. I n this paper equations and nomographs a r e provided INTRODUCTION I n March 1955, the A P I Southwestern District Study Committee on Casing Landing Practices reported on their review of approximately 3,700 wells drilled in 1952 by 21 operators in the Southwestern District.l These wells ranged in depth from 2,000 f t to 14,000 f t with a n average depth of 8,000 ft. The casings in these wells were landed by one of four methods: 1 , a s cemented; 2, in tension a t the freeze point; 3, neutral a t the freeze point; o r 4 , in compression a t the freeze point. In view of the wide difference in methods of landing casing under similar conditions, the study committee recommended should afford a landing practice which they believed the greatest amount of protection f o r and service from A P I casing i n a very high percentage of wells drilled i n the Southwestern United States." The study committee recommended t h a t casing be landed a s cemented in all wells where mud weights do not exceed 12.5 l b per gal, where standard design factors a r e used, and where the wellhead equipment and outer casing s t r i n g a r e of sufficient strength t o withstand the landing loads. The term "as cemented" means t h a t the casing is landed in approximately the same position i n which i t was hanging when the cement set. The only movement of the casing would be that necessary t o transfer the weight to the casing hanger. I n wells where design factors a r e low, where extreme pressures a r e encountered, where excessive mud weights a r e necessary, o r where other unusual circumstances exist, the study committee recommended the landing practice be based on theoretical considerations developed Lubinski's theoretical analysis yields by L ~ b i n s k i . ~ means for determining if casing is buckled or h a s a tendency t o buckle under down-the-hole conditions. By proper selection of landing procedure, Lubinski showed t h a t buckling could be prevented. I t has been recognized t h a t a landing procedure based only on buckling considerations m a y result in undesirable axial loading. F o r example, if the hanging method calls f o r casing to be picked up a considerable amount from for use in arriving a t sound landing procedures f o r these unusual wells, and for evaluating landing procedures now in effect for other wells. I t i s concluded t h a t landing methods should reflect proper consideration of both the buckling and the wellhead-load characteristics of the string. An example problem is included t o illustrate application of the equations and nomographs. the as-cemented position, then large temperature drops in t h e free casing subsequent to hanging could produce additional tensile loading sufficient t o cause tensile failure. In addition to temperature, pressure and fluidweight changes influence the hanging load and these also should be considered before selecting a hanging procedure. I n order to conform to the study committee's recommendation f o r determining special landing procedures in wells where unusual circumstances exist, it is believed that convenient means should be available for calculating landing loads t h a t preclude buckling. I t is also believed t h a t means must be available f o r evaluating the landing method in terms of wellhead loads t h a t m a y occur in the 'life of the well. I t is the purpose of this paper to provide a single equation t o use in selecting the optimum pickup o r slack-off to preclude buckling and to provide a single equation f o r computing the wellhead load. The parameters in the equations a r e believed sufficient for consideration of most down-the-hole environments. Nomographs, o r alignment charts, a r e provided to aid i n the solution of the equations. BUCKLING PHENOMENON The phenomenon of buckling of oil-well tubular members has received increased attention i n the last six or on seven years. This is the result of several ~ t u d i e s ~ ! " ~ the subject which concluded that, f o r certain conditions, buckling occurs t o tubular members subjected t o axial tension; and f o r other conditions, buckling will not occur under axial compression. These findings introduced a paradox. F o r a number of years a r i o r t o these buckling studies i t was believed t h a t a small amount of axial compression would cause buckling in long and slender oil-well tubular members. F o r this reason many operators adopted landing practices which placed axial tension a t and above the freeze point. New concepts indicate t h a t casing did buckle in some of the wells completed with these old landing practices. This has been difficult t o reconcile because in most cases the operator had no evidence of failure and experienced no difficulty in completing and producing wells with buckled casings. The apparent contradiction of buckling theory with field experience lies

". . .

*Shell Oil Co.. Cornus Christi. Texas. t~resented at.the spring meeting of the Southern District, Division of Production. Shreveport, La.. March 1957. IReferences are a t the end of the paper.

226

W. R. Cox

in a misunderstanding of buckling phenomenon and not i n a n incorrect buckling theory. There are three types of buckling t h a t a r e familiar t o most of us. The first type occurs in a beam which h a s been overloaded to the point of yielding. It is often said t h a t the beam h a s buckled; however, this is perhaps incorrect nomenclature. It would be more proper 'to say that the beam has failed by yielding. The second type of buckling occurs when a thin-wall cylinder or tank is subjected t o high end loading. Under a critical load the sides of the vessel distort i n t 0 . a corrugated surface and the height of the vessel decreases appreciably. This is the classic case of symmetrical buckling. The third type of buckling occurs when a colunln is subjected to its critical load. The column deflects from its vertical alignment and, depending on the intensity of the load and the properties of 'the column, it may not return to its original alignment when t h e load is removed. This is the classic case of asymmetrical buckling. I t is the third type of buckling that h a s been investigated a s a criterion f o r landing casing. This type buck11ng is most familiar because i t occurs in certain sizes of clrill pipe and tubing t h a t a r e racked in the derrick. The clrill pipe and tubing may bow from a straight alignment but they have not failed. They will return to their original alignment if laid on a flat surface o r picked u p i n the derrick. Casing t h a t has buckled down the hole will return, to its original alig~nnent after the buckling forces a r e removed, if the yield stress of the casing is not exceeded. Parting o r pemn~anentdefonnation probably seldom occurs i n buckled casing. If a large cavity is, opposite the buckled section, the casing will tend to bow into the enlargement. I n such an event the casing could be permanently distorted. Trouble would probably first be experienced in passing other strings or tools through the buckled section. Tester5 reports on one failure of 5;h-in. casing t h a t was evidently the result of wear caused by rotation of the tubing stiing which had drilled out the cement plug. Investigation indicated that the casing had buckled into a cavity, permitting the drilling tubing to rub harcl against the convex side of the buckle. There may be many casing failures that have been aggravated by buckled casing. It is understandable that there is a lack of information on this subject inasmuch a s in past years i t was not suspected that the casing was buckled, and in recent years the tools f o r examining buckling tendencies have been difficult to understand and apply. BUCKLING-CRITERION EQUATION Equations which have been d e ~ i v e din Appendix A a r e given in Table 1 f o r determining the required pickup to preclude buckling of the casing after the cement sets. The pickup is given in the first equation in the unit of pounds. By substituting the value found in pounds in the second equation, the can be expressed in inches.

DL

? rry--t--~;
r
1

w I

W = wellhead load, Ib.

AS AL

= pickup when hanging casing, Ib (-AS = pickup when hanging casing, in. (-AL

= slack-off).,

slack-off).

Pe = surface pressure outside casing when cement sets, psi.

AP,

= change in surface pressure outside casing after cement sets, psi. = surface pressure inside casing when cement sets, psi. = change in surface pressure inside casing after cement sets, psi.
L,
'

P,

AP,
.. m

= fluid-level drop outside casing after cement sets, ft.

n
At

= fluid-level drop inside casing after cement sets,

ft.

= average change in casing temperature above cement top after

cement sets, deg F .

d, =

fluid weight outside casing when cement sets,

Ib per.gal.

Adc = change in fluid weight outside casing after cement sets, Ib per
gal.

d, =

fluid weight inside casing when cement sets, Ib per gal.

I

Ad, =

change in fluid weight inside casing after cement sets, gal.

lb' per

De = outside diameter of casing, in. (Ac = 0.785 D: s q in.).

D, = inside diameter of casing above cement top, in. For term B 4 use inside diameter below cement top.
For term W , use average inside diameter in string (A, = 0.785 DI" s q in.). w

= weight of casing in cemented zone, Ib per ft.

wr = weight of casing above cement top, Ib per ft.

w"

average weight of casing in string, Ib per ft.

'

dc = cement slurry weight, Ib per gal.

L
=.distance

from cement top to casing hanger, ft.

= distance from casing shoe to cement top, ft.

Note: All

or change quantities plus when increase and minus whkn

decrease.

'

Fig. 1-Parameters

o f the Buckling-criterion a n d Wellhead-load Equations

Two sets of equations a r e given, one f o r fluid weights expressed in pounds per gallon and a second for fluid weights expressed. in pounds per cubic foot. Symbols used in the equations a r e defined in Fig. 1. Negative' values of the buckling-criterion expression indicate that slack-off in the anlount indicated can 11e permitted without causing buckling of the casing. In using the equation, a n estimate is first made of the down-the-hole conditions which exist or will exist a t the time the cement sets sufficiently to fis the casing shoe. Second, a n estimate is made of the change in those conditions which will occur during the drilling or producing history of the well. These estimated initial and changed conditions give ralues for the parameters in the buckling-criterion equation. Solution of the equation yields the required pickup or allo\ilable slack-off which should be applied a t the time the casing is hung. I n the actual case, several solutions of the equation will be necessary to evaluate the optimum hanging loacls for precluding buckling during the several drilling, producing, or workover conditions. F o r example, during drilling below the shoe of the casing string, a change in the internal mud weight ancl the average temperature above the cement toll may occur. This will require a certain hanging load to preclude buckling. When the well is on production the same casing string will be subjected to a n environment different from the ascemented or drilling-ahead environment. This production environment will also dictate a n optimum hanging load f o r precluding buckling. The same holds true for workover conditions. A selection of the largest of the several optimum hanging loads will insure that no buckling of t h e casing will occur under any of the conditions in\-estigatecl. I n Appendis C the buckling espression from Table 1 h a s been expressed a s the sun1 of 10 terms. Each tern1 represents the effect on buckling of a down-the-hole variable. Nomographs a r e supplied in Appendix C f o r evaluating the 10 terms. The amount of pickup or slackoff required to prevent buckling is enual to the sum of those terms ,which apply to the condition investigated. The nomographs express the 10 terms in the units of ljounds. A conversion nomograph is supplied in Appendis C f o r converting the pickup o r slack-off in pounds t o inches. The buckling equation has been derived for singleweight casing strings. A study of equations f o r combination-weight strings indicates t h a t no significant error is introduced in using the single-weight equations f o r evaluating buckling tendencies of comlnon designs of combination weight strings. Certain considerations tnay be given to combination strings in the equations of Table 1. I n the term hzu, w is defined a s the weight per foot of casing below the cement top. I n combination weight strings zu nlay have two o r more values below the cement top. I n this case the tenn, Rzu, should be taken a s equal to the weight in a i r of pipe ' below the cement top. I n a similar manner the factor w i n the temperature-effect term may be taken a s the aver-

age weight of casing above the cement top: The value inside diameter, may be selected to correspond to of D,, , t h e weight of pipe of the longest section above the cement 1 top. 1 ; general the accuracy of the buckling theory does n o t justify a more esact solution. It will be noticed t h a t the-equations assume the freeze t point t o be a t the c e ~ n e n top. Freeze points determined by stretch curves and strain instivments a r e frequently found to be considerably above the cement top. I n general, after setting casing, the freeze point moves very .rapidly from the cement top to the 'shoe of the next largest size of casing. This high freeze point is believed to be of a temporary nature, and the effect of a prolonged change in the environment of the casing will eventually be felt a t the permanent freeze point, the top of cement. Oberg and Masters6 determined by strain measurements on the top joint of casing in two wells t t h a t the freeze ~ o i n a t the shoe of the surface string was indeed of a temporary nature. They concluded t h a t ". . freeze points above the top of the cement nlay not hold the casing in a fixed position. I n choosing a landing tension in such wells, all of t h e casing t o t h e top of t h e cement should be considered a s possibly being free to move." If i t is concluded t h a t a permanent freeze point has been established above the top of the cement, the buckling equations a r e still valid provided the value of ILis taken equal to the distance fro111 the caslng shoe to the per#manentfreeze point, the value of L is taken equal to the distance from the pernlanent freeze point to the casing hanger, and the value of dc IS taken equal to the average weight per gallon of the fluicl and cement-slurry colunm below the permanent freeze point.

WELLHEAD-LOBD EQUATION The selected hanging load f o r the casing should be compatible not only with buckling requirements, but also with the strength of the casing itself, the strength of the outer casing strings, and the load-cariying capacity of the casing-hanging assembly. Several manufacturers which can rea r e providing casing-hanging assen~blies sist loads larger than the joint strength of casing. Therefore the load on the assembly is not a s critical now a s i n the past. Equations f o r use in determining the wellhead load a r e given in Table 2 f o r fluid weights expressed in pounds per gallon and pounds per cubic foot. The parameters i n the equation, a r e identical to those used in t h e buckling-criterion equations. The wellheacl-load equation can be used to evaluate the load a t any time in the history of the drilling o r producing well. It, therefore, becomes a valuable aid in the design of the casing string a s well a s in the study of buckling. I n Appendis D the wellhead-load equation from Table 2 h a s been espressed as,the sum of 12 terms. The first term represents the effect of the casing-landing practice; i.e., so much pickup, slack-off, o r no weight adjustment a t all. Each of the other 11 terms represents the effect on wellhead load of a down-the-hole variable. Nomographs a r e supplied in Appendix D f o r evaluating the 11 terms.

The.amount of wellhead load i s equal t o the sum of those temnls which apply t o the condition investigated. The wellhead-load equation h a s been' derived f o r single-weight strings, but i t can be used'satisfactor~lyf o r combination-weight strings by procedures s ~ m l l a r to those outlined f o r t h e buckling equation. I t will be seen t h a t the suln of ternls F ' through TV6 in Appendix D is Vs equal to the hanging weight of the string while waiting f o r t h e cement t o set. If the casing or casing annulus i s shut-in under pressure PI o r P , , respectively, while waiting f o r t h e cement to set, then p a r t of terms TVs and FVlo can also be included in the initial hanging load. By substituting the initial hanging load f o r the sum of these terms, the wellhead-load equation becomes quite accurate f o r combination strings. When t h e plug hmnps, caution should be exercised i n accepting the load on t h e rig's weight i n d ~ c a t o ra s t h e hanging load t h a t will e s i s t when the cement sets. Initial d r a g of the casing, centralizers, and scratchers m a p be appreciable. After several hours the casing may have slipped f u r t h e r down the hole and increase t h e wellhead load t o t h a t value whicli will exist when the cement sets. It sl~ould recognized t h a t a considerable amount of the be d r a g may still be i n the casing when the cement sets. I n this case t h e wellhead-load equation developed in this paper should be adjusted by subtracting the amount of "locked-in" drag. EXAMPLE PROBLEM A 10,000-ft combination-weight string of 7-in. OD casing h a s been selected f o r illustrating the application of the buckling and wellhead-load equations. Weight per foot, grade, and length of sections i n this string a r e shown i n Fig. 2. Terms given in Appendixes C and D will be usecl t o arrive a t values f o r the buckling and wellhead loads inasmuch a s this will serve t o point out influence of t h e various parameters. Nomographs i n Appendixes C and D can be used f o r the solution. However, i n the follovling example the terms will be evaluated by substitution i n order t o present the method in detail. The casing will be examined f o r four down-the-hole conditions. 1. Condition when Cement Sets (L. Bzickliny Criterion By referring to Fig. 1 and Appendix C i t will be seen : t h a t only terms B . B J , and BJ apply when the cement sets. There a r e two weights of casing below the cement top in t h e example problem, I~ence t e n n B:. 1s equal to the t h e weight in a i r of casing below the cement top. The factor D Lappears ~n term Bq and, according t o Fig. 1, t h e value of D,f o r this term 1s equal to inside diameter of casing below the celllent top. Sufficient accuracy wlll be obtained by using inside diameter of 29-lb pipe even though a small amount of 26-lb pipe i s below the cement top. Evaluation of t h e terms yields: Pounds B2-= -(30O) (26) - (2,700) (29) - -86,100 B3 = +o.o4os (r)? (3,000) ( 1 5 ) = +9o,ooo

230

W: R. Cox

B q

-0.0408

(G.lS4)"5,000)

(13)

GSO , OO ,

..

-.56,900

Thus, when t h e ceinent sets, the casing can be slec$ecl off 56,900 lb without causing buckling. b. 1~T;elllrcc~d Locrd Terins T V j through T'V6 in Appendix D shoulcl he used to cleternline the hanging load of the casing when the ceinent sets. If the casing o r casing annulus is shut in respectively, when waiting under a pressure PI o r P,., for cement to set, then ternis IVy and W I Omust also be inclucled to determine the hanging load when the ceinent sets. Term IVs f o r coinhination-weight strings is equal to the weight in a i r of the entire string. Tern1 T176 inB 6 = +O.O2SC (6.566)' (7,000) ( 5 ) = +40,600 cludes a factor D Lwhich f o r combination strings should Bs = +0.5'14 (G.366)".2,000) = +25,500 be taken approsiinately equal to the average inside diameter in the string. F o r this tern1 the inside c l ~ a ~ n e t e ~ +66,100 f o r 26-lh pipe will be used. Thus, when the casing is hung, the net required pickup Evaluation of the t e n n s yields: to prevent buckling when the liner is tested is 66,100 , ~Po~lmds - 56,900 = 9,200 lb. m73 = ( 2 3 ) (5,500) + ( 2 6 ) (1,500) If the well had been shut in with 1,000 psi when wait( 2 9 ) (2,700;) = +isi,soo ing for the cement to set behind the 7-in. casing, then = - 90,000 W q = -0.0408 (7)' (5,000) ( 1 5 ) the value of AP, in term B e would be 2,000 - 1,000 = = -1S1,900 Ws = -0.0498 (7)' (7,000) ( 1 3 ) 1,000 psi. lvfi = +0.040S ( 6 . 2 7 6 ) ~ 1 0 , 0 0 0 )( 1 3 ) = +20S,900 b. TVellheacl Loc~d Pounds

When drilling ahead the wellhead load decreases 30,800 lb. If the casing was hung a s cenlented, the wellhead load when drilllng ahead would be 188,600 -30,800 = 157,800 lb. 3. Condition when Testing a Liner If a liner i s set and i t is desired to test the liner by pressuring the 7-in. OD casing to 2,000 psi with 18 lb per gal inud in the hole, another change will occur in the as-cemented buckling and wellhead-load characteristics. It is assunled a t the tinle of testing the liner that-the average temperature of the 7-in. casing above its celllent top returns to the as-cemented value; hence A t is zero. a. Bztcliling Pounds

+1SS,600

+0.0122 (6.36/;)* (7,000) ( 5 )

z +17,300

Thus, the hanging load when the cement sets is 188,600 lb. 2. C o ~ ~ d i t i o n when ~ e e ~ e n i n g After setting the 7-in. OD casing at 10,000 f t , i t i s assu~necl h a t the hole is deepened and the inud ~ v e i g l ist t ~ increased from 13 to 18 lb per gal. Also, the circulated mud will be considerably hotter from the greater depths. I n this esample i t is assumed t h a t the average teniperature of the casing above the cement top increases 35 deg , from the average temperature esistlng when the cement set. These changes in environnlent introduce the following changes in buckling and wellhead loads. a. B ~ i c k l i n g Pounds = +4S,lOO BI = +59.8 ( 2 3 ) ( 5 5 )

TVlo = +0.!+71 (6.366)"2,000)

+.3S,200 +55,500

Bfi = +0.0286 (6.366)'

(7,000) ( 5 )

+40,600 +SY,700

I n order to offset the effect on buckling of a 35-(leg increase in average teniperature above the cement top and a n increase of 5 lb per gal of internal inud weight, the casmg must he picked u p 88,700 lb. When coinbined w i t h the 56,900 Ib t h a t the casing corlld be slackecl off when cemented, the casing must be picked up a net of 31,800 lh from the as-cemented position if buckling is to be prevented when drilling ahead. b. I.T;ellheod Load Pounds Wo = -59.8 ( 2 3 ) ( 3 5 ) - -48,100
Ws

When testing the liner, the wellhead load increases 55,500 lb above the load t h a t was hanging oil the elevators when the cement set. If the casing was hung a s cemented, the wellhead load when testing the liner would be 188,600 + 55,500 = 244,100 lb. 4. C o n d i t i o ~ ~ when P r o d ~ i c i i ~ g Gas Lift on F o r this condition the fluid weight in the casing is taken a s 8.7 lb per gal and the fluid-level drop in the casing is assumed to be 5,000 f t . No temperature cl~ange is assuinecl froin the 'as-celnented temperature. The supply g a s is i~ljecteclin the casing a t 900 psi. n. Bzcekling Pounds Bfi = +0.02SG (6.366)' (7,000) (-J.5) = -34,900 By = +0..314 (6.366)P ( 9 0 0 ) = +11,500 Blo = -0.0163 (6.366)"8.7) (7,689) - -44,100
-67,500

Thus, when the casing is hung, the masirnuin slack-off t h a t can be allowed in order not to cause buckling a t t h e time the well is on gas l ~ f t - 56,900 - 67,500 = is - 124,400 lb. b. Wellhencl Load Pouncls Ti's = +0.0122 (h'.SGG)"(7,00 ) (-4.5) = -14,900
%

+0.0122 (6.366)? (7,000) ( 5 )

+17,300

WIO
w2 1

+0.471 -0.0245

(G.SGG)~~OO) (6.366)"S.7) (3,210)

6\

= +is,aoo = -27,700

Cox When the well i s producing on g a s lift the wellhead load decreases 25,400 lb fronm the hanging load when the cement sets. If the caslng was hung as cemented, t h e wellhead load when on g a s lift would be 188,600 - 25,400 = 163,200 lb. 5. Summary of Esample Problem conditions esanmined, the required masiI n the f o ~ w mum pickup occurs f o r the condition of deepening the well. The \vellheacl loads a r e shown in Fig. 2 f o r the four conditions if this maximum pickup of 31,800 lb is applied. The minimum clesign factor against joint pullout is 1.45. This occurs when the liner is tested. I n order to hang the casing with 31,800 lb additional load i t is required to pick u p the casing 13.4 in. from the as-cemented position. This can be detelnlined on the conversion nonlograph in Appendix C. If a t the time of hanging casing a temporary freeze point should esist a t the shoe of the surface strlng, a t say 2,000 f t , then a pickup of 13.4 in. will require 112,000 lb aclditional pull instead of 31,800 lb. This 118,000 Ib can be determined from the conversion nomograph by entering with. zu' = 23, L = 2,000, AL. = 13.4, and solving f o r A S . (In the actual solution the nomograph w a s entered with AL = 1.34 and the value of AS was found to be 11,200 Ib, o r the equ~valentof 112,000 Ib f o r A L = 13.4.) A pickup of 112,000 lb will increase the hanging load to 112,000 188,600 = 300,600 111, and the design factor against pullout would be 400/300.6 = 1.33. If the freeze point a t the shoe of the sui-face string is temporary, the large hanging load of 300,600 lb will decrease to 220,400 lb a s t h e casing adjusts down to the permanent freeze point a t the cement top. If the shoe of the surface string is the permanent freeze point, then a pickup of 112,000 lb would mean that 244,100 f- 112,000 = 356,100 lb would be on the casing hanger when the liner is tested. The design factor against pull-out would be 4001356.1 = 1.12. This would be a very undesirable design factor f o r tension. A pickup of 31,800 lb with a temporary freeze point a t 2,000 f t will require (13.4) (217) = 3.8 in. pickup. When the casing adjusts dowim to the cement top a t 7,000 f t , the net pickup in pounds will be (31,800) (21.7) = 9,100 lb. This would mean t h a t t h e casing mould still buckle when drilling aheacl with 1 8 l b per gal mud and would be on t h e verge of buckling when the liner is tested. Buckling may not occur when the liner is tested if t h e short interval of time required for testing is not sufficient f o r the freeze point a t 2,000 f t t o move hack down t o the cement top. BUCKLING O F TUBING ON PACKER , The buckling ancl wellhead-load equations can be used to examine tubing set on a packer. F o r tubing the parameter h. is equivalent to the length of packer and niay be taken a s zero. The value of L is then the distance from packer to tuh,ing hanger. F o r studies of buckling of tubing in pumping wells the paper by Lubinski ,dnd Blenkani' will serve a s a n excellent reference. lt'is of interest to note t h a t the Lubinski and Blenkarn general equation (5) f o r buckling of tubing can be determined from the buckling expression presented in Table 1of this paper by exchange of equivalent symbols and by correcting f o r a fluid-level drop t h a t exists when the packer is set. The fluid-level correction is made by evaluating buckling terms. B,? ancl Blo f o r the condition when the packer is set and subtracting their sun1 from the buckllng conclltion when the well i s on pump. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. The key factors t h a t affect landing of casing a r e the buckling tendencies of the casing and the intensity of wellhead load that will occur in t h e life of the well. 2. Equations and nomographs presented in this paper a r e adequate f o r use in examining buckling and wellheadload characteristics under most down-the-hole conditions t h a t will occur in the life of the well. 3. Location of the pemnmanent freeze point is a n important consideration i n the casing-landing problem. Limited field infoinlation indicates the permanent freeze ljoint t o be a t t h e cement top. However, temporary and permanent freeze points may esist above t h e cement top and these require attention when adjusting the casing pickup o r slack-off prior to landing. 4. High teinperary freeze points may preclude landing with adequate pickup to prevent buckling under certain down-the-hole conditions. 5. Equations in this paper can be used f o r selecting, landing procedures in wells where a permanent freeze point exists above the cement top. 6. Large changes in wvellheacl loacl may occur a f t e r the casing is hung. These a r e caused by temperature, pressure, and fluid-weight variations subsequent t o landing casing. Fluctuations in wellhead load should b e considered in the design of the string a s well a s i n selecting a landing procedure. REFERENCES lAPZ Bul 0 7 : Casi?lg Landing Reco?iz?)ze7zdatio?zs, Report of the A P I southwestern District Study Committee on Casing Landing Practice, American Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas, 1955. Also published i n The Monoyrn))?,15, Spm~ng-Summer(1955). 2Lubinski, A : Influence of Tension and Compression on Straightness and Buckllng of Tubular Goods i n Oil T 2.37), 31 Fields, Proc. Ant. Pet. Ilzst. Sect. I ' (Prod. BLLZ (1951). 3Boun~an, A : Buckling of Oil Well Piping, PetroC. lezen Engineer, 28 [61 B-60, J u n e (1956). "linkenberg, A: The Neutral Zones in Drill Pipe and Casing and Their Significance in Relation to Buckling and Collapse, Drilling and Prodzcction Practice, 64 (1951). 5Texter, H. G: Oil-well Casing and Tubing Troubles, Drilliwg C I ~ Proclz~ctio?~ Z ~ Practce, 7 (1955) ; also Oil Gus J., J u l y 4, Aug. 1, and Aug. 29 (1955). 60berg, C. H. and Masters, R. W: The Deternlination of Stresses in Oil-well Casing in Place, Drilling and Procl~~ction Practice, 257 (1947). 'Lubinski, A r t h u r and Blenkarn, K. A: Buckling of Tubing i n Pumping Wells, I t s Effects and Means f o r Controlling it, 3. 6f Petr. Tech., March (1957).

APPENDIX A BUCKLING-CRITERION EQUATION

I n this section a single equation will be developed f o r determining the buckling tendency of cemented casing. The buckling expressions developed by Lubinski2 a n d by Bouman3 will be examined to show t h a t they can be made identical f o r certain conditions. I n this paper t h e permanent freeze point of the casing s t r i n g is assumed t o be a t the cement top. F o r this reason all calculations a r e based on a n assumed point of fixity a t t h e cement top. Lubinski's Buckling Criterion Lubinski2 has developed his equation (13) a s t h e criterion f o r buckling of a cemented s t r i n g of casing or of tubing set on packer. H e f u r t h e r shows t h a t t h e righthand p a r t of this equation (13) may be neglected f o r common sizes of casing and tubing and common fluid weights. This results in t h e following expression: wherein, according t o Lubinski's notation: V = vertical reaction of the frozen portion of pipe or, the free portion (V positive when a downw a r d force). P = external pressure a t the freeze point. n pr = internal pressure a t the freeze point. S z cross-section a r e a based on outside diameter. s = cross-section a r e a based on inside diameter. Usina the notation system a s shown in Fig. 1 of t h i s paper, and considering conditions existing when the cement sets sufficiently to fix the casing i n the cemented zone, the following substitutions can be made i n equation ( 1 ) . free from the casing hanger; a n d f u r t h e r to assume t h a t the end of t h i s f r e e section of casing i s closed. This imaginary closed-end section of casing will change in length when subjected to changes of internal a n d external pressures occurring a f t e r t h e cement sets. I f a vertical force F is applied to the bottom of the imaginary closed-end section of casing so a s to r e t u r n the bottom of t h a t section to the exact position i t occupied when the cement sets, then i t will be seen t h a t :

F = AV
h (w

+ PIS -

A ~ I S

(4)

a n d t h e buckling expression, equation ( 3 ) , becomes :

+ d,Ai - &A,) + F > 0

(5)

The value of F i s positive when i t acts downward on t h e section of casing above t h e cement top. Bouman's Buckling Criterion Bouman3 h a s developed his equation (11) a s t h e criterion f o r buckling of a cemented s t r i n g of casing. This equation i s valid f o r examining t h e buckling tendency a t a n y cross section above the cement top. B y substituting 1 = 0 in Bouman's equation (11) a n expression results for examining the buckling tendency a t only the cement top. If the expression is satisfied, then no buckling tendency exists a t the cement top o r a t a n y cross section above the cement top. To confol-m with notations used in this paper, ?u i s substituted f o r d, ( A , - Ai) used in Bouman's paper. These substitutions yield: Bouman defines C a s the force acting on the bottom of a n imaginary section of length L hanging free a n d with closed end a t the cement top. Bouman defines V a s t h e vertical reaction force which occurs a t the cement ton a s the result of chanaes in environment above the cement top a f t e r the cement sets. Therefore, C V is equivalent to F used in this paper, a n d Bouman's buckling expression can f u r t h e r be reduced to:

V = hw [Pi di ( h PIS = ( P , d,L) A , P I S = (Pi +diL) Ai

+ L ) ] Ai - [Pe + dcL + dchl Ae

>0

These substitutions yield: h (w diAi - &Ae)

(2)

If equation (2) i s satisfied, then no buckling exists a t t h e time t h e cement sets. Changes in environment of the casing a f t e r t h e cement sets will introduce changes in t h e buckling tendency above t h e cement top. In line with Lubinski's theory, these changes can be considered by adding to equation ( 2 ) three terms t o yield: h (w diA; - &A,) AV A P ~ S App 0 (3) wherein: AV, Apt, a n d Apf a r e the changes a f t e r the cement sets t h a t occur in the vertical reaction, external pressure, a n d internal pressure a t the cement top, respectively. I n computing the effect of t h e three delta or change terms in t h e buckling expression, equation ( 3 ) ' i t is convenient to assume t h a t t h e casing i s cut a t the cement top so a s to result in a section of casing of length L hanging

(nu

+ diAi - &Ae) + F > 0

(7)

>

Equations ( 5 ) and ( 7 ) developed from Lubinski's and Bouman's criteria, respectively, a r e identical. Evaluation of the Force F The force F in equation ( 7 ) consists of various components which relate the effect on buckling tendency caused by environment changes a f t e r t h e cement sets, such a s hanging procedure and changes of fluid weight, fluid level, temperature, and pressure. These components F1, Fz, Fs a r e evaluated i n the subsequent p a r a g r a p h s by procedures similar to those used by B ~ u m a n . ~

..

1 . Change in Weight per Unit Volume and Drop of

Level of Fluids Inside Casing

If a f t e r the cement sets, the internal fluid weight changes a n amount Adi a n d the fluid level drops a n o amount n in casing which i s assumed L be f r e e a n d

with closed end a t the cement top, a n elongation would occur a s a consequence of axial, stresses caused by a n a s i a l force a t the closed end of the casing. This force is: A , L a d , - A, n ( d Ad,) The component of F required to balance this elongation is : - A, LAdr Atn ( d Ad,)

the total component of F requirecl to balance changes in fluid weight and fluid level outside casing a f t e r the cement sets can be shown to be: F Z = O.7L Ae Ade -Ae ( d e f Ade) [0.4?1t f (O.~WZ'/L)]

(9)
3. C l ~ a n g e in S r ~ r f a c ePresslwe Illside and Ozitside

Furthermore, a n elongation of the casing would occur a s a consequence of tangential and radial stresses caused by the change jn internal fluid weight and fluid-level drop. I n computing this elongation z will represent vertical distance measured from top of t h e casing. a. Elongation from z = 0 to z = n. The radial pressure change i n this region is --d,z. A t a distance z from the top of t h e casing, considered a s a thick-walled cylinder, the suin of the additional tangential stress ut and radial stress ur is: ~t UT = -2Ai~lzz/(Ae - A , ) The unit elongation a t depth z is: [z = - ( p / E ) ( ~ t ~ r = ( 4 p / E ) CAT/(Ae - A , ) ] d z ) Wll.erein: p = Poisson's ratio f o r steel. The total elongation AL1 from z = 0 to z = n is:

Casing, If, a f t e r the ceine~lt sets, the surface internal pressure changes a n ainount AP, and the surface external pressure changes a n amount A p e 011 casing which is assumed to be free and with closecl end a t the cement top, a n elongation would occur a s a consequence of asial stresses caused by a n asial force a t the closecl end of the casing. This force is AP, 4 , - AP,. A,.. The coml>onent of F recluired to resist this elongation AP, A,. is - AP, A l The elongation A L caused by radial and tangential stresses may be computed a s follows: ut u, = 2 (AP, - Apt. 4 , ) / ( A e - A I ) A, [z = - ( P I E ) (ut ur)

L AL = J
0

Ez

dz =

- ( 2 p L / E ) (ut

+ a,)

ALI =

j EZ
0

?1

dz

= ( p / E ) C A I / ( A c- A , ) ] n 2 d ,

The coniponent of F required to balance -this elonga-ALE ( A e - A I ) / L = 2 p ( A P , A , - Ape A e ) The total component of F required to balance the change i n internal and external surface pressure is:
t101lIS

b. Elongation from z = n to z = L. The radial pressure change i n this region i s zAd, n (dl Adl).

ut

+ + u, = C2.4,/(Ae - A , ) ]
L
([r:

[Z

Ad,

- TL (dl

& = - 2 ( p / E ) [A1/(.4e - A t ) ] [ Z Ail, - ?L

+ A&)] (dl + Adz)]

/

AL, =

(7, = ( p / E ) [ . 4 , / ( A e - A , ) ] [ 2 n ( L - n )

( d l ~ c l , - Ad, ( L e ) c. Total Elongation o = 0 to o = L. AL = ~ L I ALe = ( p / E ) [-4t/(Ae - A t ) ] [?L ( L - n ) el, -' ( L - n ) e Ad,] The conlponent of F required to balance this elongation is : -AL ( A , - A , ) E / L = (-p/L) A, [n ( 2 L - n) dl - ( L - n)%cll]

nv]

The total component of F required to balance the changes in fluid weight and fluid level inside casing is:

F I = -0.7L

A, Ad,

+ A, ( d , + Ad,)

r0.41~

+ (O.SnP/L)]

(8) W h e r e i n : p, f o r steel, h a s been taken a s 0.3. The effect of n on the buckling tendency of casing above the cement top is such t h a t ?L should never be substituted in equation (8) with a value greater than L, even though the casing may be completely evacuated. 2. C I ~ c ~ n g e T*i'eigltt per h i t Volztme ctnd Drop of Level in of Fl~iielsOutside Casing By a procedure s i m ~ l a to t h a t used f o r deterinining F I r

4. C11an.ge of Avercrge T e ~ ~ p e r c c t c w e Casing of If, a f t e r the cenient sets, the average temperature 01 the casing above the celllent top changes a n amount At in casing assunlecl free a t the cement top, a n elongation will occur of the amount: A L = ALAt TVl~erein : A = coefficient of thermal expansion of steel. The co~nponentof F required to balance this elongation is: -AL ( A , - A , ) E / L = - A E ( A e - A l ) At Wherezn: ? E = 30 X 106 x 6.9 x , = 207 psi per deg F. A, - A, = A (cross-sectional area of casing body). F o r normal sizes and weights of casing used 111 inter~necllate and production strings, the cross-sectional a r e a of the casing bocly, A, nlay be taken a s equal to 0.289w1, where 20' is the nominal weight per foot of the casing above the cement top. The component of F for temperature change At is then:

It should be noted t h a t the symbol 7u was usecl in the first section of this appendix to designate the nominal weight per foot of casing below the cement top. When considering buckling causecl by a temperature change, only t h a t p a r t of the casing above the cement is effective. F o r this reason rc~' h a s been used here to differentiate froin .lo. F o r single-weight strings tu' is equal to 2u.

5. Pick~cp0.r Slack-off b e f o ~ e L[c.?lcliny

. ..

The amount of pickup' or slack-off before landing caslng can be taken into account 111 t h e value of F by t h e tern1 : F j = AS (12)
TVhe ~ e i ?: z AS

AS =j ,5,9.S iO' At - lrtc3 +0.;85 D , V h d , - 0.7LAclF'- 0.4AP, (de Ade) (0.41)~ O..??n"L)] -0.785 D1Vltdi - 0.7LAdI - 0.4APt ( d , a d , ) (0.411 0 . 3 n 2 / L ) ]

+ +

+ +

+ +

= the anlount of pickup i n weight units (negative values of AS incl~cateslack-off.

.

'

Expansion of the Buckling Criterion, Equation (7) Ecluatlon (7) was developed t o deternline t h e buckling tendency of cemented caslng. This equatioq contains a tern1 F which h a s been evaluated in terms of conlponents F1, Fc, . . Fs. An espression will be rleveloped ,here which includes the components F1, Fa, . . Fs and which can be usecl in exanlining the general case of buckling tendency of cemented casing. S u b s t ~ t u t ~ n g value of F,, FI', the Fj f o r F equatlon (7) yields: 11, (10 t: d c At-clc Ae) -0.7 L A , ~ c l , A , ( d l a d , ) [0.4n (0.31r"/L)] +0.7LAe Ade - A e ( d , f Ael,) [0.4,)11. (0.311~"L)] +0.4 (Ae Ape - A , Apt)

(13) This means t h a t no buckling tendency mill e s i s t a s long a s the p ~ c k u pof the casing, AS, in force u n ~ t s before hanging is g r e a t e r t h a n t h e valde indicatecl on the righthand p a r t of t h e espression. A negative value inclicates the casmg m a y be slacked off a n amount not to esceecl the absolute value of the espresslon. The slack-off o r pickup inay be conlputecl in length units a L by multiplying the espresslon by L / A E or by
v".46L/ZUfE.

..

+ +

-59.8

+as

>0

ru' At

By rearranging .and inaking t h e substitutions A , = !1.;85 DF2, = 0.785 Dt2the espression hecomes: A,
,

Ecluation (13) is not dimensionally correct f o r fluicl weights espressecl i n pouncls per gallon or pounds per a cubic foot. If the fluid w e ~ g h t s r e expressed In pounds, per gallon, they may be converted to p o ~ ~ n d s square per inch per foot by m u l t ~ p l y i n g the factor 0.05195. This by converslon factor i s included i n the first two expressions given in Table 1. Hence, fluid \veights expressed in pounds per gallon may be substituted d ~ r e c tw ~ t h o u t change. If the fluid weights a r e espressed i n pounds per cubic foot, they may be converted t o pounds per square by inch per foot by d ~ v ~ c l i n g 144. This converslon factor is included in the second two espressions i n Table 1, and no f u r t h e r conversion of units of fluid weights is necess a r y before substituting in the espression.

APPENDIX B
differentiate from ZLJ, the nominal weight of casing below the cement top, and .to', the noniinal w e ~ g h tof caslng above the ceinent top. F o r combination-weight s t r i n g s the sylnbol zu" designates the average nominal weight of casing in t h e string. F o r this reason t h e term zu" (IL L ) 1s equal t o the total w e ~ g h t a i r of the In c a s ~ n gstring. F o r single-weight strings, w", rut and ru a r e equal. Changes in Wellhead Load a f t e r cement Sets Changes in the load a t the cement top a f t e r the cement sets have been computed i n A.ppenc11s A,. assuming the end of the casing a t t h e cement top i s closecl. The change 111 the wellhead load is identical to the change In the load a t the cement top escept caslng must he consiclerecl open-elided. The correction for open-encl conditions i s made hy s u l ~ t r a c t l n g effect of closecl-end the cond~tionsfro111 the value of F determined in Appendis . A. This yields:

WELLHEAD-LOAD EQUATION
The development of the equation f o r use in determining the wellhead load a t a n y time i n the history of t h e well is given following. Wellhead Load a t Time Cenlent Sets By referring to Fig. 1 i t can be deterlnined t h a t the wellhead load a t the time the cement sets is equal to the weight of the entire string in a i r plus the weight of the internal fluid and the internal pressure a t the top tiines the a r e a based 011 ihside diameter, and minus the weight of the clisplacecl fluid and the esternal pressure a t the top times the a r e a based on o u t s ~ d e diameter. A small error is introduced in computing the \\.ellhead load f o r combination strings by this method but the error i s , negligihle in most cases. The algebraic espression f o r t h e ~vellheacl load, W c , a t the time the cement sets is:,
TVc

=7

~ "(11 -0.785

+ L ) f 0.785 D,'
Dc2 (llcl,

f LcZ,

(hdl + Ltlr + Pl) + PC)

I n this expression t h e symbol ru" h a s been used to

236
AW

W. R. Cox

= -0.7L
-59.8

A i Adi

w'At

+ 0.4 ( A P , A , - APi

+ Ai

(di 4- Adi) [0.4n 4- ( 0 . 3 n 2 / L ) ] +0.7L A , Ad, - A, ( d , Ai)

+ AS

- [ n Ai di - ( L - n) Ai Adi
Ai APi

+ A , AP,]

-m A , d u+ ( L -M )

+ ad,)

[0.4?n -!- ( 0 . 3 ? n 2 / L ) ] A , ad, -

Wellhead Load for Any Condition in the History of the Well By combining the equation f o r wellhead load W c f o r the condition when the cement sets and the equation for the change in wellhead load AJV a f t e r the cement sets, t h e equation f o r wellhead load, JV, f o r a n y condition i n the history of the well is obtained. Equation (14) is not dimensionally correct f o r fiuid weights expressed in pounds per gallon o r pounds per
W

cubic foot. The wellhead-load equations in Table 2 include conversion factors such t h a t fluid weights may be substituted i n units of pounds per gallon in the first equation and pounds per cubic foot in the second equation. Similar to the buckling-criterion expressions, the wellhead-load equations in Table 2 a r e f o r single-weight strings. However, the error involved in using these equations to determine wellhead loads f o r combination strings i s small.

= W,

+ AW
+

w'At 4- w" (114- L ) - 0.785D,2 [hde 4- Ldc 0.3 L a d e P e O.6APe - ( d e Ad,) (0.6m - 0 . 3 m 2 / L ) ] 0.785D,2 [ hd, Ld, 0.3LAd, 4- P , 4- 0.6AP1- ( d , -!- Ad,) (O.(in - O..?n"L]
AS - 59.8

+ +

+ +

APPENDIX C NOMOGRAPHS FOR SOLUTION OF THE BUCKLING-CRITERION EQUATION

The buckling criterion equation f o r pickup in pounds and f o r fluid weights in pounds per gallon may be expressed a s :
AS

> B , + Bz

+ B3

+ . .

. . . . . .

BIO

where the 10 terms a r e a s defined following.

Term Value
BI B,o B3 Bq Bs Bg B: Bs Bg Blo

Physical Description of Factor Influencing Buckling Temperature effect Weight of casing hanging below cement top Cement-slurry weight Mud weight inside casing Change i n mud weight outside casing Change i n mud weight inside casing Change in surface pressure outside casing Change in surface pressure inside casing Drop of fluid level outside casing Drop of fluid level inside casing ( n

= +59.8 = -hw

W'

At

= 4-0.0408 DL2 hdc = -0.0408 = -0.0286

D,Vld, DL2 LAde

4-0.0286 Dr2 LAdt -0.314 Dp2 APp

= +0.314 DL2 APz = 4-0.0163 D e v d e

-0.0163

+ Adr) (?n 4- 0.7.5?n"L) DZ2 d , 4- Ad,) ( n + (0.75n"L) (

I

L)

Nomographs have been developed f o r solving the several terms of t h e buckling-criterion equation. These nomographs a r e given i n Fig. 3 through 9 (p. 238 to 244). caremust be taken in use of the nomoaraDhs to assure - . t h a t t h e proper sign of the term is used. F o r example, i n

term B6 a n increase of mud weight inside the casing

gives a positive value
POSiAdi and the sign of B6 tive. A decrease of mud weight inside gives a negative

value f o r Adi and the sign of BF is negative.

APPENDIX D NOMOGRAPHS FOR SOLUTION OF THE WELLHEAD-LOAD EQUATION

The wellhead-load equation f o r fluid weights in pounds per gallon may be expressed a s : Term Value

W = W I + W Z Ws . . . where the 12 terms a r e as defined below.

. . .

WIS

Physical Description of Factor Influencing Wellhead Load Pickup when hanging casing

Wl = + A S W2 = -59.8
W'

4t

Temperature effect Weight of entire string in a i r Cement-slurry weight Mud weight outside casing

Ws = +w" ( h
TVr, = -0.0408 TVs = -0.0408

+ L)
De2 l ~ d e D,"de

W 6 = $0.0408 D,"lz W7 = -0.0122

+ L ) dl

Mud weight inside casing Change in mud weight outside casing Change i n mud weight inside casing Surface pressure outside casing Surface pressure inside casing Drop of fluid level outside casing Drop of fluid level inside casing ( n 7 L )

DL2 LAdr

We = $0.0122 DL2 LAdt Wg = -0.471

+ 1.G7 Pe) Wlo = $0.471 DL2(Apt + 1.67 PL) W l l = $0.0245 De2 (de + 4 4 ) ( m - 0..5m2/L) W 1 2= -0.0245 DL2( d , + 4 d , ) ( n 0.5n91L)
Dp2 ( 4 P e
-

Nomographs have been developed f o r solving t h e several terms of the wellhead-load equation. These nomog r a p h s a r e given i n Fig. 10 through 15 (p. 245 to 250). Care must be taken in use of the nornographs to assure - . t h a t the proper sign of the t e r m is used. F o r example,

in term We a n increase i n mud weight inside casing gives a positive value f o r Adi and the sign of W8 is positive. A decrease of mud weight inside gives a negative

value f o r Adi and the sign of We i s negative.

DISCUSSION H. M. Krause, J r . (Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, Texas) (written): I n 1955 the A P I Southwestern District Study Committee on Casing-landing Practice concluded their work with the recommendation t h a t casing be landed in the casing head a t exactly the position i n which i t was hanging on the hook when the cement plug hit bottom. This recommendation applies t o all wells where mud weights do not exceed 12.5 lb per gal; where standard design factors a r e used in tension and collapse; wellhead equipment is available t o permit hanging weight equal t o the tensile strength of the casing on the hanger without damage to the casing; and where t h e joint strength, i n compression, of the top section of the surface casing is sufficient to withstand the loads imposed by landing the casing a s cemented, plus the weight of the tubing, plus induced loads t h a t may be brought about by future operations. I t was concluded a f t e r much study t h a t this practice should afford the greatest amount of protection f o r and service from A P I casing in a very high percentage of wells drilled in the Southwestern District, and t h a t conclusion is still valid. However, i t was recognized a t t h a t

time t h a t a number of wells a r e drilled and operated t h a t require special consideration in landing casing and references were made to the work of Lubinski and others i n arriving a t casing-landing programs f o r wells where design factors a r e low, where extreme pressures a r e encountered, where excessive mud weights a r e necessary, or where abnormal operating conditions exist. Mr. Cox is t o be complimented on t h e fine work t h a t has been presented in this paper. H e has presented a tool t h a t should prove to be a significant contribution t o casing-landing procedure, particularly f o r the deep abnormal-pressure wells t h a t a r e becoming more frequent in the A P I Southern District. W e who a r e concerned with this problem can thank Mr. Cox f o r the completeness of his paper and particularly f o r the nomog r a p h s which greatly simplify a rather lengthy and timeconsuming calculation procedure. A s past chairman of t h e Study Committee on Casinglanding Practice, i t is most gratifying to acknowledge the work t h a t is being done to furnish the missing links in the fast-growing chain of understanding and practices f o r the landing of casing in order to gain the maximum utility from that casing throughout the life of t h e well.

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE ON BUCKLING.

0 , - 49.8W ' A ~ EXAMPLE :
w'= 23 lbs/ft.

Fig. 3

EFF,ECT OF WEIGHT OF CASING ON BUCKLING

EXAMPLE:
h
I

w o tt. o

= 2 9 1 bs./ft

250

Fig. 4

240

W. R. Cox

EFFECT OF FLUID WEIGHTS. ON BUCKLING

8' *0.0408 D hdc , : 8 -0.0408 Di2 hdi , '
EXAMPLE:

4' 7 in. h = 3,000ft.

dc= 15 1 bs./gal.

Bs= +90,000bs. I

Fig. 5

EFFECT OF F L U I D . WEIGHT CHANGE ON ~ ~ U C KNG LI

'

B5' -0.0286 0:Lbde B6' +0.0286 D ~ ' L A ~ I

EXAMPLE : Di' 6.366 in. L = 7,000 f 1.

adi' '5 Ibs./gal. &= +40,600I bs.

400 300

OL -0

"1
L

In-

EX

Il

Fig. 6

242

W. R. Cos

EFFECT OF SURFACE PRESSURE CHANGE ON BUCKLING

B,= -0.314 ~ e Ape ? 88: 40.314 D API : EXAMPLE:

Fig. 7

EFFECT OF FLUID L E V E L . CHANGE ON UCKLING - 4; 10.0163 D : ( +dQllm+0.75$)

6,f -0.0163 Di' (d
EXAMPLE: DI = 6.3661n. d i t ~ d i 13- 4.3 = 8 =
n

- -

5,000 f 1.

i
l

adJ(n

0.75 f2 1

Ibs./qol.

2 Fig.' 8

244

W. R. Cox

Fig. 9

100

90

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE ON WELLHEAD LOAD w*= -59.8 w'at

EXAMPLE
w'
8

= 23 1 bs./ tt.

Fig. 10

246

W. R. Cox

EFFECT O F WEIGHT OF CASING ON W E L L H E A D L O A D

WS= twn(h+L) EXAMPLE: ' w,": 26Ibs./ft. h = 3,000 f t. L = 7,000ft. W3=+260,0001 bs.

1,500

IQOO

800 700 600

Fig. 11

EFFECT OF FLUID WEIGHTS ON WELLHEAD LOAD

WI= -0.0408 hdc Ws= -0.0408 0c'~dr Wd= +0.0408 Di2( h+L)di EXAMPLE: D ' 6.276 in. i

02

Idc l d e I d ,

h+ L = 3,000t 7,000 10,000 ft. = d l = 1 lbs./gol. 3 3,000 W, = +209,0001 b r

---= -

2,000

4 -

\
\
\

-2k
+
Q)
C

ii?
a 3
0

'= 2 C .-

0.

2 0 0 \ q \

5
u '

3
L

4
%

rC

-C

r C
0
C
Q)

- + I

.=
V)
I C

C .-

. t

100 90 80 70 60

r"

""
40

Fig. 12

248

W. R COX .

EFFECT OF FLUID WEIGHT CHANGE ON W E L L H E A D LOAD

W,=

-0.0122 D ride : L Ws' t0.0122 D?L ad L

300

EXAMPLE 0, = 6.366 in. L = 7,00011 ad1 = + 5 l bs./gol. WB' t I 7 , 3 0 0 1 b $

200 7
'

150 I00 90 80 70 60

,
0' 4

/
/ -

Fig. 13

EFFECT O F SURFACE
OIV WELLHEAD LOAD

1-

D : ( A ~ + 1.67 W$ t0.471 D ~ ' ( A R + I . ~ ? R ) EXAMPLE: D = 6.366in.

%= -0.471

APi

= + 2,00O~.i.

0 W I ~+ 38300 lbs.

4=

Fig.

EFFECT OF FLLllD L E V E L CHANGE Old WELLHEAD LOAD

WIF +0.0245 D43(de+ & d c ) ( m - 0 . 5 ~ ~ )
Wn= -0.0245 D z ( d i +adi)(n- 0 . 5 f )

EXAMPLE: DI= ,6.366in. di t ~ d i ' 13-4.3-8.7 1 bs./~Ol. n = 5,000 ft. L = 7,000 ft. n-o.sf= 3,210 it. Wit= -27,700 Ibs.

..

I,000

o
? m
u

500 400

Fig. 15