You are on page 1of 16

Field Testing of Casing-string Design Factorst

J. E. SAYE*AND T. W. G. RICHARDSONG
ABSTRACT
For about 10 years Shell Orl Company h a s deHowever, cemented casing successfully withstood
signed combinat~oncaslng s t r ~ n g susmg an engicollapse d e s ~ g nfactors as low as 0.50, ~f design
neered standard method and design s a f e t y factors
factors are calculated in exactly the same manner
of 1.60 ~n tension, 1.OO m collapse, and 1.33 ~n burst.
a s for uncemented casing. A s a result of the t e s t
In the absence of any casing failures attributed t o
data presented hereln. Shell h a s a d o ~ t e dthe followt h l s method, i t was reasonable t o belleve that the
ing design factors as standard for the Elk C ~ t y
deslgn factors were conservative. Therefore, In May
F ~ e l d :tension d e s ~ g nfactor of 1.40, collapse de1952, a field-testing program w a s undertaken In the
sign factor of 0.85 for cemented caslng, collapse
Elk C ~ t yFleld, Oklahoma, t o a s c e r t a ~ nwhether
d e s ~ g nfactor of 1.00 for uncemented casing; and
design factors for tension and collapse could b e
the burst design factor of 1.33 remaining unchanged.
lowered safely. T h l s paper presents up-to-date reUse of these deslgn factors has, however, been res u l t s of t h i s testlng program. Tenslon design facstrlcted t o t h ~ one
s field. As soon a s the field-testtors were progressively lowered from 1.60 to 1.40
ing program h a s been completed and carefully anaIn increments of 0.05 wlthout Incurring tenslle failures. In the collapse t e s t s , uncemented casing was
lyzed, a revised caslng deslgn method and set of
d e s ~ g factors
n
w ~ l be
l prepared for unrestricted use.
collapsed a t design factors of 0.95, 0.85, and 0.80.
INTRODUCTlON
Through much of i t s recent h ~ s t o r ythe 011 lndustry h a s b e e n plagued with s h o r t a g e s of tubular goods
and government control of c r i t i c a l materials. T h ~ s
h a s forced the industry t o depart from ~ t proved
s
methods of caslng-string design and h a s led e ~ t h e r
t o arbitrary r e d u c t ~ o nof d e s ~ g nf a c t o r s or wasteful
u s e of h e a v ~ e ror b e t t e q r a d e pipe than that ordinarlly r e q u ~ r e d . At the s a m e tlnle the never-ending
s e a r c h for new petroleum r e s e r v e s h a s resulted in
drilllng t o Increasingly greater d e p t h s which requires more exacting d e s i g n of well c a s i n g . Also,
a n a n a l y s i s of t h e c o s t of w e l l s drilled In the midcontinent a r e a by Shell Oil Conipany durlng 1953
s h o w s that well c a s l n g r e p r e s e n t s 27.5 percent of
t h e drllllng c o s t . All of t h e s e f a c t o r s s e r v e to emp h a s i z e the f a c t that c a s ~ n g - s t r ~ ndesign
g
IS a n enp e e r i n g problem of great lmportance.
In order t o cope with t h i s problem the 011 Industry
must have h i g h - g a d e tubular goods with well-established strengths, a reliable method of c a s ~ n g - s t r i n g
d e s i g n , and r e a l i s t i c d e s i g n f a c t o r s . Considerable
work h a s already been done In developing better
* Shell 011 Company, Oklahoma C ~ t y .

hell 011 Company.

f Presented

Tulsa.

b y J. E. Saye at the sprlng meetlng of the MldC o n t ~ n e n tDlstrlct, Dlvlslon of Production, Oklahoma C~ty,
March 1954.

materials and in statistically e s t a b l i s h ~ n gs t r e n g t h s


of tubular ,goods from t e s t d a t a . Also, s e v e r a l relia b l e design methods have been presented in t h e literature. T h e d e s i g n factors In u s e , however, have
~
the opb e e n a r b ~ t r a r yand vary c o n s ~ d e r a b lamong
erating oil companies. Very l ~ t t l eh a s been done experlmentally t o e s t a b l ~ s ht h e s e d e s ~ g nfactors.
Durlng t h e e a r l y part of World Rar 11, Shell 011
Company adopted a standard method of c a s i n g - s t r ~ n g
d e s i g n using the following design factors: 1.60 for
tension, 1.00 for c o l l a p s e , and 1.33 for burst. S ~ n c e
adoptlng t h i s method, a great number of c a s i n g
s t r i n g s have been run and no failures have been attributed t o the d e s ~ g nmethod or the d e s g- n factors
used. T h i s a b s e n c e of failure w a s good r e a s o n for
b e l i e v ~ n gthat the design f a c t o r s i n use were cons e r v a t i v e and might be reduced. Therefore, In May
of 1952, Shell Oil Conipany undertook a field-test
program t o determine whether or not c o l l a p s e and
t e n s ~ o ndesign f a c t o r s could be lowered. T e s t s were
conducted In field w e l l s because field experience i s
t h e only yardstick which h a s a n y r e a l meaning.
T h e purpose of t h i s paper 1s t o present t h e r e s u l t s
which have b e e n obtalned t o d a t e with .this field
t e s t l n g of casing-string d e s i g n factors. A s the mathenlatical and p h y s i c a l c o n c e p t s of c a s i n g - s t r ~ n gdes i g n have been covered in previous papers, t h e

24

J . E . SAYE AND T. W. G . RICHARDSON


I
writers do not plan to d i s c u s s them. The casinging strings using niininiuni strength values publishstrength values used in this report are those pube d by the API and design factors of 1.60 in tension,
lished In API Bu15C2, Fifth Edition, January 1952.
1.00 in collapse, and 1.33 in burst. In designing for
Also, this paper must n e c e s s a r ~ l ybe considered a
collapse, the full mud-column pressure is presumed
progress report because the t e s t program has not yet
t o be applied on casing empty of fluid ( ~ . e . , an inbeen completed and t e s t results have not been used
ternal pressure of 0 psig is assunled), bouyancy is
to establish design factors for unrestricted use.
neglected, but bi-axial s t r e s s curves are used to
Throughout this paper the writers will refer to "dedetermine the ellect of t e n s ~ l eload on collapse resign factors" rather than "safety factors" a s true
sistance. In designing for tension the free-hanging
safety factors are not known. It should again be
weight, calculated in air, is used, bouyancy is negpointed out that only tension and collapse design
lected, and the t e n s ~ o ndesign
- factor is based on
factors have been field tested in wells because it
API niin~n~unl
jolnt pull-out strength. Burst strength
was inlpractical to conduct burst tests.
1s usually not critical but calculations are nrade
based on the niaximum antrcipated internal pressure,
Cas~ng-stringLles~gnRlethods
and external pressure IS presumed to correspond to
The principles of casing-string design were s e t
that of a column of salt water. T h i s design method
down a s early a s 1921; and, in 1941, theoretical
was used to prepare the normal 5 '/,-in. casing-string
and practical investigation on the part of both the
design chart, Fig. 1, for the Elk City Field. Prior
pipe industry and the oil Industry culminated in pubto
the field testing of cas~ng-stringdesign factors,
lication by the American Petroleum Institute of
thls
was our standard design for the field.
nilninlum strengths for casing in collapse, tension,
Throughout
this paper, cas~ng-stringdesign facand burst. Today, engineered casing-string design
tors
will
be
calculated
a s o u t l ~ n e din the foregome,
is the rule rather than the exception and a number
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
~
o
n
of
the
Shell
design
method.
of acceptable design methods have been published
in the literature, but there seems to be little uniformity in the design factors used. j4 recent survey
D E P T H IN FEET
9500
10000
10500
11000 11500
conducted by a n 011 conlpany operating in the m ~ d continent area showed that the following design
factors are used:

Company*

A
l3
C

D
E
F'
G

Collapse
Design
Factor

Tension
Des~gn
Factor

Burst
Design
Factor

1.125
1.125
1.125
1.17
1.oo
1.125
1.125

1.80
1.80
1.75
1.75
1.60
1.60
1.80

1.oo
1.10
1.10
1.75
1.33
1.oo
1.10

In general, these companies base their design upon


API minimum y~eld-strengthvalues but limited use
is a l s o made of ultimate strength values. Some companies use actual mud weight in design, whereas
others use the weight of s a l t water. In general,
bouyancy IS neglected but usually bi-axial s t r e s s
curves are used to determine the reduction of collapse resistance caused by tensile load.
For a number of years Shell Oil Company has followed a standard method for designing tapered cas*Not

necessarrly In the order

glven,

these comp-es

Mud We~ght:9.4 Ib per gal


D e s ~ g nFactor, T e n s ~ o n :1.60
D e s ~ g nFactor, Collapse: 1 .OO
D e s ~ g nFactor, Burst: 1.33 at 4,000 p s ~

were

Shell 011 Company, Stanollnd 011 and G a s Co., Phllllps Petr o l e u m Co., Gulf 011 Corp., Deep R o c k 011 Corp., The Carter
011 Co., and Sunray 011 Corp.

F i g . 1-Normal

wellhead pressure
5'4-in. Cosing-string Design Chart

E l k C i t y Field, Beckham County, Oklahoma

25

F I E L D TESTING O F CASING-STRING DESIGN FACTORS


F i e l d Conditions Afiecting Tests
T h e E l k C i t y F i e l d in Beckham and Washita
C o u n t i e s of Oklahoma w a s s e l e c t e d as the most
s u i t a b l e place for conducting t e s t s 'bf c o l l a p s e and
t e n s ~ o ndesign factors because the depth of w e l l s
o l e r e d considerable flexibility in casing-string des i g- n and t e s t s could b e conducted with the l e a s t
r i s k of losing a well. A maximum of w e l l s a f e t y w a s
a s s u r e d b e c a u s e tenslon t e s t s could be conducted
s o that the t e s t s e c t l o n w a s Inside the 3,100-ft intermediate or "salt-string" c a s i n g whlch is needed
In t h i s field. Also, c o l l a p s e t e s t s could be s a f e l y
conducted without d e e p e n ~ nw~e l l s because w e l l s
frequently encounter s e v e r a l hundred f e e t of nonc o n ~ m e r c ~ aslt r a t a a s a r e s u l t of t e s t i n g a lower
zone, not productive In a l l parts of the field. With
the well-trained field supervisors and s e r v i c e pers o n n e l available, it w a s possible t o conduct t h e s e
t e s t s with minimum r i s k b e c a u s e , if f a ~ l u r eoccurred
during a t e n s ~ o nt e s t , the s t r i n g would be parted Ins i d e the i n t e r m e d ~ a t ec a s i n g and repalr would be relatively simple and inexpensive. In the e v e n t of a
c o l l a p s e failure In the bottom of the string, the hole
l o s t would have no conlmercial value and the c a s i n g
could st111 b e cemented through
- perforations.
.
A s a l l of the t e s t s reported herein were conducte d In the E l k C i t y F ~ e l da general d i s c u s s i o n of well
conditions follows. After cementing a n i n t e r m e d ~ a t e
c a s i n g s t r i n g a t about 3,100 f t i n a n E l k C ~ t yF i e l d
well, a 7'4-in. hole is drilled t o a depth which avera g e s 10,500 ft. A 9.4 lb per gal mud i s used, but bottom-hole pressure generally corresponds to that of
a column of-fresh water. T h u s a t 10,500 ft there is
a mud over-balance pressure of 578 p s i resulting
from the diflerential between 5,124 PSI mud-column
pressure and 4,546 p s i formation pressure. Formation bottom-hole temperatures range from 168 t o 1 8 2
F., and the S1/,-in. c a s i n g s t r l n g is d e s ~ ~ n efor
d a
maximum wellhead pressure of 4,000 psi. When the
5 '/,-in. oil-string c a s l n g i s run, it 1s filled with mud,
t h e lower 1,500 t o 2,000 f t of the s t r i n g is equipped
with centralizers and s c r a t c h e r s , and t h e pipe i s
reciprocated through 25-ft s t r o k e s while it is being
cemented. T h i s r e c ~ p r o c a t i o nimposes a n additiona l tensile load which a v e r a g e s 30,000 lb. T h i s load
i s not considered when the c a s i n g s t r i n g i s designed
b e c a u s e it is opposed by bouyancy which i s a l s o
neglected. On the l a s t downstroke of r e c ~ p r o c a t i o n ,
t h e c a s i n g is landed and, if the float holds, c a s i n g
s l i p s a r e s e t immediately, i.e., c a s i n g i s not s l a c k e d 05after the cement h a s s e t . In the E l k C i t y F i e l d

uncontaminated cenient t o p s a t 8,500 ft a r e common


and friiquently a r e as high a s 8,000 ft.
F l e l d - t e s t Procedure
Insofar a s possible the field t e s t s of casing-string
d e s l g n factors were handled as though the c a s i n g
were the s a m e a s for a routine field well. No s p e c ~ a instructions
l
were Issued t o field personnel beyond t h o s e n e c e s s a r y t o get c o n ~ p l e t ed a t a on the
t e s t . In performing tension t e s t s reciprocation and
a l l a l l l e d o p e r a t ~ o n swere conducted In the usual
manner, making no allowance for the reduced design
factor. In fact, field personnel were deliberately
a s k e d not t o take any s p e c i a l c a r e in t h e running
a n d cementing of the tension t e s t strings. On coll a p s e t e s t s the only departure from customary procedure w a s the running of t h e c o l l a p s e t e s t s e c t i o n
o n t h e bottoni of the string. T e n s i o n a n d c o l l a p s e
t e s t s were never conducted in the s a m e well, however, and Moody Engineering Co. inspection reports
were obtained for a l l c a s i n g used in the t e s t s e c t~ons.
T e n s i o n Tests
In conducting t e s t s of tension d e s i g n factors,
c a s l n g s t r i n g s were designed and run in the u s u a l
manner. T e n s i o n d e s i g n factors, c a l c u l a t e d o n the
b a s s of t h e c a s i n g weight in a l r and A P I minimum
joint pull-out strength, were progressively lowered
in successive c a s i n g s t r i n g s in accordance with the
following schedule:
T e s t Number
1 and 2
3 and 4
5, 6 , and 7

T e s t Design E'actor

1.55
1.50

1.45
1.40
I n the event of t e n s i l e failure, repair would have
b e e n facilitated a s that portion of the c a s i n g string
being t e s t e d w a s a l w a y s inside the s a l t string.
All eight of the t e s t s listed were conducted without failure and the r e s u l t s have been tabulated in
T a b l e 1. F i g . 2 i l l u s t r a t e s the comparison of a 1 . 6 0
and a 1.40 d e s i g n factor for tension i n a c a s i n g
s t r i n g for a well 11,000 ft deep. Following the s u c c e s s f u l completion of t h e s e t e s t s , a tension d e s i g n
factor of 1.40 w a s a c c e p t e d a s standard for the E l k
C i t y F i e l d and, t o d a t e , 4 0 oil s t r i n g s of t h l s des i g n have been s u c c e s s f u l l y run a n d cemented a t
d e p t h s from 10,000 t o 11,000 ft.
It is interesting t o note from T a b l e 1 that, if the
bouyancy of the mud and the reciprocation load a r e
considered, tension d e s i g n f a c t o r s for t h e s e t e s t s

26

J. E. SAYE AND T. W. G. RICHARDSON

Table 1

Elk

C a s ~ n gTension Tests
C ~ t yF ~ e l d ,Beckham and Wash~taCounties, Oklahoma

T e s t No. 1 T e s t No. 2 T e s t No. 3 T e s t No. 4 T e s t No. 5 T e s t No. 6 T e s t No. 7 T e s t No. 8


R. E.
G. W.
W. H.
C . 1.
E.
H.
H. B.
G.
Johnson McKenzle
Fender
Jarrell
Hutton
Kelly
G~bbons bl~kles
"B" No. 1
No. 5
"A" No. 2 - N o . 2
"B" No. 3 "D" No. 3 "B" No. 1
No. 4
7-28-52
8-7-52
8-17-52
10-12-52 10-12-52
10-4-52
8-28-52
12-3-52
L e n g t h of c a s l n g s t r l n g
feet..
C a l c u l a t e d weight In a l r
of string, pounds
C a l c u l a t e d welght In a l r
of c a s i n g below t e s t
point, pounds
A P I rnlnlrnurn jolnt pull-out
s t r e n g t h , pounds*
Calculated tenslon deslgn
factor
Depth of t e s t polnt from
s u r f a c e , f e e t .................
Hesult
Average mud welght, pounds
per gallon
Bouyancy f a c t o r
Bouyant welght of c a s i n g
s t r l n g , pounds
Bouyant w e ~ g h tof c a s l n g
below t e s t polnt, pounds..
Increased load d u r ~ n g
cementing, pounds G
T o t a l t e n s i l e load a t t e s t
p o ~ n t ,pounds
C a l c u l a t e d d e s l g n factor a t
t e s t point d u e t o bouyant
load recipr ocatlon..

...........................
............

10,133

10,695

10,380

11,020

10,600

161,604

172,968

167,528

178,741

170,323

136,184

140,668

140,778

145,741

150,693

21 1,000

211,000

211,000

211,000

211,000

1.55

1.50

1.50

1.45

1.40

1,551

1,902

1,573

1,946

1,154

9.35
0.857

9.30
0.858

9.15
0.859

9.40
0.856

9.10
0.861

138,495

148,406

143,906

153,002

146,648

116,709

120,693

120.928

124,754

129,746

.-

................
...........
..........................

...........................
.....................

..............
...............

........
................

26,000

30,000

3 1,000

29,000

35,000

142,709

150,693

151,928

153,754

164,746

.........

1.480

1.401

1.390

1.373

1.281

* From API Be1 5C2 for 5'/2-,n.,


t Successful.
GIncreased load due to

15.5 Ib per

ft, 5-55.

recrprocat~on,w e l g h t

of

STC casmg.

cement, etc.

would be generally lower than those calculated when


these factors are neglected.

l y described. After the casing was run In the well

~t was landed on s l i p s and d r ~ f t e dto bottom with a


drilling bit run on tublng. The caslng was a l s o d r ~ f t Collapse Tests
ed w ~ t ha b ~ after
t
each successive collapse test.
Testlng collapse deslgn factors was much more
complicated than t e s t ~ n gtension d e s ~ g nfactors. A
Collapse t e s t s were obtained on both uncemented
sketch of the method used, Fig. 3, i s included and
and cemented caslng by conduct~ngdrlll-stem t e s t s
the procedure used is briefly described a s follows.
Inside the test section. The test-tool packer was
In each test the portion of the casing string above
s e t In the last length of casing of the normally dethe t e s t section was designed in our usual manner.
signed s t r ~ n g and
,
the diflerentlal collapse pressure
T h e three lengths of casing to be collapse-tested
desired was controlled by varylng the aniount of wawere run on bottom of thls string and collapse t e s t s
ter cushion placed in the tublng. Collapse d e s ~ g n
were obtained by conducting drill-stem t e s t s ~ n s ~ d e factors for the test s e c t ~ o n ,calculated from the difthe casing. In every c a s e the collapse-tested secferential between external mud-colun~npressure and
tion of casing was below all commercially producinternal water-cushlon pressure, were progressively
lowered In increments of 0.05 until the casing coltive zones, and the use of a flapper-type float shoe
lapsed or until a t e s t was obtained with zero interwithout a float collar permitted the casing string to
nal pressure. All caslng used In the collapse-tested
be drifted to bottom after each successive collapse
section was presswe tested to 80 percent of minitest. Every strlng was equipped with centralizers
muni yield pressure (4,400 p s i for 5'4-in., 15.5-lb,
and reciprocating scratchers in the manner previous-

F I E L D TESTING O F CASING-STRING DESIGN F A C T O R S


I?N.B=
1 7 w

# 5~ ' J x ~

BASE SALT STRING


STRING

15 5 5 - 1 3 STC
I5 5*J-55

STC

6.700

DESIGN FACTOR-TENSION 'I 4 0


DESIGN FACTOR-BURST
- 1 33

DESIGN FACTMI-TENSION = I 60
DESIGN FACTOR-BURST = I 33
DESlCH FACTOR COLLAPSE *B~(CEUENTCD)

Fig.

All of the foregoing collapse design factors were


calculated from AFI nllnlmunl collapse strengths.
For convenience, the collapsing force for both uncemented and cemented caslng was assumed to be
that imposed by the dlllerential between a full external mud-column and water-cush~onpressure. The
valid~tyof thls assunlption IS discussed later hereIn. Although collapse failure was experienced on
three of the five tests, the well casing was successfully cemented through perforat~onson the occasion
of each fallure. However, i n all cases the caslng

2 i h ~~ ~. , * E u E ,
J-55 TUBING

DESIGN FACTOR-COLLAPSE =IDO~UNCEMENTED) DE5lGN FACTOR-COLLAPSE

NOTE

27

I OD ~UNCEUENTEO)

DCSlCN FACTOR-COLLAP.51-0.3

(CEMENTED)

DESIGN FACTOR FOR BURST BASED ON


4.000 P S I WELL HEAD PRESSURE

2-11,000-ft Well-5lkin. Casing, 9 A Ib per


gal Mud

3-55 casing). Also, the weight, d r ~ f t ,minimum wall


thickness, and eccentricity of each length was
with data from
checked. Thls lnformat~on,together
bloody Engineering Co. lnspect~onreports, is tabulated i n Tables 2 and 3.
In all, five collapse tests have been conducted
and the results have been tabulated I n Tables 4, 5,
6, 7, and 8. A summary of these results 1s a s follows:
Collapse Test
No.

Design Factor

Design Factor*
at which
Collapse

Tested
1 (uncemented) 0.95,0.90,0.85,0.80
2 (uncemented
0.95
3 (uncemented) 0.95, 0.90, 0.85
4 (uncernented)
0.95, 0.90
(cemented)
0.85, 0.80, 0.75
5 (uncemented)
0.90
(cemented) 0.75,0.70,0.60,0.50
*Note that the effect of tenslon on collapse
because bottom joznts have no tenslle load.
Caslng dld not collapse.

Occurred

0.80
0.95
0.85

t
t
t

t
1s

not considered

Fig. 3-Diagram of Casing Collapse

Test

J. E . SAYE AND T. W. G . RICHARDSON

28

Table 2
Fleld-inspection Results for Collapse Test Casing

Collapse Test

Jolnt

No.

No.

Drlft
Test

Length
Threads
Off,
Feet

Stenclled
Weight,
Pounds

Actual
Weight,
Pounds

f
E. Hutton "13" ~2
5'4-ln. OD, 15.5-lb,

O.K.

31.45

O.K.

Calculated
Feight,
Lb per Ft.

500

502.5

15.8

31.71

502

511.0

16.1

O.E.

31.56

500

501.5

15.9

O.K.

31.91

508

511.0

16.0

0.R.

31.81

504

504.5

15.8

O.K.

32.91

520

525.5

16.0

O.K.

30.58

484

494.0

16.2

0.K.

30.65

486

506.0

16.5

0 . ~ . 32,36

453

456.5

14.1

E. C. Kann # 4
5'4-ln. OD, 15.5-lb,

'8. hl. Rumberger

5'4-in. OD, 15.5-lb,

L. E. Jones # 1
5'4-ln. OD, 15.5-lb,

Blackrnon-Woody # l
5'4-in. OD, 14-lb,
11-40 Casing

I
C

* Wall-thickness read~ngswere taken 120 deg apart on the pm end.


t OD readlngs

were taken approximately 5 ft from pln end, mld-sectlon, and 5 ft from collar.

Cal~pered
Wall
Thickness,
Inches*

0.28
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.25

Callpered OD,
Inches t
Max.

klln.

5.50
5.50
5.49
5.49
5.49
5.50
5.49
5.49
5.49
5.50
5.50
5.49

5.49
5.50
5.49
5.48
5.19
5.49
5.49
5.49
5.49
5.47
5.47
5.47

was frozen and could not be reciprocated. T h i s


caused difliculty In cenientlng and several expensive squeeze-cementing jobs were needed to obtaln
a good cement sheath behind the plpe.
It will be noted froni T a b l e s 4 and 5 that, in the
first two collapse t e s t s , calculated design factors
were slightly diiterent from those indicated by the
two pressure recorders in the test tool. In reviewing
the procedure used and results obtained on these
initla1 t e s t s , it was concluded that erroneous mudcolumn and water-cushion pressures were recorded.
The error in recorded mud-colunln pressure was a
result of piston ellect In running the packer and
packer "squeeze." This procedural inaccuracy was
reduced In subsequent t e s t s by permitting pressure
above and below the packer to equalize before the
packer was s e t and by waitlng 30 nlin before openIng the t e s t tool. Typical bottom-hole pressure
charts are ~ l l u s t r a t e din Fig. 4 and 5. Another source
of error, especially noted on recorded water-cushion
pressures, was rat~onalizedby a n investigation of
instrun~entation limitations. It was deternilned that
the magnitude of errors noted corresponded closely
to the lnherent limitat~onsof the instrunlents used,
these lini~tationsbeing due priniarlly to spring h y s teresis and calibration. The use of the foregoing
procedural changes, carefully selected'lnstrunrents,
and carefully read data on later t e s t s resulted in

Table 3
Specificat~onsfor Collapse-tested C a s ~ n g

Collapse
Collapse
Tests
Test
No. 1-4
No. 5
Outslde diameter, ~nches,nominal..
5.5
5.5
Weight per foot, pounds, nomlnal .... 15.5
14.0
Grade ...................................... J-55
H-40
Threads .................................8-rd, short 8-rd, short
2
Range ....................................
2
blanufacturer...........................
A
B
Seamless
Conversron Seamless
3,000
3,000
Mill test pressure, psi
Field test pressure, psi .............. 4,400
2,800
Dlameter of 6-in. long drlft
mandrel, Inches ....................... 4.825
4.887
Average physical properties:*
Number of tenslle tests .............
3
15
Average tensile strength, psl
85,550
102,702
51,080
Average yleld strength, psi ........ 63,115
49,140
Minlmum yield strength, psi
60,400
Elongation, percent In 2 in. ........ 26.27
33.67
n
b y Moody Englneerlng Company.
*From ~ n s p e c t ~ oreport

................

......
........

niuch closer agreement between calculated and nleasured values. The magnitude of di~ierencewas then
considered wlthin the range of experimental accuracy.
In the first collapse t e s t the casing collapsed a t
a designfactor of 0.79 after successfully' wlthstandIng t e s t s a t design factors of 0.95, 0.90, and 0.85.
On t e s t no. 2 the pipe collapsed a t a design factor

Table 4
C a s ~ n gCollapse Test No. 1
E. Hutton "B" No. 2-July 13-16, 1952
Elk City F ~ e l d ,Beckham County, Oklahoma

Desired deslgn f a c t o r 1 . . ...............

Packer setting depth, f e e t . . ............


Tabulated niininiuni collapse strength, psi.
Calculated collapse strength, p s i 2 . ......
Mud weight, lb per gal .................
Calculated hydrostatic mud pressure, psi .
Water cushion, f e e t . .
Calculated water-cush~onpressure, p s i . ..
Calculated pressure difterentlal, psi
Calculated design factor' ..............
Type pressure recorder
Recorded hydrostatic mud pressure, psi
Recorded water-cushion pressure, p s i
Recorded pressure diHerentia1, p s i
Indicated design factor
Result

..................

.....

................

..

....
......
...............
...............................

' Baaed on tabulated m n l m u m collapse values.

0.95
10,538
3,860
4,780
9.35
5,110
2,471
1,070
4,040

0.955
Bomb 1 Bomb 2
5,149
5,200
1,134
1,140
4,015
4,060

0.961

0.951

Test
Successful

0.90

0.85

10,538
3,860
4,780
9.40
5,143
1,940

10,532
3,860
4,780
9.35
5,108
1,270

840

550

4,303
4,558
0.897
0.847
Bomb 1 Bomb 2 Bomb 1 Romb2
5,081 5,150 .- 5,150 4,925
932
990
625
700
4,149 4,160
4,525 4,225
0.930 0.928
0.853 0.914
Test
Test
Successful
Successful

Based on mlnlmum yleld atrength f r o m Moody lnspectlon report.


Calculated value based on w a t e r cush~on,preesure recordere felled t o record.

30

J. E. SAYE AND T. W. G. RICHARDSON

Table 5
Caslng Collapse Test No. 2
E. C. Wann No. 4-July 26, 1952
Elk C ~ t yF ~ e l d ,Beckham County, Oklahoma
Desired des~gnfactor' ........................
0.95
Packer setting depth, feet ....................
10,382
Tabulated minlmum collapse strength, PSI
3,860
Calculated collapse strength, psi2.........
4,780
Mud Weight, Ib per gal .......................
9.20
Calculated hydrostatic mud pressure, P S I .
4,963
Water cushlon, feet .............................
2,082
Calculated water-cush~onpressure, PSI ...
904
Calculated pressure different~al,p s i .......
4,059
Calculated des~gnfactor' ..................
0.951
Type pressure recorder .......................Bomb 1 Bomb 2
Recorded hydrostat~cmud pressure, PSI ... 5,125 5,203
Recorded water-cush~onpressure, p s i ..... 904)
9w3
Recorded pressure d~fferential,PSI. ....... 4,221 4,299
Indicated deslgn factor ....................... 0.914 0.898
Result .............................................. Casing
Collapsed

' Based on tabulated mrnrrnum collapse values.

'Based on rnrnlmum yreld strength f r o m Moody lnspectron report.


Calculated v a l u e based on w a t e r cushron, pressure recorders
felled to record.

withstood design factors of 0.95 and 0.90, but col-

Date. 9-22-52
Mud We~ght.9.3 Ib per gal
Total Depth: 10,788 ft
Water Cush~on:-2,059 ft
Packer Set At 10,665 ft
Top Choke Stze:
tn
Recovery. Water Cush~onand 100 ft of mud

lapsed at 0.85.
After studylng the results of the first three tests,
the fourth test was successfully conducted on uncen~entedcasing at design factors of 0.95 and 0.90.

Fig. 4-Sample Drill-stem Test Chart for Uncollapsed


Casing
Casing Collapse Test for 0.90 Design Factor
Shell Oil Co: W. M. Rumberger No. 3 Elk City Field

of 0.95. C a s q used In test no. 3 successfully

Table 6
Cash-ng Collapse Test No. 3
W. M. Rumberger No. 3-September 21-23, 1952
Elk City F ~ e l d ,Beckham County, Oklahoma
Des~redd e s ~ g nfactor1....................
0.950
Packer setting depth, feet.. ...............
10,656
3,860
Tabulated nllnlnluni collapse strength, psl ...
Calculated collapse strength, ps12 .........
4,780
hlud we~ght,Ib per gal ....................
9.40
Calculated hydrostatic n~udpressure, p s i . . . .
5,200
2,639
Water cushion, f e e t . . .....................
1,145
Calculated water-cushlon pressure, psi .....
Calculated pressure ddlerential, psi ........
4,055
Calculated design factor .................
0.952
Type pressure recorder ................... Bomb 1
Bomb 2
Recorded hydrostatic nlud pressure, psi ..... 5,217
5,250
Recorded water-cushion pressure, psi. ...... 1,099
1,250
Recorded pressure dillerentlal, psi ......... 4,118
4,000
0.965
Indicated d e s p factor' .................. 0.937
Result.. ................................ Test Successful
'Based on tabulated m n r m u m collapse values.
'Based on mlnrmum yreld strength f r o m Moody rnspection report.
Calculated value based on w a t e r cushlon. pressure recordrng unreadable.

'

0.900
10,655
3,860
4,780
9.35
5,180
2,059
894
4,286
0.901
Bomb 1
Bomb 2
5,243
5,300
M1
1,075
4,272
4,225
0.904
0.914
T e s t Successful

0.850
10,654
3,860
4,780
9.35
5,180
1,479
64 1
4,539
0.850
Bomb 1
Bomb 2
5,186
5,350
641
641 '
4,545
4,709
0.849
0.820
Casing Collapsed

Table 7
C a s ~ n gCollapse Test t4o. 4
L . E. Jones No. 1-November 19, 1952
Elk C ~ t yField, Beckham County, Oklahoma

Uncemented
Desired design factor2 .................

0.95

10,510
Packer setting depth, feet .............
Tabulated minimum collapse
3,860
strength, psi .............................
Calculated collapse strength,
...
4,780
hlud welght, I b per gal ..................
9.4
Calculated hydrostatic mud
5,130
pressure, psi ............................
Water cushion, feet ......................
2,472
Calculated water-cushion pressure,
psi ..........................................
1,070
Calculated pressure differential, psi
4,060
Calculated design factor2..............
0.95
Calculated design factor after
cementation4.............................
.......
Type pressure recorder .................Bomb 1 Bomb 2
Recorded hydrostatic mud pressure,
PSI .........................................
5,166 5,200
Recorded water-cush~onpressure,
psi ........................................1,129 1,100
Recorded pressure differential, psi
4,037 4,100
0.95
0.94
Indicated design factor2
Result
Test
Successful

..
................
.......................................

PI

Cemented'
/

Lowest
Possible
10,502

0.90

0.85

0.80

10,508

10,506

10,504

3,860
4,780
9.4

3,860
4,780
9.4

3,860
4,780
9.4

3,860
4,780
9.4

5,130
1,924

5,130
1,346

5,130
706

5,130
0

834
4,296
0.90

5 83
4,547
0.85

3 06
4,824
0.80

0
5,130
0.75

.......
0.951
Bomb l Bomb 2 Bomb l Bomb 2

0.891
0.832
Bomb l Bomb 2 Bomb l Bomb 2

5,123

5,060

5,130' 5,130'

5,130' 5,130'

5,130'

883
800
4,240 4,260
0.91
0.91
Test
Successful

626
590
4,504 4,540
0.86
0.85
Test
Successful

331
340
4,799 4,790
0.81
0.81
Test
Successful

34
0
5,096 5,130
0.76
0.75
Test
Successful

' The pressure on the outslde of the caslng after cementation was assumed to be equal

5,130'

to the pressure prior to cementing for purpose of calculating deslgn factors.


Based on tabulated mrnlmum values.
' B a s e d on m~nnnumyleld strength from Moody lnspectlon report.
D e s ~ g nfactor of collapse calculated uslng pressure on outslde of caslng based on formation
~ foot of depth.
pressure equal to the we~ghtof salt-water column welghlng 0.442 p s per

A s the t e s t s e c t i o n w a s not c o l l a p s e d , t h e c a s l n g
w a s cemented In t h e normal manner and three t e s t s
were conducted on the c e m e i ~ t e dc a s l n g in a n a t t e m p t
t o e v a l u a t e the effect of cJement behind the pipe on
c a s l n g c o l l a p s e . If calculated on t h e s a m e assumpt ~ o nas for uncemented c a s l n g , d e s l g n f a c t o r s on
t h e s e t e s t s were 0.85, 0.80, and 0.75 and the pipe
w a s not collapsed. No water c u s h ~ o nw a s u s e d in
t h e l a s t of t h i s s e r l e s of t e s t s , which, based o n
calculated mud-column w e ~ g h t ,would correspond to
a d e s l g n factor of 0.75. However, ~f a f t e r cementing,
t h e external pressure on the pipe i s Instead e q u a l
t o formation pressure, the design factor would be
0.83 if a formation pressure gradient of 0.442 p s i
per foot is assumed.
T o check the validlty of r e s u l t s o b t a ~ n e din t e s t
no. 4, another c o l l a p s e t e s t w a s conducted. In t h l s
t e s t three lengths of 5%-in. OD, 14-lb, H-40, STC
c a s i n g were used In t h e t e s t s e c t i o n , whereas prev i o u s t e s t s had used 5%-in. OD, 15.5-lb, J-55, STC
c a s l n g . T h l s H-40 c a s i n g s u c c e s s f u l l y withstood

c o l l a p s e p r e s s u r e s corresponding t o a c o l l a p s e des i g n factor of 0.90 when uncemented, a n d design


f a c t o r s of 0.75, 0.70, 0.60, and 0.50 after the c a s lng w a s cemented. However, for convenience, a l l
d e s i g n f a c t o r s were a g a l n c a l c u l a t e d on t h e b a s i s
of full mud-column pressure outside c a s i n g and water-cushion pressure Inside, e v e n though pipe w a s
cemented for the l a s t four t e s t s . T h e r e IS some
doubt that cemented c a s l n g w a s a c t u a l l y c o l l a p s e
t e s t e d . Our r e a s o n for questioning t h e s e r e s u l t s 1s
t h a t t h e zone opposlte t h e cemented collapse-test
s e c t i o n w a s of s u c h low p e r m e a b ~ l i t y that fornlation pressure might not have b e e n suflicient t o obt a i n the design f a c t o r s mentioned.
.
In the w e l l u s e d for t e s t no. 5, t h i s c o l l a p s e - t e s t
s e c t i o n w a s located between 10,755 and 10,852 f t
In a n interval h a v ~ n gno permeability of commercial
slgnificarlce. E v e n s o , the zone of highest porosity
a n d permeability i n t h ~ ss e c t i o n of the hole had
been open-hole drill-stem tested In the interval froni
10,812 t o 10,827 ft. T h l s open-hole t e s t recorded

J. E . S A Y E AND T. W. G. RICHARDSON

Table

Casing Collapse Test No. 5


Blackmon-Woody No. 1-June 1-7, 1953
Elk C ~ t yField, Beckham County, Oklahoma

Uncemented

w r

Cemented'
h

Deslred collapse design factorZ ....


0.75
0.70
0.60
0.50
'
Packer settlng depth, feet ...........
10,728
10,726
10,723
10,721
10,719
Tabulated minlmum collapse
strength, p s ~........................
3
2,440
2,440
2,440
2,440
2,440
Calculated collapse strength, p s ~ 4 . . 3,195
3,195
3,195
3,195
3,195
blud weight, lb per gal .................
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
Calculated hydrostatic mud
mud pressure, psi ......................
5,180
5,180
5,180
5,180
5,180
Water cushion, feet ...................
5,704
4,440
3,906
2,557
6 74
Calculated water-cushion pressure,
PSI .......................................
2,470
1,925
1,690
1,108
2 92
Calculated pressure differential, psi
2,710
3,255
3,490
4,072
4,888
Calculated design factor ..............
0.90
0.75
0.70
0.60
0.50
Calculated d e s ~ g nfactor after
cementin g5... ...........................
.......
0.867
0.811
0.672
0.549
Type pressure recorder ................Bomb 1 Bomb 2 Bomb 1 Bomb 2 Bomb 1 Bomb 2 Bomb 1 Bomb 2 Bomb 1 Bomb2
Recorded hydrostatic mud
pressure,psi ...........................5,163 5,175 . 5,180 5,180
5,180 5,180
5,180 5,180
5,180 5,180
Recorded water-cushlon
pressure, PSI ...........................2,451 2,500
1,914 2,000
335
1,706 1,750
1,100 1,200
300
Recorded d~fferentialpressure, psi.. 2,712 2,675
3,266 3,180
3,474 3,430
4,845 4,880
4,080 3,980
Indicated design factorz............... 0.90
0.91
0.75
0.77
0.70
0.71
0.60
0.61
0.50
0.50
Result ..................................
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Successful
Successful
Successful
Successful
Successful

' For purpose of calculating d e s ~ g nfactors pressure o u t s ~ d ecaslng after cementlng

assumed t o be equal to outslde pressure pr~orto cementlng.


Based on tabulated API mlnlmum strength.
Mln~mumcollapse resistance for 5'4-ln., 14-lb, H-40 caslng from API Bul 5C2.
Based on mlnlmum y ~ e l dstrength from Moody l n s p e c t ~ o nreport.
Collapse d e s ~ g nfactor calculated on mlnlmum strength value assumlng formatlon pressure o u t s ~ d e
caslng to be that of salt-water column we~ghlng0.442 p s per
~ foot.

a bottom-hole f o r n ~ a t ~ opressure
n
of only 1,010 p s i ,
both open and shut-in, indicating no entrance of reservolr fluid. Therefore, ~t w a s our opinion that cemented c a s i n g in the t e s t s e c t i o n of t h i s well nright
not have been s u b j e c t e d t o a c o l l a p s e pressure
greater than that corresponding t o a d e s i g n factor
of approximately 3.0. Our r e a s o n for c o n s ~ d e r i n g
t h l s factor l i e s in t h e belief that cement eflectively
bridges t h e annulus between c a s i n g and open hole,
if the cement job is good, r e l ~ e v i ncemented
~
casing of external pressure c a u s e d by the mud c o l u n ~ n ,
thereby only subjecting cemented c a s i n g t o c o l l a p s e
f o r c e s due t o f o r m a t ~ o n pressures. B e c a u s e it i s
doubtful that a n Impermeable formation could exert
a collapsing force, s u c h f o r c e s c a n be applied on
c a s i n g and cement only by porous, permeable format i o n s having p r e s s u r e s sufliciently greater than internal c a s l n g pressure.
In view of the foregoing d i s c u s s i o n , t h e d a t a o n
open-hole drill-stem t e s t s conducted in collapset e s t w e l l s have been tabulated in T a b l e 9. It i s t o

be noted that not one of t h e s e w e l l s recorded a forn ~ a t ~ opressure


n
on d r ~ l l - s t e mt e s t which w a s suflic i e n t t o c o l l a p s e c a s i n g . However, it must be remembered that t h e s e open-hole drill-stem t e s t s were
of short duration and it i s p o s s ~ b l ethat true formation pressure might not have been recorded b e c a u s e
of t h e t ~ g h t n e s sof t h e formation. If allowed t o s t a bilize, s u c h z o n e s might, In time, build up sufficient
pressure to s u b j e c t the c a s l n g t o c o l l a p s e .
B e c a u s e of our thoughts concerning the c o l l a p s e
f o r c e s present after c a s i n g w a s cemented i n t e s t
no. 5, we have planned another t e s t for a well i n
w h ~ c hformation o p p o s ~ t et h e collapse-test s e c t i o n
will b e drill-stem t e s t e d t o prove the e x i s t e n c e of
f o r m a t ~ o npressure greater than tabulated collapsestrength pressure and t o show t h a t the zone h a s sufficient p e r m e a b i l ~ t yto transmit t h i s pressure quickl y . We have proposed t h a t c o l l a p s e t e s t no. 6 will
b e conducted exactly in the s a m e manner as c o l l a p s e
t e s t no. 5 except that c a s i n g will be cemented before a n y c o l l a p s e t e s t s a r e made. Cemented c a s i n g

will then be collapse-tested to design factors of


0.75 and lower, ~f possible. The casing to be used
for thls test will be three lengths of 5'4-in. OD, 14
lb per ft, H-40, STC casing w h ~ c hhas been inspected by bloody Engineer~ngCon~pany.Selection of the
well for tliis test will depend upon having a porous,
permeable zone opposite the collapse-test section
whlch has a formation pressure of 3,250 psi or greater.

En~ergencyCasing-stnng Design
During June 1952, a t the same tinre that planned
t e s t s of tension and collapse design factors were
b e ~ n gconducted, the shortage of 5'4-in., N-80 caslng became s o acute that ~t was necessary to deviate froni our standard casing-string design in order
to obtaln sufliclent caslng strings to niaintaln the
drllllng program In the Elk City F'leld. A s an exped ~ e n t to reduce requiren~ents for N-80 casing, an
emergency cas~ng-stringdesign was adopted on a
tenlporary basls. By reducing the collapse design
factor from 1.00 to 0.85 In the cemented portion of
the caslng strlng, it was posslLle to s u b s t ~ t u t eIn
each well approximately 1,500 ft of 5'4-111. OD, 17
1L per ft, 5-55 caslng for the N-80 caslng normally
requwed. Uslng this procedure with our usual c a s ~ng-stringdesign metllod allowed us to design 10,800ft strings of 5'4-ln. caslng w~thoutany N-80 plpe.

L.

Casing Collapse T e s t No. 3 for 0.85 Design Factor


Shell Oil Co. W. M. Rumberger No. 3 E l k City F i e l d

P-I--

2%

cow-

dlddp
o

-"
,+"

o m :

2,,1n

. %Eg
2 2-+
i

In

*-

2 9

+-:

gm

z 2-5

o :a c u% m
0
I n o0
G O O
&P---S'o*uo
;mmm-o-;mmcornm kt$In
z m M
O*
4

m
q u z E
ae
L ,l $
- =; * m -

L TI

"ial
-0

,
a E
0 s 2
-~$$EBow

= 2 z

0)
+

m--gL=

m m

Date: 9-23-52
Mud Weight: 9.35 Ib per gal
Water Cushton: -1,479 ft
Total Depth: 10,788 ft
Top Choke S ~ z e3/,, In
Packer Set At: 10,654 ft
Recovery. Water Cushron and 100 ft of mud
Fig. 5-Sample Drill-stem T e s t Chart for Collapsed
Casing

mP-

9500

DEPTH IN FEET
10000
10500
11 000

11500

Mud We~ght:9.4 Ib per gal


D e s ~ g nFactor, T e n s ~ o n :1.40
D e s ~ g nFactor, Collapse: As ~ n d ~ c a t e d
Des lgn Factor, Burst:

1.33 at 4,000

PSI

we1 lhead pressure


F i g . 6-Special 5'4-in. Casing-string Design Chart
E l k City Field, Beckham County, Oklahoma

Strings
of this design have been used for over 18
months and no f a ~ l u r e s or other dilticulties have
been encountered. T h ~ method
s
has been adopted a s
standard for the Elk C ~ t yF ~ e l d .
Although the emergency design was not originally
a part of the program for field testing casing-string
deslgn factors, the experience obtained through ~ t s
use cannot be ignored. In using thls design, we have
been careful to obtain ,good cement fill-up behind
the -pipe,
at least up to the point where the d e s ~ g n
factor In collapse is 1.00. \be have not, however,
found ~t necessary to squeeze-cement any of these
strings.
SUMMARY
In summary, there was a threefold reason for initlatlng the t e s t s of casing-str~ngdesign factors: 1,
shortages
of tubular goods; 2, designs of casing
strings for greater depths; and 3, econonlles which
might be reallzed. Even though the shortage of tubular goods is no longer acutk, the results of this Inv e s t ~ g a t i o nare considered lnlportant because design
of deep-well casing is g e a t l y facilitated. .4vailable

grades of casing can be used to better advantage


when design factors are more realistic. The economles a c h ~ e v e dby utllizlng the reduced design factors of t h ~ spaper, although not spectacular, do contribute to reducing well costs.
A s a result of successful experience presented
herein, Shell Oil Company has adopted the following
design factors a s standard for the Elk City Field:
1.40 in tension; 1.00 in collapse for uncemented casing; and 0.85 in c,ollapse for cemented caslng. Bec a u s e no test work was done with burst, the burst
design factor of 1.33 rernalns unchanged. Addit~onal
credence i s glven
the test results because 40 strlngs
of the foregoing design (Fig. 6) have been run in
Elk C ~ t yField wells without any d~llicultywhatever.
T h e authors believe that the results of tension
t e s t s are v a l ~ dand allow design-factor reduction
from 1.60 to 1.40 when the Shell design
- method i s
used. Collapse t e s t s of cen~entedcasing, although
needing the clarlficafion which wlll come from the
a d d i t ~ o n a ltest that has been planned, are s u l l ~ c ~ e n t ly encouraging to allow the use of a 0.85 collapse
design factor in the cen~entedportlon of the caslng
s t r ~ n g . Because of the spread of design factors a t
whlch u n ~ e m e n t e d ~ c a s lencountered
n~
collapse failure, ~t IS believed that nlaximum ut~lizationof caslng IS being obtained w ~ t ha design factor of 1.00 in
uncemented s e c t ~ o n sof the strlng. The results of
the t e s t s reported do not warrant reduction of thls
deslgn factor.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The program for field testing casing-strlng design
factors grew out of Shell Oil Cor~~pany's
long experlence wlth cas~ng-stringd e s ~ g n ,and consequently
the authors are deeply indebted to this company and
the Inany engineers who contr~butedto the development of design methods. I'rorn~nent anlong these
engineers were RI S. Cralie and Laurence O'Donnell.
Also, the w r ~ t e r sw ~ s hto express their appreclatlon
to Shell 011Company for accepting the expense and
risk lnvolved In conducting the field t e s t s and for
g r a n t ~ n gpermission to publlsh the data presented
here~n.
In addition we gratefully acknowledge the a s s i s t ance of the following Shell engineers In preparing
this paper:
T. I!. Dwyer for his advice and suggestions.
J . D. Goodrlch, who first proposed the field-test
progranl,and, with the a s s i s t a n c e of li. E. Fink, did
the basic planning of it.
I;. L. Hankin, who prepared the first progress re-

port on t h e program.
C . K. l i e i t e r and F. L. Rloore, who observed the
t e s t s in t h e field a n d compiled field d a t a .
l ' h e a u t h o r s a l s o r e c e i v e d a i d and a d v i c e from
H. G. l ' e x t e r , Spang-Chalfant D ~ v i s ~ oofn T h e Nat i o n a l Supply Company, and Arthur hladdox, l'he
C a r t e r 011 Company.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Heports of the Committee on Standardrzation of 011-Country Tubular Goods, Proc. Am. P e t Inst. (Prod. E u l 201237) (1928 through 1951).
Drrllrng and Productron Practrce, American Petroleum Institute, 1935-1952.
API Bul 5C2. Performance Propertres of Caslng and Tubrng, Dallas, January 1952, Flfth Edition.
Engrneerrng Data, Spang-Chalfant Dlv. of The National
Supply Co., July 1952 (Rev )
Booklet No 60, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co , 6th Edition, 1950.
Payne, John M. A Study Group lnvestigatlon of Equipment
and Techniques for 20,000-ft Drilling, Drrllrng and Productron Practrce, 123 (1949).
O'Donnell, Laurence, and Crake, W. S: Mechanical Causes
of Casing Fallure and Practices for T h e u Control, 011
Gas J , Dec. 16 (1943).
Hllls, J . 0. A Review of Casing-strlng Deslgn Principles
and Practice,Drrllrng and Productron Practrce, 91 (1951).
Cooley, H. M . Caslng-selection Charts, Petroleum Engrneer, 16 [4] 241 (1945).
Cooley, H. M. Preparation and Use of Casing-selection
Charts, Or1 Weekly, 113, 1 0 (1944).
Curran, B. E. Combination Caslng Strlngs, 011 Gas ] ,
80, Oct. 14 (1945).
Stewart, Reid T Collapslng Pressure of Lapwelded Steel
Tubes, Am. Soc Mech Engrs., May, 1906.
Jasper, T . blclean, and Sullivan, J. W. W: The Collapslng
Strength of Thln Tubes, Trans. Am Soc. Mech Engrs.
(Applred Mechanrcs) 53, 17b (1931).
Rescott, B. B, Dunlop, C. A, and Kemler, E. N S e t t ~ n g
Depths for Casing, Drrllrng and Productron Practrce,
125 (1940).
Holmquist, J . L. and Nadai, A: A Theoretical and Experimental Approach to the Problem of Collapse of Deepwell Casing, Drlll~ngandProductron Practrce, 392 (1939)
Edwards, S. H. and Miller, C. P Discussion of the Effect
of Combined Longitudinal Loading and External Pressure on the Strength of 011-well Caslng, Drrlllng and
Productron Practrce, 483 (1939)
Kettenburg, R . J. and Schmleder, Fremont H 011-well
Casing Failures, Drrllrng and Productron Practrce, 185
(1945).
Texter, H . G Casing Straln after Cementing, 011 Gas I.,
Aprll 8 (1948).
Lubinsk1,Arthur: A stud; of the Buckllng of Rotary Drllllng Strlngs, Drrllrng and Productron Practrce, 178 (1950).
Kl~nkenberg,A. The Neutral Zones In Drlll Plpe and Caslng and Their Significance in R e l a t ~ o nto Buckllng and
Collapse, Drrllrng and Productron Practrce, 64 (1951).
Cl~nedlnst, Vi. 0. Collapse Safety Factors for Tapered
Casing Strlngs, Drrll~ngand Productron Practrce, 181
(1945).

DISCUSSION

H. R'. L a d d (Stanolind 011 and G a s Co., T u l s a )


( w r ~ t t e n ) :This paper e x c e l l e n t l y p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s

of a well-thought-out and e x e c u t e d program of t e s t lng t h e joint s t r e n g t h and c o l l a p s e properties of c a s i n g under controlled c o n d ~ t i o n sof s t r e s s . I'he res u l t s a r e of much i n t e r e s t a n d inlportance t o a l l petroleunl producers,and l t is c e r t a i n t h a t t h i s present a t i o n by Shell through t h e API w i l l be greatly appreciated.

I quite a g r e e w ~ t hthe opinion e x p r e s s e d t h a t t h e


d e s i g n s a f e t y f a c t o r s for c a s i n g t e n s i o n and coll a p s e now generally a p p l i e d a g a i n s t API mininlunl
perfornlance properties
c a n be lowered without ex- .
c e s s i v e r l s b of f d ~ l u r e .
In the l a t e 19'30's, my company experinlented with
t h e lowering of d e s i g n f d c t o r s , and by p r o g r e s s w e
t r i a l arrived a t 2.00 for joint s t r e n g t h in t e n s i o n a n d
1.50 for c o l l a p s e r e s i s t a n c e b a s e d on the old avera g e perforn~ance properties of c a s i n g . T h e s e were
converted t o 1.60 and 1.125 when the b a s i s for e s t a b l l s h i n g API m ~ n i n ~ u nproperties
l
w a s adopted in
1940. T h e s e a r e not far from the f a c t o r s S h e l l w a s
u s i n g , and we a l s o had no f a i l u r e s attributable t o
design.
l ' h e AF'I performance properties a d e q u a t e l y rep r e s e n t the mlnimuni v a l u e s of c a s i n g and c a n be
confidently u s e d as a b a s i s for d e s i g n . T h l s h a s
been proved in t h e p a s t and i s further s u b s t a n t i a t e d
by t h i s paper. R e s t o p p e d a t a c o l l a p s e factor of
1.125 for nornlal d e s i g n , although we f e l t t h a t , ~f
t h e minimum AFI c o l l a p s e v a l u e s were a c c u r a t e , a
f a c t o r down t o 1.000 could be s a f e l y used; and we
did g- o toward t h a t limit when we were forced t o apply it. T h ~ paper
s
p r e s e n t s s t r o n g e v i d e n c e t h a t the
u s e of a c o l l a p s e f a c t o r of 1.00 is p r a c t i c a l for unsupported c a s i n g under normal conditions. \\hen unu s u a l c o n d i t ~ o n sa r e e x p e c t e d , s u c h a s a b n o r n ~ a exl
t e r n a l p r e s s u r e , heavy s w a b b ~ n g ,e t c . , t h e operator
nlight run a d e f i n ~ t er l s k of c o l l a p s e t h a t would nec e s s i t a t e a r a i s i n g of t h i s d e s i g n factor t o a d e g r e e
t h a t would afford more protection.
T h e t e s t s made and proposed t o d e t e r n ~ i n et h e eff e c t of cement In r e s i s t i n g c o l l a p s e p r e s s u r e s bring
a n important developnient i n t o casing-string d e s i g n
practices. Heretofore, many have c o n s i d e r e d t h a t
t h i s etiect should not be a part of d e s i g n , presuniably b e c a u s e of f e a r t h a t cementing could not be suff i c ~ e n t l ycontrolled. biodern cementing p r a c t i c e s and
a c c e s s o r i e s have gone a long way toward insuring
good cement jobs, a n d t h e r i s k of failure i s small.
T h e t e s t s i n d ~ c a t ea p o s i t i v e b a s i s for e v a l u a t i n g
t h e oflsetting ellect of cement on c o l l a p s e p r e s s u r e s
and show t h a t t h e final determinations w i l l provlde

36

J. E . SAYE AND T. W . G. RICHARDSON

I
a practical basis for il~aklnga n adjustn~entof the
collapse factor
Although the burst design factor was not fieldtested, it IS n~entioned in the paragraph on casingstring design n~ethodsalthough it is not clearly Indicated a s to how it IS applied. It is iniportant to
distinguish whether the factor for Internal pressure
is applied on the nrlnlttlum yield strength or on the
niininlunl t e n s ~ l estrength of the caslng. Dependtng
upon the g a d e of casing, a factor of 1.00 on the
yield strength is a [actor of 1.25 to 1.50 on t l ~ etens i l e strength. l'he use of the nlininiunl internal yield
pressure in deslgn seems preferable, and we have
cons~dereda factor of 1.00 on thls b a s i s to be adequate.
It IS tremendously Interesting to observe the res u l t s of the tension t e s t s whereby the design factor
is lowered to 1.40. \\e have used 1.60 for a long
tlnie and have had sonie qualnrs a s to whether it was
too risky, but have had no pull-outs by reason of
uslng this factor. l ' h i s paper, a t the least, gives us
assurance that our present factor is adequate, and
furthern~oreprov~desa defin~tebasls for cons~deration of reducing it. I do want to call attention to the
fact that, in dropplng the tension factor to 1.40, the
nlinlnlunl yield strength of the area under the last
perfect thread or gage point is being approaclled in
sonbe Instances. For exanlple, on 5'4-ln. 15.5-lb 5-55
long threads and couplings, the n~etalarea (3.299
s q in.) tintes the ntininlunl yield strength (55,000 psi
produces a total yleld strength of 181,445 lb. The
joint strength under the deslgn factor of 1.4 is 176,428 Ib, and this, divided into 181,445 lb, glves a
factor of 1.03 on the yield strength. Exceeding the
actual yield strength would produce joint failure
and this IS runnlng close to the nlininrum. It IS evident that the actual )ield strength has not been exceeded In any of the t e s t s , a s no f a ~ l u r e soccurred.
I do believe this is an important point to check,
however, when d e s l g n q wlth a low tension factor.
The risk of exceeding the joint yleld strength is not
great, but it is ln~portantwhen it e x ~ s t s .
T h l s paper IS a distinct contribut~onto the knowledge of what caslng will actually do. l'he procedures
used In developing the data were posltlve and the
results defin~te. It is to be hoped that other con!panies w ~ l l~ n ~ t i a tt e s t s of a s i n ~ i l a rnature and
~ s available. It is
make further ~nfortnatlonof t l ~ type
certaln that the importance of reduced design factors IS brought before us here .-In a ntost convincing
manner.

Mr. Saye. X l r . Ladd has raised several interesting


p o ~ n t swhich w ~ l be
l discussed tn order.
F'lrst, a suggestion 1s maJe that additional rlsk of
caslng collapse would be Incurred under conditions
of abnormal external pressures or severe s w a b b ~ n g .
Fie believe the cllance for such failure is remote if
forn~ation pressures have been successfully contamed by the mud whose hydrostatic pressure is
presun~edto act on the casing string con~pletelydevoid of Ru~d External pressure could, of course, be
increased arttficially-for exanjple, during a fracture
treatment-lut such conditions would be under the
control of the operator.
Second, the question is asked ds to whether niinillluni yteld strength or ntiniruunl ult~nrate tensile
~
strength of
strength 1s used In c a l c u l a t ~ nburst
casing. Although our field t e s t s of casing-string design factors did not include burst t e s t s , tt is well
t o s t a t e that nllnlniuni internal y ~ e l dpressures are
used in Shell designs, these pressures being deter1111ned from Uarlow's f o r ~ ~ ~ uusing
la
ilPI nrinimunl
y ~ e l dstrength. I'he strength value used In design IS
87'4 ~ e r c e nof
t the result obtained by Barlow's forn ~ u l athereby
,
allowing for the API Fbermissible minus
tolerance of 12'hpercent on nonlinal wall thicknesse s . This value is, of course, that w h ~ c his tdbulated
in API Bul 5C2 and the several caslng handbooks.
l'hlrd, blr. Ladd r a s e s the question of possibly
exceeding nilnlrtrunl yield strength under the l a s t perfect thread when the tension design factor is reduced to 1.40. Nornlally, '4PI j o ~ n tstrength, a s deterrn~nedby enll>lrlcalforniulae In Bul 5C2 and supported by thousands of joint pull-out t e s t s , is used
In designing caslng strings for tenslle load. 'Ae belleve that thls is s t i l l the best design criterion.
However, Air. Ladd's polnt is fie11 taken and, even
though the chances for e x c e e d ~ n gthe nlininlunl yleld
strength under the last perfect thread would seen1
rather remote, ~t Leilooves us to c o n s ~ d e rthis posslbillty when design factors are reduced.

11. G. Texter (Spang-Chalfant Div., The National


Supply Co., l'ulsa)(written): 1.0Ine, this paper is an
extremely interesting one a s ~t d i s c u s s e s a subject
close to niy heart. Throughout my experience a s a
pipe engineer i n the oil country, there have been
two subjects which 1 have always felt were grossly
rn~sunderstood.
The first one concerns the etiect of bad-looking
surface defects on the servlce life of drill pipe.
I had always suspected that their bark was worse
than tllelr bite dnd was sustained in this belief Ly

F I E L D T E S T I N G O F CASING-S T R I N G DESIGN F A C T O R S
the results of running strings of defectrve drill prpe
by Thompson-CArr, Inc., and by Stanolind Oil and
Gas Con~pany.A. W i'honlpson actually proneered
the field work, which is con~parableto the work outlined in this paper.
l ' h e second grossly nlisunderstood subject is that
of casing safety factors, or, a s the writers of this
paper aptly revise it, "design9' factors. I like the
latter designation and would urge that all engineers
adopt it for the future a s being lilore descriptrve than
66
safety" factor.
l'he design factors in use today were far from
being derived scientifically. They just grew. Apparently someone, it may have been a manufacturer,
once ventured that the design factor (safety factor)
in tensron should be a t least 2.5; and s o it was. l3y
the same token, the factor for colldpse was agreed
upon a s 2.0; both based on average properties, and
gradually lowered a s experience seemed to dictate.
So far a s 1 know there was never any field testing
done on the subject. So, it is now Shell who have
pioneered.
I have nothing but praise for both the field work
and for the paper rtself. I can s e e nothing wrong
with either thelr modus operand1 or with t h e r description thereof, and I am extren~elypleased that
all the detarls are belng made public I have known
many of the Shell engineers who worked on the project, and who often consulted brrefly wrth nie, and
they will recall that I consistently urged wrrtrng ~t
into an API paper. I feel honored that I was mentioned rn the acknowledgn~enta s hdving given " a ~ d
and advice."
hly criticism of the project, soon after rt was
started, was that the conclusions were golng to be
based on too few t e s t s . I am afraid that this s t i l l
holds true from a statistical standpoint. Only 8 t e s t s
of the tension phase and 5 of the collapse are rather
few a s con~paredwith the thousands of t e s t s involved in arriving at the present API mlninlunl performance values. However, the fact that some 40 wells
have since been completed on the b a s ~ sof the new
lobered design factors, without trouble, is rather
convincing evrdence that the figures are reasonable
and practical. I have the feeling that they are.
Of the final conclusions, I am quite intrigued wrth
the design factor of 1.4 in tension. In May 1952,
answering a foreign operator's query a s to possible
nrinimunl factors, I wrote the following a s my personal opinion, "...I would be satisfied with a safety
factor of 1.5 in tension with just ordinary care in

37

handling, and ... I would go down to 1.4; but I n such


c a s e would rnsist on a responsrble engineer belnp
present. . " Naturally, ~t is gratifying to have one's
guess confirn~edby actual experin~ents.
Also, a s far back a s 1937, during the drrlling of
the early 12,000- to 13,000-ft south Louisiana wells,
I belreved it was rather foolish to nlainta~ncollapse
design factors above 1.0 for the Lotton1 sections of
oil strings, and often s o expressed myself. Ilowever,
I came to a slightly drl~erent(personal) conclusion
from that of the Shell engineers. hly suggestion was
to hold a factor of 1.125 down to the last change
point (in combination strings) and then let the factor drop down to 1.0, regardless of where the top of
the cement might be. Ilere, again, the results of this
present investigatron more or l e s s confirnied my early
conjectures.
1 nught add one other <gunlent in favor of the
proposed low design factors in collapse (at least for
deep wells) If the internal Hurds in a n oil string are
s o attenuated a s to pernlrt collapse with A, design
factor of 1.0, rt is definitely not a conlniercial well
and rt does not matter much whether the botto111
lengths collapse or not.
Agdln let me a l l r n ~that this IS a very valuable,
worthwhile paper even though it IS against the best
interest of us pipe ~llanufacturers.

C . A llunlop (tlunlble 011 & Hefining Co., Ilouston)


(written) * The authors present a very interesting
discussion of the factors used rn designing caslng
strings and of certain field-test procedures for evalu a t ~ n gthese factors It is noted that the p h y s ~ c a l
properties of the casihg that was subjected to collapse testing were of a much higher value than the
AFI specified nlrnimunl properties for the particular
grade For exan~ple,the hloody Engineering Conlpany inspection report (Table 3 of the paper) glves
the nllninluni yield strength of the 5-55 n~ateriala s
60,400 psi and the nllnrnlun yield strength of H-40
materldl a s 49,140 psr. This is approxlnlately 1 0
percent, in the c a s e of 3-55, and 23 percent, in the
case of {I-40, higher than the Al'l nllninlunl yield
strengths In the c a s e of the average yield strength
of the product, these are close to the expected average for the grades, being only about 3 percent low
in the case of the 5-55 material and 2 percent hrgh
in the case of the H-SO material. Because casing
purchased to API specifications may have a yield
strength equal , t o the nlinrnlunl spec~fied for the,
the factors of safety that are used in de*Prepared f o l l o w ~ n gpresentation of paper.

38

J. E. SAYE AND T. W. G. RICHARDSON

signlng casing strlngs should take Into consideratlon thls p o s s i b i l ~ t and


~
niust not assume that a
particular lot of caslng is representat~ve of the
grade, Insofar a s ~ t particular
s
nlinlnlunl propert~es
are concerned. If the material that was used for the
field t e s t s had propert~esequal to the nllnimunl properties for the g a d e , then the t e s t s would, it i s believed, have indicated failure in collapse a t a higher factor of safety than that obtained by the authors,
uslng a h ~ g h e rthan minimum grade product.
In the tension t e s t s the use of a factor of safety
of 1.4 will, in some s l z e s and w e ~ g h t sof API casing, result In the load approach~ngand even exceeding the y ~ e l dstrength of the 111eta1a t the root of the
l a s t perfect thread. It should be remembered that
the API round-thread casing j o ~ n tcan be expected
to leak when the tension applled to the joint i s equal
to or exceeds the yield strength of the joint. The
authors are referred to a paper by Thomas and Bartok
that was presented at the 1941 API Annual Rleeting
which discussed leak-resistance t e s t s of casing
joints in tension. It IS brought out In that paper that
the API round-thread casing jolnt can be expected
to be leak-res~stanta t t e n s ~ o nloads up to the y ~ e l d
strength of the jolnt but not In e x c e s s of thls load.
Also, In a discussion of the Thomas-Bartok paper,
T. RlcLean Jasper cited the results of t e s t s that
A. 0. Smith Corporation made of the leak reslstance
in tension of the AFI joint which showed that leakage occurred a t only 55.2 percent of the pull-out
strength of the joint. There is no infornration glven
In the authors' paper
a s to whether consideration
. .
was given to the leak reslstance of the API caslng
joint when arrivlng a t the factor of safety of 1.4 In
t e n s ~ o n .It has been and IS now a practice of many
operators to use a factor of safety of 1.8 in tenslon,
not with the thought of fallure of the jolnt by pullout but to not load the API short-thread casing joint
to the point that leakage would occur.

Mr. Saye: The fact that mininruni yield strengths


of the 5-55 and tI-40 material used in the field collapse t e s t s compare s o closely with the API average values lends credence to the belief that slnlilar
results could have been obtained w ~ t hother API
caslng selected a t random. However, we are in full
agreement wlth Mr. Uunlop that some nlargln of safety should be provided t o allow use of a joint having
absolute minin~un~
properties T h i s is emphasized
by the considerable spread in d e s ~ g n factors a t
whlch uncelnented casing collapsed. liegardless of
whether the absolute value of these design factors
a t collapse failure are correct, we believe that the
spread in the values does not warrant a reduction
in collapse design factor below 1.00 for uncemented
caslng. Cy holding d e s ~ g nfactors to thls value, an
ample nlargin of safety should be obtained to allow
for joints havlng API mininrum values. Hundreds of
Moody reports have lead us to believe,however, that
the chances for approaching this nlinlmunl value are
very slight. Rie would be more prone to be concerned
over possible damage to casing in t r a n s ~ t ,the damage being of such a nature that the tube's r e s ~ s t ance to collapse would be reduced.
With regard to the etlect of tension on leakage
reslstance of a joint, we are fanliliar w ~ t hthe work
of Thomas and l3artok whlch showed that when tens i l e load approaches the yield strength under the
l a s t perfect thread the jolnt can be expected to leak.
h
It is l n t e r e s t ~ n gto note, however, that a l t t ~ o u ~well
pressures encountered In the Elk City Field made
joint leakage an inlportant conslderatlon, reduction
of the tension design factor from 1.60 to 1.40 did
not result in thread leakage. Prior to using lower
t e n s ~ o ndesign factors, our thread-leakage problem
had been -solved, a s by others in the industry, by
using good pipe handling, makeup, and running practice.