PETE 7212

Completion Design

CASING DESIGN EXAMPLE

Casing Design Example

• Example Problem
• API Design Factors
• “Worst Possible Conditions”
• Effect of Axial Tension on Collapse Strength
• Design for Burst, Collapse and Tension

Louisiana State University

2 College of Engineering

1
Casing Design Example
• Design a 9 5/8", 8000-ft combination casing string.
– Completion fluid is 12.5 ppg drilling mud.
– Formation pore pressure is expected to be 6,000 psi.
• Use API design factors.
• Design for worst possible conditions.

Louisiana State University

3 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

• Before solving this problem is it necessary to
understand what we mean by “Design Factors” and
“worst possible conditions”.
API Design Factors
Design factors are essentially “safety factors” that allow us to design
safe, reliable casing strings. Each operator may have his own set of
design factors, based on his experience, and the condition of the pipe.

Louisiana State University

4 College of Engineering

2
Casing Design
• We will use the design factors recommended by the
API unless otherwise specified.

• These are the API design Factors:

– Tension and joint strength: FT = 1.8
– Collapse (from external pressure): FC= 1.125
– Burst (from internal pressure): FB = 1.1

Louisiana State University

5 College of Engineering

Casing Design
• What this means is that, for example, if we need to
design a string where the maximum tensile force is
expected to be 100,000 lbf, we select pipe that can
handle 100,000×1.8 = 180,000 lbf in tension.
• Note that the tables provided by Bourgoyne et al. list
actual pipe strength (without safety factors)

Louisiana State University

6 College of Engineering

3
Casing Design
• Unless otherwise specified in a particular scenario,
we shall also assume the following:
– Worst possible conditions
l For collapse design, assume that the casing is empty on the
inside (P i = 0)
l For burst design, assume no “backup” fluid on the outside of
the casing (Pe = 0)
l For tension design, assume no buoyancy effect
l For collapse design, assume no buoyancy effect

Louisiana State University

7 College of Engineering

Casing Design

The casing string must be designed to stand up to the expected

conditions in burst, collapse and tension.

Above conditions are quite conservative. They are also

simplified for easier understanding of the basic concepts.

Louisiana State University

8 College of Engineering

4
Casing Design – Solution
• Burst requirements (based on the expected pore pressure)
Pbr
P

PB = pore pressure × Design Factor

= 6,000 psi × 1.1 Design

= 6,600 psi
Pore
Pressure

D 6,000 6,600

• The entire casing string must be able to withstand 6,600 psi

without failing in burst.
– When would it ever fail in burst?
Louisiana State University
9 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

• Collapse Requirements
– For collapse design, we start at the bottom of the string
and work our way up.
– Our design criteria will be based on hydrostatic pressure
resulting from the 12.5 ppg mud that will be in the hole
when the casing string is run, prior to cementing.

Louisiana State University

10 College of Engineering

5
Casing Design Review
• Design of a combination casing string requires an iterative
process:
1. Determine the depth capability without axial stress.
2. Determine the axial stress in the casing at this point.
3. Determine collapse resistance corresponding to axial stress level.
4. Determine the depth where this pressure exists.
5. Compare with previous depth estimate. Repeat steps 2-4 if not
converged. Accept answer if depths agree.
6. Verify that the selected casing will meet tension requirements at
the wellhead.
• Typically between 2-4 iterations are required. Agreement to
within 30 ft (one casing joint) is satisfactory.
Louisiana State University
11 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

Pc
P
Collapse Requirements, cont’d
PC = 0.052 ρ D FC Design

= (0.052 )(12.5)(8,000 )(1.125 )

= 5,850 psi Mud
Gradient

D 5,200 5,850

Due to lower pressures and higher tension,

Collapse requirements are less severe
further up the hole.
Louisiana State University
12 College of Engineering

6
Casing Design – Solution
• We can make the following preliminary selections for
the bottom section of casing:
– Burst: 6,600 psi Collapse: 5,850 psi

End Burst Collapse

Weight
Grade Area Rating Rating Comments
(lb/ft)
(in2) (psi) (psi)
N-80 40 11.454 5,750 3,090 Fails Burst and Collapse
N-80 43.5 12.559 6,330 3,810 Fails Burst and Collapse
N-80 47 13.572 6,870 4,760 Fails Collapse
N-80 53.5 15.547 7,930 6,620 Meets Burst and Collapse

Louisiana State University

13 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

• Note that two of the weights of N-80 casing meet the
burst requirements, but only the 53.5 lb/ft pipe can
handle the collapse requirement at the bottom of the
hole.
• The 53.5 lb/ft pipe could probably run all the way to
the surface (we would still have to check tension),
but there may be a lower cost alternative.

Louisiana State University

14 College of Engineering

7
Casing Design – Solution
• How deep can we safely run N-80, 47 lb/ft?
– The maximum annular pressure that this pipe may be
exposed to is:
Collapse rating of pipe 4,760
Pc = = = 4,231 psi
design factor 1. 125
– This corresponds to a depth of
4231
h1 = = 6,509 ft
(0.052)(12.5)
– The casing will certainly collapse if we run it this
deep. WHY?

Louisiana State University

15 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

– 6,495 ft is the depth to which the pipe could be run if
there were no axial stress in the pipe.
– But at 6,495’ we have 1,505’ of 53.5 lb/ft pipe below us.
– The weight of this pipe will reduce the collapse
resistance of the upper 47 lb/ft string.
– The weight of 1,491 ft of 53.5 lb/ft casing is
W1 = (1491 )(53 .5 ) = 79 ,769 lbf
– This weight results in an axial stress of: 6,509’
weight 79 ,769 lbf
σ1 = = = 5,877 psi
area 13.572 in 2 8,000’
Louisiana State University
16 College of Engineering

8
Casing Design – Solution
• The above stress will reduce the collapse pressure
from 4,760 psi to
 2 
4760  3  5877  1  5877 
Pcc1 = 1−   −  
1.125  4  80000  2  80000 
 
= 4,067 psi

• Note use of the design factor of 1.125.

Louisiana State University

17 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

• This pressure (4,067 psi) occurs at a depth of
4 ,575
h2 = = 6,256 ft
(0.052 )(12 .5)

• This depth does not agree with the initial depth of

6,509 ft.
• We need to do another iteration.

Louisiana State University

18 College of Engineering

9
Casing Design – Solution
• Second Iteration
– Consider running the 47 lb/ft pipe to the new depth of
6,257 ft.

W 2 = ( 8 ,000 − 6 ,257 ) (53 . 5 ) = 93 ,251 lbf

93251
σ2 = = 6 ,871 psi
13 .572

Louisiana State University

19 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

 2 
 4760   3  6871  1  6871  
Pcc 2 =  1−   −  
 1.125   4  80000  2  80000  
 
= 4,038 psi
• This pressure occurs at a depth of
4038
h3 = = 6 ,212 ft
(0 .052 )(12 .5 )
• This is within 45 ft of the assumed value of 6,257 ft.
We should do one more iteration:
Louisiana State University
20 College of Engineering

10
Casing Design – Solution
• Iteration #3
– Run 47 lb/ft casing to 6,212 ft.
h 2 = 6 ,212 ft
W 3 = ( 8 ,000 − 6 ,212 ) (53 . 5 ) = 95 ,658 lbf
95658
σ3 = = 6 ,429 psi
13 .572
Pc 3 = 4 ,031 psi
h 3 = 6 ,202 ft

• This value is within 10 ft of the assumed value of 6,212 ft.

Just for fun, let’s do another iteration.
Louisiana State University
21 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

• Iteration #4
– Run 47 lb/ft casing to 6,202 ft.
h 3 = 6 ,212 ft
W 4 = ( 8 ,000 − 6 ,202 )(53 .5 ) = 96 ,193 lbf
95658
σ4 = = 7 ,119 psi
13 .572
Pc 4 = 4 ,030 psi
h 4 = 6 ,200 ft

• This value is within 2 ft of the assumed value of 6,202 ft. It’s

time to stop!
Louisiana State University
22 College of Engineering

11
Casing Design – Solution
• This is the answer we are looking for, i.e., we can
run 47 lb/ft N-80 pipe to a depth of 6,200 ft, and 53.5
lb/ft pipe between 6,200 and 8,000 ft.
• Perhaps this string will run all the way to the surface
(check tension), or perhaps an even more
economical string would include some 43.5 lb/ft
pipe?

Louisiana State University

23 College of Engineering

Casing Design – Solution

• At some depth the 43.5 lb/ft pipe would be able to
handle the collapse requirements.
• We have already determined that it will not meet
burst requirements.

∴ NO!
Louisiana State University
24 College of Engineering

12
 N-80
43.5 lb/ft
?
???? ft

N-80
47.0 lb/ft

6,200 ft
N-80
53.5 lb/ft
8,000 ft
Louisiana State University
25 College of Engineering

N-80
53.5 lb/ft
?
???? ft

N-80
47.0 lb/ft

6,200 ft
N-80
53.5 lb/ft
8,000 ft
Louisiana State University
26 College of Engineering

13
Tension Check
• Investigate running 47 lb/ft from surface to 6,200 ft
and 53.5 lb/ft from 6,200–8,000 ft.
– The weight on the top joint of casing would be

(6200 )(47 ) + (1800 )(53 .5) = 387 ,700 lbf

• With a design factor of 1.8 for tension, we require a

pipe strength of
(1.8 )(387700 ) = 697 ,860 lbf

Louisiana State University

27 College of Engineering

Tension Check
• The casing mechanical property tables indicates that
9-5/8“ (N-80, 47 lb/ft) casing has a yield strength of
1,086,000 lbf for the pipe body and a joint strength of
905,000 lbf for LT & C.
• Recall that we require a minimum of 698,000 lbf in
order to be adequate to run 47 lb/ft to surface.
∴ 47 lb / ft is OK to surface.

Louisiana State University

28 College of Engineering

14
Casing Design Review
• We have four different weights of casing available to us in
this case
– Two of the four weights are unacceptable to us everywhere in the
string because they do not meet burst requirements
– Only the N-80, 53.5 lb/ft pipe is capable of withstanding the
collapse requirements at the bottom of the string.
– Since the 53.5 lb/ft pipe is the most expensive, we want to use as
little of it as possible, so we want to use as much 47.0 lb/ft pipe as
possible.
– Don’t forget to check to make sure the tension requirements are
met!
l Pipe body
l Threads and couplings (T&C)

Louisiana State University

29 College of Engineering

Casing Design Review

• The collapse resistance of N-80, 47 lb/ft will
determine the maximum depth to which it may be
run.
• Two factors will reduce the depth capability of a
particular casing
– Choice of design factor
– Axial stress

Louisiana State University

30 College of Engineering

15
Relative Cost of API Casing
Grade Coupling Relative Cost

H-40 Short 0.97

J-55 Plain End 0.95
J-55 Short 1.00*
J-55 Long 1.05
J-55 Buttress 1.12
J-55 Extreme Line 1.30
N-80 Long 1.24
P-110 Long 1.55

* Base Value
Louisiana State University
31 College of Engineering

16