Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Casing wear is a problem in many wells. In directional casing.
holes, very deep holes, and medium-depth abnor- The effects of other variables on the casing wear
mally pressured holes, it can become a critical prob- process have also been studied by Russian investi-
lem. It can cause the abandonment of a well before gators. 4 , 7,9-11 Theoretical calculations of wear because
reaching total depth or, in certain cases, it can lead of drilling, tripping, and connecting were made. ' °
to a blowout. But, without experimentally determined wear rates,
The objective of the work reported here was to these calculations are of little value. Test results 'O
develop better methods for the prediction and con- also show that the hardness of the casing does
trol of casing wear. To develop better predictive not greatly affect its wear resistance. Analysis of
methods, casing wear rates were measured under con- recovered casing has indicated that, in many in-
trolled conditions. Laboratory measurements were stances, temperatures of the wear surfaces reach 900
made to define the major factors in rotating, tripping, to 1,000oC." Wearing under these conditions can
and wireline wear. 1,2 This paper compares the various produce significant cracking of the casing wall and
modes of casing wear and develops procedures for a substantial reduction in casing strength. Casing
estimating field wear rates. damage by drill bits during tripping has also been
reported by the Russian investigators. '2 - 14
Background The ability of drillpipe rubbers to prevent contact
Although casing wear has been a problem for many between the drillstring and casing is discussed in Ref.
years, published literature on the subject is meager. 15. Tests to determine the deflection of the protectors
In the United States, tests have shown the value of under various conditions of load, mud, and tempera-
fine-particle tungsten carbide hardbanding on the ture are reported. These results are similar to the
reduction of casing wear by rotating tool joints. 3 results reported in Ref. 1. Physical damage to the
The remaining body of literature on casing wear protectors from casing joints during tripping is also
comes primarily from Russia. Laboratory tests have discussed.
been run there to determine casing wear rates Calculations and casing-design considerations to
by drillpipe rotation."" Unfortunately, they were run minimize failure of casing because of wear are re-
in drilling muds without abrasives. Russian investi- ported in Refs. 5, 10, 16, and 17. Measurement of
gators have also studied the wearing mechanisms of drag forces at points of contact in wells is reported
abrasives,4-s but their studies were not done with in Ref. 16. Recommendations for the selection of
Casing wear is a problem in many wells and can cause abandonment of a well before
reaching total depth, or can lead to a blowout. Procedures for estimating casing wear
caused by rotating, tripping, and running wireline have been developed. Based on results
of extensive laboratory study, they allow consideration of, among other things, dog-leg
severity, coupled with drillstring tension, mud solids, and drillpipe protectors.
~
~ .05
/ V 10
z
w
....
c>
string mechanics.
For the simplest case,
) ~ ;;
~
..,~
..,
.04 .08 (2)
g; .03
/1 / / 06
~
"'-
or
V
I .02
.,/
.,/
,/
,/
//
.04 ~
g
(wear rate)
T = C ,C 2 • (3)
--
2S .01 .02
V ./
Fig. 1 shows the variation of (wear rate)/T as a
o k:. I - - function of dog-leg severity for a hypothetical wear
o 10
DOGLEG SEVERITY <>/100' situation. For example, using a 10° /100-ft dog-leg
Fig. l-(Casing wear rate)/(driilstring tension) and a drillstring tension of 200,000 lb, Fig. 1 would
vs dog-leg severity - hypothetical case predict a wear rate of 0.013 in./rotational day. A
of rotational wear.
7-in., 26-lb casing wall would thus be worn through
10,--------------------------------------. in 28 rotational days. Therefore, by knowing the
behavior of C , and C 2 , casing wear rates can be esti-
-TOOL JOINT, 4.75 INCH 0.0
- - D R i l L STRING, 3.50 INCH 0 D
mated for any drilling situation. In practice, how-
ever, C , and C? are more complicated than is indi-
( 16.5)
• NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES ARE NOMINAL
CONTACT LENGTHS EXPRESSED IN INCHES
cated by the straight-line relationship in Fig. 1 and
FOR TOOL JOINT, IN FEET FOR DRILL STRING
are probably more like the dashed curve shown.
Using a drill string-mechanics computer program,
the actual behavior of C 2 can be determined (for
example, see Figs. 2 and 3). Combining this with C ,
values calculated from experimental data,' casing wear
rates for a limited number of field conditions can be
estimated.
In order to apply the experimental data' to casing
wear under actual drilling conditions, we made the
following assumption.
The wear process of a rotating tool joint or
drillpipe rubber moving along the casing as drill-
ing proceeds is adequately represented by the
test conditions' where no traversing occurred
and that a comparison can be made by equating
the wear volumes removed per unit time.
In drilling situations with penetration rates greater
than 5 ft/hr, the volume wear comparison is probably
4 DEGREES _ - ..- - -
valid. For very slow drilling rates (hours/foot), more
(1). _ _ - ' - " -
attention needs to be paid to the maximum penetration
50 100 200 300
DRILL STRING TENSION 10 3 LBS
rather than solely to the wear volume removed. 1
Fig. 2 -Tool-joint and drillstring contact forces in
Using the above assumptions, rough estimates of
dog-legs vs axial tension - 3.5·in. driilpipe. field casing wear rates can be developed using a
234 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
heuristic argument. For a more complete develop- data predict a total of 180 rotational days, or approxi-
ment, see Appendix A. By assuming a constant vol- mately 270 drilling days, to penetrate the heavy wall
.
ume wear rate, V, (for a constant contact force), and
casing, and 130 rotational days and 195 drilling days
for 40-lb casing. For extreme loading conditions
assuming the wearing process of a rotating tool joint
(10 0 /100-ft dog-leg and 225,000-lb tensile load in
moving along the casing is the same as the experi- the drillstring or 10,000-lb contact force), the 40-lb
mental conditions, then casing can be worn through in as little as 6 drilling
. = ATP
V , . (4)
days with new tool joints. For field-worn tool joints
in sand-laden mud systems, the rotational days to
where the wear AT is described by Fig. 4. For a con- penetrate 40-lb casing vary from 50 days for a 5,000-
stant-volume wear rate and a constant drilling pene- Ib contact load to 400 days for a 500-lb contact load.
tration rate, P, AT will also be constant. The field-wear penetration rates listed in Table 1
Using Eq. 4, it can be shown that the wear rate is were calculated from the slope of the experimental-
independent of the drilling penetration rate. By wear penetration curves after the initial rapid pene-
doubling the drilling penetration rate, the wear area tration of the casing had ceased. 1 As a result, this
removed per tool-joint pass will be halved. However, initial penetration is not included in the calculated
a point on the casing will see twice as many tool wear penetrations shown. It must be emphasized
joints in the same amount of time, so the wear area that these rates can only be considered as order-of-
rate will be the same for the two penetration rates. magnitude estimates and are for rotational wear only.
The wear rate will, however, be affected by the To get estimates of total casing wear, tripping wear
tool-joint spacing, i.e., the fraction of time a tool and wireline wear would have to be included.
joint is in contact with any given point on the casing. The figures for the days to penetrate the casing wall
Considering tool joints spaced at 30-ft intervals, the should only be considered as order-of-magnitude
field wear rate will be 0.01 times the experimental estimates for two reasons. First, the rate of penetra-
wear rate [i.e., 4 in./(30 ft)(12)]. (In calculating the tion is based on tests where only a fraction of the
wear volume, the effective wearing length of the tool wall thickness was worn. Therefore, the time to pene-
joint must be considered. In actual use, the effective trate is only approximate. Second, there is a question
wear surface is limited to the hardfaced portion of as to whether the penetration rate remains approxi-
the tool joint and for 41;2-in. diameter X-hole tool mately constant with depth of penetration. For non-
joints, this length is approximately 4 in.) abrasive systems, this appears to be a reasonable
Table 1 shows the approximate field wear rates estimate. However, for tests run in abrasive mud sys-
and total rotational days to penetrate the casing wall tems, there appears to be a change in the penetration
developed from the experimental wear volume data rate at a penetration of about 0.2 in.
for tool joints. Notice that for new tool joints in clear No values of C were calculated for drillpipe pro-
water at a moderate contact force of 2,000 Ib, the tectors because of the deformation of the rubbers
under load and because of the complex wear pattern
produced. To develop C 1 values for rubbers, addi-
tional tests will have to be conducted with wear depths
and volumes measured at intervals during the tests.
4'
," 4~~"
,,~
~"
,~"
,,~
, Q
'""'
M
a <)
0"
0'~
~"
~ 10 Q~
b
tl (17)
~
,...
~ CC"
~
C0'
,0
•c;;.--- .--
\09
'(451 ~------- '(451
°2~5~50--~~'0-0~~-----2LOO--~~~~30-0--------~400
---
DRILL STRING TENSIO~ - 10 3 LBS
vs axial tension - 4.5·in. drillpipe. Fig. 4-Tool·joint casing wear area, At.
bel' of wear situations 2 are shown in Table 2. These Eq. 5. This can be done by using Fig. 5, whose curves
coefficients can be used in conjunction with a wear are based upon a crescent formula that assumes a
volume equation and a graph relating wear volume symmetrical wear pattern.
to wear depth to determine casing wear rates. The In using Eq. 5 and Table 2 to estimate casing wear
wear volume equation needed is developed in Ap- for field drilling situations, many assumptions and
pendix B and can be written as approximations are made. The assumptions that are
likely to have the greatest effect on the wear estimate
V t = 2Cwt TN t E(D t - Do) sin ( ~ ). (5) are those made concerning the dog-leg severity and
the wear coefficient. The actual dog-leg severity can
In selecting an appropriate wear coefficient from be considerably greater than indicated by routine di-
Table 2, the average contact force can be estimated rectional surveys. Concerning the wear coefficient,
by Eq. B-2 or from Figs. 2 and 3 and an appropriate the large variation with mud type and contact load
coefficient selected. The last step is to determine the seen in Table 2 makes the selections of the correct
estimated wear depth from the wear volume given by coefficient for situations not shown highly uncertain_
~ 30
//
without drill solids 19.6 1.9 x 10-8 2.2 X 10-' A /
Weighted water-base mud 9.8 5.2 x 10-' 3.5 X 10-8 ~ 20 /
with 2 to 8 percent drill
solids
19.6 2.1 x 10-8 2.2 X 10-' /
Weighted water-base mud 9.8 12.0 x 10-' 13.0 X 10-8 10
/
with 8 percent drill solids
+ 3 percent sand
19.6 5.2 x 10-' 4.3 X 10-8
o
II
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Weighted water base mud 19.6 6.1 x 10-8 5.9 X 10-8
without drill solids Fig. 6-Wear depth vs wear volume for 1%2·in.
+ 3 percent sand diameter wireline.
TABLE 4-FIELD·MEASURED WEAR DEPTHS CAUSED BY ROTATING AND TRIPPING COMPARED WITH
CALCULATED WEAR DEPTHS
Mud Data Measured Calculated Woar Depth (in.)
Dogleg
Wear Drillpipe Severity Assumed String Operating/ Sand Wear Depth (in.j( f) Rotating Tripping
Point Diameter (degrees/ Average Tension Rotating Density Content Pipe Tool Pipe Tool
Type
Well _ Casing ~ (in) ~ (rpm) (1,000 Ib) ~ (lb/gal) (percent) Total ~ Joint Body(e) Joint(a) Pipe Body
7·in. 15,708 31/2 6.9 60 49 142/128 Invert 10.5 to 20 oto 1/2 0.165 0.7 0.006 0.001
P-ll0 48 65/59
64 45/40
72 96/86
2 7·in. 15,793 3% 13.9 60 49 142/128 Invert 10.5 to 20 Oto % 0.194 1.2 0.020 0.002
P-ll0 48 65/59
64 45/40
72 96/86
3 9%·in. 9,000 41/2 10.8 90 107 65/39 Brine water 9.4 to 9.5 Trace 0.213 0.7 0.040 to 0.038
S·95 193 112/67 Low·solids gel 9.5 0.070(d)
5 percent oil
Fresh·water gel 9.5
Invert 13.2 to 14.2
4 7%-in. 9,000 3'/2 10.8 60 132 130/117 Invert 17.8 Trace 0.360 0.08 0.5 0.8 0.040 0.002
P·ll0
_(c) _(b)
5 9%·in. 10,138 4'/2 3.4 90 157 41/25 Brine water 9.3 to 9.4 Oto % 0.053 0.4
P·ll0 90 173 44/26 Oil base 10.0 to 17.5
60 144 43/39
'-<
0 6 10%-in. 2,822 4'/2 8.4 120 140 10/5.5 Sea-water gel 9.5 to 12.0 0.400 0.3 0.035 0.010
c: K-55
:;z::J 191 7/3.8
Z 175 7/3.8
>
t""' 192 14/7.7
0 0_380 0.008
"rI 7 13%-in. 650 4'/2 8.0 150 84 5/2.5 Fresh-water gel 10.5 % 0.3 0.036
'"C J-55 113 5/2.5 Salt-water gel 12.6
t"I1
'""'I 127 15/7.5
:;z::J
0
142 15/7.5
t""'
t"I1 8 7-in. 3,600 3% 25_0 90 195 30/20 Dispersed 12 to 15.7 '/.I 0.353 0.10 0.3 0.2 0.015 0.005
c: J-55 fresh water
~
(a) Wear coefficient assumed to be the same as for pipe body_
@ (b)
(c)
Pipe body contact with casing theoretically impossible.
Unable to estimate coefficient for wear by tool jOints in brine water.
()
(d) Wear rate highly uncertain because of part of it occurring in brine water.
:t: (e) Wear coefficient assumed to be the same as for tool joint_
Z (f) Wear measurements of casing in place are Dialog measurements. Recovered casing was sectioned and measured.
0
r'
0
C)
>-<:
the laboratory results that most nearly fit the field figures show the wear volume removed as a function
conditions. Rubbers were also run in some of the of contact force. The results for water without sand
wells, which further complicated the prediction of show that drillpipe rubbers wear casing substantially
wear depths. As a result, the predicted wear depths less than tool joints at all contact loads. The tests run
are only approximate. at contact loads of 2,000 and 5,000 Ib for 1 hour
In spite of the limitations of the methods used to showed no measurable casing wear by the drill-
predict the wear depths, definite conclusions can be pipe rubbers. With the addition of 3 percent sand
drawn from the results. to the water, the drillpipe rubbers began to wear the
1. The order of magnitude of field-observed casing casing. Fig. 7 shows the resultant wear volume with
wear can be accounted for by the rates of casing wear water and 3 percent sand, plotted as a function of
predicted from the laboratory rotating wear tests. contact force for a test duration of 14.5 hours. Exam-
2. Tripping wear rates predicted from the labora- ination of this figure shows a number of things. At
tory tripping tests are so low that, despite the limita- high contact loads, the drill pipe rubbers wear casing
tions of the estimates, the results cannot account for less than field-worn tool joints. However, as the
the magnitude of field-observed casing wear. contact load is reduced, a point is reached where the
3. Estimates of casing wear by pipe body rotation drillpipe rubbers begin to wear the casing more rapidly
are sufficient to account for the additional pipe body than tool joints. In fact, the casing wear rate from
wear observed in recovered samples of worn casing. drillpipe rubbers actually increases with a reduction
Therefore, we can conclude that the major cause of in contact load. This difference in the wearing be-
casing wear is drillstring rotation. havior of drill pipe rubbers and tool joints is believed
to result from the large deformation (larger bearing
Tool Joint vs Drillpipe Rubber Wear area) exhibited by the rubber under load. Ref. 1 con-
An analysis of the rotating wear test datal indicates tains a more detailed discussion of the effect of rubber
that there are a number of factors (load, mud weight, deformation on wear.
tool-joint surface condition, sand composition, test As in clear water, the drillpipe rubbers wore the
duration, etc.) that affect the rate of wear. Insufficient casing substantially less than field-worn tool joints at
tests have been performed to separate quantitatively all loads in a weighted water-base field mud without
all of the various effects. However, important obser- added sand. (The mud contained 1 percent drilled
vations can still be made. solids.) Fig. 8 shows the wear volume results plotted
Figs. 7 and 8 show comparisons between rotational as a function of contact force for a test duration of
casing wear by tool joints and drillpipe rubbers. These 3 hours. Notice that at high contact loads, the drillpipe
0.7 r---------------------""T7"'?"":;,..."...,"7"7"7",------,
5r-------------------------------------~
05
4 M
z 0.4
~
M « ~
Z :;:
I 3
ci
«
DRill PIPE PROTECTOR- ~ 0.3
::>
~
WATER 3 % ADDED SAND
:;: 0 FiElD WORN TOOl JOINT
( >
~ 12.51b/gol FRESH WATER
~ 2 0.2
FIELD MUD 3 'I. ADDED SAN
o ' - - FIELD WORN TOOL JOINT
>
11 Iblgol OIL BASE MUD
NO ADDED SAND
0.1
' - - - TOOL JOINT-WATER
3% ADDED SAND
(DRill PIPE RUB8ERS-12.5 Iblgol FRESH
WATER FiElD MUD 3% ADDED SAND
OL---__ ____ ______ ______ ______
o
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o~-------------L---------- ____J -____ ~
500 1000 1500 2000 o 1000 2000
CONTACT FORCE - lBS CONTACT FORCE.~ LBS
Fig. 7-A comparison of rotational caSing wear by tool- Fig. 8-A comparison of rotational casing wear by tool-
joints and drillpipe protectors as a function of contact jO'tnts and drill pipe protectors as a function of contact
force - water, 141f2-hour tests. force - weighted field muds, 3-hour tests.
TABLE 5-ESTIMATED WIRELINE WEAR DEPTH VS DRILLSTRING WEAR DEPTH FOR FOUR WELLS
APPENDIX B
where
Equations for Casing Wear Caused by
L U . F . = length of wearing surface on the tool joint Tripping
(hardfaced portion). The results obtained from the tripping wear tests 2 are
Now consider the wear at a point in the casing as summarized in terms of tripping wear coefficients as
successive tool joints pass. functions of mud type, contact load, and casing grade
in Table 2. These coefficients can be used with an
+ AT2 + ...
(AThoTAL = AT!
_ V
. V
. appropriate equation to estimate wear volumes from
which depths of wear can be determined. The develop-
- -P- + -P + ...
FI F2
ment of this equation is given below.
. .
For V = V = constant, and
1 2
The volume of wear, V t, is expressed as
Fl F2 V t = C wt FL. (B-1)
PI =P 2 = ... = constant The contact force, F, can be expressed approxi-
mately as
(A-4)
where
F = 2Ta sin( &) (B-2)
n = number of tool joints passing the point Combining Eqs. B-1 and B-2, we get
of interest.
Differentiating Eq. A-4 with respect to time (t)
Vt = 2Cwt TaL sin (&) (B-3)
summarized in terms of wireline coefficients as func- The length of travel across the wear point is given as
tions of mud type, contact load, and casing grade in L = 2N w (D t - Ds) . (C-5)
Table 3. These coefficients can be used to estimate
wear volumes for wireline running. The equation Thus, V 10 can finally be written as
needed to do this is developed as follows.
The volume of wear, V w, is expressed as Vw = 2ClOW T 8" N 10 (D -D Do)" sm
t .
t
(8)
2 .
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers (C-6)
office Aug. 5, 1974. Paper (SPE 5122) was first presented at the
SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houston, Oct. 6-9, This equation coupled with Table 3 can be used to
1974. © Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metal-
lurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. estimate wear volumes from wireline runs. .TPT
Discussion
Arthur Lubinski, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production Co.
SP! 6398
In the 1950's, the industry tried to drill holes whose fail in fatigue. Another curve represents conditions
deviations from vertical were as small as possible. for which tool joints exert a 2,000-lb load on the
Drilling contracts specified that the hole deviation casing. For points located to the right of this curve,
from vertical should not exceed, say, 3° at any point. the load exceeds 2,000 lb.
It was I who slowly, painfully, and progressively The maximum permissible value of 2,000 lb for
spread the knowledge that detrimental effects were the lateral thrust was my best conservative educated
because of the rate change of hole angle; i.e., because guess made in 1960, based on correlation between
of dog-leg severity, rather than the nonverticality of directional surveys and field-reported failures.
the hole. A hole whose inclination is increasing at the Nicholson 2 considered also a 3,000-lb lateral thrust
rate of 1° /100 ft, up to say 30°, and which then curve, which apparently is acceptable in Gulf Coast
remains geometrically straight at 30° will cause no
trouble. On the other hand, a hole whose inclination
increases from 0 to 3°, with a rate of 10°/100 ft,
but whose inclination never exceeds 3°, will cause
trouble. Such troubles are of two kinds, namely
fatigue of the drill string because of reversing stresses,
and wear of both the drillstring and the casing.
One of the several papersl I presented on the
subject was published in 1961. Fig. D-3 is from that
paper. It pertains to 5-in., 19.5-lb drillpipe. The two
other figures pertain to 3~- and 4~-in. drillpipes,
respectively. These figures are included in the API
Bull. RP 7G. The ordinate is tension in the drillpipe
in the dog-leg. The abscissa is the dog-leg angle, which
is either the angle or an abrupt dog-leg, or dog-leg
severity in degrees per 30 ft in a gradual dog-leg (see
Fig. D-l).
Three curves are drawn in Fig. D-3. One pertains
to fatigue. For conditions represented by points
Fig. 0-1-(a) gradual and long dog· leg; (b) abrupt
located to the right of this curve, drillpipe is likely to dog-leg (tool joint in the dog-leg).
~'~L
Q..
f-- a:
CI) ~ -~
~ 100 'I." ~'/ \5 ",Iv
~
1t ~ ,;,
7
..,
>- q"
...,
8 ~
...o ''''r---~---
,<l '"
..~
CI)
~
'"o
~
:I:
150
W
~-,~
~ -~
~}-.'l
-...J
9
,o ~
II
\5
CI)
«
CI)
~
o ~
...J
~
,Iv
~
" '\I'
• <I"\'\'
I
~--I ~ a
,3 o,
>- ---~I
2
:j .~
-~r- ii-
*..,
1
Z e- ...J
~'(1-.
~
Z
2!lICI 0 C>~
+ - - _._. - - - - - I 4
..,~
200 0 ;::: I
z ~-§, ~
>- r---- - --0 -- ..
_.- _ _ I 5 >-
-~
OJ ~
I?:Q~C> ,
If ~"
- -~
I--- - 0 : r-- - - I 6
I
250
;1, , 7
.l- I
I !, r-- - - I8
I
I
-- -, 9
IN CORROSIVE MUDS REDUCE DOG-LEG ANGLE TO A FRACTION
(0.1 FOR VERY SEVERE CONDITIONS) OF W.UE INDICATED BY
300 I 20 FATIGUE CURVE.
Fig. D-2-Gradual and long dog-leg-hole curvature Fig. D-3-Abrupt dog-Ieg-dog·leg angle vs tension
(dog-leg severity) vs tension for 41h-in. drillipipe. for 5·in., 19.5-lb drillpipe.
The authors would like to thank Lubinski for his Lubinski is correct when he says that the length
comments on our paper. Lubinski questioned the of drillpipe in contact with the casing is not constant
testing of drillpipe under tripping conditions only. but is dependent upon dog-leg severity, drillstring
Casing wear by drillpipe during tripping was examined tension, and the size of the drillpipe and tool joints.
first because early thinking indicated that it might have The factor of 10 percent contact (E = 0.1) was chosen
been a major factor in casing wear. However, this was as a good average for the conditions we were consid-
not the case. Currently, we are performing additional ering. Actual values of contact length for varying
rotating casing wear experiments and have included conditions were presented in Figs. 2 and 3 of our
in this program an investigation of casing wear by paper and are listed in parentheses adjacent to their
rotating drillpipe. corresponding curve. JPT