SOCIETYOF PETROLEUMENGINLERSOF AIME

6200 North Central Expressway ~~%R SPE 4088

Dallas, Texas 71j206

THIS LS A PREPRINT--- SUBJECTTO CORRECTION

La boratoryi’ Tests on Col lapse Resistance of

Cemented Casing

By

George W. Evans, Member AIME, and Don W. Harriman, Halliburton Services

@ Copyright 1972
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the 47th A.lnualFall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME, to be held in San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 8-11, 1972. Permission to copy is restricted to an
abstract of not more tha~ 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The abstract should contain
conspicuous ackr,owledgmentof where and by whom the paper is presented. Publication el?ewhere after
publication in the JCXJRNALOF PETROLEUM TECHNOII)GYor the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL is
usually granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give
proper credit is made.

Discussion of this pqer is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be yesented at the above meetir,gand,
with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT effects of these upon burst and

Laboratory tests on collapse
resistance of cemented casing give an
insighk into the role cement sheath
strength and integrity have on the
collapse resistance of tubular goods.
A full cement sheath can materially
improve the coilapse resistance of
the tubular goods-cement sheath
structure. The stronger full cement
sheaths offered the greatest resis-
tance to collapse pressure. Cement
sheaths that contain voids above a
certain size give very limited im-
provement in collapse resistance.
INTRODUCTION
The role of the cement sheath
relative to tubular goods perfor-
mance in oil and gas wells has long
been a subject of discussion.
collapse resistance of cemented tu-
bular goocts. This study was initiated
for the purpGse of investigating the
properties of the cement sheath with
respect to their effect on the col-
lapse resistance of the tubular goods
cement sheath structure.
Collapse resistance of dual
strings of mechanical tubing cement-
ed together with sheaths of cement of
various strengths and configurations
was investigated. The tests consid-
ered conditions where collapsing
forces were imposed on a bare cement
sheath as well as a cement sheath
surrounded by tubing. The dual tubu-
lar string collapse resistance was
determined by applying hydraulic and
mechanical loads to the structure.
HYDRAULIC CO?.LAPSE TESTS

The questions generally raised Tests were first run to deter-

concern the thickness, strength and mine the hydraulic collapse pressure
configuration of the sheath and the of uncemented tubing. A 1“ cement
Illustrations at end of paper. sheath was then poured around the
tubing sample to determine the change
in collapse pressure that could be
attributed to the cement sheath.
Figure I shows the tubing sample, ce-
ment sheath, and pressure chamber used
for these tests. The data obtained
shown on Table I indicates up to 237.
improvement in collapse resistance
may be obtained when the tubing is
sheathed with a 2930 psi compressive
strength cement. It should be noted
that support realized from the cement
sheath varies with grade of tubing.
Tests on cement sheathed 7“ - 23# J-55
casing also indicated a 207. improve-
ment in collapse resistance.
Voids were then cast in the
cement sheath as shown on Figure II.
The void was radial in nature com-
pletely surrounding the tubing. The
longitudinal length of the radial void
was increased progressively until
failure pressure had returned to the
value of uncemented tubing. Data
shown on Table II shows the incre-
ments of voids tested with a radial
void 6“ long permitting the tubing to
collapse at the same pressure as un-
cemented tubing. The 6“ length cf
radial void is approximately 3 inside
tubing diameters in length.
Longitudinal voids to simulate
channeling were cast in the cement
sheath as shown on Figure III. The
width of the longitudinal void was
increased in increments until the
collapse pressure of uncemented tub-
ing was obtained. Table 111 shows
the increments of width of the lon-
gitudinal void at which collapse pres-
sure of uncemented tubing is obtained.
A longitudinal void of 1“ width or 1/2
the inside diameter of the tubing per-
mits the tubing to fail at the same
pressure as uncemented tubing.
The sample configuration was
changed co allow the use of dual
strings of tubing with a cement sheath
placed in the annulus between the two
strings of tubing. Figure IV shows
the dual tubing string sample with a
full cement sheath as tested in a
pressure chamber. An initial test
was run on a sample made up of 5 1/2”
17# J-55 inner casing and 8 5/8” -
36# J-55 outer casing with a full
sheath of cement between the casings.
The cement was a 15.7#/gal. slurry
with a compressive strength of 3365
psi. The sample did not fail at an
applied collapse pressure of 17,900
psi. The pressure chamber limita-
tion of 18,000 psi and 13” ID
therefore dictated a reduction of
sample size. Sample size chosen was
about 1/3 the D/t ratio of a 13 3/8”
inner casing and 20” outer casing
used in field applications. The
sample was constructed of an inner
section of 4 1/2” OD x ,125” wall me-
chanical tubing, the cement sheath,
arid outer section of 6.5” OD x .125”
wall mechanical tubing. The length
of these samples was 55”. The com-
pressive strength of the cement in
the sheath was varied to determine
the change in collapse pressure that
would be attributed to the strength
of the cement sheath. Figure V shows
the test structure used to determine
the hydraulic pressure collapse re-
sistance of dual strings of mechan-
ical tubing cemented with varying
cement sheath configurations. The
configuration of the cement sheath
was varied from a full sheath to
sheaths containing full length lon-
gitudinal voids equal in radial cross
section to 15% and 30% of the annular
area. The cement in the sheaths had
10 day compressive strengths varying
from approximately 850 psi to 11,000
psi. Figure VI shows sections of a
sample with full cement sheath after
collapse. Figure VII shows graphi-
cally the collapse resistance of the
above described test structure where
the cement sheath contained O%, 15%
and 30’%voids. AS shown graphically
on Figure VII, the presence of voids
in the cement sheath substantially
reduced the colla~se resistance of
the dual strings of tubing.
The calculated collapse resis-
tance of a dual string of mechanical
tubing with the varying sheath
strengths is also shown on Figure VII.
The calculated collapse resistance
—.
;PE 4088 c. w.
...-. .. .
m77.iNs ---
am -n . w
.. . .UARRTMAN
= .. .------ .’..
3

computed by the modified Barlow for- 1. Full cement sheaths may

mula shown on Figure VII gives a improve the hydraulic
method of calculating the collapse collapse strength of
pressure of dual strings of tubing tubular goods up to 23%.
with a full sheath of cement between
the st~ings of tubing when cement com- 2. No improvement in collapse
pressive strength and tubing collapse strength is realized where
pressures are known. a radial void equal to 3
inside diameters in axial
MECHANICAL LOAD TESTS length is present in the
cement sheath.
The test structures used in the
point load collapse tests were simi- 3. A cement sheath that con-
lar to those described for the hydrau- tains a longitudinal ,
lic collapse tests. These structures channel of a width equal
were loaded to failure on a compres- to 1/2 the inside diameter
sion testing machine which allowed the of the tubing permits fail-
load versus total deflection to be re- ure of \he tubing at un-
corded. The results of these tests cemented collapse pressures.
are shown graphically in Figure VIII
which indicate also a substantial de- Collapse tests on dual tubing:
crease in resistance to failure of the
structures containing annular ‘~oids 1. Collapse resistance is a
comnared to those containing competent function of cement sheath
cement sheaths. The data shown on strength and cement sheath
Fi$ure VIII again emphasizes the ef- integrity.
feet of the compressive strength of
the cement sheath on the resistance to 2. Dual tubing structures that
collapse failure of the dual strings are loaded by hydraulic
of tubing. The compressive strength pressure show a larger in-
used in these structures varied from crease in collapse resis-
623 psi to 1!),31O psi. The effect of tance than those subjected
the void in the cement sheath is shown to a mechanical point load.
to reduce the amount of load to cause
failure by at least 50%. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

CONCLUSIONS The authors wish to expresc their

appreciation to the management of
In hydraulic collapse tests where Halliburton Services for permission
collapse pressure is applied to the to prepare and present this paper.
outer surface of the cement s“neath:
 TABLE I - TUBING COLLAPSE PRESSURES

TU6MG:2V8 “0.0.-4.6
f8$/fr
1S.6fBV6Af●APICIAS$
CEIEUI: A COMPRUWEJ1R[16TII
2930PSI
snnrnO.D.4,5IN*
rum 6RAM
rw coufmons //=40 J-55 n “80
norcmm 8,200MI 10,250
PSI -
Full
cmENrmm !0,
750PSI !3,
150Psl 16,000PS1
P[RCW IUCREASE
FRO1 23,5% 22% 3%
CEMEiT
5UPPORT

TABLE 2 - EFFECT OF RADIAL VOID ON COLLAPSE STRENGTH

TUMN6:2 “t/8’’0.b.
4.6iM/\~ 1-55 ●

CEMEBT:
U.6f$S/6AfAPICMSSACOMPRESS/fE
STREN6TH2930PSl
$vfirio,J#4,j /u*

fE#6TU
0}RAM VOID COliAPSE
PRESSURE
18’’{
UUC[MENTED! !0,200
Psl
f!
! 12,000
Psl
2“ 11,7s0
Psl
tt
3 u,150Psl
It
4 !1,
200Psl
s“ 10,750
Psl
6- 10,200
Psl

TABLE 3 - EFFECT OF LONGITUDINAL VOID WIDTH ON

COLLAPSE PRESS(JRE

TUI116:
2?/a’’().f).
=4,6lBS/fT/“55
CEMEUT
: !5.6
lW6Af 4PICIASS
A C041PREWVE
STREN6T//
2930PSI
SUEATU
OJ.w4.5Ilk
wr/lolfoll161rumAi
Wlo CO1lAPSE
PRESSURE

UUCE#E/TTEO 10,150
?s/
V2° 11,250
?S1
1“ 10,250
Psi
 Wwllc
MM VOIQ

. .. . ..
A
:.-.
. . .
“.’1../...1 ,
W.,.:,
.. .
.. :.,,
. .. . ca p.-:.:--
... .. ... ... ,: -’.
,
‘it- - =-!y
------
L---- 1- ”:’.,
--.--=. , .-.— L--

!
.-

I
-<,
!:

Fig, 2 - Collapse test of tub!ng w,th rad,al vo,d

In cement sheath.

HYDRAULIC
PRESW

1.
I —-1
// ---—. .

Culfull CwnllOE
Um?m?c
7 lmlm[
[O#tf?sfu
WB M
rq %/i!%
---~ *:.---;- _./~ \h
*I.
.—— *.i. --,.
—..9-------

.
. - .

,:
/’ ~,~,”’~,\,
{l
?,.
<-:

F,g. 3 - Collapse test of tubing wltn longitudinal Fig. 4 - Cnl lapse test of dual casing with full
void in cement sheath. cement sheath between cas!ngs.
 FNS$IM
liYDIABllC

—— .
/m.
: (’~\,’ ,. -. .-.. .
I
[(U):
Ys--”

.. .-+ .
F,g. 5 - Collapse test of dual cas,ng w,th par:,al Fig. 6 - Sample 9-!.
cement sheath between cas, rgs.

Pj:mlofmll
mHwm4Arsirm4.

Dlnurlwr-lncnu

F,g 7 CoI apse pressure of dual tub,ng w,+h full Frg 8 Flattening load vs deflection for dual
and Dar:,al cement Shea+h between t~b,ng. t~b!ng with full and Pdrtlai CeiTent sheath