W200 Casing Design Day 3 PDF

CASING DESIGN
W200 – Core & Well

DEM1 CTDM
448 f t TOC
0 ft RKB
448 f t 575 f t Mud Line
Engineering Knowledge
3000 f t 26" x 20" Surf ace Casing
8000 f t
9850 f t TOC
13950 f t TOC
14450 f t 13 5/8" Intermediate Casing
15899 f t TOL
15903 f t 10 3/4" x 9.974" Production Casing
16000 f t 3 1/2" Production Tubing
Establish, Verify, Document

18610 f t 7" Production Liner
Copyright of Shell International E & P W200 – EP Core & Well Engineering Knowledge RESTRICTED June 2011 1
Casing Design
Class Exercise – Axial stress at installation
For a 13-3/8”, 77ppf, Q125 Intermediate casing calculate the axial
stress along the pipe for the following scenarios:
- Running the pipe into the hole section
- End of displacing cement operation
9000 ft
Pipe geometry:
OD=13.375”
ID=12.275”
Operation data:
Pipe run in 11.5ppg mud
Cement displaced with 11.5ppg mud
Cementing with 500m of 16.4ppg tail + 3500m of 15.4ppg lead
No overpull margin
12500 ft
Assume no ballooning effect and no drag force
DLS = 2deg/100ft 12000 ft
Casing Design
Triaxial Burst Analysis Check
Can be performed manually

Select locations of peak loads (burst and/or tension / compression)
Consider tensile changes due to bending at 4 locations across pipe
wall
Determine axial, radial and tangential stresses
Determine Von Mises equivalent stress
Compare with derated yield stress
Preference is to utilise StressCheck or WellCat
Multiple load cases can be analysed
Consistent calculation methods
Copyright of Shell International E & P W200 – EP Core & Well Engineering Knowledge Casing RESTRICTED June 2011 3
Design
Triaxial Design Check in StressCheck
Design
Triaxial Design Check in StressCheck
Design
Triaxial Design in WellCat
Design
Triaxial Design in WellCat
Design
Required Minimum Design Factors

Description Label Pipe Body Connection
Tested Legacy
Running, tension
p c
pipe running; pick-up, slack-off RT1 DF 1 t 1.40 DF 1 t 1.40 1.60
p c
pipe overpull load case RT2 DF 1 t 1.20 DF 1 t 1.20 1.40
p c
Running, compression RC DF 1 c 1.10 DF 1 c 1.10 1.30
p c
Collapse C DF 2 1.00 DF 2 1.00 1.20
Burst - Triaxial
p c
non-sour; tubing and casing; no SR16, no SR2 B1 DF 3 1.25 DF 3 1.25 1.45
p c
non-sour; tubing and casing; SR16, SR2 B2 DF 3 1.15 DF 3 1.15 1.35
p c
sour; production or injection tubing; below 150 oF B3 DF 3 1.25 DF 3 1.25 1.45
p c
sour; production, injection, or intermediate casing; below 150 oF B4 DF 3 1.20 DF 3 1.20 1.40
p c
sour; tubing and casing; above 150 oF B5 DF 3 1.15 DF 3 1.15 1.35
injection load case; p c
B6 DF 3 1.10 DF 3 1.10 1.30
alloy meeting SR16 and SR2, or sour service alloy
Legacy connection
Lc
axial tension LcT --- --- DF t --- 1.60
Lc
axial compression LcC --- --- DF c --- 1.30
Casing Design
Detailed Casing Design - Pipe Performance Envelope
Design
Design Check 4 - Connections
Wellbore Fluids Qualified Connection selection

Connection List
Fail
(Preferred
Connection solution)
Connection Design
Performance Factors Design
Envelope Check
Connecti
on
Pressure &Axial
Load Cases
OK
Final Casing Design

(Weight, Grade, Material, Connection)
Design
Connections
Casing Design Manual specifies that all connections must be qualified

for service that they will see. This includes:
The axial loading (tension and compression)
The burst and collapse loads
The triaxial effect of all combinations of burst, collapse and axial
loading
Connections – in particular premium connections – are weaker in
compression than in tension.
In addition to mechanical failure (reaching or exceeding yield stress),
connection must not leak
Key parameter is the type of fluid casing exposed to during the
lifetime of well
Design
Connection Strength
Shell approved connections SHALL [PS] be used for barrier elements

Connections shall have a Connection Strength Envelope (CSE)
Defines the design strength of a connection
Loads within CSE will not cause leak or structural failure
Excel tool delivering CSEs in development, due Q2 2011
Design
Threaded Connections
Maximum leverage of ISO 13679 industry standard on connection

testing
Creates first-time alignment of testing protocol between partner
operators
New process to include legacy connections
For design, only the Connection Strength Envelope (CSE) is relevant
Instigates major update of Shell’s global list of qualified connections
Design
Connection Strength Envelope
Design
Notional CSE Scaled Down with Notional Design Factors
(Connection Usage Envelope??)
Design
Class Exercise – Burst - Collapse +TAP
For a 7”, 35ppf, 13Cr110 Production Liner build the T-Plot for a Flowing
Production load condition accounting for the TAP effect in trapped annulus
7” Pipe Rating:
Burst: 94525 KPa
19.15 KPa/m
Collpase: 89940 KPa
OBM
3415 m
3505 m - Mud at liner hanger setting: 19.15

Kpa/m
3800 m
- Perf @ 4905 m
Perf @ Res Press - Res P : 76000 Kpa
4905 m 76000KPa - Res fluid gradient (flowing):4.20 KPa/m
- TAP in trapped ann: +45000 KPa
Casing Design
CASING PERFORMANCE
Pipe Body Strength

DEM1 CTDM
448 f t TOC
0 ft RKB
448 f t 575 f t Mud Line
3000 f t 26" x 20" Surf ace Casing
Combined Load Effects

Corrosion & Wear
8000 f t
9850 f t TOC
13950 f t TOC
14450 f t 13 5/8" Intermediate Casing
15899 f t TOL
15903 f t 10 3/4" x 9.974" Production Casing
16000 f t 3 1/2" Production Tubing
Establish, Verify, Document

18610 f t 7" Production Liner
Casing Design
Casing Strength
Casing / Tubing / Drill Pipe performance properties published in API

Bulletin 5C2
Formulas and Calculations for Casing / Tubing / Drill Pipe /
calculating data in API Bulletin 5C3
Casing and Tubing design and manufacturing data / tolerances laid
down in API Spec 5CT
Design
Yield Strength
Design
Pipe Rupture Failure
Design
Yield Strength
API Tensile strength requirements

Yield Strength (psi) Minimum Tensile
Grade Strength (psi)
Minimum Maximum
J55 55,000 80,000 75,000
K55 55,000 80,000 95,000
L80 80,000 95,000 95,000
C90 90,000 105,000 100,000
C95 95,000 110,000 105,000
T95 95,000 110,000 105,000
P110 110,000 140,000 125,000
Q125 125,000 150,000 135,000
Design
Importance of Ductility
Design
Design
Mechanical Properties
Yield Strength
deg C deg F Factor
Yield strength reduces with
Temperature 21 70 1
Derating factors tabulated 66 150 0.98

Dimensional Variations
107 225 0.95
149 300 0.93
191 375 0.91
232 450 0.89
Design
Collapse Resistance
Design
Design
API Collapse Investigations
Design
API Collapse Investigations
16000
Yield Collapse
14000 Plastic Collapse (API Test Data)
Elastic Collapse
API Minimum
12000
COLLAPSE PRESSURE (PSI)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
D/T RATIO
Design
Collapse Failure Types
Yield Failure
based on yield at the inner wall using the Lamé thick wall elastic
solution
does not represent a “collapse” pressure at all
In thick wall pipes (D/t < 15±), tangential stress will exceed material
yield strength before collapse instability failure occurs
Plastic Failure
based on empirical data from 2488 tests of K-55, N-80 and P-110
seamless casing
No analytic expression accurately models this collapse behavior
Regression analysis results in a 95% confidence level that 99.5% of
all pipes manufactured to API specifications will fail at a collapse
pressure higher than the plastic collapse pressure.
Design
Collapse Failure Types
Elastic Failure
based on theoretical elastic instability failure
criterion is independent of yield strength
applicable to thin wall pipe (D/t > 25±).
Transition Failure
a numerical curve fit between the plastic and elastic regimes
Most oilfield tubulars experience collapse in the plastic and transition
regimes.
Nominal dimensions are used in the collapse equations
Design
API Collapse Regions
σθ at
Theoretical Elastic
ID
Instability
Material Yield
Yp
Actual Collapse
Behavior
Yield Plastic Transition Elastic

Collapse Collapse Collapse Collapse
(analytical) (empirical) (numeric) (analytical)
Slenderness Ratio (D/t)
Casing Design
API Plastic Collapse Model
 
 A
PP = YP − B − C
 D
 t

 ( )
Plastic Collapse Factors
Formula Factor
Grade
A B C
K 55 2.991 0.0541 1206
L 80 3.071 0.0667 1955
C/X 95 3.124 0.0743 2404
G 105 3.162 0.0794 2702
P 110 3.181 0.0819 2852
Q 125 3.239 0.0895 3301
S 135 3.278 0.0946 3601
Design
API Transitional Collapse Model
 
 F
PP = YP − G
D
 t

 ( )
Transition Collapse Factors
Formula Factor
Grade
F G
K 55 1.989 0.0360
L 80 1.998 0.0434
C/X 95 2.029 0.0482
G 105 2.053 0.0515
P 110 2.066 0.0532
Q 125 2.106 0.0582
S 135 2.133 0.0615
Design
API Elastic Collapse Model
46.95 × 106
PE =
(Dt ) × (Dt ) − 1
2
PE = Pressure to cause elastic collapse (psi)

D = Nominal OD of the pipe (inches)
t = Nominal wall thickness of pipe (inches)
Design
API Yield Collapse Model
D
 t − 1
PYP = 2YP 

( )
2 
 D
 t

 ( )
PYP = Pressure to cause yield collapse (psi)
YP = Nominal yield strength of material (psi)
D = Nominal OD of the pipe (inches)
t = Nominal wall thickness of pipe (inches)
Design
Which Equation to use?
API Empirical analysis in ISO TR 10400 / API TR 5C3

Based on OD/t ratio:
Failure Mode Equation

Yield Strength Plastic Transition Elastic
Grade OD/t ratio
K55 0 to 14.81 14.81 to 25.01 25.01 to 37.21 37.21 and greater
L80 0 to 13.38 13.38 to 22.47 22.47 to 31.02 31.02 and greater
C95 0 to 12.85 12.85 to 21.33 21.33 to 28.36 28.36 and greater
P110 0 to 12.44 12.44 to 20.41 21.41 to 26.22 26.22 and greater
Extract from API TR 5C3
Design
Axial Load effects on Collapse Resistance
 2 
  Sa  Sa 
Syr =  1− 0.75   − 0.5  Yp
 Yp  Yp
   
Where: Syr = reduced yield strength of axial stress equivalent grade

Sa = axial stress.
Yp = minimum yield strength.
The effect of tension loading on collapse strength is a biaxial effect.
based on the von Mises triaxial stress analysis with radial stress ignored.
only applies to elastic yield failure (the yield collapse regime)
reduction is applied to all collapse regimes (conservative assumption)
The collapse rating is not increased with compression.
Design
Internal pressure effects on Collapse Resistance
 2t 
Peff = Po − 1 −  Pi
 D
Peff = effective collapse pressure on pipe (psi)
Po = external pressure (psi)
Pi = internal pressure (psi)
t = nominal wall thickess (inches)
D = nominal outside diameter (inches)
Design
Collapse Resistance Summary
Primarily a function of yield strength and slenderness ratio, D/t

majority of OCTG exhibit collapse behavior that cannot be modeled
analytically by yield or elastic collapse equations
Affected by
Internal Pressure
Axial Load
Wear / Corrosion (not eccentricity)
Design
Pipe Burst Resistance
Must use Triaxial Design Formula:

σEff x DF < σ Yield
Do not use the API Barlow Formula for Burst Resistance

P = 0.875 x (2t/D) x sy (yield)
Design
Nominal vs Actual Dimensions
87.5% of nominal pipe

thickness.
Pipe cross-sectional area

remains constant even
when the thickness is non-
uniform due to
eccentricity.
Design
Obsolete API Barlow Equation
Consider a thin cross-sectional slice of unit length

taken from a pipe of diameter (D) and thickness
D (t)
Apply an internal pressure (P)
resultant hoop or tangential stress (σθ) =applied
force / area
P t σθ = PD/2t
As σθ approaches the yield strength (Yp) internal
pressure that begins to yield the pipe is
P = 2Ypt/D
Applicable to thin wall pipes (t<1/10radius) so
that σr = 0
Design
Deficiencies of Barlow Equation
Typically Burst is downrated to

P = 0.875 x (2t/D) x sy
The effect of axial loading on burst strength is ignored
non-conservative assumption if the pipe is in compression
conservative assumption for low to moderate tensile loads
non-conservative assumption for high tensile loads
For thick wall pipes (D/t ratio < 12) the thin wall assumption is non-
conservative.
Design
Axial Strength
The axial strength of the pipe body is determined by the pipe body
yield strength formula found in API Bulletin 5C3
π 2 2
Fy = D − d Yp
4
( )
Where: Fy = pipe body axial strength (units of force).
Yp = minimum yield strength.
D = nominal outer diameter.
d = nominal inner diameter.
Axial strength is the product of the cross-sectional area and the yield
strength.
Nominal dimensions are used for Axial Strength
Design
Buckling
Design
Buckling Criteria
Buckling will occur if the buckling force, Fb, is greater than a

threshold force, Fp, known as the Paslay buckling force.
BUCKLING
Fb = −Fa + pi Ai − po Ao > Fp = 4 w(sinθ)EI r
Fa = actual axial force (tension positive).

pi = internal pressure.
po = external pressure.
Ai = cross-sectional area associated with casing ID.
Ao = cross-sectional area associated with casing OD.
w = distributed buoyed weight of casing.
θ = hole angle.
EI = pipe bending stiffness.
r = radial annular clearance.
Design
Buckling Behaviour
F < F No buckling
b p
F < F < √2F Lateral (s - shaped) buckling
p b p
√2F < F < 2 √2F Lateral or helical buckling

p b p
2√2F < F Helical buckling
p b
Design
Factors that increase buckling
Increase internal pressure

increases Fa due to ballooning which will tend to decrease buckling
increases the piAi term which will tend to increase buckling
second effect is much greater; hence, an increase in internal pressure will
result in an increase in buckling.
Increase temperature
reduction in the axial tension (or increase in the compression) results in an
increase in buckling
Decrease hole angle
stabilizing effect of the lateral distributed force of a casing lying on the low
side of the hole in an inclined wellbore, a greater force is required to
induce buckling. In a vertical well, Fp = 0 and helical buckling will occur at
any Fb > 0.
Design
Reducing buckling during drilling operations
Applying a pickup force before landing the casing

Holding pressure while WOC to pre-tension the string (subsea wells)
Raising the top of cement.
Using centralizers
Increasing pipe stiffness
Design
Nominal vs Actual Dimensions
Burst uses minimum section.

represents a permissible 12.5% wall loss due to tolerances in piercing and
rolling process of seamless pipe.
Collapse uses nominal dimensions.
API formulae for plastic, transition and elastic collapse have been adjusted
using regression analysis to account for API tolerances.
No adjustment has been made in the yield strength collapse regime.
Axial uses nominal dimensions.
piercing process may result in non-uniform wall thickness but the cross-
sectional area of the pipe will remain constant
equation used in API Bulletin 5C3 based on cross-sectional area x yield
strength.
Design
Triaxial Stress Analysis
Design
Axial Stress
Fa − FP
σa = ± σB
Ao − Ai
where:
σa = axial stress (psi)

Fa = dry weight of pipe below the point of interest (lbs)
FP =pressure (bouyancy) forces acting on the pipe below the point of interest (lbs)
σB =bending stress in pipe at a given point in the pipe wall (psi)
Ao = cross-sectional area of the OD of the pipe (inches)
Ai = cross-sectional area of the ID of the pipe (inches)
Design
Bending Forces on Axial Loads
Design
Bending Stress on Axial Loads
SI Units Field Units

Point A ∆σ a = − (183×106 × OD ×φ ) ∆σ a = − ( 218× OD ×φ )
Point B ∆σ a = − (183×106 × ID ×φ ) ∆σ a = − ( 218× ID ×φ )
Point C ∆σ a = 183×106 × ID ×φ ∆σ a = 218× ID ×φ
Point D ∆σ a = 183×106 × OD ×φ ∆σ a = 218 × OD ×φ
Where
SI Field
∆σ a= change in axial stress kPa psi
ID=ID of the casing m inches
OD=OD of the casing m inches
φ=dogleg severity deg/10m deg/100ft
Design
Radial and Tangential Stresses
σt = i i − Po Ao
PA
+
( Pi − Po ) Ai Ao
(kPa or psi)
( Ao − Ai ) ( Ao − Ai ) A
σr = i i − Po Ao
PA
−
( Pi − Po ) Ai Ao
(kPa or psi)
( Ao − Ai ) ( Ao − Ai ) A
Pi = Internal pressure kPa psi

Po = External pressure kPa psi
Ai = Cross sectional area at ID mm2 in2
Ao = Cross sectional area at OD mm2 in2
A = Cross sectional area at point of interest mm2 in2
Design
Lame Equations at specific locations
ID of Pipe OD of Pipe
σr = −Pi σr = −Po
Pi ( Ai + Ao ) − 2Po Ao i i − Po ( Ao + Ai )
2PA
σt = σt =
( Ao − Ai ) ( Ao − Ai )
Design
Torsional Stress
 2T πA 
τ= 2  (kPa or psi)
A −A 2
 o i 
where
τ=torsional stress
T=torque (ft.lbs)
Design
Von Mises Effective Stress
Integrates all principal stresses and torsion into a single yield stress
Must be calculated at 4 points across pipe wall
Results should be compared to API Yield Stress value (downrated by
design factor)
σVME =
{ ( σt − σr ) + ( σt − σa ) + ( σa − σr )
2 2 2
} + 6τ2
(kPa or psi)
2
Design
Class Exercise – Burst - Collapse +TAP
For a 7”, 35ppf, 13Cr110 Production Liner build the T-Plot for a Flowing
Production load condition (with and without TAP pressure in trapped annulus)
7” Pipe Rating:
Burst: 94525 KPa
19.15 KPa/m
Collpase: 89940 KPa
OBM
3415 m
3505 m - Mud at liner hanger setting: 19.15

Kpa/m
3800 m
- Perf @ 4905 m
Per @ 4905 Res Press - Res P : 76000 Kpa
m 76000KPa - Res fluid gradient (flowing):4.20 KPa/m
- TAP in trapped ann: +45000 KPa
Casing Design
Triaxial Burst – Reference Formulas
Lame Equations at specific locations
ID of Pipe OD of Pipe
σr = −Pi σr = −Po
Pi ( Ai + Ao ) − 2Po Ao i i − Po ( Ao + Ai )
2PA
σt = σt =
( Ao − Ai ) ( Ao − Ai )
Von Mises Equivalent stress Equation:
σVME =
{(σt − σr ) 2
+ ( σt − σa ) + ( σa − σr )
2 2
} + 6τ2
(kPa or psi)
2
Design
Ellipse of situations when σVME = σYield
Design
Significance of Internal & External Pressure
10,000
Pe = 0 psi
9,000
Pe = 5000 psi
Pe = 10000 psi
8,000
7,000
6,000
Pi - Pe (psi)
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
-1,250,000 -1,000,000 -750,000 -500,000 -250,000 0 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000
Axial load (lbs)
Design
Significance of Triaxial Analysis
15,000
10,000
5,000
Pressure (psi)
0
-2,000,000 -1,500,000 -1,000,000 -500,000 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000
-5,000
-10,000
Pi curve with Po=0 Po curve with Pi=0 API Collapse API Burst Uniaxial Compression Uniaxial Tension
Copyright of Shell International E & P

-15,000
W200 – EP Core & Well Engineering Knowledge Casing RESTRICTED June 2011 63
Design Total Axial Force (lb)
Connection Approval
Shell connections shall be approved for usage according to size,

weight, grade/alloy, thread compound, thread name, and drawing
number and revision of the product that was evaluated
Globally Shell-approved connections shall have:
Been evaluated by a Shell SME in connections
Been documented by applicable Wells QTP (Qualified Technical
Professional)
Endorsement by the applicable global Wells DTA
Regionally-approved connections shall meet the same criteria, except
at the regional level
Regional approval/disapproval is rare and discouraged
Regional approval/disapproval shall not be exported
Regional evaluation shall follow this standard
Design
Connection Strength Envelope (CSE) - Burst
Calculated by scaling back the tested envelope using ratio of:

minimum pipe yield strength / actual test specimen yield strength
Design
Connection Strength Envelope - Collapse
Calculated by scaling back the tested envelope using ratio of:

API collapse pressure based on minimum properties / API collapse
pressure using actual specimen properties
Design
ISO 13679 Connection Qualification Requirements
Test Series and number of specimens

A B C Temperature Internal test
ISO
4 quad with 2 quad with Thermal for thermal pressure
CAL
mechanical mechanical cycles cycles with cycles medium
cycles (internal pressure pressure and
only) tension
IV 4 specimens 4 specimens, 4 specimens 356 oF Gas
Bending required 100 thermal Minimum
III 3 specimens 3 specimens, 4 Specimens 275 oF Gas

Bending optional 10 thermal Minimum
II No external 4 specimens, 4 Specimens 275 oF Gas

test required Bending optional 10 thermal Minimum
I No external 3 specimens, Not required NA Liquid

test required Bending optional
Note Only 10 thermal cycles are required for each internal pressure seal in CAL IV where
theofconnection
Copyright Shell International E & Phas redundant
W200 –seals.
EP Core & Well Engineering Knowledge Casing RESTRICTED June 2011 67
Design
Design Factors
Basis for selection of design factors

Determine risk level
Traditionally conservative
QRA (Quantitative Risk Assessment) Overview
Benefits
Shell design factors
Design
Design & Safety Factors
Design
Design Factor Selection
Design factor selection inextricably linked to design assumptions
The more conservative the design assumptions, the lower the design factor
should be to result in the same acceptable level of risk.
The higher the load uncertainty, the greater the design factor should be
(e.g., all else being equal, exploration wells should be designed using
higher design factors than development wells).
Design assumptions having greatest effect on design factor selection are:
Selection of load cases and the assumptions used with the load cases (e.g.,
use of a limited kick criterion vs. a full displacement to gas, the kick volume
and intensity used, whether bending due to doglegs or shock loads are
considered, etc.).
The assumptions used to calculate the pipe’s load resistance or rating (e.g.,
whether a nominal or minimum wall section is used and whether yield stress
is derated as a function of temperature).
How wear and corrosion are considered in the design.
Design
Myth: A Deterministic World
D e s ig n L o a d D e s ig n R a tin g
L d e s ig n R d e s ig n
“S a fe ty
m a r g in ”
SF = R d e s ig n / L d e s ig n ≥ D F
Design
Reality: A Probabilistic World
Since both design loads and ratings are probabilistic functions, a

“no risk” design is impossible. However, selection of an acceptable
probability of failure, Pf, will determine the appropriate design
factor.
Casing Design
Design
Origin of Traditional Design Factors
Historically, design load cases selected on two criteria:
reflect worst-case loads
are easy to calculate
if standard load case does not consider all the possible loads the
design factor might be increased
“maximum load” design concept
Design factors accepted over time based on the small number of
failures associated with their use
after a failure design basis examined and design factors increased
design assumptions typically based on worst-case scenarios.
Computing tools allow complex loading scenarios to be evaluated
Risk-calibrated design factors can be used to arrive at an equally safe
yet more economic design
Design
Design Factors
Design factors address uncertainty in:

Resistance (capacity) of the pipe
Assumed loads
Pipe performance and load scenario models
Connection tests
Design factors do not account for:
Wall thickness eccentricity
Corrosive wall loss
Temperature derating of yield strength
Operational errors
Design

Description Label Pipe Body Connection
Tested Legacy
Running, tension
p c
pipe running; pick-up, slack-off RT1 DF 1 t 1.40 DF 1 t 1.40 1.60
p c
pipe overpull load case RT2 DF 1 t 1.20 DF 1 t 1.20 1.40
p c
Running, compression RC DF 1 c 1.10 DF 1 c 1.10 1.30
p c
Collapse C DF 2 1.00 DF 2 1.00 1.20
Burst - Triaxial
p c
non-sour; tubing and casing; no SR16, no SR2 B1 DF 3 1.25 DF 3 1.25 1.45
p c
non-sour; tubing and casing; SR16, SR2 B2 DF 3 1.15 DF 3 1.15 1.35
p c
sour; production or injection tubing; below 150 oF B3 DF 3 1.25 DF 3 1.25 1.45
p c
sour; production, injection, or intermediate casing; below 150 oF B4 DF 3 1.20 DF 3 1.20 1.40
p c
sour; tubing and casing; above 150 oF B5 DF 3 1.15 DF 3 1.15 1.35
injection load case; p c
B6 DF 3 1.10 DF 3 1.10 1.30
alloy meeting SR16 and SR2, or sour service alloy
Legacy connection
Lc
axial tension LcT --- --- DF t --- 1.60
Lc
axial compression LcC --- --- DF c --- 1.30
Design
QRA (Quant Risk Ass.) – limits of deterministic design
Casing/tubing traditionally designed using deterministic methods.

No insight into how safe the design is
Safety factors calibrated for worst case scenario uneconomic for
non-critical wells [overdesign wells?]
Cannot control level of safety (i.e., risk management)
Addressing risk/cost-benefit issues requires probabilistic design
Design
The Need for Risk Analysis
Cullen report on Piper Alpha incident : design to ALARP principle (risk

should be “As Low As is Reasonably Practicable”)
Need for tubular cost savings
Safer design via increased physical insight (identify the high-risk
cases)
Allow incorporation of risk management issues based on
consequences of failure
Develop appropriate design criteria for critical wells
Design
Probabilistic Design
Uses QRA techniques to:

Calculate the probability of a given failure (e.g., tubing burst, deep
subsurface blowout), or
For a given target risk, calculate the required design factors
Fully compatible with existing deterministic techniques
Already used in process design
Design
Benefits of QRA
Realizes cost savings on casing and tubing (BP study identified

savings of tens of thousands of dollars per well)
Results in safer designs (identify high-risk cases, etc.)
Allows organizations to:
Demonstrate compliance with objective-based legislation
Prepare safety guidelines for tubular designs
Perform cost/benefit studies, QA/QC planning, etc.
Extends “envelope” of possible wells
Design
Corrosion & Wear
Corrosion Wear
Causes Site and Timing
Effect of Wear
Casing Materials
Wear Mechanisms
Common Types of Corrosion
Modelling and Predicting
Prevention and Control Control
Monitoring
Design
Corrosion
Corrosion alter the ability of the casing to perform its functions in two
ways:
Loss of metal – wall thickness reduction
Weakening the casing material resistance
Causes:
Internal corrosion – reservoir fluid
Internal/external corrosion – drilling/workover/completion ops.
External corrosion – formation fluids/surface water
Casing Materials:
Chemical constituents/method of manufacturing (heat treatment)
CRA (strength achieved by cold working)
Welding (pre/post heat treatment)
Casing Design
Types of Corrosion
General (non localized)
Galvanic Corrosion – electr.ch potential diff + electrolyte + agent
Pitting – localized groove
CO2 Corrosion – CO2 + H2O→H2CO3
Hydrogen Sulphide Corrosion:
Hydrogen Enbrittlement (HE)
Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC)
Sulphide-Stress-Corrosion-Cracking (SSCC)
Chloride-stress-corrosion cracking (SCC)
Bacterial Corrosion
Erosion/corrosion
Intergranular corrosion for inadequate heat treatment
Casing Design
Material Selection - Corrosion Considerations
Various sources of corrosion

Internal and External
Static and Dynamic
Natural and Applied
Design
Material Selection - Internal casing corrosion
Internal casing corrosion can

occur in the absence of a
packer or if the packer fails.
Water may condense at cool
areas on the casing and
H2S/CO2 can corrode the
steel.
The tubing wouldn’t
necessarily be corroded at the
same area because fluid
traveling along it may keep its
temperature above the dew
point
Design
Material Selection - Corrosion Mechanisms
Metal loss
Typically occurs in the production phase
a design issue only for production casing and tubing
external corrosion controlled by isolating the casing with cement
exposure to either CO2 or H2S can result in metal loss
Cracking
sudden and often catastrophic brittle failure
most severe forms of cracking are:
Chloride-stress-corrosion cracking (SCC)
Sulfide-stress-corrosion cracking (SSCC)
A form of hydrogen embrittlement requiring the presence of H2S in
an aqueous environment.
Design
Tubular Design Practice and Fluid Environment
Four combinations of tubular material and fluid environment are

recognised in the CTDM
Carbon steel in sweet service
Carbon steel in sour service
13Cr alloy in corrosive service
CRA in corrosive sour service
CTDM provides standards for:
Definition of each fluid environment
Specification and testing of material for service in each fluid
environment
Alternative/additional design checks required
Design
SSCC – sulphide stress corrosion cracking
Susceptible alloys, especially steels, react with hydrogen sulfide,

forming metal sulfides and atomic hydrogen
Atomic hydrogen diffuses into the metal matrix
SSC is a form of hydrogen embrittlement
As the hydrogen diffuses into the metal structure, it weakens both
intragranular and transgranular bonds
In the presence of stress, these weakened links will become
microscopic fractures. The fractures tend to link up
Casing Design
SSCC – sulphide stress corrosion cracking
Casing Design
Sour Service
EP39.: definition of sour environments and material requirements

The risk of Sulfide-stress-corrosion cracking (SSCC) increases with:
increasing H2S partial pressure (above 0.34kPa (0.05psi))
increasing material hardness (and consequently strength).
increasing tensile stress.
increasing exposure time.
decreasing pH of the environment.
decreasing temperature.
Design
Material Selection - Internal casing corrosion
7”-L80 Tbg. Brent Alpha water injector (9 years)
Design
Corrosion Resistance
Conditions Alloy
Sweet (No Co2 or H2S) Low Alloy (L80 etc)
9% Cr 1% Mo and 13%
High Co2, Very low H2S
Chrome alloys
HighCO2 , chlorides, high temp., low
22% or 25% Chrome (duplex)
H2 S
Very acidic, hot, H2 S present Nickel based alloys
Very acidic, hot, H2 S present, high

Titanium based alloys
stresses
Design
Material Costs
RELATIVE
GRADE USE
COST
K-55 0.66 Low Stress
N-80 1.00 General
L-80 1.18 Sour Service
C-95 1.16 Higher Strength
P-110 1.21 High Strength/Deep
v-150 1.51 Very High Strength
13% Chrome 3.00 CO2 & Chlorine
23% Chrome 10.00 H2S, CO2 & Chlorine
Design
Operational Considerations
L 80 13% Cr
Carbon steel Alloy steel
Controlled hardness Controlled hardness
H2S resistant CO2 & H2S resistant
Cold work resistant Susceptible to cold work
Relatively resistant to damage Susceptible to handling damage
Threads require peening

Phosphated threads
(Bead blasting)
Relatively resistant to
Susceptible to thread galling
thread galling
Design
Casing Wear
Primary cause: rotation of the drillstring against the casing wall

Amount of wall loss can be significant, including wear completely
through the wall
Result can be catastrophic, as well pressures can then be transmitted
to the outer casing strings and shallower formations
Design
Casing Wear Factors
High contact force between the drillstring and the casing
build and drop sections in directional wells (especially those in shallower
sections of the wellbore)
localized dogleg
buckled sections of casing
Borehole trajectory planning is key to minimizing casing wear.
Increasing contact time
slow penetration rates
long hole intervals
multiple hole intervals cased off with liners
Roughness of tool joint surfaces.
Mud system
Clear water with drilled solids not good
Weighted muds are better, as barite can help to reduce wear
Design
Casing Wear – The Problem
Difficult to design for, to predict, to assess, and to respond to.

Uncertainties in correlating actual well conditions with predictive
casing wear models.
Uncertainty in determining effects of wear on pipe performance
properties
Design
Managing Casing Wear
Minimize through Best Practices

Watch for “Operational Flags,” indications of expected wear.
Caliper casing downhole to detect amount of wear and wear rate.
Consider base caliper before drilling inside casing.
If too much wear occurs, modify well plan as required.
Additional liner overlap and/or tie-back casing string to cover
intervals of concern.
Provide extra wall thickness in pipe body design
Design
Casing Wear Best Practices
Plan borehole trajectory to minimize side loading of tool joints in

casing
Prevent buckling of casing if possible
higher Top of Cement
added tension after cement sets
Engineered location of drill pipe protectors
Quality tool joint hardbanding
Use downhole motor to minimize rotation
Design
Contact Forces
High contact forces can deflect

uncemented casing
Casing upset around collar
becomes a target for localised
wear
Design
Hardfacing
Excellent -- Armacor M
Excellent -- Arnco200XT
Excellent -- Pinnchrome
OK -- Plain Steel (Tool Joint will
wear)
Bad -- Smooth-X (Use only if
modeling indicates acceptable
wear)
Very Bad -- Tungsten Carbide
(Do not rotate in casing)
Design
Drillpipe Protectors
Conventional drill pipe protectors can have limited effect – can cause
torque fluctuations
NRDPP a better option
Engineer the location
Drillers do not like it….

It throw junk into the hole!!!
Design
W200 – EP Core & Well Engineering Knowledge Casing Design
Copyright of Shell International E & P RESTRICTED June 2011 102
Casing Wear Operational Flags
Severe doglegs
Settling of wellhead or changes in wellhead angle
Excessively worn wear bushing
Casing/liner set on bottom
Large washouts below cement top (that might allow casing to buckle)
Failure to achieve desired cement top
Design
Effect of Wear
Local wear caused by

drill pipe rotation
Local wear has little

effect on overall pipe
cross-sectional area
Design
Effect of Wear
Localized wall loss has significant effect on burst and collapse

resistance
Calculate reduced burst and collapse ratings based on the minimum
wall section resulting from wear
re-calculated values based on the minimum wall section can be
conservative (can change the API collapse region - a non-linear
effect).
Some operators recommend reducing the nominal rating linearly by
the same percentage as the local wall loss
Effect on the axial rating will be much less
localized wear will reduce the cross-sectional area only nominally.
Don’t derate pipe in tension based on wear.
Design
Copyright of Shell International E & P RESTRICTED June 2011 106

W200 Casing Design Day 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

W200 Casing Design Day 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASING DESIGN

W200 – Core & Well

Establish, Verify, Document

Can be performed manually

Required Minimum Design Factors

Wellbore Fluids Qualified Connection selection

Final Casing Design

Casing Design Manual specifies that all connections must be qualified

Shell approved connections SHALL [PS] be used for barrier elements

Maximum leverage of ISO 13679 industry standard on connection

3505 m - Mud at liner hanger setting: 19.15

Pipe Body Strength

3000 f t 26" x 20" Surf ace Casing

Combined Load Effects

Establish, Verify, Document

Casing / Tubing / Drill Pipe performance properties published in API

API Tensile strength requirements

Derating factors tabulated 66 150 0.98

149 300 0.93

191 375 0.91

232 450 0.89

Yield Plastic Transition Elastic

Slenderness Ratio (D/t)

PE = Pressure to cause elastic collapse (psi)

API Empirical analysis in ISO TR 10400 / API TR 5C3

Failure Mode Equation

K55 0 to 14.81 14.81 to 25.01 25.01 to 37.21 37.21 and greater

L80 0 to 13.38 13.38 to 22.47 22.47 to 31.02 31.02 and greater

C95 0 to 12.85 12.85 to 21.33 21.33 to 28.36 28.36 and greater

P110 0 to 12.44 12.44 to 20.41 21.41 to 26.22 26.22 and greater

Extract from API TR 5C3

Where: Syr = reduced yield strength of axial stress equivalent grade

Primarily a function of yield strength and slenderness ratio, D/t

Must use Triaxial Design Formula:

Do not use the API Barlow Formula for Burst Resistance

87.5% of nominal pipe

Pipe cross-sectional area

Consider a thin cross-sectional slice of unit length

Typically Burst is downrated to

Buckling will occur if the buckling force, Fb, is greater than a

Fb = −Fa + pi Ai − po Ao > Fp = 4 w(sinθ)EI r

Fa = actual axial force (tension positive).

√2F < F < 2 √2F Lateral or helical buckling

Increase internal pressure

Applying a pickup force before landing the casing

Burst uses minimum section.

σa = axial stress (psi)

SI Units Field Units

Pi = Internal pressure kPa psi

3505 m - Mud at liner hanger setting: 19.15

Von Mises Equivalent stress Equation:

Copyright of Shell International E & P

Shell connections shall be approved for usage according to size,

Calculated by scaling back the tested envelope using ratio of:

Calculated by scaling back the tested envelope using ratio of:

Test Series and number of specimens

III 3 specimens 3 specimens, 4 Specimens 275 oF Gas

II No external 4 specimens, 4 Specimens 275 oF Gas

I No external 3 specimens, Not required NA Liquid

Basis for selection of design factors

Shell design factors

Since both design loads and ratings are probabilistic functions, a

Design factors address uncertainty in: