A High-Fidelity Model for a Hydraulic Set of

Expandable Liner Hangers

Allan Zhong, Gary Kohn, and Carlos Moreno, Halliburton

Abstract: Finite-element analysis (FEA) has been applied to the development of expandable liner
hangers (ELHs), helping optimize designs and reduce both development time and cost. In FEA
models, displacement, or force, is prescribed on a fixed surface, which is accurate for mechanical
expansion, but an approximation for hydraulic expansion. The difficulties for an accurate
representation of hydraulic expansion include modifying the pressure boundary and determining
the expansion pressure a posteriori by the force it takes to push the cone. This paper proposes a
model to represent the hydraulic expansion process accurately without including fluid in the
model. The model accounts for both the dependence of hydraulic-expansion pressure on expansion
force and the varying pressure surface. It is observed that equivalent expansion force because of
hydraulic pressure is appreciably lower than pure mechanical expansion force. The model enables
a more accurate assessment of the operating range of ELH-related parts and connections as part
of field applications or physical tests.

Keywords: Plasticity, Fluid Structure Interaction, Moving Boundary Condition, FEA, Expandable
Liner Hanger.

1. Introduction
A liner hanger is a device that is used to suspend or hang liners (i.e., pipes or casings) from the
internal wall of a previous casing. As such, a liner hanger provides a means to anchor the next
smallest diameter casing/liner to the lowermost end of a previously installed length of casing. A
seal is required at the top of the liner hanger to prevent the transfer of fluid or pressures from
either direction (Halliburton.com 2018). There are two types of liner hangers: expandable liner
hangers (ELH), which form an integral anchor and sealing features, and conventional liner
hangers, which use slips for hanging and a liner top packer with a rubber element for sealing.

ELH systems include fully engineered liner hangers designed for use in land, offshore, and
deepwater applications. ELH products are known to include in-situ geometries that are
significantly more efficient than conventional liner hanger systems (Figure 1). Additionally,
improved reliability stems from the clean form design that allows for system complexity to be
transferred from the installed liner hanger system to the retrieved service tool. The efficiency of
the design is accomplished through a top-down, cold-working process by means of a service tool
that couples the liner hanger and liner to a length of drillpipe, conveys it to the appropriate depth,
and enables hanger expansion with pressure applied internally down the length of the drillpipe.
ELH systems can anchor bi-directionally, allowing for an upward test load to be applied with the

1
service tool immediately after expansion to confirm successful installation. ELH systems are
compatible with conventional liner tubulars and float equipment in both cemented and non-
cemented applications. Through the inherent efficiency of the ELH system, and capability for bi-
directional liner-top seal integrity, ELH systems have gained industry acceptance through
thousands of field installations.

Figure 1. Alternate liner hanger technologies.

Once installed, the liner hanger system has two primary purposes: (1) to carry the load of the liner
that is hanging beneath the hanger and (2) to provide pressure-barrier integrity between the
annulus of the liner and the wellbore above the hanger. Additionally, consideration for a “worst-
case discharge event” implies elevated temperatures. As such, the hanger must seal and anchor
against upwardly applied axial loads due to the thermal expansion of a partially cemented liner
suspended below the ELH. In existing ELH designs, where the pressure integrity and the load-
carrying capability are coupled into the elastomer elements, the post-expansion elements distribute
the stress to a larger area of the parent casing than the slips of a conventional liner hanger
Using an elastomeric element as a mechanism to help prevent the flow of liquids and gases from
one portion of a wellbore to another is common industry practice. Elastomeric elements are used
because elastomers can easily handle volumetric inconsistencies between sealing mandrels and
parent casing features as a result of their relatively low compliance. It is noted that an alternate
design exists that uses metal-to-metal contact as a primary mechanism for both anchoring and
sealing (Zhong et al. 2017).

Expandable liner hangers have been shown to significantly reduce cost and improve operational
reliability over traditional hanger systems (Johnson et al. 2011; McCormick 2012). Some
traditional liner hanger systems require pinpoint precision placement in designated profiles using
2
locator subs. Non-ELH systems have issues pertaining to rotating during cementing and have risks
associated with severe well conditions during and after installation. The traditional designs also
lead to small flow area and high annular pressure while cementing. Expandable liner hangers
(ELHs), on the other hand, provide casing placement flexibility, as well as the ability to rotate and
reciprocate during cementing, which improves cementing quality. The ELH requires less casing
than traditional hangers, thus reducing cost. The ELH can also improve operations on floating rigs
in deepwater operations because it requires no liner space-out, which, in turn, eliminates potential
pressure integrity issues in a traditional system.

In the Caspian Sea, ELH large-bore technology led to three hours less rig time for one installation
compared to a traditional hanger system, for a rig rate of USD 300,000/day (McCormick 2012).
ELH technology also provided a safety benefit by reducing the likelihood of formation damage. In
addition, most of the wells had full mud return, which resulted in several hundred thousands of
dollars in mud savings per well. These improvements in job quality led to a complete change-over
from running traditional hanger systems to 16-in. x 20-in. ELH systems, resulting in many large-
bore expandable liner hangers successfully installed. The successful installation of the first large-
bore expandable liner hanger in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) was completed in May 2010 (Johnson
et al.2011). The installation led to 2,300 ft of casing savings, an improved cement job from the
reduced equivalent circulating density (ECD) and rotation and reciprocation capacities of the
hanger, and a two-day savings in rig time. These successful case histories make expandable liner
hanger applications in deepwater highly attractive. The wider applications also drew scrutiny for
sustainability of their bi-directional anchor capability during worst-case discharge scenarios,
especially since they are also part of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
(BSEE) requirements.

Since physically testing ELH in many possible scenarios is economically prohibitive, it is

necessary to use engineering analysis and methods to predict ELH’s bidirectional anchor
capability under test conditions and well-specific conditions. Many important performance
parameters, such as expansion force, pull-out force, contact pressure between the elastomer and
the casing, deformation in the hanger body, stress in the elastomer, casing, and cone, and anchor
capacity, can be predicted through a finite-element analysis of the ELH.

Related to the discussion of the title subject, it is worthwhile to discuss how expansion force is
applied. Service tools for ELH systems provide for an axial load to drive a cone and cone mandrel
through the ID, deforming the ELH radially outward and creating intimate contact between the
OD of the ELH and the ID of the casing. This axial load is hydraulically powered by pumps
located on the drilling rig and conveyed down through the ID of the drillpipe to the service tool.
The service tool is designed with one or more hydraulically powered pistons, or piston features
that ultimately power expansion. Most ELH hydraulic pistons use a classic piston-cylinder
arrangement with pressure-energized volumes sealed using common O-rings. The lowermost end
of the piston-cylinder assembly pushes against the uppermost end of the cone and cone mandrel

3
assembly. Service tools that only use this classic piston-cylinder arrangement are designated “non-
sealing cone” designs. In this paper, this expansion is called mechanical expansion.

A non-classic piston feature is also used on ELH service tools and designated as a “sealing cone”
design. Sealing cones are designed to provide hydraulic pressure to the topside surfaces of a cone
and cone mandrel sub-assembly. The cone mandrel provides for a slide-able O-ring seal located on
its ID. An additional O-ring seal is provided to seal the cone mandrel OD and the cone ID. The
leading edge on the crest of the cone provides for the final sealing and contacting point with the ID
of the ELH. The resulting piston area is bound by the cone OD and the cone mandrel ID, assuming
the presence of a rod-like member binding the ID of the cone mandrel. This expansion is called
hydraulic expansion in this paper.

Some approximations are made in typical ELH FEA, which include the representation of hydraulic
pressure by an equivalent force, neglecting fluid-structure interaction, and constant friction
coefficients for various contact surface pairs. These approximations are reasonable and acceptable
most of the time. In fact, nonlinear large-strain, finite-element methods have been used extensively
and successfully in the design and optimization of ELH (Zhong et al. 2015; Zhong et al. 2017).
FEA helps to drive concept development and innovation, minimize the number of physical tests,
and reduce development time and cost.

In the following, ELH expansion mechanics and typical FEA models are reviewed first and then
an approach to improve ELH FEA fidelity is described with numerical examples to demonstrate
its effectiveness and impact. The paper ends with a summary and concluding remarks.

2. Mechanics of ELH Expansion and ELH FEA Model (Zhong et al.

2015)
A simplified description of the ELH set up in a test well is illustrated in Figure 2. From ID to OD,
the short grey section is the cone mandrel, the red section is the expansion cone, the green section
is the hanger body, the blue sections are sealing elements bonded to the hanger body, and the outer
grey section is casing. In the test setup, the casing and hanger are placed on the bottom of the test
well; the cone is pushed from top to bottom (left to right in the figure). The test is conducted in air.
The approach described in this section is accurate for the mechanical expansion process, but an
approximation for the hydraulic expansion.

The expansion process is activated via hydraulic pressure acting against the expansion cone—
either through a piston-cylinder mechanism or a sealing-cone mechanism. When hydraulic
pressure is high enough, the expansion cone will be moved to plastically deform the hanger body
and push the elastomeric elements to the casing ID. Since the average plastic deformation in the

4
hanger body is between 10 and 15%, the hanger body springs back slightly when the cone passes
through, but retains most of its deformation. Because of this permanent plastic deformation in the
hanger body, the elastomeric elements remain in contact with the casing ID, with substantial
contact pressure.

Figure 2. A simplified illustration of a test well setup.

2.1 FEA Model

The FEA model is a discrete (finite-element) representation of this setup with proper displacement
constraints and loading conditions. Contacts between parts are considered, and large deformations
in the elastomer and finite plastic deformations in the steel parts are accounted for. Due to the
simplicity of ELH, an axis-symmetric model is typically formulated to simulate its performances;
a full 3-D model is used when there is no symmetry (e.g., when a collapsible cone is used).

Figure 3. Examples of stress/strain curves for steels.

In addition to numerical procedures, a key component in the FEA model is to accurately represent
finite plastic deformation in the metal parts and large elastic deformation in the elastomer during
the expansion process. In the FEA model, steel behavior is represented by true-stress/true-strain
curves obtained in standard uniaxial tensile tests and implemented in FEA formulations via the J2
5
plasticity theory. A typical true-stress/true-strain curve is shown in Figure 3 (blue curve) with
comparison to the engineering stress/strain curve (red curve). A major difference between the true-
stress/true-strain curve and the engineering stress/strain curve is that the true-stress/true-strain
curve is monotonically increasing, while the engineering stress/strain curve is non-monotonic.
True stress and true strain accurately measure local deformation in a solid while engineering stress
and strain apply only to infinitesimal deformations in solids. The true-stress/true-strain curves for
steel indicate that common steels used for the hanger body have substantial strain hardening,
which is the reason that the hanger body can be “cold worked”.

The material model for the elastomer is typically a hyperplastic material model. In this material
model, the stress and strain are engineering stress and engineering strain. A typical stress strain
curve is shown in Figure 4. It is noted that at room temperature, the elongation at break is
typically 100–300% for common rubbers.
Stress (psi)

Strain (in/in)
Figure 4. Example of stress strain curve for elastomer.

2.2 Basic Mechanics

The FEA model can predict expansion force, pull-out force, contact pressure between the
elastomer and the casing, deformation in the hanger body, and stress in the elastomer, casing, and
cone. It can also predict the hang weight that the hanger can carry after the cone is pulled out and
the differential pressure from above and below that the hanger can carry.
In the following, the results from analysis of a 13-5/8-in. x 16-in. ELH under deep-well simulator
testing conditions illustrate common mechanistic behavior of ELHs. This design has three
elastomer elements on the hanger body.

6
 Elastomer Containment Spikes
contact stress

axial true distance

Figure 5. Contact along the center element axial length.

FEA predictions (Figure 5) indicate that the elastomer containment spikes at the upstream side of
the elements have no contact with the casing due to the large plastic deformation at the spike tips
during expansion; the metal spikes at the downstream ends of the elements usually have contact
with casing due to elastomer flow in the downstream direction during expansion. The contact
pressure distribution along the element length clearly demonstrated the effect of these
deformations—lower contact pressure at the upstream side of the element and significantly higher
contact pressure at the downstream side of the element. For this ELH, the seal and hanging
capacity primarily comes from the contact between the elastomer and the casing. The purpose of
the metal spikes is to prevent elastomer damage from extrusion across the spike during expansion.
The contact pressure, along with the friction coefficient and contact area, can be used to estimate

7
the total frictional force and, thus, the capacity of the hanger to suspend the weight of the liner
hanging below.

A typical predicted expansion force vs. cone stroke curve is shown in Figure 6. As expected, more
force is required for the cone to pass through the section with the elastomer element. The force
needed to pass the no-elastomer section is lower and can be as low as the force to expand the steel
pipe without the elastomer if the spacing between the elements is large enough. The curve may
also show that the cone can detect the existence of elastomer elements during the pull-out process
if the hanger body springs back appreciably at the element sections.
Exppansion/pull out force

stroke

Figure 6. Predicted force during expansion and cone pull out.

2.3 Effects of Casing Variation

Expansion force is sensitive to the casing ID variation for a given size casing and weight. The
following chart shows that for the 16-in. casing and a given ELH and corresponding cone, the
expansion force can change as much as 32% when the casing ID changed from minimum casing
ID to the maximum casing ID. The change in expansion force changes linearly with casing ID
(Figure 7).

8
In the deep-well simulator test, hang weight or anchor load is determined by the initial sliding of
the hanger relative to the casing. When load is held at the anchor load, the hanger would slip and
stop. The hang weight, or anchor load prediction, is determined by the same criterion.

1.2
13-5/8-in. x 16-in. 84#
normalized expansion force

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
14.8 14.9 15 15.1 15.2 15.3
casing ID

Figure 7. Influence of casing ID on expansion force.

Using this load-rating criterion, the relationship between anchor load and casing ID may not be
monotonic. This could be due to the fact that the slip-stop of the hanger relative to the casing is
influenced by casing deformation and hanger body spring back (which is also influenced by casing
deformation). For given casing size/weight and corresponding ELH system, casing ID variation is
a significant parameter impacting hanger installation and anchoring capacity. Another important
parameter is temperature.

2.4 Effects of Temperature on ELH Component Material Properties

Temperature is a very important parameter that impacts ELH performance because of its impact
on material properties, especially on elastomers.
As is well known, when temperature increases, steels lose some of their yield strength. The higher
the temperature is, the lower the retained yield strength is, as shown in the example in Figure 8.
For a typical hanger application environment, the temperature is lower than 275°F, and the steel
typically retains more than 94% of its yield strength. The effect of temperature on elastomer
properties is more pronounced. The relevant elastomer properties related to expansion and anchor
load are its modulus (Figure 9) and bulk modulus (Figure 10), as well as elongation at break. The
test data for this elastomer show that the modulus has a precipitate decrease from room
temperature to ~ 176°F, and then have small changes in magnitude at higher temperatures. The
reason that the data show a slight increase is because the elastomer ages due to oxygen in the
environment at higher temperatures in physical tests in air. The general trend for an elastomer
9
modulus is that the higher the temperature, the lower the modulus. This trend should be preserved
if lab tests are conducted in anaerobic conditions.

Effect of Temperature on 4140 Yield Strength

1
Retaining factor

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8
0 100 200 300 400 500

Temperature (F)

Figure 8. Temperature effect on steel-retained yield strength.

Effect of Temperature on an elastomer initial

modulus
Normalized elastomer modulus

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature (F)

Figure 9. Temperature effect on elastomer modulus.

The bulk modulus, which describes the compressibility of the elastomer, is influenced by
temperature in a similar trend. Since hanger anchor load and sealing capacity are primarily due to

10
elastomer interaction with casing, it is expected that significant temperature effects on elastomer
properties would lead to appreciable impact on ELH performance, especially anchor load. It is
noted that temperature rise also leads to a lower friction coefficient between rubber and steel in
laboratory physical tests.

Temperature Effect on Bulk Modulus

1
Normalized Bulk Modulus

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature (F)

Figure 10. Temperature effect on elastomer bulk modulus.

2.5 Impact of Temperature on ELH Expansion and Anchoring

It is expected that the temperature would have an impact on the ELH expansion process and
anchoring capacity. Despite the significant change in elastomer modulus, the expansion force
change is relatively small (less than 10%). This is because the lower elastomer modulus at higher
temperatures is partially compensated by the higher coefficient of thermal expansion of the
elastomer than steel.

Table 1. Impact of temperature on anchor loads in deep-well simulator.

Test – anchor load - FEA prediction – anchor load -
normalized normalized
75°F 1 1.05
250°F 0.48 0.49

11
The impact of temperature on ELH anchor load in the deep-well simulator is much more
pronounced—see comparison in Table 1. There are two main reasons for the drop in anchor load
due to temperature rise. One is the significant decrease of bulk modulus with temperature rise. For
this case, the bulk modulus has a 40% drop from 75°F to 250°F. The lower bulk modulus leads to
lower contact pressure between the elastomer and casing. The second reason is that the friction
coefficient between the elastomer and casing steel dropped. The much higher thermal expansion
coefficient of rubber than steel cannot offset the temperature effects on the bulk modulus and
friction coefficient.

3. A High-Fidelity Model for Hydraulic-Set ELH

A sealing expansion cone design is unique and employs continuous sealing surface geometry
around its perimeter. Hydraulic pressure causes the cone to move downward, expanding the ELH
to form a dynamic metal-to-metal seal between the crest of the cone and the ID of the expanded
bore. Hydraulic pressure driving the cone axially downward also provides a radial stress
component to the ID of the ELH up to a position adjacent to the metal-to-metal sealing point. As
such, a moving hydraulic pressure boundary is created, directly impacting radial stress
components in the wall of the ELH during expansion. Depending on the design and application of
the ELH, hydraulic pressure can be as high as 9,000 psi.

It is self-evident that expansion forces for identical ELH systems with identical cone design and
cone OD should be measurably different, where a sealing cone and a non-sealing cone represent
the only difference. The following discussion explores an FEA method, providing a means to a
“moving pressure boundary” between sealing surfaces undergoing elastic-plastic deformation.

The standard practice, as described in Section 2 of the predicting expansion force, is essentially for
mechanical expansion. For smaller-size hangers, expansion force is relatively low and burst
pressure is relatively high; mechanical expansion force can be close to hydraulic expansion force,
though slightly higher. For large-size hangers, or hangers needing very high expansion forces, the
difference between mechanical expansion and hydraulic expansion can be large. Using the typical
FEA model with approximation on hydraulic pressure can lead to unnecessary conservativeness.
3.1 The Approach
The difference between hydraulic expansion and mechanical expansion is illustrated in Figure 11.
During hydraulic expansion, the pressure in the annulus the between hanger ID and running tool
OD applies force on the expansion cone to push it forward (to the right in the figure). It also tries
to inflate the hanger body, which helps to reduce the resistance to cone movement. The
mechanical expansion model, on the other hand, has no pressure or force to inflate the hanger
body. Thus, it is expected that the real actual axial force in hydraulic expansion is lower than the
force from the mechanical model.

12
 Figure 11. Difference between hydraulic expansion and mechanical expansion.

The difficulties for an accurate representation of hydraulic expansion are 1) moving pressure
boundary and that 2) numerically, expansion pressure is determined a posterior by the force it
takes to push the cone.

A realistic modeling approach would require the inclusion of fluid in the model, which would
make the model significantly more complex and require much longer analysis time. To achieve the
accurate representation of the hydraulic pressure in the ELH hydraulic expansion process, two
built-in capabilities in ABAQUS are used together.

The evolving pressure boundary is simulated through pressure-penetration capability in ABAQUS.

The expansion annulus pressure is determined a posterior through a feedback control sensor
(Zhong and Gano 2013). The feedback control sensor, another built-in ABAQUS capability, is
used to communicate the axial force needed to push the expansion cone forward in each analysis
increment to determine the expansion pressure. A user subroutine is needed to achieve this goal.

3.2 Numerical Examples

The evolution of the pressure boundary condition is shown in Figure 12 The proposed approach
did exactly what was expected—the pressure surface evolved as the cone moved forward.

13
 Figure 12. The evolving pressure surfaces (i.e., the red areas in the Figure) for
hydraulic pressure.

The expansion force predicted from the hydraulic model for a 110-ksi minimum-yield material
hanger body is 411 kips, while the expansion force is 488 kips from a mechanical expansion
model. The hydraulic model predicted a 16% lower expansion force than the mechanical
expansion model.

14
The approximated mechanical expansion model predicted the expansion force, which corresponds
to an expansion pressure that is slightly larger than the burst pressure of the tie-back receptacle
(TBR). This, by itself, would have required a redesign of the system. The high-fidelity model
provided more accurate and lower expansion force and pressure, thereby avoiding this
unnecessary redesign.

4. Summary and Concluding Remarks

Typical mechanical ELH FEA models work reasonably well for most cases and have been used
extensively and successfully in the design and optimization of ELH (Zhong et al. 2015; and Zhong
et al. 2017). The high-fidelity model provides quantitative improvement in accuracy and enables a
more accurate assessment of the operating range of ELH-related parts and connections in field
applications or physical tests, as illustrated in Section 3 for hydraulic expansion, but it is more
complicated and requires user subroutine for its implementation.

In FEA models, displacement or force is prescribed on a fixed surface, which is accurate for
mechanical expansion, but an approximation for hydraulic expansion. The difficulties for an
accurate representation of hydraulic expansion include modifying the pressure boundary and
determining the expansion pressure a posteriori by the force it takes to push the cone. This paper
proposes a model to represent the hydraulic expansion process accurately without including fluid
in the model. The model accounts for both the dependence of hydraulic-expansion pressure on
expansion force and the varying pressure surface. It is observed that equivalent expansion force
because of hydraulic pressure is appreciably lower than pure mechanical expansion force. The
model enables a more accurate assessment of the operating range of ELH-related parts and
connections in applications or physical tests.

5. Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Halliburton for their support and permission to publish this
paper.

6. References
1. Halliburton.com, http://www.halliburton.com/en-US/ps/completions/well-completions/liner-
hangers.page (2018)
2. Johnson, M., Ardoin, K., and Bullard, B. 2011. Large-Bore Expandable Liner Hangers
Significantly Improve Operational Cost in a Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Well. Paper OTC
21925 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2–5 May.
3. McCormick, J., Matice, M., and Cramp, S. 2012. Big Bore Expandable Liner Hangers for
Offshore and Deepwater Applications Reduces Cost and Increases Reliability: Global Case
15
 History. Paper SPE158856 presented at the SPETT 2012 Energy Conference and Exhibition,
Port of Spain, Trinidad, 11–13 June.
4. Zhong, A., Johnson, M., Kohn, G. et al. 2015. Performance Evaluation of a Large Bore
Expandable Liner Hanger for Field Operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Paper OTC-25995-MS
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 4–7 May.
https://doi.org/10.4043/25995-MS.
5. Zhong, A., Moeller, D., and Maddux, S. 2017. Development of a High Weight Expandable
Liner Hanger for Deepwater Applications. Paper OTC-27542-MS presented at the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1–4 May. https://doi.org/10.4043/27542-MS.
6. Zhong, A. and Gano, J. 2013. Study of Feedback Controlled Variable Cone Expansion
Process. Paper presented at the 2013 SIMULIA Community Conference, Vienna, Austria, 21–
24 May.

16