URTEC-208368-MS

Advanced Testing Protocol and Evaluation for Shale OCTG Connections

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Wesley Lyman Ott, Scott Landon Granger, and David James Marmolejo, VAM USA; Darren Richard Santeler and
Nora Brahmi, Vallourec

Copyright 2021, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/AP-URTEC-2021-208368

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Technology Conference to be held virtually on 16–18
November, 2021.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The contents
of this paper have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the
responsibility of, and, is subject to corrections by the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own
risk. The information herein does not necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Abstract
Shale plays continue to push the demand for OCTG connections that can achieve higher torque, tension,
compression, and pressure ratings while remaining economical as the drive for lower well costs intensifies.
These unconventional wells require new connection technologies and adapted testing protocols to ensure
no downhole issues occur. The work presented in this paper focuses on a new locking-thread connection
developed specifically to address the shale performance need.
The connection testing program has been based on the API TR 5SF June 2019 ballot draft. This new
standard is being drafted by API Working Group 3081 specifically for shale applications and divides
the testing into a sequence typical of operation including connection make-up, installation and running,
stimulation, and production.
In addition, the connection needed to address an issue that Shale operations are commonly facing, i.e.
inner diameter (ID) restriction. This phenomenon was investigated with torque and drag simulations and
utilizing finite element analysis (FEA). Various conditions and locations in a typical well were analyzed.
By utilizing locking-thread connections, the new connection resulted in a significant increase in
operational torque. The use of a thread seal allowed for a more economical design better suited for
the application. This paper explains in detail which test conditions have been defined and successfully
performed on the connection, aimed at being representative of all Shale play load sequences and usage.
ID restrictions are a result of unique combined loading in shale developments – high torque being applied
in combination with tension and compression. This connection exhibits low risk of ID restrictions thanks
to its high torque capacity and design features. The high torque capacity in turn, allows operators to push
their laterals further as they move to torque to mitigate friction factors.
Additionally, a torque-tension relationship was investigated which is currently sparsely reported in any
OCTG literature. This relationship suggests that the new connection could obtain higher torques under most
conditions but would experience a reduction of torque capacity if high torque and tension loads were applied.
This will help the operator to mitigate the ID restriction risk.
The testing protocol presented in this work sets an interesting reference for Shale connection testing as it
is the most advanced testing seen in the industry for shale products, combining API 5SF guidelines with the
API RP 5C5 2017 standard. This paper also provides the details of torque capacity evolution vs. tension and
2 URTEC-208368-MS

compression, allowing the user to have a more accurate model for connection suitability when combining
with torque and drag simulations.

Introduction
With the dramatic shift in oil price over the past years, E&P companies have continued to look for
efficiencies to increase production for new well designs. This has led to numerous changes for onshore
wells, most notably longer laterals for increased production stages and rotation during cementation for better

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

zonal isolation. Both of these operations significantly increase friction between casing OD and fluid which
has drastically increased the combined loads on casing strings.
As these trends have accelerated, the industry is also seeing a record number of incidents with ID
restrictions from the most widely used connections on the market – modified buttress. While the modified
buttress connections have proven successful in the wells of yesterday, they struggle to deal with the loads put
on them today. With the most economical plan to fix these ID restrictions being a ream job and completing
the well, little has been understood about how the combined loads directly contributed to the ID restrictions.
Without the direct link it's difficult to predict what an operator can do to avoid them.
Independently, well designs have continued to evolve with formation stability issues and government
inputs. Unstable holes have required intermediate strings to hold back the formation for production casing.
In other cases, government regulations require two intermediate casing strings be set. In both situations the
result is the same; a smaller production hole being drilled for the production casing. The clearance concerns
drive a need for a semi-flush solution where a standard BTC or BTC compatible connection will not fit.
Creating a solution to both issues required a blend of performance – increased torsional capacity, a
slimmer connection OD and high tension while also including real world testing proving the connection
was capable of the demand.

Statement of Theory and Definitions

New production casing connections that utilize tighter clearance and higher tension and torque ratings are
of particular interest in shale plays. API Buttress (BTC) and modified BTC threads have been commonly
used in these applications for their standard thread profile and economic value. However, these connections
are threaded and coupled limiting the hole dimeter clearance. Modified BTC connections also rely on the
pin face area to generate torque or stated another way, require a "torque-shoulder" to generate torque. The
torque achievable against a torque-shoulder is limited by how much of the total connection area can be
utilized. Thus, to increase torque performance of a shouldered connection, a thicker material is required
which uses more well-bore area. Adding pin-to-pin contact has been shown to increase torque performance
in 4.5in 13.5lb-ft L-80-1 from 8,500 N.m to 11,000 N.m as shown in Figure 1 (Sam, Szlachta, Schaffer,
& Winkler, 2011). Yet new industry needs demand connections that offer a substantial increase in torque
without consuming more well-bore area. One example of this type of application is the rotation of the casing
while cementing to improve cement quality (Turner, Adam, Cowan, Tellez, & Willis, 2019).

Figure 1—API Buttress with pin-to-pin contact (Sam, Szlachta, Schaffer, & Winkler, 2011)

This paper describes a new connection design developed to improve torque, reduce outer diameter
(OD) for increased clearance, and maintain high tensile efficiency. For instance, the 5.5in 20# size in
the 125ksi grade targeted 90% efficiency with a torque capacity of 40,000 ft.lb. allowing long laterals to
be run with high rotation capability. Figure 2 shows a comparison between this product and two BTC
URTEC-208368-MS 3

compatible connections where BTC (1) is a pin-to-pin connection and BTC (2) is a shouldered connection.
The connection utilized a semi-flush design to increase clearance and self-locking threads for high torque
capacity. Self-locking threads can generate increased torque without the need of a torque shoulder and are
often used in extended reach drilling (ERD) (Buster, Perkins, & Azeredo, 2016).

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Figure 2—Operating torque comparison between two BTC compatible thread forms and VAM® SPRINT-SF

By utilizing a semi-flush connection, the new connection greatly reduced the OD needed for the
connection by not having a coupling. Figure 3 shows the difference in OD clearance for a 5.0 inch BTC
connection and the innovative connection design of 5.5 inches. Semi-flush connections require end-forming
the material to the desired location and machining off the excess material from the connection OD and ID for
final machined dimensions. The tension efficiency is determined by the ratio of the pin critical cross-section
(PCCS) area and box critical cross-section (BCCS) area to the pipe cross-section (PCS) area. The BCCS and
PCCS are located at the last engaged thread as shown in Figure 4. To increase the tension efficiency, material
was maximized at the BCCS and PCCS. The connection achieved a 90% tension efficiency factoring
connection pin and box lip thickness, API pipe tolerances, and end-forming capability.

Figure 3—Connection diagram of 5.5in 20# VAM® SPRINT-SF in relation to one OD smaller, 5.0in BTC coupling OD.

Figure 4—Diagram of connection features related to tension efficiency.

To significantly increase the operating torque (or maximum torque with sealability, MTS, i.e. the
torque that can be applied for downhole rotation, without any impact on connection integrity, mechanical
properties, drift, or sealability) over API BTC connections, the connection utilized a self-locking thread
4 URTEC-208368-MS

profile as shown in Figure 5. The torque is not applied on the pin face or torque shoulder but instead over
the locking thread length. This means the torque capacity is directly related to the thread profile and length.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Figure 5—Self Locking Thread Profile.

Different concepts were evaluated with varied design factors including taper, thread height, and lead as
shown in Table 1. Other important design factors considered included flank angle, thread radii, difference
between stab flank and load flank lead, difference between front and rear thread width, thread bearing area,
shear efficiency, and contact pressure. Using these design inputs, important design outputs were calculated
for minimum perfect thread length (MPTL), make-up length (MUL), make-up turns (MUT), maximum
torque with sealability (MTS), and manufacturing throughput (MT). Each output was given a weighted
score summarized in Figure 6.

Table 1—Matrix of Evaluated Concepts taper, thread height, and stab flank lead

Concept Taper Thread Height Lead

C1 a X m

C2 b X m

C3 a Y m

C4 b Y m

C5 a X n

C6 b X n

Figure 6—Weighted score for critical design outputs.

Depending on the combination of design inputs the resulting connection performance and cost varied.
Concept 6 (C6) produced a connection with the highest number of threads which resulted in the concept
having the highest MPTL and MTS; however, with the slower taper the connection would have a longer
URTEC-208368-MS 5

MUL and require more MUT. Additionally, in order to produce the long thread with narrow front threads
and wide rear threads, C6 had higher manufacturing times resulting in the lowest MT score.
Concept 1 (C1) was selected for physical evaluation. The test program to validate the connection
performance was based on the not yet published ballot draft of API Technical Report (TR) 5SF, Guidelines
for Evaluation Casing Connection Performance in Multi-Fractured Wells and guidelines summarized in the
literature (Hamilton & Pattillo, 2019). C1 was tested per the flow chart shown in Figure 7 representing a fit-
for-purpose test program for multi-fractured horizonal wells (MFHW). API TR 5SF recommends following
a load sequence representative of field conditions. Following this recommendation, the test program was

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

developed to meet a variety of MFHW conditions. Testing was performed in the following steps:
1. Connection make-up performance: The connection was subjected to galling resistant testing, as well
as post-makeup incremental torque to MTS. This incremental torque applied to a made-up connection
simulates field rotation conditions when the string is rotated downhole with higher torque than field
make-up. This incremental torque validates the increase in torque up to MTS.
2. Casing running loads: Samples were fatigued to 40,000 cycles at 20°/100 ft bending to simulate down-
hole casing rotation with dogleg.
3. Stimulation Loads: Bake-out at 300°F for 12hr followed by stimulation loading of 50 internal pressure
cycles and 50 internal pressure with tension cycles to account for connections in the horizontal without
tension loads and connections in the vertical with tension loads‥
4. Production Loads: API RP 5C5 (2017) Series B ambient and elevated with liquid pressure medium.
Additional series B gas pressure testing at ambient temperature.
5. Limit Load Testing: API RP 5C5 (2017) Test Path 1 and 2.

Figure 7—MFHW Test Flow Chart.

6 URTEC-208368-MS

Description and Application of Equipment and Processes

Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed on the various concepts to evaluate the make-up and structural
performance at various points around the connections von mises ellipse (VME) as shown in Figure 8. The
connection was subjected to load points (LPs) around the connection evaluation envelope (CEE) in the
counter-clockwise and then clockwise direction or quadrant 1 (Q1) to Q4 and then Q4-Q1. For the LPs with
pressure, the pressure was applied linear decreasing through the perfect threads to simulate a more critical
condition as depicted in Figure 9. The von mises stresses, axial stresses, hoop stresses, and equivalent plastic

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

strains were compared for each load point. Physical testing was compared to calibrate the FEA models and
derive extrapolation rules.

Figure 8—Loading points for FEA evaluation

Figure 9—Schematic showing the linear decrease of pressure through the thread during FEA loading.

The new innovative connection testing protocol was based on API TR 5SF ballot draft (June 2019) and
industry shale protocol testing. The API TR 5SF document is not finalized but does reference API RP
5C5:2017 which is referenced for all testing series details.
The primary testing parameters were conducted as follows:

• Fatigue testing, conducted before combined load testing (pressure, tension, bending), was cycled
40,000 times at 20°/100ft. Fatigue testing was conducted using a combined load testing system
which applied a drag torque of 20,000 ft. lbs. while rotating with bending to better simulate well
conditions. Resonant and four-point bend fatigue testing do not apply a drag torque.
URTEC-208368-MS 7

• Pressure testing was conducted with water for ambient temperature, hydraulic oil for elevated
temperature, and nitrogen for ambient gas testing.
• Stimulation loading was conducted in two parts:

◦ Stimulation Loading 1: 50 cycles at capped end pressure (API RP 5C5 2017 LP15a95)

◦ Stimulation Loading 2: 50 cycles to internal pressure plus tension (API RP 5C5 2017 LP14a95)

• Elevated testing temperature was 300°F ±27°F (increased from 275°F specified in API RP 5C5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

2017)
• Combined load testing was conducted to actual material yield strength and geometry as specified in
API RP 5C5 2017 and not limited to specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) and min remaining
body wall (RBW) thickness of 87.5%wall.
• Series B bending was conducted at 30°/100ft (increased from 20°/100ft specified in API RP 5C5
2017)
Limit load testing was conducted to evaluate the connection failure modes and were conducted as follows:

• Specimen 1: 50% compression rating + external pressure to failure as specified in API RP 5C5
2017 Limit Load Test Path 2. This limit load would simulate the hydraulic fracture of a nearby by
well and give the failure mode and margin in relation to the pipe body.
• Specimen 3: High internal pressure (API RP 5C5 2017 LP15a95) + tension to failure as specified
in API RP 5C5 2017 Limit Load Test Path 1. The result would provide the worst case for jump-
out of the connection.
• Specimen 4: Fatigue to failure at 20°/100’ to determine the failure mode and compare with the
DNVGL-RP-C203 2016 B1 curve.
• Specimen 5: Over-torque testing to determine connection yield torque and potential loss of drift.

The specimens were manufactured with thread diameter and taper bias as shown in the test flow chart
(Figure 7) and defined in API RP 5C5 2017. A combined load frame applied the required pressure, tension,
and bending loads. Four-point bending was used for the Series B testing. The internal pressure medium
was liquid and either water or hydraulic oil. For elevated testing, only hydraulic oil was used. To minimize
the testing risk, the volume of the fluid was minimized by a filler bar inserted in the sample. The external
pressure medium was water. An external pressure vessel was equipped with high pressure seals and fitted
over the connection. Internal pressure was monitored using the bubble tube method per API RP 5C5 2017.
External pressure was monitored using the water column method per API RP 5C5 2017. Samples were
heated via induction heating and cooled through a vortex air cooling system. Strain gages were placed in the
center of the connection and on each pup every 90° around the circumference. Pup strain gages were used
to adjust bending during testing. Test loads were calculated per API 5C5 2017 using actual yield strength
determined from a material test coupon next to each manufactured connection.

Presentation of Data and Results

The 5.5" × 20# (0.361" wall) P110EC (125ksi minimum) new innovative connection was evaluated using
FEA and successfully validated to API TR 5SF ballot draft (June 2019) described in (Figure 7). Applicable
specimens completed the make and break testing, installation loading, stimulation loading, and production
loading as shown in Figure 10.
8 URTEC-208368-MS

Figure 10—Recommended Load Sequence from API TR 5SF ballot draft (June 2019).

Finite Element Analysis

Structural FEA was conducted on the new innovative connection concepts per the VME in Figure 8. Semi-

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

premium connections like API BTC and the new innovative connection do not have a metal-to-metal seal
meaning sealability FEA such as seal contact stress is not possible (Meijer, Dall’Acqua, & Nowinka, 2017).
Instead, the connections final plastic strains after the load sequence (Figure 8) were compared to offer a
structural check. However, it cannot offer an evaluation of the thread compound seal. Figure 11 (a) shows
the full-length model and mesh used for FEA. Figure 11 (b) shows the connection view and how the mesh
is refined on the threaded section and transitioned to the ordered pipe mesh.

Figure 11—Full length FEA mesh (a) and connection FEA mesh (b) of the 5.5in 20# VAM® SPRINT-SF.

The equivalent plastic strains of the new innovative connection are shown in Figure 12. The connection
was pre-loaded in FEA to the specified maximum make-up torque value of 25,000 ft.lbs. As a comparison,
the BTC compatible connections exhibit high strain at the shoulder contact point. During running operations
where high torque rotation is necessary, the torque shoulder can be yielded into the pipe ID resulting in ID
restriction and potential abandonment of the well (Renting, 2012). By utilizing self-locking threads, the new
innovative connection does not have material in a shoulder region, and no plastic strains at the pin end. The
connection thread flanks bear the stresses from high torque instead of a torque shoulder that would yield
the pin face, thus mitigating the risk of pin ID deformation and ID restriction.

Figure 12—Equivalent plastic strains of 5.5in 20# P110EC VAM® SPRINT-SF.

In addition to the structural study, the relationship between torque capacity and tension was investigated.
Figure 13 shows a plot of operating torque capacity (MTS) versus the applied load. This product was
observed to increase in torque capacity in compression due to the increased loading on the stab flank. In
tension the stab flank is unloaded allowing the connection to make-up further and decreasing the torque
capacity. This relationship can be useful for determining what torque the connection can be safely rotated
to when under high tension or compressive loads.
URTEC-208368-MS 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Figure 13—Torque Tension Graph for 5.5in 20# P110EC VAM® SPRINT-SF.

Connection Make and Break

Each specimen had M&Bs performed to evaluate the locked flank torque (LFT) and thread damage after
consecutive make-ups and breakouts. The locked flank torque was determined at the intersection of the
tangent lines coinciding with the thread interference and locking flanks. The new innovative connection
typical M&B graphs are shown in Figure 14 (a) of Sp.1. For Sp.1-5 the LFT ranged between 2,000 and
7,000 ft.lbs. which is comparable to reported BTC compatible shoulder torque (Sam, Szlachta, Schaffer, &
Winkler, 2011). An incremental torque bump was applied to Sp. 2 and Sp. 5 increasing the torque from the
min make-up value to the max operational torque simulating rig conditions. Sp. 2 was an "XL" interference
sample and had the highest risk of early yielding due to the low LFT whereas Sp. 5, with "H" interference,
was the worst case for early loss of drift.

Figure 14—Connection make and break results for Sp.1 (a) and
over-torque for Sp.5 (b) of the 5.5in 20# P110EC VAM® SPRINT-SF.
10 URTEC-208368-MS

Both specimens exhibited good make-up graphs and drifted successfully validating the target torque
range. No thread galling was observed after break-out showing the improvement of coarse dove-tail threads
over standard API threads such as BTC. The break-out ratio (BOR) was determined for each M&B.
Consistent with locking thread connections, the BOR was slightly lower than 1. This ensures the connection
can be broken out with equipment having the limitations of the make-up equipment. Specimen 5 exhibited
a peak torque much higher than the MTS (40,000 ft.lb for this size) showing margin on performance
accounting for yield strength and manufacturing tolerance variance.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Installation Loading
Specimen 1 and 2 were subjected to installation loading by fatigue cycling each sample to 40,000 cycles
at 20°/100’ and 15,000 ft. lbs. drag torque. The testing imitated the rotation in the bend of a horizontal
well. Figure 15 shows dogleg, torque, and pressure in relation to the number of cycles. During the testing
the applied torque caused the connection to make-up resulting in the gradual drops in torque observed. To
maintain the torque above the specified 15,000 ft. lbs. the torque was applied over 20,000 ft.lbs and then re-
applied every time the torque dropped close to 15,000 ft. lbs. giving the "saw-tooth" shaped graph. Pressure
was used to identify a potential leak; no leaks were detected. The variation on the plot is a result of stopping
and re-applying the torque.

Figure 15—Installation test results for Sp.1 (a) and Sp.2 (b) of 5.5in 20# P110EC VAM® SPRINT-SF.

Stimulation Loading
Specimen 1 – 3 had stimulation loading applied to simulate the rapid increase and decrease in pressure the
string would experience during hydraulic fracturing. Figure 16 (a) and (b) shows the two stimulation load
sequences and the corresponding API RP 5C5 2017 Load Points. The first stimulation load test was fifty
internal pressure cycles to capped end minimum internal yield pressure (LP15a95). Figure 16 (c) shows the
time history plot of the internal pressure cycles of Sp.1. The second stimulation load test was fifty tension
plus internal pressure cycles to LP14a95. Figure 16 (d) shows the time history plot of the tension plus
internal pressure cycles of Sp.1. Pressure was monitored for the entire testing with no leak observed. Loads
and pressure were adjusted based on actual measured pipe outer-diameter and wall thickness and tested
yield strength as outlined in API RP 5C5 2017.
URTEC-208368-MS 11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Figure 16—Stimulation Loading Internal Pressure Cycling VME (a), Tension + Internal
Pressure Cycling VME (b), Internal Pressure Cycling time history plot (c), and Tension
+ Internal Pressure Cycling time history plot (d) of 5.5in 20# P110EC VAM® SPRINT-SF.

Production Loading
Specimen 1 and 2 had production loads applied as API RP 5C5 2017 Series B testing as well as customized
tests per API TR 5SF June 2019 ballot draft. Specimen 1 was tested to an API RP 5C5 Series B ambient
without bending and Series B ambient with bending. The pressure medium used was water instead of gas
and the bending level was increased from the 20°/100’ max in the standard to 30°/100’. Sp.1 passed this
series of testing and was fitted with an external pressure vessel for an external pressure (EP) hold at 100%
the collapse rating with water. Sp.1 was held at this EP for 30 minutes passing the test. Figure 17 shows
the nominal loading envelopes validated by the testing. Actual tested loads and pressures were higher to
account for actual yield strength, specimen outer diameter, and wall thickness. For example, Specimen 1
was tested considering the yield strength of 132,400 psi instead of the SMYS of 125,000 psi which resulted
in higher loads and pressures being tested.
12 URTEC-208368-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Figure 17—Specimen 1 ambient production loads without bending (a), ambient production loads
with bending (b), and external pressure hold (c) for the 5.5in 20# P110EC VAM® SPRINT-SF.

Specimen 2 was tested to 80% VME API RP 5C5 Series B elevated with bending before a test to the
full 90% VME. Hydraulic fluid was used as the pressure media instead of gas, the bending level was
increased from the 20°/100’ max in the standard to 30°/100’, and the temperature was increased from the
standard 275°F to 300°F. Sp.2 passed all elevated testing. The specimen was cooled to room temperature
and hydraulic oil drained for a Series B ambient without bending gas test. Sp.2 was tested to 80% VME
of the Series B ambient without bending. The specimen passed the testing with no leak. Semi-premium
connections, without a metal-to-metal seal are not intended for gas sealability environment but having the
capability is an added advantage (Ong, Ramli, Ahmad, Ando, & Yamamoto, 2016).

Limit Load Testing

Limit load testing was performed to identify the main failure modes and connection limitations. Specimen
1 was tested to check the external pressure collapse resistance, Specimen 3 was tested to check jump-out
risk, Specimen 4 was tested to evaluate fatigue limit, and Specimen 5 was tested to evaluate torque limit.
Specimen 2 was not limit load tested and was kept for further evaluation and testing.
Specimen 1 was tested per API RP 5C5 2017 Limit Load Test Path 2 (LL 2). LL 2 involved applying
50% connection compression rating and then applying external pressure at a steady rate to failure as shown
in Figure 18 (a) VME. The connection collapsed at 17,028 psi which is 141% API collapse nominal (127%
API collapse actual) or 94% PBYS. The connection was not leaking at the point of collapse. This result
confirmed the connection resistance to external pressure. Figure 18 (b) shows a picture of the connection
after failure.
URTEC-208368-MS 13

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Figure 18—Specimen 1 LL2 – 50% Compression plus External Pressure to Failure Point on VME
(a) and collapsed connection picture after failure (b) of the 5.5in 20# P110EC VAM® SPRINT-SF.

Specimen 3 was tested per API RP 5C5 2017 Limit Load Test Path 1 (LL 1). LL1 involved pressuring
the sample to LP15a95 and then applying tension continuously to failure as show in Figure 19 (a) VME.
The sample failed at 858 kips with 14,002 psi pressure. This point is 124% PBYS and 138% CEE. The
sample failed in the box critical cross-section (BCCS); photo shown in Figure 19 (b). This result confirmed
the connection resistance to jump-out failure and that it would fail in the expected critical cross-section.

Figure 19—Specimen 3 LL1 – High Internal Pressure plus Tension to Failure Point on VME
(a) and parted connection picture after failure (b) of the 5.5in 20# P110EC VAM® SPRINT-SF.

Specimen 4 was fatigue cycled to failure by resonant fatigue at 20°/100ft. The specimen failed at 198,804
cycles. This point is approximately 120% the DNV B1 curve stress or 98,000 cycles over B1 curve cycles
as shown in Figure 20 (a). The specimen failed on the pin side from a crack propagating from the load
flank root to the pipe internal diameter (ID). This result is in agreement with the fatigue results (Figure 20
(b)) which show the highest stress concentration factor (SCF) at the start of pin runout threads. A useful
visualization of this is shown in the Figure 20 (c) and (d). Micrographs were taken of cross sections post
fatigue to failure of a 5.5in × 26# P110 size of the new innovative connection. The initiation of the crack
starts at the load flank root radius (Figure 20 (c)) and propagates to the pipe ID (Figure 20 (d)) resulting
in the leak detected during testing.
14 URTEC-208368-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

Figure 20—Specimen 4 Fatigue to Failure Point Plotted on S-N Curve (a) and fatigue SCF (b) of the 5.5in 20# P110EC
VAM® SPRINT-SF. Micrographs of the 5.5in 26# P110 VAM® SPRINT-SF showing fatigue crack propagation (b) and (c)

Specimen 5 was over-torqued to evaluate torque capacity. After make-and-break testing the connection
was made-up to min torque and then bump-torqued to MTS. The connection was then bump-torqued to the
point where the torque-turn plot showed signs of yielding or "rolling over". The connection reached a max
torque of 58,799 ft. lbs. before the torque was released. The loss of linearity in Figure 14 (b) suggest that
the connection was starting to yield. The connection passed a 4.653" API drift after min make-up, bump
to MTS, and after the over-torque.

Conclusion
The challenges in the unconventional onshore operations are requiring OCTG connection manufacturers
to address increased torque requirements, higher load limits, and slimmer designs while still being
cost effective. By designing a locking thread profile, extreme torques were reached. Utilizing material
efficiently allowed for high tension performance with a slim clearance design. Employing a design selection
criterion aided in choosing a connection design that fulfills extreme operational demands while still being
economical.
Confidence in connection solution was gained by performing FEA simulations and followed by extensive
physical testing sequences. Connection solution performances and field readiness can be relied upon during
MFHW operations due to following a shale testing protocol that uses the latest DRAFT API TR 5SF
guidelines.
All the presented results expound on how a unique connection solution is capable of meeting operator's
needs, without creating major constraints on the economics. The next generation of connections have
been tested to fit the need with real world conditions. It is what the industry needs today – assurance an
URTEC-208368-MS 15

operator can have confidence their well can be completed as designed, and then, equally important, maintain
performance as they turn that well on for production.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all the colleagues who worked for this innovative connection development.
This includes those within VAM® USA, Vallourec USA Corporation and Vallourec Oil and Gas France
who helped in both the design and testing.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/URTECAP/proceedings-pdf/21APUR/1-21APUR/D011S001R002/2528720/urtec-208368-ms.pdf/1 by chong yang on 05 December 2021

References
API-RP-5C5. Procedures for Testing Casing and Tubing Connections, 2017. (n.d.).
Buster, J., Perkins, J., & Azeredo, L. (2016). Development of Next Generation High Torque OCTG Premium Connection
for Extended Reach Wells. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. SPE-183415-MS.
DNVGL-RP-C203. Fatigue Design of Offshore Structures, 2016. (n.d.).
Hamilton, K., & Pattillo, P. (2019). Developing an Evaluation Method for Casing Connections used in Hydraulically
Fractured Wells. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition. SPE-194369-MS.
Meijer, G., Dall’Acqua, D., & Nowinka, J. (2017). Verification of FEA Used in OCTG Connection Evaluations. SPE
Thermal Well Integrity and Design Symposium. SPE-188158-MS.
Ong, G., Ramli, M., Ahmad, H., Ando, Y., & Yamamoto, T. (2016). Evaluation of Fatigue Performance on Semi Premium
Connection for Casing Drilling Application to Prevent Connection Fatigue Failure. Offshore Technology Conference
Asia. OTC-26807-MS.
Renting, D. a. (2012). Successful Techniques for Competently Abandoning Wells with Severe Casing Restrictions. SPE
Western Regional Meeting. OnePetro. SPE-153916-MS.
Sam, G., Szlachta, M., Schaffer, M., & Winkler, P. (2011). New Robust High Torque Casing Connection Reduces Risk
and Cost. SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition. SPE 148058-MS.
Turner, W., Adam, D., Cowan, K., Tellez, D., & Willis, J. (2019). Casing Rotation for Improved Cement Quality in
Unconventional Horizontal Wellbores. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SPE-196232-MS.