You are on page 1of 43

# PETE 411

Well Drilling

Lesson 18
Casing Design Example

1

Casing Design Example

 Example Problem
 API Design Factors
 “Worst Possible Conditions”
 Effect of Axial Tension on Collapse Strength
 Iteration and Interpolation
 Design for Burst, Collapse and Tension

2

Applied Drilling Engineering, Ch.7
HW #9 - Velocity Profiles
Due 10-18-02

PETE 411 Lessons can be found at:
http://pumpjack.tamu.edu/~juvkam-wold/
Multimedia Programs can be found at:
Network Neighborhood / juvkam-wold2 / Multimedia

3

Casing Design Example

Design a 9 5/8-in., 8,000-ft combination
casing string for a well where the mud wt.
will be 12.5 ppg and the formation pore
pressure is expected to be 6,000 psi.

Only the grades and weights shown are
available (N-80, all weights). Use API
design factors.

Design for “worst possible conditions.”
4

5 . API Design Factors Design factors are essentially “safety factors” that allow us to design safe. Each operator may have his own set of design factors. Casing Design .Solution Before solving this problem is it necessary to understand what we mean by “Design Factors” and “worst possible conditions”. based on his experience. and the condition of the pipe. reliable casing strings.

1 6 . These are the API design Factors: Tension and Joint Strength: NT = 1.125 Burst (from internal pressure): Ni = 1. Casing Design In PETE 411. we’ll use the design factors recommended by the API unless otherwise specified.8 Collapse (from external pressure): Nc= 1.

7 .000 lbf in tension. if we need to design a string where the maximum tensile force is expected to be 100.000 * 1. Casing Design What this means is that. without safety factors built in.8 = 180. for example. we select pipe that can handle 100. Note that the Halliburton Cementing Tables list actual pipe strengths.000 lbf.

For Burst design. For Collapse design. assume no “backup” fluid on the outside of the casing (p = 0 psig) 8 . we shall also assume the following: Worst Possible Conditions 1. assume that the casing is empty on the inside (p = 0 psig) 2. Casing Design Unless otherwise specified in a particular problem.

Above conditions are quite conservative. cont’d 3. They are also simplified for easier understanding of the basic concepts. Casing Design Worst Possible Conditions. assume no buoyancy effect The casing string must be designed to stand up to the expected conditions in burst. assume no buoyancy effect 4. collapse and tension. For Collapse design. 9 . For Tension design.

000 psi *1.1 PB  6. Casing Design . 10 .Solution Burst Requirements (based on the expected pore pressure) PB  pore pressure * Design Factor Depth  6.600 psi Pressure The whole casing string must be capable of withstanding this internal pressure without failing in burst.

11 .5 ppg mud that will be in the hole when the casing string is run. prior to cementing.Solution Collapse Requirements For collapse design. Our design criteria will be based on hydrostatic pressure resulting from the 12. Casing Design . we start at the bottom of the string and work our way up.

125 Pc  5.000 * 1. Further up the hole the collapse requiremen ts are less severe 12 . Depth Casing Design Collapse Requirements.850 psi  req' d at the bottom.052 * mud weight * depth * design factor  0.5 * 8.052 * 12. cont’d Pressure Pc  0.

Casing Design Req’d: Burst: 6.850 psi 13 .600 psi Collapse: 5.

Casing Design Note that two of the weights of N-80 casing meet the burst requirements.850 psi). but there may be a lower cost alternative. The 53. 14 . but only the 53.5 #/ft pipe could probably run all the way to the surface (would still have to check tension).5 #/ft pipe can handle the collapse requirement at the bottom of the hole (5.

is: Collapse pressure of pipe 4. Casing Design Depth To what depth might we be able to run N-80.125 15 . 47 #/ft? The maximum Pressure annular pressure that this pipe may be exposed to.231 psi design factor 1.760 Pc    4.

5 * h1 Pc 4.509 ft 0.052 *12. Casing Design First Iteration At what depth do we see this pressure (4.052 *12.231 psig) in a column of 12.052 *12.5 #/gal mud? Pc  0.231  h1    6.5 0.5 16 .

The weight of this pipe will reduce the collapse resistance of the 47.509’ we have (8.509) = 1.5 #/ft pipe below us.000 .491’ of 53.000’ But at 6.0 #/ft pipe! 17 . Casing Design This is the depth to which the pipe could be run if there were 6.6.509’ no axial stress in the pipe… 8.

877 psi end area 13. Casing Design Weight.572 in 18 .491 ft = 79.769 lbf This weight results in an axial stress in the 47 #/ft pipe weight 79.5 #/ft * 1.769 lbf of S1   2  5. W1 = 53.

000 psi stress) 19 .600 psi (with 10. Casing Design The API tables show that the above stress will reduce the collapse resistance from 4.680 psi (with 5.000 psi stress) and 4.760 to somewhere between 4.

877 psi axial stress is:  S  S1  Pc1  P1    P1  P2   S 2  S1  (5.000) 4. Casing Design Interpolation between these values shows that the collapse resistance at 5.148 psi 1.877  5.600)  4.680  4.680  * (4.000  5.666 With the design factor.125 20 . Pcc1   4.000) Pc1  4.666 psi (10.

382 ft 0. 21 .148 h2   6.509 ft.148 psig) is the pressure at a depth 4.5 Which differs considerably from the initial depth of 6.052 * 12. so a second iteration is required. Casing Design This (4.

22 .

23 .

563 lbf S2  2  6.382) * 53.382 ft.378 psi 13.563 lbf 86.5  86. Casing Design Second Iteration Now consider running the 47 #/ft pipe to the new depth of 6. W2  (8.572 in 24 .000  6.

5 25 .052 *12.680   * 4.680  4.125   5000  This is the pressure at a depth of 4. Casing Design Interpolating again.600   4.378  5000  pcc 2  4.369 ft 0.F. 1   S  S1   Pc1   P1    P1  P2  D.140 h3   6.   S 2  S1    1   6.140 psi 1.

259 S3   6.572 Pcc3 = ? 26 . If more accuracy is desired (generally not needed).5  87.259 lbf 87.369' W3  (8. proceed with the: Third Iteration h3  6.000  6.369) * 53.429 psi 13. Casing Design This is within 13 ft of the assumed value.

Casing Design Third Iteration.429  5.140 psi  Pcc 2 27 .680  * (4.000  thus Pcc 3  4. cont’d 1  6.125  5.600) 1.680  4.000   4.

369 ft. Perhaps this string will run all the way to the surface (check tension).369 and 8.5 #/ft pipe? 28 .5 #/ft pipe between 6. and 53. cont’d This is the answer we are looking for. Casing Design Third Iteration. i. or perhaps an even more economical string would include some 43.e.. we can run 47 #/ft N-80 pipe to a depth of 6.000 ft.

 NO! 29 . but we have already determined that it will not meet burst requirements. Casing Design At some depth the 43.5 #/ft pipe would be able to handle the collapse requirements.

382 6.509 N-80 53. N-80 Burst? 43.5 #/ft? Depth = 5.000 30 .057? 5.210? N-80 47.066? 5.369 6.5 #/ft 8.0 #/ft Depth = 6.369 6.

369 N-80 6.5 #/ft 6.000 31 .382 53.509 8. N-80 53.0 #/ft Depth = 6.5 #/ft? Tension? N-80 47.369 6.

a pipe strength of 1.080 lbf is required 32 .8 for tension.0# / ft )  (1.602  695.631 ft * 53.8 * 386. Tension Check The weight on the top joint of casing would be (6.5# / ft )  386.369 ft * 47.602 lbs actual weight With a design factor of 1.

000 lbf for LT & C. Tension Check The Halliburton cementing tables give a yield strength of 1.0 # / ft is OK to surface 33 .000 lbf for the pipe body and a joint strength of 905.086. 47.

5 #/ft pipe is capable of withstanding the collapse requirements at the bottom of the string 34 . Only the N-80. Two of the four weights are unacceptable to us everywhere in the string because they do not satisfy the burst requirements. 2. 53. Casing Design Review We have 4 different weights of casing available to us in this case: 1.

we want to use as little of it as possible. 35 .0 #/ft pipe as possible. 4. Since the 53.5 #/ft pipe is the most expensive. so we want to use as much 47. Don’t forget to check to make sure the tension requirements are met. and for threads and couplings (T&C). both for pipe body. Casing Design Review 3.

231 psi 1. 47 #/ft will determine to what depth it can be run. Two factors will reduce this depth: • Design Factor • Axial Stress (tension) “Halliburton” collapse resistance: 4.760 psi • Apply design factor: 4. Casing Design Review The collapse resistance of N-80.760  4.125 36 .

052 * 12. Casing Design Review To determine the effect of axial stress requires an iterative process: 1. Determine axial stress at this point 37 . Determine the depth capability without axial stress 4.231 depth   6.5 2.509 ft 0.

Compare with previous depth estimate 6. accept answer (typically 2-4 iterations) (agreement to within 30 ft will be satisfactory) 38 . Repeat steps 2-6 using the new depth estimate 7. Casing Design Review 3. Determine depth where this pressure exists 5. Determine corresponding collapse resistance 4. When depths agree.

Linear Interpolation y  mx  c P  mS  C (i) P1  mS1  C (ii) P2  mS 2  C (iii) 39 .

Linear Interpolation P2  P1 (iii )  (ii ) P2  P1  m(S2  S1 )  m S 2  S1  P2  P1  (i)  (ii ) P  P1  m( S  S1 )   ( S  S1 )  S 2  S1  40 .

F.   S2  S1   41 . Linear Interpolation  S  S1   P  P1   P2  P1   S2  S1  With design factor: 1   S  S1   Pcc  P1   P1  P2  D.

42 .

43 .