Casing Design

Chapter 5

Copyright: B.S.Aadnoy, 2013

Burst Design
Gas filled casing
Burst Design
Leaking tubing
Burst Design
Gas Filled Casing
◦ For all csgs. except 30 in. and production csg.
Leaking Tubing

◦ For production csg.

Maximum gas kick
◦ Max. vol. reservoir fluid without breaking
down shoe
Burst Design

Ft 1  Di 
t   P 
At 2  t 

Fa 1  Di 
a   P 
Aa 4  t 

 st=2sa
Burst Design
Governed by tangential stress:
Pburst = 2tensilet/D
Parameters: tensile and t/D
Use manufacturers data
Use equation for wear assessment
Burst Design
Casing wear
◦ Proportionality, Example:
 Burst pressure: 419 bar
 Csg. wall worn from 8.92 to 5 mm
 Compute reduced burst strength
Burst equation
 Depends on: .
◦ Material strength
◦ Relative dimensions
 Smallest casing usually strongest
 Production casing fundamental,
no reserve in other strings
Kick Scenario
Gas filled casing
◦ Conservative criterion
Leaking tubing
◦ For the production casing
Maximum gas kick
◦ For all casings except production casing
◦ Relates to csg. shoe strength
 Minimum LOT to reach next shoe
 Maximum LOT to ensure weak point at shoe
 Maximum influx volume
Collapse Design
 More complicated than burst
◦ Yield collapse, plastic collapse,
transitional collapse and elastic
collapse depend on t/D ratio

 Elastic collapse:
Collapse design
 Wear example: same as burst example

 Collapse reduction from 169bar to 80

bar appears unrealistic
 Collapse criteria
◦ Mud losses to a thief zone

◦ Collapse during cementing

Collapse criteria
 Thief zone

 During cementation
Tension design
Major design criteria:
◦ Weight of casing including buoyancy
◦ Casing stretch caused by pressure testing
while bumping cement plug

Other criteria:
◦ Dynamic loads, difficult to assess
◦ Bending effects
Temperature effects
 Example of B-annulus pressure in Chapter
4.3.4
 If temperature exceeds 80-100°C (200°F)
 Yield strength reduces
◦ Tensile strength

◦ Burst strength
Bi-axial loading
 From von Mises yield criterion:

 Elliptic equation:

 Combination collapse and tension

leads to reduced strength
Other criteria
Sour service
◦ Weight loss corrosion
◦ Hydrogen embrittlement (H2S)

Time scenario
◦ Exploration wells short life
◦ Production wells long life
Casing wear
◦ Wear and damage reduces well integrity
Common design criteria
5.2 Casing test pressure
 Requirements, casing must:
◦ Be pressure tested for
expected loading
◦ Not exceed 90% of yield strength (SF=1.11)

 Example surface casing and

deeper casing
Pressure tests critical wells
 Sometimes the casing is tested only in one end, e.g. at the
wellhead
 Critical wells like HPHT wells may require testing of the
entire casing from top to bottom
 Problem: Kick scenario assumes reservoir gas in annulus.
During testing the annulus is filled with mud.
 Possible approaches:
◦ Bump plug during cementing - Assume pressure exceeding
saltwater behind casing - Set packer in the middle of the casing
and test both sides - Establish back pressure behind casing
-Evacuate upper part to seawater, example to follow
HPHT pressure test
Design basis:
HPHT pressure test
 Test load with 1.9 sg mud in
well
◦ OK in top
◦ Overloaded at bottom

 Test is unacceptable
HPHT pressure test
 Upper half displaced to
seawater

 Test is OK throughout
well
HPHT pressure test
 When displacing upper half
to seawater, always check for
casing collapse