PETE 411

Well Drilling

Lesson 18
Casing Design Example

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 1 of 42

 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

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 2 of 42

 Read:
Applied Drilling Engineering, Ch.7
HW #9 - Velocity Profiles
Due 10-15-2001

PETE 411 Lessons can be found at:

http://pumpjack.tamu.edu/~juvkam-wold/
Multimedia Programs can be found at:
Network Neighborhood juvkam-wold/Super Pentium

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 3 of 42

 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.”

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 4 of 42
 Casing Design - Solution

Before solving this problem is it necessary to

understand what we mean by “Design Factors”
and “worst possible conditions”.

API Design Factors

Design factors are essentially “safety factors”
that allow us to design safe, reliable casing
strings. Each operator may have his own set
of design factors, based on his experience,
and the condition of the pipe.
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 5 of 42
 Casing Design

In PETE 411, we’ll use the design factors

recommended by the API unless otherwise
specified.

These are the API design Factors:

Tension and Joint Strength: NT = 1.8

Collapse (from external pressure): Nc= 1.125
Burst (from internal pressure): Ni = 1.1
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 6 of 42
 Casing Design

What this means is that, for example, if we

need to design a string where the maximum
tensile force is expected to be 100,000 lbf,
we select pipe that can handle 100,000 * 1.8
= 180,000 lbf in tension.

Note that the Halliburton Cementing Tables

list actual pipe strengths, without safety
factors built in.
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 7 of 42
 Casing Design

Unless otherwise specified in a particular

problem, we shall also assume the following:

Worst Possible Conditions

1. For Collapse design, assume that the
casing is empty on the inside (p = 0 psig)

2. For Burst design, assume no “backup”

fluid on the outside of the casing (p = 0 psig)

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 8 of 42

 Casing Design

Worst Possible Conditions, cont’d

3. For Tension design,
assume no buoyancy effect
4. For Collapse design,
assume no buoyancy effect
The casing string must be designed to stand up to the
expected conditions in burst, collapse and tension.
Above conditions are quite conservative. They are also
simplified for easier understanding of the basic concepts.
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 9 of 42
 Casing Design - Solution

Burst Requirements (based on the expected pore

pressure)
PB  pore pressure * Design Factor

Depth
 6,000 psi *1.1
PB  6,600 psi Pressure
The whole casing string must be capable of
withstanding this internal pressure without failing in
burst.
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 10 of 42
 Casing Design - Solution

Collapse Requirements
For collapse design, we start at the bottom of
the string and work our way up.

Our design criteria will be based on

hydrostatic pressure resulting from the 12.5
ppg mud that will be in the hole when the
casing string is run, prior to cementing.

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 11 of 42

 Depth
Casing Design

Collapse Requirements, cont’d Pressure

Pc  0.052 * mud weight * depth * design factor

 0.052 * 12.5 * 8,000 * 1.125
Pc  5,850 psi  req' d at the bottom.

Further up the hole the collapse requiremen ts

are less severe
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 12 of 42
 Casing Design
Req’d: Burst: 6,600 psi Collapse: 5,850 psi

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 13 of 42

 Casing Design

Note that two of the weights of N-80 casing

meet the burst requirements, but only the
53.5 #/ft pipe can handle the collapse
requirement at the bottom of the hole (5,850
psi).

The 53.5 #/ft pipe could probably run all the

way to the surface (would still have to check
tension), but there may be a lower cost
alternative.
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 14 of 42
 Casing Design

Depth
To what depth might we
be able to run N-80, 47
#/ft? The maximum Pressure
annular pressure that this
pipe may be exposed to,
is:
Collapse pressure of pipe 4,760
Pc    4,231 psi
design factor 1.125

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 15 of 42

 Casing Design

First Iteration
At what depth do we see this pressure (4,231
psig) in a column of 12.5 #/gal mud?

Pc  0.052 *12.5 * h1

Pc 4,231
 h1    6,509 ft
0.052 *12.5 0.052 *12.5
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 16 of 42
 Casing Design
This is the depth to which the pipe
could be run if there were 6,509’
no axial stress in the pipe… 8,000’

But at 6,509’ we have (8,000 - 6,509) =

1,491’ of 53.5 #/ft pipe below us.

The weight of this pipe will reduce the

collapse resistance of the 47.0 #/ft pipe!
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 17 of 42
 Casing Design

Weight, W1 = 53.5 #/ft * 1,491 ft

= 79,769 lbf
This weight results in an axial
stress in the 47 #/ft pipe

weight 79,769 lbf

of S1   2
 5,877 psi
end area 13.572 in

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 18 of 42

 Casing Design

The API tables show that the above stress

will reduce the collapse resistance from
4,760 to somewhere between

4,680 psi (with 5,000 psi stress)

and 4,600 psi (with 10,000 psi stress)

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 19 of 42

 Casing Design
Interpolation between these values shows
that the collapse resistance at 5,877 psi
axial stress is:
 S  S1 
Pc1  P1    P1  P2 
 S 2  S1 

(5,877  5,000)
Pc1  4,680  * (4,680  4,600)  4,666 psi
(10,000  5,000)

4,666
With the design factor, Pcc1   4,148 psi
1.125
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 20 of 42
 Casing Design

This (4,148 psig) is the pressure at a

depth
4,148
h2   6,382 ft
0.052 * 12.5

Which differs considerably from the

initial depth of 6,509 ft, so a second
iteration is required.
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 21 of 42
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 22 of 42
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 23 of 42
 Casing Design

Second Iteration
Now consider running the 47 #/ft
pipe to the new depth of 6,382 ft.

W2  (8,000  6,382) * 53.5  86,563 lbf

86,563 lbf
S2  2
 6,378 psi
13.572 in
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 24 of 42
 Casing Design
Interpolating again,
1   S  S1  
Pc1   P1    P1  P2 
D.F.   S 2  S1  


1   6,378  5000 
pcc 2  4,680   * 4,680  4,600   4,140 psi
1.125   5000 

This is the pressure at a depth of

4,140
h3   6,369 ft
0.052 *12.5
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 25 of 42
 Casing Design
This is within 13 ft of the assumed value. If
more accuracy is desired (generally not
needed), proceed with the:
Third Iteration
h3  6,369'
W3  (8,000  6,369) * 53.5  87,259 lbf
87,259
S3   6,429 psi
13.572
Pcc3 = ?
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 26 of 42
 Casing Design

Third Iteration, cont’d

1  6,429  5,000 
thus Pcc 3  4,680  * (4,680  4,600)
1.125  5,000 

 4,140 psi  Pcc 2

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 27 of 42

 Casing Design

Third Iteration, cont’d

This is the answer we are looking for, i.e.,
we can run 47 #/ft N-80 pipe to a depth of
6,369 ft, and 53.5 #/ft pipe between 6,369
and 8,000 ft.
Perhaps this string will run all the way to the
surface (check tension), or perhaps an even
more economical string would include some
43.5 #/ft pipe?
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 28 of 42
 Casing Design

At some depth the 43.5 #/ft pipe would be

able to handle the collapse requirements,
but we have already determined that it will
not meet burst requirements.

 NO!
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 29 of 42
 N-80
43.5 #/ft?
Depth = 5,057?
5,066?
5,210?
N-80
47.0 #/ft

Depth = 6,369
6,369
N-80 6,382
53.5 #/ft 6,509

8,000
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 30 of 42
 Tension Check

The weight on the top joint of casing

would be
(6,369 ft * 47.0# / ft )  (1,631 ft * 53.5# / ft )

 386,602 lbs actual weight

With a design factor of 1.8 for tension, a
pipe strength of
1.8 * 386,602  695,080 lbf is required
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 31 of 42
 Tension Check

The Halliburton cementing tables give a

yield strength of 1,086,000 lbf for the pipe
body and a joint strength of 905,000 lbf for
LT & C.

47.0 # / ft is OK to surface

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 32 of 42

 Casing Design Review

We have 4 different weights of casing

available to us in this case:
1. Two of the four weights are unacceptable
to us everywhere in the string because
they do not satisfy the burst
requirements.

2. Only the N-80, 53.5 #/ft pipe is capable of

withstanding the collapse requirements
at the bottom of the string
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 33 of 42
 Casing Design Review

3. Since the 53.5 #/ft pipe is the most

expensive, we want to use as little of it
as possible, so we want to use as
much 47.0 #/ft pipe as possible.

4. Don’t forget to check to make sure the

tension requirements are met; both for
pipe body, and for threads and
couplings (T&C).
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 34 of 42
 Casing Design Review

The collapse resistance of N-80, 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: 4,760  4,231 psi
1.125
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 35 of 42
 Casing Design Review

To determine the effect of axial stress

requires an iterative process:

1. Determine the depth capability without

axial stress
4,231
depth   6,509 ft
0.052 * 12.5
2. Determine axial stress at this point

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 36 of 42

 Casing Design Review
3. Determine corresponding collapse resistance
4. Determine depth where this pressure exists
5. Compare with previous depth estimate
6. Repeat steps 2-6 using the new depth
estimate

7. When depths agree, accept answer

(typically 2-4 iterations) (agreement to
within 30 ft will be satisfactory)
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 37 of 42
 Linear Interpolation

y  mx  c
P  mS  C (i)
P1  mS1  C (ii)
P2  mS 2  C (iii)
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 38 of 42
 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 

18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 39 of 42

 Linear Interpolation

 S  S1 
 P  P1   P2  P1 
 S2  S1 

With design factor:

1   S  S1  
Pcc  P1   P1  P2 
D.F.   S2  S1  
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 40 of 42
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 41 of 42
18. Casing Design Example PETE 411 Well Drilling Slide 42 of 42