SPE 103882

Casing Temperature and Stress Analysis in Steam-Injection Wells

Jiang Wu, SPE, Chevron ETC, and Martin E. Knauss, SPE, Chevron CNAEP

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Casing Thermal Expansion and Thermal Stress
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference Figure 1 shows a temperature survey in a Chevron cyclic
and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 5–7 December 2006.
steam frac well in Bakersfield, CA, where steam (temperature
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
500 deg. F) was injected through tubing (with packer). The
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to tubing annulus was open at wellhead during steam injection to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at release tubing annulus pressure and evaporate annular fluid.
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
The temperature survey is through a ¼” cap tubing cemented
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is in the 9 5/8” surface casing annulus and thus may be
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous representative to the 9 5/8” casing temperature. It is seen that
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
the 9 5/8” casing temperature increases largely during steam
injection (3 days each time), and becomes higher and higher as
Abstract the cyclic steam injection operation goes on.
For steam injection parameters of greater than 700 psi and 500
deg F, a high production casing failure rate is often observed.
This is due to severe thermal stress condition to the production 36W 0822R - Temperature vs. Depth

casing string. The production casing may easily be in 0 50 100 150

Temperature [F]
200 250 300 350 400 450 500

compression hot-yield under these conditions. This can lead to 0 0 DRES 101.2 RHOB 2.2

high casing failure risk in the forms of excessive deformation,

100

200
buckling, and collapse. This paper presents an analysis on
300
casing and cement stresses under the stated steam injection

1/4" Cap Tubing - Cemented in

400
conditions. The interaction of casing-cement-formation is 500

considered to help understand casing and cement failure

Depth [feet]

9 5/8" K-55 36#

2 7/8" N-80 6.5#

600

mechanisms and potential approaches to reduce casing failures 700

in cyclic steam frac wells. The loss of cement integrity and 800

support to production casing string may occur under steam 900

5 1/2" P-110 20#

injection condition, which attributes to casing failures in the 1000

forms of excessive deformation, buckling, and collapse. 1100

Baseline Contact Temp Survey 10/26/04
1st Steam Cycle Survey 11/16/04
2nd Steam Cycle Survey 11/30/04
Packer - 981'
Top Perf -
1026'
3rd Steam Cycle Survey 1/5/05 Tub Tail - 1036'
1200 Bt P f

Field surveyed temperature in a cyclic steam frac well is also Fig. 1 Casing temperature survey during first three steam
presented and compared with modeled casing temperatures to injections.
show the needs of correctly modeling casing temperatures.
Recent casing design practices in some Bakersfield area cyclic
steam frac projects, including the successful use of high Figure 2 shows the temperature survey after one year of cyclic
strength grade casing such as P-110, are discussed in order to steam operation in the same Chevron well in Bakersfield, CA.
reduce casing failures in the cyclic steam frac wells. It is seen that within one steam injection cycle (from the end
of production to the end of soak) the casing temperature is
elevated at its highest during steam injection and reduces the
Introduction most at the end of the soak period (2 days after steam
In cyclic steam frac wells, high temperature steam (usually injection).
above 550 deg. F) is injected into the well though tubing to
improve the heavy-oil recovery. For many years, casing
failure rate has been high in these type wells. Although it is a
commonly accepted casing design practice to assume cement
integrity, cement is most likely failed in steam injection
wells.1,2 Modeling cement stress becomes important to
understand its failure risk, and to help improve casing design
and reduce casing failures in wells with steam injection.
2 SPE 103882

36W 0822R - Temperature vs. Depth

Temperature [F]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0 0 DRES 101.2 RHOB 2.2

100

200

300

1/4" Cap Tubing - Cemented in

400

500
ΔT
Depth [feet]

9 5/8" K-55 36#

2 7/8" N-80 6.5#

600

700

800

900

5 1/2" P-110 20#

1000

Baseline Contact Temp Survey 10/26/04 Packer - 981'

1100 End of production cycle 8/15/05 ~7am
During steam cycle 8/16/05 ~2pm
Start of soak cycle 8/18/05 ~2pm
Top Perf -
1026'
Tub Tail - 1036'
Fig. 4 Casing thermal expansion without restriction.
1200
End of soak cycle 8/19/05 ~2pm
Bt P f

Fig. 2 Casing temperature survey in one steam injection For a joint of 7”, 32# casing (40 ft) with a 400 deg.F,
cycle. temperature increase (ignoring temperature variation cross
casing wall-thickness and along the 40 ft length), the intended
Figure 3 shows temperature modeling result for the same casing thermal expansion (strain) in all directions will be
Chevron cyclic steam frac well in Bakersfield, CA, by using a (assuming a casing material thermal expansion coefficient of
well-accepted temperature modeling software. It is seen that 6.9 * 10-6 /Deg. F):
the modeled 9 5/8” casing (casing 2 in the graph) temperatures
during the first steam injection cycle (injection 60 hr.) and ε = 0.0000069*400 = 0.00276
during steam injection after one year of operation (injection 1
yr.) are both slightly less than the corresponding surveyed This casing thermal expansion will result in the following
temperatures. The difference between the modeled casing dimension changes (positive is an increase) on this
temperature and field survey temperature may be due to some casing joint in length, wall thickness, and average diameter
factors that are not considered or included in the temperature accordingly
modeling, such as possible tubing contacts to production
casing. ΔL = εL = 0.00276*40 = 0.1104 ft

Δt = εt = 0.00276*0.453 = 0.00125 in.

ΔDm = Dm* π *(1+ε)/π = εDm

= 0.00276*6.548 = 0.0181 in.

The increase on casing external diameter and internal diameter

due to thermal expansion (no restriction) are

ΔDo = ΔDm + Δt = 0.0181 + 0.00125 = 0.01935 in.

ΔDi = ΔDm - Δt = 0.0181 - 0.00125 = 0.01685 in.

The final casing external diameter and internal diameter due to

this thermal expansion (no restriction) are therefore (Fig. 5):
Fig. 3 Modeled casing temperature.
Do,t = Do + ΔDo = 7 + 0.01935 = 7.01935 in.
As the casing temperature increases during stream injection, Di,t = Di + ΔDi = 6.094 + 0.01685 = 6.11085 in.
the casing tends to expand (casing thermal expansion). If the
casing is not restricted and free to expand, the casing thermal
expansion (strain) is simply the product of casing temperature
increase and casing material thermal expansion coefficient
(temperature increase is considered uniform across casing Di+ΔDi
Di
wall): Dm
Dm+ΔDm

ε = αΔT
Do Do+ΔDo
(1)

Note that the intended casing thermal expansion (strain) is in

all directions (axial, radial, and hoop directions). When the
A. Before thermal expansion B. After thermal expansion
casing is free to expend in any direction (no restriction), the
Fig. 5 Casing cross-section thermal-expansion under no
casing length, wall thickness, and size will increase
restriction.
accordingly, due to thermal expansion, as indicated in Fig. 4.
SPE 103882
It is seen that the casing external diameter intends to increase
by 0.276% ((7.01935 – 7)/7 = 0.276%), the same as the casing
thermal expansion strain due to casing thermal expansion.
As the casing is actually cemented in the well, the casing
thermal expansion is restricted. Normally, we consider the
casing is totally restricted in axial direction and is allowed to
freely-expand in radial and hoop directions. Under this
assumption, the casing thermal stresses are:
σθ = 0 (2)
σr = 0 (3)
σz = αΕΔΤ (4)
The casing thermal stress in axial direction is simply
calculated by the product of Young’s modulus of casing
material and totally-restricted casing thermal expansion
(strain). The casing thermal stresses in radial and hoop
directions are zero when casing is allowed to freely expand
radially. For a 400 deg.F casing temperature increase, the
casing thermal stress in axial direction will be (assuming a
casing material thermal expansion coefficient of 6.9 * 10-6
/Deg. F):
Δσ = -0.0000069*30,000,000*400 = -8,280 psi
However, the casing thermal stresses in radial and hoop
directions may actually not be zero, depending on the cement-
formation restriction. The following 7”, 32#, L-80 production
casing-cement-formation model, shown in Fig. 6, will be used
as an example well throughout this paper to study casing-
cement-formation interaction and casing thermal stresses. An
elevated 500 deg. F casing temperature (location a) and 100
deg. F undisturbed formation temperature at 50 ft away from
the wellbore (location b) will be used as the steam injection
condition for the study.
Cement
Formation
a
b
Fig. 6 Casing-cement-formation model of steam injection
well.
3
Cement-Formation Thermal Expansion and Stress
During steam injection, production casing is heated and at the
same time the surrounding cement-formation will also be
heated. The elevated formation temperature distribution may
be represented by a natural-log function (Eq. 5) under a
steady-state heat transfer condition. Under the assumed 500
deg. F elevated temperature at the 7” casing-cement interface
and 100 deg. F undisturbed formation temperature at 50 ft
away from the wellbore (Fig. 6), the elevated cement-
formation temperature may be calculated by Eq. 5 and plotted
in Fig. 7. It is seen that the elevated cement-formation
temperature drops quickly away from the wellbore. The
cement is simply considered here to have the same thermal
properties as those of formation.
b a
ln( ) ln( ) (5)
T = Ta r +T r
b b
a
ln( ) ln( )
a b
Formation Eevated Temperature at Stream Injection
(500 deg. F @ wellbore, 100 deg.F @50ft from wellbore)
600
Formation-cement Temp., Deg.F
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
Distance from wellbore center, in.
Fig. 7 Elevated cement-formation temperature under stream
injection condition.
Due to the elevated temperature under steam injection
condition, the cement-formation would also intend to expand.
The cement-formation thermal expansion is also in all
directions and is a product of the temperature elevation and
the cement-formation thermal expansion coefficient. As the
cement-formation thermal expansion is restricted by the
confinement of outer formation (beyond location b) and by the
casing (location a), cement-formation thermal stresses will be
produced depend on the casing-cement-formation interaction
with a contact pressure (radial stress) developed at the casing-
cement interface.
As a direct modeling of casing-cement interface contact
pressure and cement-formation thermal stresses under casing
restriction is quite complicated, we will first study a simple
cement-formation thermal expansion/stress modeling without
casing restriction, and then estimate the casing-cement
interface contact pressure by a coupled casing-cement-
formation balance modeling. This simple cement-formation
thermal expansion/stress modeling without casing restriction
has the following boundary conditions: (1) σ r = 0 (no r=a
4 SPE 103882

casing restriction), and (2) σr r =b

= 0 (no thermal radial Without casing restriction, the cement-formation would
expand inwards and this inward cement-formation thermal
stress at outer formation boundary where no formation thermal expansion would result in a reduction on the wellbore size that
expansion). The cement-formation thermal stresses under the may be calculated by:
two zero radial stress boundary conditions can be resolved as
(for a plane-strain solution):3 b ⎡ ⎤ (9)
1
[ ]
b

ΔDh = −2 ∫ ε r dr = −2 ∫ ⎢ σ r − μ f (σ θ + θ a ) + α f (T − T0 )⎥ dr
⎡ b b2 ⎤ (6) a a ⎣Ef ⎦
E f α f ( T a − T b ) ⎢ ln( ) − 1⎥
σ = − r − r2
⎢ ⎥
2 (1 − μ f ) b
r
⎢ ln( b2 For the example well (Fig. 3) with 7” production casing, 500
) − 1⎥
⎢⎣ a a 2
⎥⎦
deg. F at the casing-cement interface and 100 deg. F
⎡ b b2 ⎤ (7) undisturbed formation temperature at 50 ft away from the
E f α f (T a − T b ) ⎢ ln( r ) − 1 r 2 + 1 ⎥ wellbore, the potential wellbore size reduction under no casing
σθ = − ⎢ + 2 ⎥
2 (1 − μ f ) ⎢ ln( b ) b restriction may be calculated by Eq. 9 with the resolved
− 1⎥
⎣⎢ a a 2
⎥⎦ cement-formation stresses (Fig. 8) and the elevated
temperature (Fig. 7). The negative value means wellbore size
⎡ b ⎤ (8)
E f α f (T a − T b ) ⎢ 2 ln( r ) − 1 2 ⎥
reduction:
σ = − ⎢ + 2 ⎥
2 (1 − μ f ) ⎢ ln( b )
z
b ⎥
− 1 ΔDh = - 0.1737 in.
⎣⎢ a a2 ⎦⎥

The cement is again considered to have the same thermal and

mechanical properties as the formation for simplification. Casing-Cement Contact Pressure
Now, we have seen that due to the temperature elevation under
The cement-formation thermal stresses distribution on the steam injection condition, the production casing would intend
simple cement-formation thermal expansion/stress modeling to expand outwards and increase its OD, while formation-
without casing restriction is plotted in Fig. 8, for the example cement would intend to expand inwards and reduce the
well (Fig. 3) with 500 deg. F elevated casing temperature and wellbore size. However, as casing and formation-cement is
100 deg. F undisturbed formation temperature at 50 ft away actually bonded together, the thermal expansions of casing and
from the wellbore, with the following assumed formation and formation-cement will be restricted by each other, As a result,
cement properties: Ef = Ec = 5.0*105 psi, αf = αc = 4.0*10-6 additional stresses will be developed in casing and cement-
1/deg. F, μf = μc = 0.15. It is seen that the cement-formation formation due to casing-cement-formation interaction, with a
thermal radial stress is zero at the inner and outer boundaries contact pressure (radial stress) at casing-cement interface. The
as defined by the boundary conditions, but is a compressive contact pressure at casing-cement interface may be resolved
stress elsewhere. The cement-formation thermal hoop and by a coupled casing-formation balance modeling, where the
axial stresses are the highest in compressive stress at the inner contact pressure at casing-cement interface acts as casing
boundary (wellbore) and are very small in tensile stress at the external pressure and also acts as cement-formation internal
outer boundary (50 ft away from the wellbore), which pressure, as shown in Fig. 9. The summation of casing OD
confirms the cement-formation thermal expansion is confined reduction and cement-formation wellbore ID increase
by outer formation with “zero” formation expansion at the produced by the casing-cement contact pressure needs to
outer boundary (an approximation). compensate the summation of casing OD increase and cement-
formation wellbore ID reduction produced from the thermal
expansions under no casing-cement restriction.
Formation Thermal Stresses
(7" wellbore, Wellbore elevated temperature 500 deg. F,
Formation undisturbed temperature 100 deg.F@50ft )
200
Formation + cement

0
Formation Thermal Stress, psi

Casing Pc
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Pc
-200 Ri
Ro
Ro
Rm Rr
-400

Radial stress
-600
Hoop stress

-800
Axial stress

A. Casing model B. Cement-formation model

-1000
Distance aw ay from Wellbore, ft
Fig. 9 Casing-formation interface contact pressure modeling.
Fig. 8 Cement-formation thermal stresses under steam
injection (no casing restriction).
SPE 103882 5

The Lame’s equations on cylindrical model with internal and

Casing-Cement Interface Radial Movement
external pressures may be applied to the coupled casing- (7", 32# casing, 500 Deg F wellbore temperature, 100 deg. F
cement-formation balance modeling to estimate the casing- undisturbed formation temperature@50ft)
0.1
cement contact pressure (for plane-strain solution):
Casing
0.08

Casing-cement inteface
Cement

radial movement, in
1− μ ⎡ 2
μ A μ ⎤ (10) 0.06 Total
ur = ⎢ − (1 + ) + 2(1 − )Cr ⎥
E ⎣ 1− μ r 1− μ ⎦ 0.04
A (11)
σς = − + 2C 0.02
r2
A (12) 0
σ r = 2 + 2C 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
r -0.02

σ z = 4 μC (13) Casing-cement inteface contact pressure, psi

To the casing we use the following: Fig. 10 Casing-cement interface radial movement.
Ri2 Ro2 ( Pc − Pi ) (14) Figure 11 shows the formation-cement stresses (radial, hoop,
A=
( Ro2 − Ri2 ) and axial) from the coupled casing-formation balance
PR2 − P R2 (15) modeling under a 10,000 psi casing-cement contact pressure.
2C = i i2 c 2 o The formation-cement hoop stress is the highest in tensile
( Ro − Ri )
stress at the casing-cement contact interface (10,000 psi tensile
And to the cement-formation we use:
stress), and the radial stress is the highest in compressive
stress at the casing-cement contact interface (-10,000 psi
Ro2 R 2f ( Pf − Pc ) (16)
A= compressive stress). The axial stress is very small.
( R 2f − Ro2 )
Pc Ro2 − Pf R 2f (17)
2C = Formation Stresses from Coupled Casing-Cement Balance
( R 2f − Ro2 ) Modeling
(7" w ellbore, form ation external boundary@50ft, 10,000 psi casing-cem ent
contact pressure )
15000
For the 7”, 32#, L-80 production casing example well (Fig. 3), Radial stress
with Ef = Ec = 5.0*105 psi, μf = μc = 0.15, Es = 30.0*106 psi, μs
Formation-cement stress, psi

10000 Hoop stress

= 0.3, the predicted casing external radius reduction and Axial stress
5000
cement-formation wellbore radius increase under casing–
cement contact pressure is shown in Figure 10, by the coupled 0
casing-formation balance model (Fig. 9). The casing internal 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
pressure and cement-formation external pressure are assumed -5000

zero in the modeling. It is seen that, under a casing-cement -10000

contact pressure 10,000 psi, the casing external radius may
reduce by about 0.01”, and the cement-formation wellbore -15000

radius may increase by about 0.08”. The summation of casing Distance away from Wellbore, ft

external radius reduction and cement-formation wellbore
radius increase under a casing-cement contact pressure 10,000
psi is then about 0.09” (0.09” = 0.01” + 0.08”), which is about
to compensate the summation of casing external radius
increase (0.00966”) and the cement-formation wellbore ID
reduction (0.09577”) due to thermal expansions under no
casing-cement restriction.
Fig. 11 Formation-cement stresses from coupled casing-
formation modeling.
By combining the formation-cement stresses from the coupled
casing-formation balance modeling (Fig. 11) with the
formation-cement thermal stresses under no casing restriction
(Fig. 8), the “final” formation-cement stresses under steam
injection condition for the 7”, 32#, L-80 production casing
example well (Fig. 3) can be shown in Fig. 12.
6 SPE 103882

Formation-Cement Combined Stresses

(7", 32# casing, 500 Deg F wellbore temperature, 100 deg. F undisturbed
formation temperature@50ft formation external boundary, 10,000 psi casing-
cement contact pressure )
15000

10000
Formation-cement stress,

5000 Radial stress

Hoop stress
psi

0 Axial stress
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
-5000

-10000

-15000
Distance aw ay from Wellbore, ft

Fig. 12 Formation-cement combined stresses under steam

injection condition.

High cement hoop tensile stress (about 9,000 psi) is shown in

Fig. 12, under a casing-cement contact pressure 10,000 psi,
which is much larger than common cement tensile strength Fig. 13 Stress-strain curves of cement compressed under
(usually about 500 psi). Therefore, the cement sheath outside confining pressures of 7,500 psi at room temperature. 4
the 7” production casing in the example well will most likely
be failed by cracking under such tensile hoop stress. From
Fig. 12, the cement VME-stress at casing-cement interface Casing Stress and Failure Analysis
under the 10,000 psi casing-cement contact pressure can also If we consider the casing-cement contact pressure can only
be calculated to be large than common cement compressive reach to 2000 psi for the example well, when large plastic
strength (usually about 5,000 psi ): deformation in radial direction occurs to reach the casing-
cement balance position and compensate the thermal
σe = (σθ2+ σr2+ σz2− σθσr− σθσz − σrσz)1/2 = 16,590 psi expansions of casing and cement-formation, the stresses of the
7” casing in the example well will be calculated by the
Therefore, under the specified steam injection condition the coupled casing-formation balance model and shown in Fig.
cement behind the 7” production casing in the example well 14. It will result in a casing compressive hoop stress about
would undergo large plastic deformation due to high VME- 16,000 psi.
stress and might fail by cracking under high hoop tensile
stress. The casing-cement interface contact pressure may Casing Stresses from Coupled Casing-cement Balance
actually not be able to reach to 10,000 psi, depending on the M odeling
(7", 32# Casing, 2,000 psi casing-cem ent contact pressure )
cement compressive yield strength and/or stress-strain curve
0
under triaxial stresses condition. In fact, it can be calculated
-2000 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
that for the example well, a 4,000 psi casing-cement interface
-4000
Casing stress, psi

contact pressure will produce a 6,200 psi VME-stress to the

-6000
cement, and a 2,000 psi casing-cement interface contact -8000
Radial stress
pressure will produce a 2,800 psi VME-stress to the cement. -10000
Hoop stress
Axial stress
-12000
Figure 13 shows some lab test results of stress-strain curves of -14000
cement samples (1-in. long and 0.5 in. in diameter cylindrical -16000
samples) compressed under confining pressure of 7500 psi and -18000
15,000 psi at room temperature.4 The differential pressure is Distance away from Wellbore center, in.
calculated from the testing axial pressure minus confining Fig. 14 Casing stresses from coupled casing-cement-
pressure, and the strain is calculated from the shorting of the formation balance modeling (2,000 psi casing-cement contact
cylindrical sample under the differential pressure. It shows pressure).
that the stress-strain curves may be different for different
types of cement, and cement may starts plastic deformation By combining the above casing stresses from coupled casing-
(“yielding”) from 4,000 psi to 10,000 psi differential pressures cement-formation balance modeling with the casing thermal
under triaxial compressive stresses condition (under 7,500 psi stresses (400 deg. F casing temperature elevation, casing
confining pressure). material thermal expansion coefficient of 6.9 * 10-6 /Deg. F)
under no radial restriction:
SPE 103882 7

σθ = 0 psi Casing Stresses from Coupled Casing-cement Balance

M odeling
(7", 32# Casing, 4,000 psi casing-cem ent contact pressure )
σr = 0 psi
0
3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
σz = αΕΔΤ -5000

Casing stress, psi

-10000
The final casing stresses of the 7” casing for the example well -15000 Radial stress
(500 deg. F elevated casing temperature and 100 deg. F Hoop stress
-20000
undisturbed formation temperature at 50 ft away from the Axial stress
-25000
wellbore) is plotted in Fig. 15. It is seen that the casing axial
compressive stress is the highest (~ -88,000 psi) due to -30000
thermal stress and will contribute the most to casing VME -35000
stress. The maximum casing VME stress is at casing internal Distance away from Wellbore center, in.
diameter location and is calculated as 80,773 psi: Fig. 16 Casing stresses from coupled casing-cement-
formation balance modeling (4,000 psi casing-cement contact
σe = (σθ2+ σr2+ σz2− σθσr− σθσz − σrσz)1/2 = 80,773 psi pressure).

Casing Combined Stresses Casing Combined Stresses

(7", 32# casing, 500 Deg F w ellbore tem perature, 100 deg. F (7", 32# casing, 500 Deg F w ellbore temperature, 100 deg. F undisturbed
undisturbed form ation tem perature@50ft form ation external formation temperature@50ft formation external boundary, 4,000 psi casing-
boundary, 2,000 psi casing-cem ent contact pressure ) cement contact pressure )
0 0
-10000 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
-10000 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
-20000 -20000
-30000 Casing stress, psi
Casing stress, psi

-30000
-40000 Radial stress
-40000
-50000 Hoop stress Radial stress
-50000
Axial stress Hoop stress
-60000 -60000
Axial stress
-70000 -70000
-80000 -80000
-90000 -90000
-100000 -100000
Distance aw ay from Wellbore center, in. Distance away from Wellbore center, in.

Fig. 15 Casing stresses under steam injection condition Fig. 17 Casing stresses under steam injection condition
(2,000 psi casing-cement contact pressure). (4,000 psi casing-cement contact pressure).

The 7”, 32#, L-80 casing in the example well will then be hot-
yielded as the casing VME stress exceeds casing yield strength
(80,000 psi at room temperature). The maximum casing VME
stress is seen slightly less than the maximum casing axial
compressive thermal stress. This is because of the existence of
a casing hoop compressive stress. It seems acceptable to
ignore the casing hoop and radial compressive stresses and
just use the casing axial compressive thermal stress to
conveniently and conservatively predict whether the casing is
hot-yielded under steam injection condition. That is actually
the current practices on casing design in steam injection wells.
If we consider the casing-cement contact pressure may reach
to 4000 psi for the example well, instead of 2000 psi, the
triaxial stresses of the 7” casing in the example well will
increase accordingly, as shown in Fig. 16 and 17.
It is seen that the casing axial compressive stress is again the
highest (~ - 92,000 psi) and will contribute the most to casing
VME stress. The maximum casing VME stress is at casing
internal diameter location and is calculated as 81,388 psi:
σe = (σθ2+ σr2+ σz2− σθσr− σθσz − σrσz)1/2 = 81,388 psi
It is seen that only slightly increase of casing VME stress is
resulted from doubling casing-cement contact pressure.
Remember that the 7” production casing in the example well
may buckle if cement support to the casing is lost due to
cement cracking and failing under large cement hoop tensile
stress in steam injection condition. Buckling of casing can
then develop additional bending stress and excessive casing
plastic deformation, which can finally fail the casing.
8 SPE 103882
Reduce Casing Failures
It has been widely accepted that if cement may remain its
integrity in steam injection wells, it can help reduce the casing
failure. However, from the above analysis this will not be easy
in steam injection wells. The following casing design practices
are recently used by Chevron in cyclic steam frac wells at
Bakersfield, trying to maintain cement integrity and therefore
reduce casing failures:
1. Use a deeper intermediate casing (Fig. 18). A deeper
intermediate casing may provide a support to cement behind
production casing to reduce cement hoop tensile stress and
therefore reduce cement cracking failure risk. It may also help
hold the cement behind production casing in place, even if the
cement may undergo a plastic deformation or even fail by
cracking on large tensile hoop stress under steam injection
condition.
Fig. 18 Deeper intermediate casing in steam injection wells.
2. Use high grade production casing, such as P-110 grade
casing. It reduces production casing hot-yield in steam
injection wells at above 500 deg F, and has been used in
Bakersfield cyclic steam frac projects for four years (such as
the 5 ½” P-110 casing in Fig. 1). It has successfully helped
reduce production casing failures in Bakersfield cyclic steam
frac projects.5
Conclusions
Through the modeling of casing-cement-formation thermal
expansion and stresses, it is found:
1. Cement outside production casing may loss its integrity
and fail by cracking under large hoop tensile stress in
steam injection wells, due to thermal expansions of
casing, cement, and formation, which attributes to casing
failures in the forms of excessive deformation, buckling,
and collapse.
2. Casing axial compressive thermal stress is much larger
than casing hoop and radial stresses in steam injection
wells and may be simply used to predict hot yield of
production casing in steam injection wells.
3. A deeper intermediate casing may be used to help hold
cement outside production casing in place to reduce
cement tensile hoop stress and then reduce cement
cracking failure.
4. High grade casing (such as P-110 grade) may be used to
reduce casing hot-yield risk and then casing failure in
steam injection wells.
Nomenclature
a: Inner radius of cement-formation cylinder, in.
b: Outer radius of cement-formation cylinder, in.
Dm: Original casing average diameter, in.
Di: Original casing internal diameter, in.
Dο: Original casing external diameter, in.
Dο,t: Casing external diameter w/ free thermal expansion, in.
Di,t: Casing internal diameter w/ free thermal expansion in.
E: Young’s modulus, psi
Ef: Formation Young’s modulus, psi
Ec: Cement Young’s modulus, psi
L: Casing length, ft
Pc: Casing-cement contact pressure, psi
Pf: Formation external pressure, psi
Pi: Casing internal pressure, psi
Rf: Formation external radius, in.
Ri: Casing internal radius, in.
Ro: Casing external radius, in.
r: Radial coordinate, in.
T: Elevated cement-formation temperature, deg. F
Ta: Elevated cement-formation temperature at “a”, deg. F
Tb: Elevated cement-formation temperature at “b”, deg. F
t: Casing wall thickness, in.
αc: Cement thermal expansion coefficient, 1/deg. F
αf: Formation thermal expansion coefficient, 1/deg. F
ΔDi: Casing internal diameter change, in.
ΔDm: Casing average diameter change, in.
ΔDο: Casing external diameter change, in.
ΔL: Casing length change, ft
Δt: Casing wall thickness change, in.
ε: Τhermal strain
μ: Poisson’s ratio
μc: Cement Poisson’s ratio
μf: Formation Poisson’s ratio
σr: Cement-formation radial stress, psi
σz: Cement-formation axial stress, psi
σθ: Cement-formation hoop stress, psi
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Chevron for permission to publish
this paper.
Reference
1. Bour, D.: “Cyclic Steam Well Design – A New Approach to
Solve an Old Problem of Cement Sheath Failure in Cyclic
Steam Wells”, paper SPE 93868 presented at the 2005 SPE
Western Regional Meeting, Irvine, March 31 – April 1.
2. Mueller, Dan T. and et al: “Characterizing Casing-Cement-
Formation Interactions under Stress Conditions”, paper
SPE 90450 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 26-29.
SPE 103882 9

3. Flugge, W.: “Handbook of Engineering Mechanics”, first

edition, McGRAW-Hill Book Company (1962) 43-13.
4. Hardin, John: “Strength of Oil Well Cements at Downhole
Pressure-Temperature Conditions”, SPEJ (Dec. 1965) 341.
5. Wu, J. et al: “Steam Injection Casing Design”, paper SPE
93833 presented at the 2005 SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Irvine, March 31 – April 1.
6. Placido, Joao C.R. and et al: “Stress Analysis of Casing
String Submitted to Cyclic Steam Injection”, paper SPE
38978 presented at the fifth Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference and Exhibition, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, Aug. 30 – Sept. 3, 1997.