Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPE 22542 Reliable Deepwater Structural Casing Installation Using Controlled Jetting
SPE 22542 Reliable Deepwater Structural Casing Installation Using Controlled Jetting
SPE 22542
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas, TX, October 6-9, 1991.
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 presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject 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 SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
Abstract Background
This paper present.s a method for installing struc- An overall view of deep water drilling which defines
tural casing from floating drilling vessels in a manner structuml (initial) casing as used in this paper is shown
such that the casing is proof loaded and will not settle in Figure 1. A schematic of the structural casing and
when other casing is landed later. The method borrows jet string is shown in Figure 2. Also shown in
from geotechnical principles and pile installation obser- Figure 2 are the permanent guide base (PGB) which
vations. In addition to structural casing installation, provides anchorage for the guidelines, the temporary
this method can be used to install lightly loaded piles guide base (TGB) which may have a mudmat attached to
(e.g., anchor piles) in clay soils. the bottom, and the casing running tool. During instal-
lation, the structural casing must overcome the friction
of the soil as shown in Figure 3. The jet head may be
Introduction placed inside the structural casing as is shown in
Figure 3 or outside the structural casing as shown in
This paper presents the results of an interactive Figure 4. The procedure recommended by the writers
effort during 1984-1986 on the parts of the writers' com- places the jet head inside the structural casing.
panies in developing a reliable method for installing
structural casing from a floating drilling vessel using Prior to the development of the method for struc-
controlled jetting. This method is limited to clay soils tural casing installation which is presented in this paper,
since very few significant sand deposits have been the selection of the required structural casing was based
encountered in water depths greater than 700 ft. on judgement combined with past experience and was
somewhat arbitrary. The placement of the jet head
Previously, these structural casings were installed within the structural casing was, likewise, empirically
using trial and error, using historical information on selected without benefit of soils information. If the
installation methods and depths. Within a given casing could not be installed to design penetration,
geographical area, field personnel learned, empirically, including remedial measures (e.g., drilling a pilot hole
below the casing shoe and reinstalling the jetting string),
how (and the minimum depth) to install the structural the casing was either cut with a casing cutter (leaving
casing. However, as the area was broadened, by moving the bottom section of casing in the soil) or pulled out in
to deeper water, and with turnover of personnel, the its entirety. The drilling rig was moved over and the
ability to successfully plan for the structural casing installation was started again. Also, the jet head
installation was diminished because personnel were location relative to the structural casing shoe was gen-
always at the start of the learning curve. This dimin- et'ally altered.
ished ability contributed to two structural casing fail-
ures: one had to be cut and reinstalled at a shallower When the jet head was placed outside the structural
penetration and one experienced "sinking" due to inade- casing, the typical result was liquification of the soil
quat.e penetration to support the necessary weight. around the jet head to a radius at least equal to that of
the structural casing and possibly greater than one
The writers' companies saw an opportunity and a diameter (Figure 5). After the casing was installed using
need to adapt soil mechanics principles to the planning this method (with circulation outside of the structural
for structural casing installation. The soil resistance to casing), it would not be uncommon to have the structural
casing installation was correlated to measurable soil casing settle when the 20 in. casing was landed or when
parameters. Both the correlation and the ddlling prac- the subsea blowout preventer (BOP) was landed. Some-
tice for installing the casing are presented in this paper. times this settlement would be great enough that either
high tensions were required of the rig tensioning system
References and illustrations at end of paper.
75
RELIABLE DEEPWATER STRUCTURAL CASING INSTALLATION
2 USING CONTROLLED JETTING SPE 22542
or the well had to be abandoned. This settlement could correlat.ed to various fractions of the strengths (e.g.,
also lead to high wellhead angles, causing crit.ical wear- MV/3, MV/4, RV/4, UU/4).
ing of the wellhead and BOP~
To develop the procedure which is discussed in the
Using observations of pile self-weight penetration in Installation Procedure section of t.his paper, the writers
clay soils and after witnessing some structural casing worked together on several structural casing installa-
installat.ions, the writers suggested that geotechnical t.ions to determine t.he best predictive method for esti-
engineering principles [1,2] could be utilized to improve mating t.he required lengt.h of structural casing and
the planning and installation processes for structural internal weight as well as the preferred installation
casing. The field personnel agreed to pursue the use of technique. The locat.ions of these installations are
geotechnical principles in the planning for st.ructural shown in Figure 13. For the first two inst.allations, t.he
casing installation after reviewing the comparison st.ructural casing was butt welded 30 in. diameter by
between a calculated estimat.e of resistance to pene- 1 in. wall pipe. For all t.he other installat.ions, t.he cas-
tration and the actual measured resistance to pene- ings were 30 in. diamet.er pipe, wit.h either 1 in. or
tration for one casing inst.allat.ion. 1-1/2 in. wall thickness, joined using squnch joint con-
nectors (Figure 14). The resistance to penetration for
Theory the squnch joint casings was significantly lower than for
the bare pipe. This reduction in resist.ance is believed
The theory for developing resistance t.o penet.rat.ion to be a result of t.he squnch joint.s, which are run
is that the frictional resist.ance from a clay soil is a pin-up - box-down, acting as series of ext.ernal driving
function of its shear strength. The total resist.ance for shoes, increasing t.he soil dist.urbance and t.hereby low-
a structural casing which has neit.her internal friction ering the frictional soil resistance during the installation
nor end bearing (a jet.ted casing) is given by process.
L For the bare pipe cases (Locations A and B), the
R = 1!' fa f(z) D dz (1) resistance was close to one-half of the ultimate resist-
ance of the pipe (curve labeled MV/2) prior to recipro-
where R is the t.otal resistance in kips, f(z) is the frict.ion cating the pipe (moving the pipe up and down) as is
distribution in kips/sq ft, D is t.he outside diameter of the shown in Figures 15 and 16. The unit. frictional resist-
casing in feet., and L is t.he lengt.h (in feet) of casing ance which corresponds to the one-half ultimate curves
which has penetrat.ed the soil. The writ.ers noticed t.hat is approximately equal to one-half of t.he miniat.ure vane
self-weight penetration of piles was resisted by a friction shear strengt.h.
value along the pile shaft which would range between
one-third and one-fourth of the undisturbed shear The inst.allat.ion of st.ruct.ural casing at. Locat.ion C
strength of the soil. The early structural casing instal- was planned using the above information as a guide.
lations also showed similar soil resistances as will be The actual resistance during the installation (shown in
discussed lat.er. Figure 17) was one-fourt.h of the ultimate capacity (MV/4
curve). There was no reciprocation of the pipe and the
The miniature vane t.est correlated reasonably well video of the seafloor where the casing penetrated showed
with inst.allat.ion resistance. This test is performed by no signs of jetting fluid circulating around t.he pipe.
inserting a 4-bladed vane int.o an undisturbed soil sample Since t.he squnch joint.s were the only geomet.ric change,
and applying a torque to t.he vane's shaft. This t.orque it was concluded t.hat they were the primary cause of the
is resisted by a shear stress on the cylinder formed by difference bet.ween this installation and t.he previous
the vane blades and t.he soil (Figure 6). The shear stress installations.
corresponding to the peak torque is t.aken as t.he shear
strength of the soil and is called the miniat.ure vane To achieve the weight of struct.ural casing for
shear strength (MV). The vane may be allowed to turn Location C, "donut" weights were installed around the
further until a limiting, or residual, value of torque is 9 in. drill collars which were placed inside the structural
reached. The shear stress associated wit.h the limiting casing. These donut weights are shown schematically in
value of torque is called the residual miniat.ure vane the jetting assembly in Figure 18 and pictured in
shear strengt.h (RMV) (Figure 7). An example of a min- Figure 19. At the end of installation, the t.otal weight
iature vane test being performed is shown in Figure 8. of the the casing plus the portion of t.he jetting assembly
below t.he casing running tool is carried by the soil
Other shear st.rength t.ests which were considered through skin friction. As a result of t.he added weight
were the remot.e vane (RV) and t.he unconsolidated-un- of the donuts used during installation, the structural
drained (UU) t.riaxial test.. The remote vane works sim- casing was proof-loaded to a load which was approxi-
ilarly to t.he miniature vane with t.he exception that it. is mately equal to the weight of the 20 in. casing which
deployed down the borehole and tests the soil in situ. would be landed in the casing later. This proof-loading
Three remot.e vane sizes are shown in Figure 9. The in combination with the expected capacity gain associ-
unconsolidated-undrained triaxial test is a compression ated with soil "set-up," leads to a reliable casing instal-
test where an undist.urbed soil sample is placed in a lation.
membrane so that confining pressure can be applied.
The water wit.hin the sample cannot escape through the Post-installation analyses of the Location Ceasing
membrane or the loading platens (Figures 10 and 11). inst.allation led to t.he development of the recommended
After applying the confining pressure, the sample is method for estimating the required length and weight of
compressed axially. The shear strength is taken as one- structural casing to be installed at a site. An upper
half of the difference between the axial stress and the bound of resistance to penetration of structural casing
confining stress (maximum shear st.ress in the sample, with squnch joints can be computed using MV/4 as t.he
ala Mohr's circle, Figure 12). unit friction, while a lower bound on the resistance can
be determined using a unit friction equal to 0.4 times the
Since the three tests (miniature vane, remote vane, RMV shear strength value. This approach has been
and UU triaxial) give slightly different values for the validated by use at several ot.her sites (Figures 20-22).
shear strength of the soil, correlation studies were As a result, remote vane and UU triaxial testing have
undertaken. In these studies, all three measurements of been deleted from the specifications for soil borings
soil shear st.rength were made on the soils at the various which are for structural casing installation only.
drilling locations. The resist.ance to installation was
76
SPE 22542 R. D. BECK, C. W. JACKSON AND T. K. HAMILTON 3
77
Permanent Gulcle
Base (PGB)
Water
Line
~Drillpipe
Mud
Line
Structural Casing
Jet Head
~DrllIBlt
Figure 1 - Overall View of Deep Water Drilling Figure 2 - Structural Casing & Jet String
~.J ~
lit lJ][
- -
frictIon 1 ~ friction
I( ~
~
~ Figure 4 - Jet Head Placement Outside of
Figure 3 - Friction on the Structural Casing Structural Casing
(Jet Head Inside Casing)
78
······ ...... SPE 22542
HHHHHHH~
Hn~~nHn~~~
D
••
E
81
Skin Friction on 30" Structural Casing (kips) Skin Friction on 30" Structural Casing (kips)
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 o 50 100 150 200 250 300
o +-_.......__ . . . . L _ - . . . . L - -........r-L....
E....
G....
E.. N~D--... o +--....... --...L---..... --.l.r~LE~G~E~N~D---t
!!Il!~ _ !!Il!~ _
MVI3 MVI3
MVI4 MVI4
o M~;~;;;;;d·_.. o M~;~;;;;;d'-"
ED Reciprocation ED Reciprocation
50 50
g g
c c
0 0
!'Iii ~
'Iii
c c
:. 100
:. 100
50
g
c
0
~
'Iii
c
:. 100
82
Skin Friction on 30" Structural Casing (kips) Weight of or Friction on 30" Structural Casing (kips)
o 50 1DO 150 200 250 300 o 50 100 150 200 250 300
o+--_L-._-..L__....L.--.L-....,...-LE..lG-E-N-O--l 0;----1--.....L..--1-r--L._ _.L-_-;
~
0.4 RMV 120'Caslng
O;;;;a';;r;d
14D'Casing
50 50
g g
c c
0 0
~ ~
'lii 'lii
c c
Gl
l1. rf.
100 100
MV/4
150 ......- - - - - ---J
150..L.------------------l
No JAW~MV/4?
&
JAW ~ 0.4 RMV ?
Yes
84