HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

SUPERVISOR: PROF. JOHN FORD

Naveen Jose
MSc. Petroleum Engineering
Project Report 2015/2016
Project: Effect of Axial Loads on Burst
and Collapse Rating of Casing
HWU ID: H00213710
Declaration

I Naveen Jose confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and is expressed in my

own words. Any uses made within it of the works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas,

equations, figures, text, tables, programs are properly acknowledged at the point of their use. A

list of the reference employed is included.

Signed – NAVEEN JOSE

Date - August 18th 2016

1
Acknowledgement

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr.James M Somerville Programme Leader for Petroleum

Engineering for providing me an opportunity to do my Individual project in “Heriot Watt

University”.

I sincerely thank Professor. John Ford and Dr. Matthew Smith for their guidance and

encouragement in carrying out this project work. I also wish to express my gratitude to the officials

and other staff members of Heriot Watt University who rendered their help during the period of

my project work.

2
Abstract

The effects of downhole axial compression forces/stresses on casing string designs and its

connectors is a major concern to petroleum engineers when designing high-temperature, high-

pressure and horizontal wells. Research on these effects are significant and has become a major

concern recently. It seems that for a very long time engineers were either not aware that high-axial

loads existed or were not concerned about the effect of tension/compression on the casing.

Conventional casing string design analysis has traditionally been based on calculating minimum

design factors for burst, Collapse loads.

To understand the impact of compression forces on casing and casing connectors we need to

recognize the sources of compression forces in the well. Several downhole factors cause axial

compression loading of casing strings: Buoyancy, Poisson’s effect or reverse ballooning, Thermal

expansion, Borehole friction or Drag in directional wells, and Slack-off.

This paper discusses classification and different grades of casing, the common sources of axial

forces in wells and methods to analyze and design the strength of casing subjected to compression

and tension forces. The effect of axial loads on casing will be demonstrated by calculations and in

theory. It includes concepts like “Axial load has no effect on the collapse strength of a casing, with

elastic mode of failure” and “Axial load decreases the collapse resistance of a casing”. Barlow’s

and Von mises method of calculating the burst yield of a casing under axial load has been

conducted and their level of accuracy has been studied briefly. A similar theory to Von Mises

called the maximum stress theory is considered and compared. In order to get a better

understanding two case studies have been conducted on HPHT wells to study the effect and impact

of thermal stresses and annulus build-up pressure.

3
Contents
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 6
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. 7
Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Casing ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Impact of tension (axial load) on burst and collapse rating of casing .................................................. 10
Strength properties of casing ............................................................................................................... 11
Yield strength & stress-strain diagram ............................................................................................... 11
Collapse strength................................................................................................................................... 12
Elastic collapse .................................................................................................................................. 14
Plastic collapse ................................................................................................................................... 14
Transition collapse pressure ............................................................................................................ 15
Calculating collapse strengths for a set of specimens ........................................................................ 15
1. Effects of axial load on collapse strength .................................................................................... 16
2. Effect of axial tension on different collapse modes .................................................................... 18
Effect of axial load on burst strength ...................................................................................................... 20
Von Mises................................................................................................................................................... 23
A Sample burst load calculation and triaxial comparison ................................................................ 27
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Case Study- Impact of Annulus Pressure build up in HPHT wells ...................................................... 30
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 30
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Case Study-Impact of thermal stresses in HPHT wells ......................................................................... 35
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 39
References .................................................................................................................................................. 40
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 42

4
Appendix-1 ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Classification of casing...................................................................................................................... 42
Properties of some common grades of steel used for casing .......................................................... 43
Casing design process ....................................................................................................................... 44
The sources of axial loads (Tension) ................................................................................................ 45
(a) Dry weight of Casing (Fwt)......................................................................................................... 45
(b) Bending Stress (Fbend) ............................................................................................................... 46
(c) Plug Bumping Pressure (Fplug) ................................................................................................. 46
(d) Over pull when casing stuck (Fpt) ............................................................................................. 46
(e) Effects of Changes in Temperature (Ftemp) ............................................................................. 46
(f) Over pull to Overcome Buckling Forces (Fop).......................................................................... 47
(g) Axial Force Due to Ballooning (During Pressure Testing) (FBal) .......................................... 47
(h) Effect of Shock Loading (Fshock) .............................................................................................. 47
(i) Buoyant Force on Casing (Fbuoy) .............................................................................................. 48
Appendix-2: Von Mises Ellipse ............................................................................................................ 49
Appendix-3: D/t ratio for elastic collapse mode ................................................................................. 50
Appendix-4: D/t ratio for plastic collapse mode ................................................................................. 51
Appendix-5: D/t ratio for Transition mode ........................................................................................ 52
Appendix-6: Burst and Collapse Curve .............................................................................................. 53
Appendix-7: Von Mises Burst Yield Calculation Method ................................................................. 54
Appendix-8: Analysis result from industry software ......................................................................... 56
Appendix 9: Analysis result from industry software ......................................................................... 57

5
List of Tables
Table 1 : Effect of axial loads on burst & collapse ..................................................................................... 11

Table 2: D/t ratio for different collapse modes ........................................................................................... 13

Table 3: Collapse yield using Von Mises biaxial equation ......................................................................... 17

Table 4: Collapse Pressures with/without axial loads ................................................................................. 19

Table 5: Comparison of Barlow's and Von Mises burst yield .................................................................... 21

Table 6: Burst yield calculation using Von Mises equation ....................................................................... 22

Table 7: Temperature and axial loads from the simulation model ............................................................. 37

6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Stress Strain Graph ........................................................................................................ 12

Figure 2: Collapse yield Vs Axial Load ....................................................................................... 17

Figure 3: Variation in collapse strength with/without axial load.................................................. 19

Figure 4: Barlow's derivation ........................................................................................................ 20

Figure 5: Burst yield vs. Axial load .............................................................................................. 23

Figure 6: Representation of a pure distortion case........................................................................ 24

Figure 7: Failure envelope of distortion energy theory ................................................................ 25

Figure 8: Failure envelope of maximum stress theory.................................................................. 26

Figure 9: Schematic of the well .................................................................................................... 32

Figure 10: Pressure vs. Annular expansion Volume ..................................................................... 33

Figure 11: Total pressure vs. Work done index ............................................................................ 34

7
Aims and Objectives

The aim of this project is to find the effect and impact of axial tension on burst and collapse rating

of casing. Theories and calculations has been included for a better understanding. Case studies

emphasizes on the issues faced by casing on HPHT wells and ways to mitigate it.

Objectives include:

 Discussion of classification and different grades of casing commonly used.

 The common sources of axial forces in wells.

 Methods to analyze and design the strength of casing subjected to compression and tension

forces.

 The effect of axial loads on casing will be demonstrated by calculations and in theory. It

includes concepts like “Axial load has no effect on the collapse strength of a casing, with

elastic mode of failure” and “Axial load decreases the collapse resistance of a casing”.

 Barlow’s and Von mises method of calculating the burst yield of a casing under axial load

has been conducted and their level of accuracy has been studied briefly.

 A similar theory to Von Mises called the maximum stress theory is considered and

compared.

 Two case studies have been conducted on HPHT wells to study the effect and impact of

thermal stresses and Annulus build-up pressure which are potential sources of casing

failures.

8
Introduction
The casing design is a vast field requiring experienced professionals to analyze, design and

implement an optimum string design for the well. The casing is supposed to work robust and

efficiently without collapsing or bursting under extreme conditions ranging from HPHT and

complex production operations involved.

Failure of a casing string will incur a significant loss to the company in terms of production/time

loss. Worst cases could prove harmful to the personnel, environment and equipment’s used.

Hence the casing design is an important regime that requires careful planning and research.

This paper discusses mainly about the collapse and burst pressure calculation using API methods,

which includes Von Mises concept.

Sample calculations were performed on Excel worksheets and results matched existing theories

and statements. A comparison between Von Mises, Barlow’s Equation and Maximum stress theory

were conducted to see the variation in their safety factor of design.

Case studies on real HPHT wells have been conducted and discussed. The data for this has been

sourced from respective papers as Industrial software’s were involved to a great extent.

9
Casing
In general it’s not possible to drill a well through all the formation from surface to the target depth

in a single hole section. Hence the well is drilled in sections with each one of the well-being sealed

off by lining the inside of the borehole with cement, before drilling the subsequent hole section. It

comprises joints of pipe approximately 30-40 ft in length connected by threads. Depending on the

setting depth, we may require 3 or 4 of these strings. It’s a rather expensive process and hence the

casing design needs to be taken seriously as it comprises 20-30% of the total cost of the well.

The reasons for casing off formations, classification of casing, properties of some common grades

of steel used for casing, and major sources of axial loads have been listed out in Appendix 1.

Impact of tension (axial load) on burst and collapse rating of casing

It can be demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally that the axial load on a casing can

affect the burst and collapse ratings of that casing. This is represented for well in Table 1. It can

be seen that as the tensile load imposed on a tubular increases, the collapse rating decreases and

the burst rating increases. It can also be seen from this diagram that as the compressive loading

increases the burst rating decreases and the collapse rating increases. The burst and collapse ratings

for casing quoted by the API assume that the casing is experiencing zero axial load. However,

since casing strings are very often subjected to a combination of tension and collapse loading

simultaneously, the API has established a relationship between these loadings. The Ellipse shown

in Appendix 2 is in fact a 2D representation of a 3D phenomenon. The casing will in reality

experience a combination of three loads (Triaxial loading). These are Radial, Axial and Tangential

loads. The latter being a resultant of the other two. The ellipse is derived from Von Mises theory

and will be explained in detail later.

10
 Table 1 : Effect of axial loads on burst & collapse

Strength properties of casing

Casing pipe strength properties are generally specified as-

1. Yield Strength for (a) pipe body and (b) coupling,

2. Collapse Strength for pipe body,

3. Burst Strength for (a) pipe body, and (b) coupling

Yield strength & stress-strain diagram

(Wikipedia, 2016)

Yield strength could be defined as the stress at which a specific amount of plastic deformation

occurs in the material, usually taken as the tensile stress required to produce a total elongation of

0.65, 0.60 and 0.50 % of length for Q-125, P-110 casings and remaining grades respectively by

API. It’s common that the yield stress is displayed while referring to the strength value of casings.

The most common type of casing joints are threaded on both ends and fitted with a threaded

coupling at one end only. The coupling is the box end of the casing joint. The strength of the

coupling may be higher or lower than the yield strength of the main body of the casing joint. But

it’s always the best to use coupling of same yield strength or more. The manufacturers usually

quote a minimum yield strength for casings and couplings which aids in casing designing and

11
optimum selection. A stress strain graph as shown in Figure 1 is the best way to describe how a

ductile material acts under loading. This graph is unique for each materials and plots differently

for each. It’s found by recording amount of deformation at distinct levels of compressive or tensile

loads. Low carbon steel generally exhibits a very linear stress strain relationship with a clearly

defined yield point. The linear region till yield point is classified as the elastic region and slope of

it gives Young’s Modulus. After this region a permanent deformation does happen and is called

plastic region. The material keeps yielding on account of stress applied until it reaches ultimate

tensile strength after which necking occurs. Necking results decrease of cross section in specimen

and once it reaches unstable the specimen fractures.

Figure 1: Stress Strain Graph

Collapse strength

It’s the maximum external pressure that is required to collapse a casing. The procedure to find the

collapse strength for different modes of failures are provided in (API Bulletin 5C3, 2015). Under

the action of external pressure and axial tension a casing cross-section can fail in possible modes

of collapse like: elastic collapse, plastic collapse and failure caused by exceeding the ultimate

12
tensile strength (UTS) of the material. We also have an additional mode of failure called transition

collapse that comes in between elastic and plastic mode. The most commonly found collapse mode

from the industry is in plastic and transition mode.

In elastic mode the casing will collapse before it deforms whereas in plastic mode the casing will

deform to a certain extent prior to failing. The transition between these modes of failures is

governed by it geometrical properties. These four modes of collapse under external pressure are

governed by D/t ratio. It has been observed for thin tubes (large D/t ratio) collapse failure mode is

expected to be elastic. As the D/t ratio decreases or as the pipe become thicker the collapse failure

mode changes to plastic (for intermediate D/t ratios) or to ultimate strength (for low values of D/t).

The D/t values can be seen from below Table 2:

Table 2: D/t ratio for different collapse modes

13
The above mentioned collapse modes have been explained below:

Elastic collapse

The elastic collapse pressure Pc can be determined by the following formula:

E = Young Modulus of steel, ν = Poisson’s ratio;

t = casing thickness; and D= outside diameter of the casing.

In Empirical units E = 30x 106 psi and ν = 0.3; Hence, equation becomes

The above equations are applicable to range of D/ t values of all the casings are shown in

Appendix -3.

Plastic collapse

The minimum collapse pressure ( PP ) in the plastic range may be calculated from the following

equations:

Where,

A, B and C are constants depending on the grade of steel used and Y is the yield strength.

Equation is applicable for the range of D/t values given in the tables .The ratio D/ t should first be

determined , and if it falls in the range given in the below table, then the equation is applicable and

14
the values of A,B,C are used directly from the table in Appendix-4:

Transition collapse pressure

The collapse behavior Pt, is the transition zone between the elastic and plastic failure and is

described by the following formula:

Where F and G are constants given by:

The range of D / t values applicable to equation is given is given in Appendix-5 together with F

and G values and can be used directly in the equation:

Calculating collapse strengths for a set of specimens

The 'biaxial design method' is most often associated with collapse-load design, and taken to mean

the reduction of pipe collapse resistance as tension increases. Below calculations have been

performed to illustrate two important concepts:

15
1. Effects of axial load on collapse strength

Assuming that σz > 0 and σϴ>> σr and setting the triaxial stress equal to the yield strength in the

Von Mises equation results in equation of an ellipse shown below.

Equation 1 is the biaxial criterion used in (API Bulletin 5C3, 2015) to account for the effect of

tension on collapse and has been derived from the Von Mises equation showed above.

……….. (1)

Sa = axial stress based on the buoyant weight of pipe, and Yp = yield point

We have considered 9.625” OD, 0.595” WT P110 grade 58.4 lbm/ft casing with plastic collapse

as mode of failure. Axial stress was increased at a constant value of 1000 psi. The collapse strength

due to effect of axial tension has been tabulated in column 11 of Table 3. It’s clear that the collapse

strength reduces as the axial load imposed on the casing increases. It has been proved

experimentally in a laboratory as well and explained by (Kyogoku, et al., 1982).

16
 Table 3: Collapse yield using Von Mises biaxial equation

The curved lower right corner in Appendix 6 and graph in the Figure 2 is caused by the combined

stress effects, as described in Eq. 1.

Figure 2: Collapse yield Vs Axial Load

17
2. Effect of axial tension on different collapse modes

In this case we have considered API specimens with known yield strengths and 4 levels of D/t

ratios (Yield strength, Plastic, transition and elastic collapse). The properties like OD’s, weight/ft,

wall thickness, D/t ratio, Grade, minimum yield strength, and the failure mode has been classified

and tabulated in Table 4 below. For this calculation a fixed axial load of 11000 psi has been chosen

in all cases for simplicity. Column 10 shows the collapse strength of casings at an absence of axial

loads and they were calculated from respective formulas given for different failure modes

described in above sections.

Now, the yield strength of axial stress equivalent grade 𝑌𝑝𝑎 is calculated when an axial load acts

and has been tabulated in column 11.

These new yield strength values are resubstituted in the collapse strength formula’s again to find

respective collapse pressures. The graph in Figure 3 shows the collapse strength variation.

Interestingly, we can see there is a significant drop in collapse resistance in all failure modes except

the “elastic collapse mode”. The casing will be subjected to axial loads certainly during operation

and hence this significant drop in collapse resistance has to be treated carefully and taken care of

while designing casing. In the elastic collapse mode, high-collapse casings behave as if they were

not subjected to the axial tension stress at all. Namely, the theory that "axial tension stress has no

effect on collapse pressure in the elastic case" has been proved. In addition to this an experiment

conducted by (Kyogoku, et al., 1982) has proved the same in a laboratory using a specialized

equipment. They found out that if the axial stress increases to the extent of the biaxial yielding

range defined by the Henckey-von Mises maximum strain energy of distortion theory, the collapse

strength lowers, depending on the axial tension stress. All these formulas are based on a uniaxial

18
force and hence is conservative. For a safer design we have to look upon Von Mises criterion and

evaluate the strength of casing.

Table 4: Collapse Pressures with/without axial loads

Figure 3: Variation in collapse strength with/without axial load

19
Effect of axial load on burst strength
Barlow’s formula is a historical API equation used to calculate the maximum pressure a casing

can withstand before it bursts. This formula is a simplified version of the problem and doesn’t

include factors like tension in a hanging pipe.

Barlow’s derivation is based on Figure 4: Considering the one-half section of the casing and

balancing the forces acting on the two rectangular areas L x t, against the internal pressure on the

projected area D x L which is therefore:

Figure 4: Barlow's derivation

(API, 2008) states that the Barlow Equation for pipe yield, which is the historical API equation, is

based on a one-dimensional (not triaxial) approximate equation of the von Mises yield condition,

combined with an approximate expression for the hoop stress in the pipe. In essence, the Barlow

Equation approximates the hoop stress and then equates this approximation to the yield strength.

20
This approximation is less accurate than the Lamé Equation of yield used in Von Mises Equivalent

(VME) Stress (Triaxial Stress). And because the Barlow Equation neglects axial stress, there is no

distinction between pipe with capped ends, pipe with open ends or pipe with tension end load. The

accuracy of Barlow’s equation deteriorates as the wall thickness increases. This means that it’s

most accurate when there is no casing. (Dr.Jose & Michael, 2012)

As per (Kastor, 1986) SPE 14727, at high pressures (greater than 12,000 psi), errors increase while

using Barlow’s equation. This is because of the smaller ID of tubes used in deepest portions of

wellbores where high pressure are encountered. The wall thickness, ‘t’ will be higher because of

the need for greater burst resistance and this results in a decrease in D/t ratio. This adds to error in

Barlow equation.

A comparison of the Barlow and Von Mises burst yield values for D/t ratios of smaller ID casings

has been shown in Table 5 below:

Table 5: Comparison of Barlow's and Von Mises burst yield

These D/t ratios are in the "10" range and therefore indicating an approximate error in the range

of "2%". While this is within the range of most safety factors this result does support the general

conclusion of SPE 14727 that the use of triaxial Von Mises Criterion becomes more critical at

higher pressures and smaller OD casing of higher weights.

21
Combined burst and axial loading corresponds to the upper right-hand quadrant of the Von Mises

ellipse. This is the region where designing based on just a uniaxial criterion could result in a design

that is too conservatory. Taking advantage of the increase in burst resistance in the presence of

tension represents a good opportunity for the design engineer to save money while maintaining

wellbore integrity.

Table 6 shows the burst yield for a tubing with OD = 2.375", WT = 0.175" and 70,000 psi yield

strength. A calculation for the same with Barlow’s equation provided a burst pressure of 10,316

psi. The method of calculation will be given in Appendix 7 (Tenaris, 2007).

A graph has been plotted with Burst strength on the y axis and axial load on the x axis (Refer

Figure 5). It matches well with the upper right quadrant of Burst and Collapse curve in Appendix-

8.

Table 6: Burst yield calculation using Von Mises equation

22
 Figure 5: Burst yield vs. Axial load

Von Mises
The von Mises yield criterion suggests that the yielding of materials begins when the second

deviatoric stress invariant reaches a critical value. It’s considered to be a safe haven for engineers.

(Learn Engineering, 2013)

It especially works for ductile materials. According to this criterion named after German American

applied mathematician Richard Von Mises (1883-1953), if von mises induced stress is greater than

the strength of material or its yield stress, it will fail and this has proved well for most of the cases.

The von mises stress concept is derived from the distortion energy failure theory. Distortion energy

theory compares 2 kinds of energies: Distortion energy in actual case and Distortion energy in a

simple tension test.

23
 Figure 6: Representation of a pure distortion case

Distortion energy is the energy required for shape deformation of a material with no change in its

volume. The shape change is due to the slippage of grains in material (Refer Figure-6). As per the

theory, the material fails if distortion energy in actual case is more than the distortion energy in

the simple tension case at the time of failure. Distortion energy required per unit volume, for a

general 3 dimensional case is given in terms of principal stress values as:

Distortion energy for simple tension case at the time of failure is given as:

Above quantities can be connected using distortion energy failure theory, so the condition of

failure will be as follows.

The left hand side of the above equation is denoted as Von Mises stress.

24
The above 2 dimensional distortion energy equation describes an ellipse, which when plotted on

σ1 – σ2 plane as shown in (Figure 7):

Figure 7: Failure envelope of distortion energy

theory

The Von Mises "Triaxial" Criterion is "triaxial" because all three axis, radial, hoop, and axial are

used to derive the equation used to model the effects of axial load on burst and collapse and vice

versa the radial pressure (burst and collapse) effects on axial load resistance.

The interior of the ellipse defines the region of combined biaxial stress where the material is safe

against yielding. If the Von Mises stress value lies within the ellipse, the material is safe and if it

lies beyond the boundary, material will fail.

A theory that is similar to Von Mises is the Maximum Shear Stress Theory by Tresca

(http://web.mae.ufl.edu/, n.d.) According to the maximum shear stress theory, the material yields

when the maximum shear stress at a point equals the critical shear stress value for that material.

Since this should be true for uniaxial stress state, we can use the results from uniaxial tension test

to determine the maximum allowable shear stress. The stress state in a tensile specimen at the point

of yielding is given by: σ1 = σY, σ2 = σ3 = 0. The Tresca’s yield criterion is that yielding will

25
occur in a material when the maximum shear stress equals the yield shear strength, τy, of the

material as shown below:

The hexagon in Figure 8 represents the two–dimensional failure envelope according to maximum

shear stress theory. The ellipse corresponding to von Mises’s theory is also shown in the same

figure. The hexagon is inscribed within the ellipse. Combinations of principal stresses σ1 and σ2

that lie within this hexagon are considered safe based on the maximum shear stress theory, and

failure is considered to occur when the combined stress state reaches the hexagonal boundary. This

is obviously more conservative failure theory than distortion energy theory as it is contained within

the latter.

Figure 8: Failure envelope of maximum stress theory

The Von Mises theory is more widely used in the industry as it gives an optimum safe design and

is cost effective. So as a failure criterion, the engineer can check whether Von Mises stress induced

in the material will exceed yield strength (for ductile material) of the material or not. So the failure

condition can be simplified as:

26
If,

For tensile materials like a pipe , the yield stress is found out by a test called simple tension test

where two ends of pipe is pulled apart by using a specialized equipment and the stress at which

the structure yields or a deformation happens is noted down as its yield stress. The structure might

not fail after the yield point is reached, but a permanent deformation happens which is unacceptable

in the engineering field. In the simple tension test it was only a uniaxial stress that acted on the

material, but in practical a combination of stresses can occur on materials during its intended

operational life. Hence it’s important to carry out a triaxial loading analysis.

A Sample burst load calculation and triaxial comparison

(PetroWiki, 2016)

Assume that we have a 9.625-in., 58.4-lbm/ft P-110 intermediate casing set at 10,000 ft and

cemented to surface. The burst differential pressure for this casing is given by Barlow’s equation

given below.

𝑡
∆𝑃 = 0.875 ∗ 2 ∗ 𝑌𝑝 ∗ ( )
𝐷

0.875 ∗ 2 ∗ 110000 𝑝𝑠𝑖 ∗ 0.595 𝑖𝑛

∆𝑃 = = 11900 𝑝𝑠𝑖
9.625 𝑖𝑛

The load case we will test against is the burst displacement-to-gas case, with formation pressure

of 8,000 psi, formation depth at 12,000 ft, and gas gradient equal to 0.1 psi/ft.

𝑝𝑠𝑖
Surface internal pressure = 8000 𝑝𝑠𝑖 − (0.1 ∗ 12000 𝑓𝑡) = 6800 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑓𝑡

Surface external pressure = 0.

27
Net pressure differential = 6800 psi.

According to this calculation, the casing is strong enough to resist this burst pressure. As an

additional test, let us calculate the von Mises stress associated with this case.

Surface axial stress in this case is the casing weight divided by the cross-sectional area (16.88 in.2)

minus the pressure loads when cemented (assume 16 lbm/gal cement).

𝑙𝑏𝑚
58.4 ∗ 10000𝑓𝑡 16𝑙𝑏𝑚 𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝑓𝑡
𝜎𝑧 = { 2
}−( ∗ 0.052 ∗ 10000𝑓𝑡) = 26,277 𝑝𝑠𝑖
16.88 𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑏𝑚 ∗ 𝑔𝑎𝑙

The radial stresses for the internal and external radii are the internal and external pressures.

𝜎𝑟𝑖 = −6800 𝑝𝑠𝑖 (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒

𝜎𝑟𝑜 = 0 𝑝𝑠𝑖.

The hoop stresses are calculated by the Lamé formula:

When, 𝜎𝜃 = 𝜎𝜃𝑖 , 𝑝𝑜 = 0 & r = 𝑟𝑖 and similarly when 𝜎𝜃 = 𝜎𝜃𝑜 , 𝑝𝑜 = 0 & r = 𝑟𝑜

6800 𝑝𝑠𝑖 × [(4.8125)2 + (4.2175)2 ]

𝜎𝜃𝑖 = = 51,824 𝑝𝑠𝑖
[(4.8125)2 − (4.2175)2 ]

6800 𝑝𝑠𝑖 × 2 × [4.2175)2 ]

𝜎𝜃𝑜 = = 45,024 𝑝𝑠𝑖
[(4.8125)2 − (4.2175)2 ]

28
The von Mises equivalent stress or triaxial stress is found out at the inside radius and at the

outside radius,

[(26277 − 51824 𝑝𝑠𝑖)2 + (51824 + 6800 𝑝𝑠𝑖)2 + (−6800 − 26277 𝑝𝑠𝑖)2 ]

𝜎𝑉𝑀𝐼 = √{ }
2

= 50,909𝑝𝑠𝑖

and

[(26277 − 45024 𝑝𝑠𝑖)2 + (45024 − 0 𝑝𝑠𝑖)2 + (0 − 26277 𝑝𝑠𝑖)2 ]

𝜎𝑉𝑀𝑂 = √{ } = 39,173𝑝𝑠𝑖
2

The maximum von Mises stress is at the inside of the 9.625-in. casing with a value that is 46% of

the yield stress. In the burst calculation, the applied pressure was 57% of the calculated burst

pressure. Thus, the burst calculation is conservative to the von Mises calculation for this case.

Conclusion

 Presence of an axial load increases the burst resistance but decreases the collapse

resistance. Hence, more importance has to be given during collapse design calculation

which includes providing a greater design safety factor.

 Most of the collapse failure modes are in plastic and transition region and hence effect of

axial loads in these regime should be carefully studied.

 Barlow’s equation to calculate burst pressure for wells above 12,000 psi will give

inaccurate results and hence Von Mises method is a better choice.

 If possible Von Mises criterion has to be checked for all design cases to ensure safety.

29
Case Study- Impact of Annulus Pressure build up in HPHT wells
Introduction

Over the years, drilling operations have progressed vastly, resulting from advanced technology,

increased insight on bottom hole characteristics, temperatures, pressures etc. Deep and ultra-deep

water drilling have also become increasingly popular all around the world. These projects being

highly challenging and having large risks associated with them, require crucial planning and

practical designs throughout every stage in the development process, making them highly

expensive. Therefore, all possible alternatives to reduce drilling costs should be considered to

counterbalance the high development and operating costs.

The casing design has a major contribution to the drilling costs and therefore, alternate design

criteria should be looked upon, especially if operating conditions include high temperatures and

pressures. In addition to these high temperatures and pressures, annular fluid expansion also

complicates casing design in deep water drilling. This therefore calls for careful planning and

designing of the casing such that both the safety and integrity of the well are not sacrificed.

The following case study, will emphasize on some of the planned changes to the casing design and

prove why implementation of these changes are necessary for getting cost efficient solutions.

Typically, for HTHP wells, multi-string annular pressure build-up analysis is conducted, to assess

the pressure in the annulus and annular fluid expansion due to heating of fluids during the

production phase.

30
Methodology

The stress analysis includes casing analysis of the standard loads, drilling and production thermal

loads (also known as working loads) and the loads in the annulus due to pressure buildup. The

various studies focused on evaluating the effects of the proposed approach on the different

parameters. Several plots have been provided for assistance in the interpretation of the results.

Loads studied for this particular analysis included:

 Burst: Full gas displacement, gas kick, water flow kick, pressure test, green cement test,

tubing leak.

 Collapse: Cementing, full evacuation,

 Axial: Over pull force, green cement pressure test.

 Thermal: Drilling and production working loads and annulus fluid expansion loads:

maximum burst, maximum collapse loads, full evacuation annular fluid expansion.

Thermal analysis simulations for both completion and production were performed and thermal

working loads were then created from the results of the production thermal analysis, and the same

was used for conducting multistring annular pressure build-up analysis. Complete analysis on

both uniaxial, triaxial stress and buckling were also performed. Lastly, multi-string annular heat-

up pressures resulting from production, were carried out. For oil wells, the early production stages

produced high temperature profiles, followed by the highest temperature profiles and annular

pressure build-up in the mid and late production stages. Apparently, these procedures result in high

water production, whose thermal properties contribute to these high temperature. On the contrary,

gas wells also resulted in extensive gas production, high temperature profiles and annular pressure

build-up, though not as critical as that for the oil wells.

31
 Figure 9: Schematic of the well

An example of a sub-sea deviated well with 78 feet elevation (RKB), 2790 feet of water depth and

a total well depth of 9010 ft. was drilled using oil well #1. The undisturbed temperature profile

was, 80 degrees F surface ambient, 40 degrees F at mudline and 158 degrees F well TD static

(8500 ft TVD).

A schematic of this well is displayed in Figure 9. The conductor casings consists of 36” with a

shoe depth 3174ft and 26” casing with a shoe depth at 3997ft. The 20” surface casing is to a depth

of 5082ft with 84lb/f, X-56 casings. The 13 5/8” intermediate casing from 2894-6809 ft. The fourth

production string consists of a 9 5/8” casing from 2894-9010 ft. (Samuel, et al., 2002)

Backup Annulus Fluid: 13 5/8” annulus = 9.5 ppg

Oil based mud 9 5/8” annulus = 10.3 ppg

Oil based mud 4 ½” Tubing annulus = 9.00 ppg Calcium Chloride.

32
Classifications of the production tubing utilized include the following: 4 ½” OD, 10.50 lbm/ft and

13Cr-95. With the above tubing, the oil, gas and water productions were calculated to be 6,000

bbl/day, 9.6 MMscf/day and 120 bbl/day respectively. For the initial production start-up operation,

a reservoir pressure of 6928 psig was calculated at a measured depth (MD) of 9010 feet. The depth

of peroration was at 9010 feet MD, with gas and oil gravities of 0.65 and 45 API respectively.

Change of annular expansion volumes in relation to various annulus heat up pressures for different

combinations of top of cement depths with two associated strings (13 5/8” outer casing string and

9 5/8” internal casing string) are displayed in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Pressure vs. Annular expansion Volume

The various curves represent constant TOC for the 13 5/8” string while changing the 9 5/8” casing

top of cement depths. The distinctive points B and C represent the inflection points, and illustrates

the effects of the inner string (9 5/8”) top of cement depths on the annular expansion volume and

heat-up pressure. CD demonstrates the situation when both the strings are close to having their

annulus full of cement, whereas CB displays the effect of moving down the 9 5/8” TOC from

33
shallow depth. Lastly, section BA represents the “effective” top of cement depth and is signified

by the decrease in both the pressure and volume while moving down the TOC towards open hole.

In this particular case, for the 9 5/8”, the mid-depth between the earlier shoe and the immediate

prior depth of casing shoe is the “effective” top of cement depth, and was found to be constant for

the other curves as well.

Figure 11 below, shows the total pressure and work done index for the different well depths. Work

done index can be defined as the difference between the initial work and the additional maximum

work done divided by the initial work for the annulus of interest.

Where , Work W is

For every pressure volume curve, the maximum work done was obtained from Figure 10. and the

higher cumulative heat-up pressures encountered were estimated. This chart allows identification

of the lowest work done index, paired with the lowest cumulative pressure.

Figure 11: Total pressure vs. Work done index

For this particular example, point X denotes the lowest work done index at a depth of 4750 feet,

which is the recommended top of cement for the 13 5/8” casing. The plot also displays a reverse

34
trend toward higher work done indices and accumulated pressures indicating at one instance a

reduction on total cumulative pressure of the system due to moving down the 13 5/8” TOC but

still with the influence of temperature effects. Additionally, it also depicts cement fill up in both

string annulus cement columns, hence approaching fully cemented condition.

Conclusion
This study was focused on the effects of a change in the TOC for various well profiles and high

value results of practical use, were obtained from the analysis. The study of various casing designs

helped make the following conclusions:

 The heat-up pressures and expanded volumes determine the severity of the casing designs.

Comparison of the work done indices help in the evaluation and comparison of the various

designs.

 The high oil, water and gas production rates in the HTHP wells throughout its life span

helped prove that the following approach is a powerful tool for the study of casing design.

 This procedure can be efficiently applied in wells that face extreme issues due to annular

fluid expansion and pressure.

 “Effective” TOC for all annuli can be effectively selected using this analysis.

Case Study-Impact of thermal stresses in HPHT wells

Introduction

We consider the HPHT well Tong Rang 3, which is located in Bongkot field, Gulf of Thailand,

about 722 km from Bangkok. Apart from the stress and pressure profiles, an analysis of the

temperature regime and heat transfer in HPHT wellbores is an important prospect to be studied

upon. The logs and well testing operations confirmed a bottom hole temperature in excess of 228

35
degree Celsius and about 208 degree Celsius while drilling to TD using a mud cooling system in

place.

Methodology

A general tubular design, thermal analysis is conducted using a drilling/production based modules.

The initial conditions would be identified from drilling thermal simulations and the worst cases

are identified from production thermal simulations where production operations are generally

carried out as long term steady state flow accompanied with well test sequences. The temperature

profile is created from initial stage to the final stage in order and plotted.

Studies have shown that a properly cemented casing when subjected to natural/workflow heating

will try to expand longitudinally and because it’s restrained by the hardened cement a compressive

stress will be induced in the casing and a tensile stress will be induced on the cement.

Further, an addition or drop in temperature will lengthen or shorten the casing respectively.

However when he tube is fixed between any two points in the wellbore (Ex: wellhead and

cemented portion), a resultant compression or tension will be induced. It is similar to the pressure,

i.e. any changes in internal or external pressures will generally be accompanied by contraction or

expansion. However, when the tube is fixed at some point, it will prevent the axial movement of

tube thus inducing a compression or tension stress.

We could point out that the axial stresses are directly proportional to the temperature changes. If

∆𝑇, is greater than 230 degree Celsius, the compressive stresses can exceed the point where

permanent (plastic) deformation will occur on the casing.

If the tube is cemented, changes in pressure and temperature will not be distributed across the

entire string but will be limited to the non-cemented section. Successively, there will be no changes
36
in which the axial force will be absorbed locally and will not be transferred to any other point in

the string. Depending on the stresses, the casing string can fail under a hot-yield period in axial

compression or under the cold yield period in axial tension, irrespective of its cement condition.

(Wu, et al., 2005)

In the event of high temperature changes, the thermal expansion which causes high compression

loading along with the pressure buildup can potentially result in lower safety factors than required.

This risks of failure were evaluated by determining the Pre drilling/Post drilling maximum ∆ 𝑇,

and associated maximum axial load that could be induced from the models referenced by the main

well testing conditions. The Table 7 indicates that ∆ 𝑇 can be substantial depending on the

operations being performed, whereby sequences and operational inputs are loaded into the drilling

based module.

Table 7: Temperature and axial loads from the simulation model

The production based thermal module (Post drilling) demonstrates that the maximum absolute

temperature from the main flow is unaffected by the initial temperature. However, the magnitude

of temperature increase between the initial wellbore condition and the hot production load

condition that reflects the main flow condition will be normally the highest wellbore temperature

change and this will be where the casing string will experience worst case conditions due to thermal

stresses and related annular pressure build-up effects. The 7” production liner experiences an

37
increase in temperature from 61.3 degree Celsius to 67.8 degree Celsius and this results in a higher

maximum compressive axial stress from -238 kips to -271 kips.

The thermal conductivities of well configurations like the steel components, the fluids and cement,

as well as the surrounding formation should be carefully investigated upon. The production

thermal simulator has been designed to consider all heat transfer mechanisms like free and forced

convection in fluids, radial and axial heat conduction in solids and radial heat radiation, change in

phase of fluids and formations.

The predrilling modelling results in Appendix 8, suggests that long term flow condition results

in a temperature increase of 214 degree Celsius on the non-cemented 3-1/2 inch, 9.2 lb./f L-80

production tubing section. Even with the assumption that there is no annulus build up pressure, the

tubing’s load line has slightly exceeded the Von Mises ellipse when exposed to higher than allowed

axial load and this indicates tendency for hot yield owing to compressive stresses when heated.

And, when the tubing is cooled subsequently for well killing operations, it resulted in higher tensile

stresses. It will be worse if there is an annulus build up pressure in the non-cemented sections.

Analysis conducted on cemented 3-1/2 inch. Tubing as shown in Appendix 9 indicates that

because of restriction in tubing movement with temperature, the resultant compression and tension

across the cemented section will purely depend on the magnitude of temperature and pressure at

any point of the string. The long term main flow resulted in thermal expansion that subsequently

resulted in axial compression and tension when pipe is cooled down. However, unlike in non-

cemented section, the existence of cement restricts longitudinal movement of casing as the

temperature increases.

38
Conclusion

Solutions for a safer design from thermal point of view

1. If the amount of temperature increase is known, pre-tensioning on the string before cement

is set could reduce the tendency of hot yielding.

2. The safety factor of tubing or casing-design limit can be increased by completely or

partially bleeding off the trapped pressure from corresponding annulus down to a

permissible maximum allowable sustained casing pressure. It’s done naturally by placing

the TOC short of the previous shoe or a pressure bleed off schedule.

3. Spending more time on circulation prior to drilling and a secondary mud cooling system

may be a favorable situation.

4. The simulation of well construction process must be based on a realistic drilling program

that includes all possible contingency plans to avoid failures from high borehole

temperature and to accurately establish the resulting stress and loading conditions from the

case where higher than expected thermal change is likely.

5. The use of pipe with higher material yield strength and premium API connection with high

compression efficiency.

39
References
API Bulletin 5C3, 2015. Equations and calculations for the properties of casing, tubing,drill pipe and line
pipe used as casing or tubing. ANSI/API Technical Report 5C3.

API, 2008. Technical Report on Equations and Calculations or Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe Used as
Casing or Tubing; and Performance Properties Tables for Casing and Tubing. API, Issue 1, p. 6.6.2.1.

Department of Petroleum Engineering, 2015. Drilling Engineering. Edinburgh: Heriot Watt University.

Dr.Jose, C. & Michael, D. D., 2012. Drillscience. [Online]

Available at: http://www.drillscience.com/Biaxial%20vs%20Triaxial%20Casing.pdf
[Accessed august 2016].

http://web.mae.ufl.edu/, n.d. Failure theories- von mises criterion. [Online]

Available at: http://web.mae.ufl.edu/nkim/eas4200c/VonMisesCriterion.pdf
[Accessed august 2016].

Kastor, R., 1986. Triaxial Casing Design for Burst. lADC/SPE 14727.

Kyogoku, T., Tokimasa, K., Nakanishi, H. & Okazawa, T., 1982. Experimental study on the effect of axial
tension load on collapse strength of oilwell casingcasing. Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd..

Learn Engineering, 2013. Learn Engineering. [Online]

Available at: http://www.learnengineering.org/2012/12/what-is-von-mises-stress.html
[Accessed August 2016].

PetroWiki, 2016. PetroWiki (Published by SPE). [Online]

Available at: http://petrowiki.org/Strength_of_casing_and_tubing
[Accessed August 2016].

Samuel, G. & Adolfo Gonzales, S. E., n.d.

Samuel, G., Gonzales, A. & Ellis, S., 2002. Multistring Casing Design for Deepwater and Ultradeep HP/HT
Wells: A New Approach, Dallas: Halliburton-Landmark Graphics Corporation ,IADC/SPE 74490 .

Sovonex, 2016. Abut Us: Sovonex Technology. [Online]

Available at: http://www.sovonex.com/drilling-equipment/api-casing/api-5ct-casing-grades/
[Accessed August 2016].

Tenaris, 2007. Tenaris : Calculation of Burst Yield for round tubing. [Online]
Available at: http://www.tenaris.com/shared/documents/files/CB322.pdf
[Accessed 2016].

40
Wikipedia, 2016. Wikipedia:The free encyclopedia. [Online]
Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93strain_curve
[Accessed August 2016].

Wu, J., Hosn, N. A. & edardo, M., 2005. Steam-Injection Casing Design, California: SPE.

41
APPENDICES
Appendix-1

Reasons for casing off formations:

 To protect the unstable formations from caving in.

 To protect the weak formations from high mud weights that might be required in subsequent

hole operations. These high mud weights could fracture the weaker zones.

 To isolate zones with abnormally high pore pressure from deeper zones which may be

pressured normally.

 To seal off lost circulation zones.

 To allow selective access for production/injection control the flow of fluids from, or into, the

reservoirs.

 To provide structural support for wellhead and the BOP’s.

Each string of casing must be carefully designed to withstand the loads expected during the

installation, and production from the well. The designer must carefully analyze the requirement of

an optimum casing design and also bear in mind the cost and availability of it. With use of

computers the designing process has become less complex and quicker. (Department of Petroleum

Engineering, 2015)

Classification of casing

Casing is classified generally as per following:

 Outside diameter of pipe (e.g. 9 5/8”)

 Wall thickness (e.g. 1/2”)

 Grade of material (e.g. N-80)

42
  Type to threads and couplings (e.g. API STC)

 Length of each joint (e.g. Range 3)

 Nominal weight (Avg. wt/ft) (e.g. 47 lb/ft)

Properties of some common grades of steel used for casing

(Sovonex, 2016)

API H40 Carbon steel: Strength characteristics given by normalizing (heat to 1650°F and air

cooling). Suitable for H2S service at all temperatures for tubing’s up to 80,000 lbs minimum yield

strength or for all tubing’s above 175°E

API J55 Carbon steel: Strength characteristics given by normalizing (heat to 1650T and air

cooling). Suitable for H2S service at all temperatures.

API K55 Carbon steel: Strength characteristics given by normalizing (heat to 1650°F and air

cooling). Suitable for H2S service at all temperatures. J and K have the same minimum yield

strength (55,000 psi) but j has an ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of 75,000 psi and K has a UTS

of 95,000 psi. The UTS is what dictates the connection strength and so API gives higher tension

values for K55 pipe. Note that for most other steel grades, the ratio of minimum yield to UTS is

136 but for K55 it is 1,727.

API L80 Carbon steel: Suitable for H2S service at all temperatures.

API LHO 13Cr Alloy steel with 13% chromium: Suitable for COZ service. Susceptible to

handling damage, galling, and work hardening.

API N80 Carbon Steel: Quenched and tempered to produce a fully martensite crystal structure-,

gives higher strength, reduced carbon, and minimizes austenite structure to reduce susceptibility

to sulfide stress corrosion cracking. Suitable for H2S service at temperature over 150 0F. L and N

43
have the same minimum yield strength (80,000 psi) but L has an ultimate tensile strength of 95,000

psi and N has a UTS of 1 10,000 psi. The UTS is what dictates the connection strength and so API

gives higher tension values for N80 pipe.

API C75/QU/Q5 Carbon steel: Quenched and tempered to produce a fully martensitic crystal

structure; gives higher strength, reduced carbon, and minimizes austenite structure to reduce

susceptibility to sulfide stress corrosion cracking. C75 can be used for H2S service at temperatures,

C95 at temperatures over 150 0F.

API P105/110 high strength steel: Suitable for service only above 75°F.

API V150 High strength steel: Minimum yield Stress 150,000 psi not suitable for H2S service.

Casing design process

It involves three distinct operations: the selection of casing sizes and setting depths; investigating

the operational scenarios which will result in burst, collapse and axial loads being applied to the

casing; and finally the calculation of magnitude of these loads and selection of an appropriate

weight and grade of the casing.

Here, we are going to emphasize on the operational scenarios and consequent axial loads on the

casing, its impact on burst and collapse rating of the casing and triaxial loading analysis.

Operations like running the casing, drilling subsequent hole section, and production life of the well

results in radial (burst and collapse) and axial( tensile and compressive) loads on the casing string

. Major axial loads (Tension) has been explained below:

44
The sources of axial loads (Tension)

(Department of Petroleum Engineering, 2015)

W - The dry weight of the casing;

φ - The angle of the borehole;

Ao - the cross sectional area of the outside of the casing;

Ai - the cross sectional area of the inside of the casing;

DLS - the dogleg severity of the well at any point (degrees per foot);

Pi - the surface pressure applied to the I.D. of the casing;

As - the cross sectional area of the pipe body;

DT - the change in temperature at any point in the well

dPi and dPe - the change in internal and external pressure on the casing; and

n - The poissons ratio for the steel.

V - Velocity of casing

Psurf - the pressure applied to the inside of the casing at surface when testing the casing after
bumping the cement plug

(a) Dry weight of Casing (Fwt)

The suspension of a string of casing in a vertical or deviated well will result in an axial load. The

total axial load on the casing (the weight of the casing) in air and can be computed from the

following:

Fwt = W cos f

45
(b) Bending Stress (Fbend)

When designing a casing string in a deviated well the bending stresses must be considered. In

sections of the hole where there are severe dog-legs (sharp bends) the bending stresses should be

checked. The most critical sections are where dog-leg severity exceeds 10° per 100'. The axial load

due to bending can be computed from the following:

Fbend = 64(DLS) OD (W)

(c) Plug Bumping Pressure (Fplug)

The casing will experience an axial load when the cement plug bumps during the cementation

operation. This axial load can be computed from the following:

Fplug = Psurf Ai

(d) Over pull when casing stuck (Fpt)

If the casing becomes stuck when being run in hole it may be necessary to apply an over pull’ on

the casing to get it free. This over pull can be added directly to the axial loads on the casing when

it became stuck:

Fpt = Direct tension

(e) Effects of Changes in Temperature (Ftemp)

When the well has started to produce the casing will be subjected to an increase in temperature

and will therefore expand. Since the casing is restrained at surface by the wellhead and at depth by

the hardened cement, it will experience a compressive (buckling) load. The axial load generated

by an increase in temperature can be computed by the following:

Ftemp = -200 (As) (DT)

46
(f) Over pull to Overcome Buckling Forces (Fop)

When the well has started to produce the casing will be subjected to compressive (buckling) loads

due to the increase in temperature and therefore expansion of the casing. Attempts are often made

to compensate for these buckling loads by applying an over pull to the casing when the cement in

the annulus has hardened. This tensile load (the over pull) is ‘locked into’ the string by using the

slip type hanger. The over pull is added directly to the axial load on the casing when the over pull

is applied.

Fop = Direct over pull

(g) Axial Force Due to Ballooning (During Pressure Testing) (FBal)

If the casing is subjected to a pressure test it will tend to ‘balloon’. Since the casing is restrained

at surface in the wellhead and at depth by the hardened cement, this ballooning will result in an

axial load on the casing. This axial load can be computed from the following:

FBal = 2n (AidPi - AodPe)

(h) Effect of Shock Loading (Fshock)

Whenever the casing is accelerated or decelerated, being run in hole, it will experience a shock

loading. This acceleration and deceleration occurs when setting or unsetting the casing slips or at

the end of the stroke when the casing is being reciprocated during cementing operations. This

shock loading can be computed from the following:

Fshock = 1780 v As

In addition to all these tensile forces created due to axial loads, we also have compression forces

created due to axial loads namely buoyant forces and some shock loads.

47
(i) Buoyant Force on Casing (Fbuoy)

When submerged in a liquid the casing will be subjected to a compressive axial load. This is

generally termed the buoyant force and can be computed from the following:

Fbuoy = Pe (Ao - Ai) open ended casing

Fbuoy = Pe Ao - PiAi closed ended casing

The total axial load during installation and subsequent works could be a combination of the loads

summarized above. The objective is to determine the maximum axial load on the casing when

different operational scenarios are considered. Note that tensile forces are considered to be positive

and compressive loads are considered to be negative.

Free Running of Casing:

Ft = Fwt - Fbuoy + Fbend

Running Casing taking account of Shock Loading:

Ft = Fwt - Fbuoy + Fbend + Fshock

Stuck Casing

Ft = Fwt - Fbuoy + Fbend + Fpt

Cementing Casing:

Ft = Fwt - Fbuoy + Fbend + Fplug + Fshock

When cemented and additional over pull is applied (‘As Cemented Base Case’):

Ftbase = Fwt - Fbuoy + Fbend + Fplug +Fpt

During Drilling and Production the total axial load Ft is

Ft = Ftbase +Fbal + Ftemp

48
Appendix-2: Von Mises Ellipse

49
Appendix-3: D/t ratio for elastic collapse mode

50
Appendix-4: D/t ratio for plastic collapse mode

51
Appendix-5: D/t ratio for Transition mode

52
Appendix-6: Burst and Collapse Curve

53
Appendix-7: Von Mises Burst Yield Calculation Method

Burst Strength Equation from Von Mises

We assume no external pressure for the calculation of burst yield. If we denote axial stress as σa,

hoop stress σh and radial stress σr, then from thick-walled analytical results:

𝐹
𝜎𝑎 = 𝜋 … … … . (1)
× (𝑂𝐷 2 − 𝐼𝐷 2 )
4

𝑃𝑖 × (𝑂𝐷2 + 𝐼𝐷2 )
𝜎ℎ = … … … (2)
(𝑂𝐷2 − 𝐼𝐷2 )

𝜎𝑟 = 𝑃𝑖 … … … … … … … … … … (3)

Where 𝑃𝑖 is the internal pressure, F is the tension force (weight here), ID is the tubing inner

diameter and OD is the outer diameter. Substituting (1) - (3) into the following Von Mises criterion

(𝜎𝑎 − 𝜎ℎ )2 + (𝜎ℎ − 𝜎𝑟 )2 + (𝜎𝑟 − 𝜎𝑎 )2 = 2𝑆𝑦 2 … (4)

We get:

𝜎𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑡
𝑃𝑖 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑡 = … … … … … … … … . . (6)
2 × (𝐵 2 + 𝐵 + 1)

And,

𝜎𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑡 = (𝐵 − 1) ± √𝜎𝑎 2 × (𝐵 − 1)2 + 4 × (𝐵 2 + 𝐵 + 1) × (𝑆𝑦 2 − 𝜎𝑎 2 ) … … (5)

Where B = (𝑂𝐷2 + 𝐼𝐷2 )/(𝑂𝐷2 − 𝐼𝐷2 ), Sy is the yield strength. We should ignore the negative

sign in (5) because it is physically insignificant. So, from the positive root, we can get the burst

yield equation.

54
Substitute the values of Axial load ‘F’ and find axial stress 𝜎𝑎 from equation (1),

𝑈𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝜎𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑦 , 𝜎𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑠 is found from equation (5) and is substituted in equation (6) to

find the burst yield pressure 𝑃𝑖 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑡 .

55
Appendix-8: Analysis result from industry software

56
Appendix 9: Analysis result from industry software

57