SPE/IADC-173069-MS

Casing Collapse Strength Enhancement Due to Cement and Pipe Support

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

via Modelling and Testing
Peggy Jammer, Hari Hariharan, and Frans J. Klever, Shell

Copyright 2015, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in London, United Kingdom, 17–19 March 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling
Contractors, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors is 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 acknowledgment of SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
The API 5C3 collapse strength formulas are widely used in the industry for casing design. While these
formulas provide estimates of the collapse resistance of pipe alone, they do not consider the supporting
effect of cement sheath, outer steel pipes, or formation. Given the increasing complexity of the industry’s
wells, as well as the importance of safety, the ability to accurately assess a well’s risk is becoming more
and more important. This study aims to facilitate such a reliability-based design approach by investigating
the collapse strength of a pipe-cement-pipe system.
A finite-element analysis (FEA) model was developed and used to analyze collapse behavior for
various configurations and loading scenarios: casing only, or casing cemented into casing; possibly
incomplete cementing scenarios; loading by annular pressure and/or external pressure; collapsing the
inner pipe, outer pipe or the composite. The FEA results were benchmarked against a full-scale
experimental program.
5
The study focused on an 11 ¾ in. 65 lb/ft P-110 HC casing cemented into a 13 8 in. 88.2 lb/ft Q-125
casing, and the results clearly and consistently indicated the supporting effect of the cement sheath in
providing improved collapse resistance of the casing (even with varying degrees of void in the cement).
Experimental results showed an increase over the pipe-only collapse strength of about 60% (pipe-cement-
pipe, annular pressure collapsing the inner pipe) or about 260% (pipe-cement-pipe, external pressure
collapsing the composite pipe), for a perfectly cemented condition. The FEA results tracked the
experimental values of pressures with a satisfactory degree of accuracy, while evaluating loss of collapse
strength enhancement as the cement void angle increased.
The procedures and results presented in this paper may be used to assess the true risk of collapse of
casings deeper in the well under worst case discharge (WCD) conditions.

Introduction
The API 5C3 (2008) historical equations for minimum collapse strength provide a conservative estimate
of the collapse resistance of casing; the API document also lists equations for average collapse strength
that aim to predict true collapse (matching actual test data). The margin between the design (or minimum)
collapse strength and the average collapse strength is on the order of 20-25% and thus the design strength
2 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

equations provide an inherent factor of safety. Importantly, these equations do not address the supporting
effect of cement or steel, outward or inward of the pipe that is being analyzed. This paper documents the
process undertaken through limited experimentation, combined with development of a calibrated finite-
element analysis (FEA) tool, to more accurately estimate the collapse strength of such pipe-cement-pipe
systems. Such a tool may be used to facilitate a reliability-based design approach for casing deeper in the
well that may encounter severe collapse loading under a worst case discharge event.
A number of analytical and experimental approaches to the collapse strength of pipe-cement-pipe

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

systems have been published. Marx and El-Sayed (1985) presented analyses and tests on cemented
5
combinations of 5 in. into 7 in. and 9 8 in. into 13 3⁄8 in. casing under uniform external pressure loading.
Additionally, El-Sayed and Khalaf (1987) conducted analyses and tests on cemented combinations of 7
5
in. and 9 8 in. casing under uniform internal and external pressure loading. They found the collapse
strength of the composite system to increase substantially above the sum of the collapse resistances of the
individual pipes; the importance of cement quality and stiffness were also addressed. El-Sayed and Khalaf
(1992) show that a composite pipe-cement-pipe system is a particularly robust configuration under
non-uniform pressure loading. In these papers, the casings were assumed to be geometrically perfect and
behaving elastically. Collapse was defined as the pressure where the stress in either pipe body reached the
yield stress of the pipe material.
Pattillo et al. (1995) presented a comprehensive analytical and FEA assessment of the collapse
resistance of a pipe-cement-pipe system (5 in. into 7 in.) under both uniform external pressure and local
line loading. Their model accounted for pipe imperfections and non-linear steel and cement material
behavior. Collapse was defined as the maximum pressure occurring in the load-displacement response.
They considered the primary advantage of the composite string being to combat the ovalization of the
string due to non-uniform loading; the effect of incomplete cementing was also analyzed.
This paper presents the collapse behavior results from the developed FEA tool for various loading of
casing only and casing (concentrically, eccentrically or partially) cemented into casing. In particular, the
following pressure scenarios were considered: external pressure and/or pressure in the annulus; leading to
collapsing the inner pipe, outer pipe or the pipe-cement-pipe composite. The FEA results were bench-
marked against a full-scale experimental program.
In the following sections, the experiments are described (section 2), the analysis is presented (section
3) and the results are discussed (section 4). The paper ends with a number of conclusions and
recommendations.

Experimental Program
An experimental program was designed to conduct collapse testing on individual pipe specimens and
pipe-cement-pipe specimens. The pipes considered were 11-¾ in. 65 lb/ft P-110 High Collapse (HC)
5
casing and 13 8 in. 88.2 lb/ft Q-125 casing. Pipe-cement-pipe specimens were made by cementing
5
measured lengths of 11 ¾ in. casing into 13 8 in. casing in both concentric and eccentric configurations.
Measurements on each pipe specimen were performed as per API 5C3 Annex I.
The experimental program was divided into three phases. Phase 1 constituted collapse tests on casing
pipes separately (“Pipe Only”) to provide a set of reference values for the collapse strengths of both casing
sizes. In Phase 2, pipe-cement-pipe systems were loaded by combined external pressure and annulus
5
pressure, simulating pressure migration into the cemented annulus between the 11 ¾ in. and 13 8 in.
casings (“Annular Pressure”). Finally, in Phase 3, pipe-cement-pipe systems were treated as a composite
5
and loaded by external pressure only, on the outside of the 13 8 in. outer casing (“External Pressure”).
Pipe specimen measurements
The casings used for the experimental program were acquired from a pipe distributor and came from one
manufacturer. The casing joints were cut into a number of collapse test specimens with lengths between
SPE/IADC-173069-MS 3

7 and 8 ft. For each collapse test specimen, detailed geometry information (outer diameter, wall thickness,
ovality, eccentricity) was measured. For each casing joint, material properties (yield stress, ultimate
tensile stress, residual stress) were measured. The entire test program comprised nine casing joints and
twenty six collapse test specimens. The data is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1—Geometry and material data for each of the pipe test joints

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

The outer diameter (OD) was measured using a pi tape, and the ovality (OV) with an ovality gauge,
at five locations over the specimen length. The wall-thickness (WT) was measured using an ultrasonic
device, taking eight measurements at 45-degree intervals around the circumference at each of these five
locations, allowing calculation of the eccentricity (EC) from the measured data.
Four tensile test samples were obtained at 90-degree intervals from a pipe ring taken out of each casing
joint. Figure 1 shows the measured yield stress (YS) and ultimate tensile stress (UTS) of each of the
eighteen casing joints, nine each for 11 ¾ in. and 13 85 in. Also for each casing joint, residual stress was
measured using the split-ring method.
4 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 1—Yield-Stress and Ultimate Tensile-Stress measured for each of the casing joints

Pipe Only
For each of the 11 ¾ in. and 13 85 in. casing sizes, five collapse specimens were tested. The results are
shown in Table 2. These collapse tests were conducted to obtain accurate collapse pressure values for the
pipes alone and also to provide a reference data set to calibrate the finite-element model described below
in section 3. A schematic of the test set-up is shown in Figure 2.

Table 2—API 5C3 minimum and average collapse strength, manufacturer guaranteed rating (MTR), and collapse test results for the
Pipe Only case

Figure 2—Set-up for the Pipe Only collapse tests

SPE/IADC-173069-MS 5

A typical pressure versus time response curve for a collapse test is shown in Figure 3. The sudden loss
of pressure indicates that the specimen has reached a maximum loading point beyond which the pipe
ovalisation deformation increases very fast.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 3—Typical pressure versus time response in a Pipe Only test

For the five samples of 11 ¾ in. casing tested, the collapse pressure varied between 6,250 and 6,540
psi with an average of 6,378 psi and a standard deviation of 111 psi. This test average is very close to the
API 5C3 average collapse strength of 6,449 psi, and it is 11% above the minimum of 5,740 psi guaranteed
by the manufacturer for this high collapse product.
5
Similarly for the 13 8 in. casing, the collapse pressure varied between 7,070 and 7,780 psi with an
average value of 7,457 psi and a standard deviation of 313 psi. The API 5C3 average collapse strength
for this casing is 6,637 psi which is 11% below the test average.

Pipe-Cement-Pipe system
5
For the pipe-cement-pipe system tests, the annulus between the 11 ¾ in. and 13 8 in. casings was filled
with Class H cement that was mixed in batches for each sample and poured manually. Each sample was
allowed to cure for 10 days. Complete cure for transportation to the collapse testing facilities was checked
offline on cement samples utilizing a consistometer for compressive strength as a function of time.
Compressive strength was typically found around 4,500 psi.
As shown in Figure 4, for the pipe-cement-pipe system two different sets of tests were done, called
“Annular Pressure” and “External Pressure”, respectively. For the annular pressure condition (left side in
Figure 4), the cap flange was fitted on the inner casing and the entire set up installed inside the pressure
vessel. This allowed for the pressure fluid (water) not only to load the outside of the outer casing, but also
to contact the cement and pressurize throughout the annulus. This leads to failure of the inner casing, i.e.
to annular collapse. Alternatively, for the external pressure condition (right side in Figure 4), the cap
flange was fitted on the outer casing and the entire set-up installed inside the pressure vessel. This
configuration prevented the pressure fluid from contacting the cement and contained it to the outside of
the outer casing. This leads to failure of both casings: for very incomplete cementing the outer casing
failed first and often crushed the inner casing (cascading collapse), whereas for complete cementing both
pipes failed together (composite collapse).
6 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 4 —Test Set-up for Annular Pressure (left side) and External Pressure (right side)

The various fixtures were assembled and constructed with varying degrees of cement void. The angle
of the void indicated is the amount of degrees in the circumferential direction of the sample for which the
entire length of the annulus was kept ‘void’ by substituting elastomer strips in place of cement (see Figure
5). This was done to evaluate the effect of an incomplete cement job.

Figure 5—Pipe-Cement-Pipe – Annular Pressure: post mortem picture of the 60 degrees cement void in test 7

Annular Pressure The Phase 2 tests consisted of 11 ¾ in. and 13 85 in. casings with a cement sheath in
between, loaded by both external and annulus pressure as per the left side in Figure 4. For eleven tests,
specimens were prepared such that the 11 ¾ in. was concentric with respect to the 13 85 in. The variable
in the tests was the circumferential extent of cement expressed in cement void degrees, ranging from fully
cemented (0 degree void) to largely uncemented (300 degree void). One test was conducted in an eccentric
configuration, with the inner casing just touching the outer casing at the beginning of the test. The results
are shown in Table 3.
SPE/IADC-173069-MS 7

Table 3—Collapse test results for the Annular Pressure case

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

For all Annular Pressure tests the mode of failure was collapse of the inner casing. For the complete
cement case, there was no difference in collapse pressure found between the concentric sample and the
eccentric sample. The fully cemented 11 ¾ in. casing collapsed at a pressure of 10,390 psi, which was
63% higher than the average collapse pressure of 6,378 psi measured for the 11 ¾ in. pipe alone. Two
samples (one repeat) were tested for each of the 15 degree, 60 degree and 100 degree cases, and the results
showed a particularly large difference in collapse pressure between the two 60 degree samples. For cement
void angles above 100 degree the collapse pressure of the inner casing reduced significantly below the
collapse strengths for lower void angles, with the strength decreasing to 7,240 psi for 300 degrees.
5
External Pressure The Phase 3 tests comprised similar 11 ¾ in. and 13 8 in. casings cemented as a
composite unit, as per the right side in Figure 4. In this manner it was possible to apply the collapse
5
pressure to the outside of the 13 8 in. casing with the unit behaving as a composite with no possibility for
the collapse pressure to be transmitted to the cement or between the casings. Eight tests were conducted
with a range of different cement void angles. Two fully cemented (0 degree void) samples were prepared,
one with a concentric placement of the two casings and the other with a fully eccentric placement. The
results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 —Collapse test results for the External Pressure case

For all External Pressure tests the mode of failure was collapse of the composite pipe-cement-pipe
system. For large cement void angles, cascading collapse occurred where the outer casing collapsed first,
and then hit and crushed the inner pipe at pressures lower than the collapse pressure of the outer pipe. The
8 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

collapse pressure of the fully cemented eccentric sample (24,730 psi) was found below that of the
concentric sample (26,830 psi). The collapse strength of the fully cemented composite system was
5
measured about 3.6 times as high as the collapse strength of the 13 8 in. outer casing. For cement void
angles up to about 100 degrees, the composite collapse strength reduced strongly as a function of void
angle, with a much milder reduction observed for larger void angles, reaching 7,720 psi for 300 degrees.

Numerical Analysis

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

To facilitate the process of data input and results output associated with finite-element analysis (FEA) of
casing collapse, a dedicated plug-in was developed for a commercial FEA software package. This plug-in
presented input panes specifically designed for analyzing the collapse resistance for a variety of
configuration and loading options. This approach made it possible to hide for the user the intricacies of
the numerical details associated with a successful and accurate non-linear collapse analysis, and instead
interact with the user only concerning pipe, cement and loading data.
In this paper, analysis results are presented for three specific configurations:
1. Pipe Only A single elastic-plastic pipe.
2. Pipe-Cement-Pipe, Annular Pressure Two elastic-plastic pipes with a cement layer in between.
The cement layer can have an angular void sector. Pressure is applied to the outer diameter of the
outer pipe, as well as to the cemented annular region. Either a bond or a micro-annulus has been
assumed between the cement and the pipes. The inner pipe collapses alone, but receives circum-
ferential support from the surrounding cement.
3. Pipe-Cement-Pipe, External Pressure Two elastic-plastic pipes with a cement layer in between.
The cement layer can have an angular void sector. Pressure is applied to the outer diameter of the
outer pipe. Given the annulus is adequately filled with cement, the outer and inner pipe act as a
composite system.
Model Details
The analysis was performed within the context of a generalized plane strain, two-dimensional model.
Assuming an X-Y coordinate system in the cross-section plane, symmetry was assumed about the Y ⫽
0 plane. The inside and outside perimeters of each casing were taken to have an elliptical shape, thus
allowing the initial geometry of the pipe to include possible pipe ovality OV ⫽ (ODmax – ODmin) / ODave
and/or eccentricity EC ⫽ (WTmax – WTmin) / WTave in terms of pipe outside diameter OD and pipe wall
thickness WT, respectively. Care was taken to ensure that pipe ovality was modelled by choosing the
elliptical geometries of both the inner and outer pipe perimeters such that the steel cross-sectional area was
preserved for any value of ovality. Pipe eccentricity was idealized as a lateral shift of the pipe inside
perimeter.
For the Pipe-Cement-Pipe configurations, cement was assumed to exactly fill the clearance between
the inner and outer casings. Possibly incomplete cementing was idealized as a lack of cement over a given
circumferential extent defined by a cement void angle. These configurations can also consider the offset
of the inner pipe axis relative to that of the outer pipe axis, thus allowing analyzing the difference between
concentric and eccentric placement of the two pipes. A Coulomb friction factor of 0.3 was assumed for
the interfaces between the cement and the inner and outer casings.
For the steel pipes, a linearly elastic, von Mises plasticity model was applied, defined by the Young’s
modulus (30,000 ksi), Poisson’s ratio (0.28), and the yield stress versus plastic strain hardening curve. For
the analyses reported in this paper, the P-110 and Q-125 materials were taken as sharp-kneed (ideal
plasticity).
For the cement material, a linear elastic, extended Drucker-Prager model with non-hardening hyper-
bolic shear failure was used, defined by the Young’s Modulus (1,000 ksi), Poisson’s ratio (0.15), friction
angle in von Mises equivalent stress Q versus mean compressive stress P coordinates (57.5 degrees),
SPE/IADC-173069-MS 9

initial hydrostatic tension strength (100 psi), uniaxial compressive strength (4,300 psi), and dilation angle
(20 degrees). The shear failure model parameters were based on triaxial compressive tests on cement
samples (see Figure 6).

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 6 —Extended Drucker-Prager shear failure model for cement

The casings and the cement were taken to be in a state of initial stress, caused by the combined effects
of casing weight, pressures and temperature at the particular depth in the well of interest. Each casing was
given the appropriate initial axial force. Initial values for the internal pressure inside the inner casing, the
annular pressure, and the external pressure outside the outer casing were defined, leading to circumfer-
ential and radial pipe stresses consistent with the Lamé equations. The initial hydrostatic stress in the
cement and the pressure in any cement void were taken equal to the initial annular pressure.
A linear-over-the-wall residual stress pattern was also defined for each pipe, as an initial bending stress
at its inside diameter (ID) as found from a split-ring test (see e.g. API 5C3 Annex I).
Finally, a number of possible collapse loading events were defined, such as decreasing/increasing the
internal pressure pi, annular pressure pa, external pressure pe, etc. The default approach was to assume a
micro-annulus between the cement and the casings, and therefore the annular pressure was also applied
to the outside of the inner pipe, the outside of the cement, and the inside of the outer pipe.
The pressure versus deformation response curves of these configurations (both Pipe Only and
Pipe-Cement-Pipe) featured a maximum pressure differential beyond which snap-through occurred to a
deformed stable state (see Figure 7), consistent with the wealth of knowledge about collapse (see e.g.
Kyriakides and Yeh (1985), Kyriakides and Corona (2007)). This pressure differential maximum was
defined as the collapse strength.
10 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 7—Typical pressure – inward deflection response for a pipe under external pressure

Numerical Simulations
The FEA tool was used to analyze the three tested configurations. To maintain consistency with the test
lab setups, the initial values of pipe axial force, internal pressure, annular pressure and external pressure
were taken at zero.
Pipe Only For the Pipe Only configuration, a uniform pressure was applied to the outer perimeter of the
pipe. In Table 5, the FEA predicted collapse strengths of the ten tested casing specimens are listed. For
each specimen, the measured outer diameter OD, wall thickness WT, ovality OV, eccentricity EC and yield
stress YS were used in the analysis. The residual stress RS was taken as zero.

Table 5—FEA simulation of the Pipe Only collapse tests

The average of the FEA collapse pressures of the 11 ¾ in. casing test samples was 6,307 psi, which
was very close to the test average. However, for the 13 85 in. casing test samples, the 6,763 psi average of
the FEA collapse pressures was found about 9% below the test average.
Pipe-Cement-Pipe - Annular Pressure For the Pipe-Cement-Pipe – Annular Pressure configuration, a
uniform pressure was simultaneously applied to the outer perimeter of the outer pipe and to the annulus.
Two situations were analyzed: (1) a micro-annulus was assumed to exist between the cement and the pipes
allowing the pressure to propagate throughout the annulus (see Figure 8), or (2) the cement was assumed
bonded to the pipes, containing the annular pressure entirely to the cement void (see Figure 9).
SPE/IADC-173069-MS 11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 8 —FEA pressure loading (indicated by arrows) for the Pipe-Cement-Pipe – Annular Pressure configuration when assuming
micro-annuli between cement and casings

Figure 9 —FEA pressure loading (indicated by arrows) for the Pipe-Cement-Pipe – Annular Pressure configuration when assuming the
cement is bonded to the casings

In contrast with the Pipe Only collapse, a sensitivity analysis demonstrated that for these particular
pipe-cement-pipe configurations the effect of deviations from nominal values of outer diameter OD, wall
thickness WT, ovality OV, eccentricity EC and residual stress RS on collapse strength was not very strong.
Therefore the analyses were performed with nominal OD and WT, and with OV ⫽ 0.2%, EC ⫽ 5% and
RS ⫽ 0. The influence of yield stress YS was found to be significant, but the first set of analyses presented
in this paper was performed with nominal YS. Analyses were run for several cement void angles, ranging
from zero degrees (complete cement sheath) to 360 degrees (no cement), both with and without the
micro-annuli. Numerical results are given in Table 6, with empty cells denoting that analyses for those
particular cement void angles were not performed. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the failure mechanisms for
the micro-annulus case and the bonded case, respectively.

Table 6 —FEA simulation of the Pipe-Cement-Pipe – Annular Pressure collapse tests, assuming either micro-annuli between cement
and casings (third column) or bonded cement/casing interfaces (fourth column)
12 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 10 —Failure mechanism of a completely cemented pipe-cement-pipe system under combined external pressure and annular
pressure with assumed micro-annuli between cement and casings

Figure 11—Failure mechanism of a partially cemented pipe-cement-pipe system under combined external pressure and annular
pressure in the 90 degrees cement void with bonded cement/casing interfaces

Pipe-Cement-Pipe - External Pressure For the Pipe-Cement-Pipe – External Pressure configuration, a

uniform pressure was applied to the outer perimeter of the outer pipe (see Figure 12), evaluating the
collapse strength of the pipe-cement-pipe system as a composite. Analyses were run for several cement
void angles, ranging from zero degrees (complete cement sheath) to 360 degrees (no cement). Numerical
results are given in Table 7. Figures 13 and 14 illustrate the failure mechanisms for cement voids of 30
degrees and 100 degrees, respectively.

Figure 12—FEA pressure loading (indicated by arrows) for the Pipe-Cement-Pipe – External Pressure configuration
SPE/IADC-173069-MS 13

Table 7—FEA simulation of the Pipe-Cement-Pipe – External Pressure collapse tests

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 13—Failure mechanism of a pipe-cement-pipe system under external pressure with a 30 degrees cement void

Figure 14 —Failure mechanism of a pipe-cement-pipe system under external pressure with a 100 degrees cement void

Discussion
The experimental program for collapse of Pipe Only and Pipe-Cement-Pipe configurations with either the
inner pipe collapsing under annular pressure or the system collapsing as a composite under external
pressure, delivered results that have been analyzed with the FEA model.

Pipe Only
The collapse results of all the Pipe Only samples are shown in Figures 15 and 16 for the 11 ¾ in. 65 lb/ft
P-110 HC and 13 85 in. 88.2 lb/ft Q-125 casings, respectively. The FEA model was able to predict the test
results accurately for the 11 ¾ in. casing, but was predicting consistently too low for the 13 85 in. casing.
14 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

3
Figure 15—Pipe Only: Test and FEA results for collapse of the 11 in. 65 lb/ft P-110 HC pipe specimens
4

5
Figure 16 —Pipe Only: Test and FEA results for collapse of the 13 in. 88.2 lb/ft Q-125 pipe specimens
8

The average of the FEA collapse pressures of the 11 ¾ in. casing test samples was 6,307 psi which was
very close to the test average of 6,378 psi. Moreover, these values were very close to the API 5C3 average
collapse strength of 6,449 psi and, in that sense, this 11 ¾ in. casing product performed as expected. The
KT collapse equation (see Klever and Tamano (2006)) with parameters as given in API 5C3 Annex F
predicted an average collapse strength of 6,257 psi. The manufacturer marked this casing as a high
collapse (HC) product with guaranteed minimum collapse strength of 5,740 psi (which is higher than
either the API 5C3 minimum collapse strength of 4,476 psi or the KT design strength of 4,547 psi) and
this was consistent with the relatively low scatter found between the specimens.
5
For the 13 8 in. casing test samples, however, the average FEA collapse pressure of 6,763 psi and the
API 5C3 average collapse strength of 6,637 psi (KT average strength is 6,613 psi) were about 10% below
5
the test average of 7,457 psi. The scatter between the test specimens of this 13 8 in. casing product was
considerable, but the API 5C3 minimum collapse strength of 4,801 psi (KT design strength is 4,802 psi)
was easily achieved.
Pipe-Cement-Pipe – Annular Pressure
The collapse results of the 11 concentric annular collapse experiments are plotted in Figure 17, along with
the FEA results, for varying degrees of cement void. The solid (green) dots indicate the test results. The
SPE/IADC-173069-MS 15

lower (dark blue) line represents the predicted collapse strength of the inner casing for varying degrees
of cement void, with the annular pressure allowed to propagate 360 degrees around, between the cement
and casings. Likewise, the upper (light blue) line represents the predicted collapse strength of the inner
casing for varying degrees of cement void, but with the annular pressure contained to the open area of the
cement void with no pressure propagation between cement and casings. The straight (orange) line
represents the collapse baseline for the FEA-predicted collapse of the 11 ¾ in. inner casing alone (as run
in the Pipe Only configuration).

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

3
Figure 17—Pipe-Cement-Pipe – Annular Pressure: Test and FEA results for collapse of the 11 in. 65 lb/ft P-110 HC inner casing
4

For the completely cemented 11 ¾ in. casing test, the collapse strength increased about 60% from the
experimentally measured average collapse strength of the individual casing of 6,378 psi to 10,389 psi. For
smaller cement void angles this increased collapse strength was more or less maintained, but it decreased
clearly for void angles above 100 degrees.
Two tests each were performed for the 15, 60 and 100 degrees cement void samples, with varying
results. These samples had the same cement composition and were prepared, as well as cured, under
similar conditions. The test results for the 15 degrees void were 10,356 psi and 10,338 psi, for the 60
degrees void were 8,995 psi and 11,133 psi, and for the 100 degrees void were 10,106 psi and 10,857 psi.
The two results for the 15 degrees void were almost identical, and there was a difference between the two
100 degrees samples that seemed to fall within the regular scatter range. However, there was a very
substantial difference between the two 60 degrees samples. The collapse test samples were cut open after
testing for examination and it was observed that the location of collapse was in line with the cement void
area for the samples with the higher collapse values, while the location of collapse for the samples with
the lower collapse values were about 90 degrees from the void area.
For the most part, the test results fell between the two FEA prediction curves. This could indicate that
these test samples may have had varying degrees of micro-annulus and pressure propagation between the
cement and casings. Note that the FEA was done with nominal values for the yield stress of the casings;
the prediction curves are expected to move upwards when actual yield stress are used.
Assuming a micro-annulus exists, the FEA showed the maximum collapse strength enhancement is
maintained provided any cement voids are limited to about 30 degrees. For larger void angles the collapse
strength linearly decreased to almost its pipe-only strength at a void angle of about 100 degrees. At larger
void angles, the collapse strength remained constant at a level just above that of the 11 ¾ in. casing alone.
That small collapse strength enhancement was caused by the fact that even a small patch of cement
16 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

restrained the ovalization deflection of the casing where the major axis of the deforming elliptical shape
contacted both the cement on one side and the outer casing at the opposite side.
For annular pressures assumed to only act in the cement void, the FEA predicted a more complicated
relationship between collapse strength and cement void angle. For small angles, the pressure in the void
exerts a local crushing force onto the inner casing and thus the critical crushing pressure is inversely
proportional to the circumferential area (and hence cement void angle) it is acting upon. The mode of
failure was such that the middle of the cement void was pushed inward (see Figure 11). For increasing

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

cement void angle, the radially directed annular pressure increasingly resists this inward deflection of the
inner casing, and this caused the collapse strength to increase as a function of void angle. However, for
cement void angles larger than about 120 degrees, the failure mechanism changed to the mode shown in
Figure 18, after which point the collapse strength steadily decreased again as the void angle increased.

Figure 18 —Failure mechanism of a partially cemented pipe-cement-pipe system under combined external pressure and annular
pressure in the 150 degrees cement void with bonded cement/casing interfaces

Pipe-Cement-Pipe – External Pressure

The collapse results of the 8 concentric composite collapse experiments are plotted in Figure 19, along
with the FEA results, for varying degrees of cement void. The solid (green) dots indicate the test results.
The solid (dark blue) line represents the predicted collapse strength of the pipe-cement-pipe system treated
as a composite, for varying degrees of cement void, as a result of increasing external pressure applied at
the outside of the 13 85 in. casing. There was no annular pressure. The straight (red) line represents the
collapse baseline for the FEA-predicted collapse of the 13 85 in. outer casing alone (as run in the Pipe Only
configuration).
SPE/IADC-173069-MS 17

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

Figure 19 —Pipe-Cement-Pipe – External Pressure: Test and FEA results for collapse of the composite system of an 11 43 in. 65 lb/ft P-110
HC casing cemented inside a 13 85 in. 88.2 lb/ft Q-125 casing

For the completely cemented (no cement void) pipe-cement-pipe system test, the collapse strength
increased about 260% to 26,826 psi, compared to the experimentally measured average collapse strength
5
of 7,457 psi for the individual 13 8 in. casing. However, the collapse strength decreased sharply as a
function of cement void angle, to 10,106 psi for the 100 degree void test. Above about 100 degrees the
sensitivity to cement void angle became more gradual.
The FEA results matched the experiments well. For small cement voids, the predicted collapse strength
of the composite system was significantly enhanced over both the Pipe Only and Pipe-Cement-Pipe -
Annular Pressure configurations. For a completely cemented system the FEA predicted a collapse strength
of the composite system of 24,659 psi. As the cement void was introduced and increased, the collapse
strength decreased at a consistent rate until about 70 degrees (10,505 psi), at which point it continued to
decrease, but at a much slower rate, down to 7,016 psi at 350 degrees void, which is just above the strength
5
of the 13 8 in. casing alone. Again, this indicated that as long as some cement support exists, there would
be a minimal increase in collapse strength.
Notable in the FEA predicted response was the increase in the collapse resistance at cement void angles
around 200 degrees. This has been attributed to changes in the failure mechanism observed in the
simulations. Between 0 and 40 degrees the system failed in the mode shown in Figure 13, between 40 and
200 degrees the mode of failure was such as in Figure 14, while for angles above 200 degrees the
mechanism switched to that of Figure 13 again.

Conclusions and Recommendations

● A study was performed on the collapse strength of an 11 ¾ in. 65 lb/ft P-110 HC casing cemented
5
into a 13 8 in. 88.2 lb/ft Q-125 casing, where the collapse pressure was introduced either in the
annulus between the two pipes or on the outside of the outer pipe. Results of experiments and
finite-element analyses (FEA) were presented.
● The results showed an increase over the pipe-only collapse strength of about 60% (pipe-cement-
pipe, annular pressure collapsing the inner pipe) or about 260% (pipe-cement-pipe, external
pressure collapsing the composite pipe), for a perfectly cemented condition.
● The effect of incomplete cementing was investigated, characterized by a void in the cement over
a given circumferential angle. A substantial enhancement of collapse strength by the cement and
the second pipe is only realized if any cement void is smaller than a quarter of the circumference.
18 SPE/IADC-173069-MS

● The FEA results tracked the experimental pressures with a satisfactory degree of accuracy, while
evaluating loss of collapse strength enhancement as the cement void angle increased.
● For the annular collapse situation, it was shown that the possible existence of a micro-annulus
between the cement and the casings has a detrimental effect on collapse strength. For design
purposes, it may be prudent to assume such a micro-annulus is present.
● The FEA for the pipe-cement-pipe systems has been done with nominal values for the yield stress
of the casings. It is recommended to develop an additional set of results using the actual measured

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

(average) yield stress.
● The cement has been taken the same for all cases, valid for ambient temperature. It would be
interesting to study the influence of cement properties on the collapse strength of pipe-cement-pipe
systems.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Shell International Exploration and Production for supporting the release of this
paper. Further gratitude is extended to John Coles and team at the Shell Gasmer Prototype Facility for all
sample preparation and measurements, to James Heathman and team for cement advice, and to John
Golden for managing this project.

Nomenclature
API ⫽ American Petroleum Institute
ave ⫽ average
deg ⫽ degree
EC ⫽ eccentricity, (WTmax–WTmin) / WTave
FEA ⫽ finite-element analysis
ft ⫽ foot, ft⫽12 in
HC ⫽ high collapse
ID ⫽ inside diameter
in ⫽ inch
ksi ⫽ kilopound-force per square inch, ksi⫽1000 psi
lb ⫽ pound
max ⫽ maximum
min ⫽ minimum
MTR ⫽ Mill Test Report
OD ⫽ outside diameter
OV ⫽ ovality, (ODmax–ODmin) / ODave
P ⫽ mean compressive stress
pa ⫽ annular pressure
pe ⫽ external pressure
pi ⫽ internal pressure
psi ⫽ pound-force per square inch
Q ⫽ von Mises equivalent stress
R ⫽ pipe mid-wall radius
RS ⫽ residual stress
sd ⫽ standard deviation
UTS ⫽ ultimate tensile stress
w ⫽ inward radial displacement
WCD ⫽ worst case discharge, www.boem.gov
SPE/IADC-173069-MS 19

WT ⫽ wall thickness
YS ⫽ yield stress
# ⫽ weight in lb/ft

References
1. API 5C3 (2008). Technical report on equations and calculations for casing, tubing, and line pipe
used as casing or tubing; and performance properties tables for casing and tubing, API TR 5C3,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/15DC/3-15DC/D031S018R002/1449051/spe-173069-ms.pdf by Universidad de America Bogota user on 10 March 2023

1st edition, December 2008.
2. El-Sayed, A.H. and Khalaf, F. (1987). Effect of Internal Pressure and Cement Strength on the
Resistance of Concentric Casing Strings, SPE paper 15708, SPE Middle East Oil Show, Manama,
Bahrain, March 7-10, 1987.
3. El-Sayed, A.H. and Khalaf, F. (1992). Resistance of Cemented Concentric Casing Strings Under
Non-uniform Loading, SPE Drilling Engineering, March 1992, pp. 59 –64.
4. Marx, C. and El-Sayed, A.H. (1985). Evaluation of Collapse Strength of Cemented Pipe-in-Pipe
Casing Strings, SPE/IADC paper 13432, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, March
6-8, 1985.
5. Klever, F.J. and Tamano, T. (2006). A new OCTG strength equation for collapse under combined
loads, SPE paper 90904, SPE Drilling & Completion, September 2006, pp. 164 –179.
6. Kyriakides, S. and Corona, E. (2007). Mechanics of offshore pipelines. Volume 1: Buckling and
collapse, Elsevier, Oxford, England
7. Kyriakides, S. and Yeh, M.K. (1985). Factors affecting pipe collapse, Engineering Mechanics
Research Report 85/1, Dep. of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, The Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA.
8. Pattillo, P., Moschovidis, Z.A., and Lal, M. (1995). An Evaluation of Concentric Casing for
Nonuniform Load Applications, SPE paper 29232, SPE Drilling & Completion, September 1995,
pp. 186 –192.