.
New Technique Improves Steam Stimulation
F. CONRAD GREER
S. H. SHRYCIC!(
MEMBERS AIME
Abstract
Pr[M/uc/[,m s[inudari[n~ by s/emn injec/ion has ctwa/ed
tnany se verv well pvobletns, bolil before and after .s[eatn
ing. A cotnple~iott /cchniq//e has been developed that
nrinimi:e.r t jr dificultier freqr(etrlly associated wi(h high
lctnperalure in jccli(m, such as casing failure, cement fail-
ure. cement bond hreakclown, and sloughing OJ jornmrions
in uncemented upper segtnen ts of the hole,
A ca.iiug de~ign pr(tcedare is presented. information is
given on the material con~po,ritions enlpluyed to resirt the
.srre.ws and strains of intermittent pressare and heat ex-
p{,.sure. Field da/a are used to help evaluate rhe technique.
The approach entai[.r (he placement of thermally conz -
petent cctnen!s behind tile pipe, bur allow.Y rhe casing 10
expand and contract in response to temperature change.
Jobs have been performed where this design has wilhstuod
.stewn iniecrion down the casing without the use of packers
(w !nsi41(iti[m at wellhead Tempera ture.r np to 661%F and
pre.wures up to 2S00 psig.
Introduction
Thermal recovery techniques have increased the prob-
ability that wells producing low gravity crude oil will bc
subjected to elevated temperatures at some point irr their
life. Although economics may justify the drilling and com-
pletion of a low gravity oil well for primary production,
many operators will make provisions for eventual high-
temperature exposure. Failui e to make these provisions in
the original well design may lessen the economic success
of stimulation and secondary recovery techniques that are
presently being used or yet to be developed.
Thermal methods are being employed in many wells
that were completed long before the hot techniques were
known or thought feasible, In other instances wells that
are thermal stimulation candidates are being completed
without regard for the potential high temperature exposure.
In these cases thermal loading difficulties are to be an-
ticipated. However, experience has shown that the prob.
Iems are not restricted to lack of forethought alone.
Casing designs, ostensibly engineered to weather the severe
stresses associated with high temperatures, have failed be-
cause of material flaws, cementing problems, human error
or simply because of unforeseen factors.
The failures encountered arise from the difficulty in
Original manuscrlr)t received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Oct. 12, 1967.Revised manuscript received April 15. 1968. PaDer
(SpE 1944) was prermred for presentation at SPE 42nd Annual Fall
Meet ing held in Houston, Tex,, OCL 1-4, 1967. and was presented m
SPE Wh Annual California Regional Eall Meeting held in Los Angeles,
Calif.. Oct. 26.27, 1967. @ Copyright 1968 Americtm in.stitute of Min-
ing, Metallurgical, and Pew&wm Engineers, Inc.
THERMAL
RECOVERY
tfl
Comdetions
A
HOME-STAKE PRODUCTION CO.
SANTA MARJA, CALIF.
HALLIBURTON CO.
LOS ANGELES, CAIIF.
translating the true field conditions into the theoretical
environment. Similarly, it is generally impossible to exer-
eise the desired control on the conditions governing the
drilling and completion of a well, To compensate, it is
common practice to employ safety factors in design, which
will adequately protect against all eventua~ities, However,
the engineer is severely handicapped with this approach
in &signing a well for thermal application. The ordinary
manifest of oil field goods does no: contain the materials
needed to achieve these high safety factors; or if the
materials are adequate. it is difficult to obtain the addi-
tional necessary design specifications. The engineer has had
to accept a lesser margin of safety, and as a consequence,
has experienced more frequent well faiIure irr thermal
operations than in other production stimulation methods.
This paper presents a high temperature WCIIcompletion
technique, employing ordinary materials with minimal
safety factors, which has presently proven competent to
withstand the stresses imposed by saturated steam at 2,500
psig and 66XF,
Design Concept
Present well design relies on maximum free casing move-
ment to minimize high temperature-induced stresses. The
necessity for bonding any well casing in place is even
greater in a well that will be thermally stimulated. The
casing must be bonded securely, in at least one section, to
segregate the tluids that might be subjected to interzonal
flow. This single bonded section is at the top of he pay
zone, which is also at the shoe of the casing. The design
has two distinct parts: the stress section and the slip
section. (See Fig. 1.)
The stress section ischaracterized by high strength ma-
terials that ultimately may be stressed to their limit of
safety during thermal stimulation.
The slip section is designed to slide up and down in
response to temperature changes, avoiding potentially de-
structive stresses. The materials employed in the slip section
arc selected primarily for their function. The second con-
sideration is economy,
Design Procedure
An examination was made of the casing at three steps
in the anticipated history of the well. Stress conditions are
considered at the time of cementing, when the slip section
first releases, and at the most severe steam conditions. The
axial loading and burst-collapse pressures are derived and
evaluated at four depths on the casing string at the top
 -1

and bottom of the slip section and at lhe top and bottom
of the stress section.
Theoretical Development
The derivation of the governing design equations is pre-
sented in the Appendix. There are significant assumptions
and limitations in the working equations that require ex-
planation.
The annuhrs surrounding the casing is considered ade-
qJate to retard buckling tendencies. Consequent] y, the
loading analysis is restricted to axial, radial and tangential
stresses. The interaction of these stresses constitutes the
essence of the design. Paramount in this regard is the
assumption that the cement-hardened annulus in the stress
section will restrict all axial movement, but will prevail
against radial expansion only until the laboratory-
determined compressive strength is exceeded. By way of
contrast, the set cement in the slip-section annulus is as-
sumed not to influence axial movement, but it too is
thought to resist radial expansion up to the point at which
the laboratory compressive strength is exceeded. In neither
the slip section nor the stress section has any consideration
been given to the thermal expansion or the elasticity of
the cement sheath or the confining earth. To do so would
require introduction of heat loss concepts that would com-
plicate the mathematical model beyond the present scope.
The validity of the present assumptions will be examined
in a later section.
Before regarding the application of the design equations
to a prototype well, it is necessary to examine certain spe.
cific properties of the available cements and steels.
Stress-section Cement
Considerable data have been published on the physical
behavior of various moderate- to high-strength cementing
materials at elevated temperatures ?. These data have been
serwched to locate a material that would satisfy the inher-
ent m+hanical requirements, The cement composition and
associated physical properties selected for the stress section
are shown in Table 1.
Sfip-Section Cement
The requirements for the slip-section cement are extra-
ordinary. For this reason it was necessary to research new
combinations of materials to obtain the desired physical
restrictions. The composition and physical properties of
the slurry selected for the prototype application are sum-
marized in Table 2, These specifications meet most of the
desired design criteria except that the shear-bond strength
would be much too great to allow the required free axial
casing movement. To remedy this, the slip-section casing is
coated with a thermoplastic material that prevents the ce-
ment from establishing a bond to the casing. This plastic
material is an asphaltic hydrocarbon with regulated proper-
ties. The softening point is 214F (by ASTM Cube Method)
References given at end of )>at>er.
TABLE lSTRESS SECTION CEMENT
Composition
Class G cement: 94 lb
Silica flour (40 percent): 37.6 lb
Slurry weighti 116 lb/cu ft
Strength
Compressive Strength (psi) at Curing
Curing _ Temperature .
(F) of
Time 100 400 460 440/725+

L---- 8 hours
12 hours
16 hours
.
330
790
1,045

24 hours 1,490 4,G0 3,890 7*ZO

T
3 days 6,340 11,025
7 days 6,~0 6,500 10,010
27 days 7,875
t!cured designated~me at4i~F,followed by 3 days at 725F
Modulus of elasticity E,: 0.8 x 10 psi
Coefficient of linear expansion A,: 6 x 10, F
Thermal conductivity [at 325 F): 0.833 Btu/hr/sq f t/ F/ft
z Thermal conductivity (at 548 F): 0.533 Btu /hr/sq ft/ F/ft
Permeability: 0,036 md

TABLE 2SLIP SECTION CEMENT

Co,nposition
Class G~ement: 94 lb
I
Silica Flour: SO lb
Gel: 3.48 lb
Perlite 96 lb
Slurry Weight (at O to 1,500 psi): 65 to 82.3 lb/cu ft
Strength
Curing Conditions Compres- s::;
Tempera- Pres- sive Shear
Time tu re sure Strength Strength Strength
(days) (F) (psi) .(psi) (psi) (psi)
T 1 1.500 16 2
1 110 1;500 3
400 3,000 3:? 1::
: 400 3,000 330 %
4 110 1,600 132
7 470 1,600 488
Modulus of elasticity E, (4 days at 110F): 0.0325 x 10 psi
Modulus of elasticity E. (7 days at 470F): 0.0407 x 10 PSI
Coefficient of linear expansion A..
Thermal conductivity (approximate): 0.4 Btu/hr/sq ft/F/ft
Fig. IDiagrammatic representation O] prototype well Permeability (4 days at 11OF): 0.68 md
completion. Permeability (7 days at 470 F): 0.24 md
 .

and the initial boiling point is 680F at atmospheric pres- elasticity, ceases to remain constant past the elastic limit,
sure. Laboratory investigation has shown little or no cok- and the elastic limit is significant] y below the yield strength.
ing tendency in this product when it is kept in an inert To reconcile this apparent discrepancy, it is suggested that
atmosphere. The thermoplastic with these properties not the elastic limit would extend to at least the laboratory-
only prevents cement-to-pipe bond but also helps: (1) seal determined yield strength in this case, where the casing is
the low strength cement so that it is rendered absolutely securely supported and subject to biaxial stress, Conceiv-
impermeable; (2) provide a structurally secure seal between ably, the proportional limit could progress to the point of
cement and pipq and (3) serve as a lubricant above the brittle fracture stresy however, specific laboratory data are
melting point. not available to substantiate this.
Examination of the thermoplastic low-strength cement The significance of the various steel physical properties
combinations after heating has revealed that the softened with respect to thermal well design may be assessed con-
plastic impregnates the non-connected pores at the interface veniently by reference to the derivation in the Appendix. Of
and yields an elastic, durable material. all the various forces considered that can place casing
under stress, the thermally induced forces far exceed the
Casing Materials others with only a slight temperature change. Common
Thomas has solicited various high-temperature casing among the thermal stress definitions is the following group
physical data from a group of manufacturers. These data of factors:
resulted from differing test procedures, yet showed reason-
able comparison of elevated temperature trends. Data sup- & = thermal coefficient of linear expansion of steel
plied by one manufacturer illustrated that the compressive E. = modulus of elasticity of steel
yield strengths of samples of both J.55 and N-80 were
comparable with the tensile yield strength and that neither AT = change in casing temperature
sample fell below the API-rated minimum yieId values at
If A is assumed to be the same for various API grades
temperatures below 668F. On this bit of evidence, it is
of steel, it can be shown that the relative ability of a
assumed that the minimuin cotnpressive yield strength.r to
restrained tubular grade to safely absorb a given tempera-
be used here will be numerically equal to the API-estab-
ture change AT varies directly as R,,, the dimensionless
lished minimum tensile yield strengths. (See Ref. 5.)
thermal stress resistance ratio: Y/E,. where Y is the
The single, most comprehensive suite of data supplied
to Thomas is considered to represent the steel materials for
the present purpose. These data are based on isolated lab-
oratory samples, with recorded 70F yield and ultimate terj-
sile strength values significantly greater than those of the
API statistical minimum values. To adjust these data,
Figs. 2 and 3 have been prepared showing the hot steel
strengths expressed as a percentage of the 70F or cold
steel strengths, The information in Figs. 2 and 3 is limited
to the various grades of API tubular steel. Also of special
interest is the modulus of elasticity behavior of these steels
as a function of temperature. (See Fig, 4.)
Values for the thermal coefficient of linear expansion
were determined from the elongation vs temperature plot
.
of steel pipe presented in Ref. 2. ~ 60L 1 I
Relating the known steel properties to the mathematical 100 200 300 400 5CXJ WKl 700800 900
development in the Appendix, it is apparent that certain TEMPERAWRE -F
basic concepts require additional support. Hookes law. Fig. 3-Varialion in ultimate tensile strength vs
which has been used frequently, assumes that the stress- temperature.
strain ratio remains constant up to the steel yield strength.
This assumption is not borne out by the available raw
data. BY definition, the stress-strain ratio, or modulus of Q

~ 100
z
u%
1
~
Q 80
-J
w
>70
LA
~ 60 ..__-
++ !
5
$
,o~ 100200300400500 6W 700800900
I

s 15
100200300400 5CQ 600700800900
TEMPERATURE -F
TEST TEMPERATURE -*F
Eig. 2-Variaiion in yield strength vs temperature. Fig. 4-Moduks of elasticity vs test temperature.
 .

TABLE 3SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE STRESS Before running the casing, a %-in. exterior plastic
RESISTANCE RATIOS AT 668F coating was applied to the J-55 extreme line pipe. The
Steel Grade casing string then was torqued with epoxy on the buttress
-T05 -.. thread connections and a high temperature Iubricant on
P-no
(~;g~. (Nr#sd. the extreme line connecti~ns. The string was run in an
N*8O 11-in. hole, and cemented solid to the surface with the low
and and (N#em#l. J-55 and high strength slurries described previously. The cement
Tem- Tem. (Hot
Parameters . pered) pered)
Only) Rolled) slurries were followed with a wiper plug displaced with
. mud. The well stood cemented with 400 psi on the cement-
(1) Nominal minimum
weld strermth, rssi 110,000 105,000 80,000 55,000 ing head for 10 hours, and then was landed as cemented.
(2) Fractional Yield; The design equations in the Appendix are used in con-
strength red uction
0.795 0.912 0.912 0.912
junction with the foregoing prototype completion data to
at 668F
(3) Minimum yield provide a basis of comparison with the suk qucrt proto-
strength at 668F, psi, type well behavior. The strength ratios (or design factors)
$:J,dxst(:;gth ~~ 87,450 95,760 72,960 50,160 based on minimum yield strength have bem calculated
(4) with respect to tensile-compressive loads and collapse-burst
fraction ot-P-l10
yield strength at 66SF pressures and are summarized in Table 4. The strength
g;& (s:&~;:*P# 1.000 1.095 0.834 0.574 ratios in the stress section present an extreme, minimum
(5) margin of safety at the most severe steam conditions.
668F, psi x 10 24.4 25.5 17.2 21.7
(6) Elastic modulus as Design Performance
fraction ot P.110
elastic modulus at 668F To insure orderly release of IIWslip section, steam injec.
(5) + (24.4 x 10 psi) 1,000 1.045 0.705 0.889 (ion is begun directly down the casing annul us. The pro-
(7) Cdmpa;ative therms1
stress resistance cedure requires a gradual increase in steam temperature
ratio at 66EF until the desired flow rate is reached, or until a limiting
(4) + (6) 1.000 1.048 1.183 0.646 pressure condition is encountered. Increasing isotherms

progress from the top of the casing string downward. Max-

yield strength, and E. is the modulus of elasticity, both at
the appropriate temperatures. If [he thermal stress resistance
ratio for the P-1 10 sample presented earlier is assumed to
equal unity, the remaining tubular samples may be corrl-
pared as shown in Table 3. By this comparison, employing
the strength and modtdi data previously discussed, the nor-
malized N-80 steel is shown to be the more favorable
product for thermal stress application. Also, Thomas pre.
sents da(n in his Table 3 showing that the normalized N-80
would tend to exhibit better creep strength and strew.
rupture resistance than the other two casing steel grades.
J-55 and P.110.
prototype Well Design and completion
Despite the preceding analysis showing the relative ad-
vantage of normalized N-80 casing, material availability
limited the design of the prototype well to a combination
string of quenched and tempered P-110 and hot rolled J-55,
The casing is composed of 418 ft of 7 in., 26 lb, P-1 10.
buttress thread casing in the stress section and 1,504 ft of
7 in., 26 lb, J-55 extreme line casing in the slip section.
The casing connections were selected to promote the de-
sired mechanical properties of strength and immobility m
the stress section. and strength and mobility in the slip
section. In both cases the connections are assumed to
exceed the compressive strength of the associateci pipe
bodies.
..z _ .._ _
TABLE 4PROTOTYPE WELL, SUMMARY OF STRENGTH
imum temperature first is experienced near the surface,
causing the plastic to meIt and the stress to relieve as
developed, from the top down. Ideally, this procedure
would result in unimpaired elongation and prevent exces-
sive stresses from being developed at Point B. the base of
the slip section.
The behavior of a typical well during the first 6?4 hours
of annular steam injection is shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The
progressive casing growth from the landed position in Fig.
5, to maximum rise at 632F in Fig. 6. is illustrated. The
behavior of the prototye well during the first steam cycle.
although not documented with photographs, is displayed
graphically in Fig. 7 to illustrate the response of the slip
section to a change in temperature over the steam injection
cycle. It indicates that the inevitable fluctuations in steam
temperature will result in a constant working. of the cas-
ing steel, whether in the stress or the slip section. This
justifies concern over the steel stress-rupture characteristics,
Fig. 7 shows that approximately 250F casinghead tem-
perature was required to promote initial elongation. This is
the basis for the slip-section release conditions considered
in the prototype design calculations. While the hypothetical
design assumption provided for unimpaired axial movement
after release, the actual well encountered measurable elon-
gation resistance. Fig. 8 shows the sams data presented in
Fig. 7, averaged by 20F intervals, and replotted. Also
RATIOS UNDER THREE HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS

.. _ Strength Ratios
CasingLanded Slip Sectio~ S~rer:
Ivks;t
as Cemented Release Condihorw Steam Conc!itions
_ (Ambient
. TemCer3:ure) (~ 500
(2,500 PS[ and 250F)
. -, ~si
. . . and 65*F)
Tensile Collapse Tensile Collapse Termk Collapse
Point Location (compressive)
.-. (Burst)
-. (Compressive) (Burst).. (Compressive) (tj&+)_
.. _ ..__
A =gm- 7.56 (13.2) (2.74) (1.78) 8.95 (2.40)
B Above 29.4 (11.6) (2.58) (2.59) (55.8) (3,33)
crossover
c Below 58.9 (23.2) (23.7) 1.21 (1.08) 1.10
crossover
D Casing shoe 1,214.0 (31.7) (21.7) 1.13 (1.08) 1.03

1
Fig. STypical well immediately prior 10 casing steam Fig. 6-Typical well 63k hours after commencing steam
injeclion. injection down casing.

IOO; :: I::, :J[

80
. . .
G

&x
u)
361 o
84HRS
~ 20 -
L
o
-o

>6 :
w l:.
~4 ,
58 H .
$ .
0
jZ2 . . . . . . . . .
2HRS u
I HR. o
~ 2 . . . .
~ i: [
w i,:;:
~ I(5O 260 4& I )0
200 300 400 50S 6KI 71 )
TEMPERATURE- F TEMPERATURE - e F
Fig. %+rololype well, first steam cycle: elongation Vs Fig. 8ProIoIype well, firs! steam cycle: elongation vs
casinghead temperature as related to duration oj injection casinghead temperature. (Data porlrayed on Fig. 7 have
period. (Fluctuationsin elongation aredueto variationsin been grouped in 20F intervals, averaged and plotted os
steam source temperature.) circles in Ibis figure.)

imposed orI Fig. 8 is a reference curve for the unopposed
thermal elongation of steel pipe. This comparison shows
that the prototype slip section fell short of the theoretical
elongation, As a consequence, additional loading was im-
posed on the slip section that was not considered in the
preliminary design calculations. In analyzing this effect it
was assumed that the melted plastic between the steel and
the cement of the slip section created a viscous drag once
the extreme line connections had cleared a path up through
the low strength cement. The viscous drag was further
assumed to cause unequal loading in the casing under
dynamic conditions, but tended to yield a uniform force
distribution when static. Based on this assumed physical
behavior, the prototype well loading was reassessed. The
recalculated strength ratios are summarized in Table 5.
Five additional wells, directly patterned after the proto.
type well, have been completed and steamed. The com-
bined elongation data from these first steam injection
cycles have been averaged in 20F intervals and plotted on
Fig. 9. The average well substantially emulates the be-
hfivior of the prototype well. Two of the wells have been
exposed to a second steam injection cycle. In one case the
elongation was less [hart the original cycle; in the second
case the elongation exceeded that of the first cycle. No
further information is available on the effect of repeated
steam injection cycling of the present design. NO indica.
tion of any failure has been evident over the 15-month
period that the well design has been in service.
Conclusions
1. The preliminary mathematical model is adequate for
design purposes, based on the successful field performance
of the thermal well design.
Fig. 9-Average of six wells, first steam cycle: elongation
vs casinghead temperature. (Data have been grouped in
20Fintervafs, averaged andplotted as circles.)
.
TABLE 5PROTOTYPE WELL, SUMMARY OF STRENGTH
RATIOS FROM ACTUAL PERFORMANCE DATA AT MOST
SEVERE STEAM CONDITIONS (2,500 psi AND 66BF)
Tensile Collapse
Point Location (Compressive) (Burst)
T Casing Top (2.20) (1,57)
Above crossover (1!71) (;,;:)
: Below crossover (1.08)
D Casing shoe (1.08) 1:03
2, Several factors would tend to enhance the strength
ratios calculated for the prototype well: (a) steel com-
pressive yield strength greater than published minimum;
(b) steel modulus of elasticity less than presented; (c)
steel thermal coefficient of expt nsion less than presented
and (d) elongation of the cement sheath in response to in-
creased temperature, which was not considered, Additional
laboratory dats. are needed to define each of these parame-
ters under fully restrained and unrestrained conditions as
a function of temperature.
3. The newly developed, low strength cement slurry
functioned adequately in the slip section, but should be
improved further. A thicker cement sheath and a thicker
application of plastic would tend to reduce the stress in
the prototype slip section.
4. Based on extremely limited laboratory data, normal.
izcd N-80 steel shows the best thermal stress resistance at
the design temperature of 668F. However, the combination
of quenched and tempered P-110 and hot rolled J-55 steel
functioned satisfactorily in the prototype well. Similarly.
the buttress and extreme line joints functioned adequately.
ArI external non-upset joint in the slip section may con-
tribute less stress at elevated temperatures, but because of
the inherent strength limitation of this type of joint, it
should be laboratory tested for drag forces before being
run in a well.
5. Of the six wells completed similarly to the prototype.
only two wells have experienced more than one steam
injection cycle. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn
from performance data concerning the long-term corn.
petence of the design.
6. The present design exhibits favorable comparative
completion costs. In addition, it permits high temperature
casing exposure without the application of expensive pro.
tectivc devices.
Nomenclature
A, = external end area of casing, sq in.
A, = internal end area of casing, sq in.
A, = cross sectional steel area of casing. sq in.
d. = outside diameter of casing, in.
Ad,. = change irr outside diameter of casing, in.
d, = inside diameter of casing, in.
E= modulus of elasticity, psi
E, = modulus of elasticity of cement, psi
E, = modulus of elasticity of steel, psi
H= length of high strength casing, ft
L= length of low strength casing, ft
n= fluid level drop inside casing, ft
P,c = collapse pressure at depth, Z, psi
Ap,: = hypothetical external pressure change (see de-
rivation), psi
Ape = change in fluid pressure outside casing, at the
surface, psi
P.. = original fluid pressure outside casing, at the
surface, psi
. .
pa, = fluid pressure outside casing, at depth Z, psi
Ap., = change in fluid pressure outside casing, at depth
Z, psi
Ap, = change in fluid pressure inside casing, at the
surface, psi
p,. = original fluid pressure inside casing, at the sur-
face, psi
pt. = fluid pressure inside casing, at depth Z, psi
Ap,, = change in fluid pressure inside casing, at depth
Z, psi
Ap,, = hypothetical internal pressure change (see der-
ivation), psi
p, =collapse resistance at specified conditions, psi
= casing radius between d,/2, and d./2, in.
R,; = thermal stress resistance ratio, dimensionless
S, = compressive strength of cement, psi
S, = shear strength of cement, psi
t= casing wall thickness, in.
7,, = average temperature of stress section, at the
jb condition, F
T,j = temperature of casing at depth Z, at the j
condition, F
AT,, = change in casing temperature from the initial to
the j condition, F
~,, = average temperature of slip section, at the j
condition, F
W, = weight of high strength casing, lb/ ft
W, = weight of low strength casing, lb/ft
Y = minimum yield strength, psi
Y,. = minimum yield strength, lb
Z = depth from casing top, ft
AZ = elongation of casing, ft
Z, = distance from crossover to point on high
strength casing. ft
Z. = distance from casing shoe to point on high
strength casing. ft
Z, = distance from casing top to point on low
strength casing, ft
Z, = distance from crossover to point on low strength
casing, ft
~. = axial strain, dimensionless
A = thermal coefficient of linear expansion, ft/ ft-
F the act ion of internal and external fluid pressures c I the
A, = thermal coefficient of linear expansion of steel,
ft/ft-F
P = po~n~ rat~o, dimensionless
p. = PO!SSOnsratl.o for cement, dimensio~less
= Poissons rat~o for steel, dimensionless
~ = weight of high strength cement, lb/ft
p, = fluid weight inside casing, lb/ ft
Ap, = change in fluid weight inside casing, lb/ ft
p, = weight of low strength cement, lb/ft
U, = radial stress, psi
ml = tangential stress, psi
u, = axial stress, psi
Acknowledgment
The authors express appreciation to Home-Stake Pro-
duction Co, and Halliburton Co. for granting permission
to prepare and publish this paper. Appreciation is extended
to Thomas R. Vonde for hk assistance in the derivation
and computation of the formulas, and to L. Greg Carter
for his assistance in the laboratory studies contained in the
paper,
References
1. Permission was granted by Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.
to display high temperature tensile properties.
2, Engi~eering Data Book, 8th Ed., Natural Gas Processors
Suppliers Assn., Tulsa, Okla. (1966) 95.
3, Zinkt!am, R, E. and Goodwin, R. J,: Burst Resistance of
Pipe !Cemented in the Earth, J. Per. Tech. (Sept., 1962)
1033-JO4O.
4. Craft; B, C., Holden, W, R. and Graves, E, D.: Well De-
sign: /DrWing and Production, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, N. J. (1962) Chaps. 2-4,
5. Oil Count~- Tubular Products, Engineering Data, Armco
Steel Corp., Middletown, Ohio (1966).
6. Ostroot, G. W, and Shryock, S., Jr.: Cementing Geothermal
Steam Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec., 1964) 1425-1429.
7. Cain, J. E., Shryock, S,, Jr., and Carter, L. Greg: Cement-
ing Steam Injction Wells in California, J. Pet. Tech. (April,
1966) 431-436.
8. Thomas, Paul C.: High Temperature Tensile Properties of
Casing and Tubing, paper presented at API Div. of Pro-
duction, 1967 Midyear Standardisation Conference, San
Francisco (June 11-16, 1967).
APPENDIX
The following mathematical development draws heavily
upon Ref. 4. Many of the equations used here are taken
from this work. modified for this specific purpose. Symbols
other than standard AIME symbols that are not defined in
the Nomenclature are defined in Fig. 1.
Throughout the anal ysis, tensile forces are considered to
be positive and compressive forces to be negative.
Force Due To Weight of Casing, F,
F, = + (Z,,W,, + Z,W, ), lb . . , . (A-1)
After the slip section has released, the effect of the cas-
ing weight is compressive rather than tensile. The change
in force F, affects only the slip section, as
M,, = - (Z, W,) - (Z,,JV, -1-Z,W, ), lb . (A-2)
Force Due To Casing Internal and
External Fluid Pressure, F,
Force F, is influenced quantitative y by three factors:
(1) the axial force due to the action of the internal fluid
pressure on the casing internal end area, (2) the axial force
due to action of the external fluid pressure on the casing
external end area, and (3) the biaxial forces resulting from
casing wall.
The internal fluid pressure, in psi, at any depth Z may
be defined by
p,, = (P,. -+ p,z/144) . . . . . A-3)
The resulting force on the internal end area is
F.= A,p,,, lb . . . . . . . . . . A-4)
The external fluid casing pressure, in psi, may be shown
as a function of depth Z by
P.: = @OO + (PIZI + PAz~)/1441 . . . . (A-5)
The resulting force on the external end area is
F~= A.p,:, lb , . , , . . . , . (A-6)
Pressures p,, and pe, acting on the casing wall induce
radial ~, and tangential U, stresses that are related by
Lam6s equations
(A,P,, - A#.,) _ A{ A.(P,. - Pm) . (A_~)
u, =
A. TA .r
The general expression for axial strain e. resulting from
axial, radial and tangential stresses u,, u, and UI, respec-
tively, is
 . .

E: = [(r, p, (u, + a,)] /E. . . . . . (A-9) due to a change in temperature can be expressed, in in-
ches, as follows:
The longitudinal stress is determined from forces F. and
F, as Ad. = dJ,AT,, . . . . , (A-22)
u. = (Fo+ F,.) /A, = (A,p,, AA,) /A. (A-IO) However, the analysis of the tangential and radial stresses
do not emulate the axial stress derivation. While the ce.
Substituting Eqs. A-7, A-8 and A-10 into Eq. A-9, ment sheath may have sufficient bond and shear strength
f, = f(A,P,, AA) 2A (A,Pi: A,P., )1/~, A.. to resist axial movement, it does not have sufficient corn.
. . . . ,.. . . . . . (A-11) pressive strength to resist the diameter enlargement caused
by significant temperature increases, Zinkham and Good
Simplifying. win have derived Eq. 6 to describe the effective pressure
exerted by the cement sheath. earth restriction on the cas.
F. = [(1 2 p,)(A,p,, AHP...)])A.A. . (A-12)
ing as a function of internaI pressure. The equation has
If Poissons ratio ~, may be assumed equal to 0.3 for been converted to the present nomenclature and solved
steels in question, Eq, A-12 can be reduced to for Ap,, as
ES= [0.4 (A;Pf, A.P..)]/E~A, . . (A-13)
~p ,, =
[@,d,)

E.(d. d,) (] + p.)
(A-23)
Applying Hookes law. (1 + d,) E,(1 -I-de)
E = (F,/A,)/e: = F,/(A,E,) . . . (A-14) The term Ap,, describes the pseudo-internal pressure
change caused by thermally induced stresses and internal
Substituting Eq, A-13 into Eq. A-14 and solving for F,,
fluid pressure change, as
F,= +0,4 (,4,p,, A,p.:), lb . . (A-15)
Ap,. = A,E,AT,, + (@a, . . . . . . , (A-24)

In terms of the internal and external diameters, F, may

be expressed by Then Eq. A-23 can be written as
E. (d. d,)(l + p,)
F,= +0.314 (d,p,, d~p.,),lb . . . (A-16) z d.
~pe, -- (A,,E,AT., + Ap,:,
(1 +dJ E,(I +d,) .
By a similar derivation it can be shown that a change in
internal or external fluid column weight, or fluid pres- ,. ... .. !,! .! (A-25)
sures, would cause a change in force F,, after the cement The second term of Eq. A-25 may be omitted without
has set, as: introducing a significant error, Therefore.
AF, = +0.314 (d,~p,, dsAP/, ), lb . . (A-17) Ape, cx d<(/l, E. AT.., + Ap,,)/(1 +d,) . (A-26)
where, The ability of the cement sheath and earth to exert the
API: = {AP, + [ZAP, - rz(p, + Ap, )]/144}, psi. hypothetical pressure Jp, , is obviously limited, the limit
. . . . ... , . . . . (A-18) being the compressibility and the compressive strength of
the confinement system. These values are not known, but
where Ap,. = Ap,. the unconfined compressive strength of cement, rock, etc.,
Where a casing is cemented solid to the surface, presum- is documented substantially. In lieu of information to the
ably there will be no further change in the external pres. contrary, it is assumed that Ap.= is limited by the labo-
sure at depth due to surface pressure variations or change ratory-determined compressive strength S, of the cement
in fluid column height. In this instance Apt, can be set surrounding the casing, This stress level is reached with
equal to zero. which yields the following modification of a minimal temperature increase (5 to 50F). Therefore.
Eq. A-17: ~pr> Ndc(AsE,AT.., + ~p,,)/(1 + d.),. . (A-26)
AF, = + 0.314 d, Ap,,, psi , . . . , , (A-19) where
where S. < d, (A,EAT,, + AP,:)/(1 + d.) (A-27)
AP,z = {Ap, + [zApt- ~(pl+AP~)l/J44}, psi.
However, for most cases of temperature increase.
,., ,, . . . . . ., (A-18j
Ap.y= s, . ...)... . .. (A-28)
Force Due TO casing Temperature change, AF,,
The contribution of a change in internal fluid pressure
The unimpaired axial elongation of the casing due to a to axial stress is handIed in the term AF, and is not re-
change in temperature may be expressed, in feet, as considered here. Therefore. the radial and tangential stress
AZ= ZA$AT,,. . . . . . . . . (A.19) wuations pertinent to the exclusive application of an ex-
te;nal pre;sure may be employed.
If the casing subjected to a change in temperature is
restrained and not allowed to move, a stress will result d~AP,, d,d;Ap.z
!.. (A-29)
that may be related to the potential thermal strain AZ/Z = d. d, + 4 (d; d,) r
through Hookes law,
d:Ap,: _ d,d;tip.;
E = u/cc = u,/(AZ/Z) . . . . . . (A-20) al = . . . (A-30)
do d, 4 (dj d,) r
Inserting the value for AZ/Z from Eq. A-19 and solv-
ing for u,, Reintroducing the general axial strain equation,

u, = A,E,AT,l, psi. . . . . . . , (A-21) -s, = [U=- IL,(u, -I- u,)]/E, . . . . . . (A-9)

Similarly the unimpaired change in the casing diameter Substituting Eqs. A-21, A.28, A-29 and A-30 into Eq. A-9,


e, = [-A, E,AT,,- p, ( - 2d.S, )/(d.d,)]/E.

. . . . . . . . . . !. (A-31)
Let p, = 0.3 and (d: d,) = 4A ,/r,
em= [ A,E,AT,, -!- (0.471 d:S.)/A,]/E. (A-32)
Applying Hookes law,
E = (AF,/A, )/e, = AF,/A,6, . . . . (A-33)
Substituting Eq. A-32 into Eq, A-33,
AF, = (L4JLAT,, -0.471 d:S,), lb . (A-34)
To reiterate, this equation is valid where F. Conrad Greer (left) i.s u division engineer for lionw.
S. < d.q (&E,AT., + Apt, )/(l + de) . . (A-27) Stake Production Co. in Santa Maria, Calij. HC received
5S and MS degrees in petrolcwm engineering jrmn USC
After the slip section has re[eased, the axial stress will in 1960 and 1962, respectively, Greer was jormerly em-
no longer pertain. Eq. A.34 may be modified to reflect ployed by Texaco Inc. as San A rdo field area eng;ncer.
this change in the slip seetion loading as follows: S. H. Shryock (right) is a gradnale of Oklahoma State U.
AF8, = + (A,A,E, T,, ),lb . . . . . . (A-35) with a bachelors degree in chetni.stry. lie joi~ed Ilallibiw -
ton Co. as a scnicw chemist in J 954 and w[wkcd in the
An increase in temperature above that necessary to
research center on fruclnrirrg and cemrn[ ing scr vices. 1?(
cause slip will result in the following change in the stress
transferred to the Los Angeles Divi.rion in ?957 10 operate
section loading:
ond maintain a field laboratory, Shryock is we!l s(i ~nla -
AF,,, = (A, A. E. AT:,), lb . . . . (A-36) tion vice-chairman of the 1968 Transactions Editorial
* Committee.