See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308708966

Casing Design and Analysis for Heavy Oil Wells

Article · November 2006

CITATIONS READS
5 594

1 author:

Jueren Xie
C-FER Technologies
61 PUBLICATIONS   312 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oil Well Casing Design and Analysis View project

Shale Gas Well Design Evaluations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jueren Xie on 28 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Casing Design and Analysis for Heavy Oil Wells
J. XIE
C-FER Technologies, Canada
This paper has been selected for presentation and publication in the Proceedings at the 1st Heavy Oil Conference.
All papers selected will become the property of WHOC. The right to publish is retained by the WHOC’s Publications Committee.
The authors agree to assign the right to publish the above-titled paper to WHOC, who have conveyed non-exclusive right to the
Petroleum Society to publish, if it is selected.
Abstract
Heavy oil recovery uses primary or thermal production
technologies. The primary production method often involves
continuous sand production to maximize fluid rates. The
thermal processes usually consist of some variation of Cyclic
Steam Stimulation (CSS) or Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD).
Heavy oil production poses serious challenges to well
casing designs. In addition to the installation loads such as
hanging/buoyancy forces and well curvature effect, a casing
must support the thermal strains due to the temperature change
and formation movements induced by well production. In many
field operations, the thermal loading and formation movements
can cause large casing strains in excess of the elastic limit.
Therefore, a strain-based concept should be used for casing
design in order to utilize the allowable strain capacity beyond
the yield. The allowable strain design limit is defined by many
studies as the strain required to cause structural failure of
casing connections.
This paper presents a strain-based casing design concept
and its application to heavy oil recovery wells. Casing strains
due to various loading scenarios are calculated using the
proposed finite element models including a casing-formation
interaction model for analyzing casing deformations resulting
from reservoir compaction and formation shear movement.
Design examples are presented to demonstrate the casing
design approaches for primary and thermal production wells.
1
PAPER 2006-415
Introduction
Primary and thermal technologies are widely used for heavy
oil recovery worldwide. Both production practices have
encountered numerous well casing failures. The primary casing
failure mechanisms are casing connection parting due to
excessive casing strain, wellbore serviceability difficulties due
to large casing deformation associated with casing buckling and
shear, and casing connection leakages.
It becomes increasingly important for well designers to
understand the challenges that heavy oil recovery has imposed
on well performance and to optimize the well completion
design to suit the severe load conditions. The basic design
considerations for casings in heavy oil recovery wells include
the following:
(1) Structural integrity design to ensure a casing will
withstand various strains and pressures; and
(2) Connection sealability design to minimize the
potential for connection leakage.
This paper focuses on the issues related to the structural
integrity design. The traditional method for casing structural
design uses the stress-based design concept which limits the
casing stress to the elastic state. This conventional design
method is found to be insufficient for heavy oil recovery wells
as the resultant thermal loading and formation movements can
easily cause casing material to yield. Acknowledging the fact
that the thermal strain and formation movements are controlled
and bounded by the magnitude of the well temperature and
production conditions, a strain-based design concept can be
proposed for the casing design in heavy oil wells. This
strain-based design concept allows a designer to utilize the
allowable casing strain capacity beyond yield.
Primary and thermal wells require different design
considerations due to the different production technologies.
The key failure mode for a primary well (in an application
producing significant volume of sand) is casing buckling under
reservoir compaction as a result of sand production. For the
thermal wells, casing failures may result from the thermal cycle
loading, casing buckling and formation shear movement. This
paper presents a casing-formation interaction model for
calculating casing strains resulting from formation compaction
and formation shear movement. This casing design approach is
demonstrated with a few examples for the primary and thermal
well applications.
Casing Strain Calculations
In this paper, casing strain is defined as the longitudinal
strain along the casing axis. In the primary and thermal
production wells, the casing longitudinal strain is significantly
larger than the radial and circumferential strains, and it is
usually considered as the governing parameter for casing
design. The casing strain can be composed of an average axial
strain and a flexural strain:
ε = ε Axial + ε Flexural
Casing strain can be caused by various loading mechanisms,
such as the installation loads, thermal operation loads and the
soil movements. The total casing strain can be composed of:
ε Total = ε HB + εWC + ε TH + ε SM
in which
ε HB = casing strain due to hanging and buoyant forces;
ε WC = casing strain due to wellbore curvature;
ε TH = casing strain due to temperature effect; and
ε SM = casing strain due to soil movement.
The following sections present the methodologies for
calculating these strain components.
Casing Constitutive Model
Advanced finite element models are often used to calculate
casing strains caused by thermal loading and formation
movements. The constitutive model should simulate the
stress-strain behavior in the casing materials in both elastic and
plastic regions, across the entire spectrum of operating
temperature. It is essential that the elastic-plastic constitutive
model be defined as temperature and strain-rate dependent.
The basic parameters required to describe the material model
include the Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, thermal
expansion coefficient, stress-strain relationship at elevated
temperature and creep-strain relationship. Figure 1 presents the
stress-strain relationships at elevated temperatures for an
L80 grade casing based on coupon tests performed at C-FER(1)
in a previous Joint Industry Project (JIP). The average thermal
2
expansion coefficient for L80 grade is 13.4×10-6/ºC based on
these coupon tests.
Casing Strain Due to Installation Loads
Casing installation analysis includes calculation of the casing
strains due to hanging and buoyant forces ( ε HB ) and the
wellbore curvature effect ( ε WC ). The magnitude of hanging and
buoyant forces depends on the casing weight, mud density and
the true depth of casing string. As a casing is installed through
the build section, drag force can also be introduced depending
on the wellbore curvature and the friction force between the
casing and the wellbore. Finite element analysis can be used to
calculate the combined effect of hanging, buoyant and drag
forces in a unified model. In the analysis model, the casing is
usually modeled using pipe-beam elements, and the wellbore is
defined as a contact surface to casing. The hanging weight is
analyzed by assigning gravity loads to the casing, and the
buoyancy effect is modeled by applying an internal hydrostatic
pressure and an external cement pressure on the casing closed
end. The effect of well curvature can be analyzed by imposing a
matching curvature deformation to the casing string, and
calculating the resultant bending stress and strain.
Casing Strain Due to Temperature Change
Thermal strain is defined as the strain arising from
temperature effect. It can be calculated by:
ε TH = α (TPeak − TInitial )
in which
α = casing material thermal expansion coefficient;
TInitial = initial temperature; and
TPeak = peak operation temperature.
When the casing string is constrained axially by cement and
formation, this thermal strain converts to mechanical strain on
the casing by imposing an axial compressive stress. Depending
on the temperature range, the thermal strain may exceed the
elastic limit, causing plastic deformation.
When the lateral support to a casing is compromised (e.g. by
inadequate or incomplete cement placement), the casing may
buckle under high compressive stress resulting from thermal
strain. Finite element analysis is often used to calculate the
casing strain associated with casing buckling. The analysis
models the cement void as a contact surface with a defined
radial gap to the casing string. Depending on the magnitude of
axial strain, the casing may buckle in an in-plane mode or a
helical configuration.
Casing Strain Due to Soil Movements
Casing strain due to formation movements ( ε SM ) is the most
difficult value to calculate as it is dependent on the soil
movement and the soil stiffness, which can be of great
uncertainty in many operation cases. The analysis is usually
performed in three steps:
(1) Well Production Analysis to determine the production
pressure and temperature along the well;
 (2) Soil Deformation Analysis to calculate soil stiffness,
soil stresses and movements due to well production;
and
(3) Casing/Formation Interaction Analysis to assess the
impacts of the formation movement on the loading
and integrity of the well casing system.
Figure 2 presents a schematic representation of a finite
element model for the casing-formation interaction analysis.
The casing is modeled using pipe-beam elements, while the
formations are modeled by soil spring elements along and
perpendicular to the casing axis. One end of the soil spring is
attached to the casing system, while the other end is defined by
a prescribed value of soil movement. The soil movement can
be a compaction with vertical displacements or a shear with
lateral displacements.
One of the tasks in the soil deformation analysis is to
determine the properties for the axial and transverse soil spring
elements. The response of axial soil springs can be represented
by a bi-linear shear resistance curve with the spring stiffness
determined by Randolph and Wroth(2) equation:
2πG
Kv =
ln( Rm / Ro )
where
G = the shear modulus of soil;
Ro = the wellbore radius; and
Rm = the radius of shear stress influence.
The ultimate shear resistance of the axial soil springs can be
determined by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion over the
interface between the wellbore and formation.
The stiffness and strength of the transverse soil springs can
be represented by indenter curves generated by a finite element
analysis of a rigid casing indenting the formation as shown in
Figure 2. The indenting model consists of a two-dimensional,
plane-strain slice of formation material in the horizontal plane
with a borehole in the center, and a rigid indenter to represent
the cement and casing. The indenter is moved laterally to
impinge on the borehole wall and penetrate the formation. The
plot of the lateral load on the casing required to move it into the
formation versus the depth of penetration into the formation is
the indenter curve that is used to characterize the transverse soil
spring response.
Figure 3 presents two typical indenter curves for a 244.5 mm
casing indenting a reservoir sand zone (at 400 m depth) for a
Western Canada primary well and an overburden shale
formation (at 250 m depth) for a Western Canada thermal well.
The formation materials are modeled using Drucker-Prager/cap
constitutive relationship with material properties based on
sample tests by Kosar(3). As shown, the shale indenter response
of load-displacement relationship is significantly stronger than
the sand. These two indenter curves will be used in the casing
design examples presented in this paper.
The concept of using a casing-formation interaction model
for casing deformation analysis has been validated by several
field investigations conducted at C-FER(4),(5),(6),(7). In several
cases, good agreement was found between the finite element
analysis and the deformations interpreted with a multi-sensor
caliper survey of the wellbore.
3
Strain-based Design Concept
Figure 4 shows the magnitude of various casing strains for a
SAGD well completion design at a Western Canada oil field.
The well was completed with a 244.5 mm 59.5kg/m L80
production casing running through a 7.5°/30 m build section
and setting to a reservoir depth of 400 m TVD. The production
involved a peak temperature of 275°C and an internal pressure
of 2 MPa. Finite element analyses were performed to determine
casing strains caused by various loading scenarios. As shown,
the casing strains due to installation loads of hanging/buoyant
effect and wellbore curvature are relatively small (less than 20%
of L80 elastic strain limit). The thermal strain due to
temperature change is 0.35%, which increases to 1.45% when
the casing buckles due to thermal compressive strain in a
cement void interval. The casing design included a load case
with 30 mm formation shear movement applied at high
temperature, which led to a 2.11% casing strain.
This design example demonstrates that casing strains due to
installation loads are relatively small and can often be neglected
in the shallow heavy oil well casing designs. Therefore,
thermal strain and formation movement are the primary loading
mechanisms causing the casing deformations. In many design
cases including this one, the magnitudes of casing strains
resulting from thermal loading and formation movement exceed
the elastic strain limit, making the conventional stress-based
design method inapplicable for heavy oil recovery wells.
Traditional methods for casing structural design use the
stress-based design concept which limits the casing stress to the
elastic state. For the thermal well casing design, approaches
used in the early days of Cyclic Stream Stimulation (CSS)
operations were based on the Wellhite and Dietrich(8) model and
a subsequent paper by Holliday(9). The model suggested that
higher strength casings should be used in the CSS wells to
avoid yielding in tension as the well cools. This design method
was later found to be inadequate as it tends to underestimate the
tensile axial stress generated during cooling by neglecting the
effect of high-temperature stress relaxation in the casing during
steam injection. The work by Shell(10) in the late 1980s showed
that, in general, high strength materials would not provide a
better thermal casing design when stress relaxation is
considered.
Today’s well design practices acknowledge that limited
plastic strain is acceptable for casings provided that the driving
forces are displacement-controlled. Note that the thermal strain
and formation movements are controlled and bounded by the
magnitude of the well temperature and production conditions.
This allows the strain-based design concept to be used in heavy
oil recovery wells, so that the casing strain capacity beyond the
elastic limit can be utilized. The allowable casing strain is often
defined by the wellbore serviceability and the structural
integrity of casing connections. It is important to note that the
casing strain limit does not represent the requirement for
connection sealability, as a connection may leak even if it is not
loaded.
Several experimental and analytical studies have been
performed to determine the casing strain limit as per the
connection structural failure(11),(12),(13). However, no generalized
criteria have been established as the casing strain limit may vary
among connection types, grades, geometric tolerances and load
conditions. In an experimental study, ARGO(11) found that for
buttress connections, the tensile strain limit was 3.6% and the
compressive strain limit was 1.9%.
 C-FER has performed several projects on the testing and
analysis of premium connections subjected to various load cases
simulating primary and thermal well conditions. One test was
to fail a 177.8 mm 34.2 kg/m L80 premium connection by
flexural loading. Figure 5 presents the relationship between the
bending moment and the casing flexural strain (i.e. casing
curvature). The connection failed due to thread rupture at a
casing flexural strain of 2.2%.
A finite element analysis was performed to simulate the test
condition. As shown in Figure 5, the analysis results matched
closely with the test. Figure 6 presents the analytical prediction
of the plastic strain in the critical thread root area. The plastic
strain develops gradually at the beginning. At about 1.5%
casing flexural strain, the rate of the plastic strain starts to
increase significantly. This analysis demonstrates that major
plastic deformation occurs prior to the connection rupture at
2.2% casing flexural strain, suggesting that micro-cracks could
be present in the threads long before the connection failure
observed from test. It is probably more accurate to define the
casing strain limit as the critical point when the rate of the local
plastic strain has suddenly increased. In this case, the casing
strain limit can be defined as 1.5%.
Casing Design for Primary Wells
The basic operating strategy in primary heavy oil production
is to produce sand continuously to maximize fluid rate. In many
wells, this results in the production of on the order of 1000 m3
of sand over the lifetime of a single well. The casing design for
primary heavy oil wells producing significant volume of sand
must consider the impact of sand production on casing
deformations.
Casing Failure Mechanisms
Removing large volume of sand from the reservoir can result
in subsidence of the overburden and heave of the formations
underlying the producing reservoir. As the reservoir height
decreases, the well casing length spacing the reservoir must also
decrease because it is bonded to the formations through a
combination of adhesion and friction with the well cement.
Massive sand production also removes the formation support to
the casing in the reservoir interval. Combination of the
reservoir shortening and weak lateral support makes casings
vulnerable to buckling in primary heavy oil wells.
Several multi-sensor caliper logs confirmed that the key
failure modes for casings are the in-plane multi-buckles in the
producing intervals of deformed wells. Figure 7 shows a
multi-arm caliper survey of a primary production well with
casing deformation in an in-plane buckling mode. Casing
strains resulting from buckling ranged from 1% to 2.5% in a
field study by Wagg and Xie(4). The casing deformation due to
reservoir compaction has also been studied by other
researchers(14),(15).
Casing Design Considerations
Based on the understanding of casing failure mechanisms,
the following casing design objectives are proposed for primary
heavy oil wells:
4
(1) Structural integrity design of the perforated casing
over the reservoir interval to withstand large casing
buckling deformation resulting from reservoir
compaction due to sand production;
(2) Structural integrity design of the casing over the
overburden interval to prevent connection parting
failure by tensile loads; and
(3) Connection sealability design over the overburden
interval to ensure pressure integrity. Note that the
casing connection sealability is not a concern for the
perforated casing in the reservoir interval.
Design Example 1 – Casing Subject to
Reservoir Compaction
A Western Canada primary heavy oil operation well is to be
completed with a 244.5 mm 59.5 kg/m L80 perforated casing
over a 12.5 m thick reservoir interval, for a 20-year production
life. A geomechanical analysis suggests a 0.5% reservoir
compaction strain and 70% loss of reservoir formation stiffness
due to sand production over the 20 years.
The force-displacement response of the 244.5 mm casing
indenting the reservoir sand is presented in Figure 3, based on
an indenter model analysis as shown in Figure 2. It is assumed
that the indenter curve will be proportionally scaled down to
represent the loss of 70% formation stiffness over the 20-year
production period.
A finite element analysis is performed to determine the
casing strains resulting from the reservoir compaction. It is
assumed that the casing is fully bonded to formation at the top
and bottom of the reservoir interval. Figure 8 presents the
casing curvature distribution at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of
production. Casing buckling can be identified as a sudden
increase in local casing curvature. The analysis shows the
casing buckling modes in multiple waves at 15 and 20 years.
Figure 9 presents the development of casing strain over the
20-year production period. It is found that casing strain is equal
to the reservoir compaction for the first 11.5 years of
production. After 11.5 years, the casing material starts to yield
and buckling takes place. The maximum casing strain reaches
2.05% at Year 20. Assuming the casing strain limit is 1.5% for
the structural integrity consideration, this completion design is
limited to a well life of 18.5 years. An alternative design is
proposed with a 273 mm 75.8 kg/m L80 perforated casing
which improves the well life beyond 20 years.
Casing Design for Thermal Wells
The thermal recovery of viscous heavy oil is often achieved
by some variation of CSS or Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD). A thermal cycle in CSS consists of four basic phases:
steam injection; soak period where the well is shut-in at high
temperature and pressure; flow-back where the elevated
reservoir pressure is sufficient to produce fluids to surface; and
finally, pumping that produces condensed steam and mobilized
fluids to surface as the reservoir cools. SAGD is a more stable,
gentle process where steam is continuously injected into one
horizontal well and condensed steam and mobilized fluids are
produced from a second well. This method usually requires
lower injection pressures and temperatures and fewer
pressure/temperature cycles than CSS. The CSS process has
been applied to a variety of well configurations including
vertical, directional and horizontal. SAGD applications are
typically limited to pairs of parallel horizontal wells with the
dedicated injector situated just above the dedicated producing
well.
Casing Failure Mechanisms
Thermal well application poses serious challenges to casing
designs. The temperature cycles impose cyclic compressive
casing stress during heating and tensile stress during cooling.
When “ultra-high temperature” is used (normally with the peak
temperature over 300°C depending on casing grade), the casing
can potentially yield under tensile stress, leading to possible
failure modes of connection parting and leakage and low cycle
material fatigue. In addition to the cyclic stress-temperature
response, several field observations have suggested that casings
can be subject to curvature loads, such as casing buckling due to
thermal compressive stress and shear deformation due to
formation shear movement.
Excessive casing deformations leading to failure of steam
stimulation wells have been well documented in
literature(16),(17),(18). The majority of these casing failures are
noted to have occurred at the interface between the producing
zone and the overlying shales and have been attributed to shear
movement along what is assumed to be a very low friction
boundary between the two formations. One theory to account
for these failures is that the production-induced heat caused
thermal expansion of the formations, resulting in a formation
shear movement.
Figure 10 shows a multi-sensor caliper survey(5) of a CSS
well with a multi-wave buckling mode and a shear
displacement. The shear displacement of the casing has a
resulting dogleg severity exceeding 1000°/30 m. This translates
to a flexural strain on the outside diameter of the casing of over
5%, which is sufficient to fail a casing connection.
Casing Design Considerations
Based on the understanding of casing failure mechanisms,
the following casing design objectives are proposed for thermal
wells:
(1) Structural integrity design of casing to withstand
thermal strain and internal/external pressures from
production;
(2) Structural integrity design of casing to withstand
casing buckling deformation caused by thermal
compressive loading in the cement void intervals;
(3) Structural integrity design of casing to withstand
formation shear movement in the overburden and
reservoir intervals; and
(4) Connection sealability design to withstand thermal
loading, casing buckling and formation shear
movements. (This topic is not addressed in this
paper.)
Design Example 2 – Casing Subject to
Thermal Cycle Loading
A Western Canada SAGD well completion design has a peak
temperature of 275°C and an internal pressure of 2 MPa. The
5
proposed design uses a 244.5 mm 59.5 kg/m L80 production
casing. Finite element analysis is performed to determine the
casing stress-strain response over the thermal cycle (heating
from 10°C to 275°C and cooling back to 10°C). Figure 11
presents the relationship between the casing stress, plastic strain
and temperature over a cycle. The thermal cycle consists of
four loading stages:
(1) During initial heating, the casing material is
compressed elastically until the elastic limit is
reached in compression at approximately 196°C;
(2) Further heating leads to plastic deformation due to the
constrained thermal expansion;
(3) As the casing is held constant at a high temperature
(275°C), stress relaxation occurs due to the
development of creep strain; and
(4) As the confined casing cools, the axial load gradually
changes from compression to tension.
Figure 11 also presents the development of the plastic strain
over the cycle. As noted, the plastic strain starts to develop at
196°C. In this case, there is no incremental plastic strain in the
cooling stage or further cycles. The magnitude of the plastic
strain due to thermal effect is relatively small and will not cause
major concern for the casing performance.
It should be noted that in the case of “ultra-high
temperature” production, casing material may reach yield in
tension at the end of a cycle. This will lead to incremental
plastic deformation in further cycles, making low-cycle fatigue
a critical failure mode of the casing, especially for CSS wells.
Analysis of cyclic plastic deformation in an “ultra-high
temperature” case requires a more sophisticated finite element
material model to account for the kinematic strain hardening
deformation and the Bauschinger effect. Several researchers
have studied the cyclic mechanical properties of casing
materials through physical tests. Further work is required on
the development of analysis models to represent the cyclic
plasticity behavior.
Design Example 3 – Casing Buckling in
Cement Void Intervals
When the lateral support to a casing by the cement sheath is
compromised, the axial loads resulting from casing thermal
expansion can cause the casing to buckle. Figure 12 illustrates
the development of casing buckling for a thermal well. The
buckling mode can vary from a single in-plane “bow” to a
continuous series of three-dimensional “corkscrews” (helical
buckle), depending on the magnitude of the axial strain.
Calculation of casing buckling deformation requires a finite
element analysis that models the casing using pipe-beam
elements and the voided cement zone as a cylindrical contact
surface with a gap to the casing. The assessment of casing
resistance to buckling is important for two considerations.
First, the casing may fail due to excessive inelastic strain
associated with severe buckling. Second, well serviceability
may be impaired due to large local casing curvature associated
with casing buckling.
Design Example 2 is revisited here for the consideration of
potential casing buckling. Figure 13 presents the results of
casing strain and curvature as a function of the cement void
percentage. As shown in Figure 13, the casing has 0.35%
thermal strain (i.e. at 275°C) and zero curvature if it is fully
supported by cement. If there is a region where the cement is
completely washed out, the casing buckling can result in 1.45%
casing strain and 138º/30 m curvature. This example
demonstrates that casing buckling can cause serious concerns
for casing structural integrity and well serviceability.
Therefore, it is essential to ensure good cement jobs for thermal
wells.
Design Example 4 – Casing Subject to
Formation Shear Movement
Field investigations have shown that the formation shear
movement in the overburden shale is the primary loading
mechanism driving casings to fail in thermal wells. This design
example considers the same casing design (244.5 mm
59.5 kg/m L80) used in Design Examples 2 and 3. The
formation shear displacement is assumed to be 30 mm, which is
consistent with the displacement observed in several field cases.
It is also assumed that the formation shear movement is applied
after heating the casing to 270ºC.
The finite element analysis is performed using the
casing-formation interaction model shown in Figure 2. The
shear plane is assumed to be located at the mid-height of the
casing model. The shear displacements are applied to the soil-
end nodes of the soil spring elements, in opposite directions
over the two adjacent zones, relative to the shear plane. The
indenter curve of overburden shale formation as shown in
Figure 3 is used for the lateral soil spring elements.
Figure 14 presents the calculated lateral displacement and
curvature along the casing within the shear interval resulting
from the imposed formation shear movement. Note the lateral
casing deformation is concentrated within the shear interval,
with the deformation extending only about 0.5 m axially in
either direction from the shear plane. The peak casing curvature
of 250º/30 m occurs below and above the shear plane. A plastic
strain contour plot from a three-dimensional solid element
model is also shown in Figure 14. As shown, the two peak
curvature locations also correspond to areas with the maximum
plastic strain.
Figure 15 presents the resultant casing strain as a function of
formation shear movement. The analysis shows that at 30 mm
formation shear displacement, the 244.5 mm 59.5 kg/m L80
casing will have a casing strain of 2.11%. If a casing strain
limit of 1.5% is used in the design, the proposed casing is able
to sustain only 24.5 mm formation shear movement. An
alternative design with heavier weight 244.5 mm 64.7 kg/m
K55 casing is also analyzed and the results are shown in
Figure 15, suggesting that this design appears to have sufficient
structural capacity to sustain 30 mm formation shear movement.
However, in many design cases, the formation shear loading is
so severe that such casing design alternation can only lead to a
marginal improvement to the well life.
There have been various explanations for the occurrence of
formation shear. Many studies have related the shear
movement to the formation thermal expansion resulting from
well production. Therefore, use of an insulated wellbore has
been proposed by some studies as a design option to limit the
amount of heat transferred to formations, and thus to control the
magnitude of shear movement.
6
Conclusions
This paper presents a strain-based design concept and its
application to casing designs for heavy oil recovery wells. The
strain design limit is revisited, and it is recommended that the
limit be defined as the state when the plastic strain at critical
areas of a connection starts to increase at an accelerated rate.
Based on field experience of casing failures, several critical
load scenarios are defined for casing designs. For primary
heavy oil production, the key load case is the reservoir
compaction and loss of lateral support due to sand production,
causing the casing to buckle. For the thermal well applications,
the thermal loading, casing buckling and formation shear
movement should be considered.
Due to the nature of displacement-controlled formation
movement, casing design alternation in many cases can only
lead to marginal improvement to well life. The best option
seems to be a production strategy design to control the cause for
the development of formation movement.
In addition to the structural integrity evaluation presented in
this paper, casing design must assess the casing connection
sealability. Connection sealing capacity depends on connection
type (buttress or premium), connection design, geometrical
tolerance, casing material and load conditions. For thermal
wells, the thermal cycle loading makes the connection
vulnerable to leak under tension during the cooling stage.
Casing buckling and shear deformation can further damage the
connection sealing capacity. The connection sealability design
usually consists of physical testing and finite element analysis.
It is often considered as an immediate design task following the
casing structural integrity evaluation.
Acknowledgement
The work was supported by C-FER Technologies Inc.,
Canada.
Nomenclature
G = shear modulus of soil
Kv = stiffness of axial soil spring
Ro = wellbore radius
Rm = radius of shear stress influence in soil
TInitial = initial temperature
TPeak = peak operation temperature
α = casing thermal expansion coefficient
ε = casing strain
ε Axial = casing axial strain
ε Flexural = casing flexural strain
ε HB = casing strain due to hanging/buoyant forces
ε WC = casing strain due to wellbore curvature
ε TH = casing strain due to temperature effect
ε SM = casing strain due to soil movement
References
1. Humphreys, K. J., Solanki, S.C. and Link, R.A,
Qualification of Grade-55 Casing for Thermal Recovery
Service; C-FER Final Report for Joint Industry
Members, C-FER Project 88-14, 1991.
2. Randolph, M.F., and Wroth, C.P., Analysis of 800
Deformation of Vertically Loaded Piles; Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104,
No. GT 12, pp. 1465-1488, 1978.

Engineering Stress (MPa)

600
3. Kosar, K. M, Geotechnical Properties of Oil Sands and
Related Strata; Ph.D thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Alberta, 1989.
400
4. Wagg, B., Xie, J., Solanki, S. and Arndt, S., Evaluating
Casing Deformation Mechanisms in Primary Heavy Oil 20 degC
Production; SPE International Thermal Operations and 200 degC
200
Heavy Oil Symposium held in Bakersfield, California, 350 degC
17–19 March 1999.
5. Xie, J., Understanding the Mechanisms of Well Casing
0
Deformations; C-FER Final Report to Joint Industry 0% 5% 10% 15%
Members, C-FER Project 99023, 2000.
Engineering Strain
6. Xie, J., Assessment of Thaw Subsidence Impacts on
Production Well Design for Mackenzie Delta Gas Field
Development; C-FER Final Report to Joint Industry Figure 1 Stress-strain-temperature relationship for L80 material.
Members, C-FER Project D012, 2004.
7. Xie, J., and Wagg, B., Casing Deformations in Thermal
Wells; Technologies for Thermal Heavy Oil and Uv(x)
Bitumen Recovery and Production, SPE ATW, Calgary,
March, 2006. y Uh(x)
8. Wellhite, G. P., and Dietrich, W.K., Design Criteria for
Completion of Steam Injection Wells; Journal of F
Petroleum Technology, pp. 15-21, Jan. 1967.
9. Holliday, G. H. Calculation of Allowable Maximum
x
Casing Temperature to Prevent Tension Failures in
Thermal Wells; Presented at the ASME Petroleum U

Mechanical Engineering Conference, Tulsa, Okla., Sept.

Soil Spring Property
1969.
10. Lepper, B., Production Casing Performance in a
Thermal Field; Petroleum Society of CIM & AOSTRA,
Formation
Paper No. 94-07, 1994.
11. Weiner, P. D., Wooley, G. R., Coyne, P. L. and
Christman, S. A., Casing Strain Tests of 13-3/8” N-80
Buttress Connections; SPE 5598, 50th Annual Fall
Meeting of SPE-AIME, Dallas, Oct., 1976. Casing
12. Wooley, F. R., Christman, S. A., and Cross, J. G., Strain
Limit Design of 13-3/8” N-80 Buttress Casing; SPE Indenter Model
6061, presented at 51st Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, October,
1976. Figure 2 Schematic of casing-formation interaction model.
13. Goodman, M.A., Designing Casing and Wellheads for
Arctic Service; World Oil, 1978.
14. Bruno, M.S., Subsidence-Induced Well Failure; SPE
6
Drilling Engineering, June 1992.
Overburden Shale in a Thermal Well
15. Bruno, M.S., Geomechanical Analysis and Decision
Analysis for Mitigating Compaction Related Casing
Indenter Force (kN/mm)

Damage; SPE 71695, SPE Annual Technical 4

Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, October, 2001.
16. Anderson, P. D. and Hollingworth, F. H., Casing
Damage at the Amoco-AOSTRA Athabasca In-situ 2

Combustion Pilot; Future of Heavy Crude and Tar Reservoir Sand in a Primary Well
Sands, 2nd International Conference UNITAR, Caracas,
Venezuela, February 1982.
0
17. Smith, M. B. and Pattillo, P. D., Analysis of Casing 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Deformations Due to Formation Flow; Applied Oil
Sands Geoscience Conference, Edmonton, Canada, Indenter Displacement (mm)
1980.
18. CPA Thermal Well Casing Risk Assessment, Canadian
Figure 3 Indenter curves for a 244.5 mm casing in
Petroleum Association, Thermal Well Casing Risk
Subcommittee; 1992-0017, pp116. Canadian overburden shale and reservoir sand formations.
Association of Petroleum Producers, 1992.

7
 3.0%

2.11%
2.0%
Casing Strain

1.45%
Casing In-Plane
Buckling
1.0%

0.35%

0.01% 0.05%
0.0%
y e in ing ar
anc t ur tra ckl he
uoy rva al S Bu nS
g/ B Cu erm ng at io
ngin ll b ore Th asi orm
Ha C F
We al + al +
rm rm
The The

Figure 7 Multi-sensor caliper survey of casing in-plane

Figure 4 A Western Canada SAGD well design showing buckling in a primary well.
the casing strains caused by various loading scenarios.

244.5mm 59.5kg/m L80

0

200

2.5
Depth from Reservoir Top (m)
Moment (kNm)

150

100

Test 7.5
50
FEA

M M 10
Year 5
0
Year 10
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%
Year 15
Casing Flexural Strain Year 20
12.5
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Figure 5 Moment-strain relationship for a premium
o
connection from a physical test and an FEA simulation. Casing Curvature ( /30m)

Figure 8 Development of casing curvature due to

reservoir compaction.

50%
Ruptured
Thread
Plastic Strain in Thread Root

2.0%
40%
M

Design Limit
1.5%
30%
Casing Strain

244.5mm 59.5kg/m L80

20% 1.0%
273mm 75.8kg/m L80

10% FEA
0.5%

0%
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%
0.0%
Casing Flexural Strain 0 5 10 15 20

Year

Figure 6 FEA prediction of plastic strain in the ruptured thread.

Figure 9 Casing strain due to reservoir compaction
as a function of production time.

8
 244.5mm 59.5kg/m L80

1.5% 150

Casing Shear

Casing Curvature ( /30m)

1.0% 100

o
Casing Strain
0.5% 50

Casing Strain
Curvature

0.0% 0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Casing Buckling Void / Cement Thickness

Figure 13 Casing strain and curvature vs. cement void.

Figure 10 Multi-sensor caliper survey of casing buckling

and shear in a cyclic steam stimulation well.
o
Curvature ( /30m)

-300 -150 0 150 300

5.0

244.5mm 59.5kg/m L80

Relative Depth to Shear Plane (m)

500 0.10% 244.5mm 59.5kg/m L80
Casing Axial Stress (MPa)

Casing Plastic Strain

2.5
Axial Stress
250 (4) Cooling Plastic Strain 0.05%

0 0.00% 0.0

-250 (3) Stress

-0.05%
Relaxation
(1) Heating - Elastic
-2.5
(2) Heating - Yield
-500 -0.10%
Lateral Displacement
0 100 200 300

o Curvature
Temperature ( C)
-5.0
-20 -10 0 10 20
Figure 11 Stress and plastic strain over a thermal cycle
Lateral Displacement (mm)
for an L80 casing.

Figure 14 Casing lateral displacement and curvature

caused by formation shear movement.

2.5%

2.0%
Casing Strain

Design Limit
1.5%

244.5mm 59.5kg/m L80

1.0%

a b c 0.5%
244.5mm 64.7kg/m K55

0.0%
0 10 20 30
Figure 12 Illustrative representation of casing buckling Formation Shear Movement (mm)
development in a cement void interval.
(a) Initial configuration; Figure 15 Casing strain as a function of formation
(b) Onset of buckling; and shear movement.
(c) Formation of helical buckling mode.

View publication stats