LONGITUDINAL LOADING EXTERNAL AND PRESSURE STRENGTH OIL-WELL CASING 483 ON OF

Discussion on the Effect of Combined Longitudinal Loading and External Pressure on the Strength of Oil-Well Casing t 1: S. H. EDWARDS * AND C. P. MILLER"
ABSTRACT Collapse tests on tubes simultaneously loaded under external pressure and longitudinal tension simulating oil-well casing in service are described and reported herein. The results show that the effect of the combined loading substantially reduces both the collapse resistance and tensile yield strength of tubes; and indicates that if the diameter-thickness ratio, simple yield strength, and simple collapse strength of casing are known, its behavior under oil-well loads can be ~redictedthroughout the depth of the well. More than 200 tests were made on 2-in. seamless-steel tubes-with various combinations of loads ranging from straight collapse pressures to straight tensile forces, with ratios of tube diameter to tube-wall thickness ranging from 11 to 22, and with steels of yield strengths from

30'000 to 80,000 Ib' per sq. in.

An illustration of the application of the test results to an actual casing failure is included.

O D FORE W R

The resistance to collapse of oil-well casing is becoming increasillgly important a s deeper and deeper wells are being drilled. In order properly to select and design casing for such wells, therefore, it is essential to be able to evaluate the significance of any factors that affect collapse strength. Among the various factors which affect the collapse strength of casing, the yield strength of the steel is found to play an important r61e.'" In general, the resistance to collapse is increased when the yield strength is raised, and decreased when i t is lowered. According to the theories of the strength of materials, the imposition of combined (biaxial) loads of unlike sign-tension and compression a t right angles to each As casing, due other-lowers the yield strength:,', to the weight of the string and external pressure, may be subject to combined loading of this character, it can be expected that, under such circumstances, its yield strength and, consequently, its resistance to collapse will be reduced. In other words, under the combined loading, the effect is the same a s if the casing was of originally lower-strength material. Similarly, the combined loading will reduce the longitudinal yield strength in tension. The practical significance of this reduction is not a s apparent a s in the case of collapse, but it may be responsible for certain cases of joint leakage. Although i t can be predicted that combination loading

will affect the strength of casing, a s described previously, the actual extent of its influence can only be established empirically. The literature fails to disclose any tests on tubular goods under the combination of loading which casing undergoes, the nearest approach being the work of A. J. Becker.' His tests were'made, however, under exactly opposite conditions-longitudinal compression and internal pressure-and, consequently, were not strictly applicable to casing. Moreover, they included only one grade of low-strength tubing. As is to be expected, they showed that combination loading reduced the yield strength, and that, a s the ratio of one load to the other increased, the loss of strength was quite appreciable. It was reasonable to believe that casing would behave in a similar manner. It was also possible that, under extreme conditions, the yield strength might be reduced so much that the customary factors of safety would cease to furnish protection. In view of this, and a s there was no assurance that Becker's results would apply directly to casing conditions, it appeared that further investigation of the subject was justified. Accordingly, in 1938, tests were made on 54 tubular specimens under conditions of combined loading, simulating those of oil-well casing. The strength of the

D tubes and their - ratios corresponded to those regu-

* Standard Oil Co. of California Richmond Calif. t Presented a t Twentieth ~ n n b a l ~ e e t i n ' g , Chicago, Ill., Nov. 16. 1939. $ The d a t a given herein were discussed briefly a f Chicago Nor. 1939, by H. B. Davis in his remarks (p. 430 of this volume{ r e arding t h e paper "Combining Bending a n d Hoop Stresses t o g e t e r m i n e Collapsing Pressure of Oil-Country Tubular ~ o o d s , " by IV. C. Main (p. 421 of this volume). These d a t a apply generally t o t h e entire subject of collapse a n d pullout strength of casing, and, therefore, a r e shown herein a s a separate rather than a s a discussion of a n y particular pa er. Vigures refer t o bibliography on p. 508.

larly used for casing. The results already have been informally reported; they showed that the anticipated loss of strength actually occurred, and that this loss could be of considerable magnitude. For example, in one case with a ratio of longitudinal tension to circumferential compression of 0.62, the collapse strength was Only 75 per cent of its (see specimen

S J. 0. Hills. "Design of Casing Programs" Ninth Mid-Year Meeting, New Orleans, La., Nay 1939 ; p. 369' of this volume.

IALS B-12, Table 3). I t was indicated also that the loss of collapse strength was affected by the original yield strength of the material and the
-

n
t.

ratio.

In making the tests, a predetermined fixed-tension load first was applied to the specimen, and the external pressure then was raised until collapse occurred. Invariably it was found that, as the tension loads were increased, a point was reached when pronounced elongation was noted without collapse of the specimen. In cases when the elongation reached 0.5 per cent of the original effective length of the specimen, this condition was designated a s a "stretch failure." The elongation normally was allowed to proceed beyond the 0.5-per-cent point; sometimes collapse finally would ensue, and a t other times it would not occur even with an elongation of several per cent. The tension load causing stretching under these conditions was substantially less than the yield strength of the specimen in simple tension. This was only natural, as the longitudinal yield strength was reduced by the action of the combined loads in the same manner a s described previously for collapse. From the data it appeared that the biaxial stress ratio a t which collapse ceased to take place varied with the original strength of the material. There were also indications

detailed description of the tubes, including the mill reports, is given in Table 1. The specimens were cut from the nominal 20-ft. mill lengths of tubing, and measured for outside diameters a t six places: a t right angles a t both ends and a t the middle. The wall thickness was measured a t quarter points a t the ends of the 1938 specimens, and a t quarter points a t 6-in. intervals for the 1939 specimens. A deep-throat micrometer was employed for obtaining the wall thicknesses a t the 6-in.-interval points. The average diameters and thicknesses were used for computing the stresses and
- ratios.

n
t

The average

dimensions are included in the test results given in Tables 3 to 14, inclusive.
l l - 7 TUREAD.

D that it was influenced by the - ratio.

t
As the 1938 tests were insufficient to determine the exact influence of these factors, i. e., original yield

D s t r e n d h and - ratio on the loss of strength, additional

t
tests were made in 1939 on 149 specimens spanning the

D range of customary casing strengths and - ratios.

t
These tests now a r e complete and, with the earlier tests, a r e described in the following report. TESTS

a. Test Specimens
The collapse tests of Stewarta and Carman7 have shown that a small-scale collapse test can give results comparable to full-size tests, provided the diameterthickness ratios are the same. For convenience of testing, therefore, the size of the test specimen chosen was 2-in.-outside-diameter tubing with

Collapse Chamber for 2-In. Tubing. FIG. 1

The ends of the specimens were threaded internally to accommodate end pieces which were employed to apply the longitudinal loads. The threading was 12 threads per inch by 19 in. long in the 1938 specimens, and 21 in. long in the 1939 set. By employing a tapered (I-in.-per-ft.) vanishing thread in the 1939 specimens, a joint strength was obtained which permitted applying a longitudinal load greater than the simple yield strength of the tube. Fig. 1 gives the details of the threading used in the 1938 set of tests.

D - ratios t

rang-

ing from 1 to 22, which ratios represent casing con1 ditions. The length of the specimen was selected a t 3 ft. (31 in. exposed to collapse pressure), which gave a length-diameter ratio f a r above the ratio of 6 to 8, which the early investigators found must be exceeded in order to avoid the circular support effect of the end packing joints. The tubing selected for the tests .was seamless steel, ranging in yield strength from about 30,000 to 80,000 lb. per sq. in. Except for one group (low-carbon hot-finished), the tubes were purchased in lots of 2 or more 20-ft. mill lengths, and all lengths of each lot were made from a common billet. A

b. Test Apparatus
An open-end hydraulic compression chamber, a s shown in Fig. 2 and, in part, in Fig. 1, was used for applying external pressure to the specimens. The distance between the end packing joints was 31 in. The packing was %-in. square hydraulic grade of duck and

LONGITUDINAL LOADING EXTERNAL AND PRESSURE STRENGTH OIL-WELLCASING 485 ON OF

rubber. Only two packing rings were used in each joint, and care was exercised in tightening the packing gland so that the packing pressure was uniform and not excessive. This was done to obtain uniformly leakproof joints and to minimize the frictional force of the packing, which interferes with the free longitudinal movement of the tube in the chamber. To reinforce the tube ends where the packing pressed against them, the screwed end pieces extended with a snug fit into each tube end under the packing. In all cases, a t least used to apply the longitudinal loads to the specimens. The accuracy of the gages which indicated the loads was within 1 per cent.

c. Teet Procedure
The specimens were grouped according to the grade of D steel and - ratio. The longitudinal yield strength was determined for each group of the 1938 set by testing

TABLE I Description of Tubes Used in Tests

Test Group No.

Thickness (Birmingham Wire Gage) 12 12 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 7 13 11 7

Grade of Steel SAE-4130X Carbon-molybdenum Low-carbon Low-carbon Low-carbon SAE-1015 SAE-4140 SAE-4140 SAE-4140 SAE-1045 SAE-1045 SAE-1045

Finish Cold-drawn-Annealed Cold-drawn-Annealed Hot-finished Cold-drawn-Annealed Cold-drawn-Annealed Cold-drawn-Normalized Cold-drawn-Heat-treated Cold-drawn-Heat-treated Cold-drawn-Heat-treated Cold-drawn-Heat-treated Cold-drawn-Heat-treated Cold-drawn-Heat-treated

Remarks 1938 1938 1938 1938 1938 1939 1939 1939 1939 1939 1939 1939 Tests Tests Tests Tests Tests Tests Tests Tests Tests Tests Tests Tests

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

10 11 12

MILL REPORTS Chemical Analysis Test Group No. MangaCarbon nese Phosphorous Sulfur Chromium Molybdenum 0.20 0.47 Yield Strength (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Ultimate Standard Oil Strength Company Tests (Lb. Per Yield Strength Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.)

( ~ e ; Cent) 0.009 0.83 .. . 0.023 0.024 ... not given not given 0.028 ... 0.015 0.95 0.016 0.95 0.021 0.94 0.035 0.035 ... 0.034 ... one end piece was vented so that the pressure within the specimen could not exceed atmospheric pressure. To indicate the pressure in the compression chamber, bourdon-tube pressure gages were employed-a 10,000lb. gage with 50-lb. graduations for most of the tests, and a 15,000-lb. gage with 100-lb. graduations for the higher pressures. The gages were checked before and after the tests with a deadweight tester, and found to be accurate within their graduations. An hydraulic Southwark-Emery testing machine was

.. .
...

...

0.19 0.20 0.20

... ... ...

representative strips ( 9 in. wide by 2-in. gage length) cut from tubes, and for the 1939 set by testing complete 3-ft. tube specimens (10-in. gage length). The yield strength taken was the stress required to produce a total elongation of 0.5 per cent of the gage length a s determined by an extensometer. No circumferential compression yield strengths were determined, due to the thinness and small diameter of the tubes. During the longitudinal tension tests of the 1939 set, stressstrain relations were taken so that stress-strain dia-

486

MATERIALS
the specimen had extended about 18 in. In most of the tests resulting in collapse, the collapse occurred before the 0.5-per-cent stretch point was reached, and in a few tests i t occurred either a t or beyond the stretch point. Various magnitudes of tension loads, ranging from low values to those approaching the full yield strength of the tubes, were employed in the tests. TO reduce the effect of the packing friction, one gland always was left loose until the desired tension load was applied for the test. When the specimen ends moved through the packing joints during the tests because of longitudinal extension (stretching), the packing-friction force reduced the tension load. To correct for this error, the packing-friction force was measured and found to be about 1,000 lb. for each gland, and was affected little by the pressure in the chamber. This value was applied a s a correction to the tension load in all cases when perceptible (0.01 in. or more) stretching occurred.

grams could be prepared. Slit-ring5 tests also were made on the tubes of this set, to check the presence of internal stress. Simple open-end collapse strengths were determined for each group by testing representative specimens in the compression chamber, with no longitudinal load. The remaining specimens were tested under combined loading of longitudinal tension and external Pressure. In making these tests, the desired tension load was applied first and held constant, while the pressure in the chamber gradually was raised (rate of loading ranged between 500 and 1,000 lb. Pressure Per minute) until the specimen either collapsed or stretched longi-

d. Test Results
The results of the tests are given in Tables 1 to 14, inclusive. In Table 1 are listed the values of simple yield strength, under the heading "Standard Oil Company Tests." I n Table 2 appear the following data for each group of tubes:
1 Tension yield strength (repeated from Table 1). . 2. Residual stress. 3. Percentage loss of strength due to residual stress (estimated). 4. Shape of the stress-strain diagram (rounded or sharp knee). 5. Average collapse strength found by test. 6. Average collapse strength from API tables. 7. Percentage of variation from API values of collapse strength found in test. Tables 3 to 14, inclusive, give the complete test data for each group of tubes subject to combined longitudinal tension and external pressure. They contain the following data:
View of Test Apparatus.

. FIG. 2
tudinally about t in. (approximately 0.8 per cent of its effective length). The instant of collapse readily was detectable by the sudden drop of pressure. The stretching was determined by observing the extension of the specimen. (This movement was obtained indirectly by observing the travel of the testing-machine head to within 0.005 in., and correcting for the deflection of the machine caused by the particular load involved.) When the specimen had stretched 0.5 per cent of its effective length (0.155 in.), the conditions were recorded a s a "stretch failure." The stretching was carried amply beyond the 0.5-per-cent mark to determine whether collapse failure was impending. In a few tests stretching was continued without collapse failure (retightening the packing joints several times was necessary) until

1. Tension load and tension stress. 2. Collapse pressure and collapse hoop stress a s cal- ,

culated by the formula PD 2! I 3. Biaxial stress ratio of combined loads. 4. Ratio of the actual strength resulting from combined loading to the simple strength.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The yield strength in circumferential compression is one of the principal factors in controlling the collapse resistance of oil-well casing. It is apparent also, from the mechanics of stability in collapse and from ~ u b lished test data, that thin-wall high-strength casing is least affected by changes of yield strength, and that the opposite is true for thick-wall low-strength casing. In general, the imposition of biaxial loads of unlike sign reduces the effective yield strength. It can be

LONGITUDINAL LOADING EXTERNAL AND PRESSURE STRENGTH OIL-WELLCASING 487 ON OF

. ..
TABLE 2 Simple Open-End Collapse Strengths
Collapse Pressures Yield ----Strength Lb. Per Sq. In. (From Table 1) Standard Oil Company Testa d (Lb. Per Sq. In.)
. I

Test Croup No.

Material

t
'

Residual Stress (Lb. Per Sq. In.)

Strength Loss b (Per Cent)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
a

SAE-4130X C-Mo Low C Low C Low C SAE-1015 SAE-4140 SAE-4140 SAE-4140 SAE-1045 SAE-1045 SAE-1045

18.2 18.5 13.2 16.3 16.5 16.5 21.7 17.3 11.2 21.7 17.3 11.2

72,500 67,000 42,000 31,900 38,100 40,600 81,100 81,300 81,900 52,100 52,200 54,600

Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined 6,600 19,500 25,000 15,500 16,900 14,200 10,400

.. ..
3

Shape Strffls-Strain Curve e

API 0 (Lb. Per Sq. In.)

Variation From API (Per Cent)

.. .. ..
15 9 nil 12 6 nil

6,650 3.8 6,900 Undetermined 6,000 +18.2 7,090 Undetermined +13.8 6,600 - 5,800 Undetermined 3,300 +12.1 3,7QO Undetermined 4,000 +20.6 4,825 Undetermined +26.3 5,430 4,300 S R 4,440 5,500 -19.3 R 7,880 8,050 - 2.1 R More than 13,000 More than +23.0 16,000 R 3,520 3,650 - 3.5 R 5,080 5,200 - 2.3 +17.4 S 10,570 9,000

Determined by slit-ring method a s described by Frame.$ These values a f e indicated by h a m e ' s tests. S = s h a r p knee R = r o u n d e d knee (Fig. 7 glves t h e a c t u a l dlngrams). Collapse pressukes glven a r e t h e average of 3 o r 4 tests i n each grou F o r individual tests, see Tables 3 t o 14, inclusive. " * P I Bulletin 5-C-8, Sept. 1939; t e n t a t i v e average values indicated %y curves on p. 9.

TABLE 3 Test Results for Group 1 Tubes

Average simple collapse pressure=6,9OO lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=62,600 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=72,500 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Avera e outsife Diameter (Inchea) Avera e walf Thickness (Inches) Tension Load (Pounds) Biaxial Ratio : Tension Tension Collapse Collapse Stress to Stress Presrn~re Stresa a Compression (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Streas
~

Specimen

Strength Ratio : Actual Strength to Average Simple Strength

A-6 A-4 B-11 B-10 A-3 A- 1 A-5 A-2 B-9 B-8 A-7 B-12
a

2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003

0.110 0.110 0.110 0.112 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.110

0 0 0 0 6,560 6,750 13,000 13,100 16,000 17,000 17,500 19,200

1.030 0.997 0.997 0.972 0.933 0.955 0.911 0.905 0.878 0.862 0.806 0.756

Average circumferentlal compression PD

x.

TABLE 4 Test Results for Group 2 Tubes

Carbon-Molybdenum 12-Gage -~ 1 8 . 5 t Average simple collapse pressure=7,090 lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=65,500 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=67,000 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Average Outside Diameter (Inches) Averaqe \Val1 Thickness (Inches) Tension Load (Pounds) Ter~sion Stress (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Collapse Collapse Pressure Stress (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio : Tension Stress to Compressiou Stress Strenptll Ratio: Actual Strength to Average Simple Strength

Specimen

C-2 C-3 D-2 D-1 D-4 D-3 D-6 C-5 C-1 D-5 C-6 C-7 C-4 U-7

2.002 2.002 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.002 2.002 2.002 2.002 2.003 2.002 2.002 2.003

0.108 0.108 0.108 0.109 0.109 0.108 0.109 0.108 0.108 0.109 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.109

0 0 0 0 6,870 6,800 12,800 12,750 12,800 12,900 13,150 17,000 18,700 18,800
PD -. 2t

0 0 0 0 10,500 10,600 19,800 19,850 19,900 20,000 20,500 26,450 29,100 29,150

7,225 7,225 6,950 6,950 6,500 6,650 6,000 6,200 5,900 5,950 6,150 5,550 5,200 5,050

66,800 66,800 64,300 63,900 59,800 61,500 55,200 57,300 54,600 54,700 56,900 51,300 48,100 46,500

0
.

0 0 0 0.176 0.173 0.359 0.346 0.365 0.366 0.361 0.516 0.604 0.627

1.020 1.020 0.982 0.975 0.913 0.939 0.843 0.875 0.833 0.835 0.869 0.783 0.735 0.710

A v e r a g e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l co!nl)ression

TABLE 5 Test Results for Group 3 Tubes

Low-Carbon 9-Gage

D - =13.2 t

Average simple collapse pressure=6,6OO lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=43,700 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=42,000 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Average Outaide Diameter (Inches)
Average

Specimen

Wall Thickness (Inches)

Tension Load (Pounds)

Tension Collapse Collapse Stress Pressure Stress (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.)

Biaxial Ratio : Tension Stress to Compression Stress

Strer~eth Ratio : Actual Strength to Average Simple Strength

F-1 J-1
G-1 E-1 H-5 E-2 H-3 E-4

0.148 0.149 0.154 0.153 0.154 0.152 0.155 0.156

0 0 0 0 4,000 7,000 10,000 12,000

0 0 0 0 4,480 8,025 11,120 13,320

6,600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6,300 5,850 5,600 5,200

44,600 44,200 43,100 42,900 40,900 38,000 36,100 33,200

0 0 0 0 0.110 0.210 0.308 0.402

Compression Stress to Tension Stress

1.020 1.010 0.986 0.983 0.937 0.870 0.828 0.760

STRETCH FAILURES

2.409 2.015 1.662 1.412 0.661 0.372 0 0 0 0

A v e r a g e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l conipression L o n g l t u d i n a l e x t e n s i o n o f 0.5 p e r cent.

PD

LONGITUDINAL LOADING EXTERNAL AND PRESSURE STRENGTH OIL-WELL CASING 489 ON OF

TABLE 6 Test Results for Group 4 Tubes D Low-Carbon 11-Gage -=16.3

Average simple collapse pressure=3,700 Ib. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=30,100 Ib. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=31,900 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Average Outside Diameter (Inches) Average Wall Thickness (Inches) Tension Load (Pounds) Tension Collapse Collapse Stress Pressure Stress a (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio: Tension Stress t o Compression Stress Strength Ratio: Actual Strength t o Average Simple Strength

Specimen

K-5 K-2 K-1 K-4

2.003 2.003 2.004 2.005

0.122 0.124 0.123 0.123

0 0 5,000 5,000

0 0 6,880 6,890

3,800 3,600 3,050 3,050

31,100 29,100 24,800 24,900

0 0 0.278 0.277

1.030 0.968 0.825 0.826

STRETCH FAILURES
Compression Tension Stress

Stress to

A v e r a g e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l compression h n g i t u d i n a l extension of 0.5 p e r cent.

PD

TABLE 7 Test Results for Group 5 Tubes

Low-Carbon 11-Gage

0 =16.5 t

Average simple collapse pressure=4,825 lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=39,900 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=38,100 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURE
Avera e 0utsi2e Diameter (Inches) Avera e ~ a l f Thickness (Inches) Tension Load (Pounds) Tension Collapse Collapse Stress Pressure Stress a (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.)(Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio: Tension Stress t o Compression Stress Strenath Ratio: Xctual Strength to Average Strength Simple

Specimen

STRETCH FAILURES
Compression Stress t o Tension Stress

L-3 L-1 L-5

2.003 2.003 2.003

0.121 0.121 0.121

8,000 14,000

.....

11,200 19,500 38,100

3,650 2,500 0

30,300 20,600 0

2.705 1.055 0

0.294 0.512 1.000

Average c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l compression PD L o n g i t u d i n a l extension of 0.5 p e r cent.

x.

TABLE 8 Test Results for Group 6 Tubes

Average simple collapse pressure=5,430 lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=44,900 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=40,300 Ib. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Average Outside Diameter (Inches) Ave~agr. Wall Thickness (Inches) Trnsiorr Load (Pounds) Tension Collapse Collapse Stress Pressure Stress ' I (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio: Tension Stresa to Compression Stress Strength Ratio: Actual Strength to Average Simple Strength

Specimen

A3-5 A2-5 A1-2 A4-5 A4-4 A3-3 A3-4 A2-3 A2-4

2.007 2.007 2.007 2.006 2.007 2.007 2.007 2.007 2.007

0 0 0 4,200 4,500 5,500 6,100 6,500 7,200 STRETCH FAILURES

0 0 0 0.145 0.158 0.197 0.224 0.241 0.270

1.020 1.000 0.980 0.900 0.884 0.873 0.839 " 0.839 0.826 "

Compression Stress to Tension Stress

A3-4 A2-4 A2-1 A4-6 A1-6 A3-1 A1-4 A1-5 A3-2 A4-3 A2-6 A1-3 A4-2 A4-1 Al-1 A3-6 A2-2
a

2.007 2.007 2.005 2.006 2.005 2.005 2.006 2.007 2.007 2.007 2.007 2.007 2.006 2.005 2.007 2.006 2.007

0.122 0.121 0.121 0.121 0.121 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.121 0.123 0.122 0.121

....

0.122 0.121

6,100 7,200 9,600 11,200 13,000 14,600 15,100 15,700 18,100 21,100 21,400 25,000 25,400 27,000 28,000 29,500 29,500

8,440 10,000 13,400 15,700 18,200 20,200 20,950 21,800 25,000 29,500 29,800 34,500 36,300 37,800 39,000 41,000 41,000

4,600 4,500 3,750 3,500 3,200 3,150 3,150 2,950 2,550 2,150 1,900 1,400 1,250 850 0 0 0

4.47 3.71 2.30 1.84 1.45 1.27 1.23 1.11 0.832 0.606 0.525 0.331 0.292 0.185 0 0 0

b c

PD Average clrcumferentlal compression Longltudlnal extension of 0.5 per cent. These specimens collapsed a f t e r they h a d extended longltudlnally 0.5 per cent.

LONGITUDINAL LOADING EXTERNAL AND PRESSURE STRENGTH OIL-WELL CASING 491 ON OF

TABLE 9 Test Results for Group 7 Tubes

Average simple collapse pressure=4,440 lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=48,100 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=81,100 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Avera e ~utsijie Diameter (Inches) Average Wall Thickness (Inches) Tenaion Load (Pounds) Tenaion Collapse Collapae Stress Presaure Streas (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio: Tension Stress to Compression Streea Strength Ratio: Actual Strength to Average Simple Strength

Specimen

B4-3 B3-4 B2-2 B4-4 B1-1 B2-5 B3-2 B4-2 B1-6 B2-4 B3-3 B3-6 B4-5 B1-4 B4-6 B2-3 B3-5 B3-1

1.994 1.993 1.993 1.995 1.994 1.995 1.993 1.993 1.994 1.994 1.994 1.992 1.995 1.995 1.995 1.995 1.994 1.993 STRETCH FAILURES
Compreaaion Stress to Tension Stress

1.060 0.977 0.965 0.952 0.962 1.012 0.937 0.964 0.910 0.854 0.749 0.721 0.631 " 0.777 ' 0.552 " 0.618 ' 0.573 " 0.517 '

0.521 0.624 0.442 0.439 0.386 0.298 0.229 0.148 0.182 0 0 0

Average circumferential compression PD . b Longitudinal extension of 0.5 p e r c e n t These apecimens collapsed a f t e r they ha$ extended longitudinally 0.5 p e r cent.
a

TABLE 10 Test Results for Group 8 Tubes

Average simple collapse pressure=7,880 lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=68,500 Ib. per sq. in. Average simple tension yield stress=81,300 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Average Outside Diameter (Inches) Arcrage Wall Thickness (Inches) Tension Load (Pounds) Tension Collapse Collapse Stress Pressure Stress a (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio : Tension Stress to Compression Stress Strength Ratio: Actual Strength to Average Simple Strength

Specimen

C3-3 C2-2 C4-4 C3-1 C1-1 C3-2 C2-6 C3-5 C1-3 C1-2 C4-6 C4-1 C4-3 C2-3 C3-6

1.993 1.994 1.996 1.993 1.995 1.993 1.994 1.976 1.995 1.995 1.997 1.995 1.995 1.993 1.993

0 0 0 6,000 9,900 19,000 19,000 23,000 27,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 38,000 39,000 48,000 STRETCH FAILURES

0 0 0 0.132 0.216 0.465 0.507 0.631 0.715 0.852 1.015 1.065 1.285 1.275 2.17

Compression Stress to Tension Stress

1.395 1.117 0.986 0.887 0.685 0.678 0.468 0.475 0.344 0.332 0.227 0.113 0.212 0 0 0
a

b
c

Average circumferential compression pt 1,ongitudinal extension of 0.5 p e r centT h e s e specimens collapsed a f t e r they h n d extended 1ongitudinoll.v 0.5 per cent.

PD

LONGITUDINAL LOADING AND EXTERNAL PRESSURE STRENGTH OIL-WELL CASING 493 ON OF

TABLE 11 Test Results for Group 9 Tubes

Average simple collapse pressure=more than 16,000 lb. per sq. in.' Average simple collapse stress =Undetermined Average simple tensile yield stress=81,900 lb. per sq. in. STRETCH FAILURES
Average Outside Diameter (Inches) Average Wall Thickness (Inches) Tension Load (Pounds) Tension Oollapse Collapse Streas Pressure Stress a (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio : Oompression Stress to Tension Stress Strength Ratio: Actual Strength to Average Simple Strength

Specimen

Average circumferential compression 2 t ' " L o n itudinal extension of 0.5 e r cent. ~ i m R testing equipment. gpecimen did not collapse h u t elongated longitudinally & in. of

PD

TABLE 12
Test Results for Group 10 Tubes

Average simple collapse pressure=3,520 lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=38,100 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=52,100 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Average Outside Dhmeter (Inches) Average Wall Thickness (Inches) Tension Load (Pounds) Collapse Collapse Tension Pressure Stress Stress (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Hatio : Tension Stress to Oompression Stress Strength Hatio : Actual Strength to Avera e simpfe Strength

1.990 1.991 1.990 1.990 1.991 1.991 1.989 1.990 1.990 1.990 1.991 1.990 1.991 STRETCH FAILURES

0 0 0 0.153 0.258 0.263 0.348 0.415 0.597 0.756 1.035 1.275 1.452

1.035 1.005 0.964 0.946 0.919 0.914 0.893 0.914 0.864 0.814 0.741 ' 0.659 " 0.632 "

Campreasion Stress to Tension Stress

Average circumferential compression T . b Longitudinal extension of 0.5 per cent. c These specimens collapsed a f t e r they h a d extended l o n g i t u d i n a l l ~0.6 per cent.

PD

LONGITUDINAL LOADING EXTERNAL AND PRESSURE STRENGTH OIL-WELLCASING 495 ON OF

#

TABLE 13
Test Results

for Group 1 Tubes 1

Average simple collapse pressure=5,080 lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=43,800 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=52,200 lb. per sq. in. COLLAPSE FAILURES
Average Outside Diameter (Inches) Average Wall Thickness (Inches) Tension Load (Pounds) Tension Collapse Collapse Stress Pressure Stress a (Lh. Per Sq. In.) (Lh. Per Sq. In.) (Lh. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio : Tension Stress to Oompression Stress Stren@h Ratio: Actual Strength t o Average Simple Strength

Specimen

H1-2 H3-6 H2-3 H1-5 H3-5 H1-3 H2-2 H3-2 H3-4 H5-5 H2-4 H4-4 H4-2 H5-3 H1-1 H2-1 H5-2 H3-1

1.990 1.993 1.992 1.992 1.992 1.991 1.992 1.992 1.993 1.994 1.991 1.993 1.991 1.992 1.991 1.990 1.992 1.992 STRETCH TESTS "

0 0 0 0.134 0.137 0.212 0.204 0.241 0.283 0.313 0.327 0.399 0.474 0.582 0.597 0.570 0.697 0.952

1.030 1.005 0.964 1.005 0.977 0.950 0.993 0.976 0.943 0.963 0.930 0.927 0.888 ' 0.810 0.788 0.834 0.778 0.665 '

Oompression Stress to Tension Stress

2.11 1.27 1.05 1.02 0.867 0.740 0.457 0.412 0.228 0.178 0 0 0 0
b

PD Average circumferential compression 2t Longitudinal extension of 0.5 p e r cent. These specimens colIapsed a f t e r they h a d extended longitudirlally 0.6 per cent.

TABLE 14 Test Results for Group 12 Tubes

Average simple collapse pressure=10,570 lb. per sq. in. Average simple collapse stress=59,200 lb. per sq. in. Average simple tensile yield stress=54,600 lb. per sq. in.

COLLAPSE FAILURES
.4veracTr 0utsiJc Diameter (Inches) Average Wall Thickness (Inches) Tcnsio~~ Load (Pounds) Tension Collapse Collapse Stress Pressure Stress a (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) (Lb. Per Sq. In.) Biaxial Ratio: Tension Stress to Compression Stress Strength Ratio: Actual Strength to Average Simple Strength

Specin~en

0 0 0 0.053 0.091

1.005 1.000 0.994 0.949 ' 0.926 '

STRETCH FAILURES
Compression Stress to Tension Stress

18.41 10.80 7.57 5.81 3.29 2.19 1.52 1.04 0.786 0.625 0.510 0.374 0.247 0 0 0
n Average circumferential compression
b

PD

Lonpitudinnl extension of 0.5 p e r cent-. T h e s e specimens collnpsed a f t e r t h e y h a d extended longitudinally 0.5 Der cent.

LONGITUDINAL LOADING EXTERNAL AND PRESSURE STRENGTHF OILLWELLCASING 497 ON O

I
expected, therefore, if tubes are subjected to a combination of external pressure and longitudinal tension, that: -in other words, the biaxial stress ratio a t which collapse ceases-is governed by the original yield strength and the

1. The collapse strength will be reduced, and 2. Thin-wall high-strength tubes will be less affected than thick-wall low-strength tubes.
The test results obtained in this investigation show no departure from these conclusions. In all cases the combined loads caused a loss of collapse strength, which was most pronounced in the case of the thick-wall lowstrength specimens, and was least pronounced in the case of the thin-wall high-strength specimens. Fig. 3 depicts graphically the relation between loss

D ratio. The thin-wall high-strength

tubes (group 7) ceased to collapse a t a biaxial stress ratio of 2.78, although the medium-strength thick-wall (group 12) and low-strength medium-wall (group 6) tubes ceased to collapse a t ratios of only 0.091 and 0.270, respectively. This variation in behavior is due to differences in the stability characteristics of the different groups of specimens. The curves plotted in Fig. 3 are limited to the specimens tested in 1939. This was done to prevent con-

Loss of Collapse Strength Due to Combined Loads (December 1939).

FIG. 3
of collapse strength and biaxial stress ratio. I t will be noted that group 7, representing tubes of the highest strength and thinnest wall, proportionately were affected least by combined loading; and that, with thicker and/or lower-strength tubes, the loss of strength became more pronounced. Particular attention is called to the fact that, with some of the groups of tubes, the loss of collapse strength a t relatively-low biaxial stress ratios (not over 0.5) was quite serious-as much a s 20 per cent. I t will be noted also that each curve terminates a t an end point. This corresponds to the biaxial stress ratio when failure by collapse ceased to take place and failure by stretching occurred. The length of the curve fusion by having too many lines on the chart. The 1938 tests are, however, in complete agreement. The data of those tests resulting in stretch are plotted in Fig. 4, the coordinates being loss of longitudinal tension yield strength and biaxial stress ratio. The points constitute a single curve as, in these stretch failures, instability is not involved. I t is interesting to note the great reduction of longitudinal tensile yield strength a t high biaxial stress ratios. In Fig. 5 the results of the 1939 tests are plotted with the longitudinal and circumferential stresses a t failure, as coordinates. In this manner a continuous curve from simple collapse to simple tension is obtained. The portion of the curve depicting collapse failures

can be distinguished from the portion depicting stretch by the code shown on the chart. If either of the stresses -tension or compression-is known, the value of the other which will cause failure can be determined from the chart, and it can be told whether failure will be in the nature by collapse or stretching. I t will be observed that the stretch portions of each group of curves for tubes of the same strength tend to come together, and that the collapse portions tend to separate. This is to be expected, as i t has been seen that stretch is independent of the-D ratio, although collapse is affected t by it.

for Poisson's ratio. If, however, a high value of about 0.5 is used for Poisson's ratio, the theory curve is shifted to the dotted line shown on the chart, and then agrees reasonably with the stretch results. Also in Fig. 6, collapse results for two groups of tests (group 6-40,000 lb. per sq. in. yield strength, - . a n Dd ratio of 16.5; and group 7-80,000 lb. per sq. in.

D yield strength, and - ratio of 21.7) are compared to t

the energy-theory curve to illustrate that these results do not follow the curve directly. This is to be expected because of the effect of instability.

Loss ol' Longitudinal Yield Strength Due to Combined Loads (December 1939). FIG. 4 In Fig. 6 the results of all the stretch failures (both 1938 and 1939 tests) are compared to the maximum strain-energy theory of elastic failure in the form customarily used to illustrate the various theories of strength * for biaxial loading. In making this cornparison, the average values of the two principal stresses (the radial stresses are neglected) a t the instant of 0.5 per cent elongation are employed. I t can be seen on the &art that the results do not follow exactly the theory curve when the ordinary value of 0.3 is used A point of interest in the test results is the discrepancy between the simple collapse strength of the group 6 and group 1 tubes which have practically 1 the same - ratio. As seen in Table 2, the former is t about 400 lb. per sq. in. stronger than the latter in resistance to collapse pressure-although, on the basis of yield strengths (40,000 lb. as compared with 50,000 lb.1, the opposite should be the case. I t is believed that this discrepancy is due to the shape of the stressstrain curves depicted in Fig. 7. The curve for group breaks off with a knee, whereas that group 1 is rounded. Although the yield strength of group 11, 1 based O & per cent elongation, is higher than that of n 6, the reverse is true at a smaller percentage

* Several theories of elastic failure for compound loading have been proposed, and are described and discussed in textbooks on "elasticity" or "strength of materials," The maximum strainenergy theory appears to At the empirical data better than any of the others. A brief description of its application to the binxially-loaded condition is given in the appendis, P. 502 of this volume.

elongation. As the definition of yield strength by this method is entirely arbitrary, the particular property controlling the collapse actually may be higher for the group 6 material than for the apparently higher-yieldstrength group 11 material. Attention is called to this

From a practical standpoint, this loss ordinarily is not serious for casing strings of uniform weight. At the bottom of the string, where collapse pressure is highest, there is no tension and there is, consequently, no loss of strength. In proceeding upward, the increasing ten-

LONGITUDINAL STRESS AT FAILURE (P.S.1.) TENSION

Relation between Combined Longitudinal Tension and Collapse Stresses at Failure, for Test Groups 6 to 12, Inclusive (December 1939). FIG. 5

point a s emphasizing the necessity of considering stressstrain relationships in regard to their effect on collapse.
APPLICATION OF RESULTS

The investigation definitely has established that biaxial loads cause a loss of collapse strength which, under certain conditions, may be quite substantial.

sion reduces the collapse strength because of the effect of biaxial loading; but, according to the test data, the amount of this reduction is always less than the reduction of collapse pressure. The only exception is when there is tension in the string due to some cause other than the weight. In the case of combination (mixed weight and/or grades) strings, on the other hand, the effect of biaxial loads may be critical at,

POSITIVE 'TENSION NEGATIVE 'COMPRESSION

+-STRETCH 0-COLLAPSE FAILURES

- GROUPS

3 TO 12 INC. 8 , D/T=18.5

FAILURES-GROUP

YIELD STRESS -40,600. COLLAPSE FAILURES -GROUP 7, D / T -21.7 YIELD STRESS -81,300.

FOR COLLAPSE FAILURE, THE SIMPLE COLLAPSE STRESS I S USED INSTEAD OF SIMPLE YIELD.

Comparison of Maximum Strain-Energy Theory to Test Results (December 1939).

FIG. 6

LONGITUDINAL LOADING EXTERNAL AND PRESSURE STRENGTH F OIL-WELLCASING 501 ON O

or in the vicinity of, changes in weight. To illustrate, the following stress analysis is made from conditions of a n actual well in which a collapse failure occurred:

Well Conditions
Casing depth-11,200 ft. Casing size-71 in. outside diameter. Casing cemented a t bottom to approximately the 6,850-ft. level. Mud density-77 lb. per cu. ft. DETAIL O F CASING STRING
Length (Feet) Weiglit (Pounda Per Foot) Grade (Former API) Area (Square Inches) Ratio D
t

Top Next

...... 60 ..... 6,357

Bottom

...

2,504 2,279

33.7 29.7 33.7 33.7

X
D D

9.720 8.541 9.72 9.72

17.74 20.33 17.74 17.74

A collapse load was applied to the casing string a few days after the string had been cemented by swabbing down the inner fluid to a depth of about 6,540 ft. Several hours later conditions indicated that the casing collapsed a t approximately 6,110 ft. The principal stresses in the casing string above the cement level a t the time of failure, the collapse strengths under both simple loading and combined loading, and the corresponding factors of safety a r e shown in the following tabulation :

Stress-Strain Diagrams, Test Groups 6 to 12, Inclusive (December 1939). FIG. 7

Top of Failed Section

change Points
,
A

Depth, ft. .............................................. Casing size, in., and grade (former API) ................... Casing weight, Ib. per f t . . ................................ Longitudinal tension stress," lb. per sq. i n . . ................ Circumferential compression stress,' lb. per sq. in. .......... Simple collapse strength,' Ib. per sq. in. .................... Factor of safety, based upon simple loading.. .............. Biaxial stress ratio.. .................................... Estimated loss in collapse strength," per cent. .............. Factor of safety, based upon combined loading. .............

TOP

Cement Level

For simplification purposes the 60 ft. of 33.7-1b. casing a t the top was included with t h e second section. The tension stresses a r e dased upon the a i r weight of the casing only. Neglect of factors like buoyancy and effect of extension produced by the extefnal pressure a r e believed t o be justifiable, because t h e conditions under which the string was run into the well were not known definitely. The compression stresses a r e those derived by Barlow's formula I'D "he simple collapse strength is based upon the tentative average collapse pressure given in B P I Bulletin 5-C-d f o r casing with yield strength of 55,000 lb. per sq. in. Estimated from test results given in Fig. 3.

x.

This analysis indicates that the factor of safety for the casing in the region of the collapse failure, when based upon simple loading, is approximately 1.5; and, when based upon combined loading, is approximately

1.25. Owing to the variations found in collapse strength of casing, a collapse failure with a factor of safety (based on average values) a s low a s 1.25 is not unreasonable. When the casing string was designed, the

factor of safety was assumed to be 1.5, but cognizance of the effect of combined loading was not made. I t is evident, therefore, that in order to obtain a true factor of safety, the effect of combined loading should be included in the design of such strings. The effect of biaxial loads on collapse strength has been stressed in the foregoing discussion in the belief that it represented the greater hazard to casing strings. As previously pointed out in connection with stretch failures, however, the yield strength in longitudinal tension also is reduced. In contrast to collapse, yielding affords relief-probably without serious consequences,

although there is a possibility that it may cause leakage a t joints. In view of the importance of collapse, further information on the effect of biaxial loads is, of course, desirable. No doubt it best can be obtained by tests on actual casing material. In the meantime, the number I1 of tests (more than 200) and the range of -ratios and

strengths covered make it reasonable to believe that the present test data can be applied to casing problems with confidence in the reliability of these data.

APPENDIX

MAXIMUM STRAIN-ENERGY THEORY OF ELASTIC FAILURE

The maximum strain-energy theory assumes that the quantity of strain energy stored per unit volume of an elastic material has a fixed maximum a t the point of elastic failure. Therefore, by using the energy required to cause a simple-tension test specimen to reach its elastic limit a s a basis, the limiting stresses under compound loading can be determined. This is done a s follows : the negative sign corresponding to compression, and the work is: v fx fy - fx2+fy'+2v fx fy W=- fxa+fy' 2E ' 7 - 2E Assuming the elastic work has a fixed maximum, then: fZ fx2+fy'+2v fx fy 2E= 2E Or, f2=fx2+fy2+2v f x fy. From this equation, either stress can be determined in terms of the elastic limit and the other stress.

Let:
W =work done on the elastic material. f=limiting stress to cause elastic failure in simple tension. fx, fy, fzxstresses acting on mutually perpendicular planes. E =modulus of elasticity. v= Poisson's ratio.
The work on the simple-tension specimen is:

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. J. Becker?, "The Strength and Stiffness of Steel under Biaxial Loading, Univ. Illinois Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 85, Apr. (1916). SB. P. Haigh "The Strain-Energy Function and the Elastic n~ Limit" ~ n ~ i n e e k i Jan., 30. (1920); also reprint of Rept. Brzt. ~ s e o c . 'Advancement Nci., 324 (1921),. 3A. Nadai "Theories of Strength. Trans. Am. Soc. o f Jfccli. klnnra . . .- . APM-hs.15. 111-23 (1933). ,. . --4 T. McLean Jasper, "Importance of Compressjpn Yield Strength in Establishing Setting Depths for Caslng, Drillang and Production Practice 116, 250. 6 W 3 . Frame "Casing Setting Depths are Not Assured by 1 physical ~ r o ~ e r t i k s the Steel," Drilling and Production Praoof
1

The work on the material under triaxial tension loading is: fx2+fy'+fz2 -- (fx fy+fy fz+fx fz). v W= 2E E For oil-well-casing conditions of tension with compression (neglecting the radial stress)-fz=O, f y has

tirr

8 R . T. Stewart. "Collapsing Pressure of Bessemer-Steel Lapwelded Tubes, 3 In. to 10 In. in Diameter," Trans. Am. Soo. Mech. Engrs. 27 (Papet. 1,116) 730 (1906).

109R ..""-.,"-,

299

TA. P. Carman, "The Colla se of Thin Short Tubes," Univ. 99, June (1917). Illinois Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull.

&.