Casing design

To design a casing string, one must have knowledge of:

Purpose of the well
Geological cross section
Available casing and bit sizes
Cementing and drilling practices
Rig performance
Safety and environmental regulations
To arrive at the optimal solution, the design engineer must consider casing as a part of a whole
drilling system. A brief description of the elements involved in the design process is presented
next.
Design objective
The engineer responsible for developing the well plan and casing design is faced with a number
of tasks that can be briefly characterized.
Ensure the wells mechanical integrity by providing a design basis that accounts for all the
anticipated loads that can be encountered during the life of the well.
Design strings to minimize well costs over the life of the well.
Provide clear documentation of the design basis to operational personnel at the well site. This
will help prevent exceeding the design envelope by application of loads not considered in the
original design.
While the intention is to provide reliable well construction at a minimum cost, at times failures
occur. Most documented failures occur because the pipe was exposed to loads for which it was
not designed. These failures are called off-design failures. On-design failures are rather rare.
This implies that casing-design practices are mostly conservative. Many failures occur at
connections. This implies that either field makeup practices are not adequate, or the connection
design basis is not consistent with the pipe-body design basis.
Design method
The design process can be divided into two distinct phases.
Preliminary design
Typically the largest opportunities for saving money are present while performing this task. This
design phase includes:
Data gathering and interpretation
Determination of casing shoe depths and number of strings
Selection of hole and casing sizes
Mud-weight design
Directional design
The quality of the gathered data will have a large impact on the appropriate choice of casing
sizes and shoe depths and whether the casing design objective is successfully met.
Detailed design
The detailed design phase includes selection of pipe weights and grades for each casing string.
The selection process consists of comparing pipe ratings with design loads and applying
minimum acceptable safety standards (i.e., design factors). A cost-effective design meets all the
design criteria with the least expensive available pipe.
Required information
The items listed next are a checklist, which is provided to aid the well planners/casing designers
in both the preliminary and detailed design.
Formation properties: pore pressure; formation fracture pressure; formation strength (borehole
failure); temperature profile; location of squeezing salt and shale zones; location of permeable
zones; chemical stability/sensitive shales (mud type and exposure time); lost-circulation zones,
shallow gas; location of freshwater sands; and presence of H
2
S and/or CO
2
.
Directional data: surface location; geologic target(s); and well interference data.
Minimum diameter requirements: minimum hole size required to meet drilling and production
objectives; logging tool outside diameter (OD); tubing size(s); packer and related equipment
requirements; subsurface safety valve OD (offshore well); and completion requirements.
Production data: packer-fluid density; produced-fluid composition; and worst-case loads that
might occur during completion, production, and workover operations.
Other: available inventory; regulatory requirements; and rig equipment limitations.
Preliminary design method
The purpose of preliminary design is to establish:
Casing and corresponding drill-bit sizes
Casing setting depths
The number of casing strings
Casing program (well plan) is obtained as a result of preliminary design. Casing program design
is accomplished in three major steps:
Mud program is prepared
The casing sizes and corresponding drill-bit sizes are determined
The setting depths of individual casing strings are found
Mud program
The most important mud program parameter used in casing design is the mud weight. The
complete mud program is determined from:
Pore pressure
Formation strength (fracture and borehole stability)
Lithology
Hole cleaning and cuttings transport capability
Potential formation damage, stability problems, and drilling rate
Formation evaluation requirement
Environmental and regulatory requirements
Hole and pipe diameters
Hole and casing diameters are based on the requirements discussed next.
Production
The production equipment requirements include:
Tubing
Subsurface safety valve
Submersible pump and gas lift mandrel size
Completion requirements (e.g., gravel packing)
Weighing the benefits of increased tubing performance of larger tubing against the higher
cost of larger casing over the life of the well
Evaluation
Evaluation requirements include logging interpretation and tool diameters.
Drilling
Drilling requirements include:
A minimum bit diameter for adequate directional control and drilling performance
Available downhole equipment
Rig specifications
Available blowout prevention (BOP) equipment
These requirements normally impact the final hole or casing diameter. Because of this, casing
sizes should be determined from the inside outward starting from the bottom of the hole. The
design sequence is, usually, as follows:
Proper tubing size is selected, based upon reservoir inflow and tubing intake performance
The required production casing size is determined, considering completion requirements
The diameter of the drill bit is selected for drilling the production section of the hole, considering
drilling and cementing stipulations
The smallest casing through which the drill bit will pass is determined
The process is repeated
Large cost savings are possible by becoming more aggressive (using smaller clearances) during
this portion of the preliminary design phase. This has been one of the principal motivations in the
increased popularity of slimhole drilling. Typical casing and rock bit sizes are given in Table 1.
Casing shoe depths and the number of strings
Following the selection of drillbit and casing sizes, the setting depth of individual casing strings
must be determined. In conventional rotary drilling operations, the setting depths are determined
principally by the mud weight and the fracture gradient, as schematically depicted in Fig.
1, which is sometimes called a well plan. Equivalent mud weight (EMW) is pressure divided by
true vertical depth and converted to units of lbm/gal. EMW equals actual mud weight when the
fluid column is uniform and static. Pore and fracture gradient lines must be drawn on a well-
depth vs. EMW chart. These are the solid lines in Fig. 1. Safety margins are introduced, and
broken lines are drawn, which establish the design ranges. The offset from the predicted pore
pressure and fracture gradient nominally accounts for kick tolerance and the increased equivalent
circulating density (ECD) during drilling. There are two possible ways to estimate setting depths
from this figure.
Bottom-up design
This is the standard method for casing seat selection. From Point A in Fig. 1 (the highest mud
weight required at the total depth), draw a vertical line upward to Point B. A protective 7
5
/
8
-in.
casing string must be set at 12,000 ft, corresponding to Point B, to enable safe drilling on the
section AB. To determine the setting depth of the next casing, draw a horizontal line BC and
then a vertical line CD. In such a manner, Point D is determined for setting the 9
5
/
8
-in. casing at
9,500 ft. The procedure is repeated for other casing strings, usually until a specified surface
casing depth is reached.
Top-down design
From the setting depth of the 16-in. surface casing (here assumed to be at 2,000 ft), draw a
vertical line from the fracture gradient dotted line, Point A, to the pore pressure dashed line,
Point B. This establishes the setting point of the 11-in. casing at about 9,800 ft. Draw a
horizontal line from Point B to the intersection with the dotted frac gradient line at Point C; then,
draw a vertical line to Point D at the pore pressure curve intersection. This establishes the 9
5
/
8
-
in. casing setting depth. This process is repeated until bottom hole is reached.
There are several things to observe about these two methods. First, they do not necessarily give
the same setting depths. Second, they do not necessarily give the same number of strings. In the
top-down design, the bottomhole pressure is missed by a slight amount that requires a short 7-in.
liner section. This slight error can be fixed by resetting the surface casing depth. The top-down
method is more like actually drilling a well, in which the casing is set when necessary to protect
the previous casing shoe. This analysis can help anticipate the need for additional strings, given
that the pore pressure and fracture gradient curves have some uncertainty associated with them.
In practice, a number of regulatory requirements can affect shoe depth design. These factors are
discussed next.
Hole stability
This can be a function of mud weight, deviation and stress at the wellbore wall, or can be
chemical in nature. Often, hole stability problems exhibit time-dependent behavior (making shoe
selection a function of penetration rate). The plastic flowing behavior of salt zones must also be
considered.
Differential sticking
The probability of becoming differentially stuck increases along with:
An increase in differential pressure between the wellbore and formation
An increase in permeability of the formation
An Increase in fluid loss of the drilling fluid (i.e., thicker mudcake)
Zonal Isolation. Shallow freshwater sands must be isolated to prevent contamination. Lost-
circulation zones must be isolated before a higher-pressure formation is penetrated.
Directional drilling concerns
A casing string is often run after an angle building section has been drilled. This avoids
keyseating problems in the curved portion of the wellbore because of the increased normal force
between the wall and the drillpipe.
Uncertainty in predicted formation properties
Exploration wells often require additional strings to compensate for the uncertainty in the pore
pressure and fracture gradient predictions.
Another approach that could be used for determining casing setting depths relies on plotting
formation and fracturing pressures vs. hole depth, rather than gradients, as shown in Fig.
2 and Fig. 1. This procedure, however, typically yields many strings, and is considered to be very
conservative.
The problem of choosing the casing setting depths is more complicated in exploratory wells
because of shortage of information on geology, pore pressures, and fracture pressures. In such a
situation, a number of assumptions must be made. Commonly, the formation pressure gradient is
taken as 0.54 psi/ft for hole depths less then 8,000 ft and taken as 0.65 psi/ft for depths greater
than 8,000 ft. Overburden gradients are generally taken as 0.8 psi/ft at shallow depth and as 1.0
psi/ft for greater depths.
TOC depths
Top-of-cement (TOC) depths for each casing string should be selected in the preliminary design
phase, because this selection will influence axial load distributions and external pressure profiles
used during the detailed design phase. TOC depths are typically based on:
Zonal isolation
Regulatory requirements
Prior shoe depths
Formation strength
Buckling
Annular pressure buildup(in subsea wells)
Buckling calculations are not performed until the detailed design phase. Hence, the TOC depth
may be adjusted, as a result of the buckling analysis, to help reduce buckling in some cases.
Directional plan
For casing design purposes, establishing a directional plan consists of determining the wellpath
from the surface to the geological targets. The directional plan influences all aspects of casing
design including:
Mud weight and mud chemistry selection for hole stability
Shoe seat selection
Casing axial load profiles
Casing wear
Bending stresses
Buckling
It is based on factors that include:
Geological targets
Surface location
Interference from other wellbores
Torque and drag considerations
Casing wear considerations
Bottom hole assembly [(BHA) an assembly of drill collars, stabilizers, and bits]
Drill-bit performance in the local geological setting
To account for the variance from the planned build, drop, and turn rates, which occur because of
the BHAs used and operational practices employed, higher doglegs are often superimposed over
the wellbore. This increases the calculated bending stress in the detailed design phase.
Detailed design method
Load cases
In order to select appropriate weights, grades, and connections during the detailed design phase
using sound engineering judgment, design criteria must be established. These criteria normally
consist of load cases and their corresponding design factors that are compared to pipe ratings.
Load cases are typically placed into categories that include:
Burst loads
Drilling loads
Production loads
Collapse loads
Axial loads
Running and cementing loads
Service loads
Design factors (DF)
.................... (1)
Where
DF = design factor (the minimum acceptable safety factor), and
SF = safety factor.
It follows that
.................... (2)
Hence, by multiplying the load by the DF, a direct comparison can be made with the pipe rating.
As long as the rating is greater than or equal to the modified load (which we will call the design
load), the design criteria have been satisfied.
Other considerations
After performing a design based on burst, collapse and axial considerations, an initial design is
achieved. Before a final design is reached, design issues (connection selection, wear, and
corrosion) must be addressed. In addition, other considerations can also be included in the
design. These considerations are triaxial stresses because of combined loading (e.g., ballooning
and thermal effects)this is often called service life analysis; other temperature effects; and
buckling.
Loads on casing and tubing strings
In order to evaluate a given casing design, a set of loads is necessary. Casing loads result from:
Running the casing
Cementing the casing
Subsequent drilling operations
Production and well work over operations
Casing loads are principally pressure loads, mechanical loads, and thermal loads. Pressure loads
are produced by fluids within the casing, cement and fluids outside the casing, pressures imposed
at the surface by drilling and work over operations, and pressures imposed by the formation
during drilling and production.
Mechanical loads are associated with:
Casing hanging weight
Shock loads during running
Packer loads during production and workovers
Hanger loads
Temperature changes and resulting thermal expansion loads are induced in casing by drilling,
production, and work overs, and these loads might cause buckling (bending stress) loads in
uncemented intervals.
The casing loads that are typically used in preliminary casing design are:
External Pressure Loads
Internal Pressure Loads
Mechanical Loads
Thermal Loads and Temperature Effects
However, each operating company usually has its own special set of design loads for casing,
based on their experience. If you are designing a casing string for a particular company, this load
information must be obtained from them. Because there are so many possible loads that must be
evaluated, most casing design today is done with computer programs that generate the
appropriate load sets (often custom tailored for a particular operator), evaluate the results, and
can sometimes determine a minimum-cost design automatically.

Nodal analysis
Systems analysis has been used for many years to analyze the performance of systems composed
of multiple interacting components. Gilbert
[1]
was perhaps the first to introduce the approach to
oil and gas wells but Mach, Proano, and Brown
[2]
and Brown
[3]
popularized the concept, which is
typically referred to as Nodal Analysis within the oil and gas industry. The objective of
systems analysis is to combine the various components of the production system for an
individual well to estimate production rates and optimize the components of the production
system.
Necessity of examining flow through system
The flow of reservoir fluids from the subsurface reservoir to the stock tank or sales line requires
an understanding of the principles of fluid flow through porous media and well tubulars. As the
fluid moves through the production system, there will be an associated pressure drop to
accompany the fluid flow. This pressure drop will be the sum of the pressure drops through the
various components in the production system. Because of the compressible nature of the fluids
produced in oil and gas operations, the pressure drop is dependent on the interaction between the
various components in the system. This occurs because the pressure drop in a particular
component is not only dependent on the flow rate through the component, but also on the
average pressure that exists in the component.
As a result, the final design of a production system requires an integrated approach, since the
system cannot be separated into a reservoir component or a piping component and handled
independently. The amount of oil and gas produced from the reservoir to the surface depends on
the total pressure drop in the production system, and the pressure drop in the system depends on
the amount of fluid flowing through the system. Consequently, the entire production system must
be analyzed as a unit or system.
Depending on the terminal end of the production system, there is a total pressure drop from the
reservoir pressure to the surface, as depicted in Fig. 1. If the separator represents the end of the
production system, the total pressure drop in the system is the difference between the average
reservoir pressure and the separator pressure:
.................... (1)
This total pressure drop is then composed of individual pressure drops as the reservoir fluid
flows to the surface. These pressure drops occur as the fluid flows through the reservoir and well
completion, up the tubing, through the wellhead equipment and choke, and through the surface
flow lines to the separator. Thus, the total pressure drop of Eq. 1 can be represented by Eq. 2.
.................... (2)
These individual pressure drops can be divided into yet additional pressure drops to account for
restrictions, subsurface safety valves, tubing accessories, etc.
Systems analysis is based on the concept of continuity. At any given point in the production
system, there is a particular pressure and production rate associated with that point for a set of
conditions. If there is any change in the system, then there will be an associated change in
pressure and/or production rate at that same point. This concept allows the production system to
be divided at a point of interest for evaluation of the two portions of the system. This evaluation
determines the conditions of continuity of pressure and production rate at the division point,
which is the estimated producing condition for the system being evaluated.
The approach provides the flexibility to divide the production system at any point of interest
within the system to evaluate a particular component of the system. The most common division
points are at the wellhead or at the perforations, either at the reservoir sandface or inside the
wellbore. The terminal ends of the system will be the reservoir on the upstream end of the system
and the separator at the downstream end of the system or the wellhead if a wellhead choke
controls the well.
The components upstream of the division point or node comprise the inflow section of the
system, while the components downstream of the node represent the outflow section. Once the
system is divided into inflow and outflow sections, relationships are written to describe the rate-
pressure relationship within each section. The flow rate through the system is determined once
the conditions of continuity are satisfied:
Flow into the division point equals flow out of the division point
The pressure at the division point is the same in both inflow and outflow sections of the system
After the division point is selected, pressure relationships are developed for the inflow and
outflow sections of the system to estimate the node pressure. The pressure in the inflow section
of the system is determined from Eq. 3, while the outflow section pressure drop is determined
from Eq. 4.
....................(3)
....................(4)
The pressure drop in any component, and thus in either the inflow or outflow section of the
system, varies as a function of flow rate. As a result, a series of flow rates is used to calculate
node pressures for each section of the system. Then, plots of node pressure vs. production rate
for the inflow section and the outflow section are made. The curve representing the inflow
section is called the inflow curve, while the curve representing the outflow section is the outflow
curve. The intersection of the two curves provides the point of continuity required by the systems
analysis approach and indicates the anticipated production rate and pressure for the system being
analyzed.
Fig. 2 depicts a systems graph for a sensitivity study of three different combinations for outflow
components labeled A, B, and C. For outflow curve A, there is no intersection with the inflow
performance curve. Because there is no intersection, there is no continuity in the system and the
well will not be expected to flow with System A. The inflow and outflow performance curves do
intersect for System B. Thus this system satisfies continuity, and the well will be expected to
produce at a rate and pressure indicated by the intersection of the inflow and outflow curves.
System C also has an intersection and would be expected to produce at a higher rate and lower
pressure than System B, as indicated by the graph.
The outflow curve for System C has a rapidly decreasing pressure at low flow rates, reaches a
minimum, and then begins to slowly increase with increasing rate. This is typical for many
outflow curves, which, in some cases, will yield two intersection points with the inflow curve;
however, the intersection at the lower rate is not a stable solution and is meaningless. The proper
intersection of the inflow and outflow curves should be the intersection to the right of and several
pressure units higher than the minimum pressure on the outflow curve.
The effect of changing any component of the system can be evaluated by recalculating the node
pressure for the new characteristics of the system. If a change is made in an upstream component
of the system, then the inflow curve will change and the outflow curve will remain unchanged.
On the other hand, if a change in a downstream component is made, then the inflow curve will
remain the same and the outflow curve will change. Both the inflow and outflow curves will be
shifted if either of the fixed pressures in the system is changed, which can occur when evaluating
the effects of reservoir depletion or considering different separator conditions or wellhead
pressures.
Systems analysis may be used for many purposes in analyzing and designing producing oil and
gas wells. The approach is suited for evaluating both flowing wells and artificial lift applications.
The technique provides powerful insight in the design of an initial completion. Even with limited
data, various completion scenarios can be evaluated to yield a qualitative estimate of expected
well behavior. This process is very useful in analyzing current producing wells by identifying
flow restrictions or opportunities to enhance performance.
Typical applications include:
Estimation of flow rates
Selection of tubing size
Selection of flowline size
Selection of wellhead pressures and surface choke sizing
Estimation of the effects of reservoir pressure depletion
Identification of flow restrictions
Other typical applications are:
Sizing subsurface safety valves
Evaluating perforation density
Gravel pack design
Artificial lift design
Optimizing injection gas-liquid ratio for gas lift
Evaluating the effects of lower wellhead pressures or installation of compression
Evaluating well stimulation treatments
In addition, systems analysis can be used to evaluate multiwell producing systems.
Systems analysis is a very robust and flexible method that can be used to design a well
completion or improve the performance of a producing well.
Systems analysis examples
Examples 1 and 2 demonstrate the systems analysis approach. Example 1 considers the effects of
tubing size on gas well performance. Example 2 demonstrates the effects of reservoir depletion
on the performance of an oil well. Greene,
[4]
Brown and Lea,
[5]
.
Example 1
Analyze a gas well to select an appropriate tubing size. The gas well under consideration is at
9,000 ft with a reservoir pressure of 4,000 psia.
Solution The first step in applying systems analysis is to select a node to divide the system.
Initially, the node is selected to be at the perforations to isolate the inflow performance (reservoir
behavior) from the flow behavior in the tubing. For this particular case, the well is flowing at
critical flow conditions, and, consequently, the wellhead choke serves as a discontinuity in the
system, which allows the use of the wellhead pressure as the terminal point for the outflow
curve. Once the node point is selected, the pressure relations for the inflow and outflow sections
of the system are determined. For this example, Eqs. 5 and 6represent the inflow and outflow
pressure relationships, respectively.
....................(5)
....................(6)
With these basic relationships, the flowing bottomhole pressure is calculated for different
production rates for both the inflow and outflow sections. Table 1 presents the inflow
performance data while Table 2 presents the calculated pressures for three different tubing sizes
using a constant wellhead pressure of 1,000 psia. These data are used to construct the inflow and
outflow curves in Fig. 3 to estimate the production rates and pressures for each tubing size. The
intersection of the outflow curves with the inflow curve dictates the estimated point of continuity
and the anticipated producing conditions for the analyzed system. For this example, the
production rate increases with increasing tubing size, yielding 4,400 Mscf/D for 1.90-in. tubing,
4,850 Mscf/D for 2 3/8-in. tubing, and 5,000 Mscf/D for 2 7/8-in. tubing.
The same well could be analyzed with the wellhead as the system node. This allows the effect of
changes in wellhead pressure on well performance to be determined. The new inflow and
outflow pressure relationships are
....................(7)
for the inflow curve, and
....................(8)
for the outflow curve. Table 2 shows the pressure-rate relationship for both the inflow and
outflow curves. Because the wellhead is the node in this analysis, the outflow curve will be
constant and equal to the anticipated flowing wellhead pressure.
The data are plotted in Fig. 4 and yield the same producing rates and flowing bottomhole
pressures that were determined when the flowing bottomhole pressure was used as the node. This
is as expected because the choice of a division point or node does not affect the results for a
given system. If the wellhead pressure is decreased to 250 psia, the producing rate will change
also. This effect is readily determined by constructing a constant wellhead pressure line of 250
psia on the graph and selecting the points of intersection for each tubing size. As observed from
the graph, the anticipated production rates increase to 4,950 Mscf/D, 5,200 Mscf/D, and 5,300
Mscf/D for the three tubing sizes by lowering the wellhead pressure.
Nomenclature

= average reservoir pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
s
= separator pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
wf
= bottomhole pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
wh
= wellhead pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
1
= pressure loss in reservoir, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
2
= pressure loss across completion, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
3
= pressure loss in tubing, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
4
= pressure loss in flowline, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
d
= change in downstream pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
p
= difference in pseudopressures, m/Lt
3
, psia
2
/cp
p
T
= total pressure loss, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
u
= change in upstream pressure, m/Lt
2
, psia
p
2
= difference in pressures squared, m
2
/L
2
t
4
, psia