PAPER 2009-353
Investigation of Casing Connection Failure
Mechanisms in Thermal Wells
J. XIE
C-FER Technologies, Canada
This paper has been selected for presentation and publication in the World Heavy Oil Congress 2009 Proceedings. 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.
Abstract
Various thermal recovery methods and associated well
technologies, such as Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS), Steam
Drive (SD), and Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD),
have been widely used in production of heavy oil and bitumen.
A common feature for the majority of these thermal well
applications is the cyclic thermal loading with high peak
temperatures that may cause the casing and connection to
deform plastically. Casing connections are considered as one
of the most critical components in thermal wells. Statistics
shows that, in some applications, over 80% of reported uphole
casing failures experienced in thermal wells occurred at the
connections. Typical connection failure mechanisms included
structural damage, such as parting, thread rupture, and
shoulder plasticity; and serviceability damage, such as leakage.
Ensuring adequate structural integrity and sealability of the
connections over the full service life of a well can pose a
significant challenge for thermal wells.
This paper starts with a review of thermal well failures
related to casing connection damage. Considerations for
connection design and evaluation are discussed. There are
basically three classes of connections used in intermediate or
production casing: API round, API buttress (and oversized
buttress) and proprietary premium connections. Premium
connections are often preferred for their generally superior
structural and sealability performance in thermal well
applications. Based on finite element modeling and analysis of
a generic premium connection subjected to various critical load
conditions representative of thermal wells, this paper presents
an investigation of the occurrence and conditions of potential
connection failure mechanisms, such as the loss of structural
integrity, fatigue, and leakage during connection installation
and service in such thermal well conditions. Based on these
failure mechanism investigations, this paper presents
recommendations for casing connection design requirements
for successful service in thermal well applications.
1
Introduction
Thermal well technologies, such as Cyclic Steam
Stimulation (CSS), Steam Drive (SD), and Steam Assisted
Gravity Drainage (SAGD), have been widely used in production
of heavy oil and bitumen. Their use continues to increase as the
world wide production of oil continues to evolve from depleting
conventional light oil to more viscous heavy oil and bitumen
resources. Thermal wells employed in these applications are
completed with the casing string as a key component. In the
thermal wells, the casing strings typically consist of many
casing joints (usually 10 - 13 m long) of a suitable material
joined by threaded connections and cemented over the entire
wellbore length to provide structural support and hydraulic
isolation to the wellbore.
The threaded connections are viewed to be one of the most
critical components of an oil well in terms of achieving minimal
risk of casing string and wellbore failure1. Payne and Schwind2
noted that, based on industry estimates, connection failures
account for 85% - 95% of all oilfield tubular failures. For
thermal well applications in Western Canada, the Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers3 report noted that more
than 80% of the uphole casing failures experienced in thermal
wells occurred at connections. According to more recently
published casing failure occurrence data for thermal operations
in Alberta (i.e. since 2000), this trend has continued.
In thermal wells, a large portion of noted casing string and
connection failures can be attributed to their severe loading
conditions. As noted, a common feature for thermal well
technologies is the cyclic thermal loading with high peak
temperatures that may cause the casing and connection to
deform plastically. Ensuring adequate structural integrity and
sealability of the connections over the full service life of a well
can pose a significant challenge for thermal wells.
There are basically three general classes or types of
connections used in oil field casing tubulars: API round, API
buttress (and oversized buttress) and proprietary premium
connections. Premium connections are often preferred for
generally superior structural and sealability performance in
thermal well applications. This paper presents considerations
for casing connection design for thermal wells. Based on finite
element analysis of connection performance under several
loading conditions representative of thermal well applications,
this paper presents an investigation of casing connection failure
mechanisms. Because of the relatively wide-spread use and the
critical and challenging role that premium connections serve in
thermal well applications, this paper will focus on the analytical
study of premium connections.
Connection Design Requirements
Two of the prime functions of casing connections are
adequate structural integrity and sealability. Various guidelines
and requirements for connection designs have been established
by industry over years. For example, the Alberta Industry
Recommended Practice (IRP)4 outlines the following
recommendations for casing connections in thermal wells:
• The connections should have a joint axial load
carrying capacity greater than, or equal to, the pipe
body yield strength;
• The casing connections should provide adequate
sealing under the anticipated thermal operating
conditions; and
• The selection of a suitable thread compound is an
integral part of casing connection design and will vary
with the type of connection selected.
The casing connections of oil country tubular goods (OCTG)
can be classified into three groups: API round, API buttress
(and oversized buttress), and proprietary premium connections:
• The API long threaded and coupled (LTC) and short
threaded and coupled (STC) eight round (8R)
connections use round threads which provide some
structural and sealability functions (Figure 1a).
• The API buttress threaded and coupled connection
(BTC) provides the structural function and some
degree of sealability by the combination of the action
of a thread compound and the helical leak path of the
buttress thread section (Figure 1b).
• Premium connections typically use buttress threads
for the structural function and a metal-to-metal seal
contact profile for sealability. Many premium
connections also include the metal-to-metal shoulder
next to the seal region to control makeup and for
additional sealability. Figure 1c shows a generic
premium connection with profiles of the buttress
threads, metal-to-metal seal and metal-to-metal
shoulders on the pin and coupling.
Numerical analysis and physical testing can demonstrate that
the API LTC and STC connections do not provide a joint axial
load carrying capacity greater than, or equal to, the pipe body
yield strength. Therefore, they are ruled out for thermal well
applications (i.e. following the guidelines of the Alberta IRP).
As indicated in the IRP, buttress connections require a high
concentration of solids in a high temperature lubricating
compound (grease) to improve sealability once the connection
is made-up. The solids and grease fill gaps in the pin-box
thread form that otherwise might allow fluids to seep from the
casing. Full-scale testing has confirmed that, in most cases, a
buttress or oversized buttress connection does not provide the
same degree of seal integrity as does a premium connection. In
some cases, buttress connection specimens have exhibited
leakage rates several orders of magnitude higher than premium
connections under the same conditions5. For these
2
considerations, buttress connections are often considered to be
not suitable for casing strings, in particular for the intermediate
or production casing strings, in thermal well applications.
Full-scale testing has shown that most premium connections
can provide a higher degree of seal integrity as compared to API
buttress connections. Therefore, the use of premium
connections is typically preferred for the production or
intermediate casings in thermal wells, where effective
connection sealability is very important to the long-term
integrity of these wells. For this consideration, this paper will
focus on the analytical study of the characteristics, performance
and potential failure mechanisms of premium connections of
thermal wells in steam injection/production recovery
applications.
Engineering Evaluation of Connection
Performance
For premium connections, connection strength is a function
of the connection design (e.g. thread-form and wall thickness),
as well as the material grade and the properties. Sealing
capability is a function of the combination of connection design
(e.g. thread design, whether a metal-to-metal seal is employed,
the location, orientation and slope of the seal region,
tolerances, etc.) and installation procedure (e.g. thread
compound type and application, and make-up position and
torque).
Note that some proprietary premium connections may have
inadequate sealing capability under certain thermal loading
conditions. Premium connections typically rely upon
maintaining a high radial contact stress on the sealing surface.
As such, there are a number of factors that can compromise the
sealing performance of a premium connection, including:
insufficient stress or high torque shoulder interference during
make-up; stress relaxation during long-term exposure to
elevated temperatures; axial compressive and tensile loading
over a thermal cycle; and curvature loading. Therefore, before
selecting a premium connection for a thermal well application,
its structural performance and sealing capability under the
expected operating conditions should be evaluated to ensure
that the connection is suitable for the conditions of the
application.
Connection evaluation programs usually consist of a
combination of finite element analysis (FEA) and physical
testing. In some cases, the physical tests are conducted on a
limited number of specimens to verify the FEA results. While
physical testing provides direct evidence of performance, it is
generally costly, especially for qualification testing under a
wide range of load scenarios, which can be more economically
and efficiently evaluated using FEA. Note that this paper will
focus on examining a number of premium connection failure
mechanisms using the tools of finite element analyses.
FEA Evaluation Program
Finite element analysis (FEA) has been proven to be an
economic and efficient method to evaluate connection behavior
under thermal well loading. The results of finite element
analyses are used to evaluate connection sealing capacity and
the potential for thread rupture or torque shoulder damage under
various installation and operational loading conditions6.
The following loading scenarios are often considered for
evaluating premium connections for thermal well applications:
• Connection Makeup: A connection is analyzed
through the interference fit of contact components
between the pin and coupling over various locations;
 • Thermal Cycle Loading: A connection is subjected to
thermal cycle loading with temperature changes over
the anticipated heating and cooling periods or cycles;
• Curvature Loading: A connection is subjected to
curvature loading (bending) representative of
wellbore curvature, casing buckling and formation
shear; and
• Connection Fatigue: A connection is evaluated for its
fatigue life over casing rotation and/or running
practice, and over the thermal cycle loading.
FEA Models
The analysis examples presented in this paper will consider a
177.8 mm, 34.2 kg/m Grade 80 generic premium connection.
The connection analyses were performed using the commercial
FEA program Abaqus7.
Figure 2 shows a schematic representation of the finite
element model for a generic premium connection and a section
of the pipe body. The generic connection model captured the
basic features common to the premium connections currently
used in thermal well applications (e.g. buttress threads, torque
shoulder, metal-metal radial seal) to ensure that the analyses
produce results that are illustrative with respect to this
objective. Nevertheless, the generic model should not be taken
as being representative of any specific commercially available
connection product – each connection design must be modeled
separately based on proprietary design details to accurately
assess its response to such load conditions. Since the examples
are presented in this paper to demonstrate connection
deformation mechanisms, analysis results, such as connection
seal contact forces, are presented in a relative performance scale
as compared to the connection makeup condition.
Note that due to the symmetry of deformation about the
connection center under the imposed loading (except for the
case of shear deformation), only half of the coupling was
modeled. At the coupling centre plane (A-A) shown in
Figure 2, symmetric boundary conditions were assumed. The
connection was modeled using axisymmetric solid elements
with non-linear, asymmetric deformation. As noted in the
Abaqus documentation7, these elements are intended for the
non-linear analysis of structures which are initially
axisymmetric but which may undergo non-linear,
non-axisymmetric deformation, which is the case for the
connection and load scenarios examined here. Contact between
the pin and coupling elements was modeled using slide-lines.
The casing connection material response was modeled using
an elastic-plastic non-linear kinematic hardening constitutive
relationship. The proprietary model was coupled with the
temperature- and time-dependence features. These modeling
considerations were needed in order to capture material
behavior variation with temperature, stress relaxation and
Bauschinger effects (i.e. a reduced yield stress upon load
reversal after plastic deformation has occurred during the initial
loading)8.
FEA Assessment Criteria
In assessing the structural integrity of a premium connection,
FEA results of stress/strain levels in the critical areas, such as
thread roots, grooves, and pin/coupling shoulders were
examined. For the thermal loading condition, the stress level in
these critical areas often exceed the elastic limit, and therefore,
the plastic strain is a more appropriate parameter for the
structural integrity assessment. A connection is considered to
have failed structurally if the peak plastic strain values in one of
these critical areas become excessive (e.g. exceed some
allowable limit).
3
The sealing capacity of a premium connection is determined
by the metal-to-metal contact stress over the seal region.
Figure 3 shows the contact stress distribution over the seal
region as determined by finite element analysis. As a necessary
requirement, the seal contact stress must be higher than the
differential pressure across the inner and outer surfaces of the
casing in order to maintain sealability. In a more generalized
assessment approach, the sealing capacity of a premium
connection can be represented by the “Seal Contact Intensity”,
which is an integration of the seal contact stress over the
effective seal length.
Physical Testing Program
A full-scale physical testing program usually involves
several appropriately designed, fabricated and made-up
connection specimens. The testing program can also include a
suite of high temperature material property tests as well as
various corrosion tests if the required material performance
information is not already available from the vendor.
For thermal well applications, proprietary premium
connections are tested following testing protocols designed for
thermal well qualifications, such as the test procedures
described in ISO 136799,10. Various technologies have been
developed for measuring seal integrity and contact conditions.
For example, ultrasonic inspection technology has been used to
provide a means of obtaining indirect, non-intrusive
visualizations of the contact stress profile between the pin and
coupling over the seal region11.
Connection Response to Thermal Cycle
Loading
Finite element analyses were performed on the 177.8 mm,
34.2 kg/m Grade 80 generic premium connection design
described above. The model of the connection was subjected to
make-up loading followed by thermal cycle loading. The
thermal cycle loading was imposed by changing the model
temperature over a thermal cycle while the ends of connection
model were constrained axially.
To illustrate the key features of the thermal cycle loading,
Figure 4 presents the relationship between the casing axial
stress and temperature for a Grade 80 casing pipe-body over a
temperature cycle from 20°C to 330°C. The thermal cycle
consists of three loading stages:
1. “Heating”: as temperature increases from the initial
value of 20°C to the peak temperature of 330°C.
Since the casing string was constrained axially
(e.g. cemented), axial compressive stresses will
develop which exceed the material yield capacity in
compression during this heating stage of the load
cycle;
2. “Hot-hold”: as the temperature is held at the peak
value for a relatively long period (e.g. hours or days),
stress relaxation occurs with a significant reduction in
axial compressive stress; and
3. “Cooling”: as the temperature decreases from the
“hot-hold” point, the constrained casing cools and
contracts and the axial load gradually changes from
compression to tension. In high temperature
applications, and depending on the properties of the
material, the casing pipe body material could reach
yield in tension at the end of a thermal cycle.
 Stress and strain conditions in a premium connection will be
more complicated than in the pipe body, due to the non-uniform
stress/strain distribution and stress/strain localization in the
connection threads, shoulder and seal regions. Figure 5 presents
the axial stress contours for the generic premium connection at
makeup, hot-hold and the end of the thermal cycle. The red
color represents areas with high tensile stress and the blue color
is for areas with high compressive stress. As shown in this
figure, the connection is subjected to high compressive loading
(blue color) at makeup and during the hot-hold condition due to
makeup condition and material thermal expansion, and is
subjected to high tensile stress (orange to red color) as it is
cooled down due to material thermal contraction.
For many premium connections, thermal cycle loading does
not cause a significant structural concern in the thread roots.
However, the excessive compressive loading on the
pin/coupling shoulders may cause some concerns for structural
failures as they may be subjected to excessive shear
deformation. Note the plastic strain value in the torque
shoulder regions can be significantly larger during heating as
compared to at makeup.
As mentioned earlier, the sealing capacity for a premium
connection is determined by the metal-to-metal contact stress
over the effective seal region. Figure 6 shows the variation in
the seal contact intensity of the generic connection from
make-up through the thermal cycle. The figure shows that the
seal contact intensity (i.e. relative to makeup) varies during the
thermal cycle, with a significant reduction of about 38% during
the hot-hold period as a result of the stress relaxation of the
material and removal of internal pressure. At the end of the
thermal cycle, the seal contact intensity was reduced to 42% as
compared to that of the make-up condition.
Based on the analysis of the Grade 80 generic premium
connection under thermal cycle loading, the following
conclusions are made:
• Thermal cycle loading does not appear to cause a
significant concern for the structural performance in
threads of this generic connection design over the
make-up and thermal cycle considered. However, an
over-loaded shoulder condition could potentially
cause severe shoulder damage under the thermal
loading conditions considered.
• Connection sealing capacity can change significantly
over the thermal cycle considered. Significant
reduction in seal contact intensity can potentially
occur due to stress relaxation during the hot-hold
stage, and due to axial tensile loading introduced
during cooling. The seal contact condition is
generally at its lowest and most critical value at the
end of a thermal cycle.
It is important to reiterate that specific behavior of the
connection is a function of its design, make-up and load history
and each connection and load scenario must be evaluated for the
conditions of the application.
Connection Response to Curvature
Loading
The thermal cycle loading analyzed in the previous example
was modeled as an axisymmetric loading scenario, assuming
the tubular was straight and the temperature and pressure
loadings were uniform around the circumference, and that the
casing and connection deformations were therefore
axisymmetrically. However, curvature loading (bending) can
occur in many thermal wells. The typical curvature loading
scenarios include:
• Casing running through regions of well curvature,
such as in the build section of a deviated well;
• Casing bending, resulting from casing buckling due to
high axial compressive force during heating and a
lack of sufficient lateral support from cement and
formation; and
• Casing shear, resulting from lateral formation
movement.
Figure 7 presents the axial strain contour for the generic
premium connection under a casing curvature of 100º/30 m,
which is a realistic curvature for casing connections to be
subjected to in cold or thermal heavy oil wells over their life,
such as if the casing string were able to buckle. The critical
locations of material failure, as identified by the analysis,
include the pin thread roots, coupling dope relief groove, and
the pin and coupling shoulders, as shown in the figure. Because
of the highly localized stresses in these locations, these areas are
also critical locations from a fatigue assessment perspective
(e.g. if the connection and pipe body are rotated in a curved
section). As shown in the figure, for the generic premium
connection examined, the thread root experiences the highest
stress concentration and becomes one of the most critical
locations for the structural failure of a connection. Connection
bending can also potentially result in additional material
damage on the over-loaded shoulder regions by introducing
additional axial compressive loading on the pin and coupling
shoulder surfaces on the compression side of a bent connection.
Curvature loading can also have a significant impact on the
connection sealing capacity. Note that the contact stress
distribution was assumed to be axisymmetric at make-up. As
curvature loading is imposed, however, both the contact stress
and contact length are expected to increase on the compression
side, and decrease on the tension side, resulting in reduced
sealing capacity on the tension side of the connection.
Figure 8 presents the analysis results of the seal contact
intensities (as before, relative to the seal contact intensity at
makeup) on both the tension and compression sides of a
premium connection in a section of casing subjected to bending
over a range of curvature values. The figure shows that seal
contact intensities start at the same value on both the tension
and compression sides at makeup due to the axisymmetric
distribution of contact stresses. As curvature loading is
imposed, the seal contact intensity increases on the compression
side and decreases on the tension side, making the compression
side more critical for additional plastic deformations in
shoulders and the tension side more critical for connection
sealing. As such, the lower value of the seal contact intensity
on the tension side is often used for the sealability assessment
of a connection. In this example, the seal contact intensity
value on the compression side increased by only about 30%
while the seal contact intensity on the tension side decreased to
56% of that at makeup as a result of curvature loading of
100º/30 m.
Although not analyzed and presented here, combined loading
conditions (i.e. thermal cycle loading combined with curvature
loading) should be one of the key load scenarios for a premium
connection since it is one of the most critical conditions in
terms of connection structural performance and sealing capacity.
This type of combined loading condition will likely result in a
more severe stress condition in the shoulder region on the
compression side of the bent connection for an over-loaded
shoulder condition.

4
 Based on the analysis of the Grade 80 generic premium
connection under curvature loading, the following conclusions
are made:
• Curvature loading can result in a condition which may
be of significant concern for the structural
performance of premium connections. In particular,
the thread region becomes a critical area for structural
failure and the pin and coupling shoulders may
experience incremental damage, potentially becoming
over-loaded under curvature loading.
• Connection sealing capacity can also be significantly
reduced under curvature loading. The tension side of
a bent connection experiences a reduction in the seal
intensity, reducing the sealing capacity of the
connection. Combined loading conditions (i.e.
thermal cycle loading combined with curvature
loading) should be one of the load scenarios examined
for a premium connection since it is one of the most
critical conditions in terms of connection structural
performance and sealing capacity.
Connection Fatigues
During installation and/or cementing operations in horizontal
wells, casing strings are often reciprocated axially and rotated.
It is important to evaluate the ability and limits of selected
connections to withstand cyclic loading during these operations.
The curvature within the build section of a well will introduce
bending strains that can cause plastic load cycling within a
premium connection as the casing string is rotated. The torque
applied to the casing at surface could also impact the make-up
condition of the connections (e.g. the specified make-up torque
may be exceeded), potentially reducing their structural integrity
and sealability.
As shown in Figure 7, the critical areas in a premium
connection from a potential fatigue damage perspective include
the thread roots, dope relief groove, and the pin and coupling
shoulders. Note that a multi-axial stress state typically exists at
these locations under connection make-up, installation (axial
load) and bending load conditions. With typically already large
seal and shoulder interferences at make-up, it is reasonable to
expect the pin/coupling material to yield and plastic strains to
develop at some of these locations within the connections.
Therefore, traditional stress-based fatigue criteria, which are
generally used in low stress situations, are no longer applicable,
and it is necessary to adopt a strain-based criterion for the
connection fatigue assessments. One of the well-known
methods for such low cycle fatigue assessments is a modified
version of the Morrow approach8, which expresses the material
fatigue life as a function of an equivalent strain range, the mean
stress and a number of material specific parameters.
To demonstrate the fatigue failure potentials for premium
connections, the 177.8 mm, 34.3 kg/m Grade 80 generic
premium connection was analyzed with an imposed curvature
of 9º/30 m (e.g. a realistic curvature for the build region of a
SAGD horizontal well). Analysis results of stress/strain values
at critical locations, such as thread root, groove and shoulder,
were used to assess the fatigue life of the connection.
Figure 9 presents the relationship between equivalent strain
range and life cycles for the grade 80 material and for three
mean strain values based on the modified Morrow approach.
Analysis results for the predicted fatigue lives at thread root,
groove and shoulder for a generic premium connection are also
shown as symbols in the figure. The results of the fatigue
assessment show that the shoulder region has both a high mean
5
stress value and a high equivalent strain range, and therefore is
most critical to fatigue failure during casing rotation. The
thread root and dope groove are less critical to fatigue failure
for this analysis case. Note that the analysis results are very
sensitive to the details of the thread-form and shoulder designs
of the connection. Different designs for premium connections
may have significantly different fatigue assessment results.
Therefore, the conclusions presented here are only applicable to
the generic premium connection analyzed.
In addition to mechanical-induced fatigue damage, premium
connections may also be subjected to fatigue failure due to
thermal cycle loading and candidate premium connections
should also be assessed for thermal cycle fatigue loading.
Thermal cycle fatigue loading will generally fall into the very
low cycle fatigue loading category. However, further research
appears to be needed, especially in developing a proper fatigue
assessment criterion for low cycle fatigue life assessment, to
develop an assessment approach that appropriately considers the
effects of strain hardening, creep strain and strain ageing.
Material Impacts on Connection
Performance
Evaluation of connection performance for a thermal well
application is often complicated because the long-term material
behavior is affected by the load and environmental history,
which may also be influenced by the thermal effects, plastic
deformations, and fatigue loading conditions in thermal wells.
One important issue raised by Xie12 is that the casing design
should take into consideration the potential effects of material
degradation in thermal wells. Xie suggested that the effects of
strain-hardening, strain-ageing, and corrosion can contribute to
material degradation over thermal cycles. These effects are
discussed further below with reference to their impact on
connection performance in thermal wells.
Strain-hardening
Strain hardening (also often termed “cold working”) of steel
materials is the strengthening (i.e. increase in the stress-strain
modulus) resulting from any increase in the material’s
dislocation density by plastic deformation. Material strain
hardening often results in beneficial effects for casing and liner
designs in thermal well completions, as it generally increases
casing/liner resistance to strain localization, buckling and shear
deformation. However, the development of strain hardening
often causes a reduction in the material ductility, and may cause
the material to be more susceptible to different forms of
corrosion. Physical coupon tests have shown that there was
more than a 10% reduction in material ductility as a result of
strain hardening induced in the specimen from one thermal
cycle12. However, the tests also showed that such reductions
appeared to stabilize with further cycles. While the reduction in
material ductility due to strain hardening is not typically
considered to be the primary reason for casing failures since the
main impact of strain hardening occurs during the first thermal
cycle, experience has nevertheless shown that most thermal well
failures tend to occur after several thermal cycles, suggesting
that further investigation of the potential impacts that
mechanisms such as strain-hardening might have on casing
failures appear to be warranted.
Strain-ageing
Strain-ageing for carbon steels mainly involves the
interaction of dislocations with interstitial elements, such as
carbon and nitrogen, or interstitial-substitutional solute pairs.
This interaction stabilizes mobile dislocations and therefore an
incrementally larger stress is required to continue to move the
dislocations for incremental plastic deformation to occur.
Usually, a slow strain rate and a relatively high temperature
(150 – 250ºC) are required to achieve strain-ageing of casing
materials, both of which tend to exist in many thermal wells.
Strain-ageing can cause a significant reduction in material
ductility, and such impact the connection performance.
It can be postulated that casing material strain-ageing may
also occur in thermal wells, especially in CSS wells where the
cooling phase may occur over a relatively long time period. As
was shown in the finite element analysis of a the generic
premium connection subjected to thermal cycle loading, the
connection thread roots can start to yield at around 150 - 200°C
during the cooling phase. Therefore, it is possible that material
strain-ageing may occur in the areas of high strain, such as in
the thread roots of casing connections.
Corrosion
Thermal wells are often exposed to corrosive environments,
including carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
generated by aquathermolysis of the heavy oil in the presence of
water at high temperatures. The severe loading conditions
present during thermal operation will likely increase the casing
materials’ susceptibility to corrosion induced degradation, such
as stress corrosion cracking (SCC). As noted by Xie12, further
study is required to define the impact of material corrosion and
the combined and potentially synergistic effects of thermal load
and corrosion on connection performance in thermal wells.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This paper presents overview discussions on connection
design requirements and connection evaluation programs.
Based on finite element analysis of a generic premium
connection, this paper demonstrates various failure mechanisms
for premium connections for thermal well applications. Based
on discussions and analyses presented in this paper, the
following conclusions and recommendations are made:
• Casing connection designs should have sufficient
structural and sealing capacities to sustain severe
loading conditions imposed in thermal wells. For the
structural and sealing capacity considerations,
proprietary premium connections are generally
preferred over API round and buttress connections for
thermal well applications.
• Thermal cycle and curvature loading conditions can
have a significant impact on the structural and sealing
performance of premium connections. The most
critical loading condition may be the combined
loading scenario of thermal cycle and curvature
loading. Connection structural performance and
sealability under these critical loading conditions
should be evaluated through finite element analysis
and/or physical testing programs, in order to qualify
connections for thermal well applications.
• Premium connections may be subjected to mechanical
load induced fatigue failures as casing is rotated
through the build section during running and
cementing. The connection shoulder region is one of
the most critical areas for material fatigue failure.
Further research on connection fatigue appears to be
needed, especially in developing an appropriate
fatigue assessment criterion for low cycle fatigue life
assessment, to include considerations of effects of
strain hardening, creep strain and strain ageing.
• Further study is required to define the impact of
material corrosion and the combined and potentially
synergistic effects of thermal load and corrosion on
connection performance in thermal wells.
6
Acknowledgement
The work summarized and the preparation of this paper
were supported by C-FER Technologies, Canada. The author
would like to sincerely acknowledge the following colleagues
for their contributions to this paper:
• Mr. C. M. Matthews, Director of New Technology
Initiatives, C-FER Technologies, for his technical
advice on the thermal well connection designs; and
• Mr. T. A. Zahacy, Senior Engineering Advisor,
C-FER Technologies, for his assistance in reviewing
this paper.
References
1. Xie, J. Casing Design and Analysis for Heavy Oil
Wells, Paper 2006-415, World Heavy Oil Conference,
Beijing, China. November 2006.
2. Payne, M. L., Schwind, B. E. 1999. A New International
Standard for Casing/Tubing Connection Testing.
SPE/IADC 52846. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, Holland, March 9-11
3. CAPP. Thermal Well Casing Risk Assessment,
Canadian Petroleum Association, Thermal Well Casing
Risk Subcommittee, 1992-0017, pp116. Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers.
4. Industry Recommended Practices for Heavy Oil and Oil
Sands Operations (IRP), Vol.3, 2002.
5. Maruyama, K., Tsuru, E., Ogasawara, M., Inoue, Y.,
and Peters, E.J. An experimental Study of Casing
Performance Under Thermal Recovery Conditions. SPE
18776. Presented at the SPE California Regional
Meeting in Bakersfield, April 5-7, 1989.
6. Xie, J. Analysis of Oil Well Casing Connections
Subjected to Non-axisymmetric Loads, Abaqus User’s
Conference, Paris, France, May 22-24, 2007.
7. Abaqus User Manual, v.6.9.1, 2009.
8. Dowling, N.E., Mechanical Behavior of Materials –
Engineering Methods for Deformation, Fracture, and
Fatigue, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1998.
9. ISO 13679, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries –
Procedures for Testing Casing and Tubing Connections,
First Edition, December 2002.
10. Nowinka, J., and Dall’Acqua. New Standard for
Evaluating Casing Connections for Thermal Well
Applications, SPE/IADC 119468, SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdan,
March 17-19, 2009.
11. Hamilton, K.; Wagg, B. and Roth, T. 2007. Using
Ultrasonic Techniques to Accurately Examine Seal
Surface Contact Stress in Premium Connections.
SPE 11067. 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Anaheim, April 11-14, 2007.
12. Xie, J. A Study of Strain-based Design Criteria for
Thermal Well Casing, Paper 2008-388, World Heavy
Oil Congress, Edmonton, Canada, March 2008.
 A

shear force

1
axial
z θ r
force

global beam node

bending 2
moment

Figure 2 Schematic of Finite Element Model of a Generic

Premium Connection

(a) Round Thread Connection

oil/gas
contact stress pressure

pin
Pin
coupling
Coupling

(b) Buttress Thread Connection Figure 3 Illustration of Seal Contact Stress in a Premium
Connection

coupling

threads
metal-to-metal 800
seal
End of a Thermal Cycle
600
pin
400
Axial stress (MPa)

200
shoulders
Cooling
0

-200
Hot-Hold
-400

-600 Heating

-800
0 100 200 300 400
(c) A Generic Premium Connection
Temperature (°C)

Figure 1 Schematics of a Round Thread Connection (top); Figure 4 Axial Stress and Temperature Relationship for a
Buttress Thread Connection (middle); and a Generic Premium Grade 80 Casing String under Thermal Cycle Loading
Connection (bottom)

7
 Tension Side

pin thread root coupling groove pin coupling

shoulder shoulder

(a) Makeup

Compression Side

Figure 7. Axial Strain Contour in a 177.8 mm, 34.2 kg/m

Grade 80 Generic Premium Connection under Bending
(RED as Tension; and BLUE as Compression)

(b) Hot-hold
150%

(vs. Contact Intensity at Makeup)

Seal Contact Intensity
100%

50%

(c) End of a Thermal Cycle Compression Side

Tension Side
0%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 5 Contour Plot of Axial Stress in a Generic Premium Curvature (o/30m)
Connection at Makeup, Hot-hold and End of a Thermal Cycle
(RED as Tension; and BLUE as Compression) Figure 8 Seal Contact Intensities versus Casing Curvature
for a 177.8 mm, 34.2 kg/m Grade 80 Generic Premium
Connection

150%
1.0%
(vs Contact Intensity at Makeup)

Heating
Equivalent Strain Range
Seal Contact Intensity

Makeup
Shoulder
100%
Hot-hold Groove
Thread Root
0.1%
50%
Mean
End of Cycle stress (MPa)
Cooling
0
300
0% 500
0.0%
0 100 200 300
1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E+09 1.E+11 1.E+13 1.E+15
Temperature (OC)
Cycles

Figure 6 Changing of Seal Contact Intensity for a 177.8 mm, Figure 9 Strain-based Fatigue Curves
34.2 kg/m Grade 80 Generic Premium Connection Based on Modified Morrow Approach
over a Thermal Cycle (Connection Fatigue Analysis Results Shown as Symbols)