)TC 6713

assessment of Conductor Setting Depth

.R. Aldridge,

Fugro-McClelland

Ltd., and G. Haland, A/S Norske Shell

Copyright 1991, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper waa presented at the 23rd Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May O-9, 1991.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee followingreview of informationormtained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offehore TechnologyConference and are subject to correctionby the author(a).The material, as presented, does not neceessrily reflect
any positionof the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied. The
abstract should contain mnapicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper Is presented.

ABSTNACT
This paper reviews the methode generally used
by oil companies to determine the conductor eetting
depth required to avoid hydrofracture of cohesive
soils during drilling for the first casing string.
Traditional approaches are compared with an approach
developed by the authors, and the results of each
method are compared with teat data obtained during
geotechnical site investigations offshore.
A case
history is presented which showe the effect of the
authors deeign method on the required conductor
setting depth, and indicates the considerable possible cost savings and safety benefits available from
effective conductor design.

INTRODUCTION
The advancement of any kind of borehole ie
dependent on the cuttinge being continually cleared
from the bit face.
This is usually achieved by
direct circulation drilling, circulating fluid to
the bit through the drillstring with the returning
fluid and cuttinge passing up the annulus between
the drillstring and the borehole or casing. If the
marine casing is not set deep enough, the pressure
of the drilling fluid may lead to formation breakdown and loss of circulation. Apart from difficulties in then advancing the borehole, this may also
result in not being able to monitor and control
shallow gas effectively.
Formation breakdown can
also lead to wash out and lees of support for the
foundation of a structure.
Correct assessment of
the required conductor setting depth may therefore
have not only economic but also safety implications
for the well-drilling operation.
One poesible method of determining required
setting depth is to perform hydraulic fracture
testing (HFTs) in the field.
This may however

References

and illustrations

prove to be both costly and in some cases difficult

to perform. Where fracture test data are not available, analytical methods have traditionally been
based on excess fluid pressures not exceeding the
minor principal coil streae,
These traditional
methode are suspected to give unnecessarily deep
setting depths, but no theoretically sound and
practically proven method of calculating shallower
setting depths is known to the authors.
From an oil companys point of view, the derivation of a reliable analytical tool that is less
conservative than the traditional methods could lead
to considerable savings. It ia, however, important
that any such method should not underpredict the
required setting depth, since the cost and safety
implications of such underprediction may be considerable. A detailed review of field teste has therefore been performed to assesa the reliability of the
new approach propoeed in this paper.

FIELD TESTS
During the geotechnical site investigations
performed for platforms in the North Sea hydraulic
fracture tests (HFTs) are often performed in order
to determine tin situ!! the fracture pressure which
causes formation breakdown at various depths below
mudline.
The test is most frequently performed in
hard clays using the type of apparatus preeented on
Fig. 1. The typical procedure for performing euch
tests in the North Sea is as follows:
1.

The borehole is advanced to the required depth

using open hole drilling with returns to mudline, with the bottom assembly including the
test apparatus as shown in Fig. 1.

2.

The string is pulled back to leave a length of

predrilled hole below the bit as the test
section,

at end of paper.
167

OTC 671:

ASSESSMENT OF CONDUCTOR SETTING DEPTN

3.

The packer is inflated to seal the test section, and a wireline dart is lowered to the bit
to measure pressure during the test.

4.

The test section is pressurised by pumping

fluid into the drillstring at a given flow rate
and the test performed as outlined on Fig. 2.

Equation 1 represents the case of fracture

occurring prior to blow off, and equation 2 represents fracture occurring following blow off of the
soil from the piezometer.
This assumption of a perfect installation and
a Poissons ratio of 0.5 (undrained response) reduces equations 1 and 2, respectively, to:

The test is therefore generally performed in a

pre-drilled section, and is flow controlled.
The
measurement
made during the test include the fol
lowing:
1.

The initial fracture pressure.

2.

The steady
rate.

3.

The close up pressure after initial fracture.

4.

The re-fracture pressure.

state pressure under a given flow

Whilst all stages of the HFT test may be used

to infer geotechnical soil parameters, this paper
concerns the pressure required to cause initial
fracture, which is generally adopted as the limit of
allowable excess fluid pressure during drilling
operations.
Initial fracture pressures from such
tests have been used to check the theoretical method
presented in the following.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Minor Principal Stress Approach

fluid and in situ
The hydrostatic, drilling
soil pressures during drilling for the first casing
string are shown schematically on Fig. 3.
The
drilling fluid pressure which may be expected to
fracture the soil formation has been the subject of
analysis by Bjerrum et al. (1972).
This approach
was developed following obaervationa of fracture
occurring whilst installing push-in piezometers.
The excess pressure, Au, required to cause a vertical crack in the soil as derived by.- Bierrum et al.
is given by:
Au
or Au
where

v
CY=

= Po(l/v-l) [(l-~)ko + Pt/po] ... (1)

= po (l-v) [(2+&c@ko

+ pt/pol] ... (2)

= Poissons Ratio of the soil

effect of installation on circumferential stress
effect of installation on radial stress

or

coefficient
at est

of

lateral earth pressure

tensi e stress sustainable by the soil

= ko.p + pt
o

... (3)

Au

= ko.p + pt/2
o

... (4)

Bjerrum also notes that there is a possibility

of a horizontal crack forming if the excess head
exceeds p .
In his recommendations on allowable
pressures, derived from theory and field and laboratory observations, the tensile stress ptt was conservatively ignored.
These results then reduce to
the assumption adopted by many oil companiea in
estimating required conductor setting depth, that an
excess pressure equal to the lower of the principal
stresses in the ground should be assumed to cause
hydrofracture, i.e.:
Au=p
Au

= ko.p
o

(ko>l)

... (5)

(ko<l)

... (6)

The analyses presented by Bjerrum et ai,

are
based on observations of push-in piezometer installation and subsequent applied excess water pressure.
However, in offshore operations the borehole is
advanced
by drilling
rather
than
pushing
the string
into the soil.
The method generally followed in
HFTs performed offshore also forms a pre-drilled
section of borehole prior to testing. The approach
adopted by Bjerrum et al. to account for the disturbance caused by a cavity expansion into the soil may
therefore not be applicable for this case.

Shear Failure Approach

The in situ total stress condition in the soil and
the changes in total stress caused during an idealised drilling and subsequent pressurisation operation for the HFT test are presented on Fig. 4. The
stress changea in the radial and circumferential
directions have been calculated from elasto-plastic
theory (Den Hartog (1972)) on the assumption that:
1.

the SOil response ia linear-elastic perfectly

plastic.

2.

the permeability of the soils is low enough

that pressure changea due to flow are minimal.

3.

a Poissons Ratio of 0.5 is sssumed for, cohesive soil under undrained loading.

Po = vertical effective stress in-situ

k=
o

Au

It may be seen from Fig. 4 that for undrained

loading the application of any increment of radial
stress results in a reduction of the same magnitude
in circumferential stress.
Baaed on these atresa
changes it is possible to datermine the excess fluid
pressure in the borehole at which the circumferen-

168

WC

6713

ALDRIDGE AND HAIMD

tial stress falls to zero or to any given value of

tensile stress, pt, as follows:
Au
where

= 2,ko.p + uh + ptt
o

RESULTS OF FIELD TESTS

A review has been made of the reeults of 34
hydraulic fracture tests (HFTs) performed in predrilled sections in geotechnical boreholes performed
during platform site-investigations in the North
Sea,
The teste were performed at aix sites, at
depths of between 40 and 140 metres below mudline,
in hard clay strata. Of the 34 tests, three resulted in very high fracture pressures close to those
expected from cavity expaneion theory, as previously
reported by Overy and Dean (1986).
Three resulted
in anomalously low pressures, believed to have been
due to leakage around the packer.
Data from the
remaining 29 tests are reviewed below.

... (7)

= hydrostatic pressure at the given depth

Equation 7 is consistent with the results given

by Jaeger (1969) for a porous elastic medium, if the
permeability of the medium is set to zero.
It may
therefore be expected that hydrofracture will occur
at the preseure given by equation 7; unless a general shear failure of the clay at the wall of the
borehole occurs at a lower pressure. Examination of
the three principal stresses given on Fig. 4 may be
used to calculate the maximum deviator streea in the
clay material.
If the maximum deviator stress
exceeds twice the undrained shear strength of the
clay, then a plastic failure of the borehole wall
may be expected to occur.
The deviator stresses
derived from the vertical (v), radial (r) and circumferential (c) principal etresses are as followe:
= Au-

or-u

p ,
o

.,.

(8)

2.Au - ko.po

...

(9)

Ur - IJC =
Uv-u

Au+p

-2,ko.p

The predicted and meaaured test results are

compared for the six test sites on Fig. 5.
The
dashed line representa the calculated minor principal stress and the solid line is the lowest of the
preseures derived from equations 11 to 13.
The
results chow graphically that the shear failure!!
approach gives a closer fit to the HFT test data
than the traditional minor principal stress!!method
at these sites.
The ratio of measured to calculated fracture
pressure has been plotted for the traditional approach, i.e. equations 5 and 6, on Fig, 6, and for
the pressures given by the lowest of equations 11 to
13 on Fig. 7, for all 29 sites. The valuee given by
equation 7 are not plotted, since they are alwaYs
higher than the values given by equations 11 to 13,
and the shear failure mechanism may therefore be
assumed to control. It may again be seen from Figs.
6 and 7 that the shear failure! approach represented by equations 11 to 13 gives a significantly
better overall fit to the data than the minor
principal stress method.

... (lo)

Shear failure will occur when any of these

deviator stresses exceeds twice the undrained compreaaive ahear strength of the soil.
Using equations 81 to 10 it is therefore possible to derive
defining the
eqUatiOnS 11 to 13, respectively,
eXCeSS
fluid pressure which would cause a shear
failure in the borehole wall:
Au = 2.su + Po
Au=

kO.PO

Au = 2.au + po(2ko-1)
where

... (11)
. . .

(12)

... (13)

s = undrained ehear strength in compression

u

An alternative possible mode of failure to that

considered above is a uniform cavity expansion, for
which the excees pressure to cause failure is of the
order of 5.7 to 6.3 times the undrained shear
strength, depending on the overconsolidation ratio
of the clay (Randolph et al. (1979)).
It ia poaaible that a ahear failure, as given
by the lowest of equations 11 to 13, will occur
prior to the tensile failure given by equation 7.
There are assumptions inherent in both theoretical
approaches, however.
Observations made during
drilling for the first casing string are therefore
reviewed below to assess the validity of each approach.
The results of these approaches are also
compared with the method traditionally used, as
given by equations 5 and 6.

Observations of drilling mud pressures and

returns or lack of returns during offshore drilling
operations are not generally available to the geotechnical consultant. Records obtained during drilling
from a semi-submersible drilling rig at the Draugen
site in the Norwegian Sea are presented on Fig. 8.
This figure shows the mud preaeure actually applied
during drilling and the estimated fracture pressure
based on the minor principal stresstt and shear
failure methods. Again this data confirms that the
ahear failure approach gives results which are
more coneiatent with observations, since although
excess drilling fluid pressures exceeded those given
of
by the minor principal stress approach, no IOS5
returns waa encountered.
The results of a statistical analysis of the
data are also presented on Figa. 6 and 7, and show
that the measured test pressures are on average
almost exactly double those given by the minor
principal strees method but only 34 per cent higher
than given by the shear failure method.
The
statistical correlation, as measured by the standard
deviation, is also better for the rehear failure
method.

169

ASSESSNE??YOF CONDUCTOR SETTING DEPTN

Whilst the above data is limited, the statistical correlations indicate that the shear failure
approach presented here is the more appropriate
method for calculating setting depth, From the data
analysed here, it is suggested that the excess
pressure calculated using the shear failure appreach should be divided by a factor of safety of
1.3 to give an allowable drilling fluid pressure for
assessing the required setting depth. This approach
should result in a greater than 95 per cent statistical confidence of avoiding hydrofracture. Records
from actual well-drilling operations and further in
situ HFT tests may allow this factor of safety to be
reduced with time.

CASE STUDY
The shear failure method described above has
been used in the establishment of setting depth for
the Draugen Field offshore Norway. A/S Norske Shell
is the operator for the field on behalf of their
to
partners Statoil and BP Norway, and proposed
install a concrete gravity base structure supporting
10 well slots with six producing platform wells and
some subsea wells. The conductor arrangement at the
gravity base structure is shown schematically on
Fig. 9.
The water depth at the Draugen platform
site is 252 metres, and the drilldeck is approximately 313 metres above mudline.
It is planned to
install the platform in the field during the summer
of 1993 with conductor setting starting a few days
after platform installation.
The soil investigation covering the upper 130
metres of the soil revealed clay layers with varying
shear strength.
The strength in the most critical
layers, i.e. between 50 and 150 metres below mudline, varies between 200kPa and 1200kPa as shown on
Fig. 10.
NO hydraulic fracture tests were performed, partly due to cobbles within the clay layers, which could have made the use of testing equipment very time consuming,
For the gravity base structure, analyses were
performed relating to the condition following installation of the structure. Following placement of the
GBS structure, the increase in the total horizontal
and vertical stresses beneath the structure were
calculated using elastic theory (Poulos and Davis
(1974)).
Equations 5 and 6 were then modified to
incorporate the increased stresses directly, and
equations 11 to 13 required modification ae follows:
AU=2.Su+p

+Ap
o

where

. . .
v

Installation of the 26 inch conductor into the

clay
layer
between
65 metres
top of the very hard
and 95 metres below mudline was considered feasible
using a drill/drive sequence with an IHC S90 pile
hammer, or equivalent.
Installing the conductor
below this layer would have called for a larger
hammer and thicker wall conductor to give the same
confidence
in reaching the required setting depth.
The presence of a aand layer at 130 metrea below
mudline would also have led to an increased risk of
encountering shallow gas during conductor installation.

CONCLUSIONS
The data presented in this paper indicate that
the traditional minor principal stress method of
estimating conductor setting depth is generally
conservative, and may result in much deeper setting
depths for the conductor than are actually required
to avoid hydrofracture during drilling for the first
casing string.
The shear failure approach as
presented in this paper ia considered to give a more
realistic assessment of the actual required setting
depth, and ita use, in conjunction with an appropriate factor of safety, will often result in significant savings in the casing programme.
The use of the shear failure approach has led
to a saving of more than 50 metres on the Draugen
conductor design, and has avoided the need for a
more expensive installation method using thicker
wall conductors and heavier plant.
The shallower
setting depth has also eliminated the requirement
for special procedures to install the conductors
through a sand layer which would have presented a
significant increased risk of encountering shallow
gas.

APh

... (15)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

po(2ko-1) + 2.Aph

.... (16)

The Authors wish to thank A/S Norske Shell, Statoil

and BP Norway for permission to publish this paper.

ko.p +
0

Au

2.su+

Apv

increase in vertical total stress

Aph

increase in horizontal stress

shown on Fig. 11, whereas the shear failure appreach indicated that a setting depth of only 70
metres below mudline would provide an acceptable
safety level of over 300kPa difference between the
calculated fracture pressure and the estimated mud
pressure.
This difference was equivalent to a
factor of safety of 1.39 on excess pressure, resulting in a greater than 97 per cent statistical confidence of avoiding hydrofracture. This probability,
in conjunction with the confidence given by the
apparent lack of hydrofracture during drilling
operations at the site, resulted in a 70 metre
penetration being considered an acceptable conductor
setting depth for this project.

(14)

Au

OTC 6713

Using these modified stresses, the traditional

minor principal stress method led to a setting
depth in excess of 130 metres below mudline, aa

----I [u

)TC 6713

10

A.LDRII!GE
ANI

SIGNAL

Bjerrum, L., Nash, J.K.T.L. , Kennard, R.M.

and Gibson, R.E. (1972), HydraulicFracturing in Field Permeability Testing!!, Geotechnique Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 319-322.

CABLE

F T DART

2.

Den Hartog, J.P. (1952), AdvancedStrength

of Materialsit,McGraw-Hill.

3.

Jaeger, J.C. (1969), Elasticity, Fracture

and Flow, Halsted Press.

_SLllJING VALVE
FOR PACKER

4.

Randolph, M.F., Carter, J.P. and Wroth,

C.P. (1979), llDri~en pilee in Clay - he
Effects of Installation and Subsequent
Consolidation, Geotechnique Vol. 29, No.
4, pp. 361-393.

PRESSURE DROP VALVE

5.

6.

PRESSURE SENSOR

ROUGH HOLE PACKER

Overy,

R.F. and Dean, A.R. (1986), Hydraulic Fracture Testing of Cohesive soil.
Proc.
Offshore
Technolozv
Conference.
-.
Paper No. OTC 5226.

-OPEN

Poulos, H.G. and Davis,

E.H.
(1974),
Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock
Mechanicst$. Series in Soil Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons.

,,.iil

Fig.1

,,

1000

TJUF

Hydraulic FractureTestEquipment

RF

II

800
k

CLOSE UP
PRESSURE

I
i

STEAOY STATE
PREsSUBE

BIT

I
4

600

?w

uP

<

400

200

PUMP OFF - +

PUMP O Jb

PUMP OFF

o
0

12
TIME

16
AFTER

20
START

24
OF TEST

28
(rein)

Fig. 2 Hydraulic Fracture Test Procedure

171

32

36

40

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I I I

,,l!!

,1,1,

1!:

,,!!!

I I I

,,

II

1!:

1,1,

,,11,
II II II II

II

1,

II

1,

1,

1, i II II
II II
II II II II II II II

I I I I I,;!!:I I
II II II 1,1, II II

l,l,

II

1,i, 1, 1; 1, 1, 1, 1,

1,

I,,!! I I I

1!!:

1,1, 1,1, i,lll,

II

1,1, l,

,,

1,

1,

1,

i,

II

I,,!! I

1!!

1,1,

i,lll,

i,i,

l,l,

II

II II

II

1,

1,

1,

1, i, 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 1,

1,

1,

1,

1,i, 1, 1; 1, 1, 1, 1,

II

II II II II

koPo+ Uh
1,

;l lllllllllll!l
,,

l,l,

II

l,l,l,i,i,l~l~,~,~,

TOTAL STRESSESIN-SITU

i,l, ill,

l,i,

1!:

1,1,

II II
II
II II II II II

I I I

II II II II II II II
II
II II II II II

I I I!!1!:I

,,

II II II II II
II II II II II
II
I I I

1 ! 1, 1, 1, I

i,

,,

II II II II II

,,l!!

~~

,,,,,

1,

,1

II!!

,,,

i,l~ll,

l,i,

11,,,,1,,1~
I

II II II II

I,,!!!!:I I I

II

1,1, l,i,
!!!!!:

II

II II II II II
II II II II II II II

200

1,1, l,

i,lll,

0
,,!!

I I I

1!!:

1,

1,

1,

i,

1 ~ 1, 1, 1, I

i,

II

II II II II II
II
II II II II II

.
-1
IO

TOTAL

STRESSES

DURING

ORILLING

-200

I,,!! I

I I I

1!!!

1,1,

1,111,

i,i,

l,l,

II

II II II II II
II
II II II II II

I,,!!1!1
I I I

-a

II II II II II II II
II
II II II II II
I
,,, I I I!!1!:

II II

,,!!!

i,l, ill,

l,i,

l,l,

II

II

-ma
I

1,1,

i,lll,

l,i,

1,1, l,

II

1!:

-ma
I

1,1, 1,1, i,llll,

II

II

-1000

!,

1,1, 1,1, i,lll,

1,1, l,

II

!/l

,1

,,,,,,,

I I I I I,;!!:I I
II II II 1,1, l, II

1,

1,

1,

i,

i,

II!!

II

1!!:

I,,!! I I I

1!!

1
I

II II II II II
11111111111111

1,1,

i,lll,

i,i,

l,l,

II

1,1,

l,i,

1, I,

I,

i,l, ill,
II

l,l,

II II II II II
II
II II II II II
I

1!!

i!

I ~ 1, 1, 1, I

II II II II II

I,,!! I I I

,,,,

!1111!!

11111,!

I,,!! I I

UhdJ

l,l,

IIII II II

I,,, I I!!!1!:I

II

1,1,

II II II II

I I I
II II

i,

i,

1, ~ 1 I 11
,,!11

Fig.3

Hydrostatic,Mud-umand
InsituSoilStresses

Fig.4

Changes in TotalSoilStresses
DuetoDriUingOperations

EXCESS FRACTURE PRESSURE

(MPal

EXCESS FRACTURE PRESSURE

40

40

(MPa)

1-

I
60

60

I
I

Y\\
1

80

80

100

I
I
1
I

100

120

I
I
I
I

120

140

I
I

140

50

60
I
I
I

70

\
\
t

80

I
1

90

I
I
,
I

,.
100

1
x

110

120

00

100

80

1
\

\
\

100
\
\

\
\
120

120

\
\

o
I
\
\
.

140

140

--

HFT RESULTS
MINOR PRINCIPAL
STRESS PREDICTION
SHEAR FAILURE PREDICTION

Fig.5

Comparison ofHFIReaults with Predictions

173

(B

RATIO
o

RATIO

MEASURED/CALCULATED

MEASURED/CALCULATED
3

40
-1

SD
[

60

MEAN

+1
I

SD

1:

MEAN

1.99

S.D.

0.52

SD

MEAN

100

I
I
1
P
I
I

120

I
I

100

18

-0

1-

120

q
I
I
I

140

f
Ill
140

Fig. 6 Ratio of Measured to Calculated Fracture PresaureMinor Principal Stress Method

1.34

S.D.

0.32

-1

10!
I

I
a

I
{
I

1010
dw I
D

I*

MEAN

10

.1

ao

SD

60

-1

+1

Fig. 7 Ratio of Measuxwl to Calculated Fracture Pres.sureShear-Failure Method

(-ah

._

&

-:
!1/

1!
H--l Hl--Ill

:::--H-I-W+H47H:H
:4
:-.-.
,._.LLmtmTl i tilt<
. ._.
. -:F
lt-+=t;--l:+:F+l<-l<4
2?

c!

.
.: :. ;. .. .- =
.-.

~>

08

.-.

_. ._.,,
.

___

.1 .

__.

.,.

.,.

_ ..

8
[W

z-.
3N11OW

M013B

175

__

----

.._

__
.

s
H1d30

..

_.

m
.
t?

.
.
. ... ..
.....
=n

~.--

!#

g
~

z
8
:.

..-_._ . . .

..

.._ .

s
s.
;

,/

-=

-..

.>=

.-

s
W

%11MV4 lk0130 H1d30

gl
e
r%

1+
.

.-

176