You are on page 1of 85

Casing Design Methodology for

Casing While Drilling


Karunakar Charan Nooney
Karunakar Charan Nooney

Casing Design
Methodology for Casing
While Drilling
Optional Subtitle

Casing Design Methodology for Casing


While Drilling
By

Karunakar Charan Nooney


in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science
in Applied Earth Sciences

at the Delft University of Technology,


to be defended publicly on Wednesday December 16, 2015 at 04:00 PM.

Supervisor:

Prof. Dr. Ir. J.D.

Jansen

Thesis committee:

Prof. Dr. Ir. J.D.

Jansen

Prof. Dr.

W.R.

Rossen,

Prof. Dr.

A.V.

Metrikine

E.G.D. Barros

An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/.

Title

Casing Design Methodology for Casing While Drilling

Author(s)

Karunakar Charan Nooney

Date

December 16, 2015

Professor(s)

Prof. Dr. Ir. Jan-Dirk Jansen

Supervisor(s)

Prof. Dr. Ir. Jan-Dirk Jansen

Postal Address

Section for Petroleum Engineering


Department of Geoscience & Engineering
Delft University of Technology
P.O. Box 5028
The Netherlands

Telephone

(31) 15 2781328 (secretary)

Telefax

(31) 15 2781189

Copyright 2015 Section for Petroleum Engineering


All rights reserved.
No parts of this publication may be reproduced,
Stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
In any form or by any means, electronic,
Mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
Without the prior written permission of the
Section for Petroleum Engineering

Abstract
In the current plans of Delft Aardwarmte Project (DAP), it is considered to perform the drilling
operation by using pipes which remain in the well after drilling thus acting as a casing, the so-called
Casing While Drilling (CwD) technique. Due to the absence of drill pipe tripping prior to casing the
well, this technique results in reduced drilling time compared to conventional drilling. Additionally,
potential downhole problems due to drill pipe tripping are precluded.
This thesis presents a simulation based approach to selecting casing steel of suitable grade capable
of withstanding typical loads encountered while drilling of the well and during its producing life. The
developed algorithm is then used in the design of the casing string for the proposed DAP geothermal
producer well.
The algorithm first considers the effect of uni-axial stresses on casing due to defined burst and
collapse pressure loads encountered due to loss of well control while drilling or in the production
phase to make a preliminary selection. The effect of axial stress due to buoyed weight of casing and
the bending stress due to wellbore curvature is then used to re-evaluate the design against the same
collapse and burst loads. This is performed by using a bi-axial approach for the former and the VonMises triaxial stress criteria for the latter.
A Johancsik torque and drag model developed in MATLAB is used to predict drag values during
tripping. The bi-axial and Von-Mises stress analysis approach is repeated to include the effect of the
computed pull-out drag forces. The associated torque values are used to compute torsional stresses
and to identify casing connections of appropriate torque capacity.
The final step in the algorithm is to simulate the loads occurring during drilling and calculate the
equivalent Von Mises stress values throughout the casing string. Typical drilling loads considered
include torque and casing lateral vibration which induce torsional and bending stresses respectively.
It was identified that rather than bending stress due to whirling or buckling, torsional stress was
more likely to cause casing string failure. This is due to its relatively higher magnitude and the
weaker maximum torque capacities of conventional casing connections.
Additionally, the MATLAB tools developed for analysing buckling and whirling are used to compute
the critical load for inducing sinusoidal buckling as a function of wellbore inclination and the critical
rotary speed at surface to induce lateral vibration for varying weight on bit (WOB) respectively. From
the generated mode shapes, the bending stress magnitude at each node and therefore the points of
maximum stress occurrence for bucking and whirling are also identified.

ii

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents without whom none of this would have been
possible. Their unconditional love and support is the foundation on which I have built my career
thus far. Thanks are also due to my elder brother whose keen insight from having completed a
Masters degree himself benefited me tremendously in the planning and execution of various
activities throughout my MSc studies.
I am extremely grateful to my thesis supervisor, Professor Jan-Dirk Jansen for accepting me as his
student. I am constantly amazed by how he finds time to fulfil his responsibilities as thesis supervisor
inspite of the numerous demands on his time. Without his understanding and guidance, this project
would never have reached completion.
I would also like to thank Professor W.R Rossen, Professor A.V Metrikine & Eduardo Barros for
consenting to form part of the thesis assessment committee and evaluate this project.
I would be seriously remiss not to acknowledge the moral support of my friends here in Delft, Anand
Sundaresan, Akshey Krishna, Bharadwaj Rangarajan, Jeyakrishna Sridhar & Saashwath Swaminathan.
Thanks for everything guys, I couldnt have done it without you!
Last but not the least, I would like to thank the management at Cost Engineering Consultancy,
Zwijndrecht for their cooperation in agreeing to defer the starting date of my employment so that I
could complete this thesis.

iii

Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ iii
Contents ................................................................................................................................................. iv
1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1

Casing While Drilling ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1

Non-Retrievable BHA ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1.2

Retrievable BHA .............................................................................................................. 2

1.1.3

Liner While Drilling .......................................................................................................... 3

1.1.4

Casing Pipe Connections for CwD ................................................................................... 3

1.2

Thesis Outline.......................................................................................................................... 4

Design Algorithm............................................................................................................................. 5

Torque and Drag Analysis ............................................................................................................... 7

3.1

Implementation of Torque and Drag Model ......................................................................... 10

3.2

Model Validation................................................................................................................... 11

Static Deflection ............................................................................................................................ 13


4.1

Derivation of Governing Equation ........................................................................................ 13

4.2

Results ................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.1

Deflection ...................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.2

Validation of Model with Analytical Solution ............................................................... 16

4.3
5

Slope & Bending Moment for various Weight-on-Bit Conditions......................................... 18

Buckling Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 19


5.1

Governing Equation .............................................................................................................. 19

5.2

Results

........................................................................................................... 20

Natural Frequency of Lateral Vibration for Rotating Casing ......................................................... 22


6.1

Derivation of Governing Equation ........................................................................................ 23

6.2

Results ................................................................................................................................... 24

6.2.1

Comparison with Analytical Solution ............................................................................ 24

6.2.2

Variation of Natural Frequency with Applied Weight on Bit ........................................ 25

Application of Developed Concepts to DAP Producer .................................................................. 27


7.1

Initial Well Data..................................................................................................................... 27

7.2

Stresses Considered .............................................................................................................. 29

7.2.1

Axial Stress .................................................................................................................... 29

7.2.2

Bending Stress ............................................................................................................... 29

7.2.3

Torsional Stress ............................................................................................................. 30


iv

7.2.4

Hoop Stress ................................................................................................................... 30

7.2.5

Radial Stress .................................................................................................................. 30

7.2.6

Von Mises Stress ........................................................................................................... 30

7.3

Power Law Fluid Rheology Model......................................................................................... 31

7.4

Casing Design Load Cases...................................................................................................... 33

7.4.1

Surface Casing ............................................................................................................... 33

7.4.2

Intermediate Casing ...................................................................................................... 35

7.4.3

Production Liner ............................................................................................................ 35

7.5

7.5.1

Surface Casing ............................................................................................................... 36

7.5.2

Production Casing ......................................................................................................... 36

7.6

Axial Loading ......................................................................................................................... 38

7.6.1

Wellbore Trajectory ...................................................................................................... 38

7.6.2

Surface Casing ............................................................................................................... 38

7.6.3

Intermediate Casing ...................................................................................................... 39

7.6.4

7 Liner .......................................................................................................................... 39

7.6.5

Axial Load due to Well Bore Trajectory ........................................................................ 40

7.7

Combined Loading ................................................................................................................ 40

7.7.1

Collapse with Axial Loading........................................................................................... 40

7.7.2

Von Mises Analysis for Burst Loading ........................................................................... 42

7.8

Torque & Drag Analysis ......................................................................................................... 42

7.8.1

Axial Loading due to Drag Forces .................................................................................. 43

7.8.2

Torque Analysis ............................................................................................................. 45

7.9

Wellbore Pressure Distribution............................................................................................. 45

7.10

Drilling Loads ......................................................................................................................... 47

7.10.1

7 Liner Bending Stress Due to Whirl ......................................................................... 47

7.10.2

9 5/8 Casing Bending Stress Due to Buckling ........................................................... 49

7.11
8

Casing Selection Based on Uniaxial Loading Criteria ............................................................ 35

Von Mises Analysis of Drilling Loads during 7 Liner Section ............................................... 51

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 52
8.1

Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 52

Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................................... 53
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 54
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A.

Implementation of FDM for Beam Deflection .............................................................. 58

Appendix B. Implementation of FDM for Buckling Analysis ................................................................. 62


Appendix C.

Implementation of FDM for Whirling Analysis ............................................................. 64


v

Appendix D.

Supporting Tabular Data ............................................................................................... 66

Appendix E.

Torque Analysis & Corresponding Selection of Casing Connection .............................. 73

Appendix F.

Fluid Hydraulics Frictional Pressure Losses ................................................................ 75

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1 Non Retrievable BHA [1] ........................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Retrievable BHA. Combination image generated from [2] & [3] .............................................. 2
Figure 3 Retrievable BHA for drilling with Liner [5] ................................................................................ 3
Figure 4 BTC with Torque Shoulder [36] ................................................................................................. 4
Figure 5 Typical Buttress Threaded Connection [10] .............................................................................. 4
Figure 6 Overview of the Casing Design Process .................................................................................... 5
Figure 7 Downhole Forces on Casing [11]............................................................................................... 7
Figure 8 Force Balance on Drill String Element [13] ............................................................................... 8
Figure 9 Discretization of Drill String into Nodes [7] .............................................................................. 9
Figure 10 Snapshot of EXCEL spread sheet used for accepting Input String Data for T&D Model ....... 10
Figure 11 Sample Output Plots for Surface Hook Load & Cumulative Surface Torque ........................ 10
Figure 12 12 1/4" OH Section Hook Load Measurements for Well South Sangu-4 .............................. 11
Figure 13 8 1/2" OH Section Hook Load Measurements for SS-4......................................................... 11
Figure 14 Forces acting in radial direction [19]..................................................................................... 13
Figure 15 Variation of axial load in drill string [19] ............................................................................... 14
Figure 16 Plot of Deflections at Inclination of 10 Degrees ................................................................... 16
Figure 17 Clamped beam with Pinned End on which is exerted a constant lateral load and axial
compressional force. [20] ..................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 18 Verification of Numerical Model........................................................................................... 18
Figure 19 Variation in Bending Moment for Hold Inclination of 10 Degrees ....................................... 18
Figure 20 Casing initially resting on lower side of wellbore ................................................................. 19
Figure 21 Mode shapes at 0 degrees Inclination .................................................................................. 21
Figure 22 Plot of numerical & analytical critical loads as a function of wellbore inclination ............... 21
Figure 23 BHA Whirl [25] ...................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 24 Section of BHA rotating about axis [19] ................................................................................ 23
Figure 25 Mode shapes for the first natural frequency of Lateral Vibration........................................ 24
Figure 26 Dependence of natural frequency on the applied Weight on Bit......................................... 25
Figure 27 Drilling Window for Wellbore Fluid Gradient ....................................................................... 28
Figure 28 Planned Trajectory of Producer ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 29 Graphical representation of Design Loads vs. Rated Strength ............................................. 37
Figure 30 Measurement of Key Wellbore Trajectory Parameters ........................................................ 38
Figure 31 Plot of Design Load vs. Rated Strength for Collapse ............................................................. 41
Figure 32 Plot of Pick Up Drag Forces When Tripping Out of String ..................................................... 42
Figure 33 Design Collapse Load vs. Strength for DAP Producer ........................................................... 44
Figure 34 Increased FOS for Burst Loading Due to Effect of Drag Forces ............................................. 44
Figure 35 Cumulative Torque Observed at Surface for Various Drilled Depths ................................... 45
Figure 36 Flow Path for Drilling Fluid in 7" Liner Drilling Phase............................................................ 46
Figure 37 Fluid Pressure Distribution for 7" Liner Drilling Phase .......................................................... 46
Figure 38 Whirling Mode Shapes .......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 39 Natural Frequency of Lateral Vibration vs. WOB .................................................................. 47
Figure 40 Bending Stress Due to Whirl ................................................................................................. 48
Figure 41 Buckling Mode Shapes and Dependency of Critical Load on WOB....................................... 49
Figure 42 Bending Stress due to Buckling in 9 5/8" Intermediate CSG ................................................ 50
Figure 43 7" Liner Von-Mises Stress Analysis for Drilling Operation .................................................... 51
Figure 44 Discretization of Drill String [19] ........................................................................................... 58

vii

List of Tables
Table 1 Error Percentages for Simulated Hook Load Results ............................................................... 12
Table 2 Flow Rate for Minimum Annular Velocity [30]......................................................................... 31
Table 3 Factor of Safety [31] ................................................................................................................. 33
Table 4 Production Casing Specifications ............................................................................................. 37
Table 5 Summary of Required Material Properties based on Design Loads......................................... 37
Table 6 Surface Casing Properties......................................................................................................... 38
Table 7 Intermediate CSG Properties ................................................................................................... 39
Table 8 Liner Hold Section Properties ................................................................................................... 39
Table 9 Build Up Section Properties ..................................................................................................... 39
Table 10 Power Law Input Viscometer Measurements ........................................................................ 46
Table 11 Casing String Design for DAP Producer Geothermal Well...................................................... 52
Table 12 Von Mises Stress Analysis at Survey Points for Burst Loading Scenario ................................ 66
Table 13 Simulated Pick-Up Drag Values at Survey Points for 7 Liner Drilling .................................... 68
Table 14 Von Mises Analysis at Various Survey Points for 7'' Deviated N80 Liner Section .................. 69
Table 15 Simulated Bending Stress due to Whirling for 7 Liner Stand (30 M) .................................... 70
Table 16 Von Mises Tri Axisal Stress Analysis of 7" Liner for Drilling Conditions at Survey Points ...... 71
Table 17 Bending Stress due to Buckling for 9 5/8" Intermediate CSG Stand (30 metres) .................. 72
Table 18 Torque Analysis at Survey Points for 7" N80 Liner Section .................................................... 73
Table 19 Connection Make-Up Torque Capacities from Manufacturer Catalogue .............................. 74
Table 20 Pressure Loss Computed By Power Law Rheology ................................................................. 75

viii

Introduction

1.1 Casing While Drilling


The primary motivation for this thesis is the plan of the Delft Aardwarmte Project (DAP) to drill the
producer geothermal well by employing the CwD technique. Due to the absence of drill pipe
tripping, this technique results in reduced drilling time compared to conventional drilling whilst also
precluding numerous downhole problems. The simulation based approach presented in this thesis is
designed to select a suitable grade of casing steel for the DAP geothermal producer well but this
algorithm can also be extended towards composite materials as well. The reduced weight of
composite materials in comparison to steel would allow DAP to use rigs of smaller draw-works
capacities without reduction in target depths thereby resulting in significant cost savings.
The CwD has the following advantages in comparison to conventional drilling:
Eliminates the need for tripping of drill string prior to casing the well. The primary benefit of
doing so is the reduction in rig operating time. Additionally, potential downhole problems
such as loss of well control, surge and swab pressures when the casing is being run in or hole
collapse due to presence of unstable zones in the wellbore can be avoided.
Problematic thief zones which absorb drilling fluid completely, thereby causing a loss of
primary well control can be bypassed in this technique due to the plastering effect of the
casing. Due to the low annular clearances between casing and borehole wall, the casing
effectively smears the drilling fluid particles into the borehole wall creating a superior filter
cake thereby bypassing these zones.
Low annular volumes enables higher flow velocities which facilitates hole cleaning.
It is not without its disadvantages however and these are:

Low annular clearances lead to higher frictional flow losses which necessitate the use of
higher capacity pumps for same drilled depths in comparison to conventional drilling
In order to execute a CwD operation, the rig hoisting equipment (usually the top drive) has
to be modified to accommodate the casing. Additionally, other special equipment such as
torque rings, modified elevators and tongs have to be employed which result in a further
increase in costs

There are two variations in bottom hole assemblies (BHAs) used for this technique which are applied
based on the well trajectory and target depth requirement.
1.1.1

Non-Retrievable BHA

This technique is used for shallow depth vertical sections in formations with soft to medium
hardness levels only. Typically, the top hole section is drilled using this BHA. No drill collars are used
however stabilizers may be used in regular intervals of one stand. Other cementing equipment such
as float shoe and collar may also be used. Typically, special polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC)
bits which are soft enough to be drilled through by conventional bits used in the next drilling phase
are preferred. The flow path for circulating of drilling fluid is identical to conventional drilling
operations.

Figure 1 Non Retrievable BHA [1]

1.1.2

Retrievable BHA

Figure 2 Retrievable BHA. Combination image generated from [2] & [3]

The retrievable BHA as the name suggests can be retrieved by wireline after the section has been
drilled prior to cementing. The primary components are the pilot bit for drilling the initial hole, an
under reamer for subsequently enlarging it, rotary steerable or mud motors, Measurement While
Drilling (MWD)/ Logging While Drilling (LWD) tools and the drill lock/latch assembly. The DLA is
locked in such a way to prevent relative axial and torsional motion between the BHA and the casing
[4]. Seals used in the DLA as shown in Figure 2 prevent the flow of drilling fluid into the casing and
instead divert into the BHA [4]. Any type of formation can be drilled at any depth without placing
any restrictions on wellbore inclination & depth or formation hardness.

1.1.3

Liner While Drilling

In Liner while Drilling operations, the drill pipe used to run in the liner includes the liner hanger for
supporting the weight of the liner and the BHA for drilling. Consequently, the circulation path for
drilling fluid is entirely through the inner drill string as a result of which, the entire liner is not
exposed to internal fluid pressure as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Retrievable BHA for drilling with Liner [5]

1.1.4

Casing Pipe Connections for CwD

Typical casing connections are designed for one time use only where the casing connection is made
up at surface and run into the hole. They are not designed for handling torsional and alternating
stresses induced by rotation of the string. Therefore special casing connections have to be designed
with high torque transmission capability. As per [1], [6], [7], [8]& [9] the preferred connections used
are the API Buttress Threaded Coupled (BTC) connections with metal to metal seal. Depending upon
the specific well trajectory, these connections may also provide insufficient torque capacity.
Consequently, special metal torque rings are inserted between casing threads to further increase the
maximum torque capacity by providing a positive torque shoulder which prevents thread crushing
by over-torqueing and acting as a spacer between the two threads.

Figure 5 Typical Buttress Threaded Connection [10]


Figure 4 BTC with Torque Shoulder [36]

1.2 Thesis Outline


Chapter 2 presents the design algorithm to be followed for the selection of casing steel grade with a
brief discussion of each step in the sequence.
Chapter 3 introduces the torque and drag model starting with a brief discussion of the need for
calculating wellbore torque and drag forces and the subsequent implementation of the Johancsik
model in this thesis by using a combination of an MS EXCEL spread sheet for accepting input data
and MATLAB for computing actual forces and plotting the results. Steps taken for checking the
accuracy of the model are also presented.
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 are concerned with the theoretical derivation of the governing equations or
Eigen value formulations for buckling and whirling analysis. The starting point is the derivation for
the deflection of the string under the influence of the external load applied at surface. In addition to
the theoretical derivation, the governing equations are solved using the finite difference method in
MATLAB for which the details are contained in Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C. Each model
is validated by comparing with analytical solutions from literature.
Chapter 7 focuses on the application of the algorithm and supporting MATLAB tools developed, to
the DAP producer well casing design. The implementation of the previously defined algorithm along
with the analysis of results obtained is described comprehensively. Supporting data for bending
stress due to Buckling & Whirling, Torque, Drag & Von Mises stress obtained from the MATLAB tools
is tabulated in Appendix D & E for reference. Appendix E also presents a simple example of selecting
a suitable buttress casing connection from a manufacturer catalogue on the basis of rated make-up
torque capacity. Implementation of the hydraulic model based on the Power law rheology model
for calculating the wellbore pressure distribution is reported. Supporting hydraulic calculations are
summarized in tabular format in Appendix E.
Lastly, in Chapter 8 the conclusions derived from the thesis work are presented and suggestions are
made towards extending specific aspects of this thesis.

Design Algorithm

Figure 6 Overview of the Casing Design Process

In this section, the overall process of selecting the casing steel for the CwD application is conveyed in
the form of an algorithm displayed in Figure 6 above. The starting point of the algorithm is the
formation strength and fluid pressure gradient data (section 7.1) needed for calculating bottom hole
pressure to maintain hydrostatic balance with formation fluid. The fluid properties of plastic
viscosity, yield point and shear rate are used to calculate the wellbore dynamic fluid pressures on
the basis of the power law rheology model as shown in Appendix F. In the next step, the collapse
and burst loads are estimated for making the preliminary selection of casing on the basis of the
uniaxial loading criteria (section 7.4). The selected grade of casing steel is also verified for axial
loading due to buoyed weight and bending due to wellbore curvature (section 7.6).
As axial loads reduce collapse resistance of the casing string, a combined load analysis for hoop and
axial loads is performed (section 7.7.1) along with a tri-axial stress analysis for the burst scenario
(section 7.7.2). If in each of these cases, the ratio of material yield strength to the equivalent stress is
found to be greater than the design factor of safety, than the design is considered to be effective.
The next step is the simulation of torque and drag forces induced in the casing string when drilling
and tripping out of the wellbore respectively (section 7.8 ). The drag forces are used to compute an
increased axial load for which the combined loading analysis is repeated to ensure that the casing
string does not fail to this increased axial load (section 7.8.1.1). If failure occurs, then the next grade
of casing steel is selected and the process is repeated again starting with the revised torque and drag
analysis.
If however the design does not fail, then the computed torque values (Appendix E ) are used to
calculate the torsional stress. In the final step, torsion together with axial stress due to whirling are
included in the von Mises triaxial stress analysis (section 7.10) to simulate the effect of combined
loads on the casing string during the drilling process. The torque values are also used to select the
casing buttress connection of required torque capacity (Appendix E ). The radial and hoop stress are
determined by the dynamic fluid pressures inside the casing and in the casing open hole annulus and
are obtained from the result of the hydraulic model.
While the buckling and torque & drag analysis assume that the casing string is always in contact with
the wellbore, the whirling analysis considers the casing to be perfectly centered such that the radial
clearance is uniform throughout. These assumptions are needed to overcome the difficulty
associated with assessing the contact points in a realistic scenario where there are many
uncertainties such as wellbore tortuosity, washed-out holes, and varying diameters of casing
centralizers, stabilizers and collars. In short, the nature of the analysis contained in this thesis is
more qualitative in nature rather than quantitative.

Torque and Drag Analysis

Figure 7 Downhole Forces on Casing [11]

The analysis of torque and drag force encountered by the casing string during the process of tripping
in and out of the wellbore is critical to the design process. It is often the limiting factor in drilling
deviated and extended reach wells as a result of which trajectories are designed to minimize normal
contact forces and consequently the torque and drag as much as feasible. Torque and drag forces
are generally caused by poor downhole conditions such as key-seating, sloughing shales etc. or due
to sliding friction associated with the wellbore trajectory.
Sliding friction acting between the wellbore and the casing string gives rise to an increase in the
tensile force acting along the longitudinal axis of the casing string which is known as drag. Because
friction acts in the opposite direction of string movement, drag causes an increase in the hook load
measured at surface above the free rotating weight of the string during pull out and a reduction in
hook load while running in. The increased axial force component during pull out significantly reduces
the collapse resistance of the casing and the maximum along- hole depth capable of being reached
by a rig with a fixed hook load capacity. The reduction in the axial force when running in can limit the
free movement of the string under its own weight into the hole at higher inclinations and can lead to
buckling if the driller exceeds the critical weight on bit applied at the surface in order to push the
string deeper.
When the casing string is rotating in the wellbore with a weight on bit during drilling, the torque
available at the bit is much less than the external torque applied at surface by the rotary or top
drive. This is due to losses occurring throughout the casing string due to the frictional forces acting
at the point of contact between the wellbore and the casing string creating a resisting moment with
vector direction opposite to that of casing rotation. As torque is directly proportional to the frictional
force, increase in drag forces is usually accompanied by increasing torque loss as well. Consequently,
the limiting factor for rotating the casing while reciprocating (for better conditioning of drilling fluid)
or for drilling deeper and with greater inclination is often the maximum torque deliverable at surface
by the rig and the torque carrying capacity of the casing connections.

For designing the casing string, it is therefore necessary to use a torque and drag model which can
simulate the various loads during drilling and tripping operations so that the requisite grade of
casing steel with yield strength greater than design axial and torque loads by a planned factor of
safety can be selected.
As per [12]the most widely used model in the industry is the soft string model first developed by
Johancsik et al. [13]. The Johancsik equations were later rewritten in differential form by Sheppard
[14] who also included the effect of buoyancy due to mud pressure in the model.
The Johancsik model assumes that

Torque and drag are caused primarily by sliding friction force with other smaller contributors
neglected

The drill string is in continuos contact with the borehole wall

Normal (side) forces due to pipe bending stiffness are neglected. ie, the drill string is
modelled as a flexible chain or soft string model with no bending moments

Figure 8 Force Balance on Drill String Element [13]

Johancsik states that sliding friction force is the product of coefficient of dynamic friction between
drill string and borehole wall and the normal force acting at the point of contact of the two surfaces.
He then calculates the normal force or net side load, by performing a force balance as shown in
Figure 8. Net side load is equated to the normal components of the axial force due to bending of
drillstring in curved (build up or drop off) section of wellbore and gravity force due to its weight.
Johancsik discretizes the drill string into elements of finite length which transmit incremental axial
force and torque to the next section. The analysis starts from the bit and proceeds towards the top.
As shown in Figure 9 at node point i , the axial force transmitted by node point i 1 is used as the
input for calculating the normal force acting uniformly on the element Si Si 1 and the axial force

Fi 1 . Thus, axial force and torque values are cumulatively summed up to obtain the actual loads.

Figure 9 Discretization of Drill String into Nodes [7]

The incremental form of the Johancsik equations for axial force and torque as presented in [7] are:
n
i

Fn Fo ( si si 1 ) wi cos( i 1
) i Ni ,
2

i 1

(3.1.1)

n o ri i Ni ,

(3.1.2)

i 1

where,

Fi

Axial load at node i , N

w
s

Buoyed specific weight of casing, N


Distance coordinate along the measured depth of wellbore trajectory, m
Friction coefficient

Inclination angle, radians


Azimuth angles, radians
Torque, Nm

The contact force N i computed from the force balance as used in(3.1.1) and (3.1.2) above is given
by:

Ni ( si 1 si )

i 1 i
wi sin
2

i i 1 i 1 i

Fi s s sin
2

i1 i

2
i i 1 .
Fi s s
i 1 i

(3.1.3)

From(3.1.3), it can be seen that the normal force vanishes for vertical wellbores as inclination
reduces to zero and azimuth remains constant and hence the model returns zero drag and torque
values for vertical sections. This is however untrue in practice because the wellbore cannot be drilled
strictly vertical and will always possess low inclination values upto 3~4 degrees.

3.1 Implementation of Torque and Drag Model


The Johansik model is implemented in MATLAB using an excel spread sheet to accept the input
parameters of drill string specifications and the well survey data (Measured Depth, Inclination &
Azimuth). Other input parameters include

Drilling Fluid Density


Friction Factor
WOB for Drilling
TOB in case of downhole motor

Figure 10 Snapshot of EXCEL spread sheet used for accepting Input String Data for T&D Model

The output of the model is the plot of drag and torque forces acting on the casing string at a
particular bit depth. It also computes the plot of hook load measured at surface versus the drilled
depth which is used for estimating the required rig draw works capacity. It is also used for validating
the model by comparing simulated hook loads with real time data obtained from field
measurements.

Figure 11 Sample Output Plots for Surface Hook Load & Cumulative Surface Torque

10

3.2

Model Validation

For the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the torque and drag model, real time hook load
measurement data from offshore well South Sangu-4 drilled by Santos Ltd. is used to compare
against the simulated hook loads. This data is obtained from MSc thesis report of T.Chakraborty [15].
The author back calculates the friction factor for this well from the real time measurements using
the Halliburton Well Plan simulator. These same friction factors along with drill string specification
and other input parameters are fed into the developed torque and drag model to compare with the
Santos real time hook load data set for an 12 and 8 open hole sections.

Figure 12 12 1/4" OH Section Hook Load Measurements for Well South Sangu-4

Figure 13 8 1/2" OH Section Hook Load Measurements for SS-4

11

Table 1 Error Percentages for Simulated Hook Load Results

Well South Sangu 4

12 OH

8 OH

Friction Factor,

0.35

0.45

Maximum POOH
Error
Maximum RIH Error

6.87 %

11.11%

8.18%

7%

As can be seen from the table above, there is an average error of approx. 8.3% between the
simulation results and real time data. This can possibly be attributed to sophistication of the
WellPlan simulator. Although it is also based on the soft string model [16], it also considers effect of
contact surface area [17] and Hydrodynamic Viscous Drag forces [18]. The latter is induced on the
string when tripping by the drilling fluid in the wellbore. Implementation of the same would require
a more realistic hydraulics model and is beyond the scope of this thesis work.

12

Static Deflection

4.1 Derivation of Governing Equation


The static deflection analysis begins with the derivation of the governing differential equation for the
lateral displacement of the casing string by considering a section of the casing of length dz shown
below. The z axis is chosen as the longitudinal axis of the borehole with the origin at the bit. The
analysis will be carried out for one single of casing pipe of standard length.

Figure 14 Forces acting in radial direction [19]

Let the radial component of the buoyant weight of steel per unit length be defined as:

wy A gh sin .

(4.1.1)

Similarly, the longitudinal component of buoyant weight of steel per unit length is:

wz A gh cos .

(4.1.2)

Additionally, let
m = Density of drilling fluid, kg / m3

= Density of tubular, kg / m3

h 1 m , buoyancy factor

N = axial force acting through the casing


F0 = applied weight on bit
y = lateral deflection in the y-z plane

s y =shear force in the drill string in the y-z plane

= Inclination from the vertical

13

The axial load varies linearly throughout the casing string as shown in Figure 15. At the drill bit, the
load is compressive in nature owing to the weight of the overlying portion of the string slacked off by
the driller in order to exert the weight on bit. This is why drill collars possess a greater internal
cross-section to reduce the likelihood of buckling. Towards the top, the drill pipes are in tension due
to the weight of the string underneath. The point at which the tensile and compressive forces negate
each other thereby reducing the axial force to zero is known as the Neutral point indicated by the
point l0 ' . In general, the drill string is designed in such a way that the neutral point falls within the
BHA. The applied weight on bit is used to determine the position of the neutral point by using the
relation:
(4.1.3)
F0 A gh cos l0 .
Thus the axial load is given by the relation:

N F0 wZ z .

(4.1.4)

Figure 15 Variation of axial load in drill string [19]

From [20], we know that the angle of deflection of the beam with respect to the longitudinal axis:

dy
,
dz

(4.1.5)

and the shear force:

d3y
S y EI 3 .
dz

(4.1.6)

From Figure 14, we can form the equilibrium equation of forces in the radial direction as:

sy

ds y
dz

dz wy dz s y N sin N

dN
dz )(sin d ) 0 .
dz

(4.1.7)

For small deflections,

sin( d ) d .

(4.1.8)

Substituting (4.1.8) in(4.1.7), we get:


14

ds y
dz

dz wy dz

dN
d
dz N
dz 0 .
dz
dz

(4.1.9)

Substituting(4.1.4),(4.1.5) & (4.1.6) in(4.1.9), and dividing throughout by z :

EI

d4y
dy d ( F0 wz z )
d2y

(
F

w
z
)
0,
y
0
z
dz 4
dz
dz
dz 2

(4.1.10)

d4y
d2y
dy

(
F

w
z
)
wz
wy .
0
z
4
2
dz
dz
dz

(4.1.11)

EI

Substituting (4.1.3) in(4.1.11), and dividing throughout by A CM to account for the drilling fluid
contained within the casing string, we finally obtain:

EI d 4 y gh cos
d 2 y dy
gh sin

(
l

z
)

.
0

4
2
ACM dz
CM
dz
dz
CM

(4.1.12)

Equation (4.1.12) is the static equilibrium equation for forces acting on a section of the casing string
in the y-z plane. A similar method can be applied to obtain the equilibrium equation for the x-z plane
which is similar to (4.1.11) except for the presence of the lateral gravity component wy . The two
equations can be combined using polar coordinates to obtain the complete deflection equation in
the wellbore. Equation (4.1.12) can be expressed in a dimensionless form as follows:

02

EI
,
A Cm L4

(4.1.13)

0t ,

(4.1.14)

z
,
L

(4.1.15)

y ' w
l0'

y w
L

l0
.
L

(4.1.16)

(4.1.17)

Making use of these terms, the following dimensionless equation is obtained:

d 4 y ' ghcos '


d 2 y ' dy ' ghsin

w
dw2 dw L 2C .
0
dw4 L02Cm

0 m

(4.1.18)

15

Equation (4.1.18) can be rewritten in the form of a series of a series of algebraic equations by using
the finite difference method [19] and solved at various node points throughout the drill string in
order to find the nodal displacements as shown in Appendix A.

4.2 Results
4.2.1

Deflection

Figure 16 Plot of Deflections at Inclination of 10 Degrees

As a test case, deflection of a drill collar with outer and inner diameters 7.5 inches (190.5 mm) and
2.81 inches (71.37 mm) respectively at an inclination of 10 degrees to the vertical was plotted in
Figure 16 and as expected, with increasing weight on bit, the observed deflection is found to
increase.

4.2.2

Validation of Model with Analytical Solution

The analytical solution considered here is of a beam which is clamped on one end and pinned on the
other end. It is subjected to an axial compressive force and a constant lateral force (gravity).

16

Figure 17 Clamped beam with Pinned End on which is exerted a constant lateral load and axial compressional force. [20]

As per [20], the analytical expression for deflection in this situation is given by:

2ux
ql 2 x l x M b sin kx x
ql 4 cos u
l

x
1

(
).

164 EIu 4
cos u
8EIu 2
P sin kl l

(4.2.1)

where,

X = Deflection, m
P = Longitudinal compressive force, N

l = Length of beam, m

q , Buoyed uniform lateral load,


u

N
m

kl l P

2 2 EI

ql 2 (u )
, Nm
M b , Bending moment =
8 (u )

(u) Trigonometric factor representing influence of P on X

3(tan u u )
.
u3

(u) Trigonometric factor representing influence of P on deflection angle at the beam ends
=

3 1
1

.
2u 2u tan 2u

Numerical values of the functions (u ) and (u ) for varying u are tabulated in [20].
The numerical deflection for the test drill collar was then computed with an inclination of 90 degrees
on the well trajectory. Both curves were then plotted on the same graph as shown in Figure 18.

17

Figure 18 Verification of Numerical Model

From Figure 18, it can be seen that the results of the numerical model are in close agreement with
the analytical solution for deflection.

4.3 Slope & Bending Moment for various Weight-on-Bit Conditions

As per [20], bending moment of a beam is EI

d2y
which is then computed at each node point for
dw2

the drill collar test case in section 4.2 using the Finite Difference method. The result is plotted for
the test drill collar case in Figure 19. We see that as the Weight on Bit increases, the Bending
Moment also increases.

Figure 19 Variation in Bending Moment for Hold Inclination of 10 Degrees

18

Buckling Analysis

5.1 Governing Equation


When the weight on bit causes the axial load to increase beyond a certain critical value, the drill
string becomes unstable and buckles transversely to come in contact with the wellbore. When
drilling inclined holes, the drill string in spite of resting on the lower side of the borehole will first
buckle into a sinusoidal shape. Upon further increase of the weight on bit, the drill string will
eventually transition into a helical shape when the axial load approaches the second critical load.
Determining the limiting value of the allowable weight on bit is an important part of the well design
process due to the numerous disadvantages associated with buckling such as failure of down hole
tools, BHA being subjected to fluctuating fatigue loads and the reduced drilling progress.

Figure 20 Casing initially resting on lower side of wellbore

In the following analysis, the tendency for drill strings to buckle in inclined well bores will be studied
by determining the critical load for sinusoidal buckling when the string is in contact with the
borehole wall. This is done by using the finite difference method to discretize the governing
differential equation and reshape it into an Eigen value problem. The governing differential equation
is derived in [21]by combining the equations for deflection in the y-z (4.1.12)& the x-z plane using
complex coordinates to form a fourth order non-linear differential equation with variable
coefficients. This equation is linearized by a Jacobian transformation [21]to obtain the equation for
the deflection in the y-z plane as:

EI

d4y
d2y
dy wy

(
F

w
z
)
wz

y 0.
0
z
4
2
dz
dz
dz c

(5.1.1)

where c DWellbore DCa sin g , radial clearance between casing and wellbore wall in m .
In equation(5.1.1), the first term on the left hand side corresponds to the flexural rigidity of the
tubular. The second term on the left represents the effect of the uniformly varying axial load along
the longitudinal axis of the casing on the lateral deflection. The third term quantifies the gravity
effect on the casing string which is the buoyed weight per uniform length. Finally, the fourth term
represents a restoring force. From Figure 20, it can be seen that the natural tendency of the casing is
to rest on the lower side of the wellbore. When the casing is displaced laterally or sideways from this
19

position during buckling, the resistance of the wellbore wall to this motion induces a restoring force
in the casing proportional to the magnitude of its displacement from the equilibrium position.
The radial clearance term c , can be dimensionalized as:

c'

DWellbore DCa sin g


2L

(5.1.2)

where L = length of casing section between drill bit and stabilizer, m .


The same procedure used to obtain the dimensionless form of the governing equation for static
deflection in section 4.1 is repeated here to obtain the scaled governing equation for the stability
analysis in the y-z plane. By substituting the dimensionless parameters (4.1.13) to (4.1.17) &
equations (4.1.1),(4.1.2), and (5.1.2) in (5.1.1), we obtain

d 4 y ' ghcos '


d 2 y ' dy ' ghsin '

w
dw2 dw L 2C c' y 0 .
0
dw4 L02Cm

0 m

(5.1.3)

The homogenous linear differential equation (5.1.3) is discretized using the finite difference method
with similar clamped & pinned boundary conditions described in Appendix A and then rearranged
into an eigen value problem as:

A y B y ,

(5.1.4)

A B y 0 .

(5.1.5)

Where = weight on bit multiplier for determining critical load.


The Eigen value problem defined in (5.1.5) is solved by implementing the finite difference technique
in Appendix B.

5.2 Results
The following curves were plotted for the previously defined drill collar test case using MATLAB to
represent the buckling of the casing string in the wellbore. The deflection is scaled to the annular
clearance between the drill collar outer diameter and wellbore diameter specified by the chosen bit
diameter. In Figure 21, the eigen vector solution of equation (5.1.5) is plotted as the buckled mode
shape of the casing string in a vertical wellbore. The numerically computed solution is then
compared with the standard analytic formula for the critical load to induce sinusoidal buckling in
inclined or vertical wellbores as presented in [22]:

Fcrit 2

EI Agh sin
.
r

(5.2.1)

20

Figure 21 Mode shapes at 0 degrees Inclination

Figure 22 Plot of numerical & analytical critical loads as a function of wellbore inclination

From Figure 22, we see that the numerical solution computed corresponds reasonably to the
analytical solution for increasing weight on bit and angle of inclination. It is also observed that the
critical load increases at a much faster rate at lower wellbore inclinations.
21

Natural Frequency of Lateral Vibration for Rotating Casing

In order to gain an insight into the dynamic loading conditions of the BHA, the lateral or bending
vibrations will be studied in this section with the aim of determining the natural frequencies and
their dependence on the applied weight on bit. Historically, of the three different vibration modes,
lateral vibrations were the last to be studied, as they typically went undetected at the surface owing
to their relatively higher frequency which caused them to attenuate much faster. They have been
identified as the leading cause of drill string failure by [23]. They can be caused by amongst other
things, improperly balanced, bent or off-centre BHA components [24]. Interaction of the drill bit with
the formation or of the drill string with the wellbore may also lead to lateral vibrations.
Lateral vibrations are a complex phenomenon, an important subset of which is the forward
synchronous whirl. When the instantaneous centre of rotation of the BHA is eccentric or away from
its centre of gravity, a whirling motion occurs and when the BHA rotates about its instantaneous
centre in the same direction as its revolution around the borehole axis due to the torque applied by
the rotary table, it is known as forward synchronous whirl. By performing an Eigen value analysis of
the natural frequency of lateral vibration, the critical rotary speed at which forward synchronous
whirl will occur can be theoretically determined and can then be used by the driller as a rough guide
on which rotary speed range for drilling ahead without causing resonant vibrations.

Figure 23 BHA Whirl [25]

Another significant subcategory is the backward whirl which occurs when the directions of rotation
of the BHA about its instantaneous centre and the rotary table are different. One of the causes of
backward whirl as described by [26] and [23]is the friction between the stabilizers and the wellbore
which can induce the backward whirl of the entire BHA.

22

6.1 Derivation of Governing Equation

Figure 24 Section of BHA rotating about axis [19]

For determining the governing differential equation of lateral vibration for a rotating BHA, the
inertia force must be defined so that it can be included in the subsequent force balance equation as:

Fi ACM (

d2y
b2 sin t ) .
2
dt

(6.1.1)

Where Fi = inertia force

= rotary speed

b = offset of the centre of gravity of the section from the geometric centre along the Y-axis
CM 1

Mm
, added mass coefficient to account for drilling fluid contained per unit length
M s'

of BHA
Recalling the previously defined equation (4.1.11) for the static force equilibrium in the Y-Z plane,
the aspect of rotation of the BHA is included in it by substituting the inertia force thereby obtaining:

EI

d4y
d2y
dy
d2y

(
F

w
z
)

C
(
) wy ACM b2 sin t .
0
z
z
M
4
2
2
dz
dz
dz
dt

(6.1.2)

This is the governing equation for lateral vibration from which the resonant frequencies are to be
determined. To execute the Eigen value analysis, the excitation force on the RHS in equation (6.1.2)
is considered to be zero. It is also assumed that the lateral force due to gravity wy will not influence
the natural frequency and hence can be ignored. Therefore, equation (6.1.2) reduces to:

23

EI

d4y
d2y
dy
d2y

(
F

w
z
)

C
(
) 0.
0
z
z
M
dz 4
dz 2
dz
dt 2

(6.1.3)

Let standard harmonic function described below be the solution to (6.1.3)

y y z eit ,

(6.1.4)

..
y 2eit .

(6.1.5)

Substituting (6.1.4)&(6.1.5) in(6.1.3), and dividing throughout by A CM :

EI d 4 y gh cos
d 2 y dy

(
l

z
)
2 y 0 .
0

4
2
ACM dz
CM
dz
dz

(6.1.6)

Equation (6.1.6) is now the equation to be discretized and solved in similar fashion to previous
examples as an Eigen problem in the form of:

A y B y ,

(6.1.7)

A B y 0 .

(6.1.8)

Where is the Eigen value which when multiplied with the rotary speed is yields the natural
frequency. Implementation of Finite Difference method to solve this Eigen value problem is detailed
in Appendix C.

6.2 Results
6.2.1

Comparison with Analytical Solution

Figure 25 Mode shapes for the first natural frequency of Lateral Vibration

24

Using MATLAB, the Eigen value statement was solved for the example drill collar of outer and inner
diameters 7.5 inches (190.5 mm) and 2.81 inches (71.37 mm) respectively rotating at a speed of 10
RPM with no applied weight on bit at 0 degrees inclination from the vertical. The mode shapes
shown in Figure 25 above are plotted for a normalized deflection where the maximum deflection
value of 1 corresponds to the maximum annular clearance between the drill collar outer diameter
and the borehole diameter defined by the specified bit diameter. The computed natural frequency
was found to be 0.73 Hz (43.67 RPM). To confirm the accuracy of the tool, the solution was
compared with the analytical solution for the bending natural frequency of a beam with similar
boundary conditions of simply supported or pinned at one end and clamped or fixed at the other
end [27] given by:

3.92672

EI
0.71Hz
AL4

(6.2.1)

From the above, it is confirmed that the tool developed is in close agreement with the analytical
solution. The reason for the computed natural frequency being higher than its analytical counterpart
is because although the weight on bit is zero, the linearly varying tension (equal to the weight of the
buoyant drill string beneath that point) throughout the drill string increases the resistance to
bending and hence results in a higher natural frequency.

6.2.2

Variation of Natural Frequency with Applied Weight on Bit

Figure 26 Dependence of natural frequency on the applied Weight on Bit

From Figure 26, It can be seen that as the applied weight on bit increases, the natural frequency
reduces. This phenomenon will appear intuitive after examining the terms of the Eigen value
25

statement for the governing equation (6.1.6) and comparing it with the analytical expression for
buckling under excitation [28]reproduced below:

k 2 m G kG 0 v 0

(6.2.2)

d4y
k - Stiffness which corresponds to the flexural rigidity EI 4
dz
kGO - Geometric stiffness term capturing the effect of axial loading. The minus sign indicates
compressive load which is consistent with the typical load distribution in the BHA. This term

d2y
dy
corresponds with ( F0 wz z ) 2 wz
dz
dz

2 - Natural frequency corresponding to rotary speed 2


Thus it can be clearly seen from(6.2.2), when kGO increases as shown in Figure 26, the natural
frequency 2 decreases until eventually it reduces to zero. The corresponding weight on bit is the
buckling load and hence a further check on the accuracy of the buckling result computed earlier in
section 5.2 is obtained because of the agreement in the computed buckling load of 306 kN in both
cases for similar input conditions of wellbore inclination (vertical), tubular material properties and
dimensions.

26

Application of Developed Concepts to DAP Producer

The concepts discussed thus far can now be applied towards selecting the appropriate steel grade
for the DAP geothermal producer well. This will be done by following the previously proposed
algorithm for casing string design.

7.1 Initial Well Data

The following assumptions are made regarding the initial well data:
o Overburden gradient = 6.89 kPa / m
o Entire well is drilled with same mud weight
o
o

Surface temperature = 25 C
Assume ideal gas behaviour for Methane

Formation fluid density is taken to be 144 kg / m3 which is obtained from the study of total
dissolved solids observed in the water samples contained in the report of IF technologies
Netherlands
This means that in any forthcoming calculations,

mud gradient g (1000 144) 9.81 11.223kPa / m .

(7.1.1)

To maintain sufficient overbalance, the gradient of the drilling fluid is taken as 12 kPa / m

It was not possible to obtain any data pertaining to the formation fracture gradient from the
DAP. Therefore the Hubbert and Willis equation [29] for wellbore injection pressure
required to initiate fracture propagation was used as an approximation of the formation
strength gradient as follows:

1
2P
F (1
)
3
D
1
{1 (2 0.49614)}
3
0.66409 psi / ft

(7.1.2)

15.022kPa / m.
Where,

F
P
D

Fracture Gradient in psi/ft.


Pore pressure gradient in psi/ft.

Note that this formula assumes the overburden gradient to be 1 psi/ft. which is a reasonable
assumption in the absence of specific data as per Hubert and Willis

The producer has a planned TVD of 2300m. Using the geothermal gradient, the bottom hole
temperature is found to be:

27

T 0.03d (TVD) 8.21


(0.03 2200) 8.21

(7.1.3)

77.21 C.

This is below the boiling point of water so the occurrence of steam as a potential well bore
influx can be ruled out. The only gaseous influx which can occur is typically Methane [9] with
or without H2S in small quantities. The design for burst will then be carried out considering
the case of methane influx into the casing.

Figure 27 Drilling Window for Wellbore Fluid Gradient

Figure 28 Planned Trajectory of Producer

28

7.2 Stresses Considered


The following section consists of a brief recap of some basic mechanical engineering concepts
pertaining to stress. . During the drilling process, the tubular used will be subjected to any or all of
the following stresses simultaneously. The fundamental formulas used to calculate these stresses
are obtained from [7].

7.2.1

Axial Stress

The axial stress at any point on a tubular is the tension caused by the gravity component of the
buoyed weight of the section below it, exerting a loading force vertically downwards.

4F
,
( D12 D2 2 )

(7.2.1)

where,

D1

Outer Diameter, m

D2

Inner Diameter, m

7.2.2

Bending Stress

Bending stress in the tubular acts along its longitudinal axis and can be caused when the tubular
undergoes bending due to curvature of the wellbore trajectory, tubular buckling and due to lateral
vibration. For the former, it is calculated using the formula:

b E

r
,
R

(7.2.2)

where,

Bending Stress, Pa

E
r
R

Youngs Modulus of Elasticity, Pa


Radius of tubular, m
Well bore radius of curvature, m

Bending stresses due to whirling and buckling are calculated as the product of the flexural rigidity
with the second order derivative of the nodal displacements obtained from simulation results as will
be discussed in sections 7.10.1 and 7.10.2 respectively.

29

7.2.3

Torsional Stress

The maximum torsional stress is induced in casing or drill pipe due to the torque or twisting force
applied at the surface by the top drive or rotary table system as:

12rT
,
J

(7.2.3)

where,

Torsional Stress, Pa

Applied Torque, Nm

Polar Moment of Inertia, m 4

7.2.4

Hoop Stress

Hoop stress acts in the circumferential direction of the tubular and is caused by a difference in
internal and external pressures. This form of stress becomes especially relevant in well control
situations such as collapse and burst loading and is given by the formula:

ri 2 (ri 2 ro 2 / r 2 )
ro 2 (ri 2 ro 2 / r 2 )
p

po ,
i
ro 2 ri 2
ro 2 ri 2

(7.2.4)

where,

Hoop Stress, Pa

ri ,o

Internal or external radius, m

pi ,o

Internal or external Pressure, Pa

7.2.5

Radial Stress

Radial stress is also caused by internal & external pressure differences but acts orthogonal to the
hoop stress. It is calculated as:

r
7.2.6

ri 2 (ri 2 ro 2 / r 2 )
ro 2 (ri 2 ro 2 / r 2 )
p

po .
i
ro 2 ri 2
ro 2 ri 2

(7.2.5)

Von Mises Stress

The Von Mises stress is a theoretical construct which allows for the conversion of a triaxial stress
state into an equivalent uniaxial value for comparing with a materials uniaxial yielding criterion. The
various stress components calculated in the preceding section are combined to obtain the resultant
Von Mises stress equivalent as follows:

r h a r h a
2

VM

6 t 2

(7.2.6)

30

7.3 Power Law Fluid Rheology Model


In order to determine the circulating fluid pressures in the wellbore, the pressure drop due to
frictional losses needs to be estimated. The frictional pressure drop when added to the hydrostatic
pressure at a particular depth gives a simple estimation of the flowing wellbore pressures. This
pressure drop is a function of the fluid viscosity. Most drilling fluids are typically Non-Newtonian and
therefore, fluid viscosity cannot be determined by usual means. Consequently, various fluid rheology
models were developed to calculate fluid viscosity. The power law is one such rheology model for
Non-Newtonian fluids which relates the shear stress to the shear rate as follows:

K n ,

(7.3.1)

where,

Shear stress, Pa

K
n

Consistency index, PaS n


Flow behaviour index

Shear rate, s 1

Given the laboratory measurements of the drilling fluid shear rate, the values of constants K and n
in equation (7.3.1) can be determined as:

600
,
300

(7.3.2)

5.11(600 )
,
1022n

(7.3.3)

n 3.32log
K
where,

XXX Measurement of shear rate made in a fluid viscometer at XXX rpm, s 1


The minimum fluid flow velocity required for lifting of cuttings in the annulus is determined from
Table 2 by looking for flow rate corresponding to the annulus hole size.
Table 2 Flow Rate for Minimum Annular Velocity [30]

For a given fluid velocity, the effective viscosity of the fluid in the wellbore under ideal conditions
can then be determined in field units as:

96V

e 100 K

n 1

3n 1

,
4n
n

(7.3.4)

31

where

Effective viscosity, cP

Flow velocity,

Do Di for annular flow, m.

Di

m
s

for pipe flow, m.

The frictional pressure losses are dependent on the friction factor between fluid flow and the
wellbore. The friction factor is in turn affected by the nature of the flow, i.e. laminar or turbulent.
This is quantified by the Reynolds number as:

N Re

VD
,

(7.3.5)

where,

Fluid density,

kg
.
m3

The friction factor is then calculated for laminar flow as:

16
,
N Re

(7.3.6)

Additionally, the friction factor for turbulent flow is:


n

1
4 1 4

0.75 log Re 2 1.2 ,


f
n
n

(7.3.7)

where,

Friction factor

Finally, the frictional pressure drop can be calculated as follows:

dp 2 f V 2

.
dz
D

(7.3.8)

where,

Wellbore longitudinal axis, m

dp
dz

Frictional pressure drop,

Pa
.
m

32

7.4 Casing Design Load Cases


The operational pressures which can be expected in the worst case scenarios are first computed for
the different casing sections in order to select casing steel grades of suitable yield strength. These
pressures are then multiplied with specifc safety factors to arrive at the design loads against which
the casing must be rated.
Table 3 Factor of Safety [31]

7.4.1

Surface Casing

The analysis of design load is first carried out for the 13 3/8 surface casing with planned shoe at
350M as shown in Figure 27.

7.4.1.1

Collapse Scenario
External pressure is due to the column of mud outside the casing which is present when the
casing was run
Internal pressure is taken as complete evacuation due to fluid loss when drilling subsequent
section
Collapse pressure at casing shoe located at 350m depth:

mud gradient Depth


12000 350

(7.4.1)

4200kPa.

Corresponding design load including the factor of safety(FOS) for collapse:

F .O.S Collapse Load


1.2 4200kPa

(7.4.2)

5040kPa.

33

7.4.1.2

Burst Scenario
In the event of a poor cement job, the fluid in the spaces where cement is absent or has
channelled has density similar to fresh water. Therefore external pressure is calculated as
per fresh water gradient of 9.81kPa/m
Internal pressure is due to Gas influx. At the casing shoe, the influx pressure is given by the
hydrostatic pressure equivalent of the formation strength at that point:

( Fracture Grad . Depth) 15022 350 5257.7kPa.

The external pressure at casing shoe is:

9.810 350 3433.5kPa.

(77.21 25)
350] 33 C.
2300

(7.4.6)

The average temperature is:

(7.4.5)

Temperature at the casing shoe is calculated by linearly interpolating between previously


calculated bottom hole temperature of 77.2 C and surface temperature of 25 C:

T 25 [

(7.4.4)

Burst pressure at casing shoe is calculated as the difference between external and internal
pressure which is 1824.2kPa
Corresponding design load including the FOS for burst at shoe is given as:

F.O.S Burst Load 1.8 1824.2 3284kPa.

(7.4.3)

(25 33)
273.15 302.15K .
2

(7.4.7)

By using ideal gas law with appropriate compressibility factor for methane, internal pressure
at surface is calculated as:

P2 Pe
1

gM ( h2 h1 )
ZRTavg

5257.7 10 e
3

9.8116(0 350)
1847.8302.15

(7.4.8)

5143.98 10 Pa.
3

Where

M , Molecular mass of gas = 16 g/mole for Methane


Z , Compressibility factor = 1

R, Ideal gas constant = 847.8 gm/(Mol.Kelvin )for Methane

Since there is no external pressure due to fresh water gradient at surface, the burst pressure
is the internal pressure itself
34

Corresponding design load including the FOS for burst at surface is given as:

F.O.S Burst Load 1.8 5143.98 9259kPa.

Tabulating the results of computed design loads for surface casing,

Surface
Shoe(300M)
7.4.2

(7.4.9)

Design Collapse (kPa)


0
5040

Design Burst(kPa)
9259
3284

Intermediate Casing

The intermediate casing comprises of the 9 5/8 liner casing for which the loads encountered will be
computed in a similar manner. Repeating the procedure followed previously, the results of the
design load computation are summarized as:
Surface
Shoe(700M)
7.4.3

Design Collapse (kPa)


0
10080

Design Burst(kPa)
18128
6567

Production Liner

For the production liner, the worst case loading scenario for burst loading is defined as entire casing
filled with a column of gas during production. Consequently, it is not necessary to consider the
formation strength in this condition and the formation fluid pressure will be sufficient as stated in
[7].
As the liner will be tied back to the intermediate casing, the intermediate casing will also be exposed
to the production loads. Consequently, the burst pressure will be computed up to surface to
compare with the previously computed design loads for the intermediate casing. The higher of the
two loads will then be chosen as the effective design load for the intermediate casing.

Surface
Shoe(2200M)

Design Collapse (kPa)


0
33120

Design Burst(kPa)
40640
5850

Clearly, the burst gradient of the liner plotted upto surface is higher and so the gradient of the
production liner will be adopted for the intermediate casing as well.

7.5 Casing Selection Based on Uniaxial Loading Criteria


Typical choice of steels from the API-5CT standards for use in Geothermal wells as per [9] are K55,
H40, J55, C75 & L80 which are chosen for relatively low tensile strength which reduces the tendency
for hydrogen embrittlement. Subsequent selections will therefore use these recommendations as a
starting point.

35

7.5.1
7.5.1.1

Surface Casing
Collapse Loading

8
As per [32], the yield strength of 13 3/8 diameter K55 surface casing casing, Yp 3.8 10 N

This yield strength is de-rated by a factor of 0.955 because of exposure to temperature of

production fluid up to 80 C degrees as a conservative estimate as per [6]


Thermally de-rated yield strength is then:

Yp 0.955 3.8 106 N 3.63 106 N .

(7.5.1)

On the basis of calculated D/t ratio for this steel, theAPI-5C3 Transition Collapse [32] formula was to
be applicable as follows:

PT Yp [

F
G]
D/t
3.63 106

1.989
0.0360]
35.02
2
2
(0.3397 0.3204 )
[

(7.5.2)

4
7.54MPa.
Where PT Rated Collapse Pressure

7.5.1.2 Burst Loading


Applying the API-5C3 [32] formula for calculating the minimum internal yield pressure or burst
strength:

p 0.875[
0.875[

2YP t
]
D

2 3.63 106

(7.5.3)

(0.3397 0.3204 )35.02


4
18.1MPa.

The selected material is thus found to withstand the expected design loads

7.5.2
7.5.2.1

Production Casing
Collapse Loading

In the DAP proposal, the production casing comprises of the intermediate casing run upto 700m TVD
and the liner hung off from the intermediate casing shoe upto the TD. By following a similar
procedure to the preceding section, the results are tabulated below.

36

Table 4 Production Casing Specifications

Casing
Material
Applicable Collapse Formula
Thermally Derated Yield Strength, Yp

9 5/8 Intermediate
53.5 ppf, L80
Plastic

7 Liner
29 ppf, N80
Plastic

5.28 106 N
42.91MPa

2.874 106 N
46.66MPa

Derated Collapse Rating, PT

7.5.2.2

Burst Loading

For 9 5/8, 53.5ppf, L80 grade steel: p 0.875[

For 7, 29ppf N80 grade steel: p 0.875[

2YPt
] 52.13MPa.
D

(7.5.4)

2YPt
] 55.28MPa.
D

(7.5.5)

Tabulating the results, we obtain:


Table 5 Summary of Required Material Properties based on Design Loads

Surface
Intermediate
Liner

O.D(Inches)

GRADE

Density(PPF)

13 3/8
9 5/8
7

K55
L80
N80

54.5
53.5
29

Derated
Yield
(106 N)
3.63
5.28
2.87

Collapse
(106MPa)

Burst(Mpa)
(106MPa)

7.5
43
47

18
52
55

Figure 29 Graphical representation of Design Loads vs. Rated Strength

37

7.6 Axial Loading


7.6.1

Wellbore Trajectory

Figure 30 Measurement of Key Wellbore Trajectory Parameters

The well trajectory shown in Figure 27 must be converted into survey data points containing
Measured Depth, Inclination & Azimuth in order to be usable for the developed Torque & Drag
model. This is done by using trigonometric relations to calculate the position of key points in the
trajectory such as the Kick-off point etc. as shown in Figure 30. From Figure 30, the radius of
curvature, r for the build-up section is calculated as 443.3Metres and the maximum wellbore
inclination to the vertical, is found to be 43 or 0.75 radians. Consequently, arc length BC is:

r 332.7m .

(7.6.1)

The total measured depth is then found to be: 700 332.68 1649.56 2683m .
Lastly, the Dog Leg Severity (DLS) is calculated to be:

43
30 3.88 per 30m
332.68

7.6.2 Surface Casing


Once the wellbore survey data is obtained, the various axial load properties of the different casing
grades selected are tabulated below:
Table 6 Surface Casing Properties

Unit Weight
Density
Buoyancy Factor
Buoyed Unit Weight
Axial Load at Top of Hold Section (TVD-1000m)
F.O.S
Design Axial Load
Yield Strength

795 N/M
8099.18 Kg/m3
0.8489
674.93 N
2.362 X 105 N
1.8
4.24 X 105 N
36.3 X 105 N

38

7.6.3

Intermediate Casing
Table 7 Intermediate CSG Properties

Unit Weight
Density
Buoyancy Factor
Buoyed Unit Weight
Axial Load at Top Joint
F.O.S
Design Axial Load
Yield Strength
7.6.4

781 N/M
7932.84 Kg/m3
0.8458
660.57N
4.62 X 105 N
1.8
8.31 X 105 N
52.8 X 105 N

7 Liner

7.6.4.1 Hold Section at 43 Deg. Inclination


For section CD in Figure 30,
Table 8 Liner Hold Section Properties

Unit Weight
Density
Buoyancy Factor
Buoyed Unit Weight
Buoyed & Inclined Weight
Axial Load at Top of Hold Section (TVD-1000m)
F.O.S
Design Axial Load
7.6.4.2

423 N/M
7919.47 Kg/m3
0.8455
357.66 N
261.57 N
4.32 X 105 N
1.8
7.77 X 105 N

Build Up Section
Table 9 Build Up Section Properties

Measured Inclination
Depth[m]
[deg]
700
730
760
790
820
850
880
910
940
970
1000
1032

0
3.88
7.76
11.64
15.52
19.4
23.28
27.16
31.04
34.92
38.8
43

Inclination
[rad]
0
0.06771877
0.13543755
0.20315632
0.2708751
0.33859387
0.40631265
0.47403142
0.5417502
0.60946897
0.67718775
0.75049158

Buoyed &
Inclined
Weight
1.07E+04
1.07E+04
1.06E+04
1.04E+04
1.02E+04
9.99E+03
9.71E+03
9.38E+03
9.00E+03
8.59E+03
8.65E+03
1.08X 105N

39

7.6.5 Axial Load due to Well Bore Trajectory


Axial load due to well bore trajectory arises from the bending stress acting along the longitudinal
axis of the casing string in the wellbore due to the curvature of the wellbore trajectory. Bending
stress is computed as per (7.2.2) for which the variables are:

Youngs Modulus of Elasticity = 2.052 1011 Pa

Outer radius of liner at which maximum bending occurs = 0.0889m

Well bore radius of curvature = 443.295m

0.0889
6
41.15 10 Pa.
443.295

b 2.052 1011

(7.6.2)

Axial Load due to Bending:

b Area(7" N 80)
41.15 106 0.005445

(7.6.3)

2.24 105 N .
The total axial load at the uppermost joint of 7 liner is then given by summing the unit inclined
buoyed weights in the build-up and hold sections with the axial load due to bending:

=4.32 X 105 1.08X 105 2.24 105


7.64 105 N .

(7.6.4)

Multiply axial load computed in (7.6.4) with the FOS of 1.8 gives design axial load of 1.375 106 N
In comparison to the thermally de-rated yield strength 2.87 106 N , the design is found to be within
the rated limit.

7.7 Combined Loading


7.7.1

Collapse with Axial Loading

To determine reduced collapse strength for 7 liner casing, we substitute the maximum axial load
obtained at the topmost joint of the 7 casing string in(7.6.4) in the Reduced Von-Mises 2D collapse
with axial loading formula defined as:

S
S
Ypa 1 0.75( a )2 0.75( a ) Yp .
Yp
Yp

(7.7.1)

Where,

Sa

Axial Load, Pa

Yp

Yield Strength

40


7.64 105 2
7.64 105
Ypa 1 0.75(
) 0.75(
) 2.87 106
6
6
2.87 10
2.87 10

(7.7.2)

2.48 106 Pa.


Using the reduced yield strength due to axial load Ypa , for the Plastic collapse formula [32], the rated
collapse load for the 7 N80 liner was found to be:

PT 2.48 106 [

3.071
.0667] 1955 36.07 MPa.
17.5

(7.7.3)

Similarly, for the top joint of the 9 5/8 intermediate L80 casing string which forms the top section of
the production casing, the procedure above is repeated to obtain:
Maximum axial load at surface due to combined effect of 7 and 9 5/8 combination string:

7.64 4.62 105 N 12.26 105 N,

(7.7.4)

This gives the reduced yield strength and rated collapse load of:

12.26 105 2
12.26 105
Ypa 1 0.75(
)

0.75(
) 5.28 106 4.68 106 Pa,
6
6
5.28 10
5.28 10

PT 4.68 106 [

3.071
.0667] 1955 36.51MPa.
17.5

(7.7.5)

(7.7.6)

Figure 31 Plot of Design Load vs. Rated Strength for Collapse

41

7.7.2

Von Mises Analysis for Burst Loading

For the tri-axial Von Mises stress analysis, the critical point where failure is likely to occur is the inner
diameter. Therefore, the Bending stress calculations are repeated for the inner diameter as follows
for the 7 N80 liner casing using the same data as above:

0.07855
6
36.36 10 Pa.
443.295

b 2.052 1011

(7.7.7)

Axial load due to bending is now:

b Area(7" N 80)
36.36 106 0.005445

(7.7.8)

1.98 10 N .
5

Consequently, total axial load at the topmost joint of the 7 liner will be:

=4.32 X 105 1.08X 105 1.98 105 7.38 105 N.

(7.7.9)

The results of the triaxial stress analysis computed at the survey points which are at 30metres
interval from each other are recorded in Appendix D ,Table 12.

7.8 Torque & Drag Analysis

Figure 32 Plot of Pick Up Drag Forces When Tripping Out of String

42

Maximum axial loading including the effects of pick up drag forces is now 8.72 105 N which is
obviously higher than the previous maximum calculated at the same position including only the
effects of buoyant forces and well bore inclination previously. The increased friction observed in
build-up section is due to implicit relationship between string axial tension and the normal force as
can be seen in(3.1.3). This analysis was carried out with friction factor for Delft sand of 0.46
corresponding to the maximum observed dynamic friction value for steel in contact with dry sand
obtained from the experimental investigation performed in [33]. Analysis carried out only for 7 N80
liner section as the 9 5/8 and 13 3/8 sections are vertical sections and would therefore not
experience any normal (side) force component. Tabulated drag values are published in Appendix D,
Table 13.
7.8.1 Axial Loading due to Drag Forces
Total Axial load at the uppermost joint of 7 liner will now include the effects of drag in addition to
the axial stress caused by bending of the liner in the build-up section. Therefore the design
calculation for the liner casing subjected to axial loading alone will be:

=(8.72 2.24)X 105 10.96 105 N.

(7.8.1)

This gives a design axial load using FOS 1.8 of 1.972 106 N . Therefore the design is found to be
within the rated limit when comparing against thermally de-rated yield strength value obtained from
Table 5, i.e. 2.87 106 N . Additionally, the combined loading scenarios for collapse and burst are
now repeated to include the effect of the increased axial loading due to drag forces as follows:
7.8.1.1

Collapse with Axial Loads Including Drag Forces

To determine reduced collapse strength for 7 liner casing, we substitute the new maximum axial
load obtained at the topmost joint of the 7 casing string including the effect of drag forces in
equation (7.7.1) to obtain:

10.96 105 2
10.96 105
Ypa 1 0.75(
)

0.75(
) 2.87 106 2.34 106 Pa.
6
6
2.87

10
2.87

10

(7.8.2)

Using the reduced yield strength due to axial load Ypa , from the API Plastic collapse formula [32], the
rated collapse load for the 7 N80 liner was found to be:

PT 2.34 106 [

3.071
.0667] 1955 33.27 MPa.
17.5

(7.8.3)

This is only just above the design collapse load observed in section 7.4.3 and Figure 29 so depending
upon the company specific policy of the operator, it may be decided to consider the next grade of
casing for the liner to remove any chance of failure due to collapse loading. Similarly, for the top
joint of the 9 5/8 intermediate L80 casing string which forms the top section of the production
casing, the procedure above is repeated to obtain the maximum axial load at surface due to
combined effect of 7 and 9 5/8 combination string:
43

10.96 4.62 105 N 15.58 105 N.

(7.8.4)

De-rated collapse strength due to axial loading is then:

15.58 105 2
12.26 105
Ypa 1 0.75(
)

0.75(
) 5.28 106 4.45 106 Pa.
6
6
5.28 10
5.28 10

(7.8.5)

This gives reduced collapse strength of:

PT 4.45 106 [

3.071
.0667] 1955 34.05MPa.
17.5

(7.8.6)

Figure 33 Design Collapse Load vs. Strength for DAP Producer

7.8.1.2

Von Mises Analysis for Burst Loading Including Effect of Drag Forces

Figure 34 Increased FOS for Burst Loading Due to Effect of Drag Forces

44

As expected, when the Von Mises analysis is repeated at the survey points including the effect of
drag forces, the FOS is observed to increase as shown in Figure 34 due to the supporting effect of the
axial loading on the collapse strength of the casing pipe. Tabulated Von Mises stress analysis values
at survey points are published in Appendix D, Table 14.

7.8.2

Torque Analysis

Figure 35 Cumulative Torque Observed at Surface for Various Drilled Depths

As can be seen from Figure 35, the maximum surface torque required to overcome the cumulative
torque losses while drilling the inclined section of the well is of the order of approx. 21 kN. Due to
constant wellbore inclination after 1000m TVD, the torque increases linearly whereas it increases at
relatively higher rate in the build-up section. The simulated torque and corresponding torsional
stress at survey points are tabulated in Appendix E for reference. As previously stated, the torque
analysis is integral for selecting casing buttress connections with suitable torque capacity required
for drilling operations. Sample manufacturer catalogue presenting connections with improved
torque capacity is also present in Appendix E. Computed torsional loads which used as input
parameters for simulating the combined Von-Mises stresses in the liner section during the process of
drilling the inclined section are also tabulated.

7.9 Wellbore Pressure Distribution


Based on drift diameter of 9 5/8 L80 intermediate casing, the bit size used for drilling next open
hole section was chosen to be 8 . The following assumptions were then made for implementing
the power law rheology model to calculate pressure distribution of drilling fluid in wellbore during
drilling:

45

From [30], the discharge for obtaining minimum annular velocity required for lifting the
cuttings is 0.017

m3
s

Typical viscometer readings required as input for power law model obtained from [34] and
shown in Table 10
Pressure drop across the bit for 8 PDC is typically approx. 5MPa [34]

Table 10 Power Law Input Viscometer Measurements

Viscometer Reading
RPM
3
100
300
600

Shear
Rate
(1/Sec)
5.11
170.3
511
1022

Figure 36 Flow Path for Drilling Fluid in 7"


Liner Drilling Phase

Wellbore Fluid Pressure Distribution


40
Fluid Pressure [MPa]

35
30
25
Wellbore Hydrostatic

20
15

Circulating Wellbore
Pressure

10
5
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Distance from Stand Pipe [M]

Figure 37 Fluid Pressure Distribution for 7" Liner Drilling Phase

46

As shown in Figure 36, The drilling fluid from the mud pumps flows into the wellbore first through
the 5 drill pipe used to hang the liner from the surface from the liner hanger and then through the
retrievable BHA necessary for drilling inclined sections. Consequently, the interior of the 7 Liner is
not exposed to fluid pressures at all. Only the external surface is in contact with fluid flow in the
annulus between open hole and Intermediate casing. The frictional pressure losses due to fluid flow
as calculated by the power law model are tabulated in Appendix F. The total wellbore pressure at
any depth as shown in Figure 37 is than obtained by summing the hydrostatic pressure at that point
with the annular pressure losses as previously stated.

7.10 Drilling Loads


7.10.1 7 Liner Bending Stress Due to Whirl

Figure 38 Whirling Mode Shapes

Figure 39 Natural Frequency of Lateral Vibration vs. WOB

47

During Drilling, the casing string is likely to be deflected laterally when the rotary speed applied at
surface by the rotary table approaches the critical value as predicted by the MATLAB tool developed
in chapter 6. Using the material properties of N80 Liner casing, the range of rotary speed values for a
particular WOB which cause resonance or whirling can be seen in Figure 39. This tool may be used as
a quick estimate for determining the RPM range to drill at so that the alternating bending stresses
associated with whirling which can cause string failure due to fatigue can be avoided.
For drilling the deviated sections, the retrievable BHA needs to be used as discussed in Chapter 1.
Consequently, the casing stand (30metres) is modelled with the fixed or clamped boundary
condition at both ends. This is because the loads from the retrievable BHA are transferred onto the
lowermost stand of the liner casing at the bottom through internal stabilizers and through the DrillLock assembly at the top of the stand (section 1.1.2). For simplicity, it is assumed that the weight on
bit transfers directly to the bottom of the liner stand. The corresponding mode shapes for this
boundary condition are shown in Figure 38. From these mode shapes, the corresponding bending
stress is calculated and tabulated results for bending stress across one liner stand are published in
Appendix D, Table 15. Bending stress is also plotted in Figure 40 from which it can be observed that
the critical points occur at 1.4metres from both end points. As expected, a maximum bending stress
of 15MPa is experienced at the midpoint of the casing stand which equates to approximately 10%
of the total axial load at the topmost joint of the 7 liner. Knowledge of where maximum bending
stresses are likely to occur can be applied to the design of casing pipe with composite materials
which can then be selectively strengthened at the appropriate points. The advantage of doing so is
that overall pipe weight can be reduced and cost of hiring drilling rigs can also be brought down as
the hook load capacities needed for drilling to the target depth will be comparatively lesser.

Figure 40 Bending Stress Due to Whirl

48

7.10.2 9 5/8 Casing Bending Stress Due to Buckling

Figure 41 Buckling Mode Shapes and Dependency of Critical Load on WOB

It is advisable to investigate the magnitude of the axial stress induced by buckling of casing in static
conditions to ensure that the selected casing steel grade will not fail under buckling. As an example,
the driller will sometimes apply WOBs that exceed the critical load threshold in order to clear a
downhole block. However for identical boundary conditions as seen from Figure 21 & Figure 25, the
mode shapes and hence the bending stresses induced are the same. In the case of the 9 5/8
Intermediate casing which is being used in drilling the completely vertical top section of the
wellbore, the drillable non-retrievable BHA specified is used. This can be modelled using a different
end condition of pinned or hinged at the bit. Although the magnitude of maximum bending stress
occurring will be determined by the casing-wellbore annular clearance, the location of the points of
maximum bending stress may be different and it is therefore of interest in order to specify additional
strengthening points when using composite materials for the casing. The results obtained from the
MATLAB buckling analysis tool developed in chapter 5 for the 9 5/8 intermediate casing with the
pinned at bit and fixed at stabilizer boundary end condition are shown in Figure 41. Also of
interest is the plot of critical frequency as a function of the wellbore inclination which provides a
limit on the maximum WOB which should be used by the driller in normal conditions.

49

Figure 42 Bending Stress due to Buckling in 9 5/8" Intermediate CSG

From Figure 42, the point of maximum bending stress observed is observed at approximately
10metres from the bit or at the beginning of the 2nd single of the casing stand which is not the case
in the mode shapes observed for the Pinned at both ends boundary condition examined so far.
Bending stress is also significantly high and only slightly lesser at the stabilizer placed at the ending
of the casing stand (30 metres from bit). The magnitude of this additional bending stress (1.74 MPa)
tabulated in Appendix D is clearly not significant to alter the casing selection. Note that the value of
bending stress is determined by the annular clearance which generally tends to be low when drilling
with casing. This observation corresponds with the low values of bending stress encountered in [1]
when drilling the vertical hole section with the non-retrievable BHA.

50

7.11 Von Mises Analysis of Drilling Loads during 7 Liner Section

Liner Stress Distribution at TVD

TVD[M]

0.00

Axial[Mpa]

Torsional[Mpa]

Radial[Mpa]

Hoop[Mpa]

Von Mises[Mpa]

Yield [Mpa]

100.00

200.00

Stress [MPa]
300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00
900.00
1100.00
1300.00
1500.00
1700.00
1900.00
2100.00
2300.00
Figure 43 7" Liner Von-Mises Stress Analysis for Drilling Operation

The final test of the selected design is to verify the resultant Von Mises stress due to triaxial loading
and compare it with the yield stress throughout the casing string for the 7 Liner section for typical
drilling conditions. The hoop and radial stresses are calculated based on the fluid pressure gradient
computed [section 7.9]. The axial stress includes the effect of buoyed string weight, bending stress
due to wellbore curvature in the build-up section [section 7.6.5] and bending stress due to whirling
[section 7.10.1]. Since the string is rotating in the wellbore, there will be no drag forces. However,
induced torsional stress [section 7.8.2] is included in the analysis. A graphical representation of the
result is shown in Figure 43 where the resultant von Mises stress is clearly lower than the yield stress
by a FOS ranging between 2 & 2.3, thereby validating the design for drilling the final section.
Tabulated values of the stress analysis at survey points are also include in Appendix D Table 16 for
reference. It is observed that the maximum torsional stress is 38% of the total axial stress which
indicates the importance of the torque analysis and the selection of appropriate casing connection
with enhanced torque capacity in order to prevent design failure.

51

Conclusions

An algorithm was developed to select the required API steel grade of casing pipe for use in
the Casing While Drilling technique which evaluates the effect of conventional casing Burst
& Collapse pressure loads and Drilling loads i.e. Torque, Drag, Buckling and Whirling.
Supporting tools were developed in MATLAB to calculate the Drilling loads.
The algorithm was applied towards the DAP producer Geothermal Well with the following
recommendations being made:
Table 11 Casing String Design for DAP Producer Geothermal Well

Casing

Shoe TVD (m)

Surface
Intermediate
Liner

350
700
2200

Outer
Diameter
(Inches)
13 3/8"
9 5/8"
7"

Grade
K55
L80
N80

Nominal
Weight
(daN/m)
79.5
78.1
42.3

The effect of induced bending stresses due to buckling and whirling of the Casing String was
not found to be significant due to the relatively small annular clearances available.
Maximum Bending Stress due to whirling was calculated to be 10.6% of the axial stress.
For a casing stand of 30m length, the maximum bending stress due to whirling when
modelled with the boundary conditions of fixed or clamped at both ends was observed
at the midpoint and at a distance of 1 m from both ends. Similar points of maximum stress
due to buckling with the boundary conditions clamped at the stabilizer and pinned or
hinged at the bit were located at 10.5 metres from the bit (close to casing joint between 1st
& 2nd single) and at the stabilizer.
The critical rotary RPM as a function of the WOB for inducing whirling of the casing was
calculated by the developed MATLAB tool to help the driller avoid string failure due to
fatigue loads caused by alternating bending stresses. The critical weight on bit for inducing
sinusoidal buckling of casing string was also determined for varying wellbore inclination from
the vertical axis
The effect of torque on casing string was found to be significant with a maximum torsional
stress calculated as 38% of the total axial stress which is close to four times the bending
stress due to whirling. Buttress threaded connections with torque rings to boost the makeup torque capacity must be used to avoid string failure

8.1 Recommendations

The hydraulic model used to model the wellbore pressure distribution during drilling has to
be expanded to more realistically simulate fluid pressure losses and to include effects such
as surge and swab pressure loads
The torque and drag model must be altered to include hydrodynamic effects of viscous drag
and the effect of bending stiffness of the casing
The boundary conditions used to simulate drilling with the retrievable BHA can be expanded
to more accurately represent downhole conditions
The algorithm used in the thesis can be adapted to include the analysis of composite
materials for the CwD application.
52

Nomenclature
A

Cross sectional area of casing, m 2

, Added mass coefficient

Radial clearance in wellbore, m


E

Youngs Modulus of Elasticity, Pa

F0

Applied weight on bit, N

Acceleration due to gravity,

m
s2

Buoyancy factor

Area Moment of Inertia, m 4

Length of segment of interest between bit and first stabilizer, m


Dimensionless effective length of compression
Mass of volume of mud displaced by solid cylinder of same outer diameter (per
metre), Kg
Mass of steel per m , Kg / m
Number of segments into which casing is divided into

Sy

Shear stress, Pa

Dimensionless distance along Z axis

Angle subtended by deflected beam with respect to its longitudinal axis


Inclination from vertical, radians
Density of Mud,

kg
m3

Density of Steel,

kg
m3

Dimensionless time
Dimensionless angular velocity

53

List of Abbreviations
BHA

Bottom Hole Assembly

CwD

Casing while Drilling

DAP

Delft Aardwarmte Project

FOS

Factor of Safety

LWD

Logging while Drilling

MWD

Measurement while Drilling

PDC

Polycrystalline Diamond Compact

WOB

Weight on Bit

54

Bibliography
[1] F. Sanchez, M. Turki, and M Cruz, "Casing While Drilling: A New Approach to Drilling Fiqa
Formation in Oman," Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 223-233, June 2012.
[2] Tommy Warren, Bruce Houtchens, and Garret Maddell, "Directional Drilling with Casing,"
Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 17-24, March 2005.
[3] Schlumberger, "Using Casing to Drill Directional Wells," Oil Field Review, pp. 44-61, 2005.
[4] Hendry Shen, "Feasibility Study on Combining Casing with Drilling with Explandable Casing ,"
NTNU, Trondheim, MSc Thesis 2007.
[5] Abubakar Mohammed, Chika Judith Okeke, and Ikebudu Abolle-Okoyeagu, "Current Trends and
Future Development in Casing Drilling," International Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 2,
no. 8, pp. 567-583, August 2012.
[6] British Gas, "Well Engineering and Production Operations Management System ," BG, Casing
Design Manual 2001.
[7] Ted G. Byrom, Casing and Liners for Drilling and Completion, 1st ed.: Gulf Professional
Publishing, 2012.
[8] M.Enamul Hossain, Fundamentals of Sustainable Drilling Engineering.: Scrivener-Wiley.
[9] Geoelec, "Report on Geothermal Drilling," European Union, 2013.
[10] Xie Jueren and Gang Tao, "Analysis of Casing Connections Subjected to Thermal Cycle Loading,"
in SIMULIA Customer Conference , Alberta, 2010.
[11] B. Bennetzen, J. Fuller, and E. Isevcan. Schlumberger. [Online].
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors10/aut10/01_wells
[12] Robert F. Mitchell and Robello Samuel, "How Good is the Torque & Drag Model?," SPE Drilling
Engineering, pp. 62-72, March 2009.
[13] C. A. Johancsik, D. B. Friesen, and Rapier Dawson, "Torque and Drag in Directional WellsPrediction and Measurement," Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 987-992, June 1984.
[14] M. C. Sheppard, C. Wick, and T. Burgess, "Designing -Well Paths To Reduce Drag and Torque,"
SPE Drilling Engineering, pp. 344-351, Decemeber 1987.
[15] Tanmoy Chakraborty, "Performing simulation study on drill string mechanics, Torque and Drag,"
NTNU, Msc Thesis 2012.
[16] Halliburton, "Landmark WellPlan User Manual," 2003.
[17] E E Maidla and A. K. Wojtanowicz, "Field method of assessing borehole friction for directional
well casinG," in SPE Middle East Oil Show, Manama, 1987.
[18] M. Fazaelizadeh, G Hareland, and B S Aadnoy, "Application of New 3-D Analytical Model for

55

Directional Wellbore Friction," Modern applied science, pp. 2-22, 2010.


[19] Olivier F. Rey, "Dynamics of Unbalanced Drill Collars in a Slanted Hole," Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, MSc Thesis, 1983.
[20] Gere Timoshenko, Theory of Elastic Stability.: Mc-Graw Hill, 1985.
[21] D.A Boddeke, "Buckling & Post Buckling Behaviour of a Drill String in an Inclined Borehole
During Drilling for Oil & Gas," TU Delft, Delft, MSc Thesis 1991.
[22] Rapier Dawson, "Drillpipe Buckling in Inclined Holes," Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1984.
[23] Jan Dirk Jansen, "Nonlinear Dynamics of Oilwell Drillstring," TU Delft, Delft, PhD Thesis 1993.
[24] Kim Vandiver and Rong-Juin Shyu, "Case Studies of the Bending Vibration and whirling Motion
of Drill Collars," SPE Drilling Engineering, 1990.
[25] Schlumberger. www.slb.com. [Online].
https://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/drilling/brochures/drilling_opt/drillstring_vib_br.pdf
[26] Rong-Juin Shyu, "Bending Vibrations of Rotating Drill strings," Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, PhD Thesis 1989.
[27] S. Singiresu Rao, Mechanical Vibrations.: Pearson, 2004.
[28] Ray Clough and Joseph Penzien, Dynamics of Structures.: McGraw Hill, 1985.
[29] Hubbert and Willis, "Mechanics Of Hydraulic Fracturing," Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 1957.
[30] TU Delft, "Drill String, Drill Bit & Hydraulics Lecture Notes," TU Delft, Delft, Well Engineering
Manual.
[31] NZ Code of practice for geothermal wells., 2001.
[32] American Petroleum Institute, "Bulletin on Formulas and Calculations for Casing, Tubing, Drill
Pipe, and Line Pipe Properties ," API, 1994.
[33] Steven Leijnse, "Friction Coefficient Measurements for Casing While Drilling with Steel and
Composite Tubulars," TU Delft, Delft, MSc Thesis AES/PE/10-10, 2010.
[34] Texas A&M. (2002, October) PETE 411 Well Drilling - Pressure Drop Calculations. [Online].
http://www.powershow.com/view4/5b3668M2M4N/PETE_411_Well_Drilling_powerpoint_ppt_presentation
[35] TESCO Corp., "Casing & Tubing Torque Tables for API Buttress with TESCO MLT Rings," TESCO
Corp., Field Make-Up Handbook https://www.scribd.com/doc/87734864/API-Thread-TorqueTable,. [Online]. https://www.scribd.com/doc/87734864/API-Thread-Torque-Table
[36] Tesco Corp. Tesco Corporation. [Online].
http://www.tescocorp.com/docs/TubularServices/Multi-Lobe%20Torque%20MLT%20Rings.pdf
[37] P D Spanos, A M Chevallier, N P Politis, and M L Payne, "Oil & Gas Well Drilling : A Vibrations

56

Perspective," The Shock and Vibration Digest, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 85-103, March 2003.

57

Appendix A. Implementation of FDM for Beam Deflection

Figure 44 Discretization of Drill String [19]

To simplify the implementation of FDM, the constant terms of equation(4.1.18) are grouped into the
following coefficients:

a1

ghcos
,
L02Cm

(A.1)

a2

ghsin
.
L02Cm

(A.2)

The equation to be discretized now reads:

'
d 4 y'
d 2 y ' dy '

a
l

a2 .
1
0
dw4
dw2 dw

(A.3)

The length of the BHA being investigated here is the first casing single of standard length, 10 metres.
It is bounded by the bit on one end and the first stabilizer on the other end. This single is considered
to be divided into N segments of length

1
each or N 1 node points. The Taylor series is then used
N

to approximate the differential terms in equation (4.1.18) into their algebraic equivalent by using the
central difference method as follows:

d 4 y'
N 4 ( y( j 2) 4 y( j 1) 6 y j 4 y( j 1) y( j 2) ) ,
dw4

(A.4)

d 2 y'
N 2 ( y( j 1) 2 y j y( j 1) ) ,
2
dw

(A.5)

dy ' N
y j 1 y j 1 .
dw 2

(A.6)

58

The term w in equation (A.3) represents the longitudinal distance along the casing single from the
origin at the bit. To facilitate the discretization process, it is represented by the formula:

j
.
N

(A.7)

Where the value of j varies from 0 at the bit to N at the stabilizer as depicted in Figure 44. By
examining the terms carefully in(A.4),(A.5)&(A.6), it can be seen that extra points which fall outside
the casing single will be required at the end points of the Bit and the first stabilizer. Imaginary points
can be taken which will be related to known points within the domain of the casing single by making
use of the boundary conditions at the bit and the stabilizer. Since the casing single is essentially a
beam element, the stabilizer owing to the fact that it restricts movement in all directions is modelled
as a clamped end. The dimensionless boundary conditions are:

y' L 0 ,

(A.8)

dy '
L 0 .
dw

(A.9)

Substituting (A.6) & (A.8) in the boundary condition defined by (A.9), we can obtain the imaginary
point at the stabilizer as:

N
0,
2 y j 1 y j 1

(A.10)

yN 1 yN 1 .

(A.11)

The bit however is chosen to be a pinned end. Therefore the boundary conditions are:

y Z 0 0 ,

d 2 y( Z 0) '
dw2

0 .

(A.12)

(A.13)

Making use of (A.5) by substituting in (A.13), boundary condition simplifies to:

y1 a4 y1 ,

(A.14)

a4 1 .

(A.15)

Where

Now that the boundary conditions have been defined and applied to determine the imaginary
points, the next step is to substitute the finite difference approximations defined in(A.4) (A.5),&
(A.6) and also the relation (A.7) in the governing differential equation(A.3) to obtain:

59

y j 2 N 4 y j 1 4 N 4 a1l1 N 2 a1 j N y 6 N 4 2a1l1 N 2 2a1 jN


2

aN

y j 1 4 N 4 a1l1 N 2 a1 jN 1 y j 2 N 4 a2
2

.(A.16)

Equation (A.16) is the discretized general equation applicable for node points 3 j N 3 which
can be further simplified by grouping constant coefficients as shown below:

C1 N 4 ,

C2 4 N 4 a1l1 N 2

(A.17)

(a1 N )
,
2

(A.18)

C3 6 N 4 2a1l1 N 2 ,

C4 4 N 4 a1l1 N 2

(A.19)

(a1 N )
.
2

(A.20)

Thereby obtaining

y j 2 c1 y j 1 c2 a1 jN y c3 2a1 jN y j 1 c4 a1 jN y j 2 c1 a2 .

(A.21)

Similarly, making use of the relations defined in (A.11) &(A.14), the finite difference formulation at
the node points j 1, 2, N 2 & N 3 are evaluated as:
At j 1 ,

y1[C3 a4C1 2a1 N ] y2 [C4 a1 N ] y3[C1 ] a2 .

(A.22)

y1[C2 2a1 N ] y2 [C3 4a1 N ] y3[C4 4a1N ] y4 [C1 ] a2 .

(A.23)

At j 2 ,

At j N 2 ,

yN 4 C1 yN 3[C2 ( N 2)a1 N ] yN 2 [C3 2a1 N ( N 2)]


yN 1[C4 ( N 1)a1 N ] a2

(A.24)

At J N 1,

yN 3 C1 yN 2 [C2 ( N 1)a1N ] yN 1[C3 2a1N ( N 1) C1 ] a2 .

(A.25)

Finally, the N 1 equations can be arranged in the form of matrices according to the expression

[ A] y [ B] .

(A.26)

This can then be solved by using standard functions in MATLAB. The diagonal matrix A containing
the constant coefficients is:

60

C3 a4C1 2a1 N
C 2a N
2
1

C1

0
A1
0

C4 a1 N

C1

C3 4a1 N

C4 4a1 N

C1

C2 a1 3N

C3 6a1 N

C4 a1 3N

C1

C1

C1

C1

C2 a1 jN

C1

C3 2 ja1 N

C4 a1 jN

C1

C2 ( N 2)a1 N

C1

0
0

0
0

C1
0

C1

C3 2a1 N ( N 2)
C4 ( N 1)a1 N

C2 ( N 1)a1 N C3 2a1 N ( N 1) C1
0

(A.27)

Y Is a vector containing the displacements at each node:


y1'
'
y2

,
y
y'
j

y '
N 2
y N 1'

(A.28)

a2




[ B] .
a2




a2

(A.29)

And lastly, [ B] is given by:

61

Appendix B. Implementation of FDM for Buckling Analysis


The matrix A defined in (5.1.5) is similar to the earlier coefficient matrix defined earlier in
Appendix A except for the parameter denoting the weight on bit which is contained in the B
matrix. Recalling equation(5.1.3):

ghcos l0' d 2 y '


d 4 y ' ghcos
d 2 y ' dy ' ghsin '

y
.
w 2

dw4 L02Cm
dw
dw L02Cm c'
L02Cm dw2

(B.1)

Substituting finite difference approximations(A.4) to (A.6) and the terms (A.1) & (A.2) in (B.1), we
obtain the general equation for nodes 3 j N 3 as:

y j 2 N 4 y j 1 4 N 4 a1 j N y j 6 N 4 2a1 jN 2'
2
c

aN

.
y j 1 4 N 4 a1 jN 1 y j 2 N 4
2

(B.2)

y j 1 a1l0 ' N 2 y j 2a1l0 ' N 2 y j 1 a1l0' N 2

Equation (B.2) can be simplified by making use of:

C1 N 4 ,

C5 4 N 4

(B.3)

(a1 N )
,
2

(B.4)

a2
,
c'
(a N )
C7 4 N 4 1 ,
2
C6 6 N 4

(B.5)
(B.6)

C8 a1l0' N 2 ,

(B.7)

C9 2a1l0' N 2 .

(B.8)

Thus obtaining:

y j 2 C1 y j 1 C2 a1 jN y j C3 2a1 jN y j 1 C4 a1 jN y j 2 C1
y j 1 C5 y j C6 y j 1 C5

(B.9)

62

Equation (B.9) is the general equation which is discretized at all N 1 node points to obtain a set of
N 1 linear equations which can be solved in MATLAB by using standard Eigen functions. MATLAB
returns two matrices as the output of the Eigen value analysis. The first is a diagonal matrix
containing the Eigen values or the critical loads. The lowest Eigen value thus observed is the first
critical load to induce sinusoidal buckling. The second matrix contains the Eigen vectors or the mode
shapes in each column. The first mode shape corresponding to the lowest critical load is found in the
first column and so on.
The matrix A defined in(5.1.5) is thus given by:
C6 a4C1 2a1 N
C 2a N
5
1

C1

0
A1
0

C7 a1 N

C1

C6 4a1 N

C7 4a1 N

C1

C5 a1 3N

C6 6a1 N

C7 a1 3N

C1

C1

0
C1

C1

C5 a1 jN

C6 2 ja1 N

C7 a1 jN

C1

C1

C5 ( N 2)a1 N

C1

0
0

0
0

C1
0

C1

C6 2a1 N ( N 2)
C7 ( N 1)a1 N

C5 ( N 1)a1 N C6 2a1 N ( N 1) C1
0

(B.10)

And the diagonal matrix matrix B is given by:

C9
C
8
0

0
B 0

0
0

C8

C9

C8

0
0

C8

C9

C8

0
0
0

0
.
0

0
C8

C9

(B.11)

63

Appendix C. Implementation of FDM for Whirling Analysis


The implementation of the finite difference method for identifying natural frequencies is essentially
the same as that described previously in Appendix A & Appendix B. Here, the following terms can be
defined to simplify equation(6.1.6):

a1

EI
,
A CM

(C.1)

a2

gh cos
.
CM

(C.2)

Resulting in:

a1

d4y
d 2 y dy

a
(
l

z
)
2 y 0 .
2 0
2
dz 4
dz
dz

(C.3)

Let

H LN

L
,
N

(C.4)

where L = length of casing single

N =Number of segments the BHA single is divided into

Then the discretized general equation based on (C.3) is obtained by substituting the finite difference
approximations (A.4) to (A.6) yielding:

al
2 a l 2a j
a1
a
a j
a
a
) y j 2 (4 1 4 2 02 2 2 ) y j 1 (6 1 4 2 02 2 ) y j
4
H LN
H LN
H LN
H LN 2 H LN
H LN
H LN
H LN
al
a
a
a j
a
(4 1 4 2 02 2 2 ) y j 1 ( 1 4 ) y j 2 2 y j
H LN
H LN
2 H LN H LN
H LN

(C.5)

The constant coefficients in (C.5) are grouped together as:

C1
C4 4

a1
,
H LN 4

al
al
a1
a
a
a
2 02 2 4 1 4 2 02 2 ,
4
H LN
H LN
2 H LN
H LN
H LN
2H LN

C3 6
C4 4

2a l
a1
2 02 ,
4
H LN
H LN

al
a1
a
2 02 2 .
4
H LN
H LN
2 H LN

(C.6)

(C.7)

(C.8)

(C.9)

64

Equations (C.6) to (C.9)are then substituted in (C.5) to yield the following general equation:

(C1 ) y j 2 (C2

a2 j
2a j
a j
) y j 1 (C3 2 ) y j (C4 2 ) y j 1 (C1 ) y j 2 2 y j . (C.10)
H LN
H LN
H LN

Thus, A from(6.1.8) is given by:


2a2

C3 a4C1 H
LN

2a2

C2 H
LN

C1

0
A1

C4

a2
H LN

C3 4
C2

a2
H LN

a2 j
H LN

C1
C4

2a2
H LN

C3

2a2 j
H LN

C1

C4

a2 j
H LN

C1

C1
0

C1

C1

C1

0
0
0

0
0
0

C1
0
0

C1
0

C1

a ( N 2)
2a ( N 2)
a ( N 2)

C2 2
C3 2
C4 2

H LN
H LN
H LN

a ( N 1)
2a ( N 1)

C1
C2 2
C3 C3 2
C1
H LN
H LN

(C.11)
The same boundary conditions as described in Appendix A are used to fill in the first and last two
rows of the matrix. Similarly, B is a diagonal matrix of same dimensions as A :

0
0

0
B
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
.
0

0
0

(C.12)

65

Appendix D. Supporting Tabular Data


Table 12 Von Mises Stress Analysis at Survey Points for Burst Loading Scenario
TVD
[M]
0.00
30.00
60.00
90.00
120.00
150.00
180.00
210.00
240.00
270.00
300.00
330.00
350.00
360.00
390.00
420.00
450.00
480.00
510.00
540.00
570.00
600.00
630.00
660.00
690.00
700.00
727.27
754.55
781.82
809.09
836.36
863.64
890.91
918.18
945.45
972.73
1000.00
1021.94
1043.88
1065.82
1087.76
1109.70
1131.64
1153.58
1175.52
1197.47
1219.41
1241.35
1263.29
1285.23
1307.17
1329.11
1351.05
1372.99
1394.93
1416.87
1438.81
1460.75
1482.69
1504.63
1526.57
1548.52

Axial Stress
[Mpa]
99.84
97.86
95.89
93.91
91.94
89.96
87.99
86.02
84.04
82.07
80.09
78.12
76.80
76.14
74.17
72.19
70.22
68.24
66.27
64.29
62.32
60.35
58.37
56.40
54.42
135.46
133.49
131.53
129.59
127.67
125.79
123.96
122.18
120.45
118.80
117.22
115.64
114.19
112.75
111.31
109.87
108.43
106.99
105.55
104.11
102.66
101.22
99.78
98.34
96.90
95.46
94.02
92.58
91.13
89.69
88.25
86.81
85.37
83.93
82.49
81.05
79.60

Radial Stress Hoop Stress Von Mises Stress


[Mpa]
[Mpa]
[Mpa]
-40.64
339.62
333.03
-40.72
335.10
329.19
-40.80
330.58
325.34
-40.88
326.06
321.49
-40.96
321.55
317.64
-41.04
317.03
313.79
-41.12
312.51
309.94
-41.20
307.99
306.10
-41.28
303.47
302.25
-41.35
298.96
298.40
-41.43
294.44
294.55
-41.51
289.92
290.71
-41.57
286.91
288.14
-41.59
285.40
286.86
-41.67
280.88
283.01
-41.75
276.37
279.17
-41.83
271.85
275.32
-41.91
267.33
271.48
-41.99
262.81
267.63
-42.07
258.30
263.79
-42.15
253.78
259.94
-42.23
249.26
256.10
-42.31
244.74
252.26
-42.39
240.22
248.41
-42.47
235.71
244.57
-42.49
227.21
237.51
-42.57
223.20
234.18
-42.64
219.20
230.84
-42.71
215.19
227.52
-42.78
211.19
224.20
-42.85
207.18
220.89
-42.93
203.18
217.59
-43.00
199.17
214.31
-43.07
195.17
211.04
-43.14
191.16
207.80
-43.21
187.16
204.57
-43.29
183.15
201.36
-43.34
179.93
198.73
-43.40
176.71
196.12
-43.46
173.48
193.50
-43.52
170.26
190.89
-43.58
167.04
188.28
-43.64
163.82
185.68
-43.69
160.59
183.08
-43.75
157.37
180.49
-43.81
154.15
177.90
-43.87
150.93
175.31
-43.93
147.71
172.73
-43.98
144.48
170.16
-44.04
141.26
167.59
-44.10
138.04
165.02
-44.16
134.82
162.46
-44.22
131.60
159.91
-44.27
128.37
157.37
-44.33
125.15
154.83
-44.39
121.93
152.30
-44.45
118.71
149.78
-44.51
115.48
147.26
-44.56
112.26
144.75
-44.62
109.04
142.26
-44.68
105.82
139.77
-44.74
102.60
137.29

FOS
1.58
1.60
1.62
1.64
1.66
1.68
1.70
1.72
1.74
1.76
1.79
1.81
1.83
1.83
1.86
1.88
1.91
1.94
1.97
1.99
2.02
2.05
2.09
2.12
2.15
2.22
2.25
2.28
2.32
2.35
2.39
2.42
2.46
2.50
2.54
2.58
2.62
2.65
2.69
2.72
2.76
2.80
2.84
2.88
2.92
2.96
3.01
3.05
3.10
3.15
3.19
3.24
3.30
3.35
3.40
3.46
3.52
3.58
3.64
3.71
3.77
3.84

66

1570.46
1592.40
1614.34
1636.28
1658.22
1680.16
1702.10
1724.04
1745.98
1767.92
1789.86
1811.80
1833.74
1855.68
1877.62
1899.57
1921.51
1943.45
1965.39
1987.33
2009.27
2031.21
2053.15
2075.09
2097.03
2118.97
2140.91
2162.85
2184.79
2200.00

78.16
76.72
75.28
73.84
72.40
70.96
69.51
68.07
66.63
65.19
63.75
62.31
60.87
59.43
57.98
56.54
55.10
53.66
52.22
50.78
49.34
47.90
46.45
45.01
43.57
42.13
40.69
39.25
37.81
0.00

-44.80
-44.85
-44.91
-44.97
-45.03
-45.09
-45.15
-45.20
-45.26
-45.32
-45.38
-45.44
-45.49
-45.55
-45.61
-45.67
-45.73
-45.78
-45.84
-45.90
-45.96
-46.02
-46.07
-46.13
-46.19
-46.25
-46.31
-46.36
-46.42

99.37
96.15
92.93
89.71
86.48
83.26
80.04
76.82
73.60
70.37
67.15
63.93
60.71
57.49
54.26
51.04
47.82
44.60
41.37
38.15
34.93
31.71
28.49
25.26
22.04
18.82
15.60
12.38
9.15

134.82
132.37
129.92
127.49
125.07
122.66
120.27
117.89
115.53
113.19
110.87
108.56
106.28
104.02
101.78
99.57
97.39
95.24
93.11
91.02
88.97
86.96
84.98
83.05
81.17
79.34
77.56
75.84
74.18
0.00

3.91
3.98
4.06
4.13
4.21
4.30
4.38
4.47
4.56
4.66
4.75
4.86
4.96
5.07
5.18
5.29
5.41
5.53
5.66
5.79
5.92
6.06
6.20
6.35
6.49
6.64
6.80
6.95
7.11

67

Table 13 Simulated Pick-Up Drag Values at Survey Points for 7 Liner Drilling

Measured
Depth (m)
700
730
760
790
820
850
880
910
940
970
1000
1032
1062
1092
1122
1152
1182
1212
1242
1272
1302
1332
1362
1392
1422
1452
1482
1512
1542
1572
1602
1632
1662
1692

Axial Pick-Up
Load ( x 10^5 N)
8.72
8.38
8.08
7.79
7.53
7.28
7.06
6.85
6.67
6.51
6.35
6.23
6.12
6.00
5.89
5.78
5.67
5.55
5.44
5.33
5.22
5.10
4.99
4.88
4.77
4.65
4.54
4.43
4.32
4.20
4.09
3.98
3.87
3.75

Measured
Depth (m)
1722
1752
1782
1812
1842
1872
1902
1932
1962
1992
2022
2052
2082
2112
2142
2172
2202
2232
2262
2292
2322
2352
2382
2412
2442
2472
2502
2532
2562
2592
2622
2652
2680.037
2681.561

Axial Pick-Up
Load ( x 10^5
3.64
3.53
3.42
3.30
3.19
3.08
2.97
2.85
2.74
2.63
2.52
2.40
2.29
2.18
2.07
1.95
1.84
1.73
1.62
1.50
1.39
1.28
1.17
1.05
0.94
0.83
0.72
0.60
0.49
0.38
0.27
0.15
0.05
0.02

68

Table 14 Von Mises Analysis at Various Survey Points for 7'' Deviated N80 Liner Section

TVD
Axial Stress Including Von Mises
[M]
Drag Forces [Mpa] Stress [Mpa]
700.00
196.43
255.70
727.27
190.36
250.96
754.55
184.67
246.39
781.82
179.50
242.04
809.09
174.65
237.81
836.36
170.15
233.73
863.64
166.01
229.78
890.91
162.22
225.97
918.18
158.87
222.32
945.45
155.88
218.81
972.73
152.93
215.31
1000.00
150.77
212.11
1021.94
148.71
209.42
1043.88
146.64
206.72
1065.82
144.57
204.03
1087.76
142.51
201.34
1109.70
140.44
198.66
1131.64
138.37
195.97
1153.58
136.31
193.29
1175.52
134.24
190.61
1197.47
132.17
187.94
1219.41
130.11
185.26
1241.35
128.04
182.59
1263.29
125.97
179.93
1285.23
123.91
177.26
1307.17
121.84
174.60
1329.11
119.77
171.95
1351.05
117.71
169.29
1372.99
115.64
166.65
1394.93
113.57
164.00
1416.87
111.51
161.36
1438.81
109.44
158.72
1460.75
107.37
156.09

FOS
2.06
2.10
2.14
2.18
2.22
2.26
2.29
2.33
2.37
2.41
2.45
2.49
2.52
2.55
2.58
2.62
2.65
2.69
2.73
2.77
2.80
2.85
2.89
2.93
2.97
3.02
3.07
3.11
3.16
3.21
3.27
3.32
3.38

TVD
Axial Stress Including Von Mises
[M]
Drag Forces [Mpa] Stress [Mpa]
1482.69
105.31
153.47
1504.63
103.24
150.85
1526.57
101.17
148.23
1548.52
99.11
145.62
1570.46
97.04
143.02
1592.40
94.97
140.42
1614.34
92.91
137.83
1636.28
90.84
135.25
1658.22
88.77
132.67
1680.16
86.71
130.11
1702.10
84.64
127.55
1724.04
82.57
125.00
1745.98
80.51
122.46
1767.92
78.44
119.93
1789.86
76.37
117.41
1811.80
74.31
114.91
1833.74
72.24
112.41
1855.68
70.17
109.93
1877.62
68.11
107.47
1899.57
66.04
105.02
1921.51
63.97
102.58
1943.45
61.91
100.16
1965.39
59.84
97.77
1987.33
57.77
95.39
2009.27
55.71
93.03
2031.21
53.64
90.70
2053.15
51.57
88.40
2075.09
49.51
86.12
2097.03
47.44
83.87
2118.97
45.37
81.65
2140.91
43.31
79.47
2162.85
41.24
77.32
2184.79
39.17
75.22

FOS
3.43
3.49
3.56
3.62
3.69
3.75
3.82
3.90
3.97
4.05
4.13
4.22
4.30
4.40
4.49
4.59
4.69
4.79
4.90
5.02
5.14
5.26
5.39
5.53
5.67
5.81
5.96
6.12
6.29
6.46
6.63
6.82
7.01

69

Table 15 Simulated Bending Stress due to Whirling for 7 Liner Stand (30 M)

Distance Bending Stress Distance


Bending Stress
Distance Bending Stress
From Bit(M)
(MPa)
From Bit(M)
(MPa)
From Bit(M)
(MPa)
0
13.92
9.2
-5.20
18.4
-11.90
0.2
14.06
9.4
-5.86
18.6
-11.41
0.4
14.17
9.6
-6.50
18.8
-10.90
0.6
14.25
9.8
-7.14
19
-10.37
0.8
14.30
10
-7.77
19.2
-9.82
1
14.32
10.2
-8.38
19.4
-9.26
1.2
14.31
10.4
-8.97
19.6
-8.67
1.4
14.26
10.6
-9.55
19.8
-8.08
1.6
14.19
10.8
-10.12
20
-7.46
1.8
14.08
11
-10.66
20.2
-6.84
2
13.94
11.2
-11.18
20.4
-6.20
2.2
13.77
11.4
-11.69
20.6
-5.56
2.4
13.57
11.6
-12.17
20.8
-4.90
2.6
13.35
11.8
-12.63
21
-4.24
2.8
13.09
12
-13.06
21.2
-3.57
3
12.80
12.2
-13.47
21.4
-2.90
3.2
12.49
12.4
-13.85
21.6
-2.22
3.4
12.14
12.6
-14.21
21.8
-1.54
3.6
11.78
12.8
-14.55
22
-0.86
3.8
11.38
13
-14.85
22.2
-0.18
4
10.96
13.2
-15.13
22.4
0.49
4.2
10.52
13.4
-15.37
22.6
1.17
4.4
10.05
13.6
-15.59
22.8
1.84
4.6
9.56
13.8
-15.78
23
2.50
4.8
9.04
14
-15.94
23.2
3.16
5
8.51
14.2
-16.07
23.4
3.80
5.2
7.96
14.4
-16.17
23.6
4.44
5.4
7.39
14.6
-16.23
23.8
5.07
5.6
6.80
14.8
-16.27
24
5.68
5.8
6.20
15
-16.28
24.2
6.28
6
5.58
15.2
-16.25
24.4
6.87
6.2
4.95
15.4
-16.20
24.6
7.44
6.4
4.31
15.6
-16.11
24.8
7.99
6.6
3.65
15.8
-15.99
25
8.52
6.8
2.99
16
-15.85
25.2
9.04
7
2.32
16.2
-15.67
25.4
9.53
7.2
1.64
16.4
-15.46
25.6
10.01
7.4
0.96
16.6
-15.23
25.8
10.46
7.6
0.27
16.8
-14.96
26
10.89
7.8
-0.42
17
-14.67
26.2
11.29
8
-1.11
17.2
-14.35
26.4
11.67
8.2
-1.80
17.4
-14.01
26.6
12.02
8.4
-2.49
17.6
-13.63
26.8
12.35
8.6
-3.17
17.8
-13.24
27
12.65
8.8
-3.85
18
-12.81
27.2
12.93
9
-4.53
18.2
-12.37
27.4
13.17

70

Table 16 Von Mises Tri Axisal Stress Analysis of 7" Liner for Drilling Conditions at Survey Points
TVD
[Mpa]
700.00
727.27
754.55
781.82
809.09
836.36
863.64
890.91
918.18
945.45
972.73

1000.00
1021.94
1043.88
1065.82
1087.76
1109.70
1131.64
1153.58
1175.52
1197.47
1219.41
1241.35
1263.29
1285.23
1307.17
1329.11
1351.05
1372.99
1394.93
1416.87
1438.81
1460.75
1482.69
1504.63
1526.57
1548.52
1570.46
1592.40
1614.34
1636.28
1658.22
1680.16
1702.10

Axial
[Mpa]
151.74
149.77
147.81
145.87
143.95
142.07
140.24
138.46
136.73
135.08
133.50
131.92
130.47
129.03
127.59
126.15
124.71
123.27
121.83
120.39
118.94
117.50
116.06
114.62
113.18
111.74
110.30
108.86
107.41
105.97
104.53
103.09
101.65
100.21
98.77
97.33
95.88
94.44
93.00
91.56
90.12
88.68
87.24
85.79

Torsional
[Mpa]
57.59
57.07
56.47
55.79
54.91
53.95
52.47
51.10
49.82
48.54
47.37
46.36
45.52
44.68
43.85
43.01
42.18
41.34
40.50
39.67
38.83
37.99
37.16
36.32
35.49
34.65
33.81
32.98
32.14
31.31
30.47
29.63
28.80
27.96
27.12
26.29
25.45
24.62
23.78
22.94
22.11
21.27
20.44
19.60

Radial
[Mpa]
-8.55
-8.93
-9.32
-9.70
-10.09
-10.47
-10.86
-11.24
-11.63
-12.01
-12.40
-12.78
-13.09
-13.40
-13.71
-14.02
-14.33
-14.64
-14.95
-15.26
-15.56
-15.87
-16.18
-16.49
-16.80
-17.11
-17.42
-17.73
-18.04
-18.35
-18.66
-18.97
-19.28
-19.59
-19.90
-20.21
-20.52
-20.83
-21.13
-21.44
-21.75
-22.06
-22.37
-22.68

Hoop Von Mises


[Mpa]
[Mpa]
-69.42
221.59
-72.54
221.59
-75.66
221.55
-78.79
221.50
-81.91
221.35
-85.03
221.22
-88.16
220.78
-91.28
220.53
-94.40
220.43
-97.53
220.45
-100.65
220.64
-103.77
220.98
-106.29
221.12
-108.80
221.28
-111.31
221.48
-113.83
221.69
-116.34
221.94
-118.85
222.21
-121.36
222.50
-123.88
222.82
-126.39
223.17
-128.90
223.54
-131.41
223.94
-133.93
224.36
-136.44
224.80
-138.95
225.27
-141.47
225.77
-143.98
226.29
-146.49
226.83
-149.00
227.40
-151.52
227.99
-154.03
228.60
-156.54
229.24
-159.05
229.90
-161.57
230.59
-164.08
231.29
-166.59
232.02
-169.10
232.77
-171.62
233.55
-174.13
234.34
-176.64
235.16
-179.16
236.00
-181.67
236.86
-184.18
237.74

FOS
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.39
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.38
2.37
2.37
2.37
2.36
2.36
2.35
2.35
2.34
2.34
2.33
2.33
2.32
2.32
2.31
2.31
2.30
2.29
2.29
2.28
2.27
2.26
2.26
2.25
2.24
2.23
2.23
2.22

TVD
[Mpa]
1724.04
1745.98
1767.92
1789.86
1811.80
1833.74
1855.68
1877.62
1899.57
1921.51
1943.45
1965.39
1987.33
2009.27
2031.21
2053.15
2075.09
2097.03
2118.97
2140.91
2162.85
2184.79

Axial
[Mpa]
84.35
82.91
81.47
80.03
78.59
77.15
75.71
74.26
72.82
71.38
69.94
68.50
67.06
65.62
64.18
62.73
61.29
59.85
58.41
56.97
55.53
54.09

Torsional
[Mpa]
18.76
17.93
17.09
16.25
15.42
14.58
13.75
12.91
12.07
11.24
10.40
9.57
8.73
7.89
7.06
6.22
5.38
4.55
3.71
2.88
2.04
1.20

Radial
[Mpa]
-22.99
-23.30
-23.61
-23.92
-24.23
-24.54
-24.85
-25.16
-25.47
-25.78
-26.09
-26.39
-26.70
-27.01
-27.32
-27.63
-27.94
-28.25
-28.56
-28.87
-29.18
-29.49

Hoop Von Mises


[Mpa]
[Mpa]
-186.69 238.64
-189.21 239.57
-191.72 240.51
-194.23 241.47
-196.74 242.45
-199.26 243.46
-201.77 244.48
-204.28 245.52
-206.80 246.58
-209.31 247.66
-211.82 248.75
-214.33 249.87
-216.85 251.00
-219.36 252.15
-221.87 253.32
-224.38 254.51
-226.90 255.71
-229.41 256.93
-231.92 258.16
-234.44 259.41
-236.95 260.68
-239.46 261.97

FOS
2.21
2.20
2.19
2.18
2.17
2.17
2.16
2.15
2.14
2.13
2.12
2.11
2.10
2.09
2.08
2.07
2.06
2.05
2.04
2.03
2.02
2.01

71

Table 17 Bending Stress due to Buckling for 9 5/8" Intermediate CSG Stand (30 metres)

Distance Bending Stress Distance


Bending Stress
Distance Bending Stress
From Bit(M)
(MPa)
From Bit(M)
(MPa)
From Bit(M)
(MPa)
0
0.00
9.2
1.72
18.4
0.64
0.2
0.05
9.4
1.73
18.6
0.59
0.4
0.11
9.6
1.73
18.8
0.54
0.6
0.16
9.8
1.74
19
0.49
0.8
0.21
10
1.74
19.2
0.44
1
0.27
10.2
1.74
19.4
0.39
1.2
0.32
10.4
1.74
19.6
0.34
1.4
0.37
10.6
1.74
19.8
0.29
1.6
0.42
10.8
1.74
20
0.24
1.8
0.47
11
1.74
20.2
0.19
2
0.52
11.2
1.73
20.4
0.14
2.2
0.57
11.4
1.72
20.6
0.09
2.4
0.62
11.6
1.72
20.8
0.03
2.6
0.67
11.8
1.71
21
-0.02
2.8
0.72
12
1.69
21.2
-0.07
3
0.77
12.2
1.68
21.4
-0.12
3.2
0.82
12.4
1.67
21.6
-0.17
3.4
0.86
12.6
1.65
21.8
-0.22
3.6
0.91
12.8
1.63
22
-0.27
3.8
0.95
13
1.61
22.2
-0.32
4
1.00
13.2
1.59
22.4
-0.37
4.2
1.04
13.4
1.57
22.6
-0.42
4.4
1.08
13.6
1.55
22.8
-0.47
4.6
1.12
13.8
1.52
23
-0.52
4.8
1.16
14
1.50
23.2
-0.57
5
1.20
14.2
1.47
23.4
-0.62
5.2
1.24
14.4
1.44
23.6
-0.67
5.4
1.28
14.6
1.41
23.8
-0.71
5.6
1.31
14.8
1.38
24
-0.76
5.8
1.35
15
1.35
24.2
-0.81
6
1.38
15.2
1.31
24.4
-0.85
6.2
1.41
15.4
1.28
24.6
-0.90
6.4
1.44
15.6
1.24
24.8
-0.94
6.6
1.47
15.8
1.20
27.6
-1.45
6.8
1.50
16
1.17
27.8
-1.47
7
1.52
16.2
1.13
28
-1.50
7.2
1.55
16.4
1.09
28.2
-1.52
7.4
1.57
16.6
1.05
28.4
-1.55
7.6
1.59
16.8
1.00
28.6
-1.57
7.8
1.61
17
0.96
28.8
-1.59
8
1.63
17.2
0.92
29
-1.61
8.2
1.65
17.4
0.87
29.2
-1.63
8.4
1.67
17.6
0.83
29.4
-1.65
8.6
1.68
17.8
0.78
29.6
-1.66
8.8
1.70
18
0.73
29.8
-1.68
9
1.71
18.2
0.69
30
-1.69

72

Appendix E. Torque Analysis & Corresponding Selection of Casing Connection

Table 18 Torque Analysis at Survey Points for 7" N80 Liner Section

Measured
Depth[m]
700
730
760
790
820
850
880
910
940
970
1000
1032
1062
1092
1122
1152
1182
1212
1242
1272
1302
1332
1362
1392
1422
1452
1482
1512
1542
1572
1602
1632
1662
1692

Torque Torsional Stress


[Nm]
[Mpa]
20681.34
57.59
20496.58
57.07
20281.32
56.47
20036.12
55.79
19721.17
54.91
19376.83
53.95
18843.58
52.47
18352.02
51.10
17892.89
49.82
17432.07
48.54
17011.98
47.37
16648.08
46.36
16347.79
45.52
16047.49
44.68
15747.20
43.85
15446.91
43.01
15146.62
42.18
14846.33
41.34
14546.03
40.50
14245.74
39.67
13945.45
38.83
13645.16
37.99
13344.87
37.16
13044.58
36.32
12744.28
35.49
12443.99
34.65
12143.70
33.81
11843.41
32.98
11543.12
32.14
11242.82
31.31
10942.53
30.47
10642.24
29.63
10341.95
28.80
10041.66
27.96

Measured
Depth[m]
1722
1752
1782
1812
1842
1872
1902
1932
1962
1992
2022
2052
2082
2112
2142
2172
2202
2232
2262
2292
2322
2352
2382
2412
2442
2472
2502
2532
2562
2592
2622
2652
2682

Torque Torsional Stress


[Nm]
[Mpa]
9741.37
27.12
9441.07
26.29
9140.78
25.45
8840.49
24.62
8540.20
23.78
8239.91
22.94
7939.61
22.11
7639.32
21.27
7339.03
20.44
7038.74
19.60
6738.45
18.76
6438.16
17.93
6137.86
17.09
5837.57
16.25
5537.28
15.42
5236.99
14.58
4936.70
13.75
4636.41
12.91
4336.11
12.07
4035.82
11.24
3735.53
10.40
3435.24
9.57
3134.95
8.73
2834.65
7.89
2534.36
7.06
2234.07
6.22
1933.78
5.38
1633.49
4.55
1333.20
3.71
1032.90
2.88
732.61
2.04
432.32
1.20
0.00
0.00

73

Table 19 Connection Make-Up Torque Capacities from Manufacturer Catalogue

Data presented in Table 19 is obtained from Tesco Corp. manufacturer catalogue [35]. As previously
stated, the torque capacities of typical buttress connections used for casing in geothermal wells is
insufficient to withstand high torque loads during drilling and even while rotating the casing string
when running in to clear blockages. Thus special torque rings have been designed and tested by
manufacturers to increase the make-up torque capacities of buttress connections substantially .The
ideal connection based on the outer diameter of the liner (177.80mm) and the inner diameter
(157.07mm) of the same grade (N-80) as the pipe body for the 7 Liner casing string is highlighted in
the table above. With the addition of the torque rings, the maximum rated make up torque for this
connection will clearly contain the maximum simulated torque of approx.20,000 Nm from Table 18
and is thus the recommended choice.

74

Appendix F. Fluid Hydraulics Frictional Pressure Losses


Table 20 Pressure Loss Computed By Power Law Rheology

Standard Properties
Discharge (gal/min)
Density (lbs/gal)
Flow Behaviour Index
Fluid Consistency Index,K
7" Liner- OH Annular Loss
Average Bulk Velocity (ft/s)
Effective Viscosity(Cp)
Reynolds Number
Friction Factor
Friction Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Pressure Drop (psi)
In SI Units,(Mpa)
5" DP-9 5/8" CSG Annular Loss
Average Bulk Velocity (ft/s)
Effective Viscosity(Cp)
Reynolds Number
Friction Factor
Friction Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Pressure Drop (psi)
In SI Units,(Mpa)
5" DP-Internal Pressure Loss
Average Bulk Velocity (ft/s)
Effective Viscosity(Cp)
Reynolds Number
Reynolds No. Turbulent Flow
Constant, A
Reynolds No. Turbulent Flow
Constant, B
Friction Factor
Friction Pressure Gradient (psi/ft)
Pressure Drop (psi)
In SI Units,(Mpa)

270.00
10.15
0.54
6.34
4.64
51.93
1269.42
0.02
0.10
507.19
3.50
2.31
104.97
720.86
0.03
0.02
44.71
0.31
6.89
85.35
2999.04
0.08
0.27
0.01
0.04
292.57
2.02

75

You might also like