Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2014
June 8-13, 2014, San Francisco, CA

OMAE2014-23233

ASSESSING CONDUCTOR AND CASING SYSTEMS FOR DAMAGE FROM

EXTREME SNAG LOADS

Yusuf Arikan Ryan Koska Jess Zlokich

2H Offshore 2H Offshore 2H Offshore
Houston, TX, U.S.A Perth, WA, Australia Perth, WA, Australia
Yusuf.Arikan@2hoffshoreinc.com Ryan.Koska@2hoffshore.com Jess.Zlokich@2hoffshore.com

ABSTRACT integrity of the well. The production casing provides

Conductor and casing systems for subsea wells can be containment during well construction and also acts as a
damaged due to excessive loads caused by vessel drift offs and secondary barrier in the event of a production tubing leak. The
snag loads. These types of accidental loads on the conductor production tubing is installed in the final stages of well
and casing system are uncontrolled in nature and hence difficult construction and is the primary conduit for production fluids
to predict. Therefore, designing the system for these types of from the reservoir to the subsea tree, [1].
loads can be very challenging and economically not practical.
Additionally, in the event of an incident subsea, a conductor
and casing system is permanently installed and cannot readily
be retrieved or inspected once the damage is done.
The decision to abandon or to produce from a well with a
damaged conductor has serious financial and environmental
Subsea Tree
consequences and should be fully understood. Therefore, to
make a knowledgeable decision, it is necessary to understand
HP Housing
extent of the damage and its implications for future operations
LP Housing
by forensic analytical tools. This paper examines the Conductor
methodology of a conductor and casing system damage Surface Casing
Production Casing
assessment in order to support more informed decisions and
provides a case example for a typical deepwater subsea well
undergone excessive accidental loading. The objective of the
assessment is (1) to verify wellhead system integrity and (2)
evaluate the effect of any future operations on the integrity of
the system. The paper outlines a process, suggested code
checks, and analysis techniques which can be implemented to
determine fitness for service of an excessively loaded wellhead
system.

INTRODUCTION
Conductor and casings are concentric steel pipes used in
oil and gas wells to provide structural support for the subsea
well as well as a flow path from the reservoir to the subsea tree,
as shown in Figure 1. The conductor is the primary source of
structural support, during both well construction and production
operations. The surface casing serves to provide structural
support and containment during well construction. After the
well is completed, the surface casing has a minimal role in the
Figure 1 Subsea Well, Conductor and Casing System
The integrity of the conductor and casing system is
paramount to safe operations of the well. This can be
compromised due to extreme snag loads on the well from
sources such as failure of the host vessels mooring or station
keeping system, resulting in extreme offsets, or equipment from

1 Copyright 2014 by ASME

other vessels getting caught on the subsea tree. These extreme
snag loads can result in permanent deformation of the
conductor and casings as shown in Figure 2 posing a risk of
potential leak of production fluids to the environment which
can have high environmental and commercial consequences.
assumed to perfectly restrain the casing concentrically within
Figure 2 Tilted Subsea Wellhead
Objectives of this work are to give guidance to analysts
and explain what can be done to evaluate a conductor system
that has been permanently deformed due to extreme loading
and various load cases that should be considered and present
some sample results from actual works.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The wellhead, conductor, and casings system is evaluated
using the nonlinear finite element analysis program ANSYS,
[2]. The conductor and casings are modelled as separate
concentric pipes using ANSYS PIPE20 and PIPE59 type
elements in order to accurately capture stresses and strains in
the individual strings. Element lengths vary from 0.25m in
regions of high bending loads to 5m at the base of the
conductor, which experiences negligible bending. Cement in
the annulus between the surface casing and conductor is a)
the conductor or b) assumed to not be present, allowing the
casing to move freely until it contacts ID of the conductor (i.e.
a lack of cement leaves a gap between the surface casing OD
and the conductor ID).
The elasto-plastic behavior of the conductor and casings is
captured in the analysis using nonlinear stress-strain curves.
Material is assumed to be isotropic and nonlinear hardening is
based on the actual material test data. If available from the
manufacturer, the actual material stress-strain curves should be
considered. If this data is unavailable, then the Ramberg-
Osgood method, [3], can be used to generate the true stress-
strain curve for a given yield and ultimate tensile strength.
Examples of stress-strain curves obtained using this method,
are shown in Figure 3.
NONLINEAR STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
Ramberg-Osgood Curves, Material Mill Certificate Data
650
600
550
500
450
Stress (MPa)

400
350
300
In this paper, various analysis methodologies are developed 250
to predict the non-linear behavior of the soil and conductor and 200
150
casing system interaction during extreme snag loading. Firstly, 100
the magnitude of the snag load is determined. Secondly, 50
0
integrity of the conductor and casing system and its 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
components are evaluated during the snag loading by Total Strain (Elastic + Plastic) (%)
evaluating the maximum bending moments on the conductor 30" Conductor 20" Surface Casing 13 3/8" Surface Casing Production Casing
and casings and comparing it with their plastic bending
Figure 3 Ramberg Osgood Stress-Strain Curves
capacities. The integrity of connectors is verified by comparing
maximum bending moments on the connectors to their limits Table 1 Material Strength Data
supplied by the vendors. Yield Ultimate R. O. R. O.
Furthermore, failure analysis is conducted to better Componen
Stress Tensile Coefficient Coefficient
understand the response of the system if the conductor or a t
(MPa) Stress (MPa) (K) (n)
connector fails during the snag loading. Finally, critical points 30
that need to be taken into consideration when evaluating the 460 550 1.226 28.77
Conductor
damaged system for future workover and production operations 20 Surface
are given such as fatigue damage due to low cycle high stress 540 590 0.777 60.13
Casing
snag loading. 13 3/8
After assessing the conductor and casing system due to Surface 620 730 0.669 31.98
snag loading, the likelihood of the failure of critical Casing
components and associated risks can be assessed quantitatively 10 3/4
and a knowledgeable decision can be made. Production 610 730 0.696 29.34
Casing

2 Copyright 2014 by ASME

 Lateral interaction between the conductor and soil is maximizes the amount of plastic deformation required to obtain
captured with nonlinear soil springs. The conductor is modeled the final observed conductor tilt. For the lower and upper bound
from about 90m below the seabed with approximately 70 soil soil profiles, the magnitude and direction of the lateral force is
springs in both lateral directions. Soil spring spacing increases iterated upon in order to achieve the final observed wellhead tilt
from 0.5m for the top 20m below the mudline to 5m as the angle.
depth below mudline increases. Due to uncertainty in the soil If the magnitude of the extreme snag load is known, the
strength parameters, lower and upper bound soil stiffness soil model can be calibrated to achieve the final observed tilt
profiles are considered. Soil damping is not considered. angle with the known load instead of using upper and lower
For the lateral loading analysis, the load on the well is bound soil strength estimates.
assumed to be removed immediately following the initial If the magnitude of the lateral load is unknown then, as a
conductor deformation, as the snag is assumed to be a relatively minimum, conditions given in the load case matrix in Table 2
short-duration event. As a result, the soil does not have should be considered for snag loading assessment, workover
adequate time to backfill and reconsolidate around the and future production riser analysis.
conductor. This is captured in the model by having the soil
springs unload along the initial slope of the soil stiffness curve Table 2 Load Case Matrix
instead of unloading back along the entire curve. Once the Analysis Soil Stiffness Soil
Cementing
spring force reaches zero, there is no additional force applied. Type Profile Reconsolidation
An example p-y curve showing the loading and unloading Fully
characteristics of the soil springs is shown in Figure 4 Cemented
Lower Bound
Cement
Snag Load Shortfall
Soil Loading and Unloading Curve Assessment Fully No Reconsolidation
Soil Depth: 0-1m
Analysis Cemented
2500
Upper Bound
2000 Cement
1500 Shortfall
1000 Plastic Deformation
of Soil Fully Full Reconsolidation
500
Unloading Cemented No Reconsolidation
Lower Bound
P (N)

0 Workover
-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 Cement Full Reconsolidation
-500 and Future
Shortfall No Reconsolidation
-1000 Production
-1500
Fully Full Reconsolidation
Riser
-2000
Cemented No Reconsolidation
Analysis Upper Bound
-2500 Cement Full Reconsolidation
y (m)
Shortfall No Reconsolidation
Loading Unloading

Figure 4 Soil Loading and Unloading P-Y Curve

For the connected riser analysis for future operations, two
soil reconsolidation bounds are considered; full soil
reconsolidation and no soil reconsolidation around the
conductor. For the full soil reconsolidation, the soil springs are
reset to their original stiffness curves considering the final
deformed location of the conductor in order to capture this
effect. For the no soil reconsolidation model, soil springs are
modeled based on the initial undeformed location of the
conductor.
Lateral load analysis is conducted using ANSYS quasi-
statically. Lateral forces are applied to the model where the
extreme snag load occurred and then ramped down to zero in
order to simulate the unloading on the tree. In order to be
conservative, this unloading is assumed to occur immediately
following the tree being pulled over. The soil does not have
adequate time to backfill and reconsolidate around the
displaced conductor. Therefore, the soil does not provide
resistance to the conductor as it tries to spring back to its
original configuration due to the steel structure unloading along
its elastic part of the stress-strain curve. This assumption
Failure analysis is also carried out in ANSYS to gain an
understanding of the response of the system if the conductor
connector or pipe failed. The failure analysis is carried out by
setting the bending stiffness of the element that represents the
failed component to zero and then iterating the extreme snag
load so that the conductor ends up at the final observed tilt
angle.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
The allowable strain levels for the conductor and surface
casing are based on API RP 2A [4]. The conductor and surface
casing are assumed to be structural elements which do not carry
production fluids or internal pressure, hence the API RP 2A
strain limit is considered to be applicable. The recommended
strain limit for plastic sections under accidental loads is 5%.
This strain limit is given in Section C18.7.3 of the code which
provides guidance for analyzing structures subject to blast
loading.
As the production casing is potentially a pressure
containing member, a maximum total strain limit of 1% is used.
This limit is defined in DNV OS F101 [5] which is commonly

3 Copyright 2014 by ASME

used for strains during pipe reeling installation and is applicable
to pressure containing members. However, to use this limit, the
material must qualify to the DNV standard.
In addition to strain limits, pile overload interaction is also
checked according to API RP 2A Section 3.3.1.c for structural
foundation systems under lateral loads for the conductor and
the casings:
2 10
+ [ ( ) ] 1.0 (1)
ANSYS model and recording final tilt angle of the conductor. A
lateral force vs. final deformed angle curve is established, as
shown for the wellhead configuration in Figure 6. For this
example, if the final observed tilt angle of the conductor is 6.5
degrees with the vertical, then the extreme snag load should be
around 1322kN considering lower bound soil stiffness profile.
LATERAL FORCE DETERMINATION
Lower Bound Soil
9 0

90 270
8 A A
180
A-A

Final Deformation Angle (Deg)

7
6.5 degrees
Where, 6

A=Cross section area; 5

Z=Plastic section modulus; 4

1322.0 kN
P,M=Axial loading and bending moment computed from 3
nonlinear analysis; 2
Fxc=Critical local buckling stress from Eq.3.3.2-4 with a 1
limiting value of 1.2Fy considering the effect of strain
0
hardening. 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360
Lateral Force (kN)

The conductor and casings can be checked to verify if they Figure 6 Lateral Force vs Final Deformation Angle
conform to AISCs compactness criterion (D/t < 0.07E/Fy) [6].
If the conductor and the casings are of compact profiles then During the extreme snag loading, a plastic hinge is formed
they can reach their plastic moment capacity (Mp=Fy.Z) in the region of maximum bending moments, 5 to 10m below
without local buckling. the mudline, as shown in Figure 7.
According to API RP 2A Section C3.2.2, cylinders with
Fy.D/t ratios less than 1500ksi have ultimate bending capacities
that exceed the plastic moment capacities by a considerable
margin. Maximum bending moments on conductor and casings
during extreme snag loading can be compared against their
plastic moment capacities if they conform to AISC or API
criteria.
Mechanical connectors, as shown in Figure 5, are used to
connect individual conductor and casing joints to make up the
conductor and casing strings. Connector tension and bending Plastic Hinge
capacities and stress amplification factors (SAF) are usually Formation
given by the manufacturers which are obtained through either
testing or detailed FEA. Maximum tension and bending
moments at the connector locations obtained from the lateral
load analysis are verified against the connector capacity limits.

Figure 7 Plastic Strain on Conductor

The maximum total strains for the range of conductor tilt

Figure 5 Conductor and Casing Connector (Pin&Box)
LATERAL LOAD ANALYSIS RESULTS
If the extreme snag load is unknown, the required lateral
force is obtained by iteratively changing the force in the
angles during loading and unloading are plotted for the
conductor and casings to obtain the maximum total strains
(elastic+plastic) during the extreme snag loading, as shown in
Figure 8. Calculated strain values are then evaluated against
allowable strain limits. As an example, both the conductor and
the surface casing comply with API RP 2As 5% strain limit
during accidental loading in the response shown in Figure 8. A
similar plot is produced for the production casing and total
strain checked against 1% strain limit given in DNV OS F101.

4 Copyright 2014 by ASME

 MAXIMUM TOTAL STRAINS VS CONDUCTOR TILT ANGLE CASING MOMENT DUE TO LATERAL LOADING
Lateral Load Analysis, Lower Bound Calcareous Soil

5.5% 5

5.0%
Max Total Strain (Elastic+Plastic) (%)

API RP 2A Accidental Loading Strain Limit = 5% 0

4.5%

4.0% -5
Casing Max Moment at Connector
3.5% Connectors Connector Bending

Elavation (m)
-10 Capacity
3.0%
Unloading of Force
2.5% -15
2.0%
Max Moment

Moment Capacity
Casing Plastic
-20
on Casign
1.5%

1.0% -25
Yield Strain = 0.5% Total Strain
0.5%

0.0% -30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300

Conductor Angle (deg) Casing Moment (kN.m)

Conductor Strain Surface Casing Strain Loaded Unloaded

Figure 8 Conductor Tilt Angle vs Total Strain Figure 10 Bending Moment on Casing

Maximum bending moments along the length of the FAILURE ANALYSIS

conductor and the casings are extracted during loading and A failure analysis can be carried out to obtain an
unloading events. The maximum bending moments are checked understanding of the response of the system if the conductor
against connector, conductor pipe and casing pipe capacities as connector or pipe failed. First, lateral load analysis is carried
shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. The maximum out with an intact model to find the required lateral load to
bending moments are below the allowable limits for the bring each component to its ultimate capacity.
conductor, the casing and the associated connectors for this
example. Table 3 Maximum Snag Loads, Failure Analysis
Required
Case Description Snag Load
CONDUCTOR MOMENT DUE TO LATERAL LOADING (kN)
5 Conductor connector exceeding
1 1560
0 bending moment capacity
Conductor pipe exceeding 5% strain
-5 Max Moment on 2 1700
Conductor limit
Max Moment at
Elavation (m)

-10
Connector

-15
Conductor Case 1:
Connector Connector The failure analysis is conducted by setting the bending
Moment Capacity
Conductor Plastic

Bending
-20
Capacity stiffness of the element that represents the failed connector to
-25 zero and then iterating the snag load so that the conductor ends
up at the observed final tilt angle.
-30
-4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 The snag load that results in the conductor connector
Conductor Moment (kN.m) exceeding its bending capacity is 1560kN, as given in Table 3.
Loaded Unloaded The snag load required in the failed connector model for the
conductor to end up at the observed final tilt is 1060kN. As this
Figure 9 Bending Moment on Casing load is less than the load required for the connector to exceed
capacity, it can be concluded that it is unlikely that snag load
can cause complete failure in the connector.
A second scenario is considered in which the snag load for
the failed connector analysis is increased to the maximum
possible value before the model becomes unstable and is unable
to converge. For the maximum converged load of 1500kN, the
final conductor tilt angle is nearly double the observed tilt
angle. The strain and bending moment transfer from the failed
conductor connector into to the internal casings is also
assessed. Complete failure of the conductor connector during
the snag loading likely results in subsequent failure of the
internal strings by exceeding strain limits and/or connector
bending capacities. This indicates that it is unlikely that the

5 Copyright 2014 by ASME

conductor would recover to its current tilt angle if the flex joint, the vessel would be required to offset between 25m
conductor connector had completely failed. to 30m in the direction of tilt to be able to run the running tools
through lower flex joint as shown in Figure 13.
Case 2:
A failure analysis is carried out considering the conductor
UPPER FLEX JOINT ROTATION VS VESSEL OFFSET
pipe fractured at the peak strain location. The pipe failure Vessel Offset In Plane of Tilt

analysis follows the same methodology as the failed connector 8.00

analysis, in which failed element is assigned no bending 7.00

Flex Joint Rotation (degrees)

stiffness causing the bending moment at this location to be 6.00

transferred into the internal strings. 5.00

4.00
The snag load that results in the conductor pipe exceeding Passage of Running Tool
3.00
the API 5% strain limit is 1700kN, as given in Table 3. The
2.00
snag load required in the failed pipe model for the conductor to
1.00
end up at the observed final tilt is 1025kN. This load is
0.00
significantly less that the load required for the conductor pipe 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Vessel Offset (m)
to exceed 5% strain and also results in a strain transfer into the Direction of Tilt

surface casing well above the 5% limit. Therefore, it can be Lower Bound Soil, Full Consolidation Upper Bound Soil, Full Consolidation
Lower Bound Soil, No Consolidation Upper Bound Soil, No Consolidation
concluded that is unlikely that the conductor pipe completely
Figure 12 Passage of Running Tool through Upper Flex
fails during the snag loading applied. Joint

LOWER FLEX JOINT ROTATION VS VESSEL OFFSET

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE PRODUCTION Vessel Offset In Plane of Tilt
If the conductor and casing system is shown to be intact, to
5.00
workover the well with a drilling riser or with a smaller Flex Joint Rotation (degrees) 4.50
diameter intervention riser, complete strength, operating 4.00
3.50
windows, and fatigue analysis should be carried out considering
3.00
residual stresses left on the conductor and casings after plastic 2.50

deformation due to snag loading. 2.00

1.50
The change in conductor tilt angle and flex joint rotations 1.00 Passage of Running Tool
with various vessel offsets and environments can be analyzed to 0.50

establish the vessel offset limits for various soil models as 0.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
shown in Figure 11. Vessel Offset (m)
Direction of Tilt

CONDUCTOR TILT VS VESSEL OFFSET Lower Bound Soil, No Consolidation Upper Bound Soil, No Consolidation
Vessel Offset In Plane of Tilt Lower Bound Soil, Full Consolidation Upper Bound Soil, Full Consolidation

11.00 Figure 13 Passage of Running Tool through Lower Flex

10.50 Joint
10.00
Conductor Tilt (deg)

9.50 A crossover spool piece can be designed to facilitate the

9.00 connection with the tilted subsea tree and the BOP as shown in
8.50
Figure 14. High stress concentration on crossover spool piece
8.00
due to its geometry can potentially imply a low fatigue life.
7.50 Landing BOP
Therefore, fatigue life of the crossover piece should be
7.00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 examined thoroughly if it is decided to be used.
Vessel Offset (m)
Direction of Tilt

Lower Bound Soil - Full Soil Reconsolidation Upper Bound Soil - Full Soil Reconsolidation
Lower Bound Soil - No Soil Reconsolidation Upper Bound Soil - No Soil Reconsolidation

Figure 11 Tilt Angle with Vessel Offsets

Workover operations typically involve the passage of

running tools through the riser and casings. Due to the tilt angle
of the conductor, it can be required to offset the vessel in a very
controlled manner possibly requiring various stages to allow
the passage of the running tools, which can make operations
very challenging. For example, a running tool which can pass
through an upper flex joint with rotations less than 4.0 degrees
can be run when the vessel offset is less than 20m as shown in
Figure 12. However, when the running tools are near the lower

6 Copyright 2014 by ASME

 CONDUCTOR DAMAGE DUE TO PLASTIC DEFORMATION
Strain Cycle Method

Elevation (m)
-5

-10

Damage per
Half Cycle
-15

-20
Crossover -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Spool Piece Damage per Half Cycle

Figure 15 Conductor Plastic Fatigue Damage

Figure 14 Crossover Spool Piece
When calculating fatigue life of the conductor and casing
for future workover and production, accumulated damage prior
to and during extreme snag loading should also be accounted
for.
Fatigue damage due to plastic deformation during extreme
loading can be evaluated using the strain-life method [7] [8]
where maximum allowable number of cycles for a given plastic
strain is calculated by the equation below.
= (2 ) (2) components and assess the likelihood of the failure so that a
2
Where,
Plastic strain;
Fracture ductility;
Maximum number of strain reversals;
Fatigue ductility exponent.
An example plot of plastic damage on the conductor due to
plastic deformation caused by the extreme snag loading is
shown in Figure 15. Damage due to plastic deformation should
be superimposed to damages from other sources in calculating
remaining fatigue life.
CONCLUSIONS
Extreme snag loads can result in permanent deformation of
conductor and casing systems, threatening the integrity of the
well. A methodology of suggested analysis procedure and
acceptance criteria is outlined including non-linear soil loading
and un-loading behavior and recommended minimum load case
matrix. Suggested code checks per API and DNV are presented
along with critical example analysis results. A failure analysis
conducted to get a better understanding of the response of the
system if one of the critical components is completely failed or
suspected to be failed.
If the well integrity is deemed to be maintained after snag
loading, the well can be worked over and production can
resume. Considerations that are essential for future workover
and production operations are identified and presented for the
damaged system.
The methods described in this paper can be used to analyze
damaged conductor and casing systems to identify the critical
knowledgeable decision whether to abandon the well or resume
production can be made.
NOMENCLATURE
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
API American Petroleum Institute
BOP Blow Out Preventer
DnV Det Norske Veritas
FEA Finite Element Analysis
ID Inner Diameter
P-Y Soil Lateral Resistance Displacement Curve
SAF Stress Amplification Factor

7 Copyright 2014 by ASME

REFERENCES

[1] Jackson E. W., 2011, Casing and Cementing,

Rotary Drilling Series, Unit II, Lesson 4, 3 rd Edition.

[2] ANSYS, INC, 2011, ANSYS: Non-Linear Analysis

Software Version 14.

[3] Ramberg, W., Osgood, W., 1943, Description of

Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters, NACA
Technical Note, TN902.

[4] API, December 2000, Recommended Practice for

Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms-Working Stress Design, 21st Edition API
RP 2A.

[5] DNV, October 2007, Submarine Pipeline Systems,

DNV-OS-F101.

[6] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),

December 2011, Steel Construction Manual, 14th
Edition.

[7] Tavernelli, J.F., Coffin, L.F., 1962, Experimental

Support for a Generalized Equation Predicting Low
Cycle Fatigue, Trans. ASME, Series D, Jnl. Basic
Eng., 84, pp. 533-541.

[8] A Manson, S.S., 1965, Fatigue, A Complex Subject-

Some Simple Approximations, Experimental
Mechanics, 5, pp. 193-226.

8 Copyright 2014 by ASME