PEl'ROLEUM BRANCH, AIME PAPER

Fidelity Union Building NUMBER 514 - G

Dallas, Texas

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT Tn CORRECTION

Design Of Casing Strings

By
C. N. Bowers
Gulf Research & Development co., Pittsburgh,·Pa.

Publication Rights Reserved

This paper is to be presented at the 30th Annual Fall Meeting of the Petroleum Branch of the
American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers in New Orleans, October 2-5, 1955, and is
considered the property of the Petroleum Branch. Permission to publish is hereby restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words, with no illustrations, unless the paper is specifically released
to the press by the Branch Publications Committee Chairman or the Executive Secretary on his behalf.
Such abstract should contain appropriate, conspicuous acknowledgments. Publication elsewhere after
publication in Journal of Petroleum Technology is granted on re~uest, providing proper credit is
given that publication and the original presentation of the paper.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Petroleum Branch office; it will be presented at the above meeting with the paper and considered
for publication in Journal of Petroleum Technology.

ABSTRACT factors involved that it is impossible to include

Considerable economy can be effected by de-
signing each casing string individually for the
particular set of conditions involved. The paper
discusses methods and procedures for incorpora-
ting all of the important variables in the design
of individual strings, and step-by-step examples
are given. I f the casing is never empty, the
problem is ~uite simple and can be solved very
easily. While oil strings mayor may not at some
time be empty, surface and intermediate strings
are seldom, if ever, empty and, therefore, are
not subject to collapse loads. Design charts and
the usual design methods provide. for collapse and
tension loads occurring simultaneously. It is
extremely improbable that these loads exist at
the same time. A practical method of deSigning
caSing strings to provide both tensile strength
and collapse resistance at the time each is need-
ed is presented. Strings designed by tilis method
will be much cheaper than those selected from
charts or designed by the usual computation
methods. This economy is realized along with
ade~uate safety.
INTRODUCTION
The design of casing strings has long been a
problem to the engineer. Many elaborate charts
have been prepared to ease the task of the de-
signer. These charts are a form uf standardi-
zation and while standardization is usually a
goal much sought after, it has doubtful value in
the design of easing strings. There are so many
References and illustrations at end of paper
them in any set of charts. Conse~uently the use
of available charts has resulted in thousands upon
thousands of tons of steel being buried in the
ground needlessly which, of course, represents
dollars wasted. This can be corrected by design-
ing strings on an individual basis. The purpose
of this paper is to outline all of the re~uired
computation methods and procedures and show how
the many variable factors can be incorporated into
the design of individual strings. A safe, econom-
ical method for designing strings is also present-
ed which provides for various load conditions when
they occur.
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
In the past most casing strings, whether
selected from charts or designed by computation
methods, have been based on the assumption that
the casing is empty (and, therefore subjected to
a full head of mud) and at the same time is hang-
ing in air. Obviously this is an inconSistency.
The effect of tension on collapse resistance ~s
conSidered, but the effect of buoyancy is neglect-
ed and yet if collapse acts on an empty string, a
buoyant force in excess of the total weight of
mud displaced by the casing wall must exist.
Buoyancy puts at least some of the casing at the
bottom of the string in compression. Compression
stresses increase the collapse resistance just as
tension stresses decrease it.
Bending is generally neglected and yet this
force increases tensile stresses which in turn
2 DESIGN OF CASING STRINGS 514-G

reduce collapse resistance. This force is usually exhaustive tests.

neglected because it is difficult to evaluate due
to the fact that the exact path of the drilled The modified strain-energy theory can be ex-
hole is seldom known. The deviation is normally pressed in the form:
specified in degrees per depth interval, but this
is not the definitive factor since it is the
radius of curvature and not the deviation that de- (~i)2 1
termines the bending stress. As the radius of
curvature decreases, the stress increases. Con- Where:
sequently, it is possible for the bending stress
to be excessively high even though the deviation St :: tensile stress in psi
is well within a selected limit considered toler-
able. Sy = yield stress in psi

Designs are also generally based on uniform Pa :: available collapse resistance in

safety factors at the change-over points; i.e.,
where the grade of steel and/or the weight of
casing changes. Actually it would be preferable
to design the string on a basis of a uniform mar-
gin of tension safety throughout on the theory
that there is no reason whatsoever to have more
strength available than that which is needed at
the weakest point in the string.
METHODS OF DESIGN
The important question to be considered is
whether or not the string will ever, in its serv-
ice life, be empty. If it is never empty, much
lighter weights and/or lower grades of casing can
be used since collapse, which imposes the limiting
and determining force at the bottom, is not a fac-
tor. The string can be designed on a basis of the
joint or body strength, whichever is the lesser,
provided, of course, that the casing in any sec-
tion has sufficient bursting strength to tolerate
pressures that may be imposed. The benefits of
buoyancy, of course, should be included. Any de-
sired safety factors can be employed, but as men-
tioned before a uniform margin of safety through-
out is preferable to a uniform safety factor at
the change-over points.
Although oil strings mayor may not be de-
Signed on the assumption that the casing will at
some time be empty (depending on operating condi-
tions) surface and intermediate strings are sel-
dom, if ever, empty and therefore are not subject-
ed to the usual type of collapse loads. Crushing
due to formation movement or flow is a special
case which is not considered here.
Case 1 of the Appendix gives an example of
the design of a 7-in API string when collapse is
not a factor. Essential data for this and other
cases given hereinafter were taken from the "API
Bulletin on the Performance Properties of Casing"
and are included for ready reference in Table 1.
Many designers consider that collapse and
tension loads will occur simultaneously. Several
theories have been used when combinations of
tension, compression, collapse, and bursting exist,
but the modified strain-energy theory is in clos-
est agreement with the experimental data from
psi
Pc := collapse resistance in psi
at any plane perpendicular to the longi-
tudinal axis.
Note that this equation as described here is
for the case where there is no internal pressure.
Further, Pa is defined as the available collapse
resistance for a given tensile stress because the
actual collapsing load may produce a stress either
greater or less than Pa. If the actual collapsing
stress is used to calculate St, then St will be
the available tensile stress.
This equation can also be written:
r 2 1
c =
where:
Sa Actual Load
r S = Max. Body Load
t = t
-- Allowable Setting Depth
rc = Pa
Pc Max Setting Dept-h----
Values for rt and rc are shown as abscissae
and ordinates, respectively, in Fig. 1.
It was noted above that the equation applies
to the case where there is no internal pressure.
Actually, unless a safety factor for bursting
above 1.10 is desired, the effect of internal
pressure on tension up to the published limits
is negligible in all API sizes, weight, and
grades. However, the permissible length in any
case can be checked in the event higher safety
factors are employed by the following:
P
L 0.4995 x SF
=
Where:
L = the permissible length of the string
P = internal yield pressure of the
section
514-G C. N. BOWERS
SF = safety factor, burst
The above eQuation will be accurate to
to.5 per cent.
Case 2 of the Appendix gives an example of
a string designed in accordance with the above
theory. Any desired safety factor, mud weight,
etc., may be substituted. The effect of buoyancy
or bending, or both, can be included as desired,
but both are included in this example. All de-
signs must of necessity be based on trial and
error method of solution.
At this point it should be repeated for em-
phasis that it is very unlikely that conditions
conducive to both a collapse and a tension fail-
ure will occur simultaneously. However, if the
designer wishes to consider the existence of this
circumstance, there appears to be no valid reason
for maintaining a high tension safety factor when
collapse is the first determinant or a high col-
lapse safety factor when tension is the first
determinant. The weakest point in a string is
usually the pipe body at the lowest change-over
point. Since tension stresses reduce the collapse
resistance of casing, there is no need to have a
large excess of tensile load carrying capacity
above the amount.that will reduce the collapse re-
sistance to a safety factor of 1.00 at which col-
lapsing conditions will prevail. In other words,
there is no reascn to have the top of the string
able to withstand 300,000-lb tension, for example,
if the string will collapse near the bottom when
only 100,000 lb of tension are applied.
Case 3 of the Appendix shows the same con-
ditions as those in Case 2 except that a uniform
margin of tension safety is used rather than a
uniform safety factor.
It was mentioned previously that surface and
intermediate strings are not subjected to the
usual hydraulic collapse loads and that collapse
will generally not be a factor in most oil
strings. The possibility that pulling on the
casing when it is empty will be necessary seems
even more remote, in which case collapse and ten-
sion loads will not exist simultaneously. How-
ever, joint strength must be provided at the time
the pipe is run when it is full of mud. Later,
if the pipe becomes empty there must be sufficient
resistance to withstand collapsing loads, which
may be increased by any tension loads present from
the landing practice. A safe economical method
of designing strings on this basis is presented
below.
In designing a string on this basis, the
first reQuisite is that the casing in the cement-
ed portion must have sufficient collapse resist-
ance throughout. The axial stresses present in
this portion of the string prior to cementing will
remain after cementing. At least some of the
3
casing will be in compression due to the buoyant
effect that existed originally, in which case
full advantage should be taken of the benefits of
compression on collapse resistance. Depending on
the height of the cement column, some of the de-
mented portion of the string may be in tension.
In this case it may be desirable to consider the
effect of tension stresses on the collapse resis-
tance, although, as will be explained later, this
will hardly be necessary unless such stresses are
particularly high.
The casing in the uncemented portion also
must have sufficient collapse resistance. The
effect of the weight of the casing on the col-
lapse resistance above the cement plus the stress-
es imposed by the landing practice must be deter-
mined. All of this means, of course, that the
height of cement column, mud weight, landing
practice, etc., must be known when the string is
deSigned. Then if selec~ed string meets all of
the above reQuir~ents, it is necessary only to
calculate whether all of the selected sections
can withstand thi= tensile loads present when the
string is run, at which time it is full of fluid.
If this is so, no changes need to be made. If
not, heavier sections need to be substituted
which will increase rather than decrease the
safety of the string from a standpoint of col-
lapse if and when it become empty.
There seems to be no need in such a string
to employ a safety factor above 1.0 in collapse.
Further, a uniform marginal load in tension
rather than a uniform safety factor should be
used Since, to repeat, there is no necessity to
provide more load-carrying capacity at any point
than is needed at the weakest section.
It was mentioned above that it may be de-
sirable to provide a collapse safety factor in
the cemented portion if the cemented-in stresses
are tension stresses. Unless these stresses are
exceptionally high, this does not seem to be
necessary because each string has, in effect, an
inherent safety factor. The minimum performance
properties published by the American Petroleum
Institute are used for designing casing strings.
The values for collapse, joint strength, and
internal yield pressure are based on 75, 80 and
87-1/2 per cent, respectively, of the avera 6 e
values. All of these properties of casing are
direct functions of the yield strength of the
steel. For example in the case of 7 in x 26 lb,
N-80 caSing, the minimum collapse resistance is
5,320 psi which means that the average collapse
resistance should be 7,090 psi. 'rhe average
yield strength of Grade N-80 caSing, from our
experience with thousands of heats of steel, is
about 90,000 psi. The minimum yield strength is
only 89 per cent of this average. Thus since
collapse resistance is a direct function of the
yield strength, the minimum collapse resi~tance
of this grade and weight of casing should be 89
per cent of 7,090 psi, or 6,300 psi. Obviously
4 DESIGN OF CASING STRINGS 514-G

then, on a basis of the minimum yield strength A. Section 17 lb H-40, ST&C

alone, there is a sizeable built-in safety factor
in collapse. The same circumstance is also ap- Buoyant Force = 10,000 x 0.5 x 4.909
plicable to joint strength and internal yield = 24,500 lb
pressure properties.
Joint Strength t Buoyant Force -
Design of a casing string in accordance with Safety Tension Factor
the suggested method is shown step-by-step in
Case 4 of the Appendix. This method satisfactori 160,000 t 24,500 = 115,000 lb
ly provides tensile strength when it is needed 1. 75
and collapse resistance if and when it is needed.
It is a safe method to design casing strings that 115,000 lb = 6,760 ft
will some day be empty. 17 lb/ft
Marginal Load = 184,500 lb - 115,000 lb =
All of the examples given in the Appendix 69,500 lb
are shown in Fig. 2, along with the cost of each
string, based on current prices. Included in B. Section 20 lb H-40, ST&C
this bar graph. for comparison under similar well
conditions as the examples given is a string Joint Strength = 191,000 lb
(shown as 5) selected from charts representative
of those commonly used for many years. Obvious- Net Buoyant Force = 24,500 + (5.749 -
ly, tremendous savings can be effected if col- 4.909) x 0.5 x 3,240 = 25,900 lb
lapse can be ignored. However, if strings must
be designed on the assumption that they will some Joint Strength + Buoyant Force - Mar-
day be empty, the method proposed herein will re- ginal'Load = 191,000 + 25,900 - 69,500
sult in worthwhile economy. = 147,400 lb
CONCLUSIONS 6,760 ft x 17 lb/ft = 115,000 lb
(Section A)
1. Casing strings should be designed on an
individual basis. 147,400 - 115,000 = 32,400 lb
(available)
2. It is extremely improbable that conditions
conducive to both a collapse and tension 32,400 lb - 1,620 ft
failure will exist simultaneously. 20 lb/ft -
C. Section 20 lb J-55, ST&C
3. Strings can be designed to provide both ten-
sile strength and collapse resistance at the Joint Strength = 254,000 lb
time each is needed. These will be economi-
cal and have adequate safety. Joint Strength + Buoyant Force - Margin-
al Load =
254,000 + 25,900 - 69,500 =
APPENJ)IX 210,400 lb
1,620 ft x 20 lb/ft = 32,400.1b
CASE 1. 210,400 - 32,400 - 115,000 = 63,000 lb
(available)
The casing strin~ is full of fluid, and col-
lapse is not a factor. Buoyancy (BF) always ex- 63,000 lb
20 lb/ft
= 3,150 ft which is;> 1,620 ft
ists in this case. Essential data are from Table needed
1 which were taken from the "API Bulletin on the
Performance Properties of Casing." String limit- The following string results:
ed to four sections. Depth No. of
IntervaI (ft) Feet Weight and Grade
Conditions

Depth 10,000 ft
°- 1,620
1,620 - 3,240
1,620
1,620
20 lb J-55
20 lb H-40
ST&C
ST&C
Casing 7 in API 3,240 - 10,000 6,760 17 lb H-40 ST&C
Mud Weight 9,625 lb/gal
Pressure Gradient (PG) 0.5 pSi/ft CASE 2.
Marginal Load (ML) based
on weakest section having The empty casing string is subjected to a
Safety Tension Factor of 1.75 full head of mud which buoys it up. Essential
data are from Table 1. Conditions same as in
Case 1. In addition, Bending (BL) is 30 devia-
tion per 100 ft. Safety factors (all change-over
points) in tension = 1.75; in collapse = 1.125;
514-G C. N. BOWERS 5

I in compre"ion ' 1.00. The jOint strength of 26 lb, N-Bo, LT&C

460,000 lb
=
A. Section 29 lb N-80, ST&C
460 z000 = 263,000 lb max available
Assume change over to 26 lb, N-80 at 1. 75
8,800 ft
(10,000 1,200) x 26 : 229,700 lb
Net Buoyant Force: 10,000 x 0.5 x 8,450 t BL = 30,500 lb
- 8,800 x 0.5 x (8.450 - 7.549) : t Section A = 34 :z BOO lb
38,300 lb. 295,000 lb
- BF = 38z300 lb
256,700 lb which
(10,000 - 8,Boo) x 29 x 1.75 -:-
61,000 lb
is < 263,000
't'BL x 1.75 60 z600 lb lb
121,600 lb
- BF = 3Bz300 lb Thus, Section B is satisfactory.
83,300 lb
The following string results:
Depth No. of
Setting Depth (SD) : 0.9239 x 5.320 - Inter:vaI (ft)
1.125 x 0.5 Feet Weight and Grade
B,760 ft •
o - B,Boo B,Boo 26 lb N-Bo LT&C
ThUS, Section A is satisfactory. B,Boo - 10,000 1,200 29 lb N-Bo ST&C

B. Section 26 lb N-Bo, ST&C CASE 3.

Since it is apparent that little, if any, Conditions same as Case 2 except Marginal
23 lb, N-Bo can be used in this string, this Load (ML) in tension is 100,000 lb and collapse
should be checked first. safety factor = 1.00

Joint Strength (23 Ib, N-80, LT&C) - A. Section 29 lb N-Bo z ST&C

400,000 lb
Assume change over to 26 lb N-Bo at 9,550
400,000 - 229,000 lb ft
1. 75
Net Buoyant Force = 10,000 x 0.5 x B.450
- 9,550 x 0.5 x (B.450 - 7.549) =
Section A x 1.15 - 61,000 lb
37,950 lb
- BL x 1. 75 = 60,000 lb (26 lb)
- BL x 1.75 53,400 lb (23 lb) (10,000 - 9,550) x 29 =
+BF = 3B,300 lb (less than 13,050 lb
this value because + BL = 34,600 lb
depth of 23 lb, t ML 100,000 lb
N-Bo is not known 147,650 lb
at this time)
- BF = 37 z95 0 lb
92,900 lb available 109,700 lb
for 26 lb, N-Bo
r 109 z700 _
t = 603,9
0 0 - 0.lB6 and -r c = 0.B939
92z900 lb -
26 lb/ft x 1.75 2,050 ft of 26 lb, N-Bo SD 0.B939 x 5.320 = 9,540 ft
and the change-over point would occur at 0·5
6,750 ft
ThUS, Section A is satisfactory.
r t - 229, 000 : o. 432 and - r 4
532 , 500 c = 0. 711 B. Section. 26 lb N-80 z ST&C

SD - 0.7114 x 4}300 = 5,460 ft which is Assume change over to 23 lb, N-80 at

1.125 x 0.5 6,750 ft
< 6,750 ft
Net Buoyant Force = 10,000 x 0.5 x 8.450
Therefore no 23 lb, N-Bo can be used. - 6,750 x 0.5 x (8.450 - 6.656).:
35,850 lb
6 DESIGN OF CASING STRINGS 514-G

(9,550 - 6,750) x 26 ~ 72,800 Ib CASE 4.

.. Section A : 13,050 lb
BL . --
--
30,500 lb The casing is full of fluid when the well is
t ML 100zOOO lb completed and later becomes empty. Conditions
216,350 lb same as in Case 1. Top of cement is at 8,550 ft.
Safety Factor in Collapse at all change-over
-BF = 35 z850 lb points = 1.00. Marginal Load = 100,000 lb when
180,500 lb
pipe is run and there is no collapse.
r t • l80 z500 = 0.338 and -rc
532,500 1. 26 lb, N-80, ST&C is suitable in collapse
at bottom
SD - 0·7872 x 4 / 300 =6 770 ft
0·5 ' 2. Buoyant Force: 10,000 x 0.5 x 7.549 =
37,745 lb
Thus, Section B is satisfactory.
37,745 lb = 1,450 ft
C. Section 23 Ib N-80 z ST&C 26 Ib!ft

Assume change over to 26 Ib, J-55 at Thus, the point of zero load is 10,000 -
5/ °°0
ft 1,4?0 = 8,550 ft

Net Buoyant Force = 10,000 x 0.5 x 8.450 The casing below this point, being in
- 5,000 x 0.5 x (8.450 - 7.549) = compressiom, will be satisfactory if
40,000 lb collapse becomes a factor.
(6,750 - 5,000) x 23 = 40,250 lb 3. Without the effect of tension on collapse,
..
Section A = 13,050 lb 23 lb, N-80 can be set to
+ Section B = 72,800 lb 4,300 psi = 8,600 ft
t BL = 34,600 lb 0.5 psi!ft
+ ML = 100,000 lb
260,700 lb
-BF • 40,000 lb 4. After cementing, adjust tension at top
221,275 lb of cement; in this case to zero.

rt a 220 / 700
415,200·
= ° 532 and -rc -- 0.6207 5. Try 23 lb, N-80, ST&C between 6,000 ft
and 8,550 ft.
SD =0.6207 x 4.060 = 5 020 ft
Assume change over to 23 lb, J-55 at
0·5 '
6,000 ft
Thus, Section C is satisfactory.

D. Section 26 1b, J-55, LT&C

(8,550 - 6,000) x 23 = 58,700 lb
rt = 58,700 - 0.160 and -r - 0.9104
5,000 x 26 = 130,000 1b 366,000 - c -
+ Section A : 13,050 1b
t Section B = 72,800 1b
SD = 0.9104
x 3,290 = 6,000 ft
1.0 x 0.5
... Section C = 40,250 1b
(OK at this depth for collapse)
... BL = 34,600 1b
t ML • 100,000 1b
390,700 1b The string is now checked to determine
whether it can withstand tension during
:sF = 40,000 1b running.
350,700 1b which is
<
395,000 lb
Net Buoyant Force = 10,000 x 0.5 x 7.549
Thus, Section D is sat isfactory. - 8,550 x 0.5 x (7.549 - 6.656) a
33,900 Ib
The To1lowing string results:
Depth No. of
(10,000 - 8,550) x 26 =
37,745 lb
( 8,550 - 6,000) x 23 ~ 58,700 lb
Interval {ft l Feet Wei~ht and Grade + ML ~ 100zOOO Ib
196,445 lb
- 5,000 5,000 26 J-55, LT&C
°
5,000 - 6,750 1,750 23
1b,
Ib, N-80, ST&C
BF = 33z900 lb
162,545 Ib which
6,750 --9,550 2,800 26 Ib, N-80, ST&C is < 300,000 lb
9,550 -10,000 450 29 lb, N-80' ST&C (OK for tension)
~5_1_4_-G_______________C~ ..•N
... BOWERS 7
----------------------------------~
6. Try 23 Ib, J-55, ST&C between 4,000 ft It is obvious that 23 lb, J-55, LT&C,
and 6,000 ft. having 44,000 Ib higher joint strength
Assume change over to 20 Ib, J-55, ST&C than the 23 Ib, J-55, ST&C, will be
at 4,000 ft. suitable for top 25 ft. Thus the
string which can withstand a pull of
(6,000 4,000) x 23 = 46,000 Ib 100,000 Ib when being run during com-
(8,550 - 6,000) x 23 = 58,700 Ib pletion and will be safe against col
104,700 Ib lapse if it later becomes empty is as
follows:
rt = 104,700 = 0.332 and -rc = 0.7918
316,000 Depth No. of
Inter:val ~ ft) Feet Wei~ht and Grade
SD =
0.7918 x 2,500 = 3,975 ft (OK
1.0 x 0.5
at this depth for collapse) o- 25 25 23 Ib, J-55, LT&C
25 - 6,000 5,975 23 lb, J-55, ST&C
The string is again checked to deter- 6,000 - 8,550 2,550 23 Ib, N-80, ST&C
mine whether it can withstand tension 8,550 - 10,000 1,450 26 Ib, N-80, ST&C
during running.
Since the marginal load is reduced only
Net Buoyant Force = 10,000 x 0.5 x 7.549 75 lb by the use of 23 lb, J-55, ST&C
l·t would be practical to use it to the
'
- 4,000 x 0.5 x (7.549 - 5.749) = top of the well.
34,145 Ib

(10,000 8,550) x 26 = 37,745 Ib

( 8,550 - 6,000) x 23 = '58,700 lb
( 6,000 4,000) x 23 -- 46,000 Ib
tML -- 100,000 lb
242,445 Ib
BF -- 34,145 lb
208,300 lb which
is <. 25~,000
Ib (OK for
tension)

7. Try 20 Ib, J-55, ST&C between 0 ft and

4,000 ft

Joint Strength .. 254,000 Ib

-Lower Sections
tML -- 242z445 Ib
11,555 Ib
t BF 34 z14 5 lb
45,700 lb available

45 z700 Ib = 2,285 ft could be used

20 lb/f:t
However, since the string is limited to
four sections, heavier weight must be
used in the top 4,000 ft. The next
heavier weight is 23 lb, J-55, ST&C
which is already accounted for be-
tween 4,000 ft and 6,000 ft.

8. Try 23 lb, J-55, ST&C for top 4,000 ft

Joint Strength = 300,000 lb

- Lower Sections -- 142,445 lb
-ML = 100zOOO Ib
57,555 Ib
-t BF 33 z900 Ib
91,455 Ib available,

9lz455 lb = 3,975 ft which is <:4,000 ft

23 Ib/ft
 Table I. 7 In. API Casing Data Used in Appendix

'veight (lb/ft) 17 20 20 23
->'~
26 23 26 29
Grade H-40 H-40 J-55 J-55 J-55 N-80 N-SO N-SO
Body Cross Sectional
Area (in. 2 ) 4.909 5.749 5.749 6.656 7.549 6.656 7.549 S.450
Hax. Body Load (lb) 196,400 230,000 316,200 366,100 415,200 532,500 603,900 676,000
Joint Strength, STOC
(1,000 Ib) 160 191 254 300 345 350 402 454
Joint Strength, LTOC
(1,000 Ib) 344 395 400 460 520
Collapse Resistance
(psi) 1370 1920 2500 3250 4060 4300 5320 6370
Internal Yield
Pressure (psi) 2310 2720 37.tO 4360 49S0 6340 7240 8160
Bending Load (lb)~*, 22,500 26,300 26,300 30,500 34,600 30,500 34,600 38,700
~-
Calculated for 3° deviation per 100 ft according to s= -EC = ECA
r L x ISO x 12
where:
E = Modulus of elasticity
C = Distance fram neutral axis to outermost fibers (in.)
L = Arc length (ft)
r = Radius of Curvature in
A = Angle of deviation
In this case
S = 30 1 000.000 x 3.5 x 3.14 x 3 = 4,582 psi
100 x ISO x 12
Bending Load (lb) = stress x area
 .
-1.2 -10 -.8 .
-6 .
-~ .
-2 .2 .4 .6 .8

-.2
TENSION AND
I
I
I
-.4
COLLAPSE
/
/
I- r- COMPRESS ION AND -.6 V
\
COLLAPSE
-.8 ./
V
\ , ---. ~
~
V
-1.2
V

ACTUAL LOAD
rt - MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOAD

FIGURE 1
PORTION OF STRAIN ELLIPSE USED TO DETERMINE EFFECT
OF AXIAL LOADING ON COLLAPSE RESISTANCE OF CASING
 enI .:.J
..,
I
..,
I
I
l\-

0 rt')

2
'"en, '"
I

J: ..J
0
I ..,
I
en
3
'" U)
I
..,I
-t-= 4
u..
C\I I
rt')
C\I
..J
Z
I
I

rt')
0
0 5 ..J C\I
enI
-
0

~
t-
6 en
z
I
I
U)
zI
rt')
I C\I en
el.
w 7
0
J:
,...I
'" I
zI
en enI
- I
en
rt')
en
8 z
<D
I z
I '" zI
U) Z
I

I
I
en
'" en '" en
9

10
IN ~'" *
<D
'"
J
C\I

2 3 4 5
CASE CONDITIONS COST ($)

1 BUOYANCY; NO BENDING; M.L. BASED ON WEAKEST SECTION 14,595

HA VING SAFETY FACTOR OF 1.75

2 BUOYANCY; BENDING; SFT =1.75; SFC =1.125; SF (COMPRESSION) 24,945

=1.00

3 BUOYANCY; BENDING; M.L. =100,000 LB.; SFC =1.00 22,055

4 BUOYANCY; NO BENDING; M.L. =100,000 LB. (WHEN NEEDED); 20,230

SFC = 1.00 (WHEN NEEDED)

5 NO BUOYANCY; NO BENDING SFT =1.00 (BOTTOM), 1.75 (TOP); 22,930

SFC =1.125 (BOTTOM), 1.00 (TOP)

FIGURE 2
ILLUSTRATION OF COMBINATION STRINGS OF 7 IN. API
CASING OBT AINED BY VARIOUS DESIGN METHODS.
The numeral is the weight per foot; the letter H, J, or N is
the grade; and the letter S or L is the thread length. For
example, 26· N· L means 7 in. X 26 lb., grade N, long T & c.