EP - 2000-9073 - Shell - Casing - and - Tubing - Design - Guide - Vol - 1 Rev Jan 2008 PDF

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only
EP 2000-9073
Shell Casing and Tubing Design Guide

Volume 1
Issued by the Well Engineering Forum
Sponsor:
Date of issue:
Revision:
Period of work:
ECCN number:
Well Engineering Forum

October 2000
Revised 15 Jan 2008
Through October 2000
EAR99
The information in this document is shared under the Research Agreement between SIRM and Shell Oil Company dated
January 1, 1960, as amended unless indicated otherwise above.
This version supersedes the previous version (EP 92-2000).

This document is classified as Restricted to Shell Personnel Only. 'Shell Personnel' includes all staff with a personal
contract with the Shell Group of Companies, designated Associate Companies and Contractors working on Shell projects
who have signed a confidentiality agreement with a Shell Group Company. Issuance of this document is restricted to staff
employed by the Shell Group of Companies. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to
Non-Shell Personnel without the prior written consent of the copyright owners.
Copyright 2000 SIEP, Inc.
SHELL INTERNATIONAL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INC., HOUSTON
EP 2000-9073
ii
Summary
The Shell Casing and Tubing Design Guide presents updated guidelines for the design of
well casing and tubing to all Shell Operating Companies.
The Guide facilitates establishing the right balance between fundamental requirements for
well integrity, the use of best practices and a common design philosophy across Shell and the
need for operating companies to customize designs on the basis of local geological settings
and local experiences as well as the need for innovation in a changing business environment.
Through prudent management of risk, the most effective design over the total lifetime of a
well through to abandonment can be achieved. The layered design practice presented in the
manual allows for prudent adaptation of well designs to the level of maturity of local
knowledge, experience, and competencies.
While these guidelines are based on a common philosophy within the Group, the
responsibility for a specific well design remains within the individual Operating Company.
The updated guide was compiled by a Global Virtual Team consisting of a large number of
experienced Well Engineers, representing most Operating Companies in the Shell Group.
The Well Engineering Forum sponsored the compilation of the manual and has endorsed its
content.
Acknowledgement
This Design Guide is an update built on top of the good earlier editions that have preceded it,
and this release would not have been possible were it not for the good work done by the
authors of earlier editions of the Guide. This release represents the collective work and
contributions from many people, particularly those listed below. It is a collective effort not
authored by any one single person. In addition to contributions by the people listed below,
workshops were held at several Operating Companies in order to capture the needs and best
practices espoused by experienced drilling and production engineers group-wide. As such,
this Guide is a compilation of Shells philosophy, experience, and know-how. This release
brings forth new formalizations of design practices and the Shell design philosophy and
presents new technologies.
EP 2000-9073
iii
Keywords
casing design, tubing design, tubulars design, guideline, design philosophy, design level,
design factor, casing seat selection, casing size, tubing size, pipe resistance, burst, burst
resistance,
thin-wall eccentricity, casing wear, pipe toughness, collapse, collapse resistance,
tensile resistance, connection resistance, load (force), friction, frictional drag, pressure test,
annulus pressure, surface pressure, gas-lift well, leak, well shut-in, corroded pipe, tensile
strength, overpull, evacuated tubing, well stimulation, erosion, retrievable packers, axial load,
thermal load, drilling (well), subsea completion, production (well), pull-out, casing running,
pressure gradient, casing connection, tubing connection, pipe connection, well operation,
design software,
quality assurance, keeper well, disposable well, expendable well, connection qualification,
compression, product-line qualification, industry standard, Wellcat, Stresscheck, inspection,
risk, risk assessment, blowout (well), specialty well design, HPHT well, high pressure,
high temperature, cemented tubing, single-barrier well, extended-reach well, horizontal well,
multilateral well, deepwater well, ultra-deepwater well, slim-hole well, injection well,
disposal well, through-salt well, steam injection, permafrost, gravity structure, gas-lift well,
running casing, corrosion, mechanical behavior, setting depth, leak-off test, limit test,
rock mechanics, reservoir compaction, pressure buildup, shallow water flow, expandable
tubulars, buoyancy, buckling, fatigue failure, stress formulas, impact loading, residual stress,
completion accessories, cementing casing, design examples
EP 2000-9073
iv
List of Co-Authors and Technical Contributors

to the Design Guide
WEF Focal Point

Editor
NAM Production Focal Point
NAM Drilling Focal Point
EXPRO Focal Point
SEPCO Focal Point
SPDC Focal Point
PDO Focal Point
PDO Focal Point
SDS Focal Point
BSP Focal Point
WOODSIDE Focal Point
BAPETCO Focal Point
Training Focal Point
Drilling Specialist
Drilling Specialist
Production Specialist
Drilling Specialist
Materials Specialist
Technology Specialist
Multilateral Specialist
Drilling Specialist
Drilling Specialist
Drilling Specialist
Connection Specialist
IT & Media Specialist
Quality Assurance Specialist
Hans Flikkema
Paul Cernocky
Nigel Snaith
Rob Reijngoud
Peter Clarke
Joe dAgostino
Isaac Iyamu
Jules Borm
Chris Hopkins
Landale Cranfield
Mike Ward
Ed Antczak
Harrie Krus
Paul WefersBettink
Bob Worrall
Jose Solano
Rod Fors
David Stewart
Jim Peterson
Tony Cole
Paul Paslay
Andrew Tallin
David Hartgill
Wes Moore
John Gradishar
Chris Hakulin
Ian Park
Mike Konopczynski
Frans Klever
Gloria Valigura
Afif Halal
Mei Choate
Randy Mc Gill
Randy Wagner
Marc Amory
Serge Roggeband
EP 2000-9073
Version Information
Date
21 Dec 2000
02 Jan 2001
15 Jan 2008
Version
First version published on sww
Additional load case for production casing added (section 3.7.2)
Chapter 4 revised;
sww URLs updated in chapters 3, 10, and appendices 1-1, 1-9, 3, 25 and 26
EP 2000-9073
1-1

Chapter 1
Shell Design Philosophy
Shell Design Philosophy.............................................................................................................2
EP 2000-9073
1-2
1. SHELL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Shell wells share the foundation of being designed and constructed based upon historical
operating experience and a long tradition of operating and producing integrity in many different
parts of the world. This shared philosophy has resulted in Shell being recognized for its
competency in well design but also being criticized for conservatism and risk aversion in the past.
Future wells will be designed and built based upon maintaining this commitment to competency
and integrity, but will use risk-balanced innovation and adaptation to be able to cope with more
demanding well designs in a cost-leadership environment.
The well will be designed around three factors: the needs of the completion to provide optimum
production over its lifetime; the need for reliable pressure containment over the life of the well;
and the cycle time required to put various design options into production. Completion
requirements and production schedules should be defined early and drive both the tubing and the
casing design. Technology should be used aggressively to accommodate the well completion
instead of compromising on the completion design by assuming what can be accommodated based
on past practice. The completion concept forms the basis for the overall well design from the
inside out.
The new well design taps into both historical learnings and recent innovations through sharing of
best practices with global staff having decades of experience through the use of networks such as
the Wells Global Network and training programs. Reliance on historical learnings does not mean
that new designs copy past wells. Instead this means that past learning experiences should be a
foundation for the innovation of each new well design. This Design Guide is intended to foster
the creation of new casing and tubing design opportunities which link to both historical and
contemporary learnings. The latter is to be achieved through a commitment to keeping this Guide
evolutionary. Risk assessment will ensure that design integrity is maintained.
The basic design process will still be the same all across Shell. In principle, two Shell engineers
working with the same well conditions in different parts of the world will come up with the same
basic well design. However, in the end, their detailed well designs may differ, taking account of
historical learnings, local expertise, and local innovation of the particular operating company.
This is the reason that Shell has introduced the layered design process discussed later in the
Guide.
The engineer doing casing or tubing design should have awareness of general trends in industry
well design, but the engineer also should keep well abreast of and leverage the innovations and
new learnings being generated by Shell. When new technologies, innovative ideas, or new
business conditions demand and enable innovative new well designs, the design of casing and
tubing should be taken to the cutting edge at which well and operating integrity can be maintained
through prudent management of risk. However, the innovation of casing and tubing design
should not reflect the initiative of an individual engineer; it should reflect the consistent
evolution of local design practices within an operating company.
EP 2000-9073
1-3
Shell wells must make more rapid use of new and evolving technologies. This is supported by
the large annual investment in technology, and part of the responsibility of the well engineer is to
keep abreast of the new technology and rapidly exploit the technology for the benefit of increased
production or reduced cost at managed risk. The aggressive use of new enabling technology
should not be done at the expense of prudent risk management incorporating historical learnings.
Shell will innovate faster than its competition, but will use prudent risk management to do this.
The Guide can be used to help rationalize changes in design practice specific to the conditions of
local operating companies. The casing and tubing should be designed to provide well integrity
and innovation at the lowest possible cost while always managing risk. Risk should not be
avoided in an absolute sense, but instead risk should be managed by evaluating the likelihood of
events occurring, the likely consequences, and their impact over the total lifetime of a well.
Risk management should include both the risks to well control over pressures and fluids and the
risks to competitive cost and position. Design changes should evolve either by taking a series of
incremental evolutionary steps linked by well successes, or by taking large leaps forward with the
guidance of a risk assessment and hazard evaluation that supports the large step change. Every
large change in well design should be accompanied by a risk assessment that is documented by
the engineer. This risk assessment can be either qualitative or quantitative. The risk assessment
could entail a comprehensive study, but it also could involve just the engineer making and
documenting (1) a subjective evaluation of the likelihood that events will happen; (2) the
likelihood that particular consequences will occur; and (3) the acceptability of this combination of
likely events and consequences. Shell wells therefore must be designed with the documented
management of risks, not with the avoidance of risks.
Casing and tubing design should be done as a marriage between design concepts and operating
skills. This is one reason that Shell has introduced tiers for design practice. The basic design case
represents the most conservative option for design possibilities and for control of the well.
Designs with higher but still prudent risk represent the next tiers up in well design. These higherrisk designs are desirable for their benefit to well efficiency, and these should be implemented on
an OU level. However, they should only be implemented when risk assessment indicates that
adequate controls are in place to manage safety and maintain well integrity; and only when the
highest well control skills are in place to manage the higher-risk well.
Where innovative design leads to the use of new equipment, part of the risk assessment should be
to consider the value brought by the new equipment, the likely start-up performance of the new
equipment, and the likely consequences of unforeseen issues with the new equipment. New
equipment should be used when the risk assessment suggests that the risk is acceptable in light of
the added value.
A Shell well should be a quality design and should use quality equipment in order to make the
design both optimized and fit for its purpose. Shell has a commitment to quality in well design
and equipment, because the risks of an innovative well design can be managed only through a
quality process. Quality does not necessarily mean use of the most expensive equipment. Instead,
quality means use of the right equipment for the application. Quality in the well design may be
based on historical experience with equipment (that is, field-proven or grandfathered equipment),
or quality may be based on testing a design concept and qualifying the equipment for the service.
For either of these approaches, the equipment must be shown to be fit for the application.
EP 2000-9073
1-4
Like pipe and connections, Shell also provides quality stress analysis through the use of design
software to Shell standards. Delivery of the quality well is achieved partly through the Shell use
of design software. The well design will be based on triaxial stress design and use of the same
software shared by all operating companies across Shell. Software expertise is one of the key
core competencies of Shell engineers. Shell uses its historical experience and large number of
wells drilled annually to share design best practices among different operating companies. The
commonality of design software is one of the vehicles for this sharing of best practices.
Shell operating companies take responsibility for ownership of the tubing and casing design. The
tubulars design is not contracted out to third parties. Where support calculations are provided by
contractors, the work is supervised and owned by Shell engineers. This is done because of the
impact that tubulars design has on lifetime well reliability, cost, risk, and delivery. This approach
is part of what makes the well a Shell well.
Tubing design should seek to maximize through-tubing accessibility to the reservoir. Industrywide emphasis on lifecycle cost saving has raised awareness of the benefits of performing
operations such as perforation optimization, production logging, selective stimulation, zonal
abandonment, and improved wellbore clean-out at reservoir level through the tubing. For full
flexibility and increased reliability in these operations, it is important not to inhibit the passage
and operation of the tools involved. This requires the elimination of unnecessary restrictions in
well completions, i.e., maximizing the completion through-bore, together with a suitable matching
of the tubing and production liner sizes in cases where tiebacks are not used. A direct
consequence of this is the desire for simplified well completions. The completion should
emphasize overall life cycle production optimization, operational simplicity with respect to well
monitoring, well servicing, and future workover requirements.
EP 2000-9073
2-1

Chapter 2
Shell Levels of Casing and Tubing Design Practice
2. SHELL LEVELS OF CASING AND TUBING DESIGN PRACTICE ...............................2

2.1 Specifics of the Design Levels.......................................................................................2
2.1.1 Level One ................................................................................................................2
2.1.2 Level Two................................................................................................................3
2.1.3 Level Three..............................................................................................................4
2.2 How to Change Design Practice from Level One to Level Two or Level
Three ........................................................................................................................5
2.3 Limitations on Export of Level Two and Level Three Design Practices ......................5
2.4 Examples of Level Two and Level Three Designs........................................................6
EP 2000-9073
2-2
2. SHELL LEVELS OF CASING AND TUBING DESIGN PRACTICE

This design guide makes the distinction of three different levels of casing and tubing design
practice within the Shell operating companies. Each Shell operating company has its own
governance over which level or combination of levels of design practice it chooses to use. The
load paradigms and design factors of Level One design practice are the same for all the operating
companies, but the specific details of the Level Two and Level Three design practices can be
different for the different operating companies. The three levels come about because of
differences in
The amount of conservatism in the design

The functional specifications for the design
The level of staff experience and competency needed to carry out the design
The sophistication of rig kick-detection equipment used to drill the well
The amount of experience applying the design to a particular type of reservoir
The speed of innovation and amount of step change from traditional design practice
2.1
Specifics of the Design Levels
2.1.1
Level One
The first, most basic, and most conservative design practice is called Level One.
characteristics of this design practice are:
The
It is the default design practice described in Chapter 3.
It is based on the most conservative design premises about kick burst pressures and collapse
evacuation depths.
It assumes that the engineering staff have basic competency with design principles,
knowledge of the Level One Shell load cases, and understanding of the use of the Shell design
software.
It does not assume that the engineering staff have extensive understanding of the historical
well design practices and well control experiences characteristic of the local operating
company.
It makes no assumptions about the competency of the operating staff to respond with best
practices during well control events.
It makes no prerequisite for the sophistication of the geological data used to design the well.
It is broadly applicable to any geological well conditions including unknown conditions.
It is well suited to new ventures and wildcat exploratory wells.
It seeks to avoid risk wherever possible.
Level One requires two production barriers: a tubing and a production casing.
It requires the use of quality pipe and connections.
It uses a conservative triaxial burst design factor.
It makes no assumption about the quality of rig kick-detection systems (KDS).
EP 2000-9073
2-3
All non-production casing strings are designed for kicks taking full evacuation to gas.
Long-term pressures inside and outside the casing for burst and collapse design are based on
the most conservative possible combinations of fluid pressure gradients. In burst design, the
pressure gradient from mud and cement outside the casing is assumed to revert to the base
density of the mud and the mixwater density of the cement. In collapse design, the pressure
gradient from mud and cement is assumed to be the initial mud and cement gradients.
2.1.2
Level Two
Level Two design practice has the following characteristics:
Level Two is experience based. It represents the operating companys specialization of casing
and tubing design practices based on its own local experiences in particular types of reservoir
formations.
It requires the operating companys formal documentation of the basis for its own design
practices.
It requires more extensive geological data, indicating that the planned well will have reservoir,
mud, and drilling characteristics sufficiently similar to historical wells.
Because it is formalized at the level of the local operating company, it does not represent the
design variances executed from time to time by different engineers on different wells.
Instead, it represents the trend by the operating company to put in place a consistent design
practice tailored to local operating conditions.
It assumes the presence of state-of-the-art kick-detection equipment at the rig.

It assumes that the rig operating staff have the experience and competency required to handle
consistently the well control events that are part of the design premise. Furthermore, this
competency is based on demonstrated experience in conservatively handling previous well
control events within the staff and facility infrastructure of the operating company. For
example, if design is based on controlling kicks to have limited volume or on bullheading
kicks into the formation, then the operating company should have documentation of
successful experiences using this practice.
The design paradigms are intended to manage risk rather than to avoid risk.
It does not require two production barriers (tubing and production casing), based on
experience, although the choice may be to keep two production barriers.
The design is not locked into the most conservative set of loads and design factors. Instead, it
makes use of the option to adjust the loads and design factors based on experience. However,
the design factors tend to have one single, common set of values across the OpCo based on
the experience of the OpCo.
The engineer capable of executing Level Two design practice has all of the competencies
required for Level One design practice. In addition, the engineer has thorough understanding
of the historical design and operating experiences which form the basis of the operating
companys Level Two design practice. The engineer knows the premises and limitations (if
any) of the operating companys Level Two design practice and why and where these are
historically justified.
The Level Two design uses burst design factors based on the historical experience of the
operating company. These may be smaller (usually) or larger than the design factors used in
Level One practice.
EP 2000-9073
2-4
Burst design of surface and intermediate casing can be based on limited kick volume and
limited kick intensity set by the experience of the local operating company. The basis for the
limited kick design is experience data, including successful management of past kicks. The
basis for the design practice is not the competency of a particular engineer, but instead the
demonstrated competency across the operating company.
For collapse design of surface and intermediate casing, the evacuation depth of the fluid
column can be based on experience and can be less than the depth used in Level One design
practice.
Fluid gradients for design pressures inside and outside the casing and tubing can be the same
as in Level One, or they can be based on operating experience.
There is a historical ability to predict pore pressures and fracture pressures with good accuracy
in the region of interest. This historical experience reduces the uncertainty in pore and
fracture pressures.
2.1.3
Level Three
Level Three design practice has the following characteristics:
The third level is the least prescriptive and most sophisticated. It encourages the operating
company to adopt a new technology, design, or operating policy based on a detailed examination
of the potential gains and losses as measured through risk assessment.
It is the method of rapidly innovating and evolving well casing and tubing design through a
large step change rather than through many smaller, incremental changes over time.
Level Three design relies heavily on risk assessment as a tool for making the step change from
Level One or Level Two design practices.
Introduction of a new Level Three design requires an external review of both the proposed
design practice and the risk assessment conducted to support it, prior to implementation of the
Level Three design. The external review or peer assist should be provided by Shell engineers
from SEPTAR or from other Shell operating companies. Ultimately, the operating company
proposing to implement the new Level Three design has governance over the decision
whether or not to accept the finding of the external review, and whether or not to implement
the Level Three design.
Level Three design practice requires the operating companys formal documentation of the
basis for its own design practice.
Level Three does not require two production barriers (tubing and production casing), based
on risk assessment, although the choice may be to keep two production barriers.
Level Three design requires the same competencies from the engineering and operations staff
as required by Level Two design practice.
In addition, the engineer who can do Level Three design practice is capable of leading the
step change and development to Level Three design from Level One or Level Two design
practices. The engineer is capable of understanding and leading the use of risk assessment to
guide the step changes in design.
Level Three design requires staff with the highest judgement, expertise, and experience.
EP 2000-9073
2-5
It encourages use of a design factor calibrated to the assessment of risk and smaller than the
design factor required in Level One design. Level Three design essentially customizes the
design factor to the specific type of reservoir and geology. The design factor is adjusted
through use of the risk assessment. Instead of having one, experience-based design factor,
there can be an unlimited number of design factors where each is based on the risk assessment
of a particular type of well and reservoir.
Burst design of surface and intermediate casing can be based on limited kick volume and
limited kick intensity calibrated by risk assessment.
Fluid gradients for design pressures inside and outside the casing and tubing can be the same
as in Level One design, or they can be based on a combination of experience (Level Two) plus
risk assessment.
A design based on variance and executed by an engineer is not necessarily a Level Two or
Level Three design. Instead, it becomes a Level Two or Level Three design when the operating
company standardizes on the design practice and documents the basis for the design.
The uncertainty in pore pressures and fracture pressures can be estimated and effectively
managed.
2.2
How to Change Design Practice from Level One to Level Two or Level Three
Change from Level One to Level Two is based on experience data. It requires small and
manageable changes in well designs while data are accumulated and analyzed over time
sufficiently for the operating company to standardize on the evolving design practices.
Initially, the designs are variances requiring the highest care and expertise. As the operating
company gains experience and matures the design, the operating company evolves the design
into its own, Level Two practice, and the design practice becomes more commonly used
across the operating company.
Change can be made directly from Level One to Level Three; it is not necessary to stop at
Level Two while evolving to Level Three.
Change from Level Two to Level Three or from Level One to Level Three is based on risk
assessment and can be made very quickly.
Over time and at the option of the operating company, a design practice can change from
Level Three to Level Two as it becomes based more on experience and less on the risk
assessment originally done to implement the change.
2.3
Limitations on Export of Level Two and Level Three Design Practices
In general, Level Two and Level Three design practices should not be exported from one
operating company to another operating company. Indeed, sometimes the design levels should
not be exported to different types of reservoir assets within the same OpCo if the geological
conditions, rig equipment, or staff skills are substantially different between these assets. This is
because the Level Two design is customized based on the specific experiences of the local OpCo.
Likewise, the Level Three design is customized based on a risk assessment which accounts for
well conditions, rig conditions, and staff competency characteristic of the local OpCo. These
conditions do not apply when the location of the well is moved to a different OpCo. In general,
the approach taken toward developing a particular Level Two or Three design practice can be
exported and copied, but the actual results and specifics of the practice cannot be copied.
EP 2000-9073
2.4
2-6
Examples of Level Two and Level Three Designs
Some examples of Level Two and Level Three design practices are the following:
Level Two SEPCOs kick-burst design of intermediate casing in the Gulf of Mexico based
on historical experience with limited kick volumes.
Level Two SEPCOs experienced-based burst and collapse design of cemented-tubing, gas
wells in South Texas.
Level Three SEPCO single-barrier (Brutus) riser based on risk assessment.
Level Three PDO Ara salt deep gas exploratory wells, with casing, BOP, and rig based on
risk assessment (SPE 63130).
Level Three PDO cemented-tubing, gas wells eliminating SCSSVs based on risk assessment.
Level Three WOODSIDE well designs, Perseus field.
EP 2000-9073
3-1

Chapter 3
Shell Level One Casing and Tubing Design
3. SHELL LEVEL ONE CASING AND TUBING DESIGN ...................................................3

3.1 Overall Casing and Tubing Design ....................................................................................3
3.1.1 Definitions and Terms ................................................................................................3
3.1.2 Parameters Controlling the Design .............................................................................5
3.1.3 How Tubulars Design Works .....................................................................................6
3.2 Casing Seat Selection and CasingTubing Sizes................................................................7
3.3 Pipe Resistance in Tubulars Design ...................................................................................8
3.3.1 Pipe Burst Resistance..................................................................................................8
3.3.2 Accounting for Pipe Thin-Wall Eccentricity in Burst ................................................9
3.3.3 Accounting for Casing Wear in Burst.......................................................................10
3.3.4 Accounting for Pipe Toughness in Burst ..................................................................10
3.3.5 Pipe Collapse Resistance ..........................................................................................11
3.3.6 Not Accounting for Pipe Thin-Wall Eccentricity in Collapse ..................................11
3.3.7 Accounting for Casing Wear in Collapse .................................................................12
3.3.8 Pipe Tensile Resistance ............................................................................................12
3.3.9 Connection Resistance..............................................................................................12
3.4 General Discussion of Load Cases for Casing and Tubing ..............................................12
3.4.1 Use of Frictional Drag in Load Cases.......................................................................12
3.4.2 Tubing Initial Conditions..........................................................................................13
3.4.3 Tubing Pressure Tests...............................................................................................13
3.4.4 Annulus Tests ...........................................................................................................14
3.4.5 Production Conditions ..............................................................................................14
3.4.6 Maximum Allowable Annulus Surface Pressure ......................................................15
3.4.7 Gas-Lifted Production...............................................................................................15
3.4.8 Tubing Leak Impact on Tubing ................................................................................16
3.4.9 Trapped Annular Pressure ........................................................................................16
3.4.10 Shut-In Conditions..................................................................................................17
3.4.11 Burst and Collapse of Corroded Tubing and Casing ..............................................17
3.4.12 Burst Resistance of Corroded Pipe .........................................................................17
3.4.13 Collapse Resistance of Corroded Pipe....................................................................17
EP 2000-9073
3-2
3.4.14 Tensile Strength of Corroded Pipe..........................................................................17

3.4.15 Overpull Cases........................................................................................................17
3.4.16 Pump In to Kill the Well.........................................................................................18
3.4.17 Evacuated Tubing ...................................................................................................19
3.4.18 Stimulation..............................................................................................................19
3.4.19 Erosion of Tubing after Proppant Stimulation........................................................20
3.4.20 Space-Out of the Completion when Using Hydraulic Set Packers .........................21
3.4.21 Retrievable Packers.................................................................................................22
3.5 Axial Loads and Thermal Loads Applied to Casing and Tubing ......................................23
3.5.1 Temperature Loading of Surface and Intermediate Casing During Drilling ............23
3.5.2 Subsea, Long-Term Temperature Loading for Surface and Intermediate
Casing ......................................................................................................................24
3.5.3 Temperature Loading of Production Casing.............................................................24
3.5.4 Temperature Loading of Tubing...............................................................................24
3.5.5 Running and Pull-Out Loads ....................................................................................24
3.5.6 Axial Loads for Surface, Intermediate, and Production Casing ...............................25
3.6 Pressure Gradients Applied to Casing and Tubing ............................................................25
3.6.1 Burst Pressure Gradients for Surface and Intermediate Casing................................25
3.6.2 Burst Pressure Gradients for Production Casing ......................................................28
3.6.3 Burst Loads for Tubing.............................................................................................29
3.6.4 Collapse Loads for Surface and Intermediate Casing...............................................30
3.6.5 Collapse Loads for Production Casing .....................................................................32
3.6.6 Collapse Loads for Tubing .......................................................................................32
3.6.7 Burst and Collapse Loads on Connections ...............................................................32
3.7 Well Operations to Use for Design....................................................................................35
3.7.1 Well Operations to Use for Design of Tubing ..........................................................36
3.7.2 Well Operations to Use for Design of Production Casing ........................................37
3.7.3 Well Operations to Use for Design of Surface and Intermediate Casing .................38
3.8 Pressure Testing.................................................................................................................39
3.9 Use of Design Software .....................................................................................................39
3.10 Pipe and Connection Quality Assurance in Keeper and Disposable Wells...................39
3.11 When the Well Does Not Meet the Designed Intent..........................................................40
3.12 Other Design Considerations Special Cases..................................................................40
3.13 References ........................................................................................................................40
EP 2000-9073
3-3
3. SHELL LEVEL ONE CASING AND TUBING DESIGN

3.1
Overall Casing and Tubing Design
Guidance is provided in this chapter for the most basic, conservative, and streamlined set of
principles for casing and tubing design. This is called Shell Design Level One. Other options for
casing and tubing design exist under the concept of Level Two and Level Three design practice as
explained in Chapter 2. This Level One design practice should apply unless the operating
company has formalized putting in place its own Level Two or Level Three practices.
For the benefit of increased productivity and minimum cost, the wells should be designed from
the inside out by first estimating the flow requirements of the tubing and the related diameter of
the tubing. The casing should be built around the needs of the tubing. The immediate need both
to run and to complete the tubing should be considered, and the potential long-term needs for
fishing and workovers also should be considered.
Where possible, innovative designs and technologies should be used to streamline the size of the
well to reduce cost and also to accelerate delivery of the well to production. Tradeoffs between
tubing and casing diameters and delivery time to obtain or qualify specific sizes of tubulars and
connections should be considered for their impact on well delivery and well cost. The design and
delivery of the well tubulars should be executed in three cycles: first an estimate of production
and drilling requirements leading to design of the well, procurement of materials, and scheduling
for well delivery. Second, the design should be updated and fine tuned while the well is under
construction, based on the actual pressures and reservoir characteristics encountered both in
drilling the particular well and in observing the performance of other new wells between the time
when the well was planned and the time when it is near completion. Third, the well that actually
is delivered should be reviewed and documented for compliance or variance with the design that
was planned. If the delivered well differs significantly from the design requirements of the
intended well, this should be dealt with within the scope of both Shells global Pressure Control
Manual and the local practices of the specific operating company.
The Level One design is required to have two production barriers: a tubing and a production
casing. The production strings have design requirements different from the surface and
intermediate strings. Diligence should be applied to the seal at the liner top, the seal at the packer,
and the wellhead seals. Without these seals, the well would revert to a single production barrier.
3.1.1
Definitions and Terms
The nominal yield strength of the pipe is the specified minimum yield strength of the product
at room temperature.
The yield strength of the pipe is the actual yield strength at whatever depth the engineer is
looking, i.e., at any given point along the string. As such, for design purposes the yield
strength is equal to the pipe specified minimum yield strength derated for the effect of
elevated temperature corresponding to the depth of interest. As depth increases along the well
the temperature increases, and deep in the well this can lead to very significant reductions in
the pipe yield strength compared with the nominal yield strength. Furthermore, when the well
is put on production, the temperature from deep in the well is carried to the surface, and the
entire string of tubing and production casing can reach temperatures close to the bottomhole
EP 2000-9073
3-4
temperature. Because of this changing temperature, the yield strength also refers to the actual
yield strength of the pipe at the depth, temperature, and time of interest. Time here is an
important parameter because it links the value of yield strength to the particular well operation
at hand, whether running the tubular, shut in, producing, or injecting. The yield strength of
the pipe at any depth along the string will have a different value depending on which
operation the well is experiencing. Appendix 6 provides information and typical values for
the amount of temperature adjustment of the yield strength. The change of yield strength
affects both burst and collapse capacities of the pipe.
The design factor is the specified (input) requirement for the minimum distance between a
service stress or service pressure and the defined limit of the capability of the pipe or
connection. We refer to a design factor on the pipe and where appropriate, a design factor on
the connection (Chapter 4).
In burst design, the triaxial burst design factor is the minimum required value specified for
the ratio of the pipe yield strength to the von Mises equivalent stress evaluated for the pipe
given the particular well operation at hand. Appendices 6 and 19 explain the concept of
equivalent stress. This design factor is used for loadings which are believed to apply internal
pressure greater than external pressure. Within the context of Level One design, the design
factor is a constant independent of the temperature, the depth, the location in the string, the
choice of string, or the phase of well operation. Regardless of these different points, the pipe
is required to provide at least this minimum margin, or more, when compared with the actual
load applied in the well. For other (Level Two or Level Three) design practice, the design
factor might be different for different strings in the well, but for Level One the design factor is
the same for all strings. See Chapter 5 for the purpose, role, and specifics of the design
factors.
In collapse design, the collapse design factor is the minimum value specified for the ratio
between the collapse pressure rating of the pipe and the actual collapse service pressure acting
on the pipe. For Level One design practice, the collapse design factor is constant for all
strings and all well operations.
The tensile design factor is the minimum value specified for the ratio between the pipe yield
strength and the axial stress acting on the pipe in a purely tensile loading.
The safety factor is the resulting (output) actual distance between a service stress or service
pressure and the defined limit of capability of the pipe during a particular operation of the
well. The safety factor compares the actual capacity of the pipe with the actual working stress
or pressure which is applied to the pipe. The safety factor is not the same as the design factor.
The safety factor is required to equal or exceed the design factor. The design factor is the
minimum requirement that is specified, while the safety factor is the actual result that occurs
once a particular pipe is chosen. Because pipe cannot vary continuously with pressure along
the well, the pipe has to be chosen to meet the load requirements at some depths and thus will
significantly exceed the load requirements at other depths.
EP 2000-9073
3-5
The triaxial burst safety factor is the ratio of the actual yield strength at a given point along
the pipe to the actual (von Mises) equivalent stress calculated at the same point based on
pressure, tensile, and thermal loads acting at that point on the pipe. The triaxial burst safety
factor will be temperature dependent because both the value of the equivalent stress and the
value of yield stress will depend on the temperature. Similarly, the triaxial burst safety factor
will vary along the pipe because the working equivalent stress will change with pressure along
the pipe and because the yield strength will vary with temperature along the pipe. Finally, the
triaxial burst safety factor will be different for different modes of operation of the well (shut in
before production, production, shut in after production, etc.) because pressures and
temperatures will be different in the different operations of the well.
The collapse safety factor is the ratio of the actual collapse rating of the pipe to the actual
service pressure acting on the pipe at a location of interest. The collapse safety factor is
required to meet or exceed the value specified for the collapse design factor. The collapse
rating of the pipe will vary with depth because of the variation of tensile and compressive
stress along the pipe. The actual service pressure acting on the pipe also will vary with depth.
Therefore, the collapse safety factor will vary with depth. The collapse strength depends on
the yield strength of the pipe, so the collapse safety factor will be temperature dependent and
operation dependent. Often pipe is chosen based on availability or based on meeting the
demand of a different well operation or a different type of loading (e.g., burst loading), and
this leads to a high safety factor for the other type of loading. For example, when pipe is
chosen to meet the requirements of burst loading (burst is dominant), the collapse safety factor
will tend to exceed significantly the requirement specified by the collapse design factor.
Similarly, when collapse dominates the design of the pipe, the triaxial burst safety factor will
be high compared with the burst design factor. For an efficiently balanced design, the pipe
will cross over to different weights and grades so that burst dominates at some depths,
collapse dominates at other depths, and none of the safety factors will greatly exceed the
corresponding design factors. As a practical matter, this is seldom done because of the time
and risks involved with managing the placement of different weights and grades of casing to
be run in a single string.
The tensile safety factor is the ratio of the actual pipe yield strength and the axial stress acting
on the pipe in a purely tensile loading. This varies with temperature and well operation.
Pipe resistance is the capacity of the pipe to withstand a force or pressure. The term
resistance will be adopted here, since it is useful for later discussion of design factors.
3.1.2
Parameters Controlling the Design
The design of both the tubing and the casing is controlled by the following parameters:
Temperature: the yield strength of the pipe must be derated for elevated temperature (see
Appendix 6). For software calculations, this can be done using the yield strength
corresponding to the temperature, while the temperature varies with depth and type of
operation. For hand calculations, use the maximum temperature for the depth you are looking
at or use the bottomhole temperature to be overconservative. The effect of elevated
temperature also must be considered for the performance of the connection, but this usually is
not done by any de-rating. Instead this is done by qualifying the connection to the high
service temperature (Chapter 4 on connection qualification).
EP 2000-9073
3-6
Temperature change leads to compressive thermal stresses and buckling during heating and
tensile thermal stresses during cooling. Temperature change needs to be included in the
design stress calculations of tubing, production casing, and intermediate casing. This is done
almost automatically using the design software. To deal with temperature change, it is
necessary to define the initial temperature state at the time that the tubular is run.
Equivalent stress must be kept a prescribed amount or more below the yield stress of the pipe.
This includes adjustment of the yield stress for temperature. This is done by requiring that the
equivalent stress times the design factor be less than the yield stress of the pipe. Chapter 5
discusses the design factors, and Appendix 6 discusses equivalent stress.
The pressures, loads, and temperatures must be inside the qualified service envelope of the
connection. Chapter 4 discusses connections and qualification of a connection to a service
envelope of pressures, loads, and maximum temperature.
In addition, for tubing the inner diameter needs to be chosen in order to meet the flow
requirements of the production rate and pressure drawdown at the wellhead.
For tubing, consideration usually should be given to clearances inside the casing and the
ability to fish over the tubing and accessories if something goes wrong. This also represents a
marriage between casing and tubing, since the issue of work-through ability applies to the
production casing.
Toughness is critical for the burst design of pipe. More than any other single parameter, good
pipe toughness is important to achieving predictable and reliable burst strength from casing
and tubing. The possession of adequate yield and rupture strength by the pipe is predicated on
the pipe behaving in a ductile (i.e., not brittle) manner. Having good toughness as
characterized by SR16 in API 5CT or ISO 11960 is necessary to ensure that the equations
governing yield will apply. Pipe also needs to have good toughness in order to avoid having
undue burst sensitivity to imperfections which are small enough to pass through the gate of
the inspection system. If a pipe does not have good toughness, then it should be considered
brittle and the yield-based formulations used in burst design should be considered not to
apply. A pipe with low (non-SR16) toughness might be used for structural service or for
collapse loading, but should not be used where burst loading controls the design of the pipe.
In general, if the triaxial burst safety factor is less than 1.5, then the pipe should have good
toughness. See Chapter 7 on Quality Assurance and Inspection.
Link to API 5CT and ISO 11960, SR16
http://sww.shell.com/standards (External Standards on the Shell Web)
Resistance to corrosion: The pipe and connections need to maintain their toughness and
cross-sectional geometry and strength. Where a corrosive environment is suspected, the pipe
and connections need to be designed with choice of material to prevent or minimize the
occurrence of corrosion. See Appendix 5 for this case.
3.1.3
How Tubulars Design Works
To execute tubulars design, it is necessary to compare the resistance (i.e., strength or capacity) of
the pipe with the load (from force or pressure) which acts on the pipe during different operations
of the well. This means that it is necessary to differentiate three elements of tubulars design:
EP 2000-9073
3-7
The capacity (resistance) of the pipe

The loads caused by weight, fluid pressures, and temperatures and, sometimes, additional
loads caused by reservoir compaction or salt movement.
The operations of the well which cause certain combinations of loads to occur
The sections below explain the requirements for these elements of tubulars design under Level
One design practice.
3.2
Casing Seat Selection and CasingTubing Sizes
Appendix 7 explains the issues involved with casing seat selection. The maximum casing-shoe
setting depth is usually driven by several considerations:
To isolate overlying unstable formations
To isolate overlying shallow hydrocarbons
To isolate overlying lost-circulation zones
To isolate overlying freshwater horizons
To prevent borehole failure by time-dependent chemical instability from prolonged exposure
to drilling fluid
To prevent failure of formations by induced circulating pressures during drilling operations
such as circulating, drilling, and tripping
To prevent failure of formations by induced circulating pressures during well control
operations when closing in and circulating out an influx
The first four considerations depend on local OpCo procedures and are location specific. During the
last two events, the wellbore below the actual casing shoe under consideration will be subjected to
several different types of pressure loads. These pressure loads have to be compared to the capacity
of the wellbore to contain these pressures or, in the event of wellbore failure, to be able not to result
in uncontrollable fracture propagation . A comparison of the greatest loading on the wellbore with
the wellbore strength will lead to the determination of the maximum casing setting depth.
The primary consideration in Level One design is to prevent failure of the formation at the casing
shoe and along the open-hole section below it under all realistic load conditions. Additionally, if
the wellbore fails, the well design should allow a stable situation to exist for the damaged well.
These two requirements can be expressed as a relation among the pressures in the well, the load,
and the strength of the wellbore:
The estimated Formation Breakdown Pressure (FBP) of any formation below the casing shoe
should not be exceeded during normal operating conditions.
The mud weight gradient required to balance the anticipated pore pressures in the open-hole
section should never be higher than the estimated equivalent mud gradient of the Fracture
Closure Pressure (FCP) in any of the formations in the open-hole section.
If these requirements are met, the wellbore will not fracture, and the well will not experience
uncontrolled losses under design conditions. These design conditions relate to the maximum
influx that can be closed in and circulated out and to the maximum circulating rate and trip speed
to be experienced. In addition, if the formation accidentally fractures and a loss or kick/loss
situation develops, it will be possible to return the damaged well to a stable situation without
significant gains or losses once the well has been circulated to mud. This procedure should be
followed for any casing string, usually starting at the total depth (TD) and working upwards.
EP 2000-9073
3-8
The well should be designed around three factors: the needs of the completion to provide
optimum production over its lifetime; the need for reliable pressure containment over the life of
the well; and the cycle time required to put various design options into production. Completion
requirements and production schedules should be defined early and drive both the tubing and the
casing design. Consideration should be given to designing the well from the inside out by first
meeting the production requirements of the tubing and then sizing the successive casing strings.
However, in some offshore cases, this is not realistic because of the large diameters generated for
the outer strings. Considerations should also be given to the lifetime servicing requirements and
the trade-offs for the ability to fish over the tubing and accessories.
3.3
3.3.1
Pipe Resistance in Tubulars Design

Pipe Burst Resistance
Pipe burst strength for design purposes is determined by the (triaxial) von Mises equivalent stress
and its proximity to the yield stress. Appendices 6 and 19 give formulas for the calculation of
individual stresses and equivalent stress. The loads which are applied to the pipe cause hoop, axial,
and radial stresses which in turn contribute to the equivalent stress. Yielding occurs only from the
combination of stresses in the equivalent stress. From the loads and individual stress components,
the equivalent stress is calculated, multiplied by the burst design factor, and compared with the yield
strength of the pipe. The difference between the actual yield strength of the pipe and the equivalent
stress provides the burst safety factor which is required to exceed the burst design factor. Using the
Wellcat and Stresscheck software or programming a spreadsheet, it is straightforward to ensure that
the equivalent stress is adequately below the yield strength of the pipe.
All Level One burst design should be based on the triaxial design formula:
e x DF < y
where
(1)
e is the von Mises equivalent stress (Appendix 6),

DF is the triaxial burst design factor, and
y is the (temperature derated) yield strength.
Equation (1) gives the pressure to yield the pipe for a given axial constraint through the Lam
stress formulas relating hoop and radial stress (Appendix 6) to internal and external pressure.
There is no longer a basis for using the one-dimensional (Barlow) formula to rate the burst design
pressure (burst resistance) of the pipe as a function of yield strength and pipe geometry. That is,
do not use the old historical formula:
P = 0.875 x (2t/D) x y
(2)
where t is the pipe wall thickness and D is the pipe outer diameter. Equation (2) is inadequate and
outdated for rating the burst resistance of pipe, because Equation (2) does not account for axial
stress, which can have a large impact on equivalent stress and the pressure needed to yield the pipe.
Equation (2) also is the formula used by API in Bulletin 5C3 to rate the resistance of pipe. This is
soon to be revised and updated to three-dimensional (triaxial) yielding as in Equation (1) when API
5C3 is replaced by ISO 10400 (currently under development). Equation (2) provides a convenient
and easy calculation for comparing the resistance of different pipes, and the formula is suitable for
this purpose. However, the formula is not adequate for design where axial stresses will be
present. Thirty years ago, it was necessary to use such a formula for design because of the
absence of computational tools to assist the calculation of equivalent stress. However, now the
software tools make the calculation in Equation (1) easy.
EP 2000-9073
3-9
Link to Standards/API 5C3

For Level Two and Level Three design practices, it may be necessary and appropriate to examine
the margin of difference between the onset of yield and the actual rupture of the pipe. This is not
appropriate for Level One design practice, but it is a resource that can help the Level Two and
Level Three practices. Appendix 6 provides information on the rupture limit state.
3.3.2
Accounting for Pipe Thin-Wall Eccentricity in Burst
Burst design of pipe must account for thin-wall eccentricity in the manufacturing process. Pipe is
manufactured and delivered with a round cross section which is eccentrically off center from the
axis of the pipe outer diameter. While the inner diameter meets specifications, this causes the
wall thickness to be low (thin) on one side of the pipe and excessive on the opposite side of the
pipe. The net cross-sectional area is essentially preserved. The thin-wall thickness increases the
hoop stress, and hence also the equivalent stress and the proximity to yielding.
Average carbon pipe is delivered with about 93% of nominal wall thickness, and it is very likely
that a large number of joints will include a pipe with minimum allowed wall thickness. Per API
manufacturing specifications (Bulletin 5CT), the minimum allowed wall thickness for delivery of
carbon pipe is 87.5% of nominal. Typically, the minimum allowed wall thickness for delivery of
CRA tubing is 90% of nominal. Because this is a real (reduced) wall thickness of the pipe, all
casing and tubing must be designed in burst using the minimum allowed wall thickness (which for
carbon equals 87.5% of nominal). In the Wellcat software, this can be done by setting the triaxial
wall factor to 87.5%. This should not be done using the actual dimensions of the pipe in the
inventory of the software, since this would increase the inner diameter and lead to large error in
the collapse calculations. For the Stresscheck software, there presently is no direct way in the
software to account for pipe thin-wall eccentricity, and this is being addressed by Landmark
Graphics as a development item. If one tries to create a pipe with artificial geometry, this will
throw off the collapse calculations in Stresscheck. The only approach that can be used at present
is to increase the minimum design factor used by Stresscheck by multiplying the design factor by
1.143 (i.e., by 1.0/0.875).
Strictly speaking, the adjustment for thin-wall eccentricity should be accomplished by applying
the 87.5% factor to the wall thickness in the Lam calculation of hoop stress and radial stress
(Appendix 6), but not in the calculation of axial stress since the pipe does meet its nominal axial
cross section. However, for practical coding of the software, it may be necessary to apply the
87.5% factor equally to all three stresses. HPHT case studies have shown that when this is done,
there appears to be negligible difference between using the 87.5% term on all three stresses and
on only the hoop and radial stresses in those cases where the burst safety factor is small and burst
is controlling the design.
EP 2000-9073
3-10
3.3.3 Accounting for Casing Wear in Burst

Appendix 3 explains the mechanics of casing wear and the approach to take to account for wearinduced wall loss. Casing wear must be considered in the design of surface and intermediate
casing. It also must be considered in the design of any production casing which will be drilled
through. This does not mean that a penalty for casing wear has to be applied. This does mean
that the engineer executing the design must make and document an allowance for wear. The
engineer may decide that wear will not occur or will be negligible because of drilling practices to
be used, because of particular tool joint hardfacing, or because of the distance, deviation, dogleg
severity, and drillstring weight which will be used for the next drilling interval. In that case, the
allowance would be zero and still should be documented. Likewise, the engineer may decide
based on past local experience with offset wells or based on logging to make an allowance for a
particular amount of casing wear. In this case, the wear allowance should be documented and
built into the burst and collapse designs of the well. In burst, the allowance for wear is very
similar to the allowance for thin-wall eccentricity except for the following:
The depth of wear often can be greater than the depth of thin-wall eccentricity.
The effect of wear is in addition to thin-wall eccentricity and is not covered by the 87.5%
factor used to address thin-wall eccentricity. For thin-wall eccentricity, the wall thickness is
reduced locally, but the cross-sectional D/T ratio for collapse design does not change, and the
ID of the pipe does not change from nominal. However, for casing wear, the ID of the pipe
increases and cross-sectional D/T ratio increases.
To account for the wall loss from wear, the geometry of the pipe should be adjusted with the
decrease of wall thickness and increase of inner diameter. That is, instead of a scaling of the
equivalent stress, the pipe geometry should be adjusted. This is different from the approach to
eccentricity, because the impact of wear on pipe ID and D/T ratio should be made through the
geometry in order to impact the collapse resistance simultaneously.
If intermediate casing will be turned into production casing (that is, if the production casing
will have been drilled through), then a log must be run through the production casing to
quantify the amount of casing wear. If the log is mechanical, assume that the wear occurs on
top of a pipe which is at maximum thin-wall eccentricity. That is, reduce the wall to 87.5% of
nominal to account for thin-wall eccentricity and reduce the wall further by the depth of the
casing wear. This is necessary because casing is delivered with eccentricity, and because
when a mechanical caliper is used, one knows the ID of the casing and the OD of the casing
but not the eccentric off-axis shift of the ID. If the log is sonic, the measured wall thickness
of the casing is available. In this case, use the minimum measured wall thickness in the
geometry of the custom joints of pipe. This wall thickness is measured and covers the
combined effects of eccentricity and wear. Because this wall thickness has been measured,
there is no need to account for further additional eccentricity for this joints or for other worn
joints which use the measured minimum wall thickness. Therefore, for worn joints with wall
thickness measured using sonic logs, do not apply the usual de-rating of pipe wall for thinwall eccentricity. Use 100% of the measured wall thickness to calculate the ID (that is, apply
the thin wall all the way around the pipe, and use this ID with no thin-wall de-rating factor in
the pipe inventory of the software and in the calculation of pipe mechanical properties.
3.3.4 Accounting for Pipe Toughness in Burst

As explained above, if the triaxial burst safety factor is less than 1.5, then pipe should meet or
exceed the specifications of API SR16.
EP 2000-9073
3-11
3.3.5 Pipe Collapse Resistance

Pipe collapse strength is determined by formulas in API 5C3. The formulas are based on a
combination of analytical formulas for elastic instability, formulas for yielding, and a large
amount (2000+) of empirical collapse test data on full-size pipes. The theory and data are
combined into four different modes of collapse resistance:
Yield
Plastic
Transition
Elastic
The choice of which mode applies to determine the pipe collapse resistance depends on the D/T
ratio and yield strength of the pipe. The yield strength is adjusted for both temperature and axial
loading (triaxial stress) in tension, so temperature and axial tension impact collapse strength.
Axial tension significantly decreases collapse strength, while axial compression has no impact on
collapse strength within the accuracy of the standard for rating collapse capacity (see API 5C3).
The plastic and transition modes are linked to the empirical data. In general, tubing and most
production casing has a D/T ratio corresponding to plastic or yield collapse. Most intermediate
casing has a D/T ratio corresponding to plastic and transition collapse, and most large-diameter
surface casing has a D/T ratio corresponding to elastic collapse. The elastic collapse rating of
pipe is independent of the grade.
Through use of the test data, the API collapse resistance ratings have a statistical basis. That is,
collapse design is probabilistic, and this impacts the choice of the design factor in Chapter 6.
Specifically, the present API collapse design already has built into it a target collapse reliability
based on the condition that no more than 0.5% of joints will fail when subjected to the rated
collapse pressure of the pipe. For a lower pressure, the collapse probability would be lower, and
for a higher pressure, the collapse probability would be higher. In general, collapse design could
include a choice of the target collapse reliability. For Level One design, the target collapse
reliability is 0.5%.
Engineers sometimes need to consider using non-API pipe which has a manufacturers claim of
proprietary collapse strength greater than the value set forth in the API collapse ratings. This
sometimes is referred to as high collapse pipe. Most high collapse pipe has been shown not to
provide any higher collapse strength than that of API pipe. However, some high collapse pipe
does provide higher mean and minimum collapse strength, usually through the use of consistently
sharp stressstrain behavior (no cold straightening), higher minimum yield strength, lower D/T
ratio, or lower maximum ovality of the product. When high collapse pipe is considered, it is
necessary to compare the mean product performance with the mean (not minimum) API collapse
rating and to compare the minimum product performance with the minimum (probabilistic) API
collapse rating. When pipe collapse strength is reviewed, the strength must be based on tests of
pipes with length-to-diameter (L/D) ratios of 7 or 8 (8 is preferred, but 7 is acceptable). Evidence
of pipe collapse strength should never be based on tests of specimens with L/D less than 7, since
this artificially inflates the measured collapse pressure beyond what would be experienced for a full
joint of pipe.
3.3.6 Not Accounting for Pipe Thin-Wall Eccentricity in Collapse
Thin-wall eccentricity should not be considered for collapse design of pipe. This is because the
basis for the collapse design guidelines (API 5C3) is collapse test data which already capture the
natural collapse resistance of pipes including their thin-wall eccentricity.
EP 2000-9073
3-12
3.3.7 Accounting for Casing Wear in Collapse

Casing wear introduces an unusual wall loss which is not the same as the thin-wall eccentricity of
the pipe. Casing wear has to be accounted for by decreasing the wall thickness and increasing the
ID of the casing. The approach to use is the same as for burst: introduce joints of pipe in the
Stresscheck or Wellcat model with wall thickness reduced in proportion to the depth of wear. See
Reference 1 for good test data on the reduction of collapse strength from casing wear.
3.3.8 Pipe Tensile Resistance
During loading with combined pressure and axial load, the effect of axial load is captured in the
burst and collapse design. Examination of pipe tensile resistance is made under purely axial
loading. This occurs while the pipe is being run and when the pipe is pulled out of the hole. In
terms of well operations, the dominant operation for tensile resistance occurs when the pipe is
being pulled out of the hole. Certainly, the tensile pull-out option applies to tubing. However,
because problems can occur while running casing, it is necessary to plan the well for the
contingency to pull the casing out of the well. A margin for tensile overpull should be built into
the pipe (see the loads and operations below). During pull-out, the tensile capacity of the pipe is
determined by the yield strength of the pipe times the cross-sectional area of the pipe.
3.3.9 Connection Resistance
The pressure and load resistance of a connection are based upon the testing originally done to
qualify the connection for well service (see Chapter 4 on connection qualification). The process
of qualifying the connection establishes an envelop of pressures and loads where the connection
can be used reliably. The qualified service envelope is based on testing at elevated temperature,
so the connection resistance is not derated for elevated temperature in the well. See the list of
Shell-qualified connections.
Link to list of Shell-Qualified Connections
http://swwep-w.shell.com/threads/.
3.4
General Discussion of Load Cases for Casing and Tubing
3.4.1 Use of Frictional Drag in Load Cases
There is no capability of applying drag or tubing-to-casing friction specifically to individual load
cases. Friction has to be used or not used for all the load cases. In production load cases where
heating induces buckling, the stresses and strains will be reduced if tubing-to-casing friction is
applied. This is not conservative and not accurate in terms of well operations, so friction should
not be used for these load cases.
In principle, in hanging, running, and pull-out load cases, the stresses and strains should be
increased if tubing-to-casing friction is included. However, there is a problem with the drag
calculations made by Wellcat. Just as with drillstring, substantial drag will occur when casing or
tubing is run into or pulled out of a dogleg. The drag comes from the weight of the string pushing
or pulling it up against the curves side of the hole. Even when the friction calculation is turned
on, Wellcat does not account for the frictional drag that would decrease the hook load running or
increase the hook load pulling. This simply is not included within the calculations that Wellcat
makes. This is a very unfortunate deficiency of the software. Given this limitation, it is best
always to run Wellcat with friction turned off. The pullout load case can be run in Wellcat and
will be valid, except that frictional drag through doglegs will be neglected. For cases of wells
with doglegs when the safety factors are unusually small or for wells with large doglegs, it is
EP 2000-9073
3-13
prudent to use one of the many torquedrag programs available to Shell (Wellplan, Stuck, Mtd)
to calculate the hook load in a worst-case pullout with friction. Then, apply this pullout load to
the top of the same string using the Wellcat software.
3.4.2
Tubing Initial Conditions
This load case is required, as all other loads are calculated relative to this one. If the initial load
case is incorrect, all other loads will also be incorrect. Therefore it is important to get the
pressures and temperatures correct at the time of setting the packer. When the computer programs
asks for initial conditions, this means the conditions prior to pressuring up the tubing for setting
the packer (for hydraulic set packers). The actual surface pressure at the time the packer slips bite
the casing is specified separately in the packer sections. Note that initial conditions should not be
confused with the term packer fluid. The packer fluid is assumed to be the fluid in the tubing
casing annulus after the packer has been set. The initial conditions and the packer fluid will
normally (but not always) be the same fluid.
Drag is an important consideration in getting the initial load condition correct. If there is
excessive drag when running the completion in and the packer is then set, then it is likely that
compression will be introduced into the completion. This compression can be modelled within
Wellcat neglecting the frictional drag loads, but the amount of compression to include is best
calculated using a torque/drag simulator to account for frictional drag. The alternative to this
compression is that tension will be introduced. This can be caused by picking up the tubing to get
the packer into the correct position. This often happens when the packer is set and the hanger is
not installed. Tension can also be introduced by performing a pressure test prior to setting the
packer. The pressure test will extend the tubing, and because of drag, not all of this extension will
be released when the pressure is released. In order to get around these problems, there needs to be
good integration between the completion program and the stress analysis. The completion
program should state how the packer is being set and any reference positions (e.g., up-weight,
down-weight or mid-weight). The implications of this drag on the position of the packer should
also be addressed to avoid the packer being set across a casing coupling.
If your loads on a pinned PBR (for example) are excessive and close to limits, then consider what
effect any circulating will have prior to setting a packer. This may cool (or heat) the completion
and therefore put residual compression or tension into the string. Such modeling can be done
using Wellcat.
3.4.3
Tubing Pressure Tests
Pressure testing is not required as part of Level One design practice. However, it is recognized
that pressure testing may be part of the operating policy of the individual operating company. At
the extreme, the pressure test of tubing and production casing can apply the full wellhead pressure
that is planned for the well kill operation. This pressure is the lesser of 1,000 psi or 10% above
the shut-in pressure of the tubing. However, this high test pressure should not be applied to the
tubing unless the same completion fluid is present both inside and outside the tubing. This test
pressure should not be applied to the production casing unless the same mud gradient is present
both inside and outside the casing.
The pressure test will be either before or after the packer has been set. Often, both tests are
performed. Normal operation loads should be lower than test loads. Savings in material can be
made if test pressures are limited. Shell Expro stipulate that the tubing pressure test should be to
EP 2000-9073
3-14
110% of the maximum tubing-head pressure. Dispensation is required if pressure tests are going
to be lower than this.
Be very careful about the position of any plugs during testing. For example, if an expansion
device is included in the completion and a pressure test takes place without a plug, the piston
effect will compress the string. If the same test is performed with a plug above the expansion
device, there will be no upward piston force, but a downward piston force at the plug. The tubing
will therefore try to move downwards.
If a pressure test with a plug is included in the analysis, consider the effects of the plug leaking
and pressure being applied below the plug. Under certain circumstances, this will go unnoticed
and may pose high loads on the completion.
3.4.4
Annulus Tests
The main purpose of this test is to test packers or tubing hangers. Ideally, the test pressure should
be to the same criteria as tubing tests (particularly if packers are being tested only from above). It
is often possible to test packers and hangers without a separate annulus test, and therefore it is not
normally necessary for this load case to be a limiting condition on the tubing. Alternatives to a
separate annulus test include an annulus test with backup pressure on the tubing.
3.4.5
Production Conditions
The production multiphase calculations in many stress analysis programs are highly simplistic.
However, they are usually conservative and therefore are a useful first pass.
Considerations are as follow:
1. A high flowrate gives high temperatures (therefore compression) but lower pressures
(therefore collapse). It is therefore prudent to consider the worst case of a high flowrate with
the highest possible drawdown.
2. The highest temperatures may be generated not with the highest flowrate, but with high watercuts. Water, having a high specific heat capacity and little in the way of JouleThomson
cooling, will transmit temperatures well, and a low-flowrate well with a high water-cut may
generate higher surface temperatures than would a higher-flowrate well with low water-cuts.
Therefore, some sensitivity to water-cut should be included. For example, an early-life
production case and a late-life production case.
3. The highest flowrate and lowest pressure will be generated by using the minimum wellhead
flowing pressure. This should be the lowest possible pressure that the well will be flowed,
whether to a bulk or test separator or to a separate well test package.
4. A production shut-in case should be included in the analysis as a separate load case.
Therefore, it is not normally necessary to examine production loads involving high surface
pressures.
5. What are the likely annulus pressures? High annulus pressures, coupled with high
drawdowns, with or without reservoir depletion, can produce large collapse loads. The
appropriate annulus pressure to use will depend on the well procedures and equipment
designed to limit annulus pressures (i.e., the regular monitoring and bleeding down of annulus
pressures, or the inclusion of a gas lift valve). If a high-drawdown case coupled with high
EP 2000-9073
3-15
annulus pressures creates a potential collapse condition, then this warning must be passed on
and the maximum safe annulus pressure included in the well operations procedures.
3.4.6
Maximum Allowable Annulus Surface Pressure
It is important that the maximum allowable annulus surface pressure (MAASP) is calculated
correctly and used in the tubing stress analysis (particularly the production cases). The
A annulus MAASP should be defined by the following:
1. The burst rating of the production casing, accounting for any fluids behind the casing and
their change over time (e.g., barite settling).
2. The collapse potential of the production tubing with the lowest possible fluid pressure inside
the tubing. This pressure may be full evacuation or may be limited by the type of fluids that
will be inside the tubing (e.g., water during water injection).
3. Any limitations imposed by the liner lap; if the packer or seal is positioned with access to the
liner lap through the A annulus, then this may be a limitation.
4. Any limitation governed by pressure differentials across the packer. This limitation need not
necessarily be the same as the annulus pressure test, as the pressures inside the tubing will be
different during test and production conditions.
5. The pressure test of the A annulus. This should be examined at the base and the top of the
string.
6. The limit to which the annulus pressure can be controlled during production. For example, if
a pressure increase in the A annulus could be observed after shutdown of a subsea water
injector and this pressure increase could not be controlled (as the well was shut-in), the
maximum allowable pressure during normal injection would have to be the rating of the
annulus minus this theoretical pressure increase.
It is important that the A annulus MAASP figure be used and adhered to. During production or
injection shutdown conditions, the A annulus pressure can rise quickly. The A annulus should
therefore be alarmed where possible or monitored to such an extent that the MAASP is not
exceeded.
3.4.7
Gas-Lifted Production
For tubing pressures, these can be calculated as per normal, but accounting for the change in
conditions due to the injected gas. The lift in the annulus will also have a thermal insulation
effect on the temperatures and this should be addressed. The A annulus should be pressurized to
the maximum lift-gas injection pressure. It is also worth considering the effect if the lift gas is
partially or completely bled off (with or without an annular safety valve). This may generate high
burst loads on the tubing during a production shut-in case or high collapse loads on the production
casing. Level One design practice requires two pressure barriers. Hence, the B annulus must
withstand the maximum injection pressure on top of the mud column in the event that the
A annulus leaks to the B annulus.
EP 2000-9073
3.4.8
3-16
Tubing Leak Impact on Tubing
This load case is often of great significance with regard to casing design. Sometimes, however, it
also is important for tubing design. The rationale is that if a high-pressure, low-density fluid in
the tubing leaks into the annulus, this pressure will be transmitted down the annulus and at the
base of the A annulus will generate collapse loads on the tubing and burst loads on the casing.
This effect is magnified by having a high-density fluid (such as kill-weight brine) in the annulus.
If the well is deep or the annulus fluid is very dense, this collapse pressure may be severe and
should be checked. For burst on the casing, high pressures are easily generated, and this load case
is of great concern to many casing designs and one reason why kill-weight fluids are not used as
an annulus packer fluid.
3.4.9
Trapped Annular Pressure
The amount of annulus expansion and the potential pressures this causes if the fluid is not free to
escape can be very large (over 50 psi/F). Appendix 12 explains trapped annular pressure in
detail. The annulus expansion option in Wellcat can be used to check the effect. Alternatively,
the equations in Appendix 12 can be used, or the simple approximate formula below can be used
to predict the amount of increase of annular pressure.
P =
where
ET
C
E = coefficient of thermal expansion of the annular fluid

C = compressibility of the fluid
T = average temperature change in the annulus
Note that this equation has a few simplifications:

1. A constant coefficient of thermal expansion.
2. A constant compressibility. In reality, both these variables are function of pressure and
temperature.
3. The casing and tubing are both rigid and do not balloon. In reality, the tubing will reverse
balloon and possibly the casing will balloon (especially with uncemented casing). Therefore,
this equation will overestimate the effect.
Typical values for fluid compressibility are 3x106/psi for water-based fluids and 7x106/psi for
oil-based fluids. Typical values for thermal expansion are shown in the table below:
Typical Values for Calculating Trapped Annular Pressures
Fluid Type
Water
Water-based mud
Base oil
Oil-based mud
Compressibility
3 x 106/psi
3.1 x 106/psi
4.8 x 106/psi
5.5 x 106/psi
Thermal Expansion
1.2 x 104/F
1.12.8 x 104/F
5 x 104/F
3.2 x 104/F
For example, for a water-filled annulus with rigid tubing and casing, the pressure increase is
40 psi/F.
EP 2000-9073
3-17
3.4.10 Shut-In Conditions

The worst case is normally a high flowrate followed by a quick shut-in. This generates the
highest temperatures. Note that the shut-in modeling in most programs is very limited (assumes
constant fluid pressure gradient). The calculation of maximum shut-in pressures is a complex
process in oil wells. The assumption of a gas gradient to surface on top of the maximum
anticipated reservoir pressure should cover the worst case, but is often unduly conservative. For a
more realistic case, the highest predicted GOR can be used, coupled with a high flowrate to
predict in situ well fluids with the maximum amount of gas. However, the process of converting
these in situ production fluids quantities to water/oil/gas interfaces is complex due to transfers
between the gas and oil phases as the fluid segregates and the pressures change. If there are no
production data to go on and the gas gradient to surface poses unacceptable stresses on the tubing,
then appropriate multiphase flow experts should be contacted for specialist advice.
3.4.11 Burst and Collapse of Corroded Tubing and Casing
Corrosion is not so much a load case, but more a function of the material. Where possible,
materials should be selected to avoid corrosion (Appendix 5). However, some load cases (e.g.,
production) may be subject to corrosion and others (e.g., installation loads) not. Corrosion has
two effects on the tubing:
1. Pitting or wall-thickness reduction will reduce the burst rating of the tubing considerably.
2. Loss of material will reduce the axial strength and collapse resistance.
3.4.12 Burst Resistance of Corroded Pipe
The burst resistance is directly dependent on the minimum wall thickness of the pipe. Therefore,
if pitting is predicted or measured, the wall thickness should be reduced by the maximum pit depth
and used in the (Wellcat and Stresscheck) burst calculations.
3.4.13 Collapse Resistance of Corroded Pipe
The collapse resistance is directly dependent on the increase of average D/T ratio of the pipe.
Therefore, if pitting is predicted or measured, the wall thickness should be reduced by the average
pit depth and used in the (Wellcat and Stresscheck) collapse calculations.
3.4.14 Tensile Strength of Corroded Pipe
The axial strength is dependent on the cross-sectional area of the pipe, which is approximately
proportional to wall thickness. Hence, 5% loss of material will reduce the axial strength by
roughly 5%.
3.4.15 Overpull Cases
It is appropriate to include an overpull case, especially if shear pins in PBRs or the like have to be
sheared or the completion has to be recovered. This is one load case where friction will act
against the pipe.
EP 2000-9073
3-18
When selecting the shear rating of PBR or similar device, consider the following:
1. There is no danger of the shear device parting prematurely. In order to conform this, the load
cases prior to intentionally shearing the shear device must be analyzed. For example, if a
hydraulic set packer is being used with a pinned expansion joint, consideration must be given
to what may happen if the packer does not set. In the worst case, this may result in the packer
and tailpipe being blown off the bottom of the string.
2. There must be a sufficient overpull transferred to the shear device. The overpull must account
for the tolerance of the shear mechanism (between 5 and 10%) and tubing-to-casing friction.
3. The loads on the top of the string are not exceeded during the overpull. It is important that
both triaxial and axial loads are acceptable, as the beneficial effect of any internal pressure can
not be 100% relied on.
If the overpull case is a problem, then there are a number of options:
Use pressure to help free the shear device. The operational safety constraints with this must
be considered, however, and it is wise to have the pressure at the shear device and not at
surface. This can be achieved by locking in the pressure by setting a plug above the shear
device or by closing the safety valve and bleeding off above it. Having pressure on the string
at surface while performing the overpull is not recommended, as the jolt from the shear device
shearing may be considerable.
Increase the weight or grade of the tubing at the top of the well.
Use slack-off weight on the shear device. This potentially allows a lower shear rating to be
safely used without risking premature parting of the shear device.
Do not deliberately shear a pinned expansion device when installing the completion. If this
option is pursued, then load cases must be analyzed up to the point when the expansion joint
shears. In particular, just before the expansion device shears, the loads on the rest of the
tubing may be very high. Such cases must include the tubing-to-casing friction. Including
this friction will limit a transfer of force to the expansion device (by transferring it directly to
the casing) and therefore may delay the shearing of the expansion device. High loads may
therefore be experienced, particularly at the top of the completion.
3.4.16 Pump In to Kill the Well

The pump in to kill implies that the well requires a hydraulic kill. There are two (or more)
possible worst-case scenarios:
1. The initial start to the kill where conditions may be hot and the surface pressure is the highest.
2. The end of the kill where the surface pressure is low (injection friction only), but the cooling
effect is significant.
Both of these loads cases must be modeled as transient injection conditions. That is, the well
design must include the contingency of needing to kill the well. Furthermore, both injection
through the tubing and injection through the production casing need to be modeled.
EP 2000-9073
3-19
3.4.17 Evacuated Tubing

Evacuated tubing often is a severe test of tubing, particularly for deep and high-pressure wells. If
the evacuated tubing case poses large restrictions on the choice of tubing, then consider modeling
maximum drawdown conditions instead. For a gas well, this will likely be a fully evacuated
tubing, but for a naturally flowing oil well, the minimum tubing bottomhole pressure is likely to
occur with the maximum amount of free gas and no water production.
The load case of simultaneous evacuated tubing should include full maximum allowed surface
pressure in the A annulus if the annular pressure will be applied as part of the operation and
control of the well. Alternatively, if A-annulus pressure is not a critical part of the well operation,
then the evacuated tubing can be modeled without annulus pressure.
3.4.18 Stimulation
Stimulation in its various forms can be a severe test of a completion or test string. There are
various issues that should be looked at:
1. The worst cases are often those that involve the lowest temperatures and therefore the longest
injection period. These cases are best modeled using an injection load case but with a
transient injection period.
2. High loads can also be generated with a low-density fluid such as the pad fluid when trying to
open a fracture. This can generate high surface pressures.
3. Consider fracture screen-out cases when examining proppant-based stimulation. The
maximum pressure will be limited by the pressure-relief features at surface. Therefore, the
worst bottomhole pressure will be this surface pressure and the maximum fluid density. The
screen-out cases should extract temperatures from a prior load case (e.g., transient injection)
and should assume NO fluid friction (static fluid).
4. Take care when considering stimulation through any completion with activated valves which
are not pump-through. One of the potential problems is the hydraulic hammer effect. If a
valve suddenly closes (e.g., loss of hydraulic fluid), then the hammer effect may generate
instantaneous pressures that are higher than the surface relief pressure. This may
overpressurize the tubing. Process design software can be used to quantify this. This effect
may mean that the pressure relief valves have to be set at a lower value than would normally
be the case.
5. Consider the effect of proppant erosion on the burst rating of the tubing.
The procedure for calculating the pressures during a stimulation is as follows:
1. Determine the fracture gradient (e.g., from casing shoe leak-off tests).
2. With the fracture-opening fluid (frac pad), calculate the dynamic surface pressure required to
start propagating the fracture. This will use the frac gradient, assumptions about perforation
friction, the frac fluid density, and the fluid friction.
3. With a safety allowance, this will determine the surface PRV setting.
4. The worst case is then this PRV pressure plus any allowance for a delay in the PRV opening
at surface. The worst case downhole is a screen-out with this surface pressure plus the
highest-density fluid (the final slurry stage) and without friction.
EP 2000-9073
3-20
This procedure is shown below in Figure 3-1 for a case with the following assumptions:
Depth
Pad gradient
Final slurry gradient
Frac gradient
Friction
Perforation friction
Surface allowance for PRV to open
12000 ft
0.433 psi/ft
0.935 psi/ft
0.8 psi/ft
10 psi/100 ft
500 psi
250 psi
Pressure (psi)
5000
0
10000
15000
20000
2000
Frac pad
Screen out
PRV Setting
Frac gradient
Depth (ft)
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Fig. 3-1 Example of calculated stimulation pressures.

3.4.19 Erosion of Tubing after Proppant Stimulation
There are various models for the prediction of erosion by solids in non-corrosive flow. Most
models use an equation similar to the one below. The differences between the models are
differences in the constant and velocity exponent. One example2 that is extensively used produces
a prediction of erosion rate as follows:
Er =
where
Er
M
V
d
=
=
=
=
erosion rate (mm/yr)

solids production rate (g/sec)
mixture velocity (m/sec)
pipe internal diameter (mm)
604MV 2
d2
EP 2000-9073
3-21
This equation can be used to conservatively predict the total erosion from flowing proppant (or
other solids) to surface. For example, a 50,000 lb proppant treatment is planned. The well will
then be on production at 10,000 bpd through 5 in. tubing. The total erosion (assuming that 50%
of the proppant is back-produced and that all the proppant is produced at 10,000 bpd) is
ET =
where
604 mV 2
31536000 d 2
ET = total erosion (mm)

m = mass of proppant produced (g)
For 10,000 bpd, the mixture velocity will depend on the amount of gas and can be calculated
using multiphase flow software. In this example, we calculate a mixture velocity of 15 m/sec.
50% of 50,000 lb = 11,325,000 g.
Therefore, the total erosion is
ET =
604 11325000 15 2
31536000 124 2
= 3.2 mm
This number can then be used to reduce the wall thickness and therefore reduce the burst
resistance. Note that no allowance has been included for erosion during the stimulation. The
reasoning is that during the stimulation, the flow regime will be laminar and single phase; erosion
will therefore be limited, despite the high pump rates. This is a reasonable assumption in the
absence of bends or restrictions. Any bend or restrictions may be severely affected by the
proppant during stimulation.
The erosion changes the minimum wall thickness of the tubing, and this should be treated like
casing wear in regard to making an erosion-adjusted calculation of the burst and collapse strength
of the tubing. Note that the use of 87.5% minimum wall thickness does not cover erosion. The
minimum wall thickness accounts for manufacturing eccentricity, and the allowance for erosion
must be made on top of the minimum wall thickness of the tubing. See Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.7
on casing wear.
3.4.20 Space-Out of the Completion when Using Hydraulic Set Packers
Hydraulic set packers introduce movement in the completion as they set. If the completion is
spaced out to interface with a liner (e.g., stabbed into the liner top), then the downward movement
associated with setting the packer must be considered and included in the space-out. This is
particularly important with mandrel movement packers, where the packer will not set if this
downward movement is prevented.
In order to calculate the movement, the Wellcat file should be set up with unlimited downward
movement at the packer. A load case with a plug set above the packer and tested to the maximum
pressure at which the slips will bite will result in a predicted downward movement equal to the
maximum movement the completion will see as the packer sets.
EP 2000-9073
3-22
3.4.21 Retrievable Packers

Although many packers are now permanent, there are still many applications where a retrievable
packer is very useful. Examples include drill stem tests (DSTs) and electrical submersible pump
(ESP) wells. Some retrievable packers are retrieved by a straight pull. In this respect, they
behave exactly like an anchor latch and can be analyzed in exactly the same way. The same
considerations occur, including being able to retrieve the packer when you want to without parting
the tubing and avoiding prematurely pulling the packer.
Retrievable packers often work whereby an upward pull acts on a mandrel which is pinned to the
packer body. Shearing the pins allows the slips to retract and the completion to be pulled. This
can be analyzed by using the seal bore diameter of the mandrel/packer bore. This dimension can
be obtained from the packer manufacturer. The seal bore is then included as the packer bore
dimension in Wellcat. The seal bore is the bore of the part of the packer which seals and moves
the slips when the packer is retrieved. It is not necessarily the dimension where the two parts are
pinned together (Figure 3-2). The analysis then is treated in exactly the same way as in the
overpull of a pinned expansion device. Some other retrievable packers act in such a way that the
entire bore of the packer can act as an area to retrieve the packer. In these cases, even a very
small pressure differential upwards across the packer can act to retrieve the packer.
EP 2000-9073
3-23
Packer mandrel moves

upwards relative to slips
when retrieving
Element(s)
Seal between
packer mandrel
and element
housing
Slip(s)
Seal bore
Mandrel pinned to slip
housing to prevent
premature release
Fig. 3-2 Modeling of forces on retrievable packers.

3.5
Axial Loads and Thermal Loads Applied to Casing and Tubing
3.5.1
Temperature Loading of Surface and Intermediate Casing During Drilling
For most wells, the loading of the surface and intermediate casing occurs during drilling, and
there is negligible impact of temperature change on the burst and collapse design of these strings.
In principle, there is elevated temperature at the bottom of deeper intermediate casing strings, and
this can reduce the yield strength that impacts both burst and collapse resistance of the pipe.
However, during drilling, there is negligible loading from change of temperature.
EP 2000-9073
3-24
3.5.2 Subsea, Long-Term Temperature Loading for Surface and Intermediate Casing
Because subsea wells have sealed annuli, in the production mode of operation the surface and
intermediate casings of these wells are subjected to severe burst and collapse loads due to increase
of trapped annular pressure. In addition, temperature increase toward the top of the well due to
production can cause compressive stresses and buckling of uncemented intervals of casing. These
stresses need to be taken into account given the severity of the loading from trapped annular
pressure (Appendix 12):
For subsea wells, it is important to model accurately the initial temperature at the time that the
cement is set.
For subsea wells, the Wellcat software should be used with the option active for modeling
trapped annular pressure. This should be done to model all the strings together as a system.
3.5.3 Temperature Loading of Production Casing
It is important to capture accurately the initial temperature at the time the casing is cemented,
because subsequent change of temperature can give rise to large axial stresses. The temperature
change during production has the potential to be important for any production casing. As a very
rough rule of thumb, about 18,000 psi of compressive stress is generated for each 100F increase
of temperature. In addition, the temperature increase usually will give rise to some buckling of
the uncemented interval. The bending stresses from buckling can be very important for HPHT
wells (Appendix 1), in addition to the thermal stresses. The design factors are not intended to
compensate for thermally induced stresses, so these stresses must be calculated using the design
software. Furthermore, the state-of-the-art calculation of these and similar operational stresses is
part of the delivery of the quality Shell well (Chapter 1).
3.5.4
Temperature Loading of Tubing
Temperature loading of tubing is very similar to temperature loading of production casing.

3.5.5 Running and Pull-Out Loads
For buckling analyses, frictional forces should not be used because this can give rise to nonconservative solutions. However, for running pipe into the hole or pulling pipe out of the hole,
frictional forces can be important in deviated wells because of the drag forces generated at
doglegs and opposing the direction of movement of the string. This requires two separate
calculations: first, a run-in or pullout calculation with friction turned on, using torquedrag
software (Wellplan, Stuck, Mtd). This gives the maximum surface load. Then this load is used in
the Wellcat software, with friction turned off, where the requirement is for the string stresses to be
low even when the hook load at the surface is the maximum pullout load. In some wells,
frictional drag can lead to one-way tubing or casing designs which cannot be pulled out. This is
one of the reasons for having a tensile design factor.
The tensile design factor should be sufficient to ensure that there is adequate margin for overpull.
However, for clarity of design capability, it is desirable to examine the pipe stress during overpull
loading rather than relying only on the size of the tensile design factor. Because frictional drag
occurs only during loading, the application of overpull is useful to ensure that the string is
adequately designed for axial load. For tubing, one of the load operations (Section 3.7 below)
should include 100,000 lb tensile overpull. For casing, the overpull should be set to the larger of
100,000 lb or 10% of the pipe yield load (pipe wall area times 10% of yield strength). However,
in wells where severe drag is anticipated, the maximum pullout load should be calculated using
torquedrag software with friction included; and then the string should be checked in Wellcat
EP 2000-9073
3-25
(friction turned off) using this maximum pullout load (hook load plus an overpull set to equal the
maximum pullout load from the drag software).
For calculations of drag loads using torquedrag software, it is best to use friction coefficients
calibrated from local drilling experience. Where experience data are not available, it is
recommended to use the following values:
Open Hole/Cased Hole
Water-based mud with barites
Water-based mud with dolomite
Oil-based mud with barites
Brine or fresh water
3.5.6
0.30/0.30
0.30/0.25
0.20/0.15
0.30/0.50
Axial Loads for Surface, Intermediate, and Production Casing
In regard to pipe stresses, the initial axial loads come from the hanging weight of the casing in the
mudcement column. These loads usually are small and do not impose a burden on the casing.
For high-temperature wells, heating from production produces large compressive thermal stresses
which can significantly reduce the yield strength and burst resistance of the pipe. The initial axial
loads can be important for offsetting the subsequent thermal loads. Large compressive loads
which are not a problem for the pipe body can pose a severe performance requirement for the
connections. Axial compression has no impact on collapse, but axial tension decreases collapse
strength as the equivalent stress approaches yield. This is included in the design software and
covered in API standard 5C3 on collapse strength.
Link to API/ISO Standards
3.6
Pressure Gradients Applied to Casing and Tubing
Table 3-1 at the end of this section summarizes the burst and collapse design loading applied to
casing and tubing.
3.6.1 Burst Pressure Gradients for Surface and Intermediate Casing
Kick internal pressure profile: Assume full evacuation to gas. The internal pressure load line
should connect the highest formation pressure over the interval to be drilled with the surface using
a gas gradient of 0.1 psi/ft or the actual gas gravity if it is available. However, if this exceeds the
formation fracture pressure at the shoe of the casing, then the pressure load line should be the
fracture pressure at the shoe connecting to the surface using a gas gradient of 0.1 psi/ft or the
actual gas gravity. See Figure 3-3.
Kick external pressure profile: For surface and intermediate casing, drilling occurs quickly before
solids drop out of the mud. For the external pressure gradient in the mud column, use the initial
mud gradient corresponding to the time of the cement job. For the external pressure gradient in
the cement column, use the formation pore pressure gradient (Figure 3-4) unless the cement is
completely inside another casing string. If the cement is completely inside another casing string
(for example, as in the case of a tieback string), use the cement mixwater gradient for the external
pressure gradient acting on the casing opposite the cement column. Other options for the cement
gradient are discussed in Chapter 9.
EP 2000-9073
3-26
Gas gradient
Pressure profile
is limited by the
fracture pressure
at the shoe
Fracture pressure at shoe
Maximum pore pressure over interval

Internal Casing Pressure
Fig. 3-3 Illustration of the internal load profile for burst design of
surface and intermediate casing in Design Level One.
EP 2000-9073
3-27
Initial mud gradient
Pore pressure
gradient
Initial cement
gradient
External Casing Pressure

Fig. 3-4 Illustration of the external load profile for burst design of surface and
intermediate casing in Design Level One.
Subsea well, internal and external pressure profile during production: Surface and intermediate
casing strings in subsea wells with sealed annuli will experience additional burst and collapse
loading from trapped annular pressure (Appendix 12). Production loads continue long into the
life of the well, when solids will have had time to settle out of the mud. While in the long term
mud may degenerate behind the casing, reducing the backup pressure which resists burst, the mud
also may degenerate inside the casing, reducing the gradient of the column which drives burst. In
the short term, the mud gradient inside the casing usually will be higher than the mud gradient
outside the casing, until the muds degenerate. Furthermore, production loading also can be started
in the short term before the solids have had time to drop out of the mud. This means that it is
appropriate to use the initial mud gradients and not the degenerated mud gradients.
For burst design of surface and protective strings with trapped annular pressure during
production, assume that the mud external pressure gradient corresponds to the initial mud
gradient at the time of the cement job.
For the external pressure gradient in the cement column, use the formation pore pressure
gradient unless the cement is completely inside another casing string. If the cement is
completely inside another casing string, use the cement mixwater gradient for the external
pressure gradient acting on the casing opposite the cement column.
EP 2000-9073
3-28
For burst design of surface and protective strings with trapped annular pressure during
production, assume a full column of mud inside the casing, and assume that the mud internal
pressure gradient corresponds to the initial mud gradient at the time of the cement job.
For burst design, do not apply any credit for buildup of external annular pressure. That is, for
burst design, assume that external trapped annular pressure is effectively vented or absorbed.
This is conservative for the burst calculation.
Influence of temperature and pressure on fluid gradients: The mud density is affected by the
temperature at depth and by the hydrostatic pressure from the column of mud acting on top of the
point of interest. This is more severe for lightweight mud and less severe for heavyweight mud
where the solids portion of mud weight is not impacted by temperature and pressure. Because this
is taken into account automatically in the Wellcat software, it is particularly important that
accurate mud properties be used with the software. To account for this in the software, you must
first calculate the pressure gradients using the prod option and then link to this with the tube
option. Using tube to calculate pressure gradients will not compensate for temperature and
pressure effect on the mud gradient.
3.6.2
Burst Pressure Gradients for Production Casing
Burst internal and external pressure profiles: Burst loading occurs during several different well
operations. Usually, the dominant design pressure for the production casing is the start of killing
a well by injecting into the casing, after a tubing leak and after the well is hot from sustained
production. This assumes that the kill operation cannot proceed down the tubing. This is a
realistic case that should be included in the casing design.
Assume that the tubing leaks the full shut-in tubing pressure to the top of the casing.
Inside the casing, apply a wellhead kill injection pressure equal to the shut-in tubing pressure
plus the lesser of 1,000 psi or 10% of the shut-in pressure.
Inside the casing, the pressure acts on top of the packer fluid.
Outside the casing, assume that the mud pressure gradient has had time to revert to the density
of the base fluid (solids have dropped out of the mud).
Assume that the cement pressure gradient has reverted to the density of the mix water
(Figure 3-5).
Other load options explained in Chapter 9 may be used for other design levels.
Inside and outside the casing, the mud, cement, and packer fluid gradients are affected by the
temperature and the pressure from the hydrostatic column.
EP 2000-9073
3-29
Mud base
fluid
density
Cement mixwater
gradient
Initial cement
gradient
External Casing Pressure

Fig. 3-5 Long-time external pressure profile for burst design of production casing.
3.6.3
Burst Loads for Tubing
Burst internal and external pressure profiles: Burst loading of tubing occurs during several
different well operations which apply different temperatures and pressures to the pipe (Section 3.5).
The most severe loading for burst of the tubing body usually is the start of a kill operation while
the well is hot from sustained production.
The pressure gradient outside the tubing is the gradient of the packer fluid.
Inside the tubing, the pressure acts on top of the formation fluid. Assume a gas gradient of 0.1
psi/ft or use the actual gas gradient if it is known.
Inside the tubing, apply a wellhead kill injection pressure equal to the shut-in tubing pressure
plus the lesser of 1,000 psi or 10% of the shut-in pressure.
Apply the kill pressure when the well is hot, after sustained production.
The pressure profile of the packer fluid will depend on the temperature and hydrostatic
pressure along the fluid column. This is adjusted automatically by the Wellcat software using
the prod option.
EP 2000-9073
3.6.4
3-30
Collapse Loads for Surface and Intermediate Casing
Collapse internal and external pressures while drilling: For the collapse pressure gradient outside
the casing, use the initial mud gradient. Time is too short for the mud pressure to deteriorate. For the
pressure gradient in the cement, use the pore pressure gradient (Figure 3-4) if the cement is opposite
formation and the mixwater gradient if the cement is completely contained inside another pipe.
For the internal pressure profile, use the gradient of the mud being used to drill out the interval to
TD. However, it is necessary and critical to stipulate the depth of evacuation. Assume evacuation
to a depth such that the remaining column of mud pressure inside the casing balances the pore
pressure at TD of the section (Figure 3-6a). To construct the internal pressure profile for losses at
a depth above TD, draw the mud-pressure line from the point on the pore-pressure profile
corresponding to the depth in question. The solid line in Figure 3-6a represents the actual mudpressure line to be used for the design. The evacuation level chosen should always be the deepest
that can occur due to drilling below the casing shoe. Thus, if the pore pressure in a certain
formation through which the borehole passes is sub-normal, e.g., because of a depleted horizon,
the mud-pressure line should be drawn from the point on the pore-pressure profile which gives the
lowest evacuation level (Figure 3-6b) and not from TD. As Figure 3-6c shows, abnormally high
pore pressures do not create an exception for defining the collapse load line.
Subsea, collapse internal and external pressures during production: Intermediate casing strings
in subsea wells with sealed annuli will experience additional collapse loading from trapped
annular pressure caused by heating during production (Appendix 12). The production loads
continue far into the life of the well, when solids will have had time to settle out of the mud both
inside and outside the casing. However, the production loads also occur when the well is first put
on production. In this short term, the mud gradient inside the intermediate casing usually will be
higher than the mud gradient outside the intermediate casing, even when the outside mud is
opposite formations. As time passes and the mud degenerates, the gradients inside and outside the
casing will approach the gradient of the mix water, and this leads to a more severe loading of
differential collapse pressure on the casing.
For subsea collapse design of intermediate casing during production operation, assume that
the external pressure gradient corresponds to the base-fluid density of the mud and the mix
water density of the cement, plus the built-up annular pressure.
For subsea collapse design of intermediate casing during production operation, assume that
the internal pressure profile also corresponds to the base-fluid density of the mud.
For the internal pressure profile, assume a full column of fluid (no evacuation). Do not apply
any credit for buildup of internal annular pressure. That is, for collapse design, assume that
internal trapped annular pressure is effectively vented or absorbed.
EP 2000-9073
3-31
Fig. 3-6 Construction of internal pressure profiles for collapse during drilling.
EP 2000-9073
3-32
3.6.5 Collapse Loads for Production Casing

For pressure inside the production casing, assume complete evacuation. This can occur if
there is accidental plugging at the bottom or if a plug is set on bottom and pressure is bled off.
For pressure outside the production casing, assume that the initial gradient of the mud applies
without deterioration of the mud. Note that this does not assume the worst possible case of
channeling reservoir pressures to the surface behind the cement. In such a case, you would
have the fracture pressure at the shoe and a gas gradient to surface on the outside of the
casing. Such a condition should be used in Level Two design if local cementing experience
indicates consistent cases of severe channeling and pressure communication behind the
casing. In general, this would indicate a well control problem in addition to a casing loading
problem. However, Level One design practice assumes competent cement isolation and uses
the mud gradient behind the casing.
In the cement, assume that the pressure gradient equals the pore pressure gradient if the
cement is opposite formation and the mixwater gradient if the cement is contained completely
inside another pipe.
3.6.6 Collapse Loads for Tubing

For pressure inside the tubing, assume complete evacuation.
For pressure outside the tubing, use the pressure gradient of the completion fluid.
3.6.7
Burst and Collapse Loads on Connections
The burst and collapse loads on connections should be covered by ensuring that the combination
of pressures and axial loads fall inside the service envelope of the connection (see Chapter 4).
This applies to both internal (burst) and external (collapse) pressures and to tensile and
compressive axial loads. The service envelope should correspond to the maximum operating
temperature of the well.
EP 2000-9073
3-33
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF SHELL LEVEL ONE BURST DESIGN PRACTICE
Pipe
Surface and
Protective
Casing
Strings
Loading
Burst
While Drilling
Internal Pressure
Full evacuation to
gas: a line connecting
to the surface from
the lower of:
Formation pressure at
TD with gas gradient
0.1 psi/ft (or actual)
to surface
Fracture pressure at
the shoe with gas
gradient 0.1 psi/ft (or
actual) to surface
External
Pressure
Design
Factors
Connections
Triaxial 1.25
Qualified
Triaxial 1.25
Qualified
Triaxial 1.25
Qualified
Triaxial 1.25
Qualified
Hydrostatic head
of seawater at the
wellhead.
Initial mud
gradient above top
of cement.
Pore pressure
gradient below
TOC if cement is
opposite rock; mix
water gradient
below TOC if
cement is
completely inside
another pipe.
Full mud column plus Hydrostatic head

trapped annular
of seawater at
wellhead.
pressure.
Subsea
Protective
Casing
Strings
Production
Casing
Tubing
Burst
While in
Production
Burst
Burst
Pressure gradient
equal to original mud
gradient at time of
cement job plus
gradient from trapped
annular pressure.
Initial mud
gradient above top
of cement.
Tubing leak with hot

kill: SITP plus
1,000 psi at the
surface on top of
column of completion
fluid. See Section 3.7
multiple load cases
apply.
Hydrostatic head
of seawater at the
wellhead.
Hot kill SITP plus

1,000 psi at the
surface plus gas
gradient to the
reservoir; see
Section 3.7 multiple
load cases apply.
Completion fluid
gradient inside
casing.
Pore pressure
gradient below
TOC if cement is
opposite rock; mix
water gradient
below TOC if
cement is
completely inside
another pipe.
Mud base fluid

density above top
of cement.
Cement mixwater
density below
TOC.
EP 2000-9073
3-34
Table 3-2
SUMMARY OF SHELL LEVEL ONE COLLAPSE DESIGN PRACTICE
Pipe
Loading
Internal Pressure
Based on lost
circulation while
drilling the next hole
section.
Surface and
Protective
Casing
Strings
Mud level drops to the

depth where mud
Collapse
balances the
While Drilling pressure
pore pressure at TD or
at the most depleted
depth in the next hole
section.
External
Pressure
Design
Factors
Connections
Hydrostatic head of
seawater at
wellhead.
above top of
cement.
Pore pressure
gradient below TOC
if cement is
opposite rock; mix
water gradient
below TOC if
cement is
completely inside
another pipe.
1.0 on
API 5C3
Ratings
Qualified
1.0 on
API 5C3
Ratings
Qualified
1.0 on
API 5C3
Ratings
Qualified
1.0 on
API 5C3
Ratings
Qualified
Hydrostatic head of
seawater at
wellhead
Subsea
Protective
Casing
Strings
Collapse
While in
Production
Pressure gradient equal

to mud base fluid
Mud base fluid
density.
density above top of
cement
Mix water gradient
below top of cement
Hydrostatic head of
seawater at
wellhead.
Production
Casing
Collapse
Tubing
Collapse
Full evacuation

above top of
cement.
Pore pressure
gradient below TOC
if cement is
opposite rock; mix
water gradient
below TOC if
cement is
completely inside
another pipe.
Full evacuation to gas

from formation TD.
Completion fluid
gradient inside
casing.
EP 2000-9073
3.7
3-35
Well Operations to Use for Design
In general, tubulars design can no longer be done by examining a single worst load case in burst
and another single worst load case in collapse. In reality, tubulars need to be designed based on
the stresses that occur due to changes between different operations of the well. In particular, it is
necessary to consider not only the current loading but also the change from the loading
corresponding to a previous operation. This is because, although the pipe and connection are
being loaded elastically (no permanent, path-dependent deformation is intended), some of the
operations result in determining the boundary conditions for the next operation with the pipe, so
that stresses arise from a change from one state to another. In some cases, it is important that one
operation follow another operation (for example, shut-in after sustained production has heated and
thermally stressed the pipe).
The preferred way to model these operations and calculate pipe stresses is by using the Wellcat
and Stresscheck software. Chapter 6 discusses specific options for use of the software. The
stresses arise during these well operations because of the imbalance between pressure gradients
inside and outside the pipe, because of hanging weight and tensile pull or compressive push on the
pipe, and because of thermal stresses generated by temperature change. Here, Level One design
uses a basic, conservative set of pressure profiles for the stress calculations. Chapter 9 provides
background on other, more complicated idealizations for the pressure profiles inside and outside a
given string of tubing or casing.
Reasons for Multiple Operations
Some operations result in more severe equivalent stress and more demanding design against
pipe body burst.
Some operations result in more severe collapse loading.
Some operations result in high axial compressive stress and high doglegs from buckling,
which places more design demand upon the connections.
Sequential operations result in temperature from one operation followed by maximum

pressure from another operation.
Which Operations Represent the Most Severe Load Cases

It is not possible to generalize which operation imposes the most severe burst, collapse, and
connection requirements for all wells. Depending on the reservoir pressure, drawdown, and
temperature, sometimes the most severe loading is the start of a kill operation while the well is hot
from sustained production; sometimes overpull is most severe; sometimes plugged and evacuated
production is most severe; and sometimes production or cold injection are most severe. It is important
to consider the multiple operations in order to ensure reliable design over the life of the well.
The burst load cases for tubing and production casing must include the case of injection to kill the
well. This load case usually dominates the burst load design. At the start of the kill process,
pressure is applied inside the tubing or casing at the wellhead. However, at the start of the
process, the tubing is full of produced formation fluid, and the production casing is full of
completion fluid. It is only later, at the end of this process, that the tubing or casing has been
filled with heavyweight mud.
EP 2000-9073
3-36
The production casing is exposed to many more well operations than is the intermediate casing,
and this leads to more load cases where the production casing must be designed to resist burst and
collapse failure.
3.7.1
Well Operations to Use for Design of Tubing
The following well operations should be simulated using Wellcat:

1. Initial conditions.
2. 100,000 lb tensile pullout:
At initial temperature
If deviated, substitute the larger of 100,000 lb or the maximum tensile load predicted by
torquedrag software during pullout from TD with friction.
3. Long-term production:
Internal pressure profile from flowing or static bottomhole pressure at the perforations;
flowing gas to surface (Wellcat calculates this).
External pressure from the packer fluid.
Maximum production rate and wellhead drawdown.
4. Hot shut-in at the wellhead, one minute after production:
Applies shut-in pressure at the (hot) wellhead
5. Hot shut-in at the safety valve (if present):
Results in tension in the string due to pressure at the valve, and evacuated collapse case
above the safety valve.
6. Start of hot kill (one minute production):
Pipe is hot and yield strength is reduced.
Pipe has large axial compression due to temperature, and tubing is buckled.
Compressive and bending stresses are severe for the connections.
Injection pressure at the wellhead is the shut-in pressure plus the lesser of 1,000 psi or
10% of shut-in pressure.
Injection pressure is applied to the column of formation gas (default gradient 0.1 psi/ft).
7. End of cold kill (immediately after long cold-kill injection):
Column is heavyweight kill mud from surface to TD inside the tubing, with same gradient
as the drilling mud to TD.
Have 500 psi pump injection pressure at the surface.
Zero pressure on the A annulus at the surface.
Cold injection temperature (80F) has cooled the lower part of the tubing.
8. Hot plugged evacuation:
Imposes most severe compressive stresses on the pipe body and connections.
An extreme case, simulates plugging during production.
Should use maximum anticipated surface pressure (if any) that will be applied to the
A annulus.
EP 2000-9073
3-37
9. Depleted production:
At chosen depleted pressure and production rate.
Imposes compressive load on the string and connections, but not as severe at plugged
evacuation.
A annulus.
10. Hot, production through tubing, simultaneous tubing leak to top of casing:
Production causes pressure drawdown in tubing.
Leak to casing causes wellhead pressure on A-annulus containing packer fluid, for hot
collapse loading of the tubing.
11. Hot, with pressure acting against plug set deep or shallow, with resulting axial tension and
evacuation above the plug:
Similar to shut-in at the safety valve, but deeper in the string if a profile is planned.
12. If the reservoir will be fractured, pumping frac pressure from the surface should be included
as one of the pressure load cases for the production tubing.
3.7.2
Well Operations to Use for Design of Production Casing
2. Tensile pullout:
Use the larger of 100,000 lb tension or 10% of pipe yield strength times area of the pipe
cross section.
If deviated, substitute the larger of the load cited above or the maximum tensile load
predicted by torquedrag software during pullout from TD with friction.
At initial temperature.
With friction if deviated.
3. Solids settle out of mud outside and circulated to packer fluid inside:
For long-term production loading.
Cement pressure gradient corresponds to formation pore pressure gradient.
4. Long-term production:
Heats the tubing and casing strings.
5. Hot, shut-in, one minute after production, with leak of shut-in tubing pressure to the top of the
casing:
Assumes a tubing leak to the top of casing.
Applies high pressure to casing while the casing is hot.
6. Hot, start of kill (one minute after production), with injection into the casing:
Usually this is the worst-case loading for burst design of the pipe.
Assumes a tubing leak to the top of the casing.
Have packer fluid inside the casing.
Have mud with base gradient outside the casing.
Have cement with mixwater gradient outside the casing.
Pipe is hot from production and yield strength is reduced.
Pipe has large axial compression due to temperature and probably is buckled where
uncemented.
EP 2000-9073
3-38
Compressive and bending stresses may be severe for the connections.

7. Cold, start of kill (after cooling down, but with shut in tubing pressure leaking to the top of
the casing, and with pump kill pressure applied in excess of the shut in pressure):
This can be the worst-case loading for the burst design of the pipe for strings which are
run with very high tension, particularly for split strings with heavier pipe on bottom.
Assumes a tubing leak to the top of the casing.
Have packer fluid inside the casing.
Have mud with base gradient outside the casing.
Have cement with mixwater gradient outside the casing.
Pipe is cold from shut in several weeks or months after production (recommend six
months shut in).
8. End of cold kill (immediately after long cold-kill injection), with injection into the casing:
Now treating the casing like tubing, i.e., injecting down the casing.
Column inside the casing is heavyweight mud from surface to TD, with same gradient as
the original drilling mud to TD.
Have 500 psi pump injection pressure at the surface.
Zero pressure on the B annulus at the surface.
Cold injection temperature (80F) has cooled the lower part of the tubing.
9. Hot, evacuation above packer:
Worst collapse design case.
Evacuated inside and mudcement gradients outside.
B annulus.
10. Cold, evacuation above packer:
Have combination of tension and collapse loading.
B annulus.
11. If the reservoir will be fractured, the surface frac injection pressure should be applied to the
top of the completion fluid inside the production casing for burst design. This addresses the
case where the tubing leaks at the surface during the frac job.
3.7.3
Well Operations to Use for Design of Surface and Intermediate Casing
2. Tensile pullout:
Use the larger of 100,000 lb tension or 10% of pipe yield strength times area of the pipe
cross section.
If deviated, substitute the larger of the load cited above or the maximum tensile load
predicted by torquedrag software during pullout from TD with friction.
EP 2000-9073
3-39
At initial temperature.
With friction if deviated.
3. Kick to full evacuation:

Mud gradient outside the casing is the initial mud gradient.
Cement gradient outside the casing is the pore pressure gradient.
4. Solids still in mud, drilling evacuation and collapse.
3.8
Pressure Testing
Pressure testing is not a requirement of Level One design practice. However, pressure testing is
recommended as an operational practice, rather than as a design practice. Because of the
deterioration of mud and cement gradients over time, because of in situ temperature during the
pressure test, and because of the use of conservative gradients in the design loads, a pressure test
usually will apply a less severe loading than the most severe design case (usually hot start of kill).
This is true even when the pressure test uses the full shut-in tubing pressure. Furthermore,
sometimes there is concern that pressure testing a string risks the well early in the life of the well,
before any production revenue has been generated. However, the pressure test offers a strong
advantage for the early and controlled discovery of a possible problem. It is much better to have a
failure early in a pressure test before the well has been perforated rather than later, after the well
has been perforated, cleaned-up, and put on production. In a worst-case failure on an
unperforated well during a pressure test, a blowout will quickly bridge over. However, in the
worst-case event for a well on production, the blowout would be sustained and not bridge over
because of the clean production conduit through to perforations. This is a valuable benefit to the
early discovery of a problem through pressure testing. Furthermore, in most operating companies,
well drilling and completion schedules are stacked in a queue. If a problem is discovered early in
one well, this can be very helpful, benefiting other wells headed for drilling and completion
before similar designs are put onto production
3.9
Use of Design Software
Chapter 6 provides more details about use of the design software. In general, Stresscheck should
be used for design of casing and Wellcat should be used for stress analysis of tubing. However,
Wellcat also can be used for casing. Hand calculations can be very helpful for initial evaluation
of design options and to generate confidence that the software has been run to generate the correct
solutions, but eventually the design must be checked with the Stresscheck or Wellcat software
prior to locking in the design. Furthermore, for casing, if the safety factor is less than 1.25, the
production casing stress design should be checked using Wellcat.
3.10
Pipe and Connection Quality Assurance in Keeper and Disposable Wells
Some wells are keeper wells which will be used for sustained production, while other wells are
disposable and will have a short life exposed to less severe pressures, for example, appraisal
wells. Although the life of a disposable well is short, as long as the well is put onto production or
production tested, any production string in such a well can be exposed to the full burst and
collapse pressures for which the string was designed. The planned short longevity of the well
does not change the fact that the production tubulars may be called upon to contain the full
production pressure. Hence, for a disposable well, the tubing and casing still need to be designed
EP 2000-9073
3-40
and purchased to withstand the pressure, tension, and temperature loading which will be applied
to that well.
3.11
When the Well Does Not Meet the Designed Intent
The well that actually is delivered should be reviewed and documented for compliance or variance
with the design that was planned. If the delivered well differs significantly from the design
requirements of the intended well, this should be dealt with within the scope of both Shells global
Pressure Control Manual and the local practices of the specific operating company; in addition,
the limitations of the delivered well should be documented for reference by the servicing staff
within the operating company. In this case, emphasis should be placed on managing and
controlling risk.
3.12
Other Design Considerations Special Cases
Design for reservoir compaction, through-salt wells, HPHT wells, extended-reach wells, and
several other special cases requires attention to special considerations. Appendix 1 provides
design guidance for several types of specialty wells. In subsea wells with sealed annuli, the
design must account for buildup of annular pressure. This can be done using the Wellcat
software. Guidance is given in Appendix 12.
3.13
References
1. Kuriyama, Y., Tsukano, Y., Mimaki, T., and Yonezawa, T. (1992), Effect of Wear and
Bending on Casing Collapse Strength, SPE 24597, presented at SPE Ann. Tech. Conf.
Exhibition, Washington, DC.
2. Rabinowicz, E., The Wear Equation for Erosion of Metals by Abrasive Particles, Proc. 5th Int.
Conf. on Erosion by Solid and Liquid Impact.
EP-2000-9073
Chapter 4, Revision 1
4-1

Chapter 4
Shell Global, Level One Design Practice for the Design of
Threaded Connections for Well Casing & Tubing Service,
and for Connection Evaluation and Approval
4.
SHELL GLOBAL, LEVEL ONE DESIGN PRACTICE FOR THE DESIGN OF

THREADED CONNECTIONS FOR WELL CASING & TUBING SERVICE,
AND FOR CONNECTION EVALUATION AND APPROVAL ................................... 3
4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 3
Part I:
4.I.1.
4.I.2.
4.I.3.
4.I.4.
CONNECTION DESIGN / SELECTION FOR USE IN WELLS................................... 4

Tubular Connection Engineering and Procurement for a Well Applications................... 4
Design Factors .................................................................................................................. 4
Procurement and Usage of Approved Connections.......................................................... 5
External Pressure Sealing for Drilling, Production, and
Trapped Annular Pressure Events .................................................................................... 6
Special Clearance Coupling Connections ........................................................................ 7
Redundant Seals ............................................................................................................... 7
Recommendation Against Gas Testing when Running Tubulars..................................... 8
4.I.5.
4.I.6.
4.I.7.
Part II: PROCEDURES THAT SHALL BE FOLLOWED TO TEST, EVALUATE, AND

APPROVE A CONNECTION FOR SHELL USE .......................................................... 9
4.II.1. General ............................................................................................................................. 9
4.II.2. Evaluation of a Connection by Testing to Item 1 Above ................................................. 9
4.II.2.1 Standard Test Procedure for Production Tubing and Production Casing Connections.. 9
4.II.2.2 Custom Test Procedure for Production-String Connections with
Pressure > 13,000 psi..................................................................................................... 11
4.II.2.3 Differences Between the CAL III-R and CAL IV Test Procedures................................. 12
4.II.2.4 Connections for Production Casing and Tubing at Internal Pressures
Below 4,000 psi and for All Drilling/Intermediate Casing at All Pressures.................. 15
4.II.3. The Reduced Test Program ............................................................................................ 16
4.II.4. Evaluation of the Broader Connection Products Through Extrapolation
Based on a Combination of Full and Reduced Test Programs....................................... 16
4.II.4.1 Functional Make-Break Tests......................................................................................... 17
4.II.4.2 Wells with Shut-In Pressures Above 4,000 psi and Below 13,000 psi ........................... 17
4.II.4.3 Extrapolation to Equal or Lower Maximum Internal and External Pressures .............. 17
4.II.4.4 Extrapolation to Higher Pressure .................................................................................. 21
4.II.4.5 Interpolation Between Two Sets of Fully Tested Connections ....................................... 22
4.II.4.6 Wells with Shut-In Pressures Below 4,000 psi ............................................................... 25
EP-2000-9073
4-2
4.II.4.7 Listing and CUE of Approved, Extrapolated Connections ............................................ 26

4.II.5. Evaluation of Connections Based on Assessment of Non-Shell,
Third-Party Connection Test Programs.......................................................................... 26
4.II.6. Requirements for a Connection To Be Approved for Global and Regional Use
in Shell Wells ................................................................................................................. 27
4.II.7. Shell-Approved Tubular Connections (SATC) List....................................................... 29
4.II.8. Changes to Approved Connections ................................................................................ 29
4.II.9. Material for Testing........................................................................................................ 30
4.II.10. Calculating the Internal Pressures to Which the Connection Is Approved Based on
Testing to 90% of Pipe Body Yield................................................................................ 30
4.II.11. External Pressure-Testing Methodology ........................................................................ 31
4.II.12. Project Oversight and Quality Assurance....................................................................... 31
4.II.13. Evaluation and Approval of the Testing Facility ........................................................... 32
4.II.14. Witnessing Connection Evaluation Tests....................................................................... 32
4.II.15. Deviations/Exceptions to Test Plans .............................................................................. 33
4.II.16. Thread Compounds ........................................................................................................ 33
4.II.17. Check for Seal-Ring Movement During Makeup/Breakout........................................... 34
4.II.18. Make/Break Acceptance Criteria and Failed Tests ........................................................ 34
4.II.19. Leakage Criteria and Failed Tests .................................................................................. 35
4.II.20. Testing to Establish Connection Performance When Leakage Occurs .......................... 35
4.II.21. Special Clearance Coupling Connections ...................................................................... 35
4.II.22. Role of Finite-Element Analysis for Connection Performance Evaluation ................... 36
4.II.23. Evaluation of Connections Based on Well Service....................................................... 36
4.II.24. Records Retention .......................................................................................................... 36
References..................................................................................................................................... 37
Attachment A Executive Summary Recommending Approval of the Connection ................... 38
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 38
Key Recommendation to the Discipline Head ................................................... 38
Background Information .................................................................................... 38
Attachment B
Example Steps to Review and Approve Connection Manufacturer Updates

to Connection Product Drawings........................................................................ 40
Steps to the Review Process ............................................................................... 40
EP-2000-9073
4.
4-3
Shell Global, Level One Design Practice for the Design of Threaded Connections
for Well Casing & Tubing Service, and for Connection Evaluation and Approval
4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is Chapter 4 of Shells global casing and tubing design guide. Part I explains Shells global
Level 1 design requirements for well engineering selection of threaded casing and tubing
connections for well usage. Part I also explains the global minimum required design factors to
apply to connections. Part II explains Shells global requirements for connection product
evaluation testing and Shells process for management approval of connection products for
general use in Shell-designed wells. Part II also explains how competitor and third-party test
results can be used to evaluate and approve a connection product for Shell use. Once a
connection product has been approved for Shell use, it can be used in any number of wells.
A typical casing or tubing string contains hundreds of connections, and the pressure integrity of
each string is dependent on reliable sealing and structural performance from each connection.
Failure of any one of the connections can lead to a loss of well containment and related
consequences. Connection evaluation standards are applied in order to bring the risk of
connection failure in line with the background risks inherent in properly manufactured and
inspected API pipe.
Shell-designed wells shall use only connections which have been approved by Shell management
through the process outlined here. Approval for global use shall be made by the Well
Engineering Global Discipline Head (GDH). If a connection has not been approved for global
use, then approval for use by an individual Region shall be made by the Well Engineering
Regional Discipline Head (RDH). Approval of a connection product is a one-time event based
on evaluation of the product; approval is not made on a well-by-well basis. Regions shall use
only this single standard documented here as the basis for connection evaluation and approval.
However, Regions may differ in the approved commercial connection products they choose to
use.
The connection product pertains to a single size, weight, and grade of tubular and includes the
manufacturers quality plan and field deployment procedures. Prior to receiving management
approval of a specific connection product, connection specimens at extremes of manufacturing
tolerances are required to have received testing or related evaluation outlined in Part II of this
document. The criteria for testing a connection are more demanding for gas-tight production
strings and less demanding for liquid-sealing, large-diameter, drill/intermediate casing. The type
of testing used to evaluate connections is based on historical Shell and industry experience and
makes use of the ISO-13679 procedure for connection testing.1 The tests address galling
tendency, sealing reliability, and structural integrity of the connection design. Part II outlines the
minimum testing required to evaluate a connection. If Regional Management decides to
supplement the minimum testing with additional, more arduous testing due to perceived risk of a
well, Part II provides the structure for additional custom testing under the Regional MOC
process. Where a specific size, weight, and grade of connection has been tested and approved,
Part II provides structure for a reduced amount of testing in order to evaluate and seek Shell
Management approval of the connection in other combinations of size, weight, grade, and
maximum service pressure.
EP-2000-9073
4-4
Each approved connection product will have a Connection Usage Envelope (CUE) in which the
properly run connection will not leak and will not fail structurally. The Shell-approved
connection shall be used in a Shell-designed well only if the well loads and pressures times the
connection design factors (listed in Part I) are within the CUE.
The Shell well engineering discipline maintains a list of Shell globally approved connections at
http://swwep-w.shell.com/threads/. Generally, significant lead time (e.g., 8-12 months) and
expense by Shell are required to obtain material and test a connection, and engineers are strongly
encouraged to use an existing Shell-approved connection prior to sponsoring a new connection
evaluation test program.
Evaluations of connections for vacuum-insulated tubing (VIT) service, drilling with casing/
tubing service, for fatigue loading, and for glass-reinforced epoxy (GRE) lined tubing are
required to meet this standard plus the testing requirements applicable to these topics.
Connection evaluations for steam well service, expandable tubulars, and risers are outside the
scope of this standard.
Part I
CONNECTION DESIGN / SELECTION FOR USE IN WELLS
4.I.1. Tubular Connection Engineering and Procurement for a Well Applications
Shells design standards for technical integrity require (i) that each connection product used in a
well shall have received one-time approval by Discipline Head Management; and (ii) that the
well service loads and pressures times connection design factors listed herein shall lie inside the
Connection Usage Envelope (CUE). This applies for production, injection, and drilling/
intermediate tubulars, i.e., for every diameter and type of casing and tubing string. After meeting
this requirement, commercial considerations usually determine the selection of the connection.
The amount of evaluation required in order for a connection product to receive approval by Shell
Discipline Management is more for production tubulars and less for drilling/intermediate casing
(Part II).
4.I.2. Design Factors
As explained in Chapter 5, pipe design is performed by balancing the resistance of the pipe with
the load which acts on the pipe during different well operations. A design factor is applied to
account for uncertainties. Because there are different sources for uncertainty, there really are
different partial design factors which combine into the single design factor used for pipe design:
a resistance design factor accounting for the uncertainty of the pipe to withstand a given pressure
and axial load; a load design factor accounting for the uncertainty of the load, pressure,
temperature, and bending trajectory which will be applied to the pipe in the well; and a model
uncertainty factor that quantifies the accuracy of the model used to describe a particular failure
mechanism (e.g., yield, collapse). The combined design factor provides an integrated effect of
the partial load, resistance, and model uncertainty factors.
EP-2000-9073
4-5
For connections, a resistance design factor does not need to be applied to the uncertainty of
connection performance. This is because the connection is a precisely machined and controlled
product over its entire length (unlike a pipe), and the connection design gets tested and evaluated
at the extremes of its tolerances as part of the approval process. However, the well pressure and
axial load shall have connection design factors applied to them in order to account for the load
uncertainty and model uncertainty which remain in effect for the connection just like for the
pipe. In the connection, the model uncertainty comes from the concept by which specific tests
are chosen and used in order to predict connection performance under a broader spectrum of well
loads (the connection tests never duplicate the actual spectrum of tension, compression, internal
and external pressure, and hot and cold temperatures which may occur in the well).
For connections, the global Level 1 combined design factors (DF) for load and model uncertainty
are the following:

For internal differential pressure (burst loading), the minimum connection DF is 1.15
times the maximum expected differential pressure.
For external differential pressure (collapse loading), the minimum connection DF is
1.00 times the maximum expected differential pressure. This is set in order to correlate
with the pipe having the same 1.00 collapse design factor (an implicit design factor is
built into collapse design practice).
For axial tension, the minimum connection DF is 1.30. This applies at all times
including running and including the presence of internal or external differential
pressure.
For axial compression, the minimum connection DF is 1.10. This applies at all times
including running and including the presence of internal or external differential
pressure.
4.I.3. Procurement and Usage of Approved Connections

The manufacturers quality plan, including field deployment, is part of the connection product
which was evaluated and approved. Likewise, the connection has been approved for use only
with a specific thread compound. Failing to use all the elements of the manufacturers quality
plan including the type of thread compound and makeup equipment specified by the quality plan
voids the approved status of the connection for that particular well application. To seek approval
of a connection for which the quality plan has changed, see Part II.
Caution: The user should be aware that information provided by the thread manufacturer in their
field-running procedures (especially the type and quantity of thread compound and the torque
values) frequently is not consistent with what was used during a particular evaluation project.
For deployment of a connection product to a well, it is important to use the torque ranges
specified in Shells list of approved connections because these were the torque ranges used in the
evaluation testing.
Shell-purchased connections shall be consistent with the drawing number and revision level of
the connection that was approved. This information is available in the web site list of Shellapproved connections. Connections with a different drawing number and/or revision level are
not approved and shall not be used until they have gone through the review process as described
in Part II.
EP-2000-9073
4-6
When using any of the approved connections, care should be taken with the manufacture,
inspection, handling, and mill/rig assembly to ensure trouble-free performance. Manufacturing
and inspection quality-control plan and sub-tier documents, including anti-galling treatment,
shall be consistent with the processes used for the connection during evaluation testing. The type
and quantity of thread compound and the torques used when bucking on couplings at the threader
and at the rig shall be consistent with the compound and make-up procedures used during the
connection evaluation tests. This information also is available in the list of Shell-approved
connections.
During processing of production orders for well service, Shell Quality-Assurance staff should
witness or monitor appropriate parts of the connection threading process. The degree of
involvement depends on the application and typical performance of the facility doing the
threading. The thread protectors should be adequate for the application (standards are included
in the current edition of API 5CT/ISO 11960). All connections which were tested using torqueturn equipment must be made up in the mill and in the field using equivalent torque-turn
equipment.
4.I.4.
External Pressure Sealing for Drilling, Production,

and Trapped Annular Pressure Events
External pressure sealing is a requirement of all surface and intermediate casing connections
during drilling out of the particular string. This means the connection must be rated to the
collapse design requirements of the string, since the connection sees the same collapse loading as
the pipe. In well service, the pipe usually provides more than the minimum required level of
collapse strength. This can be due to the available discrete increments of pipe weight or grade;
or this can be due to the pipe being selected based on burst design. The connection does not
need to match the collapse rating of the pipe; rather the connection needs to be adequate only for
the maximum collapse loading predicted for the string.
For global, Level 1 design of wells in general, external pressure sealing ceases to be required for
surface and intermediate casing connections after another casing has been run and cemented
inside the string. Some Regions have additional considerations which lead to a Regional
requirement for external pressure sealing of surface and/or intermediate casing, but those are
special circumstances and not global requirements.
The requirement for external pressure sealing is not due to the consequence of leakage of fluid
from OD to ID. Instead, the requirement is in place because testing has shown leakage from the
OD to the ID can severely damage the ability of a connection to subsequently seal differential
pressure from the ID to the OD. In some industry testing, the ability to seal internal gas pressure
has been destroyed completely due to damage from leaking external pressure. This can occur
due to yielding inside the connection or due to debris swept to the seal while open from external
pressure. The problem is that leakage of external pressure during collapse loading can lead to
the connection leaking internal pressure during a subsequent kick.
For all production casing (including tiebacks), external pressure sealing of connections is
required for all the load cases, including evacuation, applicable for the service life of the string.
Again, the driver is the ability of the connection to seal subsequent exposure to internal pressure
if allowed to leak external pressure. Unlike intermediate casing, production-casing connections
EP-2000-9073
4-7
are required to seal external pressure during all of the producing and shut-in load cases over the
life of the well, including gas lift if it is planned.
Subsea and TLP/DVA wells frequently will develop and trap large fluid pressures in the annuli
of production and intermediate casing strings due to a combination of cementing up to previous
shoes and production heating along the well. For such wells, external pressure sealing after
completion of the well is not a requirement for the intermediate casing connections. Indeed, for
such wells, it usually would be helpful if the intermediate casing connections would seal external
pressure during drilling but leak external pressure during production in order to balance
pressures, although this cannot be counted upon to relieve (transfer) the trapped pressure.
However, the subsea and TLP/DVA well production casing connections are required to seal the
combination of maximum external trapped pressure (due to production heating) on top of the
external pressure from running the annulus column of fluid, balanced only partly by the packer
fluid inside the casing. Consideration also must be given to whether the well may be put on gas
lift. If gas lift is a possibility, then the production casing connections of subsea and TLP/DVA
wells are required to seal the combination of external fluid pressure plus external trapped annular
pressure, while the balancing internal pressure essentially is zero during intervals of gas lift. For
TLP/DVA wells, the B-annulus behind the production tieback/casing usually can be vented in
order to keep the maximum trapped annular pressure behind this string a small number.
4.I.5. Special Clearance Coupling Connections
A special clearance connection shall be considered as a design variance of a tested and approved
connection and shall have its own CUE and its own approval based on procedures explained in
Part II. It is listed as a separate connection product in Shells list of approved connections.
4.I.6. Redundant Seals
Connections with multiple, independently proven, high-reliability seals can be designed by
manufacturers, evaluated, and delivered to wells. Some Shell locations have chosen to use
connections with multiple seals in production strings in order to further reduce risks. Design
and delivery of such connections in general will carry higher costs due to establishing the
independent performance of each of the multiple seals. Connections with multiple seals have a
separate CUE for each seal. When redundant seals are used, the well loads times design factors
need to lie inside the CUE of each seal; otherwise, the connection must be considered a singleseal connection based on the CUE of the seal that does encompass the well loads times design
factors.
Typically, multiple-seal connections will have a radial metal-to-metal seal and also a resilient
seal, because the use of different sealing mechanisms provides protection against common mode
damage during running. It may be possible to have redundant metal seals, but this may not
provide as much advantage, since this may not solve the problem if corrosion or handling
damage is a problem.
If a connection has been tested and approved based on having independent metal-to-metal and
resilient-ring seals, then if only the metal-to-metal (MM) seal is used (e.g., if a seal ring is
intentionally left out of the connection), the connection ceases to be approved based on its
original product concept and is required to be re-approved as a separate product as explained in
EP-2000-9073
4-8
Part II. This is due to the interaction between the MM seal and the resilient seal and because
evaluation testing was done only with both seals in place.
Operational risks can be increased the first time a new type of connection seal is introduced to a
particular field location which has not previously used that type of seal. For example, the seal
ring groove connection provides greater reliability to the tubular string only if adequate operating
practices are followed for installation and makeup of the seal ring. If multiple-seal connections
are going to be used in an operating company for the first time, this should be done as part of a
carefully planned operating strategy and not on a one-off well basis since the latter is likely to
increase rather than decrease risk.
A torque shoulder seal may be possible in theory, but generally it is not counted as a seal by
Shell because it is susceptible to corrosion, handling damage, solid particles preventing full
contact, and opening under high axial load.
4.I.7. Recommendation Against Gas Testing when Running Tubulars
Services are available to do internal gas tests when running the tubulars into the well. These
methods are of doubtful benefit because it can take a very long hold time for a leak to show up in
such non-laboratory testing; and because such testing does not duplicate the combined
temperature, bending/buckling, tension/compression, and pressure effects which the connection
can experience in the well or even in the standard, laboratory evaluation testing. Such testing is
not recommended as a field quality check while running tubulars. Rig-site testing when running
a string of pipe, regardless of how extensive, shall not be an acceptable means to using a
connection that has not been approved by Wells Discipline Management.
EP-2000-9073
4-9
Part II
PROCEDURES THAT SHALL BE FOLLOWED TO TEST, EVALUATE, AND
APPROVE A CONNECTION FOR SHELL USE
4.II.1. General
This part of the standard documents the procedures that shall be followed to test, evaluate, and
approve a connection for well service. This includes connections tested by or for Shell and
connections tested by competitors or other third parties as the basis for evaluation by Shell. This
procedure is required for the evaluation of all Shell-designed well connections whether the
application is global or regional.
Evaluation of a connection shall be made through one of the following protocols:
1. Evaluation based on using the full test program (specified below) on a specific size, weight,
and grade connection product.
2. Evaluation of a specific size, weight, and grade connection based on following a reduced test
program called extrapolation specified below, but only in combination with previous
evaluation and approval of the connection based on a full/complete test program in a nearby
combination of size, weight, and grade; and only up to a maximum shut-in pressure of
13,000 psi (absolute, not differential). This sometimes is referred to as extrapolation,
interpolation, or product-line evaluation; here this is called extrapolation. Beyond 13,000 psi
absolute shut-in pressure prior to application of design factors, a full (not reduced) test
program is required to evaluate and approve the connection.
3. Evaluation using the reduced test program to increase the performance rating of a previously
approved connection up to, but not beyond, 13,000 psi maximum shut-in pressure.
4. Evaluation based on assessment of other operator- or threader-provided reports of testing
done to a minimum requirement of the ISO-13679 CAL III test procedure or better, up to and
not beyond a maximum (absolute) shut-in pressure of 13,000 psi prior to application of
design factors.
Execution of any of items 1 to 4 to evaluate a connection is done by a Shell Connection Test
Lead (CTL) with roles and responsibilities as defined below. The CTL then provides Wells
Discipline Management (per below) with a recommendation to approve the connection product
for general use. Connection evaluation is a complicated and specialized subject, and in general it
is strongly recommended that the CTL either be, or work closely with, Shells global subject
matter expert for connections (GSME).2
4.II.2. Evaluation of a Connection by Testing to Item 1 Above
4.II.2.1 Standard Test Procedure for Production Tubing and Production Casing Connections
Connections on production tubing, production casing, and production liners intended for wells
with shut-in pressure (without design factors) above 4,000 psi differential pressure and no higher
than 13,000 psi absolute (not differential) pressure shall be tested at minimum using the
specimen geometries and test series stipulated in ISO 13679 CAL III-R. Here the notation III-R
denotes the latest draft revision to ISO 13679, effective June 2007. Table 1 lists the sequence of
tests applicable for the CAL III-R test procedure.
EP-2000-9073
4-10
The CAL III-R test procedures utilizes six connection specimens subjected to varied
combinations of ISO test series A, B, C as stipulated in ISO 13679. This is Shells minimum
required test for gas-sealing connections for wells with maximum shut-in tubing pressure up to
13,000 psi absolute (not differential) pressure prior to application of design factors to the well
loads. The CAL III-R test procedure also is the most common test procedure shared across the
industry and used by Shells partners in jointly held wells. However, the CAL III-R test
procedure is intended for a complete set of six connection specimens and shall not be used for
any of the reduced test programs, as explained below.
While CAL III-R is the minimum required test protocol, below 13,000 psi shut-in pressure, the
Shell-ISO 13679 CAL IV test procedure is the default and preferred test protocol. For wells
below 13,000 psi shut-in pressure, the Shell-ISO 13679 CAL IV test protocol (denoted
henceforth as Shell CAL IV) will be used whenever practical and sensible to do so, per the
judgment of the Shell engineer conducting the evaluation program. Hence, the minimum
CAL III-R protocol shall be used in cases where the preferred, default Shell CAL IV protocol is
not used.
The Shell CAL IV test protocol is a subset of the tests listed under ISO 13679 CAL IV. As a
compromise industry standard, ISO 13679 CAL IV lists several combinations of specimen
geometries and choices as to which specimens experience the specific A, B, and C types of tests.
The key requirement of the Shell CAL IV test procedure is that each of four connection
specimens must be subjected to the combination of every series (A, B, C) of the ISO connection
tests. That is, using CAL III-R, an individual specimen might see test series A alone, or B alone,
or A and C combined. But using Shell CAL IV, there are four specimens, and each individual
specimen sees all of test series A and B and C combined. Hence, the Shell CAL IV procedure is
a more discriminating test than the CAL III-R procedure.
The Shell CAL IV procedure requires four, and only four, test specimens. The four specimens
represent different extreme combinations of seal interferences, thread interferences, and thread
tapers; and these are made up to various high and low extremes of makeup tolerances. These
tolerance extremes generally follow the recommendations of the ISO test protocol, but the final
choice of which extremes to use is always at the discretion of the Shell engineer conducting the
connection evaluation.
These four combined-test specimens can be obtained in any of a variety of test sequences. In
some cases, a connection manufacturer will want to proceed directly to the Shell CAL IV test,
hence using four connection specimens. In other cases, a connection manufacturer may want to
perform the Shell CAL IV test as an addition to a CAL III-R test, i.e., bolting the Shell CAL IV
feature onto a CAL III-R test. Table 2 lists various options in which the Shell CAL IV test can
be performed, and all of these are acceptable. The sequence for exposing the specimen to test
series A, B, and C also is flexible and is allowed to be changed in Table 2. Any sequence of the
combined A, B, C testing is acceptable, provided that the four specimens pass the combination of
the A, B, and C tests.
If a connection is evaluated based on using the CAL IV procedure and fails the test, the
connection cannot be approved based on its passing the CAL III-R procedure. Furthermore,
once a connection has been evaluated and has failed based on the CAL IV test procedure, a
EP-2000-9073
4-11
redesign of the connection also must be tested using the CAL IV procedure and cannot be
reevaluated or approved based on changing to the less demanding CAL III-R procedure.
If a connection is evaluated for service below 13,000 psi using the CAL III-R procedure or using
the Shell CAL IV procedure, in both cases the connection product receives equal approval by
Shell management for global use up to the pressures and loads of its CUE. Once approved,
either connection is equally approved and equally acceptable (no distinction is made in the way
the approval is listed).
For well conditions below 13,000 psi shut-in pressure, the ISO CAL III-R procedure provides a
sufficient, industry-accepted test of the connection. The CAL III-R procedure is used by most of
Shells major competitors and JV-well partners in the industry, and the procedure has received
strong endorsement by the ISO-13679 committee as sufficient for evaluation of connections for
most well applications. The ISO CAL III-R and earlier CAL III test procedures have been used
successfully to deliver reliable connection performance to a large population of industry wells.
However, the Shell CAL IV procedure is more comprehensive and covers broader usage
contingencies than the CAL III-R procedure. The Shell CAL IV procedure also provides a more
consistent link with connections that are evaluated through the (extrapolation) reduced test
procedure. Execution of the Shell CAL IV test procedure costs only about 20% more than
execution of the ISO CAL III-R test procedure. Therefore, use of the Shell CAL IV test
procedure is strongly recommended instead of using the CAL III-R test procedure to evaluate
production-string connections for maximum pressures below 13,000 psi. Use of the CAL IV
procedure has broader long-term benefit to the Shell enterprise.
4.II.2.2 Custom Test Procedure for Production-String Connections with Pressure > 13,000 psi
If the well maximum shut-in tubing pressure exceeds 13,000 psi absolute (not differential)
pressure prior to application of design factors, a connection is not Shell approved for use in the
production-string unless the connection has been tested using the more robust, custom test
procedure specified below. The cutoff at 13,000 psi absolute internal pressure corresponds to an
internal pressure of 15,000 psi after the connection pressure design factor (1.15) is applied to the
shut-in pressure. The cutoff at 15,000 psi has three driving factors: (i) the vast majority of
historical well connection experience and testing have been at shut-in pressures below
15,000 psi; (ii) well pressure containment equipment (wellheads, trees, BOPs) are rated based on
absolute (not differential) pressure; and (iii) there has been relatively very little use of and
logistical availability of well control equipment at shut-in pressures above 15,000 psi. Shut-in
pressures exceeding 13,000 psi prior to design factors make it prudent to use the more robust,
custom test procedure.
The custom test procedure requires:
(a) At minimum, the connection shall be tested using the Shell CAL IV test procedure and
not using the CAL III-R test procedure.
(b) Plus an option for additional testing if necessary as a supplemental Regional requirement
in accord with the Regional management of change (MOC) process for risk assessment
and as approved by the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head.
EP-2000-9073
4-12
Shell CAL IV is the minimum baseline for Shells custom test procedure. However, a custom
test may include tests in addition to CAL IV (e.g., additional specimens or different types of
loading) if the Regional Discipline Head determines this is necessary. In most instances, a
custom test procedure will consist of only Shell CAL IV without additional testing. If a Region
does utilize additional testing in the custom procedure, the types of additional tests shall be
approved by the Regional Discipline Head.
Regardless of the well shut-in tubing pressure, if a Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head
determines that a well has critical connection risks, then the connection shall be evaluated and
approved based on using the custom procedure including CAL IV. Furthermore, regardless of
the shut-in tubing pressure, all reduced test programs intended to evaluate connections for gastight service shall use the CAL IV procedure and not the minimum standard (CAL III-R) test
procedure.
A connection which has been evaluated and approved based on the custom test for any one
Region does not necessarily meet the custom test requirements or approval of another Region.
This is because the same well conditions can represent different levels of consequence-risk in
different Regions. The acceptance of a globally approved, CAL IV-tested connection as meeting
the requirements of a custom test shall be determined on a Regional basis by the Regional
Discipline Head needing the connection. Hence, a connection which has been tested using
CAL IV is listed in Shells SATC site as globally approved, and the connection is available for
use in any Region unless a specific Region requires a custom test comprising more than the
CAL IV procedure. In such case, that Region has to determine what additional testing is needed
beyond CAL IV. In practice, most of the time Regions will only require CAL IV as the custom
test.
In summary,
Above 13,000 psi shut-in tubing pressure, a connection shall not be used unless it has
been evaluated and approved based on ISO 13679 Shell CAL IV. A Region may require
yet additional testing under the scope of the custom procedure, although this is rarely
done.
Below 13,000 psi shut-in tubing pressure, a connection may be approved based on testing
to either the CAL III-R or the Shell CAL IV procedures.
Below 13,000 psi shut-in tubing pressure, the CAL III-R test is the minimum required
test protocol, but Shell CAL IV test is the preferred test protocol.
Below 13,000 psi shut-in tubing pressure, a Region may determine that connections for a
critical well need to have been evaluated using the custom procedure (testing to Shell
CAL IV) even though the connections already are globally approved.
Only the CAL IV test protocol can be used for reduced test programs.
4.II.2.3 Differences Between the CAL III-R and CAL IV Test Procedures
The Shell CAL IV test procedure uses the same extremes of geometry tolerances as the CAL III-R
test procedure. Both test procedures share the same types or series of ISO tests; and both
procedures have been developed based on a large amount of prior historical testing and
engineering judgment.
EP-2000-9073
4-13
The CAL III-R procedure uses six specimens to address the extreme geometries of connection
tolerances. Only four of the geometries are unique, while the last two specimens are redundant
with the other geometries. The CAL III-R procedure subjects certain specimens to certain series
of tests; i.e., no single specimen is subjected to each type of test series (room-temperature
cycling of internal/external pressure and tension/compression; thermal cycling at tension and
internal pressure; and elevated-temperature cycling of internal pressure, tension, and
compression). The choice of test combinations in CAL III-R is based on the judgment by the
ISO WG2A committee of connection experts that the tests are sufficient to evaluate the
connection at minimum cost of testing. The CAL III-R procedure is the industry-wide baseline
procedure for most connection testing. This is the same baseline testing used by Shells major
partners and competitors, and Shell accepts the use of this procedure through participation in its
partner wells. Furthermore, testing by competitors and threaders using the CAL III-R procedure
is sufficient to provide information for Shell to evaluate a connection using method 4.II.1.4
above; i.e., connections can be evaluated for Shells approval based on review of non-Shell
reports of CAL III-R connection test programs performed and documented by competitors or
threader manufacturers.
The Shell CAL IV test procedure uses four rather than six test specimens. This is the same for
threaded and coupled and integral connections. However, additional specimens might be used
for an industry CAL IV test, since this can combine the Shell CAL IV test with features of
interest to other operators (such as CAL III-R test). The core requirement of four specimens in
Shell CAL IV is an intentional trade-off in order to subject each specimen to more
comprehensive testing. Shell CAL IV uses the same extreme-tolerance geometries as covered in
the CAL III-R test, but in Shell CAL IV each specimen is subjected to each of the ISO series of
tests (cycling load, pressure, and temperature). No judgment-based selection is made as to which
specimen should receive which type of test: each specimen receives all tests. The net result is
that Shell CAL IV is a more robust test which provides (i) about 30% more net testing and (ii) a
robust combination of sequential exposures to the different types of cyclic tests. This is required
only for the more severe well pressures, but the use of this test procedure is a preferred option
when the additional cost of testing is not the deciding factor.
1
Bc CCw
Bc Cw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
Table 1 - CAL III-R Specimens and Tests

2
3
4
5
A CCw
Bcb CCw A CCw
A CCw
A Cw
Bcb Cw
A Cw
A Cw
A CCw
Bcb CCw A CCw
A CCw
C10 H
C10 H
6
Bc CCw
Bc Cw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
EP-2000-9073
4-14
Table 2 - Shell CAL IV Option 1

1
2
3
4
A CCw
A CCw
A CCw
A CCw
A Cw
A Cw
A Cw
A Cw
A CCw
A CCw
A CCw
A CCw
Bhb CCw Bhb CCw Bhb CCw Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bhb Cw
Bhb Cw
Bhb Cw
c
c
c
B b CCw B b CCw B b CCw Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
Bcb Cw
Bcb Cw
Bcb Cw
C10 H
C10 H
C10 H
C10 H
This is the minimum required Shell CAL IV.
1
A CCw
A Cw
A CCw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
C10 H

2
3
4
5
A CCw
A CCw
A CCw
A CCw
A Cw
A Cw
A Cw
A Cw
A CCw
A CCw
A CCw
A CCw
h
h
h
B b CCw B b CCw B b CCw C10 H
Bhb Cw
Bhb Cw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw Bcb CCw Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
Bcb Cw
Bcb Cw
C10 H
C10 H
C10 H
6
Bc CCw
Bc Cw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
Using Option 2, CAL III-R is embedded within the CAL IV test.
1
c
B CCw
Bc Cw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
A CC
AC
A CC
C10 H

2
3
4
5
c
B CCw A CC
A CC
A CC
Bc Cw
AC
AC
AC
A CC
Bhb CCw A CC
A CC
C10 H
Bhb Cw
C10 H
C10 H
Bhb CCw Bcb CCw Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb Cw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb CCw C10 H
A CC
Bcb Cw
Bcb Cw
AC
A CC
6
B CCw
Bc Cw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
c
In this case, CAL IV (using specimens 1-4) is a bolt-on addition to the CAL III-R test.
EP-2000-9073
1
Bc CCw
Bc Cw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
2
A CC
AC
A CC
C10 H
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
4-15

3
4
5
6
Bc CCw A CC
Bc CCw
A CC
Bc Cw
Bc Cw
AC
AC
h
B b CCw A CC
A CC
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
C10 H
Bhb Cw
c
h
B b CCw
B b CCw Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
Bhb Cw
Bcb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
7
A CCw
A Cw
A CCw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
C10 H
8
A CCw
A Cw
A CCw
Bhb CCw
Bhb Cw
Bcb CCw
Bcb Cw
C10 H
In this case, CAL IV (using specimens 2, 4, 7, 8) is another type of bolt-on to a CAL III-R test.
The nomenclature in these tables is as follows:
A CCw = series A, counterclockwise
A Cw = series A, clockwise
A/2 CCw = series A, counterclockwise, external pressure
A/2 Cw = series A, clockwise, external pressure
Bcb CCw = series B cold, with bending, counterclockwise
Bcb Cw = series B cold, with bending, clockwise
Bc CCw = series B cold, no bending, counterclockwise
Bc Cw = series B cold, no bending, clockwise
Bhb CCw = series B hot, with bending, counterclockwise
Bhb Cw = series B hot, with bending, clockwise
C10 H = ten thermal cycles test
4.II.2.4 Connections for Production Casing and Tubing at Internal Pressures Below 4,000 psi
and for All Drilling/Intermediate Casing at All Pressures
Production tubing, casing, and liners intended for wells with maximum differential shut-in
pressure below or equal to 4,000 psi shall be evaluated through testing to ISO 13679 CAL I with
the following provisions: all testing is at ambient temperature only; the internal pressure test
medium is gas; only two specimens (usually, numbers 1 and 4) need to be tested; only test series
A is used; the series-A testing includes cycling with combined external pressure and axial load.
This modification is referred to as ISO 13679 test CAL I-E. Note that test series B and C are not
used because testing is at room temperature; but gas is used instead of water in order to utilize a
discriminating test medium.
Likewise, drilling/intermediate casing intended for all service pressures shall be evaluated using
this same, CAL I-E test procedure. For intermediate casing, the CAL I-E test procedure is the
minimum, baseline test. In using CAL I-E tests to evaluate high-pressure, intermediate casing
connections, this standard has taken into account the fact that intermediate casing has at most a
short-duration exposure to high-pressure well fluid; that mitigating well control infrastructure is
in place while drilling; and that during drilling the well has not been perforated and cleaned.
However, the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head always has the option to determine
that an intermediate casing string has critical risk and to require that the connections in the string
be evaluated and approved based on either a one-specimen or two-specimen reduced test using
EP-2000-9073
4-16
the CAL IV procedure, as explained below, or a CAL III-R test, or a full custom test (unlikely).
An example of such a requirement might be a 13 in. OD intermediate casing used to drill to TD
in a sour, extreme-HPHT well with potential shut-in pressure above 15,000 psi. The
requirements in this standard represent the minimum baseline, and the Well Engineering
Regional Discipline Head always has the option to impose additional requirements for high-risk
wells.
4.II.3. The Reduced Test Program
As explained below, the reduced test program is applied in order to extrapolate evaluation of the
connection product to sizes, weights, and grades in addition to those which have been evaluated
using the full test program. The reduced test program also can be used to increase the CUE
pressure rating of a previously tested and approved connection or to fill in gaps in an incomplete,
non-Shell or outdated evaluation test.
The reduced test program may not be used to evaluate and approve a connection for shut-in
pressures (absolute, not differential, prior to application of design factors) exceeding 13,000 psi.
For shut-in pressures exceeding 13,000 psi, only the full custom test program can be used to
evaluate a connection.
The reduced test program shall consist of the ISO CAL IV tests reduced to using one (usually)
or two specimens, as explained below. When one specimen is called for, ISO specimen
(geometry) 1 usually is preferred. Where two specimens are called for, ISO specimens 1 and 4
usually are preferred. In the reduced test program, each specimen shall be subjected to each of
the ISO CAL IV test series (A, B, C) as stipulated in the custom test procedure explained above.
The reduced test program essentially is a one-specimen or two-specimen version of the custom
test. The reduced test program shall use the ISO CAL IV test procedure and shall not use the
CAL III-R test procedure. The specimens in the reduced test program shall be tested to the lesser
of 90% of the actual specimen yield strength or 100% of the manufacturers proposed rating but
with the test loads increased to account for the actual specimen yield strength.
4.II.4.
Evaluation of the Broader Connection Products Through Extrapolation

Based on a Combination of Full and Reduced Test Programs
Method 4.II.1.2 (above) provides a balanced means to extend evaluation and approval of a fully
tested connection to other sizes, weights, and grades with minimum additional testing. This
methodology of evaluating the connection generally is referred to as extrapolation testing of the
connection product.
Any time extrapolation is considered, the manufacturer shall document the connection design
criteria and shall make it available to the Shell Connection Test Lead (CTL) to enable
comparisons between the fully tested connection and the connection being considered for
extrapolation. Connections considered for extrapolation shall be consistent with the connection
tested to the full test protocol. The following connection design elements are critical to
performing these comparisons and shall be provided by the connection manufacturer for the
entire connection product family. There may be other elements that may also be needed for
comparison purposes.
a. Design criteria
b. Basic connection dimensions and tolerances
EP-2000-9073
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
4-17
Special machining provisions (if any)

Anti-galling treatment
Makeup procedures including type and quantity of thread compound
Seal-ring (if any) manufacturing provisions
Seal-ring (if any) volumetric fill ratios
Process Control Plan/ Quality Plan
Connection gage calibration procedures
Production gauging procedures and acceptance criteria
This guideline provides a method to attempt an extrapolation but does not guarantee success.
These are pass/fail tests, and the extrapolation will be successful (the connection will be approved)
only if the evidence supports the extrapolation. Connections which were approved long ago based
on successful service prior to the advent of evaluation test methods are not allowed to serve as the
basis for product extrapolation. Likewise, connections (if any) approved for service in specific
wells based on risk assessment are not allowed to serve as the basis for extrapolation.
4.II.4.1 Functional Make-Break Tests
The procedure for evaluation of connections through extrapolation relies upon a reduced amount
of pressure-load testing. At the discretion of the Shell Connection Test Lead and the GSME
Connections, additional functional make-break tests may be required in order to complete
evaluation of the connection.
4.II.4.2 Wells with Shut-In Pressures Above 4,000 psi and Below 13,000 psi
The methodology is applicable for wells with shut-in tubing pressures above 4,000 psi and below
13,000 psi. For shut-in pressures above 13,000 psi, full (not reduced) testing is required. The
starting point of such extrapolation is at least one full test program. The full test program can be
either the standard (CAL III-R) test above or the custom (Shell CAL IV) test; either is sufficient.
A historical CAL III test is also acceptable. Only connections which have been tested to these
test procedures, or to what the GSME Connections determines to be an equally robust procedure,
can be used as the full-program, starting basis for extrapolation.
4.II.4.3 Extrapolation to Equal or Lower Maximum Internal and External Pressures
A connection may be evaluated by extrapolation as follows:
Up or down one (only one) pipe diameter:
o And across any number of grades
o And provided that the T/D does not change by more than 40%
o And provided the engineering design criteria are the same for the fully tested and
extrapolated connections
o And provided that the extrapolated sizeweightgrade connection passes a singlespecimen, reduced custom test as described above
o And provided the maximum recommended working pressure of the extrapolated
connection does not exceed the test pressure of the original fully tested connection
o And provided the percent of the yield strength (for internal pressure) and percent of
API collapse strength (for external pressure) for the extrapolated connection does not
exceed that of the connections evaluated by the full test program.
Down as much as three weights (no more) without additional testing:
o For no change of diameter from a fully tested connection
EP-2000-9073
4-18

Up or down one pipe diameter while simultaneously down as much as the next two API
weights (no more) without additional testing, based upon a combination of the following:
o A diameter adjacent to the diameter of a fully tested sizeweightgrade of the
connection
o And the same diameter (but lower weight) as the extrapolated, single-specimen
reduced test as explained above
Figure 1 illustrates an acceptable combination of the extrapolation outlined here.

Figure 2 illustrates an unacceptable combination of the extrapolation outlined here because the
reduced custom test is missing.
EP-2000-9073
4-19
Figure 1 - Valid Extrapolation
Increasing T/D Ratio
= Full test
= Reduced 1-test
= No test
2
2
One
OD
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
Figure 2 - Invalid Extrapolation
= Full test
= Reduced 1-test
= No test
Invalid - because
no test at same OD
One
OD
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
EP-2000-9073
4-20
A connection may be evaluated based upon the combination of one full set of tests and a
series of single-specimen reduced tests paired with extrapolation to lower T/D ratios in the
same diameter as follows:
o First up or down one diameter from the full test, based on the reduced test as
explained above.
o Then down the next two API T/D ratios for the same, extrapolated diameter as
explained above.
o Then through evaluation based on an alternating sequence of one single-specimen
reduced test followed by no test at the next lower API T/D ratio.
Figure 3 illustrates such an extrapolation test program.

Figure 3 - Valid Extrapolation
= Full test
Etc
= Reduced 1-test
= No test
Etc
One
OD
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
EP-2000-9073
4-21
4.II.4.4 Extrapolation to Higher Pressure

A connection may be evaluated based upon extrapolation to a pressure higher than the working
pressure of the original, fully tested connection, as follows:
For service to no more than 13,000 psi maximum absolute (not differential) shut-in
tubing pressure (before application of the connection design factor)
And for either no change of the pipe diameter or at most one change of the pipe diameter
relative to the fully tested connection
And across any number of grades
And provided the engineering design criteria are the same for the fully tested and
And provided that the extrapolated sizeweightgrade connection passes the twospecimen, reduced custom test as described above
And provided the maximum recommended working pressure of the extrapolated
connection does not exceed more than 150% of the maximum pressure rating of the
original fully tested connection.
This is connection evaluation method 4.II.1.3 listed in Part II. Figure 4 illustrates a valid
extrapolation to pressure higher than that of the fully tested connection.
Figure 4 - Valid Extrapolation to Higher Pressure
= Full test
= Reduced 1-test
= No test
= Reduced 2-test
One
OD
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
EP-2000-9073
4-22
Beyond the extrapolation procedure outlined above, the connection requires any of the
following:
Full testing
Or use of another extrapolation cell combining another full and reduced series of tests
Or interpolation, as explained below.
4.II.4.5 Interpolation Between Two Sets of Fully Tested Connections

Interpolation between fully tested and reduced tested connections is similar to extrapolation,
except that interpolation makes use of at least two sets of fully tested connections. Two different
structures are in place for evaluation of connections by interpolation.
The first structure using interpolation is applied across changes of pipe diameter and is based
upon the pairing of two cells of full and reduced extrapolation adjacent to each other, with
the optional addition of one single, reduced-test specimen at a pipe diameter between the
extrapolation cells, as follows:
o Across any number of grades.
o With increasing diameter, this requires one single-specimen reduced test, followed by
one full test, followed by three single-specimen reduced tests at three increasing
diameters, followed by one full test, followed by one single-specimen reduced test.
o Use of the middle single-specimen, reduced test is based on the robust combination of
full and reduced tests in the adjacent diameters, and the fact the reduced test subjects
the specimen to all of a series (A, B, C) of ISO tests. The middle connection in the
interpolation is required to have an internal pressure rating, external pressure rating,
percent of yield, and percent of collapse rating not exceeding that of the lower of the
two fully tested connections.
o And provided that the maximum change of T/D ratio between any adjacent diameters
of tested specimens does not change by more than 40%.
Figure 5 illustrates this type of connection evaluation by interpolation.
EP-2000-9073
4-23
Figure 5 - Valid Interpolation Test Program
One
OD
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
The second structure for connection evaluation through interpolation provides a similar
concept except that this one is in the direction of decreasing T/D ratio rather than in the
direction of changing diameter. In this case, one full test is performed at high T/D ratio and
another full test is performed at low T/D ratio. The full tests do not need to be performed in
the same pipe diameter: they may differ by up to one pipe diameter if necessary. This
interpolation structure enables a wide range of T/D ratios to be covered with less testing
compared with the extrapolation procedure.
o This is applicable across any number of changes of grade.
o The interpolation is applicable between the T/D ratios corresponding to the two sets
of full tests.
Figure 6 illustrates this interpolation structure. The interpolation applies between the middle and
rightmost pipe diameters, while for illustration, extrapolation is used for the leftmost pipe
diameter.
EP-2000-9073
4-24
Figure 6 - Valid Interpolation &

Extrapolation Test Program
Ext
Interpolation
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
The two interpolation structures above can be combined simultaneously across pipe diameters
and across T/D ratios to enable evaluation of connections for a wide range of pipe diameters and
T/D ratios with minimum testing. This is illustrated in Figure 7. The pattern in Figure 7 can be
repeated again for successive sets of diameters.
EP-2000-9073
4-25
Figure 7 - Valid Interpolation Test Program
Etc
One
OD
Increasing Pipe OD
Extrapolation/interpolation is based on a combination of connections tested to the full procedure

and to the reduced procedure, so these are strictly inter-related, pass/fail tests. A failed singlespecimen reduced test for extrapolation or interpolation shall result in disqualification of the
connection product from consideration in that diameter or over that range of T/D ratios.
Extrapolation/interpolation shall not be used with a gap or hole in the required set of tested
connections. Hence, such failures usually will result in a smaller, more limited range of
extrapolation. In that case, the connection may be redesigned and retested, but redesign of the
connection necessitates a new full test that cannot be linked to any of the previous tests. Such a
newly redesigned connection shall be assigned a new, unique thread name.
4.II.4.6 Wells with Shut-In Pressures Below 4,000 psi
For wells with differential shut-in pressure below 4,000 psi, the evaluation of the connection can
be extrapolated up or down two API pipe diameters and across any number of weights (T/D
ratios) and grades, without additional sealing testing, provided that:
The maximum recommended working pressure of the extrapolated connection does not
exceed the test pressure of the original, tested connection
And the engineering design criteria must be the same for the tested connection and for the
extrapolated connection.
EP-2000-9073
4-26
4.II.4.7 Listing and CUE of Approved, Extrapolated Connections

Connections which are approved based on a full set of evaluation tests are listed as T in the Shell
Approved Tubular Connections (SATC) database. Connections which are approved based on
extrapolation without testing that sizeweightgrade (per the rules above) are listed as E in the
SATC database. Connections which are approved based on extrapolation (or interpolation) using
the single-specimen, reduced custom test are listed as TR1 in the SATC database. Connections
which are approved based on extrapolation to higher pressures (Figure 4) using the twospecimen, reduced custom test are listed as TR2 in the SATC database. Each extrapolated
connection must be approved by Wells Discipline Management (see the section below on
connection approval).
The CUE of the extrapolated connection is set to be the same percentage of internal yield
pressure, external collapse pressure, yield tension, and yield compression as was set by the fully
tested connection. However, as noted above, the maximum internal and external pressures of the
original, fully tested connection are not allowed to be exceeded, and in principle this could cap or
cut the CUE of an extrapolated connection with a cutoff line. When extrapolation is based on the
two-specimen reduced test in order to increase pressures or loads, the CUE is based directly on
the data from the two-specimen test, and there is no cap or limit applicable.
4.II.5.
Evaluation of Connections Based on Assessment of Non-Shell, Third-Party

Connection Test Programs
As noted in item 4 of Section II.1, connections may be evaluated based on assessment of reports
of full or reduced tests performed by non-Shell parties (e.g., by other operators, thread
manufacturers, or third-party laboratories). Requirements are as follow:
This shall be applicable only up to a maximum absolute (not differential) shut-in tubing
pressure of 13,000 psi, beyond which testing must be done with Shell oversight.
Where full testing is used to provide the equivalent of a Shell full test, the non-Shell testing
shall have been done to any of the ISO-13679 CAL III, CAL III-R, Shell CAL IV, or
historical CAL IV procedures; or to another operators test procedure or a historical industry
standard test procedure which the GSME Connections deems equivalent to one of these
procedures.
o Such variance to the Shell connection test requirements shall not be used to execute
Shell-supervised evaluation tests of a connection (including thread manufacturers
tests performed for Shell). Testing using a standard at variance from the ISO and
Shell procedures represents increased connection risk and generally is to be avoided.
o However, per the structure explained here, Shell is able to make use of third-party
tests done to other standards. This does represent additional risk, but at a level that is
tolerable. Such risk is managed by the requirement above, i.e., that the GSME
Connections deems the third-party test procedure equivalent to the Shell procedures
explained in this standard.
Where reduced testing is used to meet a purpose equivalent to a Shell reduced test, the nonShell testing shall have been done only using the reduced-test procedure (single specimen of
the Shell CAL IV test) explained above in this standard.
However, a non-Shell, full test also may be used as a substitute for the reduced-test
procedure of this standard.
EP-2000-9073
4-27
Data used to evaluate a connection based on third-party testing without Shell supervision
shall be held to at least the same standard of accuracy and completeness as data required for
Shell-supervised connection tests.
Each connection geometry and load step (load, pressure, temperature) of each test series shall
be reviewed much as it would be during execution of a Shell-supervised test, in order to
assure that testing was performed to the accuracy and completeness claimed by the test
report.
Evaluation of a third-party-tested connection shall be documented and recommended for
approval using the same executive summary format as is used to report Shell-supervised
tests.
Evaluation and approval of non-Shell-tested connections is done on a case-by-case basis.
This requires extensive, prior hands-on experience executing connection evaluation projects.
Evaluation of connections on this basis must be done by or with the supporting
recommendation of the GSME for connections. This applies on both global and Regional
bases. This does not mean that the GSME for connections is the only staff able to perform
connection evaluation based on non-Shell, third-party testing; but this does mean that the
GSME for connections must participate in the recommendation for approval of the
connection before the recommendation will be considered by the Global or Regional
Discipline Head.
During review of test programs provided by a third party, if it is determined that functional
make/break tests were not performed, then functional make/breaks shall be performed as part of
the connection evaluation. To the extent possible, these tests will use the same type and quantity
of thread compound and the same makeup/acceptance criteria used in the original test.
In an assessment of third-party connection test programs, frequently it is reported that a
connection leaked and was replaced, and that testing resumed at the point where the first
specimen failed. In such a case, the replacement specimen was not subjected to the minimum,
standard sequence of history-dependent tests that comprise the evaluation procedure. This
constitutes an incomplete (failed) test, and such a test cannot be used to establish evaluation of a
connection through third-party test data.
4.II.6.
Requirements for a Connection To Be Approved for Global and Regional Use in

Shell Wells
A connection shall not be used in Shell-designed wells unless it is an approved connection,
meaning that use of the connection product has been approved by Wells Discipline Management.
Testing a connection does not guarantee that the connection will be approved for global service
within Shell. Approval of any connection product for global use within Shell is decided (one
time) by the Well Engineering Global Discipline Head (GDH). The approval is decided based on
an executive summary of the testing done (see Attachment A) and a recommendation to approve
the connection. These are prepared by the Connection Test Lead, who may enlist the assistance
of the GSME Connections to help coordinate the process. Connections will be added to the Shell
list of globally approved connections only upon approval by the Well Engineering GDH. Once
the GDH has approved a connection, the GSME Connections coordinates the process of adding
the connection data to the list of Shell-approved connections. The list is maintained by Wells
Business Performance Improvement.
EP-2000-9073
4-28
If a connection is not approved for global use, it still may be approved for Regional-only use if it
is approved by the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head (RDH). This might be done
because a specific Region desires to accept more risk in its use of the connection for its wells.
However, the converse is not automatically true: a connection that is approved by one Region
(but not globally) shall not be picked up and used by engineers for wells in another Region
unless the connection is approved by the RDH of the second Region. This is the difference
between a connection being Globally or Regionally approved for Shell wells. This process is in
place to ensure that checks and balances are engaged, particularly when a product is not deemed
acceptable for global use while it is deemed acceptable for use within a specific Region.
If the wells maximum shut-in pressure exceeds 13,000 psi (prior to application of the
connection design factor), then a connection product must receive an additional, one-time
approval by the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head for the Region intending to use the
connection. The record of Regional approval must be retained by the Region. This applies even
if the Global Discipline Head has already approved the connection for global service. This
requirement is in place to assure that the Regional Discipline Head has the opportunity to review
and approve the circumstances for which a connection will be used above 13,000 psi shut-in
pressure. Use of a connection above 13,000 psi requires that the connection will have been
evaluated using the custom test procedure explained above. The criteria for determining the
specific custom test procedure may be different from Region to Region based on assessment of
risks and consequences of events. Part of the purpose for dual approval is to trigger one-time
engagement of the Regional MOC process to validate the approach taken to test the connection
for service in wells with shut-in pressures above 13,000 psi.
Each connection product is approved by Discipline Management only in a specific size, weight,
and set of grades. That is, each separate size and weight requires a separate, one-time approval.
If a connection has been approved based on a full test program, and additional sizeweight
grade combinations of the same connection product are evaluated by means of extrapolation or
interpolation, the extrapolated/interpolated combinations of sizeweightgrade still need to be
approved (one time) by the Global or Regional Discipline Head before the connections may be
used in wells. Approval in an extrapolated sizeweightgrade is not automatic solely because a
full test was approved in a different sizeweightgrade.
Connections which fall short of the minimum technical standards still may be approved for onetime use in any specific well on a case-by-case basis by following the MOC process of the
applicable Region and by obtaining approval of the Well Engineering Regional Discipline Head.
Such use of a connection represents use of the MOC process to fall short of the standards for
product technical integrity, and this should not be done on a routine basis. Such MOC approval
of the connection for a specific well does not the establish evaluation and approval of the
connection within the Region except for the single well. This process is not the same as
Regional approval of the connection. Instead this is an exception to the connection evaluation
process based on unusual circumstances that may apply for a single well.
EP-2000-9073
4-29
4.II.7. Shell-Approved Tubular Connections (SATC) List

In SATC, the Connection Usage Envelope (CUE) represents the Shell-validated performance
properties of the connection. Connections listed in SATC have been approved by the Well
Engineering GDH for global Shell use. The thread manufacturers marketing claims and
calculated performance connection envelope in general are not reliable and shall not be shown in
SATC.
Connection evaluation procedures have continued to evolve significantly over the past thirty
years due to Shell and industry experience testing connections. While the current procedure
captures best practices to date, connections which have been evaluated using earlier versions and
revisions of these test procedures remain approved and on the SATC list.
To access the Shell list of approved connections, and the corresponding Connection Usage
Envelopes, use the following URL:
http://swwep-w.shell.com/threads/
4.II.8. Changes to Approved Connections
Connections are approved for usage by the size, weight, grade, thread compound, thread name,
and the drawing number and revision level of the connection that was successfully tested.
Anytime there are changes made by the thread manufacturer, the changes shall be reviewed and
determined to be acceptable or not. When a manufacturer changes a connection drawing, the
existing approval of the connection does not automatically apply to the new drawing
specifications, and other product drawings or revision levels of the connection product are not
approved for use in Shell wells.
Since the connection already has been approved by the GDH, the revision to a drawing is
approved based upon the recommendation by the GSME for connections. The GSME for
connections does not have to personally review the changes proposed for each drawing; this can
also be done by other Shell staff or by contractors reporting to Shell staff. However, the GSME
for connections must personally recommend approval of the changes before such a changed
connection can be considered approved. If the GSME for connections does not approve the
drawing revision, the connection remains approved only per the latest approved drawing
revision, which is listed in SATC. Attachment B recommends steps and provides examples for
such reviews.
It is recognized that changes to drawings, normally improvements, will occur. However, Shell
wants to use connections that were tested, not connections that were modified with good
intentions but which do not have objective evidence to support the revisions or have revisions
that may invalidate the original test data. Therefore, only the connection drawing numbers and
revision levels shown in SATC shall be used. Connections with a different drawing number or
revision level shall not be used until such time that they have been reviewed and approved per
this procedure.
EP-2000-9073
4-30
4.II.9. Material for Testing

To ensure the integrity of the pipe and coupling stock being used for connection testing, and to
avoid performing tests on material that could fail prematurely, Shell requires that for every
connection test regardless of the pressure, the pipe and coupling stock shall be 100% UT
inspected to meet API SR2 requirements (ID and OD, transverse and longitudinal) and with
100% wall coverage. After threading and prior to application of surface treatment, all pin and
box threads shall be magnetic-particle inspected (or for high-alloy materials, liquid-penetrant
inspected). The surfaces to be inspected include all machined surfaces, including the pipe ID
under the pin thread and the entire box OD and ID surface between the two box threads. All pipe
and coupling stock to be used in pressure testing shall meet API SR16 toughness requirements,
per mill-provided mechanical test reports.
4.II.10. Calculating the Internal Pressures to Which the Connection Is Approved
Based on Testing to 90% of Pipe Body Yield
For burst loading (internal pressure sealing), the connection is tested at several pairs of axial load and
internal pressure (denoted here as Ttest,Ptest), where each pair of load and pressure combines through
the von Mises equivalent stress (denoted here as VM) to bring the connection to 90% of yield. This
provides the largest available CUE for the connection. The connection is tested based on measured
actual (not specified minimum) pipe and coupling properties.
The CUE must be determined accounting for the varying combinations of pressure and axial load
which all are at the same percentage of yield. This is done by calculating the yield ellipse of the
pipe using actual measured minimum yield strength and actual measured minimum wall
thickness of each specimen. This follows the ISO-13679 procedure and can be represented
mathematically as
VM(Ttest, Ptest; tactual) = 0.90*actual
(1)
where the von Mises equivalent stress on the left side of the equation is a function of the pairs of
axial load and internal pressure. The actual minimum wall is used in the function calculation on the
left side of the equation, and this is denoted by tactual shown in the equation. The equation is used to
calculate about 14 test points (Ttest,Ptest), and the connection test is stepped between these points.
Once the connection is tested at these points, it becomes approved at a different, smaller CUE
based upon specified minimum yield strength and minimum pipe wall thickness:
VM(T,P; tmin) = 0.90*SMYS
(2)
where (T,P) are any axial load and internal differential pressure which bring the von Mises
equivalent stress to the indicated percentage of yield; and tmin is the minimum wall thickness to
which pipe in an order is accepted. The API standard for tmin is 87.5% of the specified minimum
wall thickness.
A key point is as follows. Each connection specimen is tested to a higher pressure load based on
the actual material strength and dimensions of the specimen. This is done so that the actual
properties of the specimen do not unfairly bias its performance in the evaluation test. Then use
of the connection in the well is rated to a lower pressure load determined by the percentage of
yield (90%) to which the connection was tested. This is done because the connection in well
EP-2000-9073
4-31
service must not be loaded to a greater percentage of yield (90%) than was used in the evaluation
test.
4.II.11. External Pressure-Testing Methodology
For evaluation of external pressure sealing, the connection is tested to 100% of the pipe API
collapse rating. The test pressure of each specimen is calculated using the measured, actual
average wall thickness and measured, actual minimum yield strength in the API-ISO formula for
collapse pressure. Then for well service, the connection becomes rated to 100% of the API
collapse rating based on pipe minimum yield strength and specified wall thickness.
External pressure testing is performed using water. During external pressure testing, tracer
fluorescent dyes, as well as wetting agents, may be added to the water to aid with leak
detection/validation.
Shell has tested connections where a non-ported specimen never leaked, while an identical,
ported, sister specimen leaked under external pressure. Shell has correlated this to be an issue of
the hold time it takes for liquid external pressure to migrate through the thread path (even after
bake out) for the case of external pressure testing. In this case, the external pressure is driving
trapped, baked-out compound solids toward the metal-to-metal seal. This eventually does lead to
external pressure loading behind the seal, but only after extremely long hold times impractical
for any laboratory testing. Porting behind the seal avoids this blockage and provides instant
communication of pressure to the back of the seal during testing. Testing has indicated that daylong hold times are not an adequate alternative to porting.
Porting is a more reliable method of testing because it bypasses the time required for fluid
(particularly liquid) to transfer pressure through the threads. Porting behind the metal-to-metal
seal is preferred and shall be used whenever possible in Shell connection tests. However, nonShell tests will not be rejected due to testing without porting, but the absence of porting needs to
be considered in the evaluation of the accuracy of such tests.
4.II.12. Project Oversight and Quality Assurance
Projects to evaluate connections or reviews of non-Shell connection tests must be performed
under the direction of a Shell Connection Test (Evaluation) Lead (CTL). In general, it is
recommended that the Shell Connection Test Lead be, or communicate with, the Global Subject
Matter Expert (GSME) for connections. The CTL is not required to be, but can be, the GSME
for connections. In this subject area, the value of personal experience cannot be overstated.
Meticulous attention to detail is essential during (a) the planning of the test, (b) the execution of
the test, (c) the interpretation of the test results, (d) the documentation of the test results, and
(e) providing records for the benefit of both well applications and future testing.
The CTL is accountable for the execution and technical quality assurance of the connection
evaluation project. It is the CTLs responsibility to assure that relevant documents for the test
program are accurate. One would think that the connection manufacturers and test labs would
provide only accurate (correct) data to Shell. However, historically, Shell has observed about
90% of all manufacturers or lab documents in a test program are provided to Shell with some
incorrect data. This can lead to an error which invalidates the purpose and conclusions of the
tests. Quality assurance provided by the CTL seeks to prevent such problems before testing
commences and to assure that testing is done accurately.
EP-2000-9073
4-32
The role of the CTL includes review and approval of the relevant project documents during the
planning and execution phases of the test. The CTL also is responsible for the recommendation
to approve the connection. The CTL should have the load schedules calculated independently of
the thread manufacturer or test lab in order to assure accuracy of the target loads of the test
program. Historically, this is a surprisingly frequent source of error or miscommunication by
connection manufacturers and test labs.
It is recommended that the CTL perform connection evaluation tests using the benefit of
historical, Shell project-quality-assurance practices as documented in Reference 4. Some
examples of key project documents are:

Product drawings
Connection manufacturers Process Control Plan (PCP) and sub-tier documents (review
and approval typically are the responsibility of Shell quality-assurance personnel).
Connection manufacturers mapping and cutting of coupons and test specimens. Shell
requires use of the layout in Figure C.1 of ISO 13679 for this purpose.
Threading logsheets
Make/break plans
Load schedules for each specimen in each test series, including an accompanying VME
chart on which the load points, including all intermediate steps, are plotted.
4.II.13. Evaluation and Approval of the Testing Facility

Shell connection tests must be performed using a laboratory which has been approved (for
accuracy of connection testing) by the GSME for connections. The GSME for connections
approves a laboratory based on its historical experience conducting connection tests,
demonstrated expertise of its staff, and its compliance with ISO requirements for periodic
calibration. A list of laboratories approved by Shell for connection testing is posted on the
SATC site.
4.II.14. Witnessing Connection Evaluation Tests
Shell does not require witnessing of any particular stage of connection evaluation testing.
Witnessing is at the discretion of the CTL who is responsible for the accuracy of the connection
evaluation project. However, witnessing is recommended at critical start-up points of various
phases of the testing (threading first articles, gauging, make-break testing, mechanical cycle
testing, thermal cycling testing). Such witnessing is done to verify that proper setup procedures
and accurate test procedures are used. Witnessing also is done to ensure accurate interpretation
of events such as leakage during the testing.
When a connection is subjected to the custom test described above, it is recommended that the
amount of witnessing be increased due to the critical well conditions. Connection product
extrapolation uses testing with a reduced number of specimens, so in general it is desirable to
increase the amount of witnessing for extrapolation tests. It also is good practice to consider
having Shell personnel or quality-assurance witnesses present during the threading and gauging
of the test specimens as well as during the make/break and pressure-load testing so that they can
apply their learnings to production orders. Witnessing takes on a particularly critical role if the
laboratory is relatively new to connection evaluation testing.
EP-2000-9073
4-33
4.II.15. Deviations/Exceptions to Test Plans

Shell is under no obligation to approve a connection nor accept a manufacturers or labs
interpretation of an evaluation test. All deviations from the test plan are subject to being
accepted or rejected at the discretion of the CTL and Discipline Management. When deviations
have occurred in the test program, these shall be noted in the Executive Summary of the program
(Attachment A). If the deviations generally would be considered serious, these should be
highlighted for the Global Discipline Head (through the Executive Summary) during the process
of requesting approval of the connection. Severe deviations may result in a connection being
disapproved or approved for service in only one well application (not approved for general use).
Planned deviations shall be approved by both the CTL and the Shell project sponsor before the
tests begin. Unplanned deviations also should be discussed between the CTL and the project
sponsor before recommending approval of the connection. It is recognized that some testing
errors may occur and may be approved by Shell (i.e., versus starting over again), but this should
be done immediately when a deviation is detected. ISO 13679 also requires that all deviations be
clearly flagged in the test reports. It is essential to note that each step in the test is built on the
history and path-dependence of preceding steps, so failure to adhere to requirements early in the
testing may result in the later steps (and final results) being invalidated. The GSME for
connections should be consulted regarding the likely impact of deviations.
Shells connection testing is based upon the ISO 13679 test procedures and the requirements set
forth in this standard. No variance is allowed in the general, higher-level framework described
above. For example, no variance is allowed in the requirements and processes for management
approval of a connection; in the stipulation of which CAL gets used; in which ISO test series (A,
B, C) gets used; in the number of cycles within the test series; in the number of specimens to be
tested; in the rules for extrapolation; or in the method of rating the connection and determining
the CUE based on test loads. However, smaller details within the ISO test procedure are allowed
to vary at the discretion of the CTL and GSME for connections, and subject to support upon
review by Discipline Management. For example, where the ISO procedure makes a distinction
between testing tubing and casing, the Shell CTL and GSME are free to define the test specimen
either as tubing or as casing. The test procedure stipulates using ISO specimen 1 or specimens 1
and 4 for the reduced tests. However, the CTL and GSME for connections are free to use their
judgment and substitute a different ISO 13679 specimen for the test program. Likewise, the
required number of make-breaks can be changed as stipulated by the CTL and GSME for
connections.
4.II.16. Thread Compounds
The combination of connection pin, box, thread compound, production plan, and quality plan
represent a single, combined system that constitutes the approved connection product. Prior to
beginning any make/breaks in preparation for a connection evaluation test, Shell and the
connection manufacturer shall reach agreement on the thread compound to be used in the test
program and subsequent well deployment. The connection manufacturer should have a very
good understanding of the thread compound that best works with their particular product. Upon
successful completion of the test, only the same compound used in the testing shall be used
during makeup of this connection in the mill and at the rig-site.
EP-2000-9073
4-34
A new bucket of thread compound shall be used for any testing for Shell. This is to avoid using
potentially contaminated thread compounds during the test. Unfortunately, should there be a
metal seal leak observed, too often test labs have claimed the root cause was contaminated thread
compound. Test lab and surveillance personnel should ensure that no brush hair or other foreign
particles remain in the thread compound after being applied to the threads.
If the thread compound is changed, this constitutes a different connection which is not the
approved connection. In order to change the thread compound, testing is necessary. If a
connection is tested using one heavy-metal compound and a user wants to use another heavymetal-based thread compound, then only functional make/break tests are required. However, if
the thread compounds physical or chemical characteristics or performance properties as detailed
in ISO 136783 are different from the compound originally used to evaluate the connection, then
in addition to the functional make/break tests, a sealing test shall also be performed.3 In such
case, the sealing test shall be a single-specimen, reduced custom test using the new thread
compound. Since the connection already has been approved by the GDH or RDH, success in this
reduced test will re-establish the approval of the connection using the new thread compound.
New technologies are being presented which claim to make up specific connections without use
of any fluid (dope) thread compound. The conversion of a connection previously tested with
thread compound to such new technologies represents a step change in the connection system.
The prior approval of the connection does not apply to this no-thread-compound system. The
new connection system is required to pass testing and approval through the reduced custom-test
and MOC process. That is, customized testing in the form of one or more reduced tests is
required; and the connection also must be approved again by either the Global or Regional
Discipline Head.
4.II.17. Check for Seal-Ring Movement During Makeup/Breakout
If a seal-ring grooved connection is being tested, for all make/break tests (both API and
premium) it is required that the seal ring be installed in the coupling groove with the rings
reference number facing the coupling/box face. The seal ring reference number is to be
circumferentially oriented to match a mark on the coupling OD. The coupling OD mark and
location are to be recorded on the makeup log. After breakout, the amount of rotation of the seal
ring is recorded on the make-break log. The results of this process are used to assist with
determining the potential effect of seal-ring movement on the performance of the connection.
4.II.18. Make/Break Acceptance Criteria and Failed Tests
Acceptable galling is defined as galling that is deemed repairable per the connection
manufacturers company procedures, has been repaired to those procedures, and results in an
acceptable sealing test. Failed galling is defined as galling that is deemed as non-repairable
per the connection manufacturers company procedures or galling which, if repaired, results in
leakage during the sealing test.
For all make/break tests performed on connections being approved based on assessment of
thread manufacturer-provided test reports, or based on extrapolation/interpolation, or when
changing material grades/chemistries, any observed galling that occurs more severely or more
frequently than observed during the original test program shall be deemed a failed test.
EP-2000-9073
4-35
If it can be proven that the cause of the galling is other than the design of the connection (e.g.,
due to operator error or equipment malfunction), then two new replacement connection
specimens shall be manufactured. These two replacement connections shall be machined
identical to the geometry that galled, with the same or more severe tolerances such that the
galling tendency is at least as severe as that of the connection which originally galled. Each
replacement connection specimen shall be made up using the same original procedures (this
includes the same thread compound type, quantity, application, torques, equipment, etc.). If
neither of these connections galls or if the galling is deemed repairable, as defined above, then
the make/breaks are acceptable. If the galling is deemed non-repairable, as defined above,
this is a failed test.
4.II.19. Leakage Criteria and Failed Tests
In connection testing, sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a connection is leaking or not.
For this purpose, ISO has established a general guideline leak rate. Any slow true leak rate is not
acceptable. However, it is possible to obtain false indications of leakage, for example, due to
geometry changes of the specimen during testing under load and pressure; or due to heating the
leak-detection lines. In general, the ISO leak rate is used to determine whether or not an
observation is a leak. A very slow event may be a background observation and not actually a leak.
The CTL collects the connection test data, and ultimately the CTL has the responsibility to
determine whether an observation was a true leak or not; but any true leak is unacceptable.
ISO 13679 provides guidelines on extending testing in order to determine whether or not a slow
observation is a leak. If an observation is repeatable through cycles of loading and unloading, it
is highly probable that it is a leak. Likewise, if an observation continues at a steady slow rate
over a long period of time, it also is likely that it is a true leak. If an observation is not repeatable
over cycles and is very slow, judgment must be used to assess whether or not this was a leak.
After all the observations have been made, the CTL (not the thread manufacturer and not the test
lab) is responsible for determining whether or not the observation actually was a leak, and
whether or not to report it as such, bearing in mind that any slow leak constitutes a failure.
4.II.20. Testing to Establish Connection Performance When Leakage Occurs
If a connection leaks, it shall have failed the test at those pressures where leakage occurred. If
the connection is needed at those pressures where leakage occurred, the only options are either to
abandon it or to redesign it and start a new test from the beginning.
However, if a connection is confirmed by the CTL to have leaked only at high pressure but not at
low pressures, and if a set of lower-pressure tests are used to establish a performance envelope
where the connection does not leak, then it is acceptable to rate the CUE of the connection based
on the lower loads and pressures at which the connection did not leak. However, this smaller
CUE may not meet the needs of the sponsoring Shell project.
4.II.21. Special Clearance Coupling Connections
Special clearance connections shall be considered a redesign of a fully tested connection and shall
require testing using the single-specimen, reduced test to demonstrate sealing performance. The
reduced test shall be applicable only in the specific size-weight-grade of interest but shall allow
extrapolation to two lower T/D ratios and across any number of grades, as per the extrapolation
EP-2000-9073
4-36
guidelines in this standard. However, Shell does allow the use of special clearance connections
without a requirement for any further testing when the connections are used below the packer.
4.II.22. Role of Finite-Element Analysis for Connection Performance Evaluation
Finite-element analysis (FEA) may be used as a design tool by the thread manufacturer. FEA
also may be used to screen connections and select one connection over other candidates for
subsequent testing. However, finite-element analysis shall not be used as a basis for evaluating
the sealing performance and acceptance of connections. FEA shall not be used in lieu of the
required testing. This is because the purpose of the testing is to validate the sealing performance
of the connection, and presently available FEA technology is not reliable or accurate enough to
predict leakage performance of the metal seal (nor for the resilient seal if there is one). For
example, tests have indicated significant differences between leak pressures using gas vs water
for the pressure medium. Connection performance does not correlate between water and gas as
the pressure medium. This distinction is far beyond the accuracy of contemporary FEA.
Furthermore, Shell does not yet have available a reliable connection performance parameter
based on FEA and accurately correlated to test data. Developing such a capability eventually
may be possible but would require significant research.
4.II.23. Evaluation of Connections Based on Well Service
It is not acceptable (or technically sound) to try to evaluate and approve a connection based on
perceived prior successful well service. Most of the time, connections must be designed for
service loads which do not necessarily occur in normal (favorable) well service. Hence, most
well applications do not provide data on the limits of connection performance. Furthermore,
connections in a well are machined to tolerances within the band of allowed manufacturing
tolerances, and the performance of any group of connections in a set of wells may be skewed by
a particular set of production runs and may fail to represent the possible cases which can be
delivered in the next production run. This differs greatly from the evaluation test program in
which the extremes of manufacturing tolerances are machined and in which the connection is
subjected to severe combinations of load, pressure, and temperature. When the Shell-Approved
Tubular Connection list was established in the early 1980s, some lower-pressure connections that
were believed to have significant long-term, successful field exposure were grandfathered onto
the list on a one-time only basis (for example, this was done with the API connections to limited
pressures).
4.II.24. Records Retention
Shell connection-evaluation project records (electronic or paper) shall be maintained for the
duration of time for which the connection is approved. These documents include, at minimum,
the CTLs or GSMEs Executive Summary recommending approval (or not) of the connection,
the manufacturer-provided ISO-13679 test reports, and any relevant notes. A complete copy
shall be retained either by the Connection Test Lead or by the GSME for connections (usually
the same person); and a copy of the Executive Summary shall be maintained by the GSME for
connections and the PTE for Well Mechanics and Design Standards.
EP-2000-9073
4-37
REFERENCES
1. ISO 13679, Petroleum and natural gas industries Procedures for testing casing and tubing
connections, Current Version.
2. GSME, Shell Global Subject Matter Expert for Connections, see Shell Casing, Tubing,
Connection Design Standards web site http://sww.globalnetworks.shell.com/forums/networks/dispatch.cgi/tubular/folderFrame/100559/0/def/46ef
3. ISO 13678, Petroleum and natural gas industries Evaluation and testing of thread
compounds for use with casing, tubing, line pipe, and drill stem elements, Current Version.
4. Valigura, G.A., 2006, Quality Plans to Perform a Connection Evaluation Project, EP Report
2006-3174, Shell International E&P Inc.
EP-2000-9073
4-38
Attachment A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONNECTION
Introduction
This summary should be created and retained for each connection product which receives
evaluation by any of the allowed methods. In particular, this summary shall be provided and
retained as part of the recommendation made by the Connection Test Lead (CTL) seeking global
or regional approval of Shell use of the connection product. Preparation of this summary is the
responsibility of the CTL who evaluates the connection. Copies of this executive summary shall
be retained by the CTL who tested/evaluated the connection; the GSME for Connections
(frequently the CTL also will be the GSME for Connections); and the PTE for Casing, Tubing,
and Connection Design Standards.
The following items shall be included in the summary:
Key Recommendation to the Discipline Head
1. If applicable, the recommendation for approval of the connection.
2. Or if applicable, the reason that the connection is not recommended for approval.
3. The basis for approval: full testing, reduced testing with extrapolation/interpolation, or
evaluation of third-party reports of non-Shell connection test data.
4. If sponsored by Shell, the Region, operating company, project, and engineer sponsoring the
testing.
Background Information
5. Connection manufacturer, product name, and drawing(s) number(s) and revision levels.
6. The size, weight, grade of the connection which was evaluated.
7. The recommended connection usage envelope (CUE) shown relative to the roomtemperature, von Mises yield envelope of the corresponding pipe.
8. A brief connection design overview, including the surface treatment of the pin and box
(include information on any masking of the metal seal, threads, seal ring groove if present).
If there is a seal ring, then include information about the seal ring groove (whether it is
knurled, whether abrasive blast is OK after knurling, etc.).
9. The test protocol and CAL used, including the number of specimens.
10. The temperature that was used for the elevated-temperature tests.
11. The starting and ending dates over which testing was performed (whether Shell or third
party).
12. The manufacturers process control plan (PCP) or quality plan (QP) and revision level used
for the manufacture, inspection and makeup of the test specimens. The PCP or QP shall
include a list of all applicable sub-tier documents and their revision levels.
13. Statement that no leaks were observed or a summary discussion about any observed leakage.
Attach, as appropriate, a spreadsheet showing each specimen number, ISO Load Point where
leakage was observed, quantity of leakage, and any additional applicable discussion points.
14. Indicate whether internal pressure testing was targeted based on 90% of yield or 100% of the
manufacturers rating.
38
EP-2000-9073
4-39
15. A summary of any rehearsal tests, restarted tests, and redesigns of the connection including,
but not limited to, different surface treatments, different thread compounds, different
deburring processes, etc., necessitated by observed galling and/or leakage during the
evaluation testing.
16. Include information about any and all additional testing that was performed that was not part
of the original scope.
17. Makeup Parameters:
a. Number of make-breaks used
b. Type of thread compound used
c. Minimum and maximum thread compound applied to each pin and box; how and
where it was applied; whether Molykote was used (and where).
d. Manufacturers specified range of makeup torque
e. Actual makeup torque for each specimen.
f. RPM range used.
g. Attach a copy of the recommended makeup procedure that resulted from the test.
h. Attach examples of acceptable makeup charts. If applicable, also attach examples of
unacceptable makeup charts.
18. List of variances that occurred to the test procedure. In particular, indicate:
a. If the test was executed to load and pressure at a lower than intended percent of the
target, and whether this has been accounted for in determination of the CUE.
b. If the connection was tested with external pressure less than 100% of the pipe API
collapse rating, and whether this has been accounted for in determination of the CUE.
c. If axial loads below target were applied, and whether this has been accounted for in
determination of the CUE.
d. If any cycles of elevated-temperature tests were performed below or above the ISO
tolerance range for elevated temperature.
e. If one side (pin or box) of a metal seal was machined out of specification and the
corresponding member was adjusted to compensate and the connection specimen
galls or leaks. If there is agreement on a hypothesis that the metal seal machined out
of spec is the root cause, the threader can remachine the connection to be inspecification and if it passes galling and sealing, then the test report and SATC list
shall stipulate that the connection is not approved for use with an out-of-specification
metal seal.
39
EP-2000-9073
4-40
Attachment B
EXAMPLE STEPS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE CONNECTION
MANUFACTURER UPDATES TO CONNECTION PRODUCT DRAWINGS
Connections are approved for usage by size, weight, grade, thread compound, thread name, and
the product drawing number and revision level of the connection that was successfully evaluated
and approved. This includes the applicable thread-form drawings and other drawings referenced
on the product drawing. All other product drawings or revision levels of the connection product
are not approved for use in Shell wells unless those changes have been reviewed and approved
per the procedures in this standard.
Steps to the Review Process
1. The thread manufacturer shall provide a copy of the current Shell-approved drawing(s) that
are being revised and copies of the revised product drawings, thread-form drawings, etc. The
thread manufacturer shall also provide a copy of their Engineering Change Notice (ECN) that
states the reasons for the change to the drawing.
2. Shell staff shall perform a dimension-by-dimension comparison of the new drawing(s) to the
Shell-approved drawings. Drawing changes not shown on the ECN need to be discussed
with the thread manufacturer, and a revised ECN should be requested.
3. Shell staff shall review all the changes to determine if the changes are reasonable and still
consistent with the product that was tested. Changes that may appear to be minor and subtle
may have a significant effect on the makeup and sealing performance of the connection. The
following are examples of previous changes that thread manufacturers have made to
drawings and which were rejected by Shell or which required supplemental, validation
testing.
3.1. Changing thread diameters, taper tolerances, metal seal diameters, or resilient seal
dimensions and tolerances that result in these elements being outside of the originally
tested tolerance envelope.
3.2. Making the pin nose thickness thinner, which may affect metal sealing performance.
3.3. Changing the coupling OD or its tolerances.
3.4. Changes to non-interference, diametral dimensions that would result in this becoming an
interfering dimension that would be detrimental to the makeup and sealing performance
of the connection.
3.5. Increasing or decreasing the pin-nose radius, when this radius is the datum point for the
pin-nose diameter gauge or for the thread-crest diameter gauge. This results in untested
changes to the seal diameter and the thread-crest diameter.
40
EP 2000-9073
5-1

Chapter 5
Design Factors
5. DESIGN FACTORS..............................................................................................................2
5.1 Historical Origin of Design Factors................................................................................2
5.2 Load and Resistance Design Factors ..............................................................................2
5.3 Alternative Design Factors .............................................................................................3
Adjustment of the Design Factor to Account for Lower or Higher Load Uncertainty.................. 3
Adjustment of the Design Factor to Account for Probable Rupture Capacity .............................. 4
Adjustment of Design Factor for Particular Pipe Materials .......................................................... 4
Adjustment of Design Factor to Account for Likelihood of Events.............................................. 4
Adjustment of Design Factor to Account for Consequences ........................................................ 4
Adjustment for the Depth of Engineering Preparation.................................................................. 4
Experience with Other Burst Design Factors in Level Two/Three Design Practice ..................... 5
Probabilistic Approach to Collapse Pressure ................................................................................ 5
Burst Design Factor for Injection .................................................................................................. 5
Completion Components and Design Factors ............................................................................... 7
EP 2000-9073
5-2
5. DESIGN FACTORS
5.1
Historical Origin of Design Factors
The purpose of the design factor is to address uncertainty in both the resistance (capacity) of the
pipe and the loads applied to the pipe. The design factor is intended for the unexpected loading
(e.g., stuck pipe, higher production rate to higher temperature than anticipated) or the unexpected
performance of the pipe (low end of the strength distribution curve). The design factor is not
intended to compensate for failing to engineer parts of the well design: the design factor is not
intended to cover the effects of temperature on yield strength or thermal stresses, to cover the
impact of casing wear, or to cover the neglect of corrosion or the use of an unintended lightweight
or light-grade joint in the string. That is, the design factor is intended to address the uncertainty of
background events within reasonable tolerances; the factor is not intended to compensate for
rogue pipe or large operational mistakes.
The design factors used for decades by Shell have their origins in experience taken over a huge
number of wells drilled and produced. The design factor is not based on any particular advanced
stress analysis, limit calculation, or probability assessment. Instead these design factors are based
on average experience. In Level Two design practice, the values of design factors used by a
particular operating company are derived from the particular extensive operating experience of
that operating company. Based on historical operating experience, the following design factors
are recommended:
Recommended Combined Design Factors for Level One Design
Triaxial Burst
Collapse
Tensile
1.25
1.0
1.3
These are referred to as combined design factors because they are single, net values which address
both uncertainty of load and uncertainty of pipe (or connection) resistance to withstand a given
load. The triaxial burst design factor is applied to the pipe yield strength in the triaxial stress
calculation, and the yield strength is also separately adjusted for temperature. The collapse design
factor is applied to the rated pipe collapse pressure listed in API 5C3 (ISO 10400 pending). This
collapse strength is a function of the pipe yield strength (which depends on temperature), pipe D/T
ratio, and pipe axial tension. The tensile design factor is applied to the yield strength of the pipe,
which again depends on temperature.
5.2
Load and Resistance Design Factors
The design factor which gets used in the design software and gets applied to the pipe yield
strength or pipe pressure is a combined design factor which represents the combination of
uncertainty about loads applied to the pipe and uncertainty of the resistance (capacity) of the pipe
to withstand the loads. Tubulars design is executed by balancing the resistance of the pipe with
the load which acts on the pipe during different well operations. Because of the two different
sources for uncertainty, there really are two different design factors which are combining into the
single combined design factor: one resistance design factor dealing with the uncertainty of the
pipe or connection to contain pressure, and one load design factor dealing with the uncertainty of
EP 2000-9073
5-3
the load or pressure which will be applied in the well. The combined design factor is the product
of the load and resistance design factors. Table 5-1 presents a notional breakdown of load and
resistance design factors contributing to an overall combined design factor. Furthermore, design
factors do not need to be the same for all strings, because both the load and the resistance
uncertainty may be different for different strings.
Table 5-1
CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN LOAD AND RESISTANCE
DESIGN FACTORS COMBINING INTO A COMBINED DESIGN FACTOR
String
General Surface and
Protective Casing
Production Casing
Production Tubing
CRA Tubing
Load Uncertainty
(approximate)
Resistance Uncertainty
(approximate)
Combined
Design Factor
1.15
1.10
1.25
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.20
Usually, unless QRA is done, there is little quantitative information, so you need to use prudent
intuitive and experience information to evaluate these uncertainties and select design factors.
The notion of resistance uncertainty represented by the design factors in Table 5-1 applies only to
good-quality pipe (good toughness, inspected free of large defects; Chapter 7). Using a large
resistance design factor is not adequate to compensate for use of poor-quality, brittle pipe. For
brittle pipe, much of the traditional stress analysis breaks down and the risk becomes
unacceptably high under burst loading.
5.3
Alternative Design Factors
Level Two and Three design practices are intended to facilitate flexibility in the value of the
design factor based on local experience or based on use of risk assessment. The sections below
provide some guidance on possible reasons that design factors might be adjusted based on an
evaluation of the driving sources for risk in the design.
Adjustment of the Design Factor to Account for Lower or Higher Load Uncertainty
One should be careful in thinking that there is no load uncertainty when it actually exists. For
example, in a production casing or tubing, you may exactly know the reservoir pressure.
However, there still is some uncertainty in the packer column pressure or the mud pressure due to
the effect of temperature and pressure on the mud/packer fluid density. During production, there
may be uncertainty in the distribution of temperature along the well, and this impacts the pressure
gradients of completion fluids and lighter-weight muds.
EP 2000-9073
5-4
Adjustment of the Design Factor to Account for Probable Rupture Capacity

To guide the choice of the burst design factor, the engineer may take account of the limit load
representing the true rupture capacity of the pipe (Appendix 6). This is not to say that the pipe
should be designed on rupture instead of on yield. However, the choice of the design factor and
how close the pipe is loaded to yield can be based on the insight derived by knowing with good
accuracy the actual limit load. To do this, you must have pipe with good toughness and you must
account for inspection practices used to eliminate large flaws. This is outlined in Appendix 6.
Adjustment of Design Factor for Particular Pipe Materials
From a likelihood-of-event point of view (this should dominate), there is a case to be made for a
higher design factor on some (not all) CRAs which have low work-hardening compared with
carbon steels. The risk of resistance failure of CRA strings can be calibrated to the experienced
used of carbon steels, which usually have higher work-hardening and higher ratios between actual
rupture and nominal yield.
Adjustment of Design Factor to Account for Likelihood of Events
Here the design factor would be higher for intermediate strings where there is more uncertainty of
the load conditions, i.e., more risk of unexpectedly severe loading. The design factor would be
smaller for the production strings where the load is known with much greater certainty. This
should be tried only if experience supports this or if risk assessment indicates that the risk is
acceptable. Usually, it is important to include and balance the consequences of failure, not just
the likelihood of events.
Both the load uncertainty and the pipe resistance uncertainty contribute to the likelihood of an
event occurring. Both of these are different from the consequences of failure. Qualitative and
quantitative risk assessment can be used to rationalize the choice of an appropriate design factor
different from the historical standard.
Adjustment of Design Factor to Account for Consequences
Here the design factor would be higher for the inner strings, the tubing, and the production casing,
because the consequence of failure is much higher. Once the well is completed, there is more
invested in the well, there is higher investment impact to a collapse failure, and there is very much
higher impact to a burst (containment) failure with a completion in place.
Both the likelihood and consequence aspects of the impact of the design factor can be combined in
a risk assessment.
Adjustment for the Depth of Engineering Preparation
One may consider the option of using a higher design factor when a smaller amount of
engineering manpower is applied to the design and developing a lower design factor (for lower
load uncertainty) to use in cases where larger amounts of engineering manpower can be applied to
the design. In this case, either you pay for the excess margin in the well or you pay for the
engineering manpower needed to remove the excess margin from the well judiciously. While this
should be done with caution to balance risks, this does point to the desire to push designs where
there is the most reward for doing so.
EP 2000-9073
5-5
Experience with Other Burst Design Factors in Level Two/Three Design Practice
Several operating companies have extensive and successful experience using triaxial burst safety
factors of 1.15, 1.10, and even 1.00 with high-pressure, even sour gas, wells. This is an important
benchmark, because it indicates that wells can be drilled, completed, and produced very
successfully while the values of design factors are pushed. However, these cases have been based
on very thorough, targeted application of experience and risk assessment to a specific, limited
series of designs. The use of triaxial burst design factors less than 1.25 requires experience or risk
assessment to justify that this can be done with prudent management of risk.
All of the examples which can be cited have been for strings of tubing or production casing.
These are strings for which there is less load uncertainty compared with protective casing.
Usually (but not always), the production strings were never drilled through and so did not have
any casing wear. Where production casing has had a low triaxial burst safety factor, the
production tubing intentionally has had a higher safety factor, and both the tubing and the
production casing have received secondary re-inspection following mill inspection. In all cases,
the consequences of pipe failure were examined and found to be manageable.
Probabilistic Approach to Collapse Pressure
When the collapse design factor of 1.0 is used, it means the engineer uses the API rating of pipe
collapse pressure. However, implicit in this rating is the way in which API collapse strength is
determined. The API collapse strength rating is derived from collapse modes associated with
models and analyses of collapse. The underlying collapse strength across most of the D/T space
is determined by the statistical scatter in observed collapse strength, based on a large amount of
original API testing. In the API formulation of collapse strength, the collapse rating is set to
correspond to a target pipe reliability of 0.5% at the rated pressure. At very high D/T, this rating
ceases to be statistically founded, but for most of the practical range of pipe D/T, this probabilistic
formulation applies. Hence, when the engineer uses a design factor of 1.0 and the API collapse
rating of the pipe, the engineer actually is designing with an assumption of certainty about the
load combined with probabilistic uncertainty of pipe performance, that five pipes out of a
thousand would be expected to fail when loaded to the rated collapse pressure.
Depending on the potential gain and potential consequences, engineers may desire to recalibrate
their collapse design to a different target probability of failure. It is more likely that gains and
consequences will be driven by the probabilities associated with the load criteria, and this also can
be put into a probabilistic framework. The API collapse pressure rating is only one example of
approaches that are available where design is calibrated to a target risk. Both resistance and load
probabilities and full-blown risk assessments have been conducted to guide the choice of design
factors or to bypass design factors completely with a risk-based framework. Examples are cited in
the references to Chapter 8.
Burst Design Factor for Injection
Here the load is very well known. If the fluid gradient is accurately known inside and outside the
pipe, then the load is very well known and the design factor addresses only the uncertainty in
resistance of the pipe. A case can readily be developed for using a lower design factor for
injection.
EP 2000-9073
5-6
Design factors in pressure tests are the same as design factors for injection. The load uncertainty
is small, and one can make a case for reducing the combined design factor accordingly. However,
before one dispenses with the design factor for load uncertainty, it is important either to assume the
most conservative possibility for pressure gradients inside and outside the pipe or to know with
very good accuracy the actual fluid properties on each side of the pipe.
The justifications for using lower design factors for pressure test conditions are as follow:
The conditions to which the pipe is exposed are accurately known during the installation
phase of a well completion.
The pipe is new and in good condition.
The pipe supposedly is not exposed to hydrocarbons, so the consequences of failure are less
severe than during production. The pipe should be mechanically isolated from the reservoir.
Examples are plugs below the tailpipe or an unperforated liner/casing.
This allows higher test pressures to be used if required. The advantage of this is that it is
common for service loads to have different depths where stresses are at their peak compared
to test stresses. This is usually caused by different pressure gradients between test and service
loads. If higher test pressures can be safely used, it allows the maximum test stresses to be
higher than the service stresses at more points in the tubing.
Design factors for connections are discussed in Chapter 4 on connections. In general, a design
factor is appropriate on a connection to cover load uncertainty, not product uncertainty. When
connection performance equals or nearly equals the performance of the pipe body, the pipe (with a
larger combined design factor) will drive the design. However, for connections which are
substantially weaker than the pipe body (e.g., round thread connections), the connection can very
well drive the design and drive the choice of the pipe. In this case, the use of a connection design
factor for load uncertainty is important if (as usual) there is any load uncertainty.
Premium connections tend to be very weak in compression. They are particularly vulnerable to
leakage after cycles of large compressive loading. There are a few proven exceptions to this.
Sometimes engineers regard the low compressive capacity of a connection as though this
represents a large design factor in compression. This is one way to look at the limitation of
connection performance and relate it to the pipe. The other way is simply to recognize that there
is a particular limit to the amount of compressive load that can be applied to a given connection,
based on the qualified service envelope of the connection (Chapter 4). The latter way of thinking
about connection performance may be a bit more clear, because for a given connection with its
corresponding limit on axial compression, there should be a design factor applied (to the
connection) for load uncertainty and not for product uncertainty. That is, it is useful not to mix up
the role and value of a design factor applied to the pipe body and the role of a different design
factor applied to the connection. The ratio of connection resistance to pipe resistance does not in
itself represent a design factor; it only highlights the difference between the two products.
EP 2000-9073
5-7
Completion Components and Design Factors

As with connections, there is a choice to be made for the design factor to apply to completion
components such as packers, PBRs, and safety valves. These are machined components with tight
tolerances. Like connections, a design factor should not be applied to product performance (this
should be set by qualification testing), but a design factor should be considered for load
uncertainty. On the other hand, a design factor for load uncertainty is not needed if the engineer
can be sure that the part is designed for the very worst possible assumed loading.
In order for the completion component not to dominate the design, the resistance of the
completion component should be chosen to equal or exceed the performance rating of the tubing
and tubing connection. Great care should be taken when this is not possible. Examples include
the following:
The stated pressure rating on DST test equipment may not have the same safety factor as used
for the tubing. The safety factor may be as low as 1.0.
Some components (especially packers and PBRs) will have a separate triaxial envelope
(combined axial and burst/collapse loads). This envelope may not be the same as for the
tubing. Triaxial effects on packers in particular may be large, as they can be subject to high
simultaneous compression and burst loads.
If the completion component is weaker than the tubing, then the tubing analysis should explicitly
include a section of pipe that approximates the strength limitations of the completion component.
If the component is stronger than the pipe, then the completion component does not need to be
included in the analysis.
EP 2000-9073
6-1

Chapter 6
Use of the WellCat and StressCheck Design Software
6. USE OF THE WELLCAT AND STRESSCHECK DESIGN SOFTWARE ........................3

Use of the Software...............................................................................................................3
Approach to Modeling Temperature.....................................................................................4
Structure of Wellcat ..............................................................................................................4
Well Trajectory .....................................................................................................................5
Tools .....................................................................................................................................5
Packer Modeling ...................................................................................................................5
Tension Hanger with Seal Bore.........................................................................................6
Mandrel Hanger with Seal Bore .......................................................................................6
Mandrel Hanger with Integral Packer ..............................................................................6
Well Injection with Coiled Tubing .......................................................................................6
Steps for Checking the Wellcat Model for Tubing (and Casing) .........................................7
Comments on the Use of Wellcat for Stress Analysis ..........................................................9
Inventories ............................................................................................................................9
Fluids Inventory..................................................................................................................10
Vacuum-Insulated Tubing ..................................................................................................11
Built-In Operations and Load Calculations ........................................................................11
About Wellcat Modeling Heat Transfer .............................................................................13
EP 2000-9073
6-2
When to Use Wellcat for Casing ........................................................................................13

Operations Available in Wellcat.........................................................................................14
Loads/Design Parameters/Design Factors .....................................................................14
Loads/Loads/Steady-State Production ............................................................................14
Loads/Production/Shut-In ...............................................................................................14
Loads/Pressure Test Load ...............................................................................................14
Loads/Tubing Evacuation................................................................................................15
Loads/Overpull (Casing).................................................................................................15
Loads/Overpull (Tube) ....................................................................................................15
Loads/Tubing Leak (Casing) ...........................................................................................15
Loads/Tubing Leak (Tube) ..............................................................................................15
Loads/Prod Link ..............................................................................................................15
Loads/Custom Load (Casing)..........................................................................................15
Loads/Custom Load (Tube) .............................................................................................16
Loads/Transient Injection................................................................................................16
Loads/Pump-In to Kill .....................................................................................................16
Loads/Frac Screen-Out ...................................................................................................16
Loads/Rod Pump .............................................................................................................16
Stresscheck Casing Load Cases ................................................................................................17
Initial Conditions/Cementing and Landing Tab..............................................................17
Tubular/Burst Loads/Select Tab (Burst Loads Dialog) ..................................................17
Tubular/Burst Loads/Edit Tab (Burst Loads Dialog) .....................................................18
Tubular/Burst Load/Options Tab ....................................................................................18
Tubular/Collapse Load/Select.........................................................................................18
Tubular/Collapse Load/Select Tab..................................................................................19
Tubular/Collapse Load/Edit Tab.....................................................................................20
Tubular/Collapse Load/Options Tab...............................................................................20
Tubular/Axial Load/Select...............................................................................................20
EP 2000-9073
6-3
6. USE OF THE WELLCAT AND STRESSCHECK DESIGN SOFTWARE

Section 3.7 lists well operations which should be simulated using the Wellcat and Stresscheck
software in order to calculate the burst, collapse, and axial safety factors. This chapter gives an
overview of making those calculations using the design software.
Use of the Software
The Wellcat software has three purposes:
Calculation of the temperature profile along the tubing and casing during different operations
of the well (use the Prod module).
Calculation of the pressure profile inside and outside the tubing and casing during different
operations of the well (use the Prod module).
Calculation of the stresses and safety factors along the tubing or casing which occur during
different operations over the life of the well, where each operation has a corresponding set of
loads on the pipe.
Wellcat is an analysis program: you have to pick the tubing or casing, and then the program can
calculate the temperature, pressure, stresses, and design margins. Wellcat can be used for the
stress analysis of both tubing and casing.
Alternatively, Stresscheck is marketed as a casing design program. The engineer specifies the
loading conditions along the well (including the pressure and temperature), and Stresscheck
chooses the lowest-cost casing which satisfies the loads and the specified design factors.
However, Stresscheck can also be used to model tubing latched into a packer in order to
determine approximately the tubing weight and grade to use. With Stresscheck, you think in
terms of a burst and collapse load applied to the casing. With Wellcat, you think in terms of
operations of the well, with each operation having a set of loads. Wellcat provides a more
accurate and more sophisticated stress calculation, but Wellcat is not needed for all strings.
Surface, intermediate, and production casing strings should be designed using the Stresscheck
software. The software should be run with a series of load cases corresponding to burst and
collapse design (see Section 3.7). Stresscheck will recommend a casing which meets the pressure
and temperature loading conditions specified along the well. If the burst safety factor of the
planned casing is less than 1.25, then Wellcat should be used in addition to Stresscheck because of
the added features and accuracy of Wellcat. Wellcat should also be used for all stress analyses of
production tubing.
When running Wellcat and Stresscheck, there can be large impact from the variation of pipe
mechanical properties with temperature and type of alloy and from the variation of mud density
with temperature and pressure. A global list of pipe mechanical data is being generated together
with the qualified connection data and will be posted on the DED web site.
Access to the Wellcat and Stresscheck software is standardized throughout all the OpCos of
Shell. This is an important part of the process of delivery of the Shell quality well, because this
enables the engineer at any OpCo to tap into the same design tools and shared best practices
throughout Shell.
EP 2000-9073
6-4
Approach to Modeling Temperature

Because Stresscheck does not solve for the temperature during various operations of the well, it
provides an approximate solution in choosing the casing. To calculate this solution, Stresscheck
accounts for the difference between the initial in situ temperature and the temperature which the
casing will see when it is in service. For the simulation of production loads on the production
casing and production liner, Stresscheck applies the maximum bottomhole temperature to the
entire casing string. The application of this temperature profile is triggered by labeling the strings
to be production casing and production liner. In this load case, Stresscheck addresses two
temperature effects: the decrease in pipe yield strength with increasing temperature, and the
calculation of thermal stresses due to heating from the in situ temperature to the maximum
temperature.
For the simulation of drilling load cases, Stresscheck applies a circulating temperature at the
bottom of the next drilling interval and a circulating temperature at the top of the well. The
circulating temperature is based on an API formula accounting for circulation and the in situ
temperature at the wellhead and at TD. The application of this temperature profile is triggered by
labeling the strings to be surface, intermediate, protective, or drilling (i.e., not production) strings.
This means that Stresscheck applies a cooler temperature at the bottom of the hole interval and a
hotter temperature at the wellhead compared to in situ conditions.
During the simulation of injection down the casing (kill load case), Stresscheck applies the cold
injection temperature along the entire string, causing maximum possible (overly severe) cooling
along the entire string. Stresscheck is trying to set the temperature loading, i.e., the difference
between the temperature during the well operation and the in situ temperature, in the most
conservative way. However, these calculations do not account for the effect that temperature and
pressure have on the density of the mud or completion fluid. Wellcat must be used for that
calculation.
Wellcat works the same analysis in more detail by calculating the distribution of temperature and
pressure along the well during each operation, provided that the Prod module is used to make
the calculations. The Casing and Tube modules in Wellcat are used to calculate the stresses
in the casing and tubing, respectively. The Casing and Tube modules should not be used to
calculate the temperature and pressure profiles during a well operation, because these two
modules do not account for the temperature- and pressure- dependence of the mud gradient. Once
the temperature and pressure have been calculated within any operation, the Tube or Casing
modules should be linked to the Prod module of the same operation so that the stress safety
factors can be calculated.
Structure of Wellcat
Wellcat is split into five components, each of which can be linked together. Wellcat consists of
two load-generating programs (Drill and Prod) and two stress analysis programs (Tube and
Casing). A fifth module, called Multi String can be used to link the load transferred between
the tubing and multiple casing strings at the wellhead and at the packer. The layout of each
program is similar (see Figures 6-1 and 6-2).
EP 2000-9073
6-5
Fig. 6-1 Prod layout.
Fig. 6-2 Tube layout.

Well Trajectory
A smooth well profile is important for getting the best model of the influence of well trajectory.
Therefore, when doing design of deviated wells, an accurate wellpath should be constructed with
input, using the build and hold angle method instead of entering measured depth and true vertical
data pairs.
Deviation influences the trajectory of the well. Doglegs introduce a bending stress in the pipe.
Usually, it is small except for the cases of short-radius horizontal wells or buckling. The deviated
wellpath should be modeled either in a detailed or conservative manner. The dogleg data can be
entered either in the max DLS field of the survey editor or in the dogleg override section.
Entering data in the MD, TVD, or INCL fields will specify the trajectory, but not the doglegs. If a
simplified approach is taken, it is easiest to use the dogleg severity override section and ensure
that for any depth range the entered dogleg severity is at least equal to or greater than any dogleg
in the survey.
A well survey can be imported into Wellcat from a *.txt file. However, if the survey exceeds
250 lines, it can make execution of the program very slow.
Tools
The Tools Passage input in Wellcat allows the user to specify the dimension of a tool which might
get stuck (for example, in a buckle). Then the software reports the condition (e.g., maximum
allowable tool length) at which the sticking problem will occur. For tubing models, at least three
types of tools should be considered in the analysis: perforating guns, tools for setting plugs, and
PLT tools. For casing models, the running tools should be the packer assembly.
Packer Modeling
In Wellcat the packer configuration is described in two parts. In the Tube: Wellbore/Packers
dialog, the setting depth, running configuration, and setting mechanism (hydraulic or not) are
specified. On the Wellbore/Packers/Details dialog, the tubing/packer interaction is defined. This
includes whether any weight is picked up or slacked off after the packer is set. The seal bore and
movement also are separated, making the definition of the tension hanger configuration easier
(and allowing direct application of the results).
EP 2000-9073
6-6
Tension Hanger with Seal Bore

For the tension hanger, with a latched/pinned seal bore arrangement:
a. In Wellbore/Packers dialog, enter packer Name, Depth, Type = Packer, Running String =
Production Tubing.
b. Do NOT select Set Hydraulically (present as a mechanically set packer).
c. In Wellbore/Packers/Details, select Seal Bore Present, and enter the PBR/seal bore ID.
d. Do NOT select Seal Movement Allowed.
e. If there is any pre-tension/set-down applied, enter the amount and direction in the Axial Load
Change After Packer Set and Direction field.
If a mandrel hanger is used, the option Packer set hydraulically implies that if the packer is set
the resulting strains/forces from the packer setting are locked in place as part of the initial
conditions for subsequent operations. In the tension hanger case, even if the packer is set
hydraulically in real life, this option is not selected, because the tension hanger allows movement
downwards and no strains/forces are created. After the packer is set, the tubing is unable to move.
Mandrel Hanger with Seal Bore
For a mandrel hanger with moving seals:
Production Tubing.
b. Select Set Hydraulically, and in the Initial Set Pressure field enter the pressure at which the
slips are set (from the packer manufacturer). In the Plug Depth field, enter the packer setting
plug depth.
c. In Wellbore/Packers/Details, select Seal Bore Present, and enter the PBR/seal bore ID.
d. Do NOT select Seal Movement Allowed.
Mandrel Hanger with Integral Packer
For a mandrel hanger with an integral packer (i.e., with anchor):
Production Tubing.
b. Select Set Hydraulically, and in the Initial Set Pressure field enter the pressure at which the
slips are set (from the packer manufacturer). In the Plug Depth field, enter the packer setting
plug depth.
c. In Wellbore/Packers/Details, do NOT select Seal Bore.
Well Injection with Coiled Tubing
In case a coiled tubing string is used for injection, the string can be defined inside the Production
Tubing/Production Liner for injection/circulation thermal modeling. Wellcat does not make a
distinction for the properties of coiled tubing, and so this can be treated only like conventional
tubing. Stress analysis of this configuration is possible by setting up the well in a Wellcat data
file in which the tubing is defined as a production tieback and the coiled tubing string is defined as
the tubing. Any required production, injection, or circulation operations involving flow in the
tubing or fracture string then can be defined and simulated. To model the fracturing string with
no packer, set conditions to tubing with a non-latched packer with unlimited movement.
EP 2000-9073
6-7
Steps for Checking the Wellcat Model for Tubing (and Casing)
Wellcat is a particularly complicated program, and it is relatively easy to get mistakes when
running it. This includes both (1) bugs in the program and (2) user mistakes in input and setup.
Software bugs are still being reported for the latest releases, and the user must guard against this.
All input and output numbers must be checked to make certain that the program is executing the
features which the user intends to be present in the model. For example, it is not sufficient to turn
on the temperature de-rating of yield strength. Instead, one must actually look at the output yield
strength and see that the de-rating is active and working. If this were not the case (it has happened
with an example case), the reported safety factors actually could be incorrect and nonconservative(!),
hence the need for the checking.
Where possible, the check list below should be supplemented by a limited number of approximate
hand (or spreadsheet) calculations of the pipe axial load (stress), hoop stress, radial stress, and von
Mises equivalent stress. For burst, the equivalent stress should be compared with the pipe yield
strength (adjusted for temperature); and for collapse, the external differential pressure should be
compared with the pipe collapse strength (adjusted for temperature). With more effort, worst-case
bending stress can be included. This should be done at a couple of depths such as top and bottom
of the string. The formulas in the appendices of this Guide can be used to make such calculations
(also see the examples in Appendix 24). There is no sufficient alternative approach to proceeding
confidently with the well other than by making some limited hand (or spreadsheet) calculations to
validate the general trend of the Wellcat (or Stresscheck) results. Once you have the outputs from
Wellcat (or Stresscheck), there usually is enough information and enough pattern generated to
facilitate making this hand check with reasonable effort.
1. Check the pressures and temperatures for each load case, to ensure that the prediction of
pressures and temperatures is as intended. It is not sufficient to look at the temperatures and
pressure reported in Tube or Casing outputs. It is also necessary to check the
temperatures and pressures reported in (generated by) Prod to make certain that the correct
values have been generated and passed along to Tubing & Casing. This sometimes is not
the case! Check both the internal pressures and external (annulus) pressures.
2. Check if the triaxial burst, axial, and collapse safety factors for each selected load case are
larger than design factors. If not, adjust the design.
3. Check the safety factors vs depth directly by comparing the tabulated safety factors with the
design factors. Look at the numbers. Do not use the design limit plot. The design limit plot
uses the nominal yield strengths, uncorrected for temperature de-rating, to create the
envelopes, and it cannot faithfully represent the triaxial stress analysis on the pressure and
force axes.
4. To judge the acceptability of a particular design, the design limit plot should not be used.
Consequently, the design limit plot should not be used except as a rough qualitative design
guide.
5. As explained in Chapter 3, remember to adjust the pipe wall thickness for thin-wall
eccentricity by setting the triaxial wall factor to 87.5% in Wellcat (90% for CRAs). For
Stresscheck, remember to use the only software workaround by multiplying the usual triaxial
burst design factor by 8/7 (e.g., 1.25 x 8/7 = 1.43!).
EP 2000-9073
6-8
6. Sometimes the software does not automatically report all the operating cases that were just
run. Check to see if all the operations are reported. If not, use the data selection option
(accessed through a right click of the mouse) to access and report all the operations.
7. Check the operating pressures and loads of the well against the qualified service envelope of
the connection. Pay particular attention to the reported axial compression loads with bending
during the different operations (Section 3.7) of the well. Compare this to the maximum
compression load to which the connection has been qualified. If the service load in the well
exceeds the qualified service envelope of the connection, a different connection will be
needed, or the connection qualification needs to be extended through supplemental testing
(Chapter 4), or the operation of the well needs to be modified to decrease the service load, if
possible.
8. Check in Summaries/Packer Load to see whether the latching force is lower than the tensile
strength for the anchor latch. The latching force is only reported if the packer has a seal bore
with no movement allowed, e.g., an anchor latch or shear-pinned system. This force is the
total force applied to the latch by the tubing above the packer.
9. Check in Summaries/Packer Load to see whether the casing to packer force (value the same
but direction opposite from packer to casing force) is within the tension or compression
rating of the packer. For the packer to casing force, an upward load represents tension and a
downward load represents compression. The casing to packer force is the net force applied
by the completion string (tubing and tailpipe) to the packer, plus the pressurearea force due
to differential pressure across the packer.
10. Take the initial load case and extract the tubing to packer force and the packer to casing
force. Unless there is a different fluid in the well compared to when the packer was set, the
tubing to packer force should reflect the following:
The increase in tension found when using a hydraulic set packer.
A decrease in tension found when using slack-off.
The tubing to packer force includes the weight of the tailpipe.
It is straightforward to check these forces using hand calculations (ballooning and piston
forces). For example, on a 5.5 in. 17 lb/ft completion with a hydraulic set packer setting at
2000 psi, a 50,000 lb slack-off, and a 200 ft tailpipe, the tubing to packer force should be
Piston force = pA = 2000 psi x 18.8 = 37,590 lb (tension)
Ballooning = 2(Ai pi) = 0.6 x 18.8 x 2000 = 22,560 lb (compression)
Tailpipe = 200 ft x 17 lb/ft = 3,400 lb (tension)
Slack-off = 50,000 lb (compression).
Then the total tubing to packer force reported by Wellcat should be 31,570 lb compression.
11. Check that any movements at expansion devices are within the lengths allowed by the
component. If possible, avoid movement of seals during normal conditions, i.e., try to keep
the seal static (no-goed) during production.
12. Check in Summaries/Tool Passage to see if the tools can pass freely. If the tool does not
pass freely, the maximum tool length which passes freely will be displayed along with the
force required to pass the rest of the tool.
EP 2000-9073
6-9
13. Check the collapse safety factor against the collapse design factor. In general, the worst
cases for collapse loading will occur during the plugged tubing and depleted production
operations.
14. Check the integrity of the SPM assembly, as the burst and collapse ratings are lower than that
of the tubing. For example, 3 in. KBUG-SH 9Cr1Mo SPM has a collapse pressure of
6,500 psi at room temperature. Using 0.057 percent decrease in yield per F for 9Cr1Mo
alloy, at 250F bottomhole temperature, the temperature de-rating (see Appendix 6) becomes
1.0 (250 70) F x 0.00057/F = 1.0 0.103 = 0.897, and the collapse rating becomes 0.897
x 6,500 psi = 5,830 psi. This figure should be then compared to the worst-case collapse
pressure from the Wellcat Prod run.
15. The worst case for burst usually will occur at the start of the well kill, while the well is hot
from sustained production.
16. Check that the direction or forces involved for each load case are realistic. This is easiest to
check under the tubing movement results. For example, under cold-water injection
conditions, there should be thermal contraction and ballooning.
17. Pay attention to load cases with plugs. If there is a plug above an expansion device and a
positive pressure differential above the plug, the tubing should move down. If there is a plug
below an expansion device and a positive pressure differential above the plug, the tubing
should move up.
18. Check the axial load plot for any jumps or abrupt changes. There will be jumps at plugs,
changes in tubing (weight or size), or where there are changes in dogleg severity. For a
simple load case (e.g., pressure test), confirm that these load changes are correct.
Comments on the Use of Wellcat for Stress Analysis
Although Wellcat is a powerful and comprehensive tool, there are a number of areas which can
contribute to confusion. This section is not intended to replace the Wellcat manual, but it is
intended to give some general guidance about tubing stress analysis within Wellcat.
Inventories
A significant amount of effort can be spent in setting up Wellcat with the correct data on tubing,
equipment, mud, and other properties. This should need to be done only once since it is possible
to save the inventory data as a template. Failure to save the inventory data as a template means
that every time you start a new tubing stress analysis, you have to re-enter all the inventory data.
Inventories should be set up for:
1. Fluids (stimulation, annulus, production fluids, etc.). Not all the fluid options are available for
all purposes. For example, if you want to set up the annulus contents to be hydrocarbons, this
would not be available.
2. Pipes (every combination of size, weight, and grade).
3. Grade properties (metallurgical properties like Poissons ratio).
4. Temperature de-rating (see Appendix 6 for guidance).
4. Connections (a new entry for every combination of size, weight, grade, and connection). A
global list of qualified connections and pipe mechanical data is being generated to be posted
on the DED web site.
EP 2000-9073
6-10
Fluids Inventory
Not all the fluid options are available for all purposes. For example, if you wanted to set up the
annulus contents as containing hydrocarbons, then this would not be available. This is somewhat
awkward as many loads cases would have their temperature affected by the presence of gas in the
annulus. Table 6-1 summarizes some of the important properties of the inventory of fluids.
Table 6-1
WELLCAT FLUIDS INVENTORY
Wellcat Fluid
Features
Cement Slurries
Used for cementing operations within

Prod or Drill.
Expansion (e.g., as used for trapped
For use as completion fluids,
annuli calculations can be either by table stimulation, or other treatments.
or default correlation).
Includes basic characteristics of
This mud type is used in Drill drilling
oil/water mud mixtures. They can
operations and Prod circulation
contain high-density and/or low-density operations. It is also made available
solids (low-density solids are not userfor placement above cement outside
definable but contain defaults based on casing strings.
fine drill cuttings). The high-density
solids are selectable from common
weighting agents such as Barite and
Hematite. The water base is selectable
from previously defined brines. The
only oil base is diesel.
A simplistic approach to muds with
This mud type is also used in Drill
density, viscosity and yield point
drilling operations and Prod
definable as well as base type. The
circulation operations. It is also made
conductivity information for the base
available for placement above cement
type is based on water or diesel.
outside casing strings.
These are black-oil hydrocarbons. Gas Used for black oil, dry gas, or
composition or gravity can be entered
multiphase flows where condensates
and used to define the thermal properties are not significant. Can be used
of the gas (using the SRK
within Tube or Prod load
thermodynamic model as a default).
cases/operations. Within Tube,
There is no ability to tune the PVT
available for production, steady-state
properties to decrease any errors, and
injection, pressure test shut-in
therefore Wellcat can not be
conditions, and related load cases.
recommended for well performance
Nitrogen and methane are available as
prediction.
annular or completion fluids.
VaporLiquid Equilibrium is a
Used for condensate flows. Can be
compositional model of fluids based on used within Tube or Prod load cases
PengRobinson equation of state. Like /operations. Within Tube, available
many EoS models, this method is good for production, steady-state injection,
at predicting phase conversions and is
pressure test shut-in conditions, and
therefore useful for condensates. There related load cases. Nitrogen and
are no interaction coefficients. Inherent methane are available as annular or
uncertainties in these methods make
completion fluids.
densities predictions poor.
Brines
Compositional
Muds
Standard Muds
Standard
Hydrocarbons
VLE
Hydrocarbons
Where Used
EP 2000-9073
6-11
Table 6-1 (continued)

Wellcat Fluid
File-Defined
Hydrocarbons
Polymers
Foams
Features
This is the most accurate method of
representing hydrocarbons containing
liquids and gas. All relevant data to the
fluids (GOR, densities, heat capacities,
etc.) can be imported. Linear
interpolation will take place between the
entered pressure and temperature points;
therefore, a sufficient range of pressures
and temperatures is required for
complete and accurate coverage. Water
has to be included within the liquid and
not separately. Use this tab with data
supplied from other PVT packages.
Polymer fluids are water-based fluids.
A power-law model is used to calculate
viscosity of non-reacting polymers
(treating fluids). With treating fluids,
you must specify both N and K. Since
viscosity changes with temperature, you
must also specify a reference
temperature for the measurements. N is
a dimensionless number; K units are
lbf-sn/100ft.
For reacting polymers, the polymer fluid
combines the programs standard powerlaw rheology with a model for increase
of viscosity due to chemical reactions.
Further details of the reacting polymer
input are provided within Wellcat.
The program models foam where a gas
is mixed with a water-base fluid
containing a foaming surfactant. The
gases available are dry or watersaturated air, dry nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, dry or water-saturated nitrogen,
methane, or water vapor.
Where Used
As per VLE and black-oil
hydrocarbons.
Available as an annulus or completion

fluid and for most load cases.
Particularly useful within Prod as an
injection fluid and can be used with
sequential operations to define a
polymer treatment fully.
Available as an annulus or completion

fluid and for most load cases. Again,
easiest to use within Prod as part of a
full intervention sequence (e.g., coiled
tubing foam lift).
Vacuum-Insulated Tubing
Wellcat can not handle vacuum-insulated tubing. However, WT-Steam from the same vendor can
nicely handle insulated tubing, but it cannot exercise the wide array of well operations.
Built-In Operations and Load Calculations
Wellcat contains a large variety of partially predefined operations. Some of these can be accessed
directly through Tube and some should be accessed through Prod. In general, whenever a
Tube operation can link its stress calculation to a particular Prod calculation, this should be
done so that the pressure along the well accounts for the influence of temperature and hydrostatic
pressure on the mud gradient. Table 6-2 below summarizes the operations in Tube.
EP 2000-9073
6-12
Table 6-2
WELLCAT TUBE OPERATIONS
Load Case
Definition
Prod
Linking a Wellcat Prod load case.
Steady-State Production A simplified production load case, usually with conservative predictions
for pressure and temperature. No ability for gas-lifted production or
transient effects. The model used is based on Hagedorn and Brown. For
more detail and options, use the Prod program.
Transient Injection
Injection of any fluid for a length of time.
Steady-state Injection
Steady-state injection.
Shut-In
Extracts the temperature from a previous load case (e.g., production). The
surface pressure is input and the tubing pressure gradient either extracted
from a previous load case, entered directly, or entered as a fluid. A longterm shut-in option resets the temperature back to geothermal.
Tubing Evacuation
Full evacuation (to air) of the entire string. Optional temperature data can
be extracted from a previous load case (e.g., production load case).
Tubing Leak
Uses a previous load case for tubing pressure and temperature. The
annulus pressure is then reset to equal the tubing pressure.
Frac Screen-Out
Takes a previous load case (e.g., transient injection) and extracts the
temperature and tubing fluid density. The surface tubing pressure is
entered directly and applied on top of the static tubing fluid. This load case
is also relevant to load cases involving deadheading of any injection pump,
e.g., water injection.
Pressure Test
Pressure can be applied to tubing or annulus with the option of a plug in
the tubing at any depth.
Overpull
Simply applies an overpull to the tubing. This load case is worst when
tubing-to-casing friction is included.
Custom
Any combination of pressure and temperature can be entered with the
option of a single plug or barrier in the tubing. Additional plugs (e.g.,
the inflow test of a safety valve with pressure held on a tailpipe plug) can
be entered by modifying the well data to give a small section of tubing
with a zero diameter.
Prod allows more advanced features to be accessed to generate pressure and temperature loads
during production and injection operations. Each operation will predict the pressures and
temperatures for fluid and strings in the well. These operations can then be linked into Tube.
Each Prod operation can be either a steady-state or a transient operation. In the case of transient
operations, the starting temperature conditions can be either geothermal conditions or the
temperature from a previous operation. In this way, complex temperature predictions can be
made. For example, the temperature and pressure could be predicted for circulating cement down
coiled tubing after the well was shut in for 6 hours following 10 days of production. Such
predictions are very useful for well interventions where there is a strong temperature dependence
such as gel or cement treatments.
EP 2000-9073
6-13
About Wellcat Modeling Heat Transfer

For a complete and rigorous modeling of heat transfer, it is necessary to know in detail the
properties of all the materials through which heat is being transferred. This is very necessary for
HPHT wells and for high-rate wells which also will carry reservoir temperatures to the surface.
Properties that must be known are the following:
1. The fluid flowing in the tubing
2. The tubing and casing strings
3. The annular fluids (very important for convection and conduction of heat)
4. The cement
5. The location of cement tops
6. Formation(s)
It also is important to know the correct temperature of the fluid as it enters the tubing.
The material properties that are important are:
Specific heat capacity (how much energy is required to change the temperature of a material).
Conductivity (for heat conduction). For a formation, this depends on the porosity and fluid
properties.
The viscosity and yield point (for convection).
The static (geothermal) temperature.
The flowing conditions since being static.
Variations in the values of these physical and material parameters and inaccuracies in the
estimates of their values both can contribute to load uncertainty for the well.
Pay particular attention to the contents of the annuli: cement tops, whether gas-lifted or not, etc.
If accurate heat transfer modeling is required (e.g., for HPHT or high-rate wells or hydrate or wax
prediction), then all the casing strings and their contents should be included in the analysis. For
purely tubing stress calculations, it is usually conservative to ignore any but the production casing.
This will tend to lead to an insulating effect compared to casing strings and wet annuli.
When to Use Wellcat for Casing
Stresscheck will be adequate and conservative for most casing design applications. However,
there are cases where the final stress analysis of the casing should be done with Wellcat as a
follow-up to initial work done using Stresscheck. For surface and intermediate casing strings, it is
recommended that the design obtained from Stresscheck be checked using Wellcat:
To calculate the temperature change over the different operations of the well.
To work the problem of annular pressure buildup.
If you have large temperature change at any depth in the pipe (300F or more).
If for some reason, the triaxial burst safety factor of the proposed design as calculated by
Stresscheck is less than 1.25.
Wellcat should always be used routinely for a final check on the stress analysis of production
casing. This is particularly valuable because Wellcat steps through the successive operations
of the well. Furthermore, this offers some protection from the fact that for high changes of
temperature, Stresscheck can be very overconservative.
EP 2000-9073
6-14
Operations Available in Wellcat

The list of operations here does not attempt to be a comprehensive list of all the options available
in Wellcat and does not attempt to replace the software vendors own training guides. This is
intended only as a helpful list of key load-related operations in the software.
Loads/Design Parameters/Design Factors
Use this tab to define design factors that specify the minimum acceptable safety factors for the
pipe body and connections for all loads. The program uses the design factors you specify for
pipes and connections to identify design limits. For example, the program includes the design
factors you specify in safety factor plots. The program also includes warning messages in safety
factor summary views and in the Tube, Casing, and MultiString Results Summary printed reports
when a calculated safety factor is less than a design factor. Connection design factors can also be
specified for values such as tension, compression, and burst/leak. The default for tension and
compression is equal to the pipe axial design factor. The default for burst/leak is equal to the pipe
burst design factor.
Loads/Loads/Steady-State Production
This operation models steady-state production of gas/oil/water fluids. The program uses a hybrid
black-oil model for the oil and dissolved gas and a compositional model for the free gas. A
composition using C1C4 is determined based on the gas gravity. The Beggs and Brill model is
used for two-phase flow pressure drops. The gas rate can be zero for water/oil production, and the
liquid rates can be zero for gas production.
Loads/Production/Shut-In
This operation models shut-in after production. Temperature, internal density, and external
conditions are usually taken from the production case. Internal pressures are usually calculated
based on the user-entered pressure at the perforations or at the wellhead and the fluid gradients. If
this is a long-term shut-in, temperatures are set to undisturbed. If gas is in the tubing during the
shut-in, gas gravity can be entered and this will override the internal densities from the production
case. Note that if gas gravity is not used, the calculated internal pressures may be slightly
inaccurate for compressible fluids because the internal density is based on production
temperatures and pressures. To access this tab, you must be using Tube. Select Loads/Loads,
choose Shut-In as the load type, and then click Details. Select the tab having the name of your
currently selected string.
Loads/Pressure Test Load
The pressure test operation models a tubing pressure test with pressure applied at the wellhead.
An optional plug can be entered. If you specify the optional plug, WellCat includes the axial
force due to pressure acting on the plug. The pressure below the plug is calculated based on the
specified fluid density. If no density is entered, the packer fluid density you specified is used. An
undisturbed temperature profile is assumed.
The following calculations are used:
From the hanger to the plug depth,
Pinternal = Ptest+g * rmud * TVD
From the plug depth to the shoe,

Pinternal = g * rmud * TVD
EP 2000-9073
6-15
Loads/Tubing Evacuation
This operation simulates air in the tubing with a zero surface pressure. Temperatures are assumed
to be undisturbed unless a prior case is specified. The Operation or Load drop-down list box has
the names of all loads or operations defined for the current string that can be linked to other loads.
Selecting one of these items allows the code to use the temperature profile from the item as final
temperature conditions for the current load case. To access this tab, you must be using Tube.
Select Loads/Loads, choose Tubing Evacuation as the load type, and then click Details. Select the
tab having the name of your currently selected string.
Loads/Overpull (Casing)
This operation is used to model tension in the string due to the air weight of the casing (or buoyed
weight in mud). An overpull force can be specified to model additional surface tension applied to
the casing (usually to free stuck pipe).
Loads/Overpull (Tube)
This operation models tension in the tubing string due to the air weight of the tubing (or buoyed
weight in mud). An overpull force (usually applied to unseat a packer) can be specified to model
additional surface tension applied to the tubing (usually to free stuck tubing).
Loads/Tubing Leak (Casing)
This operation is used to model a tubing leak when analyzing the innermost casing. A prior load
case that includes temperatures (typically a production case) can be entered to define temperature
conditions. You can also enter surface pressure (wellhead pressure) to which the current string
will be exposed.
Loads/Tubing Leak (Tube)
This operation recalls all of the load conditions from the prior case (usually a production case) and
applies the tubing pressure on the annulus at the surface, which can result in high collapse loads
near the packer (particularly if a kill-weight packer fluid is used). The Operation or Load dropdown list box has the names of all loads or operations defined for the current string that can be
linked to other loads. Selecting one of these items allows the code to use the temperature density
and pressure profiles from the item as final conditions for the current load case.
Loads/Prod Link
This operation is used to model the current string with the temperature profiles imported from a
Prod operation. This is a very important, heavily used option.
Loads/Custom Load (Casing)
Custom Load has tabs you use to specify density, pressure, and temperature profiles inside and
outside the current string that are not available from any of the standard load cases. Use the
String tab to specify profiles inside the string and the Annulus tab to specify profiles outside. On
the String tab, the Casing Profile group box (located on the left) is used to define casing density
and/or casing pressure profiles. On the Annulus tab is the Annulus Profile group box that is used
to define annulus density and/or annulus pressure profiles.
EP 2000-9073
6-16
Loads/Custom Load (Tube)

Custom Load has tabs you use to specify density, pressure, and temperature profiles inside and
outside the current string that are not available from any of the standard load types. Use the
String tab to specify profiles inside the string and the Annulus tab to specify profiles outside.
On the String tab, the Tubing Profile group box, located on the left, is used to define tubing
density or tubing pressure profiles. On the Annulus tab, it is the Annulus Profile group box, and it
is used to define annulus density or annulus pressure profiles. The Tubing and Annulus
Temperature Profile group boxes are defaulted to undisturbed temperatures.
Loads/Transient Injection
This load case models steady-state injection of natural gas. A compositional model for free gas is
used. A composition using C1C4 is determined based on the gas gravity. Gas pressures are
based on the gas dynamic theories of Zucrow and Hoffman.
Loads/Pump-In to Kill
This load case may result in worst-case burst loads at the surface for low-permeability formations
when a pump pressure significantly greater than the shut-in wellhead pressure is required to begin
a bullhead kill operation. Temperature, internal density, and external conditions are recalled from
the prior case (production or shut-in). The program then applies the user-entered surface pressure.
If you want to model thermal contraction loads during a kill operation, use the Transient Injection
load as the prior operation or load.
Loads/Frac Screen-Out
This load case models the high injection pressure encountered at the end of a frac operation. The
prior load case (usually an injection case) is recalled for temperatures, internal densities, and
external conditions (such as casing pressure).
Loads/Rod Pump
This load calculates tubing loads due to steady-state production in a well using a rod pump for
artificial lift. WellCat uses the values you specify to perform a thermal simulation to calculate
tubing temperatures and pressures based on the specified production conditions. These results are
used to determine the forces acting on the tubing. The load calculation is based on data you
specify to calculate the force acting on the tubing due to the differential pressure across the pump.
This pressure acts on the cross-sectional area between the tubing ID and the pump bore diameter.
A stress analysis can be performed for both an upstroke and a downstroke. On an upstroke, the
piston force due to the higher pressure above the pump is carried by the sucker rods and travelling
valve, yet the pressure increase can cause buckling in the tubing. On a downstroke, this pressure
force acts downward on the standing valve and is carried by the tubing (i.e., the valve is treated as
a tubing plug).
EP 2000-9073
6-17
Stresscheck Casing Load Cases

In general, Stresscheck creates a more approximate and hence more conservative model than does
Wellcat. Wellcat usually is used for greater accuracy, not to be more conservative. For a
production load case, Stresscheck takes the maximum (bottomhole) temperature and applies this
temperature along the entire string to the surface (a vertical line at the far right on the temperature
axis). This applies the maximum possible temperature increase and thermal stress to the casing.
Similarly, for an injection load case, Stresscheck takes the inlet injection temperature and applies
this uniformly along the entire string down to TD (a vertical line at the far left). This is strongly
conservative, and there can be useful savings by using Wellcat to check the proposed design.
Initial Conditions/Cementing and Landing Tab
Use this tab to establish, for the current string, the post-cementing hydrostatic profile for certain
burst (e.g., Green Cement Pressure Test), collapse (e.g., Cementing), and axial (e.g., Post-Cement
Static) load cases. Use it also to establish hydrostatic and applied loads for cemented and landed
casing as an initial condition to subsequent loads and displacements that may develop from load
cases selected on the Select tab in the Burst Loads, Collapse Loads, and Axial Loads dialogs.
These data are defined on a per-string basis. Different Cementing and Landing data can be
defined for each string in the Casing Scheme spreadsheet. To change strings, use the Current
String dialog or the Select String drop-down list box on the Wizard toolbar.
Tubular/Burst Loads/Select Tab (Burst Loads Dialog)
Use this tab to enable and disable applicable burst load cases and to select external pressure
profiles. Most drilling burst-load cases can be selected only for strings where the setting depth
(shoe depth in Casing Scheme spreadsheet) is less than the well TD, as defined in the General
dialog. Most production burst-load cases can be selected only for production strings (those strings
in the Casing Scheme spreadsheet for which the Name cell contents are Production). Exceptions
to this rule are as follow:
Pressure Test and Green Cement Pressure Test drilling burst-load cases, which can be selected
for all strings.
Gas Migration production burst-load case, which can be selected only for protective strings.
Surface Protection (BOP) drilling burst-load case, which is unavailable for liners in any event.
The Internal Profile list box contains the names of the selected load cases. As load cases are
enabled and disabled, this list box updates automatically and the currently selected load case is
highlighted.
If the Single External Pressure Profile check box is not marked on the Design Parameters dialog,
external pressure profiles can be independently selected for each load case. Highlight a load case
in the Internal Profile list box and then select the corresponding external pressure profile from the
External Profile group box. If the Single External Pressure Profile check box is marked, only one
external pressure profile can be selected for use with all selected load cases.
The green cement pressure test burst load case uses a self-described external pressure profile and
is unaffected by the Single External Pressure Profile option and external pressure profile
selections. The external pressure profile for burst custom load cases is entirely user-defined and is
similarly unaffected.
EP 2000-9073
6-18
Tubular/Burst Loads/Edit Tab (Burst Loads Dialog)

Use this tab to specify or view parameters for each load case and external pressure profile enabled
on the Burst Loads dialogs Select and Custom tabs. The topmost feature on the tab is always a
drop-down list box having selected load cases and external pressure profiles. The remainder of
the tab contents has parameters used in constructing a specific load case or external pressure
profile. The parameters available vary depending on the current selection. Some parameter
values are editable, while others are listed for information purposes only. Click Burst Load Case
Descriptions for load case and external pressure profile descriptions, and click Burst Load Case
Data for descriptions of each parameter.
Tubular/Burst Load/Options Tab
Use this tab to specify alternate design factors and to enable the Mud Deterioration option for
each load case enabled on the Burst Loads dialogs Select and Custom tabs. Axial, burst, and
triaxial design factors and the Mud Deterioration option can be specified (or, in the latter case,
selected) independently for all enabled burst load cases. The load case you want is selected from
the drop-down list box at the top of the tab. Existing Options data for the current string can be
reviewed or edited by selecting the load case you want from the drop-down list box. Alternate
design factors specified on the Options tab are used for the load case to which they apply as
overrides for the default design factors specified on the Design Parameters dialog. This allows
completely independent load case-by-load case definition of load factors. An alternate axial
design factor entered on this tab is considered only if the Service Loads check box is marked on
the Axial Loads/Select tab.
Marking the Deteriorated Mud check box for a selected load case causes the external pressure
profile to be calculated using the specified base-fluid density as the hydrostatic gradient above
TOC instead of the actual mud density, which is specified for the current string as Mud at Shoe in
the Casing Scheme spreadsheet. This provides an accurate model for drilling muds that do not
have good long-term solids-suspension properties. The same deteriorated-fluid density must be
used for all selected load cases for which this option is enabled. Deteriorated Mud is disabled for
Custom load cases where the external pressure profile is explicitly entered.
Load cases that use the Fluid Gradients w/ Pore Pressure external pressure profile, where the
mud density above TOC is an editable field on the Burst Loads/Edit tab when this profile is
selected.
Tubular/Collapse Load/Select
Use this tab to enable and disable applicable collapse load cases and to select external pressure
profiles. Most drilling collapse-load cases can be selected only for strings where the setting depth
dialog. Most production collapse-load cases can be selected only for production strings (those
strings in the Casing Scheme spreadsheet for which the Name cell contents are Production).
Exceptions to this rule are
Cementing drilling collapse-load case, which can be selected for all strings
Gas Migration production collapse-load case, which is unavailable for liners
EP 2000-9073
6-19
The Internal Profiles list box contains the names of the selected load cases. As load cases are
enabled and disabled, this list box updates automatically and the currently selected load case will
be highlighted.
in the Internal Profile list box and select the corresponding external pressure profile from the
external pressure profile can be selected for use with all of the selected load cases.
The Cementing drilling collapse-load case and the Gas Migration production collapse-load case
have self-described external pressure profiles and are unaffected by the Single External Pressure
Profile option and external pressure profile selections. The external pressure profile for collapse
Custom load cases is entirely user-defined and is similarly unaffected.
To enable or disable collapse loads against which the current string is evaluated, mark the
corresponding check boxes. After they are enabled, the load case variables can be viewed and/or
edited individually for each enabled load case using the Collapse Loads/Edit tab. Custom
collapse load cases are defined using Custom Loads spreadsheets. These load cases are then
enabled and disabled using the Collapse Loads/Custom tab.
Tubular/Collapse Load/Select Tab
Use this tab to enable and disable applicable collapse load cases and to select external pressure
profiles. Most drilling collapse-load cases can be selected only for strings where the setting depth
dialog. Most production collapse-load cases can be selected only for production strings (those
strings in the casing scheme spreadsheet for which the name cell contents are Production).
Exceptions to this rule are
Cementing drilling collapse-load case, which can be selected for all strings
Gas Migration production collapse-load case, which is unavailable for liners
The Internal Profiles list box contains the names of the selected load cases. As load cases are
enabled and disabled, this list box updates automatically and the currently selected load case will
be highlighted.
in the Internal Profile list box and select the corresponding external pressure profile from the
external pressure profile can be selected for use with all of the selected load cases.
The Cementing drilling collapse-load case and the Gas Migration production collapse-load case
have self-described external pressure profiles and are unaffected by the Single External Pressure
Profile option and external pressure profile selections. The external pressure profile for collapse
Custom load cases is entirely user-defined and is similarly unaffected.
EP 2000-9073
6-20
To enable or disable collapse loads against which the current string is evaluated, mark the
corresponding check boxes. After they are enabled, the load case variables can be viewed and/or
edited individually for each enabled load case using the Collapse Loads/Edit tab. Custom
collapse load cases are defined using Custom Loads spreadsheets. These load cases are then
enabled and disabled using the Collapse Loads/Custom tab.
Tubular/Collapse Load/Edit Tab
Use this tab to specify or view parameters for each load case and external pressure profile enabled
on the collapse loads dialogs Select and Custom tabs. The topmost feature on the tab is always a
drop-down list box having selected load cases and external pressure profiles. The remainder of
the tab contents has parameters used in constructing a specific load case or external pressure
profile. The parameters available vary depending on the current selection. Some parameter
values are editable, while others are listed for information purposes only. Click Collapse Load
Case Descriptions for load case and external pressure profile descriptions, and click Collapse
Load Case Data for descriptions of each parameter.
Tubular/Collapse Load/Options Tab
Use this tab to enable and disable custom load cases defined through the Custom Loads dialog and
Custom Loads spreadsheet. This tab contains a list of all custom loads that are defined for the
current string. The data defining each of these load cases can be viewed as a spreadsheet on the
collapse loads/edit tab, and the corresponding internal and external pressure profiles can be
viewed on the collapse loads/plot tab. If a custom load case was created solely as an axial design
criterion (e.g., hot production or cool injection temperatures were specified to generate thermally
induced axial loads), the load case is considered in the load-line formulation for axial design when
both of the following conditions are satisfied:
Custom loads were selected on the Custom tab of either the Burst Loads or Collapse Loads
dialog.
Service Loads were selected on the Axial Loads/Select tab.
Temperature data for custom load cases are recorded on the Temperature tab within the Burst
Loads and Collapse Loads dialogs rather than in the Custom Loads spreadsheet. This provides
generalized support for user-entered load case temperature profiles.
Tubular/Axial Load/Select
Use this tab to enable and disable applicable load cases. If a custom load case was created solely
as an axial design criterion (e.g., hot production or cool injection temperatures were specified to
generate thermally induced axial loads), the load case will be considered in the load-line
formulation for axial design when both of the following conditions are satisfied:
The custom load was selected on the Custom tab of either the Burst Loads or Collapse Loads
dialog.
Service Loads was selected on the Axial Loads/Select tab.
The first five selections on this tab represent installation load cases. These loads occur before the
cement hardened and the casing was landed. If a pickup or slack-off force is to be applied to the
casing string before setting the slips, or if the casing string is to be pre-tensioned by applying
surface pressure while waiting on cement, you must mark the Service Loads check box. These
additional data are specified on the Initial Conditions/Cementing and Landing tab and are used in
calculating axial load distributions for the selected burst and collapse load cases.
EP 2000-9073
6-21
Temperature data for custom load cases are recorded on the Temperature tab within the Burst
Loads and Collapse Loads dialogs rather than in the Custom Loads spreadsheet. This provides
generalized support for user-entered load case temperature profiles.
To enable or disable axial loads against which the current string is evaluated, mark the
corresponding check boxes. After they are enabled, the load case variables, such as overpull force
or casing running speed, can be edited.
Run Displacement to Gas with the design parameter dialog option clicked to activate Frac at Shoe
option. This way, the displacement to gas will be limited if it exceeds the fracture pressure at the
shoe. If you do not click the frac at shoe option, then displ to gas will not be limited if it exceeds
the frac pressure.
However, the Frac at Shoe with Gas Gradient Above option does not compare pore pressure and
gas gradient or look at this at all. Instead, this chooses the frac pressure directly and then runs GG
above.
Gas Kick takes a specified kick volume and actually circulates the bubble. It calculates pressure
at the top and bottom of the bubble as the bubble moves along the string. Then at each point
along the string it takes the worst pressure at that point, which is the pressure when the bubble
passes that point, and it sets that as the design pressure. This is an important, useful option.
EP 2000-9073
7-1

Chapter 7
Quality Assurance and Inspection of Tubulars and Connections
7. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND INSPECTION OF TUBULARS AND CONNECTIONS ............. 2

7.1
Pipe Toughness ................................................................................................................... 2
7.2
Tubular and Connection Inspection .................................................................................... 4
7.3
Example of Pipe Reject Rate at Secondary Inspection ....................................................... 5
7.4
Document and Change Control ........................................................................................... 5
7.5
Qualification of Manufacturers ........................................................................................... 5
7.6
Requalification of Inspection Equipment............................................................................ 6
EP 2000-9073
7-2
7. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND INSPECTION

OF TUBULARS AND CONNECTIONS
Quality Assurance programs are necessary in order to have reasonable confidence that pipe
bodies and connections will be manufactured within specifications. Manufacturing within
specifications is necessary in order to provide the performance that is relied upon for design and
service in the well. The pipe or connection manufacturer needs to have a quality assurance
program in place in order to ensure that the product is manufactured consistently within
specifications. The manufacturer needs to document the existence and nature of the quality
assurance program and the manner in which it is to be executed. This documentation often is
referred to as the quality plan or the process control plan.
Shell operating companies should have their own quality programs in place sufficiently to validate
that the manufacturer has an effective quality program in place. The quality program in place by
Shell needs to be tailored to site-specific requirements which take account of the service pressures
and criticality of the wells. As part of its design practice, the operating company should document
its approach to quality assurance. For example, the OpCo quality assurance plan might range
anywhere from being aware that the manufacturer has a process control plan in place to having
supplemental Shell witnessing and inspection to even having 100% Shell re-inspection in critical
applications.
Inspection is the act of verifying that a quality assurance program is in place and is working
effectively. Inspection may be carried out solely by the manufacturer of the product or by a
combination of the manufacturers quality programs and Shell secondary inspection and
witnessing. At some point during or after the manufacturing of the pipe and the connection, there
needs to be measurement and validation that the product is being made within its manufacturing
tolerances. The frequency of inspection measurements may be based on random sampling, on a
fixed percentage of products manufactured, or on 100% of the product, depending on the
criticality and the confidence in the manufacture of the product.
For most-critical well service, it is recommended that Shell perform some supplemental
inspection, either during production through witnesses at the mill or after production through
secondary inspection, in order to validate that the manufacturers process control plan is effective,
i.e., that the product is being manufactured within requirements. Experience has shown that when
manufacturers are relied upon to act alone in implementing their process control plan, products
with rejectable flaws make their way to the well.
7.1
Pipe Toughness
More than any other single parameter, adequate pipe toughness is important to achieving
predictable and reliable burst strength from casing and tubing. Tubulars usually are designed not
to yield when subjected to burst loading. Design against the onset of yielding is a conservative
first step prior to the spread of yielding through the cross section and eventual rupture of the pipe.
However, the formulation for yielding and the possession of adequate yield and rupture strength
by the pipe is predicated on the pipe behaving in a ductile (i.e., not brittle) manner. Having
minimum toughness ensures that the pipe will be ductile, not brittle, and that the equations
governing yield will apply. Pipe needs to have good toughness in order to avoid having undue
sensitivity to notches, gouges, and imperfections. If a pipe does not have adequate toughness,
then it should be considered brittle and the yield-based formulations used in burst design should
be considered not to apply.
EP 2000-9073
7-3
Adequate toughness is assured if the Charpy impact energy of the pipe meets or exceeds the
minimum impact toughness specified in API Specification SR16. The minimum toughness in
SR16 is a function of the pipe or coupling wall thickness and the orientation of the test specimen.
Where possible, a transverse notch orientation is highly preferable instead of a longitudinal
orientation. Conformance to API Specification SR16 is the best means of ensuring that pipe has
adequate toughness. Most pipe made today meets or exceeds the minimum impact energy
specified in SR16, but this is not always the case. Added assurance of meeting the minimum
Charpy requirement can be obtained by including the SR16 specification in the purchase
requirement of the pipe. When large orders of pipe are placed with mills, the pipe usually can be
ordered to SR16 without added cost. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show the orientation and geometry of
the API Charpy test specimens for SR16.
Fig. 7-1 Orientation of the (1) longitudinal and (2) transverse Charpy test
specimens per API 5CT. The transverse test is preferred when possible.
Fig. 7-2 Geometry of the Charpy test specimen, per API 5C3.
EP 2000-9073
7-4
It is recommended that all tubing and production casing should meet the impact energy (toughness)
specification of SR16. It also is recommended that intermediate casing dominated by burst design
such that the triaxial burst safety factor is 1.50 or less should meet the impact energy specification of
SR16. Meeting the impact energy requirement can be achieved by including SR16 in the
purchasing specification or by risk assessment of the mills likelihood of producing SR16 and nonSR16 pipe. Coupling material for connections has separate toughness specifications contained in
API 5CT (ISO 11960), and these should always be satisfied for all service applications.
The toughness requirements explained above pertain to conventional tubulars and connections,
both at low and high pressures. However, in the case of solid expandable tubulars and
connections, the above requirements are not adequate because of the expansion process, and
higher supplemental requirements apply (see Appendix 14 on Solid Expandable Tubulars).
7.2
Tubular and Connection Inspection
Inspection is done because small imperfections, particularly crack-like imperfections, can have a
large negative impact on the true rupture capacity of the pipe (Appendix 6). In general, one must
assume that imperfections equal in depth to the size of the inspection gate are present in the pipe,
because the inspection equipment is calibrated to detect only larger imperfections which exceed
the setting of the gate. Inspection also is intended to ensure that pipe has sufficient remaining
body wall thickness to provide the performance for which it is designed. Inspection equipment is
intended to prevent use of pipe with imperfections exceeding the gate setting (usually 5% or
12.5% of the nominal pipe wall) or pipe with less than 87.5% remaining physical wall thickness.
NDE inspection (ultrasonic or electromagnetic) should be done on a unit which has been
demonstrated to locate, at a minimum, the notches identified in API 5CT/ISO 11960 or as
otherwise requested by the OpCo. For critical service such as production tubulars for HPHT
wells, it is recommended that both electromagnetic and ultrasonic inspection be used with 100%
coverage of the joint of pipe, for each joint. The same setup parameters which are used during
demonstration and calibration of the equipment should be used during inspection of the tubulars.
In addition to mill surveillance, if tubulars are intended for Shell wells where the triaxial burst
safety factor will be less than 1.25 or for HPHT wells, then it is strongly recommended that a
post-production statistical audit be performed on the tubulars by an independent inspection
company. For HPHT wells or for wells where there are critical environmental concerns, the
operating company may wish to perform a 100% post-production re-inspection by an independent
inspection company.
For connections used in wells where the triaxial burst safety factor will be less than 1.25 or in
HPHT wells, it is also recommended that a statistical audit of the connections be performed by the
threading manufacturer at the end of the threading cycle while the threads are still in the
manufacturers facility and before application of surface treatment. Gauges used during the
original production run should not be used on the same threads during the statistical audit. For
example, if threading tubulars pin by pin, then exchanging the gauge sets from one inspection
station to another is recommended.
EP 2000-9073
7-5
It also is recommended that on tubulars purchased from inventory, Shell either perform a 100%
post-production ultrasonic (UT) or electromagnetic (EMI) re-inspection or perform a statistical
audit based on a long established record of performance from a particular mill. This should be
done to validate that the manufacturers product does meet industry-standard and/or purchaseorder requirements.
For connections, it is recommended that a post-threading, special end-area (SEA) inspection be
performed on pin threads intended for use in tubing and production casing and casing with a
triaxial burst safety factor of 1.25 or less. In addition, it is a requirement of API 5CT and
ISO 11960 that threaded couplings receive a magnetic particle inspection after threading.
Threaders of premium connections have built this requirement into their process control plans.
7.3
Example of Pipe Reject Rate at Secondary Inspection
One Shell OpCo has reported the following findings during post-mill re-inspection of tubulars and
connections:
A historical yearly average of a 3% to 6% reject rate due to pipe body defects located through
NDE inspection. This is after the mill has inspected and passed the product.
8% of orders re-inspected contained at least one flaw resulting in minimum remaining wall
thickness less than 75% of API nominal wall thickness.
0.6% to 1.0% reject rate of threaded connections during special end-area inspection (SEA).
Even though this reject rate is low, the rejects located were likely to cause rig delays at
makeup.
7.4
Document and Change Control
To ensure that premium connections used by Shell are consistent with the connection designs
which have been qualified, a limited number of Shell engineers need to have access to the
manufacturers product drawings. Where possible, a list of approved equipment drawings and
Shell-reviewed revisions should be maintained. To ensure compatibility, interchangeability, and
consistency with qualified performance, the drawing used for machining should be validated prior
to manufacture. A preproduction meeting is an opportune time to perform this task.
7.5
Qualification of Manufacturers
Manufacturers of tubulars and connections need to demonstrate that they have the capability to
meet industry-standard requirements or Shell site-specific requirements, whichever the operating
company chooses to use for the manufacturing and performance specification of the product.
Manufacturers should have in place a Quality System consistent with ISO 9001, since the
ISO 9001 requirements aim to ensure supplier conformity at all stages from product design
through servicing. The process control plan should be part of the quality system.
A typical evaluation of the manufacturers quality system by Shell engineers would include the
following:
Audit of manufacturers quality system
Audit of manufacturers production capabilities
Validation of NDE (ultrasonic or electromagnetic) system capabilities
Review and documentation of the manufacturers process control plans and sub-tier
documents
EP 2000-9073
7.6
7-6
Review and documentation of items which are subcontracted and the processes in place to
control subcontracting
Audit of tubular/material qualification
Audit of in-house connection qualification testing
Preparation of a final audit report
Updating a list of Shell-preferred suppliers
Requalification of Inspection Equipment
Both manufacturer and third-party inspection equipment needs to be requalified periodically

through use of a test joint with known imperfections and known thin-wall eccentricity to verify
unit capability. This should be done routinely by the supplier, and records should be maintained
and kept available for review by Shell as part of the suppliers quality process. In general, the
requalification of inspection equipment should be done once a year or whenever the equipment is
moved or undergoes major repair.
EP 2000-9073
8-1

Chapter 8
Risk Assessment
8. RISK ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................2
8.1
Role of Risk Assessment .........................................................................................2
8.2 Introduction..............................................................................................................2
8.2.1 The Risk Concept...................................................................................................3
8.2.2 On Design Methods ...............................................................................................5
8.3
Procedures for Evaluating Risks ..............................................................................6
8.3.1 Qualitative Risk Assessment .................................................................................6

8.3.1.1 General.........................................................................................................6
8.3.1.2 Procedure .....................................................................................................7
8.3.2 Quantitative Risk Assessment ...............................................................................8
8.3.2.1 General.........................................................................................................8
8.3.2.2 Procedure .....................................................................................................9
8.4
Quality of Risk Assessment ...................................................................................10
8.5
References..............................................................................................................11
EP 2000-9073
8-2
8. RISK ASSESSMENT
8.1
Role of Risk Assessment
Well design changes should be evolved either by taking a series of incremental evolutionary steps
linked by well successes which create a base of experience data (Level Two design) or by taking
large leaps forward (Level Three design) with the guidance of a risk assessment and hazard
evaluation. A risk assessment should be carried out as a means of making the transition from a
Level One design practice to a Level Three design practice. The purpose of the risk assessment is
to enable a conscious and informed decision to be made based on the balance between potential
savings and potential losses. The risk assessment is intended to account for the balance among
the likelihood of events happening, the likely consequences of those events, and the costs
associated with those events. The risk assessment should include both the design risks to losing
control over well fluids and the business risks to loss of competitive cost and position. It is
important that the risk assessment be documented as part of the OpCos evolution of its own
design practices. Shell wells should be designed with the documented management of risks, not
with the avoidance of risks.
8.2
Introduction
This chapter discusses risk assessment and how the evaluation of risk can form a rational
framework for making design decisions in particular, step changes in well designs. Chapter 3
of this guideline provides default design procedures and load cases which are meant to be
conservative and as universally applicable as possible. However, such design paradigms may not
always result in practical or economically competitive wells. This will be especially true when
innovative design concepts and new technologies enable new wells which can become
significantly more competitive. Risk assessment is one of the key tools that can be used to
manage change in well design practice. While there may be a strong economic motivation for
pushing the design envelope by adopting new load models, materials, or well geometries, a new
design usually will also bring new uncertainties of events and uncertainties of consequences. The
purpose of a risk assessment is to weigh these new and possibly increased risks against the
possible gains that could result from adoption of the new design.
The following paragraphs briefly introduce the concept of risk and explain in very generalized
terms how risk assessments can be carried out. There is brief discussion on how casing and
tubing designs can be related to probability of failure and risk. Finally, the chapter contains a
brief discussion of the important steps in carrying out risk assessments. The chapter is not meant
to be a self-contained, step by step procedure for carrying out a risk study, and there is no one,
single correct approach or set of rules to follow. However, the chapter is meant to help well
designers recognize when risk assessments should be applied and the value of risk assessment as a
means of communicating the advantages and disadvantages of a design concept.
EP 2000-9073
8.2.1
8-3
The Risk Concept
As it is used here, risk is defined as the combination of the likelihood and the consequences of
failure. Risk is a combination of the probabilities that events will occur, the probabilities that
consequences will occur, and the likely cost of those consequences. The objective of risk
assessment is to provide a foundation for decisions concerning risk and a means of quantifying the
management of change. When design decisions are based on risk, they recognize that effort
required to reduce the probability of a failure should be proportional to the consequences of such a
failure.
The basic concept of risk can be visualized as a matrix such as in Table 8-1. Rows in this table
correspond to likelihood of failure. The bottom row corresponds to the lowest failure
probabilities and the top row corresponds to high failure probabilities. Columns in the table
correspond to various levels of failure losses the lowest severity of negative consequence on
the left and the highest severity of consequence on the right. High risks are usually the
combination of high failure probabilities with moderate or large consequences or moderate failure
probabilities with large consequences. This corresponds to the diagonal from upper left-hand to
lower right-hand portion of the table. In contrast, low risks are the combination of low or
moderate failure probabilities with small or moderate consequences the middle and lower lefthand portion of the table to the middle, bottom portion of the table, i.e., the shaded portion of the
table.
Risk analyses come in two different forms:
Qualitative: In a qualitative risk assessment, hazards and failure modes are identified. The
likelihood and consequence of each are simply classified (but not quantified) by experienced
staff. The engineering expert making this assessment should be familiar with well designs
and should be capable of determining how any proposed design changes could affect the
likelihood of a failure and its resulting consequences. The key result of qualitative risk
analysis is to identify where a given design lies within a risk matrix. This essentially
determines where the risk of the new well lies relative to the risk of other, historical wells.
Any given design change is assessed based on how it alters the wells risk classification.
Quantitative: As in a qualitative risk assessment, a quantitative risk assessment (QRA)

begins by identifying hazards and failure modes. However, instead of classifying each failure
modes likelihood and consequence, quantitative models are constructed to determine the
modal failure probabilities or frequencies and their corresponding safety, environmental, and
business consequences. These models can be complex and usually will combine a range of
physical models that depend on material and reservoir properties, statistical information, and
industry failure rates. Risks are usually expressed as the product of the failure probability and
the failure consequence. For example, if consequences are expressed purely as business
consequence and the likelihood is expressed as the failure probability per well drilled, the risk
is the expected failure losses per well drilled. If a QRA finds that the probability of failure is
103/well and the expected loss per failure is $10 million, then the risk is $10,000 per well.
This means that the average failure cost per well is $10,000, even though 99.9% of all wells
drilled result in no failure at all.
EP 2000-9073
8-4
Table 8-1
SCHEMATIC RISK MATRIX
Little or no negative
impact on safety or
business
Likelihood
Likely
Improve if economically
feasible
Relatively
Usually acceptable
infrequent
Rare
Always acceptable
Consequence
Significant negative
impact on safety or
business
Normally unacceptable
acceptable if there are no
alternatives or potential
gain is very large
feasible
Usually acceptable
Large negative impact

on safety or business
Never acceptable
Normally unacceptable
acceptable if there are no
alternatives or potential
gain is very large
feasible
The risks associated with operating a well are but one of the elements that must be considered in
making business decisions. Decisions are based on a combination of operational, economic, and
governmental factors. As a result, there are a number of ways risks can be assessed and reduced,
for example:
A subjective or qualitative assessment of the factors
A prescribed maximum tolerable risk
A costbenefit approach
A subjective approach is likely to result in inconsistent results, while a prescribed maximumtolerable risk that is unreasonably low could fail to be economically competitive. Finally, a cost
benefit approach may be difficult to execute because it implies assigning a cost to serious injury.
Costbenefit approaches usually are used when the risk to an individual directly exposed to the
activity, such as chemical plant or oil field worker, is between104 or 103 per year or greater.
Risk levels an order of magnitude below this range are usually broadly acceptable, while levels
much greater than 103 per year are not usually acceptable.
When risks to personnel are above the level considered broadly acceptable but still below the
unacceptable range, the approach used to judge whether risk-reduction measures are reasonable is
based on the ALARP principle. ALARP stands for as low as reasonably practicable. Here,
risk-reduction measures are judged based on an economic criterion. Risk-reduction measures are
implemented as long as the marginal cost for risk reduction is below several times its expected
returns.
EP 2000-9073
8.2.2
8-5
On Design Methods
As with most structural and mechanical design, the selection of casing and tubing in oil and gas
wells depends on comparing estimated stresses or loads with material strengths and component
capacities. A design is acceptable when the margin between the capacity and the load is large
enough to make the designer confident that failure is unlikely. Over the years, the range of
acceptable margins evolved so that in most common design situations the probability of failure is
indeed small. However, until the 1960s, these margins and factors of safety had little rational
basis other than their demonstrated perceived high success rate. During this period, most design
formats used what is usually called allowable or working stress design (ASD). In ASD, the
stresses due to working loads are kept below an allowable stress. For burst design, this allowable
stress traditionally was selected so that it was below the minimum expected yield strength of the
material. For collapse design, this allowable stress traditionally was selected to keep the
corresponding pressure below the predicted collapse strength of the pipe. These margins account
for the fact that the lifetime maximum load expected on the component could be somewhat larger
than the working load and the fact that the actual minimum strength could be somewhat lower
than expected.
In more recent decades, new design formats have been developed using a rational basis for
selecting the design margins or safety factors, based on a probabilistic or statistical analysis of the
loads and strengths. For examples, see References 19. The results are usually a set of
probabilistically calibrated safety factors, which, when applied, result in component failure
probabilities that are less than some predetermined target. Of these modern design formats, the
most common is load and resistance factor design (LRFD), where separate safety factors are
specified for individual loads or load cases and for individual strength or capacity parameters.
The primary advantage of this format is that the safety factors used on the individual load and
strength parameters reflect how sensitive the failure probability is to the value of each parameter
and its uncertainty or randomness. For example, if the uncertainty or variability of some load is
large, then its associated design factor is also large, while if there is very little uncertainty in a
given strength parameter, then its corresponding design factor will be close to one.
A further refinement to these formats is the use of safety factors that depend on predetermined,
but user-specified, target failure probabilities. Here, the consequences of a given failure mode are
used as the bases for selecting a set of calibrated safety factors. There is little motivation to
design for a low failure probability if the failure can not result in any injuries or any significant
business losses. In this case, the cost of the component should be kept at a minimum, and a high
probability of failure can be acceptable if it results in up-front cost savings. In contrast, if a
failure could result in large safety consequences or large economic losses, the safety factor should
be selected to result in a low failure probability. In this case, large up-front costs are justified
because they reduce or eliminate the possibility of a future large loss.
Unfortunately, design-prescriptive formats even probabilistically calibrated ones are
developed to meet the needs of a wide range of applications and are necessarily conservative.
They are not meant to assess the risks or benefits of design innovations that are outside of the
usual standard practice. To address this, very innovative and novel designs can be evaluated
using probabilistic models. Design alternatives can be evaluated, and the failure probabilities can
be compared to a predetermined failure probability which normally is selected based on the
expected consequences of failure. In general, the effort to carry out such analyses is not
economically justified for common designs. Typically, such analyses are performed to examine
the implications of adopting a new design or technology that will become a template or standard.
EP 2000-9073
8-6
It is helpful to understand the difference between deterministic design, probabilistic design, and
risk assessment. Deterministic design is allowable stress design, based on the comparison
between the stress in-service and a mechanics-based limit which is not to be exceeded.
Probabilistic design is a measure beyond deterministic design but can be less than risk-based
design. Probabilistic design compares likely events and likely values with a limit. In turn, the
limit could be deterministic, or the limit also could be probabilistic. For example, probabilistic
design can compare a known (certain) collapse load with the statistically derived collapse strength
of the pipe in order to design to a target probability of pipe collapse; or probabilistic design can be
taken further by comparing a statistically based distribution of likely collapse loads with a
statistically derived pipe collapse strength. When probabilistic design is used to examine both
events and consequences, it becomes risk-based design. While the probabilistic design accounts
for the likelihood of at least one event associated with the design, the risk assessment accounts for
both the likely events and the likely consequences.
It is conceivable that two tubular designs can have exactly the same likelihood of pipe burst or
collapse and yet totally different levels of risk. This is because the location, investment cost, or
nature of the contained fluid may imply very different consequences to failure of the pipe.
8.3
Procedures for Evaluating Risks
As mentioned in the introduction, there are two basic approaches to risk assessment, qualitative
and quantitative. The reasons for choosing one over the other should be based on the scale of the
design change, the available information, the criterion selected to compare alternatives, and the
desired precision of the result on which decisions will be made.
8.3.1
Qualitative Risk Assessment
8.3.1.1 General
For many small incremental changes, a simple qualitative review of the design, which classifies
and documents a changes effect on the expected failure rate and on the predicted failure losses,
may be sufficient. In such a review, the engineer or other decision-maker weighs the final risk
classification against the potential benefits which would result if the change were adopted. The
process of selecting and setting a decision criterion also should be documented along with any
final recommendations.
Qualitative methods are appropriate for screening multiple design alternatives for further, more
detailed study or for deciding upon design changes where the risk is considered to be reasonably
low. For example, for a particular reservoir and drilling location, several alternative well designs
and development programs can be envisioned, each with their own advantages along with
corresponding risks. However, at this stage, few details have been worked out other than the
broad concepts, which differentiate each of the concept designs and programs. At this point, a
qualitative risk assessment is an ideal way to select one or more candidate concepts for detailed
concept development. Finally, if warranted, either further qualitative assessment or even a
quantitative risk assessment can be made on which to base the final design decisions.
EP 2000-9073
8-7
8.3.1.2 Procedure
1. Clearly define the problem. Define what design characteristics stretch or deviate from current
design assumptions or standard operating procedures. Select a criterion on which the design
change will be judged.
2. Collect and organize information generated during the preliminary design process. Document
the new design concept along with how the concept differs from standard practice.
3. Identify the hazards to which the design is subjected and identify the hazards that interact with
the proposed changes. Determine the modes of failure affected by the proposed change and
the associated load cases and damage mechanisms. For each failure mode, determine the
possible effects on personnel safety, business losses or operational disruptions, and
environmental effects.
4. Collect qualitative and quantitative information that the analysis relates to the design concept
being analyzed. For example, experience from offset wells designed using standard practice
and experience reported for wells used elsewhere based on the same concept or an analogous
concept.
5. Modeling. In the case of a qualitative study, the likelihood and consequence results are based
on expert opinion. The purpose of the analysis is to provide a classification structure for the
expert opinions of the engineers familiar with the casing and tubing design and the proposed
changes. Since a qualitative study strongly depends on competency and good judgement of
the assessment team, it is important that experienced engineers are included or consulted as
team members.
Frequency analysis or classification. Classify the likelihood of each mode of failure as

low, medium, or high or as a number between zero and five. For this process, use the
results of the hazard identification process to determine how each of the proposed design
features will affect the probability of failure. Determine which of these design features
have the greatest potential for increasing or decreasing the likelihood of failure. Document
conclusions along with the any industry- or asset-specific information to support the
conclusions.
Consequence analysis or classification. Classify the consequences of each mode of failure

as low, medium, or high or as a number between zero and five. For this process,
determine how each of the proposed design features affects the potential for equipment
damage, production delays, and injuries. Determine which of these design features have
the greatest potential for increasing or decreasing potential failure losses. Document
conclusions along with the any industry- or asset-specific information to support the
conclusions.
6. Evaluate the results. The risk is the combination of the likelihood and the consequence results.
Results are simply the coordinate in a risk matrix (Table 8-1) or in a similar matrix if more than
three category levels are used to classify consequences and likelihood. Determining the value of
a risk-reduction measure is much more subjective in a qualitative study. In short, alternatives
that lie on the same downward sloping diagonal do not have significantly different risks. For
example, moving from the upper left-hand corner to the center and then the lower right-hand
corner in Table 8-1 (i.e., moving southeast) is not a significant change in risk. However,
moving from the upper right-hand portion of the table down toward the lower left (i.e.,
moving southwest) is a significant decrease in the risk; and moving northwest in Table 8-1 is
a significant increase in risk.
EP 2000-9073
8-8
7. Reporting. The final result of the risk analysis should be the recommended design, along with
any additional recommendations or conditions which the assessment team believes are
necessary to increase safety or reduce costs. Documentation of the risk assessment should
include all essential background information, including the following:
A complete and clear description of the design alternative investigated, including how the
proposed design differs from standard practice in the OpCo and what the advantages are
for its implementation.
A clear statement of the goal of the risk assessment and the criterion used to assess the
results.
Risk classifications and the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the results.
Background information, such as
Field-, OpCo- or design-specific information, including any statistical analysis results
of data collected and used in the assessment.
Industry data, failure rates, and experience used.
A list of the hazards identified.
The failure modes analyzed in the study.
A brief description of the logic used to complete the classification of likelihood and
consequence.
8.3.2
Quantitative Risk Assessment
8.3.2.1 General
Quantitative risk assessments (QRA) are best suited for making decisions that involve applying
well-defined design and/or operational changes, where enough details about the proposed design
exist to quantify how its risk differs from that of other alternative designs. Because the results of
a QRA are a numerical expression of the risk, a costbenefit criterion can be used to assess the
value of risk-reduction measures. The QRA may be applied to a design concept which depends
on many parameters such as strengths, depths, petrophysical properties, and rig equipment. Then
the QRA results can be integrated into a sensitivity analysis that indicates which parameters have
maximum and minimum impact on the design risk.
As with any engineering analysis, the depth and detail between QRAs vary greatly, depending on
the quality of data and the analysis methods selected for assessing the failure probabilities and
consequences. Failure rates for individual components may be based on an analysis of the physics
of failure and the uncertainties of the various parameters that affect the failure modes, or failure
rates may be based only on generic failure rates, which are meant to conservatively represent
industry experience or even expert opinion. In a similar fashion, consequences may be based on
damage estimates from sophisticated or simplified dispersion, fire, and explosion models.
Financial consequences may be based on details of the reservoir or location-specific development
economics to estimate the lost or deferred production losses or on a simplified generic loss per
day of downtime.
EP 2000-9073
8-9
8.3.2.2 Procedure
1. Clearly define the problem. Define which design characteristics stretch or deviate from
current design practices. Select a criterion on which the design change will be judged.
2. Collect and organize information generated during the design process. Document the new
design concept along with how the concept differs from standard practice.
3. Identify the hazards to which the well is subjected and identify those hazards that interact with
the proposed changes. Determine the modes of failure affected by the proposed changes and
the associated load cases and damage mechanisms. For each mode, determine the possible
consequences in terms of personnel safety, business losses or operational disruptions, and
environmental impact.
4. Collect qualitative and quantitative information that relates to the concept being analyzed. For
example, experience from offset wells designed using standard practice or experience from
wells executed elsewhere based on the same concept or an analogous concept. Depending on
the level of detail in the QRA, this process of organizing data may include detailed statistical
analysis of information associated with the frequency and magnitude of loads and the
distribution of strengths. It may also include detailed economics and reservoir development
data and rig staffing data to be used in estimating the financial and safety consequences.
5. Consequence and likelihood modeling is used to determine the two underlying results that are
used to determine the risk.
Frequency or likelihood analysis estimates how likely it is for the events to occur. The
frequencies are usually obtained from analysis of industry failure experience or from some
form of theoretical modeling. When analyzing the details of a design, industry experience
is likely to lack much of the detail needed to examine the sensitivity of failure frequencies
to load cases, safety factors, or levels of inspection. In these cases, probabilistic models
that include the mechanics of failure and the randomness of loads and strengths will be
necessary. When this level of sophistication is needed, the well designers making the risk
assessment should consult with experts familiar with probabilistic modeling. There are
many available methods which can be applied to visualize and estimate failure probabilities
and frequencies, including event trees, fault trees, Markov chains and processes, Monte
Carlos simulation, and FORM/SORM among others. Each has its specific advantages and
disadvantages, and the choice of method should be aligned with the goals of each
probability or frequency calculation.
Consequence modeling evaluates the effects of a failure on personnel, equipment and

structures, the environment, or the business plan. Usually this evaluation will include
computerized dispersion, explosion, and fire models for the analysis of safety and the
environment. However, these models can be based on accident experience or expert
judgement if appropriate. Financial losses are estimated for each failure mode or scenario.
Usually, these are based on the expected value of lost or deferred production, well control
costs in the event of a blowout, and equipment damage costs. As with the frequency
analysis, modeling the consequences can involve sophisticated models and software, and
an expert in consequence modeling should be consulted or included in the evaluation team.
EP 2000-9073
8-10
6. Evaluating the results. The risk is the combination of the likelihood and the consequence
results. In cases where the consequences are expressed in monetary terms, the product of the
failure probability and the consequence is the average financial risk per year or per well
drilled. Alternatively, if the consequence is an estimated number of serious injuries per
failure, then the product of the likelihood and the consequence would be the expected number
of injuries per year or per well drilled.
The risks estimated for the design alternatives are compared along with their corresponding
implementation costs and their potential opportunities such as increased production or
decreased maintenance. In cases where risks are expressed purely in financial terms,
whenever the implementation cost of a risk-reduction measure is exceeded by the risk, the
measure is economical. In cases where risks are expressed in terms of statistical injuries,
fatalities, or other safety measures, evaluation of the economics of risk-reduction
implementation costs is more difficult and usually will involve local regulatory issues and
company policy. However, a criterion that places some value on life and safety will need to
be used to select the best risk-based design alternative.
7. Reporting. The final result of the risk analysis should be the recommended design, along with
any additional recommendations or conditions which the assessment team believes are
necessary to increase safety or reduce costs. Documentation of the risk assessment should
include essential background information, including the following:
A complete and clear description of the design alternative investigated, including how the
proposed design differs from standard practice in the OpCo and what the advantages are
for its implementation.
A clear statement of the goal of the assessment and the criterion used to assess the results.
The numerical results of the risk calculations and the conclusions and recommendations
drawn from the results.
Background information, such as
Field-, OpCo- or design-specific information including the statistical analysis results
of data collected and used in the assessment.
Industry data, failure rates, and experience used.
A list of the hazards identified.
The failure modes analyzed in depth by the study.
A brief description of the methods used to complete the likelihood and consequence analyses.
8.4
Quality of Risk Assessment
A good-quality risk assessment will address the seven features listed above. A poor-quality risk
assessment tends to neglect one or more of these essential features. It is conceivable that a
qualitative risk assessment of good quality can be made with as little as a few days of engineering
time. By comparison, a good-quality QRA may take anywhere from 500 to 1,500 hours of
engineering labor to complete. The difference is driven by the amount of data and the scope of
analyses and modeling of the data. QRA should be reserved for the larger step changes in design,
where the consequences are potentially large. On the other hand, qualitative risk assessment
should be done routinely when undertaking changes in design practice, as a method of ensuring
that adequate consideration is given to the balance between likely events and likely consequences.
EP 2000-9073
8.5
8-11
References
1. Tallin, A. G., Paslay, P. R., Cernocky, E. P., and Ratchinsky, M. A. (2000), Risk Assessment
of Exploration Well Designs in the Oman Ara Salt, SPE 63130, presented at 2000 SPE Ann.
Tech. Conf. and Exhibition, held in Dallas, TX, October 14.
2. Society of Petroleum Engineers (1998), Proceedings of the SPE Applied Technology
Workshop on Risk Based Design of Well Casing and Tubing, held in The Woodlands, TX,
May (16 papers numbered SPE 48319 through SPE 48335, and SPE 51314 ).
3. Burres, C., Tallin, A. G., and Cernocky, E. P. (1997), Determination of Casing and Tubing
Burst and Collapse Design Factors to Achieve Target Levels of Risk, Including Influence of
Mill Source, Technical Progress Report BTC 30-97, Shell E&P Technology Co., Bellaire
Technology Center, Houston.
4. Maes, M. A., Gulati, K. C., McKenna, D. L., Brand, P. R., Lewis, D. B., and Johnson, R. C.
(1995), Reliability Based Casing Design, ASME J. Energy Resources Technol., v. 117, June,
93100.
5. Stromland and Minton (1994), Cost Effective Engineering of HP/HT Wells Through the Use
of Risk Analysis, paper presented at 7th Norwegian Pet. Soc. N. Europe Drilling Conf., held in
Kristiansand, Norway, October 46.
6. Banon, H., Johnson, D. V., and Hilbert, L. B. (1991), Reliability Considerations in Design of
Steel and CRA Production Tubing Strings, SPE 23483, First Int. Conference on Health Safety
and Environment, The Hague, Netherlands, November 1014, p. 673.
7. Aven, T. and Porn, K. (1994), How Should We Express and Interpret the Results of
Quantitative Risk Analysis, Reliability Engineering System Safety, Special Issue on Offshore
Safety.
8. Andersen, L. B. (1995), Stochastic Modeling of the Analysis of Blowouts Risk in Exploration
Drilling, PhD Thesis, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK.
9. Williams, G. (2000) The Design and Application of Big Bore to Woodsides Perseus field
Development, Paper No. 84, Shell 2000 Wells Conference, Houston, November, 2000.
EP 2000-9073
9-1

Chapter 9
Other Pressure Gradient Options for Casing and Tubing Design
9. Other Pressure Gradient Options for Casing and Tubing Design..........................................2

9.1 Overview.........................................................................................................................2
9.2 Collapse Loads During Drilling......................................................................................3
Special Case Air, Foam, or Aerated Drilling...............................................................9
9.3 Collapse Design During a Blowout ................................................................................9
9.4 Collapse Loads During Production...............................................................................10
Annulus Mud Column ..................................................................................................13
Exploration Wells .........................................................................................................13
Artificial-Lift Wells ......................................................................................................13
9.5 Burst Loads ...................................................................................................................16
Burst During Drilling....................................................................................................16
Special Cases ................................................................................................................16
Burst During Production...............................................................................................21
9.6
Other Considerations .............................................................................................23
9.7
Point Loads ............................................................................................................24
9.8
References..............................................................................................................24
EP 2000-9073
9-2
9. OTHER PRESSURE GRADIENT OPTIONS FOR CASING AND TUBING DESIGN

9.1
Overview
This chapter presents an overview of a broader range of load cases than is covered by the basic
Level One design (Chapter 3). The pressure profiles described in this chapter are not intended for
use in Level One design, but are provided here as optional considerations for Level Two or Level
Three design practices. The decision of which load profile to use will depend on the likelihood of
occurrence of the individual load case and the consequences if it does occur.
To establish the burst and collapse loads in a given situation, the casing designer determines the
internal and external pressure profiles for each load case of interest and takes the difference
(Pi Pe) between them. If the resulting load line comprises mainly positive net pressures, it is
called a burst load line; if it comprises mainly negative pressures, it is called a collapse load line.
For burst, the internal and external pressures are used to calculate the Lam hoop and radial
stresses. These stresses are combined with the axial stress from hanging weight, buoyancy, and
temperature changes; and the three stresses are combined to calculate the triaxial (von Mises)
equivalent stress. This is the same as in Chapter 3, except that here other possibilities are
considered for the calculation of the internal and external pressures vs depth along the well.
These calculations are made in the Stresscheck and Wellcat software. However, for a practical,
intuitive understanding of the burst loading, the engineer should use the burst load line and think
in terms of the differential pressure acting to yield the pipe. For collapse, the software again
makes separate calculations using Pi and Pe, but for practical understanding of the collapse
loading, the engineer should use the collapse load line and think in terms of the differential
collapse pressure (Pe Pi).
Collapse or burst loading can occur during both drilling and production. The drilling phase affects
the design of the conductor casing, surface casing, and intermediate casing. The production phase
usually affects the design of just the tubing and production casing. However, for wells with sealed
annuli (e.g., subsea wells), the production phase also creates additional burst and collapse loads on
the intermediate casing strings through trapped annular pressure (Appendix 12). In addition, when
intermediate strings are also used as production casing, both the drilling and the production loads
should be considered in their design.
The engineer may wish to use different idealizations for the pressure gradient in the cement
column between the casing and the formation. This depends on the extent to which reservoir
pressures are transmitted on to the casing. The engineer also may wish to use different
idealizations for the mud pressure gradient based on transmission of formation pressure or
deterioration of solids from the mud. Deterioration of the mud over time will lead to a drop in its
density and, hence, to a steeper external pressure profile and higher annulus pressures. This
usually requires time and affects the load profiles during production but not during drilling. For
this reason, it may be useful to distinguish between exploration wells with a relatively short life
and development wells with a much longer life.
EP 2000-9073
9.2
9-3
Collapse Loads During Drilling
Collapse loads during drilling apply to the surface and intermediate casing strings and are the
result of borehole evacuation due to natural or induced mud losses. There are a number of special
cases to be considered.
The internal pressure profile should be constructed as follows (see Figure 9-1). The porepressure gradient determines the pressure in the borehole at total depth (TD). In a losses situation,
the mud column will drop until the pore pressure at section TD is just balanced by the pressure
due to the mud column (see Figure 9-1a). The evacuation level can be found by drawing the mud
pressure line (whose gradient is determined by the mud density) back from the pore pressure at
TD to the depth axis. The resulting pressure profile is shown by the thick gray line in Figure 9-1a.
To construct the internal pressure profile for losses at a depth above TD, one draws the mudpressure line from the point on the pore-pressure profile corresponding to the depth in question.
Such hypothetical mud-pressure lines are represented by a sloping broken line in Figure 9-1a
and in other figures in this chapter. The solid line represents the actual mud pressure line to be
used for the design.
The evacuation level chosen should always be the deepest that can occur due to drilling below the
casing shoe. Thus, if the pore pressure in a certain formation through which the borehole passes
is sub-normal, e.g., because of a depleted horizon, the mud-pressure line should be drawn from
the point on the pore-pressure profile which gives the lowest evacuation level (see Figure 9-1b),
and not from TD. As Figure 9-1c shows, abnormally high pore pressures do not create an
exception for defining the collapse load line.
The external pressure profile for collapse during drilling should be constructed in two sections
one for the annulus mud column above the cement top and one for the cured cement. Cured
cement behaves as a porous matrix of low permeability (in the microDarcy to milliDarcy range)
containing a fluid pore pressure. As indicated in Figure 9-2, the permeability of the cement
around the casing is usually intermediate between those of a high-permeability and a lowpermeability formation.
Where the cement column is set across a high-permeability formation (milliDarcy and above), the
pressure in the cement will be equal to the pore pressure in the formation. Where the cement
column is set across a low-permeability formation (microDarcy and below) or inside another
casing string, the pressure gradient in the cement will depend on the quality of zonal isolation.1
When the cement provides good zonal isolation, the cement column acts as a seal between the
high-permeability formation and the top of cement. The cement pore-pressure profile in the
segment of cement column across the low-permeability interval will connect the pore pressure at
the top of the high-permeability formation with the pressure at the top of cement due to the
hydrostatic pressure of the annulus fluid (see Figure 9-3). The cement pore-pressure profile
across the low-permeability interval is thus semi-static.
EP 2000-9073
9-4
Fig. 9-1 Construction of internal pressure profiles for collapse during drilling.
EP 2000-9073
9-5
Fig. 9-2 Relative permeabilities of cement column and surrounding formation.
EP 2000-9073
9-6
Fig. 9-3 Construction of external pressure profiles for collapse in drilling phase, with
good zonal isolation cement column and a single high-permeability formation.
If the cement column provides poor zonal isolation, the cement no longer acts as an effective seal
between the high-permeability formation and the top of cement. The pressure gradient in the
cement across the low-permeability interval will be equal to the cement mixwater gradient. The
pressure at the top of cement is therefore determined by drawing a pressure line with this gradient
EP 2000-9073
9-7
upwards from the pressure at the top of the high-permeability formation (Figure 9-4). As a result,
the annulus pressure line will be shifted to lower pressures in low-pressure reservoirs and to
higher pressures in high-pressure reservoirs. This leads to an annulus level drop or an annulus
pressure buildup.
No matter whether the cement column provides good or bad isolation, the cement pore-pressure
profile below the high-permeability formation is given by a line of slope equal to the cement
mixwater gradient extending downwards from the pressure at the bottom of the high-permeability
formation to the casing shoe (compare Figures 9-3 and 9-4).
For the determination of the cement pore-pressure profile opposite a previous casing, the previous
casing should be treated as a low-permeability formation.
In the event that the cement column does not pass through a high-permeability formation
anywhere, the cement mixwater gradient should be assumed to extend downwards from the top of
cement to the casing shoe, regardless of whether the isolation quality of the cement is high or low.
The pressure at the top of cement will be equal to the hydrostatic pressure of the annulus fluid.
See Figure 9-5.
In view of the relatively short duration of the drilling operation, deterioration of the annulus mud
during drilling should not be taken into account, either for exploration or for development wells.1
Therefore, the pressure gradient in the annulus mud should be determined by the density of the
fluid used at the time of the cement job.
In the case of a good-isolating (high-quality) cement column over a high-permeability formation,
the annulus-fluid pressure line extends downwards with the above-mentioned gradient from zero
pressure at the wellhead to the top of cement (see Figure 9-3). For a poor-isolating (low-quality)
cement column across a high-permeability formation, the annulus-fluid pressure line extends
upwards with the same gradient from the pressure at the top of cement towards the wellhead. As
Figure 9-4 shows, this can lead to annulus pressure increase in a high-pressure reservoir or to
annulus fluid drop in a low-pressure reservoir.
If the cement column does not pass through any high-permeability formations, the annulus-fluid
pressure line extends downwards from zero pressure at the wellhead to the top of cement, no
matter what the quality of the cement zonal isolation (see Figure 9-5).
EP 2000-9073
9-8
Fig. 9-4 Construction of external pressure profiles for collapse in drilling phase,
with poor zonal isolation cement column and a single high-permeability formation.
EP 2000-9073
9-9
Fig. 9-5 Construction of external pressure profile for collapse in drilling phase, when
cement column does not pass through a high-permeability formation.
Special Case Air, Foam, or Aerated Drilling
When air drilling is applied, the wellbore pressure can become atmospheric in the event of system
failure. Similarly, foam drilling is subject to the hazard that the foam can lose stability and the
liquid phase can drop out. If these scenarios are considered likely, the intermediate casing should
be designed to withstand complete internal evacuation unlike the base case, where evacuation
is likely to be only partial. The external pressure profile will be the same as discussed above. For
aerated drilling, the engineer should consider the internal evacuation level that can be expected
based on the pore-pressure profile in the event of a system failure preventing fluid supply.
9.3
Collapse Design During a Blowout
Collapse design of intermediate casing during a blowout is not included as part of the
requirements of Level One design. However, the engineer should consider whether or not the
casing needs to be designed for the event of a blowout bridging over, leaving the casing
evacuated. In this case, the casing would evacuate fully to atmospheric pressure. The usual
external pressure profile would apply based on full gradient of the mud and cement. For
EP 2000-9073
9-10
production casing, collapse design in a blowout (bridged over) is already covered by designing to
full evacuation.
When collapse design during blowout is not included in the casing design, the engineer is taking
the risk that the event will not occur, and that if it occurs collapse and loss of the casing will be
acceptable. If the consequence of casing collapse is not acceptable even in the bridge-over,
blown-out state, then the casing should be designed for complete evacuation.
9.4
Collapse Loads During Production
Collapse loads during the production phase generally occur as a result of evacuation resulting
from natural or induced losses during workover of the well. There are also a number of cases to
be considered.
For the production casing, the internal pressure profile usually should be designed for full
evacuation. Above the production packer, the casing usually is not evacuated during normal
production operations. However, during completion and workover operations, mud/brine losses
may lead to evacuation of the upper section of the production casing. At the option of the
engineer, the other approach can be used: the deepest possible evacuation level can be calculated
based on the pore-pressure profile and the fluid density in use. See Figure 9-6.
The external pressure profile can be set like for the intermediate casing. For the example in
Figure 9-7, it is assumed that the cement column passes through two high-permeability
formations. A cement column with good zonal isolation acts as an effective seal between the
high-permeability formation(s) and the top of cement. The pressure profile in the segment of
cement column across the low-permeability interval above the shallowest high-permeability
formation will then be semi-static, connecting the pore pressure at the top of this highpermeability formation with the pressure at the top of cement due to the hydrostatic pressure of
the annulus fluid. The pressure profile in the segment of cement column lying across the lowpermeability interval between two high-permeability formations will also be semi-static,
connecting the pore pressures at the bottom and top of the high-permeability formations it
straddles (see Figure 9-7).
In the event of a cement column with poor zonal isolation, the cement column no longer acts as an
effective seal between the high-permeability formation(s) and the top of cement. The pressure
gradient in the cement across the low-permeability interval above the shallowest high-permeability
formation will then be equal to the cement mixwater gradient. The pressure profile in the segment
of cement column lying across the low-permeability interval between two high-permeability
formations will be semi-static, connecting the pore pressures at the bottom and top of the highpermeability formations it straddles. The pressure at the top of cement will therefore be
determined by drawing a pressure line of slope equal to the cement mixwater gradient upwards
from the pressure at the top of the shallowest high-permeability formation (see Figure 9-8). This
leads to an annulus level drop or an annulus pressure buildup.
No matter whether the cement column is good or bad, the cement pore-pressure profile below the
deepest high-permeability formation is given by a line of slope equal to the cement mixwater
gradient extending downwards from the pressure at the bottom of the high-permeability formation
to the casing shoe (see Figures 9-7 and 9-8).
EP 2000-9073
9-11
For the determination of the pore-pressure profile in the cement column opposite a previous
casing, this previous casing should be treated as a low-permeability formation.
W1
W2
W3
Axial
force
W1, W2, and W3 represent

the surface axial force
as the string is run to its
final depth.
Depth
Fig. 9-6 Optional construction of internal pressure profiles above and below packer for
collapse in production phase.
EP 2000-9073
9-12
Fig. 9-7 Construction of external pressure profile for collapse in production phase, with highisolation-quality cement column and multiple high-permeability formations.
EP 2000-9073
9-13
Annulus Mud Column

Since casing strings can have a much longer service life in the production phase than in the
drilling phase, deterioration of the annulus fluid should be taken into account in production-casing
design for development wells. The pressure gradient in the annulus fluid in such cases may thus
be determined by the density of the fluid used at the time of the cement job or by the density of
the deteriorated fluid, depending on the elapsed time and on the inherent stability of the annulus
fluid. While brines and bentonite/water-based muds are stable with time, the density of oil-based
and polymer/water-based muds is liable to drop to that of the base fluid.1
In the case of a high-isolation-quality cement column over a high-permeability formation, the
annulus-fluid pressure line extends downwards with the above-mentioned gradient from zero
pressure at the wellhead to the top of cement (see Figure 9-7).
For a low-isolation-quality cement column across a high-permeability formation, the annulusfluid pressure line extends upwards with the same gradient from the pressure at the top of cement
towards the wellhead (see Figure 9-8).
Exploration Wells
For exploration wells used for short-term production tests, it can be assumed that the mud
pressure gradient is determined by the fluid density at the time of cementing.
Artificial-Lift Wells
Gas-lift-well production casing above the packer should always be designed for complete internal
evacuation to atmospheric pressure, to account for complete venting of the tubing/productioncasing annulus as a result of surface-equipment failure. For artificial-lift equipment working in
pump-off mode, where usually no downhole packer is installed, the casing should also be
designed for complete internal evacuation to account for the low annulus working pressure.
EP 2000-9073
9-14
Fig. 9-8a Construction of external pressure profile for collapse in production phase, with lowquality cement column and multiple high-permeability formations resulting in annulus fluid level
drop.
EP 2000-9073
9-15
Fig. 9-8b Construction of external pressure profile for collapse in production phase, with lowquality cement column and multiple high-permeability formations resulting in annulus pressure.
EP 2000-9073
9.5
9-16
Burst Loads
Burst During Drilling

Here the internal pressure exceeds the external pressure, and we are concerned with yielding the
casing. Burst loads can occur during the drilling phase due to a kick which displaces mud out of
the annulus. There are a number of special cases to be considered.
Internal Pressure Profile
The worst-case internal pressure loading is that following a complete loss of primary control2
corresponding to full displacement of the casing to gas and the well closed-in at surface. The
internal pressure profile is based on a gas gradient taken from the pore pressure at TD. If the gas
water contact (GWC) in the structure is known, the chosen gradient should be assumed to
originate from this depth. See Figure 9-9.
Where more information is available about the behavior of the hydrocarbon phase, e.g., via PVT
data from offset wells, a field-specific gas gradient should be used. When hydrocarbons with a
very low gas/oil ratio are encountered, the relevant oil gradient may be used (see Figure 9-10).
Although hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will separate out once the well is shut in, it is
very difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure profile for this case. Hence, the approach for
the worst-case internal pressure loading described above should be used.
The resultant pressure at the casing shoe should be compared with the formation breakdown
pressure (FBP) at that depth. If the pressure is in excess of the highest anticipated FBP, the
internal pressure profile should be reduced accordingly. The hydrocarbon gradient will then
extend upwards from this highest anticipated FBP at the casing shoe. See Figure 9-11.
The external pressure profile is the same as discussed above.
Special Cases
Overpressured Aquifer in Borehole below Casing
When only an overpressured aquifer is encountered, the internal pressure profile will be that due
to full displacement of the wellbore to formation water, with the well closed in at surface. The
pressure calculations are based on a pressure line with the formation-water gradient, drawn from
pore pressure at the top of the aquifer.
The resultant pressure at the casing shoe should be compared with the formation breakdown
pressure (FBP) at that depth. If the pressure is in excess of the highest anticipated FBP the
internal pressure profile should be reduced accordingly. The pressure line with water gradient
will then extend upwards from this highest anticipated FBP at the casing shoe. See Figure 9-12.
The external pressure profile is the same as before.
EP 2000-9073
9-17
Fig. 9-9 Construction of internal pressure profile for burst in drilling phase determined
by gas gradient.
EP 2000-9073
9-18
Fig. 9-10 Construction of internal pressure profile for burst in drilling phase determined by oil
gradient.
EP 2000-9073
9-19
Fig. 9-11 Correction of internal pressure profile for burst in drilling phase.
EP 2000-9073
9-20
Fig. 9-12 Construction of internal pressure profile for burst in drilling phase, with
overpressured aquifer.
EP 2000-9073
9-21
Burst During Production

For casing, burst loading during the production phase will generally depend on whether the load is
above or below the production packer. Casing burst loads above the production packer may be
the results of a tubing failure or tubing connection leak or leakage at some completion equipment.
There are a number of special cases to be considered.
a. Internal Pressure Profile
Above the Production Packer
The maximum internal pressure profile experienced by the production casing will be that resulting
from a leak in the production/injection tubing or test string at or near the surface. The appropriate
surface pressure will then be imposed on the packer fluid. The gradient of the pressure line is
determined by the density of the fluid between the tubing and the casing at the time.
For production wells, the maximum surface pressure will be the shut-in tubing pressure (SITP),
also called the closed-in tubing head pressure) (CITHP), which should be based in the worst case
on a column of gas extending from the pressure at TD. If the gaswater contact (GWC) in the
structure is known, the pressure line with the chosen gradient should be assumed to originate from
this depth. See Figure 9-13.
Fig. 9-13 Construction of internal pressure profile for burst in production phase, with
production-tubing failure at surface.
EP 2000-9073
9-22
Where more information is available about the behavior of the hydrocarbon phase, e.g., via PVT
data from offset wells, a reservoir-specific gas gradient can be used. When hydrocarbons with a
very low gas/oil ratio are encountered, the relevant oil gradient may be used. Although
hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will separate out once the well is shut in, it is very
difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure profile for this case. Hence, the maximum CITHP
based on a gas column extending from the pressure at TD should be assumed. A suitable margin
should be included in the CITHP if squeeze-kill operations are to be considered.
For injection wells, or wells where stimulation treatment may be performed, the maximum surface
pressure will be the injection-tubing-head pressure (ITHP) during the respective operations. See
Figure 9-14. The ITHP resulting from stimulation treatment need be considered only when annuli
cannot be monitored.
Fig. 9-14 Construction of internal pressure profiles for burst in production phase,
with injection-tubing failure at surface.
Below the Production Packer
The internal pressure profile below the packer for a production well is that corresponding to full
displacement of this section of the casing to hydrocarbons. Worst-case pressure calculations
should be based on a pressure line with gas gradient extending from the pressure at TD. If the
GWC in the structure is known, the chosen pressure line should be assumed to originate from this
depth.
EP 2000-9073
9-23
Where more information is available about the hydrocarbon phase behavior, e.g., via PVT data
from offset wells, a reservoir-specific gas gradient should be used. When hydrocarbons with a
very low gas/oil ratio are encountered, the relevant oil gradient may be used. Although
hydrocarbons with a medium gas/oil ratio will separate out once the well is shut in, it is very
difficult to quantify a realistic internal pressure profile for this case. Hence, the maximum loading
based on a gas column extending from the pressure at TD should be assumed. A suitable margin
should be included if squeeze-kill operations are to be considered. See Figure 9-13.
For an injection well, or wells where stimulation treatment may be performed, the internal pressure
profile below the packer should be that resulting from injection operations. See Figure 9-14.
The external pressure profile is the same as earlier.
b. Special Cases
Gas-Lift Wells
For gas-lift completions, the most severe internal pressure loading above the packer is that
generated during the kick-off process, when the kick-off pressure is applied to the top of the
packer fluid. The external pressure profile will be as described earlier.
Gas-Lift Pressure on Intermediate Casing
In gas-lift wells, a leak in the production casing may impose the lift-gas injection pressure on the
annulus fluid column between the production casing and the intermediate casing. Special
attention should be paid to the internal pressure profile for this latter casing in subsea well design
where control of this pressure is not possible.3 The external pressure profile will be the same as
described earlier.
9.6
Other Considerations
If in the initial design the poor cement bond scenario was used in the collapse design, the
possibility of a live annulus has already been taken into account. If, however, the good cement
bond scenario was adopted, but possible annulus pressures are to be checked for, a check should
be made of the maximum allowable annulus pressure. Depending upon this pressure, a judgement
must be made between design of the casing and control, i.e., bleed-off of any such pressures.
Additionally, possible leak-off at the casing shoe will limit the pressure development in the
annulus under consideration. Possible burst of the outer casing and collapse of the inner casing
should be addressed under such circumstances.
Some well servicing operations, e.g., stimulation treatments, result in a considerable increase in
the bottomhole pressure. Any communication path behind the pipe will allow possible
pressurization to extend outside the zone that is directly affected. This may result in a collapse
load being applied to any casing section which is not itself internally pressured, e.g., casing above
the packer or bridge plug. It is therefore advisable that the design of the production casing, to be
set across the reservoir subject to stimulation operations, is checked for ability to withstand these
pressures.
EP 2000-9073
9.7
9-24
Point Loads
Production Packer
The most common example of a point load is that due to a production packer set in the production
casing and to which a load is applied by landing the tubing in compression/tension. The resulting
actual axial force, both above and below the production packer, should be checked.
Retrievable Packer
A pressure test with a retrievable packer introduces not only pressure loads onto the casing but
also a change in the axial stress. The resulting axial stress, both above and below the retrievable
packer, should be checked.
Conductor Casing
One particular form of a point load is the surface loading of the conductor casing of any well. The
applied load in this instance is the weight of the inner casing strings, the wellhead and BOP or
Xmas tree, and the completion tubulars.
9.8
References
1. Bol, G. and van Vliet, J. (1992), Aspects of Casing Design Related to Drilling Fluids and
Cement, Rijswijk Miscellaneous Report RKMR.92.006 (EP 92-0616), Koninkl./Shell E&P
Lab, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
2. SIPM, EPO/51 (1989), Pressure Control Manual for Drilling and Workover Operations,
Report EP 89-1500, SIPM, The Hague.
3. de Meyer, T. (1992), Subsea Development Casing Design, Shell Expro Well Engineering
Information Note 177, Report EP 92-1684, Shell Expro.
Chapter 10 Links to Useful Data and Web Sites
The internet addresses below correspond to the indicated web site pages containing data,
technical standards, and recommended practices.
Web Address
Site
Shell Sites
http://sww.shell.com/ep/technology/wells_function/assura SIEP Well/Drilling Engineering Documents
nce/ded/index.html
http://swwep-w.shell.com/threads/
Shell-approved Tubular Connections
http://sww.shell.com/ep/technology/wells_function/assura
nce/ded/well_construction.html (look for appropriate
entry)
HPHT Well Cementing Manual

SIEP 99-5848
http://sww.shell.com/standards
External Standards on the Shell Web
http://www.api.org
http://www.iso.ch
Non-Shell Sites
American Petroleum Institute
International Organization for
Standardization

EP - 2000-9073 - Shell - Casing - and - Tubing - Design - Guide - Vol - 1 Rev Jan 2008 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EP - 2000-9073 - Shell - Casing - and - Tubing - Design - Guide - Vol - 1 Rev Jan 2008 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EP - 2000-9073 - Shell - Casing - and - Tubing - Design - Guide - Vol - 1 Rev Jan 2008 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Shell Casing and Tubing Design Guide

Well Engineering Forum

This version supersedes the previous version (EP 92-2000).

SHELL INTERNATIONAL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INC., HOUSTON

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

List of Co-Authors and Technical Contributors

WEF Focal Point

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Shell Casing and Tubing Design Guide

Shell Design Philosophy.............................................................................................................2

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

1. SHELL DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Shell Casing and Tubing Design Guide

2. SHELL LEVELS OF CASING AND TUBING DESIGN PRACTICE ...............................2

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

2. SHELL LEVELS OF CASING AND TUBING DESIGN PRACTICE

The amount of conservatism in the design

Specifics of the Design Levels

It is the default design practice described in Chapter 3.

It is well suited to new ventures and wildcat exploratory wells.

It seeks to avoid risk wherever possible.

It requires the use of quality pipe and connections.

It uses a conservative triaxial burst design factor.

It makes no assumption about the quality of rig kick-detection systems (KDS).

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Level Two design practice has the following characteristics:

It assumes the presence of state-of-the-art kick-detection equipment at the rig.

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Level Three design practice has the following characteristics:

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Limitations on Export of Level Two and Level Three Design Practices

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Examples of Level Two and Level Three Designs

Level Three SEPCO single-barrier (Brutus) riser based on risk assessment.

Level Three WOODSIDE well designs, Perseus field.

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Shell Casing and Tubing Design Guide

3. SHELL LEVEL ONE CASING AND TUBING DESIGN ...................................................3

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

3.4.14 Tensile Strength of Corroded Pipe..........................................................................17

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

3. SHELL LEVEL ONE CASING AND TUBING DESIGN

Overall Casing and Tubing Design

Definitions and Terms

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

Parameters Controlling the Design

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

How Tubulars Design Works

Restricted to Shell Personnel Only

The capacity (resistance) of the pipe

Casing Seat Selection and CasingTubing Sizes