SPE/IADC-173053-MS

Casing Wear Factors: How do They Improve Well Integrity Analyses?

Aniket Kumar and Robello Samuel, Halliburton

Copyright 2015, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in London, United Kingdom, 17–19 March 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling
Contractors, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
Casing wear factors form an integral part of casing wear estimation techniques. However, the values of
experimental wear factors do not match field conditions when predicted casing wear is compared to
measured values. Hence, adjustments and manipulations are made to wear factors to match field data so
that these calibrated values can be effectively applied for more accurate predictions. These field
calibrations, which often are extensive, have resulted in casing wear factors being mainly treated as just
“fudge factors.” This has led to a lot of confusion regarding the fundamentals behind using wear factors
for casing wear analyses.
This paper aims to bridge this knowledge gap and provides a comprehensive treatise on casing wear
factors and their underlying parameters. The paper describes the details, a clear definition, uncertainties
involved, and concepts regarding the appropriate use of casing wear factors and their applications. The
wear factors are inherently tied to the coefficient of friction or the friction factor, which in turn is also a
proxy because of the larger uncertainties involved in the modeling process. Wear factor values are also
dependent on the material properties and operation type and vary non-linearly with the wear groove shape.
Additional variations in experimental values also arise resulting from downhole high-pressure/high-
temperature (HP/HT) conditions, accuracy of well surveys, as well as wellbore tortuosity and torsion.
Other operating parameters, such as rotational speed, rotating time, and normal contact force, can also
influence wear factors.
This paper investigates, in detail, the dependency of casing wear factors on these uncertainties through
several example case analyses. It provides detailed explanations to help understand the fundamental
concepts and apply appropriate wear factors for accurate downhole wear estimation. Accurate prediction
of casing wear is essential to enhance well integrity and further the life of the well. Hence, this paper also
presents a specific example for casing integrity analysis and provides insights to improve overall well
integrity by performing a comprehensive casing wear analysis. In addition, the concept of casing wear
maps is introduced. These can provide a new visualization and interpretation technique and help to
minimize casing wear during drilling operations.
Accurate casing wear prediction is crucial for helping to reduce the over-engineering of casing designs
in increasingly complex drilling programs, as well as for helping to prevent catastrophic casing string
failures caused by wear. This paper provides a sound engineering basis for future drilling engineers to
2 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

effectively understand the challenges involved in selecting appropriate wear factors and the underlying
uncertainties that govern casing wear estimation analyses.
Introduction
In the last couple of decades, the development of complex wells has increased, including long horizontal
wells for shale development, extended reach wells for onshore and offshore development, and multi-
lateral wells to maximize reservoir productivity. Complex wells require advanced casing programs to
maintain good wellbore integrity. One problem that must be accurately addressed pertaining to different
casing sections installed during the drilling of such complex wells is casing wear.
Casing wear is one of the continuing challenges faced by the industry, and an accurate estimation of
downhole wear remains elusive. Various casing wear estimation techniques have been investigated and
developed by different researches and joint industry projects; however, the accuracy of the models
developed is questionable. Even though some of the models have proven to be accurate for some test
wells, the intrinsic drawback of the developed techniques is that their application could not be accurately
extended to wells in different fields having different well profiles.
Typically, during any complex drilling program, the downhole casing wear is measured using caliper
logs or sonic/ultra-sonic imaging tools, and the actual depth of the casing wear groove is estimated using
these log measurements. Based on these measurements and other drilling operation parameters, the casing
wear models are used to back calculate the casing wear factor for that well section that was logged.
However, when the same wear factors are applied for the next drilling operation in that well or while
drilling another similar well, the predictions have been very inaccurate. It is because of these disparities
from actual measurements and the large uncertainties involved in casing wear estimation that most of the
operators largely apply excessive safety factors in their casing designs and over-design casing to prevent
failures. However, over-designing the casing results in increased costs to drill and complete each well and
should be minimized.
Bradley and Fontenot (1975) present one of the foremost efforts undertaken by the industry to
understand and effectively model different casing wear scenarios. They developed procedures to estimate
casing wear caused by rotating, tripping, and running wireline and derived empirical wear coefficients
from laboratory wear measurements. They concluded that the drillstring rotation was the major cause of
casing wear, as compared to the wear caused during tripping and running wireline, and that drillpipe
rubbers could be effectively used in places where contact loads were high.
White and Dawson (1987) investigated casing wear caused by the rotation of non-hardbanded tool
joints with a full-sized test machine. They performed their study using three grades of casing (K55, N80,
and P110), both oil-based and water-based muds, and for contact forces of 1,000 and 2,000 lbf. By
measuring both the casing wear and friction forces, they propose a linear wear-efficiency model that
relates the casing metal removal to the amount of energy dissipated as friction in the wear process.
Schoenmakers (1987) presents four case studies to prove that the laboratory simulations of casing wear
caused by tool joint hardfacings correspond very well to field measured casing wear. He concludes that
the prediction of casing wear is possible with laboratory simulations, and that casing wear could be
effectively controlled by sufficiently smooth hardfacings, weighted mud, and moderate tool joint/casing
contact forces. Hall et al. (1994) developed and verified a mathematical model that describes casing wear
in terms of hole geometry, casing/tool-joint material, mud system, and drilling program. They performed
more than 300 laboratory wear tests to estimate wear factors that formed an integral part of the casing wear
model and allowed the model to be implemented in a wide range of well geometries and drilling programs.
They also incorporated the model into a computer program, CWEAR, to be used both as a planning and
operational tool.
Hall et al. (2005) extend this study to more than 475 eight-hour casing and riser wear tests and analyze
this extensive database to develop the contact pressure threshold concept. They measured the depth of the
SPE/IADC-173053-MS 3

wear groove at various time intervals and normalized the dataset to propose a new relation that now used
three different variables to describe the wear history of the system, in contrast to the single wear factor
customarily used to characterize the casing/tool joint/drilling fluid system. They conclude that there exists
only a very loose correlation between wear factors and contact pressure thresholds and that larger values
of contact pressure threshold are more likely to be associated with smaller values of wear factor.
Gao et al. (2009) present a new method to estimate the depth of the wear groove on intermediate casing
and also discuss the change of casing wear groove depth versus drilling footage under different-sized
drillstrings. They propose a mechanical model for predicting casing wear locations that is based on the
well trajectory and the drillstring movement and also predict the casing wear groove depth of a planned
well with inversion of the casing wear factor from the drilled well. Calhoun et al. (2010) present the casing
wear monitoring standard operating practice developed by Chevron to proactively manage and mitigate
casing wear during drilling operations and demonstrate that casing wear can be predicted, managed,
and/or mitigated with proper planning and execution. Using a casing wear event on a Chevron well, they
present the different aspects involved in casing wear analysis and provide recommendations to more
accurately predict casing wear.
Mitchell and Xiang (2012) investigated this problem from a different perspective and present an
improved casing wear prediction and mitigation method using a statistically based model. They created
an extensive database from a wide variety of wells with measured depths greater than 13,000 ft, analyzed
the dataset to generate the probabilities for dog-leg severities in common well types, and correlated them
to the actual back-modeled wear factors. They conclude that the type of well, build rate, use of rotary
steerable systems, and the survey frequency significantly influence the dog-leg severity, and the statis-
tically based tortuosity model presented by them was able to predict the actual dog-leg severity more
accurately for the purposes of modeling casing wear. However, because of the relative scarcity of casing
wear logs, they were unable to determine a statistical distribution of casing wear factors.
A thorough review of the various investigations conducted over the years suggests that a comprehen-
sive solution to this complex problem of accurately predicting downhole casing wear is still elusive and
that the large number of uncertainties involved in casing wear estimation has led to significant misinter-
pretations of the existing casing wear modeling techniques. Hence, this study was undertaken to analyze,
in detail, the fundamentals behind the casing wear prediction models, the limitations of the modeling
methods, the various uncertainties and complexities involved in wear estimation, and possible methods to
improve casing wear prediction.
In addition, the direct influence of the casing wear factors on the collapse and burst pressure ratings
of the worn out casing strings was also investigated to help improve the overall well integrity analyses and
reduce failures caused by casing wear. A new visualization and interpretation technique using casing wear
maps is presented to help better model the wear and provide forward predictions.

Casing Wear Factors

The concept of casing wear factors was introduced by Hall et al. (1994) from Maurer Engineering Inc. as
part of the joint-industry project DEA-42. The wear factors formed an integral part of the casing wear
model proposed by this study, which was based on the phenomenon that when a rotating tool joint
impinges against the inner wall of the casing, a crescent shaped groove is worn into the inner wall. The
fundamental assumption of this model was that “the volume of steel removed from each unit length of
casing at a point on the inside surface of the casing is proportional to frictional work done at that point
by the tool joint rotating in contact with the casing.” The following equations explain the basic relation
between the casing wear factor and its underlying variables.
(1)
4 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

Specific energy is the energy required to remove one cubic inch of steel.
(2)

Combining the friction factor and the specific energy, the wear factor is defined and the new casing
wear model is derived.
(3)

(4)

This study conducted more than 300 laboratory tests to compute the values of wear factors under
various drilling conditions by repeating the experiments for different sets of materials and scenarios. For
each test performed, the “volume removed per foot,” “normal force per foot,” and “sliding distance” were
determined at fixed intervals of time, and then the value of the wear factor was computed. The wear factor
calculated using this procedure is a very small number and is conventionally reported in units of E-10/psi.
Hence, a wear factor of 2 actually refers to a value of 2⫻E-10/psi for the wear factor.
To apply the model proposed by this study, the normal force per foot was computed based on the well
path, drillstring design, and drilling parameters, and the sliding distance was estimated based on the
drilling program. This, combined with the appropriate wear factor for the drilling scenario, helped
estimate the wear volume per foot and subsequently the depth of the wear groove on the inner wall of the
casing.

Parameters Influencing Wear Factors

The values of casing wear factor vary significantly depending on the drilling scenario and properties of
the materials. Some of the key elements that influence wear factors are listed below:
● CASING GRADE: Wear factors for various grades of casing (e.g., K-55, N-80, and P-110) have
been obtained from a multitude of experiments conducted using different types of materials.
Laboratory tests showed that no direct correlation exists between the casing grade and the wear
factors and that for any particular casing grade, the wear factors can even vary by an order of
magnitude, depending on the other parameters.
● TOOL JOINT: The material of the tool joint and the type of hardbanding applied to protect the tool
joints significantly influence the wear factors. A more aggressive hardbanding material used to
prolong the life of the drillpipe will have a very high wear factor and lead to increased downhole
wear compared to a more casing-friendly hardbanding material.
● MUD TYPE and PROPERTIES: The type of the drilling mud used and its lubricating properties
also significantly affect the values of wear factor. For the same drilling conditions, a water-based
mud demonstrates lower lubricating properties compared to oil-based mud and would lead to a
higher wear factor. Other drilling fluid properties, such as density and viscosity, can also affect
wear factors.
● SOLIDS CONTENT: It has been found that bentonite, barite, limestone, and other non-abrasive
drilled solids in the drilling mud tend to decrease casing wear because they demonstrate lower
wear factors. The percent of sand content in the drilling mud also influences the value of wear
factors, and higher sand content leads to more erosion of the casing wall and higher wear factors.
For unweighted mud, the addition of salt, lubricants, and polymeric additives could reduce casing
wear, while no effect on wear was observed resulting from the addition of diesel or millimeter-
sized glass beads.
● DRILLPIPE PROTECTORS: The application of rubber protectors for tool joints or non-rotating
drillpipe protectors helps reduce the severity of downhole casing wear. Hall et al. (1994) suggest
SPE/IADC-173053-MS 5

that a low value of wear factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.1 should be used if pipe protectors are being
used. In addition, the application of pipe protectors on a certain section of the drillstring will
change the wear factor only for that particular section where the protectors are applied.
The values of wear factors vary significantly based on some of these listed properties, and laboratory
tests for different combinations of these parameters were performed, aiming to capture all possible
scenarios. However, the advent of newer material types for casing and tool joints warrants a new set of
experiments.

Uncertainties in Casing Wear Estimation

While developing the specific energy model, Hall et al. (1994) placed a lot of stress on the accuracy of
the wear factors to be effectively applied to a given drilling situation to estimate the casing wear. They
recommend using three different wear factors to be analyzed for any drilling case—wear factor as
determined by the laboratory, wear factor that is two times greater than the laboratory determined wear
factor, as well as wear factor that is four times greater than the experimental wear factor to simulate the
worst-case scenario. They suggest using a larger value of wear factor than that determined from the
laboratory compensates for the under-estimation of dogleg severity and other uncertainties, as the field
conditions are not as “gentle” as those of the laboratory experiments.
Hence, in existing drilling practices, it has become customary to calculate the “field” casing wear
factors by back-modeling the measured casing wear logs, and it is expected that these reverse-calculated
wear factors would more accurately represent the actual field scenarios. However, a problem arises when
these back-modeled wear factors are not able to accurately predict the downhole casing wear for further
drilling activity in that well or for the drilling program of any other well having a similar well profile in
the same field. This has led to skepticism and reservations about the field applicability of the wear factors
to actual drilling situations and resulted in a loss of confidence in the existing casing wear model. As a
result, most operators choose to over-design their casing strings rather than accurately estimate casing
wear to obtain a sound engineering design.
The authors believe that a lot of these suspicions are unwarranted and have emerged because of
inconsistencies in accurately applying the casing wear model. There are many uncertainties involved in
the calculation of the parameters that help to estimate casing wear, and the current approach to the
problem is to “fudge” all of the uncertainties on a single parameter— casing wear factor. The problem of
casing wear estimation differs from some of the other physics-based predictive modeling performed in the
industry, as the main objective in this case is to accurately estimate the peaks of the casing wear log rather
than the average casing wear groove depth because the peak points of the worn out casing wall are most
prone to failure.
A thorough understanding of the underlying parameters involved in casing wear estimation and a
comprehensive step-by-step modeling approach should help reduce these uncertainties, more accurately
calculate the correct wear factors, and predict casing wear. Some of the key parameters that influence
casing wear modeling and wear estimation follow, along with further details on each.

Estimation of Normal Contact Force

Hall et al. (1994) emphasize that the key to successful prediction of casing wear is to accurately compute
the normal contact force acting between the drillpipe tool joints and the inner wall of the casing. The
normal contact force forms an integral part of the casing wear equation, and inaccuracies in computing
contact forces will lead to accumulating error in wear estimation. To calculate the normal contact force,
the conventional soft string model has been used in most applications. However, various torque and drag
analyses presented in the industry prove that the more advanced stiff string analysis that includes the
bending stiffness of the drillstring should be performed for higher accuracy. In particular, the stiff string
6 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

model should be used in cases that have high doglegs, as the soft string model has limitations in such
scenarios.
Casing wear peaks are more often encountered in areas of such high doglegs, and performing a more
advanced computation of normal contact force using the stiff string model or a comprehensive finite-
element model will help improve the accuracy of casing wear estimation. Another drawback of the
conventional soft string model is that it assumes contact between the tool joints and the casing at all points
along the wellbore, leading to over-estimation of the wear. The stiff string model helps to depict a more
realistic scenario and computes a value of normal contact force acting between the tool joint and the casing
inner wall only if any contact occurs between them. This prevents over-estimating the contact forces and
helps compute a more accurate wear factor for a given drilling operation. In addition, changes in normal
contact force resulting from drillstring buckling should also be incorporated.

Detailed Calculation Steps and Monitoring

Casing wear is estimated as a consequence of all of the operations that the well has undergone. Hence,
it is important to capture and simulate all of the operational steps in greater detail to improve the accuracy
of wear estimation. For the drilling of a given hole section starting from a particular measured depth, the
normal contact force between the tool joints and the casing inner wall varies as the drill bit progresses
farther down the hole to drill the formation. This variation in contact forces at any depth along the casing
must be correctly captured and accounted for in wear calculations. For example, in this drilling scenario,
the calculation of normal contact forces and the resulting wear as the drill bit penetrates each 30-ft section
of the formation will represent more accurate wear calculation results compared to a case in which these
calculations are performed for every 500 ft of the drilled section.
The length along the casing over which the average casing wear is estimated and monitored also should
be sufficiently small to effectively capture the effect of all of the detailed calculation steps. For example,
calculating and monitoring casing wear for every 10-ft section along the casing will more accurately
represent a field scenario compared to a case in which the average casing wear is reported for every 100
ft of the casing section. The objective of casing wear analysis is to correctly predict the peaks of casing
wear logs, and it is important to independently track smaller casing lengths for all of the conducted
operations to achieve this objective. Coarse calculation steps and reporting average wear over a long
section along the casing will cause inaccuracies in wear calculation and result in an erroneous value of the
back-modeled wear factor.

Friction Factor
As explained in Eq. 3, the friction factor forms an integral part of the casing wear factor. Samuel (2010)
provides a comprehensive treatise on friction factors and explains the fundamentals of the coefficient of
friction and the underlying complexities. He suggests that the friction factor is used as a proxy for the
coefficient of friction or the Coulomb friction because of large uncertainties in the modeling of long
drillstrings, including cuttings bed, tortuosity, mud properties, and fluid viscous effects. In addition, the
friction factor also varies with the type of operation, rotational speed, and the temperature of the surfaces
in contact. Hence, to account for all of the uncertainties, the friction factor is calibrated in much the same
way as the casing wear factor, using measured hookload and torque data from the surface.
The casing wear factors as measured in laboratory conditions were not able to account for all of these
complexities associated with the friction factor. The experimental conditions corresponded to lower
friction factors compared to those expected in the field, and hence the measured values of wear factors
were under-predicted. It is for this reason that a multiplier greater than one is required to be used with the
laboratory determined casing wear factors to match actual field scenarios.
SPE/IADC-173053-MS 7

Well Path and Wellbore Survey

All of the studies conducted on casing wear modeling agree that the accuracy of wear estimation depends
tremendously on the accuracy of the well path and wellbore survey points. Wellbore surveys directly
influence the calculation of normal contact forces, and coarse survey spacing will result in omissions of
high dogleg points that cause maximum wear. Calhoun et al. (2010) suggest that definitive surveys can
be supplemented with “synthetic” surveys using appropriate tortuosity factors to account for uncertainties
in survey measurement and for better representation of the wellpath for casing wear modeling. Mitchell
and Xiang (2012) propose a new statistically based tortuosity model to supplement wellbore surveys for
improving casing wear prediction.
The effect of wellbore torsion should also be accounted for to obtain a more realistic representation of
the well path. Kumar et al. (2013) present a casing wear model using the wellbore profile energy by
accounting for the wellbore torsion. In addition, wellbore surveys measured before running in the casing
should be updated using a stiff string model after the casing is cemented in place to address any
misalignments of the casing with the initially drilled openhole section. Calhoun et al. (2010) also suggest
that a gyro survey should be run at a casing point if there is excessive uncertainty in the actual wellpath.
The updated casing locations along the wellbore should help improve wear estimation and reduce
suspicions about the back-modeled wear factors.

Non-linear Behavior
Hall et al. (2005) explain that the wear groove formation on the inner wall of the casing caused by tool
joint contact does not vary directly with the test duration and displays a non-linear behavior based on the
groove depth. The wear factors estimated decrease with increasing wear depth for a given set of test
conditions and approach an asymptotic value as wear exceeds approximately 40%. The laboratory
reported wear factors are based on these asymptotic values of wear percent. However, for a given drilling
situation, if the wear on the casing is below this asymptotic value, then an empirically derived correlation
should be used to account for this non-linear behavior and correct the wear factor values.
Hence, the experimental wear factors would result in under-predicting the wear if this non-linear
characteristic is not accounted for in a case of small values of wear percent, while the back-modeled wear
factors would erroneously be higher than the actual value. These inaccurate back-modeled wear factors
subsequently result in a loss of confidence in the casing wear modeling techniques.

Multiple Wear Factors

The advent of complex drilling programs has resulted in significant advancements in the drillpipe and
casing materials now being used for operations. Different drillstring and casing string configurations are
used to cater to different drilling programs, and assuming that casing wear along the entire wellbore can
be simulated using one single wear factor, it will be erroneous. For example, to drill multilateral wells,
special aluminum casing pipes are used in the main borehole from where a lateral is to be initiated, as it
is easier to drill through aluminum compared to steel. Hence, in this case, separate wear factors should
be used in the casing wear analysis for the aluminum and steel casing pipes.
Casing-friendly tool joints are also repeatedly used in certain important portions along the drillstring.
Using a single wear factor to represent the more aggressive and more friendly types of drillpipe tool joints
in a single drillstring will lead to erroneous casing wear estimation. A limited number of drillpipe
protectors can also be used for a given operation; hence, the downhole drilling scenario cannot be
correctly represented for the entire string using a single wear factor. In addition, using multiple wear
factors is especially useful while back-modeling wear factors from casing wear logs, as different values
of wear factors might be required for different casing sections to accurately match the field data.
8 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

Wear Groove Locations

One of the main reasons for the loss of confidence in casing wear modeling techniques is the failure to
accurately estimate casing wear groove locations at any cross-section along the casing. Field experience
and several studies have shown that more than one casing wear groove can be generated at the same casing
depth if the contact point between the casing and tool joints change as the drilling activity progresses. The
soft string model used conventionally to perform casing wear analysis is not able to distinguish if the
casing is being worn out at different locations across a cross-section for a given depth. Hence, at any
depth, higher values of casing wear are predicted, assuming that the contact is only at one particular
location at a cross-section, for the entire operation. This results in inaccurate estimates of back-modeled
wear factors and wear predictions.
Advanced stiff string models are able to accurately estimate the points of contact between the casing
and tool joints as the drilling activity progresses and help perform a more realistic analysis. Accurately
monitoring the casing cross-sections at all depths and estimating wear only if there is any tool joint contact
at a location improves wear predictions. Gao et al. (2009) also emphasize the importance of wear groove
location and propose an analytical technique to address this issue. In addition, they also suggest that a
non-linear wear groove can be formed if tool joints having different sizes contribute to the wearing of the
same groove.

Rigsite Operations
As previously mentioned, the total wear on the casing is a consequence of all the operations conducted
through that casing string. Hence, it becomes crucially important to vigilantly track each and every
operation performed that could contribute to wear. For example, a conventional drilling operation can
comprise a short reaming of the hole section after drilling every stand. In this case, it is important to
account for the additional wear resulting from this small reaming operation, as over the course of the entire
drilling program, this additional wear would accumulate. Field observations suggest that casing also wears
out even in situations where the drillstring is not rotating but is just reciprocating inside the casing shoe
resulting from wave heave in an offshore environment. Hence, it is important to capture all downhole
scenarios that could contribute to wear.
The sequence in which the operations are conducted is also important, as it affects the non-linear wear
groove formation. The wear factors can also vary based on the type of operation being conducted, and
different wear factors can be used for estimating wear from different operations. Additionally, during
rigsite operations, the values of the drilling parameters, such as weight-on-bit and rotational speed, can
vary. Accounting for variations in these parameters to estimate normal contact force and the resulting wear
should help improve the accuracies of the back-modeled wear factors.

Downhole Conditions
Casing wear estimation should account for changes in downhole conditions to improve accuracy of wear
predictions. Calhoun et al. (2010) investigated a casing failure event caused by excessive wear and suggest
that one of the root causes was thermally induced buckling of the casing while drilling at deeper depths.
Buckling was observed in the area above the top of the cement because of increases in temperature and/or
mud weight while drilling, and combined with the doglegs, created a condition for excessive casing wear.
Hence, buckling analysis of the casing should be performed for more accurate calculation of back-
modeled wear factors.
High casing wear can also result from excessive downhole vibrations during drilling, if the vibrating
portion of the drillstring is still inside the casing. This wear resulting from the vibrational impacts of the
drillstring on the inner wall of the casing should not be modeled using the same wear factors used for the
other operations because this wear is a consequence of a different wear mechanism. Kumar et al. (2014)
SPE/IADC-173053-MS 9

present a modeling method to predict casing wear as a result of drillstring vibrations inside the casing.
Jianchun et al. (2008) also present some experimental results on fatigue wear caused by large lateral
vibrations of the drillstring. In addition, HP/HT downhole drilling conditions can also influence wear
factors, and as a result, back-modeled wear factors for a conventional well cannot be accurately applied
for a HP/HT well.

Variation with Parameters

The casing wear experiments performed as a part of the DEA-42 project to estimate values of wear factors
for different combinations of casing material, tool joint material and mud type were all performed for the
same set of lateral load, rotary speed, and reciprocation rate. However, with complex drilling programs,
all of these parameters vary significantly from the laboratory testing conditions, and wear factors can vary
for different rotary and load conditions. The testing conditions did not account for any influence of flow
rate of the mud, which could also significantly affect the wear factors.
In addition, advances have also been made on the materials used for casing and tool joints, along with
improvements in drilling mud currently used in operations. A new set of experimental wear factors should
be determined for these new operating conditions.

Casing Wear Logs

Obtaining accurate casing wear measurement logs is crucial when trying to estimate casing wear using
back-modeled wear factors. Multifinger caliper logs are generally considered to be more accurate
compared to a sonic or ultrasonic log, as the estimation of casing wall inner diameter is a direct physical
measurement for caliper logs, whereas ultrasonic logs determine the casing wall thickness as an indirect
estimation derived from other parameters. All proper precautions should be taken while running these logs
to be as accurate as possible when associating a particular casing depth with a certain value of measured
casing wear groove depth. Inaccurate casing wear logs will certainly result in erroneous back-modeled
wear factors and incorrect wear predictions.
All of these parameters and uncertainties listed for casing wear estimation significantly affect the
accuracy of the wear prediction models. An improper analysis performed by discounting any of these
parameters will result in incorrect back-modeled wear factors and cause an inaccurate casing wear
estimation for the next set of operations when these wear factors are used. In addition, other uncertainties
can also exist, such as wearing out of the casing inner wall from other downhole wear mechanisms, which
might not require a tool joint and casing wall contact and could be very difficult to model using this
technique. Additional casing wear caused by drillpipe body contact apart from the tool joints could also
be observed in certain operating conditions.

Case Studies
Four case studies are presented to emphasize the importance of the different influencing parameters while
attempting to estimate the back-modeled wear factors and subsequently the casing wear.
Case 1. This case compares the performance of the stiff string model versus the soft string model, as
shown in Fig. 1, to estimate casing wear percent for a very short drilling activity consisting of 500 ft. The
average weight-on-bit was 15 kips, average rotary speed was 175 rev/min, time for this drilling activity
was 50 hours, and a wear factor value of 10 was used for calculations. Wear estimation clearly suggests
that the soft string model over-estimates the casing wear at many locations compared to the stiff string
model because the soft string model assumes drillstring contact at all points along the casing and leads to
erroneous wear accumulation. This difference would become even more pronounced as all of the
operations performed through this casing string are analyzed together to estimate the final wear percent
along the casing.
10 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

Figure 1—Difference in wear estimation for the soft string vs. the stiff string model.

Case 2. This case, as shown in Fig. 2, emphasizes the importance of detailed calculation steps to
accurately predict the peaks of casing wear logs compared to a very coarse calculation that represents only
an average wear estimate. The drilling of the lateral section of a well was analyzed for a drilling activity
of 7,000 ft, where the average weight-on-bit was 10 kips, average rotary speed was 150 rev/min, drilling
time was 250 hours, and an average wear factor value of 10 was used. The detailed calculation involved
estimating the casing wear for every 10-ft section along the casing, while repeating the wear calculations
for every 30-ft hole section that was drilled. In the coarse calculations, average casing wear was reported
for every 100-ft section of the casing, while the wear calculations were performed for every 500 ft of the
drilled hole sections. The results suggest that the detailed calculation predicted many more peak casing
wear values as a result of more precise calculations, which could not be accurately captured using a coarse
analysis. These differences would accumulate if all of the operations performed inside a casing string were
considered and would be fundamentally important for predicting back-modeled wear factors.
SPE/IADC-173053-MS 11

Figure 2—Difference in wear estimation for detailed calculation steps vs. coarse calculation steps.

Case 3. This case illustrates the significance of accurate wellbore surveys and accounting for wellbore
tortuosity on the casing wear predictions, as shown in Fig. 3. A similar drilling activity was simulated as
performed for the previous case; however, synthetic wellbore tortuosity was added to the survey points
using the “random inclination and azimuth” method to analyze a more actual scenario. Clearly, adding
tortuosity resulted in estimating significantly higher casing wear and wear peaks that were discounted by
considering just a smooth wellbore. This would certainly help model a more actual scenario and improve
the accuracy of casing wear predictions.
12 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

Figure 3—Difference in wear estimation by considering wellbore tortuosity.

Case 4. The last case presented in Fig. 4 demonstrates the application of multiple wear factors
compared to just a single wear factor for more accurately representing the downhole casing wear scenario.
In this case, a drilling activity of 2,000 ft was analyzed, where the average weight-on-bit was 15 kips,
rotary speed was 200 rev/min, and the drilling time was 80 hours. An average single wear factor of 10 was
compared to an analysis performed using multiple wear factors specified along the drillstring with respect
to distance from the bit, as mentioned in Table 1. Applying multiple wear factors helps to simulate a more
actual scenario, where some drillpipe protectors are used along one section of the string and an aggressive
hardbanding on tool joints having high wear factors is present in another string section. The resulting
composite wear at any given casing depth is a consequence of wear accumulated from both of these zones
as the drillstring passes through a particular depth of interest. Five different wear factors were specified
along the drillstring and used in calculations for more accurate wear predictions.
SPE/IADC-173053-MS 13

Figure 4 —Difference in wear estimation by using multiple wear factors vs single wear factor.

Table 1—Multiple wear factors defined along the drillstring with respect to distance from the bit.
From Depth (ft) To Depth (ft) Wear Factor (E-10/psi) From Depth (ft) To Depth (ft) Wear Factor (E-10/psi)

100 300 20.0 9,000 10,000 5.0

500 2,000 0.5 11,000 12,000 30.0
3,000 7,000 15.0 Default Wear Factor 10.0

Well Integrity
Wearing out of the inner casing wall results in degradation of the casing strength and causes a reduction
in the burst and collapse pressure ratings, thus compromising casing and well integrity. Several models,
apart from the most commonly used API equations for burst and collapse, have been presented that
address the calculation of degraded casing strength based on the reduction in wall thickness of the casing
caused by wear. Shen and Beck (2012) propose an analytical solution for hoop stress estimation in the
worn out casing based on the boundary superposition principle, which also accounts for the contribution
of thermal stresses. Samuel and Gao (2014) suggest corrections to the standard API equations to account
for the stress concentration around the casing wear grooves by quantifying it with a stress multiplier called
the stress concentration factor.
Casing wear factors significantly affect the determination of the remaining wall thickness after casing
wear, and thus have a great influence on estimating the overall well integrity. Inaccurate back-modeled
wear factors can result in an under-estimation of the groove depth, compromising the wellbore integrity
and resulting in catastrophic repercussions. Again, casing wear analysis performed by discounting some
of the underlying uncertainties as discussed above would also lead to estimation of inaccurate burst and
14 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

collapse pressure ratings of the worn out casing and undermines casing integrity. For the example cases
presented in Fig. 2 to Fig. 4, detailed calculation steps and accounting for wellbore tortuosity and multiple
wear factors along the drill string resulted in prediction of higher casing wear. Fig. 5 below shows the
difference between the burst and the collapse pressure ratings for the worn out casing when all these three
factors are considered together in analysis as compared to a casing wear analysis performed by
discounting them. Here, Analysis 1 represents the situation when these three parameters are ignored while
Analysis 2 considers them as described above in Case 2 to Case 4.

Figure 5—Collapse and burst pressure rating estimation for worn out casing.

The reduction in casing collapse and burst pressure ratings estimated in Analysis 2 emphasizes the
importance of accounting for all the underlying uncertainties while performing a casing wear analysis. A
comprehensive wear estimation method would result in a more accurate prediction of the remaining casing
wall thickness and hence, a more reliable collapse and burst pressure rating for the worn out casing. For
the simple case presented in Fig. 5 consisting of a single drilling operation, reduction in pressure ratings
of upto 20% for collapse and 15% for burst were estimated which may have a significant influence during
casing selection and design. Standard API equations were used for collapse and burst pressure estimation
in this case. A similar analysis for casing integrity can also be performed for the maximum allowable wear
SPE/IADC-173053-MS 15

limit based on all the designed load cases for the wellbore and comparing it against the predicted casing
wear for a given well.
Fig. 6 represents the vonMises equivalent stress plot and the design limits for the worn out casing for
both, Analysis 1 and Analysis 2 performed here and compares it with that of the new casing. Casing wear
leads to a reduction in wall thickness of the casing, hence the design limits and the vonMises equivalent
stress ellipse reduce significantly for carrying out all operations safely. The more comprehensive Analysis
2 performed here, results in even a further reduction in the design limits for safe operations, and thus
emphasizes the importance of accounting for all the uncertainties while estimating back-modeled wear
factors and while predicting casing wear using them. Imprecise back-modeled wear factor calculation will
directly correspond to erroneous design limits and may result in disastrous consequences.

Figure 6 —vonMises equivalent stress estimation and design limits for worn out casing.

The safety factors applied in Fig. 6 for the new casing design are 1.2 for burst and collapse, 1.3 for
tension and compression and 1.25 for the triaxial stress limit. Two load cases for pressure test and casing
evacuation have been shown in Fig. 6 to help understand the influence of casing wear on the underlying
casing design limits. The safety factor for casing evacuation load case reduced from 1.18 for collapse for
the new casing to 0.66 after casing wear in Analysis 2 while this reduction in safety factor for triaxial
stresses was from 1.7 to 1.35. This significant reduction in collapse safety factor needs to be appropriately
accounted for during casing design to mitigate any casing integrity failures.
The collapse safety factor was noted to reduce non-linearly with increased wear percent for the load
case of casing evacuation as presented in Fig. 6. This non-linear reduction in collapse safety factor has
16 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

been shown in Fig. 7 for both, N80 and P110 casing strings, for a given depth of about 10,000 ft in the
build section of the well case presented here. It should also be noted that the behavior of this plot would
change based on the type of load case being considered and the depth of the well being analyzed. In
addition, the behavior of the burst and triaxial safety factors should also be plotted to have an improved
casing design.

Figure 7—Non-linear behavior of the collapse safety factor with wear percent for load case of casing evacuation.

Casing Wear Maps

A new visualization and interpretation method to accurately plan for downhole casing wear has been
proposed using “casing wear maps.” The casing wear maps are two-dimensional (2D) or three-
dimensional (3D) graphs that have the underlying parameters to estimate casing wear as the axes of
graphs. The wear maps can be applied in different ways to plan for expected casing wear by monitoring
them for the entire drilling program. The variation of wear percent, normal contact forces, and wear
factors for all of the planned operations can be combined simultaneously to help provide good insight into
the causes of wear and methods to mitigate them. One such example of a casing wear map for estimating
wear percent with operation time along the entire casing depth is shown in Fig. 8.
SPE/IADC-173053-MS 17

Figure 8 —Casing wear map to estimate wear percent with operation time along the entire casing section.

Conclusions
The significance of performing a comprehensive casing wear analysis and its corresponding effect on wear
factors and wear groove estimation is presented in detail in this study. It is of utmost importance that
correct back-modeled wear factors are used to perform an accurate casing wear analysis and for precise
estimation of remaining wall thickness after wear. The authors believe that all of the skepticism
concerning casing wear factors and casing wear estimation methods has resulted from ignoring some of
the fundamental underlying parameters while performing a casing wear analysis. A detailed comprehen-
sive approach addressing all of the involved uncertainties should help model a more actual scenario and
improve the accuracies of casing wear estimation.
The case studies presented in this study emphasize the importance of normal contact force, accurate
wellbore surveys, multiple wear factors, and performing a detailed step-by-step analysis to model casing
wear. Different factors can contribute toward under- or over-estimation of the wear groove depth, thus
resulting in an overall very complex analysis for any drilling program. Under-prediction of the wear
groove can result in casing failure, compromising well integrity, while over-estimating the groove depth
can cause over-designing of the casing string and unnecessary higher costs. The objective of a casing wear
analysis is to accurately predict the peaks of casing wear logs and the minimum remaining wall thickness,
and the authors believe that this can most certainly be achieved by following the detailed steps as outlined
in this study and disregarding any skepticism concerning casing wear factors.

Acknowledgement
The authors express their appreciation to Halliburton for the opportunity to present this paper.
18 SPE/IADC-173053-MS

References
Bradley, W.B. and Fontenot, J.E. 1975. The Prediction and Control of Casing Wear. J. Pet. Tech.
27(2): 233–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/5122-PA.
Calhoun, B., Langdon, S., Wu, J. et alet al. 2010. Casing Wear Prediction and Management in
Deepwater Wells. Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galves-
ton, Texas, USA, 5– 6 October. SPE-137223-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/137223-MS.
Gao, D., Sun, L. and Lian, J. 2010. Prediction of Casing Wear in Extended-Reach Drilling. Petroleum
Science 7(4): 494 –501.
Hall, R.W. Jr., Garkasi, A., Deskins, G. et alet al. 1994. Recent Advances in Casing Wear Technology.
Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA, 15–18 February. SPE-
27532-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/27532-MS.
Hall, R.W. Jr. and Malloy, K.P. 2005. Contact Pressure Threshold: An Important New Aspect of
Casing Wear. Presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, USA, 17–19 April. SPE-94300-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94300-MS.
Jianchun, F., Shengli, C., Laibin, Z. et alet al. 2008. Research on Mechanism of Casing Wear in
Sliding-Impact Wear Condition. Proceedings of CIST2008 & ITS-IFToMM2008, Beijing, China.
Kumar, A., Nwachukwu, J. and Samuel, R. 2013. Analytical Model to Estimate the Downhole Casing
Wear Using the Total Wellbore Energy. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 135: 1–8.
Kumar, A. and Samuel, R. 2014. Modeling Method to Estimate the Casing Wear Caused by
Vibrational Impacts of the Drill String. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and
Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 4 – 6 March. SPE-167999-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
167999-MS.
Mitchell, S. and Xiang, Y. 2012. Improving Casing Wear Prediction and Mitigation Using a
Statistically Based Model. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, San
Diego, California, USA, 6 – 8 March. SPE-151448-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/151448-MS.
Samuel, R. 2010. Friction Factors: What are They for Torque, Drag, Vibration, Bottom Hole
Assembly and Transient Surge/Swab Analysis. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2– 4 February. SPE-128059-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/128059-MS.
Samuel, R. and Gao, D. 2014. Horizontal Drilling Engineering: Theory, Methods and Applications.
Houston, Texas: Sigmaquadrant Engineering.
Schoenmakers, J.M. 1987. Casing Wear During Drilling: Simulation, Prediction and Control. SPE
Drilling Engineering 2(4): 375–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/14761-PA.
Shen, Z. and Beck, F.E. 2012. Intermediate Casing Collapse Induced by Casing Wear in High-
Temperature and High-Pressure Wells. Presented at the SPE International Production and Oper-
ations Conference and Exhibition, Doha, Qatar, 14 –16 May. SPE-155973-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/155973-MS.
White, J.P. and Dawson, R. 1987. Casing Wear: Laboratory Measurements and Field Predictions. SPE
Drilling Engineering 2(1): 56 –62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/14325-PA.