SPE 114928

Importance of Predicted Cementing Temperatures for Critical HP/HT Casing

Design: Guidelines and Case Studies
Albert R. McSpadden, SPE, and Simon Glover, SPE, Altus Well Experts, Inc.

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 2124 September 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, 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 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 copyright.

Abstract
Estimation of drilling and cementing temperatures using standard models and simulation tools is essential for robust casing
design of critical HPHT wells. Standard casing and tubular analysis defines loads in terms of changes in thermal, pressure
and mechanical conditions from an initial installed state. Often, the casing initial temperature conditions are assumed to be
prevailing geothermal undisturbed temperatures (UDT). This is typically considered a conservative assumption which
simplifies the design process and avoids definition or verification of the relevant sequence of drilling and cementing
operations. However, for critical HPHT wells where design margins can be narrow, it may be necessary to describe the
initial physical conditions as accurately as possible and to incorporate them into the casing design analysis. In this paper, the
general methodology of engineering based casing design is reviewed and practical guidelines are presented to suggest when
extra effort to accurately model initial casing temperatures may be critical and why conventional assumptions may be non-
conservative.
Because the current industry environment is placing significant demands on operator organizations and engineering staff,
the time and effort required to gather data or to determine proper assumptions for detailed well design has to be justified. All
other things being equal, simple worst-case assumptions which facilitate quick analysis and decision processes are favored
over more detailed modeling.
However, with the wells being constructed today increasingly classified as critical HPHT wells, the need for thorough and
realistic model-based casing design must be identified when it is required. The case studies considered in this work result
from a review of a wide range of critical HPHT well designs. It is significant that some combinations and load conditions
indicate that assuming undisturbed geothermal temperatures is not necessarily conservative. This can be related to
constrained thermal expansion in cemented zones.

1. Introduction
Standard industry simulation tools which model and predict wellbore temperatures during drilling and cementing operations
as well as production operations are widely available. Prediction of initial and subsequent wellbore temperatures feeds
directly into rigorous tubular stress analysis which is often critical for robust casing and tubing design for HPHT wells.
Mitchell and Wedelich (1989) describe in detail a comprehensive wellbore simulator with coupled thermal-hydraulic effects
and discuss its application to optimal wellbore design. Goodman and Halal (1993) describe application of a model to predict
of thermal and trapped annular pressure loads. The challenges associated with HP/HT wells underscore the importance of
including state of the art thermal simulation in the well design process (Hahn et. al., 2000, 2003).
The current industry environment presents many challenges to the effective use of the available simulation tools.
Operator and engineering services organizations are all confronted with a shortage of experienced personnel. At the same
time, challenging wells which require substantial design effort are becoming more prevalent. As with any detailed modeling
technique, a great variety of input parameters must be accurately determined before thermal simulation and stress analysis
can be effectively and competently evaluated. The identification, estimation and collection of correct input data can be a
significant organizational cost in and of itself. Hence, the time and effort required to gather data or to determine proper
assumptions for detailed well design has to be justified.
In this environment, any simplifying assumptions which can streamline the design process or by-pass intensive modeling
effort are quickly adopted. All other things being equal, simple worst-case assumptions which facilitate quick analysis and
decision processes are favored over more detailed modeling. More rigorous, detailed modeling will be conducted on a
selective basis only where the costs can be justified.
2 SPE 114928

In the case of modeling wellbore thermal conditions, production operations are generally characterized by a few
significant parameters which are typically estimated with some degree of certainty. On the other hand, the drilling process is
subject to many operational parameters which are more difficult to quantify or predict. Also, the drilling process is by its
very nature unpredictable and subject to unanticipated contingencies.
A common industry rule of thumb is that conservative well designs for hot production loads result by assuming initial
wellbore temperature conditions equal to the undisturbed geothermal state. In this way, the need to estimate drilling and
cementing parameters and simulate the wellbore construction process may be avoided. Since this is assumed to result in the
worst case thermal induced loads, the well design is accepted if no unacceptable loads are identified.
However, the assumption of an initial casing state equal to undisturbed geothermal may not be appropriate. For
challenging HPHT well designs, this assumption is sometimes overly-conservative and the well design can only be justified
by taking the time and effort to model more realistic cementing conditions. More importantly, it is quite possible that the true
drilling and cementing temperatures result in a more severe temperature change and thermal load than the assumption of
undisturbed geothermal temperatures (UDT). In this case, critically unacceptable load conditions may not be identified for
the basis of design.
In the following sections, the impact of initial casing temperature conditions on the analysis of tubular stresses is
reviewed. The significance of assuming undisturbed geothermal versus cementing temperatures is illustrated. Some case
studies are presented which highlight the practical impact of these assumptions. Finally, some general guidelines are
presented for consideration in the well design process.

2. Review of Thermal Loads on Wellbore Tubulars

A brief overview is presented here of the basic calculation of axial loads resulting from changes in the temperature conditions
of a casing string. Also, trapped annular pressure is another critical thermal loading mechanism briefly described below.

Basic Calculation of Axial Loads

Consider a casing string of length L suspended freely in a well (Figure 1a). Any change in string temperature from an
initial state to a subsequent final state results in a change in length of the string (Figure 1b). This length change is calculated
based on the difference in average string temperature between initial and final states and the coefficient of linear expansion,
, for the tubing material:

dLT = L T2 ( T1 ) (1)
where L is the free length of casing and T 1 and T 2 are the initial and final average temperatures along L, respectively.
This corresponds to a thermal axial strain, T:

= dL
T T
L = T (2)

If the casing is indeed free-hanging, then the temperature change does not induce any axial load on the casing. However,
if the casing end points are fixed to prevent axial displacement, then an axial load is generated on the casing string. This
corresponds to a fixed surface wellhead and a fixed point downhole at the cement top or at a fixed packer.
In the absence of buckling, the thermal axial strain for casing with fixed end-points translates into a compressive axial
load determined by Hookes law:
FT = T EA (3)

A complete development of the force-displacement problem for wellbore tubulars may be found in Lubinski (1962) or
Mitchell (1996). The general calculation for the incremental axial load due to changes between initial and final string states
includes strain components for mechanical displacement, temperature change, ballooning and buckling:

(
Fa = EA dL L T B P ) (4)
where dL is the net displacement, B is the effective strain associated with buckling and P is the Poisson strain due to
changes in internal and external pressures:

P (
= 2 po Ao pi Ai ) EA (5)

For example, consider the thermal load which results for 9 5/8 53.5 ppf casing (nominal ID = 8.535 in) given an increase
in average temperature of 100F. Typical values of Youngs Modulus, Poissons ratio and coefficient of linear expansion for
casing steel are E = 30x106 psi, =0.3, and = 6.9x10-6/F. If no mechanical displacement is allowed to compensate for the
thermal strain and if buckling is ignored, the 100F average temperature increase generates -321.8 kips of incremental axial
load (in compresssion) which equates to -20.7 kpsi stress. For L80 pipe this load is equivalent to 25.9% of the nominal yield
strength. By way of comparison, a 1000 psig increase in external pressure results in an incremental axial load of -43.7 kips.
SPE 114928 3

In addition to the nominal loads imposed, severe axial compression results in helical buckling of the casing strings which
incurs additional bending stresses. Also, proprietary premium connections may be significantly derated in compression
relative to the pipe body. Hence, extreme compressive loads may compromise pressure integrity of the casing string.

Annular Pressure Buildup Loads

Another load mechanism caused by thermal effects is annular pressure buildup (APB), also known as TAP (trapped
annular pressure), TITAP (thermal-induced TAP) and AFE (annulus fluid expansion). APB generate significant burst and
collapse loads on wellbore tubulars. . The calculation of APB involves a rigorous and comprehensive model of the entire
multi-string wellbore system which is beyond the scope of this paper. Halal and Mitchell (1994), Adams (1991) and Adams
and MacEachran (1994) provide in-depth development of the modeling theory.
In general terms, change in wellbore temperatures drives volumetric annular fluid expansion. This interacts with
circumferential expansion of the multi-string wellbore. If no pressure relief mechanism is applied (e.g. vented annulus or
fracture of exposed formations), then fluid pressures increase until equilibrium is achieved across all annuli. It is not always
realized that APB is largely a strain-related issue (i.e. V/V) and so smaller trapped volumes do not imply smaller pressure
increases.

3. Importance of Initial Conditions: Some Guidelines

From the preceding discussion it is clear that thermal effects can generate significant casing loads. Severity of the thermal
load is determined by both the initial and final temperature state of the casing. The final temperature state will vary with
different well operations. These include drilling of subsequent sections, production, stimulation, well kill, etc. However, the
initial temperature state of the casing relative to which all subsequent conditions are evaluated is uniquely defined by the
moment during waiting on cement (WOC) at which the newly pumped cement in the annulus sets. This may occur within
4-6 hours after the end of the pumping operation. The axial load, pressure profile and temperatures prevailing at this point in
time are locked in when the cement sets and become the reference point for all subsequent load conditions.
Accurate determination of cementing temperatures is non-trivial. The temperature at the time cement sets is a transient
phenomenon which is directly affected by all preceding well construction operations. These all generate transient thermal
disturbances in the wellbore and surrounding formation. All parameters describing the full sequence of well construction
activities up to and including the cementing operation itself must be identified and determined. The well design process often
ignores the complexity of cementing temperatures and simply assumes the initial casing temperature is equal to UDT. What
are the implications of this assumption?
Figure 2 shows idealized casing temperature plots representative of key thermal conditions over the well operational life.
The plot of UDT assumes a constant geothermal gradient from surface down to the reservoir. As an extreme worst case,
production is depicted as a constant temperature with the entire wellbore heated up to reservoir temperature. Likewise, the
extreme worst case for high rate stimulation or kill is to cool the entire wellbore down to surface ambient temperature. The
temperature profile when the cement sets (WOC) reflects the thermodynamics of the preceding drilling and cementing
process. During drilling and cementing, surface fluids are pumped down into the wellbore with the effect of cooling down
the deeper wellbore zone. At the same time, these fluids are circulated up the annulus. This transfers the heat energy
absorbed from the lower wellbore to the upper wellbore zone, thus heating it above the prevailing geothermal.
Also shown in Figure 2 is the impact of the top of cement (TOC) depth. Changes in temperature and other conditions in
the casing below TOC after the cement has set do not affect the axial load state of the free length of string. All thermal
expansion here is assumed to be fully constrained. Hence, the average temperatures which drive the thermal axial loads
along the free length of casing are only calculated above the TOC freeze point.
For a relatively shallow TOC, the tendency will be for the average WOC temperature to be greater than average UDT
temperatures, because the free length of string is restricted to the region where drilling and cementing have heated up the
wellbore. On the other hand, for a deeper TOC the average WOC temperature will reflect more of the wellbore zone which
has been cooled down relative to UDT.
Another observation from Figure 2 is that the choice of final load condition determines which initial condition (UDT vs.
WOC) is the most conservative. The arbitrary choices of TOC and plots depicted indicate that UDT gives a more
conservative initial condition than WOC in the case of hot production as the final condition: TUDT-PROD > TWOC-PROD.
However, for cold stimulation as the final condition, the opposite is true: TUDT-STIM < TWOC-STIM. Thus, no assumption of
initial thermal condition is necessarily conservative for all the different final load conditions in the basis of design.
It is quite possible for the average WOC temperature to be less than the average UDT over the same zone. This is more
likely for a deep TOC depth. In this case, the overall change in average casing temperature during hot production would be
greater given actual well construction opertions that for UDT, i.e., TWOC-PROD > TUDT-PROD. This would mean that UDT is a
non-conservative assumption for hot production load conditions.
In the analysis of trapped annular pressures, similar observations are applicable. However, it should be remembered that
trapped annular pressure is a product of the overall wellbore system. Volumetric expansion of fluid where the outer or inner
casing is cemented will have an effect on resultant pressures in the system. For the external annulus of a given casing as
shown in Figure 2, the more the uncemented annular volume is restricted to shallow zones near surface, the more
conservative the assumption of UDT becomes for a hot production final condition.
4 SPE 114928

Some General Guidelines

Based on the various observations in the preceding discussion, the following observations and guidelines may be
summarised for the well design analysis process:
The severity of thermal loads is a direct function of the difference between initial and final average casing
temperature over its free length.
The assumption of UDT as the initial temperature condition is not always the worst case assumption, i.e. it may
not capture the full severity of true thermal loads in the case of hot production. This is because a combination of
TOC depth and drilling parameters may result in a cooler average casing temperature (prevailing at the moment
the cement sets) than the average UDT over the same depth range.
Although typical drilling operations procedures may allow 24 hours or more for the waiting on cement period,
the actual moment at which the cement sets is usually in the range of 4 to 6 hours after cessation of pumping.
The only way to verify the worst case initial temperature assumption is to accurately simulate cementing
temperatures and compare the average temperature results with the UDT profile.
If specific details of the drilling and cementing process are not known, simulation of the well construction
process based on realistic assumptions will provide a useful order of magnitude analysis. These results may
identify particular drilling or cementing parameters which can be optimized to achieve a viable well design.
The depth of TOC influences the relevant average temperature change (based on either cementing or UDT) for a
casing string and hence the severity of thermal axial loads.
In situations where one initial temperature assumption (cementing vs. UDT) is conservative for a hot production
final load condition, the other assumption is more conservative for relatively cool final load conditions.
For APB in shallow annuli, the assumption of UDT for initial temperature condition will be most conservative.
For APB which is restricted to deep downhole wellbore regions, the assumption of cementing temperatures as
the initial temperature condition will be most conservative.

4. HPHT Case Study Examples

Several case study examples are presented below which are based on realistic wells and operating conditions. These are
selected to illustrate some of the observations and guidelines discussed above.

Case Study #1: Extreme HPHT Tubing Leak

The first well considered is an extreme HPHT deep gas condensate producer well with near vertical trajectory and TD at
21,000 ft. The reservoir temperature is 420F and the static reservoir pressure is 18,000 psig. The well produces via a 7
tubing/liner monobore completion. The production casing is the string of interest with the following tapered configuration:
10 3/4" 109 ppf P-110 pipe from 0 to 6600 and 10 68.8 ppf Q-125 pipe from 6600 to 16600.
The load case considered is a surface tubing leak at during a brief hot shut-in immediately after long-term hot production.
A 14,000 psig shut-in tubing head pressure is thus applied on top of the packer fluid. The combination of hot temperatures
and burst pressures results in a severe triaxial stress load condition for the production casing.
Figure 3 shows a plot of undisturbed geothermal, simulated cementing and hot production/shut-in temperatures relevant
for this load case scenario. The cementing temperature profile models the transient state 5 hours after completion of the
cementing operation itself. This is the time at which the cement is assumed to set. Average temperatures for the free length
of casing can be approximated by a simple integration of the temperature profile curves. The resulting average temperatures
are: T UDT = 139F, T WOC = 169F, T PROD = 349F.
Figure 4 shows the standard biaxial plot of approximate triaxial stress state for the tubing leak load case for the lower 10
section of production casing, based on UDT as the initial condition. This plot indicates that triaxial stresses are unacceptable
for the lower section. Various attempts to achieve an acceptable design by changing the cross-over depth are ineffective.
If the triaxial stresses are recalculated with the initial temperature conditions as determined by the simulated cementing
conditions, the shut-in tubing leak load actually becomes acceptable. Based on the cementing temperature profile as the
initial condition, the differential temperature decreases 14% for this load case. The resulting axial load decreases by 27% at
the top of the cement where compressive loads are most severe. The fact that reduction in axial load is greater than the
reduction in differential temperature is a reflection of the effects of buckling and consequent bending stresses.
This case study demonstrates a trend which may become more prevalent as deep, extreme HPHT fields are encountered.
The assumption of UDT as the initial condition will become simply too conservative in many cases for the design of these
demanding wells. Accurate simulation of the well construction process will become routinely necessary to achieve well
designs which adhere to operator design requirements.

Case Study #2: Marginal HPHT Tubing Leak

The next well considered is a marginal HPHT gas condensate sub-sea well which is somewhat deviated with TD at
approximately 12,500 ftMD (11,000 ftTVD). The temperature and pressure conditions of this well are relatively moderate
with the reservoir temperature and pressure at 265F and 7000 psig. Once again, the production casing is the string of
interest with a short interval of 10 3/4" L-80 casing near the mudline followed by 9 5/8 53.5 ppf 95SS grade pipe.
SPE 114928 5

A surface tubing leak load case is considered again, during a brief hot shut-in immediately after long-term production of
12,500 bopd and 45 mmscfd. A 5000 psig shut-in tubing head pressure is applied on top of the packer fluid. However, the
load case severity is increased by the specification of full mud deterioration in the outer annulus. Also, an additional
sensitivity load case is considered given the start of a hot kill operation under the same thermal conditions. This results in an
approximate 10% increase in surface pressure.
Figure 5 shows a plot of undisturbed geothermal, simulated cementing and hot production/shut-in temperatures relevant
for this load case scenario. As in Case #1, the cementing temperature profile models the cement set 5 hours after final
pumping and displacement. The resulting average temperatures are: T UDT = 132F, T WOC = 107F, T PROD = 254F.
As shown in Figure 6, given initial casing temperatures based on UDT, the tubing leak load case results in acceptable
safety factors per the particular operator design guidelines. The hot kill operation results in a marginally unnacceptable
triaxial stress condition based on the required Design Factor.
However, if the design load cases are recalculated with the initial temperature conditions now determined by the
simulated cementing conditions, both of the two load cases considered result in significant excursions from the required
design envelope. The biaxial plot of approximate triaxial stress state for the load case is shown in Figure 7. In this situation,
the average differential temperature for the load cases increases by 21% and the resulting axial load at the TOC increases by
28%. The pipe body is subject to unacceptable triaxial stress and also the connection compression limit is exceeded.
Several observations can be made for this example. First, the TOC depth for this casing string is very deep with most of
the casing string uncemented. This is a typical approach for subsea wells where an extensive length of exposed formation is
incorporated into the design in order to mitigate trapped annular pressure problems. Related to this, the drilling and
cementing operations actually result in cooling the wellbore on average over the given free casing length.
This case study demonstrates a very important and perhaps non-intuitive result. Assuming UDT as the initial temperature
condition is not always a safe conservative assumption. It is quite possible that realistic cementing and drilling conditions
must be simulated in order to identify worst case design load states which may fail to meet design requirements.

Case Study #3: HPHT Downhole APB

In this case study the loading mechanism of APB downhole is considered. APB is usually an issue for annuli sealed by
the wellhead in subsea production wells. In this case the overall temperature change is greatest if UDT is assumed as the
initial condition because the trapped region near the mudline experiences the greatest temperature change. However, APB
can occur for annuli downhole as well such as when a mud-filled cement void occurs. In this event it is necessary to simulate
the drilling and cementing operations to accurately assess the worst-case burst and collapse loads from APB.
The well in this case is an HPHT near-vertical development well with TD at 15,000 ftMD. The reservoir temperature and
pressure are 350F and 14,000 psig. The expected initial production levels are 10,000 bopd and 64 mmscfd. Here the design
issue is the impact of a 100 ft mud zone below the hanger of the 7 35 ppf P-110 production liner. The liner is set at TD with
a hanger depth of 11,750 ftMD. The design issue is potential collapse loading on the production liner due to APB in the mud
gap zone.
Figure 8 shows a plot of undisturbed geothermal, simulated cementing and hot production/shut-in temperatures relevant
for this load case scenario. Here the cementing temperature profile reflects a 4 hour period from pumping of the cement to
the effective set-up point. Average temperatures at the mud gap depth are: T UDT = 278F, T WOC = 240F, T PROD = 346F.
When APB pressures are calculated assuming UDT as the initial condition, the resulting pressure differential in the mud
gap is 5000 psig. For this exampe, using simulated cementing temperatures as the initial state represents a 56% increase in
differential temperature. This results in an increase in the pressure load by 44% to 7200 psig. Given an 18.0 ppg mud weight
for the final well section and seawater as the packer fluid, the nominal differential pressure in the mud gap zone increases
from 5600 psig to 12800 psig. Given the effect of internal pressure and axial load on collapse ratings per API 5C3
guidelines, this translates to an increase in effective API collapse pressurefrom 6800 psig to 14500 psig. Given the nominal
API collapse rating of 13030 psig for the 7 pipe, this represents an unaccpetable load condition.
Thus downhole APB is a particular load mechanism which makes accurate simulation of the downhole conditions a
necessary part of the design process.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Change in temperature between initial and final load conditions can result in severe design loads for critical HPHT
casing design analysis. Appropriate assumptions for the initial temperature condition is an integral part of a rigorous
casing design methodology.
General guidelines were presented to help insure that the HPHT casing design process implements initial
temperature assumptions which are optimal and truly conservative.
The common industry rule of thumb that initial temperatures based on undisturbed geothermal provides a
conservative worst case design assumption for hot production loads is not always correct. As demonstrated in a
case study, it is possible that realistic drilling and cementing temperatures result in a more severe and conservative
design load than the assumption of undisturbed geothermal.
6 SPE 114928

It is sometimes necessary to simulate the well construction process with sufficient accuracy in order to determine
true worst case load conditions for any given well and casing string. This is true for both hot production and cool
stimulation/kill load cases.
A case study presented shows that under extreme HPHT conditions, the assumption of UDT as the initial casing
condition may be overly conservative. Simulation of cementing conditions will be necessary to achieve optimal
well designs which are acceptable based on typical operator design requirements.
A case study presented demonstrates that accurate simulation of cementing temperatures is necessary to identify
worst case trapped annular pressure buildup in deep wellbore zones.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge Altus Well Experts, Inc. for its support in the preparation and presentation of this work.

Nomenclature
A = pipe cross-sectional area (in2)
Ai = internal pipe cross-sectional area (in2)
Ao = external pipe cross-sectional area (in2)
APB = annular pressure buildup (psi)
dLT = incremental displacement from thermal elongation
dL = overall incremental displacement
E = Youngs Modulus (psi)
Fa = total incremental axial load (lbf)
FT = incremental axial load from thermal loads (lbf)
L = free length of casing or tubing (ft)
T 1 = initial average temperature along free casing length
T 2 = final average temperature along free casing length
T PROD = final production temperature along free casing length
T UDT = average undisturbed geothermal temperature along free casing length
T WOC = average cementing temperature along free casing length
TAP = trapped annular pressure
TITAP = thermal-induced trapped annular pressure)
TOC = top of cement depth (ft)
UDT = undisturbed geothermal temperatures
WOC = waiting on cement
= coefficient of linear expansion (/F)
pi = change in internal pipe pressure (psi)
po = change in external pipe pressure (psi)
T = change in average pipe temperature (F)
B = effective buckling strain
P = Poisson strain (from ballooning)
T = thermal axial strain
= Poissons ration

References
1. Mitchell, R. F. and Wedelich, H. F. (1989). Prediction of downhole temperatures can be key for optimal wellbore design. SPE
paper 18900. Presented at SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
2. Goodman, M. A. and Halal, A.S.(1993). Case study: HPHT casing design achieved with multistring analysis. SPE paper 26322.
Presented at SPE ATCE, Houston, Texas, USA
3. Hahn, D.E., Pearson, R. M. and Hancock, S.H. (2000). Importance of completion design considerations for complex, hostile and
HPHT wells in frontier areas. SPE paper 59750. Presented at 2000 SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada
4. Hahn, D.E., Burke, L. H., Mackenzie, S.F. and K. H. Archibald (2003). Completion design and implementation in challenging
HPHT wells in California. SPE paper 86911. SPE Drilling & Completion, December
5. Mitchell, R. F. (1996). Comprehensive analysis of buckling with friction. SPE paper 29457. SPE Drilling & Completion,
September
6. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.F. and Logan, J.L. (1962). Helical buckling of tubing sealed in packers. JPT, June
7. Halal, A.S. and Mitchell, R. F. (1993). Casing design for trapped annular pressure buildup. SPE paper 25694. Presented at
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Holland
8. Adams, A.J. (1991). How to design for annulus fluid heat-up. SPE paper 22871. Presented at SPE ATCE, Dallas, Texas, USA
9. Adams, A.J. and MacEachran, A. (1994). Impact on casing design of thermal expansion of fluids in confined annuli. SPE paper
21911. SPE Drilling & Completion, September
SPE 114928 7

dLT FT

(a) Free hanging casing at (b) Free hanging casing at final (c) Fixed casing at final
initial average temperature T1 average temperature T2 > T1 average temperature T2 > T1

Fig. 1 Thermal elongation of free and fixed casing

T UDT T WOC Temperature

TUDT- PROD

TWOC- PROD

TOC
TUDT- STIM

Production
TWOC- STIM

Stimulation WOC UDT

Depth
Fig. 2 Temperature plots of representative well operations
8 SPE 114928

2000

4000

6000

8000
MD (ft)

10000

12000

14000 GEOTHERMAL
AS CEMENTED
16000
PRODUCTION
18000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
T (deg F)
Fig. 3 Case study #1: Temperature plots vs. depth

Design Limits - 9.998" Production Casing - Section 2 - OD 9.998 - Weight 68.80 - Grade Q-125
20000

16000 Triaxial 1.250

Burst 1.100 Tension 1.300
12000

8000 Hot Tubing Leak

Effective Internal Pressure (psig)

Compression 1.300
4000

n Compression 1.300
0

-4000

-8000

-12000

Collapse 1.000
-16000

Note: Limits are approximate

-20000
-2500000 -2000000 -1500000 -1000000 -500000 0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000
Effective Tension (lbf)

Fig. 4 Case study #1: Triaxial stress plot for tubing leak based on UDT
SPE 114928 9

2000

4000
MD (ft)

6000

8000

GEOTHERMAL
10000
AS CEMENTED
PRODUCTION
12000
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
T (deg F)

Fig. 5 Case study #2: Temperature plots vs. depth

Design Limits - 9 5/8" Production Casing - Section 2

10000 Triaxial 1.250
Burst 1.100 Tension 1.300
8000

6000

4000
Effective Internal Pressure (psig)

Compression 1.300

2000
Connection Compression 1.300
0

-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000 Collapse 1.000

Tubing Leak (Deteriorated Mud)
Note: Limits are approximate Tubing Leak - Kill (Deteriorated Mud)
-10000
-1500000 -1250000 -1000000 -750000 -500000 -250000 0 250000 500000 750000 1000000 1250000 1500000 1750000
Effective Tension (lbf)

Fig. 6 Case study #2: Tubing leak and hot kill loads based on UDT initial temperatures
10 SPE 114928

Design Limits - 9 5/8" Production Casing - Section 2

10000 Triaxial 1.250
Burst 1.100 Tension 1.300
8000

6000

4000
Effective Internal Pressure (psig)

Compression 1.300

2000
Connection Compression 1.300
0

-2000

-4000

-6000

-8000 Collapse 1.000

Tubing Leak (Deteriorated Mud)
Note: Limits are approximate Tubing Leak - Kill (Deteriorated Mud)
-10000
-1500000 -1200000 -900000 -600000 -300000 0 300000 600000 900000 1200000 1500000
Effective Tension (lbf)

Fig. 7 Case study #2: Tubing leak and hot kill loads based on cementing temperatures

2000

4000

6000
MD (ft)

8000

10000

12000
GEOTHERMAL
14000 AS CEMENTED
PRODUCTION
16000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
T (deg F)

Fig. 8 Case Study #3: Temperature plots vs. depth