MATERIALS

This section contains four ( 4 ) papers on materials, as follows:

"Setting Deptlis for Casing"
By Blaine B. Wescott,
Gulf Research and Development Company, Pittsburgh, Pa.
C. A. Dunlop,
Humble Oil and Refining Company, Houston, Texas
ancl
E. N. Kemler,
Gulf Oil Corporation, Tulsa, Okla."
(Presented a t Tenth Mid-Year Meeting, Fort Worth, Texas, May 1940)
"Prol>lems Elitering into the Selection of Steel for Oil-Procluctioil Tools"
By H. W. McQuaid,
Republic Steel Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio
(Presented a t Tenth Mid-Year Meeting, Fort Worth, Texas, May 1940)
"Lal~oratoryancl Field Endl~ranceValues of Sucker-Roc1 Materials"
By D. R. Dale,
The S. M. Jones Company, Toledo, Ohio
and
D. 0. Johnson,
The S. M. Jones Company, Tulsa, Okla.
(Presentecl a t Tenth Mid-Year Meeting, Fort Worth, Texas, May 1940)
"Galvanic Corrosioi~of Dissi~llilarMetals ill Salt-Water Solutioils"
By H. R. Copson,
The International Nickel Company, Inc., Bayonne, N. J.
(Presentecl a t Tenth Mid-Year Meeting, Fort Worth, Texas, May 1940)
* Sincc'nrtil~ntecl with I'urdue TJuivrrsitg. School of JIecl~auicnl Engilleerillg. Lnfngette, Iud.
 DEPTHSFOR CASING
SETTING
Setting Depths for Casing 9 11
BLAINE B. WESCOTT,* C. A. DUN LOP,^
ABS'I
The advent of deep drilling has served to emphasize
that the design of casing strings is an engineering prob-
lem: For this reason it is essential that minimum per-
forn~ance characteristics of casing be established and
used, rather than the average properties. It is only by
this procedure that confidence can be placed in the
factors of safety computed. The test data were analyzed
critically, and mininlun~perfornlance prpperties of cas-
FOREWORD
Many improvements in methods and equipment for
the drilling and production of oil wells have been
effected in the last decade-perhaps more in number
and greater in importance than in any similar pre-
vious :period in the history of the oil industry. I n
part, these have been the result of normal progress;
but, to a large degree, they were enforced because
the industry, in the short space of a few years, found
i t necessary to drill wells to depths that had been
visionary only a short time previously. Of the many
related problems o~iginating from the drilling of
deep high-pressure wells, none has been of greater
importance to the successful coinpletion than the
casing. Not only does the cost of the casing amount
to an iinportant percentage of the total cost of the
well, but the operation of the well is dependent upon
the successful performance of the casing.
The progress in casing manufacture generally has
kept pace with the other phases of drilling, and the
masiinuln depth of drilling is not yet limited by any
deficiencies in the properties of the casing. There
has been, however, a n evident need for more accurate
data on the collapse, pullout, and bursting strengths
of casing; and during the last three years many
changes have been made in the API pipe specifica-
tions. Consequently, an unprecedented quantity of in-
formation-both theoretical and practical-has been
accunlulated and published by the American Petro-
leum Institute, either a s technical papers or commit-
tee reports. Much of the information, particularly
:, Gulf Resenrch a n d Development Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.
Humble Oil a n d Kefinlng Co . Houston. T e s n s
P Gulf Oil Corp., Tulsa. Okln
8 S l ~ o n s o r e d bv E n g ~ n a e r s ' S u b c n m n l i t t ~ e of t h e A P I Com-
nil'ttee on t h e ~thncinrtllzatlnllof 011-Conntrr T u b u l a r Goods
(1 Presented hy nlessrs. IVcscott a n d D11nlo11,a t Tenth Mid-
Year Meeting: F o r t n'ortll. Texas. Jlny 1040.
125
AND E. N. KEMLER$
ing derived which are proposed for use until addi-
tional test data permit the establishn~e~~t of higher
permanent mini~num valnes. The necessity for basic
revision of the API pipe specifications to meet present
and future needs of the industry is pointed out. Factors
to be considered in the design of casing strings for deep
wells are discossed in as much detail as present knowl-
edge warrants.
that pertaining to collapse strength, has involved
conlplicated theories of advanced mechanics. Recourse
to theory was necessary because sufficient test data
were not available. However, a s is usually the case
when cluestions of involved theories are concerned, there
has not been complete agreement a s to which particular
theory best applies; and it must be admitted that
these prolonged arguments, in some instances, have
degenerated into mere cluibbling. It, is only natural,
therefore, that the feeling of uncertainty which has
arisen in the minds of those whose responsibility it is
to select casing for deep wells has created a desire for
clarification.
The purposes of this paper are: 1, to summarize,
collate, analyze, and evaluate the information 011 cas-
ing-both theoretical and actual-in an ilnpartial man-
ner, from the viewpoint of the user; and, 2, to point
out future requirements in the way of test data and im-
proven~entsin the product. The authors are firmly of
the opinion that definite responsibilities must be recog-
nized and accepted in the future by both the manu-
facturer and the user of casing. The responsibility of
the manufacturer is to deternline precisely what the
reasonable ininilnuitl performance characteristics of
casing are, and to make certain that these limits are
maintained consistently. The responsibility of the
user is to decide what factor of safety is required,
and to accept the consecluences if failure occurs.
Theory has figured pro~ninentlyin the consideration
of casing problems, particularly the collapse problem.
There was a logical reason for this emphasis, a s the
need for information became urgent more quickly than
test data were obtained. It is essential to safe practice,
however, that actual data froin collapse, pullout, and
bursting tests be accunlulated as rapidly a s possible and
in sufficient numbers so that in the use of casing the
theories governing failure under these conditions will
be of academic, rather than practical, significance. It is
only on this basis t h a t casing can be used with the
greatest safety and economy. The principal value of
theory, which then can be tailored to fit the known
facts, should. be in pointing out the way to further
developments.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Recent History of Casing
The need f o r improvement in casing was evident
several years ago, and attention first was directed
toward increasing the tightness of the joints. The
cooperative effort t h a t w a s concentrated on this problem
was a tribute to the sincerity of purpose of those to
whom i t was delegated-and particularly to t h e manu-
facturers of oil-country tubular goods, who assumed
the major share of expense and labor. The successful
culinination of these endeavors is now a matter of
recent American Petroleum Institute history, the tan-
gible evidence of which was the adoption of adequate
tolerances f o r all i n ~ p o r t a n tthread elements, the drill-
pipe or round-thread profile f o r casing, and API Stand-
a r d s No. 5-B: "API Specifications f o r the Inspection
of Threads on Oil-Country Tubular Goods."
During this same period there was a growing denland
f o r casing which would provide greater setting depths
than grade "D" casing. This led to new developlnents
in casing manufacturing processes, and the stronger
casing was made available to the oil industry. However,
due to a coinplicated colnbination of circun~stances,the
urgency of which is conceded only partly, i t was done
in such a manner t h a t the new grades of casing could
not be made to fit into the scheme of classification of t h e
A P I pipe speclfications (Standards No. 5-A). I n order
to eliminate the confus~onwhich this situation precipi-
tated, i t was necessary to revise the scheme of classi-
fication f o r casing. This was done with three objectives
in view: 1, to utilize a scheme of classification t h a t
would allow f o r f u t u r e developments and prevent a
recurrence of the esisting s t a t e of confusion; 2, t o pro-
vide a scheme of classification fleslble enough to in-
clude casing made by any process; and, 3, to incorporate
a full realization of the paramount r81e of the yield
point of the steel in governing the collapse and joint
pullout strengths of the casing from which i t was made.
The present method of classification f o r casing is based
on a miniinurn yield strength of the steel, provides f o r
the addition of stronger grades when needed, but does
not permit the inclusion on a n equitable basis of casing
nlade by all processes. It i s becoming increasingly
evident t h a t this cannot be done satisfactorily along t h e
lines of present efforts.
Performance Specifications
The reason f o r this is traceable to a fundamental,
fault of generality, which is shared by the A P I pipe
specifications in common with allnost all other specifica-
tions-particularly those t h a t have been developed by
trade associations t o have wide application. These speci-
fications have been patterned after, and evolved from,
processing specifications which the ~ n a n u f a c t u r e rh a s
found i t necessary to apply in order to insure uniform
quality in his product. They are entirely adequate f o r
t h e control of manufacturing processes, a s they specify
the coinposition and properties of the product. J u s t
how these a r e related to performance under given
conditions of service, however, is a matter of experience
entirely. F o r a product which ]nay be used f o r any one
of a large number of purposes, this type of specification
probably approaches the ultimate attainable; but t h e
danger t h a t such a specification may hinder progress to
a serious degree is obvious. Casing is not a product t h a t
belongs in such a general category. It is a special kind
of pipe, and is intended to be used always under silnilar
conditions of service, which vary in lnagnitude r a t h e r
than in nature. The purchaser is concerned \\rith'the
prol~erties of the pipe t h a t govern its performance
under these conditions. Specifically, these properties of
casing a r e collapse strength, pullout strength, burstlng
strength, and sufficient toughness and ductihty to insure
plastic yielding, rather than brittle failure, if a n y of
these strengths is exceeded. If the purchaser 1s assured
t h a t no one of these strengths will fall below a certain
fixed nliniinunl value, he need not be concerned with t h e
coinposltion of the steel used (escept when i t is to be
welded), wit11 the process of manufacture, nor with t h e
commonly determined physlcal properties of the steel in
the finished casing. A casing specificat~on based 011
these principles-\vhich, f o r w a n t of a more descriptive
term, might be called a "performance specification"-
is -now necessary, if progress is not to be impeded. T o
the user i t would give precisely the information needed
f o r the design of a casing string; and to the manu-
facturer i t would give full latitude to the application of
ingenuity directed toward t h e improvement of his
product, and msure acceptance of his improved caslng
on a basis common to all casing. These thoughts a r e
not novel; they a r e merely the crystallization of opin-
ions t h a t have been 111 the formative stage f o r several
years, and were expressed previously by Franle '"i n t h e
follow~ngmanner: "And ~t seems desirable t h a t t h e
Institute should define the various casing grades by
specification of setting depth in collapse, without refer-
ence to ally specificatlon of physical propert~esof t h e
steel other than ductility." Ultinlately this might in-
volve a division of the present A P I pipe specifications
into separate specifications f o r drill pipe, casing, and
perhaps tubing; but this cannot be looked upon a s ob-
jectionable, a s the functions which these three products
fulfill a r e so different that, in reality, separate specifics-
I tions f o r each woulcl constitute sin~plificationand added
utility, rather than otherwise.
Average Vs. Minimurn Values
F o r Inany years the only colnprehensive d a t a on t h e
collapse strength of caslng were those published by
Stewart' a f t e r a n investigation of lapwelded bessemer
 S FOR CASING
steel pipe. A short time later a second,2 but more re-
stricted, investigation mas made. Both of these.-.- - .-
investi-
gations resulted in t h e development of formulas f o r
the calculation of collapse strength t h a t were largely
empirical. These formed the basis f o r the setting-depth
tables published by t h e pipe manufacturers, and in 1934
by the American Petroleuin Institute a s Supplement
No. 1 to +PI Code No. 5 : "API Settilly Depths for
Casing. Dvill Pipe, axd T16bzng." Considerable variation
o r spread in the results of these early collapse tests w a s
noticeable. It was recognized t h a t several factors con-
trlbuted to this effect, such a s variation in wall thick-
ness, eccentricity, out-of-roundness, coinposition of the
steel, physical properties of the steel, fabricating meth-
ods, working temperatures, etc. I t w a s t o be espected,
therefore, t h a t there \vould be a lack of close agreement
in the results of collapse tests. Even today, after many
improvements and refinements have been made in t h e
seamless process, a rather wide spread in test results is
inevitable. The advancement has eliininated sensibly the
effects of the dimensional factors enumerated herein-
before, b u t there still esist the variations arising from
the latitude required in the composition and properties
of the steel and its processing to render i t feasible to
make pipe coinn~erciallyby any process.
Undoubtedly, this wide spread i n measured collapse
strengths, together with the knowledge t h a t the pipe
had much hlgher collapse strength than was required
for the comparatively sl~allowwells then being drilled,
led to the adoption of the average collapse strength a s
the basis f o r determining the setting depths. A t t h a t
time the setting depths arrived a t were safely con-
servative; because norlnally the physical properties of
the steel were well above the minialum values f o r the
particular grades, and the setting depths were calcu-
lated f o r a safety factor of two. It is evident ; t h a t
there lnust have been: 1, failure to realize that; the
selection of casing f o r a well actually is a n engineering
problem; and, 2, lack of vision in foreseeing t h a t the
deep wells of today cannot be cased either practically
o r economically on the basis of a safety factor of hvo.
Proof of the first of these two assertions is that i t would
he estreinely difficult, if not entlrely in~possible,to find
a n y other instance in which the engineered design of a
structure is based on t h e average, instead of on t h e
ininl~nurn, physical properties of the structural ma-
terials. Even if such instances were known, they would
be condemned a s incompatible with sound engineering
practice. The t r u t h of the second assertion is coin~non
knowledge.
As i t became necessary to set casing with reduced
safety factors, t h e minimum collapse strength assumed
inuch greater importance. It soon was realized, how-
ever, t h a t the collapse-test data 011 current types and
grades of casing were f a r too few in number to indi-
cate the ininiinun~collapse strengths. To substitute f o r
this lack of information, the pipe manufacturers advo-
cated the application of the statistical method f o r t h e
analysis of data to the determination of t h e n ~ i n i n ~ u n ~
values. The statistical metl~odfirst was applied to t h e
test data on physical properties of oil-country tubular
127
goods,' when revision of the physical-property require-
~ne~!ts.of casing was being considered. The use of this
method was estended to the derivation of lninimunl
collapsing pressures f o r casing; h n d , a t t h e present
time, the values thus obtained a r e the only ones avail-
able generally to the engineer f o r the design of casing
strings of seamless and continuous electric-weld casing.
I n the application of the statistical method to this prob-
lem, the minimum value was selected a s t h e average
collapse pressure minus three times the standard devia-
tion froin the average value. Theoretically, 99.84 per
cent of all results should be greater than this minimum
value which, f o r casing, is only 65 per cent of the aver-
age tollapse pressure. The use of this minilnum value
is approsimately equivalent to a reduction of the safety
factor fro111 1.5, according to present setting-depth
tables, to 1.0. I f this condition is a true representation
of the degree of uniformity of casing, then the processes
used in the nlanufacture of casing a r e f a r less capable
of being controlled than has been realized by t h e user.
The authors do not belleve t h a t this is a n accurate
analysis of casing quality, and a r e of the opinion t h a t a n
error has been made in the manner i n which the statis-
tical method h a s been applied to this problem.
Greatest value attaches to the analysis of d a t a by
statistical methods, when the data have been obtained
under controlled conditions 3-i.e., a set of observations
resulting fro111 measurements made under the sanie es-
sential conditions and representing material produced
under the same essential conditions. The significance
of the interpretation of the observed results is influenced
to a marked degree by whether there is a foundation f o r
the belief t h a t the conditions were controlled. It is in
this respect t h a t the error w a s made. The minimum
values were obtained from the results of collapse tests
made, over a period of years, on seamless pipe repre-
senting the product of more t h a n one pipe mill. Cer-
tainly, changes in processing were made during this
period, a s well a s changes in the grade limits. I t is well-
known t h a t not all pipe manufacturers work t o the saine
limits of physical propert~es to produce plpe in ac-
cordance with the A P I pipe specifications. This condi-
tion glves rise to a wider spread between masimum and
minimum values and, consequently, a larger standard
deviation from the average and lower minimum values.
The composition of the steel varies from one inanufac-
t u r e r to anotller, a s well a s the detalls of the process
usecl in converting steel into pipe. There is a range in
physical properties of the steel f o r a given grade of
casing, the estent of which varies between manufac-
turers. These a r e variables which cannot be eliminated,
but this fact should not be taken to imply t h a t all
casing is so nearly alike t h a t i t can be looked upon a s
having beell produced under controlled conditions such
a s a r e defined above. There a r e three other undesirable
features i n the procedure used: 1, the assunlption t h a t
the spread in test results is the saine f o r all grades of
pipe; 2, the grouping of all sizes together on the basis of
D
ratios; and, 3, t h e fact t h a t a n y iinproveinent in
product which would give less deviation would not be
reflected immediately, because the mass of accumulated
data controls the resulting value. The several points
just enumerated a r e illustrated by the results of a
survey of the physical properties of casing steel,' which
was referred to previously. The data from this survey,
showing the range in yield strength of the casing steel
by grades, sizes, and n~anufacturers,are summarized
in Table 1. Yield strength was chosen for this com-
parison because i t is the physical property which has
the greatest effect upon the essential characteristics of
casing, but similar comparisons could be made for
any of the other physical properties. I t is unnecessary,
although it would be informative, to discuss the results
of the survey in detail; but a study of the data in
Range in Tensile Yield Strength of API Casing Steel '
Yield Strength of Casing Steel (Pounds Per Square Inch)
All Sizes
Manufacturer
, --
High Low
' hlinimum specified yield s t r e n g t h : grade "C." 46,000 p s i ; gmde "D," 66,000 psi.
Table 1 will show a basis for each of the statements
made herein with reference to controlled conditions.
I n this connection i t is of interest to note that f o r the
average yield strengths of 58,920 psi and 67,222 psi
found for grade "C" and grade "D," respectively, the
minimum specified yield strengths permitted a factor
of slightly more than twice the standard deviation
found for grade "C" casing (5,697 psi), and slightly
less than twice the standard deviation found for grade
"D" casing (6,794 psi). This is due primarily to high
results, and not to low results, although a few results
below the specified minimum yield strengths were in-
cluded. As the principal requirement that the data be
obtained under controlled conditions is not satisfied
fully, the authors believe t h a t the minimum values
should be determined by a more direct method, and
that the average values for collapse strength, pullout
strength, and bursting strength have no place in the
design of casing strings for deep wells.
COLLAPSE STRENGTH
Theory of Collapse
As has been brought out in the previous discussion,
the purpose of the ultimate specification, from t h e
standpoint of the user, is to obtain interchailgeability
and a product which will meet performance require-
ments. I n the case when the design of casing to resist.
collapse is being considered, this performance require-
inent is nlet by setting a nlinimunl guaranteed collapse
pressure for the product; and, when this value is set,
the usel. then has all the information required to apply
the product on a sound engineering basis. Also, when
the specification is written on the basis of performance,
TABLE 1
-
48-111. to Over 78-In.
71-111. to 91-111. Over 91-11].
High Low Low v- Low
GRADE "C"
GRADE "D"
and the minimum collapse values a r e determined from
test, the user no longer needs 'to depend on theory f o r
estimating these minilnuin values. The theory, however,
will be discussed herein because i t has a bearing on
limiting values which can be expected.
The developnlent of collapse theory a s it applies t o
tubular goods has followed the accumulation of experi-
mental data. Stewart,' in his early work, developed a
theory which fitted his experimental work. His em-
pirical equations and data covered the product which
for many years met all of the user's requirements.
When producing depths increased, higher-strength steel
was used, and i t was necessary to correct Stewart's
, work to fit the new requirement. As depths cont~nued
to increase, thicker tubes were used a s well a s higher-
strength steels, and the older experimental data no
longer covered the conditions encountered. There was,
therefore, a need for a more complete theory which
would cover the general range of conditions. However,
the development of such a theory could not ,be made
until further experimental data were available. The
next major contributioa to the developnlent of a rational
and practical theory to cover the field of casing collapse
was given in a paper by Jasper and Sullivan?
The work of Sturin" was used a s a basis for more
accurately deternlining the collapse of long tubes in
the so-called elastic range. When failure is purely
elastic, only the elastic constants and the tube dimen-
sions enter into deterlnining the pressure a t which
collapse will take place. Yield strength o r other physi-
cal properties of the steel do not influence the failure.
After a study of all the esperimental d a t a available-
including that of S t e w a r t 1 and Carlnen," together with
information fro111 A. 0. Smith Corporation's esperi-
n~ental results-Jasper and Sullivan showed t h a t the
yield point of the material influenced the behavior in
the region to the left of the envelope curve. From the
information which was compiled, a series of curves
was drawn. These curves were based entirely on es-
perimental results. By interpolation and estrapolation
they were extended to the regions where esperinlental
data were not available. Subsequent papers have veri-
fied these curves 6s 7s12813 , and recent papers have been
written to explain why these curves have this form,
and to develop a general theory which would cover all
~ o n d i t i o n s . ~ ~ ~The paper by Jasper and Sullivan
149
further applies the detailed investigations of Sturin,
Carmen, and Stewart to the considerat~onsof the effect
of length, end effects, out-of-roundness, and many other
special factors which enter into this involved problem.
Many of the papers recently offered. give refinements in
theory. I n many cases these so-called corrections, o r
modifications, have so little effect from the standpoint
of application t h a t they a r e of interest only from a n
academic viewpoint.
It is felt by the authors t h a t the entire collapse ques-
tion a t times h a s been confused unnecessarily by t h e
discussion of theoretical problems-which, from the
standpoint of the user, have but little o r no bearing
on the application of casing. Furthennore, the ques-
tions of interpretation of data (which will be discussed
later) ancl application of theory likewise have been
confused by discussion of factors which a r e within t h e
limits of esperiinental error, o r which a r e so small
t h a t they have no influence in the selection of a proper
factor of safety. The following discussions of special
phases of collapse theory a r e iiicluded because of their
bearing on the discussion and application of data in
the following sections.
Envelope Curve
The theory of collapse of long tubes h a s been studied
by inany writers. The theories of S t u r m l " and Timo-
shenko '' agree reasonably well. The equation given in
Bzilletirl 5-C-2"ives slightly higher values than obtained
from Sturm's ecluatioi~. The equation given by Cline-
dinst" gives still higher values, but the spread between .
all of these values is small and depends on the elastic
constants which a r e used in obtaining the equations.
5
As the agreement is so close, the authors favor the
retentioh of equation ( I ) , a s given in Blclleti?~5-C-2,
so a s not to involve further a n already complicated
discussion.
I t is believed t h a t this equation actually is no better
than one o r more of t h e several which have been pro-
posed. It is a s good from the standpoint of practical
purposes a s any other equation which has been proposed
and, consequently, will be used in a n y of the following
discussions which refers to tlie envelope curve. This
curve, a s will be noted from the equation, i s independent
of the yield point o r other strength properties of the
material, and-except a s the casing is influenced by
the lnanufacturing processes-the values should follow
this curve.
Yield-Point Curve
As h a s been pointed out previously, the development
of the collapse curves f o r the conditions not covered
by the envelope curve originally was based on esperi-
nleiltal results. The theoretical studies applied to this
subject have attempted to show how i t might be possible
to approsiinate the esperimental curves by calculation.
As has been brought out in t h e theoretical papers, t h e
shape of the collapse curve depends on the stress-strain
curve of t h e steel. This stress-strain curve is influenced
by the coinposition and treatment which the steel h a s
receivCd, and in no way is a fixed nor nearly fixed
value such a s the elastic constants (modulus of elas-
ticity and Poisson's ratio). I n t h e so-called plastic
region t h e e ~ p e ~ i l n e n t adata
l show t h a t the variation
within practical limits is about proportional to the
yield point of the material; and all fornlulas which
have been proposed f o r this region a r e linear with
respect to yield point, and directly dependent upon the
yield point f o r a given fabricating process. The exact
values f o r collapse pressure in this region have been
shown, by the published experiinental data, to be de-
pendent upon nlany factors. F o r instance, in the case
of seanlless pipe t h e results a r e influenced by the
presence and magnitude of internal stresses," and in
the case of special processed pipe '?-when directional
properties a r e present in the steel-the collapse value
depends on the compressive yield strength, and h a s no
relation to the tensile yield strength. Even though
much h a s been written with respect to the theory of
collapse in the region covered by the yield-point curves,
there is a t the present time no theory which gives t h e
basis f o r calculating the actual values in t h a t region,
and a n y curves o r equations which have been developed
to cover these conditions have been based on experi-
mental data. The fact t h a t such a theory o r practical
equation is not available sl~ouldnot in a n y way compli-
cate the present application of casing. The inore im-
portant problem, with respect to t h e yield-point region,
is t h a t of interpretation and analysis of data.

I11 thls paper prime importance is attached to esperi-
mental data and practical experience. I t is not intended
to imply that theoretical studies should not be made,
nor that they have no place in the study of casing
problems. The general purpose of a theory is to develop
a basis for formulating, with greater precision, ideas
and data which have been collected esperiinentally
and by esperience, and to extend the range of applica-
tion of these data and esperience. If a theoretical
investigation is complete, it usually is so coniplicatecl
lnathematically a s to be difficult or impossible of solu-
tion and not readily applicable. If the theoretical de-
velopinent is simplified by making many assumptions,
the range of application may be so narrow as to be of
little use. In any case, the theory must be checked
by espe~imentaldata or experience to be certain that
it accurately represents the facts. Once the theory is
verified, it is very useful as the basis for extension
to new developn~ents, and to the analysis of new
problems 011 which esperiinental data or esperience is
not available. In the case of the envelope curve, the
theory has been shown to represent the lnaxinlum which
can be obtained, and is usable only over a certain
range-that range being determined from esperience
and esperiinental data. For the region where the
envelope curve does not fit esperience and data, esperi-
mental .curves have been drawn; and, although the
theory esplains the general shape and reason for the
lack of agreement, i t is not applicable to esact calcu-
lations.
Collapse-Test Data
I t was stated hereinbefore that the authors do not
believe that a lninimunl collapse pressure only 65 per
cent of the average collapse'pressure is representative
of casing now being used, and that such a low value is
not suitable for use in the design of casing programs.
Consequently, all of the pertinent available collapse-
test data have been analyzed for the purpose of arriv-
ing a t new, safe, and usable minimum values. These
data, from 1,371 collapse tests, are given for reference
in Appendix 1. They include the results of the tests
made on seamless pipe which were used by the Manu-
facturers' Subcommittee in the preparation of the
curves, formulas, and tables given in Bztlletin 5-C-2,
the results of investigations by Frame" and Crawford,?
and results of soine recent additional tests on seamless
casing. The casing tested was made by the seamless
and continuous electric-weld processes, and both the
closed-end and open-end nlethods of collapse testing
were used. The results of closed-end tests were cor-
rected to opeh-end values, in accordance with the con-
clusion reached by Frame: after an investigation of
the two methods of collapse testing, which is discussed
more fully in connection with the proposed standard
collapse test. No collapse test was considered unless
the longitudinal tensile yield strength of the steel also
had been determined. It should be pointed out that
the data supplied by the Manufacturers' Subcommittee
represent tests made over a period of several years,
ZIALS
and include casing made for both the old and new API
grades. I11 Appendix 1 and elsewhere in the discussion
the casing has been classified according to the present
API grades-i.e., it has been classed a s grade H-40 if
the tensile yield strength was in the range 40,000 to
54,900 psi; a s grade J-55 if the tensile yield strength
was in the range 55,000 to 79,900 psi; and a s grade
N-80 if the tensile yield strength was 80,000 psi or
more. I t would have been preferable to have data
from tests of casing made only according to the present
API grades, but sufficient time has not elapsed since
their adoption to make the number of tests required
for this purpose. The error involved in using the test
results from casing thus reclassified probably is small,
a s the nliaiinum tensile yield strengths of grade H-40
ancl grade 5-55 are identical, respectively, with the
old grade "B" and grade "D." I t is possible that soine
of the casing reclassed a s grade H-40 was actually
old grade "C"; but, if this is the case, the collapse-test
results do not reflect i t definitely. There is reason to
believe that the deviation is greater than it would have
been if the same number of tests had been made on
casing intended to meet the present grade requirements.
As a matter of pertinent interest, the averages of
all collapse-test results on API casing sizes were calcu-
lated and coinpared with the corresponding average
values in B~illetin5-C-8. The results of this comparison
are given in Appendix 2. The averages of the tests
from the four sources which provided the greater por-
tion of the data were calculated separately, and the
general average also was calculated for those sizes for
which results were available from more than one source.
The con~parisonis facilitated by reference to the ratio
of the general average to the API average. This com-
parison included 1,044 out of the total of 1,371 collapse
tests. The sources of the data were designated a s
follows :
A. Data used by Manufacturers' Subcolnmittee in the
preparation of Bz~lle.ti)t5-C-2. All tests in this
group were on seamless pipe.
B. Data from Crawford's investigation of electric-weld
casing.
C. Data from Frame's investigation of seamless casing.
D. Data from Frame's investigation of seamless casiilg
with low residual internal stress (these data in-
cluded in Appendix 1, but not in Appendix 2).
E. Data from recent tests on one make of sea~nless
casing.
API. Average values in Bztlletin 5-C-2.
The same designations a r e used throughout. Specific
attention is called to the fact that the values given in
Bzilletin 5-C-8-which are designated herein as API
average values-are not recoinn~endedby the American
Petroleum Institute, but were published only a s infor-
mation on casing.
Examination of the ratios of the averages of tests
to the averages given in Bulletin 5-C-2 discloses soine
~ facts not brought out previously-which, however, need
not be discussed in detail, a s they did not enter into
the determination of the nlinimuin collapse pressures.
 SETTINGDEPTHS FOR CASING
The averages and ratios provide additional confirn~ation
of the conclusion reached with 'egard to controlled
conditions.
Con~putation of Minimum Collapse Pressure
I n order to determine reasonable and reliable tem-
porary n ~ i n i m u n collapse
~ pressures, the test results
on A P I casing sizes a r e summarized in Table 2. The
hi,gh and low results for each size a r e listed in order
to i n d ~ c a t ethe variation, and the ratio of the lowest
result to the API average result (Bulletin 5-C-2) is
calculated. The ininimu~nvalues proposed a r e based on
these ratios, which represent 1,044 collapse tests on
both seamless and continuous electric-weld casing. The
only correction applied t o t h e test results w a s f o r t h e
conversion of closed-end values to open-end values, a s
,
described previously. This correction was in the direc-
tion of lower values and, hence, added safety. The
lowest ratio f o r grade H-40 and grade N-80 casing was
0.76, and f o r grade J-55 the lowest ratio was 0.71.
Only 3 tests on grade J-55 casing gave results below
the ratio 0.75, and, only 15 tests of the entire group
gave results lower' than 80 per cent of the average
values in Bztlletzn 5-C-2. Of these 15 tests, 12 were in
the group of data f o r seamless casing used f o r the
preparation of Bz~lletin5 4 - 2 . As already pointed out,
it IS believed t h a t the reasons f o r the low results in
this group a r e t h a t the tests covered a perlod of several '
years; and much of the pipe was made to the old API
grades, and probably is not truly representative of
the presept casing.
In the light of these facts i t is proposed t h a t the
minimum collapse pressures be fixed temporarily a t
values t h a t a r e 75 per cent of the average collapse pres- ,,
sures given in B~illeti?~ 5-C-2. The authors believe t h a t
safety factors based on these n~inimums (which a r e
given in Table 8) will be reliable, ' a n d t h a t only a
slight hazard .would accompany the use of minimum
values a s high a s 80 per cent of the averages. When
the practice of working to minilnun1 values rather 'than
average values is established firmly, a s i t must be if
future problems in deep drilling a r e to be met, there
mould seem to be no reason why the minimum values
should not be 86 per cent or more of the average values.
This is not too much to expect of modern pipe-manufac-
turing processes.
Standard Collapse Test
One of the more controversial phases of the collapse
problem has been the method by which collapse pressure
is determined. Two methods of testing have been, and
still a r e being, used. The names by which these two
methods a r e designated indicate the principal difference
between them. I n t h e open-end test t h e ends of t h e
section of casing being tested extend, through stuffing
boses, beyond the pressure chamber; whereas in the
closed-end test the ends of the test section a r e closed,
usually by melding on head plates, and all of the result-
i n g capsule is in the pressure chamber. The theoretical
131
considerations of stress distribution-resulting, in the
open-end test, from the pressure of the packing glands
in the stuffing boses and, in the closed-end test, from
the end support provided by the end plates-are colnpli-
cated, and no useful purpose would result from their
inclusion. I t is the general opinion t h a t the closed-end
test gives slightly higher results than the open-end test.
The most conv~ncing data in confinnation of this
opinion a r e those obtained by F r a m e B from 49 sets of
tests in which one open-end and one closed-end speci-
men were cut from the same piece of casing, practically
free of residual internal stresses. F r a m e found t h a t
the difference between .the two collapse pressures w a s
greater a t low D values,
- and t h a t the average differ-
t
ence varied from 0 a t a n ratio
- of 28 to 7.5 per cent
t
at a D ratio
- of 16. This relation was expressed by
t
the following equation:
Pc=collapse pressure for closed-end specimen, psi.
Po=collapse pressure-for open-end specimen, psi.
Because of the increased emphasis being placed upon
the accumulation of collapse-test data, i t is desirable
t h a t standard conditions f o r making.collapse tests be
adopted a s soon a s possible. After a rather extended
consideration of this question, the Manufacturers' Sub-
committee reconunended t h e adoption of t h e open-end
test, prior to the annual meeting in 1939. No action
has been taken a s yet on this recommendation; but,
evidently anticipating i t s adoption, several pipe manu-
facturers recently have installed open-end test equip-
ment. The actual differences between the results of
open-end and closed-end tests a r e of no practical im-
portance, escept f o r the heavier weights of the smaller
sizes of casing. I n view of the fact that, with only one
o r two esceptioas, all collapse-testing equipment is f o r
open-end test specimens, and because the slight differ-
ence in results is in the direction of increased safety,
the authors propose t h a t t h e open-end collapse test
be adopted a s standard. Each pipe ~nanufacturerh a s
designed and constructed collapse-testing equipment in
accord with individual ideas, so t h a t there i s 110 uni-
formity in details of design o r dimensions. This is not
necessary a s long a s each test ecluipment fulfills certain
essential requirements and data a r e obtained in a uni-
form manner. Adoption of the following rules will
insure co~npliancewith the essential requirements.
PROPOSED METHOD
STANDARD COLLAPSE TEST FOR CASING
1. Scope
The collapse pressure of casing made in accordance
with API pipe specifications (API Standards No. 5-A)
shall be determined by the inethod outlined herein.
 TABLE 2
Sunin~arpo f Collapse-Test Data for API Standard Casing
Nominal Dimensions
Average A P I Ratio:
Actual Collapse
Wall D Collapse Actual LOW
- Pressure ( P S I )
Size Weight Thickness t Number of -> Pressure Average
(Inches) (Lb P e r Ft) (Inches) Ratio Tests High Low (PSI) API Source
GRADE H-40
3 3,900
10 5,240
14 5,800
6 2,570
9 4,260
3 4,475
1 ....
43 3,470
3 3,050
10 3,700
31 2,500

GRADE J-55
7 9,950
20 4,650
39 6,400
12 7,210
12 6,600
2 7,120
16 5,130
8 7,620
17 6,670
3 7,300
3 6,980
11 7,180
1 .. . .
10 7,925
2 8,990
3 2,610
3 3,250
6 2,660
18 3,960
14 4,200
17 5,550
18 5,000
1 ....
15 6,100
2 6,430
17 6,525
14 7,110
60 6,700
14 7,800
49 7,800
 TABLE 2-Conti~lued

Size
Nominal Dimensions

Weight
h

Wall
Thickness
-D
t Number of
Actual Collause
Pressure (PSI)
Average A P I Ratio :
Collapse Actual Low
Pressure Average
(Inches) (Lb P e r F t ) (Inches) Ratio Tests High LOW' (PSI) API Source
GRADE 5-55-
16.55 10
13
2
14
20.33 3
10
15

GRADE N-SO
18.03 3 9,150 7,420
24 9,200 6,900
20.83 6 5,650 5,010
 TABLE 2-Continued
Nominal Dimensions
A Actual Collapse Average A P I Ratio:
Wall D . Collapse Actual Low
Size Weight Thickness
-
t Nuinber of
Pressure ( P S I )
Pressure Average
(Inches) (Lb P e r F t ) (Inches) Ratio Tests Bigh
Low (PSI) API Source
GRADE N-80-Continued
18.52 4 7,910

2. Type of Test 5. Measurenlent of Collapse Pressure

The standard collapse test shall be the open-end type
of test, in which the ends of the test specimen extend
beyond the pressure chamber for a sufficient distance
so t h a t no support is provided to the specimen a t the
stuffing boxes by a n y connections made a t its ends.
3. Test Specinier~s
3-A. Collapse-test speci~nen: The collapse-test speci-
men shall be selected from finished casing of the grade
i t represents. The length of the specimen between
supports shall be not less than eight times the nominal
outside diameter.
3-B. Tension-test specimen: A second section shall
be cut from the piece of casing adjacent to the collapse-
test specimen, f o r longitudinal-strip tensile tests.
4. Rate of Pressure Application
The r a t e of increase of pressure on the collapse-test
specimen shall not exceed 1,500 psi per min.
The pressure exerted on t h e collapse-test specinlen
shall be measured by a pressure gage which h a s a f r e e
pointer to indicate , t h e maximum pressure reached.
The error of the gage shall not exceed 2 per cent of
the correct value. The collapse pressure is the maxi-
nlunl pressure indicated by t h e free pointer of the
pressure gage.
6. Calibration of Pressure Gage
The pressure gage shall be calibrated against a dead-
weight tester immediately before each collapse test.
The calibration shall be made over a range extending
above and below the expected maxiinunl pressure, and
the necessary correction shall be made to the maximum
indicated pressure of the collapse test.
7. Measurenlent of Collapse-Test Specimen
7-A. Outside diameter: BeforF! t h e collanse test. the
outside diameter of the specimen shall be measured a t
4 positions, spaced 45 deg apart, a t each of 2 stations

located 18 in. on either side of the center of the collapse-
test specimen. The outside diameter shall be the aver-
age of these eight readings, and this value shall be
D a cyl~nder-having the requisite strength and connec-
used to compute the -i- ratio.
7-B. IYnll thickrtess: After the specimen h a s col-
lapsed in the test, it shall be cut through the center
of the section in which greatest flattening occurred.
Wall-thickness ineasureinents shall be made with a
ball-point microineter a t this section, a t 16 points
equally spaced around the periphery of the specimen.
The wall thickness shall be the average of these 16
readings, and this value shall be used to compute the
D ratio.
- all intermediate points this casing string would be ade-
t cluately strong. Wit11 the advent of graduated strings
D D
7-C. -t
ratio: Compute the 7 ratio by dividing
the average outside diameter by the average wall
thickness.
8. Longitudinal Tensile Yield Stretigtl~
Three longitudinal-strip tensile-test specimens, spaced
120 deg apart, shall be prepared from the second section
cut from the piece of casing adjacent to the collapse-
test specimen. The test specimens shall be prepared
in accordance with Par. 27 of A P I Standards No. 5-A,
10th edition. The yield strength shall be t h a t stress
which causes a total elongation of 1 per cent of t h e
gage length, in accordance with Par. 1 3 of A P I Stand-
a r d s No. 5-A, 10th edition. This total elongation shall
be measured by a suitable extensometer mounted on
the test specimen. The average of these three tests
shall be the longitudinal tensile yield strength of the
steel.
9. Recorded Data
The following data shall be reported f o r each collapse
test :
Make and type of casing.
A P I grade.
A P I nominal size.
A P I nominal weight.
Collapse pressure.
Average outside diameter.
Average- wall thickness.
Average - D ratio.
t
~ o n ~ i t u d i n " atensile
1 yield strength.
10. Deformation before Collapse
It may be desirable in soine collapse tests to measure
the deformation of the test specimen before collapse
occurs. This may be done by filling t h e inside of the
test specimen with fluid, and measuring the volume
displaced from the inside a s the pressure is increased
b y t h e rise of the fluid in a calibrated capillary tube
connected to t h e inside of the specimen. When this,
is done, provision shall be made so that there can be
110 pressure buildup by the fluid on the inside of the
specin~ento resist collapse.
I S FOR CASING 135
There is a possibility t h a t operators a t soine time
may desire t o make collapse tests in t h e field. F o r
this purpose i t probably would be satisfactory to weld
tions f o r the pump and pressure gage-around t h e test
length of casing. Field collapse testing should comply
with the standard test procedure a s closely a s possible.
Effect of Tension oil Collapse
When a casing string is of uniform weight and grade,
its design is limited to checking its resistance to collapse
a t the bottom and to pullout strength a t the top. A t
of either different w e ~ g h t so r grades, the problem be-
comes more complicated; because, in these cases, the
casing is subjected to both tension and collapse stresses
a t the critical point, which is a t the change in grade
o r weight. This combination of collapse stress and
tension reduces the pressure a t which the pipe will
collapse. The anlouilt by which t h e collapse pressure
is reduced will depend on the resultant stress caused
by the two components of stress.
Before t h e effect of the combined stresses can be
determined. i t must be known how the material will
fail under a coinbined stress. Four principal theories
have been advanced to cover t h e type of problem t h a t
is involved, a s follows:
1. Mazil)~za>~-stless theory: This theory proposes t h a t
the elastic limit will be reached when the inaxi~num
principal stress equals the elastic liniit under simple
tension o r compression.
2. Maxi?)tz~?)~-stra:i1~ theovy: This theory states t h a t
yielding will occur when the maximum unit strain
becomes equal to the unit strain a t which yielding
' occurs 111 simple t e n s ~ o no r conipression.
3. Maxintzint-shear t l ~ e o r y :This theory assumes t h a t
yielding s t a r t s when the nlaximuin shear stress becomes
equal to the maximum shear stress a t the yield point
in a simple tensile test.
4 . Mazintzi?)~-strc~in-energy theo?y: This theory as-
sumes t h a t the energy which may be stored in a
material attains a nlasimuin value independent of the
value of t h e applied stress.
These theories have been discussed in detail in most
of the standard books on elasticity and strength of
materials. The two theories which might be considered
a s being applicable to this problem a r e those of
inaxirnum shear and maximum strain energy. The
masin~um-shear theory is-for t h e conditions being
considered-conservative, a s compared with the strain-
energy theory. I t has been used in the -4SME Code for
Design of Trnns?,tission S l ~ a f t i n g f, o r combining bend-
ing and tension stresses. If i t were applied to graduated
casing strings, i t would require heavier pipe than t h a t
called for by the maximuni-strain-energy theory, and
practically would eliminate all of the advantages which
inight be obtained from the use of graduated strings.
. The maximum-strain-energy theory appears to be
the most logical f o r this problem. It h a s been investi-
Maximum-Strain-Energy Curve.
FIG. 1
 SETTINGDEP.T.HSFOR CASING 137

gated in detail by those interested i n materials; and the joint strength became the most important considera-
extensive tests, which have been made by Edwards and tion was when ~t became necessary to pull a casing
MillerZ4 on t h e casing problem, indicate t h a t i t i s string. Now, however, in the design of a long graduated
applicable. Sufficient data a r e not available to show casing string, the joint strength must be accorded the
clearly and conclusively what the final relation, based same careful attention a s the collapse strength because
on tests, wi!l be. Investigations in the field of strength of the effective weight of the casing, the effect of tem-
of materials have shown t h a t t h e following theoretical perature, and the residual load remaining a f t e r ce-
equation applies reasonably well: menting. Failure to allow properly for any one of these
factors in a deep well easlly lnay result in a parted
S"S,?+StZ+2 /.ISt S,. ........... (3) casing string. Although the setting depths in tension
TVl~ere: that were used for many years were arrired a t after
p=Poisson's ratio.
St=tensile or longitudinal stress.
S, =compressive or collapse stress.
S=yield stress in simple tension.
Using a value of p=0.26, this equation reduces to:
S'=S,'+Sta+0.52 St S, ......... - (4)
Fig. 1 shows a plot of the per cent of normal collapse
pressure against the ratio of longitudinal tensile stress
to minimuin yield stress in tension.
The longitudinal stress, a s caused by the weight of
the pipe, can be obtalned by the equation:
WL
A ................. (5)
St= -
Where:
W=welght of pipe, Ib per ft.
L=length of pipe, ft.
A = a r e a of cross-section of pipe, sq in.
As a n apl~rosimation, neglecting the effect of the
e s t r a coupllng weight :
W=12 6A
WILB?.~
:
6=density of steel (0.2833 lb per cu in)
and

The longitudinal tensile stress, therefore, is approxi-

mately a function of the length of pipe below a section.
If more than one weight is used, the equivalent length
of the lighter pipe should be used. A t point Y in Fig. 2,
for example,! the equivalent length (L) would be
given by:

Tapered Casing String.

Using this value of equivalent length, Fig. 3 can be FIG. 2

used to detennine the percentage of normal collapse
pressure to be used. Fig. 3 shows the relative effect,
on different grades of plpe, for a given ecluivalent length
below a given section.
JOINT STRENGTH
With the advent of long graduated casing strings,
the joint o r pullout strength became of much greater
importance than i t had been only two o r three years pre-
viously. A t t h a t time the inaximum safe setting depth
w a s fixed by the collapse strength of the casing, but
never by its joint. strength. The only situation in which
a large number of pullout tests, only recent test d a t a
were selected f o r the calculation of minimum joint-
strength values. The reasons for this procedure were
that, since the origlnal tests, changes have been made
in the grades of steel, in the thread form, and in toler-
ances, and marked advancement h a s been, achieved in
the accuracy of threading. Joint strength is related
closely to the characteristics of the threads and related
factors introduced by the makeup; therefore, only the
tests t h a t represent present practice were considered
applicable. The test data used a r e given in Appendix 3,
and a r e the results obtalned on seamless casing by the
 SETTINGDEPTHSFOR CASING ' 139

A P I cooperative investigation,' and on electric-weld cas-
ing by Crawford.' Certain relevant comparisons may
be made from these investigations, and certain facts
were established which were used in the calculation of
minimual joint strengths. I n Table 3 a comparison is
made between the average joint strengths found in the
two investigations and the average joint strengths f o r
corresponding sizes in Bzilletin 5-C-2, which con~prises
the most recent information compiled by the Manufac-
turers' Subcommittee.6 Only joints with short threads
the agreeinent was quite good, and indicates t h a t the
average values f o r joint strength in Bulletilz 5-C-2 f o r
casing sizes up to and including 133-in. a r e suitable
for the computation of the temporary i n i n i ~ n u njoint
~
strength.
One purpose of both investigations was to determine
how casing with the round-thread form (new A P I
standard thread) conipared in joint strength with cas-
ing having the truncated sharp thread (old A P I
standard thread). This comparison is suininarized in

TABLE 3
Con~parisonof Average Pullout-Test Results with APl Average Joint Strengtl~
(Short Threads and Coupling)
Noininal Dimensions
Weight
P e r Foot
Average Joint Strength (Pounds)
(Threads and Wall
Size Coupling) Thickness API Seamless * E1ectric;Weld t
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) Grade API Casing Casing
59 14.00 0.244 H-40 174,000 214,500 178,300
54 17.00 0.304 H-40 220,000 ...... 241,500

and coupling were considered in this comparison. Tests
were made on 8 groups of seamless casing; and only
one group (7-in. 20-lb-per-ft grade J-55) had a n aver-
age below t h a t given in Biclletix 5-C-2. Tests were inade
on 14 groups of electric-weld casing, and the averages
of 8 of these groups were lower than the values given
in Bttlleti?~5-C-2. The differences were negligible, es-
cept f o r the 3 larger sizes-which gave averages of
approximately 93 per cent of the figures published in
Btilletin 5-C-2. All of the low values were for grade
J-55 casing, and only two groups of this grade-61-in.
26-lb-per-ft and 8P-in. 36-lb-per-ft-gave results t h a t
equalled o r exceeded the published values. I n general
Table 4, and is expressed a s the ratio of average joint
strengths corrected to the specified n ~ i n i n ~ u i yield
n
strength. The ratios were all very close t o unity, a n d
the d~stributionwas almost perfectly uniform-thereby
justifying the conclusion that there is no detectable
effect of thread form on joint strength. Therefore, in
analyzing the pullout-test data, the two thread forms
mere considered identical.
Both investigations made a limited number of tests
to develop the effect of long threads and coupling on
joint strength. A t the present time grade 5-55 A P I
casing is made either with short o r long threads and
coupling, but grade N-80 A P I casing is inade only with
long threads and coupling. I n Table 5 average results based on the results of 111 tests in addition to the 48
from the two investigations a r e compared with the tests included in the A P I cooperative investigation.
values taken from Bulletin 5-C-2. There were two These equations a r e included here for convenient
groups of tests on seamless casing, and three groups of reference :
tests on electric-weld casing. The two groups of seam- Grade H-40, short threads and coupling:
less casing gave averages higher than the published
values, but all three groups of electric-weld casing P=72.5 (33.71-d) (-t-0.071 +24.45)a1. . . . . (8)
gave averages considerably below the published values. Grade 5-55, short threads and coupling:
Apparently, the average values f o r joint strength of
grade 5-55 casing with long threads and coupling a r e
not representative f o r electric-weld casing. The Bulletin
~=96.5(33.71-d) (& +24.45)a1. . . .. ( 9 )
5-C-2 averages, however, probably may be used to Grade 5-55, long threads and coupling:
compute minimum joint strengths for both types of
casing, a s Crawford' showed t h a t the standard devia- P=l59(25.58-d) (& +24.45

TABLE 4
Comparison of Strength of Joints Threaded with Sharp Threads and Round Threads
(Short Threads and Coupling)
Nominal Dimensions
A
/ Ratio of Corrected Average
Weight Joint Strength : Sharp
P e r Foot Threads to Round Threads
(Threads and Wall
Size Coupling) Thickness API Seamless * Electric-Weld t.
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) Grade Casing Casing
5& 14.00 0.244 H-40 1.09 .. .
58 17.00 0.304 H-40 ... 1.01

A P I cooperntivc inrrstigation.'
? Crawford's investigation.'

tion of pullout tests-based on values corrected to the
minimum yield strength-is much less f o r the electric-
weld casing than i t is for the seamless casing.
Table 6 summarizes the data from the two investiga-
tions so a s to show the ratio of strength of joints with
long threads and coupling to t h a t of joints with short
threads and coupling. Only one size of casing-7-in.
30-lb-per-ft-was common to both investigations, and
f o r this size the agreement was close. Regardless of
this, the conclusion reached by Crawford,' t h a t "the
use of long threads and coupling hardly appears war-
ranted on any but the heaviest weights of 5-55 casing,"
is not in agreement with the previous recommendation
of the Manufacturers' Subcommittee '-which recom-
mendation proposed formulas f o r calculation of the
strength of joints f o r round-thread casing t h a t were
Grade N-80, long threads and coupling:
~ = 1 8 E i(25.58-d) ( t-:.071
--- +24.45)a,. ..
In these equations :
P=load a t parting of joint, lb.
d = actual outside diameter of casing, in.
t =wall thickness of casing, in.
a , = n e t area of metal a t gage point, sq in.
~~~~~~~~i~~ of ~ i joint strength
~ i
Crawford ' proposed that the minimum joint strengths
be determined by the statistical analysis of the test
data in a manner quite similar to t h a t used for the
collapse-test data. When 3 times the standard devia-
 DEPTHS FOR CASING
SETTING 141

tion w a s used, the minlinum values ranged approsi-
mately from 70 to 75 per cent of the average joint-
strength values in B z ~ l l e t i )5-C-2.
~ I n a discussion of
Crawford's paper, Clinedinst stated that, when a more
direct inetl~odof analysis w a s applied to the test data
for seamless pipe, the minilnuin values amounted to 72.8
per cent of the averages. The statistical method is,
however, subject to the same criticisms and objections,
when used f o r this purpose, a s previously mere cited
against i t when applied to the determination of inini-
inuin collapse pressures. The following is a n esample
the statistical inethod is applied t o data obtainecl on a
few tests from each of a l a r g e number of groups. I n
such cases t h e requisite controlled conditions do not
prevail.
The desirability of arriving a t inininluin values froill
a large number of actual tests results, which h a s been
emphasized in the discussion of collapse pressure, caa-
not be contested. Therefore, this inethod w a s chosen
also for the selection of the proposed. minimum joint
strengths which a r e given in Tahle 8. The test re-
sults on A P I casing sizes from t,he A P I cooperative

TABLE 5
Con~parisonof Average Pullout-Test Results with API Average Joint Strength
(Long Threads and Coupling)
Nominal Din~ensions
Weight
P e r Foot Average Joint Strength (Pounds)
(Threads and Wall
Size Coupling) Thickness API Seamless * Electric-Weld .i.
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) Grade API Casing Casing
GI 26.00 0.385 5-55
7 24.00 0.332 J-55
7 30.00 0.423 5-55

* A P I cooperative investigation
t Cmwfor~l'si n ~ ~ s t i g a t i u7 n

TABLE 6
Con~parisonof Corrected Average Joint Strengths for Short and Long Threads and Coupling
Nominal Dimensions
Ratio of Corrected Average
Weight Joint Strength: Long
P e r Foot Threads to Short Threads
(Threads and Wall
Size Coupling) Thickness API Seamless Elect~lc-Weld
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) Grade Casing Casing
61 26.00 0.385 J-55 ... 1.02

of the artificially low ininimunl values t h a t may result
from the grouping together of a few tests on nlany sizes
of casing, when the method suggested by Cramford is
applied. Crawford's data include a group of 18 tests
on 55-in. 17-lb-per-ft grade 5-55 casing, and a group of
1 8 tests on 7-in. 24-lb-per-ft grade J-55 casing. When
the ininilnuill was computed by taking 3 times the staad-
a r d deviation based on the actual pullout loads, the
value was found to be 91 per cent of t h e average value
in Bztlleti?~5-C-2 f o r the 51-in. casing, and 89 per cent
f o r the 7-in. casing-n~iniinum values f o r both sizes
of casing f a r higher than the approsimate 75 per cent
found by Crawford for all of the tests. It seems
quite clear t h a t a n unduly large penalty results when
investigation and Crawford's investigation were used
for this purpose. The total number of tests w a s 145.
I n line ~ v i t hthe preceding discussion, no distinction was
made between round and truncated sharp threads, nor
between seamless and electric-weld casing: all were
considered a s equivalent. The ratio of t h e lowest in-
divlclual test result f o r each size to the average value
in Bt~lleti?~ 5-C-2 was determined. These values a r e
given in Tahle 7. The lowest ratio found w a s 91 per
cent of the average. I11 view of the f a c t t h a t compara-
tively few results representative of present practices
- a r e available, i t was considered t h a t 85 per cent of t h e
average joint-strength values in Bzilleti~z 5-C-2 consti-
tuted a safe ancl conservative ratio f o r the selection of
the temporary miniinurn values. I t is thought quite
probable that, when a sufficient nunlber of test results
have been obtained, it will be found that this ratio
may be increased safely to 90 per cent. I t was neces-
sary to inodify this procedure for the sizes of casing
larger than 131-in., a s the values in B l t l l e t i ~ 5-C-2
~ this casing a t the bottom of combination strings, where
were obviously f a r too high. The averages for these
large sizes were calculated for grade 5-55 casing ac-
cording to equation (9), which constitutes an estra-
polation, a s no tests have been made on the large casing
sizes. These values then were used to calculate the
corresponding average values for the grade F-25 casing
the setting depth for such large casing is inuch lower
in collapse strength than in joint strength.
Minimum joint strengths for grade N-80 casing with
short threads and coupling were included also in
Table 8, a s i t is anticipated that there will be a need for
the tension load is low. These minimums were com-
puted from the corresponding grade 5-55 values by mul-
tiplying the latter by the ratio of the constants in
equations (10) and (11) (g), which represents the
difference between the t ~ o ' ~ r a d e s .

TABLE 7
Ratio of Measured Mi~~imonl-Joi~~t-Strength
to API Average-Joint-Strength Values
Nominal Dimensions Ratio :
API Miniinuln

-
Observed
Weight Average Observed Minilnuin
Per Foot Joint Joint to API
(Threads and Strength Strength Average
Size Coupling) Number of (Thousands of Pounds) Joint
(Inches) (Pounds) Grade Tests Strength
H-40 11
H-40 6
H-40 8
H-40 14
H-40 3

by first correcting them to grade H-40 values, accord-
ing to the ratio of constants in ecluations (8) and (9)
(g), and then making a further correction to re-
duce these averages from grade H-40 to grade F-25.
In the absence of physical test data, the average yield
strength for grade F-25 was assuined to be 37,000 psi;
so that the average joint-strength values for grade
F-25 were 74 per .cent of the computed grade H-40
. values, for which the steel has an average yield strength
.of 50,000 psi. Then, as above, the ininiinuin values were
taken a s 85 per cent of the average values. No doubt
.need enter into the use of these nlinimuin values, a s
STANDARD JOINT-STRENGTH TEST
There is a definite need for results of many more
joint-strength tests, particularly on the sizes of casing
used for oil strings in deep wells. The minimum joint-
strength values given in Table 9 were based on too
few tests, and it is probable that higher nliniinunl
values could have been proposed if there had been more
data on which to base them. Study of the figures either
in Table 9 or in B t ~ l l e t i ,5-C-2
~ will show improbable
values, and these should be corrected. This is true par-
ticularly when a comparison is made of joint strengths
for short threads and coupling with those for long

threads and coupling. A uniform method of testing
should be used to obtain the d a t a t h a t a r e needed so
urgently. A s in collapse testing, the testing machines
will d ~ f f e rconsiderably in details; but this need not
hinder the accumulation of comparable results. The
following essential requirements a r e suggested for joint-
strength tests :
PROPOSED METHOD
STANDARD JOINT-STRENGTH TEST FOR CASING
1. Scope
The joint strength of casing made in accordance with
A P I pipe specifications ( A P I Standards No. 5-A) shall
be deterin~nedby the method outlined herein.
2. Type of Test
The standard joint-strength test shall be a tensile
test to failure of a full-sized joint specimen.
3. Test Specinlet~s
3-A. Joixt-strellytl~ specin~en: The joint-strength
specimen shall be prepared froin finishecl casing and a
coupling of the grade i t represents. The overall length,
when assembled with the joint to be tested a t the center,
shall be not less than 15 times the casing diameter. The
two sect~onsof pipe in the specimen shall be from the
same length of casing.
3-B. Te?zsio?z-test specinte)~: A section shall be cut
froin the piece of casing adjacent to one of the threaded
sections used for the joint-strength test f o r longitudinal-
strip tensile tests.
4. Threads
The casing and coupling selected f o r the joint-strength
test shall be threaded by standard mill practices, and all
thread elements shall be within the tolerances speci-
fied by A P I Standards No. 5-A.
5. Assen~blyof Joint
One-half of the specimen shall be assenlbled in ac-
cordance with standard practices f o r mill-end assembly,
using a standard thread lubricant. The other section
of casing shall be screwed into the coupling in ac-
cordance with standard field practices, with the coupling
not constrained. The mill end shall be nlarked f o r iden-
tification. I n no case shall the coupllng be griplied
so a s to cause perinanent distortion.
6. Gripping of Specin~en
The speciinen shall be gripped in the testing machine
so t h a t the loading is truly asial.
7. Rate of Loading
I The r a t e of inoveinent of the crosshead of the testing
machine shall not esceed 3 in. per min.
:S FOR CASING , 143
8. Measurenlent of Joint Strength
The joint strength shall be the load, in pounds, a t
the time of failure, either by the jumping of the-pipe
from the coupl~ngor by a break in the pipe threads.
9. Measurelnent of Joint-Strength Specinlen
9-A. Outside clic~nzeter: Before the joint is made up,
the outside dianleter of each of the 2 pieces of casing
shall be measured a t 4 positions spaced 45 deg apart,
adjacent to the shoulder of the threads. The pieces
shall be nlarked "mill end" and "field end," respectively. ,
The outside dianleter shall be the average of these
four readings.
9-B. JVall thiek~zess: The wall thickness of each of
the pipe sections shall be measured with a ball-point
~ n ~ c r o i n e t ear t 16 points equally spaced around the
periphery of the unthreaded end of the specimen sec-
tions. The average of these 16 readings shall be the
wall thickness.
9-C. Inside diameter: Before the joint is made up,
the inside diameter a t the gage point shall be measured
for each threaded end of the test sections, a t 4 points
spaced 45 deg apart. An inside ball-point inicroineter
shall be used f o r these n~easuren~ents, and the inside
diameter shall be the average of these four readings.
10. Longitndinal Tensile Yield Strength
Three longitudinal-strip tensile-test specimens, spaced
120 deg apart, shall be prepared froin the section cut
for this purpose. The test specimens shall be prepared
in accordance with Par. 27 of A P I Standards No. 5-A,
10th edition. The yield strength shall be t h a t stress
which causes a total elongation of 4 per cent of the
gage length, in accordance with Par. 1 3 of A P I Stand-
a r d s No. 5-A, 10th edition. This total elongation shall
be measured by a suitable extensometer nlounted on the
test speciinen. The average of the results of the three
tests shall be the longitudinal tensile yield strength.
11. Recorded Data
The following, daia shall be reported f o r each joint-
strength test :
Make and type of casing. ,
A P I grade.
A P I iiominal size.
A P I nominal weight.
Thread length and type.
Thread lubricant used.
Average outside diameter a t thread shoulder.
Average inside diameter a t gage point.
Average wall thickness.
, Hand-tight standoff a t mill end.
Makeup turns a t mill end. . .
Hand-tight standoff a t field end.
Makeup turns a t field end.
Load a t failure of joint.
Location and type of failure. I .
Longitudinal tensile yield strength of steel. i .
 BURSTING STRENGTH
The bursting strength of casing had no practical
impo.rtance until recently, when squeeze-cementing prac-
tices were introduced, abnormal' formation pressures
were encountered, and the use of graduated casing
strings-which sometimes u t i l ~ z especial high-strength
joints-became common practice.
Until recently t h e bursting strength of casing was
calculated according to Barlow's formula:
Wlze,re:
P=bursting pressure, psi.
S=tensile strength of the steel, psi.
t=wall thickness, in.
D =outside diameter, in.
I t is not necessary t h a t the pipe rupture or p a r t to
cause failure in a casing string. When t h e stress im-
posed exceeds the yield strength of the steel, the re-
sulting permanent deformation should be regarded a s
co~lstitutinga failure of t h e casing. Therefore, work-
ing stresses never should be allowed to exceed the yield
strength of the steel. With this reasoning in mind,
when ~t became desirable to include bursting strength
in the setting-depth tables, t h e values given in Bzclletin
5-C-2 were computed by substituting the lninin~unlyield
strength f o r the minimum tensile strength in Barlow's
formula. These values were based on nominal wall
thickness and, consequently, do not make allowance f o r
the permissible variation of 121 per cent in wall thick-
ness. As i t recently was dec~dedt h a t i t is impracticable
to reduce this tolerance on wall thickness, for absolute
safety i t is necessary to calculate the bursting strength
f o r rnininlum wall thickness. This basis has been used
to arrive a t the bursting yield-strength values given
in Table 8, which a r e 878 per cent of the corresponding
values in Bztlleti?~5-C-2. As the minin~urnwall thick-
ness occurs very rarely, i t was not considered neces-
s a r y to make any further correction to allow f o r
deviation t h a t naturally is to be expected. These values
probably a r e too conservative, because they ]nay be
exceeded approxiniately by the ratio of the tensile
strength to the yield 'strength of the.stee1 before t h e
casing will rupture. Ultimately, when test data a r e
available, i t will be,determined how much these values
may be increased; b u t now there is no basis on which
to arrive a t safe higher mimmum values.
I t is not feasible a t this time to propose a standard
nlethod f o r b u r s t ~ n gtests; but, a s the test data a r e
accumulated, the testing procedure should be such t h a t
it will be possible to determine the pressure a t the
yield strength, a s well a s t h e pressure to cause rupture.
I n details common to both collapse and burst testing,.
t h e burst-test procedure should agree with t h a t adopted
f o r the standard collapse test.
DESIGN OF CASING STRINGS
The principal functions of oil-well casing a r e : 1,
to prevent fornlations drilled through from caving, and
I thereby aid progress in drilling to the pay zone; 2,
to pre;ent contai,~inationof fresh water in upper sands,
and exclude water from t h e producing formations; 3,
to confine production of both oil and g a s to the well
bore, and prevent waste and migration into
rocks overlying the productive horizon; 4, to provide
a means f o r control of pressure; and, 5, to facilitate
running tools when cleaning out o r reworking the well
and installing sub-surface ecluipment, when production
is obtained by artificial-lift methods.
To perform these functions satisfactorily, t h e joints
with which the individual lengths of casing a r e con-
nected together must be of a type t h a t will resist
leakage of oil, water, and g a s ; and the casing must
have sufficient strength to resist the applied forces.
Also, the bore of t h e hole, o r diameter of the casing
w ~ t hwhich the well is completed, inust be of the proper
size.
Hole or Casing Size
Several years ago drilling and production practices
were such a s to justify completing a well with large-
size casing; so that, when i t no longer was possible
to obtain production in paying quantities, the well
could be "worked over" and drilled to a deeper horizon.
The finding of, and drilling for, oil a t g r e a t depth h a s
increased production costs considerably, and every effort
must be made to keep individual well-completion costs
a t a minimum. This, together with the present re-
strictions regarding field allomables and the consequent
longer payout and productive life of the field, no longer
makes i t desirable, from either a n econon~icalor practi-
cal viewpoint, to complete a well with larger size casing
than is ~nechanicallynecessary to recover the reserves
of the surrounding area. I n many fields in which pro-
duction is found a t two or more widely separated hori-
zons, i t is now the practice to drill individual wells into
each of the several pay zones a t a minimum cost, rather
than to delay drilling to a lower pay until t h e wells
drllled into a n upper zone have been abandoned.
This change in 011-field development methods h a s re-
sulted in greater attention being given to casing pro-
grams and the size of t h e hole with which a well is
to be completed. The trend is to finish a well with t h e
smallest size casing t h a t is practical, a f t e r all factors
involved have been analyzed carefully."
The size of the hole o r casing with which to coinplete
a well is dependent on the nature and extent of the
remedial work t h a t will be necessary in completing o r
working over the well, and the size and type of sub-
surface equipment to be installed when production is
obtained by artificial-lift methods. The several bottom-
hole well-completion methods now employed will result
in greater o r less working clearance inside the oil string
o r liner? depending on t h e nlethod used; and, conse-
quently, the completion nlethod must be considered when
selecting the proper hole o r casing size.
Factor of Safety
Having decided upon the size of the oil string or
liner, and knowing the number of strings and length
 TABLE 8
M ~ ~ I ~ I I I UPerforn~allce
III Properties of Casing
16 17
( : m d ~N-YO
Grmle F-25 G r a d e H-40 J m n t Strength
-L (1.ono ~ b )
+-
M
9 .2,
to-
cs -
.-n
a
E
-
22 u"
G a
S+=
Ei s F
C,
5 4 C
II? S
133.5 240.6 285.6
.... .... 321.3
204.9 356.2 422.4
106.3 188.7 222.7
123.3 222.7 263.5
148.8 274.6 -323.9
172.6 320.5 378.3
112.2 197.2 ....
126.7 213.4 250.8
137.7 240.1 292.4
162.4 297.5 349.4
.... .... 402.1
109.7 101.3 ....
131.8 237.2 268.1
153.9 282.2 320.9
248.2 414.8 485.1
176.0 32G.4 381.7
283.1 457.3 534.8
6 16.00 0.250 .... 217.6 ....
6 18.00 0.288 .... 254.2 295.8
6 20.00 0.324 158.1 287.3 334.9
6 23.00 0.380 .... .... 394.4
GI 20.00 0.288 157.3 275.4 317.9
GI 22.00 0.318 .... 306.0 358.6
68 24.00 0.352 190.4 340.0 392.7
65 26.00 0.385 206.6 373.2 430.1
68 28.00 0.417 222.7 404.G 466.7
GZ 29.00 0.432 .... .... 483.7
' * E x t e r n a l upset .
 TABLE &Continued
8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17
Grade J-56 Grade N-SO
. .
Grade H-40 Jolnt Strength Joint Strel~gtll
(1,000Lh) (1,000Lb)
* *

* External upset.
 TABLE O C o t ~ t i l ~ u e d
3 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18
Grade 5-66 Grade N-80
I
h'onilnal D~lnenslons Grade F-25 Grade H-40 Joint Strength Jolrlt Strength
h (1,000 Lb) (1,000 Lb)
n
0
bD ta
m 9
2~ to-
.-
- .-
a -a
Lm 0 a
zg U S
'
0 a
h U1
z2 90-2 -0 -
v 3 a ffl S

* External upset.
of each string with which the well is to be cased, also
the minimum allowable clearance between the casing
and open hole t h a t the operator's experience has proved
to him to be satisfactory, the first step to be taken i n
the design of a casing program is the selection of
suitable factors of safety, based on the minimum
properties of the casing.
When 3,000 f t to 4,000 f t was the approximate limit
of depth reached with the drill, the size and grade of
casing used were such t h a t factors of safety in collapse,
tenslon, and burst were high in comparison to those
now in effect; and, consequently, the user did not heed
the fact t h a t published setting depths f o r casing repre-
sented average properties of the pipe.
I n drilling deeper wells, and wlth greater attention
being given to the econonlics of casing design, so-called
factors of safety based 011 average properties have
been lowered unduly in some instances; and, a s a result,
loads have been imposed on casing in excess of i t s
Oil S~ringsin Some Gulf Coast Fields
Depth Sizes Weight
(Feet) (Inches) (Lb P e r F t )
* Compr~ted on t h e basis of t h e published values
assumed In calculating f a c t o r of safety i n collapse.
strength limitations, and have caused failure. This h a s
been noticeably true in the case of external pressures
sometimes applied to casing during the operation of
squeezing cement into a forn~ation."
Table 9 shows the depth to which oil strings of
various sizes have been r u n in some fields in the Gulf
Coast, and the unusually low factors of safety in
collapse t h a t have been used-particularly if it is
assumed t h a t the strings a t some time will be void of
internal pressure.
The reason, probably, f o r the use of such low factors
of safety is t h a t i t has not been recognized generally,
nor understood until recently, t h a t there can be a n
appreciable difference between the average and inini-
mum collapse and joint strength of casing, and there
h a s been no acceptable information available on which
to establish a factor of safety on minimun~values.
Factors of 'safety now coininonly used in designing
casing strings evolved a s the result of experience on
the p a r t of the user in making a large number of
satisfactory casing installations. Average properties
of the casing, and present accepted factors of safety,
were the basis f o r design calculations. However, as
previously has been pointed out in this paper, this
practice of using average, rather than minimum, prop-
erties to establish safe setting depths is not sound
engineering practice.
It is not the purpose of this paper to reconln~endt h e
factor of safety t h a t should be used; because this i s
a matter t h a t must be decided by the individual user,
in t h a t i t is related to the particular practice followed,
and is a responsib~lity t h a t the user must assume.
However, in using the nlinilnum values in Table 8 a s
the basis f o r design, factors of safety t h a t can be
accepted a s conforming to good practice, and which in
the past have been based 011 the average properties of
casing ( a s shown in Bulletin 5 4 - 2 ) can be lowered,
without changing the casing programs now used, by
inultiplying the factor of safety on average properties
by the proper correction factor-which, f o r collapse,
is 0.75; for joint strength is 0.85; and f o r bursting
yield strength is 0.875.
TABLE 9
Factor of Safety *
P
Collapse
Average Ultinlate
Grade Average -
; Strength of Joint
In B ~ r l l e t i ~5l - G ? A pressure gradient of 50 psi per 100 f t uf depth w a s
External Pressure or Collapse
After suitable factors of safety have been chosen,
the next consideration is the selection of the proper
grade and weight of casing to resist external pressure.
When the casing string is landed and cemented, i t
is subjected to balanced external and ~ n t e r n a l pres-
sures equal to those of a column of drilling fluid of
the density required to counteract the maximum forma-
tion pressure that is encountered. The pressure exerted
by a particular weight of drilling mud a t a given depth
can be obtained directly from Fig. 4 to 6, inclusive.
Fig. 4 is prepared in accordance with the mud-weight
unit of pounds per gallon, commonly used in the Mid
Continent and Southwestern Districts; Fig. 5 with the
mud-welght unit of pounds per cubic foot, co~ninonly
used i n the California District; and Fig. 6 with a unit
of pounds pressure per 100 f t of depth, a s proposed
f o r general use in A P I code 29 on drilling mud."
Surface and intermediate strings a r e generally not
subject to collapse failure, because pressure outside
the casing is opposed by a n intellla1 pressure equal t o
t h a t of the inside colun~nof mud fluid sealed off by the
Pressure Resulting from Mud Column.
FIG. 4
Pressure Resulting from Mud Column.
FIG. 5
cenlent t h a t is placed around the shoe of the nest-
smaller-size string. However, if a n lnternlediate string
a t some time may be used a s a n oil string, or there is
a possibility of the inside fluid level being lowered as
the result of lost circulation, then collapse becomes a
factor in design, a n d must be considered.
Cement placed behind the casing will afford some
protection against collapse; however, i t is not certain
just how completely the pipe will be encased, nor can
t h e additional strength which is afforded t h e casing
be determined. Therefore, i t is custoinary with most
operators t o disregard any support t h a t is given the
pipe from this source except, perhaps, in the case of
short strings t h a t a r e ce~nentedto the surface.
If the casing is not cemented properly above the shoe,
i t will be subjected to a collapse pressure in the event
a cement retainer is used f o r squeezing cement into
and against the pay forniation under extremely high
pressure f o r the purpose of shutting off water o r g a s ;
the squeeze pressure will be transmitted to the outside
of the casing a t a point above the retainer where the
external pressure inay be critical. This condition, with111
the li~nitationof the bursting strength of the casing,
can be offset by applying pump pressure inside the
casing.
During the life of the well a decline in bottom-hole
pressure will cause a correspond~ngreduction of pres-
sure ~ n s i d ethe oil string, and in the later life the inside
fluid level may be lowered even to the bottolll of t h e
string. A condition of collapse, therefore, will be
present a t some stage a s a result of a greater pressure
gradient o u t s ~ d e the casing. To insure against a
possible failure, therefore, the m a x i m ~ u npressure dif-
ference t h a t inay be imposed a t all points of the string
inust be determinecl; a n d a grade and weight of casing,
having a n ~ i n ~ m u icollal~se
n strength greater than this
pressure by a n amount t h a t will provide f o r t h e factor
of safety used, may be selected from Table 8.
Stretch Due to Tension
When casing is r u n in a well to the required depth,
i t is subjected to longitudinal o r axial tension because
of its weight, the stress i n the wall of the pipe causing
a corresponding elongation o r stretch. If the pipe is
assumed to be hanging freely in air, i t will stretch
a n amount which is expressed by the following relation:
Wlt.ere:
e z s t r e t c h , in.
81densit.y of the pipe material (0.2833 lb per cu
in. for steel).
L=length of string, ft.
E=modulus of elasticity [30 (lo8)].
Because of the buoyant effect of a drilling fluid, the
a s i a l stress and, therefore, the stretch of the pipe will
not be a s great when immersed in the mud fluid a s
when suspencled In air. Fig. 7 and 8 give the stretch
of steel pipe of u n i f o r ~ n cross-section when freely
suspended in air, in salt water, and in drilling muds
of various weights. The equation used f o r Fig. 8 was:
e=
.
[ 8 - 2 ~ ( 1 - ~ ) ] . . . . . . . . (14)
Whwe :
e=stretch, in.
L=length of string, ft.
E=modulus of elasticity 130 (10') 1.
d=density of steel (0.2833 lb per cu in.).
w=density of flotant, lb pey cu in. (equivalent to
specific gravity times 0.03613).
~ = P o i s s o n ' s ratio (0.28).
Joint Strength
I n selecting a grade and weight of casing t o resist
possible failure by pulling out a t t h e joint, i t is t h e
usual practice to disregard the buoyant effect of the
drilling mud, and to assume in design calculations t h a t
the casing string is suspended in air. This provides
f o r a n additional load t h a t will be imposed on the pipe
joints a s a result of frlction between the outside surface
of t h e pipe and t h e wall of the'hole, ~f t h e string is
raised a t a n y t ~ m e ;e.g., t h e weight of a casing string
t h a t is suspended in 10-lb-per-gal drilling mud is ap-
prosinlately 0.85 of i t s weight 111 a i r ; and, therefore,
a load equal to 1 5 per cent of t h e weight of t h e string
in air--or approsimately 1 8 per cent of its weight in
mud-could be applied in overconling friction before
the load f o r which t,he strength of the joint was calcu-
lated is exceeded. To reduce the load on the pipe joints
and r i g ecluipment when running casing, i t is custon~ary
to install a float collar a t t h e bottom of the string,
and float the pipe into t h e hole; however, a f t e r t h e
casing point is reached and circulation is established,
the load on the joints will be t h a t of the weight of
t h e suspended string c o r ~ e c t e df o r buoyancy.
Release of Tetlsion
Some operators follow t h e practice of hanging the
casing a t the casinghead before cementing, and not
releasing thereafter a n y of the initial tension imposed
on the pipe a s a result of i t s weight. Other operators,
however, release p a r t of t h e tension-although the
amount t h a t is released varies considerably, and the
inethod used apparently does not conslder fully the
possibility of the casing being frozen p a r t of t h e way
down the string. Unless this point is detern!ined, the
tension left in the string cannot be calculated. A method
by which the length of f r e e pipe can be estimated was
proposed by Hayward." It is based o?l the measurement
of the change in stretch t h a t is obtained f o r a pre-
determined amount of tension release. The formula
used to calculate the length of f r e e pipe, when deter-
mined by this method, is:
~1'11ere :
L=length of free pipe, f t .
e ~ s t r e t c h in.
,
w=weight per foot of pipe, lb.
P = amount of tension released, Ib.
E =modulus of elasticity [30 (10') 1.
 SETTINGDEPTHS FOR CASING

Stretch of Pipe Suspended in Air and Salt Water.

FIG. 7
 Although releasing p a r t of the tension will reduce
t h e load on the casing joints of the free portion of the
pipe, i t is not usual practice to take account of this
when designing a string of casing to resist pullout of
the joints. The practice of releasing tension probably
is adopted a s a precautionary measure to allow some
and there is a possibility of the pipe buckling if the
compression load is excessive-particularly if the hole
1s considerably larger than the caslng, o r if there is a
cave a t some point in the area where the pipe is under
considerable compression. I n a cave with a height of
' approsin~ately100 f t , i t would requlre only a weight

Stretch of Pipe Suspended in Drilling Mud.

FIG. 8 .

leeway f o r a possible increase in tension in the pipe
after cementing, a s a result of t h e t e l l d e n c ~for the
pipe to contract when circulating cold drilling fluid,
or if there should be escessive espansion of gas in the
use of a bottom-hole choke, and to relieve a nart of the
load from the casinghead connections.
If too much tension is released, the lon~erp a r t of the
free portion of the string ]nay be left in compression,
ecluivalent to approsin~ately800 f t of 7-in. 28-lb-per-ft
action. One corn-
casing f o r the pipe to fail by coluim~~
pany, a t least, has adopted a practice of first determin-
ing the poillt a t which the casing is free, and then
releasing o r increasing the tension in the pipe, so t h a t
there will be a predetermined tension stress in the
pipe a t the bottom of the free portion.
Stretch Due to Tenlperature Change
Immediately a f t e r casing h a s been r u n into t h k well
and the cement h a s set, the mean temperature of the
casing ordinarily will be but slightly less than the
average of surface-formation and bottom-hole tempera-
tures; and, because of the increase in temperature of
the pipe, i t will expand o r stretch a n amount t h a t is
expressed by t h e following :
e = 1 2 L a t ................( 16)
Where:
e = stretch due to temperature change, in.
L=length of pipe a t atmospheric temperature, ft.
a=coefficient of expansion (0.0000069).
t = temperature change, deg F.
Fig. 9 shows the stretch in pipe f o r various tempera-
t u r e differences, in degrees fahrenheit.
When the well is p u t on production, a n increase in
the temperature of the pipe will result because of
producing fluid a t a higher temperature than t h a t of
the casing a t the time t h a t i t was cemented. Thls
increase in temperature, therefore, will cause a decrease
in the tension t h a t is already in the pipe, and con-
ceivably might result in column loading-particularly ~f
too much initial tension in the string was released a t the
',
time the casing was landed.
Bursting Strength
As previously pointed out in t h e paper, the bursting
strength of casing h a s become a n increasingly im-
portant factor in the selection of casing strings; be-
cause, in drilling to greater depths, abnormal pressures
approaching, and in some cases equal to, the e a r t h
pressure" a r e encountered. Fig. 10 is a plot of the
"normal" pressures t h a t occur in t h e Gulf Coastal
region, and of the "abnormal" pressures t h a t have been
observed in some of the fields in this area.
The practice of squeeze cemelltillg may result also
in extremely high pressures inside of the casing. For
example, in a casinghead squeeze job high pump pres-
sure, together with the weight of a column of cement,
may be necessary to force the cement Into the formation,
and the resulting pressure a t the top of the oil string
will be so high t h a t the burstlng strength of the pipe
well can be the controlling factor in the selection of
t h e , g r a d e and weight of casing to be used.
After cement has been placed around t h e shoe of the
casing string and the well closed in a t the surface,
pressure inside the casing may become critical if expan-
sion of the fluid in the casing7as a result of a n increase
in temperature caused by well tenlperature and t h e
heat t h a t is developed during the setting of the cement
-is restrained. This condition, however, can be con-
trolled, and a pressure t h a t is within the limitations
of the casing be maintained by releasing fluid a t t h e
surface.
Other Factors
h i a d d i t i o n to the forces already mentioned, casing
will be subjected to column loading if the pipe is
released a t the surface prior to nippling up, or when
setting liners. If t h e hole is crooked to a n appreciable
extent, o r the casing i s subjected to lateral earth
pressure-as in the case of shifting formations o r
sudden heaving of unconsolidated sands-a bending
force will be applied which will add to the tension stress
already imposed 011 the pipe and joints. Shooting of
wells with explosives 23 will induce stresses in casing-
which, a s i n the case of bending stresses and those
resulting from column loading, would be difficult, if not
inlpossible, to evaluate.
Wear of casing by drill pipe o r tubing, and also
corrosion, a r e factors t h a t sometimes a r e given con-
sideration and lead to a preference f o r heavier wall
pipe than otherwise would be necessary.
Graduated Strings
It was the practice until two or three years ago to
use one weight and grade of pipe f o r each of the several
strings of casing with which a well was oompleted.
I n following this practice no advantage is taken of the
savings to be effected In the cost of casing by virtue
of the fact t h a t the principal forces applied to casing-
which a r e used a s a basis f o r design-change uniformly
along the length of the casing string, and of the further
fact t h a t over the central portion of the string the
magnitude of these forces is such t h a t pipe of less
weight o r lower strength than is used f o r the end sec-
tions can be substituted in nlany cases without lowering
the overall efficiency of the casing installation.
The principal forces with which we have to deal in
designing a string of casing a r e : 1, external pressure
tending to collapse or crush the pipe; 2, longitudinal
o r axial tension tending to pull the pipe a p a r t ; and,
3, internal pressure tending to burst t h e pipe.
External pressure is due primarily to the head of
fluid sealed off outside of the casing by cementing
around the casing shoe, and is, therefore, a maxiinum
a t the bottom and of zero value a t the top of the fluid
colunln. 1t' becomes a factor in the design of casing
only ~f the difference between the external and internal
pressures t h a t may be applled to the casing a t a n y
time should become critical from the standpoint of
collapse.
Axial tension, which is due principally to the weight
of the suspended casing, is a rnaxinlum a t t h e top of
the string; and if no tension is released a f t e r cement-
ing, the tension in t h e pipe decreases uniforn~lyuntil
a t the bottom there is no tension.
Internal pressure is the result of forillation pressure
or a head of fluid to counteract the formation pressure;
also, i t may be due to the weight of a column of drilling
fluid, together with pump pressure applied a t the
surface in a n attempt wholly or partly to balance a n
external pressure unintentionally applied to casing
when sclueezing cement into and against the formation;
or, a s previously mentioned, i t may be caused by t h e
weight of a coluii~nof cement, together with a pump
pressure necessary to force the cement into the forma-
tion. I n all cases the internal pressure is a masiinuin
a t the bottom of the string, but may be critical a t
various points t h a t nlust be determined by taking
account of the difference between the internal and
esternal pressures.
To take advantage of t h e unequal distribution of
these forces over the length of the casing string by
using what may be called a "graduated string," and
if i t is assumed t h a t a t some tiine during the life of
the well the string will be void of internal pressure,
a casing having a collapse strength sufficient t o resist
a n external pressure equal to the inasilnum eserted by
the column of fluid behind the casing is chosen f o r t h e
lower section of the string. This section of casing
is extended upward to a point in the hole where the
esternal pressure will perinit the use of casing of less
wall thickness o r lower grade and, therefore, of a lower
collapse strength than t h a t of t h e first section.
A t the p o ~ n tof change, however, i t is not sufficient
to consider only the collapse strength of the pipe on
the basis of external pressure alone being applied;
because, in addition to a n external pressure, t h e casing
is subjected to asial tension due principally to t h e
weight of the sect1011 of casing below the point of
change. This introduces a condition of biaxial stress
which, if the casing is of such proportions that plastic
cpllapse \ y u l d be the mode of failure? will result in
the pipe Paving a lower collapse strength than if
0 2~0'30 4,000 6,000 8,000
Pressure inlb./sa.in.
Observed Abtiorn~al Pressures in G r ~ l f Coast W e l l s .
FIG. 10
external pressure only were applied. Therefore, i t is
necessary to deternline from Fig. 1 w h a t the effective
collapse pressure f o r the casing will be under the par-
ticular condition of stress, before the point of change
can be established. Having established the point of
change, the second section of casing then is estendecl
upward until a point in the hole is reached where the
esternal pressure is such a s again will permit the use
of a still weaker section of pipe from the standpoint
of collapse strength-taking into account, a s before,
the effect of a s i a l tension.
This method of selecting sections of casing on the
basis of the abihty of the pipe to withstand esternal
presS'ui-e is continued until a point in the string is
reached where a s i a l tension, rather than collapse o r
external pressure, becomes the predominant factor in
the design of the string. F r o ~ l l this point on the
strength of the casing in tension, and particularly the
strength of the joints with which the individual lengths
a r e connected together, may impose a restriction re:
10,000 12,000 14,004
garding the use of pipe of a lower grade o r less wall
thickness. I n the case of long and heavy strings, i t
]nay necessitate the use of a better grade o r thicker
wall plpe, or perhaps a change in the type of joint,
safely to resist the tension load a t the top of the string.
I n the previous discussion, only the effect of external
pressure and tension was considered. It has been men-
tioned t h a t internal pressure can be a controlling factor
in the design of casing, and, therefore, i t is necessary
t h a t the bursting strength of the pipe also be considered
in the final selection of casing size.
 Table 10 is a compilation of d a t a showing the relative
costs of three possible casing strings f o r a 10,000-ft
well. A saving of $1,177--or approxinlately 13.5 per
cent-in the mill cost of casing i s effected by using a
graduated string, a s in case 3, in preference to a
string of only one weight and grade, a s in case I . The
graduated string is also 15,000 Ib-or 9 per cent-
lighter in weight, and results in a further saving when
freight charges a r e considered.
The string shown a s case 2 is of the same weight
per foot throughout its length, and was r u n In a well
i n one of the Louisiana fields. This string is $904 lower
in cost than t h a t of case 1.
ties deviating less from average properties-as only in
this way is i t possible to obtain higher minilnun1 values
without increase of average values. Any advance t h a t
can be made in this direction.wil1 be very inuch worth-
while.
The method t h a t is preferred by the authors, and i s '
used here f o r the determination of the mininlum per-
formance properties, brings out very clearly the Im-
portance attached to results of tests and the,need f o r
many more test data. The practices now used by most
of the pipe n~anufacturersand by several of, the large
purchasers of casing insure t h a t a large number of
results of collapse tests on present grades of casing

TABLE 1 0
Co~nparisonof Cost of 10,000-Ft Strings of 5%-In.-OD Casing
3lin1rnuni
Collapse Pressure
(PSI) If ~ n ~ m u m Factor of Safety
& Aflnirnum Bursting ,
We~ght(Lb Per F t ) Corrected Joint Yield Bursting
Length API No for Strength Strength. Joint T~eld Mill Price Cost of
(Feet) Nomlnal Calculated Grade Tens~on Tens~on (1,000 Lb) (PSI) Collapse Strength Strength (Per 100 F t ) Strlng

CASE 1
10,000 17.00 17.25 N-80 5,890 .... 340 7,740 1.18 1.97 1.98 $88.12 $8,812.00

CASE 2

CASE 3

* Long t h r e a d s a n d coupling.
Note: F a c t o r of safety on b u r s t ~ n gyield strengtll based on a srlrfnce pressure of 3.90(1 psi, from Fig. 9, curve No. 4.
E x t e r n a l pressure calculated on the b a s ~ sof a pressure gradient of 50 lb per 100 f t of depth.

DISCUSSION will be available within a comparatively short time. It

I n the previous sections of this paper i t has been
made clear that, from the viewpoint of the user of
casing, certain rather fundamental changes a r e con-
, sidered to be necessary if safe and profitable product~on
of oil from greater depths is to be possible. The first
step in this program involves the use of minimum,
rather than average, performance properties of casing.
If t h e n~ininlumvalues a r e selected wisely, there will
be no danger from failure of the casing under normal
conditions. Rowever, if safety cannot be obtained with
economy, then profitable operation of deep wells under
present restrictions will be in~possible. Therefore, i t is
important t h a t t h e minimum performance properties
be a s high a s possible. This objective places new
emphasis upon the i~nportanceof being able to obtain
casing with more uniforln properties-i.e., with proper-
is to be hoped t h a t i t will be possible similarly to satisfy
the need f o r more test data on joint strength, the effect
of tension on collapse strength, and bursting strength.
Cooperative test programs to supply these data would
be of great value to the industry.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions summarize the results of
the critical study of the properties of casing, a s related
to its application under t h e exacting coilditions of deep-
well practices.
1. The design of casing strings is a n engineering
problem and, in order to accord with sound engineering
practice, must be based on minimum performance
properties.

2. The mini~numperforinallce properties should be
determined directly from the results of tests.
3. The A P I pipe specifications f o r casing s h k d be
revised so t h a t grade classification is based on minimum
limits specified f o r the performance properties, collapse'
pressure, joint strength, and bursting yield strength.
Additional minilnun1 requirements to insure adequate
ductility also should be included.
4. Temporary minimuin performance properties a r e
proposed a s follows:
Collapse 'pressure-75 per cent of the "average
collapsing pressures," in Bzilletin 5 - c - 2 ;
Joint strength-85 per cent of the average
"ultimate-strength-of-joint" values, in Bz~llet.in
54-2;
Bursting yield strength-87.5 per cent of ithe values
f o r "internal pressure a t ininimuin yield
strength," in Bulletin 5-C-2.
5. Safety factors calculated from t h e proposed mini-
Inurn performance properties may be used with confi-
dence.
6. Additional test data on the performance properties
of casing a r e essential, and should be obtained a s soon
a s possible, so a s to allow the establishment of perma-
nent minimum performance properties required f o r t h e
revision of the A P I pipe specifications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their, appreciation f o r
assistance in t h e preparation of this paper:
To the Manufacturers' Subcommittee, f o r much of
the test d a t a ; and in particular i n this regard, to
J. J a y Dunn and W. 0.' Clinedinst, of the National
Tube Company; W. M.,Frame, of The National Supply
Company; and E. J. Protin, of the Pittsburgh Steel
Company.
To P. A. Mills, of the Moody Engineering Company;
E. F. Kindsvater, of the Phillips Petroleu~nCompany;
T. McL. Jasper and R. F u r r e r , of the A. 0. Smith
Corporation; and J. E. Stillwell, of the American
Petroleun~ It?stitute, f o r collstructive criticism and
suggestions.
To C. N. Bowers of the Gulf Research and Develop-
ment Company, for asselnbly and correlation of the
test d a t a ; Burton Atkinson, of the Humble Oil and
Refining Company, for preparation of the data on ah-
;: FOR CASING 159
normal pressures; and K. Lindley, of the Gulf 011
Corporation, f o r preparation of p a r t of the material.
To P. D. Foote, of Gulf Research and Development
Company; J. R. Suman, of Huinble Oil and Refining
Company; and P. H. Bohart, of Gulf Oil Corporation,
f o r permissioti to prepare and publish the paper.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
R T S t e w a r t . "Collapsing Pressures of Besscmer-Steel Lap-
~reliled-Steel Tubes," Trtr~rs d11i. Soc dlccll E ~ r g r s 27, 750
(1'30G).
- R T Stewart. "Col1al)siug Pressures of Laln~elded-Steel
Tubes." T r a ~ i s d l t t Soc Ueclr Lzt~grs 29, 1 2 3 (1907)
3d.STLlI dla1~1ta1OIL I'iesctltatro~r of D a t a , Amerlcan Soclety
f o r Testing Alaterlals P h ~ l a d e l p h l a , Pa. (1933)
"Report of t h e ~ A n i m i t t e e on t h e S t n n d a r d i z a t ~ o n of Oil-
Country T u b u l a r Goods," Proc. A P I 19 [IV] (Productiotr Bull. '
NO 228) 1 3 0 (1935).
"PI Li~uisro~rof Protlrtctroti Btrll Xo. 5-C-0. "Itrforlllation
o n C o l l a p s ~ ~ zPresslircs
g a ~ i dS c t t i n g Depths f o r Ctrsrng," 2nd
edn , Mar ( 1 9 4 0 ) .
0 \Y A1 lei-ame, "Casiag Setti?g Depths a r e n o t Bssured by
Pllyslcal P r o l ~ e r t i e aof t h e Steel. Drr1lr11.gn~rtlProtlrtctto~lPruc-
,tree, $ 2 2 A n i e r ~ c a n Petru1t.11111 Institute. New York (193S)
T. J. 'Cmwford, "Joint and Collapse S t r e n g t h of AIJI Grades
H-40 luld 5-55 Electrlci~lly-~velded Casing." Uvrl111ig a ~ t t l P r o -
t l r ~ c t i u ~I'rcrctlce,
r 43'7 (1930)
"lieport of t b e Conim~ttve on t h e Standardization of 011-
Country T u b u l a r Goods," P r o c d P 1 201 [IVJ (I'roti1tctiurr Bull.
No 2 3 ) lli (1930)
T. AIcLenn .Jasper a n d J. W nr. S u l l l m n . "The Collapsing
Strength of T h ~ nTubes," Trans. Ain. Soc Jfecli. Engrs. ( d p -
pltctl LlIcclro~i!cs) 53, l i b (1931)
I0R. G S t u r m , doctorate thesls submitted t o D e l ~ a r t m e n tof
Theoretical a n d Applied Alechan~cs, U ~ r r u .Illtnots Uoll. Eng.
(192s)
U A 1'. Carman "The Coll?l8se of S h o r t T h i n Tubes," Unrv.
IlllllOlS Etig Exp. '&'tit. Uul!: Ao 99 ( 1 L J l i ) .
T. h1cLenn Jasper, I ~ n p u r t a n c e of Compress~on Yield
Strength In Establishing S e t t ~ n gDepths for Casing," U r i l l r ~ i g
aitd Procltlctio~rPractlcc, 250 (1939).
l3 J L I - I o l n l c ~ ~a~ni d~ tA. Nadal ".4 Tlieoretical a n d Experi-
mental d l ) l ~ r o a c l ~to t h e robl lei^ of Collnl~se of L~eep-\\~ell
Casllig," 1Jrrllilrg alld P r o d n c t i o ~ rPracttce, 89:: (19.39).
I4\V 0. Cllnedinst "-4 Ratlonal Exlwrsslon f o r t h e Critical
Collaysilig Pressure a;f P i l ~ eunder E x t e r n a l l'ressure," Drilling
a n d l'rodrrctio~r Practrce, 383 ( 1 0 3 9 ) .
lS \T7alter C Alain "Combining Bending nnd Hoop Stresses t o
Determine Collal~sin'gPressure of Oil-Country Tubular (;oods,"
Urillrlrg ant1 Protluctto~rPractrce, 431 (1339).
' B T ~ ~ ~ ~ o s h ea nu dk oh s s e l l s , d p p l l e d E l a s t i c ~ t y , Westinghouse
Kiglit School l'ress. E a s t Pittsburgh, P a ( )
l7 E r n e s t K. Parks, "Effect of Varying Well-Bore Diameters
In C ; l l ~ t o r u ~Reservoirs,
a D r i l l ~ ~ ragn d Prodilctro~rPractrce, 259
(1939).
IS I W. A l c o r l ~a n d J U. Tengue, "Bottom-Nole Well-Comple-
tion Aletl~ods I U t h e Gulf Coast," D r t l l i t ~ g (IILIZ Prodrtctiot~
Pmctrce, 30 ( 1 9 3 i l
'9lJau1 IJ Torray, "Selective Esclusion of F l u i d s from IVells,"
D r l l l t ~ r gulrrl P r o d r c c t ~ u ~Pructlcc,
r 206 (10391.
'Odl'1 Coflc A'o ?,? " I c ~ c o n t t ~ ~ o r t l cJ'ract~cc
d on Gta(?,dord
Frclrl I'roccd~rrc f o r T c s t r ~ r gD r r l l r ~ l gFltltds ( t o r t n t t o c l , 1 s t
eiln , Oct. (19.3SI
.T T l ~ a y m a r d ,"hletliods f o r Determining How AIuch nf a
Iprozen or Ceruented Culunin of Pipe 1s Free," Drlllb,rg a,td
P r ~ t l ~ c t i oI'ractrcr,
~i 1 6 (1!1:35).
-- \V E 1'. d b m h n n ~ . "l;eological Aspects of Deep-Dr~llrng
I'roblen~s." J . 111sl Pt7trolclr~~rl'cclr (London) 23, 164-383
,*a,.,-,
{J.V.,,,
23 13anl l? Len-is, "Oil-Field Esplos~ves-Tlicir Character-
istics a n d Use." UrrIlr~rg a~rcl Prodrcctto~t Prnctlcr, i:3 ( 1 0 3 4 ) .
24 S H E d w a r d s a n d (7 P. Aliller. "Discussion on t h e Effect
of C o n ~ b ~ n e L
d o n g ~ t u J ~ n : \L
l p a d ~ n ga n d E s t e r n n l I'rvssnre on
the Strcngth 011-Well CRSIII~."Di11111rg a ~ i d P I O ~ I I G ~ I O I ~
I'rnct~cc, 483 ( 1 9 3 0 ) .
 APPENDIX 1
COLLAPSE-TEST RESULTS
Note: T h e r a l u e s in tlie c o l u h u hendcd "Corrected Collal~se Pressure" arc clusctl-end collnlrse-test results culrected to alien-end col-
1:il~se-test results, a s e s p l a ~ n ~ iinl tlie text

Nonilnal Dimensions

MANUFACTURERS'SUBCORZMITTEETESTDATAON SEAM- Grade H-40-Continued

LESS CASINGUSEDFOR COMPILATION
OF Bzilleti.)~
5-C-8 6g 24.00 0.352 18.82 48,900 4,550
Grade H-40 49,000 4,535
48,100 4,475
58 17.00 0.304 18.09 52,050 5,590 5,240
51,250 4,420 4,150 62 26.00 0.385 17.21 52,830 5,030
49,650 4,210 3,950 54,120 5,210
48,850 4,450 4,170 48,820 4,735
49,350 4,480 4,200 54,180 5,240
49,600 4,360 4,090 52,910 5,125
49,350 4,550 4,270 54,410 5,355
54,700 5,265 4,940 54,030 4,760
46,750 4,555 4,270 54,680 5,205
51,100 4,760 4,460 I 50,220 4,630
 DEPTHSFOR CASING
SETTING

APPENDIX 1-Continued

Grade H-40-Continued 1 Grade H-40-Continued

 APPENDIX 1-Continued
Nomir~alDimn~sirnrs

-
h

- - sP
0 %
Bz
,
Nominal nimpnsions

- -
A

-
0

2
- s
"2
-"Z
b-
=U -
ir;
OP,
A
m
m
s
45
.-
m

.-0
-""a
2
CI

i
B
F

2"
h
L.
w $2
"-
.*,0. 2;- C

.,zc. r2r YL
* =2
a"
0
'Il
a-
- 2%I
;*
n
g p" F-
h - 2
4
. Y ~ C
.za -'6 Ebc
i.F.8 ;
I
5s
A

-
L-
2
'C

-
V "2
n m
5%
L. 2" 5%
0 .?: =;? z q(, oa
2 & ti- ;B a\- L. cm
U
C
2 g- U v
Grade H-40-Continued Grade H-40-Continued
 SETTING DEPTHSFOR CASING 163

APPENDIX 1-Continued

Grade H-40-Continued

Grade H-40

MANUFACTURERS' TESTDATAON SEAM-

SUBCOI\~MITTEE
LESS CASINGUSEDFOR COMPILATION
OF b't~lletin 5-C-2

Grade 5-55
6 17.00 0.275 21.82 79,500 5,790 5,570
79,200 5,950 5,720
6 20.00 0.324 18.52 76,550 7,510 7,080
79,800 7,550 7,120
61 24.00 0.352 18.82 56,800 4,100 ....
59,100 4,690 . .. .
61,100 4,545 . ...
 APPENDIX l-Continued
Nominal Dimensions

Grade J-55-Continued Grade J-55-0

20.00 0.272 25.73
 SETTINGDEPTBSFOR CASING - 165

APPENDIX 1-Continued

Grade J-55-Continued I CRAWFORD'S

INVE~TIGATION
OF ELECTRIC-\VELD
CASING
Grade 3-55
58 14.00 0.244 22.54 62,290 4,100 .....
61,180 4,200. ....
69,100 3,900 ....
64,090 4,250 ....
55,520 3,850 ....
55,060 3,800 ....
 APPENDIX 1-Continued

0
L
IL-
O-
=Cm
fi
Nonilnnl Diniens~oris
n
A -m
-+fi
-
A
5
U
2 m Vd

-
a
2 u- c*, i
fi
ii
r.
=-
zz
-;2 222
7

,;- E
-~270 ;-
w.
-n
=z a
c j,
0 D
? fi w
N
< -
:;z 6-
Grade J-55-Continued I Grade J-55-Continued

FRAME'S INVESTIGATION OF SEAMLESS

CASING
Grade J-55
43 16.00 0.334 14.22 60,200 8,910 ....
I 60,400 9,630 ....
 SETTINGDEPTHS FOR CASING 167

APPENDIX 1-Continued

Grade J-55-Continued Grade J-55-Continued

45 16.00 0.334 14.22 63,000 7 28.00 0.393 17.81 72,450
61,500 72,450
61,300 64,800
65,800 59,900
55,600 63,800
61,900
51 17.00 0.304 18.09 67,800
62,900 64,000
60,800 67,200
68,900 66,600
64,900 64,500
65,200 67,300
62,300 61,500
59,800 62,500
57,400 63,200
63,400 7 30.00 0.423 16.55 65,400
61,200 65.400
168 MATERIALS
APPENDIX 1-Continued

----
Nominal Dlrnens~ons Norn~nalDt~nellsions
A w
2
-c
w

n
m
A

- n
w

U
z
ow
-
m
c n, e
m
n
,
=mon,m
U-
w

v w 5 k v w
92.-, 2" 5YI

om 2E
$i
:
&& U

Grade J-55-Continued Grade J-55-Continued

FRAME'S
INVESTIGATION OF SEAMLESSCASINGWITH LOW
RESIDUALINTERNAL STRESS
Grade J-55
5 15.00 0.296 16.89 68,500 7,510 ....
66,700 7,320 ....
69,000 7,310 ....
6% 22.00 0.318 20.83 65,500 5,900 ....
62,600 5,850 ....
64,000 5,700 ....
65,700 5,870 ....
68 29.00 0.432 15.34 67,200 8,990 ....
70,000 8,550 ....
7 17.00 0.231 30.30 74,800 2,560 ....
74,800 2,350 ....
78,500 1,960 ....
75,500 2,000 ....
78,500 2,220 ....
7 20.00 0.272 25.73 67,200 3,770 ....
67,500 3,960 ....
65,800 3,600 ....
67,900 3,680 ....
69,200 3,720 ....
68,400 3,590 ....
71,300 3,150 ....
72,400 3,300 ....
71,900 3,650 ....
74,100 3,180 ....
74,100 3,450 ....
74,200 3,900 ....
73,100 3,840 ....
72,800 3,775 ....
78,000 3,100 ....
75,600 3,600 ....
75,600 3,900 ....
76,500 3,430 ....
7 22.00 0.301 23.25 63,700 5,050 ....
64,900 4,840 ....
63,150 4,950 ....
65,200 4,890 ....
67,200 4,530 ....
65,200 4,650 ....
68,400 4,140 ....
 SETTING
DEPTHSFOR CASING 169

APPENDIX 1-Continued
I Noniinnl D~rnens~ons
Nominal D~menmons

z
m %
P h
-
Oc
F
="?
0
0
U
%E
-
a

f=: z2
nrn
=L z:
0-
i3
$0
U

Grade J-55-Continued Grade J-55-Continued

7 26.00 0.362 19.34 66,600 28.00 0.393 17.81 66,200
66,100 66,100
65,900 66,500
65,400 66,000
66,000 65,700
65,600 65,300
66,100 66,800
67,400 66,400
66,100 65,800
65,200 65,100
66,000 65,700
67,400 65,900
66,500 66,500
65,700 65,200
69,900 69,500
69,000 68,800
67,900 68,500
67,600 68,800 '

68,300 68,000
67,600 71,200
68,300 70,500
67,600 71,100
68,900 70,200
71,000 71,600
65,600 77,500
66,000 63,700
66,100 70,500
64,600 71,100
68,300 65,200
67,900 63,800
67,400 64,800
67,600 30.00 0.423 16.55 60,600
67,600 61,000
 APPENDIX 1- -Continued
N o n ~ ~ n nDimensions
l Nominal D~rnensions

Grade J-55-Continued Grade J-55-Conti~lued

29.70 0.375 20.33 66,900 98 47.00 0.472 20.39 60,200
68,000 60,300
69,500 60,700
68,000 61,100
- 60,800
33.70 0.430 17.73 61,500 61,200
60,400 62,200
64,200 63,000
64,300 63,100
64,200 63,300
60,400 64,200
61,500 62,800
64,200 64,000
64,300 63,500
64,200 64,700
36.00 0.400 21-56 60,800 63,700
61,500 65,800
63,800 66,400
64,200 71,900
64,700 73,100
63,700 76,300
63,500 60,300
63,000 64,700
62,600 64,000
66,000 61,100
67,100 63,500
66,100 60,700
68,400
91 53.50 0.545 17.66 61,900
68,400
62,200
36.00 0.352 27.34 60,600 60,000
61,200 60,100
62,500 60,200
62,800 60,900
62,700 61,400
73,200 62,500
75,000 63,200
73,900 64,000
73,200
75,000
75,000
73,900
61,200
73,200
60,600
40.00 0.395 24.37 71,800
43.50 0.435 22.13 60,800
47.00 0.472 20.39 61,700
60,700
60,800
61,400
60,200
 SETTINGDEPTHS FOR CASING

APPENDIX 1-Continued

Grade J-55-kontinued Grade N-80-Continued

103 45.50 0.400 26.88 66,200 6 17.00 0.275 21.82 81,800
68,800 84,300
63,300 91,700
64,100 90,850
61,400 84,500

Grade N-80
6 17.00 0.275 21.82 83,550 5,950 5,720
' 83,050 5,620 5,410
81,800 6,190 5,950
 APPENDIX 1-Continued
Nornlnal Dimensions Nominal Dlmensions

Grade N-80-Continued Grade N-80-Continued

91 40.00 0.395 24.37 86,700
84,350

Grade N-80
 DEPTHSFOR CASING
SETTING

APPENDIX 1-Continued
Nominal Dimensions

-i: 4:-
A
-
, ,
a
I
O w

A
m

C, L
2"
m

-2
-"Z
2.2-
22G
E
01
Zrn
O h
0
.cIw
-
6 2" : B * .-
d ~ 2&
I,
>-
dm
f
=.*;"
m"-
m .$$
5 qJy
zh
g- tE
P'
FRAFVIE'S
INVESTIGATION
OF SEAMLESS
CASING
WITH LOW
Grade J-55-Continued
RESIDUAL
INTERNAL
STRESS 29.70 0.375 20.33 60,200
Grade N-80 60,700
61,000
7 17.00 0.231 30.30 84,700, 2,250 .... 60,500
82,200 2,020 .. . . 58,800
83,200 2,150 . ... 57,400
7 22.00 0.301 23.25 83,500 4,920 .... 57,000
83,500 5,450 5,290 57,800
57,600
7 28.00 0.393 17.81 83,100 8,350 . . .. 57,000
80,200 8,220 ... . 62,400
7 30.00 0.423 16.55 82,400 8,940 .... 61,200
82,500 8,630 .... 62,000
81,300 9,200 . .. . 61,800
81,700 8,410 . .. . 59,600
80,400 8,000 . ...
86,500 9,200 ... . Grade N-80
85,000 9,200 .... 17.00 0.304 18.09 81,600
81,900 8,610 .... 81,600
80,500 8,610 ... . 81,600
85,500 9,400 .... 90,200
85,500 9,500 .... 82,200
83,600
86,500
81,000
Grade J-55 93,750
93,750
92,600
92,600
93,900
93,900
92,400
92,400
92,900
92,900
90,500
90,500
93,800
93,800
 APPENDIX 1-Contiknecl

Grade N-80-Continued Grade N-80-Continued

71 29.70 0.375 20.33 80. 000 5. 900 71 29.70 0.375 20.33 89.700 6. 400 ....
81. 000 5. 600 92.600 6. 600 ....
81. 000 5.900 90. 100 6.400 ....
81.000 6.000 91. 400 6. 500 ....
80. 400 5. 600 82.400 5. 900 ....
82. 900 5. 800 82. 000 5. 700 ...
84. 100 5. 800 83. 500 5. 800 ....
82. 100 5.700 82. 200 5. 800 ....
82. 600 5.900 82. 700 5.900 ....
APPENDIX 2
COMPARISON OF AVERAGES OF COLLAPSE TESTS WITH AVERAGES IN
BULLETIN 5 4 - 2 FOR API CASING
Nominal Dimensions Average Collapse Pressure (PSI)

\Val1 .
D Ratlo:
S~ze IVelght Thickness t General I:cnernl Average
(Inches) (Lb Ppr F t ) (Inclres) Ratlo A B C E .i r e r a g e API' .iPI Average

GRADE H-40

GRADE J-55
44 16.00 0.334 14.22 .... .... 9, 290
59 i4.00 0.244 22.54 .... 4. loo ....
52 17.00 0.304 18.09 .... 5. 720 6. 830
6 20.00 0.324 18.52 7. 100 .... ....
6g 24.00 0.352 18.82 4. 460 6. 670 ....
68 26.00 0.385 17.21 6. 050 6. 870 6. 930
68 28.00 0.417 15.83 6.480 .... 8. 370
GW 29.00 0.432 15.34 7. 280 .... ....
7 20.00 0.272 25.73 2. 490 3.050 2. 600
7 24.00 0.332 21.08 .... 4. 690 5. 130
7 26.00 0.362 19.34 5. 880 5. 400 5. 760
7 28.00 0.393 17.81 .... .... 7. 020
7 30.00 0.423 16.55 6.810 6.990 7. 270
78 29.70 0.375 20.33 .... .... 5. 610
78 33.70 0.430 17.73 .... .... 6.810
81 32.00 0.352 24.50 3. 160 3. 150 4. 170
81 36.00 0.400 21.56 3. 600 4. 500 4. 940
88 43.00 0.487 17.71 5. 520 .... ....
88 44.00 0.500 17.25 5. 910 .... ....
9 40.00 0.425 21.18 4. 560 .... ....
3 45.00 0.484 18.60 .... .... 6. 440
 APPENDIX 2-Continued
> '
Nominal Dimens~ons Average ~olfapse,Pressure(PSI)
h

Slze Weight
Wall
Thickness
-
D
t General
Ratlo:
Grnernl Average
(Inches) (Lh P e r F t ) t Inches) Ratio A B E Average API API Average

GRADE J-55-Continued

GRADE N-80
.... .... 8,510
5,400 .... ....
7,770 .... ....
.... .... 8,650
.... .... 9,410
4,520 .... ....
5,830 .... 7,120
6,770 .... 7,420
7,820 .... ....
.... .... 8,G90
.... .... ....
.... i .... 6,460
. .,.. .... 7,620
4,610 .... ....
5,380 .... 5,920
6,760 .... 7,120
4,680 .... ....
5,190 .... ....

APPENDIX 3
JOINT-STRENGTH-TEST RESULTS
Nominal Dimensions
Weight
P e r Foot
(Threads Longitudinal
and Wall Tensile Yield Pullout
Size Coupling) Thickness D Strength Load
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) -Ratio (Pounds)
t Grade Thread (PSI)
ELECTRIC-WELD CASING
21.95 J-55 Sharp-Short 60,957
59,730
21.95 H-40 Sharp-Short 49,063
22.54 I H-40 Sharp-Short 52,336
53,250
53,696
18.09 H-40 Sharp-Short 52,870
50,700
54,950
 APPENDIX 3-Continued
Nominal Dimensions
Weight
P e r Foot
(Threads Longitudinal
and Wall Tensile Yield Pullout
Size Coupling) Thickness D Strength Load
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) -Ratio (PSI) (Pounds)
t Grade Thread
ELECTRIC-WELD CASING-Continued
18.09 H-40 Round-Short

22.54 J-55 Sharp-Short

18.09 J-55 Sharp-Short

18.09 J-55 Round-Short

21.82 H-40 Round-Short

17.21 H-40 Round-Short

17.21 J-55 Round-Short

17.21 J-55 Round-Long

30.30 H-40 Sharp-Short

30.30 H-40 Round-Short

21.08 H-40 Sharp-Short

 SETTING
DEPTHS FOR CASING

APPENDIX 3 C o l l t i n u e d
Nominal Dimensions
Weight
Pe? Foot
(Threads Longitudinal
and Wall Tensile Yield , Pullout
Size Coupling) Thickness D Strength Load
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) -Ratio
t Grade Thread (PSI) (Pounds)

ELECTRIC-WELD CASING-Continued
7 24.00 0.332 21.08 H-40 Round-Short

Sharp-Short

Round-Short

Sharp-Short

Round-Short

Sharp-Short

Sharp-Long

Round-Long

Round-Short

7 3C.00 , 0.423 16.55 J-51 Sharp-Short

I 7 30.00 0.423 16.55 J-55 Sharp-Long

 APPENDIX 3-Co~~tinued
Nominal Dimensions
Weight
P e r Foot
(Threads Longitudinal
and Wall Tensile Yield Pullout
Size Coupling) Thickness D Strength Load
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) t Grade Thread (PSI) (Pounds)
ELECTRIC-WELD CASING-Continued
7 30.00 0.423 16.55 J-55 Round-Short

5-55 Round-Long

H-40 Round-Short

H-40 Round-Short

J-55 Round-Short

J-55 Round-Short

H-40 Round-Short

9E 40.00 0.395 24.36 H-40 Round-Short

91 40.00 0.395 24.36 5-55 Round-Short

103 32.75 0.279 38.52 H-40 Round-Short

,.

103 45.50 0.400 26.87 H-40 Round-Short

10: 45.50 0.400 26.87 5-55 Round-Short

131 48.00 0.330 40.53 H-40 Round-Short

131 61.00 0.430 31.10 H-40 Round-Short

 DEPTHS FOR CASING
SETTING
- -

APPENDIX 3-Continued
Nominal Di~nensions
Weight
P e r Foot
(Threads Longitudinal
and Wall Tensile Yield Pullout
Size Coupling) Thickness D Strength Load
(Inches) (Pounds) (~nches) t
-Ratio Grade Thread (PSI) (Pounds)

ELECTRIC-WELD CASING-Continued
0.430 31.10 J-55 Round-Short

SEAMLESS CASING
0.244 22.54 B Sharp-Short

0.244 22.54 B Round-Short

0.244 22.54 D Sharp-Short

0.361 15.23 D Sharp-Short

0.244 22.54 D Round-Short

0.361 15.23 D Round-Short

0.272 25.73 B Sharp-Short

0.332 21.08 B Sharp-Short

0.272 25.73 B Round-Short ,

B Round-Short
 APPENDIX 3-Continued
Nominal Dimensions
Weight
Per Foot
(Threads Longitudinal
and Wall Tensile Yield Pullout
Size Coupling) Thickness D Strength Load
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) Ratio Grade Thread (PSI) (Pounds)

SEAMLESS CASING-Continued
25.73 D Sharp-Short

16.55 D Sharp-Short

25.73 D Round-Short

16.55 D Round-Short

16.55 D Sharp-Long

16.55 D Round-Long

27.34 B Sharp-Short

27.34 B Round-Short

25.66 D Sharp-Short

20.40 D Sharp-Short

25.66 D Round-Short
 SETTINGDEPTHSFOR CASING 181

APPENDIX 3-Continued
Nominal Dimensions
Weight
P e r Foot
(Threads Longitudinal
and Wall . . Tensile Yield Pullout
Size Coupling) Thickness D Strength Load
(Inches) (Pounds) (Inches) t Grade Thread (PSI) (Pounds)
SEAMLESS CASING-Continued
91 47.60 0.472 20.40 D Round-Short 60,000
60,200
61,100
\ 60,300
91 47.60 0.472 20.40 D Sharp-Long 59,900
58,300
57,000
60,800
9B 47.60 0.472 20.40 D Round-Long 59,600
59,100
58,600
59,200

DISCUSSION to know the factor of safety he h a s used is based upon

0. L. Carson (Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartles-
ville, Okla.) (written) : This discussion covers the fol-
lowing points in t h e order named:
1. Performance specifications.
2. Average vs. minimum values.
3. Collapse strength, joint strength, and burst-
lng yleld' strength.
4. Design of casing strings.
5. Conclusions.
Perfornlance Specifications
The fact that all pipe specifications have been predi-
cated on processing and manufacturing procedures and,
therefore, had to do with the chemical and physical
properties of the steels used in manufacturing the pipe,
has caused u s to overlook the true "performance" t h a t
these different pipes give in actual field installations.
The authors clearly bring out t h a t we, a s users, a r e
interested only in the true field performance character-
istics. The manufacturers must realize t h a t oil-well
casing is not just another use f o r pipe, but a job t h a t
must have a n especially designed pipe, made to do the
things required, in the best possible way, f o r the small-
est initial cost; otherwise the f u t u r e of deeper drilling
will be retarded seriously.
The manufacturing control inust be improved so t h a t
casing of a specific design can have lnininluin values f o r
collapse strength, joint strength, and bursting yield
strength t h a t will fall within a very narrow range. The
user only wants to feel certain t h a t t h e casing available
f o r use will have definite minimum values t h a t will per-
mit the engineer to design casing strings, and he wants
values t h a t will not fluctuate over a wide scale.
If performance specifications, established by actual
test data, a r e furnished the user-giving him minimum
values f o r collapse strength, joint strength, and burst-
ing yield strength--casing strings can be engineered to
meet a n y condition.
Average Vs. Minimum Values
The paper shows how average values came to be used
in designing casing strings. If the design of a struc-
ture fabricated from steel in tubular form to case a
hole drilled deep in the earth is a n engineering prob-
lem, then average values f o r the tubular steel cannot
be used, but must be replaced by the minimum values.
The actual ability of all members to carry loads in a
g v e n structure inust be known; otherwise the resulting
structure is not engineered. I n no phase of engineering
design of structures can average values of inembers be
used.
Orig~nally,factors of safety of 2 o r more were used.
This is the real reason that strings designed using aver-
age values did not experience excessive failures. As
drilling goes deeper and the lnvestnlent to case these
holes increases, the safety factor of 2, and the average
values, must go. I f the safety factor inust be reduced
to make deep wells economical, then t h e minilnuin
values of the casing inust be known accurately, or the
entire investment in the deep hole might be lost.
The authors bring out that various surveys made to
. get the minimum values for collapse strength, joint
strength, and bursting yield strength revealed the fact
t h a t these values varied widely. This makes i t hard to
know just w h a t should be done. The test covered pipe
,manufactured throughout t h e last two o r three years,
and undoubtedly increased the range of variation due to
changes III manufacturing practices. I belleve the latest
test d a t a slloulcl be used to determine the range of m ~ n i -
mum values, f o r the reason t h a t they will more truly
represent the casing on t h e market today. The tests
bring out the f a c t t h a t these values vary widely froin
manufacturer to manufacturer, and in some cases a r e
not consistent in t h e products of a given manufacturer.
I t seems logical to request t h a t the Manufacturers'
Subcoininittee on Pipe recommend some closer control
over these n l i n ~ ~ n u values.
n~ If this can .be accom-
pl~shed, the job of c o r r e c t ~ n g specifications can be
sirnl~l~fied materially.
Collapse Strength, Joint Strength, Bursting Yield
Strength
The authors have discussed in detail the theory and
past tests on all these strengths, and have brought out
the facts t h a t standard methods should be adopted to
make these tests in order t h a t the d a t a collected can be
uniform and, therefore, of more actual value.
I believe the procedures reco~nmendedin making t h e
collapse strength, joint strength, and bursting yield
strength a r e sound, and should be put into practice a s
soon a s possible. D a t a so established wlll furnish a
sound basis f o r setting miniinulm values. \\llth good
mlninlum values available, the user can shoulder t h e re-
sponsib~lity of selecting safety factors f o r a caslng-
s t r i n g design. The selectton of these safety factors wlll
be dependent on all the ltelns affecting the design of
the casing string. The responsibihty of the minimum
values w ~ l lrest on the manufacturers, and the respoil-
sibility of the safety factors mill rest squarely on t h e
shoulders of the users. This is a s ~t should be.
A complete analysis of the factors affecting the proper
design of casing have been included in the paper, and
a r e repeated a s follows:
1. Size of hole to drill and size of casing to s e t f o r
the type of complet~ondeslred.
2. Selection of factors of safety to fit the, individual
conlpany requirements.
3. Collapse pressure t h a ~s t r ~ n g swlll be required to
withstand.
4. Effects of stretch due to tension.
5. Joint strength required.
6. Effects of releasing tension in p a r t of string.
7. Effects of elongation due to temperature changes.
8. Bursting yield strength necessary to meet all re-
quirements.
9. Effects of column loatllng 011 strlng t h a t can be
caused by the following:
a. Release of tension a t top of hole when nip-
plmg up.
b. Crooked hole o r directional hole.
c. Shifting o r heaving formations.
d. Shooting of wells too close t o casing seat.
10. Casing wear caused by:
a. Drill plpe.
b. Tubing.
c. Line cutting.
All of t h e above ~ t e i n sa r e given s l ~ g h t l yd ~ f f e r e n t
weight by each user in accordance with hts experiences.
I t is brought out t h a t only recently have the users taken
advantage of graduated weights and grades In a casing
string. I t 1s possible t o Improve the efficiency of t h e
s t r l n g by using this method, and t h e cost can be reduced
m a t e r ~ a l l yin strings of 4,000 f t or more 111 length. The
principal forces used in designing a string of casing a r e :
a. External pressure tending to collapse the pipe.
b. Longitudinal or axial tension attempting t o pull t h e
plpe apart.
c. Internal pressure atteinpting to burst the pipe.
These forces all vary along t h e entlre length of the
strlng, and this perlnits t h e use of several grades a n d
weights in the same size of casing.
Savings ranging from 23 per cent m deep wells down
to' 10 and 5 per cent in shallow wells p e r m ~ tinore
profitable exploration a n d development of producing
lwoperties than with t h e older methods.
The authors b r ~ n gout clearly t h e factor of safety i n
collapse, but do not d ~ s c u s sthe apphcation of this 1111-
portant item to joint strength. I t 1nlg11t have been thew
~ d e ato apply the same factor of safety to all three
major forces affecting t h e design. I wish to bring out
t h a t i t is not good practice to use the same safety factor
in joint strength or t e n s ~ o na s t h a t a p p l ~ e dto collapse.
Sub-surface pressures can be approximated by calcula-
tion and, therefore, a factor of safety of 1.25 IS con-
sidered satisfactory; b u t when casing is worked whlle
i t is b e ~ n gr u n and then sticks, it might require a very
heavy pull to loosen. This call cause t h e safety factor
f o r tension (joint strength) to increase In order to
handle the load. Using 1.20 to 1.25 In collapse and 1.76
to 1.90 in jolnt strength, and 1.25 to 1..50 in bursting
yield pressure, i s belng practiced by some users a t
present. If the minimum values can be established
accurately fro111 proper test, then these factors of
safety still can be lowered further.
Conclusions
The conclusions and recommendations presented by
this paper should be p u t into force a s soon a s possible,
and a d d i t ~ o n a ltest d a t a accumulated a s suggested so
t h a t the point finally can be reached where enough
factual i~lformationis available t o establish more accu-
rately the minimum values desired. The conclus~onsa r e
repeated f o r reference only:
1. The design of casing strings is a n engineering prob-
lem,'and must be based on minilnum perfornlance
properties.
2. Minimum performance properties should be deter-
mined directly f r o m test results.

3. A P I casing specifications should be revised so t h a t
grade class~fication is based on ininlmum a l j n ~ ~ t s
specified for performance properties : collapse
strength, joint strength, bursting yield strength.
Ductility r n ~ m a ~ urequirements
m should be added.
4. T e i ~ l p o r a ~m
y ~ m i n u m performance properties a r e
recommended a s follows :
a. Collapse strength=75 per cent of average in
Bltlletl)~5-C-2.
b. Joint strength = 85 per cent of average in Bttlle-
fix 5-C-8.
c. Bursting yield strength = 87.5 per cent of aver-
age i n Bttllctzr~5-C-2.
5. Safety factors celculated from the proposed mini-
muni performance properties n ~ a ybe used with
confidence.
6. Additional test data on performance properties of
casing a r e essential.
The authors should be co~nplimentecl011 their splendid
paper.
H. W. Ladd (Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, Tulsa,
Okla.) (written) : Discussion of the paper under con-
sideration first calls f o r the statement t h a t the paper
col~tainsa coa~pletesuinmation of the very excellent
work on physical properties of casing completed during
the past few years in which the authors individually
have taken a n important part. This h a s provided in-
formation and conclusions which give a more definite
basis for cleterinining a safe and economical applica-
tion of casing to its use in oil wells.
On this basis, the authors propose to advance further
the knowledge through application of aclclitional d a t a
which they have cleveloped and data which they recom-
mend be procured in the future. This is in keeping with
the goal whlch long has been sought by all users of
casing-which is, briefly, to be able safely to protect
their well investment in the most econonlical manner.
The application of such a principle definitely must
be governed by a sound foundation f o r dec~slon,and
certainly this best can be expressed by minimum values
when assurance IS available t h a t such minimum values
a r e not in excess of the reasonable linlits of control In
n~anufacturingpractice.
Not so long ago the selection of a n oil-well casing
string was nlade with little or no consideration a s to
how much the safety factors might be above those which
were needed to protect the well properly and safely
from collapse pressure and tensional stress created by
the expected setting depths.
The empirical setting-depth tables, which provided
the only information then available, were used with a
factor of safety which now is considered higher than
required. The results of past esperlence also played
a considerable p a r t in the selections; however, in inany
instances changing conditions failed to duphcate past
experience which, therefore, was lessened in value a s
both product and application diffe~ed.
S FOR CASING 183
Some operators sensed t h a t the actual physical prop-
ertles of casing would permit a material increase in the
then generally accepted setting depths and, therefore,
proceeclecl to reduce their relatively h ~ g hsafety factors
through experimentation, which resulted in considerable
advantage. Nevertheless, the usual result has been t h a t
the lack of known values and definite knowledge coacern-
ing the properties of casing has caused the use of
heavier walls o r hig!ler grades than actually were re-
cluired, with resultant loss. Consiclering the oil industry
a s a whole, this loss has been tremendous, and is in
itself the best example of the necessity and importance
of the information given in this paper.
The casing of oil wells is not now and cannot hecoine
a n esact science. I t can be, and is being, brought to a
basis where definite knowledge of controllable factors
is available.
Therefore, i t seems certain t h a t minimum perform-
ance values will be generally acceptable after they have
been agreed upon finally, a s they will provide this illore
definite basis f o r calculation ancl deslgn. The principal
result of establishing these minimums probably is found
in the better control of safety factors in comparison
wlth those now used with average values.
The A P I minimum collapse pressures h a r e been found
by many to be too conservative and impractical; and
the average values, tllel-efore, have been used to provide
a inore economical basis of application. This practice
has been generally successful, but always uncertain-
demanding the use of safety factors considered high #
enough to avoid undue risk or a ganlble 011 the unknown
probability of failure. The importance of the chances
taken increased with depths of the wells cased. The
use of minimum values a s proposed in this paper con-
templates t h a t a certain quantity of product will fall
below the proposed mimmum, which is 75 per cent under
the present A P I averages. This undoubtedly is t r u e of
any percentage that might he selected.
I t mould be of great importance to know just what
the ratio of the number of such specinlens is to the total
number of tests made a s f u t u r e collapse data a r e de-
veloped. Such information would be of value 111 calcu-
lating the expectancy of failure and in balancing the re-
sult against the safety factor selected by the user.
This would tend f u r t h e r to guarantee performance.
The proposed method of stanclard collapse test for
caslng seems satisfactory. I t is suggested, however,
that all such data accuinulntecl be available to the Aineri-
can Petroleum Institute f o r correlation.
I t is undoubtedly desirable that all work dealing with
the effect of tension on collapse in combination or
in graduated strings continue, and t h a t the maxi-
mum strain-energy theory be considered applicable
until further investigation adjusts or disproves i t s
application.
It has been mentioned previously by several t h a t 85
per cent of the A P I average joint-strength values is too
high a ratio to set f o r a mininluin, in view of present
data available, a s this appears now to be insufficient for
such a conclusion. The accumulation of further data,
of course, is indicated and desirable.
I n cons~deringthe strength of joints, it is apparent
that, when the yield point has been exceeded, failure
already h a s occurred. Therefore, i t would be of possible
value to determine the yleld point of the joint, when
making pullout tests, if this could be done with reason-
able accuracy, a s the correlation of such information
m ~ g h become
t advantageous in the determmation of the
m i n ~ m u mjoint-strength value and the better selection
of a suitable safety factor.
Burstillg strength based on the substitutio~lof mini-
inuin yield f o r mininlum tensile strength, with a 12;-per-
cent allowance for wall-thickness variation, is considered
to be logical and safe.
Too much stress cannot be placed on the ~inportance
of properly designing casing strings, a s such design
guarantees both safety and econon~y. The full advan-
tages of this have not yet been taken by the industry.
The paper under discussion provides aclecluate informa-
tion f o r the proper consideration of all factors which
a r e recluired in such design, either a s a straight string
of similar pipe or a combinat~onstring of different
weights, grades, and joints.
I w ~ s hagain to state t h a t many pipe users a r e penal-
izlng themselves by not making the most econoinical
s a f e application of casing to their wells. The facility
for doing so is provided by this paper in a complete and
sufficient manner. The capable engineering work sum-
marized and supplemented herein by the authors pro-
v ~ d e sdefinite results which require no further effort
on the p a r t of the user, other than its appl~cationto
his needs on a rational o r common-sense basis.
The authors a r e to be congratulated on this most ex-
cellent preparation, and f o r their foresight in clearing
the way for future inlprovenlent.
W. 0. Clinedinst (National Tube Company, Pitts-
burgh, Pa.) (written) : The authors a r e to be com-
mended highly on their efforts to provide a nleans f o r
designing casing prograllls on a minimum-strength
b a s ~ s . There is a rather p r o n ~ i s ~ nmethod
g f o r the eco-
nolnlc design of casing programs which h a s not been
~nentlonedin the paper. The econon~iespossible appear
to justify its consideration.
Absolute assurance t h a t a well will not be lost by
castng f a ~ l u r eis not necessarily t h e most econonlic con-
dition. F o r the operator drilling a single well o r a
sinall group of wells, i t probably is. F o r a large group
of wells, the savings in casing cost by the use of lower-
strength material m a y ' f a r exceed the cost of wells lost
by casing failures. This is a problem which is handled
readily by probability mathematics, provided the statis-
tics of the strength universe of casing a r e kno\vn. It
was ivlth this thought 111 mind that statistical methods
were a l ~ l ~ l i eind the detenliination of the n~inimunl-col-
lapse curves presented in B1illeti)l 5-C-2. These minima
curves were expressed a s 3 times standard deviation
minima, having a collapse-failure espectancy of 1 out
.of 740 pieces of pipe. The statistics of the collapse uni-
verse thereby defined a r e sufficient to design casing
programs with a n y collapse-failure risk desired.
Th'e writer has clevotecl considerable time during the
past year to this problem, and had hoped to have some-
thing concerning the problem in shape for presentation
a t this session. An interesting fact revealed in the
invest~gationto date 1s t h a t the risk of collapse failure
increases directly wit11 the number of sections in gradu-
ated-welght strings.
It is well to point out t h a t this method f o r the eco-
nomic design of casing progralns In no way 1s limited
by the use of m i n ~ m u mstrength values. I t is only neces-
s a r y to know the statistics of the strength universe in
terins of the specified ininiinuin instead of the average.
H. J. Hand (National Tube Company, Pittsburgh,
Pa.) (written) : The writer wishes to congratulate the
authors for their very enlightening analysis of this
subject-both a s to forces to which the string is subject
during the life of a well, and to properties t h e casing
material must possess in order successfully to resist
these forces. P~*obablyno logical argument can be ad-
vanced t h a t essential properties should not be based on
~nin~inum specifications f o r a nlaterial rather than on
average values. After a consicleratioi~of data included
in the' appendices, however, the writer 1s not in accord
with the values of the minima suggested and, further-
more, does not share the authors' ideas relative to the
application of statistical methods in the setting of speci-
fication requ~reinents.
It 1s agreed that, based on data included in Ap-
pendis 1, i t is possible to set minimum values f o r col-
lapse t h a t a r e 75 per cent of the average, without
encountering escessive rejections in manufacture or
necessitating a raise in t h e grade of steel. It is believed
t h a t more confidence could be placed in the latter,
however, if a value of 70 per cent of the average were
adopted f o r the limlt. It is not proved t h a t minimum
values f o r pullout could be set at 85 per cent of the
average \vithout raising present grades. I t is believed
further t h a t the 87.5-per-cent figure f o r b u r s t ~ n g
strength cannot be substantiated, a s i t is not based
on experimental evidence. I n what follows, reasons f o r
taking such a position will be discussed in detail, and
arguments w ~ l lbe presented to show not only why the
'
statistical method should not be disregarded, but why
i t is the only sound, scientific way to attack this general .
problen~ of establishing tolerances. I t is urged that
statistleal methods be utilized when analyzing future
data on collapse and pullout tests.
Collapse Tests
The treatment of the collapse test data is questioned
in several respects.
1. Tl'h~l jctere ~ e s t t l t so f 365 o f the 1.371 tests ( i u ( ~ i 1 -
crble ilot inclzcderl in t l t ~uncclysis? Although it IS true
t h a t sizes itlvolved f o r these tests were not shown in
Tables 2 01%3 of Blslletin 5-(3-2, t h e ratio of actual to
average collapse (needed f o r t h e analysis) could have
been obtalned froin the curves of Fig. 1of t h a t bulletin.

When these results were included, 7 tests were found
under 75 per cent ,of the average, and 37 under 80 I)er
cent-in contrast with the 3 and 15 found below sthe
respective inlnima when results of these tests were
eliminated. To assume that the test pieces were ma-
terial not made to A P I specifications is not sufficient.
2. T l ~ ec1.7~thors'
nretllotl of Izancllt~tgdata from sozwce
"A": Here results of tests made to old API-grade speci-
fications were classed a s grades H-40 and 5-55 on the
basis of yield point. Distorted distributions of yield
10 -
-
1.5s
SVNTMETIC
U LP
z
15-
3
r)
0 hCTUML DISTRIBUTION O N
g lo-
t
5-
I I I I I I I I
50.000 70.000
Yield-Point Distributions on "Synthetic" H-40 and
5-55, Made by Selection from Old API Cooperative
Data Con~paretlwith Those Obtained in Production when
Making Steel to H-40 and 5-55 Specifications.
FIG. 1 (HAND)
points result from such synthetically madeup grades,
quite unlike those occurring in practice [as shown in
Fig. 1 (Hand)]. With such a difference in yield-point
distributions, collapse tests on material encountered
in practice could not be expected to approach those in
group "A"-accounting for 583 tests of the 1,371.
3. F ~ ~ r t h eisr ,it advisable to i?7clzccle the 314 tests on
gra(Ie J-55 of g r o ~ p"D"? These a r e froin a group of
material produced purposely with low internal stress,
and were of abnorn~allyhigh yield point f o r the grade.
5-55 h a s a minimum yield specification of 55,000 psi, but
a study of these data revealed 60,000 psi was the lowest
SETTINGDEPTHS FOR CASING 185
yield encountered in this group. This may be taken a s
a change in the grade. If these tests and those of
group. "A" be eliminated, only 474 tests remain on
which to base a reliable min~muincollapse value. With
the exception of one test in group "C," all this material
meets the 75 per cent average satisfactorily, whereas
7 of the 474 (1.5 per cent) fail to meet 80 per cent.
Attention is called, however, to the f a c t t h a t this ma-
terial (groups "B," "C," and "E") exceeds t h e average
curves given in Bulletin 5-C-2 by 5 to 10 per cent.
Further, if the tests did not come from a "controlled
system of causes," 474 tests a r e insufficient a s a basis
to set u p reliable tolerance limits. (This point will be
developed in detail, subsequently).
I n view of these comments, i t is believed t h a t 7 5
per cent is the highest figure t h a t should be considered
when establishing nlinirnuln collapse data. And it is
quite possible t h a t additional data would indicate that-
J-5sMRDE UP FROM
z C O O P C R ~ T I V E PROCRMM
S T E E L +?*DL TO J 5 9
SPECIPIC~TIONS
Cu,n~ulativeDistributions of Per Cent of Norninal Pull-
out Strength from Data Included in Appendix 3.
FIG. 2 (HAND)
h
a value a s low a s 70 per cent might be necessary, if
minimum collapse specifications a r e to be met wlthout
generally raising steel grades.
Pullout Tests
Exception llkewise is taken to many "techniques"
util~zedi n the handling of pullout data:
1. Elinti?la.tion of tests: Of 243 pullout tests, 211 of
which were from pipe produced under normal operating
conditions, the authors included results of only 145 in
their analysis. Working with results of the 211 normal
tests, cumulative distributions were plotted separately
for the two groups of tests involved in the study, and
also f o r both thrown together. These a r e shown in
Fig. 2 (Hand), and the results a r e quite different from
those of the authors'. Whereas the authors found no
values under 91 per cent of the average, the present
study indicates t h a t 011 all tests 1.8 per cent were under
85 per cent of the average, and 0.9 per cent under
80 per cent.
 2. A "co~tvol-cl~trt" study was made on these 211
tests, and "non-controlled" conditions were found to
exist. Under such condit~ons,i t is folly to base toler-
ances to be used In specifications on so few tests. As
will be pointed out later, "non-controlled" conditions
mean t h a t non-constant actlng causes (ones which enter
and leave the system with time, or those t h a t a r e
peculiar to certain sizes, grades, manufacturers, etc.)
a r e present, and one might expect large differences be-
tween groups of tests. Such is actually the case with
materlal represented in the two test trials shown in
Fig. 2 (Hand). One set of tests showed no pullouts
under 85 per cent of the average, whereas the other had
3.4 per cent under 85 per cent and 1.7 per cent under
80 per cent. Such a condition is typical of test results
obtained under "non-controlled" conditions, and should
' be interpreted a s arlsing out of the action of assignable
causes, rather than representing fundamental differ-
ences between the two groups of tests. Upon accumula-
tion of equal numbers of additional tests, the reverse
situation relatlve to test groups "A" and "B" reason-
ably might be anticipated. F u r t h e r accun-rulation of
data in units of 75 to 150 tests might show even wlder
fluctuation, a s nluch a s 10 t o 15 per cent under 85 per
cent of the average not being unreasonable. Under
such conditions, a large number of tests should be a v a ~ l -
able for the establishment of reliable tolerances; a
m~niinumof 1,000 would be desirable.
I n vlew of the foregoing, if no change in present
grade characteristics i s to be made, i t is not posslble
on the basis of the data presented to coinply with a
minimum pullout tolerance a t 85 per cent of the average.
The Desirability of Using Statistical Methods in the
Setting of Tolerances
The writer does not agree wlth the authors' attitude
r e l a t ~ v eto statistical n~ethodsof analysis. F o r a com-
plete discussion of the r61e of the statistical inethod in
determining economic tolerances, the writer suggests a
consideration of the following publications discussing
this problem in its various ramifications. These demon-
strate the value of statistical methods in thls field-
illustrating, in fact, t h a t the statistical nlethod is the
only sound way to accoml~lishthis end.
1. W. A. Shewhart, "Statlstical Method from the
Viewpoint of Quallty Control," the Graduate School of
the Dept. of Agriculture, IVashington, D. C. (1939).
2. N. C. \\liley, "Statistical Method a s an Ald in Re-
vising Specifications," Travs. Am. SOC. T e s t ~ n gMa-
terials 38, 647-57 (1938).
3, H. F. Dodge, "Statistical Methods and the Speci-
fication of Quality," Bzrll. A?u. Soe. Testing nlatevials,
17-21, Mar. (1937).
4. II7ork sponsored by d?)z. Soc. Testing Materials
Conl~nitteeson Presentation of Data of Conl~nitteeE-1
on Methods of Testing.
5. J. R. Townsend, "Planning f o r the Collection of
Statldardization Data," TTYL)ZS. AWL.SOC.Testing Ma-
teric~ls,770-85 (1933).
Relative to the authors' remarks pertaining to "sta-
tistical control," 11. 126-8, i t is well to reinetnber t h a t
controlled conditions cannot be reasoned out-they must
be tested f o r by s t a t i s t ~ c a lcalculations. It might seen1
logical to assume that, because a product is received
from various manufacturers, control does not exist;
however, this is no criterion. What is meant by
statistical control is t h a t variation between averages, or
of variabillttes of "rational" sub-groups of- data, is
within limits of chance variation. The latter arises from
residual variation within the rattonal groups, and be-
conles w ~ d e rwtth greater residual variation. If factors
affecting results vary to such a ~)roportional estent
\vithin a rational sub-group (e.g., a given outside dl-
ameter, weight., o r grade of casing, made by a given
manufacturer) t h a t the variations between groups a r e
all wlthtn ltinlts of chance variability, we have statisti-
;;AVERRGE U R W C OF SERVICE L l r E PER MRNUFRCTYRCR 3 LOO0
L I M I T S %MOWN 149C 30 L l W I T 3 , PUOBhBILITV OF BEING E X C C C O L O DUE T O
CIIRNCC e L l N G I I N 3 7 0
1 A. 8. C, 0 , a N 0 E REPRESENT P I O O U C T F R O I l ERCY O r
FIVE P I R N U P R C T U I L R S
VAIIIRTION *MONC W C R V S SUC* -8 \ N D I C h T E D M C P C L 3
ENTIRELY M E A N I N G L E S S A N 0 S M O U L O BC A N T I C I P ~ T E D
DUC T O C M h N C E
Control Chart for Service Life o f Rolls Obtained from
Five Manufacturers, Illustrating Statistical Control.
FIG. 3 (HAND)
cal control. The state of control thus is based on ex-
perimental evidence and, accordingly, is or is not so,
irrespective of logtcal deductions from a piovi assump-
tions. I t would $be out of order to go into theoretical
details here, but relationships between universe varia-
b ~ l i t y(within groups) and chance variation to be es-
pected i n samples of a given size 72 all h a ~ ebeen
wokked out and verified inathematically, and forin the
basis f o r checking control esperi~nentally. Controlled
conditions do exist a t times i n industry, although this
is the exception rather than the rule. I n Fig. 3 (Hand)
is shown a n esainple of a control chart f o r life of rolls
from different manufacturers, in which a constant sys-
tem of causes (control) exists.
If statistical control exists, then the question of
setting tolerances is entirely a statistical problem. Un-
der such a condition, tf i t is desired to set u p tolerance

lilnlts to insure efficient use of engineering materials,
all t h a t i s needed is to secure d a t a on 100 or more
instances (11. 63, Shewhart, loc. cit.) and set t h 6 ' l i n ~ l t
where deslred. Under such a condition, if dealing Gith
averages of 4 or 5 indlv~dualtests, ilorlnal law proba-
s esactly-here there is 1 chance in 740 of
b ~ l ~ t i ehold
exceeding a minimum limit of average minus 3 stand-
a r d deviations; 1 in 40 of esceedlng a nii~llmumof aver-
age minus 2 standard dev~ations; etc. If statistical
control does not exlst, then the question of tolerance
is partly a s t a t i s t ~ c a lproblem and partly one of coin-
lnon sense or engineering judgment. Even here, how-
ever, the problem can be defined more clearly, and t h u s
better evaluated, ~f statistical methods a r e employed.
If control does not esist, i t must be stressed again t h a t
a large number of salnples-at least 1,000-is needed,
before a n y tolerance can be set t h a t is a t all rel~able.
Under these conditions, if tolerances a r e set u p based
on relatively few tests, unexpectedly high proportions
of rejections might result in p r a c t ~ c e ,due to the action
of unpredictable "assignable" .or "non-constant-acting"
causes.
The authors' remarks on 1). 141-2, when discussing
pullout test results, particularly t h a t p a r t reading, "it
seems qulte clear t h a t a n unduly large penalty results
when statistical methods a r e applied to d a t a obtained
..
. . . uylien t h e requlsitc controllecl conditions do not
apply," should have cons~derationa t f a r g r e a t e ~length
t h a n is here possible.
Examples a r e clted from Crawford's data, t h a t on
Fi$-in. x 17-lb J-55, the 5 x SU lllnlt i s 9 1 per cent of
the averages given in Btclletirt 5-C-2; on 7-in. x 24-lb
J-55, 89 per cent; whereas f o r all slzes i t is only 75
per cent. This is due to the f a c t t h a t these groups
a r e both "out 'of control" OJI the h ~ g hside (actually
checked, using control calculations). Some assignable
cause prevailed ill both these groups of d a t a which
gave unexpectedly h ~ g hvalues. The authors make no
mention, however, of 7-in. x 17-lb J-55. Here, three tests
gave a n average pullout of 78 per cent of the average,
the lowest of the three being 75.2 per cent. This ma-
t e r ~ a lwas siniilarlp "out of control," this tinie on the
low side-again due to a n assignable cause-only in this
case it acted adversely and not beneficially a s In the
first case. I t i s evident t h a t a penalty 1s necessary
f o r lack of control; but t h ~ s1s due to the s t a t e of lack
of control, a n d not to a n y statistical system of ~ n t e r p r e -
t i n g the data. If careful analysis of the d a t a indi-
cates t h a t assignable (findable) causes a r e acting, t h e
problem becolnes defined clearly. Until technology
enables a n e h m i n a t ~ o nof these causes, we must expect t o
get values t h a t a r e undesirably low-and ones which
must be taken rnto account when setting tolerance
limits. Application of the statistical method In manu-
facture, if diligently applied, should lead quickly to t h e
elimination of such conditions-and, when this h a s beell
accomplished, the establishment of closer tolerances can
be made without undue penalty.
So long a s such conditions creep into the cause sys-
tem, economic tolerances cannot be set based on only a
few tests. 1V1th the present s t a t e of the a r t , such
IS FOR CASING 187
asslgnable causes a r e a p t to creep into the system-
and to do so to a n unl~redictable extent. No reliable
estii%ate2,0f the degree to which these unl~redictable
causes a r e a p t to enter can be made. Certainly, however,
the best method f o r estimating i s to obtain d a t a on a
large number of tests-at least 1,000 would be desirable.
Additional Remarks Concerniiig the Applicatiot~ o f
Statistical Methods in Setting Tolerances
Even when controlled conditions do not exist, use of
statistical lnethods 1s advisable in setting up tolerances,
because t h e problem can be defined more clearly. The
following taken f r o m Dodge (loc. cit.) illustrates this
point: When settlng u p a specification f o r the tensile
strength of a zinc-base die-casting alloy, d a t a mkre
obtalned from each of five producers. Control charts f o r
averages and standard deviations were set up. All
variations were due to chance (controlled conditions)
except those of one producer with a low average and
one with a high average. All were satisfactory f o r
standard deviation (which, incidentally, IS usually t h e
case). From a statistical viewpoint, the producer with
the low average had something wrong in his process-
soine asslgnable reas011 why his product had a low
average, and one which might be found. The limit
finally decided upon should be set in the best interest of
all concerned, compromis~ng between t h a t which i s
feasible to ~ r o d u c eand use economically-balancing the
chances of a rejected product against failure in service.
With the aid of the control chart, such compromises
would not need to be made un\vlttingly. In t h ~ case s they
could be made with the knowledge that, if t h e Iiniit
were r a ~ s e dt o meet servlce needs, this action \vould
requlde either 110 adjustment, or a n adjustment of a
definite kind in the process of a given producer. I n the
example under consideration m i n ~ m u i ntolerances could
be set on the basis of 3 standard deviations below aver-
age (probability of being exceeded d u e *to chance of
1 to 740), this "average" being based on only: 1, t h e
highest; or, 2, the lowest; or, 3, the 3 inteiQiiiediatepro-
ducers (which were all i n control). Tolerances thus
could be deterlnined with a n exact knowledge of w h a t
changes the various producers could o r would have to
inake when one of the 3 finally w a s adopted.
Considering collapse or pullout values, the control-
chart nlethod could be applied to determine a s s ~ g n a b l e
factors ~iifluencing differences between actual test re-
sults and average vnlues according to Bubletilz 5-C-2.
Such assignable factors might be associated with pro-
ducers, class of product, or sizes. Based on results of
this type of analysis, specifications could be set up with
a sound knowledge of penalties inflicted if a given toler-
ance limit were adopted-wlilch producer, class of
product o r sizes, if any, mould be penalized if rhyme or
reason existed with respect to groups found "out of
control." If no regularity existed with respect t o pro-
ducer, sizes, etc., f o r d a t a groups "out of control," such
a study might indicate t h a t i t mould be economically
desirable to base tolerances on a consideration of t h e
general cumulative distribution f o r all d a t a luinped to-
gether, selecting a ininiinun~point to exclude 0.5 per
cent, 1 per cent, 2 per cent, o r any other per cent of the
lowest values encountered. On the other hand, if all
data were found to come from a controlled condition,
except t h a t of one assignable low producer o r of a few
sizes assignably low, i t might be well to have minimum
tolerances based on data excluding the particular pro-
ducer or sizes concerned, using the cumulative distri-
bution or average minus three standard deviations a s a
basis ( t h e thought being t h a t the particular producer
or slzes involved were low, due to a findable cause
which, in turn, should be eliminated f o r the general
good of all concerned). Then the advantage of the
statistical method becomes apparent; i t 1s clearly
possible to establish a n y adjustments necessary to set
up'tolerances higher than those determined by merely
escludlng a certain low percentage of all values en-
countered. Wlth such a method of analysis available,
establishment of a specific tolerance then becomes one
of economic decision.
In conclusion, i t is urged t h a t statistical methods be
utilized in the final establishment of minimum limits f o r
the very important casing properties discussed in the
present report.. It firmly is believed t h a t only through
these methods .can reliable and economic tolerances be
established to the best interest of all. It is suggested
further that, when collecting f u t u r e data on this prob-
lem, the order in which tests a r e made by various
nlanufacturers be shown. Quite frequently the time ele-
ment aids in locating assignable causes of variability.
T. McLean Jasper ( A . 0. Smith Corporation, Mil-
waukee, Wis.) (written) : This paper represents a
large amount of laborious work, and the results a r e
worthy of our very best attention. The authors of the
paper well may feel gratified by the very large amount
of apprecjation which the writer feels will be bestowed
for the effort they have made. The help which the paper
gives in clarifying the discussions which have occurred
durlng the past five o r six years also will be appreciated
by the American Petroleum Institute and by the pipe
user and the manufacturer, because ~t tends to elimi-
nate unnecessary discussion of highly technical o r
theoretical considerat~onst h a t have tended to confuse
the main issue. The real problem we have is to develop
a logical and simply applied pipe specification f o r the
casing of oil wells.
The writer visualizes a very distinct principle point-
ing toward a simple performance specification for cas-
ing which will not throttle progress in manufacturing
processes, and which will allow full advantage to be
taken of improvements of whatever nature. It should
not compel all A P I pipe to wear the identical pattern
(nor stoop to the stature of t h e least able method of
manufacture) in order to meet the A P I requirement, a s
represented by its code, f o r a general class or grade
of pipe.
I t is my belief t h a t one type of casing may vary from
some other type in one or more of its properties. It may
have superior pullout ppoperties but inferior collapse
properties. If this difference is so registered with the
American Petroleun~ Institute, the purchaser is pro-
tected and is given the opportunity of balancing one
against the other in the engineering of each casing
string.
The writer visualizes the performance A P I specifica-
tions somewhat a s follows:
I. Dm~ensionsand tolerances:
a. Because of interchangeability the thread form,
taper, lead, and length tolerances should be stand-
ardized so f a r a s the normal joint is concerned. This
involves weight and thickness tolerances a s well. This
is already in the 5-A specification.
b. The sizes and thicknesses of pipe which most
nearly fit the requirements f o r casing the wells in
various fields should be standardized. This is already in
the 5-A specification.
c. Provision should be made f o r registering the vari-
ous makes of special joints together with their per-
formance record, thls performance record to be estab-
lished thoroughly before registration is permitted. This
would tend to eliminate claims which vendors of par-
ticular joints might make which cannot be established
upon thorough investigation. It should be of much
assistance to the casing user in selecting good joints
for service.
11. Collapse pressure
a. If a company will guarantee a minimum collapse
pressure for each grade, size, and thickness of caslng,
then if i t can supply routine laboratory tests which
show t h a t these tests a r e never below the guaranteed
value, this should be sufficient to allow t h a t conlpany to
register its pipe and be given the privilege of stamping
t h e pipe with "API" on the basis of this quality.
b. I n addition to the above specifications, a method
f o r field and laboratory testing f o r collapse should be
outlined. I t is believed t h a t a simple method f o r field
t e s t ~ n gcan be devised which will be practicable and
relatively inexpensive. This will tend to insure policing
of the minimum collapse pressures registered f o r A P I
casing.
111. Pullout load
a. I f a company will guarantee a minimum pull-apart
value, using any threads a s under "I" f o r each grade,
size, and thickness of casing, and will supply tests to
substantiate the minimum values, then such pipe should
be registered a s "API" pipe and be given the privilege
of stamping "API" upon i t on the basis of this quality.
b. Pullout tests require equipment capable of apply-
ing a large quantity of force. The satisfactory method
f o r making such tests should be outlined.
IV. Ductility
a. If a company will guarantee some form of ductility
quality f o r each grade, size, and thickness of pipe which
i t makes, and will supply tests which substantiate i t s
nlinimuln values, then t h a t company should be allowed
t o register a s supplying API pipe on this basis.
b. Outline the ductility test required, such a s ring-
flattening test o r per cent elongation. The ductility test
 DEPTHSFOR CASING
SETTING 189

is somewhat flexible, because i t is discovered t h a t a s It is believed t h a t the method f o r arriving a t mini-

steel is increased in strength i t decreases in ductility.
It is obvious that in the old specifications the higher
grades of steel assumed the lowest ductility requiFe-
inent. It is obvious that the greater the depth of casing,
the greater the demand f o r ductility or ability to adjust
itself. Therefore, i t is somewhat important t h a t the
fundan~ental requirement for this property be given
some study. No one h a s undertaken such a task. Duc-
tility requirements in specifications f o r steel have been
what could be obtained easily. Few engineers have
looked a t ductility from the standpoint of what is
needed f o r a service.
There a r e many other details f o r pipe which now
appear in A P I Std 5-A, and which have been worked
out through the years. I t is rightfully a p a r t of such
inunls in the paper is perfectly logical, and is much
closer to the actual values than formerly was proposed
in Bz~lletin5-C-2.
W. M. F r a m e (Spang-Chalfant Division, The
National Supply Company, Pittsburgh, Pa.) (written) :
The,authors have recon~n~ended t h a t the minimum joint
strength in tension be 85 per cent of the average values
of A P I B ~ ~ l l e t i5-C-2.
~z They have based this recom-
mendation on a n analysis, a s shown in Table 7, of the
test results obtained by the A P I cooperative investiga-
tion * and by Crawford's investigation.? I n Table 7
the minimum value of joint strength a s observed by
test is compared with the average value of joint strength
of Bzilletix 5-C-2.

TABLE 1 (FRAME)
Ratio of
M~nimum
Minlmum Corrected
Joint Joint
Nominal Strength Strength
Dimensions Average Minimum Corrected to Average
API Observed Observed to Minimum API
' Size Weight Joint Joint Yield Yield Joint
(Inches) (Pounds) Grade ,Thread Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
55 14 H-40 Short 174 174 53,200 131 0.75
59 17 H-40 Short 220 229 50,700 181 0.82
7 20 H-40 Short 239 230 53,700 171 0.72
7 24 H-40 Short 296 274 48,100 228 , 0.77
55 14 J-55 Short 232 215 62,300 190 0.82
5: 17 5-55 Short 293 272 59,400 253 0.86
5: 20 5-55 Short 350 390 62,900 341 0.97
7 20 J-55 Short 318 288 64,800 . 244 0.77
7 24 5-55 Short 394 362 60,200 331 0.84
7 30 J-55 Short 506 480 63,300 417 0.82
7 24 6-55 Long 452 383 59,000 357 0.79
7w 30 5-55 Long 580 529 59,600 488 0.84
7s 30 5-55 Long 580 540 63,800 465 0.80

specifications. The only thing t h a t I would change
would be a s shown above in order to produce a flexible
performance specification which represents operating
service demands, and which can be more directly used
by the field engineer.
Field practices occasionally entail the use of h ~ g hin-
ternal pressures in casing. The authors have brought
this u p in connection with deep drilling, and have out-
lined a method for caring f o r this. It is suggested that,
In thls connection, the experience of field operators
should be brought to bear on such requiren~ents, and
t h a t the casing manufacturer become acquainted with
these requirements through the Engineers' Subconi-
mittee. If such pressures a r e due to improper handling
of casing, then field-practice recommendations may be
able to eliminate any trouble from this source. If, how-
ever, certain casing programs call for high operating
pressures, then these properties should be included in
the perforlnance specification.
The test specimens used in these investigations were
made from steels of inore or less average properties.
No attempt was made to provide steels with minimum
physical propert~es. Yet the A P I specifications desig-
nate the miniinuln properties of the steel, and we know
that pipe is manufactured in some instances from steels
very close to the n~inlinum values. The "Report 011
Physical Properties of Pipe," A P I Bztllett?z 223, shows
that, f o r grade "D" steel, nearly 4 per cent of the tests
reported were very close to the minimum specified yield
strength of 55,000 psi.
I n Table 7 of the paper the minimum observed values
of joint strength were not corrected to the minimum
physical properties specified f o r the pipe. It is be-
lieved t h a t this correction should have been made, and
in a manner similar to t h a t used by Crawford.
I n Table 1 (Frame) the corrected observed lninin~uln
-
Prodltctto~i Birll. Xo 020, Exhibit "I::;' p 107-75.
t LJr1lll~lg c111c1I'rodrtctlo~~.Prctctice, -lo--S.! (1:1::01
 RIALS

joint strengths taken from Crawford's Table 2 a r e The fit of the Edwards and Miller d a t a to equation
compared with the minimum observed values and the ( 2 ) is shown in Flg. 1 and 2 ( H o l m q u ~ s t ) .I n order to
A P I average values. The observed yield strengths a r e permit the asse~nblyinto one plot of d a t a on materials
shown also. The ratio of the miniinun~corrected joint
strength to the A P I average joint strength 1s shown
to be cons~derablylower t h a n t h e ratios of Table 7 of
the paper. Only 2 of tlie 13 ~ t e l n shave ratios of 85
per cent or better, and 6 of t h e 13 items have ratios
80 per cent o r under.
Consequently, ~twould a p p e a r t h a t , ~f t r u e minimum
values a r e desired, they should be based on a ratio of
not more than 75 per cent f o r t h e lighter sizes, and not
more than 80 per cent f o r t h e h e a v ~ e rsizes-instead of
85 per cent f o r all sizes.

J. L. Holnlcluist ( S p a n g Chalfant Division, The

National Supply Company, Ar?lbr~dge,Pa.) (written) : *
This paper proposes t h a t t h e lowering of collapse resls-
tence of casing by longitudinal tension stress be com-
puted from tlie equation :

u, = hoop compression stress

u, = longitudinal tension stress
u,= yield stress
p= Poisson's ratlo (taken a s ~ = 0 . 2 G ) Miller and Edwards Data-Collapse Failures Only.

The paper by Holn~quistand N a d a ~'" proposes t h a t FIG. I (HOLMQUIST)

t h e l o w e r ~ n gof collapse of pressure of casing by longi-
tudinal tenslon stress be computed from the equation:

,tuheve the syinbols a r e a s defined above.

Both ecluations ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) represent the biaxlal
stress case of theories based on straln-energy considera-
tions. Equatlon ( 1 ) commonly is referred to a s t h e
~ n a x i l n u nstrain-energy
~ theory. We will refer to equa-
tion ( 2 ) a s t h e Hencky-von Mises theory to avoid con-
fusion. The Hencky-von Mises tlieory brings the strain-
energy theory of strength into conforinity with the f a c t
t h a t a s o l ~ dhomogeneous body cannot be made to de-
form ~ ~ l a s t l c a l l yby unifonn (hydrostatic) external
pressure and, hence, 1s to be preferred to the l n a s i m u ~ n
strain-energy theory on theoretical grounds.
The applicab~lityof the Hencky-von Mises theory to
t h e yielding of ductile metals under co~nblnedstress is
well establ~shedby t h e v a r ~ o u sexperimental investiga-
tions made in this field. The work of varlous investlga-
tors has been reviewed by Nadai.' The prevlous investi-
gations, however, have not included the case of a tube
under combined longitudinal tension load and external Miller ant1 Edwarrls Data-Stretch Failures 0111y.
pressure. An estenslve invest~gationby Edwards and
~ l l l e ;p~r o v ~ d e sd a t a on this case. A s both ecluations FIG. 2 (HOLMQUIST)
(1) and (2) have been proposed to cover this case, i t
will be of interest to e x a ~ n i n ethe fit of the Edwards and of different y ~ e l dstrengths, t h e variables plotted a r e
Miller d a t a to the theorles expressed by equations the ratio of hoop compression stress t o yield strength
(I) and (2). and t h e ratio of longitudinal tension stress t o yield
strength. Flg. 1 shows t h e fit t o t h e curve representing
eiluation (2) of those tests made under combined longi-
 SETTINGDEPTHS FOR CASING
tudinal tension load a n d external pressure which failed
by collapse.
I n Flg. 1 a considerable scatter of the d a t a a1;b;'ut t h e
curve 1s evident; however, f r o m previous esperlence,
we a r e prel~areclto acceptjthls a s characteristic of col-
lapse test data. It would be difficult, however, to d r a w
a morelsatisfactory trend line through the d a t a t h a n
the curye shown, which represents the biasial-stress
case of the Hencky-von Mises theory.
Fig. 2 sho\vs t h e fit t o the curve representing eclua-
tion ( 2 ) of those tests made under combined longitndi-
nal tension load ancl external pressure which failecl by
"stretching."
I n Fig. 2 the scatter of the d a t a about the curve repre-
senting equation ( 2 ) is much less than in the case of
Fig. 1. Thls is due to the f a c t 'that, in t h e stretch
RATIO OF LONGITUDINAL TENSION STRESS TO YIELD STRENGTH
Miller and Edwards Data-Collapse ant1 Stretch Failures.
FIG. 3 (HOLMQUIST)
failures, t h e factor of instability does not intrude on
t h e results a s in the case of t h e collapse failures. A s
in the case of Fig. 1, i t would be difficult to d r a w a more
satisfactory trend line through the test d a t a t h a n the
curve shown, mhlch again represents t h e biaxial-stress
case of the Hencky-von Mises theory.
I n Fig. 3 (Hohncluist) the test d a t a f o r both t h e col-
lapse ancl stretch failures a r e plotted. The curves
r e p r e s e n t ~ n gt h e Hencky-ron Mises theory a n d the maxi-
mum strain-energy theory a r e shown also. It is evi-
dent t h a t t h e l a t t e r curve does not fit t h e d a t a a s well
a s t h e former. Therefore, i t is concluclecl t h a t t h e cor-
rection f o r t h e effect of tension on t h e collapse pressure
more properly is made on the basis of equation (2) t h a n
equation ( 1 ) .
I t should be noted t h a t there is a considerable differ-
ence in t h e results obtained by t h e two equations. Con-
sider case No. 3 of the example shown in Table 10 of
191
t h e IVescott, Dunlop, and Kelnler paper. In this case
t h e collapse value f o r 5 5 i n . s 15-lb 5-55 casing is cor-
rected f o r tension, t h e correction factor being 0.86 a s
determined froin the curve of equation (1). If the curve
of equation ( 2 ) were used, t h e correction factor would
be 0.79. E q u a t ~ o n( 1 ) gives only two-thirds of the cor-
rection o b t a ~ n e dby equation ( 2 ) In this ~nstance.
Ecl~irards and Mlller also concluded t h a t equation
(2) was inore applicable to their d a t a t h a n equation
(1). They also plotted their d a t a in terms of the
variables: ratio of hoop compression stress to yield
stress and ratio of longitud~naltension stress to yield
stress. Fig. 6 of their paper shows t h e plot of their
d a t a which may be compared with Fig. 3. I t will be
Positive=tension.
.Negative =colnpression.
* F o r collapse failure, the simple collapse stress i s
used instead of simple yield.
+=stretch failures-groups 3 t o 12, inclusive.
"=collapse failures-group
n
6 ; -=16.5; yield stress
t
=40,600.
=collal,se failures-group 7 ;
t
2
~ 2 1 . 7 yield
; stress
=81,300.
FIG. 4 (HOLMQUIST)
noted t h a t t h e pbints representing tube group 7, which
failed by collapse, occupy a different position in t h e
plot froin a n y points i n Flg. 3. This i s due t o t h e f a c t
t h a t f o r these points Edwards ancl Miller used a s t h e
yield strength t h e average stress computed froln Bar-
low's f o n n u l a froin t h e collapse pressures f o r t h e open-
end tests i n t h e group. F o r all other points t h e yield
strength used w a s t.he valGe found i n t h e tenslon test.
All the plotted points in Fig. 3 used the tension yield
strength.
The use of a yield-strength value computed f r o m
Barlow's formula increases the scatter of t h e data, a s
a comparison of the two figures shows. A discussion of
the reasons f o r this would involve a discussion of t h e
effect of t h e shape of the stress-strain curve on collapse
 resistance. As been discussed previously in publica-
tions of the society,' i t is not desired further to discuss
the matter here.
\ used a s specified in ASTM E 8-36, Par. 19, should not
Bibliography
' H(11niqulsta n d Naclai. "A Theoretical and Esprril~~riltal
13roacli ~ I the I I'r~vhlruiof Collal>st.of Dee{)-Well C'RIIIII~."
I I I O n ~ r dP r r ~ r l r t c t t o ~Prctctrcc,
r 302 11?$9)
' .A N I I ~ I R I ." T ~ I C U of~ ~Strengtll.
PS Trcor8 AIII A'oc TrRt i l r g
M n t t : r ~ r r l n 55, APAI 55-15',(143.3).
Ed\vards i ~ n t lAllllrr. D~scnssio~i on tllr Efrct of l:oinl~ii~rd
Longituilinal Lo?dlng a n d Esterl~alFrrsxur+, on tlie Strengtli
of I ~ l i l - \ V r l l Casing." Dvillr,ig n,id I'rod~rctio~rProctrrc, 4%:
I 19:<9I
W. L. Schwalbe (University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill.)
(written) : * The authors state t h a t design of deep-
well casings is a n engineering problenl. The modern
a r t of structural and machine design is based on the
scientific inethod of experimentation and analysis, es-
periinentation f o r the determination of the behavior
properties of the materials and members involve'd, analy-
sis for the determination of the relations w h ~ c hexist
between the test specimen o r the complete structure
and the environment in which behavior takes place.
Present knowledge of materials and the behavior of
long tubes under pressure is estensive enough now so
that a convincing case f o r the use of higher perforin-
ance values, whether average or m i n ~ n l u n can
~ , be made.
The evaluation of the available knowledge can be such
t h a t the engineer may design with confidence. Confi-
dence in design must be supplemented with confidence
In the materials and menlbers t h a t realize the design.
Such confidence inay be obtained only on the basis of
tests the engineer himself inakes o r on the basis of
specificatiol~su ~ r i t t e nby engineers in cooperation with
manufacturers.
I n regard to collapse pressures, specifications should
distinguish between the elastic collapse, sudden o r
gradual, and the inelastic o r plastic collapse. Specifica-
tions f o r the latter should include limiting shapes f o r
the stress-strain curve of the material, and upper liinits
f o r out-of-roundness and eccentricity of the tube.
Not only a r e cooperative test lwograms on the effect
of aslal stress on collapse strength advisable, a s sug-
gested by the authors, but i t is des~rablet h a t some-
what longer-range progralns, lnore in the nature of
"academic" research, be proposed, to determine the re-
sisting behavior of materials under biaslal and triasial
stress and non-unifornl stress distributions in' general.
W. J. Putnain, professor of theoretical and applied
mechanics a t the University. of Illinois, who has tested
about 150 joints ranging from 51 in. to 102 in. in di-
ameter, for the A. 0. Smith Corporation, Milwaukee,
Wis., during the past gear, offers the following
comments :
P. 143, iten1 9-A, "gage point" f o r measurement of
inside dianleter is not defined. If this is a t t h e same
position a s t h a t for ineasuring outside diameter, i.e.,
"adjacent to the shoulder of the threads," i t should be
so stated.
* Head by title.
P. 143, item 6, the inethod of gripping the speci-
men siinply states "so t h a t the loading is truly axial."
If it is assunled t h a t plugs and wedge grips a r e to be
this reference be given or suitable description of appa-
r a t u s needed?
A11
LJr111-
C. D. Miller (Barnsdall Oil Company, Tulsa, Okla.)
(written) : +
Stcn~tnnry of Replies to cc Qltestionnaire on Proper
Aletlrod of Setting Casing: F o r some time nleinbers
of the Drilling Practice Co~ninitteehave given consider-
able thought to the subject of the proper method of
setting casing. A casual survey indicated t h a t there
was a great difference of opinion esisting ainong the
operators. As the longer strings of pipe came to be used
inore generally, the question of the proper method of
setting the pipe became more acute. With the idea of
getting this question into the open, i t was decided to
circularize a s many of the operators a s possible with a
questionnaire, setting out the pertinent steps in the
setting of casing in a n effort to determine what the
various practices are.
The questionnaire sent out was rather long and com-
pl~cated,and was submitted .as a working model rather
than a s a n actual questionnaire; however, we believe
the response to have been sufficient to indicate the prac-
tices throughout the entire country.
In my opinion the meat of the subject appears to be
whether p a r t of the tension is slacked off or whether
the entire string is held in tension and, if the string
is slacked off, the method used in determining the
amount to slack off.
A sulninary of the replies to the various questions is
a s follows.:
Q ~ t e s t i o ~No.
z 1. Do you leave the full anlount of ten-
sion In the string when nippling u p a f t e r the cement
h a s set, or do you slack off p a r t of this tension?
Answer. Seventy-eight (787;)) per cent said they
slacked off and twenty-two (22%) per cent said they
held the pipe in full tension.
Qttestiot~No. 2. Is the same procedure used for all
strings, i.e., surface pipe and oil strlng?
.-lnsuier. Fifty (50%)) per cent of the companies use
the same procedure f o r all strings except when the sur-
face pipe is cemented to the surface.
Qttestion No. 3. If there is a n y difference in the
method used in setting the two casing strings, what is
the dlfference?
-4nswev. I t appears t h a t the general practice is to
cement the shorter strings of surface pipe to the sur-
face, and treat the intermediate strings the same a s the
011 string.
Q~testzo~z No. 4. If solne of the weight o r tension is
slacked off before settlng in the casinghead, do you
usually just slack off so many inches regardless of
depth?
t r:r:~il by title This rllscrlssion was pr~srntedby Alr. AIiller
11s a rrpurt at the mretinp ot the Topical Coll~mittrr011 r)rillilr::
l'mcticr. Elnckatolie H u t 4 , Fort Worth, Texas, ,\la< 27, 1!)4lI.
 THS FOR
A?tszue~. Practically every operator considered the
depth in calculating the amount to be slacked .off... One
operator, however, slacked off half the tension in the
pipe regardless of the depth.
Q ~ t e s t l o ?No.
~ 5 . O r do you attempt to slacli off a
certain distance per unit of depth, such a s a certain
number of inches per thousand feet of plpe set?
A ? ~ s ? u eA ~ . few operators use a certain distance per
unit of depth, and in each case this unit w a s one ( 1 )
inch per one thousand (1,000) feet of pipe above the
cement.
Qziestion No. 6 . If neither question 4 nor 5 is your
procedure, do you slack off a certaln weight a s deter-
mined by polnts on the weight indlcator? and
Qliesttox NO. 7. IS this certain welght slacked off
varied a s to depth of well?
Avts7uel.. Fifty-six (56%) per cent of the companies
use the weight indicator in determining the amount to
be slacked off, and in almost every Instance the weight
slacked off varled, of course, according to the depth of
the well.
Qlcestio)~No. 8 . Is the height filled by the cement cal-
culated or estimated, and is this fact taken into con-
sideration when tension In the casing strlng is slacked
off? and
Qziestion No. 9. O r is the amount of pipe t h a t is
above the cement determined by a n y sort of test such
a s moving the pipe up and down or by a temperature
test? and
Qttestlott No. 10. If one of the methods in question 9
is used, which inethod do you use?
Arzsrue~.Seventy-two (72%) per cent answered ' i y e ~ "
and twenty-eight (28%) per cent answered "no." A
small percentage of the operators determines the posi-
tlon of the cement behind the pipe by temperature tests,
and a small percentage determines the freezing polnt
of the pipe by movement.
Qziestion No. , I ] . If a certain amount of casing is
determined to be above the cement, how much, or what
per cent of weight or total above the cement is slacked
off?
Alzszuer. The percentage of weight above cement
slacked off vaned from a minimum of 25 per cent to a
maximum of 80 per cent.
Question No. 12.- Do you attempt to keep all pipe i n
tension?
Qz~estiolzNo. 13. Or do you attempt to keep the upper
string only in tension?
Qzsestion No. 14. Or do you attempt to keep the full
s t r ~ n gin tension, tapering down to the last joint above
the cement, which would be neither in tension nor
con~pression?
ATzszuel-. Forty-two (42%) per cent of the operators
attempt to keep the upper p a r t of the string in full
tension, tapering down to the last joint above the cement,
which would be neither i n tens1011 nor compression. A
number of the operators questlon this, indicating t h a t
in most cases when tests have been made the pipe had
become frozen some place above the cement, in which
event they tried to determine the freezing point of t h e
7
CASING 193
pipe and then keep all of the pipe above the freezing
point in tension.
With respect to this question, one operator states:
"Due to the buoyant effect of the mud and/or cement
there is a neutral point in each string which is neither
under tension nor compression. Determination of free
length of casing a f t e r the cement has set indicates t h a t
caslng usually freezes just below the shoe of the last
previous string and above the neutral point; hence the
free length of casing is usually in tension-at least
such is indicated by the few tests t h a t have been made.
The pipe below the neutral point is either cemented o r
frozen and, even though i t may be in slight compres-
sion, i t is not free to wobble and, therefore, causes no
difficulties." This operator flanges up hls casing with
the submerged welght, and does not attempt to slack off.
Another operator, on this same question, says: "Ten-
sion, if any, is usually slacked off when casing,,js set
in casinghead a f t e r cement has set which is forty-eight
(48) hours o r longer after casmg is cemented. Our
practice has been to test the amount of tension, which
will vary from well to well, with identical length strings,
due to temperature and tendency of formation to stick
upper p a r t of string. After this is determined, we usu-
ally slack off about one-third of the total tension."
Another operator says: "Our practice has been
changed. We used to drop about G in. slack in flanging
up or nlpplmg up after cement had set. Now there is
very little, if any, slack given to the pipe. I n no event
is additional tension taken."
Still another operator says: "Casing is hung on hook
for several hours until caslng reaches hole tempera-
ture-r unt.11 weight or indlcator ceases to drop, and
then landed without slacliing off. I t is felt t h a t this
lengthening due to temperature change is a sufficient
amount of slack off."
Another operator uses a rather unique method,
whlch is a s follows: "On strlngs set below 7,000 ft, a
pressure gage is placed on cement head and pressure
is bled to predetermined amount, o r released colnpletely
if float valve holds, and p a r t of tenslon on casing slacked
off each hour untll cement is set." This operator slacks
off about twenty-five (25) to thirty-five (35) per cent
of the total weight of the pipe above the cement indi-
cated by a temperature test.
Another operator slacks off approximately four ( 4 % )
per cent. H e states: "For example: A 9,000-ft string
of 81-in. casing is landed In the following manner:
1. Weight of string a t time plugs bump is approsi-
nlately 75 points.
2. About 4 hours later, casing is landed in slips under
72 points of tension.
By this method, the string is in tension by its own
weight a s modified by the effects of buoyancy, cementa-
tion, and formational temperature changes, and the
increments of t e n s ~ o nin said string when landed theo-
retically a r e distributed from top to bottom in effective
relation to their distribution a t the time the plugs
bumped."
Another operator says: "We prefer to slack off ac-
cording to amount of pipe above cement rather than
according to the weight, due to difficulty in keeping
weight indicators in constant adjustment. All pipe kept
in tension, but tension above cement relieved by slack-
ing off."
There seems to be considerable difference of opinion
a s to whether tension should be slacked off. I t is my
belief t h a t a number of the operators who indicated.
t h a t they kept the pipe in full tension meant t h a t they
kept the amount of pipe above the cement in tension
rather than t h a t they kept tension on the full string.
I believe there a r e relatively few strings of pipe set
without letting off some of the tension. I n discussing
this problem with several of the pipe-company engi-
neers, they indicate t h a t their idea of the proper method
of setting the pipe would be to determine the amount of
cement behind the pipe or the point a t which the pipe
has been frozen, and then let off enough slack to have
the first joint above the freezing point in neither tension
nor compression.
I t is difficult to arrive a t any definite conclusions, but
it would be interesting to know the amount of trouble
t h a t h a s occurred while using the various methods of
setting the pipe. If i t were possible to tabulate the
pipe failures which indicate t h a t the pipe h a s parted
and then determine the method t h a t was used in the
setting of each of the strings, some definite conclusion
might be reached.
Authors' Closure
The authors wish to express their appreciation f o r
the discussions, which provide much useful and valua-
ble information. This is particularly t r u e a s regards
the attitude towards the adoption of minimum values
instead of average values, and the readiness to accept
the principle of performance specifications.'
Mr. Carson has pointed out clearly the necessity f o r
designing casing strings on accurately known minimum
setting-depth values, and has emphasized the desira-
bility of closer control over these properties during
manufacture of the casing. The authors a r e in com-
plete agreement with these opinions as well a s his other
remarks, including the various factors which enter
into the design of casing strings f o r deep wells and
the need f o r additional test data on casing of recent
manufacture. Although no data yet have been presented
which would influence the authors to deviate from a n y
of the conclusions in the paper, they freely admit the
possibility t h a t additional new test data might give
rise to some slight modification of the minimum limits
suggested.
Mr. Ladd, in his discussion, points out the possibility
of reducing the investment in wells by taking advantage
of engineering principles in the design of casing strings.
The reduction in cost is not insignificant to a n y indi-
vidual operating company, and the total becomes im-
pressive when estimated f o r the entire industry. Mr.
Ladd also calls attention to the need for more test data
on joint strength; and there can be no disagreement
with this opinion, nor with the statement t h a t failure
h a s occurred when the load imposed on a casing string
exceeded the yield point of the weakest section, which
is generally in a joint. Such loads should never be im-
posed except in case of emergency, when no other al-
ternative exists. Altogether too little is known about
the effect of tensile loading upon joint tightness, and
this lack of information is a source of concern to the
operators.
Mr. Clinedinst discusses more fully a point mentioned
by Mr. Ladd. I t is t h a t the saving possible by design-
ing casing strings with very low factors of safety may
be greater than the cost of a well lost occasionally a s
a result of this practice. I t is true t h a t no direct men-
tion of this was made in the paper. This omission
was deliberate, however, because the authors believe
t h a t this is a question of policy for each individual
operator. I t was expressed indirectly by the statement
t h a t "the responsibility of the user is to decide what
factor of safety is required, and to accept the conse-
quences if failure occurs." However, these two costs a r e
not always the only costs involved. Quite frequently,
deep wells a r e wildcat wells drilled to explore struc-
tures located by geophysical surveys, or to satisfy lease
obligations in which time is a n important factor. I n
such cases much more is involved than the cost of a
single well. It is also possible that the strict economic
consideration will be lost sight of in case of the loss of
a n expensive well. All of these factors a r e individual
problems and, therefore, i t would be unwise to recom-
mend a general policy based on the considerations ad-
vanced by Mr. Clinedinst. His remarks do bring t h e
question to the attention of individuals concerned, and
the paper which he anticipates will undoubtedly be of
very material assistance to operators who choose to risk
occasional failures to obtain maximum economy.
The discussion by Mr. Hand is very detailed, and the
authors welcome a n opportunity to reply in the same
detail. The points raised by Mr. Hand will be answered
in the order used in his discussion.
Mr. Hand states his belief t h a t "the 87.5-per-cent
figure for bursting strength cannot be substantiated,
a s it is not based on experimental evidence." The au-
thors a r e a t a loss to understand the reason for this
objection-even when, a s pointed out in the paper and
by Mr. Hand, no bursting-test data a r e available. Pos-
sibly Mr. Hand overlooked the statement t h a t the
bursting strengths were calculated for minimum yield
strength, and not minimum tensile strength a s is com-
mon in the use of Barlow's formula. This practice was
adopted by the Manufacturers' Subcommittee for use
in Bulletin 5-C-2. I n addition, the authors applied a
further correction of 121 per cent to allow for minimum
wall thickness. When the spread between yield strength
and tensile strength is taken into consideration, to-
gether with the additional allowance f o r minimum wall,
it appears t h a t this limit is t h e most conservative sug-
gested by a wide margin.
Collapse Tests
1. The results of tests of A P I casing sizes only were
included, a s mentioned in the paper, because the only
concern was with pipe which bears the A P I monogram.
 SETTINGDEPTHS FOR CASING
The elim~nationof all other test data was decided upon
before the test data were analyzed, and the authors
do not belleve any other data should have been ~ncluded,
in view of the purpose for which this paper was written.
2. Objection was made to the reclassification of data
from tests on old A P I grades C and D into grades H-40
and 5-55, respect~vely. The minimum yield strength of
grade C was 45,000 psi, a s compared to 40,000 1x1 for
grade H-40. There was no difference between the yield
strengths of grade D and grade 5-55. Grade B casing
required a minimum yleld strength of 40,000 psi, identi-
cal with grade H-40, but t h ~ sgrade was practically
unused. D~fference in distr~butlon might be expected
between grade C and grade H-40, but thls difference,
a s shown in Fig. 1 of the discussion, 1s quite small and
much less than the difference between grade D and
grade 5-55. Therefore, Mr. Hand's criticism does not
seem to be supported adequately by his explanation.
I t is suggested t h a t the answer n l ~ g h tbe that changes
were found desirable in manufacturing operations be-
cause inspection of the collapse test results (Appendix
2 in the paper) shows t h a t pipe fro111 source "A" was
quite consistently lower in collapse strength than pipe
from other sources.
3. The statement made by Mr. Hand in regard to the
pipe with low Internal stress is belleved to be in error.
The pipe represented run-of-mill production, a s f a r a s
the authors were able to determine.
I n spite of the objections just discussed, Mr. Hand
found no senous object~on to the minlinum collapse
limit suggested in the paper.
Pullout Tests
1. Mr. Hand is correct in stating t h a t some pullout
test data were not included. The authors believe the
number to be 111 instead of' 98-which, in his discus-
sion, Mr. Hand infers were not considered. These
omitted results were used by the Manufacturers' Sub-
committee in preparing Bulletin 5-C-8.* Therefore, the
authors bel~evedthat they would be suitable also f o r
use in preparation of t h e paper. Requests were made
for these data when the paper was being written, and
have been made subsequently. The Manufacturers' Sub-
colnnllttee since has advised t h a t the data a r e not
suitable f o r this purpose, and f o r t h a t reason have
not been subnntted to the authors.? The authors do
not understand clearly why data sultable for d e t e r m ~ n -
m g average properties a r e not suitable for determining
ininin~umproperties. Evidently these data were availa-
ble to Mr. Hand, and the authors a r e pleased to note
the relation between the results of all tests and the
average values given in Bttlletin 5-C-2.
2. It is of interest to learn t h a t non-controlled condi-
tions were found to exist In the pullout test data not
available to the authors a s well a s In the tests t h a t
were available to the authors. As the 211 tests were
from pipe "produced under normal operating condi-
* P~rodtrctioir llrrll A'o. ..?!2J.,item +a, 11 124, a n d Esliibit
p 245-55
, I<eport of e t h e Sta~irl:irdlzation of Oil-Cocintry
C o m ~ i ~ i t t ron
T r ~ l ~ u l n(.:o~~ds.
r I'rotlrfctro~r Brrll Xo 226
195
I
tions" by only two manufacturers over a comparatively
short penod of time, i t would seem t h a t there- would
be small likelihood t h a t controlled cond~tions would
exist for tests made of the products of all pipe manu-
facturers over longer perlods of time. Mr. Hand's re-
marks lead to this conclusion, and in t h a t respect the
authors a r e in agreement with h ~ m . I n view of the
fact that non-controlled conditions were found to ap-
ply to the group of all pullout tests available, does ~t
seen1 probable. t h a t controlled conditions exlsted for
the collapse tests which were made by several differ-
ent manufacturers over a perlod of several years? Yet
these data were used statistically by the Manufacturers'
Subcommittee to arrive a t the nnnimunl values glven
in Bztlletnz 5-C-2. It would be ~ n t e r e s t i n g to know
whether these d a t a were tested f o r controlled condi-
tions. I t naturally would be assumed, in view of Mr.
Hand's remarks, a s regards the reclassification used
by the authors, t h a t these data could not possibly satisfy
controlled conditions-in which case the desirable
n l i n ~ m u nof~ 1,000 results is f a r from satisfied even f o r
collapse tests. I t is difficult to reconcile Mr. Hand's
conclusion that two groups of tests reported by Craw-
ford were "out of control" with Crawford's suggestion
that the ininllnuin values be determined statistically
from these same data. Other groups of collapse tests
also were "out of control on the hlgh side"; and yet,
in every ~nstance, the pipe was run-of-mill product.
Therefore, the authors consider 'these results to be
t y p ~ c a lof casing installed in wells. However, if the
minun~umresults a r e obtained by using three times the
standard devlation, the values a r e not hlgh enough for
econonlical usage. As pointed out in the early p a r t of
the paper, minimum values for physical properties cal-
culated on the same basis a r e f a r below the minimum
values allowed by the specifications. Such a position
is not tenable, and is not acceptable a s a basis for
drawing up performance specifications.
Use of Statistical Methods
F o r some reason, Mr. Hand h a s chosen to interpret
the authors' remarks to mean a basic objection to the
use of statistical methods for the analysis of data. T h ~ s
is not a t all true. The objection is t h a t the authors
do not believe t h a t the essential requirement of con-
trolled conditions has been satisfied in test data availa-
ble to the pipe committee. If this 1s true, a s admitted
by Mr. Hand, f o r the group of 111 pullout tests and
the 2 groups of tests in Crawford's invest~gation in
which unusual precautions were esercised, does ~t seem
likely t h a t control can esist when so many sources of
product a r e involved? The authors cannot be conv~nced
t h a t i t is possible, especially in view of Mr. Hand's
statement: "controlled conditions do exist a t times in
industry, although this is the esception rather than
the rule." No satisfactory proof has been offered t h a t
controlled conditions apply to all casing manufactured
f o r the oil industry. Mr. Hand should not lose sight of
"J,"
the fact t h a t the operators a r e confronted with t h e
necessity f o r setting casing in wells every day: As a
guide in this work, they have only the test data made
available to them by the casing manufacturers. If the
tests made under non-controlled conditions a s "tested
for by statistical calculations" a r e eliminated, a n in-
sufficient number a r e left to satisfy the minimum num-
ber of 1,000 given by Mr. Hand. The operators cannot
wait several years for these data, because the problem
is urgent already-and, therefore, the policy of waiting
until enough data a r e available for the application of
statistical methods which he advocates will find little
favor among operating engineers. If statistically de-
termined minimum values a r e used either on all results
o r on the remaining results, the minimum values a r e
artificially low and uneconomical. As there can be no
alternative to the use of minimum values, no logical
procedure is left except t h a t used by the authors.
The authors a r e particularly appreciative of the re-
marks made by Dr. Jasper. He clearly outlined the
ultimate form desirable in the performance specifica-
tions. Simply stated, if the user knows the minimum
guaranteed performance properties, he is able t o use
the casing available to best advantage. I n addition to
providing the user with the information of greatest
value to him, a performance specification has a n added
virtue in t h a t it presents no obstacle to continuous
progress. The authors a r e aware that Dr. Jasper has
visualized this objective f o r a long time. The coopera-
tive efforts of manufacturers and users of casing will
cause i t to materialize.
Mr. F r a m e brought out a question t h a t well may be
given careful consideration. As he pointed out, the
pipe used in the pullout test investigations was probably
of average physical properties. How much reduction in
joint strength might be expected if the physical prop-
erties had been close to the minimum specified values?
Unfortunately, this question cannot be answered defi-
nitely from the few test results available. Inspection
of the results given in the paper shows, however, t h a t
joint strength is not directly proportional to the physi-
cal properties of the steel. Many examples a r e found in
which the reverse is true. Undoubtedly, this is the
resultant of many other factors which enter into joint
strength. The authors believe t h a t tests should be
made on pipe selected a t random, with the proviso t h a t
enough tests be made to cover all conditions f o r finished
casing delivered to t h e purchaser. They a r e not in
sympathy with the plan of deliberately selecting steel
of lowest permissible physical properties or of correct-
ing the results to allow for such possibilities. I t was
with the possibility suggested by Mr. F r a m e in mind
t h a t the minimum value of 85 per cent was suggested
when the lowest result was 91 per cent. Until additional
test data show t h a t a further reduction is needed, there
seems to be no reason to drop the values a s low a s sug-
gested by Mr. Frame.
Mr. Holmquist proposes t h a t the effect of tension
loading on collapse strength be calculated by the
Hencky-von-Mises equation rather than the maximum
strain-energy equation. A t the present time, when so
few test data a r e available, i t is rather futile to at-
tempt to determine which equation best fits the prob-
lem, especially a s the difference between them is not
large. These considerations a r e in the formative stage,
and the test data a r e seriously lacking in consistency.
I t is virtually impossible a t this time to judge even the
magnitude of the effect, a s there a r e some data indi-
cating t h a t the effect is relatively small. Therefore, i t
would seem t h a t the equation used a t present may be
largely a question of personal judgment. I n the tests
made by Miller and Edwards,* two types of failure
were noted-stretch failures and collapse failures. We
do not know which type of failure is most common in
service, because there is no opportunity f o r observa-
tion. As regards the fit of the data of Miller and Ed-
wards, it is evident from reference to Fig. 6 of Holm-
quist's discussion t h a t the collapse failures a r e in much
closer agreement with the maximum strain-energy
equation than with the Hencky-von-Mises equation.
The remarks offered by Professor Schwalbe will be
helpful when the performance specifications a r e being
prepared.
The summary of replies to the questionnaire on field
practice in setting casing-prepared by Mr. Miller,
chairman of the drilling-practice committee-undoubt-
edly will be of great interest to and receive the close
consideration of operating engineers. Several different
practices a r e in use a s regards the release of tension,
and from this summary each operator will be able to
fix upon a practice which best suits his individual
requirements.
IJrilling itnd I'roduction P m c t i c e , 483 (1939).