SPE 165493

Analytical Evaluation of Casing Connections for Thermal Well Applications

Gang Tao, SPE, Jueren Xie, SPE, C-FER Technologies (1999) Inc.

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 11–13 June 2013.

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

Abstract
Thermal well technologies, such as Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) and Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), are
widely used for the exploration of heavy oil and oilsands resources. Casing connections are one of the most critical
components in thermal wells in terms of the wellbore structural and pressure integrities. High temperature operation of
thermal wells inevitably imposes significant axial loads on the casing connections, and as a result, a plastic strain design
concept must be used for the casing and connections. In addition, thermal well design should consider the impact of
formation shear movement that may be caused by changes in the stress state in the reservoir and overburden formations
during thermal operations. To meet the design challenges posed by thermal wells, premium connections are usually preferred
over API connections due to generally superior structural capacity and sealability. Rigorous engineering assessments, such as
full-scale physical tests and analytical evaluations are often used to assess the performance of premium connections and to
identify suitable connection designs for the intended applications. These engineering assessments typically consider the
in-situ load conditions specified by operators, or the load cases recommended by industry guidelines, such as the recently
released Thermal Well Casing Connection Evaluation Protocol (TWCCEP 2012).
This paper presents approaches and considerations for using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to conduct the analytical
evaluation of casing connections for thermal wells. Such analytical evaluations serve to determine the worst-case specimen
configurations (e.g. highest potential for galling or leaking) for full-scale testing programs under the load conditions specified
in the Protocol, such as make-up and thermal cycles, as well as for understanding the connection performance under in-situ
load cases as specified by operators, such as bending and formation shear. Analysis results provide useful insight into
connection performance in terms of structural capacity, leakage resistance and galling potential. To demonstrate the use of
the proposed analysis approaches and considerations, an example case with a generic premium connection geometry is
analyzed and the results are presented.

Introduction
Thermal well technologies, such as Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) and Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), have
been widely used in the exploration of heavy oil and oilsands resources. The use of these processes continues to increase as
the worldwide production of oil continues to evolve from the depleting resource of conventional light oil to more viscous
heavy oil and bitumen resources. The CSS recovery process involves injecting high temperature (330ºC to 350ºC) and high
pressure (> 10 MPa) steam into the reservoir, followed by a soak period to reduce the viscosity of the bitumen, followed by
production of the heated oil from the same well. The SAGD process typically operates with continuous high temperature
(200°C to 275°C) steam injection into a dedicated horizontal injection well, along with continuous production of the heated
fluid drained into a horizontal production well a few metres below the injection well. The high temperatures associated with
these thermal production processes will result in large thermal expansion of the casing strings. However, constraints imposed
by the well cement can prevent casing strings from expanding, thereby inducing significant axial compressive loads. In most
cases these loads cause the casing stress to exceed the yield strength of the casing material. In addition, the cooling phase
during production in CSS wells or the shutdown of SAGD wells for workovers may result in a transition of the axial load in
the casing string from compression to tension. Depending on the yield strength of the casing material, the tensile load at the
end of the cooling phase may be large enough to cause the casing to yield in tension. These thermally induced loads will
inevitably be transferred to the casing connections and can cause even larger plastic deformations in areas of stress
concentration, such as the thread roots, torque shoulder and seal regions of most premium connections. Other factors, such as
bending resulting from wellbore curvature in the build section of horizontal wells or formation shear loading due to stress
changes in the reservoir and overburden formations induced by thermal operations, could also significantly compromise the
2 SPE 165493

structural integrity and sealability of the casing connections. To meet the challenges of thermal well design, premium
connections are usually preferred over API connections due to generally superior structural capacity and sealability.
Due to the great variety of premium connection designs, well designs and operation conditions, rigorous engineering
methodologies, such as full-scale physical tests and analytical modeling, are often used to assess connection performance and
to identify suitable connection designs for the intended applications. These engineering assessments play an important role in
maximizing the potential for long-term structural and hydraulic integrities of casing and minimizing the risk of well failure.
Physical testing provides a more direct observation of the connection performance, while at a much higher cost than
numerical modeling. However, numerical evaluation provides an advantage for a more in-depth understanding of the sealing
mechanism of the connection design (Delange et al. 2010, Hilbert and Bergstrom 2004, Schwind et al. 2001, Teodoriu and
Badicioiu 2009, Xie 2006, 2007, Xie and Tao 2010) and identifying the critical regions susceptible to structural damage
(Baragetti 2002, Gerdes and Lee 2010, Wagg et al. 1999, Xie et al. 2011, Xie 2009). In addition, the numerical analysis is a
more efficient way to identify the worst-case specimen configurations for physical testing (Lu et al. 2007) or to assist
connection design, optimization and product line qualification (Bradley et al. 2005, Carcagno 2005, Powers et al. 2008, Santi
et al. 2005, Sugino et al. 2010). In some specific circumstances, when replication of the in-situ working conditions in
physical testing is too difficult or costly (e.g. formation shearing, high cycle fatigue, etc.), numerical modeling becomes an
important alternative method to physical testing for evaluating connection performance.
Qualification of casing connections typically involves numerical modeling as a complimentary task to assist physical
testing. One of the main tasks of numerical modeling is to determine the worst-case connection specimen configurations for
testing, including configurations with the highest potential for galling or leaking. Although the industry standard ISO 13679
(2002) has recommended the worst-case configurations for a testing program, the development of the standard was assisted
by FEA. In addition, the worst-case configuration recommendations in ISO 13679 (2002) may not apply to all connection
designs and as a result, FEA is still needed for some cases. Due to the complex load conditions and uncertainties associated
with thermal wells, the recently developed Thermal Well Casing Connection Evaluation Protocol (TWCCEP 2012) specifies
that FEA is a mandatory task to determine the worst-case specimen configurations in the early stages of the evaluation
program. While the importance of casing connection FEA has been widely acknowledged, the challenges of numerical
modeling for thermal well conditions also need to be addressed. In addition to the non-linear modeling features, such as large
plastic deformation and contact interaction, temperature dependent mechanical properties of the casing material must be
accurately modeled to simulate the connection response through thermal cycles. In some cases, the viscous behavior (stress
relaxation or creep) at elevated temperatures should also be considered to model the casing material response under slow
strain rate conditions such as the thermal cycle loading.
This paper presents an FEA approach for evaluating the performance of premium casing connections for thermal well
applications. Considerations and techniques for model generation and analysis for thermal well casing connections are
addressed. As suggested in this paper, the key analysis results for evaluating connection performance should include the
structural capacity, leakage resistance and galling potential under various installation and operation loads, such as connection
make-up, wellbore curvature, thermal cycling, bending and formation shear. To demonstrate the proposed FEA approach, this
paper includes analysis examples conducted using a generic premium casing connection with typical premium connection
features, such as buttress type threads, metal-to-metal seal and torque shoulder. Using the analysis examples, this paper
shows the considerations and procedures for determining the worst-case specimen configurations for full-scale physical
testing and for evaluating connection performance under in-situ loading conditions.

Loading Scenarios
The assessment of casing connections in thermal wells often considers the following key loading scenarios:
• Make-up: connections are usually made up to the final torque specified by the connection manufacturer. Upon make-up,
high stresses and strains are generated within the threads, seal and torque shoulder of a connection. Such initial stress and
strain conditions are critical for the sealing and structural integrities of a connection under subsequent loads imposed by
construction and operation of a thermal well.
• Thermal cycle: during the operation of a thermal well, the temperature variation causes thermal expansion and
contraction of the casing string. However, the constraint provided by the well cement prevents the casing string from
deforming and thus results in high tensile or compressive axial loads along the casing. These axial loads are often
sufficient to cause the casing to yield and to impact the structural and sealing integrities of the connections.
• Curvature and formation shear: curvature loading on a casing string may be introduced by the wellbore curvature during
casing installation and by casing buckling or formation shear movement during thermal operations. In addition,
formation shear movement can often impose a large shear force across the casing string. Curvature loading and
formation shear movement are the most critical in-situ load scenarios in terms of connection sealability and structural
performance.
SPE 165493 3

Finite Element Model

Connection Structural Model

For the basic analysis cases with load conditions that are primarily axisymmetric (as in the case of make-up, axial loading,
uniform internal and external fluid pressures), a casing connection can be modeled as an axisymmetric structure by ignoring
the effect of the spiral feature of the threads on the overall connection response. Fig. 1 shows an example of a 244.5 mm,
59.5 kg/m (9.625”, 40 ppf) L80 generic premium connection modeled as an axisymmetric structure using the commercial
FEA program Abaqus v6.12 (2012). Taking advantage of the symmetry in the longitudinal direction, only one half of a full
casing joint was modeled (i.e. one half of the coupling and one half of the casing pipe body). The total casing joint length was
assumed to be 12.5 m (41 ft), which is the average of a Range 3 joint as specified in API 5CT (2011). Four-node linear
quadrilateral axisymmetric solid elements were used in the model. Various mesh sizes were used for different regions of the
connection, with a refined mesh density of 0.06 to 0.15 mm/element in critical areas such as the threads, seal and torque
shoulder regions, and with a relatively coarse mesh of approximately 1 mm/element in areas away from the critical regions.
For assessments of thread galling potential and fatigue life, a further refined mesh with 0.02 mm/element was used in the
critical thread regions where there is a high potential for galling or fatigue failure. A mesh sensitivity study was performed to
ensure that the mesh density used was sufficient to obtain accurate and converging analysis results.
For more advanced analysis cases involving asymmetric loading conditions, such as bending induced by wellbore
curvature during casing installation or casing buckling and formation shear movement caused by production operations, the
connection can be modeled with a special linear axisymmetric solid element (Xie 2007). Such special elements (i.e. CAXA
element in Abaqus) take advantage of the symmetry of the connection geometry, while allowing asymmetric loads to be
applied on the model.
To facilitate parametric analyses with various combinations of geometry tolerances (i.e. seal gauge diameter, thread gauge
diameter and thread taper), a model template was built using Python script in Abaqus, which enables generation of
connection FEA models with different geometries by specifying only a few key parameters.

Connection region

Threads Seal

Fig. 1 - Finite element model of the generic premium casing connection

Casing Material Model

The analysis examples presented in this paper assumed an L80 casing material, which is widely used for thermal wells.
The L80 casing material was modeled using an elastic-plastic constitutive relationship. To account for the
temperature-dependent response, material properties at various temperatures obtained from coupon tests were considered in
the model. In some of the basic analysis cases, isotropic hardening was assumed for post-yield behavior. However, kinematic
hardening modeling was considered necessary for the analysis of cyclic loading cases (e.g. multiple thermal cycles). Fig. 2
shows the stress-strain curves for various temperatures typical of thermal operations, based on Xie (2006).
In some analysis cases, the stress-strain curves were adjusted to consider the effect of post-yield strength on the
connection response. Many factors can contribute to variation in the post-yield strength, such as the API allowable yield
strength range (i.e. 552 to 655 MPa for L80) and rate-dependent yield strength (i.e stress relaxation or creep). To study the
effect of the API allowable yield strength range on the connection response, post yield stress-strain curves were shifted along
the slope of the elastic portion to match the minimum or maximum API yield strengths. This sensitivity analysis can be used
to determine whether the yield strength of the testing specimens should be restricted within a narrower range than the API
specification in order to establish the representative worst-case for sealing for physical testing. For the in-situ multiple
4 SPE 165493

thermal cycle loading analysis presented in this paper, the material model representative of the response at very slow strain
rate was used, based on the stress-relaxation results from coupon tests.

800

700

600

Engineering Stress (MPa)

500

400
RT
300
180ºC
240ºC
200
290ºC
100 325ºC
350ºC
0
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%
Engineering Strain

Fig. 2 - Stress-strain response of L80 casing material at various temperatures

Assessment Criteria
Casing connections are expected to provide long term structural and sealing integrities over the service life of the wells. The
primary task of the engineering assessment is to ensure that the performance of casing connections meets various structural
and sealing criteria. Alberta IRP-3 Industry Recommended Practice for Heavy Oil and Oilsands Operations (2002) indicates
that casing connections used in thermal wells should have a joint axial load carrying capacity greater than, or equal to, the
pipe body yield strength. This requirement intrinsically eliminates the use of API round connections. The Alberta IRP-3
(2002) also indicates that casing connections should provide adequate sealing under anticipated thermal well operating
conditions, and such sealing function should not rely on the thread compound. Similar to ISO 13679 (2002), the recently
developed TWCCEP (2012) specifies various seepage rate limits for physical testing of casing connections for thermal wells.
However, at this time, there is no established industry standardized criteria for numerical evaluation of casing connections.
The following presents a discussion on the criteria for numerical evaluation of structural and sealing integrities for casing
connections.

Structural Criteria
Structural failure could occur in casing connections under severe monotonic loading conditions, such as excessive
make-up, axial compression under heating or axial tension under cooling during thermal operation, casing buckling and
formation shear movement. These failures usually start from the areas of stress concentration in the connection, such as the
thread roots, dope relief groove or torque shoulder. The monotonic failure criterion can be defined as the maximum
equivalent plastic strain that the material can tolerate without rupturing. Xie et al. (2011) has suggested an equivalent plastic
strain limit of 10% for monotonic failure, based on material coupon tests and comparisons between numerical modeling
results and physical testing of premium casing connections.
Casing connections can also fail structurally under cyclic loading conditions, such as rotating-bending during installation
or thermal cycle loading during operation. Cyclic local stresses and strains extracted from FEA results can be used to predict
the fatigue life of connections. Xie et al. (2011) suggested using several multi-axial fatigue criteria to predict the fatigue life
of casing connections. These criteria consider the elastic and plastic strains, the mean stress effect, the maximum shear strain
and the effect of normal strain and normal stress on the critical shear plane. Material parameters in these fatigue life
prediction equations can usually be calibrated based on literature reviews and specific coupon tests. In addition, the amount
of fatigue damage in connections under various load conditions (casing rotating-bending during installation and subsequent
thermal cycles) can be estimated by using fatigue damage accumulation rules (Xie et al. 2011).

Sealing Criteria
Currently, there are no industrial standards regarding the approach and acceptable criterion for evaluating sealing capacity
of premium casing connections based on analytical methods. The most common approach is to consider both the magnitude
and distribution of the contact stress on the metal-to-metal seal surface, as shown in Fig. 3. A linear integration of the seal
contact stress over the effective seal length, referred to as the seal contact intensity (Eq. 1), has previously been used to
evaluate the seal performance of casing connections in thermal wells (Xie et al. 2011, Xie 2009).
SPE 165493 5

oil/gas
contact stress pressure

pin
Pin
coupling
Coupling

Fig. 3 - Illustration of seal contact stress in a premium connection

f s = ∫ σ c dx
LES
, (1)

where σc is the contact pressure on the metal-to-metal seal surface, and LES is the effective seal length. Xie et al. (2012)
suggested a seal contact intensity value of 250 N/mm be considered as an acceptable seepage resistance limit for thermal well
applications.
Other researchers have proposed to use the integration of powered contact stress over the seal length (e.g. Murtagian et al.
2004). However, their work appears to be mainly intended for HPHT conditions rather than for thermal wells. Nonetheless,
relative comparison of seal performance among parametric analysis cases can be performed without the use of sealing
criteria. This is often the case when the primary focus is to identify the worst-case specimen configurations for testing or to
evaluate the effects of various loading conditions on seal performance relative to the make-up condition.

Analysis Examples for Evaluation of Connections for Full-scale Testing

Most of the current connection testing standards require test specimens to be manufactured based on the extreme tolerance
(worst-case) configurations, including geometries, material mechanical properties, make-up conditions, and the type and
amount of thread compound. Such considerations are believed to ensure that other specimen configurations would
automatically be qualified if the worst-case specimens pass the test. Therefore, the selection of the worst-case specimen is
critical for the entire product qualification program. ISO 13679 (2002) provides guidelines for selecting the worst-case
specimen configurations for connections with various testing objectives. These guidelines explicitly specify the interference
in the threads and seal, thread tapers and final make-up torque, for each connection specimen. The specimen configurations
specified in the guideline are applicable to most premium connection designs with the features of metal-to-metal seal, tapered
thread and torque shoulder. However, for connections with features other than those covered in the guideline, or if different
machining tolerances are recommended, analytical, numerical or experimental techniques will be required to determine the
worst-case specimen configurations. The complexity of thermal well operating conditions makes it impractical to establish a
universal guideline for selecting worst-case connection specimen configurations for testing. Some of the thermal well casing
connection testing protocols, such as TWCCEP (2012), requires that FEA be used to determine the specimen configurations
for testing.
To illustrate the procedure and approach for determining the worst-case connection specimen configurations for physical
testing using FEA, an example case was analyzed on the generic premium connection model with assumed tolerances and
make-up conditions. In the example, most of the cases considered a load condition with either one make-up or two make-ups
(one make-break followed by a final make-up), and the subsequent loading from one thermal cycle. The thermal cycle
loading considered a temperature range of 5 to 350ºC and an internal pressure range of 0 to 16.5 MPa over a thermal cycle, in
accordance with the TWCCEP (2012) (as shown in Fig. 4). Connection make-up analysis was performed by resolving
dimensional interferences between the pin and the coupling components in the threads, seal and torque shoulder regions. The
make-up analyses were performed in two steps: first the threads and seal make-up, then the torque shoulder make-up
(engagement). The amount of torque shoulder engagement can significantly impact the final make-up condition, which is
critical for maintaining the sealing integrity of the connection under various subsequent loads over its service life. Therefore,
it is necessary to carefully calibrate the torque shoulder interference for proper simulation of the connection make-up
condition. One approach to achieve this calibration is to define torque shoulder interference values directly, based on actual
connection make-up torque-turn curves. The incremental turns between shouldering and final make-up can be used to
estimate the axial shoulder interference by multiplying the turns by the thread pitch length. For cases with break-out after
connection make-up, the analysis followed the reverse sequence of the make-up analysis with gradual removal of the contact
in the torque shoulder followed by threads and seal contact disengagement. Thermal loading was applied by varying the
6 SPE 165493

temperature over the entire connection model. Both the coupling and pin ends of the model were fixed axially to represent the
constraint provided by the cement. Internal steam pressure was applied on the ID of the pin and extended to the seal region.

Make-up Thermal Cycle

500 20
Temperature

Internal Pressure (MPa)

400 Internal Pressure 16
Temperature (ºC)

300 12

200 8

100 4

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Simulation Step

Fig. 4 - Assumed load path used to identify worst-case connection specimen configurations

Determination of the Worst-case Configurations

Parametric analyses were performed on connection configurations with combinations of key tolerances in seal
interference, thread interference and thread tapers in the coupling and pin. The effect of seal taper tolerance on sealability was
not considered, but could be included if needed. Due to difficulties associated with machining and gauging of the specimens
with reduced seal taper tolerances, most industry standards do not require biased seal taper specimens to be tested.
The connection model with nominal geometries was analyzed as the reference case. The reference case was simulated
with one make-up to the assumed optimum torque followed by one thermal cycle loading. Fig. 5 presents the contours of the
effective stress in the connection model at make-up, hot (350ºC, 16.5 MPa) and cold (5ºC, 0 MPa at the end of the thermal
cycle) stages of the analysis. The results show that connection make-up introduced large effective stress within the seal and
torque shoulder regions, while the stress within the pipe body remained zero, as it was not loaded axially. Under thermal
cycle loading, the stress state in the connection changed dramatically, with high stresses within the pipe body at both hot and
cold stages. Fig. 6 presents the contact stress distributions along the seal region at different stages through the thermal cycle.
Fig.7 shows the evolution of the seal contact intensity (calculated by Eq. 1) during the thermal cycle. At the end of a thermal
cycle, the seal contact intensity was reduced by over 40% from the make-up condition.
Table 1 lists parametric cases analyzed to determine the worst-case specimen configurations with various combinations of
interferences in the threads and seal, and tapers in the threads. Cases 1 to 4 were modeled with one make-up to the optimum
torque followed by one thermal cycle. Seal contact intensities at critical stages during a thermal cycle were used to identify
the worst cases. From the analyses, Case 3 and Case 4 were found to have the lowest seal contact intensity at hot and cold
stages, respectively, and could be selected as the worst geometry cases for sealability testing. Cases 5 to 8 were analyzed with
only one make-up to the optimum torque, since they all have high seal interferences and are not expected to have the lowest
seal performance.
Evaluation of galling tendency is one of the most important objectives specified in most connection testing standards.
Fig. 8 shows the locations with high galling potential in this generic premium connection, based on the analysis results. One
intuitive way of evaluating the galling potential during connection make-up is to examine the normal contact stress between
the coupling and pin within the critical regions. Among all the cases examined, Case 6 was found to have the highest peak
contact stress in the seal region and therefore was identified as the candidate for testing galling potential in the seal. However,
the analysis results showed that peak contact stresses in threads are sensitive to mesh densities, and even with the refined
mesh there was no clear indication of the geometric case with the highest peak contact stress. As such, the total contact force
in the threads was used as an alternative measure. The analysis showed that the contact force tends to be distributed on load
flanks of threads next to the seal, and primarily between the crest and root for threads near the coupling face. Such findings
suggest that galling potential on thread flanks and crests/roots might need to be considered separately:
• Galling on thread flanks: the critical location for galling on the thread flank was found to be at the last thread closest to
the seal (thread #24 as shown in Fig. 8) for all the analysis cases. Case 1 was identified as the worst-case for galling on
the thread flank due to the highest contact force on the load flank of thread #24.
• Galling on thread crest/root: the critical locations for galling on the thread crest/root were found to be at threads #3 and
#4 as shown in Fig. 8. Case 8 was identified as the worst-case for thread crest/root galling due to the highest total contact
forces in these two threads.
SPE 165493 7

Tolerance Configurations Analysis Results

Peak
Geometry Thread Seal Contact Contact Total Contact Force
Interference
Case Taper* Intensity Stress in Critical Threads
in Seal
Seal Thread Pin Box Hot Cold Flank Crest/Root
1 Low Low Slow Fast Highest
2 Low Low Fast Slow
3 Low High Slow Fast Lowest
4 Low High Fast Slow Lowest
5 High Low Slow Fast
6 High Low Fast Slow Highest
7 High High Slow Fast
8 High High Fast Slow Highest
* Fast thread taper means thread diameter change per axial distance is more than the nominal case.
Slow thread taper means thread diameter change per axial distance is less than the nominal case.

Table 1 - Analysis cases to determine worst-case specimen configurations

Make-up (5ºC, 0 MPa)

Hot (350ºC, 16.5 MPa)

Cold (5ºC, 0 MPa)

Fig. 5 - Effective stress distributions for the reference case with nominal connection configuration

1600
Make-up (5ºC, 0 MPa)
1400
Seal Contact Stress (MPa)

Hot (350ºC, 16.5 MPa)

1200 Cold (5ºC, 0 MPa)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5
Distance from Pin Tip (mm)

Fig. 6 - Seal contact stress distributions for the reference case

8 SPE 165493

1000
Hot (350ºC, 16.5 MPa)
900

Seal Contact Intensity (N/mm)

800
700
Make-up (5ºC, 0 MPa)
600
500
400
300
Cold (5ºC, 0 MPa)
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Temperature (ºC)

Fig. 7 - Seal contact intensity for the reference case during one thermal cycle

Galling in Thread Galling in Thread

Galling in Seal
Crest/Root Flank

Coupling

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Pin 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Fig. 8 - Potential galling locations in the connection

Evaluation of the Effect of Material Yield Stress

To determine the effect of pipe body yield stress on seal performance, sensitivity analyses were performed by using the
material models with minimum or maximum API yield strengths for the pin part of the model. One of the worst sealability
specimens (i.e. Case 3 as identified from the earlier analysis) was considered in this example. Table 2 shows the effect of
yield strength on seal contact intensity at make-up, hot and cold stages, compared to the results with the material strength
measured from actual coupon tests. The results show that lower yield strength would result in lower seal contact intensity at
all stages of thermal cycle loading. Therefore, to ensure the worst-case specimen configuration, it may be necessary to restrict
the yield strength of specimens for sealability tests to be close to the lower limit specified by the API standard.

Yield Seal Contact Intensity

Strength
of the Pin Make-up Hot Cold
Low 97.8% 91.2% 94.5%
High 101.9% 108.6% 105.1%

Table 2 - Effect of material yield strength on seal contact intensity (compared to the case with the actual material strength measured
from coupon tests)

Evaluation of the Effect of Final Make-up Torque

To determine the worst-case final make-up torque for assembling connections for sealability testing, sensitivity analyses
were performed by applying assumed torque shoulder interferences corresponding to the minimum and maximum torques.
The worst sealability specimen at the hot stage (Case 3) was modeled in this example. In compliance with the TWCCEP
(2012), the connection model was subjected to either one make-up or two make-ups, followed by one thermal cycle loading.
The analysis results indicate that the minimum final make-up torque would result in the lowest seal contact intensity at the
end of the thermal cycle for this generic premium connection. Therefore the minimum torque should be specified as the target
final make-up torque for assembling connection specimens for sealability testing.
SPE 165493 9

Analysis Examples for Evaluating Connections under In-situ Load Conditions

To evaluate the connection performance for specific thermal well applications, the analysis may consider loading scenarios
more representative of in-situ well construction and operating conditions, including incremental make-up, multiple thermal
cycles, curvature and formation shear movement. This section presents various example cases conducted to evaluate
connection performance under these in-situ loading conditions.

Incremental Make-up
The amount of torque shoulder engagement is critical for the sealability of a premium connection. In this analysis,
incremental torque was modeled by gradually imposing axial torque shoulder interference on the model. Fig. 9 presents the
relationship between the seal contact intensity and the axial torque shoulder interference. Prior to the torque shoulder
engagement, the seal contact intensity was 489 N/mm after the make-up of the threads and seal. Torque shoulder engagement
enhanced the seal contact intensity to a maximum value of 721 N/mm at about 0.144 mm shoulder interference (i.e.
corresponding to 0.028 turns after shouldering). However, further torque shoulder engagement beyond 0.144 mm shoulder
interference caused a decrease in the seal contact intensity as a result of excessive plastic deformation in the shoulder regions
of the pin and coupling. Fig. 10 shows the plastic strain distribution in the torque shoulder region at shoulder interferences of
0.144 mm and 0.240 mm. As the shoulder interference increased from 0.144 mm to 0.240 mm, the peak plastic strain
increased from about 3.2% in the pin torque shoulder to 9.8% in the coupling torque shoulder, which is close to the 10%
plastic strain limit for severe material damage. The example analysis suggests that it is necessary for connection
manufacturers to define the optimum make-up torque range during the design stage. It is also as important for operators to
strictly follow the connection make-up procedure and control the final make-up torque.

800
Seal Contact Intensity (N/mm)

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Shoulder Interference (mm)

Fig. 9 - Seal contact intensity vs. shoulder interference during torque shoulder engagement

Shoulder interference = 0.144 mm Shoulder interference = 0.240 mm

Fig. 10 - Equivalent plastic strain distributions in torque shoulder region during torque shoulder engagement

Multiple Thermal Cycles

This analysis considered the multiple thermal cycle loading representative of CSS operations, including a steam injection
phase, a subsequent soak period, and a production phase. A temperature range of 25 to 350ºC and an internal pressure range
of 0 to 16.5 MPa were considered, which are slightly different from those specified in the TWCCEP (2012). The load
sequence of temperature and internal pressure for each thermal cycle was idealized to follow that shown in Fig. 4. To
consider the long term response of the casing material at the very slow strain rate associated with the thermal operation, the
10 SPE 165493

stress-strain relationship for “infinite” slow strain rate was used in the material model. The post-yield response of the casing
material was modeled with a non-linear kinematic hardening rule, which enables capturing the Bauschinger effect (reduced
yield stress upon load reversal after plastic deformation has occurred during the initial loading) during the cyclic loading.
Fig. 11 presents the seal contact intensity response of the connection over the ten thermal cycles. The results show that the
evolution of the seal contact intensity approached a stable hysteresis loop after the first cycle. Fig. 12 presents the seal contact
intensities in the hot (peak temperature and peak pressure) and cold (end of the thermal cycle) stages over the ten thermal
cycles. The seal contact intensity was found to decrease slightly in the hot stage in the first few cycles, but stabilized after the
fourth cycle. At the end of ten cycles, the overall decrease of seal contact intensity was less than 8%, compared to the first
cycle. In the cold stage, the seal contact intensity was found to be almost stable through ten cycles. The results indicate that
this generic premium connection had maintained an acceptable seepage resistance over multiple thermal cycles, based on the
250 N/mm sealing criterion. Fig. 13 shows the development of plastic strain at the critical location of the coupling torque
shoulder during the ten thermal cycles. Fig. 14 presents the accumulated plastic strain values in the critical location of the
coupling torque shoulder at the end of each thermal cycle. The results show that the heating phase of the first thermal cycle
caused significant plastic deformation in the coupling torque shoulder, while the incremental plastic strain during the
subsequent cycles was minimal. Examination of the plastic strain distribution in the seal and torque shoulder regions of the
pin and coupling showed the same results. These results indicate that the heating phase in the first cycle significantly changed
the response of the seal due to large plastic deformation. After that, the seal contact intensity response became stable over
subsequent cycles due to minimal incremental plastic deformation. The peak plastic strain in the coupling torque shoulder
was less than the 10% threshold value after the first heating phase and did not pose any concern to the structural integrity of
the connection. Since the incremental plastic strain after the first cycle was very small, the coupling torque shoulder was not
susceptible to low cycle fatigue damage. Fig. 15 presents the plastic strain development in the critical thread root of the pin
(thread #5 in Fig. 8) over the ten thermal cycles. Fig. 16 shows the accumulated plastic strain values in the critical thread root
of the pin at the end of each thermal cycle. These results indicate that the first few cycles resulted in slightly larger plastic
strain increments in the critical thread root than the subsequent cycles. After five cycles, there was a stable plastic strain
increment of about 1% over each of the subsequent cycles. Such large cyclic plastic strain increments might cause low cycle
fatigue in the critical thread root. Note that a rigorous assessment of fatigue life of the connection would require a careful
refinement of the mesh in the critical threads in order to obtain reasonable local stress and strain values for input into the
fatigue model. The plastic strain values in the thread root presented here are for demonstrating the modeling approach only.

900
800 Hot (350ºC, 16.5 MPa)
Seal Contact Intensity (N/mm)

700
Make-up (25ºC, 0 MPa)
600
500
400
300
200
Cold (25ºC, 0 MPa)
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Temperature (ºC)

Fig. 11 - Seal contact intensity vs. temperature over ten thermal cycles
SPE 165493 11

800
Hot (350ºC, 16.5 MPa)
700 Cold (25ºC, 0 MPa)

Seal Contact Intensity (N/mm)

621
600 582 577 575 574 574 574 574 574 574

500

400 352 352 351 351 351 351 351 351 351 351
300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of Cycles

Fig. 12 - Seal contact intensity in hot and cold stages over ten thermal cycles

8%
Plastic Strain in Coupling Torque

7%

6%

5%
Shoulder

4%
Make-up
3%

2%

1%

0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Temperature (ºC)

Fig. 13 - Plastic strain development in the coupling torque shoulder over ten thermal cycles
10%
Plastic Strain in Coupling Torque

8%
7.25% 7.29% 7.33% 7.37% 7.41% 7.45%
6.99% 7.09% 7.15% 7.20%
Shoulder

6%

4%

2%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of Cycles

Fig. 14 - Plastic strain in the coupling torque shoulder at the end of each thermal cycle
12 SPE 165493

12%

Plastic Strain in Critical Thread Root

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Make-up Temperature (ºC)

Fig. 15 - Plastic strain development in the critical thread root of the pin over ten thermal cycles

16%
Plastic Strain in Critical Thread Root

14%

12% 11.2%
10.2%
10% 9.2%
8.1%
8% 7.0%
5.9%
6%
4.7%
4% 3.6%
2.2%
2%
0.1%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of Cycles

Fig. 16 - Plastic strain in the critical thread root of the pin at the end of each thermal cycle

Curvature and Formation Shearing

Fig. 17 presents the schematics of the curvature (pure bending) and formation shear loads imposed on the casing
connection model. Pure bending was applied through rotation of a reference node coupled with the pin end, and the coupling
end was constrained axially while allowing radial displacement. In the shear loading case, one full coupling and two short
casing pups on both ends were included in the model. To evaluate the critical scenario in terms of sealing, shear force was
applied across both pin ends of the model at the end of a thermal cycle when the casing was under tension.

Side B Side A

Side A Side B

Pure bending Formation shear

Fig. 17 - Schematics of pure bending and formation shear loads

In the pure bending analysis, a curvature up to 100º/30m was applied to the connection model. This curvature is
considered reasonable to include most of the scenarios caused by wellbore curvature or casing buckling (Xie 2009). Fig. 18
SPE 165493 13

presents the axial stress distributions on the tension and compression sides of the connection model under the curvature of
100º/30m. The results show that, as expected, the pure bending caused nearly symmetric tensile and compressive stresses on
the tension and compression sides of the pipe body, respectively. Bending also superimposed additional compressive stress in
the torque shoulder region on the compression side of the connection, while high tensile stress was generated in the dope
relief groove on the tension side of the connection. Fig. 19 shows the seal contact intensities on both tension and compression
sides of the connection under pure bending. Since the connection was made up with the highest seal contact intensity (see
Fig. 9), either additional tension or compression induced by pure bending has caused a slight decrease of the seal contact
intensity. Under curvature of 100º/30m, the seal contact intensities dropped by 10.7% on the tension side and 8.2% on the
compression side. As such, curvature loading is not expected to have a significant impact on the sealability of this
connection. Fig. 20 presents the plastic strain development in critical locations of the thread root (thread #6 in Fig. 8 on the
tension side) and coupling torque shoulder (on the compression side) under curvature loading. Under 100º/30m curvature, the
plastic strains reached 3.6% and 10.0% in the critical thread root and the coupling torque shoulder, respectively, showing
more concern for the structural integrity of the coupling torque shoulder than the threads.
To determine the shear force to be applied to the connection model, analysis was performed with a casing string modeled
as beam elements subjected to formation shear loading, where casing formation interaction was represented by a series of
spring elements distributed along the axis of the model. The stiffness of the spring elements was calibrated from a separate
analysis where a rigid casing is forced to impinge upon the representative formation material (Xie 2006). This approach
recognizes that the shear force imposed on the connection is highly dependent on the mechanical properties of the formation
and the size of the casing. The example case presented in this paper considered a maximum shear force of 500 kN, which
corresponds to about 10 mm of shear displacement for typical formation conditions existing in Western Canada. The analysis
suggested that shear force may have a more significant impact on the sealing capacity than the structural integrity. Fig. 21
presents the seal contact intensities on Sides A and B (see Fig. 17) of the connection under shear loading. It shows that 10
mm formation shear movement caused a significant reduction in the seal contact intensity on Side B of the connection when
the mid-point of the connection is located at the shear plane. The results indicate that this connection can only tolerate up to
320 kN shear force (corresponding to about 6 mm formation shear displacement) without falling below the 250 N/mm sealing
limit. The casing shear analysis also shows that the shear force across the casing diminishes within a short distance from the
shear plane. Therefore, it is very advantageous to locate the connection as far from the shear plane as possible.

Tension Side

Compression Side

Fig. 18 - Axial stress distribution in the connection under pure bending

800

700
Seal Contact Intensity (N/mm)

600

500

400

300

200
Tension Side
100
Compression Side
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Curvature (º/30 m)

Fig. 19 - Seal contact intensities in the connection under pure bending

14 SPE 165493

12%
Critical Thread Root
(Tension Side)
10% Coupling Torque Shoulder
(Compression Side)
8%

Plastic Strain
6%

4%

2%

0%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Curvature (º/30 m)

Fig. 20 - Plastic strain in critical locations in the connection under pure bending

800
Side A
700
Seal Contact Intensity (N/mm)

Side B
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Shear Force (kN)

Fig. 21 - Seal contact intensities of the connection under formation shear loading

Conclusions
This paper presented an FEA approach for evaluating premium casing connections for thermal well applications, along with
several example analysis cases. The techniques and special considerations for model development and various load case
analyses have been addressed. The FEA assessment of casing connections in thermal wells typically includes two parts:
1) determine the worst-case specimen configurations for full-scale physical testing; and 2) evaluate connection performance
under in-situ load conditions. Following the analyses of several example cases with a generic premium connection, the
following conclusions can be made:
• Parametric FEA assessments can be used to effectively identify the worst-case specimen configurations for full-scale
physical testing of casing connections for thermal well applications, including specifications for geometry tolerances,
material yield strength and final make-up torque.
• Torque shoulder engagement from make-up can have a significant impact on the seal performance of the connection
under subsequent installation and operating loads. Connection sealing capacity generally increases with initial torque
shoulder engagement. However, excessive amounts of shoulder interference can introduce large plastic strain in the
torque shoulder, resulting in a reduction in the seal performance.
• The heating phase of the first thermal cycle generates large plastic deformation within the seal and torque shoulder
regions of the connection and therefore significantly affects the seal contact intensity. The connection seal performance
and the plastic strain in the torque shoulder stabilize after the first thermal cycle. However, incremental plastic strains
may develop in critical thread roots over each thermal cycle and potentially result in fatigue damage.
SPE 165493 15

• Pure bending with up to 100º/30m curvature has a significant impact on the torque shoulder deformation, while curvature
is less of a concern for sealability in the generic premium connection presented. On the other hand, formation shear
movement has a significant impact on the seal performance of the connection when it is located at the shear plane.

There are opportunities for further enhancement of modeling of connections under non-axisymmetric loads involving
model calibration and benchmarking. In addition, further research is required to develop a more advanced criterion for
assessing connection seal performance for thermal wells to include the effects of seal contact stress profile, surface coating
and roughness, sealing compound properties and the viscosity of the liquid or gas to be contained.
Note that the results presented in this paper were generated using a generic premium connection. For commercial
connection designs, one should expect different structural and seal responses due to the different geometries, material
properties and make-up conditions.

Acknowledgements
The preparation of this paper was supported by C-FER Technologies, Canada. The authors would like to sincerely
acknowledge Mr. Brian Wagg, Director, Business Development & Planning, C-FER Technologies, for reviewing this paper.

References
Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual V6.12. 2012.
Alberta IRP-3. 2002. Industry Recommended Practices for Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Operations.
API Specification 5CT (ISO 11960), 2011. Specification for Casing and Tubing, ninth edition. American Petroleum Institute.
ISO 13679:2002. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries - Procedures for Testing Casing and Tubing Connections, first edition.
International Organization for Standardization.
Thermal Well Casing Connection Evaluation Protocal (TWCCEP). 2012-03-15, Public-Domain Edition 1.3.
Baragetti, S. 2002. Effects of Taper Variation on Conical Threaded Connections Load Distribution. Journal of Mechanical Design,
124(2): 320–329.
Bradley, A., Nagasaku, S. and Verger, E. 2005. Premium Connection Design, Testing, and Installation for HPHT Sour Wells. SPE
High Pressure-High Temperature Sour Well Design Applied Technology Workshop, Woodlands, TX, USA.
Carcagno, G. 2005. The Design of Tubing and Casing Premium Connections for HTHP Wells. SPE High Pressure-High Temperature
Sour Well Design Applied Technology Workshop, Woodlands, TX, USA.
Delange, R., Gandikota, R. and Osburn, S. 2010. A Major Advancement in Expandable Connection Performance, Enabling Reliable
Gastight Expandable Connections. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy.
Gerdes, M. and Lee, K. 2010. Case Study: API Box Boreback Stress Relief With Truncated Threads Can Cause Premature Connection
Fatigue Failure. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Hilbert, L. and Bergstrom, J. 2004. Evaluating Pressure Integrity of Polymer Ring Seals for Threaded Connections in HP/HT Wells and
Expandable Casing. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Lu, Q., Hannahs, D., Buster, J., Coe, D. and Langford, S. 2007. Casing Drilling Connection Qualification for Shell Rocky Mountain
Project. Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Murtagian, G., Fanelli, V., Villasante, J., Johnson, D. and Ernst, H. 2004. Sealability of Stationary Metal-to-metal Seals. Journal of
Tribology 126: 591–596.
Powers, J., Baker, D. and Chelf, M. 2008. Application of Connection Product Line Evaluation. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
Orlando, Florida, USA.
Santi, N., Carcagno, G. and Toscano, R. 2005. Premium & Semi-premium Connections Design Optimization for Varied Drilling-with-
Casing Applications. OTC Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.
Schwind, B., Payne, M. and Otten, G. 2001. Development of Leak Resistance in Industry Standard OCTG Connections Using Finite
Element Analysis and Full Scale Testing. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.
Sugino, M., Nakamura, K., Yamaguchi, S., Daly, D., Briquet, G. and Verger, E. 2010. Development of an Innovative
High-performance Premium Threaded Connection for OCTG. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.
Teodoriu, C. and Badicioiu, M. 2009. Sealing Capacity of API Connections-Theoretical and Experimental Results. SPE Drilling &
Completion March: 96-103.
Wagg, B., Xie, J. and Solanki, S. 1999. Evaluating Casing Deformation Mechanisms in Primary Heavy Oil Production. SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Bakersfield, California, USA.
Xie, J. 2006. Casing Design and Analysis for Heavy Oil Wells. Paper 2006-415, 1st World Heavy Oil Conference, Beijing, China.
Xie, J. 2007. Analysis of Oil Well Casing Connections Subjected to Non-axisymmetric Loads. Abaqus Users’ Conference, Paris,
France, May 22-24: 634–646.
Xie, J. 2009. Investigation of Casing Connection Failure Mechanisms in Thermal Wells. Paper No. 2009–353, World Heavy Oil
Congress, Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela.
Xie, J., Fan, C., Tao, G. and Matthews, C. M. 2011. Impact of Casing Rotation on Premium Connection Service Life in Horizontal
Thermal Wells. World Heavy Oil Congress, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Xie, J. and Tao, G. 2010. Analysis of Casing Connections Subjected to Thermal Cycle Loading. SIMULIA Customer Conference,
Providence, RI, USA, May 25-27: 679-694.
Xie, J. and Hassanein, S. 2012. Reliability-Based Design and Assessment (RBDA) Method for Thermal Wells. Paper WHOC12-144,
World Heavy Oil Congress, Aberdeen, UK.