Buckling of Tubulars Inside Wellbores: A Review on Recent Theoretical and Experimental Works

J.C. Cunha, SPE, The U. of Alberta Summary The buckling behavior of tubulars inside wellbores is the subject of many articles. This paper presents a general overview on most of the literature available on the subject and also comments on the different, and sometimes conflicting, solutions presented in various works. Different aspects of the phenomenon are discussed, including sinusoidal (lateral) and helical buckling and the influence of torque. Introduction A good understanding of the buckling behavior of pipes in oilwell operations is very important in the petroleum industry. The significance of this matter can be measured by the great number of papers presented on the subject in the last 50 years. Since Lubinskis1 first theoretical approach to sinusoidal buckling for vertical wells, buckling of tubing, drillpipe, casing, and coiled tubing has been studied by a number of authors. There are publications covering almost every particular buckling case, such as helical buckling; torque effect; and the influence of wellbore inclination, friction, and wellbore curvature. The differential equation representing the configuration of a rod buckled because of the action of an axial load, F, was first presented by Euler in 1744.2 The solution of that differential equation indicated that a weightless rod will buckle, provided the following inequality is satisfied. Fn Literature Review This section presents comments on a number of papers published in the last 50 years. Although not all papers available in the literature are mentioned in this review, the majority of the most important contributions on tubular buckling inside wellbores are referred to here. As mentioned previously, the first rigorous treatment of drillstring stability was presented by Lubinski.1 In that pioneering work, an analysis of 2D drillpipe buckling in vertical wells and its effects on bit inclination, string shape, wall contact force, and bending moments were presented and discussed thoroughly. Lubinskis solution for the critical buckling load used a power series to solve the differential equation governing the instability problem. Lubinskis method leads to a very precise result expressed in the form of a power series. However, the terms of the series become very large for long strings, and after a certain length, the calculations may lead to inaccurate results. As an approximation for practical purposes, Lubinski proposed that the critical load for the first buckling mode of long strings should be calculated as: F = 1.94EI1 3 w2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Wang8 proposed that the exact factor in Eq. 3 to produce the critical load of buckling for an infinite pipe inside a vertical well should be 1.018793. F = 1.018793EI1 3 w2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3a) Later, with a nonlinear regression method, Guo9 combined Lubinskis results for short strings with the result for infinite columns to produce a function that gives approximated results for the critical buckling load of strings of any size. During the 1950s, Lubinski10,11 published other important papers analyzing tubular buckling in oilwell operations. Among other interesting features, those papers have derivations showing the influence of fluid density (inside and outside the pipe) on the buckling process and also how buckling could affect operations in pumping wells. In 1962, Lubinski et al.12 published another fundamental paper, in which the helical buckling of production tubing was studied for the first time. Also for the first time, the effect of fluid flow on buckling was presented. In that paper, the equation for the forcepitch relationship was derived as: F= 82 EI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) p2

2 EI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) L2

In Eq. 1, na factor that depends on the end conditions. In 1881, Greenhill2 studied this problem, considering the influence of the weight of the rod. Later, in 1883,2 he considered the influence of torque and produced the following inequality as a condition for the instability of long, weightless rods. F+

2 EI T2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 4EI L

Last century, the stability of long rods under various conditions of loading and support were investigated by many authors, among whom Goodier,3,4 Hoff,5 Timoshenko,6 and Langhaar7 should be mentioned. Those works, although fundamental to understanding the elastic stability theory, did not deal with tubulars confined within another circular cylinder. The problem of laterally constrained pipes presents different and somehow more complex characteristics than the unconstrained situation, mainly for cases in which inclined or curved configurations exist. A summary of the most noted studies of pipe buckling inside wellbores follows.

Copyright 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper (SPE 87895) was revised for publication from paper SPE 80944, first presented at the 2003 SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2325 March. Original manuscript received for review 30 March 2003. Revised manuscript received 11 December 2003. Paper peer approved 20 January 2004.

In addition, expressions for displacement length, bending moments, and the strain energy of bending and compression were developed. Note that for the first time, this paper observed a differentiation between the beginning of the buckling process, normally called sinusoidal buckling (also known as lateral or 2D buckling), and the more severe case of helical buckling. The differences between these two situations are analyzed in the next section. The interested reader can find the most important works of Arthur Lubinski in Ref. 13. Paslay and Bogy14 presented an analysis of the stability of tubulars inside inclined wellbores. They used an energy method to
13

March 2004 SPE Drilling & Completion

www.petroman.ir

obtain the stability criteria for the pipe and to determine criticalbuckling conditions. Using slender beam theory, Mitchell15 presented equilibrium equations for helically buckled, weightless tubing. The influence of the packer constraint in the buckled shape was also analyzed. Cheatham and Pattillo,16 using the principle of virtual work, concluded that there is a significant difference between the forcepitch relationship for loading and unloading situations. Although it assumed the theoretical case of a weightless string, this work is important for making a clear differentiation between the beginning of the buckling process and post-buckling, in which a helical configuration may occur. They also presented results from a few small-scale experimental tests. Dawson and Paslay17 derived the first, now well-known, expression for the critical force of sinusoidal buckling for pipes in an inclined wellbore (Eq. 5). The authors also showed that the pipe becomes more resistant to buckling in high-inclination angles because of the support and constraint provided by the wellbore. F=2

EIwsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) r

Paslay and Cernocky27 presented an analysis of the bendingstress magnification in curved wellbores and its influence on casing design and fatigue calculations. This was very important, showing that even though buckling can be present in an operation without causing any problem to the operation itself, as shown in Ref. 25, it can have other consequences, such as an increased of risk of fatigue failure. In 1991, Schuh28 presented an analysis of the influence of curvature on the critical buckling force. In that work, buckling equations derived to straight sections of the well were extended for use in curved boreholes by adjusting the pipe geometry to take into account the shape of the buckled pipe in the curved wellbore. Note that in his work, Schuh assumed Dawson and Paslays equation for sinusoidal buckling (Eq. 5) as causing helical buckling. This assumption produces very conservative calculations because the critical helical buckling force is expected to be greater than the critical force of sinusoidal buckling. One of the various studies confirming this hypothesis was presented by Wu et al.29 They studied the buckling behavior of pipes in horizontal wells, and their result for sinusoidal buckling was the same as that derived by Chen et al.24 (and previously by Dawson and Paslay17). However, their derivation for helical buckling resulted in the following different equation: F = 222 1

Mitchell18 used slender beam theory to present an analysis of the buckling problem that took into consideration the effect of friction. It was shown that the load history was important to determine the final state of a system with friction. The paper also presented equations relating the friction coefficient and the critical force of buckling. Friction was proved to have a significant impact on the pipe-length change caused by the axial load. In 1984, OBrien19 presented an article showing case histories in which many casing failures occurred directly or indirectly because of buckling, which further demonstrates the importance of understanding the buckling behavior of tubulars inside wellbores. Kwon20 developed a semianalytical solution for the differential equation governing the stability problem for vertical strings. Pipe weight was considered, and equations for pipe-length change, bending moment, and lateral loads were also developed. Cheatham and Chen21 presented an analysis of experimental results for helical buckling. The conclusion that the forces on loading and unloading situations are different, as previously presented by Cheatham and Pattillo,16 was again confirmed by their experimental data. In 1988, Mitchell22 presented a generalized solution for helical buckling, in which the resulting helices have variable pitch caused by consideration of the pipes weight. An equation for the contact load between tubing and casing was also developed. The problem of helical buckling for weighted strings was also analyzed by Zhang.23 Chen et al.24 presented a new analysis for pipe buckling in horizontal wells. They derived equations for the critical force of sinusoidal and helical buckling. Their results indicated that the force necessary to cause the string to buckle helically was 1.4 times greater than that necessary to cause sinusoidal buckling. Eq. 6 from Chens work agrees with the one presented by Dawson and Paslay.17 Eq. 7 is analyzed further later. A few experimental results were also presented in the paper. Fsin = 2

EIw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) r

Fbuc = 2

EIw , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) r 2EIw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) r

The difference between expressions for the critical force of helical buckling will be analyzed later in this paper. Wu and Juvkam-Wold30 presented a study on the frictional forces on tubulars inside inclined and horizontal wellbores with an analysis of how these forces influence the load transmitted to the bit. He and Kyllingstad31 presented a buckling study directed specifically toward the use of coiled tubing and its lockup conditions in curved wellbores. One conclusion stated that the pipe is more resistant to helical buckling in the buildup section of the well. Another study for coiled-tubing buckling was presented in 1993 by Wu and Juvkam-Wold32 and gives equations for critical loads and the influence of friction on drilling and completion operations with coiled tubing. A reviewed version of that study was later published in 1995.33 McCann and Suryanarayana34 presented an experimental study on the influence of friction and curvature on the buckling and post-buckling behavior of rods inside a circular cylinder. They concluded that both curvature and friction have a stabilizing effect on the tubular by delaying the onset of buckling. Paslay35 presented an article on the stress analysis of drillstrings, which included torque in the Lubinski-Woods solution for the buckling of weightless strings. Later, Miska and Cunha36 presented a different solution for the same problem. It should be emphasized that both solutions indicate that torque has a small influence on the buckling process. Miska and Cunha37 later extended their work on the influence of torque for weighted strings in inclined and horizontal wellbores. The practical examples presented in that paper reassured that torque can be disregarded for most normal field operations and can be seen in more detail in Ref. 38. A post-buckling analysis was also presented that used the principle of conservation of mechanical energy. The equation derived for the critical helical buckling load, confirming the numerical solution for the nonlinear differential equation presented by Mitchell,39 was F=4

Newman et al.25 reported some field cases in which forces exceeding the critical buckling load given by Eq. 5 were used in oilwell operations with coiled tubing without compromising the final result of the operation. Chen and Cheatham26 derived equations for the wall contact force for helically buckled pipes in vertical and inclined wellbores and considering loading and unloading situations.
14

2EIwsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9) r

Xiaojun He et al.40 later presented a derivation for critical torque that confirmed the equation previously presented by Miska and Cunha.37 Mitchell41 extended his well-known work on the influence of friction on the buckling process by developing a numerical solution for tubular helical buckling with friction. The paper presented
March 2004 SPE Drilling & Completion

www.petroman.ir

calculation examples and comparisons between numerical and analytical solutions. Wu42 studied the problem of load transmission when helical buckling occurs during drilling operations in highly inclined and horizontal wells. One important point noted in this literature review is that different authors have presented what could be seen as conflicting results for critical forces of buckling. A more careful analysis of these results appears in the next section and shows that, in some cases, the results were different because the derivations were made for different situations and/or with different considerations. Sinusoidal and Helical Buckling Analysis As stated previously, in the past there has been some controversy regarding the solution for the critical force of helical buckling of tubulars inside wellbores. Refs. 24 (Eq. 7), 28 (Eq. 5), 29 (Eq. 8), and 37 (Eq. 9) present different equations for the critical helical buckling force. Although there is a consensus that Ref. 28 assumed the critical force of sinusoidal buckling as the one supposed to cause helical buckling, the other three works present correct mathematical deductions that lead to different results. Different authors may assume distinct conditions when modeling the buckling phenomenon, which gives different results. A discussion on some of the criteria used by the authors follows. It is generally accepted that under the action of an axial force equal to or slightly greater than a certain critical value, a string inside a wellbore will buckle, changing its shape from straight to sinusoidal. Paslay35 used the term snaking to describe this phenomenon, while Mitchell39,41 preferred lateral. It is also well accepted that if the axial force acting on the already buckled string continues to increase, it will make the string change its shape again, totally contacting the wellbore wall and assuming a helical shape. Of course, buckling will not necessarily occur at the same time in the entire string. In long strings, such as the ones used in oilwell operations, the axial force acting on each point on the string is different, which makes an only partially buckled string possible. Also, different sections of the strings buckled portion may be at different stages of the buckling process, with part in a sinusoidal shape and part in a helical shape. Furthermore, even the helically buckled portion of the string may present different pitch measures for its helices, as noted in Ref. 41. A closer look at the difference between the results presented by Chen et al.24 and Wu et al.29 indicates that this difference did not occur because of any mistake in the derivations. In this case, both sets of authors derived expressions for loads capable of buckling the string into a helical shape inside the wellbore under the conditions assumed in each of the respective models. Because they assumed that the shape change, from straight to helical, would occur in different ways, the results in the two papers are different but not necessarily wrong. To illustrate this point, let us examine the expressions derived by Chen et al.24 and Wu et al.29for a critical helical-buckling load. Note that both derivations considered that by assuming a helical shape inside a horizontal wellbore, the string accumulates the same amount of energy. This energy is given by Eq. 10. EHS = 84 EIr2 L p4 + wrL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)

erations were taken in each case when modeling the way the energy is given to the string. Those differences are illustrated in Fig. 1. The importance of load history was already noted by Mitchell in Ref. 18. As stated previously, the model by Wu et al.29 assumed that the string did not initially buckle into a helical shape. Instead, it buckled in a sinusoidal shape and finally assumed a helical shape afterward, with the increase in axial load. Wu et al. also assumed that the displacement undergone by the string during sinusoidal buckling was very small and neglectable. This analysis is, in fact, a post-buckling analysis, because it describes pipe behavior after buckling (sinusoidal) has already occurred. Both models are correct within the assumptions taken. To predict exactly what will happen in an actual field situation is very difficult, but the assumption of an increasing force being applied to the string, instead of a constant force throughout the entire process, is clearly more representative of what should be expected in actual field operations. Because of that, it is anticipated that the predictions given by Eq. 8 will be more representative of actual field measurements. Eq. 7 represents the very minimum force possible to buckle the string helically; consequently, higher values should be expected. Many buckling experiments performed by Salies43,44 indicated that a string under an axial load buckles first into a sinusoidal shape. After that, if the axial load is increased, the post-buckling behavior of the string normally increases the sinusoid amplitude until a snap-through instability occurs, and the shape then changes from sinusoidal to helical. The model presented by Chen et al.24 predicts the theoretical minimum force capable of bringing a pipe inside the wellbore to a helical shape. The theoretical upper limit for a helical shape was presented by Miska and Cunha.37 This post-buckling condition was modeled with the principle of conservation of mechanical energy, and Eq. 9 is the resultant expression. It is expected that every point on the string at which an axial force equal to or greater than the one given by Eq. 9 is acting will be helically buckled. It is interesting to note that the value found by Miska and Cunha37 for the pitch-length relationship was exactly the same as the one found by Chen et al.24 This result was expected because the same geometry and the same amount of energy was considered for the string in both derivations. The difference between the two models is in the way that the energy was transferred to the string. Fig. 2 clarifies the differences considered. As a summary of this discussion, it may be stated that a string under a certain axial force will initially buckle, assuming a sinusoidal shape. If further increases in force are provided, the string then assumes a helical shape inside the wellbore, with all the points of the helically buckled part of the string contacting the wellbore wall. It is important to mention that the axial force acting on the string is variable. Only the points subject to a force equal to or greater than the critical helical-buckling load will be in a helical shape, contacting the wellbore wall.

It seems obvious that the previous energy is given to the string by the external axial load acting on the pipe while it changes shape from straight to helical. The derivations in Chen et al.24 assumed that the force acting on the string would be constant during the entire buckling process. On the other hand, Wu et al.29 assumed that the shape change would occur in two different steps. The first step would be sinusoidal buckling under a constant load, and the second would happen after the string is already buckled into a sinusoidal shape. At this point, the axial load would increase linearly to give the pipe its final helical shape. Although the energy in the system is the same in both cases, the final value of the axial force is different because different considMarch 2004 SPE Drilling & Completion

Fig. 1Comparison between models in Refs. 24 and 29: critical helical buckling force. 15

www.petroman.ir

Fig. 2Comparison between models in Refs. 24, 29, and 37: critical helical buckling force.

Tables 1 through 3 present equations for critical forces and the corresponding configuration of the string under that force. It can be seen that different works have reached quite similar results. For better comparison among the equations, the same notation was used in all the tables, although in the original works,38,41,45 the notation was slightly different. An analysis of the three tables indicates that there is close agreement between Tables 1 and 2, while the only difference between the values presented in Tables 1 and 2 and those in Table 3 is related to the value of the minimum force capable of changing the shape of an already buckled string from sinusoidal to helical. It is important to note that all authors agreed on the limits at which the value of such a force will fit. The most important point is that the three works agreed on the minimum value necessary to initiate the buckling process and, at the same time, agreed on the value of the force that will keep the string buckled in a helical shape. Recent Works There are still various issues related to tubular buckling inside wellbores that deserve some investigation. Even in the theoretical field, where intensive research has been carried out for the last 50 years, there is still opportunity for new developments, taking into consideration situations closer to actual field conditions. Some comments on the most recent works on buckling are presented here. Buckling has a major effect on the axial transfer of loads along the string. In a vertical well, the pipe will contact the borehole wall after the onset of buckling; consequently, frictional forces will develop. On inclined and horizontal wells, friction is always present, which has an impact on the transmission of axial loads along the string. The frictional forces increase when the string buckles. In addition, if helical buckling occurs, further increases in the friction force will take place. Kuru et al.46 presented a paper on the buckling behavior of pipes and its influence on the axial force transfer in directional wells. The authors derived expressions for the contact forces between the string and the wellbore wall in a deviated well for a straight pipe, a buckled pipe in a sinusoidal configuration, and a

buckled pipe in a helical configuration. They also presented a comparison of simulator results with experimental data that showed good agreement. Additionally, they presented a table with four buckling patterns to use to analyze the buckling behavior of pipes in horizontal and inclined wells. These results, shown in Table 4, are the same as those presented previously in Ref. 45 (Table 3). In Ref. 47, pipe buckling in curved wellbores was again investigated. This paper took into consideration the connectors of the pipes (tool joints), which makes this model much closer to a field situation in which drillpipes are used instead of coiled tubing. Finally, a recent article48 presented buckling solutions for horizontal wells that included equations for critical axial buckling force, variable pitch, length change caused by buckling, and pipewellbore contact force. This paper also presents a solution showing the possibility of a reverse helix occurring on the helical buckling process, which was previously mentioned and extensively verified in Refs. 38 and 44. Moreover, Ref. 48 presents two very interesting points related to buckling in extended-reach wells. It shows that failure of the tubular only because of buckling is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, as mentioned previously in Ref. 45, it also shows that once helical buckling develops, it may lead to very high friction forces that will ultimately avoid axial load transmission, causing a lockup condition. Final Remarks The main idea of this article was to present an overview on tubular buckling inside wellbores and to provide a comprehensive literature review at the same time, showing the interested reader where the majority of the most important developments on the subject could be found. From the articles mentioned, it was noticed that pipe buckling in a sinusoidal configuration is very common. In fact, it is expected that the string will be partially buckled in most drilling operations

16

March 2004 SPE Drilling & Completion

www.petroman.ir

on high-inclined, horizontal, and long-reach wells. There is also a general consensus on the critical buckling force for horizontal and inclined wells (Eq. 5). There are a few different equations for the minimum force capable of bringing the string to a helical configuration. In an actual field situation, it is very difficult to predict the exact load that will cause the onset of a helical configuration. However, using one of the tables presented, it is possible to avoid helical buckling, keeping the axial load at less than the lower value of the range. Tables 1 and 2 give more conservative results for the minimum helical buckling force, while Tables 3 and 4 give values 30% larger. A string, partially or totally buckled in a helical configuration, may present serious consequences to certain field operations. Early pipe fatigue, reduced axial load transfer along the string, and lockup are the most common consequences. Even though a buckled pipe will be under increased bending stresses, buckling itself will rarely be the lone cause of pipe failure. However, it should be noticed that a buckled pipe may have a decreased life because of acceleration of the fatigue process. Recently, theoretical models have been updated to consider aspects present in actual field operation, such as buckling prediction and axial force transfer in curved wellbores; presence of tool joints; and buckling behavior on high-inclined, horizontal, and long-reach wells. Although there are some experimental data available in the literature, most of the articles found presented developments of theoretical models. Ref. 43 was the only extensive experimental work published, but this work did not consider several issues commonly present in actual field situations. It seems that a more comprehensive experimental work would significantly contribute to a better understanding of the buckling behavior of tubulars inside wellbores. Among the influencing factors that could be investigated in thorough experimental research are: Wellbore curvature. Friction.

Fluid flow. Pipe rotation. Presence of tool joints. Finally, on the theoretical side, a comprehensive model that could predict pipe behavior for the many different wellbore configurations and various field conditions would truly represent an advance in the buckling field. Nomenclature E EHS F F* Fbuc Youngs modulus, psi total potential for the string in helical shape, lbfin. axial compressive load, lbf 1.873FS according to Ref. 46, lbf critical force of helical buckling or axial compression necessary to bring the pipe to a helical configuration, lbf Fh 2 2FS according to Ref. 46, lbf critical force of sinusoidal buckling or axial compression necessary to initiate pipe buckling, lbf moment of inertia, in.4 length of the pipe or string being considered, in. constant for Euler equation Paslay number as defined in Ref. 41 pitch of the helix, in. clearance radius (difference between the wellbore radius and pipe radius), in. axial torque, lbfin. linear weight of the pipe, lbfin. wellbore inclination angle

Fh Fs or Fsin I L n NPal P r T w

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Dr. S. Miska from the U. of Tulsa for the many fruitful discussions regarding the main subject of this paper. All the referenced authors should also be recognized for their efforts in developing a better understanding of the buckling process. Finally, the author would like to dedicate this article to the late Dr. Arthur Lubinski, a pioneer in the research of this and many other important subjects. References
1. Lubinski, A.: A Study On The Buckling Of Rotary Strings, API Drilling Production Practice, Dallas (1950) 178. 2. Love, A.E.: A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, Dover Publications Inc., New York City (1944) 405, 414419, 425, 426. 3. Goodier, J.N.: The buckling of compressed bars by torsion and flexure, Cornell U. Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 27 (December 1941).

March 2004 SPE Drilling & Completion

17

www.petroman.ir

4. Goodier, J.N.: On Combined Flexure and Torsion, and The Flexural Buckling of a Twisted Bar, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics (July 1944) 2, No. 2. 5. Hoff, N.J.: A Strain Energy Derivation of the Torsional-Flexural Buckling Loads of Straight Columns of Thin Walled Open Sections, Quarterly Of Applied Mathematics (January 1944) 1, No. 4. 6. Timoshenko, S. and Goodier, J.N.: Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York City (1951). 7. Langhaar, H.L.: General Theory of Buckling, Applied Mechanics (November 1958) 11. 8. Wang, C.Y.: A Critical Review of The Heavy Elastica, Intl. J. of Mechanical Science (1986) 28, No. 8, 549559. 9. Guo, W.: Mathematical Study on The Stability of a Long Elastic String Subjected to the Combining Tension, Compression and Axial Torsional Loads, Masters thesis, New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico (1992). 10. Lubinski, A.: Influence of Tension and Compression on Straightness and Buckling of Tubular Goods in Oil Wells, paper presented at the 1951 Annual Meeting of The API, Chicago, 59 November. 11. Lubinski, A. and Blenkarn, K.A.: Buckling of Tubing in Pumping Wells, Its Effects and Means for Controlling It, paper presented at the 1956 Petroleum Branch Fall Meeting, Los Angeles, October. 12. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.S., and Logan, J.L.: Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers, JPT (June 1962) 655; Trans., AIME, 225. 13. Miska, S.: Developments in Petroleum Engineering, Collected Works of Arthur Lubinski Edited by Stefan Miska, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1987). 14. Paslay, P.R. and Bogy, D.B.: The Stability of a Circular Rod Laterally Constrained to Be in Contact With an Inclined Circular Cylinder, J. of Applied Mechanics (1964) 31, No. 3, 605. 15. Mitchell, R.F.: Buckling Behavior of Well Tubing: The Packer Effect, SPEJ (October 1982) 616; Trans., AIME, 273. 16. Cheatham, J.B. Jr. and Pattillo, P.D.: Helical Postbuckling Configuration of a Weightless Column Under the Action of an Axial Load, SPEJ (August 1984) 467; Trans., AIME, 277. 17. Dawson, R. and Paslay, P.R.: Drill Pipe Buckling in Inclined Holes, paper SPE 11167 presented at the 1982 SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2629 September. 18. Mitchell, R.F.: Simple Frictional Analysis of Forces in Helical Buckling of Tubing, SPEDE (December 1986) 457; Trans., AIME, 281. 19. OBrien, T.B.: Why Some Casing Failures Happen, World Oil (June 1984) 215, No. 6, 143. 20. Kwon, Y.W.: A Precise Solution for Helical Buckling, SPEDE (June 1988) 211. 21. Cheatham, J.B. and Chen, Y.C.: New Design Considerations for Tubing and Casing Buckling in Inclined Wells, paper OTC 5826 presented at the 1988 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May. 22. Mitchell, R.F.: New Concepts for Helical Buckling, SPEDE (September 1988) 303; Trans., AIME, 285. 23. Zhang, Y.L.: A Study of Helical Buckling of the Compressed Portion of a Drillstring During Straight-Hole Drilling Using a Down-Hole Motor, paper SPE 19369 available from SPE, Richardson, Texas (1989). 24. Chen, Y.C., Lin, Y.H., and Cheatham, J.B.: An Analysis of Tubing and Casing Buckling in Horizontal Wells, paper OTC 6037 presented at the 1989 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 14 May. 25. Newman, K.R., Corrigan, M., and Cheatham, J.B.: Safely Exceeding the Critical Buckling Load in Highly Deviated Holes, paper SPE 19229 presented at the 1989 SPE Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, 58 September. 26. Chen, Y.C. and Cheatham, J.B.: Wall Contact Forces on Helically Buckled Tubulars in Inclined Wells, Trans., ASME (June 1990) 112, 142144. 27. Paslay, P.R. and Cernocky, E.P.: Bending Stress Magnification in Constant Curvature Doglegs With Impact on Drillstring and Casing, paper SPE 22547 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 69 October. 28. Schuh, F.J.: The Critical Buckling Force and Stresses for Pipe in Inclined Curved Boreholes, paper SPE/IADC 21942 presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 1114 March. 18

29. Wu, J., Juvkam-Wold, H.C., and Lu, R.: Preventing Helical Buckling of Pipes in Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells, paper presented at the 1993 Energy-Sources Technology Conference & Exhibition, Houston, 31 January4 February. 30. Wu, J. and Juvkam-Wold, H.C.: Study of Helical Buckling of Pipes in Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 25503 presented at the 1993 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 2123 March. 31. He, X. and Kyllingstad, A.: Helical Buckling and Lock-Up Conditions for Coiled Tubing in Curved Wells, paper SPE 27370 presented at the 1993 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Singapore, 810 February. 32. Wu, J., Juvkam-Wold, H.C.: Frictional Drag Analysis for Helically Buckled Pipes In Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells, paper presented at the 1993 Energy-Sources Technology Conference & Exhibition, Houston, 31 January4 February. 33. Wu, J. and Juvkam-Wold, H.C.: Coiled Tubing Buckling Implication in Drilling and Completing Horizontal Wells, SPEDC (March 1995) 16. 34. McCann, R.C. and Suryanarayana, P.: Experimental Study of Curvature and Frictional Effects on Buckling, paper OTC 7568 presented at the 1995 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 14 May. 35. Paslay, P.R.: Stress Analysis of Drill Strings, paper SPE 27976 presented at the 1994 U. of Tulsa Centennial Symposium, Tulsa, 2931 August. 36. Miska, S. and Cunha, J.C.S.: Helical Buckling of Long Weightless Strings Subjected to Axial and Torsional Loads, paper presented at the 1995 Drilling Symposium of the ASME Energy and Environmental EXPO 95, Houston, 29 January1 February. 37. Miska, S. and Cunha, J.C.S.: An Analysis of Helical Buckling of Tubulars Subjected to Axial and Torsional Loading in Inclined Wellbores, paper SPE 29460 presented at the 1995 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 24 April. 38. Cunha, J.C.S.: Buckling Behavior of Tubulars in Oil and Gas Wells. A Theoretical and Experimental Study With Emphasis on the Torque Effect, PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa (1995). 39. Mitchell, R.: Effects of Well Deviation on Helical Buckling, paper SPE 29462 presented at the 1995 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 24 April. 40. He, X., Halsey, G.W., and Kyllingstad, A.: Interactions Between Torque and Helical Buckling in Drilling, paper 30521 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October. 41. Mitchell, R.: Comprehensive Analysis of Buckling With Friction, paper SPE 29457 presented at the 1995 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 24 April. 42. Wu, J.: Slack-off Load Transmission in Horizontal and Inclined Wells, paper SPE 29496 presented at the 1995 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24 April. 43. Salis, J.B.: Experimental Study and Mathematical Modeling of Helical Buckling of Tubulars in Inclined Wellbores, PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa (1994). 44. Salis, J.B. et al.: Experimental and Analytical Study of Sinusoidal Buckling in Vertical Wells, paper SPE 29164 presented at the 1994 SPE Eastern Regional Conference & Exhibition, Charleston, West Virginia, 810 November. 45. Miska, S. et al.: An Improved Analysis of Axial Force Along Coiled Tubing in Inclined/Horizontal Wellbores, paper SPE 37056 presented at the 1996 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, 1820 November. 46. Kuru, E., Martinez, A., and Miska, S.: The Buckling Behavior of Pipes and Its Influence on the Axial Force Transfer in Directional Wells, paper SPE/IADC 52840 presented at 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 911 March. 47. Mitchell, R.F.: Lateral Buckling of Pipe With Connectors in Curved Wellbores, paper SPE 67727 presented at the 2001 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 27 February1 March. 48. Mitchell, R.F.: New Buckling Solutions for Extended Reach Wells, paper SPE 74566 presented at the 2002 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, 2628 February. March 2004 SPE Drilling & Completion

www.petroman.ir

SI Metric Conversion Factors in. 2.54* E+00 cm lbf 4.448 222 E+00 N psi 6.894 757 E+00 kPa
*Conversion factor is exact

J.C. Cunha is a professor of petroleum engineering at the School of Mining and Petroleum at the U. of Alberta, Canada.

Before joining the U. of Alberta, he has worked for 25 years for Petrobras and Petrobras Intl. in a number of onshore and offshore drilling projects in South America, the Gulf of Mexico, Africa, and the Caribbean. Originally a civil engineer from Juiz de Fora U., Brazil, Cunha holds an MS degree from Ouro Preto U., Brazil, and a PhD degree from Tulsa U., both in petroleum engineering. His main areas of interest are in drillstring mechanics, wellbore stability, horizontal and extended-reach wells, underbalanced drilling, and risk analysis for special drilling operations. An active SPE member, Cunha has participated in various SPE technical committees and is the vice-chairman of the SPE Drilling Technical Interest Group and a technical editor for JPT. He also serves as a Review Chairperson for the SPE Drilling & Completion Editorial Review Committee.

March 2004 SPE Drilling & Completion

19

www.petroman.ir