1

A
SPE 36761
Kiila
~ Society of Petroleum Engineers
-,
I

Buckling Analysis in Deviated Wells: A Practical Method

R. F, Mitchell, Enertech Engineering and Research Co.

SPE Member

Copwght
1996 Scumty of Petrolewm Engineers, Inc
5. Friction between the tubing and casing is neglected,
Th!spaperwas prepared for prescmtatum at the 1$% SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhlb!tmn held m Oerwer, Colorado, U S A &9 0ctc4W 19S6
Mitchell developed a more general approach that replaced the
Th!s paper was selected for presentakm by an SPE Program Committee following revmw of
(mformatfo cnntaned #n a abstraci submtttad by [he author(s) Contents of the p.spar, as virtual work relations with the full set of beam-column
presentec, have d been re.mwed by the Soctety of Petroleum Eng!neers and are subjecl to
equations constrained to be in contact with the casing4. Helical
cnrrectlon by the author(s) The materrdl, as presented, d-s not nemssanly reflect any
posttlon of the Scaety of Petroleum Engineers, M ofkars, or members Papers presented at buckling in a deviated well, in this formulation, is described by
SPE mOetkngs are subject 10 pubkabon review by Edliorlal Committees of the .%aety of
Petroleum Engneers Perm!ssmn to copy IS resmcted to an abstract of not more than 303 a fourth order non-linear differential equation. For a vertical
words Illustrabons may not be cnpted The abstract should conlan conspicuous
acknoluedgment of where and by whom the paper was presented Wnfe Llbrar!an, SPE, P O
well, the solution to this equation can be accurately
Box 833B35 Richardson, TX 75C83-3836, U S A, fax 01-214-952-9435 approximated by the simple algebraic equation discovered by
Lubinski and Woods. This solution is not valid for deviated or
horizontal wells because of the lateral gravity forces. The full
Abstract deviated well equation was solved by Mitchell using numerical
methodss. The purpose of this paper is to put these results in a
Current helical buckling models are valid for vertical wells, but more usable form.
provide only approximate solutions for horizontal wells.
Solutions of the non-linear buckling equations for arbitrary well Accurate solution of the buckling equations is important for
deviation have been developed, but are too complex for several reasons. Bending stresses due to tubing buckling will be
practical use. This paper presents a set of correlations that overestimated for deviated wells using Lubinskis formula.
match the exact solutions extremely well, but are simple to use, However, Lubinskis solution applied to deviated wells will also
These correlations show the effects of well deviation on overpredict tubing movement. For a fixed packer, this solution
buckling shape, tubing length change, contact force and bending will overestimate tubing compliance, which may greatly
stress, underestimate the axial loads, resulting in a non-conservative
design. For a tlee packer or PB~ exaggerated tubing motion
Introduction will require excessive seal length. Further, because tubing
incremental motion will control the fi-iction load direction,
The most generally accepted method for the analysis of errors in overall tubing displacement will generate further errors
buckling, tubing movement, and packer selection is the method in friction loads.
developed by Lubinski et,UL in reference 1. Analyses following
Lubinskis basic approach have been developed for more This paper presents correlations to the numerical solution of the
complicated tubing configurations, e.g. tapered stTings23.Henry buckling differential equation. Calculation of results, including
Woods, in the appendix to Lubinski ef,al., developed a buckling length change, tubing contact forces, bending stresses
mechanical model of well buckling behavior that predicted the and dogleg angle are developed. An application problem was
buckled configuration as a fimction of well loads. This model solved and the effects of well deviation on stability, length
featured: change, and maximum bending stress were examined. Well
1, The slender beam theory is used to relate bending moment deviation is shown to have significant impact on buckling
to curvature. results and tubing stress analysis.
2. The tubing is assumed to buckle into a helical shape,
3. The wellbore is assumed to be straight and vertical. At the end of this paper is a complete nomenclature and
4. The pitch of the helix is related to the buckling load reference list.
through the principle of virtual work

871
2 ROBERT F. MITCHELL SPE 36761

Buckling Models for Deviated Wells

The theoretical basis for the analysis of buckling in deviated for 2.8FP > F>FP (7)
wellbores is described in this section. The first generally useful
buckling solution was published by Lubinskil. In Lubinskis The corresponding helical buckling correlation is:
analysis, the wellbore is assumed to be vertical and the tubing
buckled shape was modeled as a helix with variable pitch.
Mitche114showed that Lubinskis solution was M approximate
solution to the beam-column equations with displacements
constrained to a cylinder. In this formulation of the beam-
0=+
r & for F > 2.8FP (8)

The region 2.8FP > F > 1.4FP may be either helical or lateral,
cohunn equations, the lateral displacements, shown in Figure 1,
however, 2.8FP is believed to be the lateral buckling limit on
are given by:
loading, while 1.4FP is believed to be the helical buckling limit
on unloading from a helical buckled state59. For a vertical well,
u, = rcose (1)
FP is zero, so only equation 8 applies, which is the buckling
solution used by Lubinski. An important distinction between
u2 = r sine (2)
equation 7 and equation 8 is that equation 7 is the maximum
value of 0 while equation 8 is the actual value of (1,As can be
where 8 is the helix angle, and r is the tubing/casing radial
seen in Figure 2, 8 varies between M1mmover the lateral
clearance. The differential equation for the helix angle @ is
buckling interval. This distinction will be used when developing
given by:
buckling length change results.

-EI(3+[2EI(W)3-F61 + (wJr) sine = O (3)

The equation for dogleg curvature for a helix is:

where WI is the lateral tubing weight per unit length, EI is the K = r(9)2 (9)
bending stiffness, F is the axial buckling force, and denotes
dldz. The axial buckling force F and the lateral tubing weight The dogleg units for equation 9 is radians per inch. To convert
are both strongly influenced by fluid pressures and must be to the conventional unit of degrees per 100 feet, multiply the
formulated accordingly. Lubinskis helical pitch solution: result by 68,755.

3. Corrdatim for B~
(4)
Given the tubing curvature, the bending moment is determined:

is an approximate solution to equation 3 for w? equal O, but not

M = EIK= E[r(EY)2 (10)
the only possible solution. An approximate solution to Equation
The corresponding maximum bending stress is:
3 for inclined wells, with F constant, is:

MdO _ Ed Or(C1)2 (11)

(5)
B = a sin(~z),
Ial<< , b =
21-2
which requires: where dO is the outside diameter of the pipe. The following
correlations can be derived using equations 7 and 8:
F&/~=Fp (6)
M=O

for ~ to be real. This is the Paslay-Dawson equations, with F. for F < FP

defined as the Paslay critical buckling load.

M =.6302 rF08(F FP) 92

for 2.8FP >F > FP

The correlation developed in reference 5 for the maximum
value of 9 for lateral buckling can be expressed:
M =.5000r F

872
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD 3

for F > 2.8FP (12) rz

and e~= F
4EI

Cb =0 F> 2.8 Fp (16)

for F < FP The buckling strain is illustrated in Figure 6. No buckling strain

is shown for buckling force less than the Paslay Buckling force
FP. The buckling strain is roughly half the conventional helical
~b =.3151 -d+. FVF F,)z
buckling strain up to the lateral buckling limit, where the tubing
goes into helical buckling.
for 2,8FP > F > FP
To determine the buckling length change AL~, we need to
ab =.2500tiF integrate equations 15 and 16 over the appropriate length
I interval:

for F > 2.8FP (13) (17)

ALb= [e~dz
ZI
The dependence of bending moment and bending stress on
buckling force is shown in Figures 3 and 4. Bending moment
where z I and Z2 are defined by the distribution of the buckling
and bending stress are expressed in dimensionless form on these
force F. For the general case of arbitrary variation of F over the
two figures, and since bending moment and stress are
interval AL = Z2 - z 1, equation 17 must be numerically
proportional, the figures have the same form. Conventional
integrated. However, there are two special cases that are
analysis shows the dimensionless moment to be constant (this
commonly used. For that case of constant force F, such as in a
means the bending moment is propotiional to the buckling
horizontal well, equation 17 is easily integrated:
force), while the correlation predicts no moment below the
Paslay buckling force, and lower bending moment below the
(18)
helical limit, Similar observations apply to the bending stress. ~ebdz=eb AL
ZI

4, Corr@s for B~

where eb is defined by either equation 15 or equation 16. The

The buckling strain , in the sense of Lubinskil, is the buckling
length change per unit length, The buckling strain is given by second special case is for a linear variation of F over the
interval:
the following relationship:

- ~(r6)2 (14)
b= F(z) =wz+c (19)

For the case of lateral buckling, we have only the maximum

value of 8, so we must determine the average strain in terms of We can now evaluate equation 18 by change of variables:
the maximum strain. The actual shape of the 0 curve ( Figure 5)
was integrated numerically to determine the following
relationship:
(20)
r ~oEIF_FpJ2 febdz= w- F~ebd F
e bavg =
.7285 z] F1
4EI

2.8FP > F > FP (15)

Equation 15 cannot be integrated in closed form, but a good
approximation discussed in the Appendix can be integrated to
which compares to the helical buckling strain:
give the following result:

873
4 ROBERT F. MITCHELL SPE 36761

Figure 11 shows the total buckled length of the tubing. The

AL~= (F2 - FP)[.3771F, -.3668FP] Lubinski theory indicates that buckling length increases as the
4EIw
deviation angle increases. Since hydrostatic pressures control
for 2.8FP > Fz > FP (21) buckling in this application, the neutral point of the tubing
corresponds to a fixed true vertical depth. The measured depth
The integration of equation 16 gives the familiar Lubinski corresponding to a fixed true vertical depth increases as the
result: deviation angle increases, resulting in an increasing buckled
length, The buckled length for the deviated well correlation
shows reduced buckled length as deviation increases, which is
AL,=- 2 [F:- F,] qualitatively more reasonable than the Lubinski prediction. The
8EIW
helical buckled length decreases even more rapidly, since lateral
F> 2.8 FP (22) loads tend to prevent helical buckling.
for

The buckling length change is shown in Figure 12. The

Buckling length change is illus@ated in Figure 7. The buckling
difference in buckled length change between the correlation and
length change predicted is much less than the conventional
the Lubinski model, for small deviation angles, is surprisingly
model when buckling forces are less than about four times the
large, with about a 20% reduction in length change for a
Paslay buckling force.
deviation angle of 10 degrees. The difference in buckled length
for large angles is substantial. For angles in excess of 60
5. Comb.ism for C~
degrees, the correlation buckled length change is negligible,
while the Lubinski theory predicts 80/0 of the vertical well
From equilibrium considerations only, the average contact force
length change.
for lateral buckling is:

The bending stress induced by buckling is shown in Figure 13.

w.= Wf (23)
The average contact force for the helically buckled section is:
W.= rF214E1 + W? (24)
The contact for dependence on buckling force is shown in
Figure 8. When the buckling mode changes from lateral to
helical, the contact force increases substantially.
An Application Problem
The sample application presented in this section is based on the
example used by Lubinskit. The basic parameters for this
problem are summarized in Table I. The principle difference in
the present calculation tlom Lubinski is the addition of a kick-
off point to make this a deviated well,. The deviation angle $ is
used as a variable to show the relative importance of well
deviation on the buckling results. The well deviation geometry
is shown in Figure 9.
As long as helical buckling is predicted, the correlation and the
Lubinski model coincide. At about 50 degrees, helical buckling
is suppressed, and the bending stress is reduced by more than
20%. For inclination above 80 degrees, bending stress predicted
by the correlation is near zero, while the Lubinski model
predicts over 5,000 psi.
Results, Observations, and Conclusions
1. For a vertical well, helical buckling can be accurately
approximated by a simple algebraic equation
discovered by Lubinski and Woods. This solution is
not valid for deviated or horizontal wells because of
the lateral gravity forces,
2. Buckling in deviated wells is of two forms, a lateral
snakelike buckling and helical buckling. The
buckling force must exceed the Paslay force to initiate
lateral buckling, and must exceed 2.8 times the Paslay
force for helical buckling.

The buckling force at bottom hole is shown in Figure 10.
Because the force is generated by the hydrostatic pressure, the
force decreases as the deviation angle increases, The critical
buckling force (Paslay force) increases with the square root of
the sine of the deviation angle, and the critical helical buckling
force is 2.8 time the Paslay force. Figure 10 shows that helical
buckling is suppressed for angles above about 54 degrees, but
that lateral buckling occurs thoughout the range shown.
3. Simple correlations for the analysis of buckling in
deviated wells have been developed from numerical
solutions of the buckling equation. Contact forces,
buckling length changes, tubing bending stress and
maximum dogleg angles are determined.
4. The Lubinski buckling model predicts an increase in
the length of buckled tubing for an increase in
deviation angle, which is not considered realistic, The

874
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD 5

correlation presented in this paper predicts a reduction SPEDE (September 1988), 303-310.
in buckled tubing length, and a substantial reduction in
helically buckled length. 5. Mitchell, R. F.: Effects of Well Deviation on Helical
Buckling, SPE 29462 presented at the 1995 SPE
5. Buckling length change predicted by the correlation Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
shows considerable reduction compared to the OK, (April 1995).
Lubinski model. This reduction is primarily due to the
reduction of helical buckling by lateral forces in the 6. Crandall, Stephen H. and Dahl, Norman C. (cd.): An
deviated well. Introduction to the Mechanics of Solids, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, (1959), 360-384.

7. Mitchell, R. F.: Forces on Curved Tubulars Due to

Nomenclature: Fluid Flow, SPE 25500 presented at the 1993 SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
dO= tubing outside diameter OK, (March 1993).
E = Youngs modulus
El = the tubular bending stiffness 8. Dawson, Rapier and Paslay, P. R.: Drillpipe Buckling
e~ = buckling strain in Inclined Holes, JPT, (October 1984).
eBavg= average buckling strain
F = the buckling force 9. Chen, Yu-Che, Lin, Yu-Hsu, and John B. Cheatham:
FO=the packer to tubing force Tubing and Casing Buckling in Horizontal Wells,
L = the tubular string length JPT, (February 1990).
M = bending moment
r = the ~bing.cming radial CkMt311W
w = axial distributed load in the tubing
w,= lateral distributed load in the tubing
Wn= the contact force between the tubing and casing APPENDIX: Approximations to the Lateral Buckling
z = measured depth (Caution: in this development, z is Strain
measured from the surface. In some papers, z is measured
from the bottom of the string.) The average lateral buckling strain is given by equation 15:

o~ = bending stress
e bavg =
-,7285
&F *(F - F,)
8 = angle between the pipe center location and the x coordinate
axis
O~Ax = lateral buckling amplitude correlation 2.8FP > F > FP (A-1)

The quantity F E(F- FP)92 cannot be integrated in closed form.

References We define the dimensionless function E as a timction of F/FP:

1. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S., and Logan, J. L.: E(~) =\ O(~-l) (A-2)
Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers, J. Pet.
Tech. (June 1962), 655-670. where & = F/FP. Function E is plotted in Figure A-1. Function E
appears to be very nearly linear. This function can be
2. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Movement, Forces, and Stresses approximated over the range & E [1,2.8] by the following least
Associated With Combination Tubing Strings Sealed squares tit:
in Packers, JPT (Feb. 1977), 195-208; Trans., AIME,
263. E(<) = -1.0212+ 1.0352< (A-3)

3. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Packer-to-Tubing Forces for The closeness of fit to equation A-2 is demonstrated in Figure
Intermediate Packers, .WT (March 1980), 195-208; A-1. The use of equation A-3 in equation A-1 gives:
515-27.

4. Mitchell, R. F.: New Concepts for Helical Buckling,

875
6 ROBERT F, MITCHELL SPE 36761

e bavg = -.7285 g(l.0352F - .0212FP)

4EI

2.8FP > F > FP (A-4)

TABLE 1:Squeeze Cementing Operation

Tubing-Casing Properties
Type O.D. (in) I.D. (in) Weight (ppf)
Tubing 2-7/8 2.441 6.5
Casing 7 6.094 32

Fluid Pror)erties I
Fluid Location Fluid Type Density (psi/in)
Tubing 15 ppg cement .0649
Annulus 30 degree API crude .0317

Miscellaneous Properties:

w = .6396 COS$ Ibf/in

WI = .6396 sin$ lbf/in
E=30x106 si
f
1=1.61 iin
r= 1.610 inch
Packer Bore Area = 8.296 inz

876
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD

t
x

Figure 1: Coordhmta Sy@am for Buckling Armlysh

1.ac

075

050

025

000
. ..-. Lu~IIskISdulW
,D6viitedw
.025 ,-.. -carmlenon

450

-075

-t 00
o 05 1- 15 2 25

p,
Figure 2: Buckling in Daviatad Wells

877
 ROBERT F. MITCHELL SPE 36761

0.60

050

._
0.40 .
-f-
M
0.30
E
020

0.10

0.00 /
o.m 0.s0 I .m 1.s0 2.m 2.50 3.m 3.s0 4.m

/F F,

Figure 3 Bending Moment Correlations

OK

Ow ______________ . -

O.m

0.10

O.co
o,m O.w I.m 1.s0 2sn 2.s 3.m 3.s0 4.m
FF
/ P
Figura 4: Bandin~ Strooa Correlations

878
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD

O,SQ

o,m

0.60

0,30
e
0;5 040

030

O.m

0.10

O.cm
I 735 I .740 1.745 I 750 1755 1.7tJ1 1.765 I 7m

F,

Figure 5: Typical Lateral Buckling Cycle

4 .m

3.50

.
.,,,,

l-
3.C31

2.54

4EI
7 ~

1.50

100

050

000
000 0.50 Icm 1.30 1 .IK1 2.30 3al 350 4.00

FF
/ P

Figure 6: Buckllng Strain Comparison

 ROBERT F. MITCHELI. SPE 36761

160

..
44 a) . .-.- ~
.,

12al _

... .- - ..

L
......~b~ti j
..
COrrehdmim ..
_- .,
Io,w ...
.,
.. /
- yALb ,
r 8.w .-. -
.,
,,
- ,.
6.~ ,.
,,.
,,
,. +
4.00

.-
.. ,..
..- .,
2.m

Ocm
0.00 0.s0 1.00 1.s0 2,00 2.s0 3.m 3.$0 4.m

FF
/ P
Figure 7: Buckllng Length Change Comparison

18.03

16.02
--7
w
_rJ
14.03

i2.03
. ..-.. hlbinii
! Commi.m I
.
z
Wt
Iom

8.13J

-
.z

.
..
,..
-+ ,. 1

-L.

1---
6.03
,..
.,
4.02 ----~
.. . . ..
..-
2.00 . .
.. :.---.. . . . .. _ . _ .. .. .
. . . .. . ...
0.02
0.02 O.!(I l.m 1.50 z.m 2.50 3.CQ 3s0 4.rm

/Fp
Figure 8: Contact Foroe Correlation

880
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD

surface

2,000 n I

\ 1
I

/
~ /

\ /

/
(
,
/
.
.
. .
-.
10,OOOR --

Figure 9: Example Problem Wellbore Geometry

Wm
I

mm
+
I No Hdkd BUIIIW
2XOI

---m dayti ,

203cfl
.-. .
---- (
. 1
... I
15C03 -,,-< - 1 ....

.. I
,./
/ 1
./ I
lm 1

5KCl

o
0 10 20 30 40 50 a RI

~--

Flgum 10: Buckling Forcee

881
 ROBERT F. MITCHELL SPE 36761

Sam _ ..

U?ca -
\\....-.
.,
...... ~ E3i53!!
------- . . . . . .. . .
\ . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
--+ .. .....
*.. .......
--., ..-..
mo . ~ ,
~..
~.,
~.
Icm . --+- ---
\.
\
o
0 10 m 33 40 so bo m m 90

~.+e-

Flgum 11: Tubing Buckled Length

-11

-- --- -----
----- ----
-=
-Ic
-.-
---
=- -.. .
4 --

4 -.--_

.2 .Ez
0
o 10 m 90 40 50 60 m

De?iatim AngkdrgTOm

Figure 12 Fluckllng Langth Clunga

SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD

.
----T
mm

0
0 10 m 3 40 60 w 80 92
2MdLmAnsk&ieJ

Flgum 13: Bonding StreH

Z.m

I .75 .

50 .. ______ ._____

25

I .m
i
1
0.75
--- cm-

O.YI
.:....k~pim
1
0.25

000
0.50 1ml [.50 2.m 2.S2 3.m

FF
/ P
Figure A-l: Correlation of Lstoml Buckling Strain

883