Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
IMECE2012
November 9-15, 2012, Houston, Texas, USA
Buckling Analysis of Drill Strings in Inclined Wellbores
Using the Explicit Finite Element Method
Mehdi Hajianmaleki
The University of Tulsa
Tulsa, OK, USA
mehdi-hajianmaleki@utulsa.edu
Lev Ring
Weatherford International Inc.
Houston, TX, USA
Lev.Ring@weatherford.com
ABSTRACT
Understanding drill string buckling behavior is a
significant challenge to the petroleum industry. In this paper,
the explicit finite element method implemented in Abaqus
software is employed to study the buckling of drill strings for
inclined straight wellbores. Classic solutions for the critical
buckling length of self-weighted columns as well as critical
buckling load for drill pipe inside inclined wellbores are
compared to explicit FEA and accurate results are provided by
the finite element based predictions. The effect of different
inclination angles and string effective weight due to the
buoyancy effect has been studied and the results for sinusoidal
and helical buckling are compared to analytical results and
experimental data in the literature. The theoretical predictions
for different inclination angles agree with the simulations.
Theoretical buckling load of inclined drill strings approaches
zero by decreasing the effective weight of a floating drill string.
However, the results of finite element simulations show that
significant buckling load would still exist for very low drill
string effective weight. These results are confirmed by
experimental results provided by other researchers. Overall, the
efficacy of using explicit finite element methods to model drill
string buckling behavior is demonstrated.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
IMECE2012-89638
Jeremy S. Daily
The University of Tulsa
Tulsa, OK, USA
jeremy-daily@utulsa.edu
Raju Gandikota
Weatherford International Inc.
Houston, TX, USA
Varadaraju.Gandikota@weatherford.com
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATION
Buckling analysis of drill strings is a serious problem
in the petroleum industry. Buckling can intensify the bending
stress and lead to fatigue failure over time. More importantly,
buckled shapes exert larger side forces than unbuckled which
increases friction losses and can lead to the lockup of the string
and potential loss of equipment and section of the well.
Increases in the depth and deviation of wells have intensified
this problem and led to the need for comprehensive models
capable of analyzing and predicting different aspects of drill
string buckling.
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to increase the rate of drilling (rate of
penetration) optimum weight should be put and maintained on
the drilling bit. The weight on bit (WOB) is limited by a critical
buckling load where the pipe loses elastic stability. Therefore, it
is very important to determine the maximum load permissible
on the drill string. Critical buckling load depends on the pipe
geometry, drill pipe elastic modulus and wellbore geometry. It
1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 is generally believed that the drill string will first change into a
sinusoidal buckling shape and then to helical buckling [1].
Starting in 1952, Lubinski [2] performed a seminal
analysis on buckling behavior of drill strings where he used
classical theory of elasticity to study the instability of straight
drill strings. Lubinski considered the effect of buoyancy, WOB,
horizontal force on bit, and normal wall contact force and drill
collars. The string at both ends was hinged and an analytical
approach was used to solve the beam equations. To generalize
the results, Lubinski proposed using a normalized length
parameter m as defined by equation (1)
EI
m= 3
w
where E is the elastic modulus (lb/in2)
π ( OD 4 − ID 4 )
I= is the second moment of area of the cross
64
section of the pipe (in4) with outer diameter (OD) and inner
diameter (ID)
w is the weight per unit length (lb/in).
Since then, different formulations for the onset of
sinusoidal and helical buckling in different wellbores have been
proposed by other researchers [3-15].
Gao and Miska [16] studied the effect of boundary
conditions and friction on buckling in horizontal wellbores and
 w  is more
showed that if the dimensionless length  µ = 4 L
 EI 
 boundary conditions; instead, it will solve for them by
than 5π, the assumption of a long drill pipe (free from boundary
conditions effect) can be applied.
Theoretical critical buckling load is usually
determined by an eigenvalue analysis. Eigenvalues estimate the
upper bound of critical buckling load (bifurcation load). The
more critical lower bound of the critical buckling load can be
predicted with large deflection analysis using the finite element
method. In general, load-displacement curves for a buckling
problem are nonlinear and the curvature of the current
wellbores makes it more nonlinear [17]. Explicit non-linear
finite element modeling that considers large displacements and
contact is a good candidate for solving these problems.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the
efficacy of using the explicit finite element method to model
the buckling behavior of drill strings. Both analytical solutions
and experimental data are compared with the numerical
simulations. Where appropriate, the results are presented in
normalized form. When experimental descriptions are
available, the explicit FEA models were constructed to match
the experimental setup. Similarly, most simulation assumptions
in the literature are implemented in the FEA models. Since
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
buckled shapes are difficult to duplicate, the force-displacement
relationships are used for comparison of results.
Most experiments and analyses have been done on
slick assemblies where tool joints and wellbore imperfections
are ignored. As such, the numerical model used in this paper
makes the same assumptions. When friction is modeled, it is
assumed to follow the Coulomb model.
When modeling buckling, some assumptions are used
that limit the utility of some results. As such, this paper aims to
find those areas well suited for numerical prediction and
demonstrate that an explicit FEA approach is appropriate.
(1)
PAPER ORGANIZATION
A detailed description of the finite element model is
explained in the next section. Following the model description,
the numerical results are compared to both analytical and
experimental data for horizontal, vertical, and inclined
wellbores. Discussions regarding those comparisons warrant a
section with concluding remarks to follow.
EXPLICIT FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
Traditional implicit finite element models have been
problematic in solving buckling problems for constrained
geometry because buckling behavior causes local instabilities
and sharp changes in contact behavior, which leads to
numerical instabilities. Techniques using non-linear springs and
penalty methods have been used with varying degrees of
success, but an alternative based on the explicit finite element
method is sought. This method does not require well defined
determining where the drill string contacts the wellbore. Also,
the explicit method does not use a direct, banded, linear
equation solver, thus the computational cost of a solution
changes linearly (compared to quadratic) with the problem size.
Large deformations, sliding and contact constraints are
relatively easy to implement in the explicit procedure [18].
The implementation of the explicit method in the
Abaqus software uses a time-forward integration scheme based
on the central difference operator. Internal time increment
controls are used to keep the solution stable over long
durations [19]. Since the results and analyses used for
comparison are static, the inherently dynamic solution from
Abaqus/Explicit is run for a sufficient duration to produce
quasi-static results. The solution is checked by observing that
the total kinetic energy becomes asymptotic to zero with
respect to time. The general procedure for constructing and
executing an Abaqus/Explicit model has the following steps:
1. Define the part and environment geometry.
2. Incorporate the material and section properties.
3. Model the wellbore using Connector elements with
clearance, positive stops, friction, and damping.
4. Define the loading steps and output requests.
5. Mesh the part geometry.
2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 6. Submit the input files to the solver and converge on a increment to another is minimized and so-called shock waves
solution. are not inadvertently introduces into the dynamic model.
Abaqus has a built-in amplitude named smooth step which
The drill string in this study is modeled as a thick
creates a loading amplitude with zero first and second
walled smooth pipe that behaves like a slender beam.
derivatives at the transition points.
Therefore, the geometric abstraction of the drill string is its
neutral axis that coincides with its centerline. While the initial In these simulations, axial load is applied using four
configuration is a straight line, deflections are allowed in three consecutive steps, each with the smooth step amplitude in a
dimensions; therefore, the 3-D analysis is used. total period of 30 seconds. To eliminate of axial and lateral
vibrations, a suitable amount of damping is applied using the
The drill string assumes typical properties of steel
viscous damping model of the connector elements. For
where the young modulus and shear modulus are 29 and 11.5
characterization of critical buckling loads, the reaction forces at
Msi, respectively. When comparing the FEA results to
the boundaries and deflections of the nodes are saved. The
analytical solutions (as opposed to physical experimental data)
critical buckling loads are characterized by a change in slope of
the pipe in the model was chosen to have dimensions
the load-displacement curves. In the following sections,
commonly used in the field with 3.826-inch ID and a 4.5-inch
different configurations including vertical, horizontal and
OD. Using the density of steel to be 0.286 lb/in3, the sectional
inclined wells are modeled and examined against formulations
density for this pipe is 15.126 lb/ft. The bit/hole size is 8.5
and experiments available in the literature concentrating on
inches leaving a clearance of 2 inches over the pipe. It should
critical buckling force (sinusoidal and helical) predictions.
be noted that the implementation of circular cross-sections in
the Abaqus profile definition assumes thin-walled structures;
MODEL VERIFICATION
therefore, a generalized section should be used.
The wellbore is modeled as a rigid circular hole using Vertical Wells
three dimensional connector elements. The connector element
is designed to implement kinematic constraints on a model. For Analytical Solutions
this case, the wellbore was modeled using the so-called radial-
thrust connector. The radial-thrust, coupled with a flexion- Lubinski [2-4] found the critical sinusoidal and helical
torsion connector, provides a radial space that simulates the buckling forces of a vertical string inside wellbore.
drill string (beam elements) inside the wellbore. The string is
modeled using B31 three-dimensional beam elements and the Fcr = γ 1 3 EIw2 (2)
wellbore is modeled by CONN3D2 connector elements. The
nodes for both the beam and connector are defined to initially
lie on the center line of the borehole. Using a cantilevered Fcr* = γ 2 3 EIw2 (3)
boundary condition, one end of the connector element is fixed
and the other node of the connector element is the node
defining the neutral axis of the drill string. where * denotes helical buckling.
Different values for constants γ1 and γ2 have been
The node representing the bit is constrained using a
suggested by different researchers (Table 1).
pinned (simply supported) boundary condition where all
rotations are free and all translations are constrained. The top Table 1: Parameters γ1 and γ2 provided by different researchers
end is free to move along the length of the borehole and one
transverse displacement is constrained so that the initial Reference Lubinski [2] Wang [5] Wu [6]
configuration of the drill pipe after applying gravity is placed
on the lower side of the hole. The rotations about axis and in- γ1 1.94 1.018793 2.55
plane are free. The out of plane rotation is constrained to
minimize numerical errors. However, as explained in the γ2 -- -- 5.55
previous section, the boundary conditions do not affect the
solution once the length of the string passes a certain amount.
Lubinski also found the critical length of a pipe under
Hence, the lengths of drill strings being simulated are selected
its own weight versus the normalized length (with pinned
based on being free from boundary condition effects.
boundary conditions).
The first step of the analysis takes one second where
gravity reaches its value in a smooth fashion. In the second step Lcr = 2.65m (4)
the axial load is applied. Since the formulations being studied
are static solutions, the kinetic energy should approach zero in
As the first case, the buckling of a drill pipe under own
the analysis. Therefore, the loads should be applied as smooth
weight is considered. A small transverse concentrated force is
as possible such that the acceleration change from one
applied at the center of the column length to act as an

3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 imperfection and trigger for buckling. The gravity and trigger than the critical buckling load of 133.6 feet, even after the
load reach their final value at 5th second. The gravity load perturbation force is removed. Figure 2 shows the deformed
remains constant while the trigger load comes back to zero in 5 shape of the vertical column at the time of 20 seconds (the end
seconds. The simulation continues for another 10 seconds and of the top trace in Figure 1).
Figure 1 shows the transverse deflection of the column (due to
bending and buckling) versus time for different column lengths.
The abscissa shows the transverse deflection of the column
center and the ordinate shows the simulated time.

Fig. 2: Deformed shape of a 135 ft column under its own

weight at t = 20 seconds with deformation magnification of 10.

Experimental Data
Fig. 1: Lateral deflection of the center of a vertical column
under its own weight from a perturbation for various heights In 1994, Salies et al. [20] performed vertical buckling
experiments on a stainless steel pipe having the following
dimensions: OD = 0.25”, ID = 0.21”, and length = 643”. The
Lubinski’s critical column length formula, Equation 4,
test was performed inside a 2” ID Plexiglass tube that simulated
predicts that for pipe with a 3.826-inch ID and a 4.5-inch OD,
the wellbore. The experimental sinusoidal buckling load is
the critical length is 133.6 feet. This length occurs as the
compared to explicit FEM and theory [1] in Table 2.
deflections plotted in Figure 1 are beginning to diverge, thus
the FEA results agree with the prediction based on Equation 4. Table 2: Comparison of the parameters γ1 (Equation 2) in
The criterion for buckling is a condition of equilibrium. If the experiment and explicit FEM
column is in a stable equilibrium, then once a lateral
perturbation force is removed, the lateral deflection will return Method Experiment Reference [1] Explicit FEM
to the previous state. Clearly, this is the case for any drill string
under tension. As the drill string transitions from tension to γ1 1.5 1.94 1.81
compression, the strength of the equilibrium stability decreases
as restoration force is decreased. Since the base of longer The result for buckling load from explicit FEM is
vertical columns experience higher compressive forces, it is between the experimental data and the theoretical formulation.
expected that the strength of the stability is decreased. This is The difference between the experiment and the theory is
shown in Figure 1 where the perturbation returns to equilibrium explained by the imperfections present in the test pipe.
fastest for the shortest column.
The critical buckling length produces a condition of Inclined Wells
neutral equilibrium. This suggests that the deflection would not
change once the perturbation force is removed. This is seen as Analytical Solutions
the column with a length of 133.6 ft, the critical column length, Dawson and Paslay [7] suggested the following
is approaching a steady state deflection. The condition of formula for the critical load that predicts the onset of sinusoidal
neutral equilibrium is difficult to maintain in practice. buckling of drill strings in long inclined wells.
Once the critical length is exceeded, thus increasing
the compressive force on the base of the drill string, a condition EIw sin α
of dynamic equilibrium exists where the sum of the forces F=2 (6)
results in acceleration. This is demonstrated in Figure 1 by the r
divergence of the lateral deflection for column lengths greater

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 where α is the inclination angle from vertical, and r is the • Blue diamonds show the results for L=2400”. Point
difference in the radius of the wellbore to the outside radius of “A” in the curves shows the onset of sinusoidal
the tubular. Chen et al. [8, 9] derived the following formula for buckling and is found by the first point where the
helical buckling in inclined wells using an energy method as slope of the load-displacement curve starts to decrease.
Point “B” in the curves show the helical buckling
EIw sin α onset and is characterized by formation of the first
Fcr* γ=
3 , γ3 2 2 (7) helix in the drill string.
r
• Red squares show the results for L=4000”.
• Thin green and grey straight lines show the elastic
Other researchers proposed different formulations for response based on string longitudinal stiffness (EA/L)
the onset of helical buckling (Table 3) that help to find the onset of sinusoidal buckling.
Table 3: Parameter γ3 provided by different researchers • Schematics of sinusoidal and helical buckling with
deflections scaled by 100 are added to the picture on
Reference γ3 the horizontal well results (Figure 3) to show
differences between sinusoidal and helical buckling.
Chen et al. [8, 9] 2.83 Interestingly, the helical buckling result shows a so-
called helix reversal.
Lubinski and Woods [3] 2.85 A convergence study on the 90 degree model is performed on
the number of elements and the results indicate that the model
Lubinski et al. [4] 2.4 comprising 600 element has less than 1% difference to the
models with higher elements and it is selected for the analysis.
Wu and Juvkam-Wold [10, 11] 3.66

Wu and Juvkam-Wold [12] 4.65

He and Kylingstad [13] 2.83

Qui et al. [14] 5.66

Qui et al. [15] 3.75

Cunha showed that these researches assumed the same

energy or the onset of helical buckling, but with different load
history assumptions. Chen et al. [8, 9] assumed a constant force
while Qui et al. [15] assumed a ramp load and Wu and Juvkam-
Wold [10, 11] assumed a constant force until sinusoidal
buckling with linearly increasing load to helical buckling.
Fig. 3: Load displacement curve for inclined well at α = 90 o
To study Equations 6 and 7, the drill strings are
simulated in inclined wellbores. The drillstring is modeled with
two different lengths 2400 inches and 4000 inches, which gives
the dimensionless length of μ = 5.4π and 9π, respectively. Three
inclination angles 30, 60, and 90 degrees were considered. The
first length was selected based on being free from the effect of
boundary conditions. However, the results showed around a
10% difference between a buckling load with clamped and
simply supported boundary condition at the end. Hence, the
other longer string was selected where the results are free from
boundary condition effects.
To characterize the onset of buckling in different
modes, axial force versus axial displacement (both at top of the
string) for different inclination angles and lengths are presented
in Figures 3-5, with the following details:

Fig. 4: Load displacement curve for inclined well at α = 60 o

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 5: Load displacement curve for inclined well at α = 30 o
91 ft long steel pipe with a 0.75-inch OD and a 0.68-inch ID
that is subjected to buckling inside a 2 inch pipe that simulates
the wellbore. The tests have been performed in displacement
control mode with 0.01 in/s speed. Two tests that are performed
in air and water are simulated by Abaqus explicit FEM and the
results are compared to experimental results and theoretical
formulations. Tables 5 and 6 show the experimental results for
sinusoidal and helical buckling in different conditions
compared to explicit FEM and Equations 6 and 7 (γ3=3.66). A
friction factor of 0.3 is applied in the model to include the
friction load. The results of load displacement curves are
presented in Figures 6-7. To see the effect of imperfections, the
model in air was simulated with two types of imperfection. The
first type is load imperfection with applying 0.2% of gravity in
the transverse direction and the second is geometric
imperfection with applying maximum deflection of 0.1” in the
first vibration mode shape. The load-displacement curves on
Figures 6 and 7 are for load imperfection.

Dimensionless sinusoidal and helical buckling force

Fcr for different inclination angles and μ=5.4π are
EIw sin α
r
presented in Table 4.

Table 4-Abaqus explicit results for dimensionless sinusoidal

and helical buckling force at different inclination angle

Incl. angle 30 60 90

Sinusoidal 2.03 2.05 2.02

Fig. 6: Top load vs. axial displacement curve for Arslan’s
Helical 3.88 3.88 3.89 experiment in air and water

The sinusoidal results confirm the prediction of

sinusoidal buckling of Equation 6 where the coefficient is 2.
The effect of inclination angle complies with the analytical
prediction. The helical buckling results are close to the
formulation by Wu et al. [10, 11] and Qui et al. [15].
The results for μ=9π show that the sinusoidal buckling
for α=90 (horizontal well) is the same as the result for μ=5.4π.
For the other cases, both sinusoidal and helical buckling forces
are different. To evaluate the effect of length on critical
buckling load and possible modifications on the present length
dependent formulations, more research is needed.

Experimental Data
Arslan [21] performed experiments to study the effect
of pipe weight (floated pipe buckling) on critical buckling load Fig. 7: Bottom load vs. axial displacement curve for Arslan’s
of tubulars in horizontal wells. Two experiments of his are experiment in air and water
simulated in this paper to show the capability of the model in
simulating buoyant drill string buckling. The simulated case is a

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 5: Critical buckling load (lb) for the pipe in air with
different imperfections

FEM (load FEM (geometric

Experiment
imperfection) imperfection) Equations
Mode
6 and 7
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom

Sinus. 157 133 172.7 165.9 164.1 156.3 148.7

Helical 270 242 287.4 272.8 332.9 357.8 272.1

Table 6: Critical buckling load (lb) for the pipe in water with Fig. 8: Effect of effective weight on sinusoidal buckling force
load imperfection The results are made dimensionless by dividing to the
value at normal weight conditions. The results show that the
Experiment FEM theoretical model loses its accuracy when the effective weight
Equations decreases to very low levels. At an effective weight around
Mode 1.5% of normal weight the actual buckling load is 3.5 times the
6 and 7
Top Bottom Top Bottom load predicted by equation 6, according to the FEM results.

Sinus. 110 92 111.3 109.2 92
Helical 180 160 156.6 153.6 152.2
The trends seen in the force-deflection curves for
buckling from explicit FEM are close to experimental results.
The onset of buckling from the explicit FEM results predict
higher values than the analytical and experimental results
because they include the effect of friction and do not have the
imperfections present in the experiments.
For pipe in water the FEM results are closer to the
experimental results than theoretical predictions using
Equations 6 and 7. The simulation results from buckling in air
with imperfections show that introducing the load imperfection
is closer to predicting helical buckling and the geometric
imperfection is closer in predicting sinusoidal buckling.
However, more research is needed on the effects of geometrical
and loading imperfections on buckling.
Continuing with Arslan’s experiments, the experiment
is simulated for different effective weights of the drill pipe with
the results presented in Figure 8.
DISCUSSION
The theoretical formulations presented for buckling
are predicted in this paper using explicit FEM. The
formulations for column buckling under self-weight, sinusoidal
and helical buckling in inclined wells are successfully
predicted. However, the buckling load predictions in simulating
experiments were higher that actual experiment data. This was
observed both in vertical and horizontal wells. The authors
believe that this problem is due to uncertainties present in
experiments. These uncertainties include imperfections both in
loading and geometries, residual stresses in the structures,
imperfections in experimental devices, and errors in
determining the onset of buckling, especially the onset of
helical buckling. As shown in Table 5, imperfections can have a
considerable effect on prediction of buckling. It was also shown
that by increasing the length, the effect of boundary condition
vanishes; but the effect of length becomes important and lowers
the onset of sinusoidal and helical buckling.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
The explicit finite element method has the ability to
simulate the buckling behavior of drill strings inside well bores.
The model has been created in Abaqus FEM software and the
results were accurate in all cases when compared to the
theoretical values. The differences in the numerical predictions
and experimental results are most likely due to model and
experimental uncertainties, especially the imperfections present
in the experiments. The effect of inclination angle, length, and
effective weight has been studied and it was shown that the
theoretical prediction of sinusoidal buckling is accurate at
different inclination angle but losses its accuracy by lowering

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the effective weight. Finally, this work establishes some basis [7] Dawson R., Paslay, P.R., 1984, “Drillpipe Buckling in
and verification for using the explicit finite element method for Inclined Holes”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 36(10),
future research. pp. 1734-1738.
[8] Chen, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-H., Cheatham, J.B., 1990, “Tubing and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Casing Buckling in Horizontal Wells”, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 42(2), pp. 140-141.
The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge
[9] Chen, Y.-C., and Adnan, S., 1993, “Buckling of Pipe and
the support of Weatherford Ltd.
Tubing Constrained Inside Inclined Wells”, OTC 7323,
26th Annual OTC. Houston, TX.
NOMENCLATURE [10] Wu, J., Juvkam-Wold, H.C., Lu, R. 1993, “Helical
α = well inclination angle from vertical Buckling of Pipes in Extended Reach and Horizontal
Wells—Part 1: Preventing Helical Buckling”, Journal of
E = modulus of elasticity Energy Resource & Technology, 115(3), pp. 190-195.
Fcr = sinusoidal buckling force [11] Wu, J., Juvkam-Wold, H.C., 1993, “Study of Helical
*
Buckling of Pipes in Horizontal Wells”, SPE 25503, SPE
F cr = helical buckling force Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK.
g = gravity acceleration [12] Wu, J., Juvkam-Wold H, “The Effect of Wellbore
Curvature on Tubular Buckling and Lockup”, Journal of
I = section moment of area Energy Resources Technology 1995, 117(3), pp. 214-218
L = total length [13] He, X., Kyllingstad A., 1995, “Helical buckling and lock-
up conditions for coiled tubing in curved wells”, SPE
ID = inner diameter Drilling and Completion, 10(1), pp. 10-15.
OD = outer diameter [14] Qui, W., Miska, S., Volk, L., 1998, “Drill Pipe/Coiled
Tubing Buckling Analysis in a Hole of Constant
w = pipe weight per unit length Curvature”, SPE 39795, SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, TX.
ρ =
density
[15] Qui, W., Miska, S, Volk, L, 1998, “Analysis of Drill
r = radial clearance between pipe and well pipe/Coiled-Tubing Buckling in a Constant-Curvature
Wellbore”, Journal or Petroleum Technology, pp. 66-77.
θ =
helix angle [16] Gao, G., Miska, S.Z., 2008, “Effect of Boundary
Conditions and Friction on Static Buckling of pipe in a
REFERENCES Horizontal Well”, IADC/SPE 111511, IADC/SPE Drilling
[1] Kuru, E., Martinez, A., Miska, S., 2000, “The Buckling Conference, Orlando, FL.
Behavior of Pipes and Its Influence on the Axial Force [17] Akgun F., Gurakin, G., Mitchell, B.J., Eustes, A., Rahman,
Transfer in Directional Wells”, Journal of Energy Resource S., 1996, “Theoretical and Experimental Evaluation of
& Technology, 122(3), pp. 129-135. Drill Pipe Stability Conditions in Slim Holes”, SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
[2] Lubinski, A., 1987, “Study of the buckling of rotary [18] Kim J., Kang, S.-J., Kang, B.-S., 2003, “A comparative
drilling strings”, In: S. Miska (ed), Developments in study of implicit and explicit FEM for the wrinkling
Petroleum Engineering Volume one Stability of Tubulars. prediction in the hydroforming process”, International
Deviation Control, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 22, pp.
TX. 547–552.
[3] Lubinski, A., Woods, H. B., 1953, “Factors affecting the [19] Abaqus 6.10 Analysis User’s Manual, 2010, Dassault
angle of Inclination and Dog-Legging in Rotary Bore Systemes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA.
Holes”, Drilling and Production Practice, pp. 222-250. [20] Salies J.B., Cunha J.C.S., Azar J.J., Soren, J.R., 1994,
[4] Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.S., Logan, J.L., 1962, “Helical “Experimental and Analytical Study of Sinusoidal
Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers”, Journal of Buckling in Vertical Wells”, SPE 29164, SPE eastern
Petroleum Technology, 14(2), pp. 655-670. regional Conference and Exhibition, Charleston, VW.
[5] C. Y. Wang, “A Critical Review of the Heavy Elastica”, [21] Arslan M., 2012, “Buckling and Axial Force Transfer of
International Journal of Material Sciences, 28(8), pp. 549- Buoyancy Assisted Casing”, M.S. Thesis, TUDRP, The
559. University of Tulsa.
[6] Wu J., 1992, “Buckling Behavior of pipes in directional
and horizontal wells”, PhD dissertation, Texas A&M
university, pp. 439-440.

8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/27/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use