DC166592 DOI: 10.
2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 256 Total Pages: 9
Critical-Buckling-Load Assessment of
Drillstrings in Different Wellbores by Use of
the Explicit Finite-Element Method
Mehdi Hajianmaleki and Jeremy S. Daily, University of Tulsa
Summary
Previous theoretical formulations for sinusoidal and helical buckling
of drillstrings vary significantly and are mostly proposed for friction-
less pipes without tool joints. Finite-element-analysis (FEA) meth-
ods have the ability to consider geometric details and nonlinearities.
However, traditional FEA methods use shell or solid elements for
this problem and are computationally expensive. In this paper, an
explicit FEA that is based on beam and connector elements imple-
mented in the Abaqus software (2012) is used to study the problem
in different wellbores. The wellbore geometry, formation stiffness,
friction load, and friction-induced torque are modeled with connec-
tor elements. A typical drillstring in vertical, inclined, horizontal,
and curved wellbores is simulated, and the explicit FEA results for
sinusoidal- and helical-buckling loads are compared with different
theoretical formulations and experimental results in the literature.
The effects of length, inclination angle, and string effective weight
caused by buoyancy as well as the effect of tool joints in straight and
curved wellbores are also studied and compared with present formu-
lations and published experimental results. A full-scale well-buck-
ling test has also been simulated, and load-transfer data are
compared with the real-world results. Overall, it is demonstrated that
the use of explicit FEA can efficiently study drillstring buckling
behavior in straight- and curved-wellbore conditions.
Introduction
To increase the rate of drilling (rate of penetration), optimal weight
should be put and maintained on the drilling bit. The weight on bit
(WOB) can be limited by the critical buckling load in which the
pipe loses elastic stability. Buckling can intensify the bending stress
and lead to fatigue failure over time. More importantly, buckled
shapes exert larger side forces than unbuckled ones, 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 dif-
ferent aspects of drillstring buckling. Therefore, it is important to
determine the maximal load permissible on the drillstring. It is gen-
erally believed that the drillstring will first change into a sinusoidal-
buckling shape and then to helical buckling. The corresponding crit-
ical buckling loads depend on the pipe geometry, drillpipe flexural
stiffness, and wellbore geometry. Many researchers worked on the
prediction of buckling load and post-buckling behavior of drill-
strings in vertical (Lubinski and Woods 1953; Lubinski 1987;
Wang 1986; Wu 1992), inclined (Lubinski and Woods 1953; Lubin-
ski et al. 1962; Dawson and Paslay 1984; Chen et al. 1990; Wu and
Juvkam-Wold 1993,1995; He and Kyllingstad 1995; Qui et al.
1998a,1998b, Yuan and Wang 2012; Su et al. 2013), and curved
wellbores (Wu and Juvkam-Wold 1995; Mitchell 1999; Qiu et al.
1998a,b). Hajianmaleki and Daily (2014) reviewed the formulations
proposed for sinusoidal and helical buckling in different wellbore.
The majority of the formulations published so far do not con-
sider tool joints, and the drillstrings were modeled as a constant-
Copyright V
C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 166592) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition, Aberdeen, 3–6 September 2013, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 18 October 2013. Revised manuscript received for
review 23 February 2014. Paper peer approved 24 April 2014.
256
ID: jaganm Time: 19:43 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017
diameter pipe through a well. Some researchers studied the effect
of tool joints, such as Duman et al. (2003) who experimentally
studied the effect of tool joints on sinusoidal- and helical-buckling
loads. Although the sinusoidal-buckling load was not affected by
the presence of tool joints, the helical-buckling load increased by
20%. Weltzin et al. (2009) conducted experiments on the buckling
of drillstrings in a 2020-m-measured-depth research well. They
used high-accuracy continuous gyros to measure the string-geom-
etry changes (i.e., buckling) as a function of axial load. Their
measurements showed that even at zero WOB, friction force can-
not be neglected in case of sinusoidal buckling caused by local
irregularities in the well path. They also showed that the nonuni-
form-stiffness effect of tool joints at high WOBs can produce fric-
tions to cause lockup even before helical buckling. Mitchell and
Weltzin (2011) used drillstring-position records of two of those
tests to analyze the buckling problem. They found that connectors
are important in the buckling behavior and that the primary buck-
ling mode was sinusoidal buckling that led to lockup without
going into helical buckling.
Mitchell et al. (2011) modeled the effect of tool joints by the
length average of the drillpipe and tool-joint diameter, and the effect
of curvature was accounted for by the effective weight of drillpipe.
The effective clearance is always lower than normal in their formu-
lation such that it always predicts a higher buckling load. Gao et al.
(2012) studied the effect of tool joints on the sinusoidal-buckling
load in horizontal wells. They found that the effect of tool joints can
be stabilizing or destabilizing depending on both the distance be-
tween two connectors and the radial difference between pipe and
joint. They presented a graph for dimensionless critical force vs.
dimensionless length at different dimensionless radial distance.
These theoretical methods are only able to provide buckling
loads in straight or constant-curvature wellbores. On the other hand,
they usually determine the critical buckling load by eigenvalue
analysis. Eigenvalues estimate the upper bound of the critical buck-
ling load (bifurcation load). The more-critical lower bound of the
critical buckling load can be predicted with large deflection analysis
with FEA. In general, load-displacement curves for a buckling
problem are nonlinear, and the curvature of current wellbores
makes it more nonlinear (Akgun et al. 1996). Explicit nonlinear
FEA modeling that considers large displacements and contact is a
good candidate for solving these problems. Traditional implicit
FEA models were problematic in solving buckling problems for
constrained geometries because buckling behavior causes local
instabilities and sharp changes in contact behavior, which leads to
numerical instabilities. Techniques with nonlinear springs and pen-
alty methods were used with varying degrees of success, but an al-
ternative based on the explicit FEA method is sought. This method
does not require well-defined boundary conditions; instead, it will
solve for them by determining where the drillstring 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 with quadratically) with the problem
size. Large deformations, sliding, and contact constraints are rela-
tively easy to implement in the explicit procedure (Kim et al. 2003).
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the efficacy of the use
of the explicit FEA method to model the buckling behavior of
June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion
 DC166592 DOI: 10.2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14
TABLE 1—PARAMETERS c1 AND c2 PROVIDED BY
DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
Reference Lubinski (1987) Wang (1986) Wu (1992)
c1 1.94 1.018793 2.55
c2 – – 5.55
drillstrings. Both analytical solutions and experimental data are
compared with the FEA simulations. Where appropriate, the
results are presented in normalized form. When experimental data
are available, the explicit FEA models are constructed based on
the experimental setup. Similarly, most simulation assumptions in
the literature are implemented in the FEA models. Because
buckled shapes are difficult to duplicate, the force/displacement
relationships are used for comparison of results. The friction load
when modeled is assumed to follow the Coulomb model. This pa-
per aims to find explicit-FEA capabilities and limitations as a sim-
ple, appropriate, and accessible way for simulating drillstring
buckling behavior.
Paper Organization
A detailed description of the FEA model is given in the next sec-
tion. Following the model description, the numerical results are
compared with both analytical and experimental data for horizon-
tal, vertical, inclined, and curved wellbores. The effect of differ-
ent parameters such as length, buoyancy, and inclination angle are
studied, and discussions regarding those comparisons warrant a
section with concluding remarks to follow.
Explicit Finite-Element Modeling
The implementation of the explicit method in the Abaqus soft-
ware uses a time-forward integration scheme on the basis of the
central difference operator. Internal time-increment controls are
used to keep the solution stable throughout long durations (Aba-
qus 6.12 Analysis User’s Manual 2012).
The drillstring in this study is modeled as a thick-walled
smooth pipe with behavior similar to that of a slender beam.
Therefore, the geometric abstraction of the drillstring is its neutral
axis that coincides with the centerline. Although the initial config-
uration for each element is a straight line, translations are allowed
in three dimensions: accounting for helical shapes and 3D motion
of the string. Normal steel material properties for the modulus of
elasticity (29  106 psi) and Poisson’s ratio (0.3) were used.
After comparing the FEA results to analytical solutions (as
opposed to physical experimental data), the pipe in the model was
chosen to have dimensions commonly used in the field with
3.826-in. inside diameter (ID) and a 4.5-in. outside diameter
(OD). The bit/hole size is 8.5 in., leaving a clearance of 2 in. over
the pipe. One must note that the implementation of circular cross
sections in the Abaqus profile definition assumes thin-walled
structures; therefore, a generalized section is used.
The wellbore is modeled as a circular hole with 3D connector
elements. The connector element is designed to implement kine-
matic constraints on a model. For this case, the wellbore was
modeled with the so-called radial-thrust connector. The radial-
thrust connector provides a connection between two nodes with
different response in the radial and cylindrical-axis directions.
When resistance to relative radial and thrust displacements is
modeled, one can use flexion-torsion in conjunction with the ra-
dial-thrust connector. (Abaqus 6.12 Analysis User’s Manual
2012). The radial-thrust, coupled with a flexion-torsion connector,
provides a radial space that simulates the drillstring (beam ele-
ments) inside the wellbore. The string is modeled with B31 3D
beam elements, and the wellbore is modeled by CONN3D2 con-
nector elements. Nodes of the beam and connector are defined to
initially lie on the centerline of the borehole. One node of the con-
nector element (wellbore side) has a cantilevered boundary condi-
tion, and the other node is the beam node at neutral axis of the
June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 19:44 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017
Stage: Page: 257 Total Pages: 9
drillstring. To follow the curvature and tortuosity of the wellbore,
orientations are defined for each element with the connector-sec-
tion command. Connector behaviors to be defined include the
connector friction, stop (elasticity), and damping. Friction load is
induced after contact is reached. Friction load and slip are calcu-
lated on the basis of the friction coefficient (as an input) and the
contact force (calculated in the element).
The first timestep of the analysis takes one second in which
gravity reaches its value in a smooth fashion. In the second step,
the axial load is applied. Because the formulations being studied
are static solutions, the kinetic energy should approach zero in the
analysis. Therefore, the loads should be applied as smoothly as
possible such that the acceleration change from one increment to
another is minimized and so-called shock waves are not inadver-
tently introduced into the dynamic model. Abaqus has a built-in
amplitude profile named “smooth step” that creates a loading am-
plitude with zero first and second derivatives at the transition
points.
In these simulations, axial load is applied with four consecu-
tive steps, each with the smooth-step amplitude in a total period
of 30 seconds. To eliminate axial and lateral vibrations, a suitable
amount of damping is applied with the viscous damping model of
the connector elements. The solution is checked by applying
enough damping so that the total kinetic energy approaches zero
with respect to time.
For the characterization of critical-buckling loads, the reaction
forces at the boundaries and deflections of the nodes are saved.
The critical-buckling loads are characterized by a change in the
slope of the load-displacement curves. In the following sections,
different configurations including vertical, horizontal, inclined,
and curved wells are modeled and examined against formulations
and experiments available in the literature concentrating on criti-
cal-buckling forces (sinusoidal and helical) predictions.
Model Verification
Vertical Wells. Lubinski (1987) analyzed the critical length of a
pipe under its own weight with both ends pinned:
rffiffiffiffiffi
3 EI
Lcr ¼ 2:65 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
w
rffiffiffiffiffi
3 EI
The term m ¼ is a normalized length parameter. The fol-
w
lowing formulations were then proposed for critical sinusoidal-
and helical-buckling forces of a vertical string inside the wellbore:
p
3
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fcr ¼ c1 EIw2                            ð2Þ
and
p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fcr ¼ c2 EIw2                            ð3Þ
3
where * denotes helical buckling.
Different values for constants c1 and c2 were suggested by dif-
ferent researchers (Table 1).
Because simulations are arranged from the simplest to the most
difficult, the buckling of a drillpipe under its own weight is consid-
ered as the first case. A small transverse concentrated force is
applied at the center of the column (drillpipe) to act as an imperfec-
tion and trigger for buckling. The gravity and trigger load reach
their final value at the 5th second. The gravity load remains con-
stant whereas the trigger load comes back to zero in 5 seconds. The
simulation continues for another 10 seconds. Fig. 1 shows the drill-
pipe configuration and loading, and Fig. 2 shows the transverse
deflection of the column vs. time for different column lengths.
The critical length for the previously considered drillpipe
according to Eq. 1 is 133.6 ft. This length occurs as the deflections
plotted in Fig. 2 are beginning to diverge; thus, the FEA results
agree with the theoretical prediction. The criterion for buckling is
a condition of equilibrium. If the column is in a stable
257
 DC166592 DOI: 10.2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 258 Total Pages: 9

Gravity 1.2 5
Column Height

Column Center Lateral Deflection (ft)

1 135 ft
4 134 ft

Loading ratio to max

0.8 133.6 ft
133 ft
Perturbation 3 132 ft
0.6 130 ft
Trigger Gravity

0.4 2

0.2
1
0
0 5 10 15
–0.2 0
t (s)
0 5 10 15 20
–1
Fig. 1—Configuration and loading of drillpipe buckling under Time (s)
its own weight.
Fig. 2—Lateral deflection of the center of a vertical column
under its own weight from a perturbation for various heights.
equilibrium, then after a lateral perturbation force is removed, the
lateral deflection will return to the previous state.
The critical buckling length produces a condition of neutral history assumptions that lead to different models. Chen et al.
equilibrium. This suggests that the deflection would not change (1990) assumed a constant force whereas Qui et al. (1998b)
after the perturbation force is removed. This is seen as the column assumed a ramp load, and Wu and Juvkam-Wold (1993) assumed
with a length of 133.6 ft, the critical column length, is approach- a constant force, until sinusoidal buckling with linearly increasing
ing a steady-state deflection. The condition of neutral equilibrium load to helical buckling.
is difficult to maintain in practice. The previously mentioned drillstring is simulated in inclined
After the critical length is exceeded, thus increasing the com- wellbores to study Eqs. 4 and 5.
pressive force on the base of the drillstring, a condition of The drillstring length is 200 ft, which gives the dimensionless
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
dynamic equilibrium exists in which the sum of the forces results w
in acceleration. This is demonstrated in Fig. 2 by the divergence length 1L ¼ L 4 close to 17. The length was selected on
EIr
of the lateral deflection for column lengths greater than 133.6 ft,
even after the perturbation force is removed. the basis of being free from the effect of boundary conditions, as
suggested by Gao and Miska (2009). They studied the effect of
boundary conditions and friction on buckling in horizontal well-
Experimental Verification in Vertical Wells. Salies et al. (1994) bores and showed that if the dimensionless length is more than
performed vertical-buckling experiments on a 0.25-in.-OD stain- 5p, the assumption of a “long” drillpipe (free from boundary con-
less-steel pipe. The test was performed inside a 2-in.-ID plexiglass ditions effect) can be applied. However, the results showed
tube of a 643-in. length that simulated the wellbore. The experi- approximately a 10% difference between the buckling loads with
mental sinusoidal buckling load is compared with results from both ends clamped and both ends simply supported boundary con-
explicit FEA and different theories in Table 2. ditions. The effect of length is studied in a later subsection. Three
Buckling loads from explicit FEA are very close to the analytic inclination angles 30, 60, and 90 were considered.
formulation by Lubinski (1987). The difference between the experi- To characterize the onset of buckling in different modes, axial
ment and the theory was explained by the imperfections present in force vs. axial displacement for different inclination angles were
the test pipe. analyzed, and the results for a 30 inclination is presented in Fig. 3.
Point “A” in the FEA results shows the onset of sinusoidal buckling
and is found by the first point in which the slope of the load-dis-
Inclined Wells. Dawson and Paslay (1984) suggested the follow- placement curve (stiffness) starts to decrease. Point “B” in the
ing equation for the critical sinusoidal-buckling load of “long” curves shows the helical-buckling onset and is characterized by a
drillstrings in inclined wells: horizontal step in a load-control and load drop in a displacement-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi control simulation. After Point “B,” the number of helixes increases
EIwsina (Point “C”) until fully helix shape configuration. Schematics of si-
Fcr ¼ 2 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
r nusoidal- and helical-buckling configurations in different steps are
presented in Fig. 4 to show differences between sinusoidal- and
Chen et al. (1990) derived a similar formula for helical buck- helical-buckling geometries. The unstable transverse deflection
ling in inclined wells with an energy method: from equilibrium condition (at well bottom side) and the formation
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
EIwsina pffiffiffi
Fcr ¼ c3 ; c3 ¼ 2 2: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
r
TABLE 3—PARAMETER c3 PROVIDED BY DIFFERENT
Other researchers proposed different formulations for the coef-
RESEARCHERS
ficient c3 to predict the helical-buckling load (Table 3).
Cunha (2004) showed that those researchers assumed the same
Ref. c3
energy for the onset of helical buckling, but with different load-
Chen et al. (1990) 2.83
Lubinski and Woods (1953) 2.85
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF THE COEFFICIENT c1 TO THOSE Lubinski et al. (1962) 2.4
OBTAINED BY EXPERIMENT AND EXPLICIT FEA
Wu and Juvkam-Wold (1993) 3.66
Wu and Juvkam-Wold (1995) 4.65
Method Experiment Explicit FEA
He and Kyllingstad (1995) 2.83
c1 1.5 1.81 Qui et al. (1998a) 5.66
c2 NA 5.25 Qui et al. (1998b) 3.75

258 June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 19:44 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017

 DC166592 DOI: 10.2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 259 Total Pages: 9

100
Undeformed
90

80
C
70
Before A
Force (kip)
60

50
B
40
FEA results
30 A
Elastic solution
20
After A
10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 2.5
Displacement (in.)

Fig. 3—Load-displacement curve for inclined well at a 5 30º .

Point B

TABLE 4—EXPLICIT-FEA RESULTS FOR DIMENSIONLESS

SINUSOIDAL- AND HELICAL-BUCKLING LOADS AT
DIFFERENT INCLINATION ANGLES

Inclination angle 30 60 90 After C

Sinusoidal 1.01 1.02 1.01 Fig. 4—Drillstring configurations at different buckling steps.
Helical 1.94 1.94 1.94

of the first helix show the onset of sinusoidal and helical buckling TABLE 5—CRITICAL BUCKLING LOAD (lbf) COMPARED WITH
in the drillstring, respectively. The thin, green, straight line shows EXPERIMENTS (ARSLAN ET AL. 2012) IN AIR WITH
the elastic response on the basis of string longitudinal stiffness DIFFERENT IMPERFECTIONS
(EA/L) that helps to find the onset of sinusoidal buckling.
A convergence study on the horizontal model was performed Experiment Explicit FEA
on the number of elements, and the results indicated that the
model comprised 600 elements and has less than a 1% difference Mode Top Bottom Top Bottom Eqs. 4 and 5
to the models of finer mesh.r Dimensionless
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sinusoidal- and heli-

F r Sinus. 157 133 172.7 165.9 148.7
cal-buckling loads bcr ¼ for different inclination Helical 270 242 287.4 272.8 272.1
2 EIwsina
angles are presented in Table 4. The FEA result for a sinusoidal-
buckling load confirms the prediction of sinusoidal buckling of
Eq. 4. The effect of inclination angle complies with the analytical in this area) is length-dependent and is not suitable for these
prediction, and the FEA complies with the theoretical formulation types of problems. However, imperfection in gravity load is
at all the simulated inclination angles. However, Eq. 4 predicts length-independent, and applying 0.2% of gravity in the trans-
the buckling load to reach zero at a ¼ 0 (vertical wellbore), verse direction coincides with theoretical formulations in
whereas the simulation results show that the buckling load does inclined wellbores.
not considerably change after a ¼ 30 , and a considerable load
still exists at inclination angles near vertical. One must also note Experimental Verification in Inclined Wells. Arslan et al.
that the dimensionless loads reported correspond to the bottom (2012) performed experiments to study the effect of pipe weight
load. Sinusoidal buckling happens when the axial load anywhere (floated pipe buckling) on the critical buckling load of tubulars in
in the string reaches the critical buckling load. Hence, the top load horizontal wells. Two experiments performed in air and water are
for critical buckling would be the critical load minus the string simulated in this paper to show the capability of the model in sim-
weight times the cosine of the inclination angle. ulating inclined buoyant drillstring buckling. The simulated case
The helical-buckling coefficient is also close to the formula- is a 91-ft-long steel pipe with a 0.75-in. OD and a 0.68-in. ID
tion by Wu et al. (1993) and Qui et al. (1998b). The authors inside a 2-in. pipe. The tests were performed in displacement-con-
studied a set of imperfections in an inclined wellbore and found trol mode with 0.01 in./sec speed. Tables 5 and 6 show the exper-
that the geometric imperfection (mostly applied by researchers imental results for sinusoidal and helical buckling in different
conditions compared with explicit FEA and Eqs. 4 and 5
(c3 ¼ 3.66). The explicit FEA result for a buckling load of pipe in
air is higher than the analytical and experimental results because
TABLE 6—CRITICAL BUCKLING LOAD (lbf) COMPARED WITH they include the effect of friction and do not have the actual
EXPERIMENTS (ARSLAN ET AL. 2012) IN WATER WITH imperfections (such as welding) present in the experiments. For
LOAD IMPERFECTIONS pipe in water, the FEA results are closer to the experimental
results than theoretical predictions with Eqs. 4 and 5. The load-
Experiment FEA displacement curve for test in air is presented in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 shows that if just axial friction load is applied (green-tri-
Mode Top Bottom Top Bottom Eqs. 4 and 5 angles curve), the load-displacement curve predicted by FEA
would have a load drop sooner than the experiment. The authors
Sinus. 110 92 111.3 109.2 92
believed that it is caused by the friction-induced torque caused by
Helical 180 160 156.6 153.6 152.2
the distance from contact point to the drillstring center.

June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion 259

ID: jaganm Time: 19:44 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017

 DC166592 DOI: 10.2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 260 Total Pages: 9

400 1.2
Experiment Explicit FEM
μ = 0.4
350
w/o hinge, μ = 0.4 1 (Dawson and Paslay 1984)
μ = 0.5
300 (Arslan et al. 2012)
0.8
250
Force (lbf)

βcr
200 0.6

150
0.4
100
0.2
50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Displacement (in.) w/wair

Fig. 5—Top load vs. displacement for experiment in air com- Fig. 6—Effect of buoyancy on sinusoidal-buckling force.
pared with FEA.

a continuous (against discrete) function (Dawson and Paslay

A computationally efficient model for a friction-induced
moment uses a hinge connector along with the radial-thrust
and flexion-torsion connectors. Hinge connectors provide a
revolute constraint between the rotational degrees of freedom
of the connected nodes. In this 1D element, a moment induced
by friction can be modeled (Abaqus 6.12 Analysis User’s Man-
ual 2012).
The simulation results show the successful modeling of fric-
tion-induced torque with the hinge connector and reasonable
behavior with change in friction coefficient. One can conclude
that the friction coefficient is between 0.4 and 0.5 for the experi-
ment in air. Simulation of pipe in water also was in very good
agreement with the experiment, the friction coefficient reduces to
approximately 0.15 for the experiment in water.
Effect of Buoyancy. The Arslan et al. (2012) experiment is simu-
lated for different effective weights (because of mud density) of
the drillpipe, with the results presented in Fig. 6.
The results are made dimensionless by dividing to the value at
normal weight conditions. The results show that the theoretical
model loses its accuracy when the effective weight decreases to
very low levels. At an effective weight approximately 1.5% of
normal weight, the actual buckling load is 3.5 times the load pre-
dicted by Eq. 4, according to the FEA and experimental results.
The FEA results are higher than the formulation proposed by
Arslan et al. (2012) that was derived from experimental data. This
suggests that higher imperfections exist in the experiment.
Effect of Length. Eq. 4 is proposed for long strings. A string is
defined “long” if the n (buckling-mode number) can be treated as
2.5
Pinned-Pinned
Clamped-Clamped
2.0
1.5
1984). Gao and Miska (2009) defined the long string on the basis
of critical load being independent from boundary conditions. A
sensitivity analysis is performed on the effect of length in this pa-
per. Fig. 7 shows the dimensionless critical buckling load vs.
dimensionless length for the drillpipe considered before.
Dimensionless results show that a pinned/pinned string can be
assumed long for sinusoidal-buckling load when the dimension-
less length is more than 17 (5p). The clamped/clamped string
will be close to the pinned/pinned solution (5% difference) when
the dimensionless length is more than 25. The clamped/clamped
string buckling load would never reach the theoretical value.
Thus, with an engineering approximation of a 5% difference, one
can conclude that the long-string assumption on the basis of inde-
pendence from boundary conditions starts at a dimensionless
length equal to 25 (8p).
Effect of Formation Stiffness. Because the actual wellbore in
which the drillstring interacts with the soil is not rigid, it may be
important to model the effect of formation stiffness on drillstring
behavior. As far as the authors found, there is no analytical formu-
lation developed for modeling the effect of formation stiffness on
the buckling behavior of drillstrings. Hence, the explicit FEA
model is used to study the effect. The formation stiffness is mod-
eled with the connector elasticity in its nonlinear form. The ra-
dial-thrust connector is defined to have zero elasticity before the
clearance, and a constant elasticity was modeled afterward. The
contact force after helical buckling for straight wellbores has been
shown to be (Belayneh 2006)
rF2a
FW ¼ þ wsinacosh: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
4EI
The additional radial displacement would be
FW rF2a wsinacosh
Dr ¼ ¼ þ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
k 4EIk k
If we want the additional radial deflection to be less than d per-
centage of the clearance, we would have

F2a wsinacosh d
βcr

þ  : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
1.0
4EIk kr 100
If the term caused by the pipe weight is much lower than the
first term, Eq. 8 can be simplified as
0.5
F2a d
 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
4EIk 100
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Eq. 9 is a simple formulation for the consideration of the rigid
ζL/π wall. The only assumptions on that is the constant formation stiff-
ness (k) and wall-contact force caused by the pipe weight being
Fig. 7—Effect of length on sinusoidal-buckling force. small compared with the total wall-contact force.

260 June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 19:44 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017

 DC166592 DOI: 10.2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 261 Total Pages: 9

The high values of a buckling load proposed by Wu and Juv-

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF SINUSOIDAL-BUCKLING LOAD kam-Wold (1995) are caused by their 2D modeling. However,
(lbf) FOR THE 4.5-IN. DRILLPIPE IN A 200-ft RADIUS CURVED this 2D assumption is not accurate, especially when considering
WELLBORE helical buckling. As expected, the model by Qiu et al. (1998a) is
more accurate comparing to FEA, and the critical-buckling loads
(Wu and Juvkam- (Qiu et al. are close to those of FEA simulation. The FEA results show that
Reference Wold 1995) 1998a) FEA the model by Qiu et al. underestimates the buckling loads and is
conservative.
Fsin 40153.1 21984.1 21905.8
Fhel 118332.08 82991.5 94951.7
Effect of Tool Joints in Horizontal Wells. Formulations pro-
posed by Mitchell et al. (2011) and Gao et al. (2012) are com-
Although the radial deflection of the drillstring in the well pared with explicit-FEA simulation results in this section.
increases with elastic formation, simulations of buckling for different Mitchell et al. (2011) proposed to replace the effective weight and
constant and variable formation stiffness through the length showed diameter of the drillpipe according to the following formulation.
that the formation stiffness does not influence the buckling loads. The CSB was a factor depending on the quality of available data, analy-
same buckling load was observed with rigid and elastic formation. sis settings, well conditions, and other factors, and it ranged
between 0.1 and 0.5 with a normal value of 0.2:
Curved Wellbores. Wu and Juvkam-Wold (1995) proposed the sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
following formulation for sinusoidal and helical buckling in build EIwe sina
wellbores: Fcr ¼ 2CSB ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð15Þ
re
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi     
4EI DDP ðL  LTJ Þ DTJ ðLTJ Þ
Fcr ¼ 1 þ ð1 þ rR2 wsina=4EI Þ . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ De ¼ þ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . ð16Þ
rR L L
and and
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi i sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
12EI h
Fcr ¼ 1 þ ð1 þ rR2 wsina=8EI Þ : . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ ðwLsina þ Fa a0 Þ2 þ ðFsina/0 Þ2
rR we ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . ð17Þ
L
Qiu et al. (1998a) used an energy method and proposed the fol-
lowing formulations for minimal and maximal load to induce sta- The effect of tool joints on the sinusoidal-buckling load in hori-
ble sinusoidal buckling, zontal wellbore for a set of drillpipes is assessed with explicit
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! FEA and compared with theories. Tool joints are modeled by
min 2EI r rR2 wsina r increasing the cross-sectional area and moment of inertia (beam-
Fcr ¼ 1 þ 1þ  . . . . . . . ð12Þ section command) and decreasing the clearance (connector-stop
rR 2R EI R
command) at the location of tool joints, and the results are pre-
and sented in Table 8. Each drillpipe is assumed to be 31.5 ft long
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! with tool joints of a 1-ft length. The total length of drillstring is
7:04EI r rR2 wsina r selected to be 333 ft on the basis of a dimensionless length of
Fmax
cr ¼ 1 þ 1þ  ; more than 9p.
rR 7:04R 3:52EI 3:52R
The results show that the effect of tool joints can be destabiliz-
                   ð13Þ ing, as predicted by Gao et al. (2012). Results for the formulation
by Mitchell et al. (2011) are presented without applying the coef-
and for helical buckling, ficient CSB. Obviously, this model is not accurate. The results of
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi! approach by Gao et al. (2012) are conservative and relatively
8EI r rR2 wsina r accurate. Results show that only Drillpipes 3, 5, 6, and 7 are
Fcr ¼ 1 þ 1þ  : . . . . . . ð14Þ affected by tool joints, and their sinusoidal-buckling load in a hor-
rR 4R 2EI 2R
izontal wellbore would change by factors of 1.2, 0.75, 0.75, and
Eq. 14 was also reported by Mitchell (1999) with a vector 0.72, respectively. It is worth mentioning that these models are
approach. not including the higher stiffness in tool joints, whereas the
The previously considered drillpipe (OD ¼ 4.5 in., ID ¼ 3.826 explicit FEA can include this effect that will be considered in sim-
in.) is simulated in a curved wellbore with a constant radius of ulating experimental cases.
R ¼ 200 ft (28.66 /100 ft). The result for sinusoidal- and helical-
buckling loads is compared with the equations for critical load in Effect of Tool Joints in Curved Wells. There is no theoretical
Table 7. formulation developed for modeling the effect of tool joints in

TABLE 8—GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECT OF TOOL JOINTS ON

SINUSOIDAL BUCKLING OF THE DRILLPIPES IN HORIZONTAL WELLBORES
(DIMENSIONS IN in. AND lbf UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED)

bcr (Mitchell bcr (Gao bcr

No. DH ODp IDp ODc IDc et al. (2011)) et al. (2012)) (FEA)

1 17 1/2 5 4.276 7 1/4 3 1/2 1.003 1 1

2 17 1/2 6 5/8 5.965 8 5 1.002 0.9 1
3 12 1/4 5 4.276 7 1/4 3 1/2 1.005 1 1.2
4 12 1/4 4 1/2 3.826 6 3/8 3 3/4 1.004 1 1
5 8 1/2 5 4.276 7 1/4 3 1/2 1.010 0.75 0.75
6 8 1/2 4 1/2 3.826 6 3/8 3 3/4 1.008 0.7 0.75
7 6 3 1/2 2.764 5 2 1/8 1.010 0.6 0.72

June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion 261

ID: jaganm Time: 19:44 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017

 DC166592 DOI: 10.2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14 Stage: Page: 262 Total Pages: 9

2000
TABLE 9—EFFECT OF TOOL JOINTS ON
1800
SINUSOIDAL-BUCKLING LOAD FOR THE DRILLPIPES IN A Explicit FEM
197.32-ft RADIUS CURVED WELLBORE 1600
Experiment
1400
FEM original paper
No. DH ODp IDp ODc IDc bcr (FEA)
1200

Drag
1 17 1=2 5 4.276 7 1/4 3 1/2 0.97 1000
2 17 1=2 6 5/8 5.965 8 5 0.96
800
3 12 1=4 5 4.276 7 1/4 3 1/2 0.73
600
4 12 1=4 4 1/2 3.826 6 3/8 3 3/4 0.86
400
5 8 1=2 5 4.276 7 1/4 3 1/2 0.77
6 8 1=2 4 1/2 3.826 6 3/8 3 3/4 0.82 200
7 6 3 1/2 2.764 5 2 1/8 0.72 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

0 Compressive Load
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0
–200 Fig. 8—Drag vs. compressive load for 31=2-in.-drillpipe sliding
test (Mitchell et al. 2011).
–400
Vertical Position (m)

–600
0
–800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
–200
–1000
–400

Vertical Position (m)

–1200
–600
–1400
–800
–1600
North Position (m) –1000

–1200
Fig. 9—Ulrigg U2 trajectory: north by vertical on the basis of
data from Mitchell and Weltzin (2011). –1400

curved wellbores. The drillpipes are simulated in a 197.352-ft –1600

constant-curvature wellbore to include 10 31-ft lengths of drill-
pipe. Results presented in Table 9 show that, similar to the hori-
zontal wellbores, the effect of tool joints can be destabilizing in
curved wellbores. The ratio does not necessarily follow the ana-
lytical ratio predicted by Gao et al. (2012) for a horizontal
wellbore.
Experimental Verification of Tool-Joints Effect. Mitchell et al.
(2011) conducted full-scale buckling tests on drillpipes with tool
joints. The tests were run in a 7-in. casing with water-based mud,
8.6 to 9 lbm/gal. A sliding test for a 31=2-in. drillpipe is simulated
in explicit FEA. The friction coefficient is assumed to be 0.4, and
both radial-thrust and hinge connectors are included. However,
the effect of hinge connectors was found to be insignificant.
As presented in the literature-review section, they proposed a
model for the effect of tool joints by the length average of the
drillpipe and tool-joint diameter, and as found before, this approx-
45
40
35
30
WOB (ton)
Conventional (Mitchell 2013)
Experimental (Mitchell 2013)
Explicit FEM wo Tool Joints
Explicit FEM w Tool Joints
Method by Mitchell (2013)
East Position (m)
Fig. 10—Ulrigg U2 trajectory: east by vertical on the basis of
data from Mitchell and Weltzin (2011).
imation is not accurate. They found drillstring buckling at far
lower loads than predicted by current models, possibly caused by
minor deformations inherent in the “used” drillpipes used in their
tests. Fig. 8 shows the drag force vs. compressive force for 31=2-
in. drillpipe. The results show that the 3D FEA used by Mitchell
et al. (2011) loses accuracy for predicting drag with increasing
compressive load, especially after sinusoidal buckling happens.
The current 1D explicit FEA model has much higher accuracy
compared with experimental data, and it does not lose accuracy
with increasing the compressive load.
Real-World Buckling Test
Weltzin et al. (2009) performed drillstring-buckling experiments,
and their case is selected to be simulated with explicit FEA because
it was the first full-scale study to acquire a large amount of high-
quality buckling displacement data for analysis. Buckling tests
were performed in the Ullrigg U2, a 2020-m research well with a
buildup and 60 tangent geometry. The well trajectory is presented
in Figs. 9 and 10. Various configurations of tapered string with 5-

25 and 3.5-in. drillpipes, as well as drill collars, were used. High-accu-

racy continuous gyros were used to measure the string-geometry
20 changes (buckling), and both downhole and tophole tension devi-
15
ces were applied to measure the weight transfer.
Details of the drillstring used were not provided in the cited
10 papers. Distribution of drillpipes and drill collars through the
5 string and the load-transfer data on the lockup test were obtained.*
Fig. 11 shows the WOB vs. hookload for one of the tests that is
0 compared with simulations by explicit FEA. FEA simulations
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
include both radial-thrust and hinge connectors and were created
Hook Load (ton)

Fig. 11—WOB vs. hookload for the simulated test. * Personal communication with the author Mitchell.

262 June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 19:44 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017

 DC166592 DOI: 10.2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14
45
40
35
30
Pipe, P = 50 Mpa
WOB (ton)
25
Pipe, P = 20 Mpa
20 Beam, P = 0
Pipe, P = 0
15 Experiment
10
5 R.F. Mitchell in February 2013 shared a personal communication.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Hook Load (ton)
Fig. 12—Effect of internal pressure on load-transfer results.
in two configurations, with and without tool-joints effects. The
FEA model without tool joints is close to a conventional torque-
and-drag model (orange diamonds). The FEA model with tool
joint is the most accurate compared with experimental data
because the novel method by Mitchell and Weltzin (2011) loses
accuracy with increasing hookload such that it is even less accu-
rate than the FEA model without tool joints in the hookloads
higher than 45 tons. Because the mud pressure was not known by
the authors, the effect of internal pressure of 20 and 50 MPa
(gradually approaching zero in the annulus at the surface) was
simulated with pipe elements. This effect is presented in Fig. 12
in which no considerable effect by the pressure was observed.
However, the use of pipe elements induces some error because of
its thin formulation for moment of inertia.
Conclusions
The explicit FEA is a simple tool that has the ability to simulate
the buckling behavior of drillstrings inside straight and curved
wellbores. The simulation results were accurate in all cases com-
pared with the theoretical values. Most importantly, no tuning
was applied for getting the results close to theoretical and experi-
mental results. The differences in the numerical predictions and
experimental results are most likely caused by model and experi-
mental uncertainties, especially the imperfections present in the
experiments. The effect of inclination angle, length, formation
stiffness, and effective weight was studied, and it was shown that
the theoretical prediction of sinusoidal buckling is accurate at dif-
ferent inclination angles but loses its accuracy by lowering the
effective weight. The drillstring can be assumed long for the
buckling-load formulation and boundary-condition independent if
the dimensionless length is more than 17 and 25, respectively.
Formation stiffness was found to be ineffective on critical loads,
and the effect of tool joints was observed to be dependent on both
the distance between two connectors and radial difference
between pipe and joint. Finally, the verification of the model’s
result with an actual drillstring in a real-world case shows that
this method can be used as a basis for real-world drillstring-buck-
ling simulations.
Nomenclature
a ¼ well-inclination angle from vertical
De ¼ effective diameter, in.
DDP ¼ drillpipe diameter, in.
DTJ ¼ tool-joint diameter, in.
E ¼ modulus of elasticity, psi
Fa ¼ axial force, lbf
Fcr ¼ sinusoidal-buckling force, lbf
Fcr ¼ helical-buckling force, lbf
g ¼ gravity acceleration, in./sec2
I ¼ second moment of area, in.4
k ¼ formation stiffness, lbf/in.
June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 19:44 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017
Stage: Page: 263 Total Pages: 9
L ¼ total length, in.
r ¼ radial clearance between pipe and well, in.
R ¼ radius of curvature, ft
w ¼ pipe weight per unit length, lbf/in.
q ¼ density, lbm/in.3
h ¼ helix angle, degrees
/ ¼ azimuth angle, degrees
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of
Weatherford.
60
References
Abaqus 6.12 Analysis User’s Manual. 2012. Dassault Systemes Simulia
Corp., Providence, Rhode Island.
Akgun, F., Gurakin, G., Mitchell, B.J. et al. 1996. Theoretical and Experimen-
tal Evaluation of Drill Pipe Stability Conditions in Slim Holes. Presented
at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Adelaide, Australia,
28–31 October. SPE-37392-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/37392-MS.
Arslan, M., Ozbayoglu, E.M., Miska S.Z. et al. 2012. Buckling of Bouy-
ancy Assisted Tubular. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–10 October. SPE-159747-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/159747-MS.
Belayneh, M., 2006. A Review of Buckling in Oil Wells, Shaker Verlag,
Germany.
Chen, Y.-C., Lin, Y.-H., and Cheatham, J.B. 1990. Tubing and Casing
Buckling in Horizontal Wells. J. Pet Technol 42 (2): 140–141. SPE-
19176-PA. http://dx.doi.org/19176-PA.
Cunha, J.C. 2004. Buckling of Tubulars Inside Wellbores: A Review on
Recent Theoretical and Experimental Works. SPE Drill & Compl 19
(1): 13–19. SPE-87895-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87895-PA.
Dawson, R. and Paslay, P.R. 1984. Drillpipe Buckling in Inclined Holes.
J. Pet Technol 36 (10): 1734–1738. SPE-11167-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/11167-PA.
Duman, O.B., Miska, S., and Kuru, E. 2003. Effect of Tool Joints on Con-
tact Force and Axial-Force Transfer in Horizontal Wellbores. SPE
Drill & Compl 18 (3): 267–274. SPE-85775-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/85775-PA.
Gao, G. and Miska, S.Z. 2009. Effect of Boundary Conditions and Friction
on Static Buckling of pipe in a Horizontal Well. SPE J 14 (4):
782–796. SPE-111511-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/111511-PA.
Gao, G., Di, Q., Miska, S. et al. 2012. Stability Analysis of Pipe With Con-
nectors in Horizontal Wells. SPE J. 17 (3): 931–941. SPE-146959-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/146959-PA.
Hajianmaleki, M. and Daily, J.S. 2014. Advances in Critical Buckling
Load Assessment for Tubulars inside Wellbores. J. Pet Sci Eng 116:
136–144. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.02.019.
He, X. and Kyllingstad, A. 1995. Helical Buckling and Lock-Up Condi-
tions for Coiled Tubing in Curved Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 10 (1):
10–15. SPE-25370-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25370-PA.
Kim, J., Kang, S.-J., and Kang, B.-S. 2003. A Comparative Study of
Implicit and Explicit FEM for the Wrinkling Prediction in the Hydro-
forming Process. Intl. J. Adv. Manufac. Tech. 22: 547–552. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-003-1540-2.
Lubinski, A. 1987. A Study of the Buckling of Rotary Drilling Strings. In
Developments in Petroleum Engineering Volume One Stability of Tub-
ulars. Deviation Control, ed. S. Miska. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publish-
ing Company.
Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.S., and Logan, J.L. 1962. Helical Buckling of
Tubing Sealed in Packers. J. Pet Technol 14 (2): 655–670. SPE-178-
PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/178-PA.
Lubinski, A. and Woods, H.B. 1953. Factors Affecting the Angle of Incli-
nation and Dog-Legging in Rotary Bore Holes. In Drilling and Pro-
duction Practice, 222–250. New York: New York. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/53-222.
Mitchell, R.F. 1999. A Buckling Criterion for Constant-Curvature Well-
bores. SPE J. 4 (4): 349–352. SPE-57896-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/57896-PA.
263
 DC166592 DOI: 10.2118/166592-PA Date: 18-June-14
Mitchell, S., Moore, N.B., Franks et al. 2011. Comparing the Results of a
Full-Scale Buckling Test Program to Actual Well Data: New Semi-
Empirical Buckling Model and Methods of Reducing Buckling
Effects. SPE Drill & Compl 26 (4): 578–596. SPE-144535-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/144535-PA.
Mitchell, R.F. and Weltzin, T. 2011. Lateral Buckling—–The Key to
Lockup. SPE Drill & Compl 26 (3): 436–452. SPE-139824-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/139824-PA.
Qui, W., Miska, S., and Volk, L. 1998a. Drill Pipe/Coiled Tubing Buck-
ling Analysis in a Hole of Constant Curvature. Presented at the SPE
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas.
SPE-39795-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/39795-MS
Qui, W., Miska, S., and Volk, L. 1998b. Analysis of Drill Pipe/Coiled-
Tubing Buckling in a Constant-Curvature Wellbore. J. Pet Technol
66–77.
Salies, J.B., Cunha, J.C.S., Azar, J.J. et al. 1994. Experimental and Analyt-
ical Study of Sinusoidal Buckling in Vertical Wells. Presented at the
SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, Charleston, West
Virginia. SPE-29164-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/29164-MS.
Su, T., Wicks, N., Pabon, J. et al. 2013. Mechanism by Which a Friction-
ally Confined Rod Loses Stability Under Initial Velocity and Position
Perturbations. Int. J. Solids Struct. 50 (14–15): 2468–2476. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.03.017.
Wang, C.Y. 1986. A Critical Review of the Heavy Elastica. Int. J. Mat.
Sci. 28 (8): 549–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(86)90052-
4.
Weltzin, T., Aas, B., Andresassen, E. et al. 2009. Measuring Drillpipe
Buckling Using Continuous Gyro Challenges Existing Theories. SPE
Drill & Compl 24 (4): 464–472. SPE-115930-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/115930-PA.
Wu, J. 1992. Buckling Behavior of Pipes in Directional and Horizontal
Wells. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, 439–440. December.
Wu, J. and Juvkam-Wold, H.C. 1993. Study of Helical Buckling of Pipes
in Horizontal Wells. Presented at the SPE Production Operations Sym-
posium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. SPE-25503-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/25503-MS.
Wu, J. and Juvkam-Wold, H. 1995. The Effect of Wellbore Curvature on
Tubular Buckling and Lockup. J Energy Resources Tech 117 (3):
214–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2835343.
264
ID: jaganm Time: 19:44 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140017/APPFile/SA-DC##140017
Stage: Page: 264 Total Pages: 9
Wu, J., Juvkam-Wold, H.C., and Lu, R. 1993. Helical Buckling of Pipes in
Extended Reach and Horizontal Wells—Part 1: Preventing Helical
Buckling. J. Energy Resource Tech. 115 (3): 190–195. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2905992.
Yuan, Z. and Wang, X. 2012. Non-linear buckling analysis of inclined circu-
lar cylinder-in-cylinder by the discrete singular convolution. Int. J. Non-
Linear Mech, 47 (6): 699–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.
2011.11.008.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft  3.048* E01 ¼ m
in.  2.54* Eþ00 ¼ cm
lbf  4.448 222 Eþ00 ¼ N
lbm  4.535 924 E01 ¼ kg
psi  6.894 757 Eþ00 ¼ kPa
* Conversion factor is exact.
Mehdi Hajianmaleki earned his PhD degree in mechanical en-
gineering from Mississippi State University. The current research
was performed while acting as a post-doctoral researcher and
lecturer at the Mechanical Engineering Department at the Uni-
versity of Tulsa. He has a total of 11 years of experience in the
energy and aerospace industries and academia. Hajianmale-
ki’s main research interests are finite-element analysis, compos-
ite materials and structures, and drilling mechanics.
Jeremy S. Daily is an associate professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering at the University of Tulsa. Before com-
ing to the University of Tulsa, he worked as a contracted aero-
space engineer for the Propulsion directorate in the US Air
Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
Daily has worked in a variety of areas related to mechanical
engineering, including traffic-crash reconstruction, fatigue,
fracture, drilling dynamics, and vehicle electronic security. He
also started the University of Tulsa’s Crash Reconstruction
Research Consortium in which members pay an annual fee
and the consortium provides research and support for crash
tests to understand the dynamics of crash events better.
June 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion