SPE/IADC 52840

The Buckling Behavior of Pipes and Its Influence on the Axial Force Transfer in
Directional Wells
E. Kuru, SPE, A. Martinez, SPE, and S. Miska, SPE, The University of Tulsa, and W. Qiu*, SPE, Baker Oil Tools
*IADC Member
Copyright 1999, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, Holland, 911 March 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
An experimental set-up was built at the University of Tulsa to
study buckling and post-buckling behavior of pipes
constrained in a straight horizontal and curved wellbores.
Experiments were conducted to investigate the axial force
transfer with and without static internal pressure. Different
stages of buckling phenomena and their relation to the axial
force, the pipe diameter (1/4 and 3/8) and the pipe endsupport conditions have also been investigated. Experimental
results have shown that the buckling load is a strong function
of the pipe diameter and the pipe end-support conditions.
Static internal pressure appears to have insignificant influence
on the buckling behavior of pipes.
A brief review of recently developed mathematical
models to predict buckling behavior of pipes in inclined,
curved and horizontal sections of wellbore is also presented.
Applications of the current theory are presented by using
recently developed computer simulator. Results of the
theoretical analysis have confirmed the versatility and
effectiveness of computer simulator for better understanding
and solving buckling related problems in the field.
Introduction
Tubular buckling may cause problems such as deviation
control while drilling, ineffective axial load transfer to the bit,
and even tubular failure. Problems become even more severe
in extended-reach/horizontal wells and coiled tubing
operations. Considering the importance of the subject matter,
buckling behavior of tubulars has long been under
investigation by many researchers. Numerous models have
been published regarding the buckling and post-buckling
behavior of pipes confined in a wellbore.

It has been generally accepted that under the increasing

axial load conditions, tubulars first buckle sinusoidally and
then helically. Models for predicting the critical axial force
inducing buckling in vertical wells (Lubinski1) and in inclined
wells (Dawson and Paslay2) are well accepted by the drilling
industry. Prediction of the critical axial force inducing
buckling in curved holes have been the subject of some recent
investigations and models are also available in this case
(Schuh3, He and Kyllingstad4, McCann and Suryanarayana5,
Wu and Juwkam Wold6, Qiu et al.7).
Several models have also been proposed for prediction of
forces causing helical shape (the so called helical buckling) of
tubulars in vertical wells ( Lubinski et al.8, Wu and JuvkamWold9), inclined and horizontal wells (Chen et al.10, Wu and
Juwkam-Wold9, Miska and Cunha11 ) and curved boreholes
(Wu and Juwkam-Wold6, Qiu et al.7). However, there is no
agreement on which models to be used for better predictions.
When the tubulars buckle/bend an additional contact force
between the pipe and borehole wall is induced. Contact forces
together with the friction coefficient determine the severity of
the drag forces, which are of major concern especially when
drilling horizontal and extended reach drilling. Frictional drag
and contact forces have been studied by several researchers.
Johanscik et al12 presented a formula to calculate contact force
of drillpipe without considering buckling possibility due to
excessive compressive loading. Mitchell13 presented an
equation to predict contact forces due to helical buckling of
drill pipes in vertical wells. Wu and Juvkam-Wold9 developed
a model to determine the contact force for drillpipe in deviated
wells.
Recently a comprehensive investigation on the buckling
behavior of coiled tubings and related axial force transfer has
been conducted at the University of Tulsa.7,11,14,15,16 A
computer simulator (CTS-TUDRP) was developed based on
the results of mathematical modeling studies. As a part of an
on going research program, a series of tubular stability
experiments have also been conducted in horizontal and
curved wellbores. Results of the recent experimental analyses
and a review of models developed are given in the following
section.

SPE/IADC 52840 THE BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF PIPES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AXIAL FORCE TRANSFER IN DIRECTIONAL WELLS

Experimental Study of Buckling/Post-Buckling

Behavior of Pipes
Experimental studies simulating buckling /post buckling
behavior of pipes in curved borehole sections have been
conducted at the Tulsa University Drilling Research Projects
(TUDRP) laboratories. Experimental set-up and some results
will be discussed in the following section.
Buckling/Post Buckling Experiments in a Curved Wellbore
Schematic of experimental facility is shown in Figure-1. The
wellbore is simulated using a 2.5x 2 acrylic pipe. Total
length of the test section was 51.3 ft. out of which 13.4 ft.
constituted the first straight horizontal wellbore, 21.2 ft.
constituted curved wellbore and 16.7 ft. constituted the second
straight horizontal wellbore sections. The radius of curvature
for the curved borehole section was 13.5 ft. with a build rate of
4.25/ft. Two stainless steel tubings, one with 1/4 OD
(thickness: 0.035) and the other with 3/8 OD (thickness:
0.035) were used to study their buckling/post-buckling
behavior in curved boreholes. The experimental facility
allowed us to apply axial load and to measure load at the top
and the bottom of the test section. The displacement of the
pipe at the top of the test section was also measured.
When running into the curved borehole section, due to the
bending, the circular cross-sectional area of the pipe becomes
oval. The internal pressure tends to recover the circular shape
and consequently try to straighten the pipe. Since the pipe will
have a tendency to straighten inside the curved section, the
lateral contact force, and hence, the friction force will increase
which would result in a decrease in the axial force transfer
efficiency of the pipe. A review of literature has shown that
influence of static internal pressure on the buckling is not well
investigated. Therefore, experiments were also conducted to
investigate the effect of static internal pressure varying from 0
to 3000 psi. on the axial force transfer.
Results of Experiments in the Curved Wellbore
Two different pipe-end-support conditions (fixed end and
pinned end)were investigated for their effect on the axial force
transfer through a pipe. Figure 2 shows that the axial force
transfer through 1/4 pipe is significantly influenced by the
type of end connections. It is therefore essential to work under
more realistic end conditions and/or have sufficient length for
test section to avoid end effects.
A load-displacement curve for 1/4 pipe is shown in
Figure 3. There are two curves shown, one for the top load and
the other for the bottom load, including loading and unloading
cases. Points A to E along the curve shows the change in top
load during loading stage. The load at which the sinusoidal
buckling occurs is not easy to detect. At point B, the first helix
is formed in the first straight section of the borehole. At point
C there is a sudden decrease of the top load indicating the
occurrence of the helix in the second straight section. Finally,
the pipe is loaded up to point E. During the unloading stage,
there is a sudden decrease of the top load from E to F. At point
F, the helix in the first hole section disappears. At point G, the

helix in the second straight hole section disappears. From the

point G to H the pipe has a sinusoidal shape. When the top
load decreases below point G, pipe assumes a straight shape
both in the first and the second straight borehole sections.
The change in the bottom load during the loading and
unloading stages is represented by the curves from 1 to 5 and 5
to 7 respectively. By comparing the loading curves for the top
and the bottom load, it is seen that there is a significant
difference between the rate of increase in the top load and the
bottom load before and after helical buckling occurred. The
load difference between the points E and 5 (after helical
buckling occurs in the second straight section) is about 20 lb.
The load difference between points C and 3 (before helical
buckling of horizontal section) ,however, is only 6 lb. This
example clearly shows the significant influence of the lateral
contact force and hence the friction, on the axial load transfer.
During the unloading process, the bottom load remains
almost constant between points 5 and 6. During the same
time, however, the top load is reduced from E to F
significantly and, because of this, helix in the first straight hole
section disappears. This change in the shape of the pipe in the
first straight section does not cause any significant change in
the bottom load. The bottom load starts decreasing after the
helix in the second straight section disappears (at point 6).
Therefore, it can be concluded that, the buckling in the second
straight hole section has more controlling effect on the axial
force transfer than that of in the first section for this particular
shape of the borehole.
A comparison of buckling behavior of pipes for two
different sizes with fixed-end supports is shown in Figure 4.
Load-displacement analysis of 1/4 and 3/8 pipes has shown
that 1/4 pipe buckles helically when axial load reaches to 55
lb. where as 3/8 pipes needs 85 lb. This result implies the use
of largest possible pipe size to reduce the buckling related
problems.
Effect of internal pressure on the pipe-buckling behavior
was also investigated. Figure 5 shows the buckling behavior of
3/8 pipe under 0 psi, 2000 psi and 3000 psi internal pressures.
Results have shown that the buckling behavior of a pipe is not
significantly influenced by the internal pressure.
In all experiments, it was not possible to observe buckling
of pipes in curved section before reaching the plastic
deformation limit of the pipes in straight sections.
Buckling/Post Buckling Experiments in a Horizontal
Wellbore
A schematic of experimental facility is shown in Figure-6. The
borehole is simulated using a 2.5x 2 acrylic pipe. Total
length of the test section is 90 ft. A in., 0.475 lb./ft.
(ID=0.62 in.) stainless steel tubing was used to study its
buckling/post-buckling behavior in a horizontal borehole. The
experimental facility allowed us to apply axial load and to
measure load at the top and the bottom of the test section. The
displacement of the pipe at the top of the test section was also
measured.

SPE/IADC 52840 THE BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF PIPES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AXIAL FORCE TRANSFER IN DIRECTIONAL WELLS

Results of Experiments in the Horizontal Wellbore

Two different pipe-end-support conditions (fixed end and
pinned end) were investigated for their effect on the axial
force transfer through a pipe. Figure 7 shows that the axial
force transfer through 3/4 pipe is not significantly influenced
by the type of end connections. It is therefore considered that
the buckling/post-buckling experiments conducted using
horizontal wellbore facility are free of end effects.
A load-displacement curve for 3/4 pipe is shown in
Figure 8. There are two curves shown, one for the top load and
the other for the bottom load, including loading and unloading
cases. Points A to G along the curve shows the change in top
load during the loading stage. At point B, the top load reaches
the level of sinusoidal buckling load and the pipe is buckled
from this point on. At point C, the first helix is formed. Points
D, E and F correspond to the occurrence of successive
helixes. The change in the bottom load during loading stage
(Points 1 to 7) follows the same trend as the top load and the
effect of each helix formation is easily seen (points 3, 4, 5, and
6). The difference between the top load and the bottom load is
also increasing in this case as the number of helix increases.
This is also a clear indication that the occurrence of helical
buckling causes an increase in the lateral contact force and
hence a decrease in the axial force transfer to the bottom of the
hole. During the unloading process, the bottom load curve
follows the same trend as the top load.
Mathematical Modeling Of Buckling And PostBuckling Behavior Of Tubulars-A Review Of Recent
Studies Conducted At The University Of
7,11,14,15,16
Tulsa
Recently a comprehensive approach has been taken to analyze
behavior of pipes in inclined /horizontal and curved boreholes.
Major assumptions considered in this buckling analysis are as
follows:
1.Upon buckling, a pipe assumes either a sinusoidal or
helical configuration,
2.Pipe is long enough so that end conditions do not affect
the force-pitch relationship,
3.Slender elastic beam theory is used to relate bending
moment to curvature,
4.The borehole is modeled as a cylinder with rigid walls
and constant cross-sectional area,
5.Fluid flow effects other than buoyancy are not
considered.
6.Dynamic effect and friction due to pipe sliding are
ignored,
7.Pipe is initially at the low side of the borehole,
8.Pipe is represented by an elastic line of constant
properties,
9.The centerline of the borehole is a plane curve.

Buckling/Post-Buckling Behavior of Pipes in Inclined/

Horizontal and Curved Boreholes7,11,14
Four different Buckling Patterns have been suggested to
analyze the buckling behavior of pipes:
1- Straight
F < Fs
2- Sinusoidal
Fs < F < F*
3- Unstable Sinusoidal
F* < F < Fh
4- Helical
F Fh
For the case of inclined/horizontal wells, the terms Fs, F*,
Fh are given as follows:

Fs = 2

EI w sin
r

(1)

*
F = 1.875 F s

(2)

Fh = 2 2 Fs

(3)

In a similar manner, for curved wellbores, the terms Fs, F*,

Fh are expressed by the following equations:

F s , cw =

*
cw

F h , cw =

r R2 w sin
2 EI
1+ 1+
rR
EI

7.04 EI
r R 2 w sin
1+ 1+
rR
3.52 EI
r R2 w sin
8 EI
1+ 1+
rR
2 EI

(4)

(5)

(6)

Note that when the radius of curvature goes to infinity,

Equations (4), (5), and (6) converge to Equations (1), (2), and
(3) respectively.
Contact Forces14, 15, 16
In order to conduct axial force simulation, the contact force
between the drill pipe and the borehole wall must first be
calculated. The calculation of contact force depends upon the
well shape as well as the configuration of the drill pipe. The
following section summarizes the models to calculate contact
forces in various pipe/well configurations.
In a vertical well, the unit contact force for a helically
buckled pipe is given by:13

N=

r F2
4 EI

(7 )

SPE/IADC 52840 THE BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF PIPES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AXIAL FORCE TRANSFER IN DIRECTIONAL WELLS

In a deviated well, the unit contact forces for a straight

pipe, a buckled pipe in sinusoidal configuration, and a buckled
pipe in helical configuration are given by Equations (8), (9),
and (10), respectively;

N = wsin

(8)

16 4 EIr A2 2 4 2z
2z
2z
A cos

N=
+ 3sin2
4 cos2
4
p
p
p
p

2
2
4 rF A
2 2z
+
+ wsin cos
(9)
cos
2
p
p
r 2
N = F + w sin cos
4 EI

(10)

Note that when = 90 degrees, equations (8), (9), (10),

apply to a special case of an inclined wellbore, i.e. a horizontal
wellbore.
Finally, in a hole of constant curvature, the contact forces
for an unbuckled pipe, a buckled pipe in sinusoidal
configuration, and a pipe in helical configuration are given by
Equations (11), (12), and (13) respectively, as follows:

F
N = + wsin
R

N=

(11)

16 4 EIr A2 2 4 2s
2s
2s
A cos

+ 3sin2
4 cos2
4
p
p
p
p

4 2 r A2
2s F
EI

+
+ + wsin cos
F + 2 cos2
2
p R
p

N=

164 EIr 42r EI F

+ 2 F + 2 + + wsin cos
4
p
p R R

(12)

(13)

Note that when the radius of curvature, R, goes to infinity

equations (11), (12), and (13) converge to equations (8), (9)
and (10) respectively.
The angular displacement, , the length of a sine curve, p,
and the amplitude of the sine curve, A, for the sinusoidal
buckling case (Equations (9) and (12)) are defined in the
Appendix by equations (A-1), (A-2), and (A-3) respectively.
The angular displacement, , and the pitch of the helix, p, for
the helical buckling case (Equations (10) and (13)) are defined
in the Appendix by equations (A-4), and (A-5) respectively.

Computer Program
In order to conduct axial force simulation the contact force
between the drill pipe and the borehole wall must first be
calculated. The calculation of contact force depends upon the
well pattern as well as the configuration of the drill pipe.
Assuming the friction force between the borehole wall and the
buckled tubing acts parallel to the tangential direction of the
centerline of the wellbore, the static equilibrium of forces in
the axial direction (centerline of the borehole) gives:

dF
= N w cos
ds

(14)

Based on the iterative solution of the Equation 14 and

utilizing contact force Equations 7 through 13, a computer
program (CTS-TUDRP) has been developed by Qiu17. The
simulator only considers the case of pipe under compression.
The input data include; friction factor, drilling fluid
density, CT data including ID, OD, unit weight, modulus of
elasticity, well patterns including vertical, inclined, horizontal,
curved borehole sections, continuous build, build-hold, and
build-hold-build.
The output data encompass graphic output as well as
output data files, which are composed axial force profiles and
normal force profiles.
Comparison of Simulator Results with Experimental Data
An attempt for verification of lateral contact force models was
made by comparing simulator results with experimental data.
Experiments conducted both in curved and horizontal borehole
simulators were used for this purpose. A friction factor of 0.38
was reported earlier by Salies18 for the type of material used in
these experiments (i.e. stainless steel tubing-Plexiglas pipe).
Therefore, 0.38 was used in the computer program to estimate
axial load. The results are shown in Figures 9 and 10. In Figure 9,
estimated bottom load values were compared with the measured
bottom load values obtained from buckling/post-buckling
experiments in a curved borehole. The difference in results varies
from 2 % to 24 %. The difference in this case is mostly
attributed to the experimental conditions where experimental
measurements are significantly influenced by the end conditions.
Model estimation of bottom loads in the case of a horizontal well
were found to be in good agreement with experimental results as
shown in Figure 10. Buckling/post-buckling experiments in the
horizontal borehole were not influenced by the end effects and
therefore, results in this case were much more reliable.
Since the existing experimental set-up does not allow us to
observe buckling behavior of pipes in the curved borehole
section, models for this case needs to be verified with further
experimental analysis.
Favorable comparison of simulator results with
experimental data suggests that, the computer program might
be useful for a practical field application. For a given
borehole/drillstring geometry, the friction factor can be back
calculated by using a pair of measured surface and bottom
hole (MWD) load values. Once the friction factor is estimated,

SPE/IADC 52840 THE BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF PIPES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AXIAL FORCE TRANSFER IN DIRECTIONAL WELLS

the program can be used for analysis of tubular stability and

axial force transfer under various loading conditions.
Examples of Simulator Application
The CTS-TUDRP was implemented by using a typical buildhold-build well configuration as shown in Figure 11. The
example well consists of a vertical section from surface to kick
off point, a curved section, followed by a slant section, a
second build section, and finally, a horizontal section.
The following analysis is carried out to show the influence
of friction coefficient, pipe size, borehole size on the axial
force profile.
Base data used for all analyses are as follows;
Coiled Tubing
: 2.375x 2.063, 3.7 lb./ft.,
EI
: 140138 lbf-ft2
Friction Coefficient : 0.1
Mud Density
: 12 ppg.
Well Geometry:
Kickoff Point (KOP) : 800 ft.
Build Section I
:
Radius of Curvature: 2,292 ft.;
Build Angle: 40 (2.5 /100 ft)
Slant Section
: 7,800 ft.
Build Section II
:
Radius of Curvature: 2,292 ft.;
Build Angle : 50 (2.5 /100ft)
: 5,000 ft.
Horizontal Section
Casing: 5 in. , 11.5 lb./ft. (ID = 5.044) @ 12,200 ft.
Openhole Diameter
: 4.75 in.
Total Measured Depth : 17,200 ft.
TVD to Target
: 10,000 ft.
Effect of Friction Coefficient
Figure 12 illustrates the effect of friction coefficient on the
axial force transfer. Three cases are evaluated for friction
coefficient values of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. It is clearly seen From
Figure 12 that the friction coefficient posses significant effect
on the axial force transmission and hence dominantly
determines maximum horizontal reach.
Effect of Coiled Tubing Size
Figure 13 demonstrates the effect of CT size on the axial force
transfer. Three cases are evaluated for coiled tubing sizes of
2 in. x 3.072 lb./ft. (ID=1.688 in.), 2.375 in. x 3.697 lb./ft.
(ID=2.063 in.) and 2.875 in. x 4.53 lb./ft. (ID=2.563 in.). It is
observed that the axial force transmitted to the bottom
increases as the CT size increases. Therefore, the largest
possible CT size should be used to achieve more horizontal
reach in horizontal and extended reach drilling.
Effect of Borehole Size
Figure 14 demonstrates the effect of borehole size on the axial
force transfer. Three cases are evaluated for borehole sizes of
3.75, 4.25 and 4.75. It is observed that the axial force
transmitted to the bottom decreases as the borehole size
increases. Therefore, CT can procure more horizontal reach in
slimhole drilling.

Concluding Remarks
Following conclusions can be made based on the results of
analysis presented in this paper:
1- State of tubular buckling controls the magnitude of the
lateral contact forces and hence, the axial load transfer during
drilling in horizontal and curved wellbores;
2- The effect of internal pressure on the buckling behavior
of pipes in curved wellbores seems to be insignificant;
3- The effect of end-support conditions on the buckling
behavior of the pipes are significant, therefore, care must be
taken when sizing the experimental set-up to have a system
free from end effects. In other words, the contact force
equations are not valid at the drill bit or tangency points;
4- Further verification of lateral contact force models are
needed by using experimental measurement of lateral contact
forces;
5- Further experimental work is required to verify
mathematical models developed for buckling of pipes in
curved wellbores.
Nomenclature
A= amplitude of a pipe sinusoidal configuration
radians.
E= Youngs modulus, psi
EI = bending stiffness of a pipe, lbf-in2
F = axial compression force, lbf.
Fh = axial compression force required to produce
helical configuration, lbf.
Fs = axial compression force to initiate pipe buckling,
lbf.
F* = maximum allowable axial compression force for
stable sinusoidal configuration, lbf.
I = inertia moment of a pipe, in4
N = unit lateral contact force, lb./ft.
p = length of a sine curve or pitch of a helix, ft.
R = radius of curvature of a borehole, ft.
r = radial clearance between a borehole and a pipe,
in.
s = distance along the centerline of the curved
borehole, ft.
z = distance along the centerline of the inclined
borehole, ft.
w = unit weight of a pipe in fluid, lb./ft.
= friction coefficient
= inclination angle of a bore hole, degree
= angular displacement of coiled tubing, rad.
Subscripts
cw = curved wellbore
h = helical
s =sinusoidal
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the U.S. Department of Energy and
the Tulsa University Drilling Research Projects (TUDRP) for
supporting this research.

SPE/IADC 52840 THE BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF PIPES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AXIAL FORCE TRANSFER IN DIRECTIONAL WELLS

References
1. Lubinski, A. : A Study on the Buckling of Rotary Strings, API
Drilling and Production Practice, 1950, pp.178-214.
2. Dawson, R. and Paslay, P. R.: Drill Pipe Buckling in Inclined
Holes, JPT , October, 1984, pp.1734-1738.
3.Schuh, F.J.: The Critical Buckling Force and Stresses for Pipe in
Inclined Curved Boreholes, paper SPE/IADC 21942 presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, March, 1991.
4.He, X. and Kyllingstad, A.: Helical Buckling and Lock-Up
Conditions for Coiled Tubing in Curved Wells, SPE 25370,
presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific OGCE, Singapore, February, 8
11, 1993.
5.McCann,R.C. and Suryanarayana, P.V.R. : Experimental Study
of Curvature and Frictional Effects on Buckling, OTC 7568,
Paper presented at the 1994 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, TX, U.S.A., May 2-5, 1994.
6.Wu, J. and Juwkam-Wold, H.C. : The Effect of wellbore
Curvature on Tubular Buckling and Lockup, presented at the
ETCE Drilling Technology Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana,
January 23-26, 1994.
7.Qiu, W., Miska, S., and Volk, L. : Drill Pipe/Coiled Tubing
Buckling Analysis in a Hole of Constant Curvature, SPE 39795,
paper presented at the 1998 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, TX, 25-27 March, 1998.
8.Lubinski,A., Althouse,W.S., and Logan, J.L. : Helical Buckling
of Tubing Sealed in Packers, JPT, June 1962, pp.655-670.
9.Wu, J. and Juvkam-Wold Study of Helical Buckling of Pipes in
Horizontal Wells, SPE 25503, presented at the Production
Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, March, 21-23, 1993.
10.Chen,Y., Lin., Y., Cheatham, J.B., : Tubing and Casing Buckling
in Horizontal Wells, JPT, February, 1990, pp.140-191.
11.Miska, S. and Cunha, J. C. : An Analysis of Helical Buckling of
Tubulars Subjected to Axial and Torsional Loading in Inclined
Wellbore, SPE 29460 paper presented at the Production and
Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK , U.S.A.,
April 2-4, 1995.
12.Johanscik, C.A., Friesen,B.B. and Dawson,R. : Torque and Drag
in Directional Wells-Prediction and Measurement, JPT, June
1984, pp.987-992.
13.Mitchell, R.F. : Frictional Forces in Helical Buckling of
Tubing,, SPE 13064, presented at the 59th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, U.S.A., September 1619,1984.
14.Miska, S., Qiu, W., Robello, G.S., Alfredo, S. : Advanced
Horizontal Coiled Tubing Drilling System, Final Report U.S.
DOE Contract DE-AC22- 94PC91008, The University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1997.
15. Miska, S., Qiu, W., and Volk, L. : An Improved Analysis of
Axial Force Along Coiled Tubing in Inclined/Horizontal
Wellbores, paper SPE 37056 presented at the 1996 SPE
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology held in
Calgary, Canada, November 18-20, 1996.
16. Qiu, W., and Miska, S. : Prediction of Unit Contact Force for
Drill Pipe/Coiled Tubing, SPE 51092, paper presented at the
1998 SPE Eastern Regional Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.,
November 9-11, 1998.
17.Qiu,W. : Theoretical and Experimental Study of Buckling
Behavior of Coiled Tubing and Axial Force Transfer Modeling in
Coiled Tubing Drilling, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of
Tulsa, 1997.
18.Salies, J.B. : Experimental Study and Mathematical Modeling of
Helical Buckling of Tubulars in Inclined Wellbores, Ph.D.
Dissertation, The University of Tulsa, 1994.

Appendix
For a sinusoidal buckling mode, the angular displacement, ,
the length of a sine curve, p, are given by equations (A-1) and
(A-2) respectively as follows:

2 z

= A sin
p
p = 2

EIr A 2 + 1
2

w sin 1 A
8

( A 1)

( A 2)

The relation between the axial compression force and the

amplitude of the sine curve is given by equation (A-3) as
follows:
2

EIw sin A 2 + 1 1 A
2
8

F =2

( A 3)

Note that for a sinusoidal buckling in a curved wellbore,

the equation (A-1) needs to be modified slightly by
introducing s, distance along the centerline of the curved
borehole, instead of z, distance along the centerline of the
inclined borehole.
Derivations of equations (A-1), (A-2) and (A-3) were
presented earlier by Miska et al.15.
For a helical buckling mode, the definition of the angular
displacement, , and the pitch of the helix are given by
equations (A-4) and (A-5) respectively as follows:

p=

2 z
p

( A 4)

8 2 EI
F

( A 5)

Equation (A-5) is the well known force-pitch relationship

presented by Lubinski et al.8
Note that for a helical buckling in a curved wellbore, the
equation (A-4) needs to be modified slightly by introducing s,
distance along the centerline of the curved borehole, instead of
z , distance along the centerline of the inclined borehole.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp x 1.0*
ft x 3.048*
ft2 x 9.290 304*
ft3 x 2.831 685
in. x 2.54*
lbf x 4.448 222
md x 9.869 233
psi x 6.894 757

E-03 = Pa.s
E-01 = m
E-02 = m2
E-02 = m3
E+00 = cm
E+00 = N
E-04 = m2
E-04 = kPa

Conversion factor is exact

SPE/IADC 52840 THE BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF PIPES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AXIAL FORCE TRANSFER IN DIRECTIONAL WELLS

TOP LOAD, lbf.

400
Stainless Steel Tubing
Hole Diameter : 2
Friction Factor : 0.38

350
300

3 / 8"

250
200
150
100
50

1 / 4"

0
0

0.5

1.5

DISPLACEMENT OF THE TOP END, in.

Fig. 4- Effect of Pipe Size (OD) on the Axial Force

Transfer
Fig. 1-Schematic of the Experimental Set-Up Used for
Buckling / Post Buckling Tests in a Curved Wellbore
(Top View)

250

2000 psi

200

60

BOTTOM LOAD, lbf.

Fixed End

50

Bottom
Load, lbf.

40
Pin End

30
Helical Buckling
Fixed End

20

0 psi
3000 psi

150

100

Stainless Steel Tubing

OD=3/8
t=0.035
w=0.127 lb./ft
Hole Size: 2

50
Stainless Steel Tubing
OD=
t=0.035
w=0.08 lb./ft
Hole Diameter : 2

Helical Buckling
Pin End

10

0
0

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

TOP LOAD, lbf.

Top Load, lbf.

Fig.2-Effect of End Conditions on the Pipe Buckling

Experiments in a Curved Wellbore

Fig. 5-Effect of Internal Pressure on the Buckling

Behavior of a Pipe in a Curved Borehole

60

50

FORCE, lbf.

40

30

Fig. 6-Experimental Set-up for Testing Buckling Behavior

of Pipes in a Horizontal Wellbore

C
20

TOP LOAD

G
5
10

B
1

A 7
0

B OTTOM LOAD

0
0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .2

1 .4

D IS P L AC E M E N T O F T H E T O P E N D , in .

Fig. 3-Load-Displacement Relationship for a Pipe in

a Curved Wellbore

1 .6

SPE/IADC 52840 THE BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF PIPES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AXIAL FORCE TRANSFER IN DIRECTIONAL WELLS

900

Stainless Steel
Tubing
OD=3/4
t=0.065
w=0.475 lb./ft

1000
800

700

Axial Load (Model), lbf.

TOP LOAD, lbf.

Stainless Steel Tubing

OD=3/4
t=0.065
w=0.475 lb./ft

800

1200

FIXED END

600

PIN END

400
200

Borehole Size: 2
Friction Factor : 0.38

600
500
400
300
200

100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

DISPLACEMENT OF THE TOP END, in.

0
0

Fig. 7-Effect of End Conditions on the Pipe Buckling

Experiments in a Horizontal Wellbore

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

A x ia l L o a d (E x p e rim e n ta l), lb f.

Fig.10-Lateral Contact
Horizontal Wells

Force

Model

Verification-

1200

1000

TOP AND BOTTOM LOAD, lbf.

Stainless Steel Tubing

OD=3/4
t=0.065
w=0.475 lb./ft

Hole Size: 2

TOP LOAD

Vertical
Section

800

F
600

BOTTOMLOAD

Build
Section I

400

4 5

2292 ft

50

Slant
Section

2292 ft

7800 ft

40

200

800 ft

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Build
Section II

1.2

DISPLACEMENT, in.

Fig. 8-Load-Displacement Relationship for a Pipe in a

Horizontal Wellbore

5000 ft

Horizontal Section

Fig. 11-Schematic of a build, hold and build well.

12000
35
30

10000
9000

Borehole Size: 2
Friction Factor : 0.38

25

Axial Load, lbf.

Axial Load (Model), lbf.

11000

Stainless Steel Tubing

OD=1/4
t=0.035
w=0.08 lb./ft

20
15
10

8000

=0.1

7000
6000
5000

=0.2

4000
3000

2000
0

=0.3

1000
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

A x ia l L o a d (E xp e rim e n ta l), lb f.

0
0

Fig. 9-Lateral Contact Force Model Verification-Curved

Wells

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Total Measured Depth, ft.

Figure 12 Effect of Friction Factor on the Axial Force

Transfer

SPE/IADC 52840 THE BUCKLING BEHAVIOR OF PIPES AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AXIAL FORCE TRANSFER IN DIRECTIONAL WELLS

12000

10000

Axial Load, lbf.

8000

6000

OD=2 7/8
4000

2000

OD=2 3/8

OD=2
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Total Measured Depth, lbf.

Fig. 13-Effect of Coiled Tubing Size on the Axial Force

Transfer

9000
8000

Axial Load, lbf.

7000
6000
5000
4000

3.75

3000
2000

4.75

4.25

1000
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Total Measured Depth, ft.

Fig. 14-Effect of Borehole Size on the Axial Force

Transfer