Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A
SPE 36761
Kiila
~ Society of Petroleum Engineers
-,
I
Copwght
1996 Scumty of Petrolewm Engineers, Inc
5. Friction between the tubing and casing is neglected,
Th!spaperwas prepared for prescmtatum at the 1$% SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhlb!tmn held m Oerwer, Colorado, U S A &9 0ctc4W 19S6
Mitchell developed a more general approach that replaced the
Th!s paper was selected for presentakm by an SPE Program Committee following revmw of
(mformatfo cnntaned #n a abstraci submtttad by [he author(s) Contents of the p.spar, as virtual work relations with the full set of beam-column
presentec, have d been re.mwed by the Soctety of Petroleum Eng!neers and are subjecl to
equations constrained to be in contact with the casing4. Helical
cnrrectlon by the author(s) The materrdl, as presented, d-s not nemssanly reflect any
posttlon of the Scaety of Petroleum Engineers, M ofkars, or members Papers presented at buckling in a deviated well, in this formulation, is described by
SPE mOetkngs are subject 10 pubkabon review by Edliorlal Committees of the .%aety of
Petroleum Engneers Perm!ssmn to copy IS resmcted to an abstract of not more than 303 a fourth order non-linear differential equation. For a vertical
words Illustrabons may not be cnpted The abstract should conlan conspicuous
acknoluedgment of where and by whom the paper was presented Wnfe Llbrar!an, SPE, P O
well, the solution to this equation can be accurately
Box 833B35 Richardson, TX 75C83-3836, U S A, fax 01-214-952-9435 approximated by the simple algebraic equation discovered by
Lubinski and Woods. This solution is not valid for deviated or
horizontal wells because of the lateral gravity forces. The full
Abstract deviated well equation was solved by Mitchell using numerical
methodss. The purpose of this paper is to put these results in a
Current helical buckling models are valid for vertical wells, but more usable form.
provide only approximate solutions for horizontal wells.
Solutions of the non-linear buckling equations for arbitrary well Accurate solution of the buckling equations is important for
deviation have been developed, but are too complex for several reasons. Bending stresses due to tubing buckling will be
practical use. This paper presents a set of correlations that overestimated for deviated wells using Lubinskis formula.
match the exact solutions extremely well, but are simple to use, However, Lubinskis solution applied to deviated wells will also
These correlations show the effects of well deviation on overpredict tubing movement. For a fixed packer, this solution
buckling shape, tubing length change, contact force and bending will overestimate tubing compliance, which may greatly
stress, underestimate the axial loads, resulting in a non-conservative
design. For a tlee packer or PB~ exaggerated tubing motion
Introduction will require excessive seal length. Further, because tubing
incremental motion will control the fi-iction load direction,
The most generally accepted method for the analysis of errors in overall tubing displacement will generate further errors
buckling, tubing movement, and packer selection is the method in friction loads.
developed by Lubinski et,UL in reference 1. Analyses following
Lubinskis basic approach have been developed for more This paper presents correlations to the numerical solution of the
complicated tubing configurations, e.g. tapered stTings23.Henry buckling differential equation. Calculation of results, including
Woods, in the appendix to Lubinski ef,al., developed a buckling length change, tubing contact forces, bending stresses
mechanical model of well buckling behavior that predicted the and dogleg angle are developed. An application problem was
buckled configuration as a fimction of well loads. This model solved and the effects of well deviation on stability, length
featured: change, and maximum bending stress were examined. Well
1, The slender beam theory is used to relate bending moment deviation is shown to have significant impact on buckling
to curvature. results and tubing stress analysis.
2. The tubing is assumed to buckle into a helical shape,
3. The wellbore is assumed to be straight and vertical. At the end of this paper is a complete nomenclature and
4. The pitch of the helix is related to the buckling load reference list.
through the principle of virtual work
871
2 ROBERT F. MITCHELL SPE 36761
The theoretical basis for the analysis of buckling in deviated for 2.8FP > F>FP (7)
wellbores is described in this section. The first generally useful
buckling solution was published by Lubinskil. In Lubinskis The corresponding helical buckling correlation is:
analysis, the wellbore is assumed to be vertical and the tubing
buckled shape was modeled as a helix with variable pitch.
Mitche114showed that Lubinskis solution was M approximate
solution to the beam-column equations with displacements
constrained to a cylinder. In this formulation of the beam-
0=+
r & for F > 2.8FP (8)
The region 2.8FP > F > 1.4FP may be either helical or lateral,
cohunn equations, the lateral displacements, shown in Figure 1,
however, 2.8FP is believed to be the lateral buckling limit on
are given by:
loading, while 1.4FP is believed to be the helical buckling limit
on unloading from a helical buckled state59. For a vertical well,
u, = rcose (1)
FP is zero, so only equation 8 applies, which is the buckling
solution used by Lubinski. An important distinction between
u2 = r sine (2)
equation 7 and equation 8 is that equation 7 is the maximum
value of 0 while equation 8 is the actual value of (1,As can be
where 8 is the helix angle, and r is the tubing/casing radial
seen in Figure 2, 8 varies between M1mmover the lateral
clearance. The differential equation for the helix angle @ is
buckling interval. This distinction will be used when developing
given by:
buckling length change results.
where WI is the lateral tubing weight per unit length, EI is the K = r(9)2 (9)
bending stiffness, F is the axial buckling force, and denotes
dldz. The axial buckling force F and the lateral tubing weight The dogleg units for equation 9 is radians per inch. To convert
are both strongly influenced by fluid pressures and must be to the conventional unit of degrees per 100 feet, multiply the
formulated accordingly. Lubinskis helical pitch solution: result by 68,755.
3. Corrdatim for B~
(4)
Given the tubing curvature, the bending moment is determined:
872
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD 3
4, Corr@s for B~
- ~(r6)2 (14)
b= F(z) =wz+c (19)
873
4 ROBERT F. MITCHELL SPE 36761
The buckling force at bottom hole is shown in Figure 10. 3. Simple correlations for the analysis of buckling in
Because the force is generated by the hydrostatic pressure, the deviated wells have been developed from numerical
force decreases as the deviation angle increases, The critical solutions of the buckling equation. Contact forces,
buckling force (Paslay force) increases with the square root of buckling length changes, tubing bending stress and
the sine of the deviation angle, and the critical helical buckling maximum dogleg angles are determined.
force is 2.8 time the Paslay force. Figure 10 shows that helical
buckling is suppressed for angles above about 54 degrees, but 4. The Lubinski buckling model predicts an increase in
that lateral buckling occurs thoughout the range shown. the length of buckled tubing for an increase in
deviation angle, which is not considered realistic, The
874
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD 5
correlation presented in this paper predicts a reduction SPEDE (September 1988), 303-310.
in buckled tubing length, and a substantial reduction in
helically buckled length. 5. Mitchell, R. F.: Effects of Well Deviation on Helical
Buckling, SPE 29462 presented at the 1995 SPE
5. Buckling length change predicted by the correlation Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
shows considerable reduction compared to the OK, (April 1995).
Lubinski model. This reduction is primarily due to the
reduction of helical buckling by lateral forces in the 6. Crandall, Stephen H. and Dahl, Norman C. (cd.): An
deviated well. Introduction to the Mechanics of Solids, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, (1959), 360-384.
o~ = bending stress
e bavg =
-,7285
&F *(F - F,)
8 = angle between the pipe center location and the x coordinate
axis
O~Ax = lateral buckling amplitude correlation 2.8FP > F > FP (A-1)
1. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S., and Logan, J. L.: E(~) =\ O(~-l) (A-2)
Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers, J. Pet.
Tech. (June 1962), 655-670. where & = F/FP. Function E is plotted in Figure A-1. Function E
appears to be very nearly linear. This function can be
2. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Movement, Forces, and Stresses approximated over the range & E [1,2.8] by the following least
Associated With Combination Tubing Strings Sealed squares tit:
in Packers, JPT (Feb. 1977), 195-208; Trans., AIME,
263. E(<) = -1.0212+ 1.0352< (A-3)
3. Hammerlindl, D. J.: Packer-to-Tubing Forces for The closeness of fit to equation A-2 is demonstrated in Figure
Intermediate Packers, .WT (March 1980), 195-208; A-1. The use of equation A-3 in equation A-1 gives:
515-27.
875
6 ROBERT F, MITCHELL SPE 36761
Tubing-Casing Properties
Type O.D. (in) I.D. (in) Weight (ppf)
Tubing 2-7/8 2.441 6.5
Casing 7 6.094 32
Fluid Pror)erties I
Fluid Location Fluid Type Density (psi/in)
Tubing 15 ppg cement .0649
Annulus 30 degree API crude .0317
Miscellaneous Properties:
876
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD
t
x
1.ac
075
050
025
000
. ..-. Lu~IIskISdulW
,D6viitedw
.025 ,-.. -carmlenon
450
-075
-t 00
o 05 1- 15 2 25
p,
Figure 2: Buckling in Daviatad Wells
877
ROBERT F. MITCHELL SPE 36761
0.60
050
._
0.40 .
-f-
M
0.30
E
020
0.10
0.00 /
o.m 0.s0 I .m 1.s0 2.m 2.50 3.m 3.s0 4.m
/F F,
OK
Ow ______________ . -
O.m
0.10
O.co
o,m O.w I.m 1.s0 2sn 2.s 3.m 3.s0 4.m
FF
/ P
Figura 4: Bandin~ Strooa Correlations
878
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD
O,SQ
o,m
0.60
0,30
e
0;5 040
030
O.m
0.10
O.cm
I 735 I .740 1.745 I 750 1755 1.7tJ1 1.765 I 7m
F,
4 .m
3.50
.
.,,,,
l-
3.C31
2.54
4EI
7 ~
1.50
100
050
000
000 0.50 Icm 1.30 1 .IK1 2.30 3al 350 4.00
FF
/ P
160
..
44 a) . .-.- ~
.,
12al _
... .- - ..
L
......~b~ti j
..
COrrehdmim ..
_- .,
Io,w ...
.,
.. /
- yALb ,
r 8.w .-. -
.,
,,
- ,.
6.~ ,.
,,.
,,
,. +
4.00
.-
.. ,..
..- .,
2.m
Ocm
0.00 0.s0 1.00 1.s0 2,00 2.s0 3.m 3.$0 4.m
FF
/ P
Figure 7: Buckllng Length Change Comparison
18.03
16.02
--7
w
_rJ
14.03
i2.03
. ..-.. hlbinii
! Commi.m I
.
z
Wt
Iom
8.13J
-
.z
.
..
,..
-+ ,. 1
-L.
1---
6.03
,..
.,
4.02 ----~
.. . . ..
..-
2.00 . .
.. :.---.. . . . .. _ . _ .. .. .
. . . .. . ...
0.02
0.02 O.!(I l.m 1.50 z.m 2.50 3.CQ 3s0 4.rm
/Fp
Figure 8: Contact Foroe Correlation
880
SPE 36761 BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN DEVIATED WELLS: A PRACTICAL METHOD
surface
2,000 n I
\ 1
I
/
~ /
\ /
/
(
,
/
.
.
. .
-.
10,OOOR --
Wm
I
mm
+
I No Hdkd BUIIIW
2XOI
---m dayti ,
203cfl
.-. .
---- (
. 1
... I
15C03 -,,-< - 1 ....
.. I
,./
/ 1
./ I
lm 1
5KCl
o
0 10 20 30 40 50 a RI
~--
881
ROBERT F. MITCHELL SPE 36761
Sam _ ..
U?ca -
\\....-.
.,
...... ~ E3i53!!
------- . . . . . .. . .
\ . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
--+ .. .....
*.. .......
--., ..-..
mo . ~ ,
~..
~.,
~.
Icm . --+- ---
\.
\
o
0 10 m 33 40 so bo m m 90
~.+e-
-11
-- --- -----
----- ----
-=
-Ic
-.-
---
=- -.. .
4 --
4 -.--_
.2 .Ez
0
o 10 m 90 40 50 60 m
De?iatim AngkdrgTOm
.
----T
mm
0
0 10 m 3 40 60 w 80 92
2MdLmAnsk&ieJ
Z.m
I .75 .
50 .. ______ ._____
25
I .m
i
1
0.75
--- cm-
O.YI
.:....k~pim
1
0.25
000
0.50 1ml [.50 2.m 2.S2 3.m
FF
/ P
Figure A-l: Correlation of Lstoml Buckling Strain
883