Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
in Horizontal Wells
R.F. Mitchell, Landmark Graphics
Summary
The effect of connectors on pipe buckling has only recently received attention. For nonbuckled pipe, Lubinski analyzed the effect of connectors on pipe in tension in a curved borehole, and
Paslay and Cernocky extended this analysis to pipe in compression. The first analysis of buckled pipe with connectors was done
by Mitchell, who developed a 3D analysis of helical buckling.
These papers indicate that bending stresses are greater because of
connector standoff.
Laterally buckled pipe with connectors is analyzed for the first
time in this paper. It presents an analytic solution of the beamcolumn equations in 3D in a horizontal wellbore with pipe weight.
Pipe deflections, contact loads, and bending stresses are determined with explicit formulas. Sag between connectors is calculated so that pipe body contact with the wellbore between connectors can be determined.
Applications include the analysis of bottomhole assemblies,
drillpipe, casing, and tubing. The solutions are simple formulas
that are suitable for hand calculations.
Introduction
Clearly, connectors should have an effect on the buckling of pipe.
For instance, because the connector outside diameter may be as
much as 50% greater than the pipe body, the wellbore radial clearance of the connector can be substantially smaller than the radial
clearance of the pipe body. Buckling criteria, such as the PaslayDawson formula, depend on the radial clearance. Which radial
clearance should be used? Should it be the pipe body clearance or
the connector clearance? Further, there should be a measurable
effect of connectors on pipe stresses for axially loaded pipe.
There is limited analysis available on nonbuckled pipe with
connectors. Lubinski used the beam-column equations to analyze
the effect of connectors on pipe bending stresses for a pipe in
tension in a 2D constant curvature wellbore,1 and Paslay and Cernocky completed this analysis by analyzing the pipe in compression.2 Pipe was found to be either suspended between connectors,
in point contact with the wellbore, or in wrap contact with the
wellbore, depending on the pipe tension. Bending stresses were
significantly magnified by the connector standoff.
The next step, 3D buckling of pipes with connectors, was taken
by Mitchell.3 The problem formulation was similar to Lubinskis
buckling analysis for pipe without connectors4: the wellbore is
vertical and straight. The beam-column equations considered in the
plane buckling analysis1,2 were used, but now there were deflections out of the plane. A solution for helical buckling was developed that corresponded to Lubinskis solution for low axial compression but produced pipe sag and bending stress magnification
for higher axial loads. Calculation results included connector contact forces, bending stress magnification, maximum dogleg angle,
and pipe sag.
This new analysis takes the 3D buckling problem one step
further. The continuous contact problem for pipe buckling in deviated wells has been addressed by several authors.57 To extend
these concepts to connector analysis, the beam column equations
124
are solved for a horizontal well with lateral loads on the pipe.
Lateral buckling of the pipe is analyzed, with critical loads for
buckling initiation determined. Equilibrium lateral deflections are
determined, along with pipe sag between connectors, bending
stress, and contact loads. Conditions for positive contact forces are
determined and compared to buckling criteria, such as Paslay-Dawson.7
At the end of this paper is a complete nomenclature and reference list.
Background
In mechanical engineering, buckling is usually concerned with
stability. For example, The Euler column with pinned ends has a
stable configuration up to the axial load8:
Fcrit =
2 EI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
L2
For axial forces greater than Fcrit, the original straight pipe solution
is no longer stable, and the column may fail catastrophically. In a
horizontal wellbore, the situation is different.
The first difference is that the pipe weight stabilizes the pipe at
the bottom of a horizontal wellbore. Dawson and Paslay7 analyzed
this problem and determined that for buckling to occur, the axial
force must exceed the Paslay force Fp, where Fp is given by:
Fp =
4weEI
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
rc
where wethe buoyant pipe weight per foot, and rcthe pipe
radial clearance.
The second difference is that the wellbore constrains the pipe
after it buckles and allows the pipe to find a new equilibrium
position. The first post-buckling equilibrium solution discovered
was a helix,4 in which the contact forces developed between the
pipe and the wellbore balance the destabilizing axial force. Subsequent studies have determined lateral buckling solutions in
which pipe weight, in addition to contact forces, balances the
axial force.5
Connectors add a new element to buckling analysis. Contact
forces are now concentrated at the connector locations instead of
being distributed along the length of the pipe. A radial clearance is
associated with the connector as well as with the pipe body. For
lateral buckling, there are several possible configurations of buckled pipe. For instance, in Fig. 1 we see a half cycle of lateral
buckling consisting of two joints of pipe. Its not hard to imagine
configurations similar to this with many more joints of pipe. In all
of these configurations, we see a connector at the lowest point in
the wellbore and a connector at the highest point of deflection.
Other configurations seem possible, but all configurations are constrained by the following properties:
1. Connectors are tangent to the borehole.
2. Curvature is continuous at connectors.
3. Shear tangent to borehole wall is continuous.
What exactly do we mean by having the connectors tangent to the
wellbore? In Fig. 2, consider the connector as a cylinder rotated at
an angle relative to the centerline of the wellbore. Real connectors
are not simple cylinders, but this is close enough for discussion
purposes. The cylinder makes contact at two points and has moved
slightly toward the wellbore center, so pure contact and tangency
is not strictly possible. However, for small rotation angles we need
not consider these effects, but can model the connector as a point
contact with tangency to the wellbore wall.
June 2003 SPE Journal
Beam-Column Solutions
The theoretical basis for the analysis of buckling in horizontal
wellbores is described in this section. Fig. 3 illustrates the coordinate system used in this analysis. Pipe deflections are in the 1
125
u
4 1
ds
F d2
u = 0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
EI ds2 1
d4
F d2
we
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
u
+
u =
2
4
2 2
EI
r
ds
ds
cEI
In this formulation ui is dimensionless (rcuithe net deflection in
the ith coordinate direction), Fthe axial buckling compressive
force, derivatives are with respect to axial length s, rcthe connector radial clearance, and wethe distributed lateral load. The
connector radial clearance is given by
1
rc = dh dc, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
2
where dhthe borehole diameter and dcthe connector diameter.
Implicit in this formulation is the assumption that lateral deflections are small and that second-order geometrical effects are negligible. If we define the dimensionless variable by the following
relationship, with F constant:
F
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
EI
=s
where Fc =
EI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
L2
cos =
d2
d2
weEI 1 2
u
+
u =
= N p, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
4 2
2 2
d
d
rcF 2 4
u1 =
cos 12
. . (16)
rc 1 2
2sin(1 cos)
N +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
L 4 p
sin 2 + 2cos
d4
1 2
N sin 2 + 2cos sin
8 p
u1 + 2u1 = 0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
d 4
d
cos sin
F1 = F
rc
2cos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
L cos sin
sin
cos sin, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
cos sin
1
u2 = 1 + t2 sin + t3cos 1 + N 2p2, . . . . . . . . (10)
8
where the value of evaluated at L:
F
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
EI
=L
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
and t3 =
cos 1
sin 2 + 2cos
Hidden in these results is the fact that Np is a function of
N 2p =
126
4weEI
2
rcF
Fp
4weEI L4 EI2
=
2
2
4
rc EI F L
Fc
4, . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
Initiation of Buckling
Continuity of tangential shear has two possible solutions for ,
either sin0, or cos is given by Eq. 16. If Eq. 16 predicts
cos>1 (i.e., not possible), then the alternate condition 0 holds,
which means there is no buckling. If we look at the case of
cos1, this condition is satisfied at the initiation of buckling. For
this condition, Eq. 16 gives a relation between Fp/Fc and 0 (subscript 0 denotes buckling initiation):
Fp
Fc
830cos0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
0cos0 sin0
127
where rpthe radial clearance of the pipe body, then the pipe will
touch the borehole. When this happens, we violate boundary Condition 5, and the solution no longer remains valid. Post-contact
pipe behavior is beyond the scope of this analysis. Fig. 13 shows
pipe sag for relatively small values of , while Fig. 14 shows sag
for larger values of . Fig. 15 shows the maximum sag as a
function of . The maximum sag occurs nearly at the midpoint
between the middle connector and the laterally displaced connector.
Bending Stress. Bending moment is given by the following Eq. 7:
d2
rc F sin
sin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
cos sin
From Eq. 10, we get the bending moments for the vertical solution
1
M2 = rcF t2 sin t3 cos + N 2p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
4
While no bending stress curves will be shown here, note that the
bending stress is proportional to the bending moment
b =
Mdo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
2I
129
Tool joint OD
6.750 in.
Joint length
31.0 ft
4.276 in.
I = d 4o d i4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
64
To account for the buoyancy of the drilling mud, we need to
calculate an effective weight for the pipe. The effective weight we
is given by
we = w m A, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
where m is the mud density in psi/ft and Athe pipe crosssectional area (in.2). Table 1 was developed from the pipe data.
First, we want to check to see if the pipe displacement is within
the wellbore. The maximum pipe sag is rp/rc, which equals 1.32,
which exceeds the calculated sag of 1.15, shown in Fig. 23, so the
pipe is within the wellbore. The pipe contact forces can be determined from Fig. 24, an enlarged version of Fig. 8 with 0 as
specified in Table 1. The center connector has contact force F0
equal to 564.8 lbf, and the lateral connector has a contact force F1
of 686.0 lbf. These contact forces compare to the buoyed pipe
weight of 502.5 lbf. The pipe bending moment is shown in Fig. 25,
with a maximum of about 3,062 ft-lbf at the deflected connector.
The maximum bending stress is given by Eq. 21:
b(3062ft-lbf)(12)do/(4I)3218 psi.
5.9/100 ft.
Conclusions and Observations
The lateral buckling of a beam with connectors has been formulated with the following features:
1. The wellbore is straight and horizontal.
2. Connectors are approximately in full tangential contact with the
borehole wall.
3. Beam bending moments are continuous at connectors.
4. Tangential shear is continuous at connectors.
5. Contact force between the wellbore and connectors is positive.
6. Pipe displacements lie within the wellbore.
7. Second-order geometrical effects are negligible.
131
The author believes that this solution represents the first exact
analytical solution of lateral buckling in a wellbore. From this
formulation we were able to develop bending stress in the pipe
body and contact forces at the connectors. These results assert that
the connector radial clearance should be used in lateral buckling
stability criteria, such as Dawson and Paslay,6 instead of the pipe
body radial clearance.
Before going further, we should consider the special nature of
this solution. The general problem of connecting beam-column
solutions together with connectors tangent to the borehole wall
does not always have a solution. The reason for this failure is that
each new beam adds only two degrees of freedom to the system,
but requires three boundary conditions to be satisfied (i.e., two
bending moments and one shear must be continuous at the connector). The special property of the solution presented in this paper
is that the moment boundary conditions are automatically satisfied
by the solution. This comes about because of the symmetrical
nature of the solution, as shown in Appendix A. Other symmetrical
solutions are possible; for instance, connectors could be moved to
the midpoints of the beams defined in this paper. The solution in
this paper represents the highest possible axial loads consistent
The buckling models presented here and in Ref. 3 are only first
steps to a comprehensive model. The next step should be the
analysis of contact between beam and wellbore. In the planar
connector models, the pipe body made point and continuous contact as the axial force increased. Similar results are expected for
helical and lateral buckling solutions. Additional results are needed
for solutions in inclined wellbores. Because the axial load is not
constant for these cases, the exact displacement solution must now
be expressed in terms of integrals of Airy functions. Questions
about existence of solutions to boundary conditions become much
more difficult.
Nomenclature
dc pipe connector diameter, in.
dh borehole diameter, in.
do pipe body outside diameter, in.
E Youngs modulus, psi
EI the tubular bending stiffness, lbf-in.2
F
F0
F1
Fc
Fp
I
L
M
Mi
rc
rp
s
t2, t3
we
133
b
0
LF/EI
dimensionless length
bending stress
initial buckling value of
pipe curvature (degrees/100 ft)
References
1. Lubinski, A.: Fatigue of Range 3 Drill Pipe, Revue de lInstitut
Franais du Ptrole (MarchApril 1977) 32, 2.
2. Paslay, P.R. and Cernocky, E.P.: Bending Stress Magnification in
Constant Curvature Doglegs With Impact on Drillstring and Casing,
paper SPE 22547 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 69 October.
3. Mitchell, R.F.: Helical Buckling of Pipe With Connectors, paper SPE
52847 presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 911 March.
u |=
3 1c
u 2
3 1
|= =
u |=
3 1
. . . . . . . (A-4)
(similar results for u2), clearly, transverse shear continuity will not
be automatically satisfied. Transverse shear continuity requires
d3
u
3 1
d3
u2 sin = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
d3
Rearranging and solving for cos gives
d
cos
(cos sin)
cos =
1 2
N sin 2 + 2cos sin
8 p
.
cos 12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
d3
u
3 1
d3
u
3 1c
rc d 3
= 2F
u | . . . . . . . (B-1)
L d3 1 =
s=L
ds
ds
Rearranging and solving for F1 gives
rc
2cos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
F1 = F
L cos sin
135
d3
d3
u
u2
2p
ds3
ds3
rc d 3
d3
= F
u
u
L d3 2p d3 2
s=0
. . . . (B-3)
rc 1 2
2sin1 cos
N +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-4)
F0 = F
L 4 p
sin 2 + 2cos
Appendix CPaslay-Dawson Derivation
Continuity of tangential shear has two possible solutions for ,
either sin equals 0, or cos is given by Eq. 16. If we look at the
case of cos1, this condition is satisfied at the initiation of
buckling. For this condition, Eq. 16 gives the relation between Np0
and 0:
8cos0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-1)
N 2p0 =
0 0cos0 sin0
There is a local maximum of Np0 for 0 satisfying
0 = tan20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-2)
m = 2.609890913, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-5)
which, when back substituted into Eq. D-2, gives
Fp
Fc
= 12.77654566 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-6)
137