4.

Buckling Phenomenon
Buckling is associated with structural elements that are thin in comparison to
their length. In civil engineering (e.g. bridge building), buckling requires
compression forces. In tubing, there is a further complication due to the presence of
internal and external pressures. This is demonstrated by considering a small section
of tubing with internal pressure (Figure 9.14).

Buckling can be important in tubing stress analysis for a variety of

reasons:
1. Potential high bending stresses and therefore low axial (and triaxial) safety
factors as well as bending loads on connections;
2. Large tubing-to-casing contact forces which, in the presence of drag, can restrict
axial loads transferring along the tubing
3. Torque on connections that, in extreme cases, can unscrew them;
4. Shortening of the tubing when buckled sometimes helpful, usually not;
5. Resulting doglegs that can limit through tubing access.
In conclusion on buckling, three scenarios are shown where buckling is a
key
component of the axial load (Figure 9.18).

1. This scenario has the completion fixed at the top and bottom with a tubing
hanger and production packer. The most severe buckling occurs where there is a
large amount of compression. The primary cause of compression will be
temperature, so a hot production case will promote buckling. Internal pressure will
also promote buckling. A high internal pressure coupled with high temperatures
therefore becomes an important load case. Such a scenario is a hot shut-in.

2. In this example, the completion is free to move at a PBR. Thermal and ballooning
load changes therefore only cause length changes and do not generate forces. The
piston load on the PBR is the primary cause of changes in axial load. For a seal bore
larger than the tubing internal diameter (i.e. most configurations), internal pressure
generates a compressive load whilst external pressure increases tension. Internal
pressure also promotes buckling. Any load case with high internal pressure will
therefore create significant buckling through these two effects. Such a scenario
could include a pressure test so long as any plug that the pressure test is against is
below the PBR. If the plug is above the PBR, the upward piston load from the PBR is
removed and a tensile load is created from the plug.

3. This is a slightly more complex scenario. The section with the largest radial
clearance will frequently have the greatest buckling load. Buckling of this section
will also be exacerbated by any internal pressure on the tubing crossover. This will
create a downward (compressive) force on this section. A hot shut-in scenario or a
pressure test load case could create significant buckling. In all cases, the details of
what happens with the first few joints above the liner top and below the tubing
crossover are hard to calculate analytically and FEA is required. In some cases, this
creates higher bending stresses than the analytical solutions (similar to connections
creating reduced radial clearances previously discussed). However, if the distance
between the tubing crossover and the liner top is short (a joint of tubing or so), the
bending stresses are often less severe than the analytical solution
Through tubing, access in buckled pipe can be improved by:
1. Being able to bend the toolstring by it being flexible or incorporating swivels.
Some well intervention modelling software includes these calculations.
2. Being able to partially unbuckle the tubing (either by applying or having sufficient
weight on the toolstring). The solution to this problem is given by Mitchell (1995).
3. Reducing the buckling, for example by applying annulus pressure or cooling the
well
Referensi: Bellarby, Jonathan. 2009. Well Completion Design. Oxford: Elsevier