SPE/IADC 105067

Tubing Buckling Analysis With Expansion Joints

Robert F. Mitchell, Halliburton DEDS

Copyright 2007, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022 February 2007.
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
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, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
and International Association of Drilling Contractors 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 1.972.952.9435.

Abstract
A new type of tubing completion in use in the North Sea is a
fixed packer with an expansion joint several joints upstream of
the packer. The expansion joint installation may be either
pinned closed, or sheared and spaced out after packer
installation. The joint may or may not have a stop to prevent
jump-out. If the joint is pinned close, then a shear rating must
be specified for the shear pins. Additional information
necessary for expansion joint analysis includes the joint stroke
length, joint seal bore diameter, and installation space out, if
sheared.
There are distinct differences in the analysis of expansion
joints compared with conventional packer installations. This
paper details the tubing movement and stress calculations for
both pinned and sheared expansion joints. The pinned joint is
designed to fail at a specified tubing load, either compressive
or tensile. After pin shear, the tubing has free movement until
the joint closes, jumps-out, or is restrained by a stop. The
sheared joint movement calculation is distinct from
conventional tubing movement calculations because there are
two piston loads, instead of only one in a free packer. The
tubing below and above the joint may buckle. Bending as a
result of buckling may cause binding and friction loads in the
expansion joint.
This paper presents several example cases that give insight
into the potential benefits and problems of expansion joints in
comparison with conventional tubing completions.
Introduction
Expansion joints have been in common use in steam injection
wells to accommodate thermal expansion loads, for example,
Leutwyler (1965) and for more modern practice, Brunings
(2005). The use of expansion joints instead of packers or
PBRs in North Sea well completions is a relatively new
concept, for example, Gunnarsson (1994). The primary

motivation is the robustness and accessibility of the seals.

With an expansion joint in the tubing string, you can pull the
top 2/3 of the string with the seals in the upper (female) part of
the joint. It is then relatively easy to replace these seals. The
male polished stub remains in the well and, if needed, is easy
to clean up. If its ruined, you only have to unscrew from the
packer to get the final part of the tubing string, run a new
assembly back in, and latch up again. Also, the expansion
joint in the string goes in pinned. After you run it, you can
shear the pins and then seat the tubing hanger with minimal
space out issues. With a PBR, the seals are bigger, more
costly, and you have to pull the entire string to get at them.
Cleaning up inside a PBR is dodgy at best, and space out using
pups in the string is difficult.
What is special about the analysis of tubing movement with
expansion joints? Tubing movement was first studied in detail
in the classic paper by Lubinski (1962). This paper considered
free and fixed packers in a vertical wellbore. Many of the
calculations, such as ballooning and buckling, were tied to this
vertical well assumption. First, we want to consider these
effects in more generality. Second, the expansion joint
introduces some new considerations. Expansion joints are run
pinned. The pinned joint is designed to fail at a specified
tubing load, either compressive or tensile. After pin shear, the
tubing has free movement until the joint closes, jumps-out, or
is restrained by a stop. The sheared joint movement
calculation is distinct from conventional tubing movement
calculations because there are two piston loads, instead of only
one in a free packer. Both the tubing below and above the joint
may buckle. Each of these conditions will be considered in the
following analysis.
Movement Calculations with Expansion Joints
In order to focus on the special case of expansion joints, the
basics of tubing movement calculations have been placed in
three appendices. Appendix A summarizes tubing movement
calculations, as in Lubinski (1962) and Hammerlindl (1977),
but reformulated for more general load distributions and
tubing configurations. Appendix B summarizes tubing
buckling results necessary for tubing movement calculations.
Appendix C summarizes the basics of curved wellbores, which
are needed in Appendix B.

There are four components of tubing movement identified by

Lubinski:
1. L1 Hookes Law length change

2. L2 Buckling length change

3. L3 Pressure ballooning
4. L4 Thermal expansion
The Hookes Law component contains two effects: pressure
boundary loads produce L1p, and, for lack of a better term,
compatibility loads produce L1f. For fixed packers, we must
find the load that satisfies the displacement compatibility
conditions. In Lubinski (1962), that condition is L equal to
zero. For more complex problems, such as the use of
expansion joints, new compatibility conditions must be
defined.
There are four distinct configurations for expansion joint
analysis:
1. Pinned joint
2. Spaced out joint
3. Closed joint
4. Restrained joint
In case 1, the tubing loads are carried by the shear pins, and
we must know the magnitude of these loads to properly size,
or evaluate the design. To determine these loads, we must
know the bore of the expansion joint. The force balance
needed to evaluate the shear pin force is illustrated in Figure 1.
We are looking at the male end of the joint, and summing
forces:
Fsp = Fa + p i (A b A i ) p o (A b A o ) . . . . . .(1)
where Fsp is the total shear pin force, pi is the internal pressure,
Ai is the tubing internal area, po is the annulus pressure, Ao is
the total cross-sectional area of the pipe, and Ab is the bore
area. How the force is distributed among the shear pins will
have to be determined by the manufacturer. The buckling
analysis of this scenario is simply the buckling analysis
described by Lubinski (1962) or Hammerlindl (1977) for fixed
packers, with the exception of using a more general buckling
model (Appendix B).
The second case has the tubing free to move within the
expansion joint, so the compatibility loads vanish. The
boundary condition pressure load for the male end can be
determined from equation (1), with Fsp set to zero. The force
equation for the female end is the same, assuming that the
pressures do not vary much over the length of the joint, so that
external pressure-area effects will cancel. There are now two
tubing sections to analyze, the section upstream from the joint
to the fixed packer, and the section downstream from the joint
to packer or slips above. Each section must be analyzed
separately, and the net length change compared to the motion
available in the joint. If the motion is closing, and exceeds the
space-out, then the joint will close and we must perform a type
3 calculation. If the motion is opening and exceeds the
remaining stroke, then the joint will open, or be restrained by a
stop. If restrained, we must perform a type 4 calculation.
The third case has the joint fully closed, so that tubing loads
are carried by the expansion joint. In this case, the
displacement constraint is:
L u + L d = L so
. . . . . .(2)

SPE/IADC 105067

where Lu is the length change of the upstream section, Ld

is the length change of the downstream section , and Lso is
the joint space-out. To close the expansion joint, the net tubing
length change must be positive. The compatibility load, a
compressive load applied to both strings, must produce
displacements that satisfy this constraint.
Finally, in case 4 we consider a joint that has a stop to prevent
jump-out of the tubing. In this case, the displacement
constraint is:
L u + L d = L so L st
. . . . . .(3)
where Lst is the stroke of the expansion joint. To pull out,
the net tubing length change must be negative (shorter), so the
right hand side of equation (3) must also be negative.
Finding the Compatibility Load
In case 3, we must find the value of Fa that satisfies equation
(2) or in case 4, we must solve equation (3). Once we have
determined L1p, L2, and L3 for both upstream and
downstream segments, and computed an initial value of L4,
we can use equation (A-12) to compute an initial guess for
Fa. You may need, at most, to double this estimate to bracket
the solution. After the solution is bracketed, an efficient
method for refining Fa, such as Ridders method (Press,
1992, pp 351-352) will give the required answer.
Sample Calculations
The following conditions were used for a sample calculation
of axial forces on an expansion joint set above a fixed packer:
- The wellbore is vertical
- The packer is set mechanically
- The expansion joint is set 95 meters above the packer.
- The expansion joint is sheared and spaced out. (Free
movement, meaning that seal stem is not influencing the
forces working on the female expansion joint)
- A 7 29 ppf tubing is used in the calculations.
- Tubing length is 2550 meters
- Annulus ID is 12.5 inches to 1750 meters, and 9.76 inches
to 2550 meters.
For comparison, this same problem is posed without an
expansion joint and with a PBR replacing the fixed packer,
which would be the alternative packer installation.
The load cases considered in the sample problem are shown in
Figures 2-4. Figure 2 shows the tubing pressure for the five
load cases
1. Running and Packer Setting
2. Tubing Pressure Test
3. Annulus Pressure Test
4. Injection
5. Production
In Figure 2, the Annulus Pressure Test has the same tubing
pressure as the Running condition. Figure 2 shows the annulus
pressure distribution, which only varies from the nominal
hydrostatic pressure for the Annulus Pressure Test. Figure 4
shows the tubing temperatures for worst case injection and
production, along with the undisturbed temperature which was
used for the running, setting, and pressure test conditions.

SPE/IADC 105067

Figure 5 shows the tubing installation loads for the expansion

joint and for the PBR. The expansion joint case shows lower
axial forces. This is because the boundary condition in each
case is pressure driven, but the pressure is evaluated and
applied at different depths, the PBR case at the total tubing
depth, the expansion joint 95 meters higher. When we look at
the triaxail loads in Figure 6, we see that the triaxial loads are
zero at the points of pressure application, at total depth for the
PBR, and at the expansion joint location.
Figure 7 shows the pressure test loads. Unsurprisingly, the
loads are simply translated according to the applied pressures.
The triaxial stresses, shown in Figure 8, are more interesting.
First, internal pressure will cause buckling, which causes a
discontinuity at 5742 ft (1750 m) for the tubing pressure cases.
The discontinuity is caused by bending stresses developed by
buckling, and the change in radial clearance because of the
change in annulus diameter. The annulus pressure case does
not have the discontinuity because there is no buckling, which
is surpressed by the high external pressures. The trend with
depth also changes because the impact of the increased
pressure on the von Mises stress is reversed for internal and
external pressures.
Figure 9 shows the impact of injection and production loads
on the tubing. The main change in loading is the different
temperatures used for injection and production. Because
neither the expansion joint nor the PBR close, the
temperatures have no effect on the loads. Only the different
pressure distributions cause differences in the load results,
combined with the different initial conditions. The greater
pressures in the injection case produce buckling stresses, as
shown in Figure 10. Again, we see a discontinuity in the
stresses at the change in annulus inside diameter. The
production case does not buckle at this depth, so we see no
discontinuity.
Tables I and II show the various components of tubing
movement for the expansion joint and the PBR, repectively.
First, notice that the ballooning and thermal length changes
are the same for both cases, because the loading is identical.
Second, note that we have 362 feet of buckling when setting
the expansion joint, but no buckling for the PBR. The weight
of the string between the expansion joint and the fixed packer
puts this section of the tubing in compression, resulting in
buckling. We also saw this effect in Figure 6. The Hookes
law terms, since they are driven by pressure boundary
conditions, are different between the expansion joint and the
PBR, because the pressures are taken at different depths.
These differences in loading also drive the buckling length
change terms. In addition, tubing weight buckles the string
below the expansion joint. The buckled length terms differ for
the same reason.
Conclusions and Observations
The classic methods of Lubinski (1962) and Hammerlindl
(1977) are not general enough to model modern well
completions, including the use of expansion joints. This paper
outlines the length change equations that must be solved to
determine the displacement compatability of the tubing string.

This consists, as in the original Lubinski (1962) paper, of four

types of tubing length change:
1. L1 Hookes Law length change
2. L2 Buckling length change
3. L3 Pressure ballooning
4. L4 Thermal expansion
Here these quantities are expressed in a form suitable for
efficient numerical calculations. The special boundary
conditions appropriate to expansion joints are specified, and
suitable numerical solution methods are given.
A simple example shows the difference between the loads and
stresses in expansion joints compared to a PBR. The most
notable difference is the buckling which takes place in the
section between the fixed packer and the expansion joint. This
section will likely be buckled, exept in cases with high annular
pressures. Overall, the loads and stresses do not vary greatly
between these two cases, so a successful PBR completion
could be converted to an expansion joint completion with
confidence.
Nomenclature
Ab
Ai
Ao
Ap
Apb

=
=
=
=
=

r
b =

area of the expansion joint bore, (in2)

internal flow area of the pipe, (in2)
total cross-sectional area of the pipe = Ai+Ap, (in2)
cross-sectional area of the pipe, (in2)
area of the packer bore, (in2)

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
r =
n =
nz =
pi =
po =
R =
v
r =
rc =
s =
s1, s2 =

binormal vector
z coordinate of the binormal vector
moment of inertia, (in4)
pipe outside diameter, (in)
buckling strain
ballooning strain
thermal strain
Youngs elastic modulus, (psi)
Youngs elastic modulus of mth section, (psi)
actual axial force in the pipe, (lbf)
buckling force, (lbf)
initial value of buckling force, (lbf)
critical lateral buckling force, (lbf)
total shear pin force, (lbf)
acceleration of gravity, (ft/s2)
bending moment, (in-lbf)
axial torque, (lbf-in)
normal vector
z coordinate of normal vector
internal pressure of the pipe, (psi)
external pressure of the pipe, (psi)
radius of curvature, (in)
position vector of wellbore center, (in)
radial clearance, (in) )
measured depth, (in)
measured depths, (in)

tz =
u =
wc =

tangent vector
z coordinate of the tangent vector
axial displacement, (in)
contact force (lbf/in)

bz
I
d0
eB
eH
eT
E
Em
Fa
Fb
Fb0
FL
Fsp
g
Mb
Mt

r
t =

SPE/IADC 105067

wc =

average contact force (lbf/ft)

wbp =
wp =

buoyant weight of the pipe (lbf/in)

weight of pipe in air, (lbf/ft)

He, X. and Kyllingstad, A. 1995. Helical Buckling and LockUp Conditions for Coiled Tubing in Curved Wells,
SPEDC (March).

=
Fa =
eB =
eH =
eT =
Fjp=
Fj=
Ld =
L1 =
L1f =
L1p=
Lso=
Lst =
Lu =
L2 =
L3 =
L4 =
pi =
po =

coefficient of thermal expansion (F-1)

compatibility force, (lbf)
change in buckling strain
change in ballooning strain
change in thermal strain
change in axial force due to area change at sj, (lbf)
change in axial force over section j, (lbf)
downstream total length change, (in)
Hookes Law length change, (in)
Hookes Law length change due to force, (in)
Hookes Law length change due to pressure, (in)
expansion joint space out, (in)
expansion joint stroke, (in)
upsteam total length change, (in)
buckling length change, (in)
ballooning length change, (in)
thermal length change, (in)
change in internal pressure of the pipe, (psi)
change in external pressure of the pipe, (psi)

Leutwyler, K. and Bigelow, H. L. 1965. Temperature Effects

on Subsurface Equipment in Steam Injection Systems,
JPT (January).

i
o

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

wellbore curvature (in-1)

dynamic friction coefficient
wellbore trajectory inclination angle
density of fluid inside the pipe (lbm/in3)
density of fluid outside the pipe (lbm/in3)
pipe angular deflection
wellbore trajectory azimuth angle
angle between tangent vectors in minimum curvature
calculation, (radians)
derivative with respect to s

superscripts
+ = upstream value
= downstream value

References
Brunings, C., Quijada, W., and Grisoni, J.C. 2005. New
Completion Developments for the Production of Heavy
and Extra-Heavy Oil in Eastern Venezuela, SPE/PSCIM/CHOA97914 presented at the InternationalThermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta,
(1-3 November).
Gunnarsson, B., Tnnessen, S.H., and Stensland, J.F. 1994.
Evolution of the Snorre Field Downhole Completion
Systems, SPE 28890 presented at the European Petroleum
Conference, London, (25-27 October).
Hammerlindl, D. J. 1977. Movement, Forces, and Stresses
Associated with Combination Tubing Strings Sealed in
Packers, JPT (February).

Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.S., and Logan, J.L. 1962. Helical

Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers, JPT (June).
Mitchell, R. F. 1997. Effects of Well Deviation on Helical
Buckling, SPEDC (March).
Mitchell, R. F. 1999. Buckling Analysis in Deviated Wells: A
Practical Method, SPEDC (March).
Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T. and Flannery,
B.P. 1992. Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77, Second
Edition, Volume 1, New York City: Cambridge University
Press.
Sawaryn, S.J. and Thorogood, J.L. 2003. A Compendium of
Directional Calculations Based on the Minimum
Curvature Method, SPE 84246 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, (October 5-8).
Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J.M. 1961. Theory of Elastic
Stability, New York City: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Appendix A: Tubing Equilibrium and Length
Change Calculations
Tubular forces are determined by pressures, tubular weight,
external mechanical forces (e.g. packer loads), and friction. The
axial force varies with depth due to the tubular weight and
friction:
Fa (s) = w p cos f w c
. . . . . .(A-1)
where Fa is the axial force (sign convention: tensile force
positive), = d/ds, wp is the tubular weight per foot in air, is the
angle of inclination of the wellbore with the vertical, f is the
friction coefficient, and wc is the contact force between the
tubing and casing. The friction is positive for incremental
tubular movement upward, and negative for incremental tubular
movement downward (such as landing the tubular). The contact
force depends on the buoyant weight of the tubular, wellbore
curvature, axial force, plus the effect of buckling. (Caution: in
this development, s is measured from the surface. In some
papers, s is measured from the bottom of the string.) The
frictional force is not easy to calculate because it depends on the
load and displacement history of the tubular string. Using elastic
relationships, Equation (1) can be expressed:

{EA [u(s) e
p

e H e B ]} = w p cos f w c . .(A-2)

where:
u =
E =
Ap =

axial displacement
Young's modulus
tubular cross-sectional area

SPE/IADC 105067

T , thermal strain
-2(piAi - poAo)/EAp
axial strain due to hoop stresses
the buckling "strain" in the sense of Lubinski
(1962).
and is the coefficient of thermal expansion, T is the
temperature, is Poissons ratio, pi is the internal pressure, po
is the annulus pressure, Ai is the internal flow area, and Ao is
the total cross-sectional area of the pipe. In this analysis we
will not consider the frictional forces.
eT =
eH =
=
eB =

We are interested in changes to equation (A-2) resulting from

changes in well conditions:

{EA [u(s) e
p

e H e B ]} = 0 . . . . . .(A-3)

The in equation (A-3) represent change of conditions from the

initial state (running, packer setting and slackoff, or cemented
conditions) to the final loaded state. If we refer back to equation
(1), we can integrate equation (A-3):
Fa = EA p u (s) e T e H e B . . . . . .(A-4)

If we rearrange equation (4) and integrate:

F
u = a + e T + e H + e B ds . . . . . .(A-5)
EA p

we get an equation for u, the total tubing length change. In

the original Lubinski (1962) paper, four types of tubing length
change effects were defined:
1. L1 Hookes Law length change
2. L2 Buckling length change
3. L3 Pressure ballooning
4. L4 Thermal expansion
We can identify these terms in equation (A-5):

L1 =

Fa
ds
EA p

L 2 = e B ds
L 3 =

2[p o A o p i A i ]
ds
EA p

Fjp = p o (A oj+ A oj ) p i (A ij+ A ij ) . . . . . .(A-7)

where plus (+) indicates the area seen moving in the positive s
direction from the connection at sj, and minus () indicates the
area seen moving in the negative direction from the connection,
remembering that tension is positive. We can calculate the
change in pressure load at the end of the pipe, which will be the
change in axial load Fa:
Fa = (A pb A o )p o (A pb A i )pi . . . . . .(A-8)
for tubing sealed in a packer, with packer bore area Apb, and
otherwise:
Fa = (A i A o )p o
. . . . . .(A-9)
where internal pressure must equal annular pressure. If there
are N area changes, there (3)
are N+1 sections of constant area.
We can calculate the force change in each section backward
from the end condition using the force increments given in
equation (A-7):
N

Fj = Fa Fmp ,

j N

m= j

= Fa ,

. . . . . .(A-10)

j = N +1

The Hookes Law length change due to pressure changes is

given by:
N +1
F L
L1p = mm mm

m=1 E A p

. . . . . .(A-11)

where Em is the Youngs modulus of section m, Apm is the

cross-sectional area of section m, and Lm is the length of
section m. Given an initial value of Fa, equation (A-11) need
be evaluated only once.
If the tubing string is fixed at both ends, we must find an
additional force Fa that will satisfy displacement
compatibility, that is, L equal zero. The remainder of the
Hookes Law length change needed for fixed tubing strings is:

. . . . .(A-6)

L 4 = Tds
If we assume no initial buckling, no area changes, a straight
vertical wellbore, and incompressible fluids, then Lubinskis
equations follow. Many modern wells will not satisfy these
conditions, so we must consider equations (A-6) in more
generality. The easiest terms to calculate are the ballooning and
thermal expansion length changes. Given pressure and
temperature distributions, the integrals in equation (A-6) need be
evaluated only once, by any of several accurate numerical
methods (see Press, 1992).
A second pressure contribution can be seen in the Hookes law
length change term. As Hammerlindl (1977) observed, a tubing
string can be modeled as a series of cylinders connected one to
another. At the points of connection there will be a change in
internal and external area, see Figure (A-1), which will produce a
force through fluid pressures:

N +1
L
L1f = Fa m mm

m =1 E A p

. . . . . .(A-12)

The total Hookes Law length change term is then:

L1 = L1p + L1f
. . . . . .(A-13)
where only the last term might be unknown.
The final length change term is due to buckling. A significant
difference is that we cannot use incremental forces to determine
the buckling strain (length change per unit length), rather, we
need the complete solution to equation (A-2) for both the initial
conditions and the final conditions. Given these solutions, we
can calculate the buckling force Fb:
Fb = Fa + p i A i p o A o
. . . . . .(A-14)
Then the calculation of L2 becomes:

L 2 = e B ds |final e B ds |initial

. . . . . .(A-15)

The initial part of equation (A-15) need be determined only

once, but notice that the final part may depend on Fa. Appendix
B gives the basic relations of eB as a function of Fb. If we

SPE/IADC 105067

know how Fb varies with depth, we can use some of the

special cases described in Appendix B, but in general,
equation (A-14) must also be evaluated by numerical means.

r
.08
.92
e B = .7285 c Fb (Fb FL )
4EI

Appendix B: Tubing Buckling Correlations

The full equations for buckling in deviated wells are nonlinear and sufficiently difficult to be unsuitable for design
calculations (Mitchell, 1997). Examination of the results of
numerical analysis of these equations (Figure B-1), however,
suggest that simple formulas match the numerical results well
enough to develop useful correlations for buckling analysis
(Mitchell, 1999).

which compares to the helical buckling strain:

. . . . . .(B-5)

r
e B = c Fb
4 EI

. . . . . .(B-6)

To determine the buckling length change Lb, we need to

integrate equations B-5 and B-6 over the appropriate length
interval:
s2

Lateral Buckling Criteria

Two types of buckling are assumed to take place in wellbores,
lateral or snake-like buckling (Figure B-2) and helical
buckling (Figure B-3). Initial buckling is assumed to be lateral
buckling, with transition to helical buckling at a higher
buckling force.

L 2=

. . . . . .(B-7)

ds

s1

where measured depths s1 and s2 are defined by the distribution

of the buckling force Fb. For that case of constant force Fb, such
as in a horizontal well, equation B-7 is easily integrated:
s2

The minimum force necessary, i.e. the critical force FL, needed
to initiate lateral buckling for a pipe lying in the bottom of a
deviated well is given by (He, 1995):

FL =

4EIw c
rc

. . . . . .(B-1)

ds = e B L

The second special case is for a linear variation of Fb over the

interval:

Fb ( z ) = wbp cos s + Fb0

s2

. . . . . .(B-3)

For lateral buckling, the following is an accurate approximation

for the integration of equation (B-5), with Fb1 equal to FL:

dz =

s1

Result (B-2) is determined using equation (C-6) from wellbore

trajectory parameters described in Appendix C.
Helical Buckling Criteria
In practice, pipe will transition from lateral to helical buckling at
some intermediate value between 2 FL and 2.8FL because of
irregularities in the wellbore geometry, and will fall out of the
helix for values of Fb less than 2 FL. Only helical buckling is
expected for buckling forces greater than 2.8FL. Experimental
studies have verified these results, at least qualitatively, and
further experimental studies are continuing to investigate this
behavior.
Buckling Strain and Length Change
The buckling strain, in the sense of Lubinski (1962) is the
buckling length change per unit length. The buckling strain is
given by the following relationship:

e B = 1 2(rc ) 2

Fb 2

1
cos

. . . . . .(B-2)

and

wbp = w p + ( i Ai o Ao ) g

. . . . . .(B-9)

For constant inclination angle , we can now evaluate equation

(B-8) by change of variables:

where:
2 2
wc = ( wbp n z Fb ) 2 + wbp
bz

. . . . . .(B-8)

s1

. . . . . .(B-4)

For the case of lateral buckling, we must determine the average

strain in terms of the maximum strain. The shape of the curve
for lateral buckling (Figure B-1) was integrated numerically to
determine the following relationship:

w bp

. . . . . .(B-10)

dF

Fb 1

rc
(Fb 2 FL )[.3771Fb 2 .3668FL ]
4EIw bp cos
2

L 2 =

. . . . . .(B-11)
The integration of equation (B-6) gives the familiar Lubinski
result for helical buckling:
2

L 2 =

rc
Fb22 Fb21
8EIw bp cos

. . . . . .(B-12)

Appendix C: Calculating the Wellbore Trajectory

v
The normal method for determining the well path r (s) is to
use some type of surveying instrument to measure the
inclination and azimuth at various depths and then to calculate
the trajectory.
At each station, inclination angle and azimuth angle are
measured, as well as the course length s between stations.
These angles have been corrected to true north, if a magnetic
survey, or for drift, if a gyroscopic survey. The survey angles
v
define the tangent t to the trajectory at each station, where
the tangent vector is defined in terms of inclination and
azimuth in the following formula:

v
t = { cos() sin() , sin() sin() , cos() } (C-1)

SPE/IADC 105067

The method most commonly used to define a well trajectory is

called the Minimum Curvature method (Sawaryn, 2003). In
this method, we connect two tangent vectors with a circular
arc, as illustrated in Figure C-1.

C/L

Pi

In this Figure we have a circular arc of radius R over angle ,

v
connecting the two tangent vectors t1 at measured depth s1,

Ab

Fsp

v
and t 2 at measured depth s2. The arc length is R = s2-s1 =

s. Notice that the angle is also the angle between the

v
v
tangents t1 and t 2 . From this we can immediately determine
R:

Ai

Po

v v
R = s / = s / cos ( t1 t 2 ) = 1 / . . . .(C-2)
1

Ao

The following equations define a circular arc:

Fa

r
v
t1 R sin[ ( s s 1 )] + n 1 R {1 cos[ ( s s 1 )]} + r1
r
r
t1 cos[ ( s s 1 )] + n 1 sin[ ( s s 1 )]
v
v
t1 sin[ ( s s 1 )] + n 1 cos[ ( s s 1 )]
v
r r
t1 n 1 = b 1

v
r (s ) =
v
t (s ) =
v
n (s ) =
r
b (s ) =

Figure 1: Shear Pin Force Balance

. . . . . .(C-3)
v
The vector r1 is just the initial position at s = s1, and = 1/R

1000

v
is the curvature. The vector t1 is the initial tangent vector.

v
v
v
v
t (s 2 ) = t1 cos s + n 1 sin s = t 2
which we can solve for

3000

depth ft

v
The vector n 1 is the initial normal vector. If we evaluate
equation (C-3)b at s = s2, we find:

Running
Pressure Test
Injection
Production

2000

4000

5000

6000

. . . . . .(C-4)

7000

v
n1 :

8000

9000
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

pressure psi

v r
v
t t cos( s) v
v
n1 = 2 1
= t 2 csc( s) t1 cot( s)
sin( s)

Figure 2: Tubing Pressures

. . . . . .(C-5)
The vertical components of equation (C-3) are used in
equation (B-2).

Running, Injection, Production

Pressure Test

1000

2000

t z ( s ) = t 1 z cos[ ( s s 1 )] + n 1 z sin[ ( s s 1 )]
n z ( s ) = t 1 z sin[ ( s s 1 )] + n 1 z cos[ ( s s 1 )]
v v
t 1 z = t 1 iz
v v
n 1 z = n 1 iz
v
v v
r r
b z ( s ) = ( t 1 n 1 ) iz = b 1 i z
t + n + b =1
2
z

2
z

2
z

depth ft

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

pressure psi
Figure 3: Annulus Pressures

. . . . . .(C-6)

7000

8000

9000

10000

SPE/IADC 105067

1000

1000

2000

2000

3000

3000

4000

4000

Depth ft

Depth ft

5000

6000

5000

6000

7000

EJ Tubing Pressure
PBR Tubing Pressure
EJ Annulus Pressure
PBR Annulus Pressure

7000

8000

8000

9000
0

50

100

150

200

1000

2000

2000

3000

3000

4000

4000

Depth ft

5000
Running
EJ Setting
PBR Setting

6000

55

60

7000

8000

150000

200000

9000
-100000

250000

-50000

70

50000

100000

150000

200000

Axial Force lbf

Axial Load lbf

Figure 5: Installation Loads

Figure 9: Injection and Production Loads

6500

6700

1000

6900

2000

EJ Injection
PBR Injection
EJ Production
PBR Production

7100

3000

Depth ft

7300

Depth ft

65

EJ Injection
PBR Injection
EJ Production
PBR Production

6000

8000

100000

50

5000

7000

50000

45

Figure 8: Pressure Test Triaxial Stress

40

von Mises Stress psi

1000

9000
-50000

35

Running, Pressure tests

Injection
Series3

Figure 4: Tubing Temperatures

7500

4000

5000

7700

6000
7900

Series1
EJ Setting
PBR Setting

8100

7000

8000

8300

8500

9000
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

von Mises stress ksi

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000
EJ Tubing Pressure
PBR Tubing Pressure
EJ Annulus Pressure
PBR Annulus Pressure

7000

8000

-100000

-50000

50000

100000

15

20

25

30

Figure 10: Injection and Production Triaxial Stress

1000

9000
-150000

10

von Mises Stress ksi

Figure 6: Installation Triaxial Loads

Depth ft

Depth ft

9000

250

30

Temperature F

150000

Axial Force lbf

Figure 7: Pressure Test Loads

200000

250000

300000

35

40

SPE/IADC 105067

C/L

Pi

Ao

Fpj

j+

j+

Ai

sj

j-

Ai

Po

j-

Ao

Figure A-1: Force Due to Area Change

Figure B-2: Lateral Buckling Deformation

Po
Ai
Ao

Fa
Packer
Pi

Apb

C/L

Figure A-2: Packer Force Boundary Condition

Figure B-3: Helical Buckling Deformation

10

SPE/IADC 105067

1.25

iN

1.00

0.75
Lubinski

0.50

0.25

iE

2.5

0.00

-0.25

-0.50

iZ

Deviated Well
Correlation

-0.75

-1.00
0

0.5

1.5

Fp

Figure B-1: Buckling in Deviated Wells

Figure C-1: Inclination and Azimuth

t2

t1

R = 1/
R

t2
s
t1

Figure C-2: Circular Arc

2.5

SPE/IADC 105067

11

Table I: Expansion Joint Tubing Length Change

LOAD CASE
Setting
Tubing P
Annulus P
Injection
Production

Hookes
Law
Buckling
(ft)
(ft)
-0.31
0
-2.69
-0.93
0.65
0
-1.79
-0.34
-1.06
-0.05

Ballooning Thermal
(ft)
(ft)
0
0
-2.73
0
3.5
0
-1.87
-4.17
-0.91
4.81

TOTAL
(ft)
-0.31
-6.35
4.15
-8.18
2.79

Buckled
Length
(ft)
362
8298
0
6430
3212

Table II: PBR Tubing Length Change

LOAD CASE
Setting
Tubing P
Annulus P
Injection
Production

Hookes
Law
Buckling
(ft)
(ft)
0
0
-2.38
-0.85
0.96
0
-1.49
-0.29
-0.75
-0.04

Ballooning Thermal
(ft)
(ft)
0
0
-2.73
0
3.5
0
-1.87
-4.17
-0.91
4.81

TOTAL
(ft)
0
-5.96
4.46
-7.82
3.11

Buckled
Length
(ft)
0
8298
0
6031
2841