SPE/IADC 140211

Which Material is Less Resistant to Buckling: Steel, Aluminum or Titanium

Drill pipe?
S.Bensmina, S.Menand, and H.Sellami, Mines ParisTech

Copyright 2011, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1–3 March 2011.

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 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 does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the 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 SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
Access to reservoirs in ultra-deep and extended reach drilling projects leads the industry to develop new resistant and higher-
strength materials. Drilling equipments manufacturers and drilling contractors have to meet higher requirements of operators
to manufacture and operate quality tubulars in these severe environments. However, with the increasing complexity (deep,
long, high-pressure/high-temperature, sour service) of drilled wells, steel may become a limiting drill pipe material. A non-
steel alternative material may exist such as aluminum, titanium or composite materials.
Buckling of steel, aluminum and titanium tubulars inside wellbore has been the subject of researches and articles in the past.
According to some authors, the light Young Modulus of lightweight drill pipes does not affect their buckling response: the
relative low stiffness of the pipes would be balanced by reduced contact forces with the wellbore.
This paper presents a full study discussing clearly the buckling response of steel and lightweight drill pipes in both
experimental bench and real field conditions.
This paper shows a full comparative study between steel, aluminum and titanium drillstrings in Extended Reach Drilling
(ERD) wells and studies the opportunity to use aluminum and titanium drillstring in ERD wells while the buckling, drilling
efficiency and drillstring integrity stay acceptable. Critical buckling loads for each drill pipe material and dimension is
reviewed and presented, using our numerical model and in the form of charts which could be used by drilling engineers. Along
this comparison, we also focus on drillstring rotation, tool-joints and dimensions effects on buckling loads.
Finally, this paper should give a better comprehension of the mechanical behavior of lightweight material for drill pipe, which
can improve significantly well planning to drill wells with an increasing depth, length and complexity.

State of the art

Introduction
Buckling occurs when the compressive load in a tubular exceeds a critical value, beyond which the tubular is no longer stable
and deforms into a sinusoidal or helical shape. The sinusoidal buckling (first mode of buckling) corresponds to a tube that
snaps into a sinusoidal shape. The first mode of buckling is sometimes called lateral buckling, snaking or two-dimensional
buckling. The helical buckling (second mode of buckling) corresponds to a tube that snaps into a helical shape (spiral shape).
The first work dedicated to the buckling behavior in oil-well operation was initiated by Lubinski. Since then, many theoretical
works and/or experimental studies have been developed to better understand the buckling phenomenon. A larg part of these
studies concentrated on the buckling phenomenon assuming steel drill pipes. Few studies (proposed by Gelfgat et al.1 & Smith
et al.2) provided informations about buckling behavior of aluminum and titanium pipes.
Today, materials such as aluminum or titanium are considered as viable options for drilling operations. Specific physical and
mechanical properties of these materials ensure high strength-to-weight ratio and a good corrosive resistance under given pH
connditions.

Physical and Mechanical Properties of Materials:

Many industrial and research studies have exposed the idea of using non-steel drillstrings in order to reduce torque and drag
loads in deep and extended reach-drilling. These materials are: high strength steels, aluminum, titanium and composites.
In actual drilling operations and field developments, steel is the most widely used material. Steel grades have continuously
been optimized for a better handling/manufacturing and a higher strength. The most important improvement is the yield
strength, which is the stress at which the material starts to yield. The recent steel drill pipes (SDP) developments lead to a yield
2 IADC/SPE 140211

strength close to 1138 MPa (165 ksi, Elliot et al3). However, these advancements in mechanical properties of steel grades
might give the way for crack propagation issues due to decreased fracture toughness.
Aluminum alloys are used since decades for drill pipes especially in the Former Soviet Union and Russia. Aluminum and
titanium drill pipes (ADP and TDP) present many advantages such as: reduced weight, higher flexibility, good corrosion
resistance, non-magnetic materials. The mechanical and physical properties of these materials are presented in Table 1.
The drillstring weight is one of the most important characteristics that affect drilling performance and cost. It depends on pipe
geometry, borehole trajectory, drilling fluid and drill pipe material density. In order to evaluate the performance of each
material for drill pipe, some authors use the strength-to-weight ratio (Gelfgat et al.4).

According to the authors this ratio represents also the ultimate length of the single size drillstring that can be suspended in the
air or in a liquid without exceeding the yield strength of the material.
Aluminum and titanium drill pipes are characterized by higher strength-to-weight ratio than steel drill pipes due to a lighter
specific weight despite reduced yield strength.
Moreover, aluminum and titanium alloys have more flexibility due to reduced Young modulus. In drilling operations this is
synonymous of a higher drill pipe distorsion in the wellbore and a buckling risk. A small number of theoretical and
experimental studies have been conducted on the risk of buckling for steel, aluminium and titanium drill pipes (Smith et al.2,
Gelfgat et al. 1, 4, Akgun et al.5). In the following section we will discuss the drill pipe buckling studies and theory.

Drill pipe Buckling: theoretical studies on drill pipe buckling

Introduction
The first work dedicated to the buckling behavior of pipes in oil-well operation was initiated by Lubinski6,7. Since then, many
theoretical works and/or experimental studies have been developed to better understand the buckling phenomenon. The aim of
the following section present briefely the different imporvement steps made during the last 50 years, in terms of theoretical
and experimental works, going from the basic buckling models to more complicated modeling. A comprehensive literature
review can be found in a recent paper (Cunha et al.8) referring the most important contibutions on the subject of buckling of
tubulars inside wellbores.

Theoretical works
The first theories were developed for perfect vertical wellbore without friction by Lubinski. Then the buckling behavior of drill
pipes in inclined wellbore was first proposed by Dawson and Paslay9, based on earlier work by Paslay and Bogy10. The authors
came to the following known critical buckling load for sinusoidal mode:
EIw sin(α )
Fcrsin = 2 (Eq.1)
r
where EI is the stiffness of the pipe, ω is the buoyed linear weight of the pipe, α is the inclination of the wellbore, and r is the
radial clearance between the pipe and the wellbore. The authors showed that for high angles of inclination, the drill pipe
becomes more resistant to buckling because of the support and constraint provided by the wellbore. The critical force given by
Eq.1 is considered by the authors as the onset of buckling in an inclined hole and is widely used in the drilling industry.
Having derived equations for straight wells (vertical, inclined and horizontal), some authors extended existing equations for
curved borehole (Schuh et al.11) or developed new theories for tubular strings in curved wells (Kyllingstad et al.12).

These equations, derived for perfect vertical, inclined, horizontal and curved wellbore, are subject to simplifying assumptions:
The pipe is continuous, whithout rotation, and the friction between the buckled drill pipes and the constraining wellbore is
often ignored. This is why some authors tried to take into account the friction effect (Mitchell et al. 198613, 199614), which has
a strong influence on tubular loads but without providing an equation to account for that effect. Others (Duman et al. 200315;
Mitchell and Miska 200616) investigated the effect of tool-joint on the buckling behavior of drill pipes in horizontal wellbores
and concluded that the presence of tool-joints may increase the critical helical-buckling load up to 20%.
Some equations also were developed (Wu et al.17) to take into account the effect of torsional load or torque during drilling. It
has been found that the critical buckling load is reduced when torsional load (torque) is present17 (He et al.18 1995).
Mitchell19 studied the buckling behavior of rotating drill pipes inside a straight horizontal wellbore and found that the critical
buckling load of a rotating pipe is 78% of the one obtained for a nonrotating pipe.
Although there seems to exist a general consensus for the onset of buckling (sinusoidal mode), there is some controversy
regarding the solution for critical force of helical buckling of tubulars inside wellbores (Cunha et al. 8, Aasen and Aadnøy20,
2002). Indeed, the equation for critical helical buckling in a straight deviated wellbore is given by:
EIw sin(α )
Fcrhel = λ
r (Eq.2)

where λ varies from 2.83 to 5.65 depending on the authors8,20.

IADC/SPE 140211 3

Buckling is known to increase the contact forces between the drill pipes and the wellbore and as a consequence increases both
torque and drag. An analytical expression of the contact force for a helical pipe has been developed by Mitchell13:
2
rF
W= (Eq.3)
4 EI
where F is the axial compressive load in the buckled pipe. Eq.3 has been verified in laboratory but is valid for a given axial-
compressive load range (Martinez et al.21 2000). To take into account this additional contact force caused by buckling, the
current practice is to include this contact force into a conventional torque-and-drag model22. However, this practice can give
only some approximation of torque and drag increase caused by buckling. Indeed, the coupling between drag and buckling is
so strong that computation of torque, drag and buckling should be performed simultaneously18. In fact, increased drag will
increase the compression in drill pipes, and this will lead to even more buckling and even higher contact forces leading again
to a drag increase.

Experimental studies
Many experimental studies have been carried out in the laboratory with reduced-size pipe to better understand the mechanisms
involved in the buckling phenomenon21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Some authors (Saliés et al. 27) investigate the helical buckling of tubulars
in inclined wellbores from vertical to horizontal. The author noticed a hysteresis effect caused by friction because buckling
loads measured were greater than unbuckling loads. Suryanarayana and McCann25 attributed this hysteresis effect to friction.
The authors showed also these theoretical expressions such as Eq.1 for the onset of buckling (sinusoidal) and Eq2. with λ=2.83
(helical) predict unbuckling loads rather than buckling loads. Because of friction, the buckling loads measured in the
laboratory were 40 to 70% higher than the corresponding unbuckling loads, showing that available theoretical expressions
underestimate the critical buckling loads in straight wellbores.

Conclusions
This short literature review shows that there are many and sometimes conflicting equations to determine the critical buckling
load. As a consequence, the first dilemma facing a designer is selecting the appropriate equation to define the critical buckling
force. The experimental studies show that these equations may produce acceptable buckling prediction only for a specific and
idealized case. It appears that there is not a unique buckling criterion valid for different operational situations. Indeed, a slack-
off situation (axial friction, no rotation) is totally different from a drilling situation (tangential friction, rotation, friction
torque), leading probably to two different critical buckling loads. Morever, these theories always have followed the same
assumptions: the wellbore has a perfect and unrealistic geometry (vertical, horizontal, deviated, curved) and the friction is
ignored, and conditions are relatively far from actual field conditions. If the rotation, friction and tortuosity effects have been
already studied in previous papers29, 30, one has extended the study to aluminum and titatium drill pipes that have the common
feature to have tool-joints made of steel

Model Description
This paragraph presents briefly the numerical model, called ABIS and dedicated to drillstring mechanics, from the drilling
bit to the rig surface28. The model can simulate any drilling-tool equipments – for directional analysis such as point-the-bit or
push-the-bit rotary steerable systems, steerable mud motor, adjustable gage stabilizers, and for torque/drag and buckling
analysis, all the tubulars going from conventional drillstring to coiled tubing. Each detail of the element is taken into account
such as tool-joint of the drill pipe. Different materials such as steel, aluminum, titanium can be handled. For example, the body
of drill pipe can be made of aluminium and the tool-joint made of steel. As the drillstring is discretized in very small beam
element, the model enables to focus on any critical drillstring component, such as measurement-while-drilling tools or any
electronic-measurement subs. The model takes ino account any external forces applied on each element of the drillstring, such
as hydraulic forces, temperature effect in case of high-pressure/high-temperature (HP/HT) wells.

Although the 3D mechanical behavior of drillstring is solved generally by using finite-element analysis, the ABIS model is
based on a numerical solving of integral equations that reduced the computational time greatly. Any geometry of well
trajectories can be simulated, with possible borehole enlargement, and the rotation of a beam element is taken into account
with the friction coefficient µr (see Fig. 1), making this model very close to field conditions. The model includes a contact
algorithm based on an iterative process: no contact is first assumed, and contact points are then calculated in introducing the
contact one after the other, and in selecting first the point of the drillstring that is the most distant from the wellbore.
The ABIS model performs torque, drag, and buckling simultaneously, taking into account the friction analysis of the increased
contact force generated by the buckling. These calculations are run within a short iterative process to check ehe equilibrium
state of the buckled drillstring (stable or neutral, Menand et al. 2009). Fig. 1 shows an exemple of buckled drill pipes in a
perfect horizontal wellbore and highlights the 3D contact between the wellbore and the drillstring.
Here, we used this model to predict the critical buckling loads for steel drill pipe (SDP), aluminum drill pipe (ADP) and
titanium drill pipe (TDP) in different situations.
4 IADC/SPE 140211

Results

Introduction
For this study, we considered a simple case of a 250m horizontal wellbore with some 5 inches OD and 4.27 inches ID pipes.
The tools-joints connected to the pipes have a 7.25 inches OD and a 3.5 inches ID. In order to compare only the material effect
(steel, aluminum, titanium), one first keeps these body and tool-joint dimensions constant for SDP, ADP and TDP as shown on
Table 2, and one assumes that body and tool-joint are made of the same material (no mixed material). One compares SDP,
ADP and TDP buckling loads in using the conventional buckling criteria (Eq. 1 & 2) and the numerical model (ABIS). Firstly,
we simulate a sliding motion and then one studies the effects of rotation. To quantify the effect of tool-joint, ADP and TDP
tool-joint are replaced by a steel tool-joint. At last, we consider existing commerical SDP, ADP and TDP in order to calculate
the critical buckling loads. In the following, one proposes these buckling loads comparisons:

- SDP, ADP (aluminum tool-joint) and TDP (titanium tool-joint) in sliding mode
- SDP, ADP (aluminum tool-joint) and TDP (titanium tool-joint) in rotating mode.
- SDP, ADP (steel tool-joint) and TDP (steel tool-joint) in sliding mode
- ADP (steel tool-joint) and ADP (aluminum tool-joint) in sliding mode
- Commerical ADP, TDP, SDP (in sliding or rotating mode)

As one uses in the equations 1 and 2, the same pipe dimensions, it is interesting to compare the number (EIρ)0.5 (stiffness x
density) between each material. One notes in Table 1 that (EIρ)0.5steel / (EIρ)0.5aluminum is 2.9 and (EIρ)0.5steel / (EIρ)0.5titanium is
1.8. For example, all other things being equal, that means that the buckling critical load of steel is almost 3 times the critical
buckling load of aluminum (whatever the buckling mode: sinusoidal or helical).

Sliding drillstring
Using Eq.1 and Eq.2 we can determine for each drill pipe the critical buckling loads. These loads correspond to the sinusoidal
buckling of the drillstring (Eq.1), the onset of helical buckling (Eq.2, λ=2.83) and the complete helix formation (Eq.2, λ=5.65).
Table 3 shows the critical buckling loads obtained for SDP, ADP and TDP, using our numerical model ABIS and compared to
the theoretical equations. One notes that the critical sinusoidal loads given by ABIS and Dawson & Paslay criteria are quite
similar in this perfect wellbore geometry. This already known result 29,30 is logically confirmed for non-steel drill pipes. One
notices that the lower young modulus coupled to the lighter material lead to a lower critical buckling load. Indeed, the
sinusoidal buckling occurs for a compressive load of 12.5 tons in a SDP, 5 tons in an ADP and 6.2 tons in a TDP. Similar
results are also noticed for the helical buckling loads, since the equation 2 with λ=2.83 enables to predict the onset of the first
helix as predicted by ABIS. The full helix configuration is obtained with λ=5.65. In order to compare these critical buckling
loads between different materials we have calculated the ratio between, for example, the sinusoidal buckling loads associated
to SDP and ADP, using ABIS results. The ratios obtained for drill pipes used here are presented in Table 3 and are similar to
values already calculated in Table 1. Figures 3a, 3b and 3c show the buckling shape of drillstrings for different levels of
compression.

Rotating drillstring
Menand et al.29 showed that critical buckling loads are much lower in a case of a rotating drillstring, using ABIS. Here, we
completed these observations by simulations of rotating drillstrings with aluminum and titanium drill pipes. The friction
coefficient between drill pipe and wellbore is assumed to be equal to 0.35. Table 4 shows the critical buckling loads calculated
by ABIS and equations 1 and 2. For example, the onset of helical buckling of SDP will occur at an average compressive load
of 11.5 tons during rotation, which is much lower than the critical load during a sliding motion (16 tons). This critical load
decreases from 6.4 to 3.6 tons for ADP and from 10.5 to 7 tons for TDP. These numerical results are in accordance with those
of Menand et al showing that the critical helical buckling load of a rotating pipe is about 50 % of the one obtained for a non-
rotating pipe (case of a straight horizontal wellbore, all other things being equal).

Steel tool-joints
Aluminum drill pipes are most often proposed with steel joints, making drill pipe more resistant to torsional loads (higher
make-up-torque). The buckling behavior of these heterogeneous drill pipes has been analyzed using ABIS for the sliding
mode. For this purpose, one has simply replace aluminum and titanium tool-joints by steel tool-joints of similar dimensions
(see Figure 5). The results in Table 5 show that critical buckling loads are slightly reduced with steel tool-joints. Figure 6
shows a comparison between side forces calculated by ABIS on ADP with aluminum or steel tool-joints. One notices that side
forces are greater in case of steel tool-joint.
IADC/SPE 140211 5

Commerical drill pipes

Table 6 shows the main characteristics of the three selected commercial drill pipes (SDP, ADP, and TDP). Note that ADP and
TDP body has a higher thickness than SDP, making them stiffer and more resistant. Firstly, using ABIS we calculate the
critical buckling loads for these drill pipes and compare them to Dawson & Paslay critical loads during sliding. Secondly, the
simulation of rotating pipes allows us to calculate new critical loads, as done before. The results given by ABIS and equations
1 and 2 for sliding motion, in terms of critical loads ratio are presented in Table.7. The SDP/ADP and SDP/TDP buckling
ratios calculated are respectively around 2.6 and 1.6. The analysis of the critical buckling loads during rotation shows, as seen
before, that a significant decrease of critical buckling loads is observed (see Table 8). In the case simulated, we have found
that the critical helical buckling load of a rotating ADP pipe is about 48 % of the one obtained for a non-rotating pipe. It is
about 52 % for SDP and 41% for TDP. It is worth noting that all this analysis has been performed under perfect wellbore
trajectory. Menand et al29, 30 has found that tortuosity may play a great role on the buckling phenomenon.

Conclusions
A comparison between critical buckling loads of steel, aluminum and titanium drill pipes given by numerical model ABIS, and
conventional equations of these materials has been performed. This comparison has been made in simulating perfect wellbore
conditions (no dog legs). The analysis of the results shows that:

- The buckling critical load of steel is almost 3 times the critical buckling load of aluminum and twice the critical
buckling load of titanium.
- The critical sinusoidal loads given by ABIS and conventional buckling criteria are quite similar in perfect wellbore
geometry
- The critical helical buckling loads of a rotating pipe is about 50 % of the one obtained for a non-rotating pipe

As already stated, it could be interesting to include the effect of dog legs to extend this study, as tortuosity may play a great
role in the buckling phenomenon. For practical drilling and completions operations, the ABIS model presently enables to
estimate critical buckling loads in any operating situations (rotary drilling, sliding, trip in the hole) and wellbore geometry, and
for any mixed drill string made of ADP, SDP and TDP. Indeed, as it takes into account correctly the young modulus of the
body and tool-joint material, it gives an accurate answer of the mechanical behaviour of the overall drill string.

Nomenclature
E - Young’s Modulus, MPa
Fcrsin - Sinusoidal critical compressive force, N
Fcrhel - Helical critical compressive force, N
I - Moment of inertia of drill pipes, m4
α - Inclination, deg.
ω - Buoyed linear weight of drill pipe, kg/m
r - Radial clearance, m
6 IADC/SPE 140211

References
1. Gelfgat M., Basovich V. S., Adelman A., Hansen R.: "Aluminium Alloy Tubulars—Assessment for Ultralong Well
Construction", paper SPE 109722, presented at the ATCE, Anaheim, 2007
2. Smith J.E., Chandler R.B, Boster P.L.: "Titanium Drill Pipe for Ultra-Deep and Deep Directional Drilling", paper SPE
67722, presented at the 2001 IADC/SPE, Amsterdam.
3. Elliott L., Buchoud V., Krepp T., "High-strength, thin-wall, all-steel drill pipe may provide solution for ultra-extended-reach
wells", Drilling Contractor Magazine, March 2009.
4. Gelfgat M., Basovich V.S., Tikhonov V.S.: "Drillstring with aluminum alloy pipes design and practices", paper SPE/IADC
79873, presented at the 2003 IADC/SPE, Amsterdam.
5. Akgun F., Maidla E. E., Basovich V., Gelfgat M.; "Why Not Use Aluminum in Drilling?", paper SPE 47823, presented at
the 1998 IADC/SPE, Amsterdam.
6. Lubinski A.: “A study On the Buckling of Rotary Strings”, API Drilling Production Practice, pp. 178-214, 1950
7. Lubinsky A., Althouse W.S. and Logan J.L. : “Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers”, paper SPE 178, presented at
the 36th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, Oct. 8- 11, Dallas, 1961
8. Cunha J.C. : “Buckling of Tubulars Inside Wellbores : A Review on Recent Theoretical and Experimental Works”, paper
SPE 80944, presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, USA, 22-25 March 2003
9. Dawson R. and Paslay P.R.: “Drillpipe Buckling in Inclined Holes”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1984
10. Paslay P.R. and Bogy D.B.: “The Stability of a Circular Rod Laterally Constrained to Be in Contact With an Inclined
Circular Cylinder”, Journal of Applied Mechanics, December 1964
11. Schuh F.J.: “The Critical Buckling Force and Stresses for Pipe in Inclined Curved Boreholes”, paper SPE/IADC 21942,
presented at the 1991 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 11-14 March 1991
12. Kyllingstad A.: “Buckling of tubular strings in curved wells”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 12 (1995),
209-218
13. Mitchell R.F.: “Simple Frictional Analysis of Helical Buckling of Tubing”, paper SPE 13064, SPE Drilling Engineering,
December 1986
14. Mitchell R.F. : “Comprehensive Analysis of Buckling With Friction”, paper SPE 29457, presented at the 1995 SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 2-4 April
15. Duman O.B., Miska S. and Kuru E.: “Effect of Tool Joints on Contact Force and Axial-Force Transfer in Horizontal
Wellbores”, paper SPE 85775, SPE Drilling & Completion, September 2003
16. Mitchell R.F. and Miska S.: “Helical Buckling of Pipe with Connectors and Torque”, paper IADC/SPE 87205, presented
at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, USA, 2-4 March 2004
17. Wu J.: “Torsional Load Effect on Drill-String Buckling”, paper SPE 37477, presented at the 1997 SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, USA, 9-11 March 1997
18. He X., Halsey G.W. and Kyllingstad A. : “Interactions between Torque and Helical Buckling in Drilling”, paper SPE
30521, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, USA, 22-25 October 1995
19. Mitchell R.F. : “The Effect of Friction on Initial Buckling of Tubing and Flowlines”, paper SPE/IADC 99099, presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Miami, Florida, USA, 21-23 February 2006.
20. Aasen J.A. and Aadnoy S.: “Buckling Models Revisited”, paper IADC/SPE 77245, presented at the IADC/SPE Asia
Pacific Drilling Technology, Jakarta, Indonesia, 9-11 September 2002
21. Martinez A., Miska S., Kuru E. and Sorem J.: “Experimental Evaluation of the Lateral Contact Force in Horizontal Wells“,
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, ASME, September 2000, Vol. 122
22. Miska S., Qiu W., Volk L. and Cunha J.C.: “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, Calgari, Canada, 18-20 November 1996
23. Kuru E., Martinez A., Miska S. and Qiu W.: « The Buckling Behavior of Pipes and Its Influence on the Axial Force
Transfer in Directional Wells”, paper SPE/IADC 52840, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, 9-11 March 1999.
24. Suryanarayana P.V.R. and McCann R.C.: “An Experimental Study of Buckling and Post-Buckling of Laterally
Constrained Rods”, Journal of Energy Resources Technology, June 1995, Vol. 117 20. Kuru E., Martinez 25. A., Miska S. and
Qiu W.: « The Buckling Behavior of Pipes and Its Influence on the Axial Force Transfer in Directional Wells”, Journal of
Energy Resources Technology, ASME, September 2000, Vol. 122
26. Salies J.B., Azar J.J. and Sorem J.R.: “Experimental and Mathematical Modeling of Helical Buckling of Tubulars in
Directional Wellbores”, paper SPE 28713, presented at the SPE International Petroleum Conference & Exhibition, Veracruz,
Mexico, 10-13 Oct. 1994
27. Zdvizhkov A., Miska S., Mitchell R.: “Measurement and Analysis of Induced Torsion in Helically Buckled
Tubing”, paper SPE/IADC 92274, presented at the SPE/IADC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005.
28. Menand S., Sellami H., Tijani M., Stab O., Dupuis D. and Simon C.: ”Advancement in 3D Drillstring Mechanics: from the
Bit to the Topdrive” paper SPE 98965 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, USA, 2006
29. Menand S., Sellami H., Akowanou J., Simon.C, Macresy L., Isambourg P., Dupuis D. "How Drillstring Rotation Affects
Critical Buckling Load?" paper SPE 112571 IADC/SPE 2008, Orlando.
IADC/SPE 140211 7

30. Menand S., Sellami H., Bouguecha A., Isambourg P., Simon C. : “Axial Force Transfer of Buckled Drill Pipe in Deviated
Wells”, paper SPE119861 for the 2009 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, in Amsterdam, Netherland

Borehole

rotation

Fc = normal contact force - μ t ^ Fc

frictional force
drillstring

Figure 1: Modeling of drillstring – borehole contact

Figure 2: Schematic of the case simulated for buckling (side view)

Figure 3.a: Sinusoidal Buckling, onset of Helical Buckling and Figure 3.b: Sinusoidal Buckling, onset of Helical Buckling and Complete
Complete Helical Buckling of Steel Drill Pipe – sliding case Helical Buckling of Aluminum Drill Pipe – sliding case
8 IADC/SPE 140211

Figure 3.c: Sinusoidal Buckling, onset of Helical Buckling and Complete Helical Buckling of Titanium Drill Pipe – sliding case

Figure 4: Sinusoidal Buckling, onset of Helical Buckling and Complete Helical Buckling of Rotating Steel Drill Pipe
IADC/SPE 140211 9

Figure 5: Schematics of drill pipes and connections simulated

Figure 6: Side force calculated by ABIS with ADP – aluminum versus steel tool-joints (compressive load = 5 tons, sliding mode)
10 IADC/SPE 140211

Unit Steel Grades Aluminum alloys Tianium alloys

Density (kg/m3) 7850 2800 4410
Yield Strength MPa 931 330 827
Young Modulus GPa 210 72 114
Poisson coefficient - 0.3 0.28 0.34
( EI ρ ) 1 2.9 1.8
( )
steel
EI ρ
material

Table 1: Mechanical and Physical Properties of steel, aluminum and titanium

Length(m) OD (in) ID (in) OD TJ (in) ID TJ (in) Hole Diameter

9.5 5 4.276 7.25 3.5 12.5
Table 2: Drill pipe characteristics and dimensions

  SLIDING
  Sinusoidal Buckling First Helix Full Helix
Critical Critical Critical
Dawson & Theory Theory
ABIS Loads ABIS Loads ABIS Loads
Paslay (λ=2.83) (λ=5.65)
Drill Pipe Ratio Ratio Ratio
Units tons - tons tons - tons tons - tons

SDP 12.5 1 11.8 18.3 1 16.7 33.5 1 33.4

ADP (Al. TJ) 5 2.5 4.1 6.4 2.8 5.9 12.5 2.7 11.7
TDP (Ti. TJ) 6.2 2 6.4 10.5 1.7 9.1 19.5 1.7 18.1
Table 3: Comparison between critical sinusoidal & helicoidal buckling loads obtained by ABIS and the Dawson & Paslay equations during sliding

  ROTARY
Drill Pipe Sinusoidal Buckling First Helix Full Helix
Critical Critical Critical
Dawson & Theory Theory
ABIS Loads ABIS Loads ABIS Loads
Paslay (λ=2.83) (λ=5.65)
Ratio Ratio Ratio
Units tons tons tons tons tons tons
SDP 7.5 1 11.8 11.5 1 16.7 16 1 33.4
ADP (Al. TJ) 3 2.5 4.1 3.6 3.2 5.9 6 2.7 11.7
TDP (Ti. TJ) 4 1.9 6.4 7 1.6 9.1 8 2 18.1
Table 4: Comparison between critical sinusoidal & helicoidal buckling loads obtained by ABIS and the Dawson & Paslay equations during rotating

Pipe Sinusoidal
First Helix Full Helix
Material Buckling
ADP (steel TJ) 4.5 5.5 12
TDP (steel TJ) 5.7 9.5 18
Table 5: Comparison between critical sinusoidal & helicoidal buckling loads obtained by ABIS for ADP and TDP with steel tool-joints

Pipe Body Tool-joint

Assembly weight
Material ID (in) OD (in) Material ID (in) OD (in) (kg/m)
SDP S-135 4.27 5.0 Steel 3.5 7.25 35.3
ADP (steel TJ) Al-Cu-Mg 4.21 5.0 Steel 3.7 6.25 15.1
TDP (steel TJ) Ti-6Al-4V 4.0 5.0 Steel 4.25 7.0 20.9
Table 6: Commercial drill pipes: dimensions and characteristics
IADC/SPE 140211 11

  SLIDING
Sinusoidal Buckling First Helix Full Helix
Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical
Dawson Theory Theory
ABIS Loads Loads ABIS Loads Loads ABIS Loads Loads
& Paslay (λ=2.83) (λ=5.65)
Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio
SDP 12.5 1 11.8 1 18.3 1 16.7 1 33.5 1 33.4 1
ADP 5 2.5 5.1 2.3 6.5 2.8 7.3 2.3 13.5 2.5 14.6 2.3
TDP 8 1.6 7.5 1.6 10.5 1.7 10.6 1.6 20.5 1.6 21.2 1.6

Table 7: Comparison between critical sinusoidal & helicoidal buckling loads obtained by ABIS and the Dawson & Paslay formulas – commercial
drillpipes – sliding mode

  ROTARY
Sinusoidal Buckling First Helix Full Helix
Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical
Dawson Theory Theory
ABIS Loads Loads ABIS Loads Loads ABIS Loads Loads
& Paslay (λ=2.83) (λ=5.65)
Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio
SDP 7.5 1 11.8 1 11.5 1 16.7 1 16 1 33.4 1
ADP 3 2.3 5.2 2.3 5.2 2.2 7.3 2.3 7 2.3 14.6 2.3
TDP 6.5 1.1 7.5 1.6 8.5 1.3 10.6 1.6 12 1.3 21.2 1.6

Table 8: Comparison between critical sinusoidal & helicoidal buckling loads obtained by ABIS and the Dawson & Paslay formulas - commercial drill
pipes – rotating mode