IADC/SPE 27490

Solution of Common Stuck Pipe Problems Through the Adaptation

of Torque/Drag Calculations
GA Haduch, ORO Corp., and R.L. Procter and D.A. Samuels, Shell UK E&P
SPE Members

Copyright 1994, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1994 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 15-18 February 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE 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 the 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 IADC or SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are SUbject to publlcallon
review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT friction effects and their impact on the final solution

is emphasized. A wide range of operational cases
Stuck pipe conditions require fast and effective are presented, and comparisons showing important
response. This paper describes a method through benefits over other calculation methods are
which torque/drag calculations can be adapted to included.
quickly and accurately answer the three most often
asked questions associated with stuck pipe situations.
This approach is used to determine: INTRODUCTION

• the force at the stuck point given any In order to deal effectively with stuck pipe
measured weight situations, the driller needs to know how his actions
the measured weights required to set and trip at the surface will change the forces both in the
ajar drillstring and at the stuck point. In addition, high
the measured weight required for backing off costs and the potential for rapidly changing
at a given depth conditions downhole, demand that this information
be made available quickly and efficiently. 1,2,3
The method correctly accounts for the critical Fortunately, the answers to such questions can be
role which drag forces play in these calCUlations. extracted in timely fashion using an existing
Further significant enhancements over previous technology which, today, is routinely applied during
methods are provided by taking into account both the planning operations, but can be easily utilized in
operating condition at the time of sticking and any real-time situations.
subsequent surface action taken by the driller before Torque/drag analysis programs have gained
stopping operations. The integration of this wide acceptance as critical plannin2 tools since their
methodology with currently available torque/drag introduction over a decade ago. Their ability to
analysis software, provides the drilling engineer with a model three dimensional wellbores, accurately
wider range of solutions for problems associated with account for the drillstring geometry, and support
day-to-day operations. multiple friction factors, provides a greater degree of
The theoretical basis for this method is accuracy to torque and drag calculations than is
summarized, and drillstring behavior prior to, during, otherwise possible using typical hand calculation
and after sticking is explained. An understanding of methods. 5,6 While solving for the primary
operational modes of tripping out, tripping in, rotating
off bottom and drilling, many of today's
comprehensive programs also include such effects
References and figures at end of paper as buckling and drillstring bending stiffness. 7,8

531
 2 SOLUTION OF COMMON STUCK PIPE PROBLEMS
THROUGH THE ADAPTATION OF TORQUE/DRAG CALCULATIONS
For the most part, programs of this type are
based upon the simplifying assumption that either
there is no drag or that drag is working everywhere
along the drillstring in the same direction. Since the
direction of drag is opposite to that of motion, these
programs pre-define the direction of friction as either
upstring (trip in), down string (trip out), or tangential
(rotate), depending upon the operating condition being
analyzed. For these modes of operation, such
assumptions are entirely appropriate, since typically
the entire drillstring is either moving or stationary.
Torque/drag programs subdivide the entire
drillstring into a series of short lengths for which
calculations are performed. Calculations begin with
either known or assumed forces at the bit, and
proceed up the drillstring in sequential fashion, solving
for equilibrium of each subdivision, with the final result
being the measured weight for the given operating
condition. Programs used for planning are not
designed to predict drillstring behavior during the
transition from one operating mode to another, they
strictly address what the final conditions will be once a
given mode is achieved.
However, when the drillstring becomes stuck,
the driller is forced to pursue a course of action which
is not covered by one of these standard modes. Very
often, his actions involve working the pipe up and
down in an attempt to either exert force on the stuck
point, set and trip jars, or prepare for backing off.
Although the entire string is no longer free to
move, the techniques used in standard torque/drag
calculations can be adapted to predict the forces being
transmitted to any part of the drillstring at or above the
stuck point. The key to successful application of these
calculations is a clear understanding of how friction
imposes a path dependent solution in which loads are
transmitted from the surface to the stuck point in a
particular sequence.
DISCUSSION
We begin by examining the non-conservative
nature of friction forces as demonstrated in Figures 1
and 2. Figure 1a shows two blocks interconnected with
a spring and resting upon a surface. In addition, one
block is also connected to ground with the same type
of spring. Initially at rest with no horizontal forces
present, the system is in equilibrium. For clarity,
weights, normal forces and spring symbols are
replaced in the remaining drawings with free body
diagrams showing only the horizontal forces.
532
IADC/SPE 27490
Figures 1b,c,d show the process of
overpulling on Block A until both blocks have moved
some distance and there is a force at the ground
point. Note that Block B does not move until Block A
has moved first, and that no force is transmitted to
ground until Block B moves.
Figure 2 shows the sequence of events
during total slack off of the horizontal force applied in
Figure 1. Figure 2a is the final equilibrium position
achieved in Figure 1d. Following the sequence of
reducing the applied force, we finally see in Figure
2d that even though all of the applied load has been
removed, resulting in motion of Block A, the friction
force in Block B has not been reversed. Therefore,
Block B remains stationary and the force on ground
remains unchanged from its value at the beginning
of the unloading sequence.
On a frictionless surface, the applied force
would be instantly transmitted to both blocks,
resulting in simultaneous motion. In this case, when
the applied force is removed, both blocks return to
their original positions and the final ground force is
once again equal to zero.
We can now convert this model to a
continuous form, similar to a drillstring of constant
cross-section, by considering a spring on an inclined
plane. If the spring is sufficiently soft, we can reduce
the length of the demonstration to a manageable
distance. Consequently, we refer to this model as
the "SLlNKY"TM analogy.
Imagine the drillstring as a soft spring, held at
the top and resting on a plane at an inclination of 30
degrees from horizontal. If the spring is not moving,
then all of the forces acting upon the spring, both in
the direction normal and parallel to the surface of the
plane, must be in eqUilibrium. In this simplified
example, the significant forces and their
counterparts in the actual drillstring are:
"Slinky" model prillstring
Reaction force at top Measured Weight
Self weight in air Self weight in fluid
Friction Drag
Since we have not specified how the spring
was placed in this equilibrated condition, it is not
possible, at this time, to know precisely the
directions in which the friction forces are aligned, if
indeed there are any friction forces at all. To place
the spring in an equilibrium position about which we
can make some reasonably accurate assump.tions
 IADC/SPE 27490 HADUCH, G.A., PROCTER, R., SAMUELS, D.
regarding friction, we proceed to vibrate the spring at
the top in a lateral direction. This action causes the
friction forces along the drillstring to point in the lateral
direction. As this reduces the component of friction in
the axial direction to zero, the string will stretch under
its own weight until it reaches a new equilibrium
condition. If we now stop the lateral motion, we have a
condition about which we can reasonably assume that
there are no friction forces at work in the axial direction
and that the reaction force at the top equals the weight
of the string in the direction parallel to the plane. The
spring is now in a state analogous to the rotating off
bottom condition and the reaction at the top is in effect
the free rotating measured weight.
We next assume that at some point near the
bottom of the spring, a stuck pipe condition occurs. We
simulate this by fixing the spring at the designated
stuck point with our other hand while holding the top in
its fixed position. Notice that at this instant, there is no
reaction force exerted on the hand at the stuck point.
If we were to draw a free body diagram of the drillstring
and stuck point at this time (Figure 3), we would see
that the axial forces in the string on either side of the
stuck point are equal to each other and the
constraining force is zero.
If we now begin pulling up at the top, that is
increasing the measured weight, it is clear that the
entire string between the top and the stuck point does
not begin to move in unison. In fact there is a gradual
progression downhole of the leading edge of motion as
the measured weight is increased. What is occurring,
is a sequence of events in which any given point on the
spring will not move until there is sufficient axial force
at that point to overcome the maximum friction force.
Once that occurs, the point slides and begins
transmitting an axial force to the point immediately
below.
In this ideal model, only after friction reaches
a maximum at every point between the surface and the
stuck point, does any additional increase in measured
weight result in the transmittal of force to the stuck
point. Since we assume that nothing below the stuck
point moves, conditions, and hence forces,
immediately below the stuck point remain unchanged
from those present at the instant of sticking. We can
determine these initial forces using conventional
torque/drag calculations. If, given some force at the
surface, we are able to compute the force in the
drillstring just above the stuck point, we can then
compute the current force at the stuck point from
equilibrium considerations. (Figure 4)
533
3
Consider now the case where the spring is
initially being pulled up the inclined plane with
sufficient force such that the entire spring is moving
(Le.: tripping out). If we reach out and fix some point
on the spring while it is moving, we notice that the
entire spring between the top and the stuck point
continues to move upwards, that is, stretch. This
occurs because friction is already at its maximum
value along the entire free length. In this case, force
is transmitted to the stuck point immediately.
Finally, consider what happens during
unloading at the surface in either of the two cases
described above. In both cases, the measured
weight has been SUfficiently increased such that
force is being applied at the stuck point. This means
that drag is directed downward along the drillstring
between the surface and the stuck point and is
everywhere at its maximum value. As the driller
slacks off his measured weight, the friction forces at
the uppermost part of the string begin to decrease,
become zero, and the then increase in the opposite
direction until the top of the string begins to slide
down. Once the friction force reaches its maximum
value in the reversed direction, this part of the string
slides down and begins transferring load to the
section of string immediately below it. Again there is
a sequential point by point progression of motion
from the top of the string to the stuck point as the
measured weight is slacked off. At the first instant
When this leading edge of motion reaches the stuck
point, there still exists a tensile force which was
created by the earlier overpulling action. Before
compressive forces can be applied at the stuck
point, additional slack off must first reduce the
existing force to zero.
The non-conservative nature of friction
forces leads to three basic realizations regarding
solutions of stuck pipe problems. First, the operating
condition of the drillstring at the time of sticking must
be taken into account. This solution establishes the
initial state of drag, the measured weight at the time
of sticking, and the forces in the drillstring both at the
stuck point and at the jars. Second, any action taken
after sticking and prior to the time of analysis must be
considered. These actions further modify the internal
and external forces on the drillstring. Third, in order
to compute the effects of changing the current
measured weight, the directions of all drag forces
must be determined. As we have seen, changing the
direction of action at the surface, results in a reversal
of drag forces in some or all of the drillstring.
 4 SOLUTION OF COMMON STUCK PIPE PROBLEMS
THROUGH THE ADAPTATION OF TORQUE/DRAG CALCULATIONS
SOLVING FOR FORCE AT STUCK POINT
In solving for the force at the stuck point, we
are interested in determining how much force will be
applied to the sticking mechanism ~iven a change in
the measured weight at the surface. As was stated in
the previous discussion, we compute the force at the
stuck point from equilibrium considerations at that
location. Since the axial force on the downhole side of
that point can be easily determined from a torque/drag
analysis using the operating mode at the time of
sticking, the primary task is to devise a method of
computing the axial force in the drillstring just above
the stuck point for any given measured weight.
This can be accomplished by simply reversing
the order of calculations in the existing torque/drag
program and stopping when the measured depth of
the stuck point is reached. Rather than classifying the
force at the bit as the known quantity, we start with a
given measured weight, and solve the same series of
equilibrium equations beginning at the surface. If the
problem is treated as linear and the calculation is for a
true equilibrium state, then the choice of which
direction to use is governed only by what is known and
what is unknown.
The difficulty with this approach lies in the
method by which directions are assigned to the drag
forces. Under certain conditions, not all of the drag
forces will be pointing in the same direction. One
possible solution is to couple the equilibrium equations
with a finite element formulation which incorporates an
axial stick-slip model for friction. In this scheme, the
equilibrium equations provide the estimates for axial
and contact force, while the finite element model
solves for the magnitude and direction of the drag
force. This method requires an iterative solution
scheme, which when converged, correctly predicts the
drag forces and their associated directions along the
drillstring given any measured weight.
While the above solution scheme is effective,
there are some drawbacks. First, the iterative nature of
the computations results in markedly longer computer
execution times. Second, and more importantly,
robustness becomes an issue owing to the
computational sensitivities inherent whenever friction
models are implemented in these types of iterative
solutions. 10
Although a program of the type described
above was developed and proved successful by the
authors, implementation of such a sensitive tool in a
production environment was considered impractical.
In order to create a reliable tool which would produce
534
IADC/SPE 27490
useful results for the variety of problems
encountered in real drilling situations, a less
comprehensive but equally valid approach was
pursued.
While the comprehensive solution provides
results for any surface load, not all of those loads
produce effects at the stuck point. According to our
ideal spring model, forces are not transmitted to the
point of interest until all friction forces above that
point are aligned in the same direction. Using this
assumption, we can dispense with any solutions in
which the state of friction between the surface and
the stuck point is not uni-directional.
In order to define the range of measured
weights where solutions are not required, we
determine the two "bounding" measured weights by
solving the torque/drag equations from the stuck
point to the surface twice. In one set of calculations,
the drag forces are all directed upstring, and in the
second calculation set, all drag forces are directed
downhole. For both analyses, the starting condition
is the force in the drillstring at the time of sticking.
Subsequently, solutions for measured weights
outside of the bounding values are obtained by
starting at the surface and applying the torque/drag
equations. For measured weights within the
bounding limits, the force at stuck point is by
definition equal to zero.
When comparing results from this simplified
method with those of the comprehensive method, we
obtain the same solutions for measured weights
outside of the bounding values. The only significant
difference is that the comprehensive solution obtains
the correct solution for drag directions and drillstring
forces within the bounding weights, although as
discussed earlier, these solutions produce no effects
at the stuck point.
Table 1 contains a sample of the tabular
output for a typical stuck pipe analysis using the
method described above. The drillstring in this
example consists of 5 inch drillpipe and 6 5/8 inch
heavy weight. Bit depth is 11,600 feet. and the
maximum wellbore inclination is 70 degrees. The
stuck point is at 11,420 feet. In this analysis, the
driller has specified a current measured weight of
230 klbs, which is an overpull condition relative to
the instant of sticking as evidenced by the 16.4 klbs
of tension initially present at the stuck point.
Figure 5 depicts the force at the stuck point
for the example of Table 1. Note that the driller must
slack off to 180 klbs of measured weight before the
force at the stuck point begins to decrease. The
 IADC/SPE 27490 HADUCH, G.A., PROCTER, R., SAMUELS, D.
force then continues to decrease in tension and finally
increase in compression as the measured weight is
continually slacked off. The onset of buckling occurs at
approximately 130 klbs measured weight, and the
effects associated with that condition begin to interfere
with the further transmission of force to the stuck point.
Using the same drillstring and wellbore data,
Figure 6 contains graphs of measured weight versus
force at stuck point for three different initial conditions
at the time when sticking occurred: tripping out,
rotating off bottom, and drilling. In these cases, the
current measured weights are taken to be those
computed from initial torque/drag analyses and the
maximum amount of slackoff is limited by buckling of
the drill pipe. Note that for the drilling case, buckling
occurs shortly after starting to slack off, allowing only
a small compressive force to be applied at the stuck
point.
Figure 7 superposes two solutions for the
same problem in which different current measured
weights of 150 klbs and 230 klbs were considered. The
combined plot, therefore, shows the hysteretic nature
of the force at stuck point when cycling between those
two measured weights.
SOLVING FOR MEASURED WEIGHTS TO SET AND
TRIP JARS
Most hand calculations designed to predict the
measured weights necessary to successfully operate
jars require estimates of drag as some percentage of
the buoyed weight of drillstring above the jar 11 or as
the difference between the trip weight and the free
rotating weight 12,13. More recently, recommen-
dations on using torque/drag calculations for
improving overpull estimates on up firing hydraulic jars
have appeared in the literature 14. . are supported. The pump open and internal friction
The process of computing setting and tripping
forces in jars is a specialized application of the
techniques described in the preceding section. In this
case, the driller's goal is to establish a specific load
condition in the jar mechanism. In addition, the driller
may have to cycle over a series of actions at the
surface, perhaps in order to continuously fire the jar in
one direction. Therefore, the complete analysis of the
operational requirements includes the calculation of
the measured weights to initially set, subsequently fire,
and finally reset the jar in question. Both up and down
jar calculations are performed.
Operational differences between hydraulic and
mechanical jars, primarily regarding resetting for
535
5
repeated firing, must be taken into account. Jars are
typically designed to be fully compensated for
hydrostatic pressure and this allows the drilling jar to
operate at any hole depth. However, pressure
differences between the inside and outside of the
drilling jar cause a pump open effect which acts as a
force on the jar mechanism. The pump open effect is
a characteristic of all drilling jars, and must be
included in the calculations. Therefore, solutions
with the pumps on and off are included within the
program.
Referring once again to our spring model, we
can assume that the entire string above the jar must
be moving in the same direction in order to effect the
forces in the jar. It remains a simple matter to apply
the torque/drag calculations from the jar to the
surface, using the desired force in the jar as the
starting axial load. Pump open forces and forces
required to overcome internal friction in the jar are
correctly accounted for. Initial forces in the jar,
including any overpull or slackoff after the initial
sticking, are computed as before and provide the
reference condition for the first set of calculations.
Calculations are performed in a three step
sequence. Once the initial conditions are
established, the first solution obtained is the
measured weight required to set the jar. Since jars
are normally run in tension, they may already be set
for down jarring under the initial conditions. The
second calculation is for the measured weight
required to fire the jar. Once the jar has been fired,
the final calculation performed is for the measured
weight required to reset the jar for another firing in
the same direction.
Table 2 contains a typical example of the
results from a jar force analysis. Hydraulic,
mechanical, and hydromechanical jar mechanisms
forces are supplied by the user.
SOLVING FOR MEASURED WEIGHTS FOR
BACK OFF
The calculations for backing off are similar to
those for jarring, in that the user specifies an axial
force which he wishes to. generate at a
predetermined measured depth. This force is
typically either a small tensile load or zero, with the
requirement that the drillstring above the back off
measured depth be in a hoist condition.
 6 SOLUTION OF COMMON STUCK PIPE PROBLEMS
THROUGH THE ADAPTATION OF TORQUE/DRAG CALCULATIONS
As in the jarring calculations, the program first
determines whether overpull or slackoff is required to
achieve the target axial force, and applies the torque/
drag calculations starting at the back off measured
depth. If the initial action required to achieve the back
off force is an overpulI, the solution process is
complete. Should the initial solution be a slackoff
analysis, a second analysis step is automatically
performed to calculate the measured weight
associated with a hoisting action which leaves the
back off force at the target value.
Table 3 contains results for a sample back off
calculation in which sticking occurred while tripping
out, and where the current measured weight is 300
klbs. In order to back off, an initial slack off of 112 klbs
is required at the surface in order to reduce the force
at the back off depth to the desired 1 klb of tension.
This is followed by an overpull of 75 klbs which leaves
the back off force at the prescribed value, but places
the drillstring above the back off depth into a hoisting
condition.
FIELD CASE EXAMPLES
Case 1
In this case, the drillstring became stuck while
drilling when the bit reached a measured depth of
10,292 feet at an inclination of 52 degrees. The drill
string initially stalled out and was left stationary for a
short time, after which the string was found to be stuck.
Later, wireline logs indicated the presence of a
permeable sandstone, thus confirming differential
pressure as the sticking mechanism.
The drillstring consisted of an 8 1/2 inch bit
followed by a series of four stabilizers including an
MWD tool. The jar was located 200 feet from the bit
with two 6 1/4 collars below and 421 feet of 5 inch
heavy weight drill pipe above followed by 5 inch drill
pipe to the surface. A finite element based drillstring
deflection analysis program was used to ascertain the
extent of contact between the drill collars and the
wellbore in the sandstone zone. Based upon
component sizes, length of formation contact and
friction factors, it was estimated that a minimum
freeing force of 330 klbs was required.
Up jarring was initiated using the maximum
allowable overpull for the drillstring at 410 klbs
measured weight. This proceeded without any
problems, except for the lack of movement at the stuck
536
IADC/SPE 27490
point. Eventually down jarring was also attempted,
although successful jarring action in this direction
was not detected at the surface. After some time
spent jarring without success, the string was backed
off and sidetracked.
Both stuck pipe and jar force analyses were
conducted in a post mortem investigation. The stuck
pipe analysis (Figure 8) indicated that the onset of
buckling occurred at a measured weight of around
140 klbs, with little load transfer to the stuck point
occurring once slack off went beyond 80 klbs
measured weight. In light of this, measured weight
limits for effective up and down jarring were
determined to be 410 klbs and 130 klbs,
respectively.
The jar force analysis (Table 4) indicated that
at 410 klbs measured weight a tension of 125 klbs
was placed across the jar and a force of 116 klbs
was generated at the stuck point.· At 125 klbs
measured weight, a compression of 55 klbs was
generated in the jar and force of 60 klbs was
imparted to the stuck point. Using the jar
manufacturer's guidelines, a maximum impact
magnification factor of 2.0 would have been
estimated for the jar given the drillstring's
configuration. This meant that a maximum impact
force of 250 klbs could be expected at the jar in the
upward direction, resulting in an impulse force at the
stuck point which was inadequate with respect to the
minimum required freeing force.
Use of the jar force program in a planning mode
could have resulted in recommendations for a
different drillstring makeup, possibly one including
an accelerator.
Case 2
This case involves a new well which became
stuck while running into the hole. At the time of
sticking, the bit had reached a measured depth of
5578 feet with a maximum wellbore inclination of 64
degrees. The BHA consisted of a 17 1/2 inch bit,
motor, and a single stabilizer with 15 3/4 inch
diameter blades. A hydraulic jar was located 330
feet from the bit with 121 feet of 8 1/2 inch collar
below and 61 feet of 8 1/2 inch collar above. The
remainder of the string included 642 feet of 6 5/8 inch
heavy weight pipe followed by 5 inch drill pipe to the
surface. Mud weight was 11.6 ppg and an average
friction factor of .24 was determined using available
trip data. A block weight of 55 klbs was recorded.
 IADC/SPE 27490 HADUCH, G.A., PROCTER, R., SAMUELS, D.
Up jarring was attempted using gradually
increasing overpull with full circulation. Initial efforts
were unsuccessful, but up jar action was finally
established 1 1/2 hours later after the pumps had been
cut back. No down jar action was obtained during
repeated attempts using 80 klbs (65 klbs slack off) at
the surface with the pumps off.
After 12 hours, a spotting fluid was introduced with
no apparent success, but shortly thereafter, when the
amount of slack off was increased to 85 klbs, the down
jar began to fire. Nine hours later, a free point indicator
(FPI) was lowered and, using both tension and torque
tests, failed to find free pipe in the collars above the jar,
even though surface data indicated that the jar was
working. The FPI was removed and jarring efforts
were resumed. Finally, 30 hours after the string first
became stuck, jarring was suspended and
preparations were made for backing off. The back off
shot was placed at the first joint below the jar and an
initial attempt was made using a measured weight of
155 klbs and a torque of 19,500 ft-Ibs. This effort failed
to part the string and a second shot was made up and
run in to the same location. This time a measured
weight of 180 klbs and torque of 17,000 ft-Ibs proved
successful. The total time from initial sticking to pulling
out of hole was approximately 52 hours, including a 6
hour loss to make up a new string shot and execute a
second back off attempt.
An inspection of the stuck pipe analysis for this
case (Figure 9) indicates that the maximum
compressive force available at the stuck point without
buckling of the drillstring is 40 klbs at a measured
weight of 97 klbs. This value of measured weight is
well above the forces used to jar down in the field.
Furthermore, at the two slack off weights which were
primarily used, the jar force analyses indicate that only
8 percent of the additional slackoff reaches the jar
mechanism. This suggests that string motion above
the jar has virtually ceased at the lower measured
weight. This data, coupled with the poor down jar
performance history and the FPI results, indicates that
the buckled drillstring is preventing proper action of the
down jar.
A back off analysis (Table 5) of the stuck
drillstring predicts that a measured weight of 179 klbs
is required to create a neutral axial force condition at
the desired back off location. This agrees very closely
with the actual values used in the second, successful
attempt. Had the program been available in the field
prior to the first attempt, a time savings of 6 hours
would have been realized just in this phase of the
operation.
537
7
CONCLUSION
A method for adapting existing torque drag
calculations in order to compute drillstring forces
under stuck pipe conditions has been developed and
tested. In summary, the procedure to compute the
force at the stuck point is:
1. Determine the initial force in the drillstring
at the instance of sticking using a standard
torque/drag solution.
2. Compute the bounding measured weights
for the initial force by solving twice from the
stuck point to the surface, again using a
standard torque/drag solution. The two
solutions differ in the assumed direction for
drag.
3. Compare the current measured weight
against bounding measured weights.
a. If the current measured weight falls
between or on the bounding values,
then the initial force in the drillstring is
that computed in Step 1 and the initial
force at the stuckpoint is zero.
b. Otherwise, solve from the surface to
the stuck point using a reversed torque/
drag solution and get a new force in the
drillstring at the stuck point. Repeat
Step 2 using this new force and get new
bounding measured weights. One of
these will be the same as the current
force at the surface.
4. Solve for any measured weight outside of
the bounding values, using reversed
torque/drag analysis, obtain the resulting
force in the drillstring above the stuck point
and compute the force at the stuck point
from equilibrium.
The method correctly accounts for the
nonconservative nature of friction forces, the
operating conditions at the time of sticking and any
actions at the surface prior to the time of analysis.
Given a measured weight at the surface, the
calculation procedure described in this paper can be
used to predict the resulting forces at the stuck point.
 8 SOLUTION OF COMMON STUCK PIPE PROBLEMS
THROUGH THE ADAPTATION OF TORQUE/DRAG CALCULATIONS
The technique has been further adapted to
enable the calculation of measured weights required to
successfully operate a jar located above the stuck
point. Finally, the measured weight required to
establish conditions for backing off at a prescribed
measured depth can also be computed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Shell U.K.
Exploration and Production, operator in the U.K. sector
of the North Sea for Shell and Esso, for permission to
publish this paper. The authors also extend their
appreciation to Mr. Stefan Varga of ORO Corporation
for his assistance in the preparation of the field
analyses presented herein.
"Slinky" is a registered trademark of James Industries,
Inc.
REFERENCES
1. Weakley, A.R., "Use of Stuck Pipe Statistics to
Reduce the Occurrence of Stuck Pipe", SPE Paper
20410, presented at the 65th SPE Technical
Conference, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 23-26, 1990.
2. Bradley, W.B., et aI., "A Task Force Approach to
Reducing Stuck Pipe Costs", SPE/IADC Paper 21999,
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, March 11-14, 1991.
3. Nimmo, P., Kamp, A.W., et al.,"Explosive Cutting
of Stuck Drillpipe and Bottom Hole Assemblies", SPE
Paper 13003, presented at the 1984 European
Petroleum Conference, London, England, October 25-
28,1984.
4. Johancsik, C.A., Friesen, D.B., and Dawson, R.,
"Torque and Drag in Directional Wells - Prediction and
Measurement", IADC/SPE Paper 11380, presented at
the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb.
20-23, 1983.
5. Brett, J.F., Beckett, A.D., Holt, C.A., Smith, D.L.,
"Uses and Limitations of a Drillstring Tension and
Torque Model to Monitor Hole Conditions", SPE Paper
16664, presented at the 62nd SPE Technical
Conference, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
538
IADC/SPE 27490
6. WELLPLAN Users Manual, Version 4.0, ORO
Corporation, Tulsa, OK, 1992.
7. Child, A.J., Ward, A.L., "The Refinement of a
Drillstring Simulator: Its Validation and Applications",
SPE Paper 18046, presented at the 63rd SPE
Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5, 1988.
8. Ho, H-S, "An Improved Modeling Program for
Computing the Torque and Drag in Directional and
Deep Wells", SPE Paper 18047, presented at the 63rd
SPE Technical Conference, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.
9. Bakker, T., Procter, R., et al. "ABC of Stuck Pipe",
Shell U.K. Exploration and Production Well
Engineering Quality Improvement Project,
Aberdeen, May 1991.
10. Nagtegaal, J., and Rebelo, N., "On the
Development of a General Purpose Finite Element
Program for Analysis of Forming Processes", Int. J. for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol 25, 119-121
(1988).
11. Askew, W.E., "Computerized Drilling Jar
Placement", IADC/SPE Paper 14746, presented at the
1986 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, Feb.
10-12,1986.
12. Hydra Jar Operations Manual S83, Weir Houston
Engineers Ltd, Aberdeen,Scotland.
13. Bowen Hydromechanical Drilling Jar Operation
and Placement Guide, Bowen Tools Inc., Houston, TX,
Second Printing, December 1987.
14. Aarrestad, T.V., "Drag Calculations Improve
Efficiency of Hydraulic Jars", Oil & Gas Journal, March
29,1992.
0 Maximum Friction = uN = F
iN
® + -0- -0 -i>~ 4-~
No Motion

F F
CD + -@2
4- f2
2~-1> ~F
4-F
Motion of Block A only

F 3 3
® ~~ 2@2"F
2~-1>~F Motion of Blocks A and B
4- F 4-F

Figure 1: Friction During Overpull

F 3 3
0 }~ 2@2"F
2~-1>~F Overpull Equilibrium
Position
4- F 4-F

F 3 3

® }~ 2§2 F
2~-i>~F No Motion
4-- F

F
2@2 3 3
}~
F
CD 2~-i>~ Motion Impending in
Block A
4-- F ---i> F
@) }~ !:@F
2 8 ~ Motion of Block A only
4-- F ---i> F
2

Figure 2: Friction During Slack Off

539
 1M 1M M = Measured weight
P = Total force at bit
S = MD to stuck point
W = Weight
D = Drag
N = Contact Force
Fs= Force at stuck point

N~l
I = Internal forces

s
°2
1
W2 12

1 11
1
IFs = 0 ·1s F =0
i1 N1
~1 1W 1
-.1 1
°1 1 W
°1 1

jp jP
Figure 3: Free-body Diagrams of a Free Drillstring

1 M" 1 M*
M = Measured weight
P = Total force at bit
S = MD to stuck point
W = Weight
D = Drag
N = Contact Force

Ni-.l
Fs= Force at stuck point

s 1 Ni.l 1W
I = Internal forces
" indicates change from Fig 3

D*
2
W 2 0* 2 1*
2
12 11
1
1s l'
F. 0
i 1* ·1s 1'F 0
i1
~l
N1
1W 2 1
-.1 1
°1 1 W1
°1
jp jP
Figure 4 : Free-body Diagrams of a Stuck Drillstring

540
 Table 1: Typical Stuck Pipe Analysis

Initial Status at Surface

Operatinq Condition . TRIPPING OUT

Measured Weiqht . 230000. LBf
Rotary Table Torque . O. FT_LB

Initial Status at Stuck Point

Measured Depth . 11419. FT

Force in Drillstrinq (PA) . -78030. LBf
Force in Drillstrinq (Buoy) . 24900. LBf
Torque in Drillstrinq . O. FT LB
Force at the Stuck Point . 16396. LBI
Torque at the Stuck Point . O. FT_LB
Minimum Overpull to Load Stuck Point

Measured Weiqht . 230000. LBf

Overpull . O. LBf
Minimum Slackoff to Load Stuck Point
Measured Weiqht . 178733. LBf
Slackoff . -51267. LBf

APPLIED MAXIMUM OVER PULL YIELD POINT LOCATION FORCES IN STRING FOIilCES AT STUCK POINT
MEASUR WT ROTR TORQUE OP(+)/SO(-) SECTION MEAS DEPTH PRESS. AREA BUOYANT FORCE B TORQUE
(LBf) (FT_LB) (LBf) (FT) (LBf) (LBf) (LBf) (FT_LB)
----------- ----------- -------- ---------
80000. 37075. -150000. P 3267. -133562. -30633. -39137. Yes 19187.
90000. 37226. -140000. P 3506. -132598. -29669. -38173. Yes 21738.
100000. 37467. -130000. P O. -131266. -28337. -36841. Yes 24281.
110000. 37311- -120000. P O. -129706. -26776. -35280. Yes 26365.
120000. 37122. . -110000. P O. -129642. -26713. -35216. Yes 28815.
130000. 36900. -100000. P O. -128068. -25139. -33642. No 30831.
140000. 36645. -90000. P O. -118419. -15490. -23994. No 30665.
150000. 36356. -80000. P O. -108360. -5430. -13934. No 30356.
160000. 36032. -70000. P O. -98057. 4873. -3631. No 29947.
170000. 35672 . -60000. P O. -87493. 15436. 6932. No 29434.
180000. -50000. -78030. 24900. 16396.
190000. -40000. -78030. 24900. 16396.
200000. -30000. -78030. 24900. 16396.
210000. -20000. -78030. 24900. 16396.
220000. -10000. -78030. 24900. 16396.
230000. 32687. O. P o. -78030. 24900. 16396. No 25025.
240000. 32035. 10000. P o. -69511. 33419. 24915. No 23977.
250000. 31332. 20000. P o. -61154. 41775. 33272. No 22834.
260000. 30574. 30000. P o. -52898. 50031. 41527. No 21609.
270000. 29758. 40000. P o. -44704. 58225. 49721. No 20310.
280000. 28878. 50000. P o. -36553. 66377 . 57873. No 18936.
290000. 27928. 60000. P o. -28432. 74497. 65994. No 17484.
300000. 26902. 70000. P o. -20336. 82593. 74089. No 15949.

Force at Stuck Point (klbs)

- -
60 ~ "-

40 .

20 ; ;. : :- ~ .. - ."..: :.. - .

-20 ." - , , .

·40 -: :- -: : -.: :.. - :. - : -: : .

-60 L . . - _ L - _ . l - - _ . l - - - _ . . . ! . - _ - - L - _ - - - ' - - _ - - - ' - - _ - - - ' - - _ - - ' - _ - - ' - _ - - - - '

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Measured Weight (klbs)

Figure 5: Force at Stuck Point

541
 Force at Stuck Point (klbs)
80,---------------------------,
,-
,-
60 · . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . "
, : "
- -,-.
- - - ..,- ,- .
,-.
,- ,
. ,- ,
. . . . . : ,- ,
~
40 - • • • • • • Ow

,
•••••• ,'

,
•••• _ •• :

. •••••••

,
••••••• '•••••••

, ,- ..,. _ •••••• '

,
.

, ,- ,
. ,-
20 · ' ' .. - - - : - ~. . , ~ ~~ . - .. - .:.
-. -:
. ~ .: .
,,,
. "
J:'
o r-_----~.-_-=-=-=_:-:_=-.--------~-""'-----.;."""------_j

-20 .... .
:. _
.
"
.
","
.
'," .

. . . . :. . . .. : .. -Trip Out
-40 • •••••

..
Ow ••••••• ' .•••• _ •••' _ •• ~ ••• _ •••

.
'. _ •

--- Rot Off Bottom

--Rot On Bottom
-60 '--------'-_ _-'-_ _-'--_ _'----_--I.._ _--L---L. --l

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Measured Weight (klbs)

Figure 6 : Measured Weight vs. Force at Stuck Point

Force at Stuck Point (klbs)

60 .---~--~--~--~-~--~--~-----,

40 , - .. , -. - .,. ,. ., ., ., ., .

20 : : ; i··· ~ ~''': ·.:.·i·:...·:..: :..::.~ .

, ,, . . ..
.
.
o 1---~--~-----'7'---.;....----,,-.------~---1
~ ,
",
. .. . . . .. . .~
.
-20

. . . . . . . --Overpull
-40 • ••••• ," - ••••• "," • _ •••• "0-' ••••• ".' ••• _ •• : •••• _ -."'

: --Slackoff
-60 '----_--'-_ _-'-_ _-'--_ _'----_--'-_ _-'-_ _ ..L-L --'

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Measured Weight (klbs)
(.
Figure 7 : Fo'rce at Stuck Point when Cycling Between
150 - 230 Klbs Measured Weights

542
 Table 2: Typical Jar Force Analysis Table 3: Typical Back Off Force Analysis

Jar Specifications Back Off Specifications

Measured Depth
Jar Mechanism
Pump Open Force
Jar Seal Friction Force
Up Jar Trip Force
Down Jar Trip Force
Conditions Prior to Jarring
Operating Condition
Measured weight
0'1 Rotary Table Torque
.j:>.
W
Force in Jar (PA)
Force in Jar (Buoy)
Torque in Jar
Up Jar Operating Measured Weights
Set Measured Weight (Initial)
Change from Current Meas Wt ...
Trip Measured Weight
Change from Set Meas Wt
Reset Measured Weight
Change from Trip Meas Wt ...•..
. 7262. FT Measured Depth . 7300. FT
. Hydraulic
Back Off Force . 1000. LBf
. 5000. LBf Back Off Torque . 500. FT LB
. 600. LBf
. 100000. LBf (extension) Conditions Prior to Back Off Before Stuck Current
. 45000. LBf (compression) Operating Condition . TRIPPING OUT
Measured Weight . 273986. LBf 300000. LBf
Rotary Table Torque . O. FT LB O. FT LB
Before Stuck Current
Force at Back Off MD (PA) . -121465. LBf -99578. LBf
. TRIPPING OUT Force at Back Off MD (Buoy) . 25678. LBf 47565. LBf
. 273986. LBf 300000. LBf Torque at Back Off MD . O. FT LB O. FT LB
. O. FT_LB O. FT LB
. -115856. LBf -93990. LBf Initial Surface Action for Set Up
. 30531. LBf 52397. LBf
. O. FT LB O. FT LB Measured weight . 187590. LBf
Minimum Initial Slackoff . -112410. LBf
Pumps Off Pumps On
--------- -------- Final Surface Actions for Back Off
182794. LBf 178513. LBf
-117206. LBf -121487. LBf Measured Weight . 244826. LBf
Overpull from Set Up Meas Wt ., 57236. LBf
. 357004. LBf 351005. LBf
. 174211. LBf 172493. LBf Rotary Table Torque . 9060. FT LB
. 182794. LBf 178513. LBf
-174211. LBf -172493. LBf

Down Jar Operating Measured Weights Pumps Off Pumps On

--------- --------
Set Measured Weight (Initial) . 300000. LBf 300000. LBf
Change from Current Meas Wt ... O. LBf O. LBf
Trip Measured Weight . 144333. LBf 139947. LBf
Change from Set Meas Wt . -155667. LBf -160053. LBf
Reset Measured Weight . 238610. LBf 232730. LBf
Change from Trip Meas Wt . 94277. LBf 92783. LBf
 Force at Stuck Point (klbs)
150 r---~--~--~--~--~---~---.--,

100

50

Ol-----:-----:------,_-;----!'!~--~--_:_--__:_~

-50

-100 L -_ _.L.-_ _..l...-_ _...l.-_ _--L.-_ _....L-_ _....L-_ _---L...J

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Measured Weight (klbs)

Figure 8: Force at Stuck Point for Field Case 1

Table 4: Jar Force Analysis for Field Case 1

Jar Specifications
Measured Depth . 10108. FT
Jar Mechanism . Hydraulic

Pump Open Force . 8000. LBf

Jar Seal Friction Force _ 2000. LBf

up Jar Trip Force . 125000. LBf (extension)

Down Jar Trip Force . 55000. LBf (compression)

Conditions Prior to Jarring Before Stuck Current

Operating Condition . ROTATING ON BOTTOM

Measured Weight . 214466. LBf 214466. LBf
Rotary Table Torque . 9354. FT LB 9354. FT LB

Force in Jar (PA) . -144936. LBf -144936. LBf

Force in Jar (Buoy) . 3043. LBf 3043. LBf
Torque in Jar . 570. FT_LB 570. FT LB

up Jar Operating Measured Weights Pumps Off Pumps On

--------- --------
Set Measured Weight (Initial) 181260. LBf 174542. LBf
Change from Current Meas Wt ... -33206. LBf -39924. LBf

Trip Measured Weight . 417537. LBf 406488. LBf

Change from Set Meas Wt . 236276. LBf 231946. LBf
Reset Measured Weight . 181260. LBf 174542. LBf
Change from Trip Meas Wt . -236276. LBf -231946. LBf

Down Jar Operating Measured Weights Pumps Off Pumps On

--------- --------
Set Measured Weight (Initial) . 214466. LBf 214466. LBf
Change from Current Meas Wt ... O. LBf O. LB!
Trip Measured Weight . 127890. LBf B 114586. LBf B
Change from Set Meas Wt . -86576. LBf -99880. LBf

Reset Measured Weight . 250454. LBf 240353. LBf

Change from Trip Meas Wt . 122565. LBf 125767. LBf

B indicates buckling occurs above jar location

544
 Force at Stuck Point (klbs)
80 ~----~-~-~---~-..,.---.,..--------.---,

60 .... .' :
. .
', . .. .', . . . . . .', .. , .....
. -

.......
. - .. . . - -., - - .. - -., .
40 ~ ~

. , ,

20 . . . .: :. - : : .; : : ~ - .

-20

-40 .. ,' ' ; ', : : ,' : - .:. _ :-.

-60 L----l_--l._-L_....L.._..L-_L----l_---L._-L_-.l-_....I.-_.L...-J
55 75 95 115 135 155 175 195 215 235 255 275 295
Measured Weight (klbs)

Figure 9: Force at Stuck Point for Field Case 2

Table 5: Back Off Force Analysis for Field Case 2

Back Off Specifications

Measured Depth .. , . 5318. FT

Back Off Force _....•.... O. LBf
Back Off Torque . 10000. FT LB

Conditions Prior to Back Off Before Stuck Current

Operating Condition . TRIPPING IN
Measured Weight . 142212. LBf 142212. LBf
Rotary Table Torque . O. FT LB O. FT LB
Force at Back Off MD (PA) . -118701. LBf -118701. LBf
Force at Back Off MD (Buoy) . 8320. LBf 8320. LBf
Torque at Back Off MD '" . O. FT LB O. FT LB

Initial Surface Action for Set up

------------------------------~--
Measured weight . 134538. LBf
Minimum Initial Slackoff . -7673. LBf

Final Surface A~tions for Back Off

Measured Weight . 179056. LBf

Overpull from Set Up Meas Wt .. 44518. LBf
Rotary Table Torque 17348. FT LB

545