Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The complexity of the wells have increased significantly in
later years. Reach has more than doubled, and high
inclination and fully 3-D well paths are common. However,
statistics shows that sidetracking the boreholes due to stuck
pipe has also shown a significant increase, and is presently a
high cost factor. The margins between success and failure are
now much smaller.
A larger study was initiated to understand the stuck pipe
situation better, and to develop improved procedures. A
mechanistic approach was chosen. The following elements
were analyzed: 1) the forces developed during differential
sticking, 2) pipe strength under combined loads; tension,
torque and pressure, 3) effects of buoyancy under various
conditions like equal or different mud densities in drillpipe
and annulus, 4) wellbore friction as related to torque and drag.
This paper presents new equations to determine depth to the
stuck point in deviated wellbores, based on pulling tests and
torsion tests. In particular it is shown that bends in the
wellbore leads to more friction, which with the new equations
results in a deeper stuck point in a deviated well compared to a
similar vertical well. Knowing all the forces involved in a
stuck pipe case, another analysis was performed to determine
the action that has largest impact to free the pipe. One of the
main conclusions is that the most important element to free
the string is to keep the bottomhole pressure as low as
possible. The paper will present three methods to free the
pipe, which where developed from the analysis: 1) maximum
mechanical force method, 2) minimum density method, and 3)
maximum buoyancy method. A detailed field case from the
Yme field in the North Sea will demonstrate these methods,
and show the effect on the stuck point using each method.
In addition to the field case, the paper will in the Appendices
present the complete equations for pipe stress and strength
under 3-dimensional loading, and define the effects of
buoyancy in deviated wellbores. In particular is the buoyancy
issue resolved, showing the differences and similarities
between the piston force approach and the law of
Archimedes, as applied to deviated wellbores.
Forces in the drill string
Axial weight and buoyancy
The calculation of buoyancy on tubulars has led to
considerable confusion over the years. Instead of resolving
the issue, one has typically used one of the following
approaches; the Archimedes law, or the piston force
approach. The first approach simply states that the buoyancy
equals the weight of the displaced fluid, whereas the piston
force is a uniaxial force balance applied to each geometric
change in the string.
In Appendices A and B of this paper this issues has been
resolved. It is shown that the two approaches mentioned
above gives identical results if correctly applied, and that the
Archimedes principle can be used for all cases. We will here
state the conclusions, but refer the reader to Appendices A and
B for details.
If the unit weight of a pipe is w
drill pipe
, the weight when
submerged into a fluid is:
w w
drillpipe
(1)
The buoyancy is given by the factor , which is defined as
follows:
If the pipe has fluid of a different density inside compared to
the outside, the buoyancy factor becomes (App. B4):
SPE 56628
Analysis of Stuck Pipe in Deviated Boreholes
Bernt S. Aadny/Stavanger University, Kenneth Larsen/Statoil and Per C. Berg/Statoil

1 2
fl
pi pe
( )
2 B. S. AADNY, K. LARSEN AND P. C. BERG SPE 56628

1
2 2
2 2
o o
pipe o i
r
i
r
r r
i
( )
(3)
If a surface pressure is applied inside the string, outside the
string or on both sides of the string, the buoyancy remains
unchanged. However, for a surface pressure applied on the
outside or on both sides of the string a lifting force results,
which equals the pressure multiplied with the drill string area
beneath the wellhead, or (App. B5):
For inclined boreholes, the buoyancy factors are identical to
those for vertical holes. However, the axial weight is equal to
the unit weight multiplied with the projected vertical depth, or
(App. B6):
W wD
axial TVD
(5)
The application of these equations will be demonstrated in
The Yme Field Case. The simplicity of this equation is that
the static pipe weight at surface is always the unit weight
multiplied with the projected depth, regardless of hole
inclination.
Pipe strength
There are two types of pipe failure, a tensile failure and a
shear failure. Which failure type that dominates depends on
the loading and on the material properties. Pure tension may
lead to a tensile failure, whereas pure torsion will lead to a
shear failure. Since we often have combined loading, the
principal stresses should be computed. Below are some load
cases defined.
Uniaxial tensile pipe strength. This case only consider the
axial stretch of the drillpipe at the rig floor. It can be
formulated as:

a yield
(6)
Often we use the yield strength of the pipe material. However,
the ultimate strength, which is higher, can also be used.
Torsion, pressure and axial load. The most important
combined loading scenario is if an axial load, a differential
pressure and a moment is applied simultaneously. Separately,
these stresses are as follows for a thin-walled pipe(see
Appendix A):
Axial stress:

a
F
A
(7)
F can be an external force and/or tension due to internal
overpressure (Eqn. A7).
Tangential stress caused by a pressure difference
inside/outside, assuming thin-walled pipe:

t
P
r
t
(8)
Shear stress caused by applied moment, assuming thin-walled
pipe:

M
r t 2
2
(9)
The two normal stresses above may have
yield
as an upper
limit, while the shear stress has
yield
as the upper limit. One
way to handle this situation is to take the vector sum of the
capacities of each component. Two approaches will be shown
in the following.
Principal stresses.The classical way to consider 3-dimensional
loading is to compute the principal stresses, and to compare
these to the failure condition. Having the three stress
components defined above, the principal stresses are:
[ ]

1
]
1

1
]
1
a
t
0
0
, which solved becomes:
( )

1 2
2
1
2 2
2
,
+ t

_
,
+
a t
a t
(10)
Equating the material yield strength to the maximum principal
stress, the maximum permissible axial load is from this
equation:



a yield
t yield
+

2
(11)
Von Mises yield strength.This equation is often used for
ductile materials. It is based on the 2
nd
deviatoric invariant
which looks as follows:
( ) ( ) ( )
J
x y x z y z
xy xz yz
2
2
2
2
2 2 2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3 3 3
+ +
+ + +


(12)
Computing the invariant for a uniaxial tensile test leading to
yield, and inserting the loads defined above, the result
becomes:

a t yield t
+
1
2
3
4
3
2 2 2
(13)
F P r
o o

2
4 ( )
SPE 56628 ANALYSIS OF STUCK PIPE IN DEVIATED BOREHOLES 3
Differential sticking.
The two most common reasons for stuck drillstring is
mechanical sticking due to jamming in the hole and
differential sticking. It is often difficult to determine which
type that applies. However, we will here address the
differential sticking case below.
For a deviated well, the force needed to pull the drillstring can
be expressed as the sum of the pipe weight, the drag force and
the diff. sticking force, or:
F = wh(cos + sin) + d hP (14)
where h is the length of the stuck interval. Fig. 1 illustrates a
diff. sticking scenario.
Here we assume that the stuck point is in a straight hole
section. The force normal to the stuck point is the component
of the weight of the pipe plus the hydraulic force that causes
differential sticking.
The equation above says that the stuck force is equal to the
normal force multiplied by a coefficient of friction. The
pressure differential, P, is the difference between the outside
mud pressure and the pore pressure in the rock. The borehole
pressure may be the static mud pressure plus the surface
pressure if the well is pressurized in the annulus.
Depth to the stuck point
Aadnoy and Andersen(1998) defines the equations needed to
model torque and drag for any well geometry and for any case
of loading. We will use some of these equations, but point at
two differences between the ordinary drilling and the stuck
pipe case.
1) During drilling the complete drillstring is pulled or
rotated from top to bottom. During the stuck case,
the top part is pulled/rotated whereas the bottom part
is fixed. The average displacement for the stuck case
is just the strain of the drillstring, which is very small.
2) During drilling a considerable speed is used (e.g.
rotating at 100 rpm), while in the stuck case the speed
is considerably lower. Although speed is not a
parameter in the basic torque/drag models, it can be
argued that low speed combined with jerking load
minimizes the friction. It is well known that e.g.
vibrations lower the effective friction coefficient.
The analysis to follow will apply the friction models from
Aadny and Andersen(1998), but take the two considerations
above into account.
Pull test.
When a drillstring is stuck it is important to determine the
depth to the stuck point. Often the string has to be cut just
above the stuck point before a sidetrack operation is initiated.
To estimate the depth to the stuck point, the string is pulled
with an additional force dF, and the elongation dL is measured
on the surface. Since steel behaves linearly elastic, Hookes
law describes the relationship between force and elongation,
dF = AEdL/L, where A is the crossectional area and E is the
modulus of elasticity.
The reference is the string hanging in its own weight. If the
well is vertical, and if friction is neglected, the depth to the
stuck point becomes, if the drillstring is composed of i
different elements:
dL dL
E
L
A
dF
n
n
i
n
n
n
i
i



0 0
1
(15)
Assuming that the bottom-hole-assembly is negligible because
it is much stiffer than the drillpipe, and that one drillpipe size
is used, the depth to the stuck point becomes for a vertical
well:
L EA
dL
dF
(16)
In the above example we assume that there is no friction in the
well. This means that when a pull force dF is applied at
surface, this force is reflected all the way to the stuck point.
This mean that this force is acting directly on the stuck point.
If we introduce drag, some of the pulling force goes to
friction. However, usually the pull-rate is slow, nearly static,
and it can be a reasonable assumption to neglect drag in a
vertical well.
As a general rule, the pull force is assumed unaffected of
friction for vertical wells. For straight sections in deviated
wells, friction can either be neglected, or be taken care by the
drag forces measured before the drillstring became stuck.
However, Aadnoy and Andersen(1998) showed that curved
sections of the borehole has the effect of amplifying the
friction. This is seen in Fig. 2, where the vertical well shows
the pull force all the way down to the stuck point in Fig. 2a.
In Fig. 2b, the deviated well, the pull force is remaining
constant all the way to the build-up section. Through the
build-up section some of the pull force is taken up as friction.
Below the build-up section, a smaller pull force is seen.
Assume that the well consist of a vertical section to the kick-
off point, L
1
. A build-up section of radius R builds up to an
angle . A sail section maintaining this inclination continues
to the stuck point. We assume that the pipe is pulled slowly
with a force dF a distance dL. Drag is neglected. This force
dF is reflected down to the kick-off point. Due to the
curvature, the force at the bottom of the build-up bend is
4 B. S. AADNY, K. LARSEN AND P. C. BERG SPE 56628
(Aadnoy and Andersen, 1998):
dF dFe
1


The elongation through the build-up bend is:
( ) ( ) dL dF dF
R
AE
R dF
AE
e
2 1
1
2 2
1 + +



The elongation in the vertical section is:
dL
dFL
AE
1
1

The elongation in the sail section down to the stuck point L is:
( )
( ) dL
dF L L R
AE
dFe
AE
L L R
3
1 1
1

The total elongation measured at surface is the sum of the

three contributions defined above, or:
( ) ( ) dL
dF
AE
L
R
e e L L R + + +

'

1 1
2
1

The depth to the stuck point is from the equation above:
( ) L AEe
dL
dF
e L R +

_
,

1
1
2
1
(17)
The equation above is valid if one drillpipe size is used, and
for a well consisting of one build-up section and a constant
sail angle in the section below. Assuming two drillpipe sizes
the equation can be modified. Referring to the top pipe size
with index 1, and the bottom pipe size with index 2, the depth
to the stuck point is:
( ) L A Ee
dL
dF
A
A
e L R L
A
A
+

_
,

_
,

2
2
1
1 2
2
1
1
1
2
1

(18)
Torsion test.
If we rotate the drill string at surface, an applied moment dM
leads to an twist angle d. The corresponding expression for
the angle of rotation as a function of depth is similar to the
pulling case:
d
G
L
Jn
d M
i
n
i

1
0
(19)
The shear modulus is:
( )
G
E

+ 2 1
and the polar
moment: ( ) J D d
p

32
4 4
Using an elastic modulus of 215 kN/mm
2
, a Poissons ratio of
0.25 for steel, Equation 19 can be expressed in degrees as:
( )
( )
( )
( ) d x
L m
J mm
dM kNm
n
pn n
i

6 66 10
5
4
0
.
If pure rotation is applied, the force amplification through the
buildup bend will be neglected. Again for small rotation the
cumulative frictional torque will be neglected, and the total
twist angle at surface is determined from the total length of the
drillstring.
If only one drillpipe type is used, the stuck point can be
estimated from the following equation:
Again the equation will be expanded to the case of using two
drillpipe sizes. From Eqn. 20, the depth to the stuck point now
becomes:
The equations above are valid for well paths consisting of a
vertical section to the kick-off point, a constant build section
and a constant inclination sail section to the stuck point. For
more complex geometries similar equations can be derived,
but these will become more cumbersome. A simple numerical
routine may be handy for these cases.
The Yme field case
During drilling of the 7854 m long exploration well 9/2-8S on
Yme, several stuck pipe incidents occurred. Two of these
stuck pipe incidents resulted in the bottom-hole-assembly
(BHA) being left in the hole and the well had to be sidetracked
twice in the 12-1/4 in section. The second incident which
resulted in the BHA being shot off will be analyzed, due to
better data from this incident. Fig.3 shows the well path for
this case.
From the drilling operation, the following friction data were
determined:
On bottom torque at stuck point depth: 26 kNm
Off bottom torque at stuck point depth: 23 kNm
Friction factor with syntetic mud: 0.12
( )
L
JE d
dM

+ 2 1
20

( )
( )
L
J E d
dM
L
J
J

_
,

2
1
2
1
2 1
1 21

( )
SPE 56628 ANALYSIS OF STUCK PIPE IN DEVIATED BOREHOLES 5
The friction factor above, which was measured during drilling,
will be used in the analysis to follow. We assume that the
same coefficient of friction is valid also after the pipe was
stuck.
Description of case. After sidetracking the hole following the
first stuck pipe incident, a sand reservoir was entered at 5830
mMD. At 6011 mMD the washpipe started leaking, and it was
decided to pull out to above the reservoir for replacement.
The first stand was pulled without excessive drag. From the
time rotation was stopped to set back the stand 7 minutes
passed before the second stand was attempted pulled. It was
not possible to pull the drillstring and 260 tons hookload was
used. The full string weight was also applied, without any
effect. Combined torque and pull was also applied without
success. The jar did not go off in any of the attempts to free
the string.
Full circulation was maintained throughout these attempts,
leading to the conclusion of differential sticking. The section
(13-3/8 shoe at 2281m) was drilled with a mud weight of
1.65 s.g. for borehole stability reasons, and the pore pressure
was determined to be 1.24 s.g.
First we will estimate the depth to the stuck point in the Yme
well. Pipe data are shown in Table 1. The following
additional data are given from the stretch test on the rig:
dF = 392 kN L
1
= 3548 m
dL = 2.60 m L
2
= 2298 m
E = 215 kN/mm
2
R= 840 m
A
1
= 3401 mm
2
= 68
A
2
= 4210 mm
2
= 0.12
E = 215 kN/mm
2
.
Inserting these data into Eqn. 18, the depth to the stuck point
is as follows:
First,

012
68
180
0142 . . and: e

1153 . and:
1
2
68
2 180
840 498

R
x
m
For comparison, the estimated depth for a vertical well is:
5457m. This is found by setting =0 in the equation above.
The above calculation is repeated with different friction
coefficients. The result is shown in Fig. 4 shows the depth to
the stuck point for various friction coefficients for the
example.
The torsion test also provide important information. The
drillstring was rotated 14 turns, with an applied moment of 20
kNm. Using data from Table 1, the estimated length of the
drillstring is:
It is seen that two independent tests can be performed to
determine the depth to the stuck point, both pull test and
torsion test. Clearly, the string is stuck in the bottom-hole-
assembly.
The weight of the drillstring.
The axial weight of the string will be computed with Eqn. 5.
The mud weight used was 1.65 s.g. resulting in a buoyancy
factor of(Eqn.2):
1
165
7 85
079
.
.
.
The effective weight of the drillstring is given by the unit
weight multiplied with the projected depth. The 5 in. drillpipe
has a vertical depth of 2060 m, whereas the 6 5/8 in. pipe
extends to a vertical depth of 2700 m. The total weight,
excluding the bottom-hole-assembly is:
( ) { }
W kN mx m kN m
kN
+

0 79 0 336 2060 0 406 2700 2060

752
. . / . /
This is the static hookload on the rig. During hoisting or
lowering of the string, drag will be added to this load.
Maximum axial load of the pipe.
The upper part of the drillstring consists of a 5 in. drill pipe.
The highest load will occur in the upper part. Therefore, we
will compute the maximum load at this position. The pipe
data from Table 1 applies.
Inserting the data into Eqns. 7, 8 and 9, the pipe stresses can
be expressed as:
Axial load:
a
bar
F N
( )
( )
.

340 1
Tangential stress caused by a pressure difference
inside/outside, assuming thin-walled pipe:

t
bar P bar ( ) . ( ) 8 36
Shear stress caused by applied moment, assuming
thin-walled pipe:
( ) . ( ) bar M Nm 0 054
( )( ) L x
m
+

_
,

215 4210
2 60
392
1153 1153 1 3548 498
2298
4210
3401
1 5756
.
. .
L x x x
x
m

_
,

15 10 27 05 10
14 360
20
3548
2705
1188
1 5697
6 6
. .
.
.
6 B. S. AADNY, K. LARSEN AND P. C. BERG SPE 56628
The maximum axial load from Eqn. 11 is:
F N
M
P
( ) .
.
.
+

'

3401 7340
0 00287
836 7340
2

(22)
A few conditions of this equation is shown below:
Condition 1: P = 0 bar, M = 0 Nm F = 2496 kN
Condition 2: P = 50 bar, M = 0 Nm F = 2496kN
Condition 3: P = 0 bar, M = 10000 Nm F = 2487 kN
Condition 4: P = 200 bar, M = 10000 Nm F = 2479 kN
The classical principal stress approach has a shortcoming as
the pressure only has an effect if there simultaneous is a torque
applied. We will instead use the 3-dimensional approach
given by the von Mises equation (Eqn. 13).
Inserting the equations above into Eqn. 13, the following
equation results:
{ }
F N P P M ( ) . . . . + 3401 4 18 7340 52 42 0 00875
2 2 2

A few conditions of this equation is shown below:
Condition 1: P = 0 bar, M = 0 Nm F = 2496 kN
Condition 2: P = 200 bar, M = 0 Nm F = 2732 kN
Condition 3: P = -200 bar, M = 0 Nm F = 2163 kN
Condition 4: P = 0 bar, M = 10000 Nm F = 2476 kN
Condition 1 defines pure axial pull. The yield strength is then
2496 kN. Condition 3 shows the case of applying a pressure
outside the drillpipe only, resulting in an axial strength
reduction. Condition 4 shows the case of applying
simultaneous pull and torque, again resulting in a reduced
axial strength.
Condition 2 shows the case of applying pressure on the
inside of the pipe only. This is possible only if the inside is
closed e.g. by plugged bit nozzles. The result is that the axial
strength increases by 236 kN.
Increase in strength by combined loading.
It is observed in the examples above that the acceptable axial
load in the drillpipe may be increased by applying a combined
load. Let us first rewrite Eqn. 13 for the case of zero torque:

a
yield
t
yield
t
yield

'

'

t

'

1
2
1
3
4
2
(23)
This form of the equation is well known. Actually it describes
an ellipse, with a ratio of the axis of 3 . The fourth quadrant
is very much used in the petroleum industry to compute the
reduction in collapse resistance caused by axial tension. For
that case an outside drillpipe overpressure is required.
The first quadrant is of interest to the present topic. If a
combined tangential and axial tension is applied, the axial
strength may increase. Physically it means that by
simultaneous loading in two directions the deviatoric stress is
kept at a lower value. The following defines the maximum
axial loading from Eqn. 22:


a yield
t yield

1155
0577
.
.
The axial load to yielding can actually be increased by 15.5 %
by applying a bi-axial loading.
Using the same data as before, we will compute the pipe
strength under combined loading. Using Eqn. 22, the
maximum axial load is:
F x x kN
P
x
bar


340 1 1155 7340 2883
0577 7340
836
506
. .
.
.

To obtain maximum pipe strength at surface, the surface

drillpipe pressure should be 506 bar. The mud pump on a
drilling rig can at most supply about 300 bar pressure.
Inserting this condition, Eqn. 22 modifies to the following
maximum condition:


a yield
t yield

1126
0 342
.
.
The pipe strength is now: F = 340.1x1.126x7340 = 2811 kN
at P = 300 bar. Please observe that the numbers above are
valid only for the particular drillpipe used in the example.
So far we have concluded that the total axial load on the
drillpipe can be increased by a combined loading. However,
as we pressure up the inside of the pipe the hydraulic pressure
adds an axial component as the pipe is closed at both ends.
The force is here the pressure multiplied with the inside pipe
area or:
F = 300(bar)93(cm
2
)100=277 kN
The net external pull force the pipe can be subjected to at
surface is then:
2811 kN - 277 kN = 2534 kN
The pipe strength in simple tension has been determined to
2679 kN.
The conclusion is that the maximum lifting force is nearly
SPE 56628 ANALYSIS OF STUCK PIPE IN DEVIATED BOREHOLES 7
equal if a simple tension is applied, or if a combined loading
is applied. If pumping is applied to provide lift at the bottom,
the maximum allowable lift force is not significantly reduced,
and nearly the same pull can be applied.
Forces during pipe release.
The main objective of this paper is to determine the most
efficient way to free a stuck drillstring. Now we will derive
the equations required to perform this analysis. In the
previous chapter on determining the depth to the stuck point,
we neglected friction because we assumed negligible motion
as we applied a pull force. However, if this pull force is
increased such that the string starts to move and eventually is
freed, one may assume that axial friction is present. The
analysis of this paper is based on these assumptions.
Aadnoy and Andersen(1998) presented all equations required
to determine the string weight and the well friction for all well
geometries. We will use the equations that are required to
analyze the present case, but refer the reader to the above
reference for other well geometries.
Applying pull force. Figure 3 shows the well geometry for the
Yme well. The pipe is stuck in the bottom-hole-assembly.
Above this point the well path consists of a long sail section, a
build-up section and a vertical section to surface. A study
concluded that the width of the stuck point was d= 0.05m,
along a permeable interval of h = 22 m. Inserting the well data
into Eqn. 14, the pull force of the bottom-hole assembly is:

( ) F x x x x P
F kN P kN m
1
1
2
1344 155 68 012 68 012 005 22
1012 0132
+ +
+

. cos . sin . .
( ) . . ( / )

The axial load of the pipe in the sail section again consists of
the axial weight component and the drag force, or:
( )( ) F x x
2
0406 1848 0336 2298 68 012 68 740 + + . . cos . sin
The axial load through the build-up section depends on the
total forces below and is (from Aadny and Andersen, 1998):
( )
( ) ( )
F F F e wR e
3 1 2 2 1
2 1 2 1
+

_
,

sin sin
Inserting the data for the well, the following equation results:
( ) F F F
3 1 2
1153 302 + + .
Adding the effective weight of the vertical pipe, the total pull
on top equals:
F F x F
4 3 3
0 336 700 235 + + .
Inserting the respective equations into the last equation, the
pull force as surface can be expressed as:
F kN P kN m
4
2
1507 0152 ( ) . ( / ) + (24)
Please observe the multiplicative effect of the build-up bend.
Applying torsion.One may also apply torsion to the string to
attemt to free it. Aadny and Andersen(1998) defines all
equations required to determine the torque when the drill
string is rotated. The torque is defined as the normal force
multiplied with the friction coefficient and the radius to the
contact point. We use an average radius of the bottom-hole
assembly of 0.1m. Since the drillpipe contact is on the
connections, we assume the same radius here.
The torque of the bottom-hole-assembly becomes:
( ) T x x x P P
1
01 012 1344 155 005 22 25 00132 + + . . . . . .
The torque at the top of the sail section is:
( ) T T x x x
T
2 1
1
01 012 0406 1848 0336 2298 68
16 9
+ +
+
. . . . sin
.

The torque at the top of the build-up section equals the torque
at surface, since the upper drill string is vertical. The axial
weight at the end of the build-up section is, neglecting the
bottom-hole-assembly, which is stuck:
( ) ( ) ( ) F kN
1
0 336 2060 1450 0406 2700 2060 465 + . . ( )
The torque at the top of the well is:
( )( )
( )
T T r F wR
wR
3 2 1 1 2 1
2 1
2
+ +
+


sin
cos cos
Inserting the data for the well, the resulting torque equation
becomes:
T T
3 2
12 96 + .
Combining the equations above, the total torque can be
expressed as:
( )
( )
T kNm P kN m
3
2
32 4 0 0132 + . . / (25)
Combined pulling and rotation.Often one attempt to free the
drillstring by simultaneously pulling and rotating. Aadny
and Andersen(1998) have analyzed this scenario and have
shown that by combined motion the axial drag is reduced.
This effect is also seen during backreaming. The pipe has a
total frictional capacity given by the weight and the friction
8 B. S. AADNY, K. LARSEN AND P. C. BERG SPE 56628
coefficient. If a combined motion is applied, the vector sum
of rotation and pulling equals this same frictional capacity.
For the present study we assume that the string is rotated 100
rpm for a short period of time. The tangential speed of the
bottom-hole-assembly with a radius of 0.1 m is 1.05 m/s.
Next, we assume that the pipe is simultaneously hoisted with
the same speed. According to Aadny and Andersen(1998)
the total frictional capacity is now equally split between the
torque and the axial drag, or:
T
r
F
F
drag

_
,

2
2
2
2
(26)
Methods to free the pipe
In the following an analysis will be performed using some of
the equations derived. This analysis will demonstrate the
effects of the various ways a stuck pipe problem can be
handled.
Maximum mechanical force
This simplest approach is to pull or rotate the drillstring
towards the strength limit of the drillpipe. For the present
field case, the mud density used was 1.65 s.g., and the pore
pressure in the permeable interval was estimated to 1.24 s.g.
The projected area at the stuck position was estimated to 0.05
m times 22 m. The differential pressure and the buoyancy is:
( ) P bar kN m

0 098 165 124 2936 118 11800
1
165
7 85
0 79
2
. . . ) /
.
.
.
Inserting these data into Eqn. 23, the force required to free the
drillstring is 2984 kN. However, from Table 1 the axial
strength of the drillpipe is 2495 kN. Therefore, this is not
sufficient to free the pipe.
Inserting the same data into Eqn. 24, the torque required is
181.3 kNm, which also far exceeds the torque limit of the
drillpipe of 78.8 kNm. The conclusion is that by applying
maximum mechanical force only, the string will remain stuck,
and a parted drillpipe may result.
Minimum density method
It is very obvious from Eqn. 23 and 24 that the dominating
parameter is the differential pressure that is the main cause of
differential sticking. This can be reduced by displacing the
well to a lighter mud. We will repeat the analysis assuming
that the well has been displaced to a 1.3 s.g. mud. The
differential pressure and the buoyancy now becomes:
( ) P bar kN m

0 098 130 124 2936 17 36 1730
1
130
7 85
083
2
. . . ) . /
.
.
.
Inserting these data into Eqn. 23 leads to a surface force of
1514 kN which is below the pipe strength of 2495 kN. Eqn.
24 gives a torque of 49.7 kNm, which is below the torque
strength of 78.8 kNm. In other words, displacing the well to a
lighter mud is the best measure to free the drillstring. The
buoyancy decreases, but this effect is negligible to the effect
of reducing the bottomhole pressure.
Maximum buoyancy method.
The last method analyzed is to displace the inside of the
drillpipe to seawater to increase buoyancy. This is permissible
providing that well control is maintained as the seawater pill
later is displaced up the annulus. For this case we assume the
initial mud of 1.65 s.g. in the annulus which results in the
initial differential pressure of 118 bar. The buoyancy
increases and is given by Eqn. 3:
( )

1
165 127 103 108 6
7 85 127 108 6
057
2 2
2 2
. . .
. .
.
x x
Again inserting these numbers into Eqn. 23 leads to a required
pull force of 2652 kN and Eqn. 24 leads to a required torque
of 174 kNm.
Below are the results summarized.
Method: Reqd. pull force (kN): Reqd. torque(kNm)
Max. mech. force: 2984 181.3
Min. density: 1514 49.7
Max. buoyancy: 2652 174
Pipe strength: 2495 78.8
This example demonstrates that there is some potential in
increasing buoyancy by displacing the inside of the drillstring
to seawater. The most important measure, however, is to
reduce the annulus pressure by displacing the well to a lighter
mud.
Summary
This paper present a mechanistic analysis of differentially
stuck pipe in a deviated well. The following mechanisms are
analyzed; buoyancy effects, pipe strength, differential sticking
and well friction.
Equations are derived to estimate the depth to the stuck point
in deviated wellbores based on pull and rotation tests. Due to
SPE 56628 ANALYSIS OF STUCK PIPE IN DEVIATED BOREHOLES 9
friction in bends, the stuck point appears deeper in a deviated
well compared to a vertical well.
Equations for pipe strength under combined loading are
defined. In particular, it is shown that the drillpipe can be
loaded towards uniaxial pipe strength even if a full pump
pressure is applied on the inside.
The differential pressure across the stuck interval is the
dominating factor. The most important remedy to free the
pipe is to reduce the bottom hole pressure. This can be done
by displacing the well with a lighter mud. One can also
increase buoyancy by displacing the inside of the drillstring
with seawater.
Nomenclature
P = pressure
A = area
F = force
r = pipe radius
d= width of mudcake
R = radius of build-up section
w = unit pipe weight
W = total weight
D = well depth
h = length of stuck interval
E = Youngs modulus
G = shear modulus
J = polar moment of inertia
L = pipe length
= buoyancy factor
= density
= strain
= coefficient of friction
= hole inclination
= rotation of the drillstring
= hole azimuth
= Poissons ratio
Subscripts
a = axial
r = radial
t = tangential/wall thickness
i = inner/initial
o = outer
f = friction
MD = measured depth
TVD = projected vertical depth
fl = fluid
References
Aadnoy, B.S. and Andersen, K.: Friction analysis for long-reach
wells. Paper IADC/SPE 39391 presented at the 1998 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, Mar. 3-6.
Adams,A.J., Parfitt,S.H.L., Reeves,T.B. and Thorogood,J.L.: Casing
system risk analysis using structural reliability. Paper SPE/IADC
25693 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Feb. 22-25.
Chesney,A.J. and Garcia,J., 1969: Load and stability analysis of
tubular strings. Paper 69-PET-15, ASME Petroleum Mechanical
Engineering conference, Tulsa, OK
Dellinger,T.B., 1973: Preventing instability in partially-cemented
intermediate casing strings. Paper presented at the 48
th
Annual Fall
Meeting of the SPE, Las Vegas, Nov.
Goins, W.C., 1980: Better understanding prevent tubular buckling
problems. Part 1- Buckling tendency, causes and resulting problems
described. World Oil, January, pp.101-105.
Goins, W.C., 1980: Better understanding prevent tubular buckling
problems. Part 2 Graphic solutions are presented for field
situations. World Oil, February, pp. 35-40.
Hawkins,M.F. and Lamont,N, 1949: The analysis of stresses in drill
pipe. Drilling and production practice, American Petroleum Institute,
p. 358.
Hammerlindl,D.J., 1978: Basic fluid and pressure forces on oil well
tubulars. Paper presented at the 55
th
Annual Fall Meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, TX.
Kastor,R.L., 1986: Triaxial casing design for burst, Paper IADC/SPE
14727 presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
TX, Feb. 10-12.
Klementich,E.F. and Jellison,M.J., 1986: A service-life model for
casing strings. SPE Drilling Engineering, April 1986, pp. 141-152.
Klinkenberg,A., 1951: The neutral zones in drill pipe and casing and
their significance in relation to buckling and collapse. Drilling and
Production Practice, American Petroleum Institute, pp. 64-76.
Kyllingstad, , 1995: Buckling of tubular strings in curved wells.
Journal of Petroleum science and Engineering 12 (1995), pp. 209-
218.
Lubinsky, A., Althouse,W.S. and Logan,J.L., 1968: Helical buckling
of tubular goods. Journ. of Petroleum Technology, June, pp. 655-70.
Patillo,P.D. and Randall, B.V., 1980: Two unresolved problems in
hydrostatics. Paper presented at the 1980 IADC/SPE Drilling
Technology Conference, Houston, TX, March 18-20.
Stephens,D.R. and McConnell,D.P., 1985: Pipeline design codes
compared graphically. Oil and Gas journal, July 29, pp. 139-144.
Thulin,L.G., 1971: Mechanics of materials II. Course compendium,
University of Colorado.
10 B. S. AADNY, K. LARSEN AND P. C. BERG SPE 56628
Appendix A: The Lame solution
Most of the components in a petroleum well has a cylindrical
shape. Therefore equations to determine stresses in cylinders
are most important to perform analysis of drill strings. If the
geometry of a particular component deviates from a cylinder,
other models must be used.
The equations to follow are obtained from classical
mechanics. They are valid for linearly elastic materials.
Figure A.1 shows the stresses acting in a thick-walled
cylinder. The so called Lame equations defines the magnitude
of these stresses. The radial and tangential stresses are given
by (Thulin, 1971):

r
o o i i
i o
o i
o i
p r p r
r r
r
p p
r r

2 2
2 2
2
2 2
( )
(A1)

t
o o i i
i o
o i
o i
p r p r
r r
r
p p
r r

2 2
2 2
2
2 2
( )
(A2)
We observe that the two expressions are very similar. If they
are added, the sum is constant across the cross section. This
property will be used to assess the net axial load.
( )
( ) 1
2
2 2
2 2

r t
o o i i
o i
P r Pr
r r
+

(A3)
The axial stress depends on the end condition. If the tube is
open ended, the pressures causes zero axial stress, whereas for
a closed end pipe, the pressure causes the following axial
stress:

a
o o i i
o i
p r p r
r r

2 2
2 2
(A4)
Often one uses a thin-walled solution for slim tubing.
Introducing the wall thickness t, and assuming constant stress
across the wall, the above equations can be approximated by:

r o i
p p +
1
2
( ) (A5)
( )
t o i o i
r
t
p p p p + + ( )
1
2
(A6)
( )
a o i o i
r
t
p p p p + +
2
1
2
( ) (A7)
For the special case of zero external pressure, the thin-walled
tubing equations can be formulated as:

r i
p (A8)

t i
r
t
p (A9)

a i
r
t
p
2
(A10)
Note the sign convention to make these equations consistent.
If the pipe is pressurized, the following strains results:
{ }
r
E
r t a
+
1
( ) (A11)
{ }

t
E
t
r a
+
1
( ) (A12)

a
E
a

_
,

1 2
(A13)
for the case of closed ends
For applications in petroleum wells, we also need an equation
for the strain caused by the weight of the string. This
component can be superimposed on the previous equations
and is:

a
o i
W
E r r

( )
2 2
(A14)
Appendix B: Buoyancy effects
B1: The principle of Archimedes
This principle is widely used in nearly all applications
involving buoyancy effects. In its simplest form it states: The
buoyant force acting on a submerged body equals the force
given by the weight of the displaced fluid. Consider the
following:
Weight of body: w =
pipe
V
Weight of displaced fluid: w
fl
=
fl
V
Weight suspended in fluid: w-w
fl
=(
pipe
-
fl
)V
The ratio suspended weight/weight in air is defined as the
buoyancy factor, or

1 1
fl
pipe
B ( )
SPE 56628 ANALYSIS OF STUCK PIPE IN DEVIATED BOREHOLES 11
The buoyed weight of the drillpipe is the weight in air
multiplied with the buoyancy factor.
B2: The piston force consept
The oil industry also uses the piston force consept. It is a
simple force balance, where the forces are computed
throughout the drillstring. At each change in geometry a
hydraulic force acts, which magnitude is equal to the pressure
times the projected area at the point of interest. An example
will demonstrate the application. Fig. B1 shows a hanging
drillstring with drillcollars at bottom. The forces are shown on
the figure, and the net buoyed weight at surface is defined.
Also shown is the buoyed weight according to Archimedes
principle. Not surprisingly, these two principles shows the
same buoyed weight at surface. However, the forces at the
depth varies significantly. This problem has created
significant confusion in the oil industry.
According to the Archimedes principle, the entire string is in
tension, whereas the piston force defines the drillcollars as
being in compression. The external loading in one dimension
is defined by the piston force principle. However, this is not
identical to the net axial load as shown in the following.
B3: Net axial stresses
Actually the stress state at any point is three-dimensional, not
one-dimensional as suggested by the piston force approach.
Figure A1 shows the three principal stresses (excluding
torsion); the radial, the tangential and the axial stresses.
Consider the hypothetical example that the drillstring density
was equal to the mud density. For that case, the net weight
would be zero, and the drillstring would remain floating.
However, at any point inside the string stresses would act in
all three directions. The radial, the tangential and the axial
stress would be identical, creating a hydrostatic stress state.
The difference between the stresses is zero. This illustrates
that the net weight of the drillstring is equal to a difference
between the total axial load and the stresses acting on an
orthonormal plane.
From classical mechanics we may therefore split the total axial
stress into the following:
Total load equals the hydrostatic load plus the
deviatoric load.
The deviatoric component actually is identical to the buoyed
weight. Also, we know that it is the magnitude of the
deviatoric component that governs failure in the steel pipe, not
the total stress state.
Eqn. A3 shows that the average stress across a plane in the
pipe is constant regardless of the magnitude of the external
and the internal pressures. We will define this stress as a
average hydrostatic stress and subtract from the total stress.
Reverting to the example of Appendix B2, the deviatoric load
at bottom equals the piston force minus the average horizontal
stress on the plane, or:
-
mud
gDA
2
+
mud
gDA
2
= 0
At the top of the drill collars we subtract again the average
hydrostatic force from the total force calculated in the
previous example:
-
mud
gDA
2
+
steel
gD
2
A
2
+
mud
gD
1
A
2
, or:
(
steel
-
mud
)gD
2
A
2
At the bottom of the drillpipe, the net deviatoric force
becomes:
-
mud
gDA
2
+
steel
gD
2
A
2
+
mud
gD
1
(A
2
- A
1
) +

mud
gD
1
A
1
, or:
(
steel
-
mud
)gD
2
A
2
At this point we observe several points. Firstly, the deviatoric
force at the bottom of the drillpipe equals the deviatoric force
at the top of the drillcollars. According to Newtons 2nd law
there must be a force balance here. Secondly, we observe that
the deviatoric force above is equal to Archimedes principle.
The force at surface is the load at the bottom of the drillstring
minus the weight of the string minus the hydrostatic force.
The surface weight is:
(
steel
-
mud
)g(A
1
D
1
+ A
2
D
2
)
The conclusion of this example is that the piston forces merely
determine the external loading. The internal axial stress
evaluated in a three-dimensional context is defined by the
Archimedes principle.
B4: Different fluid densities.
Sometimes the inside of the drillstring are displaced to a fluid
of different density than the fluid on the outside. The general
solution to this problem is similar to Appendix B3. However,
recognizing that the net axial stress is defined by the
Archimedes principle, we will in the following derive the
buoyancy factor in a simple way.
Consider the following case shown in Fig. B2a. A tubing is
filled with mud of density
i
, and the outside annulus is filled
with mud of density
o
. In the bottom we assume a seal.
According to Archimedes law:
Weight of pipe: w =
pipe
V =
pipe
(r
o
2
r
i
2
)D
12 B. S. AADNY, K. LARSEN AND P. C. BERG SPE 56628
Weight of pipe plus mud inside:
w
pm
=
pipe
(r
o
2
r
i
2
)D +
i
r
i
2
D
The outside mud provides buoyancy for the total volume of
pipe plus mud inside.
Weight of displaced fluid: w
fl
=
o
r
o
2
D
The buoyed weight equals:
w
pm
w
fl
= D(
pipe
(r
o
2
r
i
2
) +
i
r
2
-
o
r
o
2
)
The buoyancy factor, or the ratio buoyed pipe weight/ pipe
weight equals (w
pm
w
fl
/w):

1
2 2
2 2
o
r
i
r
r r
o i
pipe o i
( )
(B2)
It is observed that for equal fluid densities inside and outside
the pipe, the equation reduced to Eqn. B1. Fig. B2b shows
the general case considering a composite drillstring consisting
of various pipe sizes. It can be shown that the effective
buoyancy at any depth level is given by the following
equation:

1
1
1
2 2
2 2
D r ri
k
n
D r ri
k
n
k o ok i k
pipe k ok k
( )
( )
(B3)
B5: Surface pressures.
During drilling there is usually a considerable pressure inside
the drillstring. Some well operations also require pressure in
the annulus. In the following will we investigate these effects
as related to buoyancy and axial stress.
If an inside overpressure is applied, an axial tension is added
in the pipe, assuming both ends closed. This additional stress
is:
However, the average stress on the crossection of the pipe
changes an amount from Eqn. A3:
The net axial stress from Appendix B3 is the total stress minus
the average hydrostatic stress. Subtracting the two equations
above shows that the net stress is zero. In other words,
applying a surface pressure inside the drillstring has no effect
on the buoyancy of the pipe. Furthermore, there is no change
in effective axial stress in the pipe.
For an outside overpressure a similar argument can be used.
For this case no change in net axial stress results as well.
However, a lifting force will act on the bottom of the string.
This results in a reduction of the hook-load on the rig. This
lifting force is equal to:
F P r
2
(B4)
For a vertical well, this reduction in hook-load is computed for
the pipe size that goes through the well head. For larger pipe
sizes in the bottom hole assembly, the additional forces will
cancel.
The case of a simultaneous overpressure both inside the
annulus and the drillpipe, again will have no effect on the
buoyancy. Again, the reduction in hook load is given by Eqn.
4.
B6: Deviated boreholes.
Most boreholes drilled today are deviated. Therefore we will
in the following discuss buoyancy in deviated holes.
Figure B3a shows a length of an inclined pipe. Assuming the
measured length is given by D
MD
, the projected vertical depth
is:
D D
TVD MD
cos
Figure B3b shows the unit weight (kg/m) of the pipe
decomposed into an axial and a normal component. The axial
component is:
Eliminating the inclination from the two equation above, the
axial weight can be expressed as:
W wD
axial TVD
(B5)
The buoyant weight for this case is again given by the total
axial stress minus the average stress according to Appendix
B3. There is no effect on orientation for this case and we can
conclude as follows:
For deviated holes the buoyancy factor is identical to that of a
vertical hole. The axial load of a string is equal to the unit
weight multiplied with the projected depth.

a
i
o i
i
r
r r
P

2
2 2
( )

1
2
2
2 2

r t
o i
i
r
r r
P +

_
,

w w
axial
cos
SPE 56628 ANALYSIS OF STUCK PIPE IN DEVIATED BOREHOLES 13
Table 1: Drill String Data.
Figure A.1: Stresses acting in a thick-walled cylinder.
Figure 1: Differential sticking.
Figure 2: Pull force at stuck point for vertical and deviated well.
14 B. S. AADNY, K. LARSEN AND P. C. BERG SPE 56628
Figure 3: Well path for the Yme well.
Figure 4: Depth to stuck point versis friction coefficient.
SPE 56628 ANALYSIS OF STUCK PIPE IN DEVIATED BOREHOLES 15
Figure B1: Forces in the drill string from Archimedes principle and piston forces.
Figure B2: Different densities and various pipe size scenaria.
16 B. S. AADNY, K. LARSEN AND P. C. BERG SPE 56628
Figure B3: Forces for inclined pipe.