SPE 168235

CT Extended Reach: Can We Reach Farther?

Ken Newman, P.E, Patrick Kelleher - KNewman Engineering, Ed Smalley - NOV CTES

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 25-26 March 2014.
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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The ability to perform extended reach operations with coiled tubing (CT) has become increasingly important in recent years
as a result of the increased length of horizontal wellbores. Fracturing horizontal wells in stages often requires the use of
drillable bridge plugs or sliding sleeves, which are drilled out or slid with CT. As the length of the horizontal section of a
wellbore continues to be extended (known as extended reach), the reach of CT also needs to be extended. Drillpipe is able to
reach farther than CT due to its ability to rotate (which mitigates sliding friction). The inability of CT to rotate makes
extending the reach more challenging.
This paper presents the theory and modeling which helps determine the maximum reach in a horizontal well before
helical lockup occurs. It presents a parametric study for an L shaped well which shows the significance of each parameter in
extending the reach. A new tapered CT string concept referred to as Extended Taper, is presented.
Extended Reach Limit - Helical Lockup
Friction between the CT and the wellbore limits the extent to which CT can be pushed, both in the vertical and the horizontal
sections of the well. This limit applies to the maximum weight on bit (WOB) or compressive force on end (FOE) which can
be applied, even in a vertical well. It also applies to the maximum length (or reach) the CT can be pushed into a horizontal
wellbore.
Friction between the CT and the wellbore is caused by wall contact forces (WCF) which are the result of the normal force
of the CT against the wellbore and the coefficient of sliding friction. WCFs are caused by the following:
Buoyant weight the weight of the CT lying against the wellbore (in non-vertical sections of the well)
Belt or Capstan forces axial tension or compression forces in the CT when it passes around curves in the
wellbore
Buckling axial compressive force in the CT may cause it to helically buckle (HB). Once buckled there are
buckling WCF.
Its important to note that the buckling WCF increases as the square of the compressive axial force. This exponential
increase in WCF and the associated large increase in friction force typically defines the limiting condition for extended reach
CT operations. This limit has become known in the industry as helical lockup, or simply lockup, as the resulting friction
drag force prevents the CT from being pushed farther into the wellbore.
The industry has typically defined lockup at the point where 1% or less of the force applied at surface reaches the
downhole end of the CT. This means that if 100 lb of set-down weight is applied at surface, only one additional pound of
compressive force is observed at the downhole end of the CT. While the standard lockup definition has served the industry
well, this paper introduces a new term called force transfer factor (FTF) in order to calculate and identify a lockup condition.
Use of the FTF approach is beneficial in helping to identify problem areas when analyzing lockup conditions in various
wellbore configurations.
When using the FTF approach, lockup depth will be calculated utilizing the FTF. The FTF for a section of the CT in the
wellbore is the derivative of the force at the bottom of the section with respect to the force at the top of the section. The FTF
for all of the sections of the CT must be multiplied together to obtain the FTF for the entire well. Analogous to the historical
lockup definition, lockup will now be defined as the point at which the FTF for the entire well is 1%.
Theory and equations for the WCF and FTF are provided in the Appendix.

SPE 168235

Ways to Reach Farther

The following is a list of techniques that can be applied to extend the reach of CT. Most have been applied and many are in
common use today.
Apply a force to the downhole end of the CT
o Downhole tractor
o Pump down the annulus- utilize sliding packer or cup
o Pump down the CT - utilize downhole tool containing reverse-facing jets
Reduce Friction
o Vibration utilize downhole vibration generator
o Lubrication pump lubricants and/or spot pills
o Rollers usually only placed on the bottom hole assembly (BHA)
o Rotate all or a portion of the CT string
o Increase buoyancy decrease the buoyant weight with a heavy fluid in well and/or a light fluid in CT
Increase the stiffness (EI) - increases helical buckling load (HBL) and decreases WCF due to HB
o Increase the CT diameter and/or wall thickness
o Use material with higher modulus of elasticity - none currently available that is higher than steel
Decrease radial clearance -increases HBL and decreases WCF due to HB
o Reduce the hole inside diameter (ID) (e.g. run the CT through drill pipe)
o Increase the outside diameter (OD) of the CT
Reduce the residual bend in the CT
o Use a straightener
Hybrid jointed pipe / CT string
Base Case for Parametric Studies
A tubing forces model based on the theory discussed above was used to calculate the lockup depth and FTF in an L-shaped
well. For the base case, the L-shaped well contained the following characteristics:
A straight 2-in OD by 0.204-in wall, 90 grade CT string was selected. For this analysis, a 1,000 lb compressive
force was added to the end of the CT to account for BHA friction and desired WOB during run in hole (RIH)
conditions.
The well was defined with an 8.921-in ID (9-5/8-in casing) through the entire length. The well kicked off from
vertical at 8,000 ft and the deviation build rate was 9 deg/100 ft until the wellbore trajectory became horizontal
at 9,000 ft. The horizontal section was allowed to be as long as needed for CT lockup to occur. A friction
coefficient of 0.25 was used throughout the well.
Water with a density of 8.33 pounds per gallon (ppg) was assumed throughout the CT and well. The wellhead
pressure was 0 and the pressure inside the CT at surface was 10,000 psi. A 1,000 psi pressure drop through the
BHA was assumed. These pressure values dont affect the lockup depth, but they do affect the von Mises stress
on the CT.
The straight pipe HBL calculation that was used is based on Eq. 1.8. In the parametric analyses, two other HBLs
are considered:

 and  terms were set to 0.

o Without Curvature the HBL was calculated ignoring curvature - both the
o Zero HBL the HBL was assumed to be 0
Lockup was defined as when the force transfer factor equaled 1%.
The calculated results for the base case are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The CT was able to reach a lockup depth of 12,073
ft, which was 3,073 ft into the horizontal section. The FTF in the vertical section of the well was only 5.3%, while the FTF in
the horizontal section of the well was 28.1% and 66.8% in the curve section. Note that when these 3 values were multiplied
together their product equaled the 1% lockup limit. Thus the majority of the lockup occurred in the vertical section of the
well for this case. Only 5.3% of the set down weight applied at surface reached the curved section of the well. Also of note,
only 3.6% (5.3% * 66.8%) of the set down force reached the beginning of the horizontal section.
Parametric Study of Well Parameters
The tubing forces model was utilized for several cases in which well parameters were varied from the base case. Results of
this analysis are shown in Table 1.

SPE 168235

ChangefromBaseCase
Basecase
Frictioncoefficients=0.30
Frictioncoefficients=0.35
HBLwithoutcurvature
HBL=0
3.8"IDtubingtoendofcurve
6.25"IDcasingentirewell
Kickoffat15,000ft
0densityfluidinwell
15.9ppginwell,0ppginCT
4.5degbuildfrom7,000ftto
9,000ft(slowerbuild)

Lockup
Depth
ft
12,073
11,415
10,673
11,817
11,265
12,579
13,130
19,073
11,797
12,532
12,033

ForceTransferFactor
Horizontal
Length Vertical Curve Horizontal
ft
%
%
%
3,073
5.3% 66.8%
28.1%
2,415
3.7% 62.0%
38.3%
1,673
1.8% 57.0% 100.0%
2,817
4.8% 23.4% 100.0%
2,265
10.2% 24.1%
40.7%
3,579
13.7% 67.3%
10.9%
4,130
4.7% 67.3%
32.0%
3,073
5.3% 66.8%
28.1%
2,797
6.5% 64.2%
26.0%
3,532
4.2% 67.8%
35.4%
3,033

74.8%

67.1%

30.0%

Table 1 - Results from Well Parametric Analysis

Observations from this well parametric analysis were:

As would be expected, increasing the friction coefficient decreased the horizontal length that could be achieved.
Note that the FTF in the vertical section also decreased, which means almost all of the loss of force transfer
occurred in the vertical section. For the case with a friction coefficient of 0.35, no buckling occurred in the
horizontal section of the well (FTF = 100%).
Allowing the CT to buckle more easily in the curved section decreased the horizontal length that could be
achieved. If the CT was buckled in the curve, the FTF in the curve was reduced significantly. When the HBL
was zero, significant buckling occurred in the horizontal section of the well.
Running the CT through drill pipe or production tubing to the end of the curve significantly increased the
horizontal length that could be achieved. In this case, the smallest FTF was observed in the horizontal section of
the well. The largest loss of force transfer was no longer in the vertical section (though with a 3.9 ID the
vertical section still had significant force transfer loss).
Reducing the ID for the entire well significantly increased the horizontal length that could be achieved. When
buckling occurred, the WCFs were less due to the reduced amplitude of the CT helix (reduced radial clearance).
This reduced the amount of friction caused by buckling.
Deepening the kick-off point from 8,000 to 15,000 ft gave exactly the same horizontal length and FTFs as the
base case. Obviously there was more set down weight available from the vertical section, but having the weight
available did not change the FTFs in the lower vertical section, curve and horizontal section.
Reducing the density of the fluid in the well increased the buoyant weight, reducing the horizontal length that
could be achieved.
Reducing the buoyant weight of the CT also reduced the HBL, allowing buckling to occur sooner. There was an
optimal buoyant weight of the CT that could be used to maximize horizontal reach. The optimum was reached
with no fluid in the CT and a 15.9 ppg fluid in the well. If the weight of the fluid in the well was increased
beyond this amount, the reach decreased, even though the buoyant weight decreased. Thus CT can only be
floated into a well to a certain point.
The slower build rate (4.5 deg/100 ft instead of 9 deg/100 ft) made little difference in the horizontal length that
could be achieved. Typically, if CT buckling doesnt occur in the curved portion of the well, the rate of wellbore
curvature should have minimal impact on the horizontal length that can be achieved. However, note that the
product of these 3 FTF values was 15% instead of the desired 1%. This was due to a step change that occurred
in the total FTF when the CT in the curved section of the wellbore buckled. In this case the FTF stepped from
15% to less than 1%.
From the parametric analysis, it seems much of the uncertainty in predicting the lockup depth for a specific well is due to
this and other similar FTF step change issues. As was described previously, if a section is buckled when it is pushed into a
curve, it will remain buckled. If it is straightened by POOH a short distance, then RIH again, it may not buckle in the curve
(because the HBL is greater in the curve), allowing further penetration into the well. However, this type of movement can
only help extend the reach a couple of times.

SPE 168235

Parametric String Analysis

The tubing force model was utilized for several cases in which CT string parameters were varied from the base case. Results
of this analysis are shown in Table 2.

ChangefromBaseCase
Basecase15,000ftkickoff
23/8"X.204"CT
27/8"X.250"CT
23/8"X.204"CTHBL=0
27/8"X.250"CTHBL=0
Taperedstring
TaperedstringHBL=0
TaperedHBLwithoutcurvature

Lockup
Depth
ft
12,073
13,215
14,849
12,355
13,820
13,931
10,813
13,659

ForceTransferFactor
Horizontal
Length Vertical Curve Horizontal
ft
%
%
%
3,073
5.3% 66.8%
28.1%
4,215
1.9% 67.2%
79.0%
5,849
5.4% 67.1%
27.9%
3,355
7.6% 34.5%
38.2%
4,820
5.4% 49.7%
37.1%
4,931
5.3% 67.8%
27.7%
1,813
18.0% 20.3%
27.3%
4,659
4.5% 22.6% 100.0%

Table 2 Results from String Parametric Analysis

Observations from this were parametric analysis were:

Increasing the CT diameter significantly increased the horizontal length that can be achieved. However, the major
loss of force transfer ability still occurred in the vertical section of the well.
Using a HBL of 0 for the larger CT sizes again significantly reduced the horizontal length that can be achieved.
A special 2-in tapered string was designed to maximize the achievable horizontal length.
o The design of this special Extended Taper string is shown in Fig. 1.
o The wall thicknesses of the tapered sections in the horizontal portion of the well were selected so they
would remain just below the HBL of the CT.
o The bottom portion of the string contained a very thin wall thickness, in this case 0.109. In the areas
where buckling did occur, a maximum wall thickness of 0.25-in was used. This range of wall thicknesses
may be greater than is practical.
o The horizontal length that could be achieved increased by 1,858 ft using the Extended Taper string design
compared to the base case!
o Assuming the HBL = 0 with this tapered string design resulted in less achievable horizontal length than the
straight string with the HBL = 0!
o Assuming that the string was buckled in the curve section of the wellbore increased the achievable
horizontal length by 1,586 ft compared to the straight string, which was still a significant increase.
o The upper 0.204-in section of the string could have been any wall thickness. It would not impact the
extended reach that could be achieved.
o A similar Extended Taper string with the thinnest wall thickness 0.125-in (instead of 0.109-in) had an
increase in achievable horizontal length of 1,611 ft.

Residual Curvature
A major concern with CT is the fact that it has residual stresses and usually residual curvature from the plastic bending and
straightening it experiences when being bent around the reel and guide arch. A straightener can be utilized, typically between
the guide arch and the injector, which will significantly reduce the residual curvature of the CT. However, even after the CT
is straightened, there are significant residual stresses that remain in the CT. The straightener aligns these stresses in a way
that makes the pipe appear straight (or nearly straight).
Fig. 2 contains a schematic and a picture of a hydraulically activated straightener. Hydraulic activation is needed so the
straightener can be turned off after the lower portion of the CT string has entered the well. This avoids additional fatigue8 in
the portion of the CT string which experiences the most fatigue damage. Fig. 3 shows two pictures of CT which has been run
through an injector, the first with the straightener off and the second with the straightener on. The straightener removed the
majority of the residual bend.

SPE 168235

For years there has been a concern that residual curvature exacerbated the onset of HB, and thus shortened the possible
extended reach. To answer this question, a test fixture6, shown in Fig. 4, was built to perform buckling and helical lockup
testing. The fixture is composed of a 16 ft long 1-in ID transparent tube which simulates the wellbore. Quarter-inch OD rods
were placed in this tube. A measured input force was applied to the rod on one end, and the output force was measured at the
other end. Force in Force out experiments were run with a series of rods including rods that were:
Straight never bent
Curved bent around a drum then forced to a straight position and then released
Twisted twisted torsionally several revolutions with no curvature
Helical both curved and twisted
Straightened curve reverse bent through a 3-wheeled straightener until nearly straight
Straightened helix - reverse bent through a 3-wheeled straightener until nearly straight
Fig. 5 shows typical results from these tests. The dashed blue line would be the ideal case where the force out equals the
force in. The curves above the dashed blue line are the unloading curves and the curves below the dashed blue line are the
loading curves. The sudden changes in the curves are due to stick-slip conditions between the surface of the simulated
wellbore and the rods. The helical buckling load for this situation was approximately 50 lb. The red curve is the calculated
result from the tubing forces model for a friction coefficient of 0.28. Qualitative conclusions from this testing were:
The twisted straight rod behaves much like the straight rod.
The curved rod did buckle with a much lower HBL versus the straight rod
The helical rod buckled at an even lower HBL than the curved rod almost 0
Both the curved and helical rods experience more WCF after buckling, again with the helical rod being worse
than the curved rod. The tubing forces model was able to model these cases accurately by using an increased
friction coefficient.
The straightened rods behave like the straight rod in the pre-buckling regime. The buckling loads for these
straightened rods were slightly less but similar to the buckling load for the straight rod.
In the post-buckling regime, the straightened rods demonstrated some increase in WCF when compared to the
straight rod. This was not as significant as the curved and helical rods, but it was measurable.
From these tests, it can be determined that straightening the CT significantly affects the HBL and the post-buckling WCF.

Conclusions
There is an optimal buoyant weight for CT extended reach. Some have thought that a CT string that floats would be the
ideal, allowing infinite reach. But reduced buoyant weight also means reduced HBL. Once HB occurs, the WCF is
caused by buckling, not by weight. Thus, CT can only be floated into a well up to a certain point if there is any
compressive load.
Often, field data has shown that the friction coefficient during RIH conditions tends to be greater than the friction
coefficient during POOH conditions. The authors believe that this effect is primarily caused by the residual curvature in
the CT.
The concept of a FTF has been developed and equations were provided to utilize the new approach. Analysis of the FTF
in various sections of the wellbore can provide valuable insight regarding how each section of the well is limiting the
extended reach.
This modeling effort shows that an Extended Taper string can be built which significantly increases the extended reach.
This string would only be effective if it is run with a straightener.
In some scenarios more force transfer is lost in the lower portion of the vertical section of the wellbore than in the
horizontal section.

SPE 168235

Nomenclature
Ai
Ao
As
D
E
F
Fb
Ft
FTF
FTFc
FTFh
FTFv
HBL
I
K
L
rc
s
t


W
b

WCF


WCF
h

WCF

Inside cross-sectional area of the CT

Outside cross-sectional area of the CT
Cross-sectional area of the CT material
Diameter of the CT
Youngs Modulus of the CT material
Effective axial force in the CT
Force at the bottom of a section
Force at the top of a section
Force transfer factor
Force transfer factor in a curved section (no buckling)
Force transfer factor in a horizontal section due to buckling
Force transfer factor in a vertical section due to buckling
Helical buckling load
Area moment of inertia of CT cross-section
Curvature of wellbore reciprocal of the radius of curvature
Length of the section
Radial clearance of the CT in the Annulus
Dimension along axis of the well
Wall thickness of the CT
Derivative of buoyant weight with respect to s (dWb/ds)
Wall Contact Force
Derivative of wall contact force due to weight and curvature in the vertical direction
Derivative of wall contact force due to weight and curvature in the horizontal direction


WCF
WC

Derivative of wall contact force due to weight and curvature with respect to s (dWCF/ds)

i
o
s

Density of the fluid inside the CT

Density of the fluid outside the CT
Density of the CT material
Inclination at a point in the well

Derivative of inclination with respect to s (d/ds)

Friction coefficient
Azimuth at a point in the well
Derivative of azimuth with respect to s (d/ds)




References
1. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S., and Logan, J.L.: Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers, JPT (June
1962) 655-70; Trans., AIME, 225
2. Mitchell, R.F.: Simple Friction Analysis of Helical Buckling of Tubing, SPE Drilling Engineering, 457-465,
December 1986
3. Ken Newman, Kenneth Bhalla, Albert McSpadden; Basic Tubing Forces Model (TFM) Calculation, NOV
CTES Tech Note, April 26, 1999
4. Bhalla, Kenneth: Implementing Residual Bend in a Tubing Forces Model, SPE Paper 28303, 69th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 1994
5. CTES; Coiled Tubing Manual, chapter 6 available on the NOV CTES website
6. Ken Newman; Vibration and Rotation Considerations in Extending Coiled Tubing Reach, SPE paper 106979,
2007 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, March
2007
7. McCann, R.C., Suryanarayana, P.V.R., Experimental Study of Curvature and Friction Effects on Buckling,
OTC paper 7568, 26th Annual OTC in Houston, May, 1994
8. Tipton, Steven M., University of Tulsa, Smalley, Ed, NOV CTES, VanArnam, Don, NOV Quality Tubing,
Influence of a Straightener on Coiled Tubing Fatigue, SPE paper 154057, 2012 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, TX, March 2012

SPE 168235

Depth
ft
13,931
8,830
4,330
4,030
3,630
3,230
2,560
2,090
Fig. 1 Extended Taper String Design

Fig. 2 CT Straightener

Fig. 3 - CT Below Injector Without and With Straightening

Section
Length
ft
5,101
4,500
300
400
400
670
470
2,090

Wall
Thickness
in
0.204
0.250
0.225
0.204
0.175
0.156
0.125
0.109

SPE 168235

Fig. 4 - Pictures of Forces Test Apparatus

SPE 168235

Fig. 5 - Results from Force In Force Out Tests

10

SPE 168235

Appendix Theory
WCF Due to Weight and Curvature
The buoyant weight is the weight of the dry CT plus the weight of the fluid inside, minus the weight of the fluid displaced by
the CT. The buoyant weight for a unit length can be written as:

2
D
4

2
Ai = ( D 2t )
4
As = t ( D t )
 = A + A A
W
b
s s
i i
o o
Ao =

(1.1)

The WCF due to weight and curvature can be broken into vertical and horizontal vectors. The buoyant weight and change
in inclination form the vertical vector. The change in azimuth forms the horizontal vector. These two vectors can be written
as:
 =W
 sin F
(1.2)
WCF
v
b

 = F
WCF
h

(1.3)

The total WCF due to weight and curvature is the sum of these 2 orthogonal vectors:


 2 + WCF
 2
WCF
WCF
WC =
v
h

(1.4)

The curvature at any point in the well is defined as:

2
K =  2 + (  sin )

(1.5)

Substituting equations(1.2), (1.3) and (1.5) into (1.4) and solving yields:


 sin + ( W
 sin )2
WCF
2 F2 2 FW
WC =
b
b

(1.6)

Note that this WCFWC is a function of the axial force in the CT which is changing along the length. Thus this equation
must be integrated along the length of the well.
The FTF for a straight, unbuckled section is 1.0. The FTF in an unbuckled curved section is the capstan equation:

FTFc =

dFb
= eLK
dFt

(1.7)

WCF Due to Helical Buckling

When the compressive force in the CT exceeds (is more compressive than) the helical buckling load (HBL), the CT buckles
into a helix. The compressive load at which the CT actually buckles is critical to determining the extended reach because the
WCF due to the helix is typically much greater than the WCF due to the buoyant weight and curvature. The HBL can be
written as follows. This is one of many equations which attempt to predict the HBL4.
2

2
8EI  
2
HBL = 1 + 4
F + Wb sin + ( F sin )
rc

(1.8)

The WCF due to buckling can be written as follows. As was mentioned earlier, it is a function of the effective axial force
in the CT squared.

rc
4 EI
 = F2
WCF
b

(1.9)

Again, this equation must be integrated along the length of the CT section. Note that these two WCF do not sum
together. Either the WCF due to weight and curvature applies, or the WCF due to buckling applies, but not both. For a given
buckled section, the larger of the two values is used.
The force transfer factor for a horizontal buckled section of CT is:

FTFh =

dFb
2
= (1 + FbL )
dFt

(1.10)

SPE 168235

11

The force transfer factor in a vertical buckled section of CT is:


W
b

F
dF
FTFv = b = e 2L b

dFt
Ft

(1.11)