Chapter 13

Tubing Design
Tubing design is an important facet of the well plan. The tubing is the flow string through
which the produced oil and gas move from the reservoir to the surface handling facilities. In
addition to the produced fluids, the tubing may be required to control pressures and fluids during
stimulation or squeeze conditions. Poor tubing designs may result in tubing failure, which
necessitates expensive remedial operations.
The typical production system is shown in Fig. 13-1. It contains the tubing, a packer, the
seal assembly, and several flow control devices. Other types of tubing systems will be discussed
later in this chapter.

Fig. 13-1 Typical production system. (Courtesy Baker Packers)

The classical tubing design theory was established by Lubinski et al. It introduced new
concepts not previously used in casing design. Lubinski's work for a single, uniform, vertical
tubing string will be used in this chapter. His sign conventions and terminology will be followed,
even though they differ from other drilling nomenclature.

Tubing Design Criteria

The three major tubular systems (casing, tubing, and the drillstring) used in drilling are
designed with different criteria. Casing is typically designed for burst, collapse, and tension,
whereas the drillstring is designed for collapse and tension, with burst seldom playing any
important role. Likewise, tubing is de- signed with a completely different set of guidelines.
Failure to recognize the differences may result in an underdesigned string.
Stress is the controlling factor in tubing design. Later examples will show that tubing
designed for stress considerations is overdesigned for burst, collapse, and tension. Stress and

13.1
tensile loading are different parameters and, as such, should not be confused or misused in the
tubing design, as is often done.
Factors Affecting Stress. Tubing lying on the pipe rack does not encounter any
significant, externally imposed stresses. After it is placed in the well, it must withstand stresses
from many sources. A knowledge of these stress sources and the manner in which they affect the pipe is
necessary to select pipe capable of withstanding the expected loads.
Tubing hanging in the well must withstand the load of its own weight. This factor can be
significant in deep wells. Fig. 13-2 shows a stress graph for 6.4-lb/ft tubing hanging in a 10,000
ft well that contains no packer fluids.

Fig. 13-2 Tubing stresses in a well with no fluids.

Wells without packer fluids, as described in Fig. 13-2, are seldom used in high pressure
areas such as south Louisiana. The common case is a tubing string hanging in a fluid with
equivalent fluid densities inside and outside of the tubing. Fig. 13-3 shows the same tubing string
stress (Fig. 13-2), but the string is hung in a 9.0-lb/gal packer fluid. The stress factors in this case
are the tubing weight and the hydrostatic pressure of the packer fluid acting on the horizontal
cross-sectional area of the tubing at the bottom of the string.

Fig. 13-3 Tubing stresses in a well with 9.0-lb/gal fluid.

13.2
 Temperature has an impact on tubing stress. Cooling normally causes pipe contractions
(shortening), and heating results in elongation. The normal expected length change is 0.0000069
in. per inch of tubing for each degree Fahrenheit change in temperature. If the tubing is
prevented from moving, as is common with some production packer systems, stresses build in
the tubing.
Ballooning, or radial pressure and fluid flow, as termed by Lubinski, results from internal
and external pressures causing the tubing to bulge, or balloon, outward (or inward). The
ballooning changes the total length of tubing (Fig. 13-4). As with temperature, packer systems
that inhibit the expected tubing movement increase tubing stress.

Fig. 13-4 Ballooning shortens the tubing.

Buckling is the formation of helical spirals in the tubing string (Fig. 13-5). The depth above
which buckling does not occur is the neutral point of buckling, which should not be confused
with the neutral point in a tension-compression analysis. Buckling forces and the tubing-casing
geometries affect the severity of the buckling or its pitch.
Bending stresses result from buckling. As the pipe is strained from the flexing, stresses
are changed in the grain structures of the pipe wall. As the pipe bends, the outer wall lengthens
and the inner wall shortens. Therefore, stress changes will be different for each case. Fig. 13-6
shows the expected results.

Fig. 13-5 Tubing buckling.

13.3
 Fig. 13-6 Bending stresses.

Packer and Seal Arrangements

The packer and seal assembly provides the pressure integrity between the producing
formations and the tubing. Unfortunately, this equipment also limits tubing movement, which
results in stress increases. Various types and combinations of packer systems are currently used.
The completion type affects the stresses in the tubing. A single completion has a bottom
packer. Multiple completions normally use additional packers that restrict vertical and buckling
tubing movement. Gravel pack completions are similar to single completions with respect to
tubing stress.
Packers. A packer is a device that seals the tubing-casing annulus and forces produced
fluids into the tubing. The exterior of the packer contains slips to prevent packer movement and a
sealing element. A permanent packer is shown in Fig. 13-7. The slips are rated for tensile loading
and should be evaluated when the packer is selected.

Fig. 13-7 Permanent packer. (Courtesy Baker Packers)

13.4
 The sealing rubber is typically a nitrile compound with a 60-70 durometer hardness. High
formation temperatures may necessitate the use of harder rubbers (80-90 hardness). In addition,
K-Ryte® (Dupont) or equivalent sealing elements must be used in sour gas environments when
certain corrosion inhibitors are
used.
The size of the packer bore is an important variable in buckling calculations. It is seldom
the same size as the tubing outer diameter. Fig. 13-8 shows the possible variations in bore
diameters for a 5 ½-in. Baker packer. Table 13-1 illustrates the packer bore sizes for various
Baker Model D packers.
Table 13-1
Packer Bore Sizes
For Baker Model D Packers
Casing Casing Bore
size, in. weight, lb/ft size, in.
4.5 9.5-16.6 1.312
5 15-21 1.968
11.5-13 1.312
5.5 26 0.984
13-23 2.375
6 14-26 2.406
6.625 17-32 2.375
7 17-38 2.375
7.625 24-39 2.468
8.625 24-39 3.875
9.625 32.3-47 3.875
10.75 32.75-81 3.875
11.75 38-60 4.875
13.375 48-72

Fig. 13-8 Packer bore size variations for various Baker packers
in the 5½-in casing size (20-23 lb/ft).

13.5
 Seal Assembly. The seal assembly attaches to the bottom of the tubing and provides the
pressure seal between the tubing and the packer. The standard seal assembly contains two 1-ft
seal units. The locator assembly, Fig. 13-9, allows upward tubing movement and prevents
downward movement when the locator is set on the packer. The anchored assembly, Fig. 13-10,
screws into the packer and prevents any vertical movement.

Fig. 13-9 Locator-type Fig. 13-10 Anchored

seal assembly. assembly.

Producing Conditions Affecting Tubing Design

Tubing design must be evaluated for the producing conditions it is expected to withstand.
In general, these conditions are as follows:
 space-out
 flowing
 stimulation/squeeze
 depletion

The severity of the stress loads under these operating conditions controls the tubing selection.
Seven items must be known for each of the conditions before the stresses can be
computed:
 packer density
 tubing fluid density
 annulus surface pressure
 tubing surface pressure
 surface tubing temperature
 bottom tubing temperature

13.6
  tubing friction pressure

Tubing fluid density is easily established for oil or salt water. However, gas densities in terms of
lb/gal (for consistency with Lubinski) are usually assumed to be in the range of 1-2.5 lb/ga1. Wet
gases may be heavier. This value should be examined closely if flowing conditions are more
severe than the other operating conditions.
The tubing friction pressure can be difficult to estimate. However, the worst stress case
occurs when the friction pressures are zero. The design approach presented in this section will
assume that these pressures are negligible.
Space-out. The space-out condition occurs when the tubing is positioned as desired
relative to the packer and the production tree. The usual conditions are that I) the fluid density is
the same for the annulus as the tubing, 2) no pressure exists at the top of the tubing and casing,
and 3) some weight (10,000- 30,000 lb) is set on the packer. The temperature at the bottom of the
tubing is approximately equal to formation temperature.
Flowing. Oil and gas movement up the tubing causes several stress changes for various
reasons. The maximum tubing pressure (SITP) is greater than at space-out conditions. In
addition, the overall tubing temperature is increased. A satisfactory method of comparing
temperature changes is to evaluate the average of top and bottom temperatures at flowing
conditions.
Stimulation/Squeeze. These conditions are often the most severe that tubing must
withstand during its life. Although these conditions may exist for a relatively short period, they
must be included in the design considerations. The typical considerations are 1) high tubing
pressures and fluid densities, 2) annular backup pressure, and 3) cooling effects due to surface
fluids being pumped down the tubing. Fluids used during these conditions include cement and
acid.
Depletion. Depletion conditions occur when the formation pressures are reduced to a
non-economical productive level. Depletion-like circumstances occur when the perforations are
plugged or the tubing is blocked with sand or other obstructions. The tubing pressure is low or
zero, and the temperatures are approximately equal to the original space-out values.
A typical set of values for all operational conditions is shown in Table 13-2.

Table 13-2
Typical Operating Conditions
Space Stimulation/
Out Flowing Squeeze Depletion
Packer fluid density, lb/gal 9 9 9 9
Tubing fluid density, lb/gal 9 6 16.4 6
Surface annulus pressure, psi 0 0 1,000 0
Surface tubing pressure, psi 0 2,800 4,500 0
Surface tubing temperature, º F 70 145 45 70
Bottom tubing temperature, º F 240 240 110 240
Friction pressure gradient, psi/ft 0 0 0 0

Stress Evaluation
Grade selection for the tubing string is dependent on the determination of the stresses.
The calculation procedures for the stresses must be completed in the following order:
1. force determinations
2. tubing length changes
3. stresses resulting from tubing length changes
This approach will be followed in this section.

13.7
 Lubinski's work on tubing design used a sign convention that is not completely consistent
with some industry approaches. To avoid confusion, a listing of the sign conventions is shown in
Table 13-3. This convention, as used by Lubinski, will be followed throughout this text since his
work is the basis of most tubing design applications.

Table 13-3
Tubing Sign Convention
Sign
Item Positive (+) Negative (-)
Force Compression Tension
Length changes Lengthen Shorten
Stresses Compressive Tensile
Temperature Increase Decrease
Hook loading Slack off Pickup

Forces. The actual force (Fa) in the tubing at the bottom of the string is dependent on the
pressures inside and outside of the tubing and the areas exposed to those pressures. This force
can be calculated with Eq. 13. 1:

Fa  Pi (Ap  Ai )  Po (Ap  Ao ) (13.1)

Where:
Fa = actually existing pressure force of a tubing string that is not restrained in the packer, lb
Pi = pressure inside the tubing at the packer, ppsi
Po = pressure outside the tubing at the packer, psi
Ai = inside tubing area, in.2
Ao = outside tubing area, in.2
Ap = packer bore area, in.2

Table 13-4
Tubing Constants
OD, Wt As
in lb/ft Ap in.2 Ai in. in.2 I in.4 R2
1.660 2.40 2.164 1.496 0.668 0.195 1.448
1.900 2.90 2.835 2.036 0.799 0.310 1.393
2.000 3.40 3.142 2.190 0.952 0.404 1.434
2- 3.40 3.341 2.405 0.936 0.428 1.389
1/16
2-3/8 4.70 4.430 3.126 1.304 0.784 1.417
2-7/8 6.50 6.492 4.680 1.812 1.611 1.387
3-1/2 9.20 9.621 7.031 2.590 3.343 1.368
4.000 11.00 12.570 9.490 2.420 5.400 1.324
4-1/2 12.60 15.900 12.300 2.830 8.080 1.293
5.000 15.50 19.630 15.260 3.430 12.150 1.287
5-1/2 17.000 23.760 18.000 3.900 17.490 1.264
6.000 20.000 28.270 21.570 5.260 23.340 1.257
6-5/8 24.000 34.470 27.530 5.430 34.230 1.252
7.000 32.000 38.480 30.040 6.630 50.160 1.319
Courtesy of Baker

Table 13-4 shows values of Ao, Ai, and other items for common tubing sizes.

A buckling force (Fb) is defined in Eq. 13.2:

Fb  A p (Pi  Po ) (13.2)

Where:

13.8
 Fb = buckling force, lb
∆Pi = change in pressure inside the tubing at the packer, psi
∆Po = change in pressure outside the tubing at the packer, psi

Eq. 13.2 indicates that the buckling forces increase when the pressure inside the tubing string is
raised, as in the case of squeeze conditions. Lubinski tenned the force Fb as a fictitious force.
Length Changes. Tubing hanging in a well that contains no fluids will stretch to some
length greater than the original length when the pipe was sitting on the racks. The pipe will be in
tension at the top but will not have stresses at the bottom. Pressure and temperature changes
resulting from normal operations induce length changes that must be evaluated since they affect
the stresses.
Packer and completion fluids apply pressures that. cause a length change, ∆L1. This
change can be calculated with Hooke's law, as described in Eq. 13.3:

ΔL1 

L ΔPi (A p  Ai )  ΔPo (A p  Ao )  (13.3)
E As

Where:
L = length of tubing to packer, in.
E = Young's modulus of elasticity (for steel, E = 30 × 106 psi)
As = cross-sectional area of tubing, in.2
∆L1 = length change resulting from Hooke's law, in.

The cross-sectional area, As, for common tubing seizes can be found in Table 13-4. This length
change is often termed he piston effect.
Buckling will cause a length change defined as ∆L2. If the buckling force is less than
zero:

Fb  0 (13.4)

The buckling does not occur and no length changes occur, or:

ΔL2  0

When the buckling force is less than the buoyed weight of the tubing string, or:

Fb  Wf xL (13.5)

Then the length change, ∆L2, is calculated from Eq. 13.6:

 r 2 Fb2
ΔL 2  (13.6)
8 EI Wf
Where:
∆L2 = length change due to helical buckling, in.
r = tubing-to-casing radial clearance, in.
Wr = buoyed tubing weight, lb/in.

13.9
 Pressure changes inside and outside of the tubing cause length change ∆L 3. This effect is
called ballooning and results from radial pressure flow. The value, ∆L3, can be calculated from
Eq. 13.7:

 (0.5  v) δ  L2 v
ΔL 3   Δρ i  R 2 Δρ o  
 v  E(R 2  1) (13.7)
2L v
 (ΔΔi  R 2 Δp o )
E(R 2  1)
Where:
∆L3 = length change due to ballooning, in.
∆ρi = change in fluid density inside the tubing, psi/in.
∆ρo = change in fluid density outside the tubing, psi/in.
R = ratio of tubing OD/ID
v = Poisson’s ratio for steel, v = 0.3
δ = tubing friction pressure, psi/in.

The tubing friction pressure, δ, is considered a constant and is positive when the flow is down the
tubing. The worst case for ballooning length changes occur when δ is zero.
Temperature changes cause the tubing to elongate or contract. The amount of length
change, ∆L4, caused by temperatures can be calculated with Eq. 13.8:

ΔL 4  L ΔT β (13.8)

Where:
∆L4 =length changes due to temperature
∆T = average temperature change, °F
ß = coefficient of thermal expansion,
6.9 × 10 –6 in./°F for steel

The total length changes, ∆L, caused by pressure and temperatures can be calculated with
Eq. 13.9:

ΔL  ΔL1  ΔL 2  ΔL 3  ΔL 4 (13.9)

The value, ∆L, does not account for slack-off or pickup-related changes.
Field experience has shown that normal production operations may shorten the tubing. If
the seal assembly is not anchored into the packer, the tubing may shorten just enough to pull the
seal out of the packer. To avoid this, it has become a practice to lower some additional tubing
weight on the packer. This procedure is called slack-off.
Slack-off weight often ranges from 10,000-30,000 lb and will vary, depending on the
producing and tubing conditions. The slack-off force is defined as Fs. The length change, ∆L5,
associated with slack-off weight can be calculated form Eq. 13.10:

Fs  L r 2 Fs 
ΔL 5     (13.10)
E  A 8I WI 

Where:
∆L5 = length change due to slack-off, in.

13.10
 Wi =initial buoyed tubing weight, psi/in.
Fs = slack-off weight, lbf
8I = inertia term

The minimum required seal assembly length can be calculated from Eq. 13.11

Δ T  ΔL  ΔL 5
(13.11)
 ΔL1  ΔL 2  ΔL 3  ΔL 4  ΔL 5

Tubing-to-Packer Forces. The total length changes, ∆LT, may create an additional force
defined as a tubing-to-packer force, Fp. If the length changes, elongation and the packer restrains
such movement, a packer force is developed. Further, if Fp is zero, then:

F*a  Fa (13.12)
F*b  Fb (13.13)

were Fa* and Fb* are the actual and buckling forces resulting from no packer restraint. However, in
the case of packer restraint:

F*a  Fa  Fp
(13.14)
F*b  Fb  Fp
(13.15)

Fp is calculated in the same manner as the mechanically applied force necessary to move the
tubing back to its original, landed position through the distance -∆LT.
Effects of Buckling. A common calculation associated with tubing is to determine the
neutral point, n, or the point above which buckling does not occur. This definition should not be
confused with the neutral point as associated with a tension analysis. Unfortunately, many
industry disagreements result from a confusion of the definitions.
The neutral point can be calculated as follows:
For F b  Wf  L;
*

F*b
n (13.16)
12 Wf

For F*b  Wf  L;

L
n (13.17)
12

The buckled pitch, λ, which is the distance between spirals at the bottom of the string, is
calculated as follows:

π 8 EI
λ (13.18)
12 F*b

The value λ can be used to determine the length of logging tools that can be run through the
bottom section of the tubing.
13.11
 Stress Calculations. Determination of the bending stress at the bottom of the tubing is
calculated as follows:
If F*b  0 :
σb  0
If F*b  0 :
d o r F*b
σb  (13.19)
4I

Where:
σb = bending stress at the outer finger of the tubing, psi
do = tubing outer diameter, in.
I = moment of inertia, in.4

 π 4 4 
I  64 (d o  d i )
 

The axial stress, σa, is as follows:

F*a
a  (13.20)
As

An evaluation of σa and σb at the top of the tubing must account for the total string weight in the
various fluids.
Buckled pipe will become permanently corkscrewed if the stress at the outer walls of the
pipe exceeds the yield strength of the pipe. Therefore, the internal and external combined
stresses, Si and So respectively, must be determined before making a pipe selection. S i and So are
calculated as follows.

1
  R 2 (P  P )  2  P  R 2 P σ b  
2 2

Si  3 if of
 
if of
 σa   
  R  1   R  1
2 2
R 

1
  P  P  2  P  R 2 Pof 
2
 2

So  3 if 2 of    if 2  σa  σb   (13.21), (13.22)

  R  1   R  1  

The maximum stresses are obtained from Eqs. 13.21 and 13.22 by choosing the sign (±)
that gives the largest value to the square root. The bending stress due to helical buckling
produces both a compressive (±) stress on the inside of the helix and a tensile (–) stress on the
outside of the helix. The maximum combined fiber stress will occur on either the inside or
outside of the helix, depending on whether the axial and pressure stresses are compressive or
tensile.

13.12
Example 13.1

Consider the conditions described in Table 13-2. Using the following information,
evaluate the stresses involved in the tubing and select a tubing grade. Use a stress design factor
of 1.1.

Tubing size = 2.875 in.

Tubing weight = 6.4 lb./ft
= 6.4 lb./ft
Casing ID = 6.151 in.
Packer depth = 10,000 ft
Packer type = Baker Model D
Slack-off weight = 20,000 lb
Seal type = Anchored seals
Packer bore = 2.375 in.

Solution:

The equations and solution for each operating condition are not presented in this example
due to the length of the calculations. A summary of the results follows:
Tubing Length Changes (FT)*
Operating Conditions
Item Space- Flowing Stimulation Depletion
out
Tubing elasticity – 0.057 0.004 –0.072
3.679
Helical Buckling – –0.044 –0.999 0.000
0.500
Radial pressure 0.0 –1.044 –2.600 0.402
(balooning)
Temperature change 0.0 2.588 –5.348 0.000
Total – 1.557 –8.943 0.330
4.179
*These length changes would have occurred if the seals were free for
movement.

Since the assembly was anchored and the seals could not move, stresses were induced into the
tubing
Tubing Length Changes (FT)*
Operating Conditions
Item Space-out Flowing Stimulation Depletion
Packer-to-tubing force, lb 20,000.00 24,418.041 -21,133.872 21,050.540
Actual force, lb 28,470.00 32,578.526 -12,684.625 29,910.027
Buckling force, lb 20,000.00 29,919.380 11,399.074 21,050.540
Helix pitch, ft 36.399 29.760 48.214 35.479
Neutral point above packer,ft 3,601.689 6,202.515 1,550.546 4,363.939
Total bottom stress, psi 25,654.183 38,777.788 47,488.116 24,216.926
Total top stress, psi 19,607.183 20,101..720 40,581.489 18,813.190

Since the greatest stress was 47,488 psi, J-55 is sufficient for the well.

Burst, Collapse, and Tension Evaluation

Previous sections defined stress as the controlling criteria for tubing design. Pipe selected
for stress considerations will be overdesigned in burst, collapse, and tension. Example 13.2 will
illustrate this feature with respect to Example 13.1
13.13
Example 13.2

Show that burst, collapse, and tension, values are overdesigned when using stress as the
controlling criteria. Use Example 13.1. The maximum properties for J-55, 2.875-in., 6.4-lb/ft
tubing is as follows:
Burst = 7,260
Collapse = 7,680
Tension = 99,660

Solution:

Evaluate the burst and collapse conditions for load, backup, and net resultant values.
Item Flowing Stimulation Depletion
Burst load, psi
Top 2,800 4,500 0
Bottom 5,920 13,028 3,120

Burst backup, psi

Top 0 1,000 0
Bottom 4,680 5,680 4,680

Resultant burst, psi

Top 2,800 3,500 0
Bottom 1,240 7,348 - 1,560

Burst design factor

Top 2.592 2.074 ___
Bottom 5.854 1.00** ___

Collapse load, psi

Top 0 0 0
Bottom 4,680 5,680 4,680

Collapse backup, psi

Top 0 0 0
Bottom 5,920 13,028 0*

Resultant collapse load, psi

Top 0 0 0
Bottom - 1,240 - 7,348 4,680

Collapse design factor

Top ___ ___ ___
Bottom ___ ___ 1.64
*Assumed to be the worst case
**Considers biaxial effects of tension on burst and 100% wall thickness

Tension:
The maximum axial forces at the bottom of the tubing were 32,578 lb. Therefore, the
tension design factor is:

13.14
 99,660 lb
 3.059
32,578 lb

The maximum tension at the bottom occurs in the stimulation operations. The buoyed weight of
the string is:

 9 
(6.4 lb/ft) (10,000ft) 1    55,206 lb
 65.5 

An additional tension load of 12,6841b occurs during stimulation. Therefore, the total tension
load at the top is 67,890 lb. The tension design factor is computed as:

99,660 lb
 1.469
67,890 lb

Example 13.2 illustrates that stress factors are of major importance in tubing design.

13.15
 Problems
13.1 Suppose that high-density cement is pumped down a production tubing string during a
squeeze cement job. Can the tubing buckle? Why?

13.2 Discuss the operating conditions that cause an anchored assembly to increase tubing stress.

13.3 Suppose steam will be injected through tubing in a thermal recovery project. What effect
will it have on the tubing? If the average temperature change is 150oP, what is the expected
length change?

13.4 Discuss the significance of the helical spiral in a buckled system with respect to well
logging.

References
Adams, N.J. Well Control Problems and Solutions. Tulsa: Penn Well Publishing, 1980.

Greenip, John F. "Determining Stress in Tubing Using Triaxial Evaluation." SPE 6760 presented
at the 1977 Fall Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado.

Hammerlindl, D.J. "Basic Fluid Pressure Forces on Oilwell Tubulars." Jour- nal of Petroleum
Technology, January 1980, pp. 153-159.

Hammerlindl, D.J. "Movement, Forces, and Stress Associated with Combination Tubing Strings
Sealed in Packers." Journal of Petroleum Tech- nolgoy, Feb~ary 1977, pp. 195-208.

Klinkenberg, A. "The Neutral Zones in Drill Pipe and Casing and Their Significance in Relation
to Buckling and Collapse." Drilling and Production Practices. API, 1951.

Logan, J.L. "How to Keep Tubing Sealed in Packers." Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, volume 2, no. 2, 1963.

Lubinski, A., and K.A. Blenkara. "Buckling of Tubing in Pumping Wells, Its Effects and Means
for Controlling It." Trans., AIME, volume 210,
1957, pp. 73-88.

Lubinski, A. "Influence of Tension and Compression on Straightness and Buckling of Tubular

Goods in Oil Wells." Proc., API 31st Annual Meeting, Chicago, 1951, Prod. Sec. IV, 31, 34.

Lubinski, A. "A Study of the Buckling of Rotary Drilling String." Drilling and Production
Practices. API, 1951.

Lubinski, A., W.S. Althouse, and J.L. Logan. "Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers."
Journal of Petroleum Technology, June 1962, pp. 655-670.

13.16