Well Configuration
Define well geometry, trajectory, and job parameters
Well Identification
Wellbore Geometry
ft
ft
ft
°
°/100ft
in
Well Profile
Well Trajectory (schematic)
Survey Data (MD / Inc / Azimuth)
| # | Depth (ft MD) | Inclination (°) | Azimuth (°) | DLS (°/100ft) | TVD (ft) |
|---|
Wellbore Conditions
°F
°F
psi
psi
ppg
bbl/d
Toolstring Configuration
Build and analyze bottomhole assembly (BHA)
Tool Library
Active Toolstring (Top → Bottom)
BHA Summary
Total Tool Length
—
Total Tool Weight
—
Max OD
—
Knuckle Joints
—
Toolfit Wizard (BHA Analysis)
Run "Analyze BHA" to check if toolstring can navigate doglegs and restrictions.
Cable & Weak Point Selection
Select cable, set weak point, and configure drum parameters
Cable Selection
Selected Cable Properties
Select a cable from the library →
Weak Point Configuration
Include Weak Point in Calculations
lbf
lbf
Correct for downhole temperature effect
Select weak point type:
Standard Weak Point
Fixed rated break force
Tension Collar
Partially activated by tension
Calibrated Break Force
Find best match from pull test
Drum & Spool Parameters — Cable Tension Wizard
ft
in
in
lbf
ft/min
μ = 0.25 (Clean fluid, cased hole)
Drum Crush Thresholds
%
Min tension % where drum crush can occur
×
POOH/RIH ratio for caution warning
×
POOH/RIH ratio for critical warning
Job Feasibility Analysis
Surface Weight vs Depth · Cable limits · Compression · Overpull
Surface Weight (RIH)
—
lbf
at target depth
Surface Weight (POOH)
—
lbf
at target depth
Max Overpull Available
—
lbf
before weak point breaks
Compression Risk Depth
—
ft MD
first buckle onset
⬇️
Max Tool-Reachable Depth — No Tractor
—
Run feasibility to evaluate gravity-conveyance limit.
Critical Angle θc
—
θc = arctan(1/μ)
3D Well Trajectory — Max Reachable Depth
Well path
Gravity-reachable
Tractor required
Max reachable depth
Target depth
Well TD
Run Feasibility first to update well trajectory and depth markers. Drag on the canvas to orbit · scroll to adjust elevation.
Surface Weight vs Depth
RIH
POOH
Compression
Weak Pt
WBS
Max Reach ●
Tractor Zone
Cable Tension at Depth (RIH)
Cable tension at depth
Compression
Tractor Zone
Shows axial tension remaining in the cable at each depth on RIH. When this reaches zero the cable goes slack — no further tool advance is possible without tractor or pump-down. The purple shaded zone marks the tractor-required interval.
Cable Stretch (Depth Correction)
Stretch (add to counter)
Tractor Zone
Estimated stretch at target: — (apply as depth correction to counter reading)
RIH / POOH Simulation
🔧
0 ft
Speed: 80 ft/min
Flow & Pressure Effects
Hydraulic forces, flow-induced drag, and fluid effects on tool deployment
Flow Parameters
bbl/d
cP
psi
bbl/min
Hydraulic Analysis Results
Run calculation to see hydraulic force breakdown.
Critical Flow Rate Check
— bbl/d
— bbl/d
— bbl/min
Fluid Drag Force vs Depth
Fluid Drag (downward flow)
Fluid Drag (upward flow)
Fishing & Stuck Tool Analysis
Pull test interpretation, stuck depth estimation, cable damage prevention
Pull Test Wizard
Enter the pull test data to estimate stuck point depth using cable stretch analysis.
ft
lbf
lbf
ft
Maximum Pull Capability vs Depth
Cable Damage Prevention — Birdcaging Risk
Safe RIH Speed Limit
Calculating…
ft/min
Extended Reach Analysis — If Well Continues on Same Trajectory
ft
Contingency Planning
Risk assumption, safety limits, and operator thresholds
Risk Assumption Thresholds
50%70%90%
°/100ft
psi
Consider Tractor Assist (if required)
lbf
Contingency Scenarios
Tractor Pull Requirement vs Depth
Run feasibility first to see tractor requirements.
Real-Time Wellsite Monitor
Compare observed data vs model predictions · Depth correction
Depth (MD)
0
ft
Standing by
Surface Weight
—
lbf
Live
Cable Speed
0
ft/min
Monitoring
Depth Correction
0.0
ft (stretch)
Applied
Real-Time Surface Weight vs Model
Model (predicted)
Observed (simulated)
Live Alarm Thresholds
lbf
lbf
ft/min
Measured Data Entry
Enter observed surface weight at depth for friction coefficient calibration.
Sensitivity Analysis
Compare key parameter variations across scenarios
Parameter Range Setup
Sensitivity Results Matrix
Sensitivity Chart
Free Fall Analysis
Estimate impact velocity and impact energy for a dropped bar or toolstring.
Free Fall Inputs
ft
ft
lbm/ft
ppg
Cd
Free Fall Results
Run the analysis to estimate fall behavior.
Velocity vs Depth
Question & Answer Wizard
Quick access to all key calculations and design decisions
Selecting the Toolstring
What is the best weak point for this job?▶
What is the minimum tool weight needed to get downhole?▶
What toolstring geometry can navigate the bends?▶
Performing the Job at Depth
How much force can I set down at target depth?▶
How much pull can I apply at this depth?▶
What will the depth counter read, accounting for stretch?▶
What flowrate could push the tool string back up?▶
What pump-down rate could break the weak point or cable?▶
Getting Into & Out of the Well
Can I reach the target depth and return safely?▶
Plot surface weight vs depth▶
Surface Weight vs Depth graph is available in the Job Feasibility tab. It shows RIH and POOH curves, compression zones, and weak point limits.
What production flowrate would prevent tools getting downhole?▶
How fast can I run in hole without birdcaging risk?▶
If I need a tractor to reach TD, what is the max pull required?▶
Other Calculations
Generate full analysis report▶
Go to the Job Report tab or click Report in the top bar to generate a complete analysis report with status indicators.
Run sensitivity analysis on key parameters▶
The Sensitivity Analysis tab allows you to vary friction coefficient, tool weight, inclination, or flow rate across a range and see how feasibility changes.
Tool or cable is stuck — estimate stuck depth▶
Find friction coefficients matching observed data▶
Use the Real-Time Monitor → Measured Data Entry panel to enter observed surface weight at a known depth. The simulator calculates the back-calculated friction coefficient that best matches field data.
Job Deployment Analysis Report
WellSim Pro — Comprehensive Slickline & Wireline Analysis Report
📋
Run Analysis First
Click "Run Analysis" in the top bar or navigate to Job Feasibility
Suggested Readings — Coiled Tubing Fatigue
Key SPE papers and technical references on CT fatigue modelling, life tracking, and serviceability
Fatigue & Life Modelling
| # | Reference | Title | Publication / Event |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Newman, K.R. (SPE 163884) | Development of a New CT Life Tracking Process | SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition, The Woodlands, TX, 26–27 March 2013 |
| 2 | Brown, P. & Dickerson, J.L. (SPE 38409) | Development and Use of an Analytical Model to Predict Coiled Tubing Diameter Growth | 2nd SPE/ICoTA North American Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Montgomery, TX, April 1997 |
| 3 | Brown, P.A. | Coiled Tubing Fatigue Modelling and Software Development | PNEC Coiled Tubing Technology and Applications, February 6–8, 1995 |
| 4 | Brown, P.A. | CT Life Modelling and Tracking | World Oil 3rd International Conference and Exhibition on CT Technology, Houston, TX, March 13–16, 1995 |
| 5 | Brown, P.A. | Use of Fatigue Test Machine to Investigate Coiled Tubing Diameter Growth | World Oil 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Coiled Tubing, Amsterdam, June 1994 |
| 6 | Kane, R. & Cayard, M. | Factors Affecting CT Serviceability | Coiled Tubing (journal/proceedings) |
| 7 | Koper, M.G.M., Tan, S. & Rosen, P. (SPE 38415) | Full-Scale, Low-Cycle Fatigue Tests with 2-in Coiled Tubing and an Automatic Coiled Tubing Inspection and Monitoring System | 2nd North American Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Montgomery, TX, April 1997 |
| 8 | Newman, K. & Allcorn, M. (SPE 24793) | CT in High Pressure Wells | SPE Annual Technical Conference, October 1993 |
| 9 | Newman, K. & Newburn, D. (SPE 22820) | Coiled Tubing Life Modelling | SPE 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 1991 |
| 10 | Newman, K., Brown, P., Van Arnam, D. & Wolhart, S. (SPE 36346) | Analysis of Coiled Tubing Welding Techniques | SPE/ICoTA 1st North American Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Montgomery, TX, February 1996 |
| 11 | Newman, K. & Brown, P. (SPE 26539) | Development of a Standard Coiled-Tubing Fatigue Test | SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 1993 |
| 12 | Newman, K. | Determining the Working Life of a Coiled Tubing String | Offshore, December 1991 |
| 13 | Quigley, M.S. & Stone, L.C. (SPE 46040) | The Benefits of Real-Time Coiled Tubing Diameter Measurements | 3rd Annual SPE/ICoTA North American Coiled Tubing Roundtable, April 15–16, 1998 |
| 14 | Smith, L.W. | Methods of Determining the Operational Life of Individual Strings of Coiled Tubing | SPE Workovers and Well Intervention Seminar, November 16, 1989, Aberdeen, Scotland |
| 15 | Tipton, S.M. & Brown, P.A. | Monitoring Coiled Tubing Fatigue Life | World Oil 2nd International Conference on Coiled Tubing Operations, Houston, TX, March 28–31, 1994 |
| 16 | Tipton, S.M. & Newburn, D.A. | Plasticity and Fatigue Damage Modeling of Severely Loaded Tubing | 1st ASTM Symposium on Advances in Fatigue Lifetime Predictive Techniques, San Francisco, CA, April 1990 |
| 17 | World Oil | Coiled Tubing Handbook | World Oil Publications |
Key Concepts Covered
Fatigue Life Models
Non-linear (Achilles 4) and linear statistical (Achilles 5) models for predicting cycles to crack initiation, diameter growth, and remaining service life of CT strings.
Real-Time Tracking
Integration of real-time diameter measurement and tension monitoring to update accumulated fatigue in the field. Enables condition-based retirement decisions.
Serviceability Factors
Weld quality, corrosion zones, internal pressure, high-pressure service, and drum crush all affect CT serviceability and must be incorporated into life calculations.
Note: SPE papers are available through the OnePetro library (onepetro.org). Access may require SPE membership or institutional subscription.