48 views

Uploaded by JohnSmith

Spe 77255

save

- CGNA18404ENS_001
- Ch18 DOUBLY CURVED SHELLS and Shell Like Structures
- s Chele Stow 2017
- Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames
- Nasa Beam+Column Stability
- Análise Experimental Do Comportamento Ao Fogo de Elementos Comprimidos Em Aço Enformado a Frio
- Stress Vibration Syllabus
- 00089517
- 183.full
- Syllabus of Civil m.tech (Struclural Engineering)
- Naughty Cats
- ME 201 Mechanics of Solids
- Cold Formed Steel Stiffened Web Sections Behaviour
- [Eng]Tutorial Input of Buckling Lengths
- The New Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures
- Verification Manual South Africa Codes
- 12043-Strength of Materials
- bending and drawing.ppt
- Vibration of Axially Loaded Structures - N. VIRGIN
- 700827688Microsoft Word - IJSR85 (2)
- 72
- Lateral Torsional Buckling of I-beams
- FastStone Image Viewer - 1 Image(s)
- New Approaches in EC3 - 0
- bcukling 12
- pinna-ascm2004-revised-post-comment
- wcQE.pdf
- Review on Cold Formed Lipped Channel Beam
- Week 1 Summary of Plates and Shells curriculum
- Buckling Fatigue Analysis
- Capitulo i Introducción a La Ética
- PREVENCION MHO.pdf
- debussy-suite-bergamasque-clair-de-lune.pdf
- itinerary-18days.xlsx
- Böck
- test.docx
- Antusiasme Persiapan Lomba HUT RI Ke
- 2018d140 Menendez Russia Sanctions Bill
- Módulo de Deformación.docx
- lalallalerlelelrlhahhags.docx
- res_2017001890224308000500643.pdf
- Resolucion_N°064_2018-GG-EMMSA.pdf
- doc05688220180730093513.pdf
- DSKP MATEMATIK SK TAHUN 4.pdf
- La Pirámide de Maslow
- GFPI F 019 Formato Guia de Aprendizaje Propagación Sesión 1 V3
- Penetapan Kadar
- LP Ch.doc
- cuestionario_1_realizado.doc
- 5 semans en globo 7°b yC
- Bottled Water Overview
- Makala h
- Design-Pipe-On-Supports.pdf
- STATUS PASIEN MATA VINA.pdf
- Calculadora Jabón sólido y líquido V2.xlsx
- P2M_kabulasi KLMPOK 10.docx
- Ninjutsu Histórico - Antony Cummins
- Human Rights Final Ppt
- ban35
- Memorial trial advocacy.docx
- Room-Temperature Liquids
- Are Deep Eutectic
- Inhibition Effects of Nitrogen Compounds on the HDS of Dibenzothiophene Part 2a
- Selective Extraction of Neutral Nitrogen Compounds Found in Diesel Feed By
- Zn-Containing Ionic Liquids for the Extractive Denitrogenation of a Model Oil - A Mechanistic Consideration
- Seddon 2003
- Extraction of Thiophene
- Synthesis of Monoclinic Structured BiVO4 Spindly Microtubes in Deep Eutectic Solvent and Their Application for Dye Degradation
- Electrodeposition of Co, Sm and SmCo From a Deep Eutectic Solvent
- Exerted Influence of Deep Eutectic Solvent Concentration in the Room Temperature Ionic Conductivity and Thermal Behavior of Corn Starch Based Polymer Electrolytes
- Selective Adsorption for Removal of Nitrogen Compounds From Liquid HC Streams Over Carbon- And Alumina- Based Adsorbents
- Use of Ab Algorithmic
- Eutectic Mixtures Based Upon Multivalent Metal Ions
- Properties and Phase Equilibria of Fluid Mixtures as the Basis for Developing Green Chemical Processes
- Ionic Liquid Analogues Formed From Hydrated Metal Salts
- Ionothermal Materials Synthesis Using Unstable
- Electrodeposition of Co, Sm and SmCo From a Deep Eutectic Solvent
- Bacteria Incorporation in Deep-eutectic Solvents Through Freeze
- Direct Conversion of Inulin to 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural in Biorenewable
- Ionic Liquid Analogues Formed From Hydrated Metal Salts
- Deep Eutectic Solvent Concentration in the Room Temperature Ionic Conductivity and Thermal Behavior of Corn Starch Based Polymer Electrolytes
- Electrodeposition of Zinc–Tin Alloys From Deep Eutectic Solvents Based on Choline Chloride
- Properties and Phase Equilibria of Fluid Mixtures as the Basis for Developing Green Chemical Processes
- Exerted Influence of Deep Eutectic Solvent Concentration in the Room Temperature Ionic Conductivity and Thermal Behavior of Corn Starch Based Polymer Electrolytes
- Molar Heat Capacities of Choline Chloride-based Deep Eutectic Solvents and Their Binary Mixtures With Water
- Ionothermal Materials Synthesis Using Unstable
- Methods for Stabilizing and Activating Enzymes
- New Synthetic Route of Polyoxometalate-based Hybrids in Choline Chloride_urea Eutectic Media
- Post-etch Residue Removal Using Choline Chloride–Malonic Acid Deep Eutectic Solvent (DES)
- Based Upon Multivalent Metal Ions

You are on page 1of 11

**Helical Buckling of Pipe with Connectors and Torque
**

Robert F. Mitchell/Landmark Graphics and Stefan Miska, University of Tulsa

**Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference
**

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,

Texas, U.S.A., 2–4 March 2004.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following

review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the

paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling

Contractors or 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 International

Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers, their officers, or

members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by

Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper

for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling

Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print

is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The

proposal 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.

**considered in the plane buckling analysis are used, but now
**

there are deflections out of the plane. A solution for helical

buckling is developed that produces pipe sag, maximum

dogleg angle, contact force, and bending stress magnification

as a function of pipe effective axial force and torque. An

application problem is solved and the relative effects of

compressive axial force and torque on sag between

connectors, contact loads, and maximum bending stress are

examined.

Applications include the analysis of bottom hole

assemblies, drill pipe, casing, and tubing. The solutions are

simple enough that they are suitable for spreadsheet

calculations.

Abstract

It has been generally recognized that connectors

should have some effect on the buckling of pipe. For instance,

the connector outside diameter may be as much as 50%

greater than the pipe body diameter. As a result, the radial

clearance of the connector can be substantially smaller than

the radial clearance of the pipe body.

The analysis of buckling has received extensive

attention in the last 20 years. The effect of connectors on pipe

stresses has received somewhat less attention. Lubinski used

the beam-column equations to analyze the effect of connectors

on pipe bending stresses for a pipe in tension in a twodimensional constant curvature wellbore. Bending stresses

were significantly magnified by the connector stand-off.

Paslay and Cernocky completed this analysis by analyzing the

pipe in compression. Mitchell extended these results to threedimensional helical buckling.

Torque adds a new dimension to the buckling

problem. Without torque, buckling occurs only for positive

effective axial force (compressive axial force plus pressure

effects). A pipe with applied torque can buckle in tension! The

contact force between pipe and wellbore can be increased or

decreased, depending on the direction of the applied torque.

And, of course, pipe used in rotary drilling always has applied

torque; so buckling analysis without torque is always

questionable.

This paper looks at three-dimensional buckling of

pipes with connectors with applied torque. The problem

formulation is similar to Lubinski’s buckling analysis: the

wellbore is vertical and straight. The beam-column equations

Introduction

Clearly, connectors should have an effect on the

buckling of pipe. For instance, since the connector outside

diameter may be as much as 50% greater than the pipe body,

the wellbore radial clearance of the connector can be

substantially smaller than the radial clearance of the pipe

body. Buckling criteria, such as the Paslay-Dawson formula,

depend on the radial clearance. Which radial clearance should

be used? Should it be the pipe body clearance or the connector

clearance? Further, there should be a measurable effect of

connectors on pipe stresses for axially loaded pipe.

There is limited analysis available on non-buckled

pipe with connectors. Lubinski used the beam-column

equations to analyze the effect of connectors on pipe bending

stresses for a pipe in tension in a two-dimensional constant

curvature wellbore1, and Paslay and Cernocky completed this

analysis by analyzing the pipe in compression2. Pipe was

found to be either suspended between connectors, in point

contact with the wellbore, or in wrap contact with the

wellbore, depending on the pipe tension. Bending stresses

were significantly magnified by the connector stand-off.

The first step in the analysis of three-dimensional

buckling of pipes with connectors was taken by Mitchell3. In

this problem a helical geometry, similar to Lubinski’s

buckling analysis for pipe without connectors4,5 was chosen.

The beam-column equations considered in the plane buckling

analysis1,2 were used, but now there were deflections out of

the plane. A solution for helical buckling was developed that

corresponded to Lubinski’s solution for low axial compression

2

IADC/SPE 87205

**but produced pipe sag and bending stress magnification for
**

higher axial loads. Calculation results included connector

contact forces, bending stress magnification, maximum dogleg

angle, and pipe sag.

where:

M

F

M2

2

τ=

α = +

2EI

EI 4(EI )2

(3)

**Equation (2) has the following solution:
**

The next step, three-dimensional buckling of a

horizontal well with lateral loads on the pipe, was also taken

by Mitchell6. Lateral buckling of the pipe was analyzed, with

critical loads for buckling initiation determined. Equilibrium

lateral deflections were determined, along with pipe sag

between connectors, bending stress, and contact loads.

Conditions for positive contact forces were determined and

compared to buckling criteria, such as Paslay-Dawson7.

The third logical step in the investigation of the effect

of connectors on pipe buckling was the introduction of

wellbore curvature8. As previously stated, a non-buckled pipe

in a curved wellbore had been studied both by Lubinski and by

Paslay 1,2. Only Paslay’s paper considered pipe in

compression, but in this case, he cautioned that the results

were contingent on no buckling taking place. In Mitchell’s

analysis, it was found that buckling caused the bending stress

magnification to change substantially. Conditions for positive

contact forces were also compared to buckling criteria for

curved wellbores, such as He-Kyllingstad and others9,10.

This paper adds the effect of torque to the type of

analysis done in reference 3.

At the end of this paper is a complete nomenclature

and reference list.

**Buckling Models for Pipe with
**

Connectors

Beam-Column Solutions. The theoretical basis for the analysis

of buckling in vertical wellbores is described in this section.

Figure 1 illustrates the coordinate system used in this analysis.

Pipe deflections are in the “1” coordinate direction, which is

vertical in the Figure, and in the “2” coordinate direction, which

is lateral in the Figure. The axial coordinate, which is out of the

plane of the Figure, corresponds with pipe measured depth s.

The beam-column equations corresponding to this coordinate

system are:

**EIu1iv + [Mu ′2′ ]′ + Fu 1′′ = w 1
**

EIu − [Mu 1′′]′ + Fu ′2′ = w 2

iv

2

(1)

**where ui is the deflection in the ith coordinate direction, F is the
**

axial buckling compressive force, M is the applied torque,

derivatives( denoted by iv , ″ and ′) are with respect to s, and wi is

the distributed lateral load. For this particular problem, the

lateral loads are zero and the applied torque and axial forces

are constant. Equation (1) is rewritten in a more convenient

form:

**u 1iv + 2τu ′2′′ + (α 2 − τ 2 )u 1′′ = 0
**

u iv2 − 2τu 1′′′ + (α 2 − τ 2 )u ′2′ = 0

(2)

**u1 = a1 + b1s − cc sin(α1s) + cs cos(α1s)
**

+ dc sin(α 2s) + ds cos(α 2s)

u 2 = a 2 + b 2s + cc sin(α1s) + cs cos(α1s)

(3)

+ dc sin(α 2s) − ds cos(α 2s)

where:

α1 = α + τ , α 2 = α − τ

(4)

For two displacement equations, there are eight

undetermined constants, which can be used to satisfy boundary

conditions. The first boundary conditions we want to consider

are illustrated in Figure 2. In this Figure, the pipe connectors are

tangent to the borehole wall. The next step in resolving these

degrees of freedom is to connect one joint of pipe to another.

This relationship is shown in Figure 3. With two joints, the

number of degrees of freedom increases to 5. We can resolve

this increase of degrees of freedom by deciding to

approximate a constant pitch helix with a sequence of beamcolumn solutions. This “helical” beam has the following

properties:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

**All connectors in full borehole contact
**

Constant pitch from connector to connector

Continuity of curvature at connectors

Continuity of shear tangent to borehole wall

Positive contact force between connector and wall

All pipe displacements within the borehole

**Conditions 1-5 can be satisfied, surprisingly leaving a degree
**

of freedom. The details of this complex calculation are given

in Appendix A. For tubing and drillstring analysis, it is known

that terms of order higher than linear in τ can be neglected16,17.

Using this fact, the results in Appendix A can be simplified to

give:

**u1 = rc {1 + c1[1 − cos(α o s)] + d1[α o s − sin(α o s)]
**

+ co2τ s[1 − cos(α o s)] − d o2τ s sin(α os)}

u 2 = rc {ε s / L + c 2 [1 − cos(α o s)] + d 2 [α o s − sin(α o s)]

+ c1oτ s[1 − cos(α o s)] + d1oτ s sin(α o s)}

(5)

where:

αo =

F

EI

Conditions 1-5 are satisfied for:

(6)

IADC/SPE 87205

3

ε x sin θ y(cosθ − 1)

+

D

D

ε y sin θ sin φ o (cosθ − 1)

+

d1o =

D

D

ε

φ

θ

+

−

[

y

x

(cos

1

)] y sin θ

o

−

c o2 =

D

D

ε

θ

φ

φ

−

−

[

y

(

1

cos

)

sin

]

sin φo sin θ

o

o

+

d o2 =

D

D

o

c1 = c1 +

**The following solution to the beam-column equations
**

describes a helix:

c1o =

u 1h = rp cos( βs)

**where rp is the radial clearance of the pipe body. This solution
**

requires that the wi are the contact forces:

w 1 = w N cos( βs)

τ

xy o y 2

+ c2 }

d1 = d1o + {d o2

αo

D

D

c 2 = c o2 +

φ 2 cos φo − sin 2 φ o

φ 2 sin φ o − y(φ o + sin φo )

τ

{−d1o o

− c1o o

}

αo

D

D

τ

xy o y 2

{−d1o

+ c1 }

αo

D

D

where:

(8)

D = x sin φ o − y 2

This notation was revised to correspond with the notation used

in reference 3. In all cases, the first term corresponds to the

zero torque solution, as given in reference 3. The slope ε is

constrained to be:

α y sin θ

φ 2 sin φ o − y(φ o + sin φ o )

ε= o

+ τ c1o o

De

De

φ 2 cos φo − sin 2 φ o

+ τ d1o o

De

D e = α o x (cosθ − 1) + y(α oφo + 2τ sin θ )

2

xy

o y

Pc = −Frc {α o d + τ [d

+ c 2 ( + 3)]}

D

D

o

2

EIβ 4 − Tβ 3 − Fβ 2 + w N / rp

. . . . .(13)

**The constant β is undetermined by this analysis, other than the
**

requirement that the contact force wN be positive. We see that

for constant loads, the pitch of the helix is not determined by

equilibrium conditions. This is the same result we found for

the helical beam. Lubinski and Woods1 determined the pitch

of a helically buckled pipe through a virtual work analysis. If

we adopt the same approach, we can eliminate the last degree

of freedom in equations 7-11 (see Appendix B):

3T

F

⎛ 3T ⎞

β=

± ⎜

⎟ +

8EI

⎝ 8EI ⎠ 2EI

θ =βL

. . . . .(14)

**Bending Stress Magnification. The solution for the constant
**

pitch helix, equation 11, gives a reference to compare the

bending stresses developed by equation 5. Bending moment is

given by the following equation:

Mi = EIui″, i=1,2

. . . . .(15)

**From equation 5 we get the bending moments for the helical
**

beam:

**M1 = EIrcα 12 [cc sin α 1s − cs cosα 1s]
**

(9)

**− EIrcα 22 [dc sin α 2 s + ds cosα 2 s]
**

M 2 = − EIrcα 12 [cc cosα 1s + cs sin α 1s]

. . .(16)

− EIrcα 22 [dc cosα 2 s − ds sin α 2 s]

**The contact force Pc is given by:
**

o

1

and that:

2

(7)

φo = α o L

x = φ o − sin φ o

y = 1 − cos φ o

. . . . .(12)

w 2 = w N sin( βs)

2

τ o sin 2 φ o − φ o2 cosφ o

o φ o sin φ o − y (φ o + sin φ o )

+ c2

{d 2

}

αo

D

D

d 2 = d o2 +

. . . . .(11)

u 2 h = rp sin( βs)

(10)

**Clearly, the choice of θ is not arbitrary, or condition 5 will not
**

be satisfied by equation 10. However, is it reasonable that the

pitch of the helical beam with torque is not determined? To

answer this question, we will look at solutions of the beamcolumn equations for a pure helix with no connectors.

**and from equation 11, using rc for rp, we get the bending
**

moments for the equivalent helix:

**M1h = − EIrc β 2 cos βs
**

M 2 h = − EIrc β 2 sin βs

. . . . .(17)

**Equation 16 can be simplified by neglecting of order τ2 or
**

higher:

4

IADC/SPE 87205

M 1 = EIrcα o2 [d1sin α o s − c1cosα o s]

**From this formulation we were able to develop bending stress
**

magnification factors (BSMF) relative to a pure helix and also

the contact force at the connectors.

**+ EIrcτα o d o2 (2 cosα o s − α o s sin α o s)
**

− EIrcτα o c o2 (2 sin α o s + α o s cosα o s)

(18)

**M 2 = EIrc [d 2 sin α o s − c2 cosα o s]
**

− EIrcτα o d 1o (2 cosα o s − α o s sin α o s)

− EIrcτα o c1o (2 sin α o s + α o s cosα o s)

**The maximum bending stress is proportional to the bending
**

moment:

σb =

Md o

2I

. . . . .(19)

**Therefore, the bending stress magnification factor (BSMF) is
**

the ratio of the magnitude of the helical beam bending

moment to the magnitude of the helix bending moment:

BSMF =

M12 + M 22

M12h + M 22 h

. . . . .(20)

**The final requirement for this solution is that all pipe
**

displacements must stay within borehole. To evaluate this

requirement, we first calculate the magnitude of the radial

displacement of the pipe:

R (s) = u 12 (s) + u 22 (s)

Sample Calculations

Conclusions and Observations

The helical buckling of a beam with torque and connectors has

been formulated with the following features:

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

**In previous connector models, the displacements were planar,
**

and the wellbore had non-zero planar curvature. Without

curvature, no bending stress would be generated. In contrast,

this model has three-dimensional displacements and can

develop bending stress in a wellbore without curvature.

The buckling model presented here is yet another step toward

a comprehensive model. In drillstrings, torque is often applied,

and a comprehensive model must account for its effects.

While the torque value is not large, it is usually desireable to

keep the axial force low or tensile, so the torque becomes

relatively more important. The analysis necessary for

understanding the effect of torque is given here.

In the analysis, it was found that the pitch of the helical beam

is not determined by the equilibrium equations, and that an

additional consideration was needed. The analysis of boundary

conditions at a packer or at the bit could help indicate the

actual pitch of the helical beam.

. . . . .(21)

**We can define a dimensionless quantity R(s)/rc which we call
**

the “sag ratio” of the pipe. The sag ratio will generally be

greater than 1, but if this ratio exceeds rp/rc, where rp is the

radial clearance of the pipe body, then the pipe will touch the

borehole.

1.

2.

**The helical beam was found to behave like a pure helix with
**

torque for low values of the axial buckling force, but to vary

more significantly for higher values. This explains the relative

success of the pure helix model to explain buckling behavior,

but limits the range of applicability of that model.

Conventional wisdom says that torque is negligible in

buckling analysis, but plausible values of torque do show

discernable effects.

**The wellbore is straight and vertical.
**

Connectors are in full tangential contact with the borehole

wall.

The helical pitch is constant.

Beam bending moments are continuous at connectors.

Tangential shear is continuous at connectors.

Contact force between the wellbore and connectors is

positive.

Pipe displacements lie within the wellbore.

Nomenclature

dc= pipe connector diameter (in)

dh = borehole diameter (in)

do = pipe body outside diameter (in)

E = Young's modulus (psi)

EI = the tubular bending stiffness (lbf-in2)

F = the axial compressive buckling force(lbf)

F0 = central connector contact force (lbf)

F1 = displaced connector contact force (lbf)

Fp = the Paslay buckling force (lbf)

Fc = critical column buckling force (lbf)

I = moment of inertia (in4)

K=dimensionless curvature

L = the pipe joint length (ft)

M = bending moment (ft-lbf)

Mi = bending moment in the i direction (ft-lbf)

rp = the pipe body radial clearance (in)

rc= the connector radial clearance (in)

s = measured depth (ft)

t2, t3 = coefficients in displacement formula

we = effective buoyed lateral distributed load in the pipe (lbf/ft)

σb = bending stress

ξ = dimensionless length

θ = angle between the pipe center and the 1 coordinate axis

IADC/SPE 87205

φ=L√F/EI

φ0=initial buckling value of φ

κ=pipe curvature (feet-1)

5

**14. Miska, Stephan and J. C. Cunha: “An Analysis of Helical
**

Buckling of Tubulars Subjected to Axial and Torsional

Loading in Inclined Wellbores,” SPE 29460 presented at

the 1995 Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma

City, OK, (April 2-4, 1995).

References

1. Lubinski, A.: “Fatigue of Range 3 Drill Pipe,” Revue de

l’Institut Français du Pétrole, March-April, 1977, vol 32, 277011.

2.

**Paslay, P. R. and E. P. Cernocky: “Bending Stress
**

Magnification in Constant Curvature Doglegs With Impact

on Drillstring and Casing,” SPE 22547 presented at the 66th

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE,

Dallas, Texas, (October 1991).

3.

**Mitchell, R. F.: “Helical Buckling of Pipe with Connectors
**

in Vertical Wells,” SPEDC (September 2000).

4.

**Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S., and Logan, J. L., “Helical
**

Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers,” JPT (June 1962),

655-670.

5.

**Mitchell, R. F.: “Effects of Well Deviation on Helical
**

Buckling,” SPEDC (March 1997).

6.

**Mitchell, R. F.: “Lateral Buckling of Pipe with Connectors
**

in Horizontal Wells,” SPEJ, Volume 8, No. 2, (June 2003).

7.

**Dawson, Rapier and Paslay, P. R., “Drillpipe Buckling in
**

Inclined Holes,” JPT (October 1984).

8.

9.

**Mitchell, R. F.: “Lateral Buckling of Pipe with Connectors
**

in Curved Wellbores,” SPEDC, Volume 18, No. 1, (March

2003).

He, X. and A. Kyllingstad: “Helical Buckling and Lockup Conditions for Coiled Tubing in Curved Wells,” SPE

25370 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas

Conference and Exhibition, Singapore, (February 8-11,

1993).

**10. Mitchell, R. F.: "A Buckling Criterion for ConstantCurvature Wellbores," SPEJ, (December 1999).
**

11. Greenhill, A. G.: “On The Strength of Shafting When

Exposed Both to Torsion and to Endthrust,” Proc. Inst.

Mech. Eng., London, (1883).

12. Timoshenko, Stephen P. and James M. Gere: Theory of

Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,

(1961).

13. Paslay, P. R.: “Stress Analysis of Drillstrings”, SPE

27976 presented at The University of Tulsa Centennial

Petroleum Engineering Symposium, Tulsa OK, (August

29-31, 1994).

**15. Miska, Stefan and J. C. Cunha: “Helical Buckling of
**

Long Weightless Strings Subjected to Axial and

Torsional Loads,” presented at the Drilling Symposium

of the ASME Energy and Environment EXPO 95,

Houston, Texas, (January 29-February 1, 1995).

16. He, X., Halsey, G. W., and A. Kyllingstad: “Interactions

between Torque and Helical Buckling in Drilling,” SPE

30521 presented at the SPE ATCE, Dallas, Texas,

(October 22-25,1995).

17. Wu, Jiang: “Torsional Load Effect on Drill-String

Buckling,” SPE 37477 presented at the 1997 Production

Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, (March 911, 1997).

18. Crandall, Stephen H. and Dahl, Norman C. (ed.): An

Introduction to the Mechanics of Solids, McGraw-Hill

Book Company, (1959), 360-384.

**Appendix A – Boundary Conditions
**

Equation (3) must satisfy the following boundary conditions at

s=0:

u 1 (0) = rc

u 1′ (0) = 0

u 2 (0) = 0

u ′2 (0) = rc ε / L

(A-1)

**(the slope is written in this dimensionless form for later
**

convenience). When these boundary conditions are imposed,

equation (3) takes the form of:

**u1 = rc {1 − cc [sin(α1s) − α1s] + cs [cos(α1s) − 1]
**

+ dc [sin(α 2s) − α 2s] + ds [cos(α 2s) − 1]}

u 2 = rc {ε s / L + cc [sin(α1s) − α1s] + cs [cos(α1s) − 1]

+ dc [sin(α 2s) − α 2s] − ds [cos(α 2s) − 1]}

(A-2)

Equation (A-2) must satify the next set of boundary conditions

at s=L:

u 1 (L) = rc cosθ

rc ε sin θ

L

u 2 (L) = rc sin θ

u 1′ (L) = −

u ′2 (L) =

rc ε cosθ

L

(A-3)

6

IADC/SPE 87205

**Before solving (A-3) for the four remaining unknown
**

constants, it is convenient to consider the remaining curvature

and shear constraints. This is most easily done by considering

constraints at s = 0. The shape of the pipe displacement in the

interval [-L,0] is given by:

~

u1 (s) = u 1 (−s)

~

u (s) = − u (−s)

2

(A-4)

2

**The displacement functions must satisy the following
**

conditions:

1

(A-5)

+ (f 4 x 2 − f 3φ 2 y 2 )(cosθ − 1) + y 2 (f 4 + φ 2 f1 ) sin θ } / D

D = f1 (φ1 y1 x 2 − φ 2 y 2 x 1 ) + f 3 y1 y 2 (φ1 + φ 2 )

− f 4 ( x 1 y 2 + x 2 y1 )

(A-9)

For more compact notation, we define the following functions:

2

u ′2′′(0) = ~

u ′2′′(0)

Because of the care we took in the construction of the

displacement functions, equation (A-5) imposes only one

constraint:

α cc + α dc = 0

2

1

cs = {−ε [(f 4 + f1φ 2 ) y 2 + (f 3 y 2 + f1 x 2 )(cosθ − 1)]

+ (f 4 x 1 − f 3φ1 y1 )(cosθ − 1) + y1 (f1φ1 − f 4 ) sin θ } / D

u 2 (0) = ~

u 2 (0)

u ′2 (0) = ~

u ′2 (0)

~

u ′′ (0) = u ′′ (0)

2

+ (φ1 x 2 y1 − φ 2 x 1 y 2 )(cosθ − 1) + (φ1 + φ 2 ) y1 y 2 sin θ } / D

ds = {ε [ y1 (f 4 − φ1f1 ) + (f 3 y1 − f1 x 1 )(cosθ − 1)]

u 1 (0) = ~

u1 (0)

u 1′ (0) = ~

u1′ (0)

~

u ′′(0) = u ′′(0)

1

cc = {−ε [ y1 y 2 (φ1 + φ 2 ) + ( x 1 y 2 + x 2 y1 )(cosθ − 1)]

2

2

(A-6)

Equation (A-3), using (A-6) now takes the form:

cc1 = − y1 y 2 (φ1 + φ 2 ) + ( x 1 y 2 + x 2 y1 )(1 − cosθ )

cc 2 = (φ1 x 2 y1 − φ 2 x1 y 2 )(cosθ − 1) + (φ1 + φ 2 ) y1 y 2 sin θ

cs1 = − (f 4 + f1φ 2 ) y 2 + (f 3 y 2 + f1 x 2 )(1 − cosθ − 1)

cs 2 = (f 4 x 2 − f 3φ 2 y 2 )(cosθ − 1) + y 2 (f 4 + φ 2 f1 ) sin θ

cc f1 − cs y1 − ds y 2 = cosθ − 1

ds1 = y1 (f 4 − φ1f1 ) + (f 3 y1 − f1 x 1 )(cosθ − 1)

cc f 2 + cs φ1 ( x 1 − φ1 ) + ds φ 2 ( x 2 − φ 2 )

ds 2 = (f 4 x 1 − f 3φ1 y1 )(cosθ − 1) + y1 (f1φ1 − f 4 ) sin θ

= −ε sin θ

cc f 3 − cs x 1 + ds x 2 = sin θ − ε

(A-7)

(A-10)

then equation (A-9) takes the form:

cc f 4 − cs φ1 y1 + ds φ 2 y 2 = ε (cosθ − 1)

where:

φ1 = α 1L

x 1 = φ1 − sin φ1

y1 = 1 − cos φ1

φ2 = α 2 L

x 2 = φ 2 − sin φ 2

y 2 = 1 − cos φ 2

cc = (cc1ε + cc 2 ) / D

cs = (cs1ε + cs 2 ) / D

(A-11)

ds = (ds1ε + ds 2 ) / D

The remaining equation (A-3)2 is now used as a constraint on

ε:

ε =−

**φ1 sin φ1cs 2 + φ 2 sin φ 2 ds 2 − f 2 cc 2
**

φ1 sin φ1cs1 + φ 2 sin φ 2 ds1 − f 2 cc1 − D sin θ

(A-12)

(A-8)

f1 = (φ1 / φ 2 ) 2 x 2 + x 1

f 2 = (φ1 / φ 2 )(φ1 y 2 + φ 2 y1 )

f 3 = (φ1 / φ 2 ) 2 ( y 2 − y1 )

f 4 = (φ1 / φ 2 )(φ 2 x 1 − φ1 x 2 )

The unknown coefficients are determined using equations (A3)1, (A-3)3 and (A-3)4:

The contact force Pc is given by:

Pc = EI[~

u1′′′(0) − u 1′′′(0)]

= −4EIrcαα12 cc

(A-13)

**Appendix B – Stability and Equilibrium
**

of a Helically Buckled Weightless Pipe

with Torque

The equilibrium equations for a beam-column with torque,

small lateral deflections, is given by:

IADC/SPE 87205

7

**EIu 1ivh + [Tu ′2′h ]′ + [Fu1′ h ]′ = w N cosθ
**

EIu

iv

2h

− [Tu 1′′h ]′ + [Fu ′2 h ]′ = w N sin θ

(B-1)

1

2

**where the contact force w, the applied torque T and the
**

applied axial force F may depend on s. The displacements u1

and u2 are related to the angle θ through:

u 1h = rp cosθ

u 2 h = rp sin θ

(B-2)

**A variational form of equation (1) can be derived for constant
**

torque T:

**δ [ 12 EI ∫ (u 1′′h2 + u ′2′h2 ) ds + 12 T ∫ (u 1′′h u ′2 h − u ′2′h u 1′ h )ds
**

− 12 ∫ F(u 1′h2 + u ′22h )ds = 0

u 2 h = rp sin βs

(B-3)

(B-4)

Substituting equation (4) into equation (1) yields:

EIβ 4 − Tβ 3 − Fβ 2 + w N / rc = 0

(B-5)

**Equation (B-5) gives a relation between w and β, but does not
**

determine β. If we assume that stability is determined by w

equal zero, then the stability load is given by:

F = Tβ + EIβ 2

δ ∫ T(u 1′′h u ′2 h − u ′2′h u 1′ h )ds

(B-12)

for T constant. Note also that we recover equation (B-9) by

calculating the value of β that maximizes the contact force w:

dw

= rc [−4EIβ 3 + 3Tβ 2 + 2Fβ ] = 0

dβ

(B-13)

The equilibrium value of β is:

2

**For the remainder of this analysis, we assume that T and F are
**

constant, and that the pipe forms a constant pitch helix:

u 1h = rp cos βs

∫ T(u 1′′hδu ′2 h − u ′2′hδu 1′ h )ds =

(B-6)

3T

F

⎛ 3T ⎞

β=

± ⎜

⎟ +

8EI

⎝ 8EI ⎠ 2EI

(B-14)

as well as the straight pipe solution β = 0. The contact force

corresponding to the equilibrium value of β is:

2

2

EIrc ⎡ ⎛ 3T ⎞

3F 3T ⎛ 3T ⎞

F ⎤

⎢2⎜

⎥×

±

wN =

⎟ +

⎜

⎟ +

3 ⎢ ⎝ 8EI ⎠ 2EI 4EI ⎝ 8EI ⎠ 2EI ⎥

⎣

⎦

2

⎡ 3T

F ⎤

⎛ 3T ⎞

⎢

⎥

± ⎜

+

⎟

8EI ⎠ 2EI ⎥

⎢ 8EI

⎝

⎣

⎦

2

If we define β in terms of pitch p:

2π

β=

p

(B-15)

(B-7)

then equation (6) becomes:

F=

2πT

4π 2

+ EI 2

p

p

(B-8)

**This result is the same as Miska and Cunha14, equation (6),
**

with zero lateral force.

To determine an equilibrium value for β, we use the

variational form, equation (B-3):

1

2

δ [EIβ 4 − Tβ 3 − Fβ 2 ] = 2EIβ 3 − 32 Tβ 2 − Fβ = 0

(B-9)

Again, substituting equation (B-7):

**Frc2 8π 2 rc2 3π Trc2
**

−

+

=0

EI

p2

EI p

(B-10)

The equivalent result from Paslay is:

**Frc2 8π 2 rc2 6π Trc2
**

−

+

=0

EI

p2

EI p

(B-11)

**where the term proportional to T2 has been neglected and the
**

axial force changed to compression. The term multiplying T

differs between equation (B-10) and equation (B-11). My

guess is that the factor of ½ multiplying T in equation (B-3) is

missing in Paslay’s derivation, but I cannot be sure. Note that:

If we assume T/EI is small, then, to first order:

β=

3T

F

±

8EI

2EI

w=

rc F 2 rc TF F

±

4EI 2EI 2EI

(B-16)

The contact force result is equivalent to He, Halsey, and

Kyllingstad15, equation (11).

8

IADC/SPE 87205

u1

u2

F ig u r e 1 : C o o r d in a te s fo r B u c k lin g A n a ly s is

CONNECTORS

T ANGENT T O

CYLINDER

θ

e1

**T HREE DEGREES OF FREEDOM
**

TANG ENT ANG LES e 0 AND e 1

DISPLACEM ENT ANGLE

θ

e0

Figure 2: Beam-column With Connectors

IADC/SPE 87205

9

CONNECTORS

TANGENT TO

CYLINDER

θ1

θ0

e2

FIVE DEGREES OF FREEDOM

e1

TANGENT ANGLES

e 0 ,e 1 , AND e 2

DISPLACEMENT ANGLES

AND

θ 0 θ1

Figure 3: Multiple Beams With Connectors

e0

1.2

1

0.6

φ o = 1.885

0.4

**u1 - zero torque
**

0.2

**u1 - 0.10 tau/alpha
**

u1 - 0.20 tau/alpha

0

**u2 - zero torque
**

u2 - 0.10 tau/alpha

-0.2

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

u2 - 0.20

0.5 tau/alpha

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

s/L

Figure 4 : Effect of Torque on Displacements

1.2

1

0.8

displacement/rc

displacement/rc

0.8

0.6

φ = 2.67

0.4

o

u1 - zero torque

0.2

**u1 - 0.07 tau/alpha
**

u1 - 0.14 tau/alpha

0

u2 - zero torque

-0.2

**u2 - 0.07 tau/alpha
**

-0.4

u2 - 0.14 tau/alpha

-0.6

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

s/L

Figure 5: Effect of Torque on Displacements

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

10

IADC/SPE 87205

1.15

1.1

1.05

1

BSMF

0.95

φ

o

= 1 . 885

0.9

0.85

no torque

0.10 tau/alpha

0.8

0.20 tau/alpha

0.75

0.7

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

s/L

Figure 6: Bending Stress Magnification

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

BSMF

1.1

φ

o

= 2 . 67

1

0.9

no torque

0.8

0.07 tau/alpha

0.7

0.14 tau/alpha

0.6

0.5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

s/L

Figure 7: Bending Stress Magnification

1.02

1.015

sag ratio

1.01

1.005

φο = 1.885

1

zero torque

0.995

0.10 tau/alpha

0.20 tau/alpha

0.99

0.985

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

s/L

Figure 8: Effect of Torque on Sag Ratio

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

IADC/SPE 87205

11

1.145

1.125

1.105

sag ratio

1.085

1.065

φ

o

= 2 . 67

1.045

zero torque

1.025

0.07 tau/alpha

1.005

0.14 tau/alpha

0.985

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

s/L

Figure 9: Effect of Torque on Sag Ratio

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

- CGNA18404ENS_001Uploaded byViet Duc Dang
- Ch18 DOUBLY CURVED SHELLS and Shell Like StructuresUploaded byErnie Ernie
- s Chele Stow 2017Uploaded bySol Angel
- Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment FramesUploaded byahumanbeing108
- Nasa Beam+Column StabilityUploaded bybrahmendra
- Análise Experimental Do Comportamento Ao Fogo de Elementos Comprimidos Em Aço Enformado a FrioUploaded byReaditReadit
- Stress Vibration SyllabusUploaded byZahid Rehman
- 00089517Uploaded bymsmsoft
- 183.fullUploaded bymechengg01
- Syllabus of Civil m.tech (Struclural Engineering)Uploaded bycndnt
- Naughty CatsUploaded bykhayat
- ME 201 Mechanics of SolidsUploaded bySudeesh Sudevan
- Cold Formed Steel Stiffened Web Sections BehaviourUploaded byIJIRST
- [Eng]Tutorial Input of Buckling LengthsUploaded byVlad Mos
- The New Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal StructuresUploaded byBilly Bob
- Verification Manual South Africa CodesUploaded bythanzawtun1981
- 12043-Strength of MaterialsUploaded byManiVijay
- bending and drawing.pptUploaded byStelwin Fernandez
- Vibration of Axially Loaded Structures - N. VIRGINUploaded byJorge S. Lopez Yarango
- 700827688Microsoft Word - IJSR85 (2)Uploaded byIoannisPerseusAntypas
- 72Uploaded byBobby Lupango
- Lateral Torsional Buckling of I-beamsUploaded byRobert Vochescu
- FastStone Image Viewer - 1 Image(s)Uploaded byChow Khee Yew
- New Approaches in EC3 - 0Uploaded byangelobacigalupo72
- bcukling 12Uploaded byEvon Goh
- pinna-ascm2004-revised-post-commentUploaded byrodpinna
- wcQE.pdfUploaded byChary
- Review on Cold Formed Lipped Channel BeamUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Week 1 Summary of Plates and Shells curriculumUploaded bySayantan Datta Gupta
- Buckling Fatigue AnalysisUploaded byHarshit Garg

- Room-Temperature LiquidsUploaded byJohnSmith
- Are Deep EutecticUploaded byJohnSmith
- Inhibition Effects of Nitrogen Compounds on the HDS of Dibenzothiophene Part 2aUploaded byJohnSmith
- Selective Extraction of Neutral Nitrogen Compounds Found in Diesel Feed ByUploaded byJohnSmith
- Zn-Containing Ionic Liquids for the Extractive Denitrogenation of a Model Oil - A Mechanistic ConsiderationUploaded byJohnSmith
- Seddon 2003Uploaded byJohnSmith
- Extraction of ThiopheneUploaded byJohnSmith
- Synthesis of Monoclinic Structured BiVO4 Spindly Microtubes in Deep Eutectic Solvent and Their Application for Dye DegradationUploaded byJohnSmith
- Electrodeposition of Co, Sm and SmCo From a Deep Eutectic SolventUploaded byJohnSmith
- Exerted Influence of Deep Eutectic Solvent Concentration in the Room Temperature Ionic Conductivity and Thermal Behavior of Corn Starch Based Polymer ElectrolytesUploaded byJohnSmith
- Selective Adsorption for Removal of Nitrogen Compounds From Liquid HC Streams Over Carbon- And Alumina- Based AdsorbentsUploaded byJohnSmith
- Use of Ab AlgorithmicUploaded byJohnSmith
- Eutectic Mixtures Based Upon Multivalent Metal IonsUploaded byJohnSmith
- Properties and Phase Equilibria of Fluid Mixtures as the Basis for Developing Green Chemical ProcessesUploaded byJohnSmith
- Ionic Liquid Analogues Formed From Hydrated Metal SaltsUploaded byJohnSmith
- Ionothermal Materials Synthesis Using UnstableUploaded byJohnSmith
- Electrodeposition of Co, Sm and SmCo From a Deep Eutectic SolventUploaded byJohnSmith
- Bacteria Incorporation in Deep-eutectic Solvents Through FreezeUploaded byJohnSmith
- Direct Conversion of Inulin to 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural in BiorenewableUploaded byJohnSmith
- Ionic Liquid Analogues Formed From Hydrated Metal SaltsUploaded byJohnSmith
- Deep Eutectic Solvent Concentration in the Room Temperature Ionic Conductivity and Thermal Behavior of Corn Starch Based Polymer ElectrolytesUploaded byJohnSmith
- Electrodeposition of Zinc–Tin Alloys From Deep Eutectic Solvents Based on Choline ChlorideUploaded byJohnSmith
- Uploaded byJohnSmith
- Uploaded byJohnSmith
- Molar Heat Capacities of Choline Chloride-based Deep Eutectic Solvents and Their Binary Mixtures With WaterUploaded byJohnSmith
- Ionothermal Materials Synthesis Using UnstableUploaded byJohnSmith
- Methods for Stabilizing and Activating EnzymesUploaded byJohnSmith
- New Synthetic Route of Polyoxometalate-based Hybrids in Choline Chloride_urea Eutectic MediaUploaded byJohnSmith
- Post-etch Residue Removal Using Choline Chloride–Malonic Acid Deep Eutectic Solvent (DES)Uploaded byJohnSmith
- Based Upon Multivalent Metal IonsUploaded byJohnSmith