SPE/IADC 52847
Helical Buckling of Pipe With Connectors
R. F. Mitchell, SPE, Landmark Drilling & Well Services
Copyright 1999, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, Holland, 9–11 March 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The effect of connectors on pipe buckling is acknowledged,
but has received little attention. Lubinski analysed the effect
of connectors on pipe in tension in a curved borehole, while
Paslay and Cernocky extended this analysis to pipe in
compression. These papers indicate that bending stresses are
greater due to connector stand-off. However, these papers do
not consider a buckled pipe.
This paper presents an analytic solution of the beam-column
equations in three-dimensions for a helically buckled pipe
with connectors. For low axial compression, the solution
approximates helically buckled pipe without connectors,
however, at higher axial forces, the effects of connectors on
contact forces and bending stress becomes significant. Sag
between connectors is calculated so that pipe body contact
between connectors can be determined.
Applications include the analysis of bottom hole assemblies,
drill pipe, casing, and tubing. The solutions are simple
formulas that are suitable for hand calculations.
Introduction
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. Curiously, this problem has received little attention.
The analysis of buckling has received extensive attention in
the last 20 years. The following is a brief and incomplete review
of the accomplishments in this area. The first generally accepted
method for the analysis of buckling was developed by Lubinski
and Woods1. Lubinski found that pipe buckled into a helical
shape in a straight, vertical wellbore. Dawson and Paslay found
that pipe first buckled laterally in deviated wells, and determined
a buckling criterion for lateral buckling2. Chen et.al. found that
pipe could buckle helically in deviated wells, and determined a
helical buckling criterion3. Mitchell developed a more general
approach that used the full set of beam-column equations
constrained to be in contact with the casing4,5.
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 two-dimensional constant
curvature wellbore6. 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. Paslay and Cernocky completed this analysis by
analyzing the pipe in compression7. Because the pipe is in
compression, Paslay and Cernocky recognized that the pipe
could buckle. They considered lateral buckling between
connectors as a limit to the validity of their analysis. Part of the
inspiration for this paper was the possibility of other types of
buckling for pipe in compression.
The two-dimensional results clearly indicate the importance
of connectors in pipe stress analysis. This paper looks at three-
dimensional buckling of pipes with connectors. The problem
formulation is similar to Lubinski’s buckling analysis1: the
wellbore is vertical and straight. The beam-column equations
considered in the plane buckling analysis7 are used, but now
there are deflections out of the plane. A solution for helical
buckling is developed that corresponds to Lubinski’s solution for
low axial compression but produces pipe sag and bending stress
magnification for higher axial loads. Calculation results include
connector contact forces, bending stress magnification,
maximum dogleg angle, and pipe sag. An application problem is
solved and the effect of compressive axial force on sag between
connectors, contact loads, and maximum bending stress is
examined.
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.
2 R. F. MITCHELL
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:
EIuiiv + Fui′′ = w i i = 1,2
. . . . .(1)
where ui is the deflection in the ith coordinate direction, F is the
axial buckling compressive force, derivatives( iv and ") are with
respect to s, and wi is the distributed lateral load. If F and wi are
constant, the general solution to equation 1 is:
ui = ai + bi s + ci sin(αs ) + d i cos(αs ) + w i s 2 2F
. . . . .(2)
where ai, bi, ci, di, and α are constants and
α2 = F
EI
. . . . .(3)
For two displacement equations, there are eight 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
following simplification of equation 2 satisfies these boundary
conditions, with wi taken as zero:
u1 = rc {1 + c1[1 − cos(αs )] + d1[αs − sin(αs )]}
u2 = rc {e0αs + c2 [1 − cos(αs )] + d 2 [αs − sin(αs )]}
. . . . .(4)
where:
c1 = [−e1 sinθ (φ − sinφ ) − (cosθ − 1)(1− cosφ )] / D
d1 = [(cosθ − 1) sinφ + e1(1− cosφ )] / D
c2 = [(e1 cosθ − e0 )(φ − sinφ ) − (sinθ − e0φ )(1− cosφ )] / D
d2 = [(sinθ − e0φ ) sinφ − (e1 cosθ − e0 )(1− cosφ )] / D
D = sinφ(φ − sinφ ) − (1− cosφ )2
φ = αL
and rc is the connector radial clearance and L is the joint
length. The connector radial clearance is given by:
rc = (dh-dc)/2 . . . . .(5)
SPE/IADC 52847
where dh is the borehole diameter and dc is the connector
diameter. There are three degrees of freedom in solution 4: the
angles of the connector with the axial direction at each
connector, e0 and e1, and the angular movement θ of
connector 1 relative to connector 0, as shown in Figure 2.
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 beam-column solutions. This
“helical” beam has the following properties:
1. All connectors in full borehole contact
2. Constant pitch from connector to connector
3. Continuity of curvature at connectors
4. Continuity of shear tangent to borehole wall
5. Positive contact force between connector and wall
6. All pipe displacements within the borehole
Conditions 1-5 can be satisfied, surprisingly leaving a degree
of freedom:
e 0 = e1 = … = ε . . . . .(6)
where:
(1 − cos φ ) sin θ
ε =
(φ − sin φ ) cos θ − φ cos φ + sin φ
. . . . .(7)
The remaining degree of freedom is the constant angle θ
between connectors. The contact force developed between the
connector and the borehole is given by:
2 F α r c ( 1 − cos θ )( G cos θ − z sin φ − y 2 )
Pc =
G ( x cos θ − z )
. . . . .(8)
where:
x = φ - sinφ
y = 1-cosφ
z = φcosφ-sinφ
G=x sinφ-y2
. . . . .(9)
Clearly, the choice of θ is not arbitrary, or condition 5 will not
be satisfied by equation 8. However, is it reasonable that the
pitch of the helical beam is not determined? To answer this
question, we will look at solutions of the beam-column
equations for a pure helix with no connectors.
SPE/IADC 52847 HELICAL BUCKLING OF PIPE WITH CONNECTORS 3

The following solution to the beam-column equations Therefore, the bending stress magnification factor (BSMF) is
describes a helix: the ratio of the magnitude of the helical beam bending
moment to the magnitude of the helix bending moment:
u1h = rp cos(βs)
u2h = rp sin(βs) BSMF 2
= 4 ( c12 + c 22 ) cos 2 (α s )
. . . . .(10) + 8 ( c1d 1 + c 2 d 2 ) sin( α s ) cos( α s )
where rp is the radial clearance of the pipe body. This solution + 4( d 12 + d 22 ) sin 2 (α s )
requires that the wi are the contact forces:

w1 = wN cos(βs) . . . . .(18)
w2 = wN sin(βs) . . . . .(11)
The final requirement for this solution is that all pipe
and that: displacements must stay within borehole. To evaluate this
requirement, we first calculate the magnitude of the radial
rpEI β2 (α2-β2) = wN . . . . .(12) displacement of the pipe:

The constant β is undetermined by this analysis, other than β2 R (s ) = (u (s ) + u (s ))

2
1
2
2
must be less than α2, otherwise the contact force wN will not
be positive. We see that for constant axial loads, the pitch of
the helix is not determined by equilibrium conditions. This is
. . . . .(19)
the same result we found for the helical beam. Lubinski and
Woods1 determined through a virtual work analysis that β2 = We can define a dimensionless quantity R(s)/rc which we call
½α2. Interestingly, this value of β maximizes the contact the “sag ratio” of the pipe. The sag ratio will generally be
force. It has been shown that reasonable boundary conditions greater than 1, but if this ratio exceeds rp/rc, where rp is the
tend to produce this result4. If we adopt this result, we can radial clearance of the pipe body, then the pipe will touch the
eliminate the last degree of freedom in equations 4 and 7: borehole.

θ = βL = ½√2 φ . . . . .(13) Dimensionless Equations. Application of these results can be

simplified by putting them into dimensionless form. If we
Bending Stress Magnification. The solution for the constant define a dimensionless axial position by:
pitch helix, equation 10, gives a reference to compare the
bending stresses developed by equation 4. Bending moment is ξ = s/L . . . . .(20)
given by the following equation:
then:
Mi = EIui″, i=1,2 . . . . .(14)
αs = φξ . . . . .(21)
From equation 4 we get the bending moments for the helical
beam: Dimensionless displacements can be produced by dividing
equation 4 by rc. Dimensionless connector contact force χ can
M1 = rcF[c1 cos(αs)+d1 sin(αs) ] be defined in terms of the pure helix contact load wN:
M2 = rcF[c2 cos(αs)+d2 sin(αs) ] . . . .(15)
χ = Pc/wNL . . . . .(22)
and from equation 10, using rc for rp, we get the bending
moments for the equivalent helix: With the substitution of equations 21 and 22 into equations 4,
8, 18, and 19, the principal results depend only on the
M1h = ½ rcF cos(βs) dimensionless parameters φ and ξ. For this reason, we do not
M2h = ½ rcF sin(βs) . . . . .(16) need to specify an actual pipe size, borehole diameter, or axial
load. Given the parameters of an actual problem, the values of
The maximum bending stress is proportional to the bending φ and ξ can be easily evaluated from their definitions.
moment:
Dimensionless Results: In the past, the helix solution
σb = ½Md0/I . . . . .(17) (equation 10) was used to successfully analyze the buckling of
pipe with connectors. The obvious question is how does that
solution compare with the helical beam solution? Further, for
4 R. F. MITCHELL SPE/IADC 52847

what conditions are the two solutions comparable and when Sample Calculations
might there be significant differences? Figure 4 shows the
helix and helical beam displacements as a function of ξ for a To illustrate the application of the dimensionless results to a
relatively small value of φ. The results show that the real problem, we consider a 5”, 19.5 ppf drillpipe in a 12.25”
respective displacements are nearly identical. Figure 5 shows hole, with a compressive axial buckling force of 24 kips. The
the helix and helical beam displacements for a larger value of properties of the pipe are summarized in the following:
φ. In this case, the displacements are noticeably different. The
indication is that the helical beam will diverge from the pure Outside diameter = 5.000 inches
helix for large values of φ. This means that the helix solution Inside diameter = 4.276 inches
is valid for small buckling load values, for very short pipes, or Tool Joint OD = 6.750 inches
for very stiff pipes. Joint Length = 31.0 feet
Bending stress magnification is plotted as a function of ξ for The moment of inertia I is given by:
several values of φ in Figure 6. In the helical beam, there is
bending stress reduction at the connectors, while the I= π
64
(d o2 − d i2 )
maximum bending stress occurs at the mid point of the beam.
BSMF is a direct comparison of helix and helical beam The following Table was developed from the pipe data or
bending stress, and again we see that for small values of φ, taken from Figures 6-10:
BSMF is approximately equal to 1. As φ increases, Figure 6
shows that BSMF also increases. Figure 7 shows the Table 1: Sample Calculation
maximum BSMF as a function of φ. As we have shown with F 24 kips
displacements, the bending stress for small values of φ is I 14.27 in4
approximately the same for the helix and the helical beam. As E 30x106 psi
φ increases, the bending stress in the helical beam exceeds the α=√F/EI .00749 in-1.
helix bending stress. φ 2.785
Contact forces for the helix and the helical beam are rp 3.625 in.
distinctly different in kind: the helix has a distributed lateral rc 2.750 in.
load wN, while the helical beam has a concentrated lateral load sag ratio 1.20
Pc at the connector. We can compare the total lateral load of
BSMF 1.55
the helix over a joint length (wNL) with the contact force of
the helical beam. Figure 8 shows the variation of this ratio χ 1.1
with φ. As before, for small values of φ, the ratio is
First, we want to check to see if the pipe displacement is
approximately equal to 1. Again, as φ increases, the ratio
within the wellbore. The maximum pipe sag is rp/rc, which
diverges and the contact forces for the helical beam exceed the
equals 1.32, which exceeds the calculated sag of 1.20, so the
net lateral load of the pure helix.
pipe is within the wellbore. The maximum pipe bending stress
The final results in this section address condition 6 of the
is given by:
original formulation: that all pipe displacements remain within
the wellbore. The sag ratio was defined as a convenient
σb = BSMF Frcdo/(4I) = 8961 psi
measure of the relative pipe displacement, and the requirement
that the sag ratio be less than rp/rc satisfies the condition that
and the tool joint contact force equals:
the pipe remain within the wellbore. Figure 9 plots the sag
ratio as a function of ξ for several values of φ. The maximum
Pc = χrcF2L/(4EI) = 378.5 lbf
sag is in the middle of the pipe, as expected. As before, small
values of φ produce results similar to the helix solution,
The dogleg severity equals the bending moment divided by EI.
namely no sag. For higher values, the sag becomes significant,
For this case, converting units to degrees/100 feet, we get:
and for sufficiently high values, the pipe body will touch the
borehole. Figure 10 shows the peak sag ratio as a function of
κ = (34,377)(BSMF)(Frc)/EI = 8.2 degrees/100ft.
φ.
SPE/IADC 52847 HELICAL BUCKLING OF PIPE WITH CONNECTORS
Conclusions and Observations
The helical buckling of a beam with connectors has been
formulated with the following features:
1. The wellbore is straight and vertical.
2. Connectors are in full tangential contact with the borehole
wall.
3. The helical pitch is constant.
4. Beam bending moments are continuous at connectors.
5. Tangential shear is continuous at connectors.
6. Contact force between the wellbore and connectors is
positive.
7. Pipe displacements lie within the wellbore.
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.
The helical beam was found to behave like a pure helix
for low values of the axial buckling force, but to vary
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. These
results also suggest that the connector radial clearance should
be used in lateral buckling stability criteria, such as Dawson
and Paslay2, instead of the pipe body radial clearance.
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 only a first step to a
comprehensive model. The next step should be the analysis of
contact between beam and wellbore. In the planar connector
models, the pipe body made point and continuous contact as
the axial force increased. Preliminary analysis of the three-
dimensional case indicates multiple point contact, but further
research is needed. The analysis of beams in deviated wells is
needed to verify the Dawson and Paslay results for pipe with
connectors. The analysis of boundary conditions at a packer or
at the bit could indicate the actual pitch of the helical beam.
Finally, friction at the connectors could have a significant
effect on the results.
Nomenclature
ai, bi, ci, di = constants in beam-column solution (in)
BSMF = bending stress magnification factor
dc= pipe connector diameter (in)
dh = borehole diameter (in)
do = pipe body outside diameter (in)
e0,e1,e2 = connector angles relative to the axial direction
E = Young's modulus (psi)
EI = the tubular bending stiffness (lbf-ft2)
F = the axial compressive buckling force(lbf)
G = coefficient in contact force equation
L = the pipe joint length (ft)
5
M = bending moment (ft-lbf)
Mi = bending moment in the i direction (ft-lbf)
Mih = helix bending moment in the i direction (ft-lbf)
Pc = connector contact force (lbf)
rp = the pipe body radial clearance (in)
rc= the connector radial clearance (in)
R = radial displacement (in)
s = measured depth (ft)
wi = lateral distributed load in the pipe (lbf/ft)
wn = the contact force between the pipe and welbore (lbf/ft)
x,y,z = coefficients in contact force equation
α = coefficient in beam-column solution (ft-1)
β = coefficient in beam-column solution (ft-1)
ε= connector angle for helical beam
σb = bending stress
χ = dimensionless contact force = Pc/wNL
ξ = dimensionless length = s/L
θ = angle between the pipe center and the 1 coordinate axis
θ1, θ2 = angles at connector 1 and connector 2
φ=αL
κ=pipe curvature (degrees/100feet)
References
1. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W. S., and Logan, J. L., "Helical
Buckling of Tubing Sealed in Packers," JPT (June 1962),
655-670.
2. Dawson, Rapier and Paslay, P. R., "Drillpipe Buckling in
Inclined Holes," JPT (October 1984).
3. Chen, Yu-Che, Lin, Yu-Hsu, and John B. Cheatham,
"Tubing and Casing Buckling in Horizontal Wells," JPT
(February 1990).
4. Mitchell, R. F.: "New Concepts for Helical Buckling,"
SPEDE (September 1988), 303-310.
5. Mitchell, R. F.: "Effects of Well Deviation on Helical
Buckling," SPEDC (March 1997).
6. Lubinski, A.: "Fatigue of Range 3 Drill Pipe," Revue de
l’Institut Français du Pétrole, March-April, 1977, vol 32, 2-
77011.
7. 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).
 u1

u2

Figure 1: Coordinates for Buckling Analysis

CONNECTORS
TANGENT TO
CYLINDER

e1

THREE DEGREES OF FREEDOM

TANGENT ANGLES e 0 AND e 1
DISPLACEMENT ANGLE θ

Figure 2: Beam-column With Connectors

e0
CONNECTORS
TANGENT TO
CYLINDER

θ1

θ0 e2

FIVE DEGREES OF FREEDOM

e1 TANGENT ANGLES e 0 ,e 1 , AND e 2
DISPLACEMENT ANGLES θ 0 AND θ1

Figure 3: Multiple Beams With Connectors

e0
 Figure 4: Comparison of Helix and Helical Beam
Small Phi

1.2

0.8
displacement/rc

beam 1
helix 1
0.6
beam 2
helix 2

0.4

phi = 1.885

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xi
 Figure 5: Comparison of Helix and Helical Beam
Large Phi
1.2

0.8

0.6
displacement / rc

beam 1
helix 1
0.4
beam 2
helix 2

0.2

0
phi = 2.67
-0.2

-0.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xi
 Figure 6: Bending Stress Magnification

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2 phi = 2.985

phi = 2.827
BSMF

phi = 2.670
1
phi = 2.356
phi = 1.885
0.8 phi = 0.314

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
xi
 Figure 7: BSMF vs phi

2.4

2.2

1.8
BSMF

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
phi
 Figure 8: Comparison of Helix and Helical Beam
Contact Force
1.4

1.3
Pc/ WnL

1.2

1.1

1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
phi
 Figure 9: Sag Between Connectors
Xi
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
1

1.1

1.2
Sag Ratio

1.3

1.4

phi = 2.199
1.5 phi = 2.513
phi = 2.827
phi = 3.141

1.6
 Figure 10: Pipe Sag vs Phi

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4
Sag Ratio

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
phi