Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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 Lubinskis 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 Lubinskis
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 Lubinskis solution for low axial compression
IADC/SPE 87205
where:
M
F
M2
2
=
= +
2EI
EI 4(EI )2
(3)
EIu1iv + [Mu 2 ] + Fu 1 = w 1
EIu [Mu 1] + Fu 2 = w 2
iv
2
(1)
u 1iv + 2u 2 + ( 2 2 )u 1 = 0
u iv2 2u 1 + ( 2 2 )u 2 = 0
(2)
(3)
1 = + , 2 =
(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.
o =
F
EI
(6)
IADC/SPE 87205
x sin y(cos 1)
+
D
D
y sin sin o (cos 1)
+
d1o =
D
D
[
y
x
(cos
1
)] y sin
o
c o2 =
D
D
[
y
(
1
cos
)
sin
]
sin o sin
o
o
+
d o2 =
D
D
o
c1 = c1 +
c1o =
u 1h = rp cos( s)
w 1 = w N cos( s)
xy o y 2
+ c2 }
d1 = d1o + {d o2
o
D
D
c 2 = c o2 +
2 cos o sin 2 o
2 sin o y( o + sin o )
{d1o o
c1o o
}
o
D
D
xy o y 2
{d1o
+ c1 }
o
D
D
where:
(8)
D = x sin 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 is
constrained to be:
y sin
2 sin o y( o + sin o )
= o
+ c1o o
De
De
2 cos o sin 2 o
+ d1o o
De
D e = o x (cos 1) + y( oo + 2 sin )
2
xy
o y
Pc = Frc { o d + [d
+ c 2 ( + 3)]}
D
D
o
2
EI 4 T 3 F 2 + w N / rp
. . . . .(13)
3T
F
3T
=
+
8EI
8EI 2EI
=L
. . . . .(14)
. . . . .(15)
. . .(16)
and that:
(7)
o = o L
x = o sin o
y = 1 cos o
. . . . .(12)
w 2 = w N sin( s)
2
o sin 2 o o2 cos o
o o sin o y ( o + sin o )
+ c2
{d 2
}
o
D
D
d 2 = d o2 +
. . . . .(11)
u 2 h = rp sin( s)
(10)
and from equation 11, using rc for rp, we get the bending
moments for the equivalent helix:
. . . . .(17)
IADC/SPE 87205
(18)
b =
Md o
2I
. . . . .(19)
BSMF =
M12 + M 22
M12h + M 22 h
. . . . .(20)
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.
. . . . .(21)
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.
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)
b = bending stress
= dimensionless length
= angle between the pipe center and the 1 coordinate axis
IADC/SPE 87205
=LF/EI
0=initial buckling value of
=pipe curvature (feet-1)
References
1. Lubinski, A.: Fatigue of Range 3 Drill Pipe, Revue de
lInstitut Franais du Ptrole, March-April, 1977, vol 32, 277011.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
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).
u 1 (0) = rc
u 1 (0) = 0
u 2 (0) = 0
u 2 (0) = rc / L
(A-1)
u 1 (L) = rc cos
rc sin
L
u 2 (L) = rc sin
u 1 (L) =
u 2 (L) =
rc cos
L
(A-3)
IADC/SPE 87205
~
u1 (s) = u 1 (s)
~
u (s) = u (s)
2
(A-4)
(A-5)
+ (f 4 x 2 f 3 2 y 2 )(cos 1) + y 2 (f 4 + 2 f1 ) sin } / D
D = f1 (1 y1 x 2 2 y 2 x 1 ) + f 3 y1 y 2 (1 + 2 )
f 4 ( x 1 y 2 + x 2 y1 )
(A-9)
For more compact notation, we define the following functions:
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:
cc + dc = 0
2
1
u 2 (0) = ~
u 2 (0)
u 2 (0) = ~
u 2 (0)
~
u (0) = u (0)
2
+ (1 x 2 y1 2 x 1 y 2 )(cos 1) + (1 + 2 ) y1 y 2 sin } / D
u 1 (0) = ~
u1 (0)
u 1 (0) = ~
u1 (0)
~
u (0) = u (0)
1
cc = { [ y1 y 2 (1 + 2 ) + ( x 1 y 2 + x 2 y1 )(cos 1)]
2
2
(A-6)
cc f1 cs y1 ds y 2 = cos 1
cc f 2 + cs 1 ( x 1 1 ) + ds 2 ( x 2 2 )
= sin
cc f 3 cs x 1 + ds x 2 = sin
(A-7)
(A-10)
then equation (A-9) takes the form:
cc f 4 cs 1 y1 + ds 2 y 2 = (cos 1)
where:
1 = 1L
x 1 = 1 sin 1
y1 = 1 cos 1
2 = 2 L
x 2 = 2 sin 2
y 2 = 1 cos 2
cc = (cc1 + cc 2 ) / D
cs = (cs1 + cs 2 ) / D
(A-11)
ds = (ds1 + ds 2 ) / D
The remaining equation (A-3)2 is now used as a constraint on
:
(A-8)
f1 = (1 / 2 ) 2 x 2 + x 1
f 2 = (1 / 2 )(1 y 2 + 2 y1 )
f 3 = (1 / 2 ) 2 ( y 2 y1 )
f 4 = (1 / 2 )( 2 x 1 1 x 2 )
The unknown coefficients are determined using equations (A3)1, (A-3)3 and (A-3)4:
Pc = EI[~
u1(0) u 1(0)]
= 4EIrc12 cc
(A-13)
IADC/SPE 87205
iv
2h
(B-1)
1
2
u 1h = rp cos
u 2 h = rp sin
(B-2)
u 2 h = rp sin s
(B-3)
(B-4)
EI 4 T 3 F 2 + w N / rc = 0
(B-5)
F = T + EI 2
T(u 1h u 2 h u 2h u 1 h )ds
(B-12)
for T constant. Note also that we recover equation (B-9) by
calculating the value of that maximizes the contact force w:
dw
= rc [4EI 3 + 3T 2 + 2F ] = 0
d
(B-13)
The equilibrium value of is:
2
u 1h = rp cos s
(B-6)
3T
F
3T
=
+
8EI
8EI 2EI
(B-14)
as well as the straight pipe solution = 0. The contact force
corresponding to the equilibrium value of 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
=
p
(B-15)
(B-7)
F=
2T
4 2
+ EI 2
p
p
(B-8)
[EI 4 T 3 F 2 ] = 2EI 3 32 T 2 F = 0
(B-9)
+
=0
EI
p2
EI p
(B-10)
+
=0
EI
p2
EI p
(B-11)
3T
F
8EI
2EI
w=
rc F 2 rc TF F
(B-16)
The contact force result is equivalent to He, Halsey, and
Kyllingstad15, equation (11).
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
e1
e0
IADC/SPE 87205
CONNECTORS
TANGENT TO
CYLINDER
e2
e1
TANGENT ANGLES
e 0 ,e 1 , AND e 2
DISPLACEMENT ANGLES
AND
0 1
e0
1.2
0.6
o = 1.885
0.4
u1 - zero torque
0.2
u1 - 0.10 tau/alpha
u1 - 0.20 tau/alpha
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
s/L
1.2
1
0.8
displacement/rc
displacement/rc
0.8
0.6
= 2.67
0.4
o
u1 - zero torque
0.2
u1 - 0.07 tau/alpha
u1 - 0.14 tau/alpha
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
0.7
0.8
0.9
10
IADC/SPE 87205
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
BSMF
0.95
= 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
s/L
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
BSMF
1.1
= 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
s/L
1.02
1.015
sag ratio
1.01
1.005
= 1.885
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
0.7
0.8
0.9
IADC/SPE 87205
11
1.145
1.125
1.105
sag ratio
1.085
1.065
= 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
0.7
0.8
0.9