Sucker-rod Joint Failurest

ABSTRACT
This paper classifies sucker-rod joint failures,
Sucker-rod joint failures have always been a
analyzes the stresses involved in the standard
source of grief to the oil producer; and will conAPI joint, attempts to explain the cause of the
tinue to be until someone devises a better joint,
breaks that occur, and suggests possible remedies
far less vulnerable to fatigue than the present API
for the situation. Anew undercut joint is explained,
standard. However, an understanding of the nature
which is now under field test. This new undercut
of the failure, and the stresses and contributing
pin i s of such design that it can be made from
factors involved, can aid materially in reducing
present sucker-rod pin forgings. An entirely new
joint i s also proposed, and the reasoning for its
the incidence of such failures even with our prespresumed superiority is given.
ent standard joint.

I
I

Classes of Failures

A l l joint failures fall in one of four classes: 1,

completely unscrewing in service; 2, wear a s illustrated in Fig. 1; .3, failure resulting from workmanship or material defects; and 4, fatigue of metal,
usually accelerated by corrosion. The first two
suggest their own remedy. The third, fortunately,
i s extremely rare and it, too, suggests its own
remedy. In the hundreds of joint failures examined
by the writer, no breaks have been found in the pin
proper or in the coupling which are definitely
chargeable to original defects, with the exception
of one pin failure where the coupling face was
0.017 in. out of parallel with the pin shoulder face.
A few pin ends broken in the wrench square, a s indicated by an m o w in Fig. 2,' have been inspected.
All such are definitely caused by forging defects.
T h e fourth class, or the break resulting from
fatigue failure, represents about 90 percent of the
source of trouble and is, of course, the hardest to
understand or combat. The nature and cause of
fatigue failures i s not within the scope of this
paper. Very able and comprehensive literature on
the subject is available.' It can simply be said
that the endurance life of a metal part subject to
fatigue can be improved by: I , lowering the s t r e s s
a s by increasing the metal area; 2, decreasing the
rate of corrosion, a s by use of inhibitors; 3, decreasing the range of s t r e s s ; and 4, eliminating
s t r e s s raisers such a s sharp notches placed at
critical points. Fig. 3 i s a graph which shows the
relationship between fatigue life, both in air and
in brine, and magnitude of stress; and Fig. 4 shows
*w. C .

Nonis, Mfr., Inc., Tulsa.

t Presented at the sprmg meetlng of the Mid-Cont~nent District,

D ~ _ v l s ~ oofn Product~on,W ~ c h ~ t a
Kans.,
,
March 1952.
' ~ e f e r e n c e sare at the end of the paper.

the Goodman diagram2 which illustrates the effect

of range of stress.
Before going further in discussing actual failures
and means of combating them, it would be well to
have a clear understanding of the quality and quantity of s t r e s s e s involved in the sucker-rod joint
under both static and dynamic conditions.

Stress in Sucker-rod Joint

These s t r e s s e s can be most easily comprehended
by visualizing a spring-loaded analogue a s shown
diagrammatically in Fig. 5 and 6. Referring to Fig.
5, assume spring B to be exerting a pull of 10 Ib
in the assembly. There will then be a reacting
pressure of 10 Ib a t the contact faces A . Now, if
we hang a load of 6 lb on the hook, pressure a t A
will be reduced to 4 Ib; hence, the faces must
s t i l l be in contact, If the faces are s t i l l in contact, there has been no change in length of the
spring, and no change in length means no change
in s t r e s s or pull. Therefore, a s long a s the load
hung on the hook is l e s s than the pull exerted
by the spring, there will be no change in s t r e s s in
the spring. When the load does exceed the spring's
initial pull, the faces separate and all the load i s
carried directly by the spring. The spring B is, of
course, analogous to that part of the sucker-rod
pin between its shoulder and the last full thread.
The body C i s analogous to the corresponding part
of the coupling, and the initial load in spring B i s
analogous to the initial load s e t up in the pin by
proper tightening of the joint.
course, the coupling wall i s compressible, s o
a more accurate analogy i s illustrated in Fig. 6
where the body C of Fig.5 i s repfaced with a heavy
spring C. Here again we will assume an initial tens i o n of 10 Ib in spring B and will further assume
that it elongates 10 centimeters for every ~ o u n dof

of

SUCKER-ROD JOINT FAILURES

215
--

Fig. 1 - J o i n t F a i l u r e Resulting from Wear

load imposed on it. A l s o assume that spring C,

being larger and stiffer, deflects one centimeter
for every pound of loade imposed on it. When we
again h a n g 6 Ib on the hook, the pressure a t A will
again be reduced to 4 Ib, and the f a c e s will s t i l l be
in contact; but s p r i n g C will elongate 6 centimeters,
being relieved of 6 Ib of i t s compression, resulting
in s p r i n g B elongating an equal amount. Ilowever,
6 centimeters on spring B r e p r e s e n t s six-tenths of
a pound; therefore, i t s tension i s increased from
10 lb to 10.6 lb by the addition of 6 lb load. IJowever, now having 10.6 Ib on the inner spring in-

KEY

s t e a d of t h e original 10 Ib, the tendency would

then be t o i n c r e a s e the compression in the outer
spring, t h u s in turn shortening and decreasing the
inner spring's load to something l e s s than the 10.6
lb when equilibrium i s e s t a b l i s h e d . So it becomes
evident that the pull or s t r e s s of the inner spring
i s not proportional to the load added to the hook;
or, in terms of the sucker-rod joint, the s t r e s s in
the pin i s a f a c t o r not only of the load on the string,
but i s a factor of the respective a r e a s of the coupling and pin a s well. It a l s o becomes evident that
t h e initial s t r e s s imposed in the spring by proper
tightening must exert a load on the contact f a c e s
greater than any load which might be imposed on
t h e rod s t r i n g s o that the f a c e s will not s e p a r a t e
under that load.
Keeping in mind the inter-action of the two
springs, but shifting our thinking from the analogue to the actual pin and coupling, a more e x a c t
mathematical a n a l y s i s follows.

Calculations
Let:

= load on rod string, in Ib.

LP = tensile

load in pin resulting from combined effect of initial tightening and

t h e working load, in lb..
LC = compression load in coupling resulting
from combined effect of initial tightening and the working load, in Ib.
'Then equilibrium requires that:

Lp = L C+ k
Tv'hen 'CI/
OMPRESSION

IN

COUPLING.

OlNT O F PIN FAILURE.

OlNT O F COUPLING

AXlWUW

FAILURE.

TENSION I N COUPLING

Let: Li =
Ae =
Aeo=
Ap =

0, or when s t r e s s e s in the joint a r e

the r e s u l t of tightening alone, the
compressive force in the coupling andthe tensile force in the pin are equal;
therefore:
initial load, in Ib, a t shoulder resulting
from tightening alone.
unit pin elongation with LP'
unit pin elongation with LL alone.
area of pin a t root of threads.
=

Basically, unit elongation

Fig. 2

- API

Sucker-rod Joint

(1)

Stress

= --

tJ

Load
Area x

E'

A. A. HARDY

216

Snbtrac ting:

Ae-Ae

L
APE

=-J--O

LI
APE

Similarly for the coupling:

Ac = unit coupling elongation with LC.
= unit coupling elongation with L
Ac = area of coupling a t major thread diameter.
Then:
T
r
L
= c and
=1
.4cE
ACE

Ace

Ace

Let S

Subtracting:
Ac -

L
LC
& = 2 -ACE ACE

S1

However, a s f a c e s do not separate, elongations

are equal. Therefore from equations (2) and (3):

= pin s t r e s s in pounds per square inch

.-

under Lp.
initial pin s t r e s s in pounds per square
inch under LI.

Then:

Lp = SAP, and L1 = SIAp

and, substituting in equation (5):

A c (Lp-Ll)

A p (LI-LC)

Solving equations (1)and (4) for

A c (Lp-LI)

Lp we obtain:

A p (Ll-Lp

+ W)

(4)

SAP = SIAp + A 'iV

Ac+ A p

S=S1+Ac+ A p

(6)

2 17

SUCKER-ROD JOINT FAILURES

tations require, in good joint design, that the coupling must have a greater metal cross-sectional
area than the pin and that the pin must have a
greater metal cross-sectional area than the rod.
What happens when these relationships differ i s
interesting, but beside the point.
Following this reasoning, let us investigate the
pin s t r e s s e s in fhe two styles of joints suggested
for use on 2-in. rods operated in %in. tubing. The
first consists of the standard 12,-in. pin with a
Is/,-in. reduced diameter coupling. The other cons i s t s of a 11/,,-in. diameter pin with the same
(1%-in.) diameter coupling, the API standard for
3/,-in. rods. The respective coupling and pin metal
areas are a s follows:

Fig. 4 - T h e Goodman Diagram2

Pin Size, In.

Equation (6) simply s t a t e s that the s t r e s s in the

pin in any joint i s equal to the initial s t r e s s s e t up
in the pin by tightening alone, plus the load added
to the rod string divided by the areas of the coupling and pin combined. Of course, practical limi-

Fig.

- Spring Analogue (Partial)

346

I26

Coupling Area, In.

0.93287
1.15727

P i n Area, In.
0.87260
0.67790

For the 2-in. slim-hole joint with 13A,-in. pin, a

40,000-psi preload and 20,000-lb rod string load:

Fig.

- Spring Analogue (Complete)

A. A. HARDY

218

S = 40,000 +

20,000
0.93287

+ 0.87260

51,077 psi.

F o r the 2-in. slim-hole joint with the 1'4,-in. pin

and t h e s a m e loading:

S = 40,000 +

20,000
1.15727

+ 0.67790

= 50,898 psi.

T h e difference in pin s t r e s s , for practical purp o s e s , i s nil; but it i s significant, surprising a s it

s e e m s on first thought, that the smaller pin i s j u s t
a s c a p a b l e of r e s i s t i n g breakage in fatigue a s t h e
larger pin with the s a m e diameter coupling, a t l e a s t
until the contact f a c e s separate.
l ' h u s it c a n be s e e n t h a t with proper tightening
the pin s t r e s s in a n y joint of a given diameter i s
independent of t h e a c t u a l pin s i z e , subject, of
course, to t h e limitation imposed by good design
mentioned previously. Therefore, if coupling breaka g e o r coupling wear i s a factor, the smaller pin
which allows a larger coupling metal a r e a should
give the better service.

Pin Failures
P r a c t i c a l l y all pin failures are caused by fatigue
and invariably occur a t the l a s t full thread, a s
shown by the .arrow in F i g . 2. A picture of a broken
pin i s shown in Fig. 7. T h e break i s a l w a y s a t
right a n g l e s t o t h e a x i s of t h e pin and i s smooth
and s t a i n e d in a half moon where the break started,
and rough and ragged 1 8 0 d e g from the s t a r t where
t h e final rupture occurred. T h e significant f a c t
about fatigue breaks i s t h a t they a r e caused by a
high range of s t r e s s variation over thousa'nds or
even hundreds of t h o u s a n d s of s t r e s s c y c l e s and
not by high s t r e s s alone. No piece of s t e e l h a s
ever been broken by a s i n g l e high s t r e s s even beyond i t s e l a s t i c limit s o long a s the s t r e s s h a s not
exceeded i t s ultimate strength.
Therefore, t h e s e failures, being c a u s e d by fatigue,
must be the r e s u l t of a high range of s t r e s s variation. A s shown by the s t r e s s a n a l y s i s given prev i o u s l y , t h i s high range of s t r e s s can only occur
when the f a c e s s e p a r a t e under load. T h e f a c e s
c a n only s e p a r a t e when the t e n s i o n in t h e pin
c a u s e d by tightening is l e s s t h a n t h e tension
induced due t o the working load; or, in terms

Fig. 7- Typical Pin Break (Fatigue)

i
,
'

of the analogue shown in F i g . 6, when the tension

in s p r i n g B i s l e s s than the load applied to the
hook.
T h e remedy obviously i s to tighten the joints
initially s o t h a t the f a c e s do not s e p a r a t e when the
working load i s applied. T h i s requirement h a s been
pointed out by s e v e r a l authors, s u c h a s mill^;^
Doughtie and Carter;4 Sauer, Lemmon, and Lynn;'
Almen;6 and many others. T o d o this, a predetermined torque must be carefully applied to t h e
joints a s they a r e run. Doughtie and Carter have
s u g g e s t e d a formula showing the relationship between torque and pin s t r e s s which appears to work
out very well for sucker-rod joints.

wherein.

T
F

= torque required to turn the coupling, in.-lb.

= axial t e n s i l e load in pin, lb.

pitch of threads, in.

pitch diameter of screw thread, in.
f = coeflicient of friction between threads.
f = coefficient of friction between c o n t a c t f a c e s .
Lf = mean diameter of contact f a c e s .
a = one half t h e included thread angle measured
in a p l a c e through t h e bolt a x i s ,
= 30 deg.
Experiments by the writer and a study of similar
experiments by o t h e r s h a s indicated that the coy
efficients of friction in t h i s formula should be evaluated a t 0.11. T h i s may s e e m low for the average
threaded joint, but t h e API sucker-rod joint i s not
an average commercial joint. T h e API tolerances
make it considerably above average in quality,
resulting in good finish and lower than average
friction.
Assuming that the s t r e s s desired in the pin i s
40,000 psi, and solving for t h e torque required for
t h i s condition, we have the following results:
%-in. rods:-213 ft-lb
'&-in. rods:-512 ft-lb
1-in. rods: -770 ft-lb
'4-in. rods:-34.0 ft-lb
In terms of weight or force required a t the end of a
3-ft arm, t h i s would be:
%-in. rods- 71 1b
'4-in. rods-113 Ib
%-in. rods-171 l b
1-in. rods-257 Ib
It i s our experience that an impact wrench, a s
ordinarily used, will build up between 200 and 500
ft-lb of torque, depending upon how it i s used. If
t h i s i s true, we should, assuming that t h e foregoing
f i g u r e s are correct, very seldom experience any
breaks in %-in. p i n s and occasionally experience
breaks in %-in. pins. T h e most common break should

SUCKER-ROD JOINT F A I L U R E S

x-

be in
and 1-in. pins. T h i s i s a c t u a l l y borne out
in experience. We never hear of broken %-in. pins.
Occasionally, we have a few '4-in. broken pins.
Most of our pin breaks occur in %-in. rods, with a
few 1-in. However, t h e number of 1-in. rods in
operation i s far l e s s than t h e number of %-in. and
would explain t h i s discrepancy.
I t i s our firm belief that w e should throw a w a y
a l l of our impact wrenches and u s e one of t h e commercially available torque wrenches, air-powered
sucker-rod wrenches s e t for the proper torque; or
give the men 2- or 3-ft cheaters, depending upon
t h e rod s i z e , and s c h o o l them in tightening in t h e
proper manner. T h e impact-wrench method, a t best,
i s highly uncontrollable and highly unpredictable.
T h e suggested loading of 40,000 p s i i s t h e minimum that should b e used. T h e danger, insofar as
failure i s concerned, i s far l e s s in applying too
much torque than in applying too little. D. R.
Miller7 of t h e National Bureau of Standards h a s
pointed out t h a t even if t h e e l a s t i c limit of the pin
i s exceeded in tightening, no particular harm i s
done. Actually, e x c e e d i n g i t appreciably may b e
beneficial. One recognized means of improving t h e
fatigue life of s t e e l i s to s t r e t c h it beyond i t s
e l a s t i c limit. T h i s f a c t h a s been pointed out by
Alnien8 with reference to c u t t h r e a d s on s t u d s and
bolts, who a l s o s u b s c r i b e s to torquing threaded
connections beyond t h e yield point where the application i s of the same nature a s the sucker-rod joint.
Of course, it i s conceivable and highly p o s s i b l e
that a joint may loosen in s e r v i c e even though properly tightened. T h i s possibility can only be overcome in the present joint by increasing t h e friction
which r e s i s t s l o o s e n i n g s u c h a s by removing a l l
g r e a s e on the contact f a c e s of t h e pin shoulder and
coupling, being careful to l e a v e i t on t h e threads of
both pin and coupling. T h e writer r e a l i z e s that t h i s
i s a large order in a c t u a l practice.

Lack of Parallelism of Contact Faces

T h i s s u b j e c t h a s c a u s e d considerable concern in
t h e industry. Of course, r e a s o n a b l e parallelism
should be held; but with t h e 0.001 in. to 0.007 in.
clearance between t h e pin and coupling t h r e a d s
allowable under the p r e s e n t standards, together
with the p l a s t i c flow that o c c u r s in the metal in pin
and coupling t h r e a d s and in t h e c o n t a c t f a c e s when
properly tightened, t h e joint will s e a t itself and
will compensate for considerable angularity. F o r
t h i s reason, i t would be most e x c e l l e n t practice to
fully tighten, then loosen, and fully tighten e a c h
joint a s e c o n d time when running a new s t r i n g of
rods. It i s t h e writer's opinion that a total misalignment of t h e f a c e s between t h e product pin and
coupling of the order of 0.005 in. would d o no harm.

219

L a r g e r c l e a r a n c e s would c a u s e high s t r e s s e s on
o n e s i d e of the pin and might even exceed t h e
e l a s t i c limit of t h e metal a t some point; but particularly in view of t h e article by Almen referred
to previously, t h i s may not be objectionable. It i s
t h e c y c l i c s t r e s s and not t h e high s t r e s s t h a t
c a u s e s failure. It i s , however, the writer's opinion
t h a t e x c e s s i v e f a c e misalignment i s conducive to
joints becoming l o o s e in s e r v i c e resulting in pin
failures.

Coupling Failures
Coupling failures s e e m t o be peculiar to certain
districts, some d i s t r i c t s experiencing none while
others s e e m to be plagued with them. In a l l probability they a r e a s s o c i a t e d with crooked-hole country. All couplings fail in fatigue and a t t h e point
which coincides with the first thread on t h e pin, a s
indicated in F i g . 2. T h e s t a r t of t h i s failure, while
in the region of the end of t h e wrench flat, seldom,
if ever, c o i n c i d e s with the wrench flat. T h e writer
h a s never s e e n a broken coupling whose break
could be definitely attributed t o t h e wrench flat.
Another fact which s e e m s t o p r e s e n t itself on
limited observation i s t h a t the couplings usually
appear to break opposite t h e first thread of t h e
bottom pin and not t h e top pin. T h e only apparent
significance here might b e that t h e fluid which
s e e p s into t h e joint, being corrosive and lying on
top of the end of the bottom pin, might h a s t e n
corrosion fatigue a t t h i s point. Confirmation of t h i s
thought should be sought.
T h e s t a r t of the fatigue break sometinles l i e s on
t h e outside s u r f a c e of t h e coupling, but usually i s
in evidence a t the root of the threads on t h e inside.
If on t h e outside, t h e break c a n b e invariably traced
t o a crack in t h e hardened c a s e c a u s e d by a hammer
blow. E v e n a moderate blow c a n crack the c a s e of
a hardened and ground coupling, and s u c h c r a c k s
a r e ideal points for fatigue breaks t o start. T h i s i s
illustrated in F i g . 8. If t h i s condition i s s u s p e c t e d ,
i t can b e e a s i l y proved by etching the broken coupling in a 50-percent solution of hydrochloric acid
a t 160 F. for 30 min. T h i s procedure will bring out
the hammerblow marks with surprising clarity.
A s mentioned previously, however, most of t h e
breaks s t a r t from t h e i n s i d e a s shown in Fig. 9.
T h i s type of break cannot be c a u s e d by bending or
hammering, either cf which would have their maximum effect on t h e outside surface. It then must be
t h e result of fatigue s t a r t i n g a t the point of maximum s t r e s s , together with the sharp V notch effect
of t h e threads a t t h i s point. Considered in t h i s
light, then, t h e s e breaks should s t a r t where they
do, on the i n s i d e and a t t h e end of t h e pin. Correcting t h i s condition p r e s e n t s a r e a l ~ r o b l e m ,for there

Fig.

8- Coupling Broken from Outside Caused by

Hammering

i s no m e a n s of limiting t h e range of s t r e s s a t t h i s
point in t h e coupling a s there i s in t h e pin. T h r e e
p o s s i b l e methods d o present themselves, however,
viz.: 1, increase the metal area a t t h i s point, t h u s reducing the magnitude of the s t r e s s ; 2, assuming
corrosion to be a contributing factor, u s e some
type of corrosion inhibitor inside the coupling,
t h u s materially increasing the fatigue endurance
life a s shown by Fig. 3; and 3, treating the thread

Fig.

9 -Coupling

Broken from Inside Caused by

Corrosion Fatigue

roots in the coupling in some manner to reduce

their V s h a r p n e s s and consequent fatigue vulnerability, s u c h a s by rounded roots instead of the
present A P I standard flat roots.
The Undercut Pin
During World War I1 the aviation industry developed t h e undercut thread for s t u d s and bolts, thereby practically eliminated fatigue failures in s u c h
components which had been disastrously troublesome. T h e undercut thread c o n s i s t s of turning t h e
body of the threaded member between t h e l a s t full
thread and the s e a t i n g shoulder t o a cylindrical
s e c t i o n slightly l e s s in diameter than the minor
diameter of the threads. T h i s principle i s not new,
having been applied to s u c k e r rods a s early a s
1932; but it is now universally recognized a s the
preferred design for threaded components subjected
t o r e v e r s a l s of s t r e s s .
T h e undercut thread a s applied to the sucker-rod
joint i s covered very a b l y by D. R. Miller in the
article referred to previously. I t accomplishes two
important things, viz.:
1. I t materially r e d u c e s s t r e s s concentration a t
t h e root of the l a s t full thread and s t r e a m l i n e s
t h e s t r e s s flow in a manner that greatly red u c e s fatigue vulnerability.
2. If the cylindrical portion i s of an appreciable
length, the elongation of t h i s section under
initial tightening s t r e s s can be very s u c c e s s fully used to offset the s l i g h t relaxation of
t h i s initial s t r e s s , which invariably o c c u r s a s
a result of the p l a s t i c flow of the metal or
s e a t i n g of the joint under the working load. In
t h i s way the joint s t a y s tight and more nearly
maintains i t s original tightening s t r e s s . T h e
longer the cylindrical section, the greater will
be the elongation under a n y given s t r e s s ; and
t h e greater will be the capacity. to a b s o r b
p l a s t i c flow with minimum relaxation.
F i g . 1 0 i l l u s t r a t e s one d e s i g n of undercut joint
which i s currently under t e s t and which h a s SO far
given definite e v i d e n c e of being superior to t h e
API joint. It can be machined from the present API
pin forging with the present threading die heads,
and u s e s the present API couplings. F i g . 11 s h o w s
a preferred design with a longer neck and slightly
smaller diameter; but which would require new
forging d i e s , new threading equipment, and new
couplings. T o illustrate the desirable effect of the
longer neck, l e t u s consider a c t u a l figures for the
%-in. joint. B a s i c a l l y , unit elongation e q u a l s unit
s t r e s s divided by t h e modulus of elasticity. Then,
a t 40,000 p s i representing t h e desired neck s t r e s s
resulting- from tightening alone:
40,000
= 0.00136 in. p e r inch.
Elongation =
29,500,000

221

SUCKER-ROD JOINT FAILURES

Fig. 10-%-in

Undercut Sucker-rod P i n
- -

The distance from the last full thread to the

shoulder on the API joint i s 0.550 in. T h i s i s not
all free to stretch, because of the imperfect threads;
but for the purpose here, we shall assume it is.
T h i s same distance on the neck of the pin shown in
Fig. 10 i s 0.687 in. and in Fig. 11 i s 1.5 in. The
respective elongations under the same tightening
s t r e s s of 40,000 psi will then be:
API: 0.00136 x 0.550 = 0.00075 in.
Fig. 10: 0.00136 x 0.687 = 0.00093 in.
Fig. 11: 0.00136 x 1.500 = 0.00204 in.
It i s conceivable that 0.00075-in. relaxation of
elongation could occur in seating of the API joint.
If it did occur, the joint would loosen in service
and fail very shortly in fatigue. The undercut joint
of Fig. 10 i s 25 percent better, but the long neck
of Fig. 11 i s 172 percent better. In the writer's
opinion, the long-neck joint would always stay
tight if properly tightened in the first place, for it
i s inconceivable that plastic flow of the metal
would absorb the 0.002 in. in seating under the
working load. The pin outside diameter h a s been
reduced to 1lI8in. instead of the API 134, in., which

Fig.

11 -Proposed

enables us to put more metal in the coupling and

thus reduce the range of stress in the pin a s shown
previously, a s well a s increasing the strength of
the coupling itself. It i s the writer's opinion that
this joint, together with a coupling with rounded
thread roots, would go a long way toward eliminating our present joint failures.
CONCLUSIONS

1. Proper and controlled tightening of the suckerrod joint is of paramount importance in the prevention of broken pins. Some type of controlled torque
wrenching should be used.
2. Tightening too little i s far more dangerous
than tightening too much.
3. New s t r i n g s of rods should always be bucked
up twice when they are run for the first time.
4. The s t r e s s in the pin in a properly tightened
joint of a given outside diameter i s independent of
pin size. Therefore, if coupling breakage or wear
i s a factor, smaller pins for a given s i z e coupling
outside diameter should give better service.
5. Hammering a hardened and ground coupling
willcrack the case and i s extremely likely to cause

--

%-in. Undercut Sucker-rod P i n

HARDY
coupling breakage.
6. If coupling breakage i s not caused by hammering, the break then s t a r t s from t h e inside a s a fatigue break. Rounded roots of coupling threads,
heavier wall couplings, and some means of controll i n g internal coupling corrosion a r e most likely
procedures for eliminating coupling breakage from
t h i s cause.
7. T h e undercut pin design i s very attractive
and g i v e s promise, if properly designed, of elimina t i n g joint failures both in the pin and in the coupling. T h e neck length should ideally be a t l e a s t
two diameters. T h e longer the neck, t h e l e s s i s t h e
c h a n c e of loosening.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T h e writer w i s h e s to gratefully acknowledge t h e
p i d a n c e and s u g g e s t i o n s made by Arthur Lubinski,
of Stanolind Oil and G a s Co., in the rigorous mathematical a n a l y s i s of the s t r e s s e s in the sucker-rod
joint described herein. We further wish t o thank
H. M. Cooley, Bethlehem S t e e l Co., for h i s sugg e s t i o n s and thought-provoking arguments on t h i s
s u b j e c t while the paper w a s in t h e formative s t a g e s .
REFERENCES
'prevention of Fatlgue of Metals, Appendix 7, 131,
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio.
2Summary of Present-day Knowledge of Fatigue Phenomena in hletals, P r o c . A m . S o c . T e s t . d l a t . , Part l , V.30,
260 (1930).

3Mills, I;. N . Reducing Well Costs by Well Studies, 7'he

July 1 (1950).
4Doughtie,' V. L. and Carter, W. J: Bolted Assemblies,
d i a c h r n e D e s r g n , 127, Feb. (1950).
5Sauer, J. A, Lemmon, D. C ; and Lynn, E. I(: BoltsHow to Prevent Then Loosening, J l a c h t n e D e s r g n , 133,
August (1950).
6 ~ l m e n J.
, 0 On the Strength of HighlyStressed.Dynamically Loaded Bolts and Studs,Soc. A u t o . E n g r s . j o u r n a l
( T r a n s . ) 5 2 , 151, April (1944).
'hliller, D. R. The Deslgn of the Sucker-rod Threaded
Joint, P r o c . A m . P e t . I n s t . illrdyear S t a n d a r d r z a t z o n C o n P e t r o l e u m E n g r n e e r , B-13,

f e r e n c e ( S t d z . B u l . 110, C z r c . S - 8 9 8 ) . 898-27 (1950).

8Almen, J. 0: Fatigue Durablllty of Prestressed Screw

Threads, P r o d u c t E n g r n e e r r n g , April (1951).
DlSC USSION
Ceo. E. O'Neal (Stanolind Oil and G a s Co.,
Tulsa)(written):The author h a s presented a valua b l e and timely paper. In t h e s e d a y s of heavy demand for crude oil and lilr~iteds u p p l i e s of s u i t a b l e
alloy s t e e l s for s u c k e r rods, the performance of
s u c k e r rods becomes important; and a n y s u g g e s t i o n s
for improvingthe life of t h e sucker-rod s t r i n g merits
careful consideration. Mr. Hardy i s to be congratulated on h i s paper, which should be of considera b l e value in directing attention to a n important
problem.

Mr. Hardy p r e s e n t s a n interesting approach to

t h e a n a l y s i s of s t r e s s in the p r e s e n t sucker-rod
joint. H i s a n a l y s i s of t h e a c t i o n of t h e joint, a s
shown by the spring-loaded analogue in Fig. 6, i s
logical. However, we are not in conlplete agreement with h i s c o n c l u s i o n s a s t o t h e net effect of
t h e addition of load to s p r i n g s B and C. We do
agree, however, with the conclusion that a n y load
applied to the s u c k e r rods after the joint i s made
up will produce a n additional s t r e s s in the pin, and
t h a t t h i s s t r e s s will be in addition to t h e s t r e s s
imposed by tightening t h e joint.
It i s f ~ r t h e rs t a t e d t h a t tightening a joint too
l i t t l e i s far more dangerous than tightening i t too
tight. It s e e m s rather i n c o n s i s t e n t to design a rod
s t r i n g for a s t r e s s of, s a y , 25,000 p s i and then pres t r e s s the pin to 40,000 p s i by e x c e s s i v e l y tightening the joint. There i s an optimum point to which
a joint should be tightened. T h e joint must b e
sufficiently tight to insure that it will not unscrew,
but a t t h e s a m e time should s t r e s s t h e pin a s l i t t l e
a s possible. Considerable experimenting i s n e c e s s a r y t o determine t h e s e values. O n c e they a r e determined, it will be desirable to u s e torque wrenche s when joints are made up to insure t h a t t h e prope r degree of s t r e s s i s imposed on t h e p i n s a s it h a s
been known for some time t h a t i t i s difficult for an
operator to develop enough s k i l l to tighten e a c h
joint to t h e s a m e degree. T h e s e torque wrenches
should be of t h e break type, rather than t h e dialindicating type to insure s p e e d in making up t h e
joint. I t i s believed that t h e s e torque wrenches
c a n be built along the l i n e s of t h e p r e s e n t spinning
wrench. T h e torque wrenches would p a y for thems e l v e s if only one broken rod i s avoided. Rlr. Hardy
h a s suggested a table of v a l u e s for the torque t o be
applied for each s i z e rod, which could s e r v e a s a
b a s i s for further experiments.
Undercutting the pin and rounding t h e bottom of
t h e threads in the couplings i s a l s o suggested by
t h e author. T h i s practice h a s proved very s a t i s factory in t h e automotive and airplane industries
and should be a s s a t i s f a c t o r y in t h e design of
sucker-rod joints. Investigation of t h e sucker-rod
joint, using polarized light, would s e r v e as a guide
t o the amount of undercut on t h e pin and the degree
of roundness to be applied to both the pin and the
couplings.
Although some very logical c o n c l u s i o n s have
been drawn, we feel that considerably more investigation, a n a l y s i s , and experimentation must be
done before a n y definite a n s w e r s c a n b e found t o
t h i s problem.
Mr. Hardy (written): Mr. O'Neal h a s s t a t e d t h a t
there i s an optimum point to which a joint should
be tightened and s u g g e s t s that t h i s optimum point

223

SUCKER-ROD JOINT FAILURES

I

will probably l i e considerably below t h e 40,OOOpsi

which h a s been s u g g e s t e d in t h i s paper. I certainly
agree with \1r. O'Neal that there i s an optimum
point for every application. However, there a r e s o
many unknowns involved, both in the actual well
load and in the effect of a n y s e l e c t e d torquing
force due to the variable friction of the joint, t h a t
we have thought it b e s t to arbitrarily s e l e c t 40,000
p s i a s being sufficiently high to offset t h e unknown
variables, yet sufficiently below t h e yield point of
the tnetal to minimize danger in that direction.
A s hlr. O'Neal mentions, considerable experinlenting i s n e c e s s a r y to e s t a b l i s h t h e force which
should be used in tightening a joint, but until s u c h
experimenting and far more field r e s e a r c h h a s been
made, we believe that we should b e on the s a f e
s i d e by s e l e c t i n g a s t r e s s somewhere near t h e
magnitude of that previously mentioned.
R o s s hl. Stuntz, Jr. (Gulf Oil Corp., T u l s a )
(written): Mr. Ilardy's paper c o n c e r n s itself with
a s u b i e c t which i s almost a s old a s t h e petroleum
production b u s i n e s s itself-about which much i s
known, but about which much c a n s t i l l be learned.
A recent survey in one a r e a revealed that some 75
percent of the sucker-rod f a i l u r e s occurred in t h e
joints. Hence, improvements in joint design a r e
most welcome. I agree with Mr. Hardy's s t a t e m e n t s
that i t i s difficult to tighten t h e larger s i z e s of
rods sufficiently. T h e paper i s a definite contribution and a d d s t o the knowledge of t h i s comnlon
though complex method of artificial lift. Further, i t
points t h e way not only for improved practice, but
towards additional investigation which should extend t h e u s e of t h i s method.
Experimental trial of the %-in. undercut-pin
s u c k e r r o d s described in F i g . 1 0 w a s initiated in
December 1950. T h r e e s e c t i o n a l replacements were
made: two in Wilcox w e l l s and o n e in a Simpson
well in the Seminole area. Information concerning
t h e s e replacements i s shown in T a b l e 1 (Stuntz).
Service obtained t o d a t e i s depicted in T a b l e 2
(Stuntz).
One of t h e w e l l s i s equipped with a l%-in.-?/,-in.
string, and the other two with z-in.-?/,-in. strings.
T h e A4621 AISI rods installed replaced similar
rods in two c a s e s , and 5132 AISI r o d s in t h e third
c a s e . F l u i d production - from t h e s e w e l l s v a r i e s
from 4 0 0 t o 6 0 0 bbl per day; 2-in. pumps are u s e d ;
and the c y c l e v a r i e s from 2 1 t o 2 6 s t r o k e s per
minute with 52- and 58-in. strokes. Maximum strkss e s in t h e top r o d s of t h e %-in. s e c t i o n s a r e found
t o be from 20,500 to 27,400 psi.
P o w e r rod wrenches were used during t h e installation of t h e r o d s with undercut
Although
power rod wrenches a r e commonly used, c o n s i d e r

Table 1 (Stuntz)
Present Well D a t a
Product~onData:
Rbl per Day
A

Well Formation

'011

Wilcox

35

Simpson

20

Wilcox

22

Pump
Cycle,
Water Diameter,In.
In.

'

360
*(590)
400
'(300)
594
*(500)

2.00

21 x 52

2.00

26 x 52

2.00

26 x 58

Sucker-rod Data:
Feet
Well '1-in.

%-in.

1270

1499

....... 1424

.......

1566

*Water production
w a s made.

?/, -In. '

1577
2652
2527

Rlaximum

Pr Load, Lb

Maximum
Stress
Top of
%-in.~ o dP, s i

17,112
15,872
16,500

20,500
26,400
27,400

at the t ~ m eprevlous sectional r e p l a c e m e n t

Table 2 (Stuntz)
Preceding Sectional Replacement:
Well

A
B
C

AISl

Date
Installed

Type

July 1940

5132

1st Joint
Failure

Pin
Failures

Coupling
Failures

June 1939 1620

June 1942
Nov. 1947

14
3

17
6

1036
Sept.1944 4620

Jan. 1948

Special Sucker Rods with Undercut Pins:

a b l e effort w a s expended in order to insure t h a t

torque w a s a s recommended by t h e manufacturer of
t h e experimental rods. B y comparing t h e recommende d torque with t a b l e s furnished by t h e power rodwrench manufacturer, p r e s s u r e which should r e s u l t
in the d e s i r e d torque w a s determined. However, i t
w a s found by comparison with manual make-up a n d
breaking t h a t more than t h i s amount would b e required, p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e of friction in t h e tong a s
a r e s u l t of wear. It w a s therefore n e c e s s a r y t o inc r e a s e t h e a i r p r e s s u r e t o approxinlately 5 0 p s i ,
which compared favorably with the make-up resulti n g from usual manual methods. It a p p e a r s that
field calibration for t h e tongs would b e desirable.
T o date, two w e l l s h a v e experienced f a i l u r e s of
t h e experimental rods, one having two pin f a i l u r e s
a n d t h e other a pin and a body failure. Well A, in
which t h e experimental r o d s s u s t a i n t h e l i g h t e s t
load, h a s not had a failure. T h e p i n s failed in the
l a s t thread and were typical of fatigue failures.
Compared t o failure experience for s e v e r a l y e a r s
previous to initiation of t h e t e s t , t h i s i s encourag-

HARDY
ing. However, if t h e comparisons are referred back
t o installation of previous s e c t i o n replacements,
t h e r e s u l t s to d a t e are not s o encouraging. Of
course, it must be realized that conditions have
changed and t h e w e l l s are somewhat heavier now
than when t h e previous replacement w a s installed.
Additional trial will be n e c e s s a r y for conclusive
evaluation of t h i s undercut pin.

H. M. Cooley(Bethlehem SteelCo.,Tulsa)(written):
In general, t h e author's a n a l y s i s of s t r e s s e s in
sucker-rod p i n s and couplings i s logical and well
presented. H i s forniula (5) correctly s h o w s that the
t o t a l load in t h e pin i s e q u a l t o t h e initial tighteni n g load p l u s that portion of t h e working load exp r e s s e d a s the ratio of t h e pin a r e a t o t h e total
a r e a of pin and coupling, and formula (6) s h o w s that
the total s t r e s s in t h e pin i s the initial s t r e s s p l u s
t h e working load divided by the total a r e a of pin
and coupling.
In applying h i s forniulas to the two actual c a s e s
under consideration, viz., the l%,-in. pin with 1%in. OL) coupling, called the "maxiflow joint" and
t h e 1'4,-in. pin with 1%-in. OD coupling c a l l e d the
' 6
slim-pin joint," he a s s u m e s that t h e initial pin
s t r e s s due to tightening alone should in both c a s e s
be 40,000 p s i ; and inasmuch a s the effect on the
p i n s resulting from t h e workingload i s approximately t h e s a m e in each c a s e , he concludes that t h e
total s t r e s s in a "properly" tightened joint i s "independent of pin size." T h i s i s a n incorrect a s suniption, and consequently t h e conclusion i s a l s o
incorrect, a s will be shown.
In the first place, it i s not the s t r e s s in pounds
per square inch but t h e total load in pounds which
determines t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the tightening
operation. T h a t initial load must be of sufficient
magnitude to r e s i s t the effect of the working load,
which t e n d s to s e p a r a t e the pin and coupling shoulder faces.
A more r e a l i s t i c approach to determining the
66
proper" tightening of the p i n s in t h e s e two c a s e s
(or in a n y other c a s e , for that matter) would be:
Assume a maximum working load for %-in. s u c k e r
rods, s a y , 20,000 lb. Now determine what tightening load in the joint is required to prevent s e p a r a tion of the f a c e s at,. s a y , twice t h e working load,
or 40,000 lb. T h e author's forniula (5) c a n be extended t o show t h a t t h e total load in t h e coupling
i s e q u a l t o the initial tightening load minus the
portion of t h e working load represented by the ratio
of the coupling a r e a t o t h e total area, or:

T h e shoulder f a c e s will s e p a r a t e when LC = 0, or

when:

Now for the 12,-in. pin with 1%-in. coupling:

Proper tightening load

Li =
=

and pin s t r e s s

F o r the 1'4,-in.

20,600

= -=

0.873

+ 0.873

~$0,000

20,500 l b

23,700 psi.

pin with 1%-in. coupling:

P r o p e r tightening load

and pin s t r e s s

0.933

0.933

25,200

L, =

= -=

0.678

1.157
1.157

+ 0.678

37,200 psi.

Now, u s i n g t h e s e r e a l i s t i c initial pin s t r e s s e s in

t h e author's a n a l y s i s , we get:
F o r the 12,-in. pin maxiflow joint, with a 20,000-lb
rod-string load, the total pin s t r e s s is:
20,000
s = 23,700 + 0.93287
+ 0.87260
and for t h e 1'4,-in.
i t is:

34,000 p s i ;

pin slini-pin joint, sanie load,

20,000

s = 37,200 + 1.15727 + 0.67790

$8,100 psi.

It will be s e e n t h a t the difference in s t r e s s i s not

nil, a s suggested, but rather of a significant magnitude; and that t h e smaller pin would not be expected to r e s i s t breakage t o the sanie extent a s the
larger pin. Therefore, it i s d e s i r a b l e t o maintain
t h e 13A,-in. diameter pin on t h e %-in. rod thereby
getting the niaxiniuni a r e a p o s s i b l e . T h e question
then remains a s to whether o r not t h e coupling
having a 1%-in. OD and a I$,-in. tapped hole (our
maxiflow coupling) h a s sufficient strength t o go
with t h i s pin. T h e a n s w e r i s twofold. F i r s t , t h e
s t r e s s a r e a of our mauiflow coupling i s greater than
t h e s t r e s s a r e a of the 12,-in. pin; and second, t h e
proof of the adequacy of the coupling i s in t h e fact
t h a t we have practically no coupling failures a s
contrasted t o a normal amount of pin failures.
T h e author's theoretical a n a l y s i s of undercut
p i n s s e e m s to be r e a s o n a b l y logical. However, i t
should be remembered that, through many years,
t h e question of undercut sucker-rod p i n s h a s periodically come up; h a s been vigorously d i s c u s s e d ;
and h a s died out. P o s s i b l y t h e reason t h a t suckerrod u s e r s have not been willing t o try out t h e i d e a
on any r e a s o n a b l e s c a l e i s that they usually a c c e p t
t h e f a c t that when t h e p r e s e n t A P I joint f a i l s it i s
almost always t h e r e s u l t of improper field make-up.

SUCKER-ROD J O I N T F A I L U R E S
Incidentally, Mr. Hardy's s u g g e s t i o n s on field makeup s e e m to be e x c e l l e n t a n d should b e tried out on
a large s c a l e , particularly in t h o s e s e v e r a l a r e a s
where joint failures are troublesome.
Mr. Hardy (written): Mr. Cooley h a s mentioned
t h a t 40,000 p s i a s a n initial tightening s t r e s s i s a n
incorrect assumption. A s w e mentioned in our reply
t o Mr. OYNeal, t h i s s t r e s s is arbitrary. However,
Mr. Cooley's assumption that t h e joint load s h o u l d
be twice t h e maximum working load on t h e r o d s i s
just a s arbitrary and, consequently, just as s u b j e c t
t o being incorrect. I n s t e a d of substituting twice
t h e working load, o r 40,000 Ib, in Mr. Cooley's
formula for t h e proper tightening load we could j u s t
as s a f e l y s u b s t i t u t e 1.01 t i m e s t h e working load,
or 20,200 lb, if we know t h e maximum working load
would be 20,000 l b and we were certain that w e
were generating t h e calculated joint l o a d by accur a t e tightening. Likewise, w e would a l s o be s a f e
if we u s e d a figure of s i x t i m e s t h e working load in
t h e formula if w e were certain t h a t we were not
s t r e s s i n g t h e metal in t h e pin beyond i t s yield
point when t h e maximum working load w a s applied.
Both of t h e s e examples a r e impractical. T h e prac-

225

t i c a l goal then, logically, would be t o tighten t h e

joint sufficiently high to a s s u r e t h e highest poss i b l e margin of s a f e t y , offsetting s u c h unknowns a s
a c t u a l maximum working load and variable tightening torque r e s u l t s as well as to b e certain that t h e
yield point of t h e metal in t h e pin w a s not exceeded. However, yield point i s a function of s t r e s s
p e r s q u a r e inch a n d not l o a d in pounds. Therefore,
we h a v e s e l e c t e d 40,000 p s i a s more nearly meeting t h i s practical goal rather than pounds load.
Now with 40,000 p s i initial tightening effect in
both of t h e joints under d i s c u s s i o n i t c a n be shown
that, theoretically, t h e f a c e s of the maxiflow joint
would s e p a r a t e a t a rod load of 67,550 lb, w h e r e a s
t h o s e of t h e slim-pin joint would d o s o a t a rbd
load of 43,000 lb. However, a 43,000-lb load g i v e s
ample margin of s a f e t y over a n anticipated working
load of 20,000 Ib. T o get t h e margin of 67,550 lb,
w e must s a c r i f i c e coupling wall thickness. Coupling w a l l s a r e s u b j e c t t o wear. Therefore, as
s t a t e d in conclusion 4: "If coupling breakage or
wear i s a factor, s m a l l e r p i n s for a given s i z e coupling outside diameter should give t h e better service."