The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen: School of Engineering

THE ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY, ABERDEEN
School of Engineering
MSc Oil and Gas Engineering
FEM Analysis Application to the Strength Prediction Challenges and Design Optimization of the Casing String Threaded Connections
S. N. Kantariya September 2007
THE ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY, ABERDEEN
School of Engineering MSc Oil and Gas Engineering
FEM Analysis Application to the Strength Prediction Challenges and Design Optimization of the Casing String Threaded Connections
Sergey N. Kantariya September 2007
Author: Sergey N. Kantariya Date: 14 September 2007
This report is submitted in a partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Oil and Gas Engineering at The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.
Abstract
Abstract
Sergey N. Kantariya FEM Analysis Application to the Strength Prediction Challenges and Design Optimization of the Casing String Threaded Connections MSc Oil and Gas Engineering THE ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY September 2007
Nowadays, the tapered triangular and acme thread profile joints have a wide application to the connection of the casing pipes during the well bore completion process. One of the major factors limiting the casing string setting depth is its entire thread coupling tensile strength. The scope of the activity is to increase the load carrying capability of the typical tapered buttress casing connections through the optimization of the thread geometry based on the experimental research performed with the Finite Element mathematical model. The objectives of the research are: the argumentation of the possibility of the FEM analysis application for the experimental estimation of the load carrying capability of the typical casing threaded connections; evaluation and exploration of the tensor stress/strain components and equivalent Von Mises stress distribution within the body of the box and the pin of the casing threaded joint under combined load conditions; the development and analysis of the new thread connection with the variable lead that will be able to withstand the higher tensile load without resorting to increasing the wall thickness or changing the material grade.
iii
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
The author would like to take this opportunity and to express his gratitude and thanks to the following RGU lecturers for their kind assistance and help with the project activity: Mr. Wynand Hoogerbrugge, the Energy Centre Director, School of Engineering; Mrs. Jennifer McConnachie, the academic Supervisor, School of Engineering.
The
deepest
appreciation
goes
also
to
those
who
have
additionally supported this effort. Particularly, the author wishes to extent special thanks to the following SamGTU staff, without whose support this activity will be not feasible. Mr. Efim A. Yakubovich, Vice Principal, International Relations, SamGTU, Mr. Dmitry E. Bykov, Dean of the Oil and Gas faculty, SamGTU.
iv
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Title Page......i Abstract......iii Acknowledgments........iv Table of Contents.......v List of Figures..............................................................viii Nomenclature......xiv Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Relevancy.....1 1.2 Activity Scope and Objectives Research....3 1.3 Solution Methodology and Basic Project Defending Positions....3 1.4 Brief Overview of a Threaded Connections Theory...4 Chapter 2 Casing threaded Connections 2.1 API Threaded Connections....7 2.2 Technical Specification 632 80 threaded connections.....9 2.3 Buttress Thread Casing Joint Strength.....10 Chapter 3 Analysis Method 3.1 Analysis Methodology Selection.....12 3.2 Finite Element Analysis Overview..13 3.3 FEM Analysis Historical Remarks.15 3.4 The Basic Concept of the FEM Analysis..17 3.5 Linear interpolation functions and assembly....18 3.6 FEM Advantages and Disadvantages...22 Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling 4.1 Experiment set up...23 4.2 The Finite Elements Description..24
Table of Contents
4.3 The Results of the Laboratory Experimental Material Properties evaluation..26 4.4 Thread Joint Model Geometry Development..28 4.5 Contact Modeling Methodology.29 4.6 Mesh Generation.....31 4.7 Mathematical Modeling...33 4.8 Derivation of Structural Matrices...36 4.9 Rate Independent Plasticity...42 Chapter 5 Solution Methodology 5.1 Experimental Procedure..45 5.2 Frontal Solution Methodology.46 5.3 Newton Raphson Procedure...48 5.4 Convergence.50 Chapter 6. Experimental Part 6.1 Strain Gauging experiment..51 6.2 The Experiment Results Performed With the Finite Element Model of the OTTM 146.1x10.7 Joint55 6.2.1 The influence of the Joint Tightness Research...............................55 6.2.2 The Mathematical Modeling Results. OTTM Joint Made Up by Hand Subjected to a Tensile Loading.62 6.2.3 The Mathematical Modeling Results. OTTM Joint Made Up With One Thread Tightness Subjected to a Tensile Loading..66 6.2.4 The Mathematical Modeling Results. OTTM Joint Made Up With Two Thread Tightness Subjected to a Tensile Loading..69 6.2.5 The Mathematical Modeling Results. OTTM Joint Made Up With Full Tightness Subjected to a Tensile Loading..73
vi
Table of Contents
6.3 3-D Modeling of the Buttress Threaded Joint Subjected to a Combined Tensile and Bending Loading Conditions.76
Chapter 7. Tapered Threaded Joint With Variable Lead 7.1 Analysis and Discussion of the Residual Strain Development.80 7.2 The Analysis of the Proposed Thread Joint with Variable Lead..82 7.3 The Comparative Analysis of the Strength Characteristics of the typical OTTM and Variable Lead Threaded Connections85 7.4 Conclusions.87 8.0 Final Conclusions.88 References.89 Bibliography...91 Appendix A..92 Appendix B..95
vii
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1. Buttress thread profile for: smaller < 13 3/8 < larger OD.8 Figure 2. Extreme line thread profile...............................................9 Figure 3. Threaded connections classification according to the Russian technical specification 632 80.........................10 Figure 4. A two dimensional triangular finite element.19 Figure 5. A five-element triangular assembly.20 Figure 6. Eight node plane element geometry24 Figure 7. Eight node solid brick element geometry25 Figure 8. Multilinear isotropic hardening rule.....................................28 Figure 9. The geometry models: A 2-D OTTM connection, B 3-D buttress casing joint.29 Figure 10. Contact elements (a) 2-D, (b) 3-D30 Figure 11. 2-D mapped mesh32 Figure 12. Contact elements and boundary conditions for the 2-D axisymmetric case..32 Figure 13. Stress state at a point...................................................33 Figure 14. Multilinear isotropic hardening rule42 Figure 15. Hardening rules..............................................................43 Figure 16. Effective and non-effective wave fronts..............................47 Figure 17. Newton Raphson procedure: a first equilibrium iteration; b next equilibrium iteration49 Figure 18. The electric strain gauge..................................................52 Figure 19. The electric bridge scheme for the strain gauge connection..................................................53 Figure 20. The path direction for the graphical representation of the stress/strain distribution on the pin/box inner and outer surfaces54 Figure 21. The axial stress distribution on the pin/box surfaces. Full tightness, tensile load 227.5 kN...............................54 Figure 22. The axial stress distribution on the pin/box surfaces. Full tightness, tensile load 909.8 kN...............................54
viii
List of Figures
Figure 23. The axial stress distribution on the pin/box surfaces. Full tightness, tensile load 1364 kN55 Figure 24. Radial and axial stress component in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with one thread 10.16 mm tightness........................................56 Figure 25. Hoop component and equivalent Von-Mises stress in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with one thread 10.16 mm tightness................................56 Figure 26. Path plot of the stresses along root cross-section profile in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with one thread 10.16 mm tightness.................................57 Figure 27. Radial and axial stress component in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with two threads 5.08 mm. tightness.57 Figure 28. Hoop component and equivalent Von-Mises stress in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with two threads 5.08 mm tightness....................58 Figure 29. Path plot of the stresses along root cross-section profile in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with two threads 5.08 mm tightness..........................................................58 Figure 30. Radial and axial stress component in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with full tightness.59 Figure 31. Hoop component and equivalent Von-Mises stress in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with full tightness..59 Figure 32. Path plot of the stresses along root cross-section profile in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with full tightness..60 Figure 33. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up by hand and subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN62
ix
List of Figures
Figure 34. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up by hand, subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN63 Figure 35. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Hand made up joint, 227.5 kN tensile load..63 Figure 36. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up by hand and subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN...64 Figure 37. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up by hand, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN...64 Figure 38. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Hand made up joint, 1592.2 kN tensile load...65 Figure 39. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with one thread tightness (10.16 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN...66 Figure 40. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with one thread tightness (10.16 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN....67 Figure 41. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mappedn to path. One thread 10.16 mm. tightness, 227.5 kN tensile load...67 Figure 42. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with one thread tightness (10.16 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.68 Figure 43. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing
List of Figures
joint made up with one thread tightness (10.16 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN68 Figure 44. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. One thread 10.16 mm. tightness, 1592.2 kN tensile load..69 Figure 45. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casingjoint made up with two threads tightness (5.08 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN..70 Figure 46. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with two threads tightness (5.08 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN...70 Figure 47. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Two threads 5.08 mm. tightness, 227.5 kN tensile load71 Figure 48. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with two threads tightness (5.08 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.71 Figure 49. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with two threads tightness (5.08 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.72 Figure 50. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Two threads 5.08 mm. tightness, 1592.2 kN tensile load.72 Figure 51. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN..73
xi
List of Figures
Figure 52. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.74 Figure 53. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Full tightness, 227.5 kN tensile load..74 Figure 54. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN..75 Figure 55. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN..75 Figure 56. 3-D Buttress casing joint model...77 Figure 57. Equivalent Von Mises stress distribution in the buttress joint subjected to the combine tensile and bending loading conditions. Dog leg severity is 1.50 per 10 m. TVD....78 Figure 58. The equivalent Von Mises stress mapped on to path for the left and right cross sections of the buttress joint..78 Figure 59. Residual plastic strain values...80 Figure 60. Axial residual strain component distribution.81 Figure 61. Von Mises equivalent residual strain distribution..81 Figure 62. Variable lead threaded connection.82 Figure 63. Radial and axial stress component distribution in the proposed connection with variable lead made up with full tightness.83 Figure 64. Hoop component and Von Mises stress distribution in the proposed connection with variable lead made up with full tightness83
xii
List of Figures
Figure 65. Radial and axial stress component distribution in the proposed connection with variable lead made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading 1592.2 kN.84 Figure 66. Hoop component and Von Mises stress distribution in the proposed connection with variable lead made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading 1592.2 kN84 Figure 67. The comparison of the Von Mises equivalent stress distribution characteristics in the typical OTTM acme threaded connection and in the new connection with variable lead made up with the full tightness.85 Figure 68. The comparison of the axial stress components distribution characteristics in the typical OTTM acme threaded connection and in the new connection with variable lead made up with thefull tightness under the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN86 Figure 69. The comparison of the Von Mises equivalent stress distribution characteristics in the typical OTTM acme threaded connection and in the new connection with variable lead made up with the full tightness under the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN86
xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction
Nomenclature
Pp - the maximum allowed pull out tensile load for the casing joints with the acme thread profile. Pj - coupling thread strength. Nn the contact pressure. scalar quantity. Ni, Nj, Nk the form functions U, V, W unknown DOF (nodal degrees of freedom). KN the contact stiffness. KT the friction module.
[D] - the elasticity matrix.

{} - the stress vector. {} the strain vector. T the current temperature. G the shear modulus. [B] - strain-displacement matrix. [Nn] matrix of shape functions.
[K e ]
f e
th e
- element stiffness matrix.
[K ] - element foundation stiffness matrix. {F } - element thermal load vector.

[M e ]
- mass matrix.
u - acceleration vector.
{F } - pressure vector.
pr e
0 the value of the principal deformations. 0 the value of the principal stresses. y - the yield parameter. - the amount of the plastic strain. Q - the plastic potential.
T i
[K ] - tangential matrix. {F }- restoring load vector.

nr i
{R} is the residual vector.
Chapter1 Introduction 1.1 Project Relevancy

Nowadays, the tapered triangular and acme thread profile joints have a wide application to the connection of the casing pipes during the well bore completion process. One of the major factors limiting the casing string setting depth is its entire thread coupling tensile strength. Therefore, the increase of the threaded connections load carrying capability seems to be the actual task. A comparative analysis of the tubular goods manufactured according to the Russian Technical Specification 632-80 (1982) and API Spec 5B (1996) shows that the acme thread profile for the casing string connections has approximately identical dimensions. However, the methodology for the maximum allowed tensile load evaluation is controversially different. For example, according to the Russian Technical Specification the maximum allowed pull out tensile load for the casing joints with the acme thread profile can be evaluated via the analytical formula derived by N. D. Sherbiuck (Moscow Oil and Gas University) (1974):
0.24 , Pp = ( 0.08) yielddmin d e + E 1 0.5 + D 0.5 0.07 l

where, yield min - the minimum yield stress, Pascals; de - the mean diameter of the pipe body in critical section, meters; l - the engaged thread length, meters; 1 - the tangential module of the material, Pascals.
(1.1)
The empirical formula for the same loading conditions according to the API Bulletin 5c3 (1994) was proposed by Lubinski for the Buttress thread casing joint strength: P, = 0.95 ApUp [1.008 - 0.0396(1.083 - Yp/Up)D] and for the coupling thread strength: (1.2)
P, = 0.95AcUc,
(1.3)
where: Ap cross sectional area of plain end pipe, square inches; Up, Uc minimum ultimate strength subsequently of pipe and coupling, pounds per square inch; Yp minimum yield strength of pipe, pounds per square inch; D outside diameter of pipe, inches. According to the API Bulletin 5c3 (1994), Extreme line casing joint strength can be calculated from the following formula: Pj = AcrUp, least, square inches. Each of these formulae has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, during the derivation of the N.D. Sherbiuck formula the following assumptions were made: it is considered that the load distribution within the joint body occurs linearly and uniformly; the material hardening rule is accepted to be simplified to the bilinear isotropic with a constant tangential module value; Poisons ratio assumes to be 0.5. Obviously, the existing formulae give only the opportunity to estimate with the confined degree of accuracy the maximum value of the tension pull out failure load in the critical/weakest section of the tapered acme thread joint and does not reflect to the full extent the character of the stress/strain distribution, for instance, due to the load history and due to the amount of the conical coupling tightness. The rig practice shows that after making-up with full tight, loading with subsequent unloading on the elevator of the casing string with the weight that has not reached the maximum allowed value, a capability of applying some extra torque arises (approximately - of the full joint revolution). Relying on these observations it is possible to draw the important conclusions: the value of the joint tight specified in standards presumably has been oversized; (1.4) where: Acr is the critical section area of box, pin, or pipe, whichever is
the performance of the threaded connection originates above the proportional limit of the mechanical properties of the pipe material; the stress/strain distribution within the body of the casing thread connection is definitely nonlinear; the accumulation of some residual plastic deformations occurs. All these facts lead to the decrease of the joint load carrying
capacity and to the overall deterioration of the design functionability.
1.2 Activity Scope and Objectives Research

The scope of the activity is to increase the load carrying capability of the typical tapered buttress casing connections through the optimization of the thread geometry based on the experimental research performed with the Finite Element mathematical model. The objectives of the research are: 1. The argumentation of the possibility of the FEM analysis application for the experimental estimation of the load carrying capability of the typical casing threaded connections; 2. Evaluation and exploration of the tensor stress/strain components and equivalent Von Mises stress distribution within the body of the box and the pin of the casing threaded joint under various load conditions; 3. The development and analysis of the new thread connection with the variable pitch that will be able to withstand the higher tensile load without resorting to increasing the wall thickness or changing the material grade.
1.3 Solution Methodology and Basic Project Defending Positions

The given task will be solved using the Finite Element Analysis. The piecewise approximations will be performed according to the Frontal Sparse Direct Solver Algorithm. The task will be formulated nonlinearly with the subsequent application of the full NewtonRafson iterative
procedure.
It will be possible to apply the spline interpolation and
generalized regression methods for the results processing. The basic project defending positions are: 1. The application of the FEM analysis to the mathematical modelling of the casing tapered thread connections; 2. The analysis of the stress/ strain state of the tapered thread connections due to the tensile load history and the influence of the tight; 3. The influence of the combined bending loads, tensile loads and internal pressure on the ultimate stress state of the casing tapered acme threads connections. 4. The application of the new thread connection with the variable lead or pitch for the increasing of the casing joints ultimate tensile load carrying capability.
1.4 Brief overview of a threaded connections theory

Threaded connections play significantly important role in the overall design of various engineering structures and mechanisms. Obviously, it will be very difficult to find a construction consisting of the demountable details without threaded connections. Quite often threaded connections are the most critical parts of the engineering design, demanding a correct constructive decision in terms of durability and integrity alongside with small dimensions and low weight. Basically, the construction scheme of threaded connections remains identical. The variety of thread design can be easily achieved by changing its geometrical parameters depending on technical specifications. The identical thread profile together with a combination of various parameters such as pitch, height, length, etc allows receiving an unlimited quantity of configurations of the threaded connections. Depending on the form of the detail on which a thread is being cut, generally, it is possible to distinguish between cylindrical and tapered threaded connections. Additionally, threaded connections can be subdivided into connections with fixed and special treads. The metric thread and the whitworth or inch thread belong to the first group. Acme, rectangular, round and some
other types belong to special threads of the second group. The quantitative evaluation of the amount of load distribution through a length of a threaded connection is of paramount importance. The clear understanding of the load conditions and the character of pressure/stress distribution between the load flanks provides the way to facilitate or even optimise the final design. A variety of published activities was dedicated to the solution N.E. of the load distribution The challenges solution of in a threaded statically connections. The first proximal solution belongs to the Russian scientist professor Zhukovsky (1937). undeterminable problem enabled him to draw a conclusion that the axial load transfer between the idealised threads declines from below to upwards according to the law of geometrical progression.
N n = q n 1 N ,
where: q the denominator or quotient of the geometrical progression; n thread turn number; N the contact pressure in the first thread turn.
(1.5)
The mentioned above approach has a lot of simplifications and gives only a qualitative representation of the axial load distribution, because the specified formula does not consider interrelations between threaded connection geometrical parameters. I.A. Birger (1944 - 1959), the famous Soviet scientist has considered the same problem more strictly on the basis of the conformity of the thread bending deformations and transverse deformation of the thread joint body and had developed the methodology for the stress evaluation in the threaded connection under exerted dynamic loading conditions. In his monograph I.A. Birger generally, did not consider the design procedure for the tapered large diameter pipe joints, however, he had developed the formulae for the evaluation of the loads in such types of threaded connections. I.A. Birger showed that the load distribution through a threaded connection can be evaluated according to the law of hyperbolic cosine and had proposed the following formula:
q (x) =
Qm chmx , m = , s shmH
(1.6)
where: qx the amount of a load distributed in the unit length of the threaded connection; Q the amount of the external force exerted on the threaded connection; m the geometric parameter; s thread pitch. The approximate value of the coefficient for the oil country tubular goods can be calculated via the following formula:
0,64 d c s d 2 + 7,5 c s
1 1 D + D 2 2 1 1
(1.7)
where: D1, D2 pin and box mean diameters; 1, 2 subsequently pin and box wall thicknesses. D.G. Sopvith (1948) had repeated I.A. Birgers experiment however, he had applied additionally the differential equations which can be easily solved in a closed form. The load distribution in the threaded connections was also investigated in many experimental studies including the published works of such authors as R.B. Heywood (1948). Theoretical and experimental activities devoted to the research of the influence of a various thread design parameters can be found in the studies of S.V. Serensen (1954), B.S. Tsfas (1961), Oxford, Gook (1965), etc. Almost all of the mentioned above researches were motivated by the improvement of the load distribution character and the increase of the load carrying capacity of the tubular threaded connections. It is important to mention that the attempts to improve oil and gas tubular threaded joints strength prediction methodology was done in the publications of G.M. Sarkisov, P.P. Shumilov, N.D. Sherbiuk (1974), G. API Tomas, (1994). Mannesmann Company, American Petroleum Institute
Nowadays, the results of approximately half of a century of endeavours in the research of the pipe threaded connections strength evaluation was transformed into standards: Technical Specification 632 80, (1982) from Russian side and API Bulletin 5c3, (1994) from US side. These standards contain the modern methodology for the estimation and prediction of the crucial strength parameters for the oil country tubular goods.
Chapter2 Casing Threaded Connections
Chapter 2 Casing Threaded Connections 2.1 API Threaded Connections In the API Specification 5B1, (1999) stated that threaded connection consists of two members: a pipe or a pin member and a coupling or box member. The externally threaded member is called the pipe or pin member. The internally threaded member is called the coupling or box member. Two pin members are connected together by means of coupling, which is a short segment of a pipe slightly larger in diameter and threaded internally from each end. Threads, as applied to tubular connections, are used to mechanically hold two pieces of pipe together in axial alignment. Generally, API tubular goods specifications cover four styles of threads, namely line pipe threads, round threads, buttress threads and extreme line threads. Within the frameworks of the given activity only acme type of a thread connections will be dealt with thus, the description of buttress and extreme line threads will be done in detail. Buttress threads are designed to withstand to a high axial tension or compression loading in addition to offering resistance to leakage. For sizes 4 in. through 13 3/8 in. the threads are 5 pitch per in. on a in. taper per ft. on diameter. The stab flank is 100 from radial, and the load flank is 30 from radial. The crests and roots are conical and parallel with taper. The stab flank radius at the crest is large 0.03 in. as compared to the load flank radius at the crest 0.008 in. This is to aid in stabbing and running. The threads are full form fit when assembled resulting in a maximum thread to root clearance of 0.002 inch. Inherent machining variations in threading may cause the threads to bear on one thread flank at one end of the thread element of the connection and on the opposite thread flank at the other end of the element. In any event, leak resistance is accomplished with use of the proper thread compound and by proper interference within the perfect thread only. The thread root of this connection runs out on a continuous cone to the OD of the pipe body, and the coupling (box) members engages the root diameter of the imperfect threads which extend from the last full thread (on the pin) to the vanishing point or from the last imperfect thread on the pipe OD. The
30 load flank offers the resistance to disengagement under high axial tension loading, while the 100 stab flanks offers resistance to high axial compressive loading. Buttress casing threads on sizes 16-in. diameter and larger have five threads per inch on a 1-in taper per ft on diameter and have flat crests and roots parallel to the pipe axis. All other dimensions and thread radii are the same as those for 13 3/8 in. and smaller sizes. The typical drawing of the buttress tread connection is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Buttress thread profile for: smaller < 13 3/8 < larger OD. (taken from API specification 5B1, (1999)). Extreme line casing in all sizes uses a modified Acme type thread having a 120 included angle between stab and load flanks, and all threads have crests and roots flat and parallel to the pipe axis. For sizes 5 in. through 7 5/8 in., the threads are 6 pitch per inch on a taper of 1 in. per ft on diameter. For sizes 8 5/8 in. through 10 in., the threads are 5 pitch per inch on a taper of 1 in. per ft in diameter. For all sizes, the threads are not intended to be leak resistant when made up. Threads
are used purely as a mechanical means to hold the joint members together during the axial tension loading. The connection uses upset pipe ends for pin and box members that are an integral part of the pipe body. Axial compressive load resistance is primarily offered by external shouldering of the connection on make up. Box member threads make up with pin members threads by interference bearing between the box thread crest and pin thread roots. The pin crests and stab flanks of all threads have radial clearance ranging from 0.005 in. to 0.009 in between crest of pin and root of box threads and 0.005 in. to 0.0011 in. between mated stab flanks. Therefore, the load flanks and pin root to box crests are in bearing load contact make up. Leak resistance is obtained on make up by interference of metal to metal seal between a long, radius curved seal surface on the pin member engaging a conical metal seal surface of the box member. All threads, including partial depth threads, are functional in axial tension load resistance. The typical drawing of the Extreme line tread connection is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Extreme line thread profile (taken from API specification 5B1, (1999)).
2.2 Technical Specification, 632 80 threaded connections The design of the casing threaded connections required in the Russian technical specification 632 80 (1982) can be classified according to the difference in thread geometry, material grades and
accuracy of manufacturing. The nomenclature of casing design in terms of thread difference is shown in Figure 3.
Casing threads 632 - 80
Triangular
ACME
Short threads
Long threads
OTTM (Buttress)
OTTG high integrity
Union joints TBO
Boxless OG
Figure 3. Threaded connections classification according to the Russian technical specification 632 80. Generally, acme thread joints geometry is similar to the same geometry of the casing joints required by API standard, however with some differences. For example, API Buttress thread connection is slightly longer than the Russian acme OTTM counterpart.
2.3 Buttress Thread Casing Joint Strength.

Buttress threaded casing connection has found a wide application in modern oil and gas industry. Due to the presence of a gap on the lateral side of the thread profile, this connection allows using larger pitch size with relatively small depth of a root. The lateral faces of the thread profile may have small and even negative profile angles. These provides better interchangeability and enables to utilise additional sealing surfaces to increase the tightness and loading perception of the threaded connection. The results of multiple tests show that the value of the collapse load is significantly higher comparatively to a standard connection with a 600 triangular thread profile. The break or body rupture under the last screwed thread in the connection is a common failure of the Buttress joint under the conditions of high tensile loading. In some
10
cases a thread pull out is being observed in the Buttress connection under the loading conditions close to the values of the ultimate body tension collapse. Under these circumstances a thread turns are going out from the engagement due to the large longitudinal elongation of the pipe joint. N. D. Sherbiuck, (1974) stated that in the first case the ultimate tensile load can be defined using well known Lame formula based on the area of the weak section under the root of the last engaged thread. The analysis of the relationship between stresses and strains for the plastic region of the material behaviour showed that with sufficient accuracy for calculus it is possible to use the bilinear hardening rule with the constant value of a tangential module E1 for various regions of plastic deformation. It is necessary to emphasise that the thread pull out process is occurred in the plastic region of the buttress thread joint material behaviour. Considering the large radial deformations needed to a gap occurrence which are equal to the doubled size of the thread height, it is possible, particularly without appreciable influence on the accuracy of the ultimate tensile pull out load value, to neglect the box deformations which remain within the elastic region of the material behaviour even until the beginning of the thread pull out process. N. D. Sherbiuck, (1974) showed that for the Russian steel grade D the value of the yield stress lies within the interval of 380 400 MPa with subsequent value of tangential module 4500 6000 MPa. For steel grades K and L the value of tangential module lies between 3000 4000 MPa depending on the material casting. He had proposed the semi empirical formula for the maximum pull out load calculation that became the main formula in the Russian Technical Specification 632 80 for the tapered acme threads of the casing joints:
h1 2 h 2 E1 P = d c + 2 E 1 + , D 2 0,5 tg(11 ) 2l
where: the radial tight; t the yield stress; the taper angle; the pipe wall thickness;
(2.1)
dc the mean thread diameter; h the thread height; l the thread length; D is the outer diameter of a pipe.
11
Chapter3 Anakysis Method
Chapter 3 Analysis Method 3.1 Analysis Methodology Selection

At the contemporary stage of the oil and gas industry
development every researcher faces the necessity of solving a specified task in terms of time, cost and with beforehand stipulated level of accuracy. Within the frameworks of the given activity, one of the possible modern approaches will be considered to fulfil the specified above challenges. During the last several years an integration process of the advanced achievements in the information technologies into the existing trivial strength of material calculation methods is being observed. Particularly, with the rapid growth of the computer technologies Finite Element Method or so called FEM analysis found a wide application and became a very popular tool for the mathematical modelling of real physical phenomena. FEM analysis represents a powerful and effective numerical method that can be easily applied to the solution of specific engineering tasks. The area of its application outspreads from the convenient stress strain analysis of simple structures up to modelling the behaviour, for example, such complex systems as nuclear power station. With the help of the FEM analysis is possible to obtain the solution of aerodynamic and hydraulic problems as well as problems associated with the theory of elasticity and plasticity. For the solution of the stipulated at the beginning of the given activity key issues concerned with the numerical modelling of the stress strain distribution inside the body of the casing acme thread joints the most powerful state of art FEM software package ANSYS has been chosen. ANSYS software contains the latest achievements in the finite element methodology and allows analysing systems from simple static to more complex nonlinear and even transient dynamic problems. Within the frameworks of the given activity, FEM three dimensional and axisymmetric nonlinear static analysis of the casing with the acme thread profile joints under combined loading will be performed.
12
3.2 Finite Element Analysis Overview

During the first part of the twentieth century the major part of the rigid body mechanic literature was dedicated to the applications to the solutions of various linear theory boundary problems which were formulated many years ago. Certainly, among them were separate remarkable exceptions. For example, the activities led to the improvement of classical theories of plasticity and visco elasticity, attempts of the uniform material behavior theory creation and a big number of a geometric nonlinearity researches were partial but were successful. However, for the majority of scientists and engineers the practical rigid body mechanical applications were reduced to the solution of linear problems. The reason for it is quite clear, as long as real structures behavior could be described adequately with linear theories. For example, the deformation of the majority of structures within the working loading conditions was hardly visibly identifiable, however, its known that at small deformations and established homogeneous temperatures, the equation of state for such wide spread materials as steel and aluminum can be assumed to be linear without gaining of a rough errors. Recently, the situation has sharply changed. Many new materials were developed which behavior already cannot be described classically using linear theories. Thermo visco elasticity of the solid fueled engine charges, supercritical behavior of flexible structures, nonlinear behavior of the polymers and synthetic materials are the new areas of research that stimulated interest to the rigid body nonlinear mechanics. Nowadays, the theory of elasticity and plasticity has been already formulated, the new nonlinear visco elasticity and thermo visco elasticity theories have been proposed, and the fundamental principles of nonlinear material equations of state assembling have been developed. The motto of the modern research in the field of the nonlinear material behavior became the maximum generality and recently a plethora of theories describing the range of the material behavior from the elastic rigid bodies up to thermo viscous liquids have been proposed. Despite the successes in the nonlinear theories creation, experts, who are obliged to collide with nonlinearity phenomena in their
13
everyday practical activities, have a very small amount of quantitative information. Nonlinear theories lead to the nonlinear equations, and this means, that classical methods and approaches for the analysis become inapplicable at once. The number of the explicit solutions of the nonlinear problems which is available in published works is possible to count on fingers and also all of them, without exception, are related to the bodies which have elementary geometrical shapes under applied elementary boundary conditions. Quite often the half reversed method is being applied according to which the form of the rigid body deformation is supposed to be known in advance (a situation that will seldom occur in practice). But even in this case numerical methods are usually used for obtaining the quantitative results at the final stage of analysis. The deficiency of the quantitative information is somewhat a twist of fate, as simultaneously with the last achievements in the nonlinear rigid body mechanics the most powerful ever existed tool of a quantitative information reception appeared, more specifically computer. From the one hand, experts in the mathematical calculus began to develop such new areas as cybernetics and nonlinear programming; from the other hand, mechanics have been keen with theoretical aspects of the continuum mechanics. The junction point is the numerical analysis of the nonlinear continuous medium. It is an alloy of modern theories of the continuous medium and modern methods of the numerical analysis on the basis of which it is possible to obtain the quantitative data of nonlinear material and design behavior by means of a computer. Very often in order to receive the quantitative solution of the nonlinear mechanical problem it is necessary to turn to the numerical methods. However, irrespective to the initial assumptions and methods that were used, if the numerical methods are being involved for the solution of a problem, the continuous medium is actually approximated by some kind of a discrete model. It suggests a logic alternative to the classical approach to represent the continuous medium by means of a discrete model ab initio. In this case the further idealization at the equation assembling stage may not be necessary. One of such approaches based on the idea of a piece wise approximation is known as the finite element method. The simplicity and
14
generality of this method make it a convenient tool for the solution of a wide category of nonlinear problems. Using the classical approach the research of the continuum medium usually starts from studying the properties of the infinitesimal elements of the considered continuum. After establishing necessary correlations between the average values of various quantities associated with the considered infinitesimal elements and tending the element sizes to zero allowing an unlimited increase in their number then, it became possible to receive the differential equations in partial derivatives or integral equations describing the behavior of the body. Alternatively to this classic approach, the finite element method initially starts from studying the properties of the elements with final sizes. During the phase of the properties establishing the equations describing the continuum behavior could be used, but the element sizes remains final anyway. Integration is replaced with final summation and differential equations in partial derivatives are replaced with the systems of the algebraic or ordinary differential equations. Thus, the continuous medium having an infinite number of degrees of freedom (DOF) is represented by a discrete model having a final number of DOF. Obviously, if some initial conditions are satisfied, then with the increase of the number of finite elements with subsequent reduction of their sizes, the behavior of a discrete system comes nearer to the behavior of the continuous medium. Basically, the application to the modeling of the final deformation of physically nonlinear anisotropic non uniform bodies of any geometrical form with any boundary conditions is the essential feature of the finite element approach.
3.3 FEM Analysis Historical Remarks The idea of representation of a continuous medium by means of a piece wise approximations is definitely not new. Most likely, the rudimentary ideas of the interpolation were used, already, in the ancient Babylonia and Egypt and, hence, have outstripped the mathematical analysis more the on 2000 years. Much later, the East mathematicians had estimated the magic number approximately defining the area of a
15
circle. Representing the circle in terms of a final number of rectangles and associating the sum of these areas with the area of the circle they had reached the accuracy almost to forty significant digits. Finally, the mathematical analysis had been created by Newton and Leibniz which had allowed formulating the majority of problems associated with mathematical physics by means of the differential equations in partial derivatives and integral equations. However, a frequent failure of the attempts to solve these equations using classical and analytical methods from one hand and the invention of the computer from the other, have led to the increase of the numerical method applications to the solution of modern scientific problems. The idea of the design representation in the form of a set of discrete elements dates back to the early period of a design research of an aircraft details, for example, wings and fuselages were considered as an assembly of stringers, shells and working on shift panels. Hrennikoff (1941), the predecessor of the general discrete methods had proposed Carcass Method and had adapted it representing the flat elastic body in the form of an assembly of bars and beams R. Courant (1943) had received an approximate solution of the Saint-Venant torsion problem using piece wise representation of a distortional function in a triangular element assembly and had formulated the problem in terms of the potential energy minimum. This was the example of Ritz method application which had contained all of the basic procedures known as the finite element method nowadays. The method of hypercircle proposed by W. Prager and J.L. Synge (1947) and studied by Synge (1957) could be easily adapted to the FEM applications; it shaded new light on the approximation solution methods of the mathematical physics boundary problems. J.H. Argyris (1954) had published a series of works dedicated to the development of some generalization of the linear theory of structures and had presented new methods of complex discrete design research in a convenient to PC form. The first formal representation of the FEM analysis together with the application of the stiffness method belongs to M.J. Turner, R.W. Clough, H.C. Martin, L.P. Topp (1956). They used equations of the
16
classical theory of Elasticity and Plasticity for the description of the biaxial stress state of the triangular meshed flat plate. Particularly, R.W. Clough (1960) was the first who had introduced the term Finite Elements in his later work devoted to the solution of the plain problems of the theory of Elasticity. The important contribution to the FEM theory was maid by R.J. Melosh (1963) who had showed that the Finite Element Method can be considered as one of the variants of the well known Relay Ritz method. In the structural mechanics tasks the minimization of the potential energy of the system allows reducing the problem to a set of simultaneous linear equations of equilibrium. FEM interrelation with minimization procedure has led to its wide application to a solution of a diversity of problems in various technical areas. FEM was successfully applied to the solution of Laplace and Poisson equations, to the research of heat propagation phenomena, to the solution of the hydromechanical problems, particularly to the modeling of liquid current through a porous medium. The application area of the FEM analysis has been essentially extended when it has been shown in the published works of B.A. Szabo, G.C. Lee, (1969) and O.C. Zienkievicz, (1971) that the process of elements equation defining could be easily achieved using such weighted residual methods as Galerkins method and the least squares technique. The discovery of this fact has played an important role in the theoretical substantiation of the method and has allowed FEM analysis to be applied to the solution of any type of differential equations. With the rapid growth of IT technologies, FEM analysis has transferred from a numerical calculation procedure of the structural mechanics into a generalized method of numerical solution of the systems of differential equations.
3.4 The Basic Concept of the FEM Analysis According to L.J. Segerlind (1976), the basic concept of the Finite Element Method is that any continuous quantity such as temperature, pressure, displacement, etc is possible to approximate by means of a discrete model, which could be assembled on a set of a piece wise
17
functions defined on a finite number of subdomains.
The piece wise
functions could be determined by means of the continuous quantity value in the finite number of considered subdomain points. Generally, the continuous quantity is unknown and it is necessary to determine its value in some internal points of the domain. However, the discrete model is quite easy to assemble if as at a first guess to assume that the numerical values of the particular quantity in each internal point of the domain are known in advance. After that it is possible to proceed with a general case. Thus, the assembling process of the discrete model, generally, involves the following steps: the final number of points within the area of interest should be fixed. These points will be referred as nodes; the value of continuous quantity considered to be variable and which should be determined; the continuous quantity domain of definition should be discretized into the final number of subdomains, which will be referred to as elements. These elements have common points and in aggregate approximate the form of the domain; on each element the continuous quantity is approximated by polynomial function which is defined by means of the nodal values. Each element has its own polynomial function, but these functions should be selected so that the quantity continuity along the element border is kept. A prominent aspect of the FEM analysis is the opportunity to select a typical element from the assembly for the form allocation. Then it becomes possible to define the element function irrespectively of its relative position in the whole assembly. Such quantity assignment via the arbitrary set of the nodal values and coordinates allows using them for the approximation of the domain geometry.
3.5 Linear interpolation functions and assembly

As it was stated earlier, the Finite Element analysis is based on the idea of a continuous quantity approximation which can be assembled on a set of a piece wise functions. The polynomial function is more
18
often used as an element function. The classification of the finite elements is possible to obtain according to the function exponential order. Thus, depending on the function order it is possible to subdivide elements into one, two and three dimensional; simplex, complex, multiplex and isoparametric; linear, quadratic, cubic, etc. For example, for the linear triangular element shown in Figure 4 the polynomial function can be written as: = 1 + 2x + 3y (3.1)
Figure 4. A two dimensional triangular finite element. The nodal values of the scalar quantity will be denoted as i, j, k. Applying the nodal conditions, it is possible to write: = i = j = k for for for x = Xi, y = Yi; x = Xj, y = Yj; x = Xk, y = Yk. (3.2)
Substituting these nodal conditions into equation (3.1), it is possible to obtain the following system of the linear equations: i = 1 + 2Xi + 3Yi; j = 1 + 2Xj + 3Yj; k = 1 + 2Xk + 3Yk. Solution of which using Kramers rule gives: (3.3)
1 =
1 [(X j Yk X k Y j )i + (X k Yi X i Yk ) j + (X i Y j X j Yi ) k ], 2 1 [(Y j Yk )i + (Yk Yi ) j + (Yi Yj ) k ], 2 = 2A 1 [(X k X j )i + (X i X k ) j + (X j X i ) k ]. 3 = 2A
(3.4)
19
where the area of the triangle associated with the system determinant can be expressed via the following equation:
1 Xi 1 Xj 1 Xk
Yi Yj = 2 A Yk
(3.5)
Substituting the values of 1, 2 and 3 from the equation (3.4) into the equation (3.1) and rearranging the expression relative to , it is possible to obtain three Form Functions determining the element: = Ni i + Nj j + Nk k where: Ni, Nj, Nk are form functions of an element (3.6)
1 [a i + bi x + c i y] Ni = 2A
and
a i = X j Yk X k Yj b i = Y j Yk c =X X i k j
a j = X k Yi Yk X i b j = Yk Yi c =X X j i k a k = X i Y j X j Yi b k = Yi Y j c =X X k j i
(3.7)
1 [a j + b j x + c j y] Nj = 2A
and
1 [a k + b k x + c k y] Nk = 2A
(3.8)
A five triangular element assembly for the nodal vector values is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. A five-element triangular assembly.
20
Analogous to the scalar equation (3.6), it is possible to write the general elements equation in the vector case:
u (e ) N i(e ) (e ) = 0
0 N i(e )
N (je ) 0
0 N (je )
( N ke )
U 2i 1 U 2i U 2 j 1 0 . N (ke ) U 2 j U 2 k 1 U2k
(3.9)
For example, the relations for the 4-th element in the assembly with i=6, j=3, k=5, it is possible to write in the form:
( u (4 ) N 64 ) = (4 ) 0
0
( N 64 )
( N 34 )
0
( N 34 )
4 N5
U11 U 12 0 U5 . ( N 54 ) U 6 U9 U10
(3.10)
The equation (3.10) was written in a short form. The extending form of the equations defining the discrete area can be written as:
u (1) u (2 ) (2 ) u (3 ) (3 ) = u (4 ) (4 ) u (5 ) (5 )
1
N1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1)
0 ( N 11) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( N 15 )
N2 0
(1)
0 N (21) 0 N (22 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0
N3 0
(1)
N2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
( N 32 ) 0 ( N 33) 0 ( N 33) 0 ( N 35 ) 0
0 ( N 31) 0 ( N 32 ) 0 ( N 33) 0 ( N 34 ) 0 ( N 35)
0 0
( N 42 ) 0 ( N 43) 0
0 0 0 ( N 42 ) 0 N3 4 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
( N 53) 0 ( N 54 ) 0
0 0 0 0 0 ( N 53) 0 4 N5 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
( N 64 ) 0 ( N 65 ) 0
0 0 0 0
( N 15 ) 0
0 0
U1 0 U2 0 U3 0 U4 0 U 5 (3.11) 0 U6 . 0 U7 0 U8 ( N 64 ) U 9 0 U10 ( N 65 ) U11 U 12
21
3.6 FEM Advantages and Disadvantages Nowadays, the Finite Element Method has a very extensive scope and covers all sorts of problems which can be described by differential equations. The most crucial FEM advantages are: the material properties of the adjacent elements should not be necessary identical. It allows to apply FEM to the bodies composed of different materials; the area with curved boundary can be approximated either with linear elements or can be described more precisely using the higher order elements; the element sizes can be variable. It allows to refine meshes on the areas of particular interest; using FEM approach it is possible to model the discrete load boundary conditions and mixed boundary conditions as well; a possibility to develop a generalized software. The ideas stated in this chapter are very simple, but also, important for the understanding of the task formulation and solution of the problem which will be discussed in the next chapters.
22
Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling
Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling 4.1 Experiment set up
The main objective of the FEM analysis is the mathematical modeling of the real engineering system behavior. In other words, the analysis must keep adequacy between the mathematical model and the real physical prototype. In a very broad sense, this model consists of nodes, elements, material properties, real constants, kinematical and load boundary conditions and contains some other properties representing a physical system. Therefore, the model creation is the process of nodal geometry configuration definition. As a physical prototype for the modeling two casing acme threaded connections have been chosen - Russian OTTM 146,1 mm. x 10,7 mm. acme threaded connection as the main objective of the research and API buttress analogous 5 in. x 0.415 in. as the secondary objective for the purpose of comparing the results. The geometry and mathematical modeling can be performed using ether two dimensional or three dimensional finite elements. For the solution of the given problem both of them will be used. However, the finite element analysis gives the opportunity to represent three dimensional bodies which have the axis of revolution via the equivalent two dimensional objects using axisymmetric elements. Furthermore, it is necessary to emphasize that in most cases two dimensional axisymmetric analysis gives more precise and faster (in terms of time) results comparatively to the three dimensional analysis. Before proceeding with the model geometry creation it is necessary to decide what type of element, real constants (if needed) and the law of the material behavior to use. Taken into consideration the fact that the modeling of the casing pin box threaded connection is actually highly nonlinear contact task, the choice of the appropriate element types with satisfactory form functions is the crucial analysis step on which the accuracy of the final results is highly dependable. Therefore, for the modeling of the given problem several types of elements have been chosen, namely: quadrilateral eight node quadratic element for the 2-D modeling and eight node structural solid element for the 3-D modeling.
23
For the modeling of the interaction between casing pin box assembly a contact 2-D and 3-D pseudo elements will be used. The precise description of each element type based on the ANSYS (2007) recommendations will be given in the next sections of the given activity.
4.2 The Finite Elements Description

PLANE82 is a higher order version of the 2-D, four-node element. It provides more accurate results for mixed (quadrilateral-triangular) automatic meshes and can tolerate irregular shapes without too much loss of accuracy. The 8-node elements have compatible displacement shapes and are well suited to model curved boundaries. The 8-node element is defined by eight nodes having two degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x and y directions. The element may be used as a plane element or as an axisymmetric element. The element has plasticity, creep, swelling, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain capabilities. The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Eight node plane element geometry.
The shape functions for the 8 node axisymmetric harmonic quadrilateral solid element can be written using the local coordinate system in the following form:
24
1 U = ( (U i (1 s)(1 t)( s t 1) + U j (1 + s)(1 t)(s t 1) + 4 + U k (1 + s)(1 + t)(s+ t 1) + U L (1 s)(1 + t)( s + t 1) + 1 + (U M (1 s 2 )(1 t) + U N (1 + s)(1 t 2 ) + 2 + U O (1 s 2 )(1 + t) + U P (1 s)(1 t 2 ))) cosl V= W= T= 1 (Vi (1 s).......(analogous . to . U).......) cosl 4 1 (Wi (1 s).......(analogous . to . U).......) cosl 4 1 (Ti (1 s).......(analogous . to . U).......) cosl 4
(4.1)
SOLID45 is used for the 3-D modeling of solid structures. The element is defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element has plasticity, creep, swelling, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain capabilities. The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Eight node solid brick element geometry.
The shape functions for the 8 node solid brick element can be written using the local coordinate system in the following form:
25
1 U = ( (U i (1 s)(1 t)(1 r) + U j (1 + s)(1 t)(1 r) + 8 + U k (1 + s)(1 + t)(1 r) + U L (1 s)(1 + t)(1 r) + + U M (1 s )(1 t)(1 + r) + U N (1 + s)(1 t )(1 + r) + + U O (1 + s )(1 + t)(1 + r) + U P (1 s)(1 + t )(1 + r)) 1 V = (Vi (1 s).......(analogous . to . U).......) 8 1 W = (Wi (1 s).......(analogous . to . U).......) 8 1 T = (Ti (1 s).......(analogous . to . U).......) 8
4.3 The Results of the Laboratory Experimental Material Properties evaluation
The mechanical properties of the OTTM acme thread connection prototype have been evaluated after a series of the tensile strength collapse experiments performed with the samples of the steel grade D (mechanically analogous to the API steel grade J-55) using the equipment of the Russian VNIITneft tubular goods institute material strength laboratory. Experimentally obtained tensile strength characteristics curve of a particular sample can be divided into three main parts. The first part is referred as the elasticity region. The second part is often called the hardening region. The elastic strain within the second region is significantly smaller then the amount of the permanent residual strain and the main part of the material particles deformation can be characterized as plastic. At the second strain stage of the stretched sample visible enough and at the same time uniform changes in its size is being observed. The third region characterizes by the occurrence of the local thinning with the concentration of the plastic deformation around the neck. Modern calculation techniques demand more precise and detailed research of the mechanical material properties. Particularly, the theory of Plasticity realized in the ANSYS software is based upon the real material (4.2)
26
characteristics reflecting the dependence between stresses calculated relatively to the sample cross sectional reduction and linear deformations. To obtain the real characteristic the empirically-found values of linear deformations were used. z = zs + ze where: zs the amount of the residual deformation; ze - the amount of the elastic strain. Taken into account the fact that the sample volume under plastic strain conditions remains constant and Poissons coefficient is known in advance, then the transverse strain can be calculated using the following formula: (4.3)
tr = 0.5zs +ze
(4.4)
Knowing the value of the transverse strain it is possible to calculate the amount of the cross sectional changes in the area of the sample. Then, the real stresses are possible to calculate using the following formula:
F=
F0 . 1 + zs
(4.5)
The real stresses can be calculated via the formula:
z =
P . F0
(4.6)
The error correction on the changed area becomes essential only in the second part or in the hardening region of the curve. The precise material data for the third region in general terms are not available because the stress state of the sample becomes more complex with the drastic change of the sample shape (the sample ceases to be cylindrical). However, as a rough approximation, it is possible to assume that the maximum value of the material stress is the amount of the ultimate stress which is equal to the ratio of the collapse load to the cross
27
sectional area in the most thin place of the sample in the neck. Apparently, the obtained stress value is close enough to a rather stable steel characteristic, which is referred to as the tearing off resistance. Finally, the real characteristic obtained from the laboratory experiment was loaded into the ANSYS software in the form of the multilinear isotropic hardening curve and is presented in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8. Multilinear isotropic hardening rule.
4.4 Thread Joint Model Geometry Development

The next step in the FEM analysis is the immediate model geometry creation. There are three approaches for the geometry creation in the ANSYS software bottom up, top down and direct. During a process of building a model "from the bottom up" the points that define the vertices of the model are called keypoints and are the "lowest-order" solid model entities. The first step is the creation of the keypoints, and then the use of those keypoints to define the "higherorder" solid model entities (that is, lines, areas, and volumes). Models built from the bottom up are defined within the currently active coordinate system.
28
The ANSYS software also gives the ability to assemble the model using geometric primitives, which are fully-defined lines, areas, and volumes. After selection of a primitive, the program automatically creates all the "lower" entities associated with it. If a modeling effort begins with the "higher" primitive entities, the model will be built "from the top down." In the case of the casing pin box assembly modeling it will be more convenient to combine both of the modeling techniques; however, the bottom up approach is preferable. The solid geometry for the 2-D and 3-D case is shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9. The geometry models: A 2-D OTTM connection, B 3-D buttress casing joint.
4.5 Contact Modeling Methodology

Before proceeding to the contact modeling it is necessary to discuss the strategy of the future element creation and contact solution techniques which will be involved in the analysis of the given problem. A general contact approach in the ANSYS software makes it possible to model such nonlinear boundary phenomena as:
29
surface to surface contact with large deflections; contact and separation; sliding friction. The surface to surface contact phenomena is possible to
observe in many engineering designs and processes such as threaded couplings, forging, rolling, etc. Generally, the contact problems are solved by matching the points on the contact surface subsequently with either lines or areas on the target surface. In other words, the contact elements are used to track the relative initial position of a two contacting surfaces. Depending on a problem dimension the shape of the contact elements can be triangular, tetrahedral or pyramidal with the basis on the target surface and with the vertex on the contact surface. 2-D axisymmetric and 3 D contact elements are shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Contact elements (a) 2-D, (b) 3-D. To model friction and load transfer the contact pseudo element technique will be used. One of the main advantages of this technique includes such useful feature as: if the quantity of the nodes in contact is not known in advance the software will automatically exclude non working elements by means of zero stiffness matrix assembling and this will substantially save the CPU time. In order to achieve a better separation of the contact surfaces, it is necessary to have several sets of valid real constants, i.e. each separate contact surface should have its own reference number in the real constant table of the ANSYS software. The most important step is to set the real constant KN or so called the amount of contact stiffness. For the majority of problems the value of the contact stiffness is possible to estimate via the following formula:
30
KN = fEh where: f the coefficient of the contact compatibility; E Youngs modulus;
(4.7)
h the characteristics of the contact length. In the axisymmetric case h is the radius length to the line of the anticipated contact occurrence. Using a penalty function with Lagrange multiplier it is crucial to set a valid value for the real constant TOLN. Actually, TOLN is the amount of the penetration and usually has a value of 1% from the length of a contact surface. Friction will be modeled as the elastic Coulomb friction. Therefore, it is crucial to set the value for the real constant KT (friction module). This value is possible to calculate according to the formula:
KT =
KN 100
(4.8)
For the prevention of the contact overpenetration the buffer zone will be set by means of the value for the real constant TOLS.
4.6 Mesh Generation

The process for generating a mesh of nodes and elements consists of three general steps: 1. Set up the element attributes. 2. Set up mesh controls 3. Meshing the model. Before meshing the model, and even before building the model, it is important to think about whether a free mesh or a mapped mesh is appropriate for the analysis. A free mesh has no restrictions in terms of element shapes, and has no specified pattern applied to it. A mapped mesh is restricted in terms of the element shape. A mapped area mesh contains either only quadrilateral or only triangular elements, while a mapped volume mesh contains only hexahedron elements. In addition, a
31
mapped mesh typically has a regular pattern, with obvious rows of elements. In order to obtain this type of mesh, the geometry must be built as a series of fairly regular volumes and/or areas that can accept a mapped mesh. The example of the correct 2-D mesh generation for the model of acme thread connection is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. 2-D mapped mesh. After a completion of the meshing process, the contact elements were generated and kinematics symmetrical constraints and loading boundary conditions were applied to the model. One of the loading conditions case for the axisymmetric model is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Contact elements and boundary conditions for the 2-D axisymmetric case.
32
4.7 Mathematical Modeling

The ideas of the following sections of the given activity will be discussed with a reference to the ANSYS (2007) methodology. The process of the finite element meshing yields the development of the mathematical model based on derivation and subsequent solution of the systems of simultaneous equations which allow approximating the real physical prototype behavior in terms of elasticity and plasticity theory rules. As it is known, for the elasticity region stresses are associated with strain according to the Hooks law:
{ } = [D]{ el },
where:
(4.9)
{ } = X Y Z XY YZ XZ - the stress vector; [D] - the elasticity matrix, or elastic stiffness matrix;
{ }= { } { } - the vector of elastic strain;

el th
{ } = X Y Z XY YZ XZ
- the total strain vector;
{ } - the thermal strain vector.

th
The components of the stress state at a point are shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Stress state at a point.
33
The equation (4.9) can be rewritten in the form of:
{ } = { th }+ [D]1 { }.
(4.10)
Thermal strain vector is possible to evaluate via the following formula:
{ }= T
th
0 0 0 ,
(4.11)
where: x - the secant coefficient of thermal expansion; T = T-TREF; T the current temperature at the point of interest; TREF the reference temperature. The inverted elasticity matrix can be written in the form of:
[D]
1 X YX EX ZX EX = 0 0 0
XY
EY 1 Y EY
XZ YZ
EZ
0 0 0 1 G XY 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 GYZ 0
ZY
0 0 0
EZ 1 Z
0 0 0
0 0 0 , 0 0 1 G XZ
(4.12)
where: Ex Young modulus;
XY - Poissons coefficient;
Gxy- the shear modulus. [D]
-1
must be symmetric and positive definite. The components of the deformation tensor can be written in the
following extended form:
34
X = X T+ Y = Y T+ Z = Z T+ XY =
where:
X
EX
XY Y
EY EY
XZ Z
Ez Ez
;
Y
EY
XY X XZ X
EZ
YZ Z YZ Y
Ez
(4.13)
Z
EZ
XY
G XY
; YZ =
YZ
G YZ
XZ =
XZ
G XZ
x direct strain in the x direction; xy direct strain in the x y direction; x - direct stress in the x direction; xy - direct stress in the x y direction. The components of the stress tensor can be written in the following extended form
X =
+
EX EY EX 2 EY 1 ( YZ ) E ( X X T ) + h XY + XZ YZ E ( Y Y T ) + h Z Z
EX ( XZ + YZ XY )( Z Z T ); h
Y =
+ EY h
EX h
EY EY 2 EX XY + XZ YZ E ( X X T ) + h 1 ( XZ ) E ( Y Y T ) + Z Z
E Y XZ + XZ XY X ( Z Z T ); EE
EY EY EX XZ + YZ XY E ( X X T ) + h YZ + XZ XY E ( Y Y T ) + Z Y
Z =
+ EZ h
EX h
E 1 ( XY ) 2 X ( Z Z T ); EY
(4.14)
XY = G XY XY ; YZ = G YZ YZ ; XZ = G XZ XZ ;
h = 1 ( XY )
2
EX E 2 E 2 E ( YZ ) Y ( XZ ) X 2 XY YZ XZ X ; EY EZ EZ EZ
35
G XY =
E X EY ; G XY = G YZ ; G XZ = G XY . E X + E Y + 2 XY E X
In the case of isotropic material: E X = E Y = E Z ; XY = YZ = XZ
4.8 Derivation of Structural Matrices

The piece wise approximation and the process of function minimization will be based further on D Alemberts principle of virtual work, or on the theorem of minimum potential energy of a system. Strictly speaking, the theorem stated that the velocity of internal energy dissipation on virtual strains is equal to the power of external loading on virtual displacements. In other words, one and only one stipulation for the mechanical system to be in static conditions is the equality to zero of its potential energy:
U = V,
where: U strain energy (internal work) = U1+U2; V external work = V1+V2+V3; - virtual operator. The virtual strain energy is:
(4.15)
U1 =
vol
{ } { }d(vol) ,
T
(4.16)
where:
{ }- strain vector; { }- stress vector.

Combining equations (4.15) and (4.16) it is possible to write the following formula for the elasticity region:
36
U1 =
vol
({ } [D]{ } { } [D]{ })d(vol) .

T T
th
(4.17)
The strains may be related to the nodal displacements by:
{ } = [B]{u} ,
where:
(4.18)
[B] - strain-displacement matrix, based on the element shape functions; {u} - nodal displacement vector. Assuming that all effects are in the global Cartesian system and combining equations (4.17) and (4.18), noting that {u} does not vary over the volume:
U 1 = { u}T
vol
[B] [D][B]d(vol){u} { u} [B] [D]{ }d(vol) .

T T T th
(4.19)
vol
Another form of virtual strain energy is when a surface moves against a distributed resistance, as in a foundation stiffness. This may be written as:
U2 =
where:
areaf
{ W } { }d(area f ) ,
T
(4.20)
{Wn} motion normal to the surface; {} stress carried by the surface; area f area of the distributed resistance. The point-wise normal displacement is related to the nodal displacements by:
{Wn } = [N n ]{u},
where:
(4.21)
[Nn] matrix of shape functions for normal motions at the surface
37
The stress ( ) , is:
{ } = {Wn },
where:
(4.22)
k the foundation stiffness in units of force per length per unit area.
Combining equations (4.20) thru (4.22), and assuming that k is constant over the area:
U 2 = { u}T K
areaf
[N ] [N ]d(area f ){u},
T
(4.23)
Next, the external virtual work will be considered. The inertial effects will be studied first:
V1 = { W}T
vol
{F }d(vol) ,
a
vol
(4.24)
where: {W} vector of displacements of a general point; {Fa}- acceleration (D'Alembert) force vector. According to Newton's second law:
{F } =
a
vol
2 {W}, t2
(4.25)
where: the density; t the time. The displacements within the element are related to the nodal
displacements by: {W} = [N]{u}, where: (4.26)
38
[N] - matrix of shape functions. Combining equations (4.24), (4.25), (4.26) and assuming that is constant over the volume:
2 V1 = { u} [N ] [N ]d(vol) 2 {u}. t vol

T T
(4.27)
The pressure force vector formulation starts with:
V2 =
areap
{ W } {P}d(area p) ,
T n
(4.28)
where: {} the applied pressure vector; area p area over which pressure acts. Combining equations (4.26) and (4.28):
V2 = { u}T
areap
[N ] {P}d(area p ) .
T n
(4.29)
Nodal forces applied to the element can be accounted for by:
V3 = { u}T {Fend },
where: {Fend}- nodal forces applied to the element.
(4.30)
Finally, combining the derived equations it is possible to write:
{ u}T [B]T [D][B]d(vol){u} { u}T [B][D][ th ]d(vol) +

vol vol
{ u}T K [N n ]T [N n ]d(area f ){u} = { u}T [N]T [N]d(vol) 2 {u} +

2 freaf
+ { u}
areap
[N ] {P}d(area p) + { u} {F }
T T n nd e
vol
(4.31)
The equation (4.31) can be rewritten in the following form:
39
([K ] + [K ]){u} {F }= [M ]u + {F }+ {F },
e f e th e
pr e
nd e
(4.32)
where:
[K e ] = [B]T [D][B]d(vol) - element stiffness matrix;

vol
[K ]= K [N ] [N ]d(area f ) - element foundation stiffness matrix;

f e T n n freaf
{F }= [B][D][ ]d(vol) - element thermal load vector;

th e th vol
[M e ] = [N ]T [N ]d(vol) - mass matrix;

vol
u = 2 {u}- acceleration vector (due to gravity); t

2
{F }= [N ] {P}d(area p) - pressure vector.

pr e T n areap
Derived above equation (4.32) is the general FEM equation for one element working within the elastic region of the material. The influence of the plasticity will be discussed in the further section of the given activity. Stresses and strain in the integration points will be calculated from the following equations:
{ }= [B]{u} { }, { } = [D]{ }.
el th el
(4.33) (4.34)
The principal strains will be evaluated from the following cubic equation:
X 0
1 XY 2 1 XZ 2
1 XY 2
Y 0
1 XY 2
1 XZ 2 1 YZ = 0 . 2
(4.35)
Z 0
40
where: 0 the value of the principal deformations (three values). The strain intensity will be defined as:
1 = MAX ( 1 2 , 2 3 , 3 1 ) .
following expression:
(4.36)
The equivalent Von Mises strain will be calculated using the
2 1 e = ( 1 2 )2 + ( 2 3 )2 + ( 3 1 )2 . 2
Similarly, the principal stresses:
(4.36)
X 0 XY XZ XY Y 0 YZ = 0 . XZ XY Z 0
Stress intensity:
(4.37)
1 = MAX ( 1 2 , 2 3 , 3 1 ) .
Equivalent Von Mises stress:
1
(4.38)
1 2 e = ( 1 2 )2 + ( 2 3 )2 + ( 3 1 )2 . 2
only for the elastic region) via the following law:
(4.39)
The equivalent stress can be related to the equivalent strain (valid
e = 2Ge ,
where: G=
(4.40)
E - the shear modulus of the material. 2[1 + ]
The plastic part of the analysis will be performed by taking into consideration one of the eight available forms of nonlinear material behavior. Generally, the nonlinear behavior of any design can be divided on geometrical and material. In the case of the given activity rate independent plasticity will be used which is characterized by irreversible plastic strain development in the material according to a certain rules. These rules will be closely dealt with in the next section.
41
4.9 Rate Independent Plasticity

Rate independent plasticity can be characterized by irreversible strain occurrence in the material when stresses reach some certain level. It means that the process of plastic deformation is developing independently of time. In our case the mathematical model will be
governed by the rule of the multilinear isotropic hardening with Von Mises yield criterion and the associated flow rule. The yield criterion defines the amount of stress state under which the material will begin to yield. These can be expressed as:
e = f ({ }) .
(4.41)
When the equivalent stress will reach the yield parameter y, it is considered that the plastic strain will be developed in the material. Under conditions of e < y the material works within the elasticity region according to the algorithm being described earlier in the previous sections. Graphically:
Figure 14. Multilinear isotropic hardening rule. The plastic flow rule defines the direction of the plastic strain propagation:
{d }= Q ,
pl
(4.42)
where: - the amount of the plastic strain;
42
Q - the plastic potential; {pl} the vector of the plastic strain. When the plastic potential Q is itself a function of the yield criterion, then the flow rule will be referred as associative with the direction of the plastic deformations normal to the yield surface. The hardening rule defines the alteration of the yield surface during the process of the plastic deformation. Generally, two hardening rules exist kinematical and isotropic. In the case of the given activity isotropic hardening rule will be used. It means the growth of the yield surface with the absence of the displacement respectively to its center.
Figure 15. Hardening rules. As far as material hardens the yield criterion changes as well:
F({ }, , { }) = 0 ,
where: - the plastic work; {}- plastic surface propagation.
(4.43)
The total plastic work is the sum of the plastic work being done within a history of loading:
= { }T {d pl }.
(4.44)
43
The expansion of the yield surface within the same period:
{ } = C{d pl }.
where: c the material parameter. Differentiating gives the conditions of the plastic state:
(4.45)
F F F {d } + d + {d } = 0 .
Adverting, that:
(4.46)
= { } d pl
T
}
(4.47)
{d } = C{d pl } ,
the written above equation becomes:
F F T F d pl d pl {d } + { } { }+ C { }= 0 .
The stress increment:
(4.48)
{d } = [D]{d pl }
where:
{d }= {d } {d }
el pl
Thus, the total plastic strain increment can be subdivided into elastic and plastic parts, therefore:
F [D]{d } = . T F T Q F Q F Q { } C + [D]
(4.49)
The amount of plastic strain increment depends on the amount of total strain increment, current stress state and the shape of the yield surface. The plastic strain increment will be calculated as:
{d }= Q .
pl
(4.50)
In order to provide stress strain matching with the yield surface backward Euleur scheme according to ANSYS (2007) will be used.
44
Chapter 5 Solution Methodology
5.1 Experimental Procedure

The physical prototype in situ is subjected not only to a tensile loading, but to the loads arising from the connection make up i.e. tightness, bending, internal and external pressures. According to the Russian technical specification 632 80 and API standards the buttress threaded connection as well as its Russian analogous can be made up either by hand, i.e. without tightness or with the full tightness. The tightness is being specified in standards as a distance between the box flange and the pin thread vanishing point for the Russian analogous and as a distance between box flange and the pin triangular label for API buttress joint. In both standards this distance has a length of 16 mm (0.6 in.) which allows tightening the hand made connection on three revolutions or on three treads. In this case the amount of torque applied to the joint lies within the interval of 430 610 kgs*m depending on the compound type being used. Therefore, the model solution procedure will be composed of the following specific steps: step by step loading of the OTTM model have been made up with the full tightness; mesh density verification with subsequent refining by means of comparing results obtained from the laboratory strain gauge testing; analysis of the API buttress joint strength under combined tensile and bending loading, made with full tight. Comprising of the mechanical behavior of the two connections; analysis of the OTTM connection strength relatively to the load history with various amount of tightness. residual plastic strain analysis within the body of the threaded joint. Generally, for the solution of the given problems the nonlinear static contact analysis will be performed. Sparse direct frontal solver with the full Newton Raphson procedure will be involved. In order to obtain a stable according convergence for the unstable contact problems running
45
to the penalty function with Lagrange multiplier algorithm it is crucial to apply loads in increments, i.e. in steps and substeps. Therefore, the rule of thumb for such types of solution is to divide each load step into at least ten subsequent substeps or time steps performing up to 25 - 50 equilibrium iterations until convergence will be achieved. Line search with predictor function methodology will be used to stabilize possible convergence problems especially at the stage of joint tightness modeling.
5.2 Frontal Solution Methodology

For the solution of the mathematical model the wave front procedure will be implemented. This methodology was first proposed by R.J. Melosh (1963), for the solution of the linear finite element equations systems discussed in the previous chapter. The number of the active equations during element processing is referred as a wave front at a given point. The solution efficiency is strictly dependable on the amount of PC memory available for user. Several thousands active degrees of freedom DOF will be stored in PC memory. Therefore, the element ordering is critical, because the wave front minimization leads to a significant savings of the amount of the random access memory. The solution wave front size is determined by the order in which the elements were assembled. The system of the linear equations can be solved using Gaussian elimination procedure. These equations can be written in the following form:
K
j =1
kj
U j = Fk ,
(5.1)
where: Kkj the amount of stiffness which relate the k DOF load with j DOF displacement; Uj nodal displacement; Fk k DOF nodal load. The equation should be normalized to the form:
46
j=1
K ij K ii
Uj =
Fi K ii
(5.2)
and be rewritten:
j=1
K U j = Fi . ij
(5.3)
where:
K = ij
K ij K ii
Fi =
Fi K ii
and Kij is termed as a pivot. If Kij 0, it means that the model is actually restrained and this mistake must be corrected. The equation must be saved in a file for the further back substitution. The remaining equations are rearranging to receive a form:
Fkj = K kj K ki K ij
Fk = Fk K ki Fi , k i
L 1 j=1
(5.4)
K U j = Fk kj
After the elimination of the i-equation the process repeats itself in a cycle. Geometrically, the node numbering must be arranged in such a way that the wave front propagation biased towards the maximum value as depicted in Figure 16.
Figure 16. Effective and non-effective wave fronts.
47
5.3 Newton Raphson Procedure

The finite element meshing process leads to a system of linear equations:
[K]{u} = {Fa },
where: [K]- coefficient matrix; {u}- vector of the unknown DOF; {Fa}- vector of an applied load.
(5.5)
If the matrix [K] itself became a function of the unknown DOF the equation (5.5) will become nonlinear. According to K.J. Bathe (1982), such system can be solved using to the Newton Raphson procedure:
[K ]{ u } = {F } {F }
T i a i nr i
(5.6)
{u i +1 } = {u i }+ { u i },
where:
[K ] - tangential matrix;
T i
i- number of the equilibrium iteration;
{F }- restoring load vector.

nr i
The right side of the equation (5.6) is termed as a residual or the amount of the system out of equilibrium. The accuracy of the results strictly depends on the amount of the residual and on the value of the chosen convergence norm. Some of the authors argued that Newton Raphsons equation is actually inequality and the obtained results are wrong. Indeed, it is possible to show a several cases when the Newton Raphsons procedure leads to erroneous results. Therefore, the procedure must be applied consciously carefully and the accuracy of the final results must be verified.
48
The solution algorithm is depicted in Figure 17 and generally includes the following steps: as the first guess the {u0} is the converged solution from the previous load step. For the first load step {u0} = 0; from the configuration {ui} tangential matrix K T i force Finr is calculated; {ui} is calculated; adding {ui} to {ui}is possible to obtain {ui+1}approximation; the steps are looped until convergence will be achieved.
[ ]
and restoring
{ }
Figure 17. Newton Raphson procedure: a first equilibrium iteration; b next equilibrium iteration.
The solution is considered to be converged when Finr
{ } becomes
equal to {Fa} (or either contained within the tolerance threshold). It is necessary to emphasize that the intermediate solutions dissatisfy the equilibrium and should not be taken into account. Finally, the case when the tangential matrix is updated every equilibrium iteration is termed as the full Newton Raphson procedure.
49
Chapter 6. Experimental Part
5.4 Convergence According to ANSYS (2007), the iteration process described in the previous section continues until convergence is achieved. Convergence is assumed when:
{R} < R R ref
- out of balance convergence
{ u i } = u R ref - DOF increment convergence

where: {R} is the residual vector: {R} = {Fa} - {Fnr}, (5.7)
which is the right-hand side of the Newton Raphson equation (5.6) Convergence, therefore, is obtained when the size of the residual (disequilibrium) is less than a tolerance times a reference value and/or when the size of the DOF increment is less than a tolerance times a reference value. The default is to use out-of-balance convergence checking only. The default tolerance is .001 (for both u and R). There are three available norms in the ANSYS software: 1. infinite 2. L1 norm 3. L2 norm
{R} = max R i {R} 1 = R i
; ;
1
{R} 2 = ( R i2 )2 .
In the case of the performing analysis the L2 convergence norm will be used.
51
Chapter 6. Experimental Part 6.1 Strain Gauging experiment

The approximation accuracy during the mathematical model solution progress ultimately depends on a clear understanding of the physical boundary conditions as well as on the mesh density of the model. The final goal of the solution is to obtain such numerical node values at which the relationship for the elements as much as possible holds the approximation accuracy of the prototype physical parameters. Obviously, the higher mesh density the more adequacies between the mathematical model and the actual engineering design can be achieved. Theoretically, the model can be meshed into an unlimited amount of elements. However, the final element solution practice has shown that the necessary accuracy can be achieved using the following technique. Gradually increasing the amount of elements in the model a number of sequential solutions are being performed until the results divergence in a fixed in advance point of interest becomes minimal. Then, the received mathematical model can be finally assumed as a basis for the further analysis. However, this technique leads to the increase in the hardware requirements to the resources of computer facilities and generally to the loss of the CPU time. Therefore, in order to verify the material properties, the real constants and the mesh density correctness an additional laboratory experiment had been performed. The experiment had the following core: using the strain gauging method the axial and circumferential strain components were measured on the external surface of the box and on the internal surface of the pin of the OTTM 146.1x10.7 joint, which was made up with the full tightness according to the recommended practice given in the Russian technical standard 632-80. Then the axial strain components were converted into corresponding axial and circumferential stress components. At the same time the joint was subjected to the gradually growing tensile loading in the range from 227.5 kN up to 1364 kN. The axial and circumferential stress components were registered as well.
52
Simultaneously,
within
series
of
sequential
solutions
the
mathematical model mesh was refined until the FEM nodal and strain gauging results convergence was recognized to be at an acceptable level. The experiment has been performed in the laboratory conditions of Samara Tubular Goods State Institute VNIITneft. As strain gauges for the stress/strain measurements on the nipple/box surfaces the wire electro strain gauges manufactured from the constantan wire 0.015 mm. in diameter were used. Basically, these gauges represent a flat wire loops glued on a strip of a paper. The gauge design is shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18. The electric strain gauge. The wire ends were soldered to a thicker conductor taping. Butvar (polyvinilbutyral) phenolic glue was used to paste on the gauges. Under exerted tensile load the threaded connection tends to deform transferring strains to the gauge. The wire of the gauge detecting lattice elongates or shortens. These leads to the changes of the cross sectional size as well as to the changes of the Ohmic resistance R on the amount of R which serves as a measure of strain = l/l in the direction of the gauge base. The length of the gauge base was 10 mm.
R The value of the R
is the material gauge strain sensitivity which
represents the division quotient of the relative changes in the electrical resistance of gauge wire lattice to the relative deformations which
53
provoke this resistance changes. The constantan sensitivity is strictly equal to +2.0 and this material always demonstrates the linear relationship between the electrical resistance and relative strain. The success in the measurements using the electro strain gauges is highly dependable on the quality of the gauge gluing. Thus, the gluing or sticking area was carefully cleaned and degreased. The glue was brushed in a thin layer, then the gauges were nestled and the air bubbles with the extensive amount of the glue were squeezed out. The butvar phenolic glue has a very high adhesive durability as well as a high level of thermostability. To realize these characteristics the glue was subjected to the 20 minute polymerization under the temperature of 140 0C. During the strain measurements registration the electric bridge scheme for the gauge connection was used. The scheme is shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19. The electric bridge scheme for the strain gauge connection. As it was stated above the measured strains was converted into a corresponding values of stresses, the results were compared with the mathematical model. The adequacy between mathematical model and the real physical prototype was assumed to be achieved. These are shown in Figures 20 23 below. As a result of the experiment the correct mesh density was obtained which will allow to avoid further expensive laboratory experiments and to start only dealing with the mathematical model analysis.
54
Figure 20. The path direction for the graphical representation of the stress/strain distribution on the pin/box inner and outer surfaces.
Figure 21. The axial stress distribution on the pin/box surfaces. Full tightness, tensile load 227.5 kN.
Figure 22. The axial stress distribution on the pin/box surfaces. Full tightness, tensile load 909.8 kN.
55
Figure 23. The axial stress distribution on the pin/box surfaces. Full tightness, tensile load 1364 kN.
6.2 The Experiment Results Performed With the Finite Element Model of the OTTM 146.1x10.7 Joint 6.2.1 The influence of the Joint Tightness Research
The results obtained during the experiment with the finite element mathematical model of the acme thread profile OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint will be represented in the form of the tensor stress components diagrams, equivalent Von Mises stress diagrams and graphs in the following order: stress/strain state of the joint made up with one thread 10.16 mm. (0.4 in) tightness; stress/strain state of the joint made up with two threads 5.08 mm. (0.2 in) tightness; stress/strain state of the joint made up with full tightness. The Russian standard as well as API bulletins assumes the operation of the buttress joint screwed either by hand or with the full tightness, the amount of which is regulated by some distance range allowing to make up the joint additionally on three threads. The tensor stress components distribution in the local cylindrical coordinate system and Von Mises equivalent stress are shown graphically in Figures 24 32 below.
56
Figure 24. Radial and axial stress component in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with one thread 10.16 mm tightness.
Figure 25. Hoop component and equivalent Von-Mises stress in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with one thread 10.16 mm tightness.
57
Figure 26. Path plot of the stresses along root cross-section profile in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with one thread 10.16 mm tightness.
Figure 27. Radial and axial stress component in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with two threads 5.08 mm tightness.
58
Figure 28. Hoop component and equivalent Von-Mises stress in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with two threads 5.08 mm tightness.
Figure 29. Path plot of the stresses along root cross-section profile in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with two threads 5.08 mm tightness.
59
Figure 30. Radial and axial stress component in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with full tightness.
Figure 31. Hoop component and equivalent Von-Mises stress in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with full tightness.
60
Figure 32. Path plot of the stresses along root cross-section profile in the OTTM146.1x10 casing joint made up with full tightness. The modeling of the casing joint tightness was performed using so called overpenetration technique of contact nodes into a target surface. Analyzing the obtained results it is possible to make some important observations. More specifically they are: within the minimum amount of the joint tightness the stress/strain distribution is obviously non-uniform; Von-Mises equivalent stress diagram shows that due to the influence of the taper, the maximum equivalent stress value begins to concentrate from the side of the pin chamfer and from the box end in the thread root, meanwhile, the central part of the connection is loaded relatively low; in the connection made up with two threads tightness further growth of stress/strain values is being observed. The compressive radial stress component attains the maximum values at the first few threads from the pin chamfer side and at the root of the pin thread in proximity to the vanishing point, whilst the central part is being compressed insignificantly;
61
with the growth of the amount of tightness the character of the stress/strain distribution becomes definitely nonlinear. The stress values within the body of the pin grow enough to overcome the yield threshold of the material. These leads to the plastic strain development with accumulation of some residual plastic strain values after unloading of the casing joint. The stress state shown in Figures 2432 allows to estimate the
stress/strain distribution in acme threaded OTTM joint made up with full tightness and to draw some important conclusions: 1. from the geometry point of view the joint design is non equal in strength, i.e. the box has a higher thickness then the pin; 2. the connection making up process with one or two thread tightness and the influence of the taper as well leads to the stress concentration with the plastic strain development in the first threads from the chamfer side of the pin and in the first threads from the end face of the box leaving the central part of the joint poorly loaded, that leads to the formation of a so called bell. 3. After transferring of the full tightness the material behavior especially of the pin part originates in the plastic region and by its nature can be compared with he hot shrink fit of a hub on to a shaft. From one hand, the non uniformity of the stress distribution arising in the joints made up with one or two thread tightness is smoothed out due to the plastic flow influence in the connection made up with the full tightness, from the other hand, the joint will not be able to withstand the recommended amount of the screwing unscrewing cycles. This is essentially critical issue for the tubing threaded connections. Therefore, the question concerning the feasibility of making up the connections with full tightness arises. The field practice as well as the mathematical modeling showed that 10.16 mm. tightness is actually the optimum value for making up of the OTTM joints. The strain distribution graphical representation is shown in Appendix A hereto attached.
62
6.2.2 The Mathematical Modeling Results. OTTM Joint Made Up by Hand Subjected to a Tensile Loading
In this section the results obtained from the mathematical modeling of a stress/strain state of the OTTM 146.1x10.7 casing threaded joint made up without tightness (by hand) and being subjected to a gradually growing tensile loading in the range from 227.5 kN up to 1592.2 kN sufficient enough for the modeling of the working loading range taken into account the safety factor value 1.3, will be considered. The results for the minimum and maximum tensile loading are shown graphically in Figures 33 38 below. The tensile strain distribution are shown in Appendix B at the end of the given activity.
Figure 33. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up by hand and subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.
63
Figure 34. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up by hand, subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.
Figure 35. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Hand made up joint, 227.5 kN tensile load.
64
Figure 36. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up by hand and subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
Figure 37. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up by hand, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
65
Figure 38. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Hand made up joint, 1592.2 kN tensile load. The load history modeling and the solution of the mathematical model have been performed incrementally applying the iterative Newton Raphson procedure. The final load was divided into a set of a 10 subsequent substeps. To achieve the convergence 25 75 equilibrium iterations has been performed within each substep. The hand made up connection load history shows the non uniformity or non linearity of the stress/strain distribution in the body of the design. All these put into a question the validity of the assumptions being made during the derivation of the empirical and semi empirical formulae for the maximum pull out load estimation that were being discussed in the first chapter of the given activity. The Figures 33-38 show that with the growth of the axial stress component, stress concentration under the thread root of the pin near the last engaged thread is growing as well. Due to the joint strength non equality and with the growth of the tensile load the stress in the region of concentration will finally reach the ultimate value and the joint rupture under the root of the last engaged thread will develop. Meanwhile the central part of the threaded connection continues to be poorly loaded. All these observations lead to the conclusion that the existing connection
66
geometry is non effective, that the existing design has not realized a potential to carry higher loads and generally needs in an improvement.
6.2.3 The Mathematical Modeling Results. OTTM Joint Made Up With One Thread Tightness Subjected to a Tensile Loading
In this section the results of the OTTM 146.1x10.7 casing joint mathematical model made up with one thread (10.16mm.) tightness under exerted tensile loading will be dealt with. The results are shown graphically in Figures 39 44. The non uniformity of the stress distribution is being observed again. Due to the influence of the growing tightness the equivalent Von Mises stress distribution develops slightly smoother. However, the values of the stress in the region of the concentration grow simultaneously with the increasing of the tensile load. When the tensile load reaches its maximum value the equivalent Von Mises stress overcomes the yielding threshold of the material in some points. Plastic strain develops. Again the central part of the joint is poorly loaded. As a result, the joint works non effectively.
Figure 39. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with one thread tightness (10.16 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.
67
Figure 40. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with one thread tightness (10.16 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.
Figure 41. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. One thread 10.16 mm. tightness, 227.5 kN tensile load.
68
Figure 42. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with one thread tightness (10.16 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
Figure 43. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with one thread tightness (10.16 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
69
Figure 44. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. One thread 10.16 mm. tightness, 1592.2 kN tensile load.
6.2.4 The Mathematical Modeling Results. OTTM Joint Made Up With Two Thread Tightness Subjected to a Tensile Loading
The results obtained after the solution of the OTTM 146.1x10.7 mathematical model made up with two (5.08 mm.) threads tightness are shown in Figures 45 - 50 below. The results showed that after applying of the maximum tensile load material yielding develops in the body of the pin possibly due to the strength non equality of the construction. The plastic flow leads to the smoothing of the stress distribution, however, the residual plastic strain develops. The lessons learnt from the field practice show that this particular stress state of the casing joint is most preferable.
70
Figure 45. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with two threads tightness (5.08 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.
Figure 46. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with two threads tightness (5.08 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.
71
Figure 47. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Two threads 5.08 mm. tightness, 227.5 kN tensile load.
Figure 48. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with two threads tightness (5.08 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
72
Figure 49. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with two threads tightness (5.08 mm.), subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
Figure 50. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Two threads 5.08 mm. tightness, 1592.2 kN tensile load.
73
6.2.5 The Mathematical Modeling Results. OTTM Joint Made Up With Full Tightness Subjected to a Tensile Loading
The results obtained from the solution of the OTTM 146.1x10.7 mathematical model made up with full tightness are shown in Figures 5155 below. The results showed that depending on the load history the non uniformity of the Von Mises equivalent stress distribution is being compensated by growing of the compressive radial stress component (the influence of the tightness). The axial stress component together with the increasing of the tensile loading takes the maximum value under the thread root in the point of the last thread in the engagement. The stress concentration develops, but at the same time the central part of the threaded connection design is loaded relatively poor. Taken as a hole in the case of the make up with the full tightness the threaded connection works above the proportionality region with the residual plastic strain development. Basically, such working conditions of the joint design are not admissible and must be unequivocally avoided in the field practice.
Figure 51. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.
74
Figure 52. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 227.5 kN.
Figure 53. Stress components and Von Mises equivalent stress mapped on to path. Full tightness, 227.5 kN tensile load.
75
Figure 54. Radial and axial stress components. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
Figure 55. Hoop stress component and Von Mises equivalent stress. OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
76
6.3 3-D Modeling of the Buttress Threaded Joint Subjected to a Combined Tensile and Bending Loading Conditions
The main purpose of the casing string is to isolate the open hole and to prevent a possible collapse of the well bore walls. According to its functions, casing strings, generally, are accepted to divide into conductor, surface, intermediate, production strings and liners. All these strings must have enough strength and must be able to withstand the working loading conditions, being run into a particular well bore, without ceasing of its strength parameters and integrity lost. During its run into a hole different parts of the casing string exhibits different loading conditions. Tension, inner and outer pressures is the main loads that must be taken into account during the casing string design. The weakest part of the casing string is obviously the threaded joints. These joints must have enough load carrying capacity and must provide a high level of integrity through the lifecycle of the well bore. At the contemporary stage of the oil and gas industry development a highly deviated and horizontal wells drilling became a common practice. The presence of the radius of curvature along the well bore path applies additional bending forces to the casing string. The presence of bending together with the tensile forces in the parts of the well bore with high amount of a dog leg severity leads to the integrity failure of the threaded connection or even to the disengagement with subsequent pull out of the joint. Quite often such failures can be observed when the casing joints with triangular round thread profile are being used. Therefore, buttress threaded connection is often used to overcome excessive bending loading influence in such cases instead of the triangular threaded casing joint. The additional analysis has been performed in order to understand the influence of the bending forces on the tensile load carrying capacity of the buttress threaded connection OD 5 x0.415 in. grade j-55. The analysis has been performed using 3-D FEM mathematical model. Bilinear isotropic hardening rule was accepted for the material behavior modeling. The solution was obtained in the
77
nonlinear form using sparse direct solver methodology with the full Newton Raphson procedure. The objectives of the research are: the stress/strain state of the joint made up with the full tightness, subjected to the combined tensile and bending loading equivalent to the amount of the well bore dog leg severity 1.50 per 10 m TVD. Three dimensional mathematical model geometry and mesh density are shown in Figures 56 57 below.
Figure 56. 3-D Buttress casing joint model.
78
Figure 57. Equivalent Von Mises stress distribution in the buttress joint subjected to the combine tensile and bending loading conditions. Dog leg severity is 1.50 per 10 m. TVD.
Figure 58. The equivalent Von Mises stress mapped on to path for the left and right cross sections of the buttress joint.
79
The kick off point of the well bore is unique and depends mainly on the geological conditions of a particular oil field. The average depth may very from 300m up to 800m TVD. Within this depth the tensile load does not reach the maximum values. In our case the tensile load was applied to the mathematical model of the buttress threaded connection sufficient enough to develop the stress state in the joint equal to the value of 200 MPa. The axial displacement was applied as well to simulate the dog leg severity of the well bore path equivalent to 1.50 per 10m TVD. The analysis results show that applied bending load leads to the growth of the equivalent Von Mises stress values in the body of the pipe below the threaded joint due to the additional stretching from one side and to a reduction of the equivalent Von Mises stress values due to the compression from the other side of the connection. The compression leads to the pipe body unloading, additional tension leads to the increasing of Von Mises stress on the amount of not more then 5 10%. Taken as a hole, the bending loading does not demonstrate any significant influence on the tensile load carrying capacity of the buttress casing threaded connection. This can be due to the specific geometry design of the buttress joint. Especially, the friction angle of 30 between the subsequent thread load flanks of the pin and the box compensates the pull out tendency from the bending force. Therefore, the geometry of the buttress threaded connection is often termed as self - arresting.
80
Chapter 7.Tapered Threaded Joint with Variable Lead
Chapter 7. Tapered Threaded Joint With Variable Lead 7.1 Analysis and Discussion of the Residual Strain Development
The finite element method gives the possibility to model not only the stress/strain behavior of the design under exerted load boundary conditions, but also to analyze the residual values of the strain developed after the unloading of a structure. These residual values can be used for the correction of the current geometry defects being discussed early in the previous chapters and can be applied to the further design optimization process as well. To exclude the strain smoothing influence of the threaded connection tightness OTTM146.1x10.7 joint mathematical model was made up by hand and then, was subjected to the tensile loading with subsequent unloading. The task has been solved in three load steps using the full Newton Raphson iterative procedure. The residual strain values distribution are shown in Figures 59 61 below:
Figure 59. Residual plastic strain values.
80
1 0 -0,0001 Axial strain -0,0002 -0,0003 -0,0004 -0,0005 -0,0006
10
Thread number
Figure 60. Axial residual strain component distribution
0,003 0,0025 Von M ises strain 0,002 0,0015 0,001 0,0005 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thread number
Figure 61. Von Mises equivalent residual strain distribution. The diagrams of the axial residual and Von Mises residual strain distribution shows the non linear behavior of the residual values in the body of the acme threaded joint with the maximum concentration under the root near the last engaged thread. The amount of the residual strain propagation increment approximately has the value of 40e-6 m per thread pitch.
81
7.2 The Analysis of the Proposed Thread Joint with Variable Lead.
The results obtained from the solution of the mathematical model in the previous chapters showed that the basic tapered threaded connection works ineffectively and from the mechanical point of view the design has some extra amount of non used load carrying capacity. Therefore the basic idea forwarded to the optimization of the typical threaded joint will be in the implementation of the progressively increasing thread gaps scheme as it shown in Figure 62.
Figure 62. Variable lead threaded connection. The box thread lead has been modified gradually from the base size at the first engaged pin thread to the maximum size at the box end face. Therefore, the progressively increasing gaps between the thread load flanks will be developed. Besides this, the thread height has been decreased as well, on the amount of the half of a difference between the values of the full and 10.16 mm. tightness. This will allow reducing of the excessive amount of the full tightness in the proposed threaded connection geometry. The axisymmetric mathematical model of the modified acme threaded connection with the variable lead was subjected to the same loading conditions. The solution results are shown graphically in Figures 63 - 66 below.
82
Figure 63. Radial and axial stress component distribution in the proposed connection with variable lead made up with full tightness.
Figure 64. Hoop component and Von Mises stress distribution in the proposed connection with variable lead made up with full tightness.
83
Figure 65. Radial and axial stress component distribution in the proposed connection with variable lead made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading 1592.2 kN.
Figure 66. Hoop component and Von Mises stress distribution in the proposed connection with variable lead made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading 1592.2 kN.
84
7.3 The Comparative Analysis of the Strength Characteristics of the typical OTTM and Variable Lead Threaded Connections
The comparative analysis of the strength characteristics of the typical OTTM and proposed variable lead threaded connections was performed graphically and are shown in Figures 67 69 below.
Figure 67. The comparison of the Von Mises equivalent stress distribution characteristics in the typical OTTM acme threaded connection and in the new connection with variable lead made up with the full tightness.
85
Figure 68. The comparison of the axial stress components distribution characteristics in the typical OTTM acme threaded connection and in the new connection with variable lead made up with the full tightness under the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
Figure 69. The comparison of the Von Mises equivalent stress distribution characteristics in the typical OTTM acme threaded connection and in the new connection with variable lead made up with the full tightness under the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN.
86
7.4 Conclusions
The results comparison of the strength performance of the typical OTTM 146.1x10.7 acme threaded casing joint and proposed new variable lead connection makes it possible to draw the following conclusions: 1. The material of the variable lead threaded connection made with full tightness, basically, works in the elastic region, whereas the mechanical performance of the typical OTTM acme threaded casing connection made with full tightness originates above the limit of proportionality of the material behavior. Therefore, the performance of the variable lead joint excludes the plastic strain occurrence which results in the thread crush and joint damage; 2. Comparatively to the typical design the central part of the variable lead threaded connection carries more load while in the typical OTTM joint only the first several threads of the pin are loaded heavily; 3. The stresses from the tensile loading are distributed more uniformly through the new variable lead connection body, more threads work, the stress concentration under the root of the last engaged thread vanishes. All these prevent the bells occurrence. The potential for the joint damage ceases as well; 4. Under exerted amount of a tensile load sufficient enough to induce the material yielding in the typical acme threaded joint body, the new variable lead connection works in the elastic region of the material behavior with the values of Von Mises equivalent stress being lower on 26% comparatively to the typical joint. Therefore, a possibility of increasing the casing running depth occurs without changing such parameters as material grade or wall thickness. These, in turn, will give the opportunity to reduce the amount of the CAPEX and to raise the economical efficiency and profitability of the final well bore casing completion design.
87
8.0 Final Conclusions
8.0 Final Conclusions.

Summarizing the results obtained within the frameworks of the given activity it is necessary to draw the following important final conclusions: The existing methodologies for the strength evaluation of the casing threaded connections have been analyzed. As a result, FEM approach has been chosen and has been successfully applied to the solution of the given challenges; ANSYS software FEM package has been implemented as a powerful tool of the mathematical modeling of the threaded joint prototype; The clarification of the casing steel mechanical properties has been done; The mathematical model of the existing physical prototype has been developed. Using the laboratory experimental results the adequacy between the mathematical model and real physical system behavior has been achieved. The possibility of the virtual model experiment avoiding additional laboratory testing has been proved; The solution of the nonlinear equations system has been accomplished. The results for the plasticity region of the material behavior have been obtained. The history of a stress/strain state of the buttress threaded joint under the combined loading conditions has been shown; The new variable lead acme threaded casing joint with an improved mechanical strength characteristics has been developed, analyzed and proposed. The use of which instead of the typical buttress joint will raise significantly the economical profitability of the final casing string completion design.
88
References
References
1. Technical Specification 632 80, (1982), Casing and Casing Boxes, State Standard, Official Edition, Soviet Union, Moscow. 2. API Specification 5B, (1996), Threading, Gauging, and Thread Inspection of Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe Threads, Fourteenth Edition, August 1996. 3. N. D. Sherbiuck, N.V. Yakubovsky, (1974), Threaded Joints of the Oil Country Tubular Goods and Downhole Motors, Nedra, Moscow. 4. API Bulletin 5c3, (1994), Bulletin on Formulas and Calculations for Casing, Tubing, Drill Pipe, and Line Pipe Properties, Sixth Edition, October 1, 1994. 5. N.E. Zhukovsky, (1937), Pressure Distribution Between Threads, vol VIII, ONTI. 6. I.A. Birger, (1959), Threaded Connections Calculus, vol. 2, Oborongiz. 7. D.G Sopwith, (1948), The distribution of load in screw threads, The inst. of Mech. Eng. Appl. Mech. Proc. vol. 159. 8. R.B. 159. 9. S.V. Serensen, (1954), Bearing Capacity and Mashine Details 10.B.S. Tsfas, (1961), The Solution of Zhukovsky Problem in a Closed Form, Mashinostroenie, N9, USSR. 11.Oxford, Gook, (1955),The Influence of Top Drill Size and Length of Engagement Upon the Strength of Tapped Holes, Frans. ASME, No 2. 12.API Specification 5B1, (1999), Gauging and Inspection of Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe Threads, Fifth Edition, October 1999. 13.A. Hrennikoff, (1941), Elasticity Problems Solution Using the Framework Method, J., Appl. Mech., 8, A169- 175. 14.R. Courant, (1943),Variational Methods for the Solution of Problems of Equilibrium and Vibrations, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 49, 1-23. 15.W. Prager, J.L. Synge, (1947), Approximations in Elasticity Heywood, (1948), Tensile fillet stresses in loaded projections, The inst. of mech. Eng. Appl. Mech. Proceedings, vol.
89
References
Based on the Concept of Function Spaces, Quart. Appl. Math., 5, 241-269. 16.G. L. Synge, (1957), The Hypercircle Method in Mathematical Physics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. 17.J.H. Argyris, (1954), Energy Theorems and Structural Analysis, Aircraft Eng., p. 26, 347-356, 383-387, 394. 18. M.J. Turner, R.W. Clough, H.C. Martin, L.P. Topp, (1956), Stiffness and Deflection Analysis of Complex Structures, J. Aeron. Sci., 23, 9, 805-823, 854. 19.R.W. Clough, (1960), The Finite Element Method in Plane Stress Analysis, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, Proc. 2d Conf. Electronic Computation, 345-378. 20. R.J. Melosh, (1963), Basis of Derivation of Matrices for Direct Stiffness Method, AIAAJ., 1. 21.B.A. Szabo, G.C. Lee, (1969), Derivation of Stiffness Matrices for Problems in Plane Elasticity by Galerkins Method, Intern. J. of Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1, 301-310. 22.O.C. Zienkievicz, (1971), The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science, McGraw-Hill, London. 23.L.J. Segerlind, (1976), Applied Finite Element Analysis, John Willey and Sons, inc., New York, London, Sydney, Toronto. 24.ANSYS, (2007), Basic Analysis Procedures Guide, ANSYS, inc., Houston, iso: 9001, 1st edition. 25.R.J. Melosh, (1963), Basis of Derivation of Matrices for Direct Stiffness, method. AIAAJ., 1. 26.K.J. Bathe, (1982), Finite element procedures in engineering analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
90
Bibliography
Bibliography
1. API Specification 5CT, (2005), Specification for Casing and Tubing, Eighth Edition, July 2005, ISO 11960: 2004. 2. API Bulletin 5C2, (1999), Bulletin on Performance Properties of Casing, Tubing, and Drill Pipe, Twenty First Edition, API Publishing Services,1220 L. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. 3. API Bulletin 5C3, (1994), Bulletin on Formulas and Calculations for Casing, Tubing, Drill Pipe Properties, Six Edition, API Publishing Services,1220 L. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 4070. 4. Technical Specification 632 80, (1982), Casing and Casing Boxes, State Standard, Official Edition, Soviet Union, Moscow. 5. Rabia, H. (1985), Oilwell Drilling Engineering Graham &Trotman 6. ANSYS, (2007), Basic Analysis Procedures Guide, ANSYS, inc., Houston, iso: 9001, 1st edition. 7. O.C. Zienkievicz, (1971), The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science. McGraw-Hill, London. 8. K.J. Bathe, (1982), Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 9. O.C. Zienkievicz, (1971), The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science, McGraw-Hill, London. 10.Wriggers, VuVan, Stein, (1990), Finite Element Formulation of Large Deformation ImpactContact Problems with Friction, Computers and structures, vol. 37, pp. 319-331. 11.H. Parish, (1989), A Consistent Tangent Stiffness Matrix for Three - Dimensional Non-linear Contact Analysis, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 71,. 12. R. Hill, (1950), The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford, at the Clarendon Press,. 13.B.M. Irons, (1970), A Frontal Solution Program for Finite Element Analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 2, No. 1, January.
91
Appendix A
Appendix A Strain components and Von Mises equivalent strain distribution. OTTM 146.1x10.7 joint. 10.16 mm. tightness.
92
Appendix A
Strain components and Von Mises equivalent strain distribution. OTTM 146.1x10.7 joint. 5.08 mm. tightness.
93
Appendix A
Strain components and Von Mises equivalent strain distribution. OTTM 146.1x10.7 joint. Full tightness.
94
Appendix B
Appendix B
Strain components and Von Mises strain mapped on to path.OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with 10.16 mm. tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN
Strain components and Von Mises strain mapped on to path.OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with 5.08 mm. tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN
95
Nomenclature
Strain components and Von Mises strain mapped on to path.OTTM146.1x10.7 casing joint made up with full tightness, subjected to the tensile loading of 1592.2 kN
xiv

The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen: School of Engineering

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen: School of Engineering

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY, ABERDEEN

THE ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY, ABERDEEN

School of Engineering MSc Oil and Gas Engineering

Author: Sergey N. Kantariya Date: 14 September 2007

[D] - the elasticity matrix.

- element stiffness matrix.

[K ] - element foundation stiffness matrix. {F } - element thermal load vector.

[K ] - tangential matrix. {F }- restoring load vector.

{R} is the residual vector.

Chapter1 Introduction 1.1 Project Relevancy

0.24 , Pp = ( 0.08) yielddmin d e + E 1 0.5 + D 0.5 0.07 l

capacity and to the overall deterioration of the design functionability.

1.2 Activity Scope and Objectives Research

1.3 Solution Methodology and Basic Project Defending Positions

It will be possible to apply the spline interpolation and

1.4 Brief overview of a threaded connections theory

Chapter2 Casing Threaded Connections

Chapter2 Casing Threaded Connections

Chapter2 Casing Threaded Connections

Chapter2 Casing Threaded Connections

OTTG high integrity

Union joints TBO

2.3 Buttress Thread Casing Joint Strength.

Chapter2 Casing Threaded Connections

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

Chapter 3 Analysis Method 3.1 Analysis Methodology Selection

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

3.2 Finite Element Analysis Overview

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

functions defined on a finite number of subdomains.

The piece wise

3.5 Linear interpolation functions and assembly

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

1 [(X j Yk X k Y j )i + (X k Yi X i Yk ) j + (X i Y j X j Yi ) k ], 2 1 [(Y j Yk )i + (Yk Yi ) j + (Yi Yj ) k ], 2 = 2A 1 [(X k X j )i + (X i X k ) j + (X j X i ) k ]. 3 = 2A

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

Figure 5. A five-element triangular assembly.

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

0 ( N 31) 0 ( N 32 ) 0 ( N 33) 0 ( N 34 ) 0 ( N 35)

U1 0 U2 0 U3 0 U4 0 U 5 (3.11) 0 U6 . 0 U7 0 U8 ( N 64 ) U 9 0 U10 ( N 65 ) U11 U 12

Chapter3 Anakysis Method

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling 4.1 Experiment set up

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

4.2 The Finite Elements Description

Figure 6. Eight node plane element geometry.

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

Figure 7. Eight node solid brick element geometry.

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

The real stresses can be calculated via the formula:

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

Figure 8. Multilinear isotropic hardening rule.

4.4 Thread Joint Model Geometry Development

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

4.5 Contact Modeling Methodology

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling

KN = fEh where: f the coefficient of the contact compatibility; E Youngs modulus;