Helical Buckling of Pipe With Connectors and Torque
- Robert F. Mitchell (Landmark Graphics Corporation) | Stefan Z. Miska (U. of Tulsa)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Drilling & Completion
- Publication Date
- June 2006
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 108 - 115
- 2006. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 1.7.7 Cuttings Transport, 1.10.1 Drill string components and drilling tools (tubulars, jars, subs, stabilisers, reamers, etc), 1.14.1 Casing Design, 2 Well Completion, 1.6 Drilling Operations, 1.6.1 Drilling Operation Management, 1.10 Drilling Equipment, 1.6.3 Drilling Optimisation, 1.6.6 Directional Drilling
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 1,014 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 10.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 30.00|
It has been generally recognized that connectors (tool joints and couplings) should have some effect on the buckling of pipe. For instance, the connector outside diameter may be as much as 50% greater than the pipe-body diameter. As a result, the radial clearance of the connector can be substantially smaller than the radial clearance of the pipe body.
The analysis of buckling has received extensive attention in the last 20 years. The effect of connectors on pipe stresses has received somewhat less attention. Lubinski (1977) used the beam-column equations to analyze the effect of connectors on pipe-bending stresses for a pipe in tension in a 2D constant-curvature wellbore. Bending stresses were significantly magnified by the connector standoff. Paslay and Cernocky (1991) completed this analysis by analyzing the pipe in compression. Mitchell (2000) extended these results to 3D helical buckling.
Torque adds a new dimension to the buckling problem. Without torque, buckling occurs only for positive effective axial force (compressive axial force plus pressure effects). A pipe with applied torque can buckle in tension (Greenhill 1883). The contact force between pipe and wellbore can be increased or decreased, depending on the direction of the applied torque. And, of course, pipe used in rotary drilling always has applied torque—so buckling analysis without torque is not complete.
This paper looks at 3D buckling of pipes with connectors with applied torque. The problem formulation is similar to Lubinski et al.'s (1962) buckling analysis: the wellbore is vertical and straight. The beam-column equations considered in the plane-buckling analysis are used, but now there are deflections out of the plane. A solution for helical buckling is developed that produces pipe sag, maximum dogleg angle, contact force, and bending-stress magnification as a function of pipe effective axial force and torque. An application problem is solved, and the relative effects of compressive axial force and torque on sag between connectors, contact loads, and maximum bending stress are examined.
Applications include the analysis of bottomhole assemblies, drillpipe, casing, and tubing. The final results are simple enough to be suitable for spreadsheet calculations.
There are a number of practical design problems that involve buckling and post-buckling analysis of tubulars in wellbores. Pipe stresses, contact forces, length change, and maximum acceptable doglegs are strongly influenced by buckling.
Clearly, connectors should have an effect on the buckling of pipe. For instance, because the connector outside diameter may be as much as 50% greater than that of the pipe body, the wellbore radial clearance of the connector can be substantially smaller than the radial clearance of the pipe body. Buckling criteria such as the Paslay- Dawson formula depend on the radial clearance. Which radial clearance should be used? Should it be the pipe-body clearance or the connector clearance? Further, there should be a measurable effect of connectors on pipe stresses for axially loaded pipe.
There is limited analysis available on nonbuckled pipe with connectors. Lubinski (1977) used the beam-column equations to analyze the effect of connectors on pipe-bending stresses for a pipe in tension in a 2D constant-curvature wellbore, and Paslay and Cernocky (1991) completed this analysis by analyzing the pipe in compression. Pipe was found to be either suspended between connectors, in point contact with the wellbore, or in wrap contact with the wellbore, depending on the pipe tension. Bending stresses were significantly magnified by the connector standoff.
|File Size||525 KB||Number of Pages||8|
Dawson, R. and Paslay, P.R. 1984. Drillpipe Buckling in InclinedHoles. JPT 13 (11): 1,734-1,738; Trans., AIME, 277. SPE-11167-PA.
Duman, O.B., Miska, S., and Kuru, E. 2003. Effect of Tool Joints on ContactForce and Axial-Force Transfer in Horizontal Wellbores. SPEDC 18 (3):267-274. SPE-85775-PA.
Greenhill, A.G. 1883. On The Strength of Shafting When Exposed Both toTorsion and to Endthrust. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., London.
He, X. and Kyllingstad, A. 1995. Helical Buckling and Lock-UpConditions for Coiled Tubing in Curved Wells. SPEDC 10 (1): 10-15.SPE-25370-PA.
He, X., Halsey, G.W., and Kyllingstad, A. 1995. Interactions between Torque andHelical Buckling in Drilling. Paper SPE 30521 presented at the SPE AnnualTechnical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22-25 October.
Lubinski, A. 1977. Fatigue of Range 3 Drill Pipe. Revue de l'Inst. Françaisdu Pétrole 32 (March-April): 2-77.
Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.S., and Logan, J.L. 1962. Helical Buckling of Tubing Sealed inPackers. JPT (June): 655-670; Trans., AIME, 255. SPE-178-PA.
Miska, S. and Cunha, J.C. 1995a. Helical Buckling of Long Weightless StringsSubjected to Axial and Torsional Loads. Paper presented at the DrillingSymposium of the ASME Energy and Environment Expo ‘95, Houston, 29 January-1February.
Miska, S. and Cunha, J.C. 1995b. An Analysis of Helical Buckling ofTubulars Subjected to Axial and Torsional Loading in Inclined Wellbores.Paper SPE 29460 presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, OklahomaCity, Oklahoma, 2-4 April.
Mitchell, R.F. 1997. Effects ofWell Deviation on Helical Buckling. SPEDC 12 (1): 63-70. SPE-29462-PA.
Mitchell, R.F. 1999. A BucklingCriterion for Constant-Curvature Wellbores. SPEJ 4 (3): 349-352.SPE-57896-PA.
Mitchell, R.F. 2000. HelicalBuckling of Pipe with Connectors in Vertical Wells. SPEDC 15 (3): 162-166.SPE-65098-PA.
Mitchell, R.F. 2003a. LateralBuckling of Pipe with Connectors in Horizontal Wells. SPEJ 8(2):124-137. SPE-84950-PA.
Mitchell, R.F. 2003b. LateralBuckling of Pipe with Connectors in Curved Wellbores. SPEDC 18 (1): 22-32.SPE-81819-PA.
Paslay, P.R. 1994. StressAnalysis of Drillstrings. Paper SPE 27976 presented at the SPE U. of TulsaCentennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium, Tulsa, 29-31 August.
Paslay, P.R. and Cernocky, E.P. 1991. Bending Stress Magnification inConstant Curvature Doglegs With Impact on Drillstring and Casing. Paper SPE22547 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,6-9 October.
Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M. 1961. Theory of Elastic Stability. New YorkCity: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Wu, J. 1997. Torsional LoadEffect on Drill-String Buckling. Paper SPE 37477 presented at the SPEProduction Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9-11 March.