Lateral Buckling of Pipe With Connectors

in Horizontal Wells
R.F. Mitchell, Landmark Graphics

Summary
The effect of connectors on pipe buckling has only recently received attention. For nonbuckled pipe, Lubinski analyzed the effect of connectors on pipe in tension in a curved borehole, and
Paslay and Cernocky extended this analysis to pipe in compression. The first analysis of buckled pipe with connectors was done
by Mitchell, who developed a 3D analysis of helical buckling.
These papers indicate that bending stresses are greater because of
connector standoff.
Laterally buckled pipe with connectors is analyzed for the first
time in this paper. It presents an analytic solution of the beamcolumn equations in 3D in a horizontal wellbore with pipe weight.
Pipe deflections, contact loads, and bending stresses are determined with explicit formulas. Sag between connectors is calculated so that pipe body contact with the wellbore between connectors can be determined.
Applications include the analysis of bottomhole assemblies,
drillpipe, casing, and tubing. The solutions are simple formulas
that are suitable for hand calculations.
Introduction
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 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 PaslayDawson 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 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,1 and Paslay and Cernocky completed this analysis by analyzing the pipe in compression.2 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.
The next step, 3D buckling of pipes with connectors, was taken
by Mitchell.3 The problem formulation was similar to Lubinskis
buckling analysis for pipe without connectors4: the wellbore is
vertical and straight. The beam-column equations considered in the
plane buckling analysis1,2 were used, but now there were deflections out of the plane. A solution for helical buckling was developed that corresponded to Lubinskis solution for low axial compression but produced pipe sag and bending stress magnification
for higher axial loads. Calculation results included connector contact forces, bending stress magnification, maximum dogleg angle,
and pipe sag.
This new analysis takes the 3D buckling problem one step
further. The continuous contact problem for pipe buckling in deviated wells has been addressed by several authors.57 To extend
these concepts to connector analysis, the beam column equations

Copyright 2003 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 84950) was revised for publication from paper SPE 59146, first presented
at the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 2325 February. Original manuscript received for review 9 June 2000. Revised manuscript received 12 February 2003.
Manuscript peer approved 15 February 2003.

124

are solved for a horizontal well with lateral loads on the pipe.
Lateral buckling of the pipe is analyzed, with critical loads for
buckling initiation determined. Equilibrium lateral deflections are
determined, along with pipe sag between connectors, bending
stress, and contact loads. Conditions for positive contact forces are
determined and compared to buckling criteria, such as Paslay-Dawson.7
At the end of this paper is a complete nomenclature and reference list.
Background
In mechanical engineering, buckling is usually concerned with
stability. For example, The Euler column with pinned ends has a
stable configuration up to the axial load8:
Fcrit =

2 EI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
L2

For axial forces greater than Fcrit, the original straight pipe solution
is no longer stable, and the column may fail catastrophically. In a
horizontal wellbore, the situation is different.
The first difference is that the pipe weight stabilizes the pipe at
the bottom of a horizontal wellbore. Dawson and Paslay7 analyzed
this problem and determined that for buckling to occur, the axial
force must exceed the Paslay force Fp, where Fp is given by:
Fp =

4weEI
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
rc

where wethe buoyant pipe weight per foot, and rcthe pipe
radial clearance.
The second difference is that the wellbore constrains the pipe
after it buckles and allows the pipe to find a new equilibrium
position. The first post-buckling equilibrium solution discovered
was a helix,4 in which the contact forces developed between the
pipe and the wellbore balance the destabilizing axial force. Subsequent studies have determined lateral buckling solutions in
which pipe weight, in addition to contact forces, balances the
axial force.5
Connectors add a new element to buckling analysis. Contact
forces are now concentrated at the connector locations instead of
being distributed along the length of the pipe. A radial clearance is
associated with the connector as well as with the pipe body. For
lateral buckling, there are several possible configurations of buckled pipe. For instance, in Fig. 1 we see a half cycle of lateral
buckling consisting of two joints of pipe. Its not hard to imagine
configurations similar to this with many more joints of pipe. In all
of these configurations, we see a connector at the lowest point in
the wellbore and a connector at the highest point of deflection.
Other configurations seem possible, but all configurations are constrained by the following properties:
1. Connectors are tangent to the borehole.
2. Curvature is continuous at connectors.
3. Shear tangent to borehole wall is continuous.
What exactly do we mean by having the connectors tangent to the
wellbore? In Fig. 2, consider the connector as a cylinder rotated at
an angle relative to the centerline of the wellbore. Real connectors
are not simple cylinders, but this is close enough for discussion
purposes. The cylinder makes contact at two points and has moved
slightly toward the wellbore center, so pure contact and tangency
is not strictly possible. However, for small rotation angles we need
not consider these effects, but can model the connector as a point
contact with tangency to the wellbore wall.
June 2003 SPE Journal

Fig. 1Two-joint buckling configuration.

When two joints of pipe are joined together, two degrees of

freedom are added per pipe, but three degrees of freedom are
required to satisfy Conditions 2 and 3. The special configuration
shown in Fig. 1 automatically satisfies one of the bending moment
constraints, so there are enough degrees of freedom to satisfy
constraints 2 and 3. Other possible configurations must be tested
on a case-by-case basis to determine their validity.
Associated with each configuration will be a range of axial
forces in which the equilibrium solution is valid. In this case, as

the axial force increases, we assume that the configuration will

pass through cases with many connectors, eventually reaching
the case illustrated in Fig. 1. The reason we consider this case
is that it represents the configuration with the highest possible
axial force, and the worst case for bending stresses and pipe sag
between connectors.

Fig. 2Connector contact with the wellbore.

Fig. 3Coordinates for buckling analysis.

June 2003 SPE Journal

Beam-Column Solutions
The theoretical basis for the analysis of buckling in horizontal
wellbores is described in this section. Fig. 3 illustrates the coordinate system used in this analysis. Pipe deflections are in the 1

125

coordinate direction, which is lateral in the figure, and in the 2

coordinate direction, which is vertical in the figure. The axial
coordinate, which is out of the plane of the figure, corresponds
with pipe measured depth s. The beam-column equations corresponding to this coordinate system are3
d4

u
4 1

ds

F d2
u = 0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
EI ds2 1

d4

F d2
we
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
u
+
u =
2
4
2 2
EI
r
ds
ds
cEI
In this formulation ui is dimensionless (rcuithe net deflection in
the ith coordinate direction), Fthe axial buckling compressive
force, derivatives are with respect to axial length s, rcthe connector radial clearance, and wethe distributed lateral load. The
connector radial clearance is given by
1
rc = dh dc, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
2
where dhthe borehole diameter and dcthe connector diameter.
Implicit in this formulation is the assumption that lateral deflections are small and that second-order geometrical effects are negligible. If we define the dimensionless variable by the following
relationship, with F constant:

F
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
EI

=s

then, Eqs. 1 and 2 can be written

d4

where Fc =

EI
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
L2

Fc is proportional to the critical buckling load Fcrit for a beam,

where the proportionality constant depends on the specific boundary conditions of the problem (see Eq. 1). The ratio Fp/Fc is therefore a measure of the stabilizing effect of the pipe weight relative
to the destabilizing effect of the axial load.
The next step in resolving unknown degrees of freedom is to
connect one joint of pipe to another. The resulting laterally buckled
beam should have the following properties:
1. All connectors are in full borehole contact.
2. Curvature is continuous at connectors.
3. Shear tangent to borehole wall is continuous.
4. Contact forces between connector and wall are positive.
5. All pipe displacements lie within the borehole.
Conditions 1 and 2 are satisfied by the construction of Eqs. 9 and
10. Condition 3 requires that the angle must either be zero (no
buckling), or must satisfy the following condition (see Appendix A):

cos =

d2

d2
weEI 1 2
u
+
u =
= N p, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
4 2
2 2
d
d
rcF 2 4

u1 =

cos 12

. . (16)

rc 1 2
2sin(1 cos)
N +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
L 4 p
sin 2 + 2cos

Notice for the case of no deflection ( equal 0) that F0 equals weL,

the weight of the pipe joint. The contact force F1 is given by

d4

where Npthe Paslay number, Fp/F, as defined in Ref. 5.

For two displacement equations, there are eight unknown constants, which can be used to satisfy boundary conditions. The first
boundary conditions we want to consider are illustrated in Fig. 1.
In this figure, looking at lateral buckling, the pipe connectors are
tangent to the borehole wall. The following equations satisfy these
boundary conditions:

1 2
N sin 2 + 2cos sin
8 p

Contact forces developed between the connector and the borehole

are shown in Fig. 4. Contact force F0 is applied to the central
connector, while force F1 is applied at the deflected connectors.
The force F0 is given by
F0 = F

u1 + 2u1 = 0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
d 4
d

cos sin

F1 = F

rc
2cos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
L cos sin

Note that F1 is positive for max>>/2, where max satisfies

tan=. Eqs. 17 and 18 are developed in Appendix B. The required value of max is 4.493409458.

sin
cos sin, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
cos sin

1
u2 = 1 + t2 sin + t3cos 1 + N 2p2, . . . . . . . . (10)
8
where the value of evaluated at L:

F
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
EI

=L

where L equals the joint length, is a measure of the lateral

deflection (see Fig. 1), and where
1
sin1 cos
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
t2 = N 2p
8
sin 2 + 2cos
1 2
N sin
(1 cos)(1 cos)
8 p

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
and t3 =
cos 1
sin 2 + 2cos
Hidden in these results is the fact that Np is a function of
N 2p =

126

4weEI
2

rcF

Fp
4weEI L4 EI2
=
2
2
4
rc EI F L
Fc

4, . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)

Fig. 4Contact forces.

June 2003 SPE Journal

Fig. 5Critical buckling load.

Initiation of Buckling
Continuity of tangential shear has two possible solutions for ,
either sin0, or cos is given by Eq. 16. If Eq. 16 predicts
cos>1 (i.e., not possible), then the alternate condition 0 holds,
which means there is no buckling. If we look at the case of
cos1, this condition is satisfied at the initiation of buckling. For
this condition, Eq. 16 gives a relation between Fp/Fc and 0 (subscript 0 denotes buckling initiation):

Fp
Fc

830cos0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
0cos0 sin0

Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate this relationship for small values of Fp/Fc

and large values of Fp/Fc, respectively.
How does Eq. 19 relate to the Paslay-Dawson equation? If we
treat Np as an independent variable and solve for the maximum
value (see Appendix C), we get
F 0.9955 Fp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
Eq. 20 is the Paslay-Dawson equation for the buckling of a pipe
without connectors, but with the coefficient 0.9955 instead of the

coefficient 1. Why is the result different from Paslay-Dawson,

even though only slightly different? The first difference is that
Paslay posed a different problem, a buckled pipe with continuous
contact, whereas this problem has point contact with the wellbore.
Further, the presence of connectors allows the pipe to sag, a displacement not allowed in Paslays formulation. Generally, an increase in possible displacement degrees of freedom reduces the
buckling load. Nevertheless, it is comforting that this analysis
determines essentially the same requirement on axial force
as Paslay-Dawson.
Post-Buckling Displacements and Forces
In this section, we discuss the behavior of the beam column solution as axial force increases above the value needed to initiate
buckling. As axial force F increases, increases with the square
root of F. Results in this section will be presented in terms of ,
but the conversion to axial force F is clear.
Fig. 7 shows the lateral buckling motion (rcsin is the lateral
buckling width) as a function of for a range of initial buckling
values 0. There are several interesting trends shown in this figure.
First, the growth in is fairly rapid after buckling initiation. A

Fig. 6Critical buckling loadlarge Fp/Fc.

June 2003 SPE Journal

127

Fig. 7Theta vs. phi.

slight increase above the buckling load gives an angular width of

15 to 20. Second, increases above 90 for smaller values of 0.
Third, a maximum value of is obtained, after which decreases
for increased axial loads.
Fig. 8 shows the contact forces F0 and F1 as a function of for
a range of initial buckling values 0. Boundary Condition 4 requires that the contact forces be positive over the range of being
considered. Notice that at the initiation of buckling F0 and F1 must
be equal, because they cannot be distinguished in an unbuckled
pipe. As increases after buckling initiation, F0 decreases, passes
through a minimum, and then increases. For some values of 0, F0
takes on negative values at this minimum. Negative contact forces
are required for these cases because the stabilizing effect of the
pipe weight is being overcome by the destabilizing effect of the
axial force. A minimum value of 0 can be determined so that
F0>0 for all values of . Appendix D describes this calculation,
which finds the minimum value min1.9365656, required so that
F0>0 for 0>min, in the range (0, max). For stable lateral
buckling to occur, Fp must exceed 3.5744 Fc.

Figs. 9 through 12 show pipe displacements for a range of

values, 03.0, while Figs. 13 through 15 show pipe sag for the
same range of . In Fig. 9, lateral displacements for relatively
small values of are shown. In this figure, the maximum lateral
displacement occurs at the laterally displaced connector, though
for 3.5 we see the maximum displacement start to move away
from the connector. In Fig. 10 we see that the maximum lateral
displacement for larger values of now occurs more nearly at the
midpoint between the middle and lateral connectors. Further, we
see that the maximum lateral displacement exceeds the radial
clearance; that is, the pipe is moving beyond the connector centerline. Fig. 11 shows the vertical displacement for relatively small
values of . For the value near 0 (small lateral buckling), the
displacement shows the sag of the pipe because of the pipe weight.
As increases, the vertical displacements increase, and this trend
is continued in Fig. 12 for larger values of . Figs. 13 and 14 show
the pipe sag. By sag, we mean the maximum radial displacement
of the pipe, which equals the root mean square displacement. The
sag will generally be greater than 1, but if this ratio exceeds rp/rc,

Fig. 8Contact force vs. phi.

128

June 2003 SPE Journal

Fig. 9Lateral displacementsmall phi.

where rpthe radial clearance of the pipe body, then the pipe will
touch the borehole. When this happens, we violate boundary Condition 5, and the solution no longer remains valid. Post-contact
pipe behavior is beyond the scope of this analysis. Fig. 13 shows
pipe sag for relatively small values of , while Fig. 14 shows sag
for larger values of . Fig. 15 shows the maximum sag as a
function of . The maximum sag occurs nearly at the midpoint
between the middle connector and the laterally displaced connector.
Bending Stress. Bending moment is given by the following Eq. 7:
d2

Mi = EI 2ui i = 1,2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)

ds
From Eq. 9 we get the bending moments for the lateral solution
M1 =

rc F sin
sin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
cos sin

From Eq. 10, we get the bending moments for the vertical solution

1
M2 = rcF t2 sin t3 cos + N 2p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
4
While no bending stress curves will be shown here, note that the
bending stress is proportional to the bending moment

b =

Mdo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
2I

Figs. 16 through 22 show pipe bending moment (03.0) for a

range of values. Fig. 16 shows lateral bending moment as a
function of distance between connectors, for small values of ,
while Fig. 17 shows lateral bending moment for large values of .
Similarly, Fig. 18 shows vertical bending moment as a function of
distance between connectors for small values of , while Fig. 19
shows vertical bending moment for large values of . Figs. 20 and
21 show the total bending moment (i.e., magnitude of the bending

Fig. 10Lateral displacementlarge phi.

June 2003 SPE Journal

129

Fig. 11Vertical displacementssmall phi.

moment vector, which is the root mean square value) between

connectors, for small and large values of , respectively. For
near 3.0, the bending moment is caused by the weight of the pipe
suspended between the connectors. As increases, particularly for
greater than about 3.5, the bending moment is primarily determined by the buckling. Fig. 22 shows the trend in bending moment
as increases, with the moment going asymptotically to infinity as
approaches max. This value is never reached because pipeborehole contact would be reached before max, and this solution
would cease to be valid.
Sample Calculations
To illustrate the application of the analysis to a real problem, we
consider a 5-in., 19.5-ppf drillpipe in a 12.25-in. hole, with 12-ppg
mud in a horizontal borehole at 10,000 ft true vertical depth. The

properties of the pipe are summarized in the following:

Outside diameter 5.000 in.
Inside diameter

Tool joint OD

6.750 in.

Joint length

31.0 ft

4.276 in.

The moment of inertia I is given by

I = d 4o d i4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
64
To account for the buoyancy of the drilling mud, we need to
calculate an effective weight for the pipe. The effective weight we
is given by

Fig. 12Vertical displacementslarge phi.

130

June 2003 SPE Journal

Fig. 13Pipe sagsmall phi.

we = w m A, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
where m is the mud density in psi/ft and Athe pipe crosssectional area (in.2). Table 1 was developed from the pipe data.
First, we want to check to see if the pipe displacement is within
the wellbore. The maximum pipe sag is rp/rc, which equals 1.32,
which exceeds the calculated sag of 1.15, shown in Fig. 23, so the
pipe is within the wellbore. The pipe contact forces can be determined from Fig. 24, an enlarged version of Fig. 8 with 0 as
specified in Table 1. The center connector has contact force F0
equal to 564.8 lbf, and the lateral connector has a contact force F1
of 686.0 lbf. These contact forces compare to the buoyed pipe
weight of 502.5 lbf. The pipe bending moment is shown in Fig. 25,
with a maximum of about 3,062 ft-lbf at the deflected connector.
The maximum bending stress is given by Eq. 21:

b(3062ft-lbf)(12)do/(4I)3218 psi.

The dogleg severity equals the bending moment divided by EI.

For this case, converting units to degrees/100 feet, we get:

5.9/100 ft.
Conclusions and Observations
The lateral buckling of a beam with connectors has been formulated with the following features:
1. The wellbore is straight and horizontal.
2. Connectors are approximately in full tangential contact with the
borehole wall.
3. Beam bending moments are continuous at connectors.
4. Tangential shear is continuous at connectors.
5. Contact force between the wellbore and connectors is positive.
6. Pipe displacements lie within the wellbore.
7. Second-order geometrical effects are negligible.

Fig. 14Pipe saglarge phi.

June 2003 SPE Journal

131

Fig. 15Maximum pipe sag vs. phi.

The author believes that this solution represents the first exact
analytical solution of lateral buckling in a wellbore. From this
formulation we were able to develop bending stress in the pipe
body and contact forces at the connectors. These results assert that
the connector radial clearance should be used in lateral buckling
stability criteria, such as Dawson and Paslay,6 instead of the pipe
body radial clearance.
Before going further, we should consider the special nature of
this solution. The general problem of connecting beam-column
solutions together with connectors tangent to the borehole wall
does not always have a solution. The reason for this failure is that
each new beam adds only two degrees of freedom to the system,
but requires three boundary conditions to be satisfied (i.e., two
bending moments and one shear must be continuous at the connector). The special property of the solution presented in this paper
is that the moment boundary conditions are automatically satisfied
by the solution. This comes about because of the symmetrical
nature of the solution, as shown in Appendix A. Other symmetrical
solutions are possible; for instance, connectors could be moved to
the midpoints of the beams defined in this paper. The solution in
this paper represents the highest possible axial loads consistent

with lateral buckling. The existence of unsymmetrical solutions is

considered unlikely, but unsymmetrical solutions without connector tangency are possible. The existence of friction at the connectors may also play a role in satisfying the shear boundary condition, allowing additional valid solutions.
There are several new conditions established in this analysis
that must be met for a valid solution to the lateral buckling problem. First, to ensure that contact force F1>0, has to be in the
range (/2, 4.4934). For contact force F0>0, >0>1.93656,
which implies:
Fp 3.5744 Fc.
This condition required that the stabilizing Paslay force must exceed the destabilizing buckling critical load. The axial force values
for which the solution is valid is fairly narrow:
20.19 F Fc 3.75,
although lower values of F may be associated with multiple connector solutions.

Fig. 16Lateral bending momentsmall phi.

132

June 2003 SPE Journal

Fig. 17Lateral bending momentlarge phi.

The buckling models presented here and in Ref. 3 are only first
steps to a comprehensive model. The next step should be the
analysis of contact between beam and wellbore. In the planar
connector models, the pipe body made point and continuous contact as the axial force increased. Similar results are expected for
helical and lateral buckling solutions. Additional results are needed
for solutions in inclined wellbores. Because the axial load is not
constant for these cases, the exact displacement solution must now
be expressed in terms of integrals of Airy functions. Questions
about existence of solutions to boundary conditions become much
more difficult.
Nomenclature
dc pipe connector diameter, in.
dh borehole diameter, in.
do pipe body outside diameter, in.
E Youngs modulus, psi
EI the tubular bending stiffness, lbf-in.2

F
F0
F1
Fc
Fp
I
L
M
Mi
rc
rp
s
t2, t3
we

the axial compressive buckling force, lbf

central connector contact force, lbf
displaced connector contact force, lbf
critical column buckling force, lbf
the Paslay buckling force, lbf
pipe moment of inertia, in.4
the pipe joint length, ft
bending moment, ft-lbf
bending moment in the i direction, ft-lbf
the connector radial clearance, in.
the pipe body radial clearance, in.
measured depth, ft
coefficients in displacement formula
effective buoyed lateral distributed load in the pipe,
lbf/ft
angle between the pipe center and the 1 coordinate
axis

Fig. 18Vertical bending momentsmall phi.

June 2003 SPE Journal

133

Fig. 19Vertical bending momentlarge phi.

b
0

LF/EI
dimensionless length
bending stress
initial buckling value of
pipe curvature (degrees/100 ft)

References
1. Lubinski, A.: Fatigue of Range 3 Drill Pipe, Revue de lInstitut
Franais du Ptrole (MarchApril 1977) 32, 2.
2. Paslay, P.R. and Cernocky, E.P.: Bending Stress Magnification in
Constant Curvature Doglegs With Impact on Drillstring and Casing,
paper SPE 22547 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 69 October.
3. Mitchell, R.F.: Helical Buckling of Pipe With Connectors, paper SPE
52847 presented at the 1999 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 911 March.

4. Lubinski, A., Althouse, W.S., and Logan, J.L.: Helical Buckling of

Tubing Sealed in Packers, JPT (June 1962) 655; Trans., AIME, 225.
5. Mitchell, R.F.: Exact Analytical Solutions for Pipe Buckling in Vertical and Horizontal Wells, SPEJ (December 2002) 373.
6. Huang, N.C. and Pattillo, P.D.: Helical Buckling of a Tube in an
Inclined Borehole, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics
(2000) 35, 911.
7. Dawson, Rapier and Paslay, P.R.: Drillpipe Buckling in Inclined
Holes, JPT (October 1984) 1734.
8. Crandall, Stephen H. and Dahl, Norman C. (eds.): An Introduction to
the Mechanics of Solids, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York City
(1959) 360384.

Appendix AContinuous Curvature and

Tangential Shear at Connectors
The lateral displacement u1c and the vertical displacement u2c for
in the range [,2] are given by

Fig. 20Total bending momentsmall phi.

134

June 2003 SPE Journal

Fig. 21Total bending momentlarge phi.

u1c = u12 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)

u2c = u22 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
where u1 and u2 are given in Eqs. 7 and 8. Curvature for u1 is
clearly continuous because
d

u1c |= = 2u12 |= = 2u1 |= , . . . . . . . . (A-3)

d2
d
d
where the same argument also applies to u2. Notice that the slope
is continuous for u1 and u2, because the slope is zero, by the
boundary conditions. As a result, discontinuity in the shear is
caused by discontinuity in the third derivatives of u1 and u2. Because the third derivatives of u1 and u1c are related as follows:
d

u |=
3 1c

u 2
3 1

|= =

u |=
3 1

. . . . . . . (A-4)

(similar results for u2), clearly, transverse shear continuity will not
be automatically satisfied. Transverse shear continuity requires

d3

u
3 1

d3

u2 sin = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
d3
Rearranging and solving for cos gives
d

cos

(cos sin)
cos =

1 2
N sin 2 + 2cos sin
8 p

.
cos 12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)

Appendix BContact Forces

The contact force F1 is given by the following relation (note that
slope is continuous)8:
F1sin = EI

d3

u
3 1

d3

u
3 1c

rc d 3
= 2F
u | . . . . . . . (B-1)
L d3 1 =
s=L

ds
ds
Rearranging and solving for F1 gives
rc
2cos
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2)
F1 = F
L cos sin

Fig. 22Maximum bending moment vs. phi.

June 2003 SPE Journal

135

Using the definition of Np0, we can rewrite Eq. C-3 in a more

familiar form:
F 0.9955 Fp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-4)
Appendix DRestrictions on So F0>0
As indicated in the text, F0 has a minimum value for in the range
[/2,]. We can write an explicit equation for F0 using Eqs. 11,
12, and 18:

sincos 2 + 2cos 2sincos

F0L
= f = N 2p040
+
. . (D-1)
Frc 0
2(1 cos2
(1 cos2
We can find the extreme value of f0 by setting df0/d equal to zero
and solving for m
The contact force F0 is given by the following relation:
F0 = EI

d3

d3
u

u2
2p
ds3
ds3

rc d 3
d3
= F
u

u
L d3 2p d3 2
s=0

. . . . (B-3)

The displacement u2p() equals u2(-) for in the range [0,-].

Evaluating Eq. B-3 and solving for F0 gives

rc 1 2
2sin1 cos
N +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-4)
F0 = F
L 4 p
sin 2 + 2cos
Appendix CPaslay-Dawson Derivation
Continuity of tangential shear has two possible solutions for ,
either sin equals 0, or cos is given by Eq. 16. If we look at the
case of cos1, this condition is satisfied at the initiation of
buckling. For this condition, Eq. 16 gives the relation between Np0
and 0:
8cos0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-1)
N 2p0 =
0 0cos0 sin0
There is a local maximum of Np0 for 0 satisfying

0 = tan20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-2)

m3 m + 2m cosm sinm cosm

N 2p040 = 8 2
m1 + 2cosm + m sinmcosm 2 + 4cosm 4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-2)
and then substituting m back into f0:
f0m = 4mm1 + cosm + cos3m 3cosmsinm D, . . (D-3)
where
D = cosm 1 * m2 2cosm + 1 + m sinmcosm 2
+ 4cosm 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-4)
We wish the optimum value of f0 to be zero, so solving Eq. D-3
numerically, we get

m = 2.609890913, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-5)
which, when back substituted into Eq. D-2, gives

Fp
Fc

= 12.77654566 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-6)

A numerical solution of Eq. C-2 yields 02.13739114, and Eq.

C-1 gives for this value of 0

We now solve Eq. 19 numerically to obtain the value shown

in Eq. D-6:

N 2p0 1.00906. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-3)

min = 0m = 1.936565604 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D-7)

Fig. 23Sample problempipe sag.

136

June 2003 SPE Journal

Fig. 24Sample contact force vs. phi.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

in. 2.54*
E+00 cm
ft-lbf 1.355 818
E+00 Nm
lbf 4.448 222
E+00 N
psi 6.894757
E+00 kPa
* Conversion factor is exact.

Robert F. Mitchell is a Research Fellow in the R&D division of

Landmark Graphics. e-mail: rmitchell@lgc.com. He has published more than 50 papers on wellbore and well completion

problems, including wellbore thermal/flow simulation, drillstring

mechanics, tubing buckling analysis, arctic well completions,
tubular stress analysis, and borehole stability. Principal accomplishments include the first analysis of deep permafrost thaw
subsidence casing design, the comprehensive analysis of the
post-buckling equilibrium of tubulars, the prediction of annulus
fluid expansion pressures, and the accurate prediction of dynamic surge pressures. He was vice president of Enertech Engineering and Research Co. 198096 and worked at Exxon
Production Research Co. 197380. Mitchell holds BA, MME, and
PhD degrees from Rice U. He authored the casing and tubing
design chapter for the textbook Petroleum Well Construction
and is the drilling coeditor for SPE Petroleum Engineers Handbook. He has served as technical editor for SPE Computer Applications and SPEJ.

Fig. 25Sample problem total bending moment.

June 2003 SPE Journal

137