IADC/SPE 99074

A Re-examination of Drillpipe/Slip Mechanics

P. Paslay, Manatee; P.D. Pattillo, SPE, and P.D. Pattillo II, SPE, BP America; U.B. Sathuvalli, SPE, Blade Energy
Partners; and M.L. Payne, SPE, BP America

Copyright 2006, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Miami,
Florida, U.S.A., 2123 February 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC, SPE, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 1.972.952.9435.

Abstract
Current models of slip crushing treat the rotary slip as an
axisymmetric wedge that generates an axisymmetric radial
load on the drillpipe lateral surface. However, recent tests on
strain gauged drillpipe specimens suggest that this model does
not adequately capture the mechanical response of the
drillpipe. The tests show that drillpipe response is a complex
and non-axisymmetric function of slip geometry, friction
between the slip and the bowl in the rotary table, and the
mechanics of load transfer between the slip and drillpipe.
This paper presents a new model of slip behavior that
represents the slip system as a series of line loads. Analysis of
the suspended tubular under these forces and axial tension
leads to a limit load that characterizes slip crushing. A
corollary of this analysis is the minimum slip length required
to support a given axial tension.
Background
The failure of drillpipe in the region of contact between the
drillpipe and slips was first addressed by Reinhold and Spiri in
19591. This paper recognized that drillpipe is subjected to biaxial loading in the slip contact area. By treating the slip as an
immovable wedge between a rigid bowl and the hanging
drillpipe, a relation between the axial force on the drillpipe
and the transverse force exerted on it by the slips was derived.
The ratio of the transverse force to the axial force known as
the K-factor is given by
K=

W 1 BS tan
=
. .............................................. (1)
FzA
BS + tan

The angle of taper has been standardized by the API to 9o, 27,
45.
The average radial pressure on the drill pipe outer diameter
and the axial stress in the pipe beneath the slip toe are
estimated. This radial pressure is used to estimate the

tangential stress at the drillpipe inner diameter. Knowing the

tangential and axial stresses on the inner diameter of the
drillpipe (where the radial stress vanishes), the von Mises
equivalent (VME) stress criterion is used to estimate the axial
load at which the drillpipe begins to yield. The Reinhold-Spiri
formula for the slip crushing load is,
Fz , slip crush = Fzy

2
2

K do K do
1 + 1 +
+
2 L 2 L

................(2)

The predictions of Eq. (2) were compared with a limited series

of meticulous tests on 5 in., 19.5 ppf, Grade E drill pipe
loaded in standard and extended length manual slips2.
Until recently, Eq. (2) has been used to calculate slip
crushing loads for drillpipe and casing hung in rotary slips,
and sometimes to calculate the loads exerted by packers on
tubing. Eq. (2) is based on a statically determinate analysis of
a conical wedge, a consequence of which is that the peak
stress is always on the drillpipe inner diameter in the vicinity
of the slip toe. An unstated consequence of the assumptions
leading to Eq. (2) is that the drillpipe stress distribution is
axisymmetric. This theory thus implies that the peak stress
region is a circle on the drillpipe inner diameter in the plane of
the slip toe.
Following the work by Reinhold and Spiri1 and Vreeland2.
in the late 1950s, slip crushing analysis received little attention
until 1985. A 1985 paper by Hayatdavoudi discusses the
principles of slip insert design to reduce probability of
yielding in the pipe3. The work includes representation of
strain gage data from slip crush tests on 9-5/8 in., 53.5 ppf
casing. Though the paper does not contain the details of
testing, the data presented in this paper indicates that the
deformation of the casing inner diameter above the toe of the
slip is larger than the deformation near the top of the slip.
Focus on drillpipe slip crushing was renewed in the late
1990s with the rapid development of deepwater fields in the
Gulf of Mexico. Anecdotal evidence from several deepwater
operators and results of tests by equipment manufacturers
seemed to indicate that the Reinhold-Spiri formula may not be
a conservative estimate of drillpipe slip crushing capacity if
initial yielding is applied as the limit condition. In 2002
Sathuvalli et al. reviewed all available test data and the current
state of the art4. Based on examination of best available data
and limited heuristic modeling of slip-drillpipe interaction, the
paper concluded that yielding on the drillpipe inner diameter

initiated at values around 20% less than that predicted by Eq.

(2).
The non-conservative aspect of Eq. (2) posed a serious
constraint to the design of deepwater drillstrings, where hook
loads in the range of 750 klbf to 1,000 klbf are not uncommon.
This prompted a closer examination of the theoretical basis of
the Reinhold-Spiri equation4 and a program of full scale tests
to examine the performance of drillpipe and landing string
joints (typically 5-7/8 in. and 6-5/8 in. outside diameter)
loaded in different types of slip systems (both manual and
power slips). In February 2004, this led to full scale testing in
which the drillpipe was strain gaged extensively on the ID (see
Figs. 1 and 2)5. This effort was followed by a proprietary joint
industry project in which slip systems from various
manufacturers were tested.
Those results are not being
disclosed in this paper and the authors hope they can be the
subject of a future publication by the JIP participants.

Fig. 1 Typical Strain Gage Layout and Axial Load Transfer in a

Slip System

IADC/SPE 99074

condition of the mating surfaces at the slip-bowl interface, and

point to the following general observations:
1. Hoop stress in drillpipe is not axisymmetric.
2. The axial and hoop stress do not always vary
monotonically across the length of the drillpipe in the
slip-contact region.
3. The peak stresses in the drillpipe typically occur
along an axial plane, i.e. along a line on the drillpipe
inner diameter parallel to the drillpipe axis. This
plane usually coincides with a gap between slip insert
carriers. The peak stress decays with circumferential
distance on either side of this line of peak stress.
These peak stresses do not necessarily occur at the
toe of the slip as predicted by the Reinhold-Spiri
formula.
This series of tests has demonstrated discrepancies
between current practice/theoretical understanding and the
industrys predictive capability with respect to slip crushing
mechanics. The analysis of strain gage data reveals that the
peak stresses may not be confined to a single cross sectional
plane on the drillpipe inner diameter, as predicted by
conventional theory. Rather, yielding begins on the inner
diameter along a line parallel to the drillpipe axis. This line of
yielding corresponds to a gap between the slip insert carriers.
Though initial yield is indicated at loads below that predicted
by Eq. (2), the mechanics of slip crushing are such that the
yield failure mode is somewhat gradual and the system retains
reasonable stiffness and stability well after initial yield. The
post-yield behavior of the drillpipe under slip crushing has
provided a safety margin for the industry and prevented more
serious problems in borderline operations.
Slip System Model
The slip system considered here contains n (= 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6)
identical slips situated symmetrically in a bowl. An axial
downward load is applied to the tubular in the slips and
through the action of friction the slips slide downward and
inward in the bowl supporting the slips. Each slip is assumed
to apply the same radial load on the tubular. When the radial
loads are sufficiently large to support the axial load through
friction, the sliding stops and the slip system supports the axial
load.
14000
12000

pL

pL, lb/in

10000
8000
6000
TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED LOADS
NO AXIAL LOAD
6
YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x10 psi
POISSON'S RATIO = 0.3
YIELD POINT = 100,000 psi
WALL THICKNESS = 0.5 in
MEAN RADIUS = 3.0 in

4000
2000

Fig.2 Strain Gage Profiles in 6-5/8 in., 30.3 ppf, V-150 Drillpipe
Axially Loaded to 1,137 klbf

Preliminary analyses of results of tests described in

Reference 5 indicates that the mechanical behavior of the
drillpipe is a complex function of slip geometry and the

pL

0
0.025

0.05

0.075

0.1

0.125

0.15

0.175

0.2

0.225

0.25

w0, in.

Fig. 3 Line Load vs. Radial Displacement, Elastic, Perfectly

Plastic Material

IADC/SPE 99074

The loads applied to the tubular by the slips are modeled as

n line loads on the surface of the tubular parallel to the
tubular axis. The load per unit length on each slip is
designated by pL . In practical applications the radial loads
can cause yielding of the tubular material. The inset in Fig. 3
shows a case for n = 2. The curve in this figure has been
determined for pL being constant along the axial direction
and the axial extent of the loading is large compared to the
tubular diameter. The curve was found using the theory
described in the appendix and shows an important property of
the solution for an elastic, perfectly plastic material. As the
inward radial displacement increases, the value of pL reaches
a maximum value and then decreases. Under load controlled
conditions the maximum point on the curve is an unstable
point and the displacement will continue to grow beyond this
point.
24000

corresponding inward radial displacement with increasing

axial load.
The influence of tubular material work hardening is not
expected to be large for the ductile materials commonly used.
Figure 5 shows results for a bilinear work hardening material
for the same tubular dimensions as Fig. 4 and n = 6. This
figure confirms that for the usual tubular materials the
influence of work hardening is small.
Clearly, the load per unit length, pL , varies along the
radially loaded length of the slip. In the analysis presented
here the tubular radial displacement at a point along the loaded
length is determined from the value of pL at that point. The
plausibility of this procedure is justified by the well-known
shell theory solution shown in Fig. 6 where a uniform external
pressure has been applied over a finite length. The radial
displacement is seen to decay rapidly with distance away from
the loaded region.

AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 300,000 lb

0.0007

AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 100,000 lb

22000
20000

AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 500,000 lb

0.0006

18000
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 700,000 lb

0.0005

14000

0.0004

YOUNG'S MODULUS =30x10 psi

POISSON'S RATIO = 0.30
MEAN RADIUS = 3.00 in
WALL THICKNESS = 0.5 in
LOADED LENGTH = 15 in

AXIAL TENSILE LOAD = 900,000 lb

12000
10000

w, in.

pL, lb/in

16000

NUMBER OF LINE LOADS = 3

6
YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x10 psi
POISSON'S RATIO = 0.3
YIELD POINT = 100,000 psi
WALL THICKNESS = 0.5 in
MEAN RADIUS = 3.0 in

8000
6000
4000
2000

0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000

AXIAL TENSILE LOAD FOR PIPE YIELD (WITH pL = 0) = 942,500 lb

0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

-0.0001
-5

w0, in.

-2.5

2.5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

z, in.

Fig. 4 -

pL

vs.

w0

for Selected Values of Axial Load

55000

Fig. 6 Inward Radial Displacement vs. Axial Position along

Tubular, Tubular Loaded with 1000 psi External Pressure from z =
0 to z = 15 in.
160,000

50000

Application Minimum Theoretical Slip Length

Under the above assumptions it is possible to establish a
limiting condition called the minimum theoretical slip length,
Lmin . In order to derive the minimum slip length condition an
axial force equilibrium equation is introduced for incipient slip
in the form,

140,000
120,000

45000
40000

UTS = 100,000 psi

pL, lb/in

35000

NUMBER OF SLIPS = 6
TOTAL AXIAL FORCE ON PIPE = 600,000 lb
6
YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x10 psi
POISSON'S RATIO = 0.3
YIELD POINT = 100,000 psi
ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH = variable
PLASTIC STRAIN AT UTS = 0.094
WALL THICKNESS = 0.50 in
MEAN RADIUS OF PIPE = 3.0 in
-5
wO = 5x10 in

30000
25000
20000
15000

dFz
= TS npL . ............................................................(3)
dz

10000
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD FOR PIPE YIELD (WITH pL = 0) = 942,500 lb

5000
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

w0, in.

Fig. 5 -

pL

vs.

w0

for Selected Values of Ultimate Tensile

Strength

The loaded tubular also has an axial load that lessens its
ability to withstand inward radial loading. The derivation in
the appendix includes the equations necessary to determine
solutions including axial loads. Fig. 4 shows results for the
same tubular with n = 3 and several different axial loads.
Note the reduction of both the maximum load and the

The maximum inward radial loading on the tubular, pLMax ,

is a function of Fz that is determined numerically. Fig. 7
shows, for the slip system and tubular defined in the figure,
the relation of pLMax to Fz . The maximum value of Fz at z
= 0 is its pipe body yield strength (tubular cross-sectional area
multiplied by the yield stress). When this value is used as an
initial condition at z = 0 and the above differential equation is
integrated numerically to the point where Fz = 0, the dashed
curve in Figure 8 is obtained. The curve shows that Fz
vanishes when z = 10.23 in. This value of z is the shortest
length of slip that can apply an axial load sufficient to yield
the entire cross section of the tubular in the plane z = 0.

IADC/SPE 99074

For this case Eq. (2) becomes,

100,000
90,000

Fz 0

80,000

pLMax, lb/in

70,000

NUMBER OF SLIPS = 3
6
YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x10 psi
POISSON'S RATIO = 0.30
YIELD POINT = 135,000 psi
MEAN RADIUS = 2.125 in
WALL THICKNESS = 0.75 in

50,000
40,000
30,000

BS =

20,000
AXIAL TENSILE LOAD FOR PIPE YIELD (WITH pL = 0) = 1,352,000 lb

10,000
0
0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000 1200000 1400000

FzA, lb

pLMax

vs.

FzA , Elastic, Perfectly Plastic Material

1.60E+06
NUMBER OF SLIPS = 3
6
YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30x10 psi
POISSON'S RATIO = 0.30
YIELD POINT = 135,000 psi
MEAN RADIUS = 2.125 in
WALL THICKNESS = 0.75 in
FRICTION COEFFICIENT = 0.5

1.40E+06
1.20E+06

Fz , lb

1.00E+06
10.23 - 6.19 = 4.04 in.

8.00E+05

FzA = 900,000 lb

6.00E+05

Fz0 = YIELD LIMIT

4.00E+05
Lmin = 6.19 in.

z = 10.23 in.

2.00E+05
0.00E+00
0

10

12

z, in.

Fig. 8 -

Fz

Distribution along Slip for

FzA =

900,000 lb, Elastic,

Perfectly Plastic Material

Normally, a design value for the slip system capacity load,

Fz 0 , is specified. In this case, the Fz versus z relation is
obtained by shifting the dashed curve in Fig. 8 parallel to the
z -axis until the ordinate of the shifted curve at z = 0 equals
Fz 0 . The case for Fz 0 = 900,000 lbf is shown as the solid
curve in Fig. 8. The dashed curve had to be shifted along the
z -axis by 4.04 inches so that Fz ( 0 ) = 900,000 lbf. The solid
curve meets the z -axis is at z = 6.19 in. and this value is
defined as the minimum theoretical slip length when Fz 0 =
900,000 lbf.
The limiting condition assumed for the calculation of the
minimum theoretical slip length assumes that at every point of
contact there is incipient slip between the tubular and the slips.
Let the total radial force on the tubular from the slip be, P , in
this limiting condition, so that
P=n

1 + BS cot
= TS ...........................................(6)
cot BS

so that,

60,000

Fig. 7 -

Lmin

pL dz .............................................................. (4)

and

TS = Fz 0 P .................................................................. (5)

TS cot 1
. ......................................................(7)
cot + TS

The relation between TS and BS is a result of regarding

the slip as an axisymmetric wedge. For an ideal wedge, Eqs.
(6) and (7) imply that BS , the coefficient of friction between
the slip and the bowl, should be equal to or less than the value
given by Eq. (7).
If BS is greater than the value given above, the slip
cannot grip the pipe, since the limiting condition for the
minimum slip length assumes incipient slip at the drillpipeslip interface. On the other hand, if BS is less than the value
given above, the radial force on the tubular might crush the
pipe. The design of the slip system is based on ensuring
better than incipient slip at the drillpipe-slip interface and
simultaneously preventing radial crushing of the pipe. Since
the value of TS to prevent incipient slip is governed by the
relative magnitudes of Fz 0 and P , and since the slips cannot
be treated as axisymmetric wedges, it is, very unlikely that Eq.
(7) will be satisfied in a real design.
The design goal should be to have the value of P as small
as practically possible. The average line load, pLAve , is,
pLine = P

nL

..................................................................(8)

where L is the length of each slip. The value of pLAve should

be compared to curves corresponding to Fig. 4 to ensure the
tubular will not be too damaged by the slips when the design
capacity of the slip system is reached.
Application Slip/Tubular Axial Load Distribution
In addition to the determination of the minimum theoretical
slip length, it is possible to estimate the axial load distribution
between the slips and the tubular. That is, still considering the
loads to be line loads, the intensity variation with distance
from the bottom of the slip is estimated. This analysis
accounts for the possible misalignment of the slips with
respect to the tubular. An angular misalignment, , is
introduced. When > 0, the bottom of the slip contacts the
tubular before the top of the slip. Results obtained by varying
this angle should help determine desirable limits on tolerance
in the design of the slip system. The axial load distribution is
found for cases where is held constant while the slip inward
radial displacement is increased in steps. For each step the
maximum axial load is found as TS n pL dz along the contact
length. The value for pL is found from curves similar to Fig.
4.
Fig. 9 shows the result of calculations based on the above
paragraph. In this figure the maximum axial load at the
bottom of the slip is plotted against the inward radial

IADC/SPE 99074

displacement. The different curves correspond to different

lengths of slips. The ordinates of the curves are assumed to
become constant once the maximum value is reached.
Obviously, the shorter slips can carry less maximum load than
the longer slips.

MAXIMUM AXIAL LOAD AT SLIP BOTTOM, lb

800000

20

NUMBERS ON CURVES GIVE THE LENGTHS OF THE SLIPS

600000
ANG = 0.500 deg
NUMBER OF LINE LOADS = 3
YOUNG'S MODULUS = 30E6 psi
POISSON'S RATIO = 0.3
YIELD POINT = 100,000 psi
WALL THICKNESS = 0.500 in
MEAN RADIUS = 3.000 in

500000
400000

15"

10"

300000
200000

5"

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

w 0, in

Fig. 9 Maximum Load on Tubular vs. Slip Inward Radial

Displacement for Different Slip Lengths

In Fig. 10 a fixed length of slip is considered and the load

distribution along the slip is shown. Each curve is for a
different inward radial displacement. The numbers on the
curves may be used to determine the maximum axial load
from Table 1 given below. Note that the abscissa of this curve
is distance measured from the top if the slip. Since the value
of > 0 for this case, the initial contact between the slip and
the tubular is at the bottom of the slip.
25000
1

EACH CURVE NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO AN AXIAL LOAD GIVEN IN TABLE 1

20000

pL, lb/in

15000

10000

5000
4
5

10

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

DISTANCE FROM TOP OF SLIPS, in.

Fig. 10 -

pL

Curves like those in Fig. 10 should be useful for setting

some of the manufacturing tolerances in the design of the slip
system.

lb
Fzy

100000
0
0.00

vs. Distance from the Top of the Slips, 3 Slips, Same

Data as Fig. 9, Except Length of Slips is 16.59 in.

Table 1 Maximum Axial Load for Curves in Fig. 10

Curve Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Axial Load, lb
537,000
537,000
531,000
491,000
415,000
338,000
259,000
180,000

101,000
30,000

Nomenclature
do
outside diameter of tubular, [L], in.
E
Young's modulus, [ML-1T-2], lb/in2
ez
axial strain, [L/L], in./in.
e
circumferential strain, [L/L], in./in.
Fz
tensile load on tubular at position z , [MLT-2], lb
FzA
applied tensile load on tubular, [MLT-2], lb
Fz , slip crush
Reinhold-Spiri slip crushing load, [MLT-2],

25"

700000

9
10

pipe body yield strength, [MLT-2], lb

Fz 0
design value of axial tensile load, [MLT-2], lb
h
thickness of shell, [L], in.
K
ratio of W to FzA
K
circumferential curvature, [L-1], 1/in.
Lmin
minimum theoretical slip length, [L], in.
L
slip length, [L], in.
N
displacement amplitude, [L], in.
number of line loads
n
P
total radial force on tubular from slip, [MLT-2], lb
Pe
perimeter, [L], in.
pL
line load magnitude, [MT-2], lb/in.
pLAve
average value of line load magnitude, [MT-2], lb/in.
pLMax maximum value of line load magnitude, [MT-2], lb/in.
R
radius of shell midsurface, [L], in.
r
radial coordinate, [L], in.
circumferential displacement, [L], in.
v
W
transverse load on tubular from slips, [MLT-2], lb
w
radial displacement, [L], in.
w0
amplitude term in expression for radial displacement,
[L], in.
z
axial position coordinate measured from the bottom
of the slip, [L], in.

slip taper angle, [-], rad

r
radial midsurface strain, [L/L], in./in.
z
axial midsurface strain, [L/L], in./in.

circumferential midsurface strain, [L/L], in./in.

plasticity parameter

Poisson's ratio

BS
TS

r
z

coefficient of friction between bowl and slip

coefficient of friction between tubular and slip
circumferential coordinate, [-], rad
radial stress, [ML-1T-2], lb/in2
axial stress, [ML-1T-2], lb/in2
circumferential stress, [ML-1T-2], lb/in2

IADC/SPE 99074

misalignment angle, [-], rad

distance from midsurface, [L], in.

References
1.

Reinhold, W. B.and Spiri, W. H.: Why does drill pipe fail

in the slip area?, World Oil (October 1959) 100.
Vreeland, T., Jr.: "Deformation of Drill Pipe Held in
Rotary Slips, ASME paper No. 61-PET-20, presented at
Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Conference, Kansas
City, Sept. 24-27, 1961.
Hayatdavoudi, A.: Elastic Yield of Casing Due to
Elevator/Spider System, paper SPE 13449 presented at the
1985 SPE/IADC Conference, New Orleans, March 6-8.
Sathuvalli, U. B., Payne, M. L, Shepard, Suryanarayana, P.
V., and Shepard, J.:
Advanced Slip Crushing
Considerations for Deepwater Drilling, SPEDC (2002)
210.
Payne, M. L, Pattillo, P.D., Driscoll, P. M., and Sathuvalli,
U. B.: Experimental Investigation of Drillpipe Loaded in
Slips, paper WTC 2005-63324, Proceedings of the ASME
World Tribology Congress III, Washington, D. C., Sept.
12-16, 2005.
Huang, N. C. and Pattillo, P. D.: "The Effect of
Length:Diameter Ratio on Collapse of Casing," Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology (May 1984) 160.
Sanders, J. L.: "Nonlinear Theories for Thin Shells,"
Quarterly of Applied Mathematics (1963) 21.
Timoshenko, S. F.: Theory of Elastic Stability, Second
Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, London (1961) 445.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.
7.
8.

Appendix Governing Equations

Infinite Shell with Axial Line Loads. Consider a circular
cylindrical shell of infinite length subjected to axial line loads
equally distributed at n locations around its circumference.
Neglecting rotations about the normal to the midsurface of the
shell, the circumferential midsurface strain can be written as6,7

v, + w
1
2
+ 2 ( w, + v ) ................................. (A-1)
2R
R

where a comma denotes differentiation with respect to the

subscripted quantity, that is, ( ) , = ( ) . The primary
interest here is with bending deformation. We shall therefore
assume an inextensional shell. Ideally, inextension would be
imposed locally by setting the circuferential strain, , equal
to zero at each location on the circumference. Unfortunately,
this leads to a nonlinear differential equation. As an
alternative, inextension will be invoked in two steps:
Locally, each position on the circumference is
required to adhere to the classic linear
inextensionality constraint8 which requires the
linear terms in Eq. (A-1) to vanish,
v, + w = 0 ................................................................ (A-2)

Globally (e.g. for the entire circumference), the

change in circumferential midsurface length
obtained by integrating Eq. (A-1) with constraint
(A-2) around the circumference is required to
vanish. Substituting Eq. (A-2) into Eq. (A-1),

1
2
v + v, ) ................................................. (A-3)
2 (
2R
Integrating Eq. (A-3) around the circumference
yields a non-zero strain which must be eliminated
by introducing a corrective or scaling strain that
renders zero in a global sense.

Inextension with an Assumed Displacement. Assume the

tangential displacement is of the form
v = N sin n ............................................................. (A-4)

where, as elsewhere, n is the number of line loads and N is a

constant. Then, from Eq. (A-2)
w = nN cos n ....................................................... (A-5)

and the hoop strain is given from Eq. (A-1) as

N 2 sin 2 ( n )
2R

(1 n )

2 2

...................................... (A-6)

Integrating the circumferential strain around the

circumference, the change in perimeter not accounted for by
the linear inextension equation is
2

Pe =

Rd =
0

N 2 (1 n 2 )

N 2 sin 2 ( n )
2R

(1 n )

2 2

Rd

....... (A-7)

2R

That is, under an assumed displacement of the form (A-4),

and the local linear inextension constraint of Eq. (A-2), a
circular cross section, as it deforms, will undergo an increase
in perimenter given by Eq. (A-7).
This additional extension is removed via the following
reasoning. Given the initial circular cross section, the change
in radius necessary to effect the change in perimeter given by
Eq. (A-7) is
N 2 (1 n 2 )
P
................................... (A-8)
R = e =
2
4R
2

Defining the Displacement Field. With the above results,

the radial displacement may be written as the sum of two
components a component (see Eq. (A-5)) compatible with
the assumed circumferential displacement, v , and linear
inextension, and a component (see Eq. (A-8)) sufficient to
render the cross section nonlinearly inextensible, at least in a
global sense,
w = nN cos ( n )

N 2 (1 n 2 )
4R

............................. (A-9)

Defining w0 = nN , the outward radial displacement is

given by
w = w0 cos ( n )

w0 2 (1 n 2 )
4n 2 R

.............................. (A-10)

The circumferential curvature is defined as

IADC/SPE 99074

K =

1
1
w, +v ) , = 2 ( w, + w ) .................. (A-11)
2 (
R
R

where the last step uses Eq. (A-2). Substituting Eq. (A-10)
into Eq. (A-11),
K =

(n

1) w0
(1 1 n2 ) w0 ............... (A-12)

+
cos
n

R2
4R

with the last term in brackets being smaller than the first by
the order of w0 R . This latter term will be ignored in future
expressions involving the circumferential curvature,
K =

(n

1) w0
R2

cos n .......................................... (A-13)

With the midsurface strain defined by Eq. (A-3), the

circumferential strain at any position through the wall
thickness a distance from the midsurface is given by

e = (1 + R )

( + K ) ( + K ) ............. (A-14)

or, using Eq. (A-4) and Eq. (A-10) in Eq. (A-1)

w 2 n2 1 2
( n2 1) w0 cos n ........ (A-15)

+
e = 0 2

R2
4 R n

Now consider a displacement controlled experiment where

the radial displacement is incremented by incrementing w0 .
The increment in circumferential strain is from Eq. (A-15)
1 n2 1 2
w
2
0
e =
w0 + ( n 1) cos n 2 ... (A-16)
2 n
R
This expression is important in the incremental solution
procedure to be described below.
Numerical Solution for Uniformly Loaded Element.
Consider a small element bounded by r and r + r , and
+ , and z and z + z , where r and are small
enough so the stress state in the element may be considered to
be uniform. Using the von Mises yield function, the
governing stress-strain equations for the element during
nontrivial plastic flow are,
E er r + + z =
1
( 2 r z )
3

.............................. (A-17)

E e + z + r =
1
( 2 z r )
3

.............................. (A-18)

E ez z + r + =
1
( 2 z r )
3

.............................. (A-19)

( 2 r z ) r + ( 2 z r )
+ ( 2 z r ) z = 0

.......... (A-20)

where the cylindrical coordinates are assumed to be aligned

with the principal directions of the stresses, and is
positive. When the above equations yield a non-positive value
for the increment has no plastic deformation and then
must be set to zero and the last equation deleted.
In the above, Eqs. (A-17) (A-19) state that the change of
the plastic strain component is proportional to the current
component of the corresponding deviatoric stress component.
Equation (A-20) constrains (to first order terms in the stress
changes) the von Mises stress to be unchanged during an
incremental change which has non-trivial plastic flow. As
written, Eq. (A-20) specifies perfectly plastic behavior, but a
similar development could be used to analyze a work
hardening material.
In keeping with the conventional treatment of thin shells,
the radial stress is assumed to vanish everywhere. The
increment of tangential strain for each element follows from
Eq. (A-16). The algorithm developed here uses a search
procedure to find the increment in axial strain. An assumed
value for the increment of the axial strain is chosen and the
assumed value is treated as a known quantity along with the
increment of the tangential strain. The incremental equations
may be written as

( 2 z ) ( 2 z )

1
( + z )
3
er
1
( 2 z )

=
3
z
1
( 2 z )

0
E e

E ez

0
................................................................. (A-21)

The solution proceeds as follows:

1. Starting with the results of the previous step, w0 is
known. Assume a value for w0 .
2. For a given calculation step with w0 and w0 fixed,
assume a trial value for z .
3. For each calculation cell (through the wall thickness
and around the circumference) compute e with
Eq. (A-16).
4. Using Eq. (A-21) compute , z and .
Repeat with = 0 if the first calculation results in a
negative value of .
5. Compute the increments in axial force and bending
moment on the cross section.
6. The search routine uses the increment in axial force
as the error and adjusts z (e.g. return to Step 2) in

IADC/SPE 99074

7.

order to reduce the absolute value of the error below

a small value. When this has been accomplished, the
work done through second order terms during the
change w0 owing to bending is calculated as the
sum for all the sections of the product of the moment
and the change of curvature. The work done on the
pipe by the axial external force and the line loads
must equal the work done by bending.
This completes the calculations for one increment in
w0 . Following this calculation, the stresses and
moments must be updated by adding the changes to
the values at the beginning of the preceding step.
Then calculation for another step can be commenced.