IADC/SPE 74488
Advanced Slip Crushing Considerations for Deepwater Drilling
U. B. Sathuvalli, Blade Energy Partners; M. L. Payne, BP; P. V. Suryanarayana, Blade Energy Partners;
J. Shepard, GlobalSantaFe
Copyright 2002, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,
Texas, 26–28 February 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the 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 or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the 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
01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Deepwater drilling trends are moving towards deeper water
depths as well as deeper exploration horizons and reservoirs
below the mudline. These trends have created various
operational and well design challenges. This paper addresses a
serious problem pertinent to the design of landing strings and
drill strings for deepwater operations. These strings are
designed to run long and heavy casings, tiebacks, or liners
(typically including deep intermediate and production
tubulars). The total weight of these strings may approach or
exceed 1,000 klbf at the mudline. Adding in the additional
weight of the landing string back to the rotary results in a
serious design problem regarding both the landing string itself
and the handling equipment. Slip-based handling systems
work well in most instances, but lead to bi-axial loading from
the tension and radial loads exerted by slip inserts. As a result
of biaxial loads, the axial load rating of the landing string is
reduced. The current understanding of slip crushing
phenomena is based on testing and modeling work dating to
1959. This paper examines recent tests in the light of more
advanced models and presents an improved understanding of
slip crushing loads.
1) Introduction
“As drilling depths continually increase and hydraulic
efficiency demands the use of 4 ½ or 5 in. OD drill pipe down
to completion depth, the vastly greater hook loads now
encountered are bringing attention to drill- pipe failures
occurring in the slip area.” These words form the opening
statement of a 1962 paper by Vreeland2. If the diameters are
changed to 5 7/8 in., the preceding statement reflects the
situation today.
The seriousness of drill pipe slip crushing due to bi-axial
loading in the slips is well recognized by operators and
drilling contractors. When the margin of overpull is small, the
factor by which the tensile capacity of the drill string is
reduced by slip loading must be known. In particular, due to
the larger OD drilling and landing strings, and heavier
weights, there is some uncertainty in the prediction of slip
crushing loads, and in designing them with adequate safety
factors. This uncertainty leads to the consideration of alternate
surface handling systems such as elevators and dual
shouldered landing strings. While there is often a legitimate
need to adopt alternate surface handling systems, especially in
deep water (as evidenced by the horizons in Gulf of Mexico),
there is a clear need to further understand the physics of slip
crushing. The current understanding of slip crushing is largely
based on a model developed in 19591 and tests reported in
19622. While it is clear that manufacturers of slips and vendors
of such equipment have a clearer understanding of the slip
crushing mechanisms, this knowledge is confined to
unpublished internal company reports on tests performed for
specific clients.
The purpose of this paper is to assemble all available data
regarding slip crushing and place them in the perspective of
current understanding. A secondary aim is to describe the
physics of the slip-drill pipe interaction in the some detail, i.e
extend the Reinhold-Spiri analysis1 to the next level.
This paper begins with a review of published work on this
problem and proceeds to describe the results of recent tests
made available to the authors by several organizations in the
industry. These results are described, interpreted and discussed
in the light of predictions of the Reinhold-Spiri model. Based
on this discussion, currently used test procedures are
reviewed. Finally, a more detailed analysis (developed in
Appendix A) is used to illustrate the physics of slip-drill pipe
interaction. An outcome of this analysis, a modified formula
for slip crushing load is compared with existing data.
2) Review of Previous Work
The failure of drill pipe in the region of contact between the
drill pipe and slips was first addressed by Reinhold and Spiri
in 19591. The chief contribution of this paper was the
recognition that drill pipe is subjected to bi-axial loading in
the slip contact area. By treating the slip as an immovable
wedge between a rigid bowl and the hanging drill pipe, a
2 SATHUVALLI, PAYNE, SURYANARAYANA, SHEPARD
relationship between the axial force (Fa ) on the drill pipe and
the transverse force (W) exerted on it by the slips was derived.
The ratio of the transverse force to the axial force is known as
the “transverse load factor” or simply the “K-factor.” The
average radial pressure on the drill pipe OD and the axial
stress in the pipe beneath the slip toe are estimated. This
“radial pressure” in turn is used to estimate the tangential
stress at the drill pipe ID. Knowing the tangential and axial
stresses on the ID of the drill pipe, the von Mises equivalent
(VME) stress criterion was used to estimate the axial load at
which the drill pipe ID begins to yield. This analysis resulted
in the well known Reinhold-Spiri formula for the slip crushing
load of drill pipe, which is currently used in the
drilling industry.
Additionally, significant work on this problem was
performed by Vreeland through a set of carefully engineered
experiments2. In his experiments, Vreeland studied the
behavior of eight joints of 5 in., 19.5 ppf, Grade E drill pipe
under slip loads. The test fixture was designed such that the
upper part of the test specimen (i.e. the drill pipe joint) was
placed in the slips while the lower part was connected to a
piston that exerted axial load via an end piece. Standard and
extended length slips in conjunction with standard API bowls
were used to hold the drill pipe in the upper fixture. Strain
gages to record hoop strain were installed on the inside of each
specimen at various distances from the bottom of the slip. In
each case, the reduction of ID was plotted as a function of
axial load. Prior to reaching the slip crushing load, the
reduction of ID is proportional to axial load. Since yielding
begins on the ID of the drill pipe, the load at which the slope
of the axial load versus ID reduction curve changes is a
measure of the slip crushing load. Based on eight tests, the
following major conclusions were made:
1. Under similar conditions, pipe held in standard and
extended length slips exhibits inelastic deformation at
nearly the same load; i.e. the slip crushing load is
essentially independent of the slip contact length;
2. Friction between the slip and bowl reduces the transverse
load factor, i.e. increases the axial load required to initiate
slip crushing,
3. The peak transverse stress occurs somewhere between 5
in. and 10 in. from the toe of standard slips and between
10 in. and 15 in. from the toe of extended length slips;
4. The Reinhold-Spiri formula is a reasonable prediction of
the slip crushing load, i.e. the experimental points fall on
either side of the theoretical prediction.
The work by Vreeland2 is significant for several reasons.
First, it represents the first and one of the only data sets
obtained from carefully planned and well engineered
experiments in the industry literature. The eight tests reported
in this work, in the opinion of the authors, are still some of the
best available test data on slip crushing loads. While slip crush
load tests have been conducted more recently, some of these
tests are useful for qualitative assessments only, and may not
afford accurate quantitative conclusions. In the 40 years since
this work was published, there have been limited published
papers that analyze the mechanics of pipe under the action of
IADC/SPE 74488
slip loads. The implications of the work by Vreeland and an
improved model to explain the mechanics of slip crushing are
discussed in further detail in sections 4 and 5.
Additional slip crushing work was performed by
Hayatdavoudi3 in 1985. This paper deals with the development
of theory to design slip inserts to reduce the probability of
yielding in the pipe. The work included representation of
strain gage data from slip crush tests on 9 5/8 in., 53.5 ppf
casing. Unfortunately, due to lack of detail about the test
procedure and actual data, it is difficult to derive specific
conclusions from this paper. Nevertheless, the data presented
in this paper indicates that the deformation of the casing ID
above the toe of the slip is larger than the deformation near the
top of the slip.
3) Discussion of Test Results
As noted, despite the importance of slip-crushing limits in the
design of deepwater drilling and landing strings, limited data
are available in the open literature. Frequently, tests have been
designed to verify performance of the slips rather than
accurately determine the slip-crushing limit of the pipe. In
such tests, slip crushing loads have to be derived from
inference rather than measurement. Even when the explicit
goal is the determination of slip-crushing loads, some tests
have been performed with limited attention to experimental
details such as dimensional measurements before and after
testing, mechanical properties, frictional conditions,
uncertainty assessment, calibration of sensors, etc. In this
light, the work of Vreeland is noteworthy for its attention to
detail in the collection, reduction and interpretation of data.
Nevertheless, it is important to analyze all available data to
further our understanding of slip crushing limits.
The following section describes the results of three sets of
tests performed by different organizations in the industry. To
preserve anonymity, the organizations and the tests performed
by them are simply designated by the letters A, B and C.
3.1) Test Set A
This test was performed in Fall 2000 on a single joint of 5 in.,
34 ppf, S-135 drill pipe and a modified 14 in., 750 ton slip
type elevator with extended arc slips. The slip contact length
for this type of slip is 18.375 in. The Reinhold-Spiri equation
predicts a slip crushing load of 1,162 klbf if a friction factor of
0.3 is assumed between the slip and bowl. This value reduces
to 1,108 klbf for a friction factor of 0.2. The test procedure
consisted of initially loading the specimen to 800 klbf.
Subsequently, the specimen was loaded in predetermined
increments to a maximum value of 1,200 klbf. The upper limit
on the axial load was based on an expected slip crushing load
of 1,147 klbf. The test procedure and report did not contain
information on the conditions at the slip-bowl interface, and it
is therefore difficult to estimate the friction factor. However, a
slip crushing load of 1,147 klbf corresponds to a friction factor
of 0.27. At the end of each load increment, the specimen was
drifted with a set of drift bars (with diameters ranging from
3.388 in. to 3.397 in.) to determine onset of yielding on the
inner surface. (The nominal ID for this specimen is 3.5 in.)
IADC/SPE 74488 ADVANCED SLIP CRUSHING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING
After the specimen was loaded to 1,200 klbf, the load was
cycled 100 times between 150 klbf and 1200 klbf during a 10
hour period. The specimen was drifted after every 5 or 10
cycles. Based on results of drifting, visual inspection, and
measurements of OD before and after the test, it was
concluded that yielding had occurred on the ID of the pipe
around 950 klbf. Unfortunately, lack of data to determine the
deformation of the drill pipe ID as a function of load, and the
absence of data regarding the condition of the slip-bowl
interface do not permit more general conclusions.
In addition, two other tests were performed on 5 ½ in., 38
ppf, S-135 drill pipe with proprietary slips. Unlike the 5 in.
sample, the 5 ½ in samples were strain gaged. While the
details of the testing procedure and loading sequence were not
available, results indicated that yielding occurred between
1,000 klbf and 1,200 klbf, which was less than the value of
1,260 klbf predicted by the Reinhold-Spiri equation for this
combination of drill pipe and slip. Based on these three tests,
and field observations, it was concluded that the slip crushing
load is 83.3% of the value predicted by the Reinhold-Spiri
model.
3.2) Test Set B
This series of five tests was performed in Summer 2001
per Table 1. The purpose of the tests was primarily to verify
slip performance. The data gathered and the test report suggest
that determination of slip crushing load may not have been an
explicit goal. This is indicated in tests 4 and 5 of Table 1,
where the tests were performed on solid 5 in. diameter
steel bars.
Strain gages were installed on specimens for tests 1
through 3. The test report does not describe the location of
strain gages. However, based on conversations with
participants who witnessed the test, the strain gages appear to
have been mounted on the OD of the specimens. The gages
were mounted so that the slips inflicted minimal damage.
Further all test specimens were covered with duct tape to
prevent damage from the slips. In each of the three tests, the
sample was loaded in tension, and the load and strain gage
readings were noted. The data from the strain gages was
provided in the test report.
The data from Test #1 was invalidated since the slip toes
were in contact with the tool joint of the specimen, (i.e. the
specimen was mounted upside down). Figure 1 shows selected
strain gage data from Test #2. The x-axis represents the
average of strain gage readings at a given location, while the
y-axis represents the axial load. At approximately, 1,200 klbf,
the strain gage readings indicate the beginning of yield in the
mid-slip region. Not surprisingly, the section below the slip
continues to exhibit a linear load versus deflection curve. If
the load versus strain gage readings for the “below slip” data,
are converted to stress versus strain data (using the geometry
for a 5 in., 34 ppf drill pipe), the slope of the curve turns out to
be 3 x 107 psi. However, visual inspection of Figure 1 (and
calculations) indicate that the slope of the load versus strain
curve for the mid-slip section is greater than the slope of the
curve for the section below the slips. Intuitively, the former
3
curve is expected to have a lesser slope. This is clearly an
artifact of bias errors in the load and strain gage readings. In
the absence of data about zero errors, strain gage locations,
etc., definitive conclusions cannot be made.
Figure 2 shows the hoop strain versus axial load in the mid
slip region for Test # 3. While strain gage 1 indicates a
departure from linear behavior at 600 klbf, it is difficult to
determine a sharp break from linearity based on data from
gages # 2 and 3. Figure 3 shows the behavior of hoop strain at
a different location in the mid slip region. As in test # 2, it is
not possible to make general conclusions. However, assuming
that the gages are located in the same cross sectional plane, the
data in Figure 3 seems to indicate progressive ovalization of
the drill pipe. Since the gages were mounted on the OD of the
drill pipe, departure from linearity cannot be interpreted, since
yielding begins on the ID and proceeds outward.
In summary, despite the availability of strain gage data,
due to lack of information about the location of strain gages,
and slip geometry, it is difficult to make engineering
conclusions from the data in these tests.
3.3) Test Set C
Table 2 shows the test matrix for this series of tests. A
schematic of the test-setup is shown in Figure 4. The drill pipe
is held within slips as shown, and two sets of ID sensors are
mounted inside the drill pipe. In the discussion that follows,
they are referred to as the top and bottom sensors. Each set of
sensors consists of three individual radial displacement
sensors, mounted at 120º azimuthal intervals. Though the
exact location of the sensors with respect to the geometry of
the slip was not recorded, discussion with personnel from the
test lab indicated that the bottom sensors were coincident with
the toe of the slip. However, the top sensors were placed
below the top of the slip contact length. Load is applied on to
the drill pipe, and load and radial displacement are recorded as
a function of time. Figure 5 shows the typical load sequence
(in particular, the figure shows the load sequence for the first
three target loads on a 5.5 in. specimen). The test is conducted
at progressively increasing target axial loads. For each target
load step, the load was slowly increased from zero to the
target load, held at the target load for a short period of time
(typically 2 to 4 mins), and then unloaded. During the entire
loading and unloading sequence, the load and radial
displacement measured by both sets of sensors was recorded.
Each curve represents the loading and unloading for one target
load. The loading and unloading from a single test is shown in
Figure 6 as a function of displacement. The hysteresis between
loading and unloading is very clear. It is important to observe
that this hysteresis is a consequence of friction and other non-
elastic effects on the displacement sensors, and not necessarily
indicative of yielding in the material. Before interpreting the
results of the tests, it is important to note that the loading
sequence described in Figure 5 roughly simulates the loading
in the field as drilling proceeds, and joints are added to
the string.
4 SATHUVALLI, PAYNE, SURYANARAYANA, SHEPARD
3.4) Interpretation of data from Test Set C
As noted, the test procedure used sensors to measure radial
displacement. Only the sensing ends of these sensors were in
contact with the drill pipe ID. The other end of each sensor is,
(though in principle stationary), likely to move. Thus the
accuracy and uncertainty of these sensors is likely to impact
the quantitative evaluation of data. However, data from these
sensors can still be used in a qualitative sense to indicate
departure from expected trends, rather than provide
quantitative estimates for radial displacement. It is important
to recognize this at the outset, since the displacement
resolution is of the order 10-3 inches (1 mil). Though the
standard practice to measure strains of these magnitudes is by
the use of strain gage rosettes, it is clear that the small ID of
the specimens makes the installation of strain gages on the ID
very difficult, if not impossible. Ensuring that the strain gage
is also located at the location of maximum stress is an even
further challenge.
Figure 7 illustrates the raw displacement data as recorded
by each of the three bottom sensors, for a single target load
test. Although the trends are reasonable, the significant
difference between each of the displacement sensors is
possibly due to a combination of asymmetry in loading,
measurement errors of each sensor and aberrations in
specimen geometry. Pre-test examination and measurements
indicated that the ID was more of a hexagon with rounded
edges than a circle. (A similar observation was made in the
report submitted for Test Set A). In addition, discussion with
personnel from the test lab indicated a certain amount
eccentricity in the ID bore.
Though sensor # 2 typically gave negative readings (as
shown in the figure) for most of the tests, there was no pattern
to the response and measurements of any of the sensors based
on the data provided (in spite of the fact that the only change
between tests was (presumably) a change in target loads). The
absolute sensor readings are unlikely to be useful in estimating
actual deformations, especially in the absence of information
on the calibration, accuracy and uncertainty of each sensor.
However, the trends of displacement measurements can be
very useful in assessing slip crushing loads. Since the load
measurements are likely to be more accurate, they can be
relied upon. The load measurements at the start of each
experiment, (i.e. the load sensor reading at no load) provide an
indication of the zero bias error. This was used to obtain a
corrected load. For each test, it can be noted that the target
load was held constant for several minutes. The load and the
displacement measured during this “constant load” time period
are estimated from the data. The load is the average of the
corrected load over the time period. Top and bottom
displacement measurements over the time period are also
averaged. Two averages are considered: the average of sensor
1 measurements over the time period and the average of all
three sensors over the time period. Pairs of load and
displacement are obtained this way for all target loads.
The interpretive exercise is then one of identifying the
axial load at which yielding just begins. This is indicated by a
departure from elastic behavior in a load-displacement curve.
IADC/SPE 74488
In this work, the point of departure from linearity is
interpreted as the onset of yield, and the axial load
corresponding to this point is the “slip crushing” load. In
order to obtain a clearer comparison of the top and bottom
sensor measurements, the average displacement is normalized
with respect to the first displacement measurement (for the
first target load).
The availability of bottom and top displacement
measurements is very useful to estimate the stress distribution
along the slip contact length. In particular, one goal of this
exercise is to identify the load at which yielding occurs at the
bottom and at the top locations. Figures 8 through 10 depict
the load-displacement results from the data on 5.5 in. tests.
Figure 8 shows the zero-corrected axial load vs. top and
bottom radial displacements from one top sensor and one
bottom sensor (sensor 1 in the raw data). Figure 9 shows the
relationship of the zero-corrected axial load with the average
top and bottom displacements. From Figure 8 we note that the
displacements measured by the top sensor are about 25%
greater in magnitude than that measured by the bottom sensor.
This is possibly due to the bias error in the sensors. As noted
earlier, this prevents the use of absolute displacement values
to derive quantitative conclusions.
Figure 9 shows that the average displacements (average of
the three individual sensor measurements) at the bottom and
top locations are closer to each other, as would be expected.
(Unfortunately, this is not always the case). A more
reasonable comparison can be made between top and bottom
displacements by normalizing average displacements as
described earlier. The zero-corrected axial (target) loads are
plotted against the normalized average top and bottom
displacements in Figure 10. Despite the displacement
inaccuracies, several important conclusions can be drawn from
the figures.
• The load-displacement behavior clearly indicates the
point of departure from linearity.
• Departure from linearity is evident at the bottom location,
while it appears that the load-displacement relationship
continues to be linear at the top location up to the
maximum target load tested.
• The axial load at which the departure occurs is the same
regardless of whether the point of departure is determined
from a single sensor measurement, average of three
sensors at each location, or the normalized average
displacement.
• According to Figure 10, for the tests on the 5.5 in. drill
pipe, departure from linearity occurs at an axial load of
1,058 klbf.
If the peak target loads (see Figure 5 for definition of
target load) are plotted as a function of displacement, slip
crushing appears to commence at the bottom location (the
highest slip crushing loads are at the bottom, or near the toe of
the slips), at an axial load of 1,058 klbf for the 5.5 in. drill pipe
Figure 11 shows the load versus normalized displacement for
the 5 in. drill pipe tests, and Figure 12 shows the results for the
6 5/8 in. drill pipe tests. Figure 11 clearly illustrates the onset
IADC/SPE 74488 ADVANCED SLIP CRUSHING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING
of yield at the bottom location before the top location yields.
In this case, yielding seems to initiate at the bottom at an axial
load of 1,157 klbf. However, Figure 12, which shows the
results for 6 5/8 in. drill pipe, displays considerable scatter in
the data. It is not clear where yield initiates, although the
bottom location curve seems to display a change in slope at
around 1,000 klbf.
From the preceding discussion, it is clear that the
uncertainty in the displacement measurements is responsible
for much of the scatter in the curves. Also to be noted is the
fact that the Figures 10 through 12 show the displacement at
the target load, as a function of changing target loads (i.e.,
different data sets). Importantly, recall (see Figure 5) that each
loading sequence is followed by unloading to zero load.
Besides introducing uncertainty in the data (due to hysteresis,
see Figure 6), the loading and unloading has a significant
implication on the determination of the slip crush load, i.e., the
point at which yielding first begins. This is discussed in more
detail in section 4.
Recall that the main interest is the point at which the load-
displacement curve departs from linearity (i.e., we are
interested in the trend, and not in the magnitude of the
displacement). This information can be obtained with less
exposure to sensor uncertainties between data sets by
examining the load-displacement behavior while loading
during any given test. In order to capture possible yielding,
the data sets of most use are those that have high target loads
(in excess of the possible yield initiation loads). This is shown
in Figure 13. The figure plots applied axial load against
normalized average radial displacement at the bottom location,
for all three drill pipe sizes, during the loading phase to the
predetermined target load. Data obtained while loading to
maximum target load were chosen for this figure.
From the figure, the departure from linearity can be
estimated as shown in column 3 of Table 3. Column 2 of this
table also shows the results obtained from Figures 10 through
12. As the table illustrates, the yield initiation load is much
lower than is indicated by the more “averaged” load based on
progressively increasing target load tests. Indeed, identical
yield initiation loads (shown in column 3 of Table 3) are
indicated when data from the loading phase of previous target
loads are analyzed.
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the load-displacement
behavior for the 5 in. and 5.5 in. drill pipe tests, respectively,
during three different load cycles. The 5 in. test results clearly
indicate the departure from linearity, in the neighborhood of
800 klbf in all cases. The 5.5 in. results are not as clearly
indicative of the departure, but the departure appears to be
between 850 and 900 klbf in all cases. Since yielding has
already occurred by the time the first of the three load cycles
depicted in the figures is completed, some form of strain
hardening and yield modification is likely, although this
cannot be indicated by the data being examined in this work.
Also noteworthy is the fact that in all the data analyzed, the
top location does not approach yield.
Table 4 shows the predicted values of the slip crushing
loads according to the Reinhold-Spiri formula. A comparison
5
of the values shown in Table 4 with those shown in Table 3
indicates that the test results according to column 2 of Table 3
show good agreement with the Reinhold – Spiri predictions
for a slip to bowl friction factor friction factor of 0.2. On the
other hand, if departure from linearity of the load
displacement curve is used as a criterion, the results shown in
column 3 of Table 3 (which are indicative of the slip crushing
load), are lower than the values predicted by the Reinhold
Spiri equations, by 30% for the 5 in . and 6 5/8 in. sizes, and
by 19% for the 5 ½ in. size. (These percentage reductions are
based on the calculated values for friction factor of 0.2).
Apart from the test results discussed so far, discussions
with drilling engineers in other organizations in the industry
indicate that tests on other slip – drill pipe configurations have
been performed. Unfortunately, the results of these tests have
not been published. Of these, the results of tests on 5 7/8 in.,
29.5 ppf, S-135 and 5 7/8 in., 26.68 ppf, S-135 drill pipe with
slips of contact length, 16 in., indicated slip crushing at 550
klbf and 630 klbf respectively. If a friction factor of 0.2 is
assumed, these test loads are 19.8% and 19.3% less than the
theoretical values respectively.
Though it appears, that there is not enough reliable test
data to clearly determine slip crushing loads, the available
results, when collated together seem to indicate that theoretical
values of the slip crushing load (as predicted by the Reinhold-
Spiri model) should perhaps be de-rated by a factor of 20%. In
order to conclusively establish, a de-rating/safety factor, the
need for experiments that account for statistical uncertainties,
minimize experimental errors, and use accurate procedures
is clear.
4) Test Procedures
A critical parameter in the Reinhold-Spiri formula that is
currently used to calculate the slip crushing load is the friction
factor at the slip-bowl interface. Though the commonly used
value for the friction factor is 0.2 (which results in a K-factor
of 2.64), the friction factor is known to vary widely depending
on the lubricant (pipe dope) and mechanical condition of the
mating surfaces of the slip and bowl. Discussions with slip
vendors indicate that, depending on the lubricant used friction
factors can vary as follows4: 0.197 for a type of proprietary
pipe dope, 0.27 for preservative oils, 0.274 for greased
surfaces, 0.286 for lightly oiled surfaces and 0.29 for dry
mating surfaces. The tests reported by Vreeland2 were
performed with dry and greased slips in API no. 3 bowls.
However, the effect of variable friction factor in the tests
discussed in section 3 is not apparent.
Secondly, the phenomenon of slip crushing results from bi-
axial loading of the drill pipe. Figure 16 compares the load-
deflection curves obtained when drill pipe is loaded in simple
tension and in slips. In simple tension, the behavior of the drill
pipe is represented by the curve OABD. The load is
proportional to deflection until point B when the stress in the
drill pipe reaches the yield point. The drill pipe fails
catastrophically at a slightly higher load (at point D, when the
stress in the drill pipe cross section equals the tensile strength
of the material). Importantly, the margin between the point of
6 SATHUVALLI, PAYNE, SURYANARAYANA, SHEPARD IADC/SPE 74488

yield (point B) and point of catastrophic failure (point D) is and photoelastic methods to determine stress and strain
not very large (and is roughly the cross sectional area times profiles may be considered.
the difference in tensile and yield strengths of the material). • Most importantly tests should be designed to assess
On the other hand, when drill pipe is loaded in slips, the statistical uncertainty of results, and enable determination
region near the toe of the slip is subjected to both radial and of a safety factor that can be used to de-rate theoretical
axial stress. The radial stress due to slips at the drill pipe OD values.
manifests as a large hoop stress on the ID. In general, the hoop Conversations with manufacturers of slips and drill pipe
stress on the ID is magnified by a factor of [2OD2/(OD2-ID2)]. handling equipment indicate that they have each performed
Therefore, the maximum VME stress occurs on the ID, and at extensive internal DVTs to qualify their equipment. As noted,
the slip crushing load, yielding begins at the ID and migrates this information has not been published, or easily accessible. It
outward. The load-deflection curve is linear until the slip is hoped that the aggressive exploration of deeper horizons,
crushing load (represented by point A in Figure 16) is reached. and the need to optimize drill strings and surface handling
At higher loads, an elastic-plastic boundary migrates outward, equipment will spur the need to discuss and share data related
and the load-deflection curve resembles AC. Beyond point A, to this problem in published literature.
the behavior is determined by the material stress strain curve.
Due to gradual migration of the plastic zone from the ID to the 5) Theoretical Considerations
OD, the slope of the curve in section AC is higher than the As noted in section 2, Reinhold and Spiri1 presented a
slope of the curve in section BD. This feature is clearly relationship between the axial force (Fa ) on the drill pipe and
illustrated in the results of the eight tests reported by the transverse force (W) exerted on it by the slips, i.e.,
Vreeland2. Specifically, Vreeland notes that “An increase in W = KFa (1a)
load of 100,000 lb over the yield load produces less than where K is the transverse load factor given by
0.005 in. permanent deformation” with standard and extended 1 − µ tan α
length slips in lubricated bowls. This is also evident in the K= (1b)
results of Test Set C discussed in this paper (see Figures 13, µ + tan α
14, and 15). Therefore, exceeding the slip crushing load does α is the slip angle and µ is the coefficient of friction between
not cause immediate catastrophic failure. However, note that the lateral surface of the slip and the bowl. The transverse load
the load at which catastrophic failure occurs during biaxial factor described by Eq. (1b) is widely known as the “K-factor”
loading (represented by point C), is less than the load required in the drilling industry. The axial and average radial stresses,
to cause total failure in simple tension. When the drill pipe is σa and σr,av on the drill pipe can now be determined from axial
unloaded, it unloads along the dashed line in Figure 16, and it and transverse forces described by Eqs. (1), so that
is permanently deformed. As demonstrated in tests by F
Vreeland, deformation of the cross section may not visibly σa = a (2)
A1
manifest on the OD till significant plasticization has occurred.
Thus, unless the test procedure is designed suitably, it is W  K 
σ r ,av =
=  Fa (3)
difficult to determine onset of yielding and by extension, the AL  AL 
slip crushing load. In this respect, the experiments reported in where, A1 is the cross sectional area of the drill pipe and AL is
Test Set C are noteworthy, since they illustrate onset of non- the slip to drill pipe contact area. By using Lame’s equations
linearity in the load-deflection curve in all instances. for a thick walled cylinder, the axial and hoop stresses on the
The preceding discussion suggests a few guidelines for ID of the drill pipe can be estimated from the radial stress
conducting slip crush tests that produce results that can be acting on drill pipe OD. Since the radial stress is a function of
interpreted quantitatively: the axial load, the axial load at which the VME stress at the ID
• Since the physics of slip crushing does not change with of the drill pipe reaches the stress required to cause yielding
slip/tubular geometries, it is preferable to choose large can be found. This load is the well known “slip crushing load”
diameter tubulars, so that strain gages may be installed at derived by Reinhold and Spiri1:
different ID locations. Care must be taken however to 1
choose tubulars with OD/WT ratios less than 10.  2
• Test procedures must be supplemented by data that  
describe the stress strain behavior of tubular steels. An  2 
Fa , slip crush = σ yp A1  2 
estimate of actual versus nominal values of yield and   2d o
2
2
KA1   2d o
2
KA1  
tensile strengths of the specimen must be known while 1
  +  1 +  +   
d o − d i AL   d o − d i AL  
 
2 2 2 2
interpreting results. Needless to add, pre-and post-test  
measurements of drill pipe and slip inserts should be .
recorded. ………. (4)
• While strain gages are by far the cheapest and reliable
transducers, other methods such as photosensitive paints, Apart from deriving Eq. (4), the work by Reinhold and Spiri1
suggested that the “maximum axial and transverse loads do
IADC/SPE 74488 ADVANCED SLIP CRUSHING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING 7

not act at the same cross section in the slip area.” They also
suggested qualitative distributions for the axial load and radial
pressure on the drill pipe in the slip contact region (see
Figure 17).
These profiles suggest that the axial force in the drill pipe
is a maximum at the toe of the slip and decreases towards the
top where it vanishes entirely. On the other hand, the
suggested radial profile looks like a flattened parabola, with
zero radial stress at the extremities of the slip contact region.
The profiles described in Figure 17 were based on intuitive
reasoning rather than theoretical analysis. To the best of the
authors’ knowledge, these profiles have only been partly
confirmed by some of the experimental data reported by
Vreeland2. In the Appendix to this paper, the mechanics of
slip loading is examined in some detail. An outcome of the
analysis is the distribution of axial and radial stresses in the
slip contact region that is discussed ahead. In addition, the
following formula is developed to estimate the slip
crushing load.
1
 2
 
Fa  2  pipe interface. The figure indicates that the VME stress at the
= 2 2 
σ yp
A1 
1 +  2d o
2
  2d o
2
 
  
  d 2 − d 2 K mod A1  + 1 + d 2 − d 2 K mod A1  
Mod Slip Crush
L
V3 = − (5j)
A1 E1
The theoretical basis for the above formula is discussed in
detail in Appendix A. The symbol definitions and geometry
are defined in the nomenclature and Figure A-1. Importantly,
note the similarity of Eq. (5a) with Eq. (4). Equation (5a) is
essentially identical to Eq. (4), with the factor (K/AL) replaced
by Kmod. The term Kmod defined by Eqs. (5b) through (5i) are
functions of the slip and drill pipe geometry alone. Also, note
that the definition for Kmod in Eq. (5b) incorporates the K-
factor, which is shown to be a consequence of the problem
geometry in Appendix A.
Figure 18 shows the axial and radial stress profiles in the
slip contact region, as predicted by the current model (Eqs.
(A-7)and (A-4b) in Appendix A). The radial stress as
predicted by Reinhold and Spiri in Eq. (3) is also shown. Note
that the axial stress and (therefore the axial force) is
reasonably similar to the profile suggested in Figure 17. The
radial stress profile is however different, especially at the
extremities of the slip contact length, where the radial stress is
clearly not equal to zero. In fact, the maximum radial stress
occurs at the toe of the slip. Figure 19 shows the stresses
caused at the drill pipe ID due to the stresses at the slip-drill
drill pipe ID is 135 kpsi at the toe of the slip, indicating the

initiation of yielding. The discrepancy between the radial

  o i   o i  
profile suggested by Reinhold and Spiri1 and the profile in
(5a)
Figure 17 can be explained by noting the difference in the slip-
where
drill pipe geometry assumed to derive the model in Appendix
Go 1  A versus the actual geometry of the slip.
K mod =  − θL  K . (5b)
πd sb sec α  L  The equations developed by Reinhold and Spiri as well as
2 those developed in Appendix A of this work, assume the
1 + ν  d sb  1 − ν
Go = +  
 (5c) geometry shown in Figure A-1. This configuration assumes
2  do  2 that the support from the bowl extends all along the length of
β − V1 + V3 L the slip-drill pipe interface. In reality however (see Figure 20),
θ= (5d) the slip-drill pipe contact area extends above and below the
(β − V1 )L2 − (γ − V2 ) slip. Consequently, the reaction on the slip OD at the slip
extremities is zero, and this causes a reduction in the radial
1  1  d st 2 − d o 2  d sb  d st − d o d sb + d o  stress above the peak values. As a result, the radial stress
β=  ln 2 − 
 2d ln d − d d − d

 profile is likely to resemble the skewed blue line shown in
πE 2 tan 2 α  2  d sb − d o
2
 o  sb o st o  Figure 17. The peak radial stress, will however be expected to
be much closer to the bottom of the slip, rather than inside,
(5e) thus implying the initiation of yielding in the vicinity of the
1 toe of the slip.
γ = IA (5f) This argument indicates the possible reason for the higher
2πE 2 tan 3 α
than observed predictions of slip crushing loads for tests
discussed in section 3. The Reinhold-Spiri formula implicitly
d sb + d o2  d (d − d sb ) 
2
 d st 2 − d o 2  uses a larger slip contact area than is truly available, and thus
I A = (d st − d sb ) − tanh −1  o 2 st  − d sb ln 2 
2 
do  d o − d st d sb   d sb − d o  underestimates the radial stress on the drill pipe OD. In reality,
most of the transverse stress on the drill pipe is a result of the
(5g)
horizontal component of the of the bowl reaction (see Figure
L2 A-1). The axial stress in the drill pipe decays rapidly with
V1 = − (5h)
2 A1 E1 distance from the slip toe, and the drill pipe sheds load onto
L3 the slips. The slip is essentially an elastic foundation that
V2 = − − (5i) transmits the radial component of the bowl reaction to the drill
3 A1 E1
pipe. Since the slip has the least thickness at the toe, it stores
8 SATHUVALLI, PAYNE, SURYANARAYANA, SHEPARD
the least amount of strain energy at the toe, and thus transmits
the largest stress to the drill pipe. It is therefore, conservative
to neglect sections of contact area at the slip-drill pipe
interface that extend above and below the rotary bowl. When
viewed in this light, conclusion # 1 (see section 2) obtained by
Vreeland2 which states that the crushing load is the same for
both standard and extended length slips can be justified, since
the maximum stress is likely to occur at the point
corresponding to the bottom of the bowl.
Finally, Table 5 shows the slip crushing loads as calculated
by Eqs. (5). Due to reasons explained in the preceding
paragraphs, a contact length of 12.75 in. was used in
estimating the values shown in this table. The values in this
table are 25 to 33 % lower than the Reinhold-Spiri predictions
for a friction factor of 0.2. However, the values shown in
Table 5 must be treated with caution due to the assumptions
involved in the derivation. The model in Appendix A must be
viewed only as a step ahead in understanding the mechanics of
slip loading and not as a final predictive formulation. Such an
outcome is possible after more testing that is supplemented by
further analysis, both finite element and otherwise.
6) Conclusions and Summary Statements
1. Deepwater drilling trends towards deeper wells and water
depths have created critical design issues around drill
strings, landing strings, and the associated slip crushing
limits on both.
2. Experimental study of slip crushing is complex.
Difficulties include:
• accurate measurement of ID stresses in drill pipe,
• locating peak stresses,
• accounting for asymmetric loads and stresses,
• system hysteresis,
• nonlinear elastic-plastic behavior,
• and sensitivity to and variations of interface friction.
Due to these complexities, limited quantitative data can
be derived from some test data sets to refine current
understanding of the precise mechanics of the problem.
3. Several slip crushing test projects have effectively served
only as specific proof tests on actual equipment tested.
Even normalization techniques, such as accounting for
variation between actual yield strength of tested drill pipe
versus the minimum yield strength that would be present
in field joints, have not been consistently applied in these
test programs.
4. Various aspects of existing slip crushing test procedures
have the potential to generate significant non-conservative
effects which would tend to overestimate the actual slip
crushing load. Fortunately, the mechanics of slip crushing
are such that the yield failure mode is somewhat gradual
and the system retains reasonable stiffness and stability
after initial yield. The post-yield behavior of the drill pipe
under slip crushing has provided a “safety net” to the
industry and certainly prevented more serious problems in
borderline operations.
IADC/SPE 74488
5. Herein, best available analysis of nearly all existing data
has been made. Results show variations between
matching the historical Reinhold-Spiri model (with a K
factor of 2.64) to results indicating a non-conservative
margin of ~20% in some cases. Through the development
of a more accurate slip crushing mechanics model, these
trends can be accounted for, since it clearly supports a
nonlinear stress distribution in the pipe, with the predicted
location of peak stresses being consistent with general
test observations.
6. With better quantification of actual friction factors, load
uniformity, and equipment tolerancing and fits, this new
slip crushing model and its underlying approach provide
an appropriate framework for much more accurate rating
of tubulars for slip crushing performance. Until such time
that these refinements are made and available, drilling
personnel should consider and implement appropriate
safety factors when dealing with marginal designs for slip
crushing scenarios.
7. As a result of the complexities of this problem and the
significant consequences of failure and/or equipment
damage, it is likely that alternative product and equipment
systems will gain in popularity. Such options currently
include enhanced design slip systems, “slip-proof” drill
pipe5, dual-elevator (shuttle-based) handling systems,
and machined dual shoulder drill pipe for elevator
only handling.
7) Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Dr Ed Bailey
of Stress Engineering Services, Mr Michael Breaux of Frank’s
Casing Crew, Ms Patricia Cimpson of BP, Mr Glenn
McFarland, Dr Kurt Vandervort and Mr Lane Wilson of H O
Mohr Engineering, Mr Robert Chou, Mr Dave Mason and Mr
Gregg Sentell of VARCO, Mr Joe Ramey of Access Oil
Tools and Mr Dave Carr of Houston Holloway for providing
information used in preparing this paper.
The authors also acknowledge the management of BP,
GlobalSantaFe and Blade Energy Partners for providing the
materials, time and funding to write this paper.
8) Nomenclature
A1 Cross sectional area of drill pipe, [L]2, in2
A2(z) Cross sectional area of slip at z, [L]2, in2
do Outer Diameter of drill pipe, [L], in
di Outer Diameter of drill pipe, [L], in
dsb OD of slip at toe, [L], in
dst OD of slip at top, [L], in
ds(z) OD of slip at distance z from toe, [L], in
E Modulus of elasticity, [M][L]-1 [T]-2 , psi
Fa Axial force on the drill pipe, [M][L] [T]-2, lbf
Go See Eq. (5c)
G(z) See Eq. (A-5b)
H1 See Eqs. (A-7) and (A-10a), [M][T]-2, lbf/in
H2 See Eqs. (A-7) and (A-10b), [M][L]-1[T]-2, psi
H3 See Eqs. (A-7) and (A-10c), [M][L][T]-2, lbf
IA See Eq. (5f), [L], in
IADC/SPE 74488 ADVANCED SLIP CRUSHING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING
K Transverse Load Factor (K-factor), see Eq. (1b)
Kmod Modified K-factor, See Eq. (5b), [L]-2, in-2
L Slip-drill pipe contact length, [L], in
N1(z) Force in drill pipe at z, [M][L] [T]-2, lbf
N2(z) Force in slip at z, [M][L] [T]-2, lbf
R Reaction at slip bowl interface, [M][L] [T]-2, lbf
S Outer lateral surface area of the slip, [L]2, in2
V1 See Eq. (5h), [M]-1[L][T]2, in2/lbf
V2 See Eq. (5i), [M]-1[L]2[T]2, in3/lbf
V3 See Eq. (5j), [M]-1[L]0 [T]2, in/lbf
W Transverse force on the drill pipe due to slips, lbf
z Distance from slip toe, [L], in
α Slip angle (see Figure 1), radian
β See Eq. (5e), [M]-1[L][T]2, in2/lbf
γ See Eq. (5f), [M]-1[L]2[T]2, in3/lbf
µ Coefficient of friction between slip and bowl
ν Poisson’s ratio
θ See Eq. (5d), [L]-2, in-
σa Axial stress in drill pipe, [M][L]-1 [T]-2 , psi
σR(z) Normal stress on slip OD, [M][L]-1 [T]-2 , psi
σR,r(z) See Fig. A-2 and Eq. (A-4), [M][L]-1 [T]-2 , psi
σr,av Average radial stress on drill pipe in the slip contact
area, , [M][L]-1 [T]-2 , psi
σw(z) Normal stress on drill pipe OD, [M][L]-1 [T]-2, psi
9) References
1. Reinhold, W. B.and Spiri, W. H., 1959, “Why does drill
pipe fail in the slip area?,” World Oil, October 1959, pp.
100-115
2. Vreeland, Jr., T., 1962, Deformation of Drill Pipe Held in
Rotary Silps,” ASME paper No. 61-PET-20, Presented at
Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Conference, Kansas
City, MO, Spetember 24-27, 1961 of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
3. Hayatdavoudi, A., 1985, “Elastic Yield of Casing Due to
Elevator/Spider System,” Paper SPE 13449, Presented at
the 1985 SPE/IADC Conference, New Orleans, March
6-8.
4. VARCO, 2000, “Failed Slips cause Investigation Report,”
Internal Company Report.
5. Wilson, G. E., 1996, “A New Drill Pipe Design Virtually
Eliminates Failures that result from Slip Damage,” Paper
SPE/IADC 35036, Presented at the 1996 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, March 12-15.
6. Timoshenko, S, and Goodier, J. N., 1963, Theory of
Elasticity, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company,
New York.
7. Roark, R. J. and Young, W. C., 1975, Formulas for Stress
and Strain, 5th Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company,
New York, pp. 470-471.
8. Ziegler, F., 1991, Mechanics of Solids and Fluids,
Sprnger Verlag, New York, pp. 242-243.
9
10) Appendix A: The mechanics of slip-drill pipe load
transfer
Figure A-1 shows the geometry of the drill pipe and slip
interaction. The hanging weight of the drill pipe below the slip
is transferred to the slips in the slip contact region AD. For the
purposes of this analysis, the bowl is assumed to be an integral
part of the rig floor (and therefore a member of infinite
stiffness) that can provide the reactive loads necessary to
support the hanging weight of the drill string. Force balance
on the drill pipe and slip, at a cross section ZZ’ perpendicular
to the drill pipe axis, requires that
F (a ) = N1 (z ) + N 2 (z ) , (A-1)
where N1(z) is the force in the drill pipe cross section at a
distance z from the slip toe, and N2(z) is the force at the same
location in the slip. Since the drill pipe supports all axial load
just below the toe of the slip and no axial load at the top of
the slip,
N1 (z = 0) = Fa (A-2a)
N1 (z = L ) = 0 . (A-2b)
Now consider the equilibrium of the slip, as shown in
Figure A-2. Note that the reaction force R and frictional force
µR at the slip bowl interface have been replaced by a normal
stress σR(z) and a shear force τ(z), which act on the elemental
lateral surface B’C’. Also, note that the shear stress on the slip
at the slip-drill pipe interface is replaced by equivalent forces
acting on the two cross sectional faces of the slip at z and z
+∆z. Vertical force equilibrium requires that
N 2 (z + ∆z ) − N 2 (z ) = [σ R (z ).∆S ]. sin α + µ [σ R (z ).∆S ]cos α .
By expressing the lateral surface area (see Figure A-2) of the
slice in terms of the slip geometry, the above equation
simplifies to
∂N 2 (z )
= σ R (z )[µ cos α + sin α ].πd s (z ). sec α .
∂z
Recognizing that Eq. (A-1) implies
∂N 2 (z ) ∂N (z )
=− 1 ,
∂z ∂z
the normal stress at the slip-bowl interface is obtained
as follows:
1 1 ∂N1 (z )
σ R (z ) = − . (A-3)
πd s (z ). sec α [µ cos α + sin α ] ∂z
Having determined the normal stress at the slip bowl interface,
the radial stress on the outer surface of slip σR,r(z) is obtained
by resolving the normal and shear forces shown in Figure A-2
in the radial direction, so that
1  cos α − µ sin α  ∂N 1 (z )
σ R ,r ( z ) = − . (A-4a)
πd s (z ). secα  µ cos α + sin α  ∂z
Note that the term enclosed in square parentheses on the right
hand side of the above equation is the K-factor obtained by
Spiri and Reinhold in Eq. (1b) in the body of the paper.
Therefore,
K ∂N1 (z )
σ R ,r ( z ) = − . (A-4b)
πd s (z ). secα ∂z
10 SATHUVALLI, PAYNE, SURYANARAYANA, SHEPARD IADC/SPE 74488

The slip is a thick walled hollow frustrum of a cone subjected that the integral of the radial component of the stress acting at
to the loads described in Figure A-1. To obtain the radial the slip bowl interface reduces to Eq. (1a), i.e.
stress at the slip-drill pipe interface, the problem of a thick W = ∫ σ R ,r (z )∆S . = KFa (A-6b)
walled conical frustrum should be solved. The solution to the BC

behavior of thin walled conical shells under different loads can
be found by using the theory of plates and shells6, 7. However,
the slip is a thick walled shell, and the solutions borrowed
from thin walled shell theory are not applicable (apart from
being cumbersome). It is therefore proposed that an
approximate solution be used, by assuming that the element of
slip shown in Figure A-2 can be treated as a thick walled
cylinder in plane strain6. That this approach yields a
conservative (or upper bound) solution on the radial stress
distribution at the drill pipe-slip interface can be shown.
Therefore, referring to Figure A-3, note that the problem is
now governed by the Lame equations for a thick walled
cylinder. By knowing the radial stress on the outer boundary
of the element of the slip in Figure A-3, the pressure on the
inner boundary can be determined. For present purposes, it is
assumed that the bowl is infinitely stiff and zero radial
displacements at the OD of the slip are prescribed. The Lame
equations show that the radial displacement at the outer
boundary, u(b), of a thick walled cylinder (in plane stress)
with inner radius a and outer radius b is given by
1  a2
u (b ) = ( p − p )(1 + v ) +
pi a 2 − p o b 2
(1 −ν )b
 2
E b − a 2 i o
(b − a )
2 2
where pi and po are the internal and external pressures, and E
and ν denote the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio
respectively. By substituting, σw(z) for pi, σR,r(z) for po, do/2
for a and ds(z)/2 for b in the above equation and setting
u(b)=0, the radial stress at the slip-drill pipe interface is
obtained as
σ w (z ) = G (z )σ R ,r (z )
where
1 + ν  d s (z )  1 −ν
2
Note that the truth of Eqs.(A-6) is a result of imposing the
boundary conditions described by Eq. (A-2). Further, note that
while the Reinhold-Spiri equations describe the essential
physics, they do not capture the distribution of stress in the
slip contact area.
To calculate the axial force profile, assume that the axial
force distribution is represented by a quadratic polynomial,
as follows:
N1 (z ) = −(H 1 z + H 2 z 2 + H 3 ) (A-7)
where H1, H2 and H3 are unknown constants to be determined.
A higher order polynomial can be assumed for the force
profile. However, the number of equations that can be used to
determine the unknown coefficients is limited. The present
approach is frequently used in the theory of beam columns,
where an algebraic polynomial is assumed to represent the
shape of the deflected beam. Since displacements/strains are
proportional to forces/stresses in the elastic range, the use of
Eq. (A-7) is justified. Since the force profile in the drill pipe
should satisfy the boundary conditions at the toe and top of the
slip, Eqs. (A-2a) and (A-2b) provide two equations. The third
equation to determine the unknown constants is obtained by
ensuring that the axial elongations of the drill pipe and slip are
 equal, i.e.,
L
N1 (z ) L
N 2 (z )
∫z=0 A1 E1 dz = ∫z=0 A2 (z )E2 dz . (A-8)
A1 and A2(z) denote the cross sectional area of the drill pipe
and the slip respectively. Also note that Eq. (A-8) has its
theoretical basis in Castigliano’s theorem. It can be derived by
calculating the complementary energy stored in the drill pipe
(A-5a) and slip, and setting its derivative with respect to either N1(z)
or N2(z) equal to zero, since the drill pipe and slip are at rest
with respect to each other. This special case of Castigliano’s

G (z ) = +  (A-5b) theorem is sometimes known as Menabrea’s theorem8. Finally,

2  do  2 in Eq. (A-8), the drill pipe and slip areas are given by
If the distribution of the axial force in the drill pipe N1(z) is
known, the radial and axial stresses in the drill pipe in the slip A1 =
π 2
4
(
do − di
2
) (A-9a)
contact region can be found. Before determining the axial
force distribution, the validity of the solution obtained is
π
4
[
A2 (z ) = d s (z ) − d o
2
]
2
(A-9b)
verified by estimating the vertical component of the forces
acting on the lateral surface of the slip, i.e., the vertical where ds(z) is the OD of the slip which is calculated from the
component RV of the reaction from the bowl, slip geometry as shown in Figure A-1. When the integrations
indicated in Eq. (A-8) are performed, three linear equations
RV = ∫ σ R (z ).∆S .(µ cos α + sin α )
BC
in H1, H2 and H3 are obtained. The solution of these
equations yields,
∂N1 (z )
L

=−∫ dz . (A-6a) 1 
z =0 ∂z H 1 (z ) = Fa  − θL  (A-10a)
L 
= N1 (z = 0) − N1 (z = L )
H 2 = θFa (A-10b)
By virtue of Eqs. (A-2), the right hand side of the above
equation equals Fa, thus satisfying force equilibrium. The H = − Fa
3
(A-10c)
horizontal component of the bowl reaction is the transverse where θ is defined by Eq. (5d) in the body of the text.
force W, calculated by Reinhold and Spiri. It can be verified
IADC/SPE 74488 ADVANCED SLIP CRUSHING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING 11

# Tubular Comments
1 5 ½ in., 24.7 ppf Grade unknown
2 5 in. 34.7 ppf Grade unknown
3 5 ½ in., 21.9 ppf Grade unknown
4 5 in. dia . mandrel Grade unknown
5 5 in. dia mandrel Grade unknown

Table 1 Test Matrix for tests by Organization B

0
(A proprietary slip with slip angle 9 27’ 45” was used. Slip
contact length is 16 in.)

Figure 1 Results from Test #2 of Table 1

Tubular Load Range, klbf

1 5 in., 38.01 ppf, S-135 950 - 1400
2 5 ½ in., 34.01 ppf, S-135 950-1350
3 6 5/8 in. 32.67 ppf, S-135 900 - 1150

Table 2 Test Matrix for Tests by Organization C

0
(Extended length slip with slip angle 9 27’ 45” was used. Slip
contact length is 16 in.)

Yield Initiation Yield Initiation

Drill Pipe OD Load1 Load2
(in) (kips) (kips)
5.0 1058 731 - 760
5.5 1157 851 - 860
6.625 1000? 790 - 830

Table 3 Summary Results for test Matrix in Table 2 Figure 2 Hoop strain at location 1 in mid-slip region, Test #3 of
1 Table 1
Yield Initiation at bottom location based on Figures 10-12
2
Yield initiation load based on Figures 13-15.
?. Data does not provide clear indication of yield initiation load

klbf
Friction Factor Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
0 817 872 679
0.1 988 1070 859
0.2 1083 1183 966
0.3 1141 1253 1035

Table 4 Predicted Slip Crushing Loads for specimens in Table 2

based on Reinhold-Spiri formula, Eq. (4)

klbf
Friction Factor Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
0 421 502 428
0.1 597 704 601
0.2 730 853 729
0.3 830 963 824

Table 5 Predicted Slip Crushing Loads for specimens in Table 2 Figure 3 Hoop strain at location 2 in mid-slip region, Test #3 of
based on Eq.(5a) Table 1
12 SATHUVALLI, PAYNE, SURYANARAYANA, SHEPARD IADC/SPE 74488

Bottom Displacement While Loading

1200

1000

800

Load (kips)
600 Sensor 1
Sensor 2
400 Sensor 3

200

0
-5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
-200
Displacement (mils)

Figure 7 Radial Displacement Measurements from Three

Displacement Sensors 120º Apart, at Bottom Location

5.5" Drill Pipe Load-Displacement Results

Figure 4 Schematic of test set up for matrix in Table 2
1500

1200 1400
Target Load = 950 kips

Axial Load (kips)

Target Load = 1000 kips
Target Load = 1050 kips 1300
1000

1200
Axial Load, Klbf (kips)

800
1100

600 1000

900
400
8 12 16 20
Displacement (mils)
200
Bottom Sensor 1 Top Sensor 1

Figure 8 Results for 5.5 in Drill Pipe Tests – Load vs Top and
0
10:27 10:30 10:33 10:36 10:39 10:42 10:45 10:48 10:50 10:53
Bottom Displacement from Single Sensor
Time, hh:mm

Figure 5 Typical Loading Sequence During Tests described in 5.5" Drill Pipe Load-Displacement Results
Table 2
1500
Loading and Unloading Cycle Illustration
1400
1200
Axial Load (kips)

1300
Target Load
1000
1200
800
Load (kips)

Loading 1100
600
1000
400
Unloading
900
200 8 12 16 20
Displacement (mils)
0
Bottom Sensors Average Top Sensors Average
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Displacement (mils) Figure 9 – Results for 5.5” Drill Pipe Tests- Load vs AverageTop
and Bottom Radial Displacements – Non Normalized
Sensor 1, Bottom

Figure 6 Typical loading and unloading sequence illustrating

hysteresis
IADC/SPE 74488 ADVANCED SLIP CRUSHING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING 13

1400
5.5" Drill Pipe Load-Displacement Results

1500 1200

1400
1000

Load (kips)
Axial Load (kips)

1300
800

1200
600
1100 5" test to 1350 kips
400 5.5" test to 1350 kips
1000 6 5/8" test to 1150 kips

200
900
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Normalized Displacement at Bottom Location
Normalized Displacement

Bottom Sensors Average Top Sensors Average

Figure 13 Normalized displacement while loading – all three sizes
Figure 10 – Results for 5.5” Drill Pipe Tests- Load vs Normalized
Top and Bottom Average Radial Displacements
1400
1300
5" DP Load-Displacement Results 1200
1100
1500 1000
900
1400

Load (kips)
800
1300 700
600
Load (kips)

1200
500
5-in test to 1000 kips
1100 400
5-in test to 1200 kips
300 5-in test to 1350 kips
1000 200
100
900
0
800 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
Normalized Displacement at Bottom Location
Normalized Displacement

Bottom Sensor Average Top Sensor Average

Figure 14 Load-Displacement while loading, 5” drill pipe, different
Figure 11 – Results for 5” Drill Pipe Tests- Load vs Normalized load cycles
Top and Bottom Average Radial Displacements
1400
6 5/8" Drill Pipe Load-Displacement Results
1200
1200
1000
1150
Load (kips)

1100 800
Axial Load (kips)

1050
600
1000

950 400 5.5" test to 1200 kips

5.5" test to 1250 kips
900
200 5.5" test to 1350 kips
850

800 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Normalized Displacement Normalized Displacement at Bottom Location

Bottom Sensors Average Top Sensors Average

Figure 12 – Results for 6 5/8” Drill Pipe Tests- Load vs Normalized Figure 15 Load-displacement while loading, 5.5” pipe, different
Top and Bottom Average Radial Displacements load cycles
14 SATHUVALLI, PAYNE, SURYANARAYANA, SHEPARD IADC/SPE 74488

Axial Load

D
B
C

O
Deflection

Figure 16 Typical Load -deflection curves for (uniaxial) tension Figure 19 Stresses at the drill pipe ID
loading (OABD) versus (biaxial) loading in slips (OAC)

Figure 17 Suggested distribution of force and stress in slip

1
contact area (after Reinhold and Spiri )
Figure 20 Typical Slip Geometry

d st
d s (z)

C D
N 1 (z) N 2 (z)
µR
Z Z' L

α R
z

B A 0
di r

do
d sb
Slip OD:
Figure 18 Stresses at the slip drill pipe interface d s (z)=d sb +2z tanα
Fa

Figure A-1 Slip and Drill Pipe Interaction

IADC/SPE 74488 ADVANCED SLIP CRUSHING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEEPWATER DRILLING 15

z
N 2 (z+ ∆ z)

d s (z+ ∆ z)

z+ ∆ z τ (z)= µσ R (z) ∆ S
C'
α
σ w (z)
σ R (z)
z B'

do N 2 (z)

d s (z)
∆ S= π d s (z). ∆ z.sec α
r

Figure A-2 Free body diagram for an axisymmetric slic of the slip

Slip OD, d s (z )

Drill Pipe OD, d o

σ w (z )
σ R ,r ( z )

Figure A-3 Top view of the slice of slip shown in Figure A-2