Using Large Drill Collars Successfully

~@~

w. ~ri..m.
SALW6-,,

QDC- A 1X#t2
x ~--.lVLti,

n.:],.,.

-1 llLU

n:..
lJi

Sam T. Crews, SPE-AIME,Drilco Div. of

-C

c-:*L
31111LlL

T.....-.

:--.1

l,akllii,,
Smith International, Inc.
V.

UL

llllC1

T--

l,,G.

Introduction
During recent years there has been a marked increase,
nl]mh~r
nf .AW.,
dPI=n
1+
w~r!dwide , . . . tht=
. ..v
.. -....
.
y hnla.
.,, WO AAIIA
W, ws.
A. i.
.0
easy to recall when a 171/2-in. hole to 1,000 ft, or a
121A-in. hole to 3,000 ft, was considered a deep, big
hole. Today, drilling programs often call for 8,000 to
9000 ft of 17~z -in. hole, and 13,000 to 15,000 ft of
12 M -in. hole. With all certainty, these hole depths
wiii increase in the years ahead<
Large-hole drilling at shallow depths generally does
not require high bit weights because the formations
near the surface are soft and drill easily. But at inCii3~Sd Ciepth&the CkERi fCKilKid@iS and higiier mud
weights require maximum bit weights if these largediameter holes are to be drilled economically. Today
it is not uncommon to find 9-, 10- and even 11-in. OD
drill collars in holes where 73A - and 8-in. OD collars
were once considered sufficient.
During the past 10 years the use of drill collars
above 8 in. in diameter has increased and will likely
continue to do so. Fig. 1 reflects this increase in the
use of big collars over a 9-year period. In the last 9
years there has been an 11-fold increase in bar sales
in the 9- to 1l-in. size range.
in

Advantages of Large Collars

This increased use of large drill collars can be attributed to an industry-wide awareness that performance
improves in large holes when small collars are replaced by maximum OD collars. This improved per-

As holes

are drilled

to greater

depths,

understanding

of the problems

problems

be solved,

criteria

can

and on the selection

AUGUST, 1970

~pr

auu

drill

collars

these large

collars,

drilling

capability.

Here

behind

LG

WG1

UOUIIGLLLUII

Hole Deviation
Theoretical work done in the 1950s by Lubinski and
Woods, and later verified under field conditions by
many drilling contractors, stated that three of the
prime factors affecting hole deviation are (1) clearance between the drill collars and the wall of the hole,
(2) stiffness and weight of the bottom drill collars,
and (3) weight on the bit. The hole-straightening force
is the pendulum effect created by the vertical component of the weight of the drill collars between the
bit and the first point of contact with the hole wall
above the bit. As drilling rate is a function of bit
weight, the value of large collars in drilling a straight,

in using

of an adequate

(0)

Weight Concentration
Drill collars are used primarily to supply usable weight
to the drill bit. This objective is best achieved when
the weight is concentrated as near the bit as possible.
Long strings of small collars lose much of their apparent weight through friction and buckling in the
hole. Advantages in weight concentration should be
obvious, considering that 14 collars 10 in. OD X 3 in.
.,--- ,.-.. ..
ID weigh I uz,uuu m, or exactiy the same as 25 coiiars
7% in. OD X 3 in. ID. The number of large collars
that can actually be run in specific areas is often tempered by down-hole conditions and drilling practices.

the use of larger

involved

lags far

formance is a result of (1) weight concentration, (2)

A.a.,;
.+;fimf.n-+.nl
---~1-.
uu
v.w.,,,
ti,, uu,, .-A (2) c-..,-. - ----+ :-- ~lUUIG1ll>.

increases;

but an

and of how the

is information

on design

connection.

999

TABLE
Hole
Angle

lDATA

FOR 121~-lN.

HOLE

Collar
Size
@l&

8
10

Bit Weight
(lb)
52,000

, .n firln
lLU,
UUW
42,000

10

93,000
OF TOTAL

500

~ 400
~

..:11

EM

Widl

%in.

dkrS

9 RANGE
10 RANGE
11 RANGE

1..
i3

64

YEAR

Fig. lincrease
in bar sales of Iarge-diameter drill collars
from 1960 to 1968 (from API summary
of drill-collar production).

,.:-.-:-

.h

,.,.

-O

2UkI

angle.
----1 n---...

PER CENT
R
F

near-vertical hole with maximum weight is emphasized by Table 1, extracted from Lubinski and
Woods discussion of mildly crooked holes. The data
indicate that for a given formation about twice as
much weight can be used on the bit with 10-in. collars
-. s S1111 IIliIlll Ldlll llIC XI1lIG k)!~

ilemalseu

UuIIIleclIull

d:--- ru.-.I.lHlH.
1 UUIC1llS

Many times have contractors refused to run crossover subs between drill-string components, on the
unwritten theory that the more connections in the
hole, the greater the odds for a fishing job. This logic
can be @ifiahly applied to the drdl collars themselves, as can be seen from the discussion on weight
concentration, only fourteen 10-in.-OD collars are
needed to supply as much wei~ht as twenty-five 7%in.-OD collars. This means that the number of locations where the stresses are high enough to cause
fatigue failure is reduced 44 percent.
Unfortunately. the use of large drill collars often
results in ri; level catastrophes rather than in benefits.
Case histories are numerous where the contractor has
visualized increased penetration rates with a prized
string of large new drill collars, only to encounter
dela~s and fi~hing jobs created by surprisingly rapid
fatigue failures or broad shoulders so severely galled
that a cutting torch is required to part the connections
on trips out of the hole.

Design and Torque Requirements of

Drill-Collar Connections for
Optimum Performance
If optimum performance is to be realized, the rotary
.hfi.,lA...A
>1,
ul&L*u

.~.
L1 =CRITICAL BOX LOCATION - %; F-

FACE OF BOX

L2 =CRITICAL PIN LOCATION-%

FROM FACE OF PIN

L3 =CRITICAL BOX LOCATION-%:

FROM END OF PIN

F =SHOULDER LOAD
Fig. 2 Location of sections and areas that affect
performance of rotary shouldered connections.

b ,

2.5

Fig. 3Location
of sections used to calculate section
modulus of the pin and box for estimating relative
capacity of the members to tolerate bending.

1000

cmpneptinn

.J>u-....

mllct
h~ decim~d
..-.,.
a--. . . . . . . -

~IId aSSern-

bled to satisfy two basic down-hole requirements:

1. It must have the capacity to absorb bending.
2. It must transmit the torque required to rotate
the bit,
If the desi~~ meets the first requirement, the second
requirement N generally no problem; therefore the
latter will not be discussed further.
Under down-hole conditions, the optimum connection must be able to absorb bending to the extent that
the shoulders never separate; and at the same time,
resistance to notch fatigue at the thread root must be
maintained at a maximum.
Fig. 2 illustrates the areas of the pin and box that
influence the ability of the connection to develop
sufficient shoulder loads to prevent shoulder separation and resistance to fatigue. In this figure,
L, = location of cross-sectional area of unbeveled box shoulder that influences
shoulder loading capability,
L, = location. in the root of the last engaged
pin thread, that influences pin fatigue
and shoulder loading capability,
L, = location of section in the box. through
the last engaged box thread root, that
influences box fatigue.
It is not our intent here to design an optimum connection, but rather to point out design criteria, formulas, and field and laboratory technology that may aid
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUhl TECHNOLOGY

in selecting the best connection available to satisfy

the requirements outlined above.

Steps To Foiiow in CinoosingOptimumComiectkiis

The four steps preparatory to designing and selecting
the optimum connection are the following:
1. Calculate the section modulus of the pin and
the box to establish the relative capacity of each member to resist bending fatigue.
2. Study the torsional balance between the pin and
the box and its effect on stress distribution and maximum shoulder loads.
3. Consider the effect of the magnitude of prestresses (buck-up stress) on cycles to failure and
shoulder separation.
4. Calculate shoulder loads, stresses at L,, L, (Fig.
2), and the torque requirements for buck-up.
Step 1. The relative capacity of the pin and box members of a connection to tolerate bending can be estimated by comparing the section modulus of the pin
and box at the locations where fatigue failures occur
(Fig. 3). Thus,

decreasing toward the 0D.3 It is a logical conclusion

that the magnitude of the shoulder stress at the bevel
diameter decreases as
the OD of the collar increases
and increases as the OD decreases.
From the foregoing discussion it will be apparent
that the best stress distribution across the shoulder
and the maximum shoulder load will occur if the ratio
of the compressive stress area of the box to the tensile
stress area of the pin is equal to 1. Then
Ab
=1,..........(2)
~
where
A b = compressive area of the box
the shoulder,

~s

in.

from

Ap = tensile area of the pin taken at the thread

root 3A in. from the shoulder.
Step 3. Referring to Fig. 5, in laboratory tests strain
gauge measurements have shown that the stress at
the last engaged pin thread root increases linearly
with bending moment until the shoulders between the

Section Modulus of Box = ~

Section Modulus of Pin

Field experience has indicated that under average

conditions a ratio of the section modulus equal to 2.5
will result in a connection composed of members with
equal capacity to resist bending fatigue.
With a highly corrosive drilling fluid, the corrosion
attacks the exposed box threads, and ratios of 3.00
or higher may be required for reasonable box fatigue
in -a nnnf-nrrncive
.life
..-. ~nnverw=lv
---- . -. -., , -.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . - drillinu
.-. -..-.=

flllicl
.. ---.,

Zn

2.5,

BUCKED-UP CONNECTION

ratinc
-----

as low as 2.23 may be used without excessive box

failures. Thus for average conditions,

Zb
=

..

Fig. 4-Bucked-up
connection shoulder stress distribution.
Buck-up stress decreases toward the bevel.

(1)

where
Zb = section modulus of the box calculated in
the root of the last engaged box thread.
This section approximates a point 376
in. from the end of the pin at buck-up.
2P = section modulus

of the pin calculated

at the thread root % in. from the
shoulder.

Step 2. For the shoulders to remain together, the

shoulder loading must be high enough to create a
compressive stress at the outer boundaries of the
shoulder face, capable of offsetting any down-hole
- lll&wlll
..-:---. ------- .4-a-- :..A..A....
A L.,
1llG
beadiag. buck-up should be developed only in the weaker member and should be held to the minimum value that will
prevent shoulder separation. When this average stress
is developed in the pin, the resulting shoulder load is
the maximum that can be developed at that stress level
for that particular connection and is a constant reLull

--.J1---

-s

tlvcl

ilgc

SL1

cm

lllUULGU

%>%
.

Sn = 62 J500Dsi

Uy

fin

gdlulcss (J1 Uu.

Fig. 4 is an illustration of the typical stress distribution across the shoulders of a bucked-up connection, with a higher stress at the counter-bore and
AUGUST, 1970

BENDING

MOMENT

Fig. 5-Effect
of buck-upon pin thread root stress
at various bending moments.
1001

pin and box begin to separate.3 When separation begins to occur, the stress at the pin thread root increases
rapidly in a nonlinear fashion. For two different
buck-up torques, the slopes of the root-stress vs bending-moment curves may be considered to coincide in
the lower linear section, and the slope remains linear
for the higher buck-up torques at the greater bending
moments.
If two connections bucked up to di.fIerent torques
were operating at the same bending moment and in
the linear section of the curve for both, failure would
occur at fewer bending cycles in the connection with
.. . . .
------ D... :s +l.a La..A:- mntnm?lt
me nlgner buck-up S[ESS. DUL 11 LUG UCMULU5 ,,,UUIWU.
were such that shoulder separation occurred in the
connection with the lower buck-up stress and not in
the connection with the higher buck-up stress, then
the total stress would be much higher in the connection bucked up to the lower torque, and fatigue failure would occur in this connection first.
For optimum fatigue life, it can be seen that the
buck-up stress should be the lowest possible that will
prevent shoulder separation.
Present field observations indicate that in most
drilling areas an average stress level of 62,500 psi in
the weak member is adequate for satisfactory performance. Occasionally, severe operating conditions
develop that require even higher average buck-up
stresses.
Step 4. Make-up torque and shoulder loads are calculated with Farrs Modified Screw-Jack forrnula4
(Fig. 6).
T=SA

&+~+Rsj

which may be rewritten as

=F

P + Rtj
~+R8j
2.

,
)

where
T = buck-up torque or power requirements in
in.-lb
S = stress in section at which A is measured
(use 62,500 psi)
A = tension area of pin at thread root % in.
from shoulder, or compression area of
box % in. from shoulder, whichever
is smaller
P = thread pitch, in.
R, = average mean thread radius, in.
R, = mean shoulder radius, in.
8 = one-half of included angle of thread,
degrees
i = coefficient of friction of thread compound
m .l. A..lAa. IA.A
r

311 UUIUGL

luau

Through the years this formuia has proven to be

useful in estimating the torque requirements of rotary
shouldered comections. Laboratory tests confirm the
validlty of the formula if a value of 0.08 is used for
the coefficient of friction in conjunction with leadbased thread compounds containing 60 percent minimum by weight of finely powdered metallic lead or
1002

TABLE

10 in. OD x 3 in. ID
Connection

2,/2,

No. 70
8Y8 Reg.*
API No. 77
7s/8 Reg.**

2.78
1.94
1.93
3.34

API

With f u II face
. . L~~.t~rq
ue.face

&J&

1.23
0.79
0.76
1.24

Shoulder Load
(1,000 lb)

Pin Stress, Sp
(psi)

1,884
1,804
1,792
1,644

62,500
49,380
47,500
62,500

modification

zinc-based thread compounds containing 40 to 60

percent by weight of finely powdered metallic zinc.
Arrangement and Evaluation of Four-Step Data
It has been the intent of the preceding discussions to
establish four areas of pertinent criteria that should be
considered when selecting and comparing comections
for drill collars. To summarize, the optimum connection is described in terms of the criteria as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Z~/Zp = 2.5.
Ab/Ap = 1.
Sp (buck-up pin stress) = 62,500 psi.
Maximum shoulder load.

Tables 2 and 3, for 10 in, X 3 in. and 9 in. X 3 in.

collars, will provide in these terms a basis for selecting
the best available joint. The shoulder load is calculated using an average stress of 62,500 psi in pin or
..sh:nha.
ra.. :.
x,.wib,m
1--UUA,
WUIG1lG
VGL in btianul
.
A study of these tables will indicate that of the connections selected for comparison none will conform
exactly with the desired criteria.
When the criteria are not optimum, the selection
of the best connection becomes something of an art,
and the best selection must be tempered with knowiedge of condhions under which the collars will be run
and the availability of repair facilities.
Following are pointers on selection when correlating known operating conditions with deviations from
the optmum connection.
Conditions of Extreme Abrasion or Loss of OD. The
choice should be a connection with a section modulus
ratio (Z~/ZJ greater than 2.5, keeping in mind the
effect of over-selection on the stress and shoulder load
dktribution. In the examples given in the two tables,
selection would favor the API No. 70 on the 10-in.
collar and the API No. 61 or the 51/2-in. IF on the
9-in. collar,
Conditions of Extremely Corrosive Environment.
Selection of a connection with a Zb/Z~ ratio greater
than 2.5 would be advisable under these conditions.
Thc.mo .el-c+nn.
A.. -11.
.--.. -

a. -=nhnv~
..
. - w~~i~ ~C rn-a&, w~th

possible consideration of the 7%-in. Reg. with low

torque modification for the 10-in. size.
Hard Formations, Minimum Clearance Between Collar and Hole Waif, Low Wm. Selection would again
favor choosing a connection where the Zb/Z~ ratio
exceeds 2.5. The restriction of bending through wall
support would minimize the necessity of obtaining
maximum shoulder loads.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE

9 in. OD x 3 in. ID
Connection

Z,/Z.

A,/A,

Shoulder Load
(1,000 lb)

7% Reg.*
API No. 61
6% FH

2.27
3.18

0.95
1.47

1,571
1,330

2.41
2.99

1.14
1.47

1,526
1,342

51~ IF
With

full

Pin Stressr S,,

(psi)
59,650
62,500
62,500
62,500

face

Soft Formations, Washed-Out Holes, High rpm. Field

experience indicates that the highest shoulder loads
possible must be obtained if the connection is to perform successfully. Selection would definitely favor the
API No. 70 on the 10-in. collar, and either the 6% -in.
FH or the 7%-in. Reg. on the 9-in. collar.
Conditions Unknown. For average conditions the connection should be chosen that most nearly meets the
four criteria set forth above. For a 10-in. OD collar
the choice of the API No. 70 connection is obvious,
but the selection for a 9-in. OD collar is less clear-cut;
however, the criteria indicate that the 6%-in. FH or
the 75/8-in. Reg. would be the best choice available.
Modifying the Connection
To support the selection of comections using the
criteria developed here, it would be helpful to know
what the disadvantages are of modifying a connection

!?1

T~.

PITCH LINE
*+*

Rs

._.H.L

fig. 6--Location
of parameters used in Farrs Screw-Jack
Formula to estimate torque requirements
of
rotary shouldered connections.

*
. .,--. -----.

SHOULDER LOAD (F, ~-+--=%.

SMALLE:A::l~ECTION

OPTIMUM CONNECTION SHOULDER WIDTH.

(@

6i?oi4i) SHOLJLDERFRM
CONNECTION.

Too

SMALL

F>F1
SI >

s,

Fig. 7Effect
of pin size and shoulder width on shoulder
loads and compressive stress at the bevel.

AUGUST, 1970

too small for the collar size in an effort to achieve one

or more of the desired characteristics of the optimum
connection.
-...
4L += fiA=p.,
i.. t,l
.Oler
Ilr:.11----- Ullll
4-:11 t,-11
w 111] ltiI~~
U11C113
L1lG LGllUb,,by
,0
,
D,WW ti?

connection that is too small rather than one that is

too large for the collar. Fig. 7 is a comparison of the
shoulder load and compressive stress distribution on
an optimum connection and on a smaller connection
with broad shoulders. The areas bounded by the stress
diagrams are representative of the shoulder loading.
Calculations show that the average compressive stress
on the shoulder face is much less on smaller connections than on the optimum because the shoulder load
is less and because it must be spread over a larger
area. Considering that the stress and unit shoulder
loading decrease from a maximum at the counterbore
to a minimum at the bevel diameter, it should be
A:..,.
L
..L..
.L. c-------I.-1
t,wma+hpr
.Ln.,l,lay.
UUIUIUg
ul~
MI UUIUM
o LW&
.w.
app~r~n[
IIId L UIC lUIW
at the periphery of the bevel will be much less on the
small connection with wide shoulders. Under these
conditions, the operator is often beset with the problem of maintaining a shoulder face free of wobble and
gall marks with a pin connection that does not have
enough tensile strength to develop an adequate shoulder load.
Because of the necessity of developing sufficient
shoulder compression at the periphery of the beveled
shoulder. several modifications are used to increase
the stress level at the edge of the bevel. These modifications are the machining of (1) fishing necks, (2)
large bevels, and (3) low torque faces.

Fishing Necks. The use of fishing necks can result in

a connection that is optimum in all respects except
one: the shoulder load can be maximum for the fishing neck diameter, but not maximum for true collar
OD. Fishing necks have the additional disadvantage
of increasing the bending stress at the connection by
concentrating deflection or bending of the collar in
the neck. Owing to this concentrated deflection,
shoulder separation is more of a problem for a collar
with a fishing neck than for a smooth collar, when
both have the same connection size and OD at the
connection.
Since the shoulders must stay together for the connection to render any respectable length of service,
the shoulders must be forced together with a compressive loading greater than normal through an increase in buck-up torque. Field experience has shown
that this is necessary to offset the concentration of
bending.
As was noted previously in Step 3 (Fig. 5), this
increase in torque also increases the tensile stress in
the pin by a similar percentage, and the cycles to
fatigue failure of the pin will decrease.
Large Bevels and Low Torque Faces. An increase in
the compressive stress at the bevel can be accomplished without the aid of fishing necks by reducing
the area of the eomiecdon face; kiige~ bevels aid 10W
torque faces are used to achieve this.
The use of larger bevels (Fig. 8) to obtain narrow
faces creates a notch effect that often leads to premature failure. With the connection being box strong,
1003

most down-hole bending is concentrated in the bevel

notch and at the base of the pin. These stresses from
down-hole bending must be absorbed by the shoulder
face; and when they are added to the buck-up stress,
they are often great enough to cause the shoulder face
to yield. Even if the shoulder face does not yield, the
stresses developed are often great enough in the
vicinhy of the counterbore to cause fatigue failure at
the pin base rather than in the thread root.
The low-torque-face feature was designed to accommodate the problem of reducing the total shoulder
face area without creating a riotch eileet as in the case
of the larger bevel. Instead of increasing bevel size to
decrease the shoulder face area, the counterbore of
the box is machined to a larger diameter to reduce the
.---- GX$lV
:.,.G ~~
3/.
%
frnm
. . ..
GU1lI~l
UUA .-,.t~~n
,YWWLLU
/ o u..
. . . ... the
. ..- ~hnl~d~~.
The low-torque feature cannot create a balance of
fatigue life between the pin and box, nor can it

p+

----1
\\

XFATIGUE
CRACK
FROM NOTCH EFFECT
Fig. B-Effect
of large bevels on stress level at
periphery of shoulder face.

increaae the shoulder load holding the connection

tmzether
._o .-.Fig. 9 is a comparison of the shoulder load
and stress distribution between an optimum connection and a connection with a low-torque feature.

TABLE 4

Secti::utvlnoju Ius
@olg

11

Pin
z
A_

Box
z,

API No. 77
85/8 Reg.:
878 Reg. **

41.5
39.8
39.8

114.2
111.7
111.7

2.75
2.81
2.81

37.9
36.7
36.7

45.2
45.4
32.7

1.19
1.24
0.89

62,500
62,500
55,620

52,520
50,400
62,500

2,371,000
2,297,000
2,046,000

147,100
143,000
130,600

21~,s

API No. 77
8~a Reg.*
878 Reg.**

41.7
40.0
40.0

114.2
111.7
111.7

2.74
2.79
2.79

38.8
37.6
37.6

45.2
45.4
32.7

1.16
1.21
0.87

62,500
62,500
54,380

53,880
51,650
62,500

2,424,000
2,350,0CXI
2,046,000

150,500
146,400
130,700

API No. 70
8~a Reg.*
API No. 77
778 Reg.* *

30.8
39.8
41.5
25.9

85.5
77.4
80.1
86.5

2.78
1.94
1.93
3.34

30.1
36.7
37.9
26.3

36.9
28.9
28.7
32.5

1.23
0.79
0.76
1.24

62,500
49,380
47,500
62,500

50,810
62,500
62,500
50,400

1,884,000
1,804,000
1,792,000
1,644,000

107,100
109,300
108,200
93,000

70
.*
~~.g77
-.. .- -**
/7a Keg.

31.1
40.0
41.7
,.. .
LO.L

85.5
77.4
$&g
00.3

2.75
1.93
1.92
xxi

31.0
37.6
38.8
-) .
L/. L

36.9
28.9
28.7
~~.~

1.19
0.77
0.74
1.19

62,500
48,120
46,250
c. .,-VI
O,z,auu

52,520
62,500
62,500
.aL,
. aLu
.-In

1,937,000
1,804,000
1,792,000
~ ~~p,-j~~

110,100
109,300
1::,:~
24,2

API No. 70
79ff Reg.*
7% Reg.

30.8
25.9
25.9

78.0
79.1
79.1

2.53
3.05
3.05

30.1
26.3
26.3

33.0
28.6
36.2

1.10
1.09
1.38

62,500
62,500
62,500

57,010
57,470
45,410

1,884,000
1,644,000
1,644,000

106,300
92,200

21~G

API No. 70
7va Reg.**
75& Reg.*

31.1
26.2
26.2

78.0
79.1
79.1

2.51
3.02
3.02

31.0
27.2
27.2

33.0
28.6
36.2

1.06
1.05
1.33

62,500
62,500
62,500

58,710
59,440
46,960

1,937,000
1,697,000
1,697,000

109,300
95,200
93,400

API No. 70
7s~ Reg. *
75~ Reg.**
678 FH

30.8
25.9
25.9
23.6

70.9
72.0
72.0
70.3

2.30
2.78
2.78
2.98

30.1
26.3
26.3
24.4

29.2
32.4
24.8
35.1

0.97
1.23
0.94
1.44

60,620
62,500
58,750
62,500

62,500
50,810
62,500
43,400

1,828,000
1,644,000
1,553,000
1,526,000

102,400

API No. 70
7Y8 Reg. E
:% $.S

31,1
26.2
26.2
23.9

70.9
72.0
72.0
70.3

2.28
2.75
2.75
2.94

31.0
27.2
27.2
25.3

29.2
32.4
24.8
35.1

0.94
1.19
0.91
1.39

58,750
62,500
56,880
62,500

62,500
52,520
62,500
44,960

1,828,000
1,697,000
1,553,000
1,580,000

102,400
92,600
86,500
85,600

7~a Reg.*
API No. 61
6~8 FH
51~ IF

25.9
19.9
23.6
20.1

58.7
63.3
56.9
60.1

2.27
3.18
2.41
2.99

26.3
21.3
24.4
21.5

25.1
31.4
27.8
31.5

0.95
1.47
1.14
1.47

59,650
62,500
62,500
62,500

62,500
42,400
54,820
42,520

1,571,000
1,330,000
1,526,000
1,342,000

:3,::;

7~a Reg. *
API No. 61

58.7
63.3
56.9
60.1

2.24
3.13
2.38
2.95

27.2
22.1
25.3
22.3

25.1
31.4
27.8
31.5

0.92
1.42

51A IF

26.2
20.2
23.9
20.4

1.10
1.41

57,670
62,500
62,500
62,500

62,500
43,990
56,820
44,330

1,571,000
1,384,000
1,580,000
1,395,000

70,000
84,300
71,800

API No. 61
6~a Reg.
51/2 IF

19.9
15.5
20.1

51.6
51.6
48.2

2.59
3.33
2.40

21.3
17.3
21.5

24.5
28.6
24.7

1.15
1.65
1.15

62,500
62,500
62,500

54,340
;::;;

1,330,000
1,082,000
1,342,000

66,200
52,100
68,000

API No. 61

20.2
15.8
20.4

51.6
51.6
48.2

2.55
3.27
2.36

22.1
18.2
22.3

24.5
;;.;

1.11
1.57
1.11

62,500
62,500
62,500

56,380
39,770
56.430

1,384,000
1,135,000
1,395,000

68,800
54,700
70,700

Bore
(in.)

(
/

10

)
\

93A

API

21%6

~
[

3
9

f
2%6

No.

~~

@A8

FH

Z&.Z:
_~

81A
21%6

~%J

{
FF = Full Face
*LTF = LOW Toque

1004

Calculated
Torque
(ft-lb)

Connection
Size and
Style

(in.)

Area
Pin
(sq~n.)

Make-Uo Toraue and Shoulder Loads for a

Maximum Average Make-Up Stress of 62,500 psi
Area
Box
Stress (psi)
A,/Ap
(s~~.)
Pin
Ratio
Box
Load (lb)
_

~g.

90,400

89,700
86,500
82,700

:;:;::
84,400

Face

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

TABLE 4(Centd.)
Make4Jp Torque and Shoulder Loads for a
hAc. wire,,
m
,., ga, ,l!ll,

Secti~:u~:;uIus
C$lg r

Connection
Bore
(in.)

(in . )

A,,c..e.
.=,m~=

ma

Mc,l, a.ll,
i.!s!n=-wp

C+.-e.
,,===

1,327,000
1,082,000
992,000
1,336,000

65,500
51,600
46,600
67,100

::%

59,950
62,500
62,500
59,980

62,500
44,960
38,950
62,500

1,327,000
1,135,000
1,045,000
1,336,000

64,500
54,200
49,100
67,100

22.1
23.6
18.0
23.4

1.28
1.48
0.85
1.44

62,500
62,500
52,820
62,500

48,930
:l:llr&

51,200
;$:g

43;270

1,082,000
992,000
1,127,000
1,014,000

62,500
62,500
50,900
62,500

51,470
44,230
62,500
45,670

1,135,000
1,045,000
1,127,000
1,067,000

53,700
48,700
55,100
49,100

21.3
17.3
15.9
21.5

21.2
25.3
26.8
21.4

1.00
1.46
1.69
0.99

62,210
62,500
62,500
62,210

2.29
2.92
3.31
2.09

22.1
18.2
16.7
22.3

21.2
25.3
26.8
21.4

0.96
1.39

2.65
3.01
2.07
3.07

17.3
15.9
21.3
16.2

19.9
15.5
14.0
20.1

46.2
46.2
47.3
42.6

2.32
2.9B
3.38
2.12

API No. 61
6s~ Reg.
IF

20.2
15.8
14.3
20.4

46.2
46.2
47.3
42.6

67 Rag.
51A FH
API No. 61
API No. 56

15.5
14.0
19.9
14.4

41.1
42.2
41.1
44.2

me;
p-o

62,500
42,740
37,080
62,500

Box

API No. 61
6~a Reg.
51~ FH
51~ IF

G9
1=.f)fl
=,4

Shoulder
Load (lb)

Pin

#
r

Calcu.
Iated
Torque
(ft-lb)

Stress (psi)

A,/A,
Ratio

Box
28,

and

Style

Area
Box
(sqin.)
A,

Pin
z

Z#&

Size

Area
Pin
(sq:n.)

81A
2%6

51~FH
51~

3
8

6~a Reg.
~~.

61.

No.

56

API No. 56
51A FH
678 Reg.

14.4
14.0
15.5

39.5
37.4
36.2

2.74
2.67
2.34

16.2
15.9
17.3

20.4
20.5
19.0

1.26
1.29
1.10

62,500
62,500
62,500

49,630
;:,:;;

1,014,000
992,000
1,082,000

46,300
::,;;;

21~G

API No. 56
51A FH
678 Reg.

14.7
14.3
15.8

39.5
37.4
36.2

2.69
2.62
2.29

17.1
16.7
18.2

20.4
20.5
19.0

1.19
1.23
1.04

62,500
62,500
62,500

52,390
50,910
59,870

1,067,000
1,045,000
1,135,000

48,700
48,300
53,200

51~ FH
51~ Reg.
API No. 50
API No. 56

14.0
10.9
9.8
14.4

27.6
36.5
35.7
35.0

1.97
3.35
3.64
2.43

15.9
12.9
11.6
16.2

17.5
20.6
22.5
17.4

1.10
1.60
1.94
1.07

455,::;
62:500
62,500

56,790
39,140
32,220
58,190

991,000
804,000
728,000
1,014,000

45,400
34,800
31,200
45,800

51~ FH
51~ Reg.
API No. 50
API No. 56

14.3
11.3
10.1
14.7

27.6
36.5
35.7
35.0

1.93
3.23
3.53
2.38

16.7
13.7
12.5
17.1

17.5
20.6
22.5

62,500
62500
---..-

59,640
41,570
- 4 -,. -

17.4

1.05
1.50
. -1 .8U
1.02

62,500

61,420

1,045,000
857,000
. . . A.-..
Icu,vuu
1,067,000

47,800
37,100
. . ..-la
aa, auu
48,300

AD1
,-lr,

lAA
.-T.

/
3

21~lG
\

(
/

2 ~~

31.5
32.3

~, ~q
3.21
2.96

]~.~
11.6
12.9

~q.~
19.6
17.7

n
an
.-.,
1.70
1.37

5G QAn
-,-,
- ..
62,500
62,500

fi7.Fmo
--, ___
36,990
45,550

gQ4;ooo
728,000
804,000

40:500
30,900
34,400

API No. 56
API No. 50
51A Reg.

14.7
10.1
11.3

30.8
31.5
32.2

2.10
3.12
2.85

17.1
12.5
13.7

14.5
19.6
17.7

0.85
1.57
1.29

53,000
62,500
62,500

62,500
39,860
48,380

904,000
781,000
857,000

:&?;cl;

50

10.1
~~,~

27.6
A
951
&. T

2.73
~,~~

12.5
~~,?

16.8
~A.Q

1.34
~.Qg

62,500
67
w-n-)
--, ---

46,500
57.470
-., ..-

781,000
857:000

32,800
36,400

API No. 50
51/2 Reg.

10.9
12.0

27.6
28.4

2.53
2.37

14.7
16.0

16.8
14.9

1.14
0.93

62,500
58,200

54,690
62,500

921,000
921,000

38,700
39,100

~~.CJ
25.9
24.7

~.~?
3.50
2.19

196
----

1A
-T. 1
-

~.~~
1.85
0.89

67
w-m
--, --:;,:!5:

1%

17.4
12.2

55410
--,
--33,760
62,500

781,000
590,000
760,000

32,500
23,200
32,000

23.9
25.9
24.7

2.19
3.16
2.06

14.7
11.7
16.0

14.1
17.4
12.2

0.96
1.49
0.76

59,950
62,500
47,660

62,500
42,030
62,500

S&#:
760:000

36,700
28,700
32,000

22.5

3.04

9.4

14.8

1.57
- --

62,500
-. ---

39,700

590,000

23,000

bZ,XAJ

.. . . .

4Y,41U

-.. . . .
{au, uuu

m Ann
Lo,+uu

=1/
a-,p

ADI

21A

21~1c

!. 2 lh

AUGUST,

1970

34,1.4-I

9.8
10.9

nr,

21~G

bZ, 3(JV

API No. 50
51/2 Reg.

API
2%6

61~

22.1
23.6
18.0
23.4

~~

18.2
16.7
22.1
17.1

API

2%6

71A

2.60
2.95
2.03
3.01

46:700

15.8
14.3
20.2
14.7

77/
r -,4

41.1
42.2
41.1
44.2

1.21
1.41
0.81
1.37

M,.
,..

No.

EC
d

De.
8..=5.

,..

RI-

en

API No. 46
51/2 Reg.

?nl
*.

1;::

API No. 50
API No. 46
51~ Reg.

10.9

46

7.4

API
API

No.
NO.

46

1%

an
4.

36:700

8.2

22.5

2.74

ii.7

19.3
20.2

2.61
3.31

12.3
13.9

1.31
1.74

62,500
62,500

47,760
35,970

590,000
501,000

22,700
18,700

8.2
7.0

19.3
20.2

2.35
2.89

11.7
10.3

12.3
13.9

1.05
1.35

62,500
62,500

59,450
46,310

730,000
641,000

28,100
23,900

6.1
7.4

17.3
16.4

2.84
2.22

8.0
9.4

11.5
9.8

1.44
1.04

62,500
62,500

43,480
59,950

501,000
590,000

18,500
22,500

;:

17.3
16.4

2.47
2.00

10.3
11.7

11.5
9.8

1.12
0.84

62,500
52,350

55,980
62,500

641,000
615,000

23,600
23,400

i4.8

l.Zb

1005

t-s 1
.~
OPTIMUM

CONNECTION

SM.4X

s! >s{

Fig. 9-Effect

S,

-OPTIMUM

s,

ELOW

CONNECTION

TORQUE FEATURE

of low-torque modification
on distribution
of stress between pin and box.

The primary consideration in the design of the lowtorque face is to satisfy the requirement: A b/Ap = 1.
When this condition is met, the stress distribution
across the shoulders will be the best possible for that
particular connection. The low-torque feature is undoubtedly the best solution for increasing the compressive shoulder stress when conditions such as a
limited availability of rig torque or capacity of the rig
tongs force the selecton of a small conduction for
large-diameter drill collars.

Summary
The requirements for the design or selection of an
optimum drill collar connection have been presented.
To aid in the selection of the best existing rotary

1006

shouldered connection for large-diameter collars,

r.k].
~ b..
h~am
mrsnn
I-d
fnr
c0]!2~s
wiLh_2%G-in.
1au Q -r
,.ZOQw.1ysy.-.
w- .-.
and 3-in. bores, and ODs of 9 to 11 in. Design criteria
for sizes of 6 to 9 in. OD are also included.
The tabulated torque values were calcdated using
Farrs Modified Screw-Jack formula and an assumed
coefficient of friction of 0.08. Values obtained through
laboratory tests will, by correlation, conform to this
formula when 0.08 is the assigned coefficient of friction, and when the thread compounds contain either
60 percent by weight of finely powdered metallic lead
or 40 to 60 percent by W-eigYIt
of iineljy- pOWdeied
metallic zinc. Other lubricants may possess varying
coefficients of friction that will raise or lower the
torque requirements. By comparing the four requirements of an optimum rotary shouldered connection
with the values presented in the prepared tables, a
connection best suited for known drilling conditions
can be selected.
References
Arthur and Woods, H. B.: Factors Affectingthe
Angle of Inclination and Dog-Legging in Rotary Bore
Holes,Drill. and Prod. Prac., API ( 1953) 222.
2. DriKng Straight Holes in Crooked Hole Country, Drilco
Div. of SmithInternational,Inc. (Dec., 1968) 63.
3. Gormley, John F.: ExperimentalStress Analysis of Tool
Joints,J. Pet. Tech. (May, 1961) 496-500.
4. Farr, A. P.: Torque Requirementsfor Rotary Shouldered
Connections,Paper No. 57-Pet.-l9 presentedat the ASME
Petroleum-Mechanical Engineering Conference, Tulsa,
Okla., Sept. 22-25, 1957.
IJPT
1. Lubinski,

Original
manuscript
received
in Society
of Petroleum
Emsineere
~,anu~er~p~
~e.~@..
.Ap~~! ~~; ~g70,
office
A@.
4, 1%9.
R=J!SW!
Paper
(SPE 2540) was presented
at SPE 44th Annual
Fall Meeting,
held
in Denver,
Colo.,
Sept.
28-Ott.
1, 1969.
~
Copyright
1970
American
Institute
of Mining,
Metallurgical,
and
Petroleum
Engineers, Inc.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY