Abstract
Fatigue and corrosion fatigue account for the majority of drill
string failures.1,2 The complexity of fatigue and the drill string
designers inability to account for a great many factors
affecting the mechanism make it impractical or impossible to
accurately predict a components fatigue life in cycles to
failure. This paper describes the comparative design approach.
This new approach normalizes many factors affecting fatigue
that are generally unknown to the designer, allowing him or
her to quantitatively compare the fatigue performance of
available alternatives on the basis of what he or she does
know. The method has already proven effective in field use.
Drill string design
In designing a drill string, the designer rarely decides the
attributes of a particular component. Instead, he or she forms
a string by screwing together up to several hundred off-theground items. In this activity, the designer will try to choose
components that balance a number of often-conflicting needs,
including loads, hydraulics, hole cleaning, rate of penetration,
steering, measurement and perhaps most critical, structural
soundness of the drill string itself. In maintaining structural
soundness, the designer faces two separate design challenges.
First, preventing overload failure and second, preventing
fatigue failure. The market for drill string components is
mainly a rental market, in which a single component will be
used and reused a number of times by a number of designers.
Furthermore, it is a market for which components are
specified and purchased primarily for strength under high,
relatively static loads. Resistance to overload failure, not
resistance to fatigue, is the principal focus of standards and
specifications covering drill stem components. Because of
these two factors, the designer is often left in the dark on
IADC/SPE 87188
(FROM) REFERENCE 4)
110
10
REGION 2
Stable Growth Region
(Forman or Paris equations)
10
-5
REGION 1
(NEGLIGIBLE
REGION 3
(RAPID,
GROWTH)
10
UNSTABLE
GROWTH)
-6
CRACK
GROWTH RATE
10
100
-4
-7
SPECIMENS IN AIR
90
80
OPERATING POINT
70
60
10
SPECIMENS IN
SEAWATER
-8
LOG STRESS INTENSITY RANGE (K)
K IC
50
40
30
20
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
CYCLES TO FAILURE
da
= CK n
dN
da
C K n
=
dN (1 R)K IC K
Where:
da/dN
K
KIC
R
C
n
=
=
=
=
=
=
IADC/SPE 87188
Failure costs for drill strings, while high in dollar terms, do not
approach failure costs in applications that involve risk to
humans. Thus, values for the material constants C, n, and KIC,
which our designer needs to accurately estimate crack growth,
do not exist for the vast majority of material thats already in
the market and available for him or her to use. Neither do the
economics of the rental drill string market justify the huge
expenditure it would take to control these properties for newly
manufactured material as it enters the market.
Comparative Design or Other things equal
Because of the issues discussed above, making an accurate
forward estimate of absolute fatigue life in cycles to failure is
not practical in everyday drill string design. The designer
simply does not know all the necessary variables to plug into
the formulas. Yet he or she does know many of them, and
what is known can form the basis for quantitative comparison
between alternatives. The approach introduced in this paper is
called comparative design. The drill string designers job is
essentially choosing between competing alternatives to
balance many issues, only one of which is fatigue. Thus, the
comparative design approach is to quantitatively express the
relative fatigue performance of the alternatives the designer is
likely to be considering, based only on variables the designer
is likely to know or is able to assume with some certainty.
This approach, while it cannot tell him or her how long a
component will last in a given set of circumstances (because
many factors are still unknown), will give, in quantitative
terms, how one alternative under consideration compares to
another, other things equal. In this way, relative fatigue
performance becomes one of the many criteria upon which
one design alternative is preferred over another, very much
like relative hydraulic performance in some circumstances
might cause a designer to choose 6-5/8 inch drill pipe over 5inch pipe.
To provide the data needed for this approach, we use the
Forman Model to calculate normalized fatigue life for a
variety of cases, varying the factors which the designer will
know, and holding constant the variables which he or she is
not likely to know. We express relative fatigue performance
with two dimensionless indices, Curvature Index for drill pipe
tubes, and Stability Index for BHA components. (The
derivations of the two indices are given in Appendix A.)
Normalized fatigue life
The fatigue life determined by the Forman crack growth
model for a given component in a given set of circumstances,
we call normalized fatigue life. Its actually the period,
expressed in stress cycles, that is required to grow an existing
fatigue crack from an assumed size to failure.
It is
normalized in the sense that when we calculate crack
propagation life for a different set of circumstances to
compare against the first set, all the factors that the designer is
not likely to know are held constant for both calculations, so
IADC/SPE 87188
28
DLS (Deg/100ft)
15
24
20
20
25
30
16
12
4
3
0
0
100
200
300
TENSION (KIPS)
400
500
15
14
12
20
25
10
30
8
6
2
0
0
5 10 8
(4)
number of cycles to failure
DLS (Deg/100ft)
16
1650
4 3/4-inch x 2-inch DC, NC38 Conn.
1500
50
100
150
350
400
450
500
5 10 8
............... (3)
CI =
number of cycles to failure
1350
STABILITY INDEX
18
SI =
1200
1050
900
750
600
450
300
Field Application
Clark, et al, in reference 2, reports the field application of
Curvature Index for designing a drill string. In the case cited,
the operator had experienced repeated drill string failures in
one hole interval, with one failure occurring on pipe having
fewer than ten rotating hours since inspection. Though the
directional survey (taken at 100-foot intervals) showed a
maximum dogleg severity of one degree/100 feet, a gyro
survey run at five-foot spacing through the problem interval
identified a dogleg having a severity of some 20 degrees/100
feet. Under these circumstances, the ability to drill the well to
target depth was cast into doubt. The designers employed
Curvature Index to design a drill string that was some 230
percent more fatigue resistant than the designs that had been
failing. The resulting drill string configuration, along with
several other improvements, allowed the operator to
successfully complete the well without further incident.
150
0
5
11
13
15
17
19
HOLE SIZE (IN)
21
23
25
27
29
IADC/SPE 87188
4.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the thirty-seven sponsor companies
of DEA 74, DS-1 Third Edition, for their sponsorship and
support in the development of these design indices.
References:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
C K n
da
(for K > 0)........... (A.1)
=
dN (1 R ) K IC K
da
= 0 (for K 0)
dN
IADC/SPE 87188
R=
a b ................................................... (A.4)
a +b
K max = (
+b)
K min = ( a b )
Where:
da/dN
K
Kmax
Kmin
KIC
R
C
n
a
a
b
F
Q
a
Q
F ...... (A.5)
a .... (A.6)
F
Q
Calculate c:
1 ...... (A.8)
c=
RC
Calculate cc:
Curvature Index
Consider figure A.1, which shows a drill pipe tube rotating in
a dogleg while its in simultaneous tension. Curvature Index
D TJ D
cc =
L2
( KL ) sinh( KL )
+
2 2 cosh( KL ) + ( KL ) sinh( KL )
w b L 2 sin( )
EI ( KL ) 2
.... (A.9)
If c is less than cc, then the pipe does not contact the hole
wall and Mo is given by equation A.10. If c is greater than or
equal to cc, then the pipe does contact the hole wall and Mo is
given by equation A.11.
Mo =
TENSION
D
M o .... (A.7)
2I
b =
w b L 2 sin( )
K=
T ........ (A.12)
EI
rc =
IADC/SPE 87188
The calculated axial and bending stresses are input into the
Forman Crack Growth model to obtain the number of cycles
to failure. The number of cycles to failure is then converted to
Curvature Index using equation A.16.
5 10 8
....... (A.16)
CI =
number of cycles to failure
Nomenclature for CI calculations:
A = Drill pipe tube cross sectional area, (in2)
CI = Curvature Index
D = Drill pipe tube outer diameter, (in)
DTJ = Drill pipe tool joint outer diameter, (in)
d
= Drill pipe tube inner diameter, (in)
E
= Youngs modulus, (psi)
I
= Moment of inertia of drill pipe tube, (in4)
L
= Half the drill pipe tube length, (in)
Mo = Bending moment on the drill pipe tube at the tool
joint, (in-lbs)
CONNECTION
BUCKLED
COLUMN
Figure A.2
SI =
5 108
..... (A.17)
number of cycles to failure
Where:
SI
Stability Index
wb sin( )
S
1
)[cosh( Kx ) 1] + o [sinh( Kx ) Kx ] +
( M o
K
EIK 2
K2
wb sin( )
( Kx) 2 .(B.1)
2K 2
T
EI
IADC/SPE 87188
1
EIK
d 3 y ( L)
= 0 .........(B.3)
dx 3
After the middle of the drill pipe tube touches the hole
wall, the deflection in the middle of the tube is restricted by
the hole wall. This boundary condition is given by equation
B.4. This equation implies that the drill pipe makes a single
point contact with the hole wall at the middle of the tube, or
the curvature of the deflection line at the middle of the tube is
smaller than that of hole wall.
L2c
(B.4)
y ( L) = rc +
2
Where:
rc =
DTJ D
2
1
EIK
w b sin( )
sinh
K 2
(KL ) + S 0
K
[cosh (KL ) 1 ] +
wb L sin( )
= L cc .(B.5)
K
wb sin( )
1
K sinh (KL ) + So cosh (KL ) = 0 .. (B.6)
M o
2
EI
K
w sin( )
S
1
M o b 2 [cosh(KL) 1] + o [sinh(KL) KL] +
2
K
EIK
K
wb sin( )
2K 2
L2 c c
( KL ) 2 = rc +
... (B.7)
2
L2
1
EI
2 2 cosh( KL ) + ( KL ) sinh( KL )
EI ( KL ) 2
For hole curvature (c) less than cc, the equation for Mo is
derived by substituting equation B.1 into equations B.2 and
B.3. This results in the following,:
w b sin( )
S
sinh (KL ) + o [cosh (KL ) 1] +
2
K
K
wb sin( )
K sinh (KL ) + S o cosh(KL ) = 0 ....(B.9)
M o
2
wb L2 sin( ) wb L2 sin( )
KL
EIc
+
tanh(KL)
( KL) 2
( KL) 2
w b sin( )
S
sinh (KL ) + o [cosh (KL ) 1] +
2
K
K
wb L sin( )
= L c .. (B.10)
K
1
EIK 2
wb L sin( )
= L c ...... (B.8)
K
dy ( L )
= L c ...(B.2)
dx
Before the middle of the drill pipe tube touches the hole
wall, the shear force in the middle of the tube is assumed to be
zero as shown in equation B.3 due to the symmetry.
wb sin( )
S
[cosh( KL ) 1] + o [sinh( KL ) KL ] +
M o
2
K
K
wb sin( )
L2 c
( KL) 2 = rc +
2
2
2K
. (B.11)
(KL 2 ) [ EIc
tanh (KL 2 )
( KL )
2
2 (KL 2 ) tanh (KL 2 ) EI rc
(KL 2 ) tanh (KL 2 ) L 2
w b L 2 sin( )
2
w b L 2 sin( )
( KL ) 2
]+