DRILLING REPORT
Heat-induced drill pipe failures
www.worldoil.com
Gulf Publishing Company
Drilling Reprinted from: October 2007 issue,
Special Focus: Report pgs 57-64. Used with permission.
The amount of tensile pull that can be applied to free a ing based on the measured wall thickness and applied torque) of
stuck drillstring is usually restricted by the drillstring’s mini- the 5-in. 19.50-lb G-105 drill pipe.
mum Margin Of Overpull (MOP).1 To free a stuck string, the
drillstring is often rotated and pulled simultaneously. When Case 2 – East Oklahoma. In April 2003, with the bit near
this is done, the maximum permitted pull is reduced, depend- the bottom at a 13,930 ft TD, the wellbore packed off around
ing on the amount of torque applied. the 5-in. 19.50-lb S-135 drill pipe. The drillstring was stuck
Application of pull, either based on MOP or the decreased and circulation was lost. To free the stuck drillstring, the pipe
tensile rating given the applied torque, has resulted in instances was rotated and pulled. During these operations, the 5-in.
of overload failures of drill pipe. These failures have occurred 19.50-lb S-135 drill pipe parted at 11,666 ft. The tensile loads
at loads significantly lower than the drillstrings rated capacity. applied were well below the drill pipe’s calculated tensile ca-
As the material gets locally heated, the material hardness de- pacity (decreased tensile rating based on the measured wall
creases. The actual load capacity of the drillstring depends on thickness and applied torque). The fractured joint was pulled
the temperatures reached downhole. out, and the downhole portion of the joint was recovered dur-
This paper discusses the factors that contribute to these ing the fishing operation.
failures and provides test data to support the findings. In
addition, the limitations of available methods used to deter- METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF FAILED JOINTS
mine the maximum allowable loads that may be applied when Metallurgical analysis of the fractured 5-in. 19.50-lb G-105
packed off with no circulation are presented. drill pipe “Case 1” and the 5-in. 19.50-lb S-135 drill pipe
“Case 2” was performed to evaluate the failure mechanism
TWO CASES OF HEAT-INDUCED DRILL PIPE and the factors contributing to the failure.
TENSILE FAILURE To identify the fractured joints of drill pipe, the joints will
be referred to as “C1” for the joint from “Case 1” and “C2” for
Case 1 – South Texas onshore. In December 2002, while the joint from “Case 2.”
making a connection at 11,756 ft MD, the wellbore packed off
around the 5-in. 19.50-lb G-105 drill pipe. The drillstring was Visual examination. The overall appearance and fracture
“worked” by applying torque and tension for about 45 min. The morphology of joints C1 and C2 were strikingly similar. Both
drillstring moved up the hole with a loss of 60 kips as noted failures were located in drill pipe tube body, close to the pin
by rig personnel. The drillstring connection tool joint. Joint
was pulled and a fractured joint C1 had parted 3 ft 11 in. from
of the 5-in. 19.50-lb G-105 the pin connection shoulder,
drill pipe was found at 9,553 ft. while joint C2 had parted 6 ft
The downhole portion of the 5 in. from the pin connection
joint was subsequently recov- shoulder. The fractured joints
ered during fishing operations. are presented in Figs. 1 and 2.
Based on the appearance of the The fracture surfaces dis-
fracture surface, the proximate played evidence of a ductile
cause of the failure was readily separation under tensile load-
recognized by the drilling engi- ing. As shown in Fig. 3, the
neer as ductile tensile overload. fractures propagated along a
However, the tensile load ap- 45° plane relative to the axis
plied at the time of failure was of the pipe. The fracture re-
well below the calculated tensile Fig. 1. As received condition of the failed 5-in.19.50-lbG-105
drill pipe C1.
gions also exhibited significant
capacity (decreased tensile rat- necking and extensive plastic
OCTOBER 2007 World Oil
Fig. 2. As received condition of the failed 5-in.19.50-lb S-135
drill pipe C2.
40
35
Hardness, HRC
S-135 grade drill pipe
25
20
15
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distance from fractured end, in
45
35
“Typical” hardness for 40
Hardness, HRC
G-105 grade drill pipe
35
30
30
Hardness, HRC
25 25
20
20
15
500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
15 Tempering temperature, °F
1,700°F AC3
900
1,625°F
860 Carbon content
1,550°F
820 for joint C2
1,475°F material = 0.28%
780
1,400°F 0.0206 738°
740
1,325 0.77 727°
700 0.0218
1,250°F 0.0206 770° curve temperature
660
Fe 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Weight percentage carbon
Fig. 10. Inherent microstructure of joint C2 (200X). Fig. 12. Inherent microstructure of joint C1 (200X).
LIMITATIONS OF STUCK
Table 1. Material properties of the tube of joints C1 and C2, out- PIPE OVERLOAD DESIGN
side the heat affected areas METHODOLOGY
Joint C1 values Joint C2 values The standard design practice for pre-
Material G-105 grade Test S-135 grade Test
venting tensile overload failures in stuck
properties requirements results requirements results pipe situations is to design with a margin
Tensile test Yield strength, ksi 105 (min) 129.5 135 (min) 150.7 of overpull (MOP). MOP is the difference
135 (max) 165 (max) between the tensile capacity of the weakest
Ultimate tensile str, ksi 115 (min) 142.1 145 (min) 166.1 component in the drillstring and the maxi-
Elongation, % 14% (min) 22.95 12.5% (min) 18 mum anticipated load that the drillstring
Chemical analysis Phosphorous, % 0.030 (max) 0.012 0.030 (max) 0.012
Sulfur, % 0.030 (max) 0.005 0.030 (max) 0.005 will experience. Simply put, MOP is the
Charpy V-notch Average, ft-lbs 32 (min) 62 32 (min) 36 additional available tensile load that can be
impact test Minimum, ft-lbs 28 (min) 61 28 (min) 34 safely applied to the drillstring in the case
of a stuck pipe situation. Since loads are ap-
plied from the surface, the limiting compo-
tenitic transformation temperature for joint C2 material, as nent in the drillstring will almost always be the drill pipe. As seen
shown in Fig. 9). in the failure cases previously discussed in this paper, if the drill
Specimens for microstructural examination were also pipe is rotated while packed off and sufficient heat is generated,
removed from both inside and outside of the heat affected the designer may not be able to count on the design MOP.
area of joint C1. However, unlike the change in structure ob- The tensile capacity of a drillstring component is defined as
served on joint C2, both specimens removed from joint C1 the lower of that component’s body or connection tensile ca-
presented a tempered martensitic structure. This is shown in pacity, and should always take into account any derating due
Figs. 12 and 13. Presence of a similar structure meant that to pressure and/or torsional loads. Typically in a stuck pipe
the temperatures reached in the heat affected area of joint situation the string is simultaneously pulled and rotated, so
C1 did not exceed the austenitic transformation temperature there will be both tension and torsion loads applied to the
(~1,500°F). Instead the temperatures reached were closer to string. For drill pipe tubes, simultaneous torsion will decrease
the typical tempering temperature for G-105 grade drill pipe the tube’s tensile capacity and vice versa. External pressure will
material (~1,000°F). also decrease the tube’s tensile capacity. Internal pressure may
OCTOBER 2007 World Oil
Special Focus DRILLING REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This article was prepared from IADC/SPE 92429 presented at the IADC/
SPE Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, Feb. 23-25, 2005.
Fig. 13. Microstructure near fractured end of joint C1 (200X).
LITERATURE CITED
1 Hill, T.H., Drillstring Design and Failure Prevention, T H Hill Associates, Inc., September 2002.
2 API Specification 5D, Specification for Drill Pipe, 5th ed., American Petroleum Institute, October 2001.
increase or decrease the tube’s tensile capacity depending on 3 Metals Handbook, Volume 4, Heat Treatment, 9th ed., American Society of Metals, November 1981, 70.
4 Metals Handbook, Volume 4, Heat Treatment, 9th ed., American Society of Metals, November 1981, 71.
how much pressure is applied. However, any gain in tensile 5 Metals Handbook, Volume 8, Metallography, Structures and Phase Diagrams, 8th ed., American Society of
capacity due to internal pressure is usually ignored for safety. Metals, September 1973, 276.
6 Baryshnikov, A., Schenato, A., Ligrone, A., Ferrara, P., “Optimization of rotary-shouldered connection
For tool joints, the effect of torque on tensile capacity depends reliability and failure analysis. Part 1: Static loading,” SPE/IADC 27535, paper presented at the Spring
on whether or not the applied torque is greater than makeup Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 1994.
Article copyright © 2007 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
Not to be distributed in electronic or printed form, or posted on a website, without express written permission of copyright holder.
As a company that specializes in preventing structural
failure in drilling components, we can state, with some
authority, you can not prevent all failures, but you can
certainly learn from them when they occur. We have
performed more than one thousand failure analyses in the
past 25 years, all on drilling equipment and OCTG, and
each has contributed to our corporate knowledge on
failures—and how to prevent them. As industry leaders
in engineering and quality assurance services,
T H Hill can find
the root cause of a
failure and give CONTACT US
you practical Contact us if you have
recommendations experienced a failure in
on how to avoid any of the following types
similar failures in of equipment:
future operations.
• Drill String Components
After all, the value
• Specialty Tools
in analyzing a
• Casing & Tubing
failure should come
• Landing String Components
from not having to
• Lifting & Handling
pay for it more
Equipment
than once.
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
7 6 7 6 H I L L M O N T, S U I T E 3 6 0 • H O U S T O N , T X 7 7 0 4 0 • T E L ) 7 1 3 . 9 3 4 . 9 2 1 5 • F A X ) 7 1 3 . 9 3 4 . 9 2 3 6 • M A I L @ T H H I L L . C O M • W W W. T H H I L L . C O M
T H H I L L A S S O C I AT E S I N C FAILURE ANALYSIS
BANDING
BRITTLE
What Happened?
Was it…
The material?
The equipment quality?
The design?
The operating conditions?
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
7 6 7 6 H I L L M O N T, S U I T E 3 6 0 • H O U S T O N , T X 7 7 0 4 0 • T E L ) 7 1 3 . 9 3 4 . 9 2 1 5 • F A X ) 7 1 3 . 9 3 4 . 9 2 3 6 • M A I L @ T H H I L L . C O M • W W W. T H H I L L . C O M