Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-,
l.,
.,
DRILL
PIPE
.,
R. S, DALRYMPLE
Abstract
This paper outlines the approach atz~ solutions to the
problems associated with - the design and deve!optnent of
aluminum as a drill stem. for rotary drilling. A current
Introduction
If aluminum could be successfully fabricated into dependable dr~ll stem, the advantages of this light material
should reduce drilling costs. A few of the readily apparent
areas of improved economy are: (1) rig investment, (2)
transportation, (3) wireline life, (4) hoisting fuel savings
and ~(s) hoisting time reduction.
,.
TABLE
length
(ftl
1REYNOLDS
DRILL
STRINGSJULY
1, 1963
mn~cw:
L%h
locatlm
WNe%
To make functional drill pipe from aluminum required
,
41/..1.
F+t)-, ...,..
,r.
more than a casual selectior, of engineering compromises.
from: Texas. Cal If,
9,890
148,361
15
The target was a d@ling tool that would substantially
4,620
106,2S0
23
i:
6,350
Okla.
10)::;
16
meet the physical characteristics of Grade E steel drill
Chile
6,563
::
pipe but, if possible, also incorporate the many desirable
9,550
N.E, Texas
!4
3s:254
6S,000
N.Z. Texas
8,500
8
.2
characteristics found in low-allov steel drill Ltiue(Grade D)
;
Alberta, Canada
4,500
36,176
7.
Alberta, Camda
4,650
56,583
1!
such as toughness, concentric w%ar,and, low embrittlement
~1/2
N.E. Texas, Calif.
1 S,po
19,:00
t;
.
,
rate.
,.
-.,W
8,550
N .E , Texas
9
11.
11,620
77,000
It was recognized early in the aluminum drill pipe proLa., Miss.
5
12,300,
61,634
72,
12,000
Ok&OmO
39,013
3,900
gram that aluminum alloys could not be beat utilized in a
,, IS.
,~~::,
11;355
1 T ,:55
14.
,!
Mont.
15,000
15,
S:olo
dbsign that copied the then available steel driil pipe. It
Ulnh
1;:*
9,f70
16,
4,020
*.
was necessary to balance the design, alloy choice, spength,
.*
CaI if.
.5,010
17,
4,55s
7,020
1
18.
corrosion
and, wear resistance of aluminum
alloys into a
N. Okla.
57,351
7,:90
4,740
workable tool, one. ctspable of sustainigg_the; spe$ses ~f, ~
~o.. _._u,s~o. ~.-z#.l.?.o.
_ -1&l,: 10,OSO..._. N$,
rotary diiilhi-gr -
-
4.in. PiOe
MIs.:,
5,950
113,427
19
application of steei tool jaints to aluminum pipe
,21, 11?5z0
The
!J1~.1.
pipe
posed many problems in ofder to achieve a satisfactory,
,, 2Z
Colo.
19.
.roxm
. .
23:.
24.
&
7,020
7,500
6,000
1$:;$
,
20:,:S7;
5:800
.*
~33
*
,,-~
.*
6,100
*
:
.,.
SWdl Arabia
Aleska
Cqllf.
Uhzh
-.
,/
which has today progressed to a point of full-scale magnLtude throughout the world,
Acturil field operation (25 strings) ot ahvninum drill
pipe has brought to light other advantages and savings
which were not apparent at the outset: 2 (1) pipe maintenance and life, (2) drilling fuel, (3) tool joint life, (4)
pumping fuel, (.5) safety and (6) less flow resistance in
annuhts.
Description of Test Eqsdpmetit
Fsstigue Test
A rotating,
Fntigue Testing
background
COLLiR
TOOL
JOINT>
DRILL PIPE>
MECHANISM
80~
I
-+&
I
I
.!
F-ig. lDrill
.!
HYDRAULIC
TENSION
~YL[NDER
.-
,
{
TOOL
DRILL
,.
TOOL
\
Objectives
Initial design objectives for alumisium drill stem contemplated physical characteristics comparable to GrtRie E
drill pipe. The design should be compatible With present
rig practices, drilling methods, fishing operations, drilling
fluids and all other well drilling operatiofis.
Phase One
,.
1, To prevent compounding the problems associated
.
with the irstroduotion, of a new product, a decision was ~
made to provide steel tool joints with API working con;
nections for the aluminum drili pipe. It was aiso assuthed
. th.at.;@gE,@@bJg.rns~oV~!ved
.~m.!b~.gPP!ica!iOn..qC.9Ygi!?hl$. ., ;,...
steel tool joints .to ahsm~num drif.1.pipe would be easier
.
and quicker to solve than the development of new types,
t
for example, aluminum )001jtipt% .
2. lf possible, the field application and remotial fea;
&
,.
.
,,,
,,
,.
Phase Two
Pres@Xion
The secmtd-phase design objectives, depending on initial phase findings, included the following.
1. The development ~f a bore coating for aluminum
drill pipe, (The same methods and processes which have
been successful for bore coating steel pipe were not compatible with aluminum.)
2. The development of larger sizes of dr,ill pipe,
namely S, 5% and 6% in.
3. Consideration of a drill pipe size below ~% in.
4, Development of field inspection methods for ahtminum drill pipe.
5. Development of the all-aluminum strin~, leading to
.,
1-. I
of Design Development
?, .; I
Alloy Sekxtion
..
.,-g.
,1-.,
ULTIMATE
TENSILE
STRENGTH
.,
.
.-,
1~
;;1
.:_,._.
,.-... ..
-,
.3. . .. .
1707
,.
,.
>,
. Fig. 3-Ckoss-sectional
..
views of drill pipe: (lef&) pipe extruded and machined, (center tool joint assembiy~
(right) completed joint of niumimsm drill pipe.
nwrm~new
-4..-H-.
T06*.
-,
.
,:-.
. . .-.
-=
-.,
.
. . ..
.--.{:
. . .. . . ..
... ---:..
: :
.,,
,.~..
. .. . . . . .
:>
:.
. ...
.
.;.,.;
. :.
. . . .. .
..-= .:
.- . .-.-.
.. -..--..-+
. .. . ,-.,
_,..
.
.,
.
,.
.
.. . .
---
.;,
:.:.
..-..
~,
----
.-
.
,.
.,
,.
-.
..-.
. .
. .
..--.
-. ~...-
.:----
...:.
,.
:.. !
... . . ... .:.
.. -., ..
-.
,
-!
,,
-.
-------
.,
~,
,.
tages of the lighter 707$T6 section at elevated temp&atures, A slight amount of body wear will substantially reduce the tensile strength, itxernsl pressure capacity, collapse pressure, torsional strength and column strength
(see Figs. 10,11,12 and 13).
in
the
full
section
(both
fact~rs
being
favorable
more
alloy
displays
a higher
unit strength
.,
.yJTKJN
ARSA
O.D. INS
I.D. INS.
4,540
6.440
4+407
4.625
4.600
4.500
3.951
3/500
3.S26
TENSION
YIELD-15.
319,000
373,000
330,000
ULTIMATE-LB.
363,000
412,000
440,000
. . . .
4ss,000
490,000
396,000
. ..
.
372,000
ACTUAL-LS.
TORSION
YIELD-IN-LB
363,000
-J__
i#7%mTHm
--~;r
.0
.200
.,
F;g. 2--Effeet
o
.
%
g 20
v)
300
400
500
F.
,Temperature,
,
J
d
10
0
10
10
104
105
10
1(7
lo
10
Cycles
-.
$/(AREA-6.4405.ci. !n.1~
.-
Fig. &Rotatlng-beam
fatigue stren th of sharply notched
round specimens 2014-T6 an J 7075.T6 alloys
(ANG5, March, 1961).
~
~
.:
225,000.
7075-T15
.,,,,
(AREA
.,,,,,, 4.54sq.lrl.
!., ..,,,..,, .
.1
.
.,
Temperature,
..
Fig. 7-Strength
.:, _,:
.-.
.. :;.-.:
., ..
;. ..
. .
.. __:: .
.
. . .. .
. ... .
...
. .,..
. ... ----
r.
at temperatur~2014-T6
and 7075-T6
alloys, exposure 1,000 hours (ANG5, Match, 1961).
-.
I emperarure,
..p
..:,._
..
. .
:..-.:.
_-...
-.
.
.
,,
-.
,--
pipe
0,000
9,000
8,000
a
;
7,000
Z
.$
& 6,000
5,0000
>.
.....
.....
.050
Pipe Body
biameter
Reduction,
in.
.,.
Pipe
.100
Body
,Diameter
.150
.200
Reduction
.250
in.
.,,
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
,
6,000
.y ..-
.-.
.-
.5,0000
.,
1-
I
.-...
.150
.200 ,25(J
Pipe Body Diameter Reduction, in,
.s
.050, .100
Pipe
Fig. l+Tarsionnl
pipe+all
,
.
.-
.,
30
1: ..:.:
3
:2
57 , G,ade
+y-.
E SI.A-2
- ~-:
~:~
1
0
t
!1
48121620
. . ..--. .. . . . .
kdft )
1
Includes TQOI Joints
Mud Weight-lb/ed
Fig.
14-Buoyrmcy
of aluminum and
weight per foot.
steel drill
pipe,
The modified extrusion process for producing heavyend pipe was preceded by many other forms of aluminum
drill pipe. First attempts comprised API 8-round-threads
on plain-end aluminum pipe. A short test string was fabricated. in this manner and tested in the field, providing
some favorable insight into the future possibllititi of ahtminurn as a drill string. More strength was found necessary
for the tool joint area than could be ~btained by the use
of straight-wall pipe, One ~arly attempt to design a- pipe
end reinforcement consisted of, an aluminum sleeve in
combination with plain-end pipe.
Several versions of these composite pipe ends were
prepared, tested and abandoned. Other designs took the
form of composite pipe ends in conjunction with plastic
attachments for the end sleeves and tool joints. None of
these, designs was found satisfactory so other methods
were considered.
A method of formigg hot upsets was deveIoped which
provided a thick-&ti portion for ~ol joint attachment.
Tool joints were developed for this type of pipe and tested in the laboratory. The results looked encouraging and
a 2,500 ft test string was fabricated. This method and
design was abandoned after field failures developed. The
trouble was finally diagnosed as inconsistencies in the
upset ends, and no immediate solution appeared to be
availabIe for correction of the trouble. Additional design
modifications were also indicated in the. tool joint and
attachment area. These tests led to the development of
the h~vy-end extrus;on process which proved to be the
answer.
.
..=
Tire heavy-end extrusion process provided pipe which
...-.+.=.P.r.wA@ I@e @@s@@!afigW p@i3e!!i~sz?x<g!!ent Joy! ,
joint tittachment possibilities, good design prospeets-regarding stress transfer and p~ovided an easy means of handling. the pipe with slips. F6110wing each series of fatigue
tests,.chang~ were made in the tool joint and/or attach,.
ment assembly and a new series of tests run to determine
, the degree of improvement.
Step by step, in this manner, the fatigue life of aluminum drill pipe and tool joint assemblies was increased
until it matched and then exceeded the fatigue life of
steel pipe. The tests compared aluminum drill, pipe and
steel drill pipe run under the same bending load, but it
is to be recalled thit the aluminum deflects about twice
as much as the steeL W!~.enthe aluminum pipe is loaded
to deflect only as ml~ch as the steel diill pipe, the fatigue hfe is 5 [0 10. tunes in excess of steel pipe ,fatigue
life.
.
Field History
,
.;.
Theje-h;ve
be~h- no- fiiltir=&Y=in
or-neaf-tli~-tool-joint-
1
arka,
.
Straightening of the aluminum drill pipe is riot recommended, nor has it been necessary, Some pipe has been
bowed but, in general, drilling with the pipe in tension
straightens the bowed @pe.
<
.
- --
f
...
,. _ .
-.
.!
,---
,,
J,
~
In
1959 u three-phase piogmm wm planned for extensive field testing of the new tool. The first phase of
the field development was the completion of 100,000 ft
of drilling-and successful operation by a major oil conlpany near Victoria, Tcx. This ,was completed near {the
end of 1961,
The second phase of development called for placement of about 10 strings in the field for further evaluation. The aluminum drillpipe was enthusiastically received
in the field and 21 strings were released instead of the
10planned
for the phase two part of the development
program.
The third and final phase of ahu-ninum drill pipe de-
velopment is prwently under way. M involves the selection . .
and establishment of operation policies and preparation of
..
~dditional. engineering data.
The present phase will provide additional data on
operational questions as the use of aluminum drill pipe
gains favor with operators and contractors.
On the basis of present experience it appears that
aluminum drill pipe is rapidly proving to be one of the .
most efficient and economical drill stems in use. ,
. .-
.!
I 00:000
1,006,000
L500,000,000
10,Od@OO 100,0&I,Of)O
Endurance Limit-Cycles
Fig. 15Fatigue
., >
.m
.
References ,
1. Economic
Report,
Reynolds- Metals
(1962).
2. Carlisle, Jr., M. E.: Cost Analysis of Aluminum I)rill IJipe.,.
Drilling Contractor ( May-Jnne, 196.3).
3. Hutlmance, W. B.: HOW to Minimize Blowouts tmd I.o.t ( lirculation, fVorrM oil ( JaII., 1963 ).
4. Boioe,
-------- E. G.: .-.Report On Use of .41uminum Drill Pipe, World
Ulc ,Liuly, lYbJ ) .
5.What You Shtmld Know About Aluminum Drill Pipe; oil
and fks ]aar. ( ?iIwch 18, 1963).
6. f)rill Pipe Engineering Ihtu.. Reynollfs J[t.tals (k Iuldiru.
tion
732-1-20 ( 1962).
M*
., :
conclusions
;.
,/
,.
..,_...
.?
,.
..
.
.-=
1
.
. .. . . .
Izv:
:,
.-
.-
.:
..-
..
:..
..
.>