The Prediction and Control of Casing Wear

William B. Bradley, SPE-AIME, Shell Development Co.

John E. Fontenot, SPE-AIME, Shell Oil Co.

Introduction
Casing wear is a problem in many wells. In directional
holes, very deep holes, and medium-depth abnor-
mally pressured holes, it can become a critical prob-
lem. It can cause the abandonment of a well before
reaching total depth or, in certain cases, it can lead
to a blowout.
The objective of the work reported here was to
develop better methods for the prediction and con-
trol of casing wear. To develop better predictive
methods, casing wear rates were measured under con-
trolled conditions. Laboratory measurements were
made to define the major factors in rotating, tripping,
and wireline wear. 1,2 This paper compares the various
modes of casing wear and develops procedures for
estimating field wear rates.
Background
Although casing wear has been a problem for many
years, published literature on the subject is meager.
In the United States, tests have shown the value of
fine-particle tungsten carbide hardbanding on the
reduction of casing wear by rotating tool joints. 3
The remaining body of literature on casing wear
comes primarily from Russia. Laboratory tests have
been run there to determine casing wear rates
by drillpipe rotation."" Unfortunately, they were run
in drilling muds without abrasives. Russian investi-
gators have also studied the wearing mechanisms of
abrasives,4-s but their studies were not done with
casing.
The effects of other variables on the casing wear
process have also been studied by Russian investi-
gators. 4 , 7,9-11 Theoretical calculations of wear because
of drilling, tripping, and connecting were made. ' °
But, without experimentally determined wear rates,
these calculations are of little value. Test results 'O
also show that the hardness of the casing does
not greatly affect its wear resistance. Analysis of
recovered casing has indicated that, in many in-
stances, temperatures of the wear surfaces reach 900
to 1,000oC." Wearing under these conditions can
produce significant cracking of the casing wall and
a substantial reduction in casing strength. Casing
damage by drill bits during tripping has also been
reported by the Russian investigators. '2 - 14
The ability of drillpipe rubbers to prevent contact
between the drillstring and casing is discussed in Ref.
15. Tests to determine the deflection of the protectors
under various conditions of load, mud, and tempera-
ture are reported. These results are similar to the
results reported in Ref. 1. Physical damage to the
protectors from casing joints during tripping is also
discussed.
Calculations and casing-design considerations to
minimize failure of casing because of wear are re-
ported in Refs. 5, 10, 16, and 17. Measurement of
drag forces at points of contact in wells is reported
in Ref. 16. Recommendations for the selection of

Casing wear is a problem in many wells and can cause abandonment of a well before
reaching total depth, or can lead to a blowout. Procedures for estimating casing wear
caused by rotating, tripping, and running wireline have been developed. Based on results
of extensive laboratory study, they allow consideration of, among other things, dog-leg
severity, coupled with drillstring tension, mud solids, and drillpipe protectors.

FEBRUARY, 1975 233

casing to minimize the total monetary risk as a result
of casing wear are made in Ref. 5. Conclusions drawn
from the risk analysis indicate that the risk would be
minimized by selecting the lowest suitable grade of
pipe with the maximum wall thickness.
Estimating Casing Wear and Its Effects
The prediction of wear from a purely theoretical basis
is not yet possible. Simplified forms of the necessary
equations are easy to deduce, but empirical data are
needed to develop wear coefficients. The results of
the experimental studies of casing reported in Refs. 1
and 2 were used to develop necessary casing wear
coefficients as a function of other drilling variables
DOGLEG SEVERITY 0/100'
o 10 12 14 16
.08
.-
a /
g .07
not expressly contained in the simplified equations.
The resulting procedures for forecasting wear because
of rotation, tripping, and running wireline are dis-
cussed below.
Rotational Wear by Tool Joints
To predict the rate of casing wear by drillstring rota-
tion, it is necessary to express the rate of wear in
terms of field-measurable parameters. Such parame-
ters include (1) rotating time and speed, (2) mud con-
dition (abrasiveness), (3) drillpipe wearing capability,
(4) casing wear resistance, (5) dog-leg severity, and
(6) tension in the drillstring at the point of wear.
Conceptually, wear rate can be described as a func-
tion of the wear condition and the contact force. For
the simplest case, where the wear rate is proportional
to the contact force (F), we have
18
20 16 ~
(wear rate) = C,F (1)
a
a
14 a
The contact force can be related to the hole con-
~

/ .,/ z ditions and drilling parameters by the use of drill-

~ .06
12 a

~
~ .05
/ V 10
z
w
....
c>
string mechanics.
For the simplest case,
) ~ ;;
~
..,~
..,
.04 .08 (2)
g; .03
/1 / / 06
~
"'-
or
V
I .02
.,/
.,/
,/
,/
//
.04 ~
g
(wear rate)
T = C ,C 2 • (3)

--
2S .01 .02
V ./
Fig. 1 shows the variation of (wear rate)/T as a
o k:. I - - function of dog-leg severity for a hypothetical wear
o 10
DOGLEG SEVERITY <>/100' situation. For example, using a 10° /100-ft dog-leg
Fig. l-(Casing wear rate)/(driilstring tension) and a drillstring tension of 200,000 lb, Fig. 1 would
vs dog-leg severity - hypothetical case predict a wear rate of 0.013 in./rotational day. A
of rotational wear.
7-in., 26-lb casing wall would thus be worn through
10,--------------------------------------. in 28 rotational days. Therefore, by knowing the
behavior of C , and C 2 , casing wear rates can be esti-
-TOOL JOINT, 4.75 INCH 0.0
- - D R i l L STRING, 3.50 INCH 0 D
mated for any drilling situation. In practice, how-
ever, C , and C? are more complicated than is indi-
( 16.5)
• NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES ARE NOMINAL
CONTACT LENGTHS EXPRESSED IN INCHES
cated by the straight-line relationship in Fig. 1 and
FOR TOOL JOINT, IN FEET FOR DRILL STRING
are probably more like the dashed curve shown.
Using a drill string-mechanics computer program,
the actual behavior of C 2 can be determined (for
example, see Figs. 2 and 3). Combining this with C ,
values calculated from experimental data,' casing wear
rates for a limited number of field conditions can be
estimated.
In order to apply the experimental data' to casing
wear under actual drilling conditions, we made the
following assumption.
The wear process of a rotating tool joint or
drillpipe rubber moving along the casing as drill-
ing proceeds is adequately represented by the
test conditions' where no traversing occurred
and that a comparison can be made by equating
the wear volumes removed per unit time.
In drilling situations with penetration rates greater
than 5 ft/hr, the volume wear comparison is probably
4 DEGREES _ - ..- - -
valid. For very slow drilling rates (hours/foot), more
(1). _ _ - ' - " -
attention needs to be paid to the maximum penetration
50 100 200 300
DRILL STRING TENSION 10 3 LBS
rather than solely to the wear volume removed. 1
Fig. 2 -Tool-joint and drillstring contact forces in
Using the above assumptions, rough estimates of
dog-legs vs axial tension - 3.5·in. driilpipe. field casing wear rates can be developed using a
234 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
heuristic argument. For a more complete develop- data predict a total of 180 rotational days, or approxi-
ment, see Appendix A. By assuming a constant vol- mately 270 drilling days, to penetrate the heavy wall
.
ume wear rate, V, (for a constant contact force), and
casing, and 130 rotational days and 195 drilling days
for 40-lb casing. For extreme loading conditions
assuming the wearing process of a rotating tool joint
(10 0 /100-ft dog-leg and 225,000-lb tensile load in
moving along the casing is the same as the experi- the drillstring or 10,000-lb contact force), the 40-lb
mental conditions, then casing can be worn through in as little as 6 drilling
. = ATP
V , . (4)
days with new tool joints. For field-worn tool joints
in sand-laden mud systems, the rotational days to
where the wear AT is described by Fig. 4. For a con- penetrate 40-lb casing vary from 50 days for a 5,000-
stant-volume wear rate and a constant drilling pene- Ib contact load to 400 days for a 500-lb contact load.
tration rate, P, AT will also be constant. The field-wear penetration rates listed in Table 1
Using Eq. 4, it can be shown that the wear rate is were calculated from the slope of the experimental-
independent of the drilling penetration rate. By wear penetration curves after the initial rapid pene-
doubling the drilling penetration rate, the wear area tration of the casing had ceased. 1 As a result, this
removed per tool-joint pass will be halved. However, initial penetration is not included in the calculated
a point on the casing will see twice as many tool wear penetrations shown. It must be emphasized
joints in the same amount of time, so the wear area that these rates can only be considered as order-of-
rate will be the same for the two penetration rates. magnitude estimates and are for rotational wear only.
The wear rate will, however, be affected by the To get estimates of total casing wear, tripping wear
tool-joint spacing, i.e., the fraction of time a tool and wireline wear would have to be included.
joint is in contact with any given point on the casing. The figures for the days to penetrate the casing wall
Considering tool joints spaced at 30-ft intervals, the should only be considered as order-of-magnitude
field wear rate will be 0.01 times the experimental estimates for two reasons. First, the rate of penetra-
wear rate [i.e., 4 in./(30 ft)(12)]. (In calculating the tion is based on tests where only a fraction of the
wear volume, the effective wearing length of the tool wall thickness was worn. Therefore, the time to pene-
joint must be considered. In actual use, the effective trate is only approximate. Second, there is a question
wear surface is limited to the hardfaced portion of as to whether the penetration rate remains approxi-
the tool joint and for 41;2-in. diameter X-hole tool mately constant with depth of penetration. For non-
joints, this length is approximately 4 in.) abrasive systems, this appears to be a reasonable
Table 1 shows the approximate field wear rates estimate. However, for tests run in abrasive mud sys-
and total rotational days to penetrate the casing wall tems, there appears to be a change in the penetration
developed from the experimental wear volume data rate at a penetration of about 0.2 in.
for tool joints. Notice that for new tool joints in clear No values of C were calculated for drillpipe pro-
water at a moderate contact force of 2,000 Ib, the tectors because of the deformation of the rubbers
under load and because of the complex wear pattern
produced. To develop C 1 values for rubbers, addi-
tional tests will have to be conducted with wear depths
and volumes measured at intervals during the tests.

-- TOOL JOINT, 6.25 INCH 00

Tripping Wear by Drillpipe Body
15
- - DRill STRING, A 50 INCH 00 Estimates of casing wear caused by tripping of drill-
• NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES ARE
LENGTHS EXPRESSED IN
NOMINAL CONTACT
INCHES FOR TOOL JOINT,
pipe can be made if the hole conditions and tripping
IN FEET FOR DRill STRING
wear coefficients are known. Coefficients for a num-
,0

4'
," 4~~"
,,~
~"
,~"
,,~
, Q

'""'
M
a <)
0"
0'~
~"
~ 10 Q~
b

tl (17)
~
,...
~ CC"

~
C0'
,0

•c;;.--- .--
\09
'(451 ~------- '(451

.--0 ~ ~ _____ 0• ~t;':.-- -----

.!ll~ ~ . _ _ *(1)
~ ..--------
_ _ b~E~--

°2~5~50--~~'0-0~~-----2LOO--~~~~30-0--------~400
---
DRILL STRING TENSIO~ - 10 3 LBS

Fig. 3 -Tool'joint and drillstring contact forces in dog·legs DIRfCTlON

vs axial tension - 4.5·in. drillpipe. Fig. 4-Tool·joint casing wear area, At.

FEBRUARY, 1975 235

 TABLE l-APPROXIMATE FIELD WEAR RATES OF CASING BY TOOL JOINTS USING EXPERIMENTAL
CASING WEAR RATESl
Total Time To Penetrate Time To Penetrate
Contact Casing Wall 97's-in_ X 53_5-lb 97's-in- x 40-lb
Load Penetration Rate Casing - 0_545-in_ Wall Casing - 0.395-in. Wall
Test Configuration and Fluid Used (Ib) (in./rotational days*) (rotational days) (rotational days)

Clear water, no sand added

New tool joint 10,000 0.10 6 4
5,000 0.03 18 13
2,000 0.003 180 130
Clear water, sand added Penetration rate Penetration rate Penetration rate
Field-worn tool joint 5,000 not consta nt not consta nt not consta nt
2,000 0.003 to 0.006 90 to 180 65 to 130
1,000 0.002 270 200
Water-base mud, no sand added
Field-worn tool jOint 5,000 0.008 70 50
2,000 0.003 180 130
1,000 0.002 270 200
Water-base mud, sand added
Field-worn tool point 2,000 0.003 180 130
1,000 0.002 270 200
500 0.001 550 400
Oil-base mud, no sand added
Field-worn tool joint 2,000 0.005 110 80
1,000 0.002 270 200
'Rotational day equals 24 hours of rotation. Drilling days would be greater by a factor of approximately 1.4 to 1.6 (time
for trips is not included). Tripping wear has not been included.

bel' of wear situations 2 are shown in Table 2. These
coefficients can be used in conjunction with a wear
volume equation and a graph relating wear volume
to wear depth to determine casing wear rates. The
wear volume equation needed is developed in Ap-
pendix B and can be written as
V t = 2Cwt TN t E(D t - Do) sin ( ~ ).
In selecting an appropriate wear coefficient from
Table 2, the average contact force can be estimated
by Eq. B-2 or from Figs. 2 and 3 and an appropriate
coefficient selected. The last step is to determine the
estimated wear depth from the wear volume given by
Eq. 5. This can be done by using Fig. 5, whose curves
are based upon a crescent formula that assumes a
symmetrical wear pattern.
In using Eq. 5 and Table 2 to estimate casing wear
for field drilling situations, many assumptions and
approximations are made. The assumptions that are
likely to have the greatest effect on the wear estimate
(5) are those made concerning the dog-leg severity and
the wear coefficient. The actual dog-leg severity can
be considerably greater than indicated by routine di-
rectional surveys. Concerning the wear coefficient,
the large variation with mud type and contact load
seen in Table 2 makes the selections of the correct
coefficient for situations not shown highly uncertain_

TABLE 2-WEAR COEFFICIENTS (C wt ) DETERMINED .50

FROM DRILLPIPE TRIPPING WEAR TESTS'

Wear Coefficients
Contact Load (C wt ) (cu in./lb-ft) .40

Type of Mud (Ib/ft) K-55 P·110

Water 500 2.9 x 10-8 2.6 x 10-'
1,000 8.5 X 10-8 4.2 X 10-'
.30
2,000 5.9 X 10-' 3.7 X 10-'
Unweighted water-base 500 7.9 x 10-' 9.3 X 10-'
mud + 3 percent sand 1,000 2.9 X 10-' 5.7 X 10-'
2,000 4.4 X 10- 8 5.0 X 10-'
Weighted water-base mud 1,000 1.4 x 10-' 3.6 x 10-' DRILL pIPE 0.0.

without drill solids 2,000 0.7 x 10-' 1.4 x 10-'

4.5"--

Weighted water-base mud 1,000 1.4 x 10;"' 2.9 x 10-' 5.0"--

with 2 to 8 percent drill 2,000 1.0 x 10-' 0.7 X 10-'

solids 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 20.00
WEAR VOLlTM:E, IN. 3/FT
Weighted water-base mud 500 3.6 x 10-'
Fig_ 5-Wear depth vs wear volume for drillpipe
with drill solids and 1,000 1.4 x 10-' 4.3 X 10-' body/casing wear as determined from
3 percent sand 2,000 0.7 x 10-' 0.7 X 10-' crescent formula.

236 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 wear occur both while rotating and tripping the
Wear by Wireline drillstring. For some time, there has been a lively
Table 3 is a summary of the wireline wear coefficients discussion in the industry as to which type of wear
determined from wear tests. 2 An appropriate coeffi- is most harmful. To help resolve this controversy,
cient can be used with Eqs. 6 and 7 to estimate wire- the wear data reported in Refs. 1 and 2 have been
line wear for field situations. used to develop comparisons between the various
An equation for wire line wear volume, developed types of wear in typical wells.
in Appendix C, can be written as
Rotating vs Tripping Wear
(6) A comparison between estimates of casing wear
caused by drill pipe rotation and tripping for eight field
In selecting an appropriate wear coefficient from conditions where casing wear was measured is pre-
Table 3, the average contact force can be estimated sented in Table 4. Included in the table are the drilling
by Eq. C-2 and an appropriate coefficient selected. conditions under which the casing wear occurred.
The last step is to determine the estimated wear These estimates of wear were developed from the
depth from the wear volume given by Eq. 6. This laboratory wear test results reported in Refs. 1 and 2.
can be done by solving the following equation for Rough estimates of wear by drillpipe body rotation
the wear volume as a function of the wear depth and were made by using the tool-joint wear-rate informa-
the wireline diameter. This equation was derived tion of Ref. 1 for two cases where the casing was
from the formula for the area of a circular segment recovered and both tool-joint and drill pipe body wear
given in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. were observed. Estimates of wear caused by the tool
joints while tripping were made from drill pipe body
v (CUftin.) r.D2 - [( T
= -8- D - Dw ) VDw(D - Dw)
tripping results of Ref. 2.
W An example of the importance of accurate field
measurements can be seen in the data for Well 8 in
+ D2 . -1(1 - DDw)] .
4 Sill (7)
Table 4. Original dog-leg severity measurements
indicated a dog-leg severity of 5.4°/100 ft, while
An example of a curve developed for the wear depth gyro-survey measurements run through the patched
as a function of wear volume for a 1%2-in. wireline is 7 -in. casing indicated a maximum dog-leg severity
given in Fig. 6. of 10.2°/100 ft. Measurements on the extent of
Many assumptions and approximations are in- the wear area from the recovered casing indicate
volved in applying Eq. 6 and Table 3 in estimating a dog-leg severity of 25°/100 ft. As a result, use of
field wear rates. The more significant ones concern the original 5.4° /100-ft dog-leg severity would have
the wear coefficient and the dog-leg severity, as dis- caused the casing wear rate to be underestimated by
cussed in the previous section. a factor of 5 or would have led to a prediction of 150
drilling days to failure rather than the 30 days
Relative Magnitudes of Types of actually experienced.
Casing Wear The estimated wear depths presented in Table 4
There are four types of casing wear: tool joint, drill- were calculated using the methods previously dis-
pipe rubber, drillpipe body, and wireline. Further- cussed. Because the eight field examples did not always
more, tool-joint, drillpipe rubber, and drillpipe body closely approximate the conditions under which the
laboratory results were produced, it was necessary
TABLE 3-WEAR COEFFICIENTS (C ww ) DETERMINED in most cases to approximate the field wear rate with
FROM WIRELINE WEAR TESTS
Wear Coefficients
Contact Load (C ww ) (cu in./lb·tt) 60
K-55 P-110
Type of Mud (I bitt)
1.1 x 10-"
J
WlRELINE DIAMETER J= 15/32" V
Water 9.8
19.6 2.0 x 10-8
1.2 X 10-8
0.8 X 10-8 50
/
Unweighted water-base mud 4.9 15.0 x 10- 8
11.0 X 10-8 /
+ 3 percent sand 9.8 8.6 x 10-8 8.0 X 10-' ~ 40
/
19.6 7.1 x 10-8 7.2 X 10-' ,a
Weighted water· base mud 9.8 3.9 x 10-' 3.9 X 10-'
rl

~ 30
//
without drill solids 19.6 1.9 x 10-8 2.2 X 10-' A /
Weighted water-base mud 9.8 5.2 x 10-' 3.5 X 10-8 ~ 20 /
with 2 to 8 percent drill
solids
19.6 2.1 x 10-8 2.2 X 10-' /
Weighted water-base mud 9.8 12.0 x 10-' 13.0 X 10-8 10
/
with 8 percent drill solids
+ 3 percent sand
19.6 5.2 x 10-' 4.3 X 10-8
o
II
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Weighted water base mud 19.6 6.1 x 10-8 5.9 X 10-8
without drill solids Fig. 6-Wear depth vs wear volume for 1%2·in.
+ 3 percent sand diameter wireline.

FEBRUARY, 1975 237

N
w
00

TABLE 4-FIELD·MEASURED WEAR DEPTHS CAUSED BY ROTATING AND TRIPPING COMPARED WITH
CALCULATED WEAR DEPTHS
Mud Data Measured Calculated Woar Depth (in.)
Dogleg
Wear Drillpipe Severity Assumed String Operating/ Sand Wear Depth (in.j( f) Rotating Tripping
Point Diameter (degrees/ Average Tension Rotating Density Content Pipe Tool Pipe Tool
Type
Well _ Casing ~ (in) ~ (rpm) (1,000 Ib) ~ (lb/gal) (percent) Total ~ Joint Body(e) Joint(a) Pipe Body

7·in. 15,708 31/2 6.9 60 49 142/128 Invert 10.5 to 20 oto 1/2 0.165 0.7 0.006 0.001
P-ll0 48 65/59
64 45/40
72 96/86
2 7·in. 15,793 3% 13.9 60 49 142/128 Invert 10.5 to 20 Oto % 0.194 1.2 0.020 0.002
P-ll0 48 65/59
64 45/40
72 96/86
3 9%·in. 9,000 41/2 10.8 90 107 65/39 Brine water 9.4 to 9.5 Trace 0.213 0.7 0.040 to 0.038
S·95 193 112/67 Low·solids gel 9.5 0.070(d)
5 percent oil
Fresh·water gel 9.5
Invert 13.2 to 14.2
4 7%-in. 9,000 3'/2 10.8 60 132 130/117 Invert 17.8 Trace 0.360 0.08 0.5 0.8 0.040 0.002
P·ll0
_(c) _(b)
5 9%·in. 10,138 4'/2 3.4 90 157 41/25 Brine water 9.3 to 9.4 Oto % 0.053 0.4
P·ll0 90 173 44/26 Oil base 10.0 to 17.5
60 144 43/39
'-<
0 6 10%-in. 2,822 4'/2 8.4 120 140 10/5.5 Sea-water gel 9.5 to 12.0 0.400 0.3 0.035 0.010
c: K-55
:;z::J 191 7/3.8
Z 175 7/3.8
>
t""' 192 14/7.7
0 0_380 0.008
"rI 7 13%-in. 650 4'/2 8.0 150 84 5/2.5 Fresh-water gel 10.5 % 0.3 0.036
'"C J-55 113 5/2.5 Salt-water gel 12.6
t"I1
'""'I 127 15/7.5
:;z::J
0
142 15/7.5
t""'
t"I1 8 7-in. 3,600 3% 25_0 90 195 30/20 Dispersed 12 to 15.7 '/.I 0.353 0.10 0.3 0.2 0.015 0.005
c: J-55 fresh water
~
(a) Wear coefficient assumed to be the same as for pipe body_
@ (b)
(c)
Pipe body contact with casing theoretically impossible.
Unable to estimate coefficient for wear by tool jOints in brine water.
()
(d) Wear rate highly uncertain because of part of it occurring in brine water.
:t: (e) Wear coefficient assumed to be the same as for tool joint_
Z (f) Wear measurements of casing in place are Dialog measurements. Recovered casing was sectioned and measured.
0
r'
0
C)
>-<:
the laboratory results that most nearly fit the field
conditions. Rubbers were also run in some of the
wells, which further complicated the prediction of
wear depths. As a result, the predicted wear depths
are only approximate.
In spite of the limitations of the methods used to
predict the wear depths, definite conclusions can be
drawn from the results.
1. The order of magnitude of field-observed casing
wear can be accounted for by the rates of casing wear
predicted from the laboratory rotating wear tests.
2. Tripping wear rates predicted from the labora-
tory tripping tests are so low that, despite the limita-
tions of the estimates, the results cannot account for
the magnitude of field-observed casing wear.
3. Estimates of casing wear by pipe body rotation
are sufficient to account for the additional pipe body
wear observed in recovered samples of worn casing.
Therefore, we can conclude that the major cause of
casing wear is drillstring rotation.
Tool Joint vs Drillpipe Rubber Wear
An analysis of the rotating wear test datal indicates
that there are a number of factors (load, mud weight,
tool-joint surface condition, sand composition, test
duration, etc.) that affect the rate of wear. Insufficient
tests have been performed to separate quantitatively
all of the various effects. However, important obser-
vations can still be made.
Figs. 7 and 8 show comparisons between rotational
casing wear by tool joints and drillpipe rubbers. These
figures show the wear volume removed as a function
of contact force. The results for water without sand
show that drillpipe rubbers wear casing substantially
less than tool joints at all contact loads. The tests run
at contact loads of 2,000 and 5,000 Ib for 1 hour
showed no measurable casing wear by the drill-
pipe rubbers. With the addition of 3 percent sand
to the water, the drillpipe rubbers began to wear the
casing. Fig. 7 shows the resultant wear volume with
water and 3 percent sand, plotted as a function of
contact force for a test duration of 14.5 hours. Exam-
ination of this figure shows a number of things. At
high contact loads, the drill pipe rubbers wear casing
less than field-worn tool joints. However, as the
contact load is reduced, a point is reached where the
drillpipe rubbers begin to wear the casing more rapidly
than tool joints. In fact, the casing wear rate from
drillpipe rubbers actually increases with a reduction
in contact load. This difference in the wearing be-
havior of drill pipe rubbers and tool joints is believed
to result from the large deformation (larger bearing
area) exhibited by the rubber under load. Ref. 1 con-
tains a more detailed discussion of the effect of rubber
deformation on wear.
As in clear water, the drillpipe rubbers wore the
casing substantially less than field-worn tool joints at
all loads in a weighted water-base field mud without
added sand. (The mud contained 1 percent drilled
solids.) Fig. 8 shows the wear volume results plotted
as a function of contact force for a test duration of
3 hours. Notice that at high contact loads, the drillpipe

0.7 r---------------------""T7"'?"":;,..."...,"7"7"7",------,

fiElD WORN TOOL JOINT

WATER 3% SAND ADDED
0.6

5r-------------------------------------~
05

4 M
z 0.4
~

M « ~
Z :;:
I 3
ci
«
DRill PIPE PROTECTOR- ~ 0.3
::>
~
WATER 3 % ADDED SAND
:;: 0 FiElD WORN TOOl JOINT
( >
~ 12.51b/gol FRESH WATER
~ 2 0.2
FIELD MUD 3 'I. ADDED SAN
o ' - - FIELD WORN TOOL JOINT
>
11 Iblgol OIL BASE MUD
NO ADDED SAND

0.1
' - - - TOOL JOINT-WATER
3% ADDED SAND
(DRill PIPE RUB8ERS-12.5 Iblgol FRESH
WATER FiElD MUD 3% ADDED SAND
OL---__ ____ ______ ______ ______
o
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o~-------------L---------- ____J -____ ~
500 1000 1500 2000 o 1000 2000
CONTACT FORCE - lBS CONTACT FORCE.~ LBS
Fig. 7-A comparison of rotational caSing wear by tool- Fig. 8-A comparison of rotational casing wear by tool-
joints and drillpipe protectors as a function of contact jO'tnts and drill pipe protectors as a function of contact
force - water, 141f2-hour tests. force - weighted field muds, 3-hour tests.

FEBRUARY, 1975 239

rubbers again display superior casing wear protection.
With a reduction in contact force, the casing wear
rate of drillpipe rubbers again increased until it ex-
ceeded the casing wear rate of field-worn tool joints.
Notice, however, that the load at which the rubber
wear rate exceeds the tool-joint wear rate is lower in
the weighted mud than in the clear-water tests. Also,
the point at which the casing wear rate for rubbers
starts to increase with a decrease in contact load is
lower for the tests in the weighted water-base field
mud.
For comparison, the wear behavior of field-worn
tool joints in water with 3 percent sand is also shown
in Fig. 8. Observe that the tendency of the increased
mud weight is to reduce the amount of wear. At high
loads, it appears that increased mud weight may
reduce the rate of wear substantially.
The casing wear behavior of field-worn tool joints
in weighted oil-base field muds is also shown in Fig. 8.
While there was somewhat less wear from tool joints
in oil mud as compared with water-base mud, the
differences appear to be modest for muds with similar
densities.
Wireline Wear vs DrilIstring Wear
For comparative purposes, the wireline wear was
calculated for four of the wear cases given in Table 4.
The methods described previously were used in mak-
ing these calculations. It was assumed that a 1~32-in.
wireline was run six times to total depth and that the
effects of all previous wire line runs had been wiped out
by the drillstring. The results are given in Table S,
along with the estimated wear depths caused by the
drillstring, which were taken from Table 4. As can be
seen, the estimated wireline wear is very small com-
pared with the measured wear and the estimated pipe
body tripping wear. For two offshore wells (Wells 6
and 7) where the mud was assumed to contain con-
siderable sand, the total estimate wear depth is approx-
imately S percent of the total wear depth. For the
two deep Mississippi wells (Wells 2 and 4) where the
muds contained negligible sand, it is somewhat less.
Summary and Conclusions
Procedures were developed to estimate casing wear
caused by rotating, tripping, and running wireline.
Empirical wear coefficients were derived from lab-
oratory wear measurements and the magnitude of
the various types of wear were compared for typical
wells. The major conclusions reached are.
1. Drillstring rotation is generally the major cause
of casing wear.
2. DriIlpipe rubbers will be of benefit in reducing
wear in cases where contact loads are high (> approx-
imately 1,500 Ib).
3. New hardfaced tool joints should never be
rotated inside the casing.
4. Casing wear by wirelines is generally not of
major consequence.
S. Dog-leg severity can be much more severe than
is indicated by routine directional surveys.
6. In all types of wear, the effect of contact load
on wear rate is not linear.
7. The addition of gel and barite or nonabrasive
drill solids will tend to decrease the wear by the drill-
string (rotating and tripping), but increase the wear
by wirelines.
8. Casing grade does not affect the rate of wear by
wireline.
Field Practice Recommendations
In order to minimize wear by the drillstring, we believe
the following procedures should be employed in wells
where casing wear is a potential problem.
1. Keep dog-legs to a minimum. In severe situa-
tions, consider reducing angle changes by string-
reaming the bends. Also consider installing thicker
wall and higher-strength casing opposite the high-
contact load points. In some situations, a gyro survey
after the casing has been run may be justified.
2. Calculate contact loads and location of drill-
string-casing contacts with no rubbers.
3. Plan to install rubbers where tool-joint contact
forces exceed about I,SOO lb. (This cutoff load may
need to be changed as a result of further testing and
field experience.)
4. Recalculate contact loads and contact points
to simulate addition of the rubbers, assuming no
deflection of the rubbers. (Resize and relocate as
needed to prevent steel-on-steel contact.)
S. Keep sand content of the mud as low as possible.
6. Run new tool joints with hardfacing only in open
hole.
7. Check frequently for slippage and rubber separ-

TABLE 5-ESTIMATED WIRELINE WEAR DEPTH VS DRILLSTRING WEAR DEPTH FOR FOUR WELLS

Estimated Wear Depths (in.)

1%2· in.
Wear Dogleg Measured Pipe Body Diameter
Point Severity Mud Type Wear Depth Total Joint Tripping Wireline
Well .-J.!!L (degrees/lOO ft) for Logging (in.) Rotating Wear Wear Wear
--
2 15,793 13.9 Invert 0.194 0.7 0.001 0.008
(20.0Ib/gal)
4 9,000 10.8 0.360 0.5 0.002 0.013
(17.8 Ib/gal)
6 2,822 8.4 Sea·water gel 0.400 0.3 0.010 0.020
(12.0Ib/gal)
7 650 8.0 Salt·water gel 0.380 0.3 0.008 0.020
(12.6Ib/gal)
Assumptions:
1. 15/32·in. wireline run six times to total depth.
2. All previous wireline wear assumed to have been wiped out by drillstring wear.

240 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

ation; double-up on rubbers at points of slippage or
separation. Check to make sure that doubling-up on
rubbers does not reduce the contact force per rubber
below the recommended 1,500 lb.
In order to minimize the wear caused by wirelines,
we recommend the following.
1. Keep dog-legs to a minimum.
2. Calculate contact loads at dog-legs and apply
wear coefficient to determine rate at which casing will
be cut.
3. Keep sand and silt content of the mud as low,
as possible. In a critical-wear situation, spot a clean
fluid opposite the intervals of high-contact loads.
4. Circulate out cuttings before running wireline.
5. Minimize the number of wireline runs.
6. Avoid use of a new wireline in cases where wear
is critical.
Nomenclature
AT = wear area per tool joint pass, sq in.
C, = rotating wear coefficient (a function of
the mud, casing, drillpipe, etc.)
C 2 = contact force coefficient (a function of
drill string geometry, dog-leg severity,
etc.)
C wt = tripping wear coefficient given in Table
2, cu in./lb-ft
Cww = wireline wear coefficient given in Table 3,
cu in./lb-ft
D = wire line diameter, in.
D t = total depth of well at time of interest, ft
Dw = depth of wear, in.
D6 = depth of wear point, ft
E = fraction of drillpipe per joint that con-
tacts wear point (usually taken as 0.1)
F = contact force, Ib
L = distance of drillstring or wireline travel
across wear point, ft
Ln = length between tool joints
LH,F. = length of wear surface on tool joint (hard-
faced portion)
.
n = number of tool joints passing per unit
time
N = number of operating days
Nt = number of round trips per day (usually
assumed to equal 1 for conventional
bits and 0.25 for diamond bits)
N w = number of wireline runs
P = drilling penetration rate, in./hr
t = time
T = buoyed weight of drillstring below wear
points,lb
Ta = average tension in the drill string (wire-
line) at the wear point, lb
T. = maximum wire line tension at the surface,
. lb
V = wear volume rate caused by rotating,
cu in./hr
V t = wear volume caused by tripping,
cu in./hr
Vw = wear volume caused by wireline running,
cu in./ft
8 = dog-leg severity, o/ft
FEBRUARY, 1975
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Shell Oil Co. for permission
to publish this work. We also wish to acknowledge
that the drillstring mechanics computer program used
in this work was developed by F. J. Fischer of Shell
Development Co.
References
1. Bradley, W. B.: "Experimental Determination of Casing
Wear by Drillstring Rotation," paper presented at the
Petroleum Mechanical Engineering Conference, Dallas,
Sept. 15-18, 1974.
2. Fontenot, J. E. and McEver, J. W.: "The Experimental
Measurement of Casing Wear Due to Reciprocating Drill-
pipe and Wireline," paper presented at the Petroleum
Mechanical Engineering Conference, Dallas, Sept. 15-18,
1974.
3. Lewis, R. W.: "Casing Wear," Drilling (Dec. 1968) 48-50.
4. Kiselman, M. L. and Kiselman, L. 1.: "Method for Lab-
oratory Testing of Drill Pipes and Casings for Wear,"
Mashiny i Neftianoe Oborudovanie vyp. 3 (1969) 13-18.
5. Kiselman, L. I. and Kiselman, M. L.: "Assembly of Well
Columns Using Durability Calculations," Nauchno-Tek-
hnicheskii Sbornik Seriya, Burenie (1970) No. 10, 19-23.
6. Kol'chenko, A. V.: "A Study of the Abrasive Wear of
Turbodrills by a Stream of Weighted Mud," Akademiia
Nauk SSSR, Izvestiya, Otdel. Tekh. Nauk. (1956) No.
1,21-29.
7. Nikanorov, M. M. and Ignatiadi, A. I.: "The Effect of the
Size of the Mineral Particles of Sandstones on Their Abra-
sive Power," Izvestiya Vysshikk Uchebnykh, Zavedenii.
Neft. i Gaz (1960) 3, No.5, 51-56.
8. Ignatiadi, A. I.: "Theoretical Study of the Effects of Form
and Dimensions of Rock Grains on Abrasive Wear of
Drilling Instruments," Izvestiya Vysshikk Uchebnykh,
Zavedenii, Neft. i Gaz (1971) 7, 27-29.
9. Kiselman, M. L.: "Casing Wear," Burenie (1965) No.
1,34-36.
10. Erlikh, G. M., Vartanova, N. A., and Revitskii, E. I.:
"A New Method of Designing Casing Strings to With-
stand Wear Due to Friction," Neft. Khoz. (1962) 40,
No.7, 15-19.
11. Kiselman, L. I. and Kiselman, M. L.: "Wear of Casing
Strings in Deep Wells," Neft. Khoz. (Oct. 1970) 10,
9-13.
12. Kiselman, M. L. and Porada, A. S.: "Simultaneous
Damage of Bits and Casing in Deep Wells During Pull-
ing and Running Operations," Burenie (1970) No.9,
27-30 .
13. Kiselman, M. L. and Porada, A. S.: "Determination of
Forces Acting on the Bit and Casing String During
Lowering of Drilling String," Neft. Khoz. (Jan. 1971)
19-22.
14. Kiselman, M. L. and Porada, A. S.: "Choice of Mediums
Used to Protect Casing String from Damage by Drilling
Bits," Burenie (1971) 5, 19-23.
15. Izmailov, L. B., Karnaukhov, L. A., and Kiselman, M.
L.: "Effectiveness of Casing Protection with Standard
Rubber Safety Rings in Deep Drilling," Neft. Khoz.
(1966) 44, No. 10, 24-27.
16. Kiselman, M. L.: "Experimental Determination of Re-
sistance Forces During Lowering Hoisting Operations
in Deep Wells," Nauchno-Tekhnicheskii Sbornik Seriya
Burenie (1970) No.3, 34-37.
17. Kiselman, M. L. and Andrianov, I. I.: "A Study of
Collapse of Worn Casing Strings," Neft. Khoz. (May
1970) 5, 14-26.
APPENDIX A
Derivation of Field Wear Rates From
Experimental Wear Rates
Using the assumption that a tool joint traversing
along the casing will remove the same volume of
material per unit time as was removed in the exper-
241
imental tests under the same condition, a relationship Notice that the penetration rate P cancels out, making
between field wear rates and experimental wear rates casing wear independent of penetration rate. Eq. A-7
can be developed. The above assumption can be stated relates the experimental wear results to field wear
as
rates in terms of AT. For tool joints, AT can be related
to wearing rate, except for the initial portion of the
(A-I) wear process, by
where
. . A ~
~T
C (wear)
rate . (A-8)
V V = volume wear rate of a single tool joint for
F, E
the field and the experimental condi- Substituting Eqs. A-8 and A-3 into A-7 gives
tions, respectively. *
wear)
( rate = (wear) (~), (A-9)
Using AT as defined in Fig. 4, F rate E Ln
where
(A-2)
L U .F . 4 in. 001
where Ln :::::: (30 ft)(12 in.):::::: .
To calculate wear rates for drillpipe protectors, exper-
P = drilling penetration rate,
and for tool-joint tests,
.
imental information on V R needs to be developed and
. .
V E = A 2'EL u .F . , (A-3)
applied using Eq. A-7.

APPENDIX B
where
Equations for Casing Wear Caused by
L U . F . = length of wearing surface on the tool joint Tripping
(hardfaced portion). The results obtained from the tripping wear tests 2 are
Now consider the wear at a point in the casing as summarized in terms of tripping wear coefficients as
successive tool joints pass. functions of mud type, contact load, and casing grade
in Table 2. These coefficients can be used with an
+ AT2 + ...
(AThoTAL = AT!
_ V
. V
. appropriate equation to estimate wear volumes from
which depths of wear can be determined. The develop-
- -P- + -P + ...
FI F2
ment of this equation is given below.
. .
For V = V = constant, and
1 2
The volume of wear, V t, is expressed as
Fl F2 V t = C wt FL. (B-1)
PI =P 2 = ... = constant The contact force, F, can be expressed approxi-
mately as
(A-4)

where
F = 2Ta sin( &) (B-2)

n = number of tool joints passing the point Combining Eqs. B-1 and B-2, we get
of interest.
Differentiating Eq. A-4 with respect to time (t)
Vt = 2Cwt TaL sin (&) (B-3)

gives If T is the buoyed weight of the drillstring below the

. . contact point with the bit on bottom, then during the
•
(A'fhoTAL = dr!...t{n VpF) = (VpF)n' (A-5)
course of a trip the average tension, T a , is T /2, and
since the contact force is linear with tension, we can
.
where n is the number of tool joints passing per unit
correct Eq. B-3 by dividing by two; thus

time, or V t = Cwt TL sin (f) . (B-4)

p The distance of travel across the wear point, L, can
n=~ , . (A-6)
Ln be written as
where L = 2N t E (D t -Da) (B-5)
Ln = length between tool joints. Substituting Eq. B-5 into Eq. B-4, we get
Substituting Eqs. A-I and A-6 into Eq. A-5 gives
V t = 2C wt TNt E (D t -- Da) sin( &). (B-6)
(A-7)
'Dot above variable indicates the time derivative of that variable.

242 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 This is the equation recommended for use in esti- Vw = C ww FL . (C-l)
mating drillpipe tripping-wear volume using the co-
The contact force can be expressed as
efficients in Table 2. In applying this equation, a good
estimate for E has been found to be 0.1; and for Nt,
two values have been used. For conventional bits, a F = 2Ta sin ( ~) (C-2)
value of 1 has been used and for diamond bits, a value
of 0.25 has been routinely used. These assumptions The average line tension at the dog-leg is given by
further simplify the application of Eq. B-6.
(C-3)
APPENDIX C
Substituting Eqs. C-2 and C-3 into Eq. C-l, we get
Equations for Casing Wear Caused by
Wireline V 10 = C ww LT. (Dt ;;t Do )sin ( ~ ). (C-4)
The results obtained from the wireline wear tests are 2

summarized in terms of wireline coefficients as func- The length of travel across the wear point is given as
tions of mud type, contact load, and casing grade in L = 2N w (D t - Ds) . (C-5)
Table 3. These coefficients can be used to estimate
wear volumes for wireline running. The equation Thus, V 10 can finally be written as
needed to do this is developed as follows.
The volume of wear, V w, is expressed as Vw = 2ClOW T 8" N 10 (D -D Do)" sm
t .
t
(8)
2 .
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers (C-6)
office Aug. 5, 1974. Paper (SPE 5122) was first presented at the
SPE-AIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Houston, Oct. 6-9, This equation coupled with Table 3 can be used to
1974. © Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metal-
lurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. estimate wear volumes from wireline runs. .TPT

Discussion
Arthur Lubinski, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production Co.
SP! 6398

In the 1950's, the industry tried to drill holes whose fail in fatigue. Another curve represents conditions
deviations from vertical were as small as possible. for which tool joints exert a 2,000-lb load on the
Drilling contracts specified that the hole deviation casing. For points located to the right of this curve,
from vertical should not exceed, say, 3° at any point. the load exceeds 2,000 lb.
It was I who slowly, painfully, and progressively The maximum permissible value of 2,000 lb for
spread the knowledge that detrimental effects were the lateral thrust was my best conservative educated
because of the rate change of hole angle; i.e., because guess made in 1960, based on correlation between
of dog-leg severity, rather than the nonverticality of directional surveys and field-reported failures.
the hole. A hole whose inclination is increasing at the Nicholson 2 considered also a 3,000-lb lateral thrust
rate of 1° /100 ft, up to say 30°, and which then curve, which apparently is acceptable in Gulf Coast
remains geometrically straight at 30° will cause no
trouble. On the other hand, a hole whose inclination
increases from 0 to 3°, with a rate of 10°/100 ft,
but whose inclination never exceeds 3°, will cause
trouble. Such troubles are of two kinds, namely
fatigue of the drill string because of reversing stresses,
and wear of both the drillstring and the casing.
One of the several papersl I presented on the
subject was published in 1961. Fig. D-3 is from that
paper. It pertains to 5-in., 19.5-lb drillpipe. The two
other figures pertain to 3~- and 4~-in. drillpipes,
respectively. These figures are included in the API
Bull. RP 7G. The ordinate is tension in the drillpipe
in the dog-leg. The abscissa is the dog-leg angle, which
is either the angle or an abrupt dog-leg, or dog-leg
severity in degrees per 30 ft in a gradual dog-leg (see
Fig. D-l).
Three curves are drawn in Fig. D-3. One pertains
to fatigue. For conditions represented by points
Fig. 0-1-(a) gradual and long dog· leg; (b) abrupt
located to the right of this curve, drillpipe is likely to dog-leg (tool joint in the dog-leg).

FEBRUARY, 1975 243

conditions. Nicholson and others ascertained that in extreme cases.
application of the findings of the original theoretical 3. One should use protective pipe rubbers only in
paperl avoided these troubles. excessive dog-legs.
In the past, the detrimental effects of lateral thrust In the past, I often have been asked this kind
of drillstring and wireline in a dog-leg were based only of question. "We have a bad dog-leg (so many
on very limited field experience. The two papers I degrees/ 100 ft). May we drill safely to total depth?"
am discussing deal with these problems in detail. The My answer has always been based on fatigue. I could
basis of the new and valuable findings are extensive have said "Go ahead, do not worry", or "Go to total
laboratory experiments. We have now acquired the depth, but later discard such-and-such a portion of
knowledge of the degree to which various factors the drillstring to avoid failures in the next well." From
related to lateral thrust are detrimental. now on, thanks to these papers, my answers will be
The two papers complement each other. based not only on fatigue, but also on casing-wear.
The Bradley-Fontenot paper varies the tool-joint I might say, "Do not drill deeper than to so-many
lateral thrust, while True and Weiner keep it constant feet, as you might risk ending up with a hole in the
and equal to 2,300 lb. On the other hand, True and casing, and a blowout."
Weiner investigate a wider range of hardfacing types. Thus, I congratulate the authors of both papers for
Both investigations use a variety of drilling fluids, their very valuable contribution.
with and without sand added. Both investigations I have a few thoughts to add. Please do not consider
experimented with rubbers. them as criticism, but as suggestions for further
The Bradley-Fontenot paper is the only one that research.
deals with casing wear because of longitudinal motion Why were tool joints investigated only in rotation
of drill pipe and wireline. and not in longitudinal motion? The coefficient of
An extremely important conclusion may be drawn friction that governs a combined motion is that
from the True-Weiner paper, namely that tool joints corresponding to the fastest motion. In drilling, the
should be hardfaced with tungsten carbide, ground peripheral motion of a tool joint is always much greater
smooth. Such a hardfacing results in minimal wear than the longitudinal motion because of drilling rate.
of both casing and tool joints. In times of scarcity Therefore, in simulating drilling conditions it is
of tubular goods the importance of this finding .cannot justified to rotate the tool joint without reciprocating
be overemphasized. motion. It would be useful, however, to investigate
The important findings of the Bradley-Fontenot the wear because of tool-joint friction during tripping.
paper are Similarly, one could ask Bradley and Fontenot why
1. The field-proven value of about 2,000-lb maxi- drill pipe was investigated only in longitudinal motion
mum permissible lateral thrust on tool joints seems (tripping) and not in rotation?
justified. Why was their fraction E used to evaluate drillpipe
2. Present wide-spread excessive worry about cas- contact length per joint taken as 0.1? Attached is Fig.
ing wear by wireline does not seem justified, except D-2 of my Ref. 1. The dashed curve corresponds

HOLE CURVATURE (DOG-LEG SEVERITY)

DEGREES PER 100 FEET o.a La 1.1 2.D 2.5 10 o
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~
o
~-t- ~ 2
- ~-
r--
- - --
....... ~2 50 II
~- ---- -·~3
50
--
--;/ .'
./
~ ... 4
----5 .., 100

~'~L
Q..
f-- a:
CI) ~ -~
~ 100 'I." ~'/ \5 ",Iv
~

1t ~ ,;,
7
..,
>- q"
...,
8 ~
...o ''''r---~---
,<l '"
..~
CI)

~
'"o
~

:I:
150

W
~-,~
~ -~
~}-.'l

-...J
9
,o ~
II
\5
CI)

«
CI)
~
o ~
...J

~
,Iv

~
" '\I'
• <I"\'\'
I

~--I ~ a
,3 o,
>- ---~I
2
:j .~
-~r- ii-
*..,
1
Z e- ...J
~'(1-.
~
Z
2!lICI 0 C>~

+ - - _._. - - - - - I 4
..,~
200 0 ;::: I
z ~-§, ~
>- r---- - --0 -- ..
_.- _ _ I 5 >-
-~
OJ ~
I?:Q~C> ,
If ~"
- -~
I--- - 0 : r-- - - I 6
I
250
;1, , 7
.l- I

I !, r-- - - I8
I
I
-- -, 9
IN CORROSIVE MUDS REDUCE DOG-LEG ANGLE TO A FRACTION
(0.1 FOR VERY SEVERE CONDITIONS) OF W.UE INDICATED BY
300 I 20 FATIGUE CURVE.

Fig. D-2-Gradual and long dog-leg-hole curvature Fig. D-3-Abrupt dog-Ieg-dog·leg angle vs tension
(dog-leg severity) vs tension for 41h-in. drillipipe. for 5·in., 19.5-lb drillpipe.

244 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

to conditions for which drillpipe contacts the wall
of the casing in a gradual dog-leg. For conditions
represented by points located to the left of this
curve there is no casing-to-driUpipe contact, as shown
in Fig. D-la. For conditions represented by points
located on the curve, there is theoretically a contact
only at one point, half-way between tool joints with
zero force. Consider, for instance, a 200,000-lb
tension. For a hole curvature of 4.5°/100 ft, there is
a contact at one point with zero force. As the hole
curvature increases, the contact remains at one point,
namely in the middle, but the force increases. At some
larger value of hole curvature the contact starts spread-
ing from one point to an arc. The greater the hole
curvature, the longer the arc becomes. The force is
the largest in the middle of the arc and progressively
decreases with the distance from the middle. Thus
the total force is either zero, or different from zero,
but concentrated at one point, or variable along an
arc. In the latter case it could be evaluated through
integration. In view of these explanations the constant
value of E = 0.1 is not understood.
Bradley and Fontenot report that in the case of
Well 8 (see their Table 4), the original dog-leg severity
measurement was 5.4°/100 ft, while gyro-survey
measurements run through the patched casing indi-
cated 10.2°/100 ft. On the other hand, from the
measurements of the extent of the wear from recov-
ered casing, one could imply a dog-leg severity of
25° /100 ft.
I have been told that the value of 10.2°/100 ft was
obtained from stations 10ft apart. Hole deviation is
measured within -+- Vs 0. Therefore, the difference of
deviations between two stations is obtained within
-+- 1;4 0. If the value of the difference of deviations in
this dog-leg is decreased or increased by 1;4 0, the value
Authors' Reply
The authors would like to thank Lubinski for his
comments on our paper. Lubinski questioned the
testing of drillpipe under tripping conditions only.
Casing wear by drillpipe during tripping was examined
first because early thinking indicated that it might have
been a major factor in casing wear. However, this was
not the case. Currently, we are performing additional
rotating casing wear experiments and have included
in this program an investigation of casing wear by
rotating drillpipe.
FEBRUARY, 1975
of 10.2° becomes, respectively, 7.5° and 13.1 ° /100
ft. Thus, calculating dog-legs through surveying sta-
tions that are too close results in great errors. The
distance between surveying stations should not be less
than 30 ft.
Still, I have been told that in the same dog-leg, a
32-ft surveying interval yielded a value of 5.4°/100
ft. Thus, in the dog-leg under consideration, a lO-ft
surveying interval yielded more correct results than
a 30-ft interval. This is because of the extreme sever-
ity of the dog-leg. If the maximum permissible dog-
legs were as indicated in Fig. D-3 (for 5-in. drillpipe),
use of a 30-ft surveying interval would have been
in order.
Directional surveying instruments are excellent
tools to determine the bottom-hole location. On the
other hand, they are not very suitable for exact
measuring of dog-legs. The challenge of the indus-
try is to invent, develop, and commercialize such an
instrument.
Still, one should try to avoid making severe dog-
legs. One means consists of using a rigid bottom-hole
assembly and a proper weight on bit.
We are living in an era of ever-increasing demands
for tubular goods and an increasingly difficult supply.
Therefore, the industry should try to prolong the life
of casing and drillstring. The two papers I have dis-
cussed go a long way in that direction, and the authors
should be congratulated.
References
1. Lubinski, Arthur: "Maximum Permissible Dog-Legs in
Rotary Boreholes," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1961) 175-194;
Trans., AIME, 222.
2. Nicholson, Robert W.: "Minimize Drillpipe Damage and
Hole Problems - Follow Acceptable Dog-Leg Severity
Limits," Proc., lADC Rotary Drilling Conference (1974).
SPE 6399
Lubinski is correct when he says that the length
of drillpipe in contact with the casing is not constant
but is dependent upon dog-leg severity, drillstring
tension, and the size of the drillpipe and tool joints.
The factor of 10 percent contact (E = 0.1) was chosen
as a good average for the conditions we were consid-
ering. Actual values of contact length for varying
conditions were presented in Figs. 2 and 3 of our
paper and are listed in parentheses adjacent to their
corresponding curve. JPT
245