Guidelines for

Heatchecking
Minimisation

J W Martin, J T A Smith,
W K Morrison and H J Choi

Sunbury Report No. ESR.95.ER.071

dated June 1995

Main CD
Contents
 GUIDELINES
FOR
HEATCHECKING
MINIMISATION
 STANDARD DATA PAGE

REPORT NO: ESR.95.ER.071

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: RESTRICTED
ISSUE DATE: 15th JUNE 1995
MAIN TITLE: GUIDELINES FOR HEATCHECKING MINIMISATION
CLIENT: BP EXPLORATION
COMMISSIONED BY: A JUDZIS
ISSUING DEPARTMENT/DIVISIONS:

MATERIALS & INSPECTION ENGINEERING

RESEARCH & ENGINEERING CENTRE
BP INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:

_________________________ __________________________
J W MARTIN, J T A SMITH D R RAY
W K MORRISON & H J CHOI TEAM LEADER
MATERIALS & INSPECTION
ENGINEERING

KEYWORDS: HEATCHECKING; DRILLING; DRILLSTRING FAILURES

DISTRIBUTION: SEE SEPARATE LIST

Copyright  BP International Limited September 1993

All rights reserved.
None of the information contained in this document shall be disclosed outside the recipient's own company and no part of this document may be
reproduced or transmitted in any way or stored in any retrieval system without prior written permission of General Management, Engineering
Shared Service, BP International Limited.
 CONTENTS

1.0 Identifying Heatchecking Problems

1.1 Classification of Heatchecking Problems

1.2 Assessing the Likelihood of Heatchecking in the Planning Stages of Drilling

Operations

1.3 What to Look for During Drilling Operations

1.4 Inspection Methodologies

1.5 Inspection: Acceptance/Rejection Criterion

2.0 Minimising Heatchecking Problems

2.1 What can be done to Minimise Heatchecking Problems?

2.2 What Actions can be Taken if Heatchecking is Identified During Drilling?

3.0 Refurbishment Specifications

3.1 What to do with Drillstring Components that are to be Dispositioned as a

Result of Heatchecking

3.2 Re-Build Specifications

3.3 Re-Tool Jointing

Appendix 1. Decision Tree for Determining if Heatchecking Has Occurred

1. IDENTIFYING HEATCHECKING PROBLEMS

Heatchecking is a phenomenon that has been known about for some time. However, it is only
recently, particularly with a high incidence of heatchecking in BPX Colombia, that it has been
routinely identified as an important aspect of drillstring failure mechanisms.

"Classic" heatchecking (Type I - "Heatchecking") results from frictional heating causing the
skin temperature of a drilling component to exceed the critical temperature for steel (i.e. about
700°C, the temperature above which the transformation from martensite to austenite starts),
followed by rapid quenching by the drilling mud. This results in numerous shallow quench
cracks in the surface of the component, giving a "crazed" cracking pattern with cracks running
in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. These cracks, if undetected or not removed,
may then propagate due to other mechanisms, e.g. fatigue as result of vibration or cyclic
loading of the string, resulting in component failure. It is worth noting that optimising other
material features, such as assuring good toughness (Charpy tests) and mechanical properties
can help mitigate against catastrophic failure (twist-offs) resulting from heatchecking.

Other material degradation mechanisms, akin to heatchecking, can take place where frictional
heating in service occurs without repeated quenching by the drilling mud. Repeated quenching
might not occur because, for example, the mud is not being circulated or the circulation is lost.
In this instance, the component in the region of frictional heating can be heated-up to a
significant depth. This can result in either:-

- Changes in the bulk properties (metallurgical and mechanical) of the component in

the heat affected area after subsequent cooling; Type II - " Friction-Induced
Structural Changes" or

- A loss in strength associated with the high temperatures attained (most metals lose
strength as they are heated) and plastic deformation/failure if the reduced load
capacity of the component is exceeded; Type III - " Friction-Induced Loss of
Strength".

1.1 Classification of Heatchecking Problems.

From a study of recent incidents associated with heatchecking in BPX Colombia, all three
degradation modes mentioned above have been observed. Some identifying features of these
degradation modes have been noted, as detailed in this Section. This information will help to
identify the cause of an incident or failure and more specifically to decide if the mechanism
was (or was akin to) heatchecking:

Type I - "Heatchecking"

This is the mechanism traditionally classified as heatchecking. It consists of the formation of

surface quench cracks as a result of frictional heating of the surface region followed by
quenching.
The identifying features include:

- Surface in the region of heatchecking shows signs of wear, sometimes resulting in a 'shiny'
appearance

- Surface cracking producing a 'crazing' of the surface

FIGURE 1: CRAZE CRACKING

VISUAL

MAGNETIC
PARTICLE
INSPECTION
In more advanced cases there will also be deeper cracks within the 'crazed' area, often in the
longitudinal direction.

FIGURE 2: DEEP LONGITUDINAL CRACKS

VISUAL

MAGNETIC
PARTICLE
INSPECTION

LIQUID
PENETRANT
INSPECTION

- Microstructural changes in the surface layer.

- Possibly hardness changes in the surface and near surface region (NOTE: hardness changes
may not be evident, due to heat generated during subsequent wear/rubbing causing the
'tempering', i.e. re-softening, of the surface regions).
Type II - "Friction-Induced Structural Changes"

In this case the frictional heating in the absence of drilling mud results in changes to the bulk
microstructure of the component in areas of rubbing. The heating will often be followed by
quenching (fast cooling) when drilling mud returns. The structural changes may penetrate well
into the thickness of the component and will adversely affect the mechanical properties of the
component in the affected areas.

The identifying features include:

- Surface in the region of possible damage shows signs of significant wear (NOTE: there may
or may not be surface cracking and 'crazing' in the damaged area, absence of such cracks does
not indicate there is no heatchecking problem)

FIGURE 3: WEAR IN REGION OF HEATCHECKING

- Colour changes ('blueing') of the surface in the region of damage due to surface oxidation
(NOTE: this layer may be lost during subsequent wear/rubbing)
- Microstructural changes to the bulk material in the damaged region
 FIGURE 4: MICROSTRUCTURAL CHANGES DUE TO HEATCHECKING

- Hardness changes to the bulk material in the damaged region (NOTE: this effect may not be
evident on the surface if subsequent heating during wear/rubbing results in some 'tempering',
i.e. re-softening, of the steel)
Type III - "Friction-Induced Loss of Strength" Frictional heating in the absence of
quenching by drilling mud results in a loss in strength of the component. Invariably steels
suffer from a loss in strength with increasing temperature. If the applied loads exceed the
temperature degraded yield load then plastic deformation, and most probably failure, will
result. At temperatures above about 600°C the term 'yield strength' has little meaning for steels
such as AISI 4137H (the steel often used in the manufacture of tool-joints), as they will yield
under nearly any applied load. Therefore, if the full section thickness of the component is
affected by significant frictional heating it is highly likely that a failure will result within a very
short time frame.

The identifying features are:

- "Bottlenecking" resulting from a reduction in cross-sectional area of the pipe, or definite

signs of plastic deformation in the damaged region

FIGURE 5: BOTTLENECKING

- Surface in the region of damage/failure shows signs of wear (NOTE: there may or may not
be surface cracking and 'crazing' in the damaged area, absence of such cracks does not indicate
there is no heatchecking problem)

FIGURE 6: PLASTIC DEFORMATION IN HEATCHECKED AREA

- Colour changes ('blueing') of the surface in the region of damage due to surface oxidation
(NOTE: as with Type II heatchecking it is possible that this layer may be lost during
subsequent wear/rubbing. It is less likely in this case, rotation after damage will be less
common as failure is more likely to occur)

FIGURE 7: COLOUR CHANGE (BLUEING)

- Microstructural changes to the bulk material in the damaged region

- Hardness changes to the bulk material in the damaged region (NOTE: this effect may not be
evident on the surface if subsequent heating during wear/rubbing results in some 'tempering',
i.e. re-softening, of the steel)
1.2 Assessing the Likelihood of Heatchecking in the Planning Stages of Drilling
Operations

An examination of the available BPX Colombia records indicates that heatchecking is

associated with a number of parameters. Heatchecking of components has resulted when the
following combination of lithology, hole size, drillpipe, annular fluid velocities and RPMs has
existed. Thus, when planning a well, these parameters should be considered:-

(a) Lithologies of mudstone (>50)/sandstone (<50)

Generally, in BPX Colombia heatchecking was observed to occur when drilling through
mudstone/sandstone lithologies where the mudstone component was greater than 50%.
Mudstone may be more significant than sandstone due to its tendency to encapsulate the drill
stem. Once encapsulated, the friction generated on forward or back reaming results in a higher
frictional heating than for the abrasive sandstone formation. In the case of BPX Colombia this
lithology most commonly coincided with the 12 1/4" hole size, most problems were
experienced in this hole size.

(b) RPM's >125

Drilling at greater than 125 RPM in the above mentioned lithology has been linked to incidents
of heatchecking.

(c) Stuck pipe, Back Reaming, Forward Reaming

These all result in a greater risk of frictional heating and hence heatchecking. This is a result of
the higher risk of rotating at the same location and the possibility that good mud circulation
will not be maintained/possible.

(d ) Use of larger drillpipe sizes

The largest category of equipment to experience heatchecking in BPX Colombia was the 6
5/8" drillpipe. Compared with 5" drillpipe, the 6 5/8" drillpipe tool joint has a greater surface
area in contact with the formation/casing and a larger outer diameter, which increases the risk
of it becoming 'encapsulated' within the hole. These factors increase the likelihood of
producing frictional heat build-up, particularly when running tapered strings.

(e) Annular Drilling Fluid Velocity

For BPX Colombia annular drilling fluid velocities have generally been in the 75 to 100 fps
range when heatchecking has resulted. These are typical annular fluid velocities for drilling
hard rock formations.

There is evidence that higher annular velocities (150-200 fps) have been associated with
"heatcheck free" holes. It is recommended that increasing the annular fluid velocity is
considered when the conditions associated with heatchecking are being experienced, this will
also assist hole cleaning and possibly ROP (if this equates to higher flow rates through the bit).
It is recognised however that there are risks associated with this regarding wellbore stability
and ECD.

(f) Dogleg and Hole Tortuosity

It is likely that these factors will significantly contribute to heatchecking. For example, high
dog-legs and/or severe azimuth changes, either by design or enforced, can result in higher wall
forces in these local regions. However, at present there is no evidence from examining the data
from the BPX Colombia failures to suggest which conditions are worse than any other. This
aspect will need to be kept under review with a view to gaining a better understanding of the
issues involved.

1.3 What to Look for During Drilling Operations.

(a) Increases in friction between the drillstem and the formation are considered to
promote heatchecking. These may be indicated by unexpected increases/fluctuations in
drilling torque.

(b) Stuck Pipe incidents are considered to significantly increase the risk of
heatchecking. This is because the items may become heatchecked as a result of trying
to free them, i.e. during the 'working' of the pipe (increases in RPM, push/pull, etc.)

(c) Loss of circulation or reduction in flow returns whilst rotating contributes to

an increase in overall frictional heat and therefore increases the likelihood of
heatchecking.

(d) Hole wash-outs will increase likelihood of heatchecking. The contact forces
between the drillstring and formation may be increased locally, as the string will only
be supported between wash-outs. This will increase the likelihood of localised
frictional heating. In addition, the annular mud velocities will be decreased. This will
decrease hole cleaning efficiency and reduce the heat transfer efficiency of the
circulating mud.

(e) High dog-legs seventies and/or severe azimuth changes are liable to increase
the likelihood of heatchecking, by increasing the wall-forces and hence frictional
heating in the local region.

1.4 Inspection Methodologies

1.4.1 Introduction:

There are many non-destructive testing methods which can be successfully used to identify the
'crazing' surface cracks associated with 'Type I' heatchecking. The purpose of this Section is to
detail the inspection techniques which can be applied to the assessment of such cracking in a
cost effective manner.
The goals of the inspection can be either:

1) Qualitative - to define the EXISTENCE AND EXTENT ONLY of the

heatchecking cracks.

2) Quantitative - to define the EXISTENCE, EXTENT AND DEPTH of the

heatchecking cracks.

It is recommended that all inspection is carried out by personnel qualified to a minimum of

'Level 2' for the particular technique being used.

1.4.2 Qualitative:

The methods useful in revealing 'Craze' cracks associated with Type I heatchecking
are Liquid Penetrant, Eddy Current and Magnetic Particle.

1) Liquid Penetrant Inspection (LPI) requires the careful cleaning of the

component, the use of a penetrant which is fluid enough to penetrate the cracks and
has been allowed to soak into the cracks for a specified period of time, together with
the use of a developer to draw the dye out of the cracks and provide a background
against which the penetrant dye is more visible. A fluorescent ink can be used
together with an ultra-violet light source, to assist in identifying cracks. The method is
very time consuming and uses a considerable volume of dye penetrant, cleaner and
developer. The benefits of this method are the minimal skill level required of the
inspector, the fact it is easily portable and, other than the cleaning requirement, it can
be used at any location with good results.

In summary it is recommended that LPI is used on a limited basis to assist in

identifying cracking 'in the field'.

2) Eddv Current an electromagnetic field is generated and applied to the component

via a transducer/receiver probe. The probe is scanned over the surface to be inspected
and the signal received is interpreted by an operator.

The advantages of the eddy current technique are:

• The component being inspected does not have to be cleaned thoroughly.
• Eddy current is effective through coatings.
• The crack width can be defined, which might allow for correlation with crack
depth if suitable relationships of width with depth can be established.

The main disadvantages of the techniques are:

• the operator must have an advanced skill level to interpret data
• it can be time consuming
• the equipment is not readily available in certain sites e.g. Colombia.
• good results can be difficult to obtain on curved surfaces, complex geometries
 In summary, Eddy Current testing is not recommended for routine use in
establishing the presence of 'craze' cracking associated with Type I heatchecking.

3) Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) is achieved by magnetising the component,

applying fine magnetic particles to the surface of the component and observing the
build up of magnetic particles around surface or near-surface cracks. A background
contrast paint can be used to assist in identifying indications.

Three basic procedures are employed in the use of MPI.

1. The DRY PROCESS which consists of applying dry magnetic particles to the
area to be inspected and carefully removing excess particles by tapping or blowing to
reveal a magnetic particle pattern.

2. The WET PROCESS in which magnetic particles are suspended in light oil or
in suitably inhibited water, and are applied to the area by spraying or immersion. This
process is more effective for detecting surface defects and is the method most
commonly used on machined surfaces. Control of the ratio of particles to liquid is
essential in all the wet methods.

3. The FLUORESCENT METHOD is a variation of the wet process in which

the magnetic particles are coated with a material which fluoresces when exposed to
black (ultra violet) light. The wet fluorescent method is the most sensitive for the
detection of fine surface defects. It is important to ensure that the examination of the
test-piece is carried out under low light conditions.

An important consideration with magnetic particle inspection is that to achieve

complete inspection, one or more distinct magnetising operations should be
conducted so that the lines of force will be approximately transverse to any
discontinuity that may be in the component. This is particularly important in detecting
heatchecking, where both longitudinal and transverse cracks are likely to be present.
ASME Section V requires all Magnetic Particle inspections to be performed in two
different directions (90 degrees from the first). Most common on tubular products is
longitudinal and circumferential.

MPI is the recommended technique for identifying the 'craze' cracking associated with
Type I heatchecking.

In summary, it is recommended that VISUAL AND FLUORESCENT MACNETIC

PARTICLE INSPECTION should be the preferred methods of inspection in
establishing the presence of 'craze' cracking associated with Type I heatchecking.
Liquid penetrant inspection can be used on a limited basis to assist in identifying
'craze' cracking 'in the field'. However, it is recommended that confirmation
should always be sought using fluorescent MPI.
 A more detailed discussion of these inspection techniques can be found in the relevant
standards, e.g.:

Liquid Penetrant Inspection: ASTM E 165-91, "Standard Test Method for Liquid
Penetrant Examination"; BS 3683: Part 1: 1985, "Penetrant Flaw Detection"; BS 6443:
1984, "Method for Penetrant Flaw Detection"

Eddy Current Testing: ASTM E309-83, "Eddy Current Examination of Steel Tubular
Products Using Magnetic Saturation"; BS 3683: Part 5: 198S, "Eddy Current Flaw
Detection"

Magnetic Particle Inspection: ASTM E709-91, "Standard Guide for Magnetic Particle
Examination"; BS 6072: 1981, "A Method for Magnetic Particle Flaw Detection"; BS PD
6513, "A Guide to the Principles of BS 6072"

1.4.3 Quantitative:

For the present, it is not recommended that dimensional data is routinely determined.
Techniques for determining the depth of heatcheck cracks are not readily available and
need further development.. There are two inspection techniques that offer promise in
this area:

(a) Eddy Current Testing

This technique offers the ability to determine the width of cracks. It may be possible to
correlate this with the crack depth through a process of machining the heatchecked
surfaces in small increments, to determine the point at which no cracking is observed.
From such exercises, it may be possible to prepare a nomograph of crack width versus
probable crack depth.

(b) ACPD Technique

This technique involves passing a high frequency AC current through the component
to be examined. The charge will only flow in the surface layers of the component,
known as the 'skin effect'. The presence of surface cracks will increase the current
path, such that the potential drop measured across a crack will be greater than that
measured in a crack-free region. From measurements of such potentials an estimate of
crack depth can be made.

Initial trials have been carried out by GRE Sunbury in conjunction with TSC Ltd., UK.
These showed a lot of promise, with heatcheck cracks with a depth of approximately
4mm being successfully sized. However, there is a need to develop suitable probe
heads and inspection systems for field use before this technique can be used routinely
'at site'.
1.5 Inspection: Acceptance/Rejection Criteria

In providing guidance on the acceptance/rejection criteria, it is important to realise that many

different drillstem components are affected by heatchecking. Some of these items are tools
which have proprietary designs with corresponding proprietary design stress and repair
criteria. These guidelines provide the initial step towards identifying if heatchecking is a
problem and, if so, how to deal with it.

Several components of the drillstem can be provided with acceptance/rejection criteria.

The following list is a representation of common heatchecking incidents, taken from unaudited
records of BPX Colombia. It is provided for the purpose of :-

- allowing the equipment with the most extensive repair considerations to be

identified and
- to provide the rig manager with the necessary background information to
plan for equipment requirements during the drilling operation.

It should be noted that although the drill pipe incidents are the most extensive, they do not
necessarily result in the largest cost penalty during drilling. Downhole drill pipe failures are
relatively uncommon, most failures occur in the BHA and cross-overs (often a result of fatigue
resulting from vibration, poor machining, corrosion, etc. or possibly heatchecking)

The costs of the heatchecking incidents should be identified, to allow the various drilling
components to be "ranked" in terms of the importance of avoiding/dealing with heatchecking.

DATABASE OF HEATCHECKING INCIDENTS IN BPX COLOMBIA

1994

EQUIPMENT TYPE SIZE INCIDENTS PERCENTAGE

DRILLPIPE 6 5/8 260 82.8

DRILL COLLARS 8 12 3.82
X-OVERS 9 2.87
JARS 7 2.20
DRILLPIPE 5 4 1.30
STABILIZERS 3 0.96
HWDP 5 3 0.96
HWDP 6 5/8 3 0.96
DRILL COLLARS 9½ 2 0.64
DRILL COLLARS 9½ 2 0.64
JUNK BASKETS 2 0.64
STRING MILL 1 0.32
SDC 8 1 0.32
DRIVE SUB 1 0.32
MDC 9½ 1 0.32
TOP SUB 1 0.32
TOTAL 312
1.5.1 Type I Heatchecking

Drillpipe/Hevi-wate Drillpipe

In drillpipe, Type I heatchecking usually occurs on the box end tool joint

In BPX Colombia this is more common on the larger drill pipe size, i.e. 6 5/8". It is common
to see Type I heatchecking totally around the circumference of the tool joint and extending
from the box end-face to approximately one half along the length of the tool joint. Type I
heatchecking has often been seen to result in deeper longitudinal cracks, which may propagate
through the box connection at the box face.

Note that hardbanding may be either "flush" or "proud". "Proud" hardbanding may be
preferred in limiting the extent of heatchecking, by limiting tool-joint steel/hole contact. This
aspect needs to be monitored over the coming months, to allow a decision to be made on the
desirability of proud hardbanding in minimising heatchecking problems. Reference should be
made to the BPX Specification on hardbanding ("Drillstring Hardbanding BPX Drilling DCB
Specification - Parts 1,2 and 3", DCB Report DCB/20/94, August 1994).

The criteria for acceptance/rejection of Type I heatchecking on DRILLPIPE and HEVI-

WATE DRILL PIPE are:

No heatchecking cracks are acceptable.

For the tool-joints refurbish/scrap as per Section 3.

If cracking is observed on the body then scrap, as repair is not a viable option.

Drill Collars

In drill collars Type I heatchecking has been observed in the body and slip recess areas.

The criteria for acceptance/rejection of Type I heatchecking on DRILL COLLARS are:

No heatchecking cracks are acceptable. Refurbish/scrap as per Section 3.

Cross-over Subs

In cross-over subs, the areas generally affected are the radii located at changes of section
and the box ends.

The radii located at section changes are not in a critical stress area and as such minor cracking
is not considered serious. Generally, the heatchecking damage is less than 1/4" in length and is
usually evident as check lines similar to tool chatter marks. The check lines are usually
longitudinal with no interconnecting circumferential lines.
The acceptance/rejection criteria for Type I heatchecking on CROSS-OVER SUBS are:

Longitudinal heatchecking cracks at radii located at changes in section less than

114" in length and not interconnected by circumferential cracks may be ground
out using a grinding wheel as per section 3.1.

For more severe heatchecking cracks refurbish/scrap as per Section 3.

No other heatchecking cracks (e.g. on the box end) are acceptable. Refurbish/scrap
as per Section 3.

Stabilisers

Stabilisers exhibit Type I heatchecking on the fins as well as the main body.

Repair procedures should be recommended by the manufacturer for acceptance by BPX.

Jars/Motors and Other Proprietary Equipment

Type I heatchecking on JARS requires the input of the manufacturer to define the limits
of repair and the areas which cannot be machined.

1.5.2 Types n and III Heatchecking

If either of these two types of heatchecking are identified then the component should be
rejected, as it is deemed unsuitable for further use. It may be possible to repair the items (e.g.
replace the tool-joints if these are the only part of the component affected), but this is a matter
for the manufacturer, supplier, etc. Refer to Section 3.1.2. for further details.

2. MINIMISING HEATCHECKING PROBLEMS

2.1 What Can be Done to Minimise Heatchecking Problems?

The evidence gathered to date strongly suggests that heatchecking can be minimised by using
the knowledge that drilling through the mudstone/sandstone lithology requires close attention
to drilling RPM and drilling fluid flow.

The following guidelines are given:

1) Keep RPM below 100 where possible. It is recognised that this contradicts other
drilling optimisation issues and more work is required to evaluate the effect of each
variable. This is outside the scope of the present guidelines.

2) Increase drillpipe annular fluid flow rate to >100 fps, especially in 6 5/8" drill pipe.
3) Minimise the use of larger drill pipe sizes (e.g. 6 5/8") while drilling through the
mudstone/sandstone lithologies. Consider using mixed string of (e.g. 6 5/8" and 5"),
which increases flow rate as well as providing good hydraulics.

4) Try to keep hole tortuosity and dog-leg severity to a minimum. Clearly this will often
be difficult to achieve, as it is dictated by well profile needs and/or drilling
circumstances (rock lithology, etc.). However, it is important to bear in mind that
where high dog-leg severity and/or hole tortuosity exists there is a higher likelihood of
heatchecking. Ensure that inspection programmes take this into account.

2.2 What Actions Can be Taken if Heatchecking is Identified During Drilling?

If heatchecking is identified during drilling, a number of drillstem components will require

repair or replacement. During the planning stages it is possible to plan for this contingency. It
is recommended that spare equipment is prepared for possible use and kept on site if
heatchecking concerns are prevalent. This will minimise the downtime generally associated
with unscheduled delays whilst waiting for replacement equipment.

As discussed in previous sections, tactics which reduce the chances of heatchecking include
lowering RPM and increasing the flow rate of the drilling fluid.

A strategy for drilling may include maximising ROP during initial stages of drilling, applying
minimising strategy of low RPM and increased fluid flow through the mudstone/sandstone
lithologies, then resuming high ROP strategy.
3.0 REFURBISHMENT SPECIFICATIONS

3.1 What to do with Drillstring Components that are to be Dispositioned as a Result

of Heatchecking.

3.1.1 Type I Heatchecking

Drillpipe:
Refurbish heatchecked drillpipe and heavy-weight drillpipe by machining the O.D. of
the heatchecked tool joints/HWDP mid-section. The machining should include the
entire length of the tool joint/HWDP mid-section. In the first instance, 2mm should be
removed. The machining shall completely remove the heatchecking.

After each subsequent machining pass, check by Visual Inspection and Fluorescent
MPI whether all heatchecking has been removed.

The final machined O.D. of the tool joint/HWDP mid-section, once all heatchecking
has been removed, shall not be less than the API RP7G (latest edition) minimum OD
plus a 'design factor' of 2.0mm. If the dimensions are below this criteria, consider
rebuilding (See Section 3.3.

Rehardbanding of tool joints/HWDP mid-section should be carried out after final

machining.

NB if heatchecking is observed on the body of the drill pipe, it must be scrapped.

Drill collars:
Refurbish drill collars by machining the O.D. full length to remove all traces of
heatchecking.

Perform Visual Inspection and Fluorescent MP1 to ensure all heatchecking has been
removed.

The final machined O.D. of the drill collar shall not be less than the API minimum for
wear plus a 'safety factor' of 1.5mm.

Rehardbanding of drill collars should be carried out after machining.

Stabilisers:
Refurbish jars according to manufacturers' recommended procedures.

Jars/Motors and other Proprietary Tools (non API):

Refurbish jars according to manufacturers' recommended procedures.
3.1.2 Type II or III heatchecking

It will be rare that items that have suffered from Type II or III heatchecking will be
suitable for refurbishment. Normally such items will need to be scrapped. However, if
for example, damage is restricted to the tool-joint area on drill pipe it may be possible
to replace the tool-joint in line with the methodology outlined in section 3.3. The
advice of the manufacturer/supplier will need to be sought on the suitability of
components for refurbishment.

3.2 Re-build Specifications

Once all the heatchecking has been removed, the final machined O.D. of tool joints/HWDP
mid-section may be below the criteria described in Section 3.1. In this case, rebuilding of the
tool-joints/HWDP mid-section can be considered. Many of the manufacturers have their own
re-build specifications, so it is not desirable to be 'prescriptive' and generate a "BP Re-Build
Specification". However, it is important to note that tool-joints and associated drilling
equipment are normally manufactured from a quench and tempered low alloy steel. This type
of material requires considerable care in welding and in the past failures have resulted from
poor re-build work. For this reason, many operators, including BP, have outlawed the re-
building of drilling equipment in the past. Therefore, it is very strongly recommended that only
BPX approved re-building procedures are used. These should include a qualified and proven
welding procedure detailing all relevant parameters, i.e. consumables, preheat temperature,
interpass temperature, welding current/voltage/speed, post weld heat treatment
temperature/time . There should also be a clear statement or quality plan outlining production
control techniques to ensure that the procedures are implemented.

If rebuilding using 'high strength steel' welding consumables ensure that there will be no
problems of 'dilution' of the weld metal resulting in a rebuild layer with poor mechanical
properties, e.g. excessive hardness, low toughness, susceptibility to hydrogen cracking. One
way in which success can be achieved is to use a 'buffer layer' of a low carbon steel weld metal
(e.g. 7018 type) over the full length of the rebuild region. Alternatively, thought may be given
to using a low carbon steel consumable to fully rebuild the tool-joint in circumstances where
the OD is above the API minimum.

After rebuild the tool joint/EIWDP mid-section should be re-hardbanded

3.3 Re-Tool Jointing Specifications

Assuming a suitable weld overlay procedure can be developed, there will still be a limit
to the amount of material that can be machined off components and/or the number of
times the tool joint can be re-built. Therefore, for drill pipe there will be a need to
replace tool-joints in some cases.

As with re-building, many service companies have their own re-tool jointing
specifications, so it is not desirable to be 'prescriptive' and generate a "BP Re-Tool
Jointing Specification". However, the process of re-tool jointing is very similar to that
used to weld the tool-joint to the drill pipes during the manufacture of new drillpipe,
i.e. friction welding. Therefore, the same level of controls and same requirements
should be applied. This aspect is covered in a draft BPX specification regarding
drillpipe. The essential features of the welding process include:

Wet fluorescent MPI of the pipe upset areas prior to welding

Both a written weld procedure and procedure qualification record should be available
The procedure qualification should include the following tests:
Guided Bend Tests
Charpy Impact Tests at the weld line
Microstructure
Weldment Hardness Survey (to include weld-line, heat affected zone and
parent material)
The weld area should be given a suitable post weld heat treatment (PWHT)
After PWHT carry out wet fluorescent MPI of the weld area

The new tool-joint should be hardbanded.

START HERE FLOW DIAGRAM FOR ASSESSING IF DRILLSTRING FAILURES
ARE THE RESULT OF HEATCHECKING
Are there clear
signs of gross yielding (e.g.
bottlenecking, stretched threads). Yes Most probably Type III Heatchecking (Friction-
and/or induced Loss of Strength)
Did the component fail at a load
significantly below the anticipated Carry out laboratory failure analysis to confirm
load capacity?

Features to look for in laboratory examination

No of affected area in addition to gross plastic
yielding:-
- microstructural changes
- hardness changes
No Consider other failure/damage - ‘blueing’ of surface
Any evidence of mechanisms, if appropriate
wear in the ‘suspect’ e.g. corrosion, stress corrosion
area cracking, fatigue

If Type III heatchecking confirmed, refer to

Yes Section 2.0 of Guidelines regarding minimising
Check whether Type II heatchecking. In particular, pay attention to
heatchecking (Friction-induced ensuring adequate mud circulation.
Any structural changes) may have
evidence of ‘craze No occurred. Features to look out for:
cracking’ of the surface - microstructural changes
using visual and LPI - hardness changes
&/or MPI - ‘blueing’ of surface
techniques (NB if any doubt remains, remove
2mm of material locally from Ensure no other heatchecking Can the
‘suspect’ area, check hardness damage on the component. Yes components be
and microstructure) Refer to Section 3.0 of salvaged for
Yes Guidelines for advice on further use.
refurbishment
Most probable cause Were
of damage is Type I there features Consider other failure/
Heatchecking. indicative of Type II No damage mechanisms, if No
Heatchecking?(especially appropriate eg. galling,
microstructure/
hardness corrosion, stress corrosion Scrap item
changes) cracking, fatigue

Refer to Section 1.5 of Yes

Guidelines regarding
Inspection Acceptance WHEN TO USE THIS CHART
/Rejection criteria. Refer to Most probably Type II
Section 2.0 of Guidelines If there is a history of heatchecking in the operations
Heatchecking (Friction- After a failure where heatchecking is suspected
regarding minimising Induced Structural Changes)
heatchecking. Ensure no “New” operations where heatchecking is considered possible
other heatchecking damage Refer to Section 2.0 of Guidelines (see Section 1.2 of Guidelines)
regarding minimising heatchecking If there is a suspicion of Heatchecking
on the component. Refer to (particularly regarding adequate mud
Section 3.0 of Guidelines for circulation) (see section 1.3 of Guidelines)
advice on refurbishment.
Notes:
HARDNESS: The acceptable hardness range is 29 to 36 Rockwell ‘C’. If the hardness falls outside
this range, the material is ‘suspect’ regarding Heatchecking. Hardness changes may not be evident
in all cases, due to heat generated during subsequent wear/rubbing causing the 'tempering'
Can the i.e. re-softening of the surface regions
No components be BLUEING: This layer may be lost during subsequent wear/rubbing, such that the lack of blueing
Scrap item salvaged for further does not indicate that heatchecking has not occurred
use MICROSTRUCTURE: Features to look out for include significant grain growth, untempered
martensite, spheroidised carbides, etc.

Yes Abbreviations:
LPI - Liquid Penetrant Inspection
MPI- Magnetic Particle Inspection
Ensure no other heatchecking
damage on the component.
Refer to Section 3.0 of
Guidelines for advice on
refurbishment.
XTP 36778
Distribution:

A Judzis - BPX Houston

D Cocking - BPX Wytch Farm
R Olsen - BPX Norway
M Bwye - BPX Colombia (5 copies)
K Fontenot - BPX Colombia
P Hill - BPX Houston
A Clark - BPX Alaska
A B~ck - BPX, XFI Uxbridge
K Jardeneh - XTP Aberdeen
M Anderson - XTP Sunbury
J K Duxbury - XTP Aberdeen
D C B Files - (fao A Kay) (3 copies)
J T A Smith - BPX Alaska
H J Choi - IITRI Houston
W K Morrison - NDE Quality Systems Inc, Houston
J W Martin - MIE, ESS Sunbury
D R Ray - MIE, ESS Sunbury

MIE circulating copy - MIE, ESS Sunbury

Sunbury Registry - (master + 2 copies)