SPE 102211

Impact-Fatigue Correlation: Optimization on the Selection Criteria for

Sucker-Rod Materials
A. Martínez, SPE, Ecopetrol S.A.; A. Jaimes, TIP Ltda; J.A. Serna, Ecopetrol S.A.; and I. Uribe, UIS Colombia

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In oil wells with beam pumping systems, sucker rods mainly
failed by fatigue due to the fact that they operate under cycling
tension stresses. Additionally, superficial defects could be
generated during handling and operation of the rods, which
favor the formation of fatigue cracks and consequently
decreasing the original expected life of the rod. Because of a
high rate of rod failures by fatigue, and the consequent
increase in operational costs, a study was done to obtain
experimental data that will be used for the selection and design
of the sucker rods strings. Fatigue tests were done for new
high strength sucker rods, selected at random in the filed, to
determine the endurance fatigue limit. Four kinds of fatigue
tests were done: a) the material was tested in the as received
condition (normalize and tempering), b) tests were conducted
with specimens having a superficial defect simulating a
corrosion pit, c) same as b but samples were quenched and
tempered. Material characterization was done for all tested
rods, including tension, hardness and impact tests,
metallographic analysis and chemical composition. The
experimental results showed important fatigue differences
among the material evaluated, the negative effect of the
surface pitting, and the improvement of the fatigue resistance
by quenching and tempering the rods. A correlation between
the results of impact test, tension test and fatigue test was
developed. The findings and conclusions of this study will
help the design engineer in the selection process between
different sucker rods in the market. Finally, a simpler test
method is presented to predict the fatigue behavior between
rods of similar specification but from different manufactures.
Introduction
Beam pumping is the most common method of artificial lift,
accounting for more than 600,000 wells around the World; any
improvement to decrease the failure rate on this systems will
represent signifficant savings for the oil industry. Sucker rods
are under tension cycling stresses, during the up and down
strokes of the string; these stresses induce fatigue cracks on
the rods that will propagate until rupture being necessary a
well intervention.
Failure reports of broken rods in our fields have allowed
identifying a strong sensibility of high strength rod (special
services, non API) to the presence of small superficial defects
caused mainly by corrosion pitting or gouges during transport
and handling. Different behavior have been observed for rods
grade C and K, which can except larger superficial defects
before a fatigue cracks starts to grow (even in severe sweet
corrosion environments). Figure 1 shows the fracture surface
of a broken high strength rod. As can be seen, the fracture was
caused by fatigue propagation; the origin of the fatigue cracks
were located in small pits due to sweet corrosion; the depth of
the pits were around 0.019 in, the rod was working at 95% of
the Goodman limit, considering a service factor of 0.9. It
lasted around three months.
Figure 1. Fatigue fracture surface and the corrosion pits where
the fatigue cracks started.
API 11B1 specification classifies the sucker rods according
to the chemical composition and tension capacity into C, K
and D grades. In terms of fatigue sucker rod design, API
11BR2 recommend the modified Goodman stress diagram for
C, K and D rods only; for the special or miscellaneous services
rods (non API), the manufactures gives the specific curve for
high strength rods. Figure 2 shows the modified Goodman
diagram for grades C, K and D, also there are two lines for
calculation of high strength rods of different manufactures3, 4.
In order to have a more technical criteria, reports of fatigue
properties have been requested to the manufactures of the rods
but this information had not been supplied. Also, this
information had not been found in the specialized literature,
reference5. Because of the lack of experimental data, some
2 SPE 102211

fatigue tests were performed on different type of high strength available on the market, by using simple and cheaper tests
rods, in order to have better information that can be used for instead of the time and costs related to fatigue tests.
the selections process of these rods.
90 Experimental Evaluation
σ UTS For the evaluation tests, four different types of rods commonly
Sa = + 0.375 S min
80
2.8 used in our wells of different diameter and manufacturer were
70 chosen at random from bundles of new ones at the field site.
Table 1 is a summary of the rods tested, F1, F2 and F3 means
MAXIMUM STRESS (ksi)

60
three different manufactures.
σ UTS
50
Sa = + 0.43S min
3.11 Table 1. Types of rods that were evaluated.
40
ROD Classification Diameter
30
F1-M1 ASTM 4330M 3/4 in
F2-M2 ASTM 4330M 7/8 in
S a = (0.25σ UTS + 0.5625S min ) SF
20 F3-M3 ASTM 4138M 1.0 in
F1-M4 ASTM 4138M 1.0 in
10

0 All the rods tested in this study were produced with a heat
0 20 40
MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH (ksi)
60
Figure 2. Goodman modified diagram for allowable stress and
range of stress for sucjkers rods in non-corrosive services.
The steels used for high strength rods are very similar to
the ones used for drill pipes, according to the API
specification 5D6, there is minimum toughness requirement of
40 ft-lbs CVN (Charpy V notch impact test). Toughness is a
material property that quantifies the material’s resistance to
propagation of an existing crack under slow strain conditions.
The Charpy Impact resitance is a measure of the amount of
energy required to fractura a standerd ize and shape specimen
of a material, uing a pendulum hammer. Since Charpy tests are
inexpensive and correlate well with fracture resistance, the oil
industry routinely uses Charpy impact testing as a measure of
toughness. An evaluation of the impact energy was done on
the material of the rods to compare the difference among them
(Minimum limit of 40 ft-lb).
Most of sucker rods catalogs from different companies
imply that rods are delivered normalized and tempered. In
terms of fatigue resistance, it is well known that quenched and
tempered steels have an improved the toughness and fatigue
resistance, Sankaran7. Following the comparison with
quenched and tempered (Q&T) drill pipe, the rods were tested
in a quenched and tempered condition. Fatigue resistance and
impact CVN energy were evaluated.
In order to have a better knowledge, in addition to the
material characterization of the rods, specimens with a
superficial defect were fatigue tested under both heat
treatments. The experimental fatigue and impact results and
the effect of the superficial defect shows up important
differences among the high strength rods evaluated, that are
useful to the selection process. The used of Q&T heat
treatment gives an improvement on the impact and fatigue
strength as compared to the N&T.
With all these experimental data, a sensitivity analysis was
done to generate a correlation that allows estimating the
expected fatigue of the rod material, based on the tensile
properties and the impact energy. This correlation will help in
the selection process among different rod manufactures
80
treatment of normalized and tempered (N&T), in addition to
the fatigue tests, the following evaluations were done: tension
tests, chemical analysis using emission optical spectroscopy
technique, metallographic analysis, hardness test, impact
Charpy V notch (CVN) tests and tension notch tests; each test
was done following the appropriate ASTM standard. Later on,
samples from the rods, except F1-M1, were under a heat
treatment of quenched and tempered (Q&T) and the same
mechanical tests were done was again. Rod F1-M1 was not
fatigue tested under the Q&T condition, due to the fact there
were not more new rods on the field during the study, sample
from this rod were not requested directly from the vendors in
order to keep them out of the study.
Fatigue tests were carried out following the standard
ASTM E 7398, the scope of the tests can be qualified as a level
of R&D with a replication of (33-55%). To simulate the
corrosion pit effect on fatigue, a small hole was machined on
at the center of the specimens, with a diameter of 0.045 in and
0.020 in depth. Figure 3 is a view of machined defect on the
fatigue specimen and at the fracture surface.
Figure 3. a) Small pit as a superficial defect on the fatigue
specimen. b) Lateral view of the pit, SEM, 67X.
According to standards ASTM E 466, and ASTM E 468
the fatigue curves were determine, a stress ratio of zero (R=0),
cycling load applied at a frequency of 60 Hz, and a run out of
5 millions cycles. Equation 1 is used to calculate the fatigue
concentration factor; it is the ratio of the fatigue endurance
SPE 102211 3

with a notch and the fatigue endurance of the material without Table 4. Impact energy CVN tests, at as-received condition.
a superficial defect. Rod Sample CVNave.
σ manufacture CVN (lb-ft) (lb-ft)
Kf = e (1) F1-M1 21.70, 20.23, 18.39 20.10
σ ed F2-M2 29.79, 28.32, 27.95 28.69
F3-M3 16.18, 13.24, 15.08 14.83
Experimental results F1-M4 11.04, 13.24, 13.61 12.63
Chemical composition. The results of the four rods are
presented in Table 2. According to the alloy elements, the rods
were classified following AISI specifications. The AISI Table 5. Notch tensile strength tests results.
classification agrees well with the manufacturer rod Rod Ys σs σs / Ys NSR
HBN
specifications. The letter M is an indication of the presence of sample (ksi) (ksi) NSR (average)
microalloys vanadium, Titanium, Niobium. According to the F1-M1.1 134.84 234.06 1.74
1.71 335.6
specialized literature, these alloys increase the mechanical F1-M1.2 134.69 227.01 1.69
strength of the steel without affecting its toughness. F2-M2.1 119.02 227.12 1.91
1.90 310.2
Table 2. Chemical composition of the rods, %wt. F2-M2.2 120.48 228.70 1.90
F3-M3.1 105.08 198.83 1.89
Element F1-M1 F2-M2 F3-M3 F1-M4 1.89 287.0
F3-M3.2 104.60 196.77 1.88
Fe 94.92 95.10 96.89 96.73 F1-M4.1 119.81 212.98 1.78
1.71 312.0
C 0.341 0.318 0.405 0.410 F1-M4.2 121.45 199.04 1.64
Mn 0.833 0.848 1.065 1.256 HBN: Hardness Brinell Number.
Si 0.210 0.230 0.273 0.288
Cu 0.260 0.270 0.311 0.143
Ni 2.047 1.922 0.067 0.000 Table 5. Results of inclusion and microstructure analysis at as-
Cr 0.940 0.877 0.594 0.722 received condition.
V 0.064 0.097 0.095 0.059 Sample Inclusion analysis Microstructure
Mo 0.248 0.236 0.255 0.309 Ferrite, perlite, carbides
Ti 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.004
Al 0.042 0.005 0.003 0.027 Coarse type 1½ and
Nb 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.045 fine type 1 globular
F1-M1
AISI –SAE 4330M 4330M 4138M 4138M oxide, and slim
sulfides type ½.
Mechanical properties. Table 3 shows the results of the
tension and hardness tests of the rods at as-received condition
Ferrite, perlite, carbides
(N&T). Tables 4 and 5 give the results of the impact CVN and
the notch tensile strength tests, respectively. These tests were
carried out at ambient temperature. Fine globular oxides
F2-M2 type 1, and fine
Table 3. Tension tests results, at as-received condition (N&T). sulfides type 1 and 2.
Rod Manu- Specim σys UTS %e
σys/UTS
facture ent (ksi) (ksi) (50 mm)
M1.1 134.81 153.83 15.20 0.88 Ferrite, perlite, carbides
F1-M1
M1.2 134.66 154.85 20.60 0.87 Coarse type 1 and
M2.1 118.99 140.86 16.60 0.85 fine types 1 and 1½
F2-M2
M2.2 120.45 142.26 16.80 0.85 F3-M3 globular oxides and
M3.1 105.06 133.23 15.16 0.79 types 1 ½ and 2
F3-M3
M3.2 104.58 132.72 14.26 0.79 sulfides.
M4.1 119.78 147.28 15.22 0.81
F1-M4
M4.2 121.43 148.34 15.00 0.82 Ferrite, perlite, carbides
Coarse type 1 and
Metallographic analysis. Table 5 is the compendium of the fine types 1 and 1½
inclusion and metallographic analysis of the rods at as- F1-M4 globular oxides and
received condition (N&T). Table 6 are the results of phases types, and fine
present, size of the previous austenite grain, ferrite grain sulfides
evaluated using the scanning electronic microscope
4 SPE 102211

Table 6. Austenitic and ferritic grain size of the rods at as- Fatigue tests. Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the fatigue curves of
received condition. the four rods tested, F1-M1, F2-M2, F3-M3, and F1-M4,
Austenitic grain size Ferritic grain respectively.
Rod sample
N° ASTM (µin) size (µin)
F1-M1 8 (0.89) 0.74 F1-M1
F2-M2 4 – 6 (2.5) 0.56 90

F3-M3 4 – 6 (2.5) 0.63 80

F1-M4 7 (1.25) 0.78 70

ALTERNATIVE STRESS (ksi))

60
Quenched and tempered heat treatment. Three rods were
selected to apply the Q&T heat treatment, F2-M2, F3-M3 and 50

F1-M4. The rods were heated to 860 °C and quenched in oil, 40

then tempered at 650 °C for a time of one hour, under this 30

conditions the Q&T rods will produce tensile properties
similar to the N&T rods. The results of mechanical test, CVN 20
N&T AS RECEIVED
impact test and metallographic analysis are given in Tables 7, 10 N&T WITH DEFECT
8 and 9 0
10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Table 7. Mechanical properties of the Q&T rods. CYCLES

Rod σys UTS %e σs σs / Ys Figure 4. Fatigue results of rod F1-M1, only two
manuf. (ksi) (ksi) (2 in) (ksi) NSR conditions were evaluated for the N&T.
131.5 142.3 16.28 226.99 1.72 F2-M1
F2-M2
136.5 147.2 16.34 222.08 1.63 100

127.5 143.7 14.40 208.91 1.64 90

F3-M3
127.7 141.5 16.00 225.61 1.77 80
151.8 161.3 12.16 236.6 1.56
ALTERNATING STRESS (ksi))

F1-M4 70
141.9 152.5 13.42 236.2 1.67
60

Table 8. Impact CVN test results of the Q&T rods. 50

Sample CVNaverage 40
Rod CVN (lb ft) (lb ft)
30
F2-M2 80.88, 84.56, 86.03 83.22 N&T AS RECEIVED
F3-M3 72.06, 68.38, 69.49 70.00 20
N&T WITH DEFECT
F1-M4 58.82, 55.88, 58.82 57.84 10 Q&T WITHOUT DEFECT
Q&T WITH DEFECT
0
Table 9. Metallographic analysis of the Q&T rods. 10000 100000 1000000
CYCLES
10000000 100000000

Sample Microstructure Figure 5. Fatigue results of rod F2-M2, four different

Tempered martensite conditions were evaluated.
F3-M3
80

F2-M2 70
ALTERNATING STRESS (ksi))

60

50

Tempered martensite 40

30

F3-M3 20
N&T AS RECEIVED
10 N&T WITH DEFECT
Q&T WITHOUT DEFECT
0
1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Tempered martensite CYCLES

Figure 6. Fatigue results of rod F3-M3, three different

F1-M4 conditions were evaluated.
SPE 102211 5

F1-M4 mechanical properties below the specification. In terms of

100 fatigue behavior, the rods F1-M1 and F2-M2 with the higher
90 relationship between the yield and tensile strength have the
80
higher fatigue values; the same rods also have the higher
impact energy (toughness) and better values in terms of the
ALTERNATING STRESS (ksi))

70
notch tensile strength. From the impact energy test results,
60
there is an importance difference among the rods in the N&T
50 condition. Figure 8 is a summary of the mechanical tests and
40 the fatigue behavior of the N&T rods.
30
N&T AS RECEIVED
20 N&T WITH DEFECT 250
230,53 227,91
10 Q&T WITHOUT DEFECT
206,01
Q&T WITH DEFECT 197,8
0 200
10000 100000 1000000 10000000
CYCLES

Figure 7. Fatigue results of rod F1-M4, four different 154,34

147,81

ksi, ft-lb
150 141,56
conditions were evaluated. 134,74
119,72
132,98
120,61
104,82
Table 7. Summary of the fatigue tests. 100
CONDITION F1-M1 F2-M2 F3-M3 F1-M4 65
σe N&T 65.0 58.0 51.0 55.0
58
51 55

w/o defect 50
28,7

σ e 20,1
N&T 14,8 12,6
f 34.0 30.8 27.8 32.5
with defect 0
F1-M1 F2-M2 F3-M3 F1-M4
Kf (N&T) 1.91 1.88 1.83 1.69
σe Q&T Yield strength Ultimate strength
NA 39.5 65.0 62.5 Notch strength Endurance limit
w/o defect CVN
σ ef Q&T
NA 26.3 NA 37.5 Figure 8. Comparison of the mechanical test results among
with defect the rods in the as-received condition (N&T).
Kf (Q&T) -- 1.50 -- 1.67
The rods with a superficial defect showed an importance
decrease in the fatigue endurance limit, the Kf factor is around
Result Analysis 1.90 for all the rods, this implies the high sensitivity of these
Chemical composition effect on fatigue. The steel alloys high strength steels to the presence of small superficial
evaluated belong to the grades AISI-SAE 4330M ( Cr–Ni-Mo defects.
steel) and 4138M (Cr – Mo steel), the rods agreed well with Figure 9 is the Goodman diagram for the rods evaluated.
the manufacture specifications. In terms of chemical Manufacture of the rods F1-M1 and F1-M4 specified,
composition, the N&T rods F1-M1 and F2-M2 (4330M) graphically in the catalogue, the same allowance limit (dash
showed higher fatigue endurance limits as compared to the line) for both rods, Equation 2 was generated from the graph.
other (4138M); the difference is related to: the hardening Rods F2-M2 and F3-M3 from different manufactures have the
grade related to the elements chromium, nickel, and Equation 3 as a reference to calculate the allowance limit.
molybdenum, the refining of the austenitic grain due to the
presence of aluminum and vanadium, also the refining of the ⎛ T ⎞
ferritic grain caused by silicon, vanadium and niobium. Rod SA = ⎜ + 0.43 S MIN ⎟ SF (2)
F1-M1 had the higher fatigue limit; this is probably related to ⎝ 3.11 ⎠
a smaller austenitic grain size due to the presence of 0.042% ⎛ T ⎞
of aluminum. The letter M on the steel classification is an SA = ⎜ + 0.375 S MIN ⎟ SF (3)
indication of the presence of microalloy elements such as
⎝ 2.8 ⎠
vanadium, titanium and niobium. According to the specialized
The vertical axis of the diagram corresponds to a stress
literature, these alloys increase the mechanical strength of the
steel without affecting its toughness, perhaps this is the reason ratio of zero (R=0, σmin=0)9, the fatigue results with a without
of using these steels in the normalized and tempered condition defect are shown on this line. For R=0, the maximum stress is
with the benefit of decreasing the producing costs. twice the endurance limit, see Equation 49, and following the
recommendation of API 11 BR the maximum stress is derated
Mechanical properties effect on fatigue. Three of the N& T by a factor of two. As can be seen, the experimental fatigue
rods evaluated by the tension tests were in agreement with the limit (without defect) for rods F1-M1 and F1-M4 are above
manufacture specification, only the rod F3-M3 gave the limit specified by the manufacture, the same happens to
6 SPE 102211

rod F2-M2, instead, rod F3-M3 is very close to the limit

calculated from equation 3.
As can be seen in the Figure 9, the experimental fatigue
data for specimens with superficial defects and stress ratio of
R=0 are well below the specified allowance stress limit.
σ max − σ min
σ e , σ ed = σ alt = (4)
2
Heat treatment of quenched and tempered effect on the
rods. The treatment was only done on F2-M2, F3-M3 y F1-
M4 rods. The following is a summary of the experimental
results on the Q&T rods:
- The mechanical properties were similar to the rods on the Figure 10. For rod F1-M2, the fatigue crack started on an
N&T conditions at exception of the rod F1-M4, which has inclusion located close to the surface.
higher values. 250
236,42
- The toughness on the Q&T rod increase a lot, as 217,26

compared to the N&T. The values were over the 40 ft-lb 200
as specified for steels used in drill pipe6. 156,9
- The fatigue limits increase approximately of 10 ksi as 146,89 142,61
150
compared to the N&T rods. Rod F2-M2 was an exception 127,61
with very low values as expected. On this rod, the fracture
surface of some specimen shows that the fatigue crack

ksi, lbs-ft
100
69,98
started on a big inclusion located close to the surface, see 58
62,5 64,16
Figure 10. 50
- Rod F1-M4 with very high yield and tensile strength and
low toughness gives a lower fatigue endurance limit as 0
compared to the F3-M3 rod; both rods are 4138M steel. F1-M4 F3-M3
Figure 11 is a summary of the experimental results of
Yield strength Ultimate strength
these rods.
- The metallographic microstructure corresponds to a Notch strength CVN (lb-ft)
tempered martensite. This microstructure is in agreement Limit endurance
to the higher toughness and fatigue resistance as it was
Figure 11. Mechanical properties of the rods F1-M4 and F3-
expected.
M3 with the Q& T heat treatment condition.

From a sensitivity analysis of the experimental data effect

on the fatigue behavior and through out a correlation analysis
the equation (3) was developed10. As can be seen, there is an
important effect of the ultimate tensile strength and a
representative effect of the toughness on the expected fatigue
behavior of these families of steels.

σ max,exp . = 15.147 + 0.273889σ u + 0.110713 CVN (3)

Figure 9. Goodman diagram for the rods evaluated, the
arrows on the vertical axis indicate the locations of the
experimental data for the rods with and without defects.
Conclusions
- In the N&T condition the steel 4330M has higher fatigue
strength as compared to the steel 4138M; the same
behavior was observed on the toughness of these
materials.
- The rods had showed to have fatigue limit well over the
limit specified by the manufacture, at exception of the F3-
M3 rod, which was just on the limit.
- It was observed the expected effect of toughness on
fatigue properties on the rods; in addition to the well
know influence of the ultimate tensile stress.
- There is an increase in the toughness in the Q&T rods as
compared to the N&T ones, which will improve the
fatigue behavior of these high strength steels. This higher
SPE 102211
toughness will increase the fatigue life of the rods under
the presence of superficial defects.
- A correlation equation was developed that allows a
preliminary qualifying the expected fatigue behavior of
rods of different manufactures, in a selection process,
using simple and inexpensive test such as tension and
CVN tests.
Recommendations
- To experimentally generate the allowance stress limit for
the Goodman diagram is an expensive and time
consuming process. Every manufacture should be
requested to develop and provide this information for
everyone of the rods. This experimental information in
combination with the field experience will help in the
selection process of rods and improve the sucker rod
string design.
- Since high strength rods are sensitive to superficial
defects; special care must be taken during handling and
running in the well and the application of corrosion
inhibitors when they are used in corrosive sweet
environments.
- More experimental data is needed in order to
establishment an impact CVN energy limit for the rods, as
a minimum requirement of toughness.
Nomenclature
σy = yield strength (ksi)
σu = ultimate tensile strength (ksi)
σs = Notch tensile strength (ksi)
Smax= maximum allowance stress (ksi)
Smin= minimum allowance stress (ksi)
CVN = Impact energy Charpy V notch (ft- lb)
NSR= Notch strength ratio
σe = fatigue endurance limit (ksi)
σed = fatigue endurance limit with superficial defect (ksi)
Kf = fatigue defect factor
σmax = maximum tensile stress (ksi)
σmin = minimum tensile stress (ksi)
σmax, exp = expected fatigue endurance limit (ksi)
7
Acknowledgement
We thank ECOPETROL S.A. for the permission to publish
this paper. We also thank our fellows Javier Mateus,
Alexander Perez, Martin Lizcano and Rafael Gomez for the
lab support.
Bibliography
1. API Recommended Practice 11B, “Specification for Sucker
Rods”, American Petroleum Institute, 1998.
2. API 11BR “Recommended Practice for Care and Handling of
Sucker Rods”, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 1989
3. Varillas de Bombeo, Catalogo General de Productos API y
Premium, Siderca Tenaris Group.
4. Changes in EL and XD Rod Stress Loading Calculations, Theta
Newsletter, A. de la Cruz, June 1999.
5. Theta Enterprises Newsletter - May, 1998, www.theta-ent.com
6. API 5D, “ Standard specification for drill pipe”, last edition,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 2002.
7. S. Sankaran, High cycle fatigue behavior of a multiphase
microalloyed medium carbon steels: a comparison between
ferrite – perlite and tempered martensite microstructures,
Materials science and Engineering A 362 (2003).
8. Norma ASTM E 739, “Standard Practice for Statistical Analysis
of Linear or linearized Stress – life (S-N) and Strain Life (e-N)
fatigue Data”.
9. G. Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, Mc Graw Hill, 1986.
10. Jaimes, A., “Correlacion Impacto fatiga: Optimización de
criterios de selección de materiales para varrillas de pozo” MSc
thesis, 2005, Universitad Industrial de Santander, Colombia.
11. Atlas of fatigue, Edited by Boyer, H. E., American Society of
Metals, Second printing, 1986.
12. Bellow, D.G. and Smuga-Otto, I. Corrosion - Fatigue of Oilfield
Sucker Rods” Canadian Region Western Conference, 1991.
13. Lampman, S.R et al, Fatigue and Fracture, volume 19, ASM
handbook, ASM International, Ohio, 1996.
14. Martinez, A., et al “Evaluación del comportamiento de varillas
de alta resistencia de sistemas de bombeo mecánico en
ambientes corrosivos por CO2”, X Congreso Colombiano del
Petróleo, 2003.
Metric Conversion Factor
ft x 3.048 E-01 = m
in x 2.54 E-02 = m
lb x 4.448222 E 00 = N
lbs - ft. x 1.355818 E 00 = J
ksi x 6.8947 E 00 = MPa
ksi=103 psi