Sucker Rod Basics - Failure Analysis

Failure Analysis
Operating Philosophy
Oil/operating companies are in
business to make money, not
produce oil and/or gas. If they can
make more profit by letting a well
fail, then they should let it fail! Well
failure frequencies vary from
company-to-company and change
from lease-to-lease and, as such, an
acceptable failure rate is one that
generates the most profit for their
company.
© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 2
Failure Management
The elimination of all failures in a
well is impractical, if not impossible,
and the cost associated with this
undertaking would be astronomical!
Therefore, oil / operating companies
must effectively manage their failure
rates to generate the highest
revenue possible. Efficient oil /
operating companies have
optimization programs that include
failure management systems to
reduce well failure frequency rates.
Performance Benchmarking

Permian Basin

Where Do Failures Occur?
Artificial Lift Energy Optimization Consortium
Failure data on 20,500 wells in the
Permian Basin from 1990 - 1998
28%
39%
Pumps
Rods
Tubing
33%

Is The Failure Trend Field
Specific?
S.E. New Mexico Wells For One ALEOC Operator
Field specific data on 1039 failures
between 1990 - 1998
19%
39%
Pumps
Rods
Tubing
42%

Is There A Pattern To The
Failure Depths?
Field specific data on
TOTAL 0 to 500'
1,039 failures
TOTAL 501 to 1000'
Pump setting depth 4500 to 6000’

between 1990 –
TOTAL 1001 to 1500'
TOTAL 1501 to 2000'

1998. TOTAL 2001 to 2500'
TOTAL 2501 to 3000'
TOTAL 3001 to 3500'
90% of all the TOTAL 3501 to 4000'
tubing failures were

TOTAL 4001 to 4500' 5875
average
TOTAL 4501 to 5000'
in the bottom 1/4 of
pump depth
TOTAL 5001 to 5500'

the tubing string TOTAL 5501 to 6000'
with 43% of the 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
tubing failures in the number
bottom joint! tubing rods

Question?
Can you impact operating
expenses (OPEX) if you reduce
and/or eliminate 43% of the
tubing failures in the bottom
joint?

Permian Basin Operator
When purchasing new sucker rods, this operator
uses Norris Sucker Rods – exclusively!
8,000 0.45
0.393
0.378
0.356
0.348
7,000 0.4
0.311
0.35
6,000
0.277
0.261
Failure Frequency
Number of Wells
0.3
5,000
0.25 Wells
4,000 Pulls
0.2 IPA
3,000
0.15
2,000
0.1
1,000 0.05
6,359
2,104
6,512
6,496
2,132
1,984
6,978
1,748
6,317
2,337
2,302
6,759
6,922
0 1,846 0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Pump, Rod, & Tubing
Component Failures
The failure percentage shown for rods include
both used (reruns) and new Norris Sucker Rods!
0.393
45.0% 0.450
0.378
0.356
0.348
40.0% 0.400
Failure Frequency - Pumps, Rods, &

0.311
35.0% 0.350
0.277
0.261
30.0% 0.300
IPA Percent
Pumps
25.0% 0.250
Tubing
Rods
Tubing
20.0% 0.200
IPA
15.0% 0.150
10.0% 0.100
37.7%
37.7%
36.9%
5.0% 0.050
36.2%
36.7%
27.3%
33.2%
24.7%
35.4%
27.0%
37.4%
37.0%
25.6%
36.6%
33.6%
24.6%
36.2%
26.9%
29.9%
40.1%
37.6%
0.0% 0.000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Sucker Rod Failures
Reruns may account for the higher than
normal connection related failures!
922
70.0% 1000
881
900
802
60.0%
773
Rod Bodies vs Pin & Coupling
800
719
Total Sucker Rod Failures

683
50.0% 700
587
600
40.0% Rod Bodies
500 Pin & Coupling
30.0% Rod Failures
400
20.0% 300
200
10.0%
56.1%
40.7%
62.0%
64.2%
43.5%
41.6%
58.4%
59.3%
38.0%
35.8%
43.9%
56.4%
42.8%
57.2%
100
0.0% 0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Failure-cause Analysis
Sucker Rod Terminology

Sucker Rod Failures
(A) (B) (C) (B) (A)

(A) Wrench Square: 1) abrasive-wear; 2) corrosion-abrasion; 3) corrosion-
fatigue; 4) erosion-corrosion; 5) material defects; 6) mechanical damage;
and 7) workmanship defects.
(B) Upset Taper: 1) abrasive-wear; 2) bent-rods; 3) corrosion-abrasion; 4)
corrosion-fatigue; 5) erosion-corrosion; 6) material defects; 7) mechanical
damage; 8) unidirectional bending-stress; and 9) workmanship defects.
(C) Rod Body: 1) abrasive-wear; 2) bent-rods; 3) corrosion-abrasion; 4)
corrosion-fatigue; 5) erosion-corrosion; 6) material defects; 7) mechanical
damage; 8) rotational bending; 9) stress-fatigue; 10) torsional loading; 11)
unidirectional bending-stress; and 12) workmanship defects.
(B:C/C:B) Rod Body-to-Upset Transition: 1) bent-rods; 2) corrosion-abrasion;
3) corrosion-fatigue; 4) erosion-corrosion; 5) material defects; 6) mechanical
damage; 7) rotational bending; 8) unidirectional bending-stress; and 9)
workmanship defects.
Connection Failures
(A) Midlength: 1) abrasive- (D) Threads: 1) corrosion-
wear; 2) alternating- fatigue; 2) erosion-
bending; 3) corrosion- corrosion; 3) loss of
abrasion; 4) corrosion- displacement; 4) material
fatigue; 5) erosion- defect; 5) mechanical
corrosion; 6) material damage; 6) thread galling;
defect; 7) mechanical 7) torsional loading; and 8)
damage; 8) stress-fatigue; workmanship defect.
9) tubing-slap wear; 10)
unidirectional bending- (E) Stress Relief: 1)
stress; and 11) alternating bending; 2)
workmanship defect. corrosion-fatigue; 3)
erosion-corrosion; 4) loss of
(B) One-third/two-thirds:
1) abrasive-wear; 2) (A) displacement; 5) material
defect; 6) mechanical
corrosion-abrasion; 3) damage; 7) torsional
corrosion-fatigue; 4) loading; 8) unidirectional
erosion-corrosion; 5) loss of bending-stress; and 9)
displacement; 6) material workmanship defect.
defect; 7) mechanical
damage; 8) thread galling; (B) (D)
9) torsional loading; 10)
tubing-slap wear; and 11)
workmanship defect.
(C) (E)
(C) Chamfer: 1) application
(if split); and 2) torsional
loading (if split and/or
flared).

Fracture Mode
All rod string
failures
resulting in
fracture are
either tensile
or fatigue
fractures.

Tensile Fracture
Tensile
fractures are
characterized
by a reduction
in the cross-
sectional area
at the point of
rupture, or final
shear tear –
also known as a
cup/cone
fracture.

Tensile Fracture-surface
Avoid tensile
fractures during
servicing
Cone Cup operations by
using weight
indicator charts
– which give
the maximum
pull (load in
lbs.) for each
size and type
sucker rod in
the rod string.
Maximum Rig Weight
Indicator Pull Chart
For a single taper, the maximum pull is based upon
90% of the minimum yield strength of a sucker rod
in “like new” condition.
¾ Max. Pull = ((D2 x ∏) x Ymin) x SF
Where:
D2 = Diameter, Inches2
Ymin = Minimum Yield
SF = Safety Factor
For a tapered rod string, calculate the total weight
of all rods above the smallest diameter,
bottommost API taper and add this weight to the
value calculated for the smallest, bottommost API
taper.
This maximum load should be reached by a
straight, steady pull and not by “jarring” on the rod
string.

Maximum Rig Weight
For a modified 86” Taper with the
PSN at 8,125’:
¾ 1,500’ – 1” Type 78.
¾ 2,500’ – 7/8” Type 78.
¾ 4,000 – 3/4” Type 78.
¾ 125’ – 1-1/2” Grade C Sinker Bars.
Example:
¾ (0.75 / 2)2 (.75 / 2 = 0.375 x 0.375 =
0.149625) x 3.14159 = 0.44178609375
x 85,000 = 37,551.81796875 x .9 =
33,796.636171875 + 5,560 + 4,356 =
43,712 lbs Rig Weight Indicator Pull

Maximum Rig Weight
Rod Type Size, in. Load, lbf Load, daN Size, mm Rod Type
The maximum 30 & 40 30 & 40
rig weight
1-1/4 66,268 29 478,0 31,75
1-1/8 53,677 23 877,0 28,58
1 42,412 18 866,0 25,40
indicator pull 7/8
3/4
32,471
23,857
14 444,0
10 612,0
22,23
19,05
chart on the 5/8 16,567 7 369,0 15,88
right provides 54, 78 & 90

1-1/4 93,880 41 760,0 31,75
54, 78 & 90
the maximum 1-1/8

1
76,043
60,083
33 825,0
26 726,0
28,58
25,40
pull on the rod

7/8 46,001 20 462,0 22,23
3/4 33,797 15 034,0 19,05
5/8 23,470 10 440,0 15,88
string for a
stuck pump. 96 & 97
1-1/4 127,014 56 499,0 31,75
96 & 97
1-1/8 102,881 45 764,0 28,58

1 81,289 36 159,0 25,40
7/8 62,237 27 684,0 22,23
3/4 45,725 20 339,0 19,05
5/8 31,753 14 125,0 15,88
Steel Sucker Rods (with couplings)

Size, in Weight, lbs/ft Weight, kg/m Size, mm
1-1/4 4.172 6,209 31,75

1-1/8 3.676 5,470 28,58
1 2.904 4,321 25,40
7/8 2.224 3,309 22,23
3/4 1.634 2,431 19,05
5/8 1.130 1,681 15,88

Fatigue Fracture
ASTM E1150-87
defines fatigue as:
“The process of
progressive
localized permanent
structural change
occurring in a
material subjected
to conditions that
produce fluctuating
stresses or strains
at some point or
points and that may
culminate in cracks
or complete
fracture after a
sufficient number of
fluctuations.”

Fatigue Fracture-surface
Most fatigue
fractures originate
from a local
increase in stress
(stress
concentration) as
small, progressive
cracks that
advance, upon
each application of
applied load, with
the action of
fluctuating or
cyclic stresses to
rupture or final
shear tear.

Stages Of Fatigue
The process of
fatigue consist
of three stages:
1. Crack
nucleation and
initiation.
2. Stable crack
growth.
3. Unstable or
rapid crack
growth to final
rupture or
shear tear.

Fatigue Marks
The fatigue marks
(crack-front)
Reference: “ASM Handbook, Volume 11, 2002; Page 702.
shown on the left

are produced from
single origins at
low and high
nominal stresses
and from multiple
origins at high
nominal stresses in
a cylindrical bar
that has been
subjected to cyclic
unidirectional-
bending stress.

Identifying
Characteristics
Reference: “ASM Handbook, Volume 11, 2002; Page 702.

Stage I
Initial fatigue
damage
leading to
crack
nucleation and
crack initiation.
¾ Crack initiation
site.

Stage II
Progressive cyclic
growth of the
fatigue-crack
until the
II
remaining
uncracked cross
section becomes
to weak to
sustain the loads
imposed.
¾ Ratchet marks.
¾ Fatigue marks.

Stage III
The unstable, or
rapid growth
region prior to final
rupture or shear
tear. The size of
the final-fracture
zone depends on
the magnitude of
the loads involved
and its shape
depends on the
shape and size of
the component and
III the Slant direction
of loading.
¾ Slant-fracture (or
shear-lip tear).

Stage III Final-fracture
Two features of the final-fracture
zone aid in determining the origin
of fracture.
1) Fatigue usually originates at the
surface, and therefore the fatigue
origin is not included in the final
fracture zone.
2) Chevron marks in the final fracture
zone that point back to the origin of
fracture.

Stage III Final-fracture
Zone
The final
fracture-zone is
rough and
fibrous and will
consist of a
fracture by two
distinct modes:
mode I) plane-
strain loading
conditions; and
Chevron Marks mode II) plane-
stress loading
conditions.
Mixed Mode I Final
Fracture
A final fracture
zone with flat,
fibrous tearing that
is essentially
normal to the axis
of the tensile load
with little to no
slant-fracture
indicates plane-
strain loading
conditions; where
the material at the
crack-tip is
constrained by the
adjacent material,
which is not as
highly stressed.

Mixed Mode II Final
Fracture A final fracture
zone with flat,
fibrous tearing
that is essentially
normal to the axis
of the tensile load
with a sharply
defined slant-
fracture indicates
plane-stress
loading
conditions; where
stress cannot
increase beyond
the elastic limit
(yield strength) of
the steel until the
entire area
affected by the
crack-tip is
plastically
deformed.
High Strength Case-
hardened Sucker Rods
A high strength
sucker rod made
from an induction
hardening process
in which only the
surface layer of the
sucker rod is
heated by
electromagnetic
induction.
Quenching
immediately after
hardening produces
a sucker rod with
an outside case of
hard, fine-grained,
needle-like
martensite and a
softer, more ductile
inner core.

Torsional Loading
In pure
torsion
loading, the
fracture
surface is
oriented at
45° relative to
the
longitudinal
axis.

Rotational Bending
Rotational
bending
stress is a
function of
speed,
torque,
balance,
and
imbalance
imposed on
the rod
string.
Rotational Bending
In a rotating
sucker rod,
every point on
the outer
surface of the
rod body
sustains a
tensile stress,
then a
compressive
stress, once
every
revolution.
Time To Failure
The time to
failure is
influenced by
many variables,
of which the
chemistry and
heat treatment
of the sucker
rod, operating
stress and
environment,
and orientation
and type of
discontinuity are
some of the
most important
factors.

Stress Intensity Factor
The
orientation
and type of
2) Longitudinal & Sharp discontinuity
(stress raiser)
helps
3) Broad-based, shallow depressions. determine the
level of stress
concentration
1) Transverse & Sharp
(local stress
intensity) to
applied load.

Field Analysis
Identifying the
cause of the failure
in the field can be
extremely difficult.
¾ Sucker rods are
covered with
hydrocarbons –
oil, paraffin, ect.
¾ Sucker rods
and/or
discontinuities
may be covered
with corrosion
deposits (i.e.,
iron carbonate
scale, iron
sulfide scale,
etc.).

Questions?

Sucker Rod Basics - Failure Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sucker Rod Basics - Failure Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failure Analysis

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 4

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 5

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 6

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 7

Pump setting depth 4500 to 6000’

TOTAL 1501 to 2000'

TOTAL 2501 to 3000'

TOTAL 3001 to 3500'

90% of all the TOTAL 3501 to 4000'

tubing failures were

TOTAL 5001 to 5500'

bottom joint! tubing rods

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 8

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 9

Failure Frequency - Pumps, Rods, &

Total Sucker Rod Failures

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 14

(A) (B) (C) (B) (A)

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 16

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 17

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 18

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 20

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 21

chart on the 5/8 16,567 7 369,0 15,88

right provides 54, 78 & 90

the maximum 1-1/8

pull on the rod

1-1/8 102,881 45 764,0 28,58

Steel Sucker Rods (with couplings)

1-1/4 4.172 6,209 31,75

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 22

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 23

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 24

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 25

shown on the left

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 26

Reference: “ASM Handbook, Volume 11, 2002; Page 702.

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 28

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 29

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 30

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 31

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 33

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 35

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 36

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 39

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 40

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 41

© 2001-2007 Norris / A Dover Company All rights reserved. 42

You might also like