Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-018-3316-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE - MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

A Novel Double Bevel Support Structure for Downhole Robot

Qingyou Liu1,2,3 · Jianguo Zhao1,2 · Haiyan Zhu2 · Wei Zheng2 · Yaqiang Yang2

Received: 9 February 2018 / Accepted: 17 May 2018 / Published online: 2 July 2018
© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2018

Abstract
Downhole robot is driven by friction force between the downhole robot and the borehole wall. The traction force = friction
coefficient * support force. The friction coefficient is generally ranging from 0.1 to 0.4, and the support force is usually small.
So the traction force of the downhole robot has been subject to the objective conditions. In order to improve the traction force,
in this paper, a novel downhole robot with double bevel self-locking structure (DBSS) is invented. The mechanical model
of the DBSS is established. And the mathematical equations of mechanical model are deduced according to the mechanical
model. Furthermore, the angle ranges of the bevels and the friction coefficient of each contact surface are obtained. Then,
an experimental device of DBSS is designed and fabricated. And the experimental results show that the experimental data
are basically the same as the theoretical calculation values. The proposed DBSS will have a great application prospect on
downhole robot with large traction force. And the DBBS will reduce the damage produced by the friction block compared
with the cam self-locking structure.

Keywords Downhole robot · Double bevel · Self-locking · Traction force · Support force · Support structure

1 Introduction and coiled tubing which has disadvantages of low efficiency,

high costs and coiled tubing buckling [1–3]. Therefore,
Horizontal well technology has been widely used in the downhole robot which can provide a traction force for the
exploitation of deep, ultra-deep, and offshore oil and gas downhole tools is put forward [4–8].
resources. Nevertheless, the downhole pipe string encounters Downhole robots could be classified into wheel type [9–
the difficulty of conveyance in the horizontal well. Conven- 14], telescopic type [15,16] and track type [17–19] according
tional conveyance methods rely on electric cable, pumping to the locomotion principle. Comparing with the three kinds
of downhole robots, telescopic downhole robot (TDR) has
B Jianguo Zhao three advantages which are better obstacle crossing perfor-
469650774@qq.com mance, higher motion stability and larger traction force [20].
Qingyou Liu The distance that the coiled tubing can reach in the hori-
liuqy66@aliyun.com zontal well is determined by the range of the traction force
Haiyan Zhu produced by downhole robot. And the traction force =
zhuhaiyan040129@163.com friction coefficient * support force. The friction coefficient
Wei Zheng between downhole robot and the borehole wall is generally
809564893@qq.com ranging from 0.1 to 0.4. And this friction coefficient is a con-
Yaqiang Yang stant value if the structural parameters of the robot are fixed.
352881508@qq.com So the only way to increase the traction force is to increase
1
the support force. And there are two methods to increase the
School of Mechatronics Engineering, Southwest Petroleum
University, Chengdu, China support force as follows:
2 State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and
Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu,
China 1. Increase the driving force by enhancing the driving power
3 or changing the driving method, thus the support force
Key Laboratory of Fluid and Power Machinery of Ministry of
Education (Xihua University), Ministry of Education, can accordingly increase. But this method faces the envi-
Chengdu, China ronment of high temperature, high pressure and narrow

123
1070
space in downhole. So the driving force is limited. For
instance, there was a TDR whose driving pressure is
6.90 MPa. The tractive force can be calculated to be about
45,000 N based on the outer diameter (119.634 mm) and
channel diameter (30 mm) of the robot, but the actual
driving force is only 10,668.48 N [21]. That is to say, the
support structure is difficult to provide enough traction
force even though the driving power is very big.
2. Increase the traction force when the driving power is con-
stant. Therefore, the self-locking principle can be used in
the design of the downhole robot.
The self-locking principles include bevel self-locking [22,
23], cylindrical self-locking [24], cam self-locking [25,26],
overrun clutch self-locking [27] and putter-rail self-locking
[24]. The self-locking principles can be classified into point
contact, line contact and surface contact according to the
contact forms. When the support force is constant, the larger
force area means the lower pressure and the less damage to
the borehole wall.
Schlumberger Company developed a TDR called Max-
TRAC which was based on the cam self-locking principle
[28]. With the rotation of the cam of MaxTRAC’s support
structure, the distance from the contact point of cam and
borehole wall to the spindle of cam will become lager. When
the distance between the cam spindle and the borehole wall
is constant, the robot will get self-locking on the borehole
wall. The self-locking cam makes the support force be posi-
tive correlation with the load of this TDR, which can solve the
problem that the static friction force is limited by the driving
force. Therefore, the TDR is able to provide a traction force
beyond the limitation of the constant static friction force.
However, the cam will damage the borehole wall because
the contact form between the cam and the borehole wall is
line contact. And the principle of cam self-locking can only
achieve self-locking function in one direction.
West Well Tool (WWT) Company invented a robot with
single support arm [29]. The robot also uses the principle of
cam self-locking to improve traction force as much as pos-
sible. Unlike MaxTRAC, this robot’s cam is machined with
a toothed structure which can increase the friction coeffi-
cient between the supporting arm and the borehole wall. The
WWT robot’s contact form is also line contact. The WWT
robot will cause more damage to the borehole wall. Because
there is only one support arm, the support force acting on the
borehole wall will be greater.
Qiao et al. [30] developed an in-pipe robot based on the
cam self-locking principle which is similar to the MaxTRAC
and the WWT robot. And Qiao et al. [31] also developed
an in-pipe robot based on the bevel self-locking principle.
In this robot, mutually exclusive permanent magnets were
used to realize the self-locking between bevel blocks and
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079
the borehole wall. Similarly, this robot can only achieve one
self-locking direction. So the robot can only move in one
direction.
The TDRs with self-locking cams can lock themselves
on the premise of damaging the wall of the casing or well-
bore. And all of the TDRs can only get self-locking in one
direction, and achieve unidirectional traction. Nevertheless,
double bevel robots can achieve reverse traction to increase
traction efficiency [32]. Meanwhile, it can be found that the
contact form of the bevel self-locking is the surface contact,
so it can bring better protection to the wall of the casing or
wellbore compared with the others.
In this paper, a DBSS based on the bevel self-locking prin-
ciple is designed for the TDR which makes the traction force
beyond the limitation of the constant static friction force.
And the DBSS will not damage or cause less damage to the
borehole wall.
2 Structure and Locomotion Principle of the
TDR
As illustrated in Fig. 1a, the TDR consists of control sec-
tion, fore work section (FWS) and rear work section (RWS).
The structures of the FWS and the RWS are the same, and
they are arranged in a symmetrical manner around the control
section. As illustrated in Fig. 1b, the FWS is composed of
traction structure and support structure. The traction structure
consists of central shaft and traction cylinder. The traction
cylinder is a double-acting hydraulic cylinder, which includes
fore chamber, rear chamber and piston. The piston is con-
nected with the central shaft. Therefore, the traction structure
will move forward or rearward relative to the central shaft
when the fore chamber or the rear chamber is filled with
hydraulic oil. Meanwhile, the support structure is made up of
support cylinder, sleeve, return spring, left bevel block, right
bevel block and double bevel blocks. The support cylinder is
a single-acting hydraulic cylinder. The sleeve moves forward
relative to the support cylinder when the support chamber is
filled with high pressure hydraulic oil. The sleeve will move
rearward after the pressure is released, and under the action
of the spring. The control section includes motor, hydraulic
pumps and a set of hydraulic control valves.
The self-locking structure based on the bevel self-locking
principle works as a part of the support structure. As depicted
in Fig. 1c, the self-locking structure includes three left bevel
blocks, three right bevel blocks and three double bevel blocks
and they are circumferentially 120◦ apart from each other.
When the support chamber is filled with hydraulic oil, the
sleeve is driven to move forward along the support cylinder.
At the same time, the sleeve drives the left bevel block to
move forward. Therefore, the relative motion between left
support block and right support block drives the double bevel
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079
Fig. 1 Structure of TDR
blocks to extend in radial direction to touch the borehole wall.
Then, the double bevel blocks get locked with the borehole
wall.
Figure 2 shows one forward locomotion gait cycle of the
TDR, and it contains five statuses. And the rearward loco-
motion gait cycle is similar to forward locomotion.
1. From status A to B, the RWS’s support structure is locked
with the borehole wall. Then, the fore chamber of the
FWS’s traction cylinder is filled with hydraulic oil, and
reposition force in forward direction is generated. This
force drives the FWS to move forward relative to the
central shaft and the borehole wall. Then, the reposition
operation is completed.
2. From status B to C, the FWS’s support structure is locked
with the borehole wall when it is filled with hydraulic oil.
And the RWS’s support structure is separated from the
borehole wall.
3. From status C to D, the FWS’s support structure is locked
with the borehole wall. Then, the rear chamber of the
FWS’s traction cylinder is filled with hydraulic oil, and
traction force in forward direction is generated. This force
drives the central shaft to move forward relative to the
1071
FWS and the borehole wall. Then, the traction operation
is completed.
4. From status D to E, the FWS’s support structure is sep-
arated from the borehole wall as the hydraulic oil in the
FWS’s support chamber releases. And the RWS’s sup-
port structure is locked with the borehole wall when it is
filled with hydraulic oil. So the status E is the same as
status A.
As shown in Fig. 2, ST denotes the effective traction dis-
tance in forward direction after one cycle. Meanwhile, it can
be found that the RWS and the central shaft are always rela-
tively static in whole cycle.
3 Mechanical Model of the DBSS
3.1 Analysis of Self-Locking Condition
As shown in Fig. 2, during the reposition process of sta-
tus A to B, the RWS’s support structure is locked with the
borehole wall, and the static friction force between them is
equal to the reposition force. During the traction process of
status C to D, the FWS’s support structure is locked with
the borehole wall, and the static friction force between them
is equal to the traction force. However, the TDR’s forward
and rearward locomotion gait cycles are the same. Namely,
the static friction forces between the borehole wall and both
work sections’ support structures are, respectively, equal to
the reposition force and the traction force during the rear-
ward locomotion gait cycle, too. Therefore, taking the FWS
for example, two locking modes of its support structure are
listed:
1. During the traction process in the forward locomotion,
the static friction force in forward direction between the
FWS’s support structure and the borehole wall is the same
as the traction force. Thus, the FWS is locked with the
borehole wall, and this locking mode is called traction
locking.
2. During the reposition process in the rearward locomotion,
the static friction force in rearward direction between the
FWS’s support structure and the borehole wall is the same
as the reposition force. Thus, the FWS’s support structure
is locked with the borehole wall, and this locking mode
is called reposition locking.
Similarly, the RWS’s support structure has these two lock-
ing modes, too.
In summary, both of the FWS and the RWS have traction
locking mode and reposition locking mode. Besides, static
friction forces between the support structure and the bore-
123
1072
Fig. 2 Locomotion principle of TDR
hole wall of these two locking modes are in the opposite
direction. Hence, traction locking and reposition locking are
collectively referred to as double bevel self-locking. In real-
ity, mechanical structures of the FWS and the RWS are the
same. Taking the FWS for an example, mechanics analysis of
the traction locking and reposition locking will be carried out
to obtain their mathematical equations that meet the double
bevel self-locking condition.
3.1.1 Traction Locking Mode
The mechanics model of the self-locking structure in the
traction locking mode is developed, as shown in Fig. 3. Mean-
while, in order to simplify the calculation procedure, the
number of double bevel blocks is simplified from 3 to 2.
In Fig. 3, 2 and  3 represent the double bevel block A
and the double bevel block B.  1 and  5 stand for the left
bevel block and the right bevel block, and the borehole wall
is denoted by . 4 Besides, FS is the support force which
acts on the sleeve when the support cylinder is filled with
hydraulic oil; FS is the counterforce of FS which acts on the
sleeve. And FT is the traction force which acts on the central
shaft when the rear chamber of traction cylinder is filled with
hydraulic oil and FT is the counterforce of FT which acts
on the traction cylinder. In reality, the sleeve and the left
bevel block are fixedly connecting in the support cylinder,
and the right bevel block and the traction cylinder are fixedly
connected. Thus, FS acts on the left bevel block, FS and FT
act on the right bevel block. Moreover, Fi j is the force that
the object i acts on the object j, and i ≤ 5, j ≤ 5. φ1 is
the friction angle between double bevel blocks and left bevel
block and right bevel block. φ2 is the friction angle between
double bevel blocks and the borehole wall. Besides, α is the
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079
Fig. 3 Mechanics model of self-locking structure in forward locomo-
tion
angle of the left bevel block, and β is the angle of the right
bevel block.
By taking these five parts (Fig. 3) as a whole, following
relations can be expressed:

F42 · sin φ2 + F43 · sin φ2 = FT
(1)
F42 · cos φ2 = F43 · cos φ2
When only the left bevel block is considered, the right
bevel block and the double bevel block A separately as an
independent object, the following equations can be achieved:

F21 · sin(α + φ1 ) + F31 · sin(α + φ1 ) = FS
(2)
F21 · cos(α + φ1 ) = F31 · cos(α + φ1 )

F25 · sin(β + φ1 ) + F35 · sin(β + φ1 ) = FT + FS
(3)
F25 · cos(β + φ1 ) = F35 · cos(β + φ1 )

F42 · cos φ2 = F12 · cos(α + φ1 ) + F52 · cos(β + φ1 )
F42 · sin φ2 = F52 · sin(β + φ1 ) − F12 · sin(α + φ1 )
(4)
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079 1073

Combine Eqs. (1), (2), (3) and (4), the following equation
can be derived:

FT cot φ2 F  cot(α + φ1 ) (FT + FS ) cot(β + φ1 )

= S +
2 2 2
(5)

It should be emphasized that only two double bevel blocks

are considered in the calculation process, as shown in Fig. 3.
Since it is found that the requirement expression of two dou-
ble bevel blocks has contained enough information of those
with more double bevel blocks. As for the mechanics model Fig. 4 Mechanics model of rearward movement trend of right bevel
with more than two double bevel blocks, the equation can be block relative to double bevel blocks
directly changed to

FT cot φ2 F  cot(α + φ1 ) (FT + FS ) cot(β + φ1 )

= S +
n n n
(6)

where n denotes the number of double bevel blocks.

Simplify Eq. (6), then

cot φ2 − cot(β + φ1 )
FS = F (7)
cot(α + φ1 ) + cot(β + φ1 ) T

If FS ≤ 0, the following equation can be obtained: Fig. 5 Mechanics model of forward movement trend of right bevel
block relative to double bevel blocks
β ≤ φ2 − φ1 (8)
Consider the left bevel block, the right bevel block and
Equation (8) is the self-locking condition of the FWS’s
the double bevel block separately as an independent object
self-locking structure in the traction locking mode. If it is
shown in Fig. 4. So following relations can be obtained:
not a self-locking condition, Eq. (9) can be obtained. In this
situation, to achieve the traction locking, the value range of 
F42 · sin φ2 + F43 · sin φ2 = FR
FS is required to meet Eq. (10). (11)
F42 · cos φ2 = F43 · cos φ2

β > φ 2 − φ1 (9) F21 · sin(α + φ1 ) + F31 · sin(α + φ1 ) = FS
(12)
cot φ2 − cot(β + φ1 ) F21 · cos(α + φ1 ) = F31 · cos(α + φ1 )
FS ≥ F (10) 
cot(α + φ1 ) + cot(β + φ1 ) T F25 · sin(β + φ1 ) + F35 · sin(β + φ1 ) + FR = FS
(13)
F25 · cos(β + φ1 ) = F35 · cos(β + φ1 )
3.1.2 Reposition Locking Mode 
F42 · cos φ2 = F12 · cos(α + φ1 ) + F52 · cos(β + φ1 )
F42 · sin φ2 = F12 · sin(α + φ1 ) − F52 · sin(β + φ1 )
The mechanics model of the self-locking structure in the
(14)
reposition locking mode is shown in Figs. 4 and 5. By this
time, the reposition force FR in rearward direction acts on
Combine Eqs. (11), (12), (13) and (14), then the fellow
the RWS when its counterforce FR acts on the central shaft.
equation can be achieved:
Obviously, the central shaft and the FWS are relatively static,
so FR acts on the traction cylinder and right bevel block of the cot φ2 + cot (β + φ1 )
FWS. Whether to move forward or rearward of the right bevel FS = F (15)
cot (α + φ1 ) + cot (β + φ1 ) R
block is relative to double bevel blocks. When FR < FS , the
right bevel block has the trend of rearward movement relative If the right bevel block has the trend of rearward movement
to double bevel blocks and the mechanics model of the self- which means FS > FR , then Eq. (16) is obtained. In this case,
locking structure in the reposition locking mode, as shown in the value of FR is smaller than what the robot can provide.
Fig. 4. And, when FR > FS , the opposite situation is shown
in Fig. 5. α ≥ φ2 − φ1 (16)

123
1074 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079

Meanwhile, in order to achieve the reposition locking, the Equation (27) can be changed to:
value of FS needs to meet Eq. (17).
φ = arctan μ (27)
cot φ2 + cot (β + φ1 )
FS ≥ F (17)
cot (α + φ1 ) + cot (β + φ1 ) R Combine Eqs. (25) and (27), then

Uniformly, the following relations can be obtained through α ≥ arctan μ2 - arctan μ1
(28)
the mechanics model shown in Fig. 5: β ≤ arctan μ2 - arctan μ1

F42 · sin φ2 + F43 · sin φ2 = FR where μ1 is the friction coefficient between double bevel
(18)
F42 · cos φ2 = F43 · cos φ2 block and borehole wall; μ2 is the friction coefficient between
 double bevel block and the left and right bevel.
F21 · sin(α + φ1 ) + F31 · sin(α + φ1 ) = FS
(19) In the traction process, combine Eqs. (7) and (27)
F21 · cos(α + φ1 ) = F31 · cos(α + φ1 )

F25 · sin (β − φ1 ) + F35 · sin (β − φ1 ) + FS = FR cot (arctan μ2 ) − cot(β + arctan μ1 )
F25 · cos (β − φ1 ) = F35 · cos (β − φ1 ) FS = F (29)
cot(α + arctan μ1 ) + cot(β + arctan μ1 ) T
(20)

F42 · cos φ2 = F12 · cos (α + φ1 ) + F52 · cos (β − φ1 ) In the reposition process, if FS < FR , the robot can provide
F42 · sin φ2 = F12 · sin (α + φ1 ) + F52 · sin (β − φ1 ) a bigger reposition force and it can not be limited by the sup-
(21) port force. Therefore, in this paper, only the case where the
support force is smaller than the reposition force is analyzed.
Combine Eqs. (18), (19), (20) and (21), then Combine Eqs. (22), (27) and (30) can be achieved:

cot (arctan μ2 ) − cot(β − arctanμ1 )

cot φ2 − cot(β − φ1 ) FS = F (30)
FS = F (22) cot(α + arctanμ1 ) − cot(β − arctanμ1 ) R
cot(α + φ1 ) − cot(β − φ1 ) R
Hypothesis: (1) the coefficient of friction between the
If the right bevel block has the trend of forward movement
double bevel block and the casing is 0.35; (2) the coefficient
which means FS < FR , then Eq. (23) is obtained.
of friction between the double bevel and the double bevel
⎧ blocks is 0.12. In addition, from a practical point of view,
⎨ α ≥ φ 2 − φ1 α ≤ 90◦ and β > 0◦ , then we can know: μ2 > μ1 . At the
β ≤ φ2 + φ1 (23) same time, Eq. (28) must meet the following equation:
⎩
β − α ≤ 2φ1

90◦ ≥ α ≥ φ2 − φ1 = 12.45◦
(31)
Similarly, in order to achieve the reposition locking, the 0 < β ≤ φ2 − φ1 = 12.45◦
value of FS needs to meet Eq. (24).
3.2 Effect of Structural Parameters and Friction
cot φ2 − cot(β − φ1 )
FS ≥ F (24) Coefficient on Self-Locking
cot(α + φ1 ) − cot(β − φ1 ) R
3.2.1 Analysis of the of Angle of Double Bevel Block
There is a law that if FS << FT or FS << FR , the robot
can achieve self-locking. It can be inferred that Eq. (8) and In order to find out the most appropriate angle of double bevel
(23) are the double self-locking conditions of the self-locking block, Figs. 6 and 7 are generated based on Eqs. (29) and
structure. If the φ1 and φ2 are constant, α and β should meet (30) which are traction and reposition process, respectively.
Eq. (25). It should be explained that both traction force and reposition
 force are 60,000 N.
α ≥ φ2 − φ1 The FS in the traction process is shown in Fig. 6. (1). With
(25)
β ≤ φ2 − φ1 β increasing, FS also increases; (2) when β ≤ 12.45◦ , no
matter how big traction force is, the robot can be locked even
Meanwhile, the relation between friction angle φ and fric- the support force is equal to 0. It means that the self-locking
tion coefficient μ can be described as: process of robot has nothing to do with α. Namely, when
β ≤ 12.45◦ , the double bevel can achieve the self-locking
tan φ = μ (26) process.

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079 1075

Fig. 6 Influence of angle of double bevel block on traction process Fig. 7 Influence of angle of double bevel block on reposition process

FS in the reposition process is shown in Fig. 7. There is

a value (60,000 N) which is the maximum reposition force
FR of the robot can provide. When FS < 60,000 N, it means
a support force which is smaller than the traction force can
achieve the reposition process. On the contrary, the robot
must provide reposition force which is greater than the sup-
port force. With the changing of α and β, the value of FS is
divided into four parts by FS = 60,000 N. According to the
precondition of the formula: FS < FR , it is found that only
part I and part III meet the precondition. In part III, when
FS <60,000 N, α < 12.45◦ and β < 7◦ . However, the angle
of right bevel block is quite small and the double bevel is
easy to be destroyed when the robot works. In part I, when
FS < 60,000 N, α > 12.45◦ and β > 6.84◦ . The value of
α and β in part I is more suitable for the real situation. The Fig. 8 Influence of friction coefficient on traction process
range of β is 6.84◦ –90◦ and the range of α is 12.45◦ –90◦ in
part I.
Combining with the values of α and β in Figs. 6 and 7, the
the double bevel block can achieve self-locking process. On
range of β is 6.84◦ –12.45◦ and the range of α is 12.45◦ –90◦ .
the contrary, when 1.1μ1 − μ2 + 0.19 > 0, the double bevel
block can not achieve self-locking process.
3.2.2 Analysis of the of Friction Coefficient of Double Bevel Figure 9 shows that the line (FS = 60,000 N) which
Block divided Fig. 9 into two parts: FS < 60,000 N and
FS > 60,000 N. When FS < 60,000 N, it means that the
According to the strength requirements of double bevel support force is smaller than the reposition force. So it can
block, the middle values of α and β are taken as the param- be achieved that μ1 < 0.175.
eters of double bevel block and α = 30◦ , β = 10◦ in this Figure 10 shows the influence of the difference between
situation. Furthermore, it is necessary to analyze the influence μ1 and μ2 on the support force in traction process and repo-
of the friction coefficient on the locking process. Figures 8 sition process. When the difference of μ1 and μ2 equals to
and 9 show the influence of friction coefficient on the support 0.15, no matter what the values of μ1 and μ2 are, the support
force based on Eqs. (29) and (30). force required by the locking process of the robot remains the
Figure 8 shows that the line (FS = 0) which divided Fig. 8 same and the support force is equal to about 60,000 N. If μ1
into two parts: FS < 0 N and FS > 0 N. And the line equation and μ2 are known, to achieve normal operation, the support
is 1.1μ1 − μ2 + 0.19 = 0. When 1.1μ1 − μ2 + 0.19 < 0, force should meet the conditions described in Fig. 10.

123
1076 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079

Fig. 9 Influence of friction coefficient on reposition process

Fig. 11 Analysis of the influence of friction coefficient on reposition

process

Fig. 10 Analysis of the influence of friction coefficient on reposition

process

In reality, the friction coefficient between the metal and

metal does not exceed 0.5. Combining with the data in Figs. 6,
7, 8, 9 and 10, the shaded portion of the data shown in Fig. 11
is range of friction coefficients. And the range of friction
coefficients of the TDR must meet Eq. (32) according to
Fig. 11.
⎧
⎨ 1.1μ1 − μ2 + 0.19 > 0
0 ≤ μ1 ≤ 0.175 (32)
⎩
0.18 ≤ μ2 ≤ 0.5

4 Experimental Analysis of DBSS Fig. 12 The schematic of the DBSS

4.1 Experimental Device and Experimental Program

Design experimental device, hydraulic jack1 simulates the support
cylinder and the hydraulic jack2 simulates the traction cylin-
According to the mechanical principle of the DBSS, the der. When the hydraulic jack1 extends, the left bevel block
experimental device shown in Fig. 12 is designed. In the will move to the right and the right bevel block will move

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079
Fig. 13 Experimental specimen of the DBSS
to the left at the same time, which is the support process.
Then, double bevel block and friction block can be placed on
the casing. When the hydraulic jack2 extends, the right bevel
block is pressed to the left which is the traction process.
In order to simulate the influence of the different angle
of the left and right bevel on self-locking, the left and right
bevel blocks with different angle grooves shown in Fig. 13a
are designed. Those grooves are mated with double bevel
blocks shown in Fig. 13b to test the structural parameters of
the DBSS. And Fig. 13c shows the friction blocks.
4.2 Experimental Analysis of Double Bevel Structure
Self-Locking Structure
In order to analyze the influence of the angle of double bevel
on the self-locking of the support structure, a total of 11
sets of different angles are designed for traction process and
1077
Fig. 14 Experimental program of reposition process and the instrumen-
tation plan
reposition process, where the angle is 10◦ to 25◦ and the
interval is 5◦ .
According to the experimental device, the following
experimental program is designed. It needs to be emphasized
that if we simulate the self-locking principle in traction pro-
cess, the passage3 connects to pump and passage4 connects
to tank (Fig. 12). If simulate the self-locking principle in
reposition process, passage4 connects to pump and passage3
connects to tank (Fig. 14).
The experimental procedure of traction process is as fol-
lows: (1) match the angle between left and right bevel blocks;
(2) close valve1 and valve2; (3) open valve1 and hydraulic
jack1 can not stopped pumping until the value of sensor1
is about 6000 N (approximately 10% of the traction force),
regulator 5–10 s, write down the senor1’s value and the dis-
tance between flange2 and flange3 which is initial size; (4)
close valve1, relieve pump pressure to 0 MPa, open valve2,
hydraulic jack2 is stopped pumping when the value of sen-
123
1078 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079

Table 1 Experimental results of DBSS in traction process

No. α (◦ ) β (◦ ) Max support force (N) Max traction force (N) Initial distance (mm) Final distance (mm) Self-locking

1 10 10 6096 61,784 32.0 33.0 Yes

2 15 15 5953 48,106 31.0 0 No
3 20 20 5959 21,314 34.0 0 No
4 25 25 6020 12,571 32.0 0 No
5 25 10 5978 60,049 32.0 32.5 Yes
6 25 15 6014 39,940 33.0 0 No
7 25 20 6067 19,416 31.0 0 No

Table 2 Experimental results of DBSS in reposition process

No. α (◦ ) β (◦ ) Max support force (N) Max reposition force (N) Initial size (mm) Final size (mm) Self-locking

1 10 10 30,186 30,836 1.0 150 No

2 15 10 30,801 32,134 3.0 150 No
3 20 10 29,876 33,207 2.0 150 No
4 25 10 30,006 34,320 2.0 150 No

sor2 is about 60,000 N (if the distance between flange2 and
flange3 is equal to 0, stop to pump) and write down the
senor2’s value and the distance between flange2 and flange3
which is final size; (5) relieve pump pressure to 0 MPa, close
valve2, improve the pump pressure to the pressure recorded
in step (3), open valve2, and relieve pump pressure to 0 MPa;
(6) contrast the relative distance between flange2 and flange3,
and judge whether the double bevel block is self-locking. It
should be noted that from Figs. 6 and 7, we can see that β has
a greater impact on the support force, while α has little impact
on the support force. Therefore, this experiment mainly ana-
lyzes the influence of β on self-locking. The experimental
results are shown in Table 1.
If the distance between flange2 and flange3 changes a lit-
tle, then the double bevel blocks can be considered to be a
self-locking process. And, if the distance between flange2
and flange3 is 0, the double bevel blocks can not be consid-
ered to be a self-locking process.
As can be seen from Table 1, when the value of β = 10◦ ,
the robot can realize the self-locking process no matter how
big the value of α is. Namely, the self-locking process is
only related to β. Experiment results verify the correctness
of the theory [Eq. (8)]. Besides, under the same conditions,
α can only affect the value of the traction force. But α can
not change the self-locking performance of the DBBS.
The experimental procedure of reposition process is the
same as the traction process expect step (3) and step (4).
In step (3), hydraulic jack1 can not stop pumping until the
value of sensor1 is about 30,000 N (approximately 50% of
the reposition force). In step (4), hydraulic jack2 is stopped
to pump when the value of sensor2 is about 60,000 N (if the
distance between flange2 and flange3 is equal to 110 mm,
stop to pump) and write down the value of senor2 and the
distance between flange2 and flange3 which is final size. And
the experiment principle diagram of the reposition process
is shown in Fig. 14. The experimental results are shown in
Table 2.
As can be seen from Table 2, when the support force is
about 30,000 N, the traction force is also about 30,000 N
and is bigger than the support force. With the increasing
of α, the reposition force changes a little (only 11.30%).
And the reposition can not be loaded to 60,000 N. That is to
say, the DBSS can be locked when the support force is big
enough. Strictly speaking, it does not meet the definition of
self-locking. But, the robot can provide a greater reposition
force with a smaller support force which can be called locking
process.
5 Conclusions
This paper has presented a novel TDR with DBSS based
on bevel self-locking principle. The proposed robot consists
of control section, FWS and RWS. And its support struc-
tures and traction structures are driven by the hydraulic oil
to achieve the traction operation.
The mechanical model of the DBSS is established, and the
mathematical equations of mechanical model are deduced.
The influence of the angle and friction coefficient of the sup-
port mechanism on the locking is analyzed. A self-locking
principle is found, and it is influence by two factors one of
which is the angle of traction direction of the double bevel
block. The other factor is the difference between the two
friction coefficients which is the friction coefficient of the
support structure itself and the friction coefficient between
the support structure and the borehole wall. Then, the range

123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:1069–1079
of the structure parameter and the range of friction coefficient
of each contact surface are obtained.
DBSS can make that the TDR get self-locking in trac-
tion process and can get locking (robot can realize reposition
motion when it use a smaller support force than reposition
force) in reposition process. The robot can eliminate the prob-
lem that the traction force is limited by the constant static
friction force and provide the double direction traction abil-
ity for the TDR.
At last, an experiment prototype of the DBSS is machined,
and an experimental program of the double bevel self-locking
process is carried out, which verifies the correctness of
parameter selection and the feasibility of DBSS.
Acknowledgements This work is supported by the Science and Tech-
nology Project of Sichuan Province (Nos. 2013GZ0150, 2014GZ0121,
2015SZ0010). This work is also supported by Research Project of Key
Laboratory of Fluid and Power Machinery (Xihua University).
References
1. Kyllingstad, Å.: Buckling of tubular strings in curved wells. J. Pet.
Sci. Eng. 12(3), 209–218 (1995)
2. Abdo, J.; Al-Shabibi, A.; Al-Sharji, H.: Effects of tribological prop-
erties of water-based drilling fluids on buckling and lock-up length
of coiled tubing in drilling operations. Tribol. Int. 82, 493–503
(2015)
3. Qin, X.; Gao, D.; Chen, X.: Effects of initial curvature on coiled
tubing buckling behavior and axial load transfer in a horizontal
well. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 150, 191–202 (2017)
4. Kelbie G.M.; MacKay J.D.: Through-tubing inflatable technology
deployed on a downhole tractor system provides real-time cost
savings. In: 2008 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention
Conference and Exhibition (2008)
5. Schwanitz, B.: The development of wireline-tractor technology.
Way Ahead 5, 18–20 (2009)
6. Shawly, A.S.; Buali, M.H.; Omran, M.R.; Dashash, A.A.; Guraini,
W.K.; Nawawi, A.A.; Aramco, S.; AI-Khamees, H.; AI-Awami, N.;
Torne, J.: Wireline well tractor technology experience in extended
reach horizontal well. In: Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhi-
bition and Conference (2010)
7. Eissa, M.A.; Mehmood, S.; Jassem, H.M.; Aramco, S.; Barkat, S.;
Bal, M.; Rivadebeira, E.V.; Bragaw, T.; Neal, O.E.: Implementing
a multipurpose tool solution to successfully stimulate an extended
reach horizontal power water injector. In: SPE/ICoTACoiled Tub-
ing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition (2016)
8. Isehunwal, O.; Ezel, J.; Ogunrindel, A.; Boms, A.A.: A case study
of the successful deployment of tractor conveyed perforation in
highly inclined well. In: International Petroleum Technology Con-
ference (2016)
9. Local E: Wireline tractor production logging experience in Aus-
tralian horizontal wells. In: SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Confer-
ence and Exhibition (1998)
10. Denney, D.: Wireline-tractor production logging in horizontal
wells. J. Pet. Technol. 51(3), 80–81 (1999)
11. Doering, F.W.; Sheiretov, T.K.; Ewan, R.A.; SSDD. Traction Con-
trol for Downhole Tractor. US: 7143843, 2006-12-05
1079
12. Ludwig, W.N.: Well tractor. US: 14/406889, 2012-06-14
13. Saeed, A.; Duthie, L.; Aramco, S.; Yakovlev, T.; Sagr, H.: Devel-
opment and world’s first field deployment of 2.125 ” tridem coiled
tubing tractor for extended reach open hole horizontal wells with
ESP completions. In: Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibi-
tion and Conference (2017)
14. Tyagi, C.; Singh, V.; Nayak, J.P.; Pinto, T.: Unique milling bit
deployed via e-line intervention enables operator to achieve early
production. In: SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention
Conference and Exhibition (2017)
15. Jeff, F.; John, W.; Christian, B.M.; Bob, D.; Bob, G.; Chuck,
W.: Tractor-conveyed sensors and chemical packer are utilized to
remediate an extended-reach horizontal uncemented slotted liner
completion in a siliceous shale reservoir (2004)
16. Nelson, K.R.; Saeed, G.; Aguirre, F.: Force monitoring tractor. US:
8905148, 2014-12-09
17. Ueland, G.; Mellemstrand, J.: Device for a pulling tool for use in
pipes and boreholes for the production of oil and gas. US: 7363989,
2008-04-29
18. Guerrero, J.C.; Doering, F.W.; Roy, C.J.; Al, E.: Open hole tractor
with tracks. US: 7156192, 2007-01-02
19. Doering, F.W.; Dupree, W.D.: Chain drive system. US: 7222682,
2007-05-29
20. Sheiretov, T.: Wireline tractors and mechanical services tools: com-
parative study of technical solutions. In: SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
a Well Intervention Conference a Exhibition (2016)
21. James, O.A.; Laurie, S.D.; Saudi, A.: Technology Improvements
in the Giant Manifa Field Maturation Project. In: SPE Middle East
Oil and Gas Show and Conference (2015)
22. Wu, L.; Ann, N.K.; Ng, L.E.: Concepts for a class of novel
piezoelectric self-locking long-stroke actuators. Precis. Eng. 26,
141–154 (2002)
23. Ding, X.; Li, X.: Design of a type of deployable/telescopic mech-
anism using friction self-locking joint units. Mech. Mach. Theory
92, 273–288 (2015)
24. Shun, H.; Chen, Z.M.; Ge, W.J.: Mechanical principle, Beijing
(2006)
25. Dole, D.R.: Self-locking roller cam for hose and pipe coupling.
US: 7543857, 2009-6-9
26. Erickson R.A.: Cam and wedge-type self-locking mechanism. US:
5482417, 1996-1-9
27. Ito, K.; Nojiri, H.; Adachi, K.: Reversible self-locking clutch. US:
4852707, 1989-8-1
28. HASHEM, M.K; Dossari, S.M.; Seifert, D.J.; Hassaan, M.I.; Fou-
bert, B.: An innovative tractor design for logging openhole soft
formation horizontal wells. In: 2008 SPE North Africa Tchnical
Conference and Exhibition (2008)
29. Duthie, L.; Saeed, A.; Shaheen, S.; Saiood, H.; Aramco, S.; Moore,
B.; Krueger, E; Krueger: Design transformation of hydraulically
powered coiled tubing tractors for matrix acidizing Ssimulations
in extended reach carbonate reservoirs. In: Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (2017)
30. Qiao, J.W.; Shang, J.Z.; Chen, X.; Luo, Z.R.; Zhang, P.X.: Unilat-
eral self-locking mechanism for inchworm in-pipe robot. J. Cent.
South Univ. Technol. 17, 1043–1048 (2010)
31. Qiao, J.W.; Shang, J.Z.; Goldenberg, A.: Development of inchworm
in-pipe robot based on self-locking mechanism. IEEE/ASME
Trans. Mechatron. 18, 799–806 (2013)
32. Henderson, B.; Hopwood, C.; Hamilton, C.; Garies, J.: Cost sav-
ing benefits of using a fully double bevel tractor system. In: 2000
SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM International Conference on Hor-
izontal Well Technology (2000)
123