Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • DS-1 - Drilling Speciality Tools - Volume 4

    Uploaded by

    Luís Felipe Guimaraes
    73 views296 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    73 views296 pages

    DS-1 - Drilling Speciality Tools - Volume 4

    Uploaded by

    Luís Felipe Guimaraes

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 296
    TH Hill Associates, Inc. TH) HL Standard DS-1° Volume 4 Drilling Specialty Tools Fourth Edition May 2012 First Printing Standard DS-1° Drilling Specialty Tools Fourth Edition Tom H. Hill Principal Author ‘Samit R. Gokhale Contributing Author Akshat Agarwal, Thomas Wadsworth, Kang Lee, Ph.D., Grant Pettit, Sean Ellis, DeWayne Everage, Keith Branch, Michael Gerdes Technical Contributors Jennifer Mosher Production Manager TH Hil Associates, Inc. wishes to acknowledge the leadership and foresight of Tom H. Hill for conceptualizing and authoring the Standard DS-1, HHI Associates, In. extends its deep appreciation tothe Fourth Edtion Sponsor Companies and to the individuals named below, whose technical Input contributed significantly tothe value ofthe standard Fourth Edition Sponsor Companies Algoa ICO Asiapactic Group Qui! Tools Anadarko Knight Ol Tools Repsol E&P USA ‘Apache Corporation Marathon Oil Corporation Schlumberger ‘cher Murphy Sabah Oil Company Scientific Driling Internationa, Ine ‘Ameo Technology Nabors industries Ltd Shanghai Hilong Dri Pipe Co,, Lt. Baker Hughes National Oilwell Varco Shel nternational E & P BHP Bilton New Tech Systems Superior Energy Services Chevron Nevwfield Exploration Talsman Energy ConocoPhitips Newna Inspection Services Pty Lid VAM Driling Hi Noxon Petroloun USA, Ie. Washita Valley Enterprises, ino Hardbanding Solutions by Postle Noble Driling Weatherford Internationa, ne Industies Occidental Oil and Gas Corporation Woodside Reviewers and Contributors ‘ian Vesces, Anson Dt. Samash Gupte, ICO Aspe Grove Lake Lawrence, Apache Avdeow Desrose', TH Hl Associates Dwayne calpeve, il Senicas ark Chast Slots ing ‘rose Sowumbetp Ee Shale, NOV Taboscope ak By, Nels Exploration Benjani {Goo Meow, Scnumaerger Mai ible, Sohimborper ‘ily Taye, “ham Brander, Roses 1 Bohouna, Apache Boa Cost, 8 (ran nto, Woodalse Nickoy Sorviiin, Sto Or 00 Vil, Soe hog Jers, Nabors Dring USA, LP icky arousou', Kight OF Too rad B.dordan St, WashitaValoy Gunnar Mihaete, Baker Hughes INTEQ ike Monty, Now Experation ‘rt Backman, Node Dring Hetoan Gharayam, Nora Olwol Veo ke Piste Anata ‘re Fey, Sub Suraes Tools Howry Wits, VAI Dsling USA. ton Nobles, ICO Aeapactis Group Bryer val Knight Ot Too ues Srjena, Sol ‘ony anna Ae ‘Buck Jomson, Cnevon oouyoshi Ninn, Schlumbos hee ©. Whtson, BHP ston Patera, 7 FelAssucates hin Lin, NOV Granreaes| son Howall NOV Grant eu! Bouman, Aro Tecology (Chis Bove ener “erony Dugas, Qual To Pia Ptia, Nabi Ding (ms Guiry, Baker Hughes Joromy Rowrershausar, are Techrotgy Seat Dey, Poa nos Coyisteison Nowe Extraton “Brock NOV GrantPdoco Stave NeCoy, GanocoPhiling Chis Noth, NOV GrartPretaco sim Stentor, Nattonal lve Vateo ‘Susi Biwi, Nexen Porotun Coty Labor r-Or Senrose en G abiy, Aco Teas “Tasso! Same, Baer Hughes Dan Wergan, NOV Grantrdace on Snr atlouon| ‘Thomas M. Rodhigor, Wedthrlord an State, Newtlé Exaoraton soa a1 and Gas “Toy Coins, Senlumberger Danial Seat, Shall Jon ere Gare, Nabors Inmatons Vie Benott Knight Ot Toes Danijel ager Worsting Interatonal “lst ya Nae Tach Syste vincat Hoes, Ta-smen Energy Dewy McCamey, Newna Inspection Semis ‘ots Moriry. Sesamsarper Watace whi, Warthon Daya Chin, NOV GranPraeco Lay was, Weaterors wayne Avert New Tach Stars Dave Semon, Werkstegetaraatonal Us Song, Stanghel Hiong Ont Pipe Wayne Whe, ut Tole rin Kon, gos Lie ie, Sete Dein Wit Neves, epi Doyle Brnogar, Sehterberger Conny Smith, Saker Hopes "iio, Hing USA No endorsement of this standard or its content on the part of any reviewer or his or her company should be infeed. Copyright© 2012. T H Hill Associates, Inc., All Rights Reserved, No part ofthis document may be reproduced or scanned to any computer without prior writen consent of TH Hil Associates, Inc For additional copies contact T H Hill Associates, Inc., 18100 Wortham Genter Drive, Suite 300, Houston, TX 77065 Phone: (281) 671-5700. Fax: (281) 671-5397 Emall: mall@thnillcom ii Ds-1® Fourth Edition, Volume 4, Drilling Specialty Tools Table of Contents Page Foreword 1 Chapter 1 Coverage and Summary Requirements Specialty Too! 5 Definitions 5 Tool Types 5 Life Cycles and Coverage. 6 Failure Modes. 8 Failure Causes Zz Shared Responsibility for Proventing Failures 7 Maintenance Classitication System for Type A Tools 8 Classification of Type B Tools . 9 Establishing a Classi HON seas. . 9 Standard STC-1™ and Standard DS-1° cnn on 10 Alignment a 10 Meeting Requirements of Standards DS-1° and STO-1"" : 10 Meeting Requirements of Standard DS-1® Third Edition, Volume 3.0... : 10 Staged Implementation of Standard DS-1% ssi vnsnnnnnneiinene 10 Records .... . inane 4 Application of Requirements, soon veereeteeneenen vee W Chapter 2 Implementation Implementation ...1.ssnininininnninenininnnnininninnnninnininensinninnennnne 13 Specialty Tool Markets 13 Definitions. Maintenance Practices are Critical 13 Market Complexity, 13 Implementation Road Map 15 Chapter 3 Load Rating Scope .... Purpose of Load Ratings. Manufacturer's Responsibility Disclaimer. ss Definitions. . Required Load Ratings... Optional Advanced Load Rating. ‘Advanced vs. Basic Load Rating, Load Rating of a Tool Mode! Non Load-bearing Tools. Other Optional Ratings. Availabilty of Methods and Results, Material Properties EXAMPLETOOL Rated Load Rating Methods Basic Tension Load Rating, Basic Torsion Load Rating ‘Advanced Tensile Load Rating by FEA... ‘Advanced Torsional Load Rating by FEA. 0... ‘Advanced Tension and Torsion Rating by Proot Test. Load Rating EXAMPLETOOL Basic Tensile Rating 109.9.98 132 Qn ' cosl4.s? 1, = 34012 felbs po !20.000, 7. 7840.169 imseue (02s 2630.08 5 59,06) 132 [7.75630.105) cos? ) 23,171 flbs (Note: For T, calculation the box SMYS was used because the in nose on this connection is shouldering into the box rather than the typical rotary shouldered connection configuration.) ‘The makeup torque for this connection is: 17,006 te-bs (half of T,) Torsional capacities of other midbody connections were calculated in ike manner and lsted in table 3.5. Makeup Table 3.5 Torsional Capacity and Makeup Torque for EXAMPLETOOL Connections Torsional Torsional Connection Strength MUT Capacity (ft-lb) (feb) (ft-lb) NC56 Top Sub : 48,149 48,149 5" Stub Acme 34,012 17,006 17,006 675" Stub Acme 75,762 97,881 97,881 675" Stub Acme 75,762 «97,881 97,881 55" StubAcme 90,012 45,006 45,006 NCS6 Bottom Sub - 45,000 45,000 Note: To simplify assembly and prolong component life, the tool designer might choose 10 limit makeup torque on all midbody connections to that of the 5-inch connection However, full values are shown here to ilustrate the process. 31 “TH IL torque for the NCS6 top sub connection was taken from Reference 5. Makeup torque for the NCS6 bottom sub was selected to maintain the bottom pin neck tensile capacity in the desired range (see paragraph 3.21.3). 3.22.3 Step 5. Determine supplementary mechanical resistance of type 2 connections. ‘There are no Type 2.connections in EXAMPLETOOL, 3.22.4 Step 6. Determine Torsional load capacity of the connections. The torsional load capacity of a ‘Type 1 connection is its makeup torque. Connection load capacities are given in table 3.5. 3.22.5 Step 7. Determine the torsional load capacity of other torque transmitting components, Torsion is transmitted by EXAMPLETOOL through component bodies and the splines on the mandrel and top cap. a. Taking the component bodies first, the torsional capacity of a cylindrical cross section is (see Reference 6) 4p -35:291(0.577140,000) THHill Associates, Inc. = (36) Where: T = Torsional capacity of the cylinder (i Sy = SMYS (psi) r= ODI (in) J = Polar Momentof inertia = (00'~10") nt) Considering the mandrel (ID: 3.630 in, OD: 4.805 in): J = (480s* 3,630") = 35.290" nu aioe 186,566in-Ibs=98,880ft-bs Torsional capacities of the bodies of other load-path components were analyzed in a similar fashion with the results shown in table 3.6. . Next, the torsional capacity of the splined mandrel and top cap are calculated. The torsional ‘Table 3.6 Summary of Basic Load Rating for EXAMPLETOOL Tension (Ib) Torsion (H-b) Limiting Tool Load Rating Component _X-Sect__ Shear EndPin _X-Sect__MUT Splines Component Tension Torsion Tos) (Tbs) Top Sub Body 3,617,910 486,595 - 7 - . Upper Conn 481490 - - . Lower Conn 1,458,418 17,006 - - Mandret Body 1,099,785 - 98,880 472,849 1,089,785 Upper Conn = 1,701,505 = 17,008 = 17,008 ‘Top Cap 1,190,000 Body _ “ 199,101 4728490 - Lower Conn 1,516,774 7st * ~ - Housing Body 1987974 = 248,086 - : Upper Conn == 1,800,092 args z Lower Conn 11300092 = grat = - Adopt Body 2q01915 181,825 - - Upper Conn 1516774 = s7ea1 = : Lower Conn 1,870,709 = 45006 : Bottom Sub Body aq18t4 444,236 a Upper Conn 1,803,464 45,006 - Lower Conn 41,683,000 45,000 - “The mandrel is the limiting component in both tension and torsion, though technically the top sub lower connection also limits in torsion, In other designs, the limiting component in tension and torsion may not be the same component, 32 DS-1* Fourth Edition, Volume 4, Driling Specialty Tools Force Mandrel Figure 3.4 Shear area on mandrel splines resistance of this mechanism is the torque required to shear the splines (figure 3.4). (32) F = Force to shear the spline (Ib) Fy) = Force to shear al splines (Ib) A = Area of the splined surface (in*) D = Inner diameter at Top Cap splines (in) L_ = Minimum spline contact length (in) S, = SMYS (osi) Wy = Shear yield stress (psi) For the splined mandrel in EXAMPLETOOL: D = 5.055 in L=35in A= U(x D}/24] +L (in?) F = (0.577 140,000) I(x 5.05524] +3.$ = 187,082 Ibs Force to shear 12 splines: =F #12 = 187,082 + 12 = 2,244,982 Ibs Torque required to shear the 12 splines at the Top Cap ID: T=F+Dn T = (2,244, 982)6(5.055/72 ) = 5,674,193 in-tbs = 472,849 flbs (Note: The torque required to shear the top cap splines was also calculated and determined to be greater than the torque required to shear the mandrel's splines.) 3.22.6 Step 8. Determine the limiting component and the torsional load rating of the tool. The limiting component is the component with the connection, body or other feature having the least torsional capacity. The torsional load rating of the tool is the lowest torsional load capacity on the limiting component. Table 3.6 summarizes the basic tensile and torsional load capacities of all load-path components in EXAMPLETOOL. The table also identities the miting component in both tension and torsion, and gives the basic tension and torsion load ratings ofthe tool 3.23 Advanced tensile load rating method by finite element analysis. Per‘orm this method using the fo lowing steps 3.23.1 Step 1. Performa basic tension load rating. This was completed 3.23.2 Step 2. Identify components on which FEA Is required. Mutiply the basic tensile load capacity of the limiting component by 1.67. Compare the resulting product with the calculated cross-sectional basic tensile load capacities of all other load-path components. FEA is required for all components, having a cross-sectional basic tensile load capacity less than 1.67 times the capacity of the limiting ‘component. The limiting component in tension is the mandrel, with a capacity of 1,089,785 Ibs. 1.67 + 1,089,785 lbs = 1,819,941 Ibs Two EXAMPLETOOL components have cross: sectional basic tensile capacities less than 1,819,941 Ibs and require FEA: Mandrel (1,089,785 Ibs) Housing (1,357,974 lbs) Note: EXAMPLETOOL's designer concluded that the Top Cap component need not be analyzed by FEA due to the regular geometry ofits critical section (a cylinder) and the fact that the component is loaded in compres- sion in a confined area. A catastrophic failure in this region is very unlikely. Furthermore, FEA is unlikely to significantly change the load capacity. 3.23.3 Step 3. Perform finite element analysis. Beginning with the mandrel, the designer applied ‘minimum dimensions that would result in lowest capacity and SMYS to the model, then ran the model with the results shown in igure 3.5. The load required to obtain frst point-yield was 536,496 Ibs. 33 Figure 3.5 The frst mandrel iteration in tension and point of first yield. First point-yield occurred ata load of 536,496 pounds. Figure 3.6 Close-up illustration of the final mandrel FEA iteration. Load at frst point-yield was 495,425 lbs. Figure 3.7 Close-up illustration of the first housing tensile FEA yield point. Load at frst point-yield was 788,650 lbs. 34 __THHill Associates, Inc. ‘The designer repeated the model using a mesh size one-half the original size, in and near the most highly stressed areas. The results of the second trial are shown in figure 3.6, The load required to obtain first point-yield was 495,425 lbs. The designer compared first point-yield load in the second FEA iteration with the first yield point load from the first. [1 - (495,425/536,496)] + 100 = 7.6% ‘The 7.6% difference in first point-yield load between the first and second iterations is less than the maximum allowed (10%). Therefore, no further FEA. modeling is required and the lower of the two load values will be used to rate the component. Load at first point-yield for the second FEA model was 495,425 Ibs, ‘The tensile load capacity of the mandrel is 1.5 times 495,425 Ibs or 743, 137 Ibs. ‘The housing also requires an advanced load rating ‘This was accomplished with the results shown in figure 3.7. Load at first point-yield was 788,650 Ibs. ‘The FEA model was repeated using a mesh size one-half the size of the first iteration, Load at first point-yield in the second iteration was 657,535 Ibs. The load difference between first and second iterations differs by more than the allowable 10%, L1- (657,535/788,650)] » 100 = 16.6% This requires a third FEA model using a mesh element size one-half that of the second. In the third iteration, load at first point yield was 595,019 Ibs. Comparing the loads obtained in the second and third iterations: [1- (595,019/657,535)] «100 = 9.5% ‘The 9.5% variation is less than the 10% allowable maximum. No further FEA modeling is required and the load value obtained from the third FEA model is, used to rate the tool ‘The advanced load rating for the housing is 1.5 times, 595,019 Ibs or 892,528 Ibs. 3.23.4 Step 4. Determine the new limiting ‘component and the advanced tensile load rating of the tool. Table 3.7 lists the tensile load rating for each component in the tensile load path for EXAMPLETOOL considering body cross-sectional ratings, thread shear on midbody connections, rig DS-1* Fourth Edition, Volume 4, Driling Specialty Tools Table 3.7 Advanced Tensile Load Rating for EXAMPLETOOL Tensile Load Rating (Ibs) Component Be ‘Advanced Top Sub 1,488,418 2 Mandre! 1,089,785 743,137 Top Cap 4,190,000° - Housing 1,900,092 892,528 Adapter 1,516,774 - Bottom Sub 1,603,464 - “Compression end rotary-shouldered connections, and the finite element analysis on the two weakest components. ‘The component with the lowest overall load capacity is the mandrel. The advanced tensile load rating for EXAMPLETOOL is 743, 137 Ibs. 3.23.5 Step 5. Prepare a report. The report shall detail the methods used and the results obtained in the advanced load rating 3.24 Advanced torsional load rating method by finite element analysis. Advanced torsional load rat- ing is done below on EXAMPLETOOL. 3.24.1 Step 1. Perform a basic torsion load rating. This has been completed. 3.24.2 Step 2. Identify components on which FEA is required. Multiply tne basic torsional load capacity Of the limiting component by 1.67. Compare the resulting product with the calculated basic torsional load capacities of all other load-path components, ‘The limiting element identified in the basic torsional load rating is the 5-inch stub ACME connection between the top sub and the mandrel. It's torsional load capacity was limited by makeup torque at 17,006 ft-lbs. Itis type 1 connection, sono FEA is required, Multiplying 17,006 ft-lbs by 1.67 yields 28,400 ft-lbs. No other load-path component except the mating ‘Type 1 connection on the top sub has a torsional load capacity less than 28,400 ttbs, and finite el ment analysis is not required on Type 1 connections. ‘Therefore, no FEA is required. 3.24.3 Step 3. Perform finite element analysis None is required, 3.24.4 Step 4. Determine the new limiting component and the advanced torsional load rating of the tool. The limiting element is the 5-inch stub ACME connection between the top sub and the mandrel. It's torsional load capacity is limited by makeup torque at 17,006 f-Ibs. The advanced torsional load rating of EXAMPLETOOL is 17,006 ft-lbs. 3.24.5 Step 5. Prepare a report. The report shall detail the method used and the results obtained in the advanced load rating, 3.25 Correcting figure 3.8 curves for yield strength variations. Pin neck tensile capacity after makeup Is. shown in curves in figure 3.8, located at the end of this, section. The curves assume that material SMYS is 100 Ksi. Ifthe connection under consideration has a SMYS. other than 100 Ksi, the pin tensile capacity read from the curves must be adjusted using the following procedure. 3.25.1 Step 1. From the appropr the values P,, T, and T, le curve, record 3.25.2 Step 2, Calculate T; Sy) TT, 100Ksi } 67) 3.25.3 Step 3. Compare MUT and T,. If MUT>Z/, Use the procedure in Step 4. If MUT < Tj, use the procedure Stop 5. 3.25.4 Step 4. MUT > T;. The connection will be limited by pin neck yield under tension, and the revised pin neck tensile capacity is calculated by equation 3.8 (es) wf 2) ios iT) 3.25.5 Step §. MUT < T,. The connection will be limited by its abilty to maintain a pressure seal under tension, and the revised tensile capacity is calculated by equation 3.9, (p) tT) Caray 2) Capay = MU 9) Nomenclature for calculations in paragraphs 3.25 and 3.26: S, = Yield strength of pin neck in question (Ksi) Cappy = Revised pin tensile capacity (Ibs) MUT = Makeup torque (f-bs) 35 TH) TH hill Associates, Inc. | Sr 3.26 Correcting EXAMPLETOOL. For the lower pin connection on EXAMPLETOOL; From figure 3.2, makeup torque (MUT) is 45,000 ft-lbs. Figure 3.10 replicates the curve in figure 3.2. Reading approximate values from figure 3.10 and listing other factors: P, = 1,440,000 Ibs ‘120Ksi\ 1-243). sa oon 7 nD Bi 509) (1,000 1,900) PINNECK CAPACITY} 500 10 20-30 T4050 60 F, 70-80 Figure 3.10 P,is the tension to yield a connection pin neck at ‘makeup torque below T,, T,torque isa pin torsional strength of a connection with no tension applied. T, torque is the ‘makeup torque at which shoulder separation and pin yield under external tension occur simultaneously. T, occurs atthe point where a vertical line dropped from the apex joining the positively and negatively sloped pin lines intersects the horizontal axis 36 Comparing 7; to MUT, we find 7; exceeds MUT, therefore Step 5 (paragraph 3.25.5) ‘applies. The bot- tom connection on EXAMPLETOOL will be limited in its abiliy to carry tension by shoulder separation and leak, and equation 3.9 applies. The revised tensile capacity will be: (1,440,000 to) = 1,683,000 fs \ 38,500 f-s ) Cap 5,000 fb 3.27 References. 1. Oberg, Erik, Franklin D. Jones, Holbrook L. Horton, and, Henry H. Ryffell. Machinery's Handbook 26th ed, New York: Industrial Press, Inc., 2000 (page 1794). 2. Standard DS-1® Fourth Edition, Drill Stem Design and Operation, Volume 2, Houston: T H Hill Associates, Inc., 2012 (page 293). 3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section 8, Appendix 4, New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1989 (page 514). 4. Standard DS-1* Fourth Edition, Drill Stem Design and Operation, Volume 2, Houston: T H Hill Associates, Inc., 2012 (page 17). 5. Standard DS-1* Fourth Edition, Drill Stem Design and Operation, Volume 2, Houston: T H Hill Associates, Inc., 2012 (page 109). 6. Shigley, Joseph Edward and Charles R. Mischke. Mechanical Engineering Design. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Inc., 1989 (page 54). 7. API Specification 8C, "Specification for Driling and Production Hoisting Equipment (PSL 1 and PSL 2)," Fourth Edition, American Petroleum institute, February 2003 (section 8.6.2, page 23). DS+1® Fourth Edition, Volume 4, Driling Specialty Tools Table 3.8 Rotary Shouldered Connection Interchange List (Connections in the same column are interchangeable) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current API Name (Preferred) Nez NCSI - NC38- NC4o N48 —NC5O ‘OBSOLETE APLNAME Internal Flush (IF) 2918 278 - 9 4 44 Full Hole (FH)! “ 7 . - 4 . . OTHER OBSOLETE NAME Extra Hole (XH) - - 278 312 412 5 Doubie Streamline (DSL) : - 342 - 412 = 542 Slim Hole (SH) 278 342 4 ate - - External Flush (EF) . z - ate =. : : ‘Several Rotary Shouldered Connections are interchangeable with other connections having diferent names. "Interchangeable" ‘means that the connections wil mate together, make-up and function, though function may not be as good as with the preferred connection. This situation has occurred because efforts were made to maintain interchangeabilly with existing products as improvements were made to connections over the years. ‘The current API Nomenclature was adopted in 1968, The difference between the current API connections and their obsolete ‘counterparts s thatthe NC connections requiretho use of an improved thread form (V-038R) while this thread form is optional with the older counterparts, Even though almost all connections that now carty the old names are cut with the improved thread form, current API nomenclature (NC—) should be usod, if possible, when specitying connections on this ist ‘al ull Holo" Connections except the 5-1/2FH and 6-5/8FH are obsolete. 37

    You might also like