You are on page 1of 9

The API-AAOM DrilCpipe Grading System

in Relation to Drill-string Design and Use?


ABSTRACT
drill-string deslgn, it 11ecame obvious no ~ndustry-wlde
Considerable work has been accompl~shecl by joint
consensus existed a s to what constituted proper dnllcommittees of the American Assoc~atlon of Oilwell
string deslgn. D~scusslonsrevealed many personnel in
D r i l l ~ n gContractors and the American Petroleum Instithe drilling Industry had incomplete knowledge of the
tute developing a standard drill-pipe gradlng system
basic factors llmlting drill-stnng performance. AlDuring the course of tills work it became apparent that
though considerable research exists relative to all types
classlficatlon and gradlng of used drill pipe was not
of
fatigue failure, in most Cases this lnforniat~onis not
~lscrel~ancles
in gradlng pergenerally known and lt Is often misinterpreted. A1formed by dlfferent inspection companies who had diffithough it is evident t h a t much drlll pipe is damaged
culty reproducing their results, and there were no
because good practices a r e neglected, ~t1s also t r u e t h a t
methods to measure \vall thickness, determine crossthe drlll strlng is frequently abused-unlntentlonallysectional area, and relate these findings to a recombecause the operator and contractor a r e unaware of
mended hook load. Crack detection and the ability to
stress levels to which it is subjected, especially w ~ t h
d~fferentiatebetween cracks and pits was not consistent,
regard to cumulative fatlgue damage Di111-p~pefallures
and ~twas often noted that lnspectlon personnel lacked
a r e costly for both the contractor and
operator and
sufficient tralning
will not be m~nimizeduntll the industry develops standa r d cnterla for dnll-stnng design and use.
Because dr~ll-pipeinspection and gradlng relate to
INTRODUCTION
The American Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors adopted a standard classlficatlon system f o r
gradlng used dnll plpe a t the Rotary Drllllng Conferences held durlng January 1964. These standard classifications cover 4%-in OD, Grade E , 16 6-lb/ft drill pipe
and 5-111. OD, Grade E , 19 5-lb/ft clrill plpe. They were
submitted to the Amencan Petroleunl Institute a t the
standardization meetings In J u n e 1964 and, with sllght
modifications, the A P I Task Group on Grading Used
Drill Plpe accepted the work of the AAODC. The gradIng system has now been adopted a s a tentative stands
state of developn~entand h a s been puba r d III ~ t present
f o ~
lished a s a n appendix In A P I Std 7: Specificc~tzo?~
Rotrtr?! Dr~llz?rgEyzczpi)ze~zt.It is therefore, significant
f o r all users of drill pipe to understand and commence
uslng this new API-AAODC drill-pipe g r a d ~ n gsystem.
Inclustry\vlde use wlll eventually result i n .
1. Uniform classification ancl gracllng of used clrill
pipe In all areas.
2 Improved understanding of drill-plpe lnspection by
accountable personnel.
3. Greater extension of drlll-pipe llfe under normal
conditions a s a result of better classification and
gradlng of wear dlrectly related to wall thlckness
and remaining cross-sectional area.
4. Improved performance of drlll pipe because of
more comprehensive design and use of the d n l l
string
The AAODC formed a committee on dr~ll-plpeinspec-

'Abegg & Re~nholdCo Los Angeles. C a l ~ f


tpresented a t the spring meetlng of the Paclfic Coast Dlstrlct, API
Dlv~slonof Production, May 1965.

tion In the fall of 1961 to investigate methods and


results of convent~onal drlll-pipe Inspection w t h the
ultimate objective of brlnglng greater clarity, understanding, and more u n ~ f o r n iprocedures relatlve to the
inspection, classlficatlon, and grading of used drill
plpe ' This action was prompted because:
1. Non-destructive inspection methods included electro-magnetic o r eddy current, gamma ray, magnetic particle, and pulse-echo ultrasonic with no
generally accepted standard to interpret, classify,
and grade plpe relevant to individual defects. Each
method has advantages and limltatlons and no
s ~ n g l emethod is comprehensive
2. Final grachng of drill pipe was left to the opinions
of the Inspector performing the work.
3 I t was shown t h a t a wlde d~screpancyexisted in
grading performed by different lnspectlon companies uslng different methods
4 There was a varlatlon i n gradlng performed by
d~fferentcrews of the same company In d~fferent
areas.
5. It was further shown that there was varlatlon In
grachng the same length of pipe by the same crew
a t different times.
6. Occasionally plpe falled lmmedlately after Inspectlon ancl resulting exaniinat~onlnd~catedthe presence of corrosion-fatlgue cracks apparently undetected during lnspectlon
7. Non-destructive inspection equipment was unable
to measure wall thlckness, determine remaining
cross-sectional area, ancl correlate this infor~nation to a recommended hook load a t nlinlnlunl
'References are a t the end of the paper

A.P.I. -A.A.O.D.C.

4%''

STANDARD CLASSIFICATION FOR GRADING USED DRILL PIPE


Nomlnal dlmenslon IS bass for all calculat~onsunless lnspectlon
Instrument demonstrates ablllty to glve actual value

O.D., Grade " E , 16.6 Ib/ft. A P.I. Drill Pipe

I
1. 0.D Wear:

GRADE 1
1 W h ~ t eBand

GRADE 2
2 W h ~ t eBands

GRADE 3
1 Blue Band

None-4 500"

4 332"

4 248"

GRADE 4
1 Yellow Band
Less than 4 248"

See Below

Wall

Nomlnal- 337"
(API Mln 295")

Remalnlng wall not less


than 65% or 219""*

Remalnlng wall not less


than 55% or 185"***

Remalnlng wall less


than 55% or 185"

Cross Sect~on

4 407 sq ~n

Cross sectional area not


less than 73 6% or 3 244
sq ~n

Cross sectional area not


less than 60 5%or 2 676
sq ~n

Cross sect~onalarea less


than 60 5% or 2 676
sq ~n

(New-Unused)

GRADE 5
1 Red Band

2 Exterlor Dents,
Mashes, Corroslon:

3.

4.

Round Bottom

None

Ditto for 0 D Wear

Dltto for 0 D Wear

Dltto for 0 D Wear

Sharp Bottom"

None

Not over %I"deep and


% " long

Not over '/is" deep and


1" long

More than
and 1" long

%6"

Slip Crush~ng:'

None

Not over

%6'

Not over % "

More than l/r

"

S l ~ pArea
D~ameterVar~at~ons:*

None

Not over

bl6"

Not over !A

Other Stress Induced


D~ameterVar~at~ons:

None

Plus or Minus % 6 "

5. Interlor Cond~tlons:
Fatigue Cracks

None

None

"

Plus or Mlnus % "


None

deep

More than % "


More than Vi "
None

Presence of
corrosion

fatigue cracks

Corrosion andfor
Eroslon, Plttlng, etc
Wall

None

Remalnlng wall not less


than 65% or 219"***

Remalnlng wall not less


than 55% or 185"***

55% or 185"

Cross Sectlon

None

Cross sect~onalarea not


less than 73 6% or 3 244
sq ~n

Cross sectional area not


less than 60 5% or 2.676
sq ~n

Cross sect~onalarea less


than 60 5% or 2 676
sq ~n

330,000

243,000

200,000

6. Hook Load at
Minimum Yield

Remalnlngwall less than

Less than 200,000

'Inspection for this defect should be made w ~ t hinspect~on Instruments for the purpose of flndlng longltud~nol a n d c~rcumferent~al
cracks Ins& ond o u h ~ d e
*.May be ground out along the l o n g ~ t u d ~ n oax13
l
to round bottom p ~ t snot to exceed mlnlmum woll d~mens~ons
"'The
remotnlng wall 1s the average thln woll a t each locot~on of the woll th~ckness meosurlng probe

Table 1
yield f o r a given size, ~ i ~ e i g hand
t , grade of pipe.
The A P I Task Group on Grading Used Drill Pipe
was formed In June 1962. Both these groups have
worked jointly In the development of the new gradlng
system.
THE NEW GRADING SYSTEM
The APZ-AAODC Standard Classzficatlon f o Gmdtng
~
Used DI-ill P ~ p ecovering both 4x411 and 5 - ~ n OD drill
pipe a r e shown In Tables 1 and 2, respectively. I n order
t o properly use these standards it was necessary to
develop certain definitions and procedures that should
be adhered to by inspection-service companies. These
definitions and procedures a r e a s follows.
Fatzglte Crnck: A single-11ne rupture of the pipe surface. The rupture shall be of sufficient length to be
shown by magnetic iron particles used in magnetic-

particle ~nspectionand be ~dentifiableby v ~ s u a linspection of the outslde of t h e tube and/or by


optical inspection of t h e inside of the tube
Measltrc.nle?zt of Plpe Wall (Average Miltinzunt
Wall): Accept only wall-thickness measurements
made with pipe-wall micrometers, sonic pulse-echo
(resonance) ~nstruments, o r gamma r a y devices
t h a t the operator can demonstrate to be within 2
percent accuracy by use of test blocks sized to
approximate pipe wall thickness.
D e t c ~ ~ , ~ m rof~ tCross
~ o r ~Sectton. Use a direct-indlcatIng instrument t h a t the operator can demonstrate
to be within 2 percent accuracy by the use of a
pipe section approximately the same a s the pipe
being inspected. In the absence of such a n instrument, Integrate wall-th~cknessmeasurements taken

THEAPI-AAODC DRILL-PIPEGRADINGSYSTEMIN RELATIONTO DRILL-STRINGDESIGNAND USE

A.P.I. -A.A.O.D.C.
5"

STANDARD CLASSIFICATION FOR GRADING USED DRILL PIPE


Nomlnal dlmenslon 1s bas~sfor all calculat~onsunless lnspectlon
Instrument demonstrates ablllty to glve actual value

O.D., Grade "En, 19.5 Ib/ft. A.P I. Drill Pipe


GRADE 1
1 White Band
1. O.D. Wear:

59

None-5 000"

GRADE 2
2 White Bands

GRADE 3
1 Blue Band

GRADE 4
1 Yellow Band

GRADE 5
1 Red Band

4 728"

Less than 4 728'

See Below

4 819"

Wall

Nomlnal- 362"
(API Mln ,317")

Remalnlng wall not less


than 65% or 235""'

Remalnlng wall not less


than 55% or 199"

Remalnlng wall less


than 55% or 199"

Cross Section

5 273 sq In

Cross sect~onalarea not


less than 73 6% or 3 880
sq ~n

Cross sect~onalarea not


less than 60 5% or 3 190
sq ~n

Cross sect~onalarea less


than MI 5% or 3 190
sq ~ n .

(New-Unused)

2 Exter~orDents,
Mashes, Corrosion.
Round Bottom

None

Dltto for 0 D Wear

Ditto for 0 D Wear

Dltto for 0 D Wear

Sharp Bottom*.

None

Not over 'A*' deep and


L/Z ' long

Not over
1' long

More than
and 1" long

None

Not over %6'

Not over % "

More than X "

S l ~ pArea D~ameter
Var~atlon:'

None

Not over %6'

Not over %'

More than % "

4. Other Stress Induced


D~arneterVar~at~ons:

None

Plus or Mlnus %s"

Plus or Minus % '

More than % '

5. Interior Condit~ons:
Fatigue Cracks

None

3. S l ~ pCrush~ng:'

None

l/l6'

deep and

None

deep

None

Presence of
corrosion

fatlgue cracks

Corros~onand/or
Eros~on,Plttlng, etc
Wall

None

Remalnlng wall not less


than 65% or .235""*

Remalnlng wall not less


than 55% or .199'***

Remalnlngwall lessthan
55% or .199'

Cross Sect~on

None

Cross sed~onalarea not


less than 73.6% or 3.880
sq. ~n

Cross sectional area not


less than 60.5% or 3.190
sq. in.

Cross sect~onalarea less


than 60.5% or 3.190
sq. in.

396,000

291,WO

239,500

6. Hoot load at
Min~rnurnYield:

Less than 239,500

'Inspect~on for thls defect should be mode w ~ t hinspection ~nstruments for the purpose of flndlng longitudinal and c~rcumferent~al
c r a c k ~nsldeand outs~de
.*May be ground out olong the long~tud~nal
axls to round bottom p ~ hnot to exceed mlnlmum wall dlmenslons
"'The
remolnlng wall IS the overage thln wall a t each locot~on of the wall thlckneu measuring probe

Table 2
a t 1-in. intervals around the tube. Grade the pipe
according to the remaining cross section in the joint
center o r where the inspection instruments indicate
the greatest metal loss, whichever is the smaller.
Crack Detection
I n developing standards f o r classifying and grading
used drlll pipe, prime consideration was given to t h e
presence and detection of corrosion-fatigue cracks and/
o r fatigue cracks and to a comprehensive analysis of
outside-diameter wear in relation to remaining crosssectional area and wall thicklless. Corrosion and pitting
a r e closely related to corrosion-fatigue cracks and it
has been emphasized t h a t the roots of pits, especially
those having a sharp geometry, should be carefully inspected f o r small corrosion-fatigue cracks. However,

pits of a lake-type appearance, having flat o r rounded


bottoms, should not be considered detrimental in gradlng pipe' unless the cross section is reduced.
OD Wear vs. Strength
As a result of eccentric wear and variation in wall
thickness (Fig. I ) , i t has been shown that evaluating
outside-diameter wear merely by a go-no-go gage does
not render complete ~nformation. The gage can only
give a n assumed conchtion of wall thickness (Fig. 2)
compared to actual conditions revealed by measurement
of the wall (Fig. 3). I n addition to determimng OD
wear and wall thickness, remaining cross-sectional area
should be calculated and these findings related to a
hook load a t minimum yield f o r the slze, weight, and
grade of pipe being inspected? By this procedure, pipe

Fig. 1 - Eccentricity-Wall and Wear


Min. OD: 4 . 3 9 0 in.; Thin Wall: 0 . 1 9 5 in.;
Max. Wall: 0.350 in.

having thin wall areas caused by eccentricity can be


located and graded accordingly. Utilization of this type
of inspection service provides more information relative
t o the condition of the wall a s well as the minimum yield
strength of the used tube. This, in turn, permits a more
accurate judgment a s to the suitability of the pipe f o r
a specified job.
Determination of Hook Load a t Minimum Yield
The conventional methods of drill-pip? inspection
were based, primarily, on electro-magnetic equipment to
detect cracks and pits, observation of OD damage, and
OD measurements by use of a gene-go gage to determine wear. Under this system, drill pipe (lid not receive
a Grade 2 classification if a gene-go gage revealed a
loss of more than %-in. (20-percent loss of nominal
wall) off the OD' or a reduction from 4.500-in. to 4.365in. (Fig. 2 ) . Being unable to determine wall thickness
or cros?-st-ctional area, this method of inspection could
only give an estimate of the strength of a joint of pipe.
Recomme~ldedhook loads a t minimum yield for rlifferent graue:: or conditions of used drill pip? in the new
standard take into consideration both wall thickness
and remaining cross-sectional area. Because of the
.--

337" WALL

270 ' WALL

3.468 SII. IN.

260,000 LB. MIN. YltLO

NOMINAL DIMENSIONS FOR


API 4'h" O.D. GRADE E, 16.60 Lb FI.
DRILL PIPE

Fig. 2

20% WEAR OFF NOMINAL WALL

UNIFORM WALL THICKNESS ASSUMtD

more definitive nature of this type of inspection, the


recommended hook load calculation for a Grade 2 condition (4%-in., Grade E, 16.6-lb/It pipe) is based upon
a 25-percent uniform loss of wall from the nominal
(243,000 lb) as shown in Table 3. While the old grading
system never related to a hook load a t minimum yield,
i t could be ascertained that a uniform 20-percent wear
off nominal wall would result in a value of approximately 260,000 Ib. Therefore, i t can be said t h a t little
difference exists in the recommended hook load a t minimum yield f o r a Grade 2 classification whether i t be
the old o r t h e new system. Table 4 illustrates comparisons of different types of wear related to hook load
a t minimum yield. It sometimes occurs t h a t wall loss
will all take place on one side and this is illustrated in
Fig. 4. Here i t can be seen t h a t u p to $5 percent wall
loss can occur, resulting in a minimum wall thickness
of 0.219 i n L 4%-in. OD, 16.6-lb/ft tube, yet this condition could riot be detectcd by a conventional g o no-go gage because the OD would be greater than the
minimum necessary to reject the tube."
r-.

, 1 3 5 ' WALL

.?70" WALL

EXAMPLE OF ACTUAL WEAR


Thin w o l l less than slandmrd minimum

0.0.Greoter than atondard minimum

W E A R OFF

WALL

UNIFORM WALL THICKNESS ASSUMiD

Fig. 3
Stall and Blenkarne calculated maximum hook loads
allowable for pulling on stuck drill strings, taking into
consideration certain safety factors. Only the minimum
yield strength was considered and use of the maximumshear-stress theory of failure under triaxial stresses to
determinr the pipe strength was a conservative choice.
Further, allowances were made f o r commonly occurring
dog legs t h a t often exist, undetected, in many bore
holes. I t is interesting to note t h a t their maximum
recommended hook load f o r 4%-in., 16.6-lb/ft, Grade I3
drill pipe having a conventional Grade 2 classification
(20-percent loss of nominal wall thickness) was 229,900
Ib with no circulating pressure and this was reduced
to 200,800 lb with a circulating pressure of 2,000 psi.
Thesc figures reduce the recommended hook load of
243,000 lb a s specified f o r this type of pipe in the new
standard covering a Grade 2 classification.
During recent years much information has been made
available on drill-pipe inspection practices and the detection of all types of potential drill-pipe failures. I t is
apparent t h a t inspection should not only be made to

ascertain potential failures, but the strength of the plpe


should be carefully determined f o r speclfic service. This
strength should be based on remaining cross-sectional
area coinl~inedwith the measurement of average minimuni wall thickness in the case of eccentrically worn
pipe.' This is especially important when eccentricity
eslsts in con.lbination with corrosion p ~ t and
s when bendlng stresses occur in t h e presence of significant tension

FACTORS LIMITING DRILL-STRING


PERFORMANCE
Dn11-strlng deslgn based on the new API-AAODC
Stnncla~d Classzficc~tio?~
f o r G,rc~dntg Used D?.z11 Pjpe
gives promise of extending drill-pipe llfe by making
more correct and extensive use of all present grades
and \veigl~tsof A P I drill pipe a s well a s proprietary
hlgher-strength plpe now available. Many of the problems confronting drilling contractors and operators
with respect to drill pipe a r e caused by a n unrealistic
approach to what drill plpe really is and what i t IS
capable of doing safely. It is well-known t h a t proper
handling, correct des~gn,and control of usage can prevent most failures and greatly extend drill-plpe life.'
Further, these practices a r e more llkely solutions to all
types of failures than inspection. This IS not to say we
should not inspect f o r cracks, wear, and all types of
defects. I t is slmply to etnphasize t h a t we should not
expect inspection to completely elnnlnate failures.
Dr~ll-stringAnalysis and Service
The complete analysis of drill pipe a s a n englneerecl
component and the design of drlll strings to perform a
specific job under varying conditions usually receives
madequate o r little consideration Garwood and Hayes
have brought to llght some interesting concepts regardlng drill pipe and the manner in \vhich it is used.' To
beg111 with, drill plpe IS a seamless tube manufactured
t o standards t h a t only restrlct the masimum content of
phosphorous and sulfur. Both the chemistry of the steel
and the heat treatment can be vaned a s long a s specified

II

2
4
I

I
m

5t I1
E x
0:

-h

=m

-smII

0"l

2
s
0-

Ez

=r.

$
'2

-$
d

2 I1

I1

%$
0 0

t;

n8
c2
II 0

m O

a
r

iR
LD "l

:;

5E
2

rum

ECCENTRIC WEAR

gp

F
c

Cross Sertlon A r e a ICalculotedl

1
"'E

CSA

3 985 SQ

IN.

MIN YIELD STRENGTH 299,000 LB

Fig. 4

minimuin i~lechanicalproperties are achieved. This type


of steel does not exhibit good corrosion resistance; and,
because of the methods of manufacturing, there will be
variations 111 the metallurgical structure resulting in
variations in mechanical properties. There are further
standards covering manufacturing tolerances for dimensions; therefore, the wall thickness and the OD of the
tube are not uniform. This is not meant to infer that
the tube should be cluestioned or even criticized on this
basis, only to evaluate the product a s it comes from the
mill. From all coiisiderat~onsof economy and use, i t is
the best the drllling industry can afford and in most
cases performs unusually well considering the service
to which drill pipe is subjected. Consider, explicitly,
what drlll plpe must undergo :
1. Tension
2. Torsion
3. Bending and/or cyclical stress
4. Compression
5. Corrosion
6. Abrasion
7. Mechanical damage to the OD
8. Internal pressure
9. External pressure
10. Severe shock and vibration
Regardless of the drilling conditions, there will always
be a combination-sometimes more, sometimes less--of
these stresses and wear factors adversely affecting the
properties of the drlll stnng.
Fatigue
Most deslgn criteria are based primarily on yield
strength and few engineered components fail from
static overloading unless they are involved in an accident which subjects them to a stress f a r exceeding the
deslgn value. However, failures do occur in parts subjected to repeated stress well below the yleld strength
that could otherwise be absorbed in a single static loading. I t has often been stated that approximately 90
precent of all mechanical fractures occur a s a result
of repeated stress '"
Today, there is considerable literature on fatigue
failure and these phenomena are well-documented. At
high stress levels it IS found that steels wlll become
locally overstressecl, wlth no material plastic flow occurring, and the overall dimensions will not be affected.
Stresses of this magnitude are in excess of the endurance linut. When there is an inability of the material
to redistribute this local stress, or if some type of local
defect or notch IS present and the stress exceeds the
yield strength, a crack will form and can eventually
progress to failure. Thus ~t can be said that fatigue
strength or endurance 1ln11t is the unit stress to which
a metal can be subjected for an infinite number of stress
cycles \vlthout falling." Accordlngly, the endurance limit
is very inlportant in the design of parts that are repeatedly stressed. In all but the softest steels the endurance limit is considerably below the yield strength
of the steel. Fig. 5 shows a typical S-N curve illustrating the nunlber of cycles to cause fatigue failure plotted

I
IN AIR

NUMBER OF CYCLES OF STRESS

Fig. 5 -Typical Fatigue Curves of a Steel Tested in


Air
against stress. The stress a t that portion of the curve
which becomes horizontal is considered to be the endurance limit. For most ferrous metals the endurance limit
is approximately half the tensile strength. There is
considerable variance In endurance limits because of
external surface conditions a s well a s heat treatment. I t
is well-known that there is a reduction in the endurance
limlt of steels, depending upon the surface condition
and tensile strength; and this is illustrated by Karpov'"
in Fig. 6.
I t is difficult to use the endurance limit a s a basis
for design to prevent fatigue failure if the maximum
repeated stress and the local point of greatest stress
concentration are not known or predetermined. Inasmuch a s many drill-pipe failures can be traced to corrosion fatigue and/or notch fatigue, i t should be mentioned that under combined corrosion and repeated
stress there is no true endurance limit, which is clearly
indicated in the lower p a r t of Fig. 7.
Corrosion Fatigue,
During 1946 Battelle Memorial Institute undertook
extensive laboratory testing with the object of improving the life of the drill string under corrosive brine

TENSILE STRENGTH 1000 LB PER SQ I11

Fig. 6 - Reduction of Endurance of Steel Depending


upon Surface Conditions

THE API-AAODC DRILL-PIPEGRADINGSYSTEM


IN RELATIONTO DRILL-STRINGDESIGNAND USE

lo1

Fig. 7

10'

LO"

10'

lo8

10'

- Corrosion-fatigue Lifetime in Cycles


(1,750 Rpm)

Basic stress cycle (SN) curve for bare specimens


tested in the standard corrodent in the Krouse cell

conditions." The report is based on drill-pipe failures


characteristic of the Permian Basin, but the information
1s significant f o r corrosion-fatigue a n d / o r notch-fatigue
failures regardless of where they occur. I t was shown
t h a t a marked improvement in drill-pipe performance
and longevity woulcl occur if the effects of corrosion
could be reduced o r eliminated and operating stress
levels minimized. Methods of combatting corrosion included the use of inhibitors and plastic coating.
Specimens used in the testing were comparable to t h e
steel found in Grade D drill pipe. They were subjected
to fully reversed loads of varylng magnitude and rotated to failure. The resulting stress-cycle (S-N) curves
revealed that, a t loads of 70,000 psi, fatigue life is very
short However, a t stress levels of 48,000 psi o r less,
this type of steel demonstrated a n almost infinite fatigue
life in neutral atmospheres. Subsequent investigation
showed that, a t a stress of 40,000 psi, uncorroded specimens did not fail a s a result of pure fatigue in the
absence of stress concentratioa. When subjected to A P I
brine, t h e specinlens had no endurance limit; but i t w a s
demonstrated t h a t the lower t h e maslmum stress, the
longer \vould be the fatigue life in t h e presence of corrosion. F i g 7 Illustrates a comparison of test specimens
subjected to the basic stress cycle in neutral atmospheres a s compared to corrosive atmospheres.
F u r t h e r testing revealed t h a t operating life could be
Increased a t least 100 times by the application of a
suitable plastic coating o r t h e addltion of 2 percent o r
more sodlum hydroxide to brine atmospheres. Although
it was pointed out t h a t the outer surface of drlll pipe
could corrode o r receive other types of notch damage
t h a t would eventually form stress risers, in most cases
the products of corrosion a r e removed from the OD of
the pipe. Most corrosion-fatigue failures In the Pennlan
Basln resultmg froin plt forination on the OD, and they
a r e very infrequent, occurred within 6 f t of either end
of the joint where the pipe surface was protected from
abrasion and permitted the products of corrosion to
progress. It has been observed t h a t plastic coating offers

63

a strong advantage in preventing internal corrosion of


pipe t h a t h a s been laid down o r racked f o r storage.
It was concluded that, in actual operat~ons,a n improvement on the order of 5 to 10 times normal operating life could be expected from Internal plastic coating
of drill pipe provided, of course, the coating remained
intact. It was further pointed out t h a t even the aclcliti011 of inhibitors o r the application of internal plastic
coating \vould not prevent drill-pipe failures if the endii~anceI~.rnztwas continually exceeded, especially in the
presence of local stress concentration on the OD of the
pipe. Apparently this report, a s well a s other studies,
received little attention from the users of drill pipe
because considerable damage has been and continues to
be inflicted because of corrosion fatigue failure even
though the causes and remedies were well known back
i n 1946.1'
Fatigue Failures Resulting from Bending Stresses
F o r many years ~th a s been recognized t h a t drill pipe
subjected to bending stresses of sufficient magnitude wlll
be susceptible to fatigue failures, especially in the upset
runout zone. A s early a s 1941, Grant and Tester15 d ~ s cussed and illustrated fatigue failures t h a t occurred in
drill pipe due to bending stresses caused by drilling in
con~pression.I t was further shown t h a t ideal drilling
conditions occurred when the neutral point (neither
tension nor compression) occurred a t the top of the
drill collars. It was determined t h a t the joint of clrill
pipe directly above the drill collars was subjected to
the nlasimunl effects of compression drilling in the
absence of sufficient weight. When pure fatigue failures
would occur in lengths of pipe located in the upper p a r t
of the string, it was assumed t h a t in all probability
these joints of pipe had been adjacent to the drill collars
on the previous well o r earlier in the drilling operation
of the same well.
I n 1950 Lubinski showed t h a t a drill string which
buckles while rotating generates bending stresses t h a t
could cause fatigue to occur, ultimately resulting in
failure." Lubinslu, in 1960, brought further attention
to bending stresses t h a t were caused by dog legs. He
found t h a t a bending stress will increase with tension
Under greater tension the drill pipe should be subjected
to less bending to prevent the occurrence of fatigue
failures.
"The maximum reversed bending stress whlch
will cause no fatigue failures depends upon the
average tensile stress to which the pipe 1s subjected. The greater the average tensile stress,
the smaller is the maximum bending stress whlch
the pipe may withstand.""
In 1963 Hansforcl and Lubinski revealed t h a t bencling stresses could inflict serious fatigue damage to drill
pipe while clrilling operations were being conducted
from a floating vessel. It was pointed out t h a t such
bending stresses a r e a function of the roll o r pitch angle
and the hook load o r tension in the drill string. I n the
presence of tension it was calculated t h a t t h e fatigue
effect of bending becomes greater!'

I t is apparent t h a t bending stresses in drlll plpe can


be caused by drilllng in coinpression, dlrect~onaldrilling, devlated holes, and dog legs a s well a s conditions
set u p by n~ovemeiitsof clrllling vessels. Further, bendlng stresses will Increase wlth tension, and, under
greater tenslon, drill plpe wlll stand less bending before
being susceptible to fatigue clamage Unfortunately, we
do not have knowledge pertaining to cumulative fatigue
damage in drlll pipe caused by bencllng stresses which
must be considered and would modify a n y design criterla based on lqeld strength. I t IS hoped t h a t investlgations along these lines, complemented by studies relevant to the effect of vibrations, will be made so t h a t
more conlprehenslve d a t a f o r clrlll-strnlg design can be
compiled.
CONVENTIONAL DRILL-STRING
DESIGN PRACTICES
Historically, rotary clr~llmg strings have been designed on the basls of ylelcl strength only and thls practice continues today In most cases, approslnlate calculations a r e made, ~ncluclmgtool jolnts and drlll collars,
minus a certain reduction in total load due to buoyancy
which is precl~cted 011 mud xi,eigl~t Varynlg provisions
a r e made f o r friction d r a g ancl/or overpull in the event
the drill strlng becomes stuck.
Durlng recent years much einphas~shas been placed
on corrosioi~-fatlguefailures and the nnportance of controlling the p H a s well a s reduclng cyclic stresses
F u r t h e r beneficlal effects can be reallzed from Internal
p l a s t ~ ccoating.
Casner, like Lubinsk~,points out the clanger of comblnecl h ~ g htenslon and bending stresses locallzed a t
clnll-pipe ends." H e f u r t h e r relates t h a t high tension
stresses (but below the yield strength) will not cause
fatigue failures In the absence of cyclic o r reversebendlng stresses Obviously, drilling practices which
lnclucle aclecluate drill-collar weight and prevention of
harmful bending stresses, a s a result of proper planning
of directional-clrlll~i~g programs, can substantially reduce stress levels in a clnll string Thls 1s sometimes
easier said than done, especially 111 crooked-hole country.
During the past 1 0 years the drilling industry has
become much more cogn~zantof the ~mportanceof good
care aild hancll~ngmethods " Vreeland" conducted estensive studles pertaining to stress analysis of the sllp
a r e a of drill pipe, followed by esperlmental t e s t ~ n g
programs whlch analyzed the lneasureinents of drlllpipe defolnlatlon in the slip a r e a " F o r several years
no failures of drill plpe In the slip area have been reported to the Rotary Dnlllng Coinmittee of the Amerlcan Assoclatlon of Ollurell Drllling Contractors.
Recent studies by McGlasson, Landers, and Schlltz
emphasize the hazards of clesignlng drill strings on the
basls of yield strength only '3 They polnt out t h a t notch
performance of steel, fatigue performance of steel, impact behavior of steel, and the performance of steel in
corrosive environments a r e inadequately characterized
by normal tensile properties. Their work complements

the studles of Lubinskl and further indicates the need


f o r information relatlve to cuinulative fatigue damage
~n drlll pipe caused by fully reversed bending stresses.
It has been shown t h a t drill-stnng design 1s dlrectly
affected by many known factors and conditions and, of
course, there a r e certaln phases which still need to be
investigated. I t 1s also true t h a t a considerable ainount
of drill pipe continues to be damaged aild abused because present knowledge is e ~ t h e rignored, unknown, o r
not consistently adhered to." There would be a decrease
In fallures and damage ~f users of drlll pipe would more
consclentlously follow the A P I Reco~~~~~~tenclecl
Prc~ctice
for Cart ci?zcl Use o f Casarg, Tztbnzg, and Drz11 Pzpe
(.4PI RP 5C1). Unfortunately, the drilling industry
often falls back to the practlce of ail a r t when, in fact,
we a r e rapidly emerging ~ n t oa n e r a of technology.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The API-AAODC drill-p~pegradlng system wlll not
only bring uniform classification and grading of used
drlll plpe in all areas, but it wlll reveal much informatlon t h a t was previously unknown relatlve to wall thickness and remaining cross-sect~onalarea of a used tube.
Thls will directly benefit the users of drill plpe because
they wlll be able to determine the actual strength of
each joint ( ~ nthe absence of cracks o r severe pits)
compared to previous methods whlch only gave a relative estimate. Inspection companies shoulcl continue
efforts to improve crack detection.
Data forthcoming froin these inspection reports will
provlde important alds f o r studies Involving fatigue
characteristics of tubes havlng wall inb balance. This
knowledge w ~ l lpronlote ~nvestigationsrelative to cumulative fatigue damage In drlll pipe. The developnlent of
valid and more coinplete mformatlon f o r the cleslgn of
rotary drill s t n n g s wlll be achleved by the combined
efforts of metallurg~stsorlented in thls field, inspection
companies, drilllng contractors, and major operators.
Proper drill-string design followed by good drilling
practices wlll substantially reduce failures. A thorough
and mutual understanding of design criteria and operational limits by the operator and the contractor wlll
prevent unnecessary abuse of the drlll string with substantial benefits to the industry.
It 1s apparent t h a t there 1s a close relation between
inspection, design, and use of the drill s t n n g . A joint
effort is now in order by existing committees of the
A P I and AAODC to develop common criterla f o r the
design and use of the clrlll strlng t h a t will correlate
with the API-AAODC gradlng system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wlshes to express hls gratitude t o Jack
Marsee of Lofflancl Brothers Company, A r t h u r Lublnski
of P a n American Petroleum Corporation, and Alexei P.
Maradudin, retired, fornlerly of the Standard Oil Company of California, f o r their valuable help and guidance
in the preparation of this paper.

DESIGNA N D U S E
T H EAPI-AAODC DRILL-PIPE
GRADINGSYSTEMILN RELATIONTO DRILL-STRING
ADDENDUM
On several occasions i n this paper, reference has been
made t o the lack o f knowledge relative t o cumulative
fatigue damage occurring In drill strings. At the time
this paper was compiled, the author was aware o f estensive work being undertaken b y John E. Hansford and
Arthur Lubinski, both w i t h Pan American Petroleum
Corporation, relative t o cumulative fatlgue damage.
However, the results o f their work were not released
b y Pan American Petroleunl Corporation until October
1965. T h e presentation was made a t the 40th Annual
Fall Meeting o f the Society of Petroleum Engineers o f
AIME i n Denver, abstract o f whlch follows.
Hansford, John E and Lubinski, A r t h u r . Cumulative
Fatigue Damage of Drill Pipe In Dog Legs, Paper
No. S P E 1258.
Thls paper shows that rotating drill pipe which
passes through dog legs suffers fatigue damage due
t o cyclic bending stresses. Curves o f the cunlulative
fatigue damage incurred i n either steel or aluminum
drill pipe going through such dog legs are presented.
These curves provide means for properly planning
the rate o f angle buildup i n directionally drilled wells
and allow discarding o f drill pipe which has been
fatigue-damaged i n dog legs.
REFERENCES
'Maradudin, Alesei P : Inspection o f Used Drill Pipe,
D r ~ l l ~ nCo?~tructor,
g
X I S [ 2 ] 62, Jan.-Feb (1963).
2Maradudin, Alesei P : Today's Score on Used Drill
Pipe Inspection, 011 Gas J., 61 [ 7 ] 80, Feb. 18 (1963).
'Maradudin, Alesei P : How t o U s e those New AAODC
Drill Pipe Inspection Standards, 011 Gas J., 80, June 15
(1964).
'Crenshaw, W . H ; Bottoms, V B ; Wallace, C N ; and
O'Dell, C. R : Drill Pipe Failures, Inspection, and Protection i n the PermIan Basin, APZ Drzllz?zg ( ~ x dP r o d ~ c tzon Prctctlcc, 250 (1948).
'Thonlas, Paul and Relnhold, W . Ben : Understanding
and Using the New API-AAODC Drill Pipe Gradlng
System, Dr~llzng Co?ztructor, X S I [ I ] 50, Nov.-Dec.
(1964).
'Stall, J. C. and Blenkarn, K . A : How Much Can Y o u
Pull on Stuck Drill Pipe, World Ozl, 93, Nov. (1963).
'Rogers, Leslie C : New Pipe Grading System Promises Cheaper Drilling, Ozl Gas J., 62 [50] 66, Dec. 14
(1964).
'Cooley, Herbert M : Recent Developmellts i n Recommended Field Practice on Care and U s e of Oil-country
Tubular Goods, APZ Drzllzng a ~ z dP~odzictzonPrc~ctzce,
233 (1948).
'Garwood, George and Hayes, V . L : Drill Pipe and

65

Nondestructive Testing, paper presented a t Twentyfourth National Convention, Society for Nondestructive
Testlng, Philadelphia, Pa., October 1964.
"Fetters, Karl L : T h e Nature of Fatigue, J. Petr.
Tech., XVI [ 8 ] 869, Aug. (1964).
"Bullens, D. K : Steel a d Its Heat T r e a t w ~ e ~(Vol.
~t
I Pq-znczples), 152, John W i l e y & Sons, I n c , New Y o r k
(1948).
"Karpov, A. V : Fatigue Problems i n Structural Design, Metals and Alloys 10, 346, (1939).
laJackson, L. R ; Banta, H. M; and McMaster, R. C :
Progress Report on Drill String Research, Drzllzng
Contractor, I11 [ I ] 46, Nov. 15 (1946).
"Maradudin, Alexei P : Drill Pipe, Casing, Tubing
and Sucker Rods-Corrosion Failures and Methods o f
Combatting Corrosion, paper presented a t the NACE
Canadian Region, Western Div. Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, February 12, 1965.
'"rant, R. S. and Tester, H. G : Causes and Prevention o f Drill-pipe and Tool-joint Troubles, APZ Drlllz?tg
a ? ~ dProdzcctto?~Practzce, 14 (1941).
laLubinski, A r t h u r : A Study o f the Buckling o f Rot a r y Drilling Strings, APZ D,r~llz?agund Proclliction
Practice, 187 (1950).
"Lubinski, Arthur : Maximum Permissible Dog-legs
i n Rotary Bore Holes, Trans. Anz. Z~zst.Mining Met.
Engrs. ( P e t r o l e z ~ nDevelopment c~ndTeclinology), 222,
176 (1961).
"Hansford, John E. and Lubinski, A r t h u r : T h e E f fects o f Drilling Vessel Pitch or Roll on Kelly and Drill
Pipe Fatigue, S P E Paper No. 696, presented a t Fall
Meeting o f A I M E i n New Orleans, La., October 6-9,
1963.
T a s n e r , John A : Care and Handling o f Highstrength Tubular Goods, APZ Drilltng and Prodzictio?~
P.ract?ce, 169 (1961).
"Spiri, W . H. and Reinhold, W . B : W h y Does Drill
Pipe Fail i n the Slip Area, JVo~ldOzl, 149 [ 5 ] 100, Oct.
(1959).
"Vreeland, Thad J r : Dynamic Stresses i n Long Drill
Pipe Strings, Petrolcz~?)~
Engr., May (1961).
"Vreeland, Thad J r : Deformation o f Drill Pipe Held
i n Rotary Sllps, Pupe,r No. 61-PET-20, presented a t
Fall Meeting Petroleunl Mechanical Engineering Conference of A S M E i n Kansas City, M o , September 24-27,
1961.
23McGlasson,R. L ; Landers, J. E ; and Schiltz, J. L :
Hazards of Yleld-strength Designing, API Dlslli?~gand
P,rod~cctzonPmctzce, 12 (1963).
"Pedigo, John R., S r : How the Problem o f Crooked
Hole Tendencies is Being Met and Solved i n the Callfornia Area, Drillzng Contractor, X S I [ 2 ] 56, Jan.-Feb.
(1965).

You might also like