doi:10.1016/S1350-6307(98)00052-1
Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. All rights reserved
Survival assessment of die-marked drill pipes: integrated static and fatigue analysis
M. K. Rahman1, *, M. M. Hossain1 and S. S. Rahman1
1 School of Petroleum Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
Received 23 October 1998;
accepted 9 November 1998.
Available online 25 October 1999.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must
purchase this article.
Abstract
Drill pipes under operational loads may fail in static or fatigue mode. Static failures are evaluated at two critical levels: the rotary table level (surface level) and the dogleg level, whereas fatigue failure occurs in a pipe section at the dogleg level due to the cumulative effect of fatigue damage in a number of drilling events. The current practice of static and fatigue failure analyses is based on a smooth pipe surface condition. In practice, however, dies of gripping systems mark the pipe surface during making and breaking operations (screwed and unscrewed to connect and disconnect two pipes). These marks on the pipe surface cause stress concentrations, which make a pipe more susceptible to both failure modes. This paper presents an integrated approach for static and fatigue failure analysis, considering the effects of stress concentrations due to die-marks from different gripping systems. Thus, the approach is intended to assist engineers in assessing the overall survivability of drill pipes through a detailed failure evaluation considering the effect of die-mark related stress concentrations in representative field conditions.
Author Keywords: Drill pipe; Die-marks; Stress concentrations; Static failure; Fatigue failure
Fig. 1. Drillpipe surface marked by a conventional gripping system.
Fig. 2. Drillpipe surface marked by a new gripping system producing very shallow mark penetration.
Fig. 4. Simulated die-marks on pipe surface for finite element stress analysis.
Fig. 5. Stress concentration factors (SCF ) for different loads as a function of die-mark depth.
Fig. 6. sigma;–N curve from fatigue experiments on grades D and E drillpipe by Hughes Tool Co [15].
Fig. 7. Modeling of dogleg severity in a long and gradual dogleg region.
Fig. 8. Percentage fatigue life consumed of smooth pipe for drilling parameters: R = 100 rpm, V = 20 ft
hr, d = 30 ft.
Fig. 9. Percentage fatigue life consumed of pipe marked by 0.0004 inch depth for drilling parameters: R = 100 rpm, V = 20 ft
hr, d = 30 ft.
Fig. 10. Percentage fatigue life consumed of pipe marked by 0.0012 inch depth for drilling parameters: R = 100 rpm, V = 20 ft
hr, d = 30 ft.
Fig. 11. Percentage fatigue life consumed of pipe marked by 0.01 inch depth for drilling parameters: R = 100 rpm, V = 20 ft
hr, d = 30 ft.
Fig. 12. Comparison of percentage fatigue life consumption of pipes marked by different depths for drilling parameters: R = 100 rpm, V = 20 ft
hr, d = 30 ft, DLS = 5 deg.
100 ft.
Table nomenclature. Nomenclature

Table 1. Drilling parameters for four assumed drilling events

Table 2. Stress concentration factors (SCF) for different loads and mark depths

Table 3. Safety factors against different loads and pipe surface conditions for four events

Table 4. Cumulative fatigue damage evaluation for smooth pipe
