SPE/IADC

SPE/IADC 18650

Drillstring Design Optimization for High-Angle Wells

by G.K. McKown, Smith Inti. Inc.
SPE Member

Copyright 1989, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1989 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, February 28-March 3, 1989.

This paper was selected for presentation by a SPE/IADC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of SPE or the IADC, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees
of SPE and the IADC. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT
Drill string design for high angle wells should be optimized for all
required functions of the drill string. Optimum drill string design requires
a thorough review of well design and objectives in order to rank in
importance the demands of a drill string. Practical considerations for drill
string design for high angle wells and systematic approaches to the design
process are presented.
INTRODUCTION
A clear understanding of the required functions the drill string is to serve
and the ranking importance of each function is the first step in any drill
string design. A drill string is required to serve three basic functions:
• Transmit and support axial loads.
• Transmit and support torsional loads.
• Transmit hydraulics.
The ranking importance of each function is dependent upon the well design
and objectives. In high angle wells, use of conventional drill string
components and their limitations can effect well objectives and operations.
It is sometimes necessary to consider drill string designs during the entire
well design and planning phases. This allows designing for well objectives
and cost simultaneously. The flow chart in Figure l shows major factors
that will effect drill string design and interrelations to other aspects of the
drilling operation.
Designing the drill string is an interactive process which requires
knowledge of every aspect of well objectives and drilling operations.
Utilizing analytical tools and field experience will lead to a drill string
design that provides for overall drilling efficiency.
Effects of Well Design
In high angle wells, a well design is selected based on the well
objectives and the feasibilities of meeting the objectives. Steerable
systems have increased directional drilling efficiency, making
Reference and illustration at end of paper.
higher angle and longer reach wells more feasible to drill. Major
limitations to drilling these wells are torque and drag. Drill string design
becomes a major consideration due to the high torsional and tensile load
requirements and the increased difficulty of downward movement.
Whenever possible, several well designs are considered in terms of their
effects on torque and drag during drilling and/or casing operations. There
is considerable field experience regarding which well designs or profiles
produce lower torque and drag.
"S"-shaped wells, higher kickoff points (KOPs) and high hole curvatures
generally increase torque and drag. Computer programs for torque and
drag analysis 1-5 enable a further qualifying of well profile options.
Computer modelling torque and drag of a particular drill string design
permits a quick look at each profile's effect on torque and drag loads. It
should be noted, however, that drill string design can be enhanced to
allow a certain well profile option to produce lower torque and drag loads.
It may be desirable to analyze several drill string designs for a particular
well profile, especially if the profile offers other advantages to the drilling
operation.
It generally is accepted that increased torque is associated with increased
drag. However, a particular profile can produce lower drag loads while
producing higher torque loads, and vice versa6, as compared to other
options. Selecting a well profile based on relative torque and drag analysis
may require some compromise.
Consider, for example, three profiles being studied for a horizontal well
project (Figure 2). Figures 3-5 show comparisons of each ·profile's effect
on torque and drag for a particular drill string design. Figure 3 is a plot of
drilling torque versus friction factor. As can be seen, Well Profile A
produces the lowest drilling torque of the three profiles. Figure 4 is a plot
of pick-up load versus friction factor. Profile B causes the lowest pick-up
load. Figure 5 is a plot of slack-off load versus friction factor. Well Profile
A produces the higher slack-off loads - that is, there is less resistance to
downward sliding.
Based on this particular torque/drag analysis, Well Profile A would be
considered the better choice of profile. If Well Profile B were to offer other
advantages such as substantially less directional drilling
. and improved cuttings transport, it would warrant further analysis

275
2 DRILL STRING DESIGN OPTIMIZATION FOR HIGH ANGLE WELLS
and/or perhaps ultimate selection. This is due to the small percentage
difference between relative torque and drag loads of Profiles A and
B.
Rig Capabilities
Prior to designing the drill string, rig capabilities and limitations should
be well defined. Rig limitations which could effect drill string design
are:
• Hoisting capacity.
• Torque to stall rotary.
• Pump capacity.
Knowing the rig capabilities prior to designing the drill string
establishes certain criteria to be used during the design process. It also
allows planning for additional or special rig equipment that may be
required.
Effect of Hydraulic Requirements
Hydraulic requirements of the drill string in high angle wells should be
reviewed before actual design begins. In wells of great length and/or small
hole sizes, delivery of adequate hydraulics for mud motors, measurement-
while-drilling (MWD) systems and bits becomes a concern due to pressure
losses through the long and/or small drill strings. Hydraulic requirements
should be well defined because they can have an effect on the size of drill
string compo-nents needed. Components with larger IDs may be required
for opt-imum hydraulics. An increase of OD may also be necessary in
order to maintain strength requirements which could, in turn, result in the
selection of heavier conventional components that may increase torque and
drag. When optimizing hydraulics, larger, heavier drill string components
must be kept in the lowest angled portion of the hole. This precaution
minimizes increased torque and drag and can be advantageous regarding
buckling compressive loads. Knowing the hydraulic requirements narrows
drill string design options and helps to determine whether special drill
string components, such as lighter aluminum drill pipe7, should be
considered.
Drill String Component Limitations
Knowing the condition and strength limitations of available drill string
components is critical to the design process. Strength limitations are
effected by component wear and previous service conditions. Wear is
easily measured and strength values can be determined based on actual
component dimensions. Remaining fatigue life, however, is difficult to
determine for the majority of used drill string components.
Drill string design is effected by the reduced tensile load capacity of drill
pipe due to tube wear and the reduced torsional strength due to tool joint
wear. Table 1 shows, for example, the reduction in both tensile and
torsional strengths for 4Yz in., 16.60 lb/ft Grade E drill pipe. As seen, the
tensile load capacity is reduced by 104,787 lbs (32%) when the 4Yz in. drill
pipe is worn to API Class 2 condition as compared to new. The torsional
strength of the tool joint is reduced by 15,071 ft-lbs (44%) when worn to Class 2
condition as compared to new. This shows the importance of having thorough
and reliable inspections of drill string components being considered for use in a
drill string design.
The fatigue limits of the string components being considered for
use in high angle wells are critical because of the high bending
stresses that can occur. The highest bending stresses are expected
to occur in regions of angle and/or direction changes (doglegs) and
in areas where compressive loads are sufficient to cause buckling.
Recognizing and quantifying expected bending stresses allows
276
SPE 18650
well design changes and/or drill string designs that avoid
fatigue damage.
Because drill string components in high angle wells will be pushed closer
to their limitations as a well progresses, only premium components should
be selected. The safety factors used in designing a drill string also should
be chosen to account for expected wear and reduction in component
strength.
For components which have no API guidelines for inspection and/ or
classification, the manufacturer should be consulted. Examples of such
components include heavy wall drill pipe, aluminum drill pipe and
compressive service drill pipe (which will be discussed later in this
paper).
Limitations for all components should be known prior to the actual drill
string design process to allow designing within those limitations and
identification of special requirements/specifications to be placed on
component selection.
Friction Factor Selection
The selection of friction factors used for torque/drag analysis should
be carefully considered to ensure they are realistic. This allows
design of a drill string that overcomes increased loads imposed by
friction and that is not over-engineered.
Even though values of coefficient of friction are well established for
certain areas/formations, it is desirable to consider higher friction
factors to account for unexpected anomalies such as irregular wellbore
shape, differential pressure sticking, sticky and swelling formations.
The previous example of well profile evaluation assumed a smooth
wellbore. Since actual conditions are not ideal, it is necessary to use higher
friction values for torque/drag analysis. A study of the available friction
coefficient information shows values of 0.2-0.4 can be expected. Mud type,
formation type and casing points are factors that effect actual friction
coefficients. These drilling parameters usually are known prior to
designing the drill string and can be considered when selecting friction
factors to use in torque and drag analysis. Values selected should be for
worst cases to compensate for unpredictable situations. Evaluating offset
or similar well data can lead to selection of reasonable values.
Design Optimization
Once all requirements and limitations are well defined, design optimization
begins. The first step is to optimize for expected torque and drag loads.
During the entire design process, emphasis is placed on utilizing
conventional drill string components in order to minimize cost. While
going through an iterative process of torque and drag analysis of drill string
designs, other factors such as operating stresses, drill string component
wear and casing wear also are considered.
Torque and Drag Analysis
As already seen, torque and drag analyses are needed to aid well planning
and drill string design of high angle wells. The particular torque and drag
model used herein is based on a sliding friction model 1 developed by
Exxon Production Research. This model provides a practical analytical tool
which aids in many aspects of drilling high angle wells. There is a great
deal of literature confirming the need for torque/drag computer modelling
of drill string designs to ensure successful drilling operations.
Torque and drag computer modelling enables a study of drill string designs
and expected forces/stresses on the drill string components.
SPE 18650
This is necessary to design within component and operational
limitations.
Tensile and Torsional Loads
Tension and torsional load requirements are probably the primary factors
in drill string design. A drill string is designed to withstand expected
tension loads with a safety factor or overpull margin added. An overpull
margin of 100,000 lbs is common but higher margins may need to be
considered in certain high angle wells. Torsion loads are a factor not only
in terms of drill string component torsional strength, but also in terms of
rig capacity required to rotate the string.
There are no industry standards for torsional safety factors in drill string
design. However, a safety factor should be considered because, as shown
earlier, torsional strength is reduced with tool joint wear. A suggested
design criterion for torsional loads would be to stay below make-up torque.
This would give a margin below ultimate torsional strength and reduce the
likelihood of damage due to additional make-up downhole.
Consider the following example of drill string design optimization: A well
is to be drilled vertically to a kickoff point of 2,245 ft with a 5 deg/100 ft
angle build to 75 degrees and then hold angle to target. The target is at
5,000 ft true vertical depth (TVD) with a 7,000 ft horizontal displacement.
Hole size is 872 in., mud is 12 lb/gal water-base and desired weight-on-bit
is 15,000 lbs. Assume an open hole friction factor of 0.4, 2,000 ft-lbs of
torque at the bit and a desired overpull of 100,000 lbs.
Start with torque and drag analysis for a string design of: BHA
(120 ft of 61.4 in. x 272 in. drill collars), heavy wall drill pipe (915 ft of
472 in. x 2~ in.), drill pipe to surface (472 in. x 16.60 lb/ft Grade E, NC
46, Premium Class).
Torque and drag computer modelling predicts a pick-up load of 276,903
lbs. Maximum load capacity of the drill pipe is 260,165 lbs. The load
capacity of the drill pipe is exceeded to a depth of approximately 1,100
feet measured depth (MD) according to computer output. The predicted
drilling torque at surface is 14,585 ft-lbs, which exceeds the recommended
make-up torque (11,949 ft-lbs) of the drill pipe tool joints. Predicted
drilling torque is exceeded to a depth of 2,445 ft. Predicted rotating off-
bottom torque exceeds make-up torque to 3,100 ft MD. There are several
things that could be considered before substituting drill string components
to meet load requirements.
If it were known that a particular string of drill pipe was available (i.e., rig has
been selected with known inventory of drill string components), close
inspection of the drill pipe condition could reveal that some of the pipe is
above the minimum criteria for Premium Class. A sufficient number of joints
could be identified to be placed in the upper part of string to meet load
requirements. This would require special inspection and care to be taken by the
rig crew to ensure pipe did not get mixed.
If it were not practical or possible to verify the exact condition of the drill pipe,
an increase in make-up torque and reduction in overpull margin might be
considered. For this example it would mean a 22.1% increase in make-up torque
and an overpull margin of 83,262 lbs. Good engineering practice dictates
investigating other options since this one represents too much compromise.
The next step is to substitute a stronger component in the upper part of the
string. If 472 in., 16.60 lb/ft Grade X, Premium Class drill pipe is
substituted to 3,100 ft MD, pick-up tension and drilling torque load
requirements will be met. Pick-up load capacity is now 329,542 lbs and
make-up torque for Premium Class 472 in., 16.60 lb/ ft Grade X, NC 46 drill
pipe is 15,136 ft-lbs.
G. K. McKOWN 3
Slack-Off Loads
Predicted surface slack-off load for our example well is 22,000 lbs, which
indicates an ability to get to bottom. However, if a steerable system is
being employed, further analysis is required to ensure the desired WOB
can be maintained during the orienting mode of steerable drilling.
Computer modelling of the slack-off load required to maintain 15,000 lbs
WOB predicts a slack-off load at surface of -3,300 lbs (Figure 6). This
indicates an inability to maintain WOB while orienting. To overcome the
resistance to sliding, heavier components are needed in the upper part of
the drill string8, which is referred to as an inverted drill string. Drill collars
or heavy wall drill pipe could be used, bearing in mind, that to reduce
torque and drag these heavier components should be kept in the lowest
angled portion of the hole. If heavier components are to be used in angled
portions of the hole, another torque and drag analysis is required. If placed
in the vertical portion of hole, the predicted pick-up and slack-off loads are
the only major changes and could be calculated without another complete
torque/ drag analysis.
The above results of slack-off loads are for drill string design only. Effects
of stabilizer digging are not taken into account so actual resistance to
downward sliding could be greater. Another limitation that should be
acknowledged is that stiffness is not accounted for in this computer model.
Stiffness of a drill string component generally becomes of greatest concern
when there are abrupt angle/direction changes and resistance to bending
creates high side loads, increasing drag loads. These are not considered
major limitations. However, comparing weight-on-bit/torque-on-bit MWD
readings to surface readings will help in evaluating and accounting for
these effects in designing the drill string9•
Compressive Loads
Continuing with our example, the next step is to evaluate predicted
compressive loads while drilling to ensure that drill pipe is not being
damaged due to buckling. From the output data of the torque drag analysis
it is seen that the highest compressive load in the drill pipe is 4,864 lbs at
9,078 ft MD. Critical compressive load to start buckling for this set of
conditions is approximately 25,000 lbs, verifying that the compressive
load in the drill pipe is within safe limits.
This evaluation is based on Dawson and Pasley's buckling analysis in
inclined holes 10 which shows it is practical to run drill pipe in
compression in high angle wells. This is advantageous because lighter drill
string components can be utilized through a large percentage of a high
angle well, reducing torque and drag. Their buckling analysis allows a
practical evaluation of compressive loads in order to avoid damage to drill
string components. The equation used to find critical compressive loads to
start buckling is:
Fcrit. = 2 EIOAg.]%
[ ~ s1n;f
Rotating Off Bottom Loads
While rotating off bottom, drill pipe is subjected to higher bending
stresses in curved portions of the well. These stresses should be considered
because of the possibility of fatigue damage. Dogleg severity curves
developed by Lubinski 11 to determine safe hole curvature (dogleg) limits
(Figure 7) are found in API RP7G. These curves aid in determining limits
of tension and dogleg severity in order to avoid fatigue damage.
From the torque/drag output of our example, it is seen that maximum
tension load (while rotating off bottom) in the 5 deg/ 100ft build portion
of the well is approximately 48,000 lbs. Referring to Figure 7, it is seen
that the 472 in. drill pipe will not be fatigue damaged while rotating off
bottom.
277
4 DRILL STRING DESIGN OPTIMIZATION FOR HIGH ANGLE WELLS
Special Drill String Components/Accessories
In high compressive load regions, heavy wall drill pipe is usually
employed to reduce the likelihood of damage due to buckling. This
practice has been standard in directional wells for years. In cases where
heavier members create unacceptable torque and drag loads, compressive
service drill pipe may be used.
Compressive service drill pipe can be conventional drill pipe with several
wear protectors or upsets attached, evenly spaced, onto the drill pipe tube
or specially made pipe with integral upsets. These upsets restrict lateral
movement of the drill pipe joint when buckled, thereby reducing stress.
The upsets also reduce stresses when pipe is being run through high angle
changes such as in medium-radius curvatures. Table 2 shows how pipe
stresses are reduced with the increase of upsets used. For example, in a
20 deg/ 100ft hole curvature with 4,000 lbs compressive load on 3Y2 in.
drill pipe, stresses are reduced 20.1% by using three (3) upsets versus
none (0).
Use of aluminum drill pipe is usually considered where torque and drag
loads are too extreme for conventional steel components. In drill string
designs, aluminum drill pipe placed in the higher angled portion of the
well significantly reduces torque and drag loads. As mentioned earlier,
required hydraulics for drilling efficiency may dictate a need for
considering aluminum drill pipe.
Use of drill pipe protectors, rubber or steel, has been a field practice to
reduce drill pipe and casing wear12 • In high angle wells, increased tool
joint, drill pipe tube and casing wear are expected due to higher contact
forces between the drill string components and the hole wall.
Along with reducing wear, drill pipe protectors reduce fatigue damage to
drill pipe when pipe is being rotated through angle changes or doglegs.
Another benefit of rubber protectors is that they can act to polish casing,
thereby reducing some frictional drag13.
CONCLUSIONS
• Prior to designing the drill string, well plans/objectives and
proposed drilling methods should be reviewed.
• Drilling methods/operations, drill string component condition/
limitations and rig capabilities should be taken into account during the
design process.
• Safety factors used in designing the string should be selected based not
only on the initial condition of drill string components, but also should
account for expected drilling conditions and reduction in component
strength due to wear as drilling progresses.
NOMENCLATURE
E =Young's Modules (lb/in. 2)
Fcrit. =Axial compressive load to start buckling (lb)
I= Moment of Inertia (in. 4 )
r =Radial clearance between drill string component and hole wall (in.)
pAg =Buoyed weight per length of component (lb/in.)
~ = Hole angle (degrees)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Sam Claytor with Smith International for his
assistance and the management of Smith International for permission to
publish this paper.
278
SPE 18650
REFERENCES
l. Johancsik, C.A., Friesen, D.B. and Dawson, R., "Torque and Drag in
Directional Wells - Prediction and Measurement", IADC/ SPE 11380
presented at the 1983 Drilling Conference, Dallas, February 20-23.
2. Brett, J.F., Beckett, A.D. and Smith, D.L., "Uses and Limitations of
Drill String Tension and Torque Model to Monitor Hole Conditions",
SPE 16664 presented at 1987 Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, September 27-30.
3. Ho, H.S., "An Improved Modeling Program for Computing the Torque
and Drag in Directional and Deep Wells", SPE 18047 presented at 1988
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 2-5.
4. Corbett, K.T. and Dawson, R., "Drillstring Design for Directional
Wells", Oil & Gas Journal (April 1984) 61-6.
5. Mauer Engineering, Inc., "Project To Determine the Limitations of
Directional Drilling, Phase II," Report No. TR88-4, January 1988.
6. Sheppard, M. C., Wick, C. and Burgess, T., "Designing Well Paths To
Reduce Drag and Torque," SPE Paper 15463 presented at 1986
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, October 5-8.
7. Glagola, M.A. and Wong, L.F., "Aluminum Drillpipe for
Directional Drilling", IADC/SPE 14789 presented at 1986
Drilling Conference, Dallas, February 10-12.
8. Shaw, M.N., "Innovative Approaches to Drilling High-Angle Wells in
Bass Strait'', IADC/SPE 17233 presented at 1988 Drilling Conference,
Dallas, February 28- March 2.
9. Lesage, M., Falconer, I.G. and Wick, C.J., "Evaluating Drilling
Practice in Deviated Wells with Torque and Weight Data", SPE
Drilling Engineer (September 1988) 248-52.
10. Dawson, R. and Paslay, P.R., "Drill Pipe Buckling in Inclined Holes"
SPE 11167 presented at the 1982 Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, September 26-29.
11. Lubinski, A., "Maximum Permissible Doglegs in Rotary Boreholes",
Journal of Petroleum Technology (February 1961)
175-94.
12. Lubinski, A. and Williamson, J.S., "Usefulness of Steel or Rubber
Drillpipe Protectors", Journal of Petroleum Technolgy (April 1984) 628-
36.
13. Corbett, K.T. and Dawson, R., "Rubber Drillpipe Protectors Reduce
Rotary Torque", SPE Drilling Engineering (September 1988) 269-74.
14. Williamson, J.S. and Lubinski, A., "Predicting Bottomhole Assembly
Performance", SPE Drilling Engineering (March 1987) 37-46.
 PIPE TENSILE YIELD lbs TOOL JOINT TORSIONAL YIELD ft-lbs
%Reduction %Reduction Review of Well Profile Options'
from new from new Torque & Drag Loads
NEW 330,558 0 34,029 0 Using Simple Drill String Design

PREMIUM CLASS 260,165 21% 21,378 37%

CLASS2 225,771 32% 18,958 44%

Review of Rig Capabilities

Table 1: Strength Values for 4112", 16.60 lb/ft Grade E Drill Pipe (NC46). Review of Hydraulic Requirements

Review of Available Drill String

Components and Limitations

5" OD Tool Joints and Wear Knots on 3'12''-13.lb/ft30 Drill Pipe in 6" hole with 20°/100 ft Hole
Curvature Friction Factor(s) Determination
and Selection
.....N
COMPRESSION= 4000 lb
cc
L No. of %Better
Distance Between Upsets Stress %Difference than pre-
Drill String Design Process
Supports per joint (psi) vious case

30 0 19,470 0 0
15 1 16,230 16.6 16.6
10 2 15,690 19.4 2.8
7'12 3 15,500 20.1 Design for other
considerations
COMPRESSION= 20,000 lb (i.e., casing wear,
drill pipe wear and
15 1 19,190 0 0 tool joint wear).
10 2 16,860 12.1 12.1
71f2 3 16,130 16.0 3.9

NOTE: All calculations made with an in-house Bottomhole Assembly Computer

Program (BHAP)'4. Optimized Drill String Design

Table 2: Stress vs Number of Upsets. Figure 1: Drill String Design Flow Chart. 'tn
rtJ
ITI

....
Q)
0'
\J"1
0
 40

35

8500

9000
30 //
//
//
9500
! 25
//
//
././~
/./
~ 10000 0
1-
~
0
0 / ~-~~
::::. 20
w
c w // /....~~
...I 10500 ::::l
0

N
ca:
0
a:
~
/// . //
= i= <-'
= a:
w
>
11000 z 15
:J
//~.//
w /_.~.~~
..J

:::1 a:
a: 11500 0
1- /..~-"'~
10 ~·//
12000
8-- ·--·--
WELL PROFILE: A -------
12500 ~--~ ---- ,----,----~-- ~---- .---- .----,----,----,----,---.
0 500 1 000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
c--------
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (ft)

.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
Figure 2: Horizontal Well Profiles.
FRICTION FACTOR

Figure 3: Relative Drilling Torques.

CJ)
.""0

... C»
1"11

~
\11
C)
 400 200
//
//~
~&
180
350 "~~
., ....... ~/.:/' 160 ~
~~
300
....... ~
,..,.............: ~·

~~-~~
140

Ul
~
250
------:;;;;..-·~· Ul 120
0
0 ~
0 0
0 0
200
<( ~ 100
~,
0 0
<(
...J
g
N
~
D..
::I
~
LL
LL 80
"\:
~,~'
() 0
ii: 150 ~
()
~
en
60

'~~\
100
WELL PROFILE: A --------
c
--- -- --- -

8--• ·
40 8--·--·--
WELL PROFILE: A -------

50
20
c------ '\
'\
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7

FRICTION FACTOR
FRICTION FACTOR

Figure 5: Relative Slack-Off Loads.

Figure 4: Relative Pick-Up Loads.

VJ
1\J
fTI

....
Q)
~
\JI
0
 HOLE CURVATURE (DEG/100 FT)

0 2 3 6
0

50

30
------- SLIDING TO 100
~~:L_
BOTTOM
REGION OFNO
20
FATIGUE DAMAGE
Ui --- · - · - · - · - ·ORIENTING-·- MODE
Ui ~
ID OF STEERABLE DRILLING ID ~/ ~
...1 10 ; 150 ~

0 0 'Ill<"
0

~ ~ ~~'b"
0 0
0 cc
cc
0 0
...1 ...1 200
u.. z ~
u.. -10 0
0 u; \;!
~ z REGION OF
/-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-----------·-·-·-··-··
:s:
w FATIGUE DAMAGE
(.)
cc -20 1- ro" I

...1

f
1/)

N
CD -30
N

250
-40 300
0 2 4 6 8 10

MEASURED DEPTH (ft)

350

*TOOL JOINT PLUS DRILL PIPE

Figure 6: Predicted Slack-Off Loads. ALLRANGE2

400
I I I

Figure 7: Limits of Tension Load and Hole Curvature for

Fatigue of 4%" Grade E Drill Pipe.

·m
~
....
Q)
~
Vl
0