Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPE/lADC
SPE/lADC 18700
This paper waa prepared for presentation et the 1989 SPE/lADC Drilling Conference held In New Orleena, Louisiana, Fabruary 2S-March 3, 19S9.
Thla paper waa selected for presentation by a SPE/lADC Program Committse following review of inform8tlon contained in an abatract submitied by the author(e). COntOntOof the P
as presented have not bean reviewed by the International Aeeooiat[on of Drilling Contractors or the Soclely of Petroleum Englneera and are subject to sorrestion by the auth
The material, &s prasented, does not neceaeerlly reflect sny poeitlon of SPE or the IADC, its officers, or members. Papera presented at SPE/lADC meetings are subject to public
raview by Editorial Committees of SPE and the IADC. Permission to copy ,Is restricted to an abstract of not more than S00 worde. Illustration may not be copied. The abstrlct e
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where andby whom the papar ia preamted. Write Publlcatlona Manager, SPE, P.O. sex S3SS3S,Rlchardaon, TX 7WS34S3S. Telex, 730SS9SPE
The depth and nature of the interbeddedPreuss Cutter arm activation and lock-out would be
Salt limited the use of underreamers to only those controlled strictly by internal pressure
with a polycrystalline (PDC) type of cutting differential. An actuator mandrel, connected to a
structure. Continuous re-underreamingof undergauge system of belleville springs, is manipulated by
hole sections demanded the durable; yet functional, hydraulic pressure to either open or close the arms.
PDC cutting structure.4’5 A modified roller cone The ability to “off-bottom”underreamundergaugehole
—. cutter design was the most utilized PDC underreamer sections would then be possible because tool
in ARE. In the original tool, the roller cone activation ia completely independent of other
cutters were housed in a large cavity which reduced drilling parameters (i.e., applied weight, rotation,
body strength and impaired the underreamer’sability etc.). The internal mandrel’s activation point on
to transmit weight to the bit (Figure 2). Without the arm was positioned as close to the cutting
cha~ging the body design, PDC heads were welded to structure as possible to help distribute the side
the arms in place of the larger cone cutters. The loading forces incurred during underreaming
welded, two-piece cutter arm was then secured to the operations.
tool body by a single roller pin connection. The
constructionand configurationof this design caused All body parts were redundantly secured to
problems with arm strength, cutter placement, and prevent release of components in the wellbore.
tool efficiency. Special lock featurea were applied to all internal
and external connections to prevent any downhole
The modified underreamer required applied failures.The secure arm mounting in this body design
weight, in conjunction with hydraulic pressure, would provide maximum utilization of PDC and other
to lock the arms into their open position. Prior to cutter element technology.
conversion, the cone cutter model was primarily
utilized to underreampilot holes. An annular ledge, The initial body design did not allow for any
or “bench,” provided the means of support for the direct circulation to the cutter arms. It was noted
activatingweight imparted to the arms. During “off- that previous underreamers robbed the bit of the
bottom” re-underreamingoperations,the annular bench proper circulation@ utilizing a large percentageof
may be too narrow to allow sufficient weight to be the pump hydraulics for cutter arm cleaning and
applied to lock open the arms. The result was that cooling. The result’ would be bit plugging and
the ‘tLocked-out”condition was hard to maintain with sticking tendencies in the pilot hole. For this
pump pressure alone, causing the tool to cut an reason, pump hydraulics were dedicated to the bit
undergaugehole, during the initial field trials of the prototype
underreamer. Penetrationrates and arm life suffered
The salt’s high encroachment rates dictated appreciably during the preliminary tests aue to the
drilling the largest possible diameter wellbore to fact that the arms were lacking direct fluid contact
● ✎
and were only being serviced by annular hydraulics. combined with the arm leverage, is critica
The initial tool design was therefore modified to to proper arm design.
accommodate cutter arm circulation by retro-fitting
the body with hydraulic tubes that directed flow to- P = Tt Zm/b........?........,...,...........(6
ward the arma ~Figure 4). The hydraulic tubes were
internally hard-faced and equipped witL a changeable where: Z = eh3/6 (Fig. 6).................(7
m
nozzle receptacle to allow manipulation of f!.uid
vclume, pressure, and hydraulic horsepower. 4. Retention side load or pin shear.
Selective use of hyd~aulics dedicated to the
underreamer improved the tool’s performance by ● Critical loads of the underreamer arm
reducing drilling torque and increasing penetration ultimately focus on the type of retentio
rates accordingly, means designed in the body of the tool
The arm retention load M is the forc
ARM DESIGN AND CRITERION required to shear the retaining pin(s)
This load is calculated to be a functio
The various types of loading that can cause of’the total pin area A ,
failure to the arms of undcrrea%ersare as follows: P
M =APS ...................................(8
1. Arm bending and radial shear along the s
longitudinalaxis of the tool. 5. Tension and compressionloading along the lengt
axis of the arnl-dueto drillin~ weig~t and sh~c
e Arm strength in binding about the body axis loads generatedby jarring.
of the tool may De calculated by treating
the arm as a simple cantilever beam when ● The arm tension/compressioncalculation i
extended from the body of the tool. The made to predict the strength of the ar
maximum allowable load T is displayed in retention means under conditions of hig
Figure 5 and calculateda~ follows: impact shock loada along the vertical axi
of the body. Drilling stresses unde
Tw = W(r+h)...........,.................,.,..(1) dynamic conditions generate extremely hig
loads during normal drilling activity an
where: W =TtZn/h .........................(2) even more so in the abnormal jarring mode
The tension/compression calculations ar
Zn =“le2/3 (Fig. 5).................(3) provided below and displayed in Figure 6
k .-. .—-SAT.T
UNDIHUUMMRRIMPROVEMENTSFOR DRILLING MOVING ----- FORMATTONS
-. -—----- .- ---
SPF ----
TATM? .-,
lf?7flfI
.”
REFERENCES
S1 NETRIC CONVERSiONFACTORS
ft X 3.048* E- Ol=m
u)
-u
m
—.—.
-.
30% CUTER ARM
SUPPORT
o
-O 0 S0%.CIJITER ARM
b-
SUPPORT
ER ARM
\
& B
G
d \ \
,, f
BODY PDC
R
CAVITY CUITER
R
HEAD
E
SECTION A-A
@
SECTION B-B
4
SECTiON A-A
00
0
SI% 187’00’ -
LLJ F
‘6
3
i=l-
IIo
I 1 J
Is’.
ii$g
3$
30C
Ooc
3C
L)
\
c1
L
r
‘0 $
I
I ‘i,
1,
l\
l\
I
l\
i \
I ’0’
I
I
‘m~ ----
\N
\.