Guidelines For Heatchecking Minimisation: J W Martin, J T A Smith, W K Morrison and H J Choi
Guidelines For Heatchecking Minimisation: J W Martin, J T A Smith, W K Morrison and H J Choi
Guidelines For Heatchecking Minimisation: J W Martin, J T A Smith, W K Morrison and H J Choi
Heatchecking
Minimisation
J W Martin, J T A Smith,
W K Morrison and H J Choi
Main CD
Contents
GUIDELINES
FOR
HEATCHECKING
MINIMISATION
STANDARD DATA PAGE
_________________________ __________________________
J W MARTIN, J T A SMITH D R RAY
W K MORRISON & H J CHOI TEAM LEADER
MATERIALS & INSPECTION
ENGINEERING
Heatchecking is a phenomenon that has been known about for some time. However, it is only
recently, particularly with a high incidence of heatchecking in BPX Colombia, that it has been
routinely identified as an important aspect of drillstring failure mechanisms.
"Classic" heatchecking (Type I - "Heatchecking") results from frictional heating causing the
skin temperature of a drilling component to exceed the critical temperature for steel (i.e. about
700°C, the temperature above which the transformation from martensite to austenite starts),
followed by rapid quenching by the drilling mud. This results in numerous shallow quench
cracks in the surface of the component, giving a "crazed" cracking pattern with cracks running
in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. These cracks, if undetected or not removed,
may then propagate due to other mechanisms, e.g. fatigue as result of vibration or cyclic
loading of the string, resulting in component failure. It is worth noting that optimising other
material features, such as assuring good toughness (Charpy tests) and mechanical properties
can help mitigate against catastrophic failure (twist-offs) resulting from heatchecking.
Other material degradation mechanisms, akin to heatchecking, can take place where frictional
heating in service occurs without repeated quenching by the drilling mud. Repeated quenching
might not occur because, for example, the mud is not being circulated or the circulation is lost.
In this instance, the component in the region of frictional heating can be heated-up to a
significant depth. This can result in either:-
- A loss in strength associated with the high temperatures attained (most metals lose
strength as they are heated) and plastic deformation/failure if the reduced load
capacity of the component is exceeded; Type III - " Friction-Induced Loss of
Strength".
From a study of recent incidents associated with heatchecking in BPX Colombia, all three
degradation modes mentioned above have been observed. Some identifying features of these
degradation modes have been noted, as detailed in this Section. This information will help to
identify the cause of an incident or failure and more specifically to decide if the mechanism
was (or was akin to) heatchecking:
Type I - "Heatchecking"
- Surface in the region of heatchecking shows signs of wear, sometimes resulting in a 'shiny'
appearance
VISUAL
MAGNETIC
PARTICLE
INSPECTION
In more advanced cases there will also be deeper cracks within the 'crazed' area, often in the
longitudinal direction.
VISUAL
MAGNETIC
PARTICLE
INSPECTION
LIQUID
PENETRANT
INSPECTION
In this case the frictional heating in the absence of drilling mud results in changes to the bulk
microstructure of the component in areas of rubbing. The heating will often be followed by
quenching (fast cooling) when drilling mud returns. The structural changes may penetrate well
into the thickness of the component and will adversely affect the mechanical properties of the
component in the affected areas.
- Surface in the region of possible damage shows signs of significant wear (NOTE: there may
or may not be surface cracking and 'crazing' in the damaged area, absence of such cracks does
not indicate there is no heatchecking problem)
- Colour changes ('blueing') of the surface in the region of damage due to surface oxidation
(NOTE: this layer may be lost during subsequent wear/rubbing)
- Microstructural changes to the bulk material in the damaged region
FIGURE 4: MICROSTRUCTURAL CHANGES DUE TO HEATCHECKING
- Hardness changes to the bulk material in the damaged region (NOTE: this effect may not be
evident on the surface if subsequent heating during wear/rubbing results in some 'tempering',
i.e. re-softening, of the steel)
Type III - "Friction-Induced Loss of Strength" Frictional heating in the absence of
quenching by drilling mud results in a loss in strength of the component. Invariably steels
suffer from a loss in strength with increasing temperature. If the applied loads exceed the
temperature degraded yield load then plastic deformation, and most probably failure, will
result. At temperatures above about 600°C the term 'yield strength' has little meaning for steels
such as AISI 4137H (the steel often used in the manufacture of tool-joints), as they will yield
under nearly any applied load. Therefore, if the full section thickness of the component is
affected by significant frictional heating it is highly likely that a failure will result within a very
short time frame.
FIGURE 5: BOTTLENECKING
- Surface in the region of damage/failure shows signs of wear (NOTE: there may or may not
be surface cracking and 'crazing' in the damaged area, absence of such cracks does not indicate
there is no heatchecking problem)
Generally, in BPX Colombia heatchecking was observed to occur when drilling through
mudstone/sandstone lithologies where the mudstone component was greater than 50%.
Mudstone may be more significant than sandstone due to its tendency to encapsulate the drill
stem. Once encapsulated, the friction generated on forward or back reaming results in a higher
frictional heating than for the abrasive sandstone formation. In the case of BPX Colombia this
lithology most commonly coincided with the 12 1/4" hole size, most problems were
experienced in this hole size.
Drilling at greater than 125 RPM in the above mentioned lithology has been linked to incidents
of heatchecking.
These all result in a greater risk of frictional heating and hence heatchecking. This is a result of
the higher risk of rotating at the same location and the possibility that good mud circulation
will not be maintained/possible.
The largest category of equipment to experience heatchecking in BPX Colombia was the 6
5/8" drillpipe. Compared with 5" drillpipe, the 6 5/8" drillpipe tool joint has a greater surface
area in contact with the formation/casing and a larger outer diameter, which increases the risk
of it becoming 'encapsulated' within the hole. These factors increase the likelihood of
producing frictional heat build-up, particularly when running tapered strings.
For BPX Colombia annular drilling fluid velocities have generally been in the 75 to 100 fps
range when heatchecking has resulted. These are typical annular fluid velocities for drilling
hard rock formations.
There is evidence that higher annular velocities (150-200 fps) have been associated with
"heatcheck free" holes. It is recommended that increasing the annular fluid velocity is
considered when the conditions associated with heatchecking are being experienced, this will
also assist hole cleaning and possibly ROP (if this equates to higher flow rates through the bit).
It is recognised however that there are risks associated with this regarding wellbore stability
and ECD.
It is likely that these factors will significantly contribute to heatchecking. For example, high
dog-legs and/or severe azimuth changes, either by design or enforced, can result in higher wall
forces in these local regions. However, at present there is no evidence from examining the data
from the BPX Colombia failures to suggest which conditions are worse than any other. This
aspect will need to be kept under review with a view to gaining a better understanding of the
issues involved.
(a) Increases in friction between the drillstem and the formation are considered to
promote heatchecking. These may be indicated by unexpected increases/fluctuations in
drilling torque.
(b) Stuck Pipe incidents are considered to significantly increase the risk of
heatchecking. This is because the items may become heatchecked as a result of trying
to free them, i.e. during the 'working' of the pipe (increases in RPM, push/pull, etc.)
(d) Hole wash-outs will increase likelihood of heatchecking. The contact forces
between the drillstring and formation may be increased locally, as the string will only
be supported between wash-outs. This will increase the likelihood of localised
frictional heating. In addition, the annular mud velocities will be decreased. This will
decrease hole cleaning efficiency and reduce the heat transfer efficiency of the
circulating mud.
(e) High dog-legs seventies and/or severe azimuth changes are liable to increase
the likelihood of heatchecking, by increasing the wall-forces and hence frictional
heating in the local region.
1.4.1 Introduction:
There are many non-destructive testing methods which can be successfully used to identify the
'crazing' surface cracks associated with 'Type I' heatchecking. The purpose of this Section is to
detail the inspection techniques which can be applied to the assessment of such cracking in a
cost effective manner.
The goals of the inspection can be either:
1.4.2 Qualitative:
The methods useful in revealing 'Craze' cracks associated with Type I heatchecking
are Liquid Penetrant, Eddy Current and Magnetic Particle.
1. The DRY PROCESS which consists of applying dry magnetic particles to the
area to be inspected and carefully removing excess particles by tapping or blowing to
reveal a magnetic particle pattern.
2. The WET PROCESS in which magnetic particles are suspended in light oil or
in suitably inhibited water, and are applied to the area by spraying or immersion. This
process is more effective for detecting surface defects and is the method most
commonly used on machined surfaces. Control of the ratio of particles to liquid is
essential in all the wet methods.
MPI is the recommended technique for identifying the 'craze' cracking associated with
Type I heatchecking.
Liquid Penetrant Inspection: ASTM E 165-91, "Standard Test Method for Liquid
Penetrant Examination"; BS 3683: Part 1: 1985, "Penetrant Flaw Detection"; BS 6443:
1984, "Method for Penetrant Flaw Detection"
Eddy Current Testing: ASTM E309-83, "Eddy Current Examination of Steel Tubular
Products Using Magnetic Saturation"; BS 3683: Part 5: 198S, "Eddy Current Flaw
Detection"
Magnetic Particle Inspection: ASTM E709-91, "Standard Guide for Magnetic Particle
Examination"; BS 6072: 1981, "A Method for Magnetic Particle Flaw Detection"; BS PD
6513, "A Guide to the Principles of BS 6072"
1.4.3 Quantitative:
For the present, it is not recommended that dimensional data is routinely determined.
Techniques for determining the depth of heatcheck cracks are not readily available and
need further development.. There are two inspection techniques that offer promise in
this area:
This technique offers the ability to determine the width of cracks. It may be possible to
correlate this with the crack depth through a process of machining the heatchecked
surfaces in small increments, to determine the point at which no cracking is observed.
From such exercises, it may be possible to prepare a nomograph of crack width versus
probable crack depth.
This technique involves passing a high frequency AC current through the component
to be examined. The charge will only flow in the surface layers of the component,
known as the 'skin effect'. The presence of surface cracks will increase the current
path, such that the potential drop measured across a crack will be greater than that
measured in a crack-free region. From measurements of such potentials an estimate of
crack depth can be made.
Initial trials have been carried out by GRE Sunbury in conjunction with TSC Ltd., UK.
These showed a lot of promise, with heatcheck cracks with a depth of approximately
4mm being successfully sized. However, there is a need to develop suitable probe
heads and inspection systems for field use before this technique can be used routinely
'at site'.
1.5 Inspection: Acceptance/Rejection Criteria
The following list is a representation of common heatchecking incidents, taken from unaudited
records of BPX Colombia. It is provided for the purpose of :-
It should be noted that although the drill pipe incidents are the most extensive, they do not
necessarily result in the largest cost penalty during drilling. Downhole drill pipe failures are
relatively uncommon, most failures occur in the BHA and cross-overs (often a result of fatigue
resulting from vibration, poor machining, corrosion, etc. or possibly heatchecking)
The costs of the heatchecking incidents should be identified, to allow the various drilling
components to be "ranked" in terms of the importance of avoiding/dealing with heatchecking.
Drillpipe/Hevi-wate Drillpipe
In drillpipe, Type I heatchecking usually occurs on the box end tool joint
In BPX Colombia this is more common on the larger drill pipe size, i.e. 6 5/8". It is common
to see Type I heatchecking totally around the circumference of the tool joint and extending
from the box end-face to approximately one half along the length of the tool joint. Type I
heatchecking has often been seen to result in deeper longitudinal cracks, which may propagate
through the box connection at the box face.
Note that hardbanding may be either "flush" or "proud". "Proud" hardbanding may be
preferred in limiting the extent of heatchecking, by limiting tool-joint steel/hole contact. This
aspect needs to be monitored over the coming months, to allow a decision to be made on the
desirability of proud hardbanding in minimising heatchecking problems. Reference should be
made to the BPX Specification on hardbanding ("Drillstring Hardbanding BPX Drilling DCB
Specification - Parts 1,2 and 3", DCB Report DCB/20/94, August 1994).
If cracking is observed on the body then scrap, as repair is not a viable option.
Drill Collars
In drill collars Type I heatchecking has been observed in the body and slip recess areas.
Cross-over Subs
In cross-over subs, the areas generally affected are the radii located at changes of section
and the box ends.
The radii located at section changes are not in a critical stress area and as such minor cracking
is not considered serious. Generally, the heatchecking damage is less than 1/4" in length and is
usually evident as check lines similar to tool chatter marks. The check lines are usually
longitudinal with no interconnecting circumferential lines.
The acceptance/rejection criteria for Type I heatchecking on CROSS-OVER SUBS are:
No other heatchecking cracks (e.g. on the box end) are acceptable. Refurbish/scrap
as per Section 3.
Stabilisers
Stabilisers exhibit Type I heatchecking on the fins as well as the main body.
Type I heatchecking on JARS requires the input of the manufacturer to define the limits
of repair and the areas which cannot be machined.
If either of these two types of heatchecking are identified then the component should be
rejected, as it is deemed unsuitable for further use. It may be possible to repair the items (e.g.
replace the tool-joints if these are the only part of the component affected), but this is a matter
for the manufacturer, supplier, etc. Refer to Section 3.1.2. for further details.
The evidence gathered to date strongly suggests that heatchecking can be minimised by using
the knowledge that drilling through the mudstone/sandstone lithology requires close attention
to drilling RPM and drilling fluid flow.
1) Keep RPM below 100 where possible. It is recognised that this contradicts other
drilling optimisation issues and more work is required to evaluate the effect of each
variable. This is outside the scope of the present guidelines.
2) Increase drillpipe annular fluid flow rate to >100 fps, especially in 6 5/8" drill pipe.
3) Minimise the use of larger drill pipe sizes (e.g. 6 5/8") while drilling through the
mudstone/sandstone lithologies. Consider using mixed string of (e.g. 6 5/8" and 5"),
which increases flow rate as well as providing good hydraulics.
4) Try to keep hole tortuosity and dog-leg severity to a minimum. Clearly this will often
be difficult to achieve, as it is dictated by well profile needs and/or drilling
circumstances (rock lithology, etc.). However, it is important to bear in mind that
where high dog-leg severity and/or hole tortuosity exists there is a higher likelihood of
heatchecking. Ensure that inspection programmes take this into account.
As discussed in previous sections, tactics which reduce the chances of heatchecking include
lowering RPM and increasing the flow rate of the drilling fluid.
A strategy for drilling may include maximising ROP during initial stages of drilling, applying
minimising strategy of low RPM and increased fluid flow through the mudstone/sandstone
lithologies, then resuming high ROP strategy.
3.0 REFURBISHMENT SPECIFICATIONS
Drillpipe:
Refurbish heatchecked drillpipe and heavy-weight drillpipe by machining the O.D. of
the heatchecked tool joints/HWDP mid-section. The machining should include the
entire length of the tool joint/HWDP mid-section. In the first instance, 2mm should be
removed. The machining shall completely remove the heatchecking.
After each subsequent machining pass, check by Visual Inspection and Fluorescent
MPI whether all heatchecking has been removed.
The final machined O.D. of the tool joint/HWDP mid-section, once all heatchecking
has been removed, shall not be less than the API RP7G (latest edition) minimum OD
plus a 'design factor' of 2.0mm. If the dimensions are below this criteria, consider
rebuilding (See Section 3.3.
Drill collars:
Refurbish drill collars by machining the O.D. full length to remove all traces of
heatchecking.
Perform Visual Inspection and Fluorescent MP1 to ensure all heatchecking has been
removed.
The final machined O.D. of the drill collar shall not be less than the API minimum for
wear plus a 'safety factor' of 1.5mm.
Stabilisers:
Refurbish jars according to manufacturers' recommended procedures.
It will be rare that items that have suffered from Type II or III heatchecking will be
suitable for refurbishment. Normally such items will need to be scrapped. However, if
for example, damage is restricted to the tool-joint area on drill pipe it may be possible
to replace the tool-joint in line with the methodology outlined in section 3.3. The
advice of the manufacturer/supplier will need to be sought on the suitability of
components for refurbishment.
Once all the heatchecking has been removed, the final machined O.D. of tool joints/HWDP
mid-section may be below the criteria described in Section 3.1. In this case, rebuilding of the
tool-joints/HWDP mid-section can be considered. Many of the manufacturers have their own
re-build specifications, so it is not desirable to be 'prescriptive' and generate a "BP Re-Build
Specification". However, it is important to note that tool-joints and associated drilling
equipment are normally manufactured from a quench and tempered low alloy steel. This type
of material requires considerable care in welding and in the past failures have resulted from
poor re-build work. For this reason, many operators, including BP, have outlawed the re-
building of drilling equipment in the past. Therefore, it is very strongly recommended that only
BPX approved re-building procedures are used. These should include a qualified and proven
welding procedure detailing all relevant parameters, i.e. consumables, preheat temperature,
interpass temperature, welding current/voltage/speed, post weld heat treatment
temperature/time . There should also be a clear statement or quality plan outlining production
control techniques to ensure that the procedures are implemented.
If rebuilding using 'high strength steel' welding consumables ensure that there will be no
problems of 'dilution' of the weld metal resulting in a rebuild layer with poor mechanical
properties, e.g. excessive hardness, low toughness, susceptibility to hydrogen cracking. One
way in which success can be achieved is to use a 'buffer layer' of a low carbon steel weld metal
(e.g. 7018 type) over the full length of the rebuild region. Alternatively, thought may be given
to using a low carbon steel consumable to fully rebuild the tool-joint in circumstances where
the OD is above the API minimum.
Assuming a suitable weld overlay procedure can be developed, there will still be a limit
to the amount of material that can be machined off components and/or the number of
times the tool joint can be re-built. Therefore, for drill pipe there will be a need to
replace tool-joints in some cases.
As with re-building, many service companies have their own re-tool jointing
specifications, so it is not desirable to be 'prescriptive' and generate a "BP Re-Tool
Jointing Specification". However, the process of re-tool jointing is very similar to that
used to weld the tool-joint to the drill pipes during the manufacture of new drillpipe,
i.e. friction welding. Therefore, the same level of controls and same requirements
should be applied. This aspect is covered in a draft BPX specification regarding
drillpipe. The essential features of the welding process include:
Yes Abbreviations:
LPI - Liquid Penetrant Inspection
MPI- Magnetic Particle Inspection
Ensure no other heatchecking
damage on the component.
Refer to Section 3.0 of
Guidelines for advice on
refurbishment.
XTP 36778
Distribution: