*8

i6iiBt
I
9

~S_~_~_~ PetroleumEngineera

SPE 37353

Drill-Pipe Bending and Fatigue in Rotary Drilling of Horizontal Wells

Jiang Wu, SPE, Maurer Engineering Inc.

Maximum Bending Stress

Thm papsr was prepared for presentation at the 1996 SPE Eastern Regional Maetmg held
October 23-25, 19% m Columbus, Ohm
Tn!s papsr was selected for presentation by an SP E Program Committee followng rwaw of
InrumaticulUx@&J
(n m tiract s~mhted by the author(s) Contents of the paper have not
been rev!ewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and em sublect to correction by tlm
ti(s) The material, as prasented, does not necessarily raflect any posd!on of the Souety
of Petroleum Engmeem, Its officers, or members PapeI$ prssenkd at SPE meetings am
subject to pubhcsllon revww by EdWmal Commttiees of tho SOCmty of Petroleum Engineers
Elsctromc rsproductlon, dwtnbutlon, or storage of any Parr of thfs paper for commerml
purposss wthoul the wrlttan conssnt of the SCWety of Patroleum Engineers us prohlbltad
Perm IssIon to reproduce m pnnl IS restnctea to an abstract of not mom than 200 words;
dlustrahons may not be cop!ed The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
wham ard by whom the paw was prcmetied. Writs Librarian, SPE, P O Box 8!338?6,
Richardson, TX 750S3-3836 U S A fax 01-214-952-9435
4bstract
Drilling penetration rate can be increased when drilling a
horizontal well by rotating the drill string, which helps to
overcome the drag and apply the bit weight. However, drill-pipe
fatigue may become a problem for rotating the drill string in the
build section of the wellbore, especially in drilling mediuml
short-radius horizontal wells, where the drill pipe experiences a
large bending.
This paper presents an analysis of drill-pipe bending and
fatigue in rotary drilling horizontal wells. The wellbore curva-
ture, axial compressive load, drill-pipe weight, and drill-pipe
tube contact to the wellbore wall are considered. New equations
are derived to improve the prediction of the maximum drill-pipe
bending stress and drill-pipe fatigue. The results show that drill-
pipe tube contact to the wellbore wall, which happens under large
axial loads, may help reduce the maximum bending stress, and
therefore, benefit the fatigue control. The drill-pipe weight usually
increases the bending stress and needs to be considered to accu-
rately predict the fatigue damage.
Introduction
Fig, 1 shows the drill-pipe bendingldeflection development in a
build section as the axial compressive load increases. Under a
small axial compressive load, the maximum bending curvature
is located at the midpoint of one joint of drill pipe, and there is
no drill-pipe tube contact to the wellbore wall (Fig. 1a). As the
axial compressive load increases, the middle of the drill-pipe
tube starts to contact the wellbore wall (point contact, Fig. 1b).
Further increase of axial compressive load increases the contact
length in the middle part of the drill-pipe (arc contact, Fig. It).
The maximum bending curvature moves to somewhere in the
uncontact portion afler the tube contact occurs.
Drill pipe under axial compressive load is considered in this
paper for rotating through the build section of the wellbore in
drilling a mediun-hhort-radius horizontal well, However, similar
equations for axial tensile load condition can be derived by the
same approach.
The tubular bending differential equation for the drill pipe in
the build section of the wellbore and under axial compressive
load is (Fig. 2):
so wesine
~+k2y=Co+zx-Tx2 .. . . . . . . . . (1)
dr2
where
~2=~
EI
Based on the fact that the tool joints are stiffer than the drill-
pipe tube and follow the wellbore trajectory, the following
boundary conditions exist for drill-pipe bending:
ylx=o=o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(2)

Drill-pipe fatigue was first studied for drill-pipe rotating in a

:Ix=o=o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
dogleg wellbore section under axial tensile load.4 The recent
application of rotary drilling mediumkhort-radius horizontal
wells involves the situation where drill pipe rotates in the build
The general solution of the above differential equation under
section of the wellbore under axial compressive load. The drill
these boundary conditions is:
pipe is fsrst bent along the build section of the wellbore, and then

1....
the axial compressive load and drill-pipe weight push further
bending or deflection between the tool joints. The maximum y = +Cc(l - Coskr) + So(kx - Sinkx)-:(h)z
(4)
bending stress in the drill pipe could be much larger than that [
calculated by assuming the drill pipe bent with the wellbore
where:
curvature.

195
 2 JIANGWU SPE 37353

Cc=co+ q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(5)
YIX=L= +Q(L)-DP)..................... (14)
w*sine
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
q k2El
:IX=L=LC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (15)

s The parameters of CCand so for this case are solved as:

so=~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . (7)
k.lu
c . (c+q)u-sJl -cos(kL))
c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
Theparameters of Coand So, andtherefore Ccand~ are so sin(kL)
far unknown. They areheavily affectedly whether or not the
drill-pipe tube contacts the wellbore wall. More continuous
:[LC-(D,-DJSWWLC[l -cos(kL)]
conditions have to beusedto solve for Ccand~, and finally ,qkL (17)
determine the drill-pipe bending stress distribution. so =
kLsin(kL) - 2(1 - cos(kL)) 2
For no drill-pipe tubecontact case, two continuous condi-
tions based on the symmetry of the drill-pipe bending have to be
The drill-pipe bending curvature distribution is then:
used:

:IX=L=LC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) ~=~~)-c cos(kx) +sosirl(kc)-q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)

dc= c

The location of maximum drill-pipe bending stress moves

#lx=L=o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9) into the uncontact portion of the drill pipe:

Lm=+arc tan(:) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)

The parameters of Cc and so for this case are solved as: c

Cc=(c+q) fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (10) The corresponding maximum drill-pipe bending stress at

tan(kL) the location of x = Lm is:

So=cctan(kq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(11)
U* = + [cccos(kLm) + @rl(kLm)-q] , . . . . . . . . . (20)

The drill-pipe bending curvature distribution is then:

For drill-pipe tube arc contact case, three continuous
conditions have to be used in this case since the length of arc
~=(c+g)y::,-;~)-q . . . . . . . . . . . . (12) contact is also needed to determine:

The maximum drill-pipe bending stress is located at the middle YIX=L, = ~-#D, -Dp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
length of the drill pipe (x=L):

ub=~(c+q)+-q
[ sh(kL) 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
9= Le=Lcc .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(22)

Thisnocontact caseexistsunder small axial load conditions,

As the axial compressive Ioadincreases, the bending deflection
=c..............................(23)
~lL>x,Le
increases and the drill-pipe tube starts to contact the lower side
of the build section of the wellbore, frost asapoint contactat where LCis the measure of the arc contact boundary point.
the middle point of drill-pipe length, and then developed as an Trial and error approach is used to determine the arc contact
arc contact with a portion of drill-pipe tube. boundary point Lc by the following equation:
For drill-pipe tube point contact case, the following two
continuous conditions based on the wellbore confinement and the
c=cccos(kLc) +sosin(kLc) -q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (24)
symmetry of the bending are used:

where

196
 SPE 37353 Drill-PipeBendingand Fatigue in RotaryDrillingof HorizontalWells
~ = (c+q)kLc-so
(1-cow.))
. . . . . . . .
c
sin(kLc)
;[~:C-P,-DP)]S~(MC)-UCC[l-COS(M
s=
0
kLcsin(kLc)-2(1 -cos(kLc))
The parameters of CCand so for this case (eqs. 25 and 26) are
solved when thearc contact boundary point Lc is determined
by satistjfing eq. 24.
The drill-pipe bending curvature distribution is then:
~2y@
=C Cos(klj+sosin(kr)-q (Lc>x>o) . . . . . . (27)
h= c
d2y(x)
c (L>X>LC) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (28)
c&2
The location of maximum drill-pipe bending stress is located
within the uncontact portion of the drill pipe, and is also
determined by:
L~=~WCtZ&) . . . . . . . .. _. . .._ ,.. .,. .. (29)
c
The corresponding maximum drill-pipe bending stress is:
O* = y[c!ccos(kLm) + s#rl(kLm)-q] . . . . . . . . . (30)
Fig. 3 shows the maximum bending curvature (stress) for 3 fi-
inch drill pipe in an 18-degll 00-fl build section of the wellbore,
as a function of the axial compressive load. It is predicted by
using the above derived equations. The maximum bending
curvature (stress) first increases as the axial compressive load
increases, and then decreases a little bit in the point contact
period, and increases again with a lower rate in the arc contact
period. It is also shown that the maximum bending curvature of
the drill pipe is about21 deg/100 ft at zero axial load, larger than
the wellbore curvature of 18 deg/100 tl. This is because of the
etlkct ofdrill-pipe weight on drill-pipe bending.
Fig. 4 shows the location of the maximum bending curvature
(stress) and the location of the contact point (or the contact
boundary for the arc contact condition) of Fig. 3. For an axial
compressive load less than 3,800 lbf, there is no drill-pipe tube
contact to the wellbore wall, and the maximum bending curvature
(stress) occurs at the middle of drill-pipe length ( 15 ft away from
the joints). The point contact is developed as the axial compres-
sive load exceeds 3,800 Ibf. Although the location of the contact
point is always at the middle of the drill-pipe length ( 15 ft away
fkom the joints) in the point contact period, the location of
maximum bending curvature (stress) moves away into the
uncontact portion. For the axial compressive load beyond 18,000
Ibf, the arc contact is developed, where a portion of drill pipe
3
contacts the wellbore wall and the contact point (boundary)
. . . . . (25)
location moves away from the middle of drill-pipe length. The
location of maximum bending curvature (stress) keeps moving
away from the middle of drill-pipe length. The location of
maximum bending curvature (stress) moves away from the middle
c ,1 @
of drill-pipe length after the drill-pipe tube contact is developed,
~(26)
2 because the drill pipe cannot deflect any more at the contact point
which acts as a new supporting boundary, resulting in the further
deflection of drill pipe in the uncontact portion.
Fig. 5 shows two more bending curvature (stress) curves
beside the maximum bending curvature for the case of Fig.3. The
bending curvature (stsess) at the tool joints decreases and becomes
negative as the axial compressive load increases. The bending
curvature (stress) at the contact point location is the maximum
bending curvature (stress) when the point contact first occurs,
and decreases in the point contact period, until the arc contact
is developed. After the arc contact is developed where the
middle portion of drill pipe contacts the wellbore wall, the
bending curvature (stress) of the arc contact point remains the
same as the wellbore curvature ( 18 deg/100 fl).
Fig. 6 shows the bending curvature distributions in half of the
drill-pipe length for different axial compressive load levels. The
other half of drill-pipe length will have the same distribution due
to the symmetry of the bending. It shows that for the calculated
situation: (I) the bending curvature decreases in the portion of
drill pipe near tool joints as the axial load increases, (2) the
bending curvature at the middle point of drill-pipe length ( 15-R
location) also decreases atler the tube contact is developed, and
(3) the maximum bending curvature moves from the middle point
of drill-pipe length ( 15-R location) into the uncontact portion after
the tobe contact is developed.
Fig, 7 shows the calculated total bending energy stored in the
&ill pipe according to the bending curvature along the drill pipe.
It shows that the total bending energy keeps increasing as the axial
load increases, although the maximum bending curvature (stress)
may decrease in the point contact period (see Fig. 3). For
example, the total bending energy at 5,000Ibf axial compressive
load is larger than that at 3,800 Ibf axial compressive load,
although the maximum bending curvature (stress) at 5,000 Ibf
axial compressive load is smaller than that at 3,800 Ibf axial
compressive load (see Fig. 3). This result helps to confirm and
validate the above bending analysis of drill pipe.
Fig. 8 is a comparison of the above derived solution of drill-
pipe bending with a previous one5 for 3%-inch drill-pipe in a
4deg/100-tl build section of the wellbore. It shows that the above
new derived solution has the same curve feature as the previous
one. However, the new derived solution moves Ieftward from the
previous one. This is because the drill-pipe weight per unit length
is considered in deriving the new solution, while it was neglected
by the previous solution. The drill-pipe weight contributes to the
drill-pipe bending in the build section of the wellbore, resulting
in a larger maximum bending curvature in the no contact period,
and causes an earlier occurrence of the drill-pipe tube contact to
the wellbore wall.
197
 4 JIANG WU
Dril14ipe Fatigue
When rotary drilling a horizontal well, the rotation of drill pipe
in the build section of the wellbore results in a cyclic or alterna-
tingbending stress in drill pipe. This cyclic or alternating bending
stress can cause the fatigue damage to the drill pipe. Fi .9 shows
$ 2. Drill-pipe fatigue damage prediction for rotary drilling
a typical drill-pipe S-N curve for Grade-E drill pipe . The S-N
curve defines the relationship between the cyclic bending stress
and the rotating cycle before fatigue failure. When the cyclic or
alternating bending stress is below the fatigue endurance limit,
no fatigue damage would occur and drill pipe can theoretically
rotate infinitely. When the cyclic or alternating bending stress
exceeds the fatigue endurance limit, drill-pipe fatigue damage
occurs and the drill pipe can only rotate a limited time before total
fatigue failure. The higher the cyclic bending stress than the
fatigue endurance limit, the lower the cyclic or rotating number
that the drill pipe can stand before the fatigue failure. The axial
load (mean stress) and the drilling fluid may affect the S-N curve6
but will not be discussed here.
Using the above derived equations, the drill-pipe tube contact
status and maximum bending stress can be accurately calculated
and used to predict the drill-pipe fatigue damage. These equations
have been incorporated into a DEA-44 PC Windows computer
program6 for easy use by field engineers. This computer program,
DPLIFE, has predicted good correlations to Marathons field
experience on rotary drilling of short-radius horizontal wells,
where drill-pipe failure was encountered afler drilling four short-
radius wells. Fig. 10 is an example output graph of the program
showing the cumulative fatigue damage of a 5500-ft drill string
for rotary drilling a medium-radius horizontal well (45-deg/l 00-tl
build rate). About 20%.of fatigue life of Grade-G 3%-in. drill pipe
is consumed for rotary drilling the 1200-tl horizontal section
below the build section. The rotating speed and drilling penetra-
tion rate are assumed to be 40 RMP and 40 fVhr.
Before the drill-pipe contacts to the wellbore wall, the maxi-
mum bending curvature (stress) increases as the axial compressive
load increases. In the point contact period, the maximum
bending curvature (stress) decreases. The maximum bending
curvature (stress) increases again in the arc contact period. The
lower bending curvature (stress) in the point contact period
means a longer rotating time can be achieved comparing with the
no contact period. Fig. 11 is an example of total rotating cycle
for 3%-in. drill pipe in an 18-deg/100-fl build section predicted
by DPLIFE program. Before the drill pipe contacts the wellbore
wall, the rotating time decreases quickly below 40,000,000 cycles
as the axial compressive load increases to 3,800 lbf. The rotating
time is then increased to more than 90,000,000 cycles as the axial
compressive load increases to 10,000 Ibf in the point contact
period, The rotating time decreases again as the axial compressive
load increases fi,srtberand develops the arc contact.
The weight of drill-pipe also affects the drill-pipe bending
stress and fatigue calculation. Fig. 12 shows the total rotating
cycles of drill pipe with and without the pipe weight being
considered. When the drill pipe is ignored, the drill-pipe contact
to wellbore wallis delayed, and the predicted rotating cycle (time)
could become totally different from that with the pipe weight
being considered.
198
SPE 37353
Conclusions
1. Drill-pipe bending analysis under axial compressive load
condition and in the build section of the wellbores is improved
by considering the pipe weight and the tube contact to the
wellbore wall.
medium/short-radius horizontal wells is improved by using the
new drill-pipe bending solutions.
3. The new drill-pipe bending solutions are easy to incorporate
into a computer program, like the DPLIFE program, to quick] y
predict and monitor the permissible build rate, cumulative
fatigue damage, and total rotating time before failure.
4. Maximum &]ll-pipe bending stress and fatigue damage can
be reduced by operating under the drill-pipe point contact
condition.
5. A drill-pipe failure after drilling four short-radius horizontal
wells has been accurately predicted by the PC program DPLIFE,
using the new drill-pipe bending solutions.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Maurer Engineering Inc. for
permission to publish this paper, and to thank the participant
companies of the joint-industry project DEA-44 for sponsoring
this work.
Nomenclature
c. wellbore build rate or dogleg severity,
rad.lin.
cc = parameter from pipe bending curvature
at the tool joint, rad./in,
co = pipe bending curvature at the tool joints,
rad,fin.
Dj = drill pipe tool-joint outer diameter, in.
drill-pipe tube outer diameter, in.
f?:
F=
Youngs modulus, psi
axial compressive load, Ibf
I= moment of inertia, in.4
L= half-length of one joint of drill pipe, in,
LC = arc contact boundary location mea-
sured from tool joints, in.
Lm = maximum bending location measured
from tool joints, in.
q= parameter from drill pipe effective
weight, rad./in.
so = shear load at tool joints, Ibf
so = parameter from shear load at tool joints,
rad./in.
we = drill pipe effective weight, lb/in.
e= wellbore inclination, degrees
~b = drill-pipe maximum bending stress, psi
References
1. Lubinski, A.: Maximum PermissibleDogleg in Rotary
Borehole, Journal of Petroferm Technology,February
(1961).
SPE 37353 Drill-PipeBendingand Fatiguein RotaryDrillingof HorizontalWells

2, Lubinski,A.: Fatigue of Range 3 Drill Pipe, Revue

LInst. Francais du Petrole, March (1977).
3, Hansford, J.E., and Lubinski, A.: Effects of Drilling
Vessel Pitch or Roll in Kelly and Drill Pipe Fatigue,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, January (1964).
4. Hansford, J.E., and Lubinski, A.: Cumulative Fatigue
Damage of Drilling Pipe in Dog-Legs, Journal of
Pefroleum Tec/rno/ogy, March (1966).
5. Paslay, P.R and Cernocky, E. P.: Bending Stress
Magnification in Constant Curvature Dogleg with
Impact on Drill String and Casing,s SPE Paper 22547,
Sixty-Sixth Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of SPE, Dallas, Texas, October ( 1991).
6. Wu, J.: Drill-Pipe Fatigue in Rotary Drilling Horizon-
tal Wells, paper presented at the Energy Week Confer-
ence & Exhibition, Houston, Jan. 29Feb. 2 (1996).
Fig. 2Drill-pipe bending model under axial compressive
7. Schuh, F.J.: The Critical Buckling Force and Stresses load.
for Pipe in Inclined Curved Borehole, paper (SPE/
IADC 21942) presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, March 1I- 14 (199 I).
8 API RP 7G: Recommended Practicefor Drill Stern and
Design and Operating .Lirnifs, 14th Edition, August
3,S-llP (13.3 Itdft), 6 TJ, 2L = 30 tt DL=IS da@100fi
(1990).
aa

: 10 M8K SOnding Curvature

I
,+, :y-y
& t No cotict . . . . . Wellbore Cumtum

--
L+
\\
1, Mm LWIWHW ;
\, Mel cornpraaanm load, Ibf

>\\
-1
----I Fig. 3 Drill-pipe bending curveturektress vs. sxial load.
Wdtlcn \, : F,

Todjurd

(a) No tube-contact (b) Point tube=ontact

3.6 0P [13.3Mt),STJ,2L20 t OL-lC da@100ft
~.rzol )

Poird mnbct Am Cciltalx I

,.
.
. -.
.. . .
N -: . . . . . -+-
\,, ------- . ------ ------
...
\,
I
M COflmA . . . . . . Max. band@ Ietion

Cwtacl pm hr.atmn I
z o~
o lom2#323m)4cm3 xmJ -
(c) Aretube+ontact Aualcorrrpraaatw Ie9d Ibf

Fig. 1-Drill-pipe bending status as axial compressive load

increases. Fig. 4-Drill-pipe stationary and first contact locations vs.
axial load.

199
 6 JIANG WU SPE 37353

3.6- DP [1%3 Ihfft). 6 TJ, 2L = 30 ft. DL4 dq/100ft

~:3. - ----- ;

?0+ POinlCOobd Ammnkl i .- .

20 p ?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I
: z
10A RAD

1--- I
Mu tii~ IOmibm a
10
--- -Todjdntbcdkm 8 ~ l.!3J-
- . .: Tub Unltsding
o i-- -.=.: ----- .c-anfApG4ntbuum
$
,0=
~
# l.oc- . ; - >
- ---- d Newsolution
\, ----6

.10+ No COIIWI
---
--- ._-!
--
lj mx2 +
. . . . . . PreviouS SoMon

I mm ~-----------------
2 -204
0.00 5m 10.03 1Sal 20.03
0 lccmzumxcalaxn -Slm
Dimentii axialbad, Fa*(L2)/(4El)
iwal Carlprssaiva Iced, M
Fig. S-Comparison of two solutions.
Fig. 6-Drill-pipe banding cunmturelstrsee VS. axial load.

3.6. OP (1S.3 IIMR),6 TJ, 21 = S0 I! M-18 dwM06fll

25-
S - N Curve (steel drltlplpe, grade E)
80T
a2- -
/, ..

15

---- F=olbr
10
r-3,@o Ibr(m0mtdl
----- .P=lO.~lbf [pOintcOnl@
5 ---- r-m#om M(arGcati*

~ 101 No Fatiguo damage

o 3 6 9 12 15 01: -~
L- ftwn tod-joht R tm Im lm 1000OO lwmw 1507 lm
l%voMions to failure
Fig. 6-Drill-pips banding curvature distributions,

Fig. 9-S-N curve of grade-E drill pipe.

3d- W (13.SMl), 6- TJ, 2L = $0 R, OL=lB dq/100R Consumed Drillstring Life (cumulative)

370
25

20

CoNunted
15 - --
Drillstring
Life, %
10

5 .- .-

3C0
0
0 lCOJ2W030Xl W5W06MKI
o 3,s00 5,m 1O,ao 1s,020 a),cm
DrillstringMcawrsmmtl%om
S*, fl

Fig. I&Fatigue damage of drill-pipe for rotary drilling a

Fig. 7Total stored bending energy VS. axial load. horizontal wall.
 SPE 37353 Drill-Pipe Bending and Fatigue in Rotary Drilling of Horizontal Wells 7

$6 * [13.3 Wft), 6- TJ, 2L = 20 R. M=lS d@#lODR

1~ ~ -

Q +...- ; I
o Xm Iamlsomximalm 3xm
Mel aomfxeaaMsbal, M

Fig. 1lRotating cycles for total fatigue failure.

$.6 W (1M lbllIi, 6 TJ, 2L=30 it DL=lB dar@Oit

Iw T-~-- I
I

ml

m+

434

m with pip~ht
-----.wiftKdpipawai@4
o Im- ~+- +-
0 lalm15m12am25moxm3
AM canpraa@va bad, Ibf

Fig. 12-Comparison of rotating cycles for total fatigue

failure with and without pipe weight.