-fspg~;q~t-

-,

l.,

.,

DRILL

PIPE

The Design and Performance Characteristics of

Aluminum Drill Pipe
.
t?,G, BOICE

.,

R. S, DALRYMPLE

REYNOLDS MS7ALS CO.

RICHMOND, VA.

Abstract
This paper outlines the approach atz~ solutions to the
problems associated with - the design and deve!optnent of
aluminum as a drill stem. for rotary drilling. A current

field history on tdumitsutn as a drilling tool is included

to assist the reader in judging the selection of engineering compromises [n the light of present field performance and to acquaint the reader with. the present status of
aluminum dril! stetn in the drilling art.
Following proof of satisfactory operation of the first
cduminum drill string; 25, more strings (ske TabIe 1] have
~gone into. worldwide operational ttse. A study ,of their
performance indicates: (1) no operational disadvantages,
(2) compatibility
wfth. present drilling muds, (3J mlxedstring operat(onir are successful, (4) hand and power slips
are operational{ (5) .no failures in the tool-joint area, (6)
tioproblems it? fishing or other special USCS,(7) normal
wear on. pipe body comparable to steel and (8) less than
t~rmal wear on tool jo[nts.
I
These facts about the. present operational status of
alutnin?tni drill pipe de-mcmstrate that successful drilling
tools can be designed and constructed of aluminum. Field
and laboratory studies are continuing in order to improve
and expand the u,ve of aluminum jor.drill pipe.

Introduction

transfer of stresses and a satisfacto~y fatigue life. This

and other design and performanc~ considerations are dealt
with in this report.
After the development of a satisfactory aluminum drill
pipe it was necessary to demonstrate the eeonomic advantage of this tool, This too has been accomplished and
data are available to show the competitive position of
aluminum drill pipe.
Acceptance of ahsminum drill pipe is attested to by
demonstrated success i and by re-orders by present users:
Five users have purchased their second strings of aluminum drilI pipe. One user has purchased his fourth string.
Statement of Theory

If aluminum could be successfully fabricated into dependable dr~ll stem, the advantages of this light material
should reduce drilling costs. A few of the readily apparent
areas of improved economy are: (1) rig investment, (2)
transportation, (3) wireline life, (4) hoisting fuel savings
and ~(s) hoisting time reduction.

On the theory that aluminum drill pipe would lower

dr~lling costs, a project was initiated about 14 years ago,

,.

TABLE
length
(ftl

1REYNOLDS

DRILL

STRINGSJULY

1, 1963

mn~cw:

L%h
locatlm
WNe%
To make functional drill pipe from aluminum required
,
41/..1.
F+t)-, ...,..
,r.
more than a casual selectior, of engineering compromises.
from: Texas. Cal If,
9,890
148,361
15
The target was a d@ling tool that would substantially
4,620
106,2S0
23
i:
6,350
Okla.
10)::;
16
meet the physical characteristics of Grade E steel drill
Chile
6,563
::
pipe but, if possible, also incorporate the many desirable
9,550
N.E, Texas
!4
3s:254
6S,000
N.Z. Texas
8,500
8
.2
characteristics found in low-allov steel drill Ltiue(Grade D)
;
Alberta, Canada
4,500
36,176
7.
Alberta, Camda
4,650
56,583
1!
such as toughness, concentric w%ar,and, low embrittlement
~1/2
N.E. Texas, Calif.
1 S,po
19,:00
t;
.
,
rate.
,.
-.,W
8,550
N .E , Texas
9
11.
11,620
77,000
It was recognized early in the aluminum drill pipe proLa., Miss.
5
12,300,
61,634
72,
12,000
Ok&OmO
39,013
3,900
gram that aluminum alloys could not be beat utilized in a
,, IS.
,~~::,
11;355
1 T ,:55
14.
,!
Mont.
15,000
15,
S:olo
dbsign that copied the then available steel driil pipe. It
Ulnh
1;:*
9,f70
16,
4,020
*.
was necessary to balance the design, alloy choice, spength,
.*
CaI if.
.5,010
17,
4,55s
7,020
1
18.
corrosion
and, wear resistance of aluminum
alloys into a
N. Okla.
57,351
7,:90
4,740
workable tool, one. ctspable of sustainigg_the; spe$ses ~f, ~
~o.. _._u,s~o. ~.-z#.l.?.o.
_ -1&l,: 10,OSO..._. N$,
rotary diiilhi-gr -
-
4.in. PiOe
MIs.:,

5,950
113,427
19
application of steei tool jaints to aluminum pipe
,21, 11?5z0
The

!J1~.1.
pipe
posed many problems in ofder to achieve a satisfactory,
,, 2Z
Colo.

19.

.roxm

. .

OrfginsS manuscript received fn Soelety of Petroleum Engineers oflh?e

Aug. S,. 1963. Revieed manuscript received Oct. 80, 106S. Paper me.
sented at SPE FsL1 Meting held h New Orleans, Ott, 6.9, 196$.

23:.
24.
&

7,020
7,500
6,000
1$:;$
,

20:,:S7;
5:800
.*

~33
*

,,-~
.*

6,100
*
:

.,.

La., Miss., Tex.

SWdl Arabia
Aleska
Cqllf.
Uhzh

-.

,/

which has today progressed to a point of full-scale magnLtude throughout the world,
Acturil field operation (25 strings) ot ahvninum drill
pipe has brought to light other advantages and savings
which were not apparent at the outset: 2 (1) pipe maintenance and life, (2) drilling fuel, (3) tool joint life, (4)
pumping fuel, (.5) safety and (6) less flow resistance in
annuhts.
Description of Test Eqsdpmetit
Fsstigue Test
A rotating,

cantilever betun-type fatigue test tnachinc

is maintained in the Reynolds Richmond, Vs., laboratories for full-scale fatigue testing of drill p~pe and drill
pipe-tool joint assemblies. The machine has a drive
mechanism in the head which provides a controlled continuous rotation.
A deflecting mechanism is located approximately 7 ft
,from the head and is equipped with rollers to provide rotating support of the test section. The machine is capable
of subjecting a test specimen to a bending moment of
200,000 in.-lb during a typical test. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the test machine.
Tension and Torsion Test
A, combirai?ion, tension

and. torsion testing machine is

maintained at the Reynolds Extrusion Milt in Phoenix,
Ariz., for testing full-scale specimens of various shapes,.
including drill pipe with tool joints. The machine is sxtpable of a 750,000-lb tensiIe pull, and the heads can be
rotated 3600 in either direction. Fig. 2 shows a sketch of.
the arrangement,.
Application of Test E&ipm
*

Fntigue Testing

has been developed in the fatigue

testing of hand-applied tool joints on steel pipe to provide
good fatigue life pnrameters. Most of the tests on the 41.4
in, steel drill pipe were run at 300 rpm under a bending
Sufficirmt

background

lRefevences given 21L end of p,auer.

,

COLLiR
TOOL

JOINT>

DRILL PIPE>

MECHANISM
80~

I
-+&

I
I
.!

F-ig. lDrill

pipe assembly fatigue testmachine.

MOTORS & WORM GEARS
FOR ROTATING HEADS

.!

HYDRAULIC
TENSION

~YL[NDER

.-

,
{

TOOL

DRILL

Tension and Torsion Test

The background ,dftensile t&thtg on 4~z in. Grade E

pipe indicates an average value of 450,000 to 500,000
lb. Aluminum drill pipe shows an average tensiie strength
of 488,000 lb, ranging from 473,000 to 503,000 lb in
eight joints selected at random from production prior to
release of the first string. Tests were made which put
the, tension load through the tool joint assembly. FuII.
length joints were u~ed (30 ft). No failures occurred in or
near the. tool. joint area. The break areas ranged from
4 1/3 to 9 ft from the end of the joint. The test was
made by gripping the ,outside of the tool joints. The tensile
load did not pass through the working, connections of the
joints.
) Very limited torsion test data on steel drill pipe were
available for comparison.
A field specimen with a service history of 148,000 ft
of hole was given an initial tensile pull of 150,000 lb
aft er which one emi was rotated 180 clockwise with respect to the opposite end. N.o failure occurred. The torque
was then backed off to 120 displacement and the tension
test continued to a tlnai pLdi of 365,000 lb, at which
point a typical tension break occurred in the body, of the
pipe. These tests dramatically illustrate the tough tension
and torsion properties of aluminum drill stem, in the Particular design, and its ability to accept abuse.
Design

,.

moment of 1S0,000 in.-lb to produce a bending stress of

about 35,000 psi at the base of the upset, The deflection of
41/2-in, stee] pipe with a lever arm length of 80-in. iS about
7/s -in. which is maintained during rotation. Exprience
with
Grade E drill pipe and hand-applied tool joints indicate
an average fatigue life of 400,000 to 600,000 turns or
cycles.
Today, aluminum drill pipe specimens give long consistent runs in the million cycle range with. test specimens
selected at random from production. Breaks usually OCcur 4 to 36 in. from the tool joint, which indicate maximum efficiency of the tool joint-drill pipe assembly.
The tests on 41X-in, aluminum pipe are also run at
300 rpm under a bending moment of 150,000 in.-lb which
produces a bending stress of about 16,000 ,Psi at the end
of ihc tool joint shoulder. The deflection of the 41A-in.
aluminum is double that of steel or about 13A in. for a Iever
arm length of 80 in, and a 150,000 in.-lb moment. This
points up the fact that the aluminum drill pipe can deflect about twice as much as steel driIl pipe and still be
, within safe stress limits,
,
,,

TOOL
\

Fig. ZDrill pipe assemldy tension imd torsion testing.

Objectives

Initial design objectives for alumisium drill stem contemplated physical characteristics comparable to GrtRie E
drill pipe. The design should be compatible With present
rig practices, drilling methods, fishing operations, drilling
fluids and all other well drilling operatiofis.
Phase One
,.
1, To prevent compounding the problems associated
.
with the irstroduotion, of a new product, a decision was ~
made to provide steel tool joints with API working con;
nections for the aluminum drili pipe. It was aiso assuthed

. th.at.;@gE,@@bJg.rns~oV~!ved
.~m.!b~.gPP!ica!iOn..qC.9Ygi!?hl$. ., ;,...
steel tool joints .to ahsm~num drif.1.pipe would be easier
.
and quicker to solve than the development of new types,
t
for example, aluminum )001jtipt% .
2. lf possible, the field application and remotial fea;

tures of present hand-applied .~ool ,joint designs would bc

..
retained.
.

&

,.

.
,,,

,,

,.

3. It would also be destrable to provide a design which

would be compatible with present field methods of hardbanding.
4. The first phase of the development program was
on 41%-in. cfrill pipe. Upon successful completion of this
work, 3 Y2- and 4-ki. drill pipes were designed and field
tested.
5, Due to the increased popularity of the internalflush drill pipe, all design considerations evolved around
the external upset configuration. Selection of this type of
heavy end would also provide better iinherent properties
for the solution of slip placement, tool joint application
and fatigue problems,
6. Because of the recent interest in the subject of annulus flow, external ,streamlining around the tool joint assembly was a part of the design? although not mandatory,
and certainly not at the expense of other more important
design considerations?
.

the design of aluminum tool joints or other methods of

joining the aluminum drill stem.
6. Development of the internal upset pipe to be fabricated into 4M - and 5-in. full-hole and extra-hole drill
pip? types,
Data available today indicate that all of the initial design objectives have now been reached with a minimum
amount of diversion fr.m the original concept,
Fig. 3 shows present pipe (A), tool joint assembly (B)
and complete drill pipe joint (C). One of the second design objectives has been completed, that of the bore coating for aluminum drill pipe and the formal @ering of
, the 51%-in, size to the trade is in the immediat~ future.
Also, soon to be announced, and to be available to the
trade, is a new and impfoved inspection method designed
for use on aluminum drill pipe in the field. Other second
phase design objectives are in process,
,
.

Phase Two

Pres@Xion

The secmtd-phase design objectives, depending on initial phase findings, included the following.
1. The development ~f a bore coating for aluminum
drill pipe, (The same methods and processes which have
been successful for bore coating steel pipe were not compatible with aluminum.)
2. The development of larger sizes of dr,ill pipe,
namely S, 5% and 6% in.
3. Consideration of a drill pipe size below ~% in.
4, Development of field inspection methods for ahtminum drill pipe.
5. Development of the all-aluminum strin~, leading to

.,

1-. I

of Design Development

?, .; I

Alloy Sekxtion

Initial studies of alloys for aluminum drill pipe led to

the se[ection of alloys 6061, 2014 and 7075 as possibili-
ties, with final selection depending on laboratory and engineering studies in conjunction with proposed tool-jc?int
developments. Typical tensile strengths are shown on Fig.
4. Fig. 5 compares strength-section properties.
The alIoy 6061 was eliminated early in the program
since engineering studies indicated the physical properties
of this alloy would dictate very heavy sections. Alloys
2014 and 7075 were carried through laboratory studies,
prototype and ffeId developments in various cordlgurations,
leading to a final conclusion and selection of 2014-T6 as
being the most suitable aluminum alloy for fabrication of
aluminum drill pipe at this time.
J
Principal among. the factors leading to this decision was
the fact that fatigue endurance of 707S-T6 alloy, as reported, in AN C:5 (see Fig, .6) was slightly inferior to
2014-T6 in complete stress reversals at 500 million cycles,
showed a wider and mdre uncontrolled scatterband of resi.dts, equal-to-inferior fatigue properties in ptill-pull fatigue and definitely inferior properties at elevated tempera-

..

.,-g.
,1-.,

ULTIMATE

TENSILE

STRENGTH

.,
.

.-,

1~

;;1
.:_,._.
,.-... ..

-,

.3. . .. .

1707

,.

,.

>,

. Fig. 3-Ckoss-sectional

..

views of drill pipe: (lef&) pipe extruded and machined, (center tool joint assembiy~
(right) completed joint of niumimsm drill pipe.

nwrm~new
-4..-H-.

T06*.

rig... 4-4Jnit tensile propertied.

.

-,

.
,:-.
. . .-.

-=

-.,
.

. . ..

.--.{:

. . .. . . ..

... ---:..

: :

.,,

,.~..

. .. . . . . .
:>

:.

. ...

.
.;.,.;

. :.

. . . .. .

..-= .:

.- . .-.-.

.. -..--..-+
. .. . ,-.,
_,..
.

.,

.
,.
.

.. . .
---

.;,

:.:.

..-..

~,
----

.-

.
,.

.,

,.
-.

..-.

. .

. .

..--.

-. ~...-

.:----

...:.

,.

:.. !
... . . ... .:.

.. -., ..

-.

,
-!

,,

-.

-------

.,

~,
,.
tages of the lighter 707$T6 section at elevated temp&atures, A slight amount of body wear will substantially reduce the tensile strength, itxernsl pressure capacity, collapse pressure, torsional strength and column strength
(see Figs. 10,11,12 and 13).

In matching the physical strength of Grade E with the

2014-T6 alloy, a design was developed which provides a
relatively thick wall section, thus allowing a substantial
amount of wear before a serious reduction in the strength
.,

tures (Figs. 7 and 8). Of almost equal consideration were

to stress corrosion
notch sensitivity and susceptibility
cracking

in

the

full

section

(both

fact~rs

being

to 2014-T6 than 7075-T6).

favorable

more

Design of Pipe Body

Although 7075-T6

alloy

displays

a higher

unit strength

than 2014-T6, it does not follow that this factor would

provide advantages in a drill-pipe design of 7075-T6 alloy
intended to have physical characteristics similar to Grade
E. To match the physical characteristics of Grade E with
the 7075-T6 alloy dictates a body cross section comparable
to Grade E. The resulting relatively thin wall greatly influences rMll pipe life. Fig. 9 clearly Ulustratq the dkadvan-

.,

.yJTKJN

ARSA

O.D. INS

I.D. INS.

4,540

6.440

4+407

4.625

4.600

4.500

3.951

3/500

3.S26

TENSION
YIELD-15.

319,000

373,000

330,000

ULTIMATE-LB.

363,000

412,000

440,000

. . . .

4ss,000

490,000

396,000
. ..
.

372,000

ACTUAL-LS.

TORSION
YIELD-IN-LB

363,000

-J__

i#7%mTHm

Fig. 5Strength-section comparison.

--~;r

.0

.200

.,
F;g. 2--Effeet

o
.
%
g 20

v)

300

400

500

F.

,Temperature,

of temperature on moduIus of elasticity.

,
J

d
10

0
10

10

104

105

10

1(7

lo

10

Cycles

-.
$/(AREA-6.4405.ci. !n.1~

.-

Fig. &Rotatlng-beam
fatigue stren th of sharply notched
round specimens 2014-T6 an J 7075.T6 alloys
(ANG5, March, 1961).
~

~
.:

225,000.

7075-T15
.,,,,
(AREA
.,,,,,, 4.54sq.lrl.
!., ..,,,..,, .

.1
.

.,

Temperature,

..

Fig. 7-Strength

.:, _,:
.-.

.. :;.-.:

., ..

;. ..

:. ----- ...-.:- . ....

. .

.. __:: .
.

. . .. .

. ... .

...

. .,..

. ... ----

r.

Fig. 9Teneile yield ioade at elevated temperatures of

2014.T6 and 7075-T6 4$@n. altdnum drill pipe.

at temperatur~2014-T6
and 7075-T6
alloys, exposure 1,000 hours (ANG5, Match, 1961).

-.

I emperarure,

..p

..:,._

..

. .

:..-.:.

_-...

-.

.
.

,,

-.

,--

of the drill pipe occurs. The thick wall rdso provides a

substantial advantage regarding buoyancy as illustrated in
Fig. 14, which compmes 2014 and Grade E in various
sizes,
Furthermore, the Wick-wall aluminum dr~l pipe design
displays stretch characteristics similar to Grade E drill pipe.
Even though the unit stretch of 4%-in, aluminum pipe
is 0.16 in./1,000 ft~1,000 lb of load compared to 0.08 in.
for Grade E drill pipe, the difference in buoyancy effect

in the drilling fluid produces the same stretch for Grade

E or aluminum drill pipe in a 7 lb/gal fluid (64 in. for
a 10,000 ft string). Comparing 10,000 ft strings in a 10
lb/gal mud would show a theoretical stretch of 5 ft for
Grade E and less than 2Y2 ft~for aluminum,
Desigh of Pipe Ends

On the basis of these and contingent factors, the d?ill

program was based on the use of 2014-T6 alloy.
The standard extrusion process, normally employed for

pipe

0,000

9,000
8,000
a
;

7,000
Z
.$
& 6,000

5,0000

>.
.....
.....

.050
Pipe Body

biameter

Reduction,

in.

Fig. 10Tensile yield !oad as function of pipe.

wall wear reduction.

.,.

Pipe

.100

Body

,Diameter

.150

.200

Reduction

.250
in.

.,,

Fig. 12Resistanc6 to collapse of drill pipe

as function of pipe :body wear.

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000
,

6,000
.y ..-

.-.

.-

.5,0000
.,

1-
I

.-...
.150
.200 ,25(J
Pipe Body Diameter Reduction, in,

.s

.050, .100

Fig. 1lInternal yielding pr&sure of drill pipe

as function of pipe.~ody wear.

Pipe

Body Diameter Reduction, in; ,

Fig. l+Tarsionnl

pipe+all

yield strength aE function of

wear reduction.

,
.

.-

.,

30

1: ..:.:

3
:2

57 , G,ade

+y-.

E SI.A-2

1.90 (22.9 lb/fi

4% Grade E Steel-16.60 [1 7.9 lb/ft }

4 Grade E Steel-1 4.00 II 5.6 lb/ft 1
3W Grade E Steel-1 3.90 II 3.8 lb/ft I

- ~-:

~:~

1
0

t
!1
48121620

. . ..--. .. . . . .

27,. Grade ESI,+1O.4O[10.9

kdft )

1
Includes TQOI Joints

Mud Weight-lb/ed

Fig.

14-Buoyrmcy

of aluminum and
weight per foot.

steel drill

pipe,

fabrication of aluminum pipe, ww modified to produce a

thick wall at the pipe ends and a th,inner wall in the midsection of the drill pipe. These variations in wall thickness
do not involve forge upsetting or other metal working operations that might induce metallurgical or structuralfi
changes in the drill pi~e.
Laboratory Development of Designs

The modified extrusion process for producing heavyend pipe was preceded by many other forms of aluminum
drill pipe. First attempts comprised API 8-round-threads
on plain-end aluminum pipe. A short test string was fabricated. in this manner and tested in the field, providing
some favorable insight into the future possibllititi of ahtminurn as a drill string. More strength was found necessary
for the tool joint area than could be ~btained by the use
of straight-wall pipe, One ~arly attempt to design a- pipe
end reinforcement consisted of, an aluminum sleeve in
combination with plain-end pipe.
Several versions of these composite pipe ends were
prepared, tested and abandoned. Other designs took the
form of composite pipe ends in conjunction with plastic
attachments for the end sleeves and tool joints. None of
these, designs was found satisfactory so other methods
were considered.
A method of formigg hot upsets was deveIoped which
provided a thick-&ti portion for ~ol joint attachment.
Tool joints were developed for this type of pipe and tested in the laboratory. The results looked encouraging and
a 2,500 ft test string was fabricated. This method and
design was abandoned after field failures developed. The
trouble was finally diagnosed as inconsistencies in the
upset ends, and no immediate solution appeared to be
availabIe for correction of the trouble. Additional design
modifications were also indicated in the. tool joint and
attachment area. These tests led to the development of
the h~vy-end extrus;on process which proved to be the
answer.
.
..=
Tire heavy-end extrusion process provided pipe which
...-.+.=.P.r.wA@ I@e @@s@@!afigW p@i3e!!i~sz?x<g!!ent Joy! ,
joint tittachment possibilities, good design prospeets-regarding stress transfer and p~ovided an easy means of handling. the pipe with slips. F6110wing each series of fatigue
tests,.chang~ were made in the tool joint and/or attach,.
ment assembly and a new series of tests run to determine
, the degree of improvement.

Step by step, in this manner, the fatigue life of aluminum drill pipe and tool joint assemblies was increased
until it matched and then exceeded the fatigue life of
steel pipe. The tests compared aluminum drill, pipe and
steel drill pipe run under the same bending load, but it
is to be recalled thit the aluminum deflects about twice
as much as the steeL W!~.enthe aluminum pipe is loaded
to deflect only as ml~ch as the steel diill pipe, the fatigue hfe is 5 [0 10. tunes in excess of steel pipe ,fatigue
life.
.

Field History

The 25 stririgs now in use have been subjected to a

broad range of operating conditions, as outlined in the
abstract. Most of the strings are used for conventional
rotary drilling. One string is operating exclusively .as a
workover and remedial string. At present, no operational
limitations have been experienced with aluminum drill
pipe.- Some contractors have tested a few joints of
alttrninum drill pipe in a steel string, but the identity and
evaluation of the advantages of aluminum drill stem, cannot be brought to light with this arrangement.
Where contractors have added aluminum drill pipe to
existing steel strings tiley have been able to reach lower
producing zones wfth their present drilling equipment and
with a minimum of new equipment expense. The history
of driiling with mixed strings indicates successful and improved performance. The benefits derived from this type
of operation depend on the compatibility of the mixed
string with the associated drilling and equipment factors.
Experience with mixed strings has emphasized the need
for matched externai tool joint configurations to avoid
loss of time and effort in changing elevators.
:,
Some of the-fbst strings in service (without the benefit
of bore coating), developed moderately severe corrosiork..
erosion attack in the bore. The attack was correlated to
massive additions of caustic to the driliing mud. Operating practices have bem revised in the matter of chemicals.
added to the mud. No pipe has failed in the field from
internal erosion-corrosion.
in generai, low-addition, low pH muds have provide~i
the best performance with aluminum drill pipe to operate
in virtually afl drilling fluids.
In direct contrast to the rapid deterioration of ferrous
materials which generally occurs in the acid fluids, experience so far with aluminum drill pipe in hydrogen
suIfide environment and other acid fluids indicates successful performance.
Even though aluminum driii pipe has been used SUCcessfully in wells which display bottom-hole temperatures
of 279F, it is recommended at this time that long-term
service above 250F be avoided. From Fig. -15 it wiil be
seen that the fatigue endurance limit of 2014-T6 is near
10 million cycles even at a temperature of 300F and,a,
fiber stress of, 16,000 psi. This .is 10 times the laboratory
fatigue requirement for the tool joint assembiy at room
temperature. .,
Th$ heavy:wal~ transition zones have provided good pipe
support in conjunction with both hand and power slip assemblies. Damage to the transition zone by the slips has
not been a problem.

,
.;.
Theje-h;ve
be~h- no- fiiltir=&Y=in
or-neaf-tli~-tool-joint-
1
arka,
.
Straightening of the aluminum drill pipe is riot recommended, nor has it been necessary, Some pipe has been
bowed but, in general, drilling with the pipe in tension
straightens the bowed @pe.

<
.

- --

f
...

,. _ .

-.

.!

,---

,,
J,

~
In
1959 u three-phase piogmm wm planned for extensive field testing of the new tool. The first phase of
the field development was the completion of 100,000 ft
of drilling-and successful operation by a major oil conlpany near Victoria, Tcx. This ,was completed near {the
end of 1961,
The second phase of development called for placement of about 10 strings in the field for further evaluation. The aluminum drillpipe was enthusiastically received
in the field and 21 strings were released instead of the
10planned
for the phase two part of the development
program.
The third and final phase of ahu-ninum drill pipe de-
velopment is prwently under way. M involves the selection . .
and establishment of operation policies and preparation of
..
~dditional. engineering data.
The present phase will provide additional data on
operational questions as the use of aluminum drill pipe
gains favor with operators and contractors.
On the basis of present experience it appears that
aluminum drill pipe is rapidly proving to be one of the .
most efficient and economical drill stems in use. ,

. .-

.!

I 00:000

1,006,000

L500,000,000
10,Od@OO 100,0&I,Of)O

Endurance Limit-Cycles

Fig. 15Fatigue

., >

.m
.

endurance of aluminum drill pipe nlioy

at various temperatures.
.

There have been, no cases of aluminum drill pipe failing

or being damaged on fishing jobs. Fishing tool companies
report the performance of aluminum drill pipe above their i
expectations in e$ery case.
06 one occasion
a fishing tool company
discovered
aluminum
drill pipe on the job when its magnetic free
point indicator failed to work. Mechanical or electric-,
mechanical free point indicators are recommended for
aluminum drill pipe.
So far, there have been no cases .of abnormal pipe body
wear on ahuninum drill pipe. The wear rate appear: to
he comparable to steel. Because of the heavy-wall section
on aluminum pipe, more wear can be accommodated before down-grading,
There seems to be a definite ,trend towards less tool
joint wear. Eight out of 16 rigs show less than average
wear on the tool joints six show average wear and two
show slightly more than average wear by actual con~parative. measurement. So far, no eccetitric. tool joitits
have been observed on aluminum drill pipe.
The lower axial forces, due to the lighter weight of
the aluminum drill pipe, reduce the -contact forces between the tool joint outside diameter ttnd the wall of the
hole, especially thr~ugh the crooked sections, thereby reducing the rate of abrasion on the tool joints. Furthermore, the more resiIient aluminum drill stem negotiates
the crooked sections of the hole with lower deflecting
forces, thtts reducing lateral forces and wear on the tool
, joints. For these. same reasons an aluminum drill stem
requires less torque for rotation and less power for hoistiqg than steel drill pipe.

References ,
1. Economic

Report,

Reynolds- Metals

Co. lufllicat irm 732.1.17

(1962).
2. Carlisle, Jr., M. E.: Cost Analysis of Aluminum I)rill IJipe.,.
Drilling Contractor ( May-Jnne, 196.3).
3. Hutlmance, W. B.: HOW to Minimize Blowouts tmd I.o.t ( lirculation, fVorrM oil ( JaII., 1963 ).
4. Boioe,
-------- E. G.: .-.Report On Use of .41uminum Drill Pipe, World
Ulc ,Liuly, lYbJ ) .
5.What You Shtmld Know About Aluminum Drill Pipe; oil
and fks ]aar. ( ?iIwch 18, 1963).
6. f)rill Pipe Engineering Ihtu.. Reynollfs J[t.tals (k Iuldiru.
tion
732-1-20 ( 1962).
M*

., :

E G. BOICE (right) is a iechoiccd advisor jor peirrdewn

technology in the Errgineering Services Dept. of ReyIIol@
Metals in Richmond, VtI. A mechanical engiizeer, Boice
has been as.vocia~ea with the developnient of ahaninam
clri[l pipe since 1955. R. S. DALRYMPLE (left) is managm
of the Petroleum Technology Div. of Engineering Services
with Reynold,s. A graduate of Washington State U. with a
BS in chemistry, he _has worked with Battelle Memorial
[n,vtitate and General Efecikie.
,

conclusions

As a res~dt of 10 years of laboratory work plus three

years of field history, ahtminum drill pipe in the design
ref&red to has shown excellent, response to drilling demands and requirements as a drill item.

;.

,/

,.
..,_...

.?

,.
..
.

.-=

1
.

. .. . . .
Izv:

:,

.-

.-

.:

..-

..

:..

..
.>