Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

SPE/IADC 119777

Drilling at the LimitCan Your Top Drive Handle It?


Eric Deutsch, WEST Engineering Services

Copyright 2009, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1719 March 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have
not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
As deepwater drilling has advanced, the weight expected to be borne by a top drive has increased to levels at or near the load
rating of the machine. The single load rating number normally associated with a top drive model (e.g. 1000 ton) is a nominal
figure that may not apply to every operating situation. A typical top drive has two main load paths: hoisting and drilling.
Hoisting load passes through the elevators and link hanger, while drilling load passes through the saver sub, IBOPs, and main
shaft bottom end connection. Limitations inherent to rotary shouldered connections can lead to diminished drilling load
capacity vis--vis hoisting. Further complicating matters is the fact that the drilling load path is governed by disparate API
specifications: 7 and 8C. These two specifications provide different calculation guidelines with regard to safety factors and
are subject to a certain amount of interpretation.
The end result is confusion about how much load a top drive can realistically handle. A 1000 ton top drive may not be
officially rated to hoist 1000 tons through its IBOPs. Additionally, API sets forth a different load rating for the swivel
bearing, so load rating for rotation differs from overall top drive load rating. This paper discusses the technical aspects of top
drive load rating and clarifies the usable load capacity of a top drive in real-world conditions.

Introduction
Clarifying top drive load rating requires comprehension of several concepts. First the distinction between hoisting and
drilling load paths must be understood. The hoisting path is relatively straightforward because this path passes through heavy
components and is static. The drilling load path is more intricate and dynamic since it involves rotation. Therefore the
drilling load path shall be studied in depth, from the rotary shouldered connection to the tapered roller thrust bearing.

Top Drive Design and Load Path


A typical top drive with its major load-bearing components is illustrated in Figure 1. The hoisting load path applies when a
load is suspended in the elevators, such as when tripping pipe or running riser. At light load, a suspension system supports
the weight from the pipe handler structure and maintains clearance between the link hanger and main shaft shoulder, allowing
the pipe handler to rotate independently of the main shaft. Above a certain load (a few tons) the link hanger seats on the load
shoulder of the main shaft, thereby transferring load up the main shaft to the main bearing. This hoisting load path comprises
from bottom to top: elevators, links, link hanger, link hanger suspension, load shoulder, main shaft, main bearing, bearing
housing, bail, hook, and traveling block. This load path (governed by API Specification 8C and subject to safety factors
between 2.25 and 3.00 depending on load rating) is normally quite robust because these components can be designed freely.
The drilling load path on the other hand faces a design constraint. Since the top drive must be able to connect and
disconnect with drill pipe and since there are removable components in line with the main shaft such as IBOP valves and
saver subs, threaded joints are necessary. The drilling load path is nearly identical to the hoisting one except for near the
bottom end. Instead of passing through the elevators, links, link hanger, and load shoulder; the load passes through the
threaded connection. Typically this is an API connection with tapered threads designed to quickly mate to the drill string.
API calls these rotary shouldered connections, and they are governed by API Specification 7 and Recommended Practice 7G.
Although tapered threads are among the strongest mechanical design elements available, they are not as strong as solid steel.
Therefore these threaded connections become the weak point in the drilling load path.
2 SPE/IADC 119777

With reference to Figure 1, a boundary line defines the limit between coverage under API Specifications 7 and 8C. This
dividing line is subject to interpretation. It does not make sense to calculate one side of a rotary shouldered connection
according to one standard while calculating the other side of that same connection according to a different standard. Nor
does it make particular sense to design the uppermost thread according to a different standard from all other threads in the
drill string. One reasonable approach is to apply design guidelines and safety factor from API Spec 7 to the rotary shouldered
connections on a top drive. This subject will be explored below in the comparison between specifications 7 and 8C.

Rotary Shouldered Connection Analysis


Since the API threaded connection is the weak point of the drilling load path, its characteristics should be examined in detail.
All threads inherently concentrate stress owing to the notch effect of the thread root. A typical thread used in top drive main
shaft design was analyzed with SolidWorks 3D modeling and simulation software. The simulation package employs linear
finite element method based upon the Cosmos FEA program.
Figure 2 illustrates a stress contour plot that results from analysis of a tapered thread profile. The connection modeled is a
7-5/8 REG API with dimensions from API Specification 7. To simplify the analysis, a 5 degree pie section of the box and
pin is used. Preload is approximated by applying an interference fit at the shoulder contact. The amount of interference is
adjusted iteratively until contact friction torque and contact force correspond to the make-up torque for the connection (in this
case about 75000 ft-lbs). This is a linear elastic analysis, so stress values are not realistic. These stress values are merely for
illustration of the stress concentration effect in the thread.
From the plot a stress peak is evident in the root of the first engaged thread of the pin. In this particular case the stress
rises to 277 ksi, well beyond the yield stress of high strength steel. A more accurate analysis would take material plasticity
into account and the actual stress in the thread root would be much lower. Still, the stress in a highly localized point can
exceed material yield in a normally tightened connection. This is tolerated because the depth of this high stress is extremely
small and the gradient is high, meaning the stress drops off sharply as the point of investigation moves away from the peak
location.
With such a high preload stress, any additional axial stress caused by drill string weight or bending stress caused by slight
misalignment between top drive and well center can adversely affect the connection, especially through fatigue. Bending
stress on the connection during rotation of the drill string leads to alternating stress about the mean stress from preload. Over
millions of cycles, such a stress state can lead to formation and growth of cracks in the pin or box, starting from the root of
that first engaged thread. If such a crack is allowed to propagate unchecked, catastrophic failure of the connection can occur
leading to loss of the drill string.
Whatever the particular stress level, it is apparent that designing a threaded connection to take preload plus axial load and
rotating bending is a challenge. Often it is unrealistic to expect the rotary shouldered connection to carry the same load as
heavy machine elements like link hanger or bail. Threads tend to concentrate stress in the root radius between adjacent teeth.
One remedy is to design custom threaded connections with larger root radius, though deviating from standard API
connections is not generally desirable given the need for industry compatibility. More commonly a stress relief groove is
incorporated at the base of the pin which has the effect of distributing stress and reducing the peak value in the first engaged
thread root. The benefits of stress relief grooves are delineated in API 7G section 13.8.

API Specification 7 versus 8C


With regard to the stress analysis of a rotary shouldered connection, it can be appreciated that applying calculation methods
and safety factors from API 8C make it difficult to achieve a load rating near the hoisting load rating of the top drive.
Section 4.3.4 states: The strength analysis shall be based on elastic theory. The nominal equivalent stress, according to the
Von Mises-Hencky theory, caused by the design load shall not exceed the maximum allowable stress ASmax as calculated by

ASmax = YSmin / SFD

where YSmin is the specified minimum yield strength; and SFD is the design safety factor. Section 4.3.5 goes on to say: An
ultimate strength (plastic) analysis may be performed under any one of the following conditions: a) for contact areas; b) for
areas of highly localized stress concentrations caused by part geometry, and other areas of high stress gradients where the
average stress in the section is less than or equal to the maximum allowable stress as defined in 4.3.4 (API Spec 8C, 4th
Edition, 2003).
Assuming the 7-5/8 REG connection analyzed above is from a 750 ton top drive, the applicable design safety factor is
2.25 and with a material yield stress of 120 ksi, ASmax = 53 ksi. The elastic finite element stress analysis of this connection
under preload alone already demonstrated stress far exceeding 53 ksi. The average stress in the pin cross section based on
torquing the connection to 60% of yield stress as recommended by RP 7G is 72 ksi, also in excess of 53 ksi. Therefore API
RP 7G and 8C are incompatible when applied to this rotary shouldered connection example, and the safety factor specified in
8C cannot be met.
SPE/IADC 119777 3

Even if elasto-plastic stress analysis is used, it is nearly impossible to get the connection in line with API 8C safety factor.
Although the connection is not meant to bear the rated hoisting load, another approach is to apply that load to the pin cross
section. Then the average pin stress is 1,500,000 lbs / 22.32 in2 = 67 ksi which again exceeds the 8C limit. It becomes
apparent that API 8C was not intended to apply to rotary shouldered connections, even if such connections reside in hoisting
equipment.
RP 7G suggested a design safety factor of 1.1 in Appendix A, Section A.8.3 (API RP 7G, 16th Edition, 1998) for torsion
and tension on rotary shouldered connections; however an addendum in November 2003 removed this section. A similar
factor is mentioned in section 7.4 about design calculations for drill string tension loading. Tensile data for tool joints and
drill pipe in Tables 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of RP 7G are calculated based on average stress in the pin cross section (Load = Yield
Stress * Pin Area) with no safety factor. Section 7.4 states: To prevent [plastic deformation] a design factor of
approximately 90 percent of the tabulated tension value from the table is sometimes used. . . This means Pa = Pt * 0.9 or that
the maximum allowable design load in tension equals 90 percent of the tensile yield load from table. A further safety factor
is defined as SF = Pa / P where P is load used in drill string calculations, but this SF is left to the discretion of the engineer.
Taking this SF = 1 and drawing an analogy to stress:

Allowable Stress = Yield Stress * 0.9 = Yield Stress / 1.1

This line of reasoning implies a safety factor of 1.1 for FEA stress calculations on rotary shouldered connections. A
logical method is to compute the connection stress using elasto-plastic FEA and use the 1.1 safety factor from API RP 7G.
Some justification for this approach is given in API 8C section 9.9.5 Rotary swivel-sub connection: The connection shall
comply with the applicable requirements, including gauging and marking, as specified in API Spec 7. By calculating rotary
connections according to Spec 7 and RP 7G, reasonable drilling load ratings can be achieved. Even so, drilling load rating
must be distinguished from hoisting load rating, and in some cases a lower drilling load rating through the threaded
connection is warranted.
In summary, API Spec 8C serves as the primary design code for top drives and guides a manufacturer to define hoisting
load rating using FEA, design verification testing, and high safety factors. API Spec 7 and RP 7G provide
dimensional/manufacturing standards, inspection/testing techniques, and analytical formulas to guide the design, fabrication,
and operation of drill stem elements including rotary shouldered connections. Specifications 7 and 8C cover separate topics,
yet in the main shaft and IBOP aspects of top drive design, they mix. For a top drive, calculating rotary shouldered
connections according to Spec 7 / RP 7G and all other components in the hoisting load path according to Spec 8C is the most
consistent approach.

Main Bearing
Moving up the load path from the rotary shouldered connection, the main shaft is a solid piece of steel where stress is not a
concern unless stress-concentrating features such as grooves with sharp inside radii are present. Near the top of the main
shaft is the top drives main bearing. The main bearing used to support the hoisting and drilling loads in a top drive is almost
exclusively tapered roller thrust type. This type of bearing offers high load capacity per envelope dimensions and true rolling
motion. The tapered shape of the rollers minimizes skidding. Three aspects of top drive thrust bearings shall be considered:
first the general trend toward decreasing headroom in bearing design over the years, second the design factors involved in
selecting a bearing size for a particular application, and third the API swivel bearing load rating which essentially derates the
top drive for rotation.

Load Headroom
Although the concept of powering a swivel was not new, the modern top drive was introduced in the early 1980s as a way
to improve drilling efficiency. As the drilling industry pursued greater depths, higher capacity top drives evolved to meet his
need. One method of interpreting the trend in top drive bearing load ratings over the years is to calculate an expression for
basic bearing stress where

Bearing Stress = TD Load Rating / Bearing Area

Bearing Area = ((OD/2)2 (ID/2)2)

OD = basic outer diameter of bearing from catalog

ID = basic inner diameter of bearing from catalog


4 SPE/IADC 119777

Figure 3 illustrates the upward trend of bearing stress as higher capacity top drives were developed. This trend can also
be interpreted as decreasing design margin with increasing load rating. The reason for this trend cannot be determined but
appears to hold true across the spectrum of manufacturers. In some instances the same bearing size was used even when the
top drives load rating stepped up. Perhaps to save effort when developing a new model, a similar bearing was carried over
from an existing design. Whatever the case, dynamic headroom (the extra margin built into the design) has decreased as top
drive load ratings progressed from 500 to 1000 tons.

Bearing Selection
When a bearing must be sized for a particular top drive, a load spectrum is developed. This load spectrum forms a set of
load cases that are plugged into a bearing calculation program. For the sake of discussion, a hypothetical load spectrum for a
1000 ton top drive is given in Figure 4.
The idea is to define a set of parameters that will result in a bearing which will perform satisfactorily under the drilling
loads it is expected to experience during operation. The design method does not result in a bearing which can sustain high
speed rotation indefinitely at the top drives rated hoisting load. Loads, speeds, and durations must be specific in order to
calculate a bearing size. To simplify, one could specify a single load case: the bearing should be able to support a load of 500
tons rotating at 100 rpm for a duration of 3000 hours. With this input, the calculation based on ISO 281 life method should
yield a bearing size that if subjected to 500 tons at 100 rpm for 3000 hours, 90 out of 100 bearings would survive.
A more interesting load spectrum captures a range of loads and speeds that represent the top drives anticipated
performance requirements. This spectrum could be developed from existing load data recorded by an operator over a given
time period. That data might reveal that in their annual drilling program, the top drive spent 60 hours drilling at 100 tons and
200 rpm, 90 hours drilling at 200 tons and 220 rpm, 120 hours at 300 tons and 170 rpm, 60 hours at 300 tons and 250 rpm,
210 hours at 400 tons and 150 rpm, 210 hours at 400 tons and 220 rpm, etc. This load data can be fed into a bearing
calculation program to size the bearing.
As with most engineering endeavors, the solution represents trade-offs between size, weight, cost, capacity, and service
life. A thrust bearing sized to operate for 30,000 hours (about 10 years of operation on a typical drilling rig) at 1000 tons and
200 rpm would result in an impractically large top drive that might occupy half the available space on the drill floor. 5th
generation offshore rigs are typically built with a well center to guide rail distance of 7 to 10 feet within which the top drive
must be able to retract, and clearance with pipe racking equipment introduces other space limitations. Therefore a compact
top drive design is often advantageous. Weight can be an issue with respect to handling during installation/maintenance and
ton-miles on drilling line. In the competitive drilling industry, reducing cost can factor into equipment design.
A properly designed swivel bearing should provide at least 5 years of service life under normal drilling conditions for its
theater of operation to cover time between overhauls. The swivel bearing is not, however, designed to drill continuously at
the top drives rated hoisting load.

Swivel Bearing Load Rating


Section 9.9.1 of API Specification 8C (API, 2003) provides a simple formula for calculating main bearing thrust rating at
100 rpm, expressed in short tons:

Ws = Wr/1600
Where
Wr is the main bearing thrust rating at 100 rpm for 3000 hour minimum life for 90% of bearings, expressed in pounds
force

Once the bearing manufacturers dynamic load rating is converted in accordance with the definition for Wr, this formula
gives a nominal value indicative of the top drives load capacity while rotating (drilling). In Table 1, Ws has been calculated
for bearings typically found in top drives of various load ratings.

As is evident from these figures, a top drives nominal capacity during rotation is significantly lower than its hoisting load
rating. This has been a point of confusion among operators who might assume that a 750 ton top drive should be able to drill
with 750 tons suspended from its main shaft. The answer is that it can, but not for long.
The nominal hoisting load rating of a top drive relates to the thrust bearings static load rating which is normally much
higher than its dynamic rating. Take for example a tapered roller thrust bearing of the type normally used in a 750 ton top
drive. This bearing has a manufacturer-stated static load rating of 3,980,000 lbs (1990 tons for a safety factor of 2.65) but a
dynamic load rating of 458,900 lbs (229 tons). In this particular bearings case, that dynamic load rating is based on 3000
hours at 500 rpm (90,000,000 revolutions). Statistically, 10% of these bearings would fail after 3000 hours running at 500
SPE/IADC 119777 5

rpm with 229 tons load. If forced to run at 750 tons (1,500,000 lbs), the expected life given by the ISO 281 type equation
would be:

L10 = (Cdyn / P)(10/3) * 90,000,000 = (458,900/1,500,000)(10/3) * 90,000,000 = 1,736,000 revolutions

At 500 rpm this corresponds to only 58 hours. Put another way, if 100 of these 750 ton top drives were drilling constantly
at 500 rpm and their rated hoisting load, 10 could be expected to fail after 58 hours. Alternatively the life equation translated
into API terms is:

L10 = (Wr / P)(10/3) * 18,000,000 = (743,719/1,500,000)(10/3) * 18,000,000 = 1,736,000 revolutions

At 100 rpm this corresponds to 289 hours or 12 days. Awareness of this load-life relationship can inform decisions about
equipment utilization and maintenance planning. For example, realizing that their top drive was subjected to abnormally
high drilling loads, operators could plan to send the unit in for overhaul sooner than normal. Alternatively, knowing that the
top drive must achieve a given time interval until overhaul, the operator could specify load and speed limits. Either way,
recognition of the nuances surrounding swivel load rating should aid in executing drilling programs with reliability.

Conclusion
To recap, this study investigated top drive load ratings from several standpoints. First, the difference between hoisting and
drilling load paths was explained. Next, the rotary shouldered connection calculation was covered along with the
applicability of API Specifications 8C and 7. Finally, topics related to the swivel bearing were discussed: the trend towards
less conservative design, selection methodology, and swivel load rating.
Traditionally a single hoisting load rating has been associated with a top drive, yet two more distinct load ratings can be
identified: one for the threaded connection and one for the swivel bearing. A complete understanding of top drive
capabilities involves all three load ratings. The focus is on the drilling load path since rotation and complex mechanical
elements are involved. Recognition of the relative weakness of the rotary shouldered connection has led in some cases to
defining an official drilling load rating based on the strength of the rotary connection. While this drilling load rating is lower
than the hoisting rating, it has negligible effect on drilling operations since drill pipe is generally limited at a lesser value.
On the other hand, reduced swivel rating as compared to hoisting rating does have an appreciable effect on operations
since it can lead to diminished service life or bearing failure during drilling, especially if the operator has run the top drive
assuming that the hoisting rating is valid for rotating conditions. Certain recently developed top drives feature a return to
high dynamic headroom in the swivel bearing. These latest models are built conservatively enough to sustain significant
rotating hours at or near rated hoisting load.
With these three different load ratings, top drive load capacity is considerably more complex than a single number. The
material presented above should lead to an enhanced grasp of factors that dictate usable top drive performance. With this
knowledge in hand, an operator can get the most out the equipment. If questions about load capacity arise, refer to the
equipment manufacturer for definitive answers.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank all those at WEST Engineering Services who assisted with this paper, especially Kristen, Jeff,
and Deryl. Thanks also to various contacts at equipment suppliers who provided valuable information and candid discussion
that answered many questions.

Nomenclature

ASmax = maximum allowable Von Mises stress


Bearing Area = the area of the annulus defined by the ID and OD of the thrust bearing
Bearing Stress =average force per unit area on an annulus with the same basic dimensions as the thrust bearing
Cdyn = basic bearing dynamic load rating
ID = basic inner diameter of bearing from catalog
L10 = basic bearing rating life in revolutions
OD = basic outer diameter of bearing from catalog
P = load used in drill string calculations
Pa = maximum allowable design load in tension
Pt = tensile yield load from table
6 SPE/IADC 119777

= Greek pi, the ratio of circumference to diameter for a circle


SF = safety factor for drill string tension
SFD = design safety factor for stress
Wr = main bearing thrust rating at 100 rpm for 3000 hour minimum life for 90% of bearings, expressed in pounds force
Ws = main bearing thrust rating at 100 rpm, expressed in short tons
YSmin = specified minimum yield strength

Reference List

Spec. 7, Specification for Rotary Drill Stem Elements, 39th edition. 1997. Washington, DC: API.

RP 7G, Recommended Preactice for Drill Stem Design and Operating Limits, 15th edition. 1995. Washington, DC: API.

RP 7G, Recommended Preactice for Drill Stem Design and Operating Limits, 16th edition. 1998. Washington, DC: API.

Spec. 8C, Specification for Drilling and Production Hoisting Equipment (PSL 1 and PSL 2), fourth edition. 2003. Washington, DC: API.

ISO 281, Roller bearings Dynamic load ratings and rating life, second edition. 2007. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.

Tables

Top Drive Load Rating [tons] Ws [tons]


250 185
400 266
500 358
650 413
750 465
1000 475
Table 1. Bearing Load Ratings for Various Hoisting Load Ratings
SPE/IADC 119777 7

Figures

Figure 1. Top drive hoisting and drilling load paths


8 SPE/IADC 119777

Figure 2. Stress contours in rotary shouldered connection


SPE/IADC 119777 9

Figure 3. Trend of higher bearing stress as top drive load rating increases
10 SPE/IADC 119777

Figure 4. Sample load spectrum for top drive main bearing design

Вам также может понравиться