7th Offshore South East Asia
Conference, Singapore
SPE 17661
Sensitivity and Reliability of Commercial
Drill-String Inspection Services
by BA Dale and M.C. Moyer, Exxon Production Research Co. (USA)
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 7th Offshore South East Asia Conference held in Singapore,
2-5 February 1988. This paper was selected for presentation by a programme committee following review of information in an
abstract. Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by OSEA and are subject to correction by the author(s).
ABSTRACT
Drill-string failures continue to be a costly problem
for the oil industry. To reduce the occurrence of
these failures, operators and drilling contractors
typically employ service companies to perform periodic
nondestructive inspections to remove damaged tubulars
from service. Nonetheless, drill-string failures
continue to otcur, most often as a result of some form
of metal fatigue. This paper presents the results of
several field evaluation programs which were conducted
to assess the performance of commercial drill-string
inspection services employing conventional nondestruc-
tive testing techniques. A practical estimate of the
effect i veness of these commerci ali nspect ion servi ces
is made using modern fracture mechanics concepts and
fat igue crack growth data obtai ned from full-scale
testing. Based on the data presented in this paper,
commercial drill-string inspection services are found
to be statistically quantifiable, however their
effectiveness is substantially less than optimum.
Improved fl aw detection technology is needed to most
effectively reduce typical downhole fatigue failures.
INTRODUCTION
Drill-string failures are a serious problem that have
troubled the petroleum industry for many years, often
resulting in lost rig time, damaged tubular goods, and
occasionally abandoned or side-tracked wells.'
Operators and drilling contractors actively try to
prevent these costly fail ures by performi ng peri odi c
nondestructive inspections to remove damaged tubulars
from service. 2 Depending on the severity of drilling,
these inspections are often performed several times
for key components of the dri 11 stri ng duri ng the
course of a well.
Drill-string inspections are usually performed by
service companies. These commercial inspection
service companies typically perform a variety of
visual, dimensional, and nondestructive flaw inspec-
tion procedures to classify the pipe for future
drilling service. These procedures usually consist of
both automated and manual techni ques to assess the
condition of the connections, drill-pipe body, and
drill-pipe transition regions. Classification is
normally completed in accordance with API specifica-
tions,3,4 but detailed user-specifications are also
frequently used to ensure the qual ity of inspection
wotk performed.
Despite taking these preventative steps, drill-string
fa i 1ures cont i nue to occur, usually due to some form
References and illustrations at end of paper.
112
2-5 February 1988
of metal fatigue. Fatigue is a progressive mechanism
that primarily results from the synergistic actions of
both cycl ic stress and corrosion over time. Fatigue
damage is initially manifested in the form of micro-
scopic cracks (i.e. fatigue crack initiation).
Fatigue cracks usually originate in the thread roots
of the connections or in the drill-pipe body and
transition regions as shown in Figure 1. These micro-
scopic cracks develop until macroscopic cracks appear
which then propagate through the wall thickness until
failure, resulting in what is commonly known as a
"washout" or "twist-off". Conventional nondestructive
testing techniques are only capable of detecting
macroscopi c cracks. Thus, for inspect ions to be of
any practical value, inspection intervals are "effec-
tively" limited by the time for undetected cracks to
grow until failure. The sensitivity and reliability
of these commercial inspection services strongly
influence their effectiveness in reducing drill-string
fa il ures.
Within the last twenty years, a great deal of effort
has been di rected toward the better understandi ng of
nondestructive inspection performance. This largely
occ~rred as a result of a new philosophy that evolved
into engineering practice known as "defect tolerant"
design -- the prinCipal concept that all structures or
components possess defects, either from manufacture or
from service. Consequently, the fa~igue life or
service 1ife between inspections can be establ ished
based on fat i gue crack growth. The role of nonde-
structive inspection is important to this design basis
since critical flaws (i.e. defects) must be identified
and either removed or repaired to avoid failure.
Performance testing of nondestructive inspections has
been widely accepted and practiced by other indus-
tries,5,6 but to a lesser extent within the oil field.
Thi s paper presents the results- of several fi e1d
eva 1uat i on programs that were conducted to determi ne
the effectiveness of commercial nondestructive inspec-
tion services. The results of this investigation are
valuable for establishing practical inspection inter-
va 1s based on modern fracture mechani cs concepts and
convent i ona 1 nondestruct i ve test i ng techni ques. More
importantly, though, the results of this investigation
support the ~evelopment and use of improved flaw
detection technology to cost-effectively reduce down-
hole fatigue failures.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A brief review of the terminology associated with
performance testing of nondestructive inspections is
warranted. Signal-detection theory provides a uniform
2 SENSITIVITY AND RELIABILITY OF COMMERCIAL DRILL-STRING INSPECTION SERVICES
basis from which to determine the effectiveness of
tasks such as nondestructive inspection performance. 7
As illustrated in the decision matrix of Figure 2,
signal-detection theory assumes that only two respons-
es can be made about a given situation. The inspector
can either state that the component is acceptable
(i.e. "no" crack response) or rejectable (i.e. "yes"
crack response) with respect to some prescribed
inspection criteria. The accuracy of a decision
process is the sum of the "correct" responses divided
by the tot~l number of .r~sponses made. Corresponding-
ly, the er~or of a declslon process is the sum of the
"incorrect" responses divided by the total number of
responses' made. Incorrect responses may either be a
"mi ss" (Type I error) or a "false alarm" (Type I I
error). For critical components, Type I errors are of
primary concern since these flaws are larger than some
prescribed minimum detectable flaw size (ad~t) that
normally has a rel atively high probabil ity ot detec-
tion (POD). Type II errors are also important, but to
a lesser degree for drill-string tubulars, since these
~rrors .usually only result in additional prove-up
1 nspect lOns . Although the potential for unnecessary
replacement or repair exists with Type II errors,
these costs are normally much less than those associ-
ated with downhole failures.
Through formal testing of an inspection process,
curves may be constructed that describe the POD as a
funct i on of fl aw size, usually based on crack 1ength
or depth. These curves represent the compos ite
effects of inspection methodology, human factors,
equi pment vari abil ity, and measurement repeatabil ity.
Figure 3 illustrates three typical POD curves that
qualitatively provide information about the inspection
process. s Curve A represents the ideal inspection
process (almost a unit step function) that has very
f~w errors and is often typical of automated inspec-
tlons. Curve B represents a process that is approach-
ing control, but may be limited by human factors such
as in manual inspections. s ,9 Curve C represents a
process that is uncontrolled and where the inspection
methodology may not be well suited for the prescribed
application.
FIELD EVALUATIONS
Field evaluations of drill-string inspection services
consist of testing and documenting information in
three principal areas: automated drill-pipe body
inspections; drill-string connection, drill-pipe
transition region, and prove-up inspections; and
personnel certification and reference documents.
Specific criteria and methods for evaluating proce-
dures, equipment, and personnel performance have been
previ ous ly presented. 10 Thi s paper focuses on the
collective results of formal evaluations of thirty-
five drill-string inspection service companies.
TEST PROCEDURES
The test procedures used in the eva 1uat i on programs
were ~esigned by Exxon Production Research Company
(EPR) and performed in cooperat i on wi th each of the
participating drill-string inspection service compa-
nies. To assure confidence in the quality of the te~t
results, test speci mens and condit ions were des i gned
to simulate field conditions whenever possible.
Drill-String Connections
The standard method for inspecting drill-string
connect ions for cracks is wet, fl uorescent magnetic
particle inspection (MPI) where magnetization is
usually performed using a DC coil. Visual, dimension-
al, and profile inspections are also made of the
113
threads and torque shoul ders for mechani cal and
corros i on damage. Although not cons i dered a conven-
tional drill-string inspection technique, compression
wave ultrasonic testing (UT) is occasionally used (in
conjunction with or substituted for MPI) by some
inspection service companies. 11 ,12
Drill-string connection inspection companies were
pri nci pa lly evaluated based on thei r performance in
inspecting thirty-two rotary shouldered connections
from various drill collars and drill-pipe tool joints.
The majority of these connections were previously used
in drilling operations, although some were obtained
from full-scale laboratory fatigue testing. All of
the drill-string connections were carefully inspected
and the damage verified under ideal laboratory condi-
tions. The type of damage was typical of drill-string
connections and incl uded fatigue cracks, pin stretch,
box swell, and torque- shoul der seal problems such as
galling, pitting, and excessive refacing. Since crack
detect i on accuracy was of primary interest, approxi-
mately one-half of the connections contained fatigue
cracks of various lengths.
The connections were covered with thread compound, the
thread protectors were installed, and the conne~tions
were placed on pi pe racks in an' open area. Each
inspection company was given a three-hour time limit
to complete the inspections. No other restrictions
were placed on the inspectors. At the end of each
test, each company was required to reapply thread
compound to the connections and submit a summary sheet
specifying the condition of each connection. All
connections were demagnetized by EPR prior to inspec-
t i on by the next servi ce company. Thus, no company
Significantly benefited from a previous service
company's cleaning or magnetization.
Drill-Pipe Body
The standard method of inspecting the drill-pipe body
is with an electromagnetic inspection (EMI) unit to
locate questionable areas and with prove-up tools to
highlight the flaws and determine their severity.
Prove- up tools cons i st of DC coil sand AC yokes to
magnetize the pipe so that iron powder can be applied
to highlight the flaws (i.e. MPI). Prove-up tools
also include ultrasonic compression wave meters,
mechan i cal depth gauges, and opt i ca 1 borescopes to
determine the flaw severity.
Drill-pipe body inspection companies were evaluated,
in part, based on EMI unit performance. These inspec-
tion units were evaluated by running two 4-1/2-in.
drill-pipe standards, spanning a wall thickness range
typical of most drill pipe used in the oil field.
These included a 16.60 lb/ft (0.337-in. wall thick-
ness) and a 20.00 lb/ft (0.430-in. wall thickness)
pi pe starldard. The pi pe standards conta in i nterna 1
and external transverse notches of various depths to
test EMI unit performance. The notches were designed
to simulate fatigue cracks, formation cuts, and ether
transverse flaws typically found in used drill pipe.
After allowing the inspection companies to cal ibrate
their units, four consecutive scans were made of each
joint, each at a different circumferential (clock)
position to assess repeatability and pipe surface
coverage. After the pi pe standards were inspected,
the inspection logs were submitted to EPR for analysis
and review.
Drill-Pipe Transition Region
The drill-pipe transition region is probably one of
most fatigue-prone areas in the drill-string, but
often receives the least amount of attention. 13 This
 B. A. DALE and M. C. MOYER
transition region from the drill-pipe body to the tool
joints is partially inspected by the automated drill-
pipe EMI unit, but is primarily inspected by dry
powder MPI performed on the external surface. Occa-
s i ona lly, however, wet, fl uorescent MPI is performed
in place of the dry powder MPI to improve surface flaw
detect i on sens it i vity. Magnet i zat i on for MPI is
usually performed using an AC yoke or DC coil. Direct
inspect i on of the i nterna 1 surface is 1imited due to
difficulties in accessing this region.
No specific tests were conducted to explicitly assess
the performance of drill-pipe transition region
inspections. The drill-string connection and drill-
pipe body portions of the evaluation programs were
expected to be representative of the drill-pipe
transition region inspections that are typically
performed.
A study of thirty-three drill-pipe failures which
occurred over a fifteen-month period during offshore-
platform high-angle drilling operations indicates that
significant improvements in inspection technology are
necessary to reduce failures in the drill-pipe transi-
tion region. Based on metallurgical analyses, all of
the failures resulted from fatigue cracks emanating on
the internal surface located as shown in regions A and
D of Figure 1. Conventional inspectional methods
(i.e. primarily MPI), shear-wave ultrasonics, and
special electromagnetic inspections were all per-
formed. No fatigue cracks were ever conclusively
found duri ng the inspect ion operat ions, even though
several failures subsequently occurred after less than
one-hundred hours of drilling.
Despite precise knowledge of the location and nature
of these failures, commercial inspection services were
found to be ineffective. Although beyond the scope of
this paper, the authors believe that the influences of
transition-region geometry (i.e. internal and external
upsets) and internal pipe surface condition (i.e.
pitting, scale, and corrosion) diminish the effective-
ness of convent i ona 1 inspect ion techni ques. Improved
inspection technology is needed to reduce downhole
failures in this region.
TEST RESULTS
Using the data from these evaluation programs, the POD
was calculated as a function of either crack length or
crack depth. A total of thirty-five inspection
service companies participated in the drill-string
connection portion of the evaluation programs. Eleven
inspection service companies participated in the
drill-pipe body portion of the evaluation programs.
Drill-String Connections
Fi gure 4 illustrates the POD data as a funct i on of
crack length for wet, fluorescent MPI of drill-string
connections. Based on the test data for twenty-seven
inspection service companies using only MPI for crack
detection, the POD is found to be predictable, (i.e.
continuously increases with crack length). This is
encouragi ng since it provides some degree of confi-
dence that a propagat i ng crack wi 11 have a greater
opportunity for detection with each successive inspec-
tion. This is an important consideration in develop-
ing nondestructive inspection intervals based on
fatigue crack growth. Unfortunately, the POD is low
for all but very 1arge cracks. For ex amp 1e, the POD
for a crack 0.375-in. in length is only about one-in-
three. Furthermore, the POD for a crack 4.00-in. in
length is still only about four-in-five. Based on a
114
3
curve-fit to the test data. the POD for wet, fluores-
cent MPI can be estimated by Equation [1] shown below:
POD = 55 + IS 1n (2c) 2c > 0.050 in. [1]
As discussed earlier, the shape of the POD curve also
provides information about the inspection process. In
fact, the shape of the POD curve shown in Figure 4
corresponds well with Curve B of Figure 3. Thus,
drill-string connection inspections using conventional
nondestructive inspection techniques may be accurately
described as approaching control, but substantially
less than the "optimum" Curve A of Figure 3.
Figure 5 illustrates the POD data as a function of
crack 1ength for combi nat i on MPI and UT of dri 11-
string connections in comparison to the POD curve for
MPI only. Based on the test data for five inspection
service companies using both MPI and UT for crack
detection, the POD is found to be similar to the POD
data for MPI only (although with more scatter).
Despite the use of complementary inspection tech-
niques, there appears to be no significant improvement
in the test data for combination MPI and UT in compar-
ison to MPI only. This suggests that compression wave
UT of drill-string connections may be of little
practical benefit. This hypothesis is supported by
test data of three inspection service companies that
used only UT for crack detection as illustrated in
Figure 6. The test data indicate that UT only for
box-end connections does approach some degree of
control (i.e. similar to Curve B of Figure 3), but
that it still has a lower POD than MPI only. Further-
more, UT only for pin-end connections appears to be
uncontrolled (i.e. similar to Curve C of Figure 3),
possibly resulting from poor inspection methodology.
Drill-Pipe Body
Figure 7 illustrates the POD data as a function of
flaw depth for inspections using automated EMI equip-
ment for the drill-pipe body. Based on the test data
for eleven inspection service companies using various
manufacturers' equipment, the POD curves are found to
be highly predictable and approach the ideal inspec-
tion process corresponding to Curve A of Figure 3
(unlike the manual drill-string connection inspection
processes previously discussed). As expected with
conventional EMI equipment, external surface flaws
were found to have a higher POD than similar depth
internal surface flaws. Based on a POD of 99 percent
the "aoet" for external surface fl aws was found to be
approxlmately 0.020-in. which is nearly two and
one-half times smaller than the "adet" of 0.050-in.
for i nterna 1 surface fl aws. The threshold fl aw
sensitivity for drill-pipe, body EMI equipment is
approximately 0.010-in. for external surface flaws and
O.OIS-in. for internal surface flaws.
For corrosion-pitted pipe which still meets the API
premium classification (i.e. SO percent remaining wall
thickness), it would be expected that excessive
background indications on the inspection logs could
result in the POD curves in Figure 7 being translated
to the right due to masking of the cracks. Thus, the
actual "adet" could be substantially larger than
0.050-in. and potentially as large as 0.150-in. (based
on 0.500-in. nominal wall thickness). Since corrosion
pitting and poor surface condition are common to many
strings of drill pipe presently in use by the oil
industry, improvements in signal-flaw discrimination
and internal surface sensitivity are needed to effec-
tively inspect the drill-pipe body to reduce downhole
failures.
4 SENSITIVITY AND RELIABILITY OF COMMERCIAL DRILL-STRING INSPECTION SERVICES
EFFECTIVENESS OF DRIll-STRING INSPECTIONS spaced inspect ions conducted over the fat igue crack
propagation life. As can be seen for 6-1/4-in. x
Using modern fracture mechanics concepts 14 and full- 2-1/4-in. drill collars, three equally-spaced inspec-
scale fatigue crack growth data from a previously tions are required to achieve an inspection program
reported experimental investigation on drill col- reliability of approximately 90 percent (assumed
lars,15 the effectiveness of commercial drill-string limited by box-end). Nearly twice this number of
connection inspection services can be determined. inspections would be required to achieve an inspection
Based on this experimental investigation, Figure 8 program reliability of 99 percent. Other possible
provides a conservative lower-bound estimate of the scenarios include the use of unequally-spaced or
fatigue c'ack propagation life for 6-1/4-in. 00 x strategically-spaced inspections.
2-1/4-in. ID drill collars with either API NC-46 or
4-1/2-in H-90 connections. In addition, Figure 9 Figure 13 illustrates the effectiveness of wet,
provides an estimate of the remaining fatigue crack fl uorescent MPI in terms of the number of multi p1e
propagat ion 1ife as the crack advances through the inspections performed at the beginning of the fatigue
wall thickness. Both of these figures were construct- crack propagation life. As can be seen for 6-1/4-in.
ed based on an initial crack depth of 0.050-in. (with x 2-1/4-in. drill collars, five independent initial
corresponding crack length of 0.375-in.). Also, based inspections are required to achieve an inspection
on thi s full-scale test i ng, crack depth was found to program re 1i abil ity of approximate ly 90 percent
be reasonably predictable based on crack length (for (assumed limited by box-end). Once again, nearly
single crack initiation sites) as illustrated in twice this number of inspections would be required to
Figure 10. Thus, crack depth can be estimated in achieve an inspection program reliability of 99
terms of crack length by using Equation [2] shown percent. In general, the use of multiple independent
below: inspections is impractical and inefficient use of
inspection services.
a = 0.40(2c) - 0.10 2c > 0.25 in. [2]
The use of complementary inspections involving differ-
ent inspection methods is a special case of multiple
If Equation [2] is substituted into Equation [1], the inspections. The potential benefit of using a comple-
POD for wet, fluorescent MPI of drill-string connec~ mentary inspection method is that "systematic" errors
tions can be conservatively estimated in terms of (i .e. errors unique to a particular inspection pro-
crack depth as illustrated in Figure 11 and described cess) may be reduced. However, thi s benefit may not
by Equation [3] shown below: always be real ized as observed in the drill-string
connection inspection POD data for combination MPI and
POD = 55 + 18 ln (2.5a + 0.25) a > 0 in. [3] UT in comparison to the POD data for MPI only.
Various combinations of frequent, multiple, and
Once the fatigue crack propagat i on behavi or through complementary inspections are also potential strate-
the wall thickness is established as shown in Figure 9 gi es for improvi ng the effect i veness of convent i ona 1
and the POD curve is defined for a particular inspec- drill-string connection inspections. However, the
tion process (as shown in Figure 11 for MPI), the most cost-effective means for improvement would
effectiveness of various inspection programs can be probably result from altering the basic inspection
eas ily compared through a cal cul at i on of re 1i abil ity process itself.
(or ri sk) . Re 1i abil ity is a funct i on of the POD for
each inspection performed throughout the fatigue crack Improved Inspection Technology
propagation life and statistically amounts to an
analysis of "parallel" events. 16 Risk is simply the Significant cost-savings can be realized by improving
difference of re 1i abil ity from one- hundred percent.inspection performance and by reducing inspection
The reliability associated with a nondestructive frequency. Specifi cally, the development and use of
inspect i on program can be expressed by Equat i on [4]an inspection process that is similar to the "ideal"
shown below: Curve A of Figure 3 (i.e. 9rill-pipe body EMI equip-
ment) could be significantly more cost-effective than
Rp = 100[1 - (1 - POOI/IOO)(1 - P002/IOO)··· strategies involving conventional MPI (even if this
···(1 - P00m/IOO)] [4] "ideal" inspection process were less sensitive to
small flaws). For example, an ideal drill-string
After an acceptable reliability or risk is selected, connection inspection process that has a 90 percent
POD for flaws larger than 0.050-in. in depth would
inspection intervals may be established based on only require one-third the number of inspections in
predictions of fatigue crack growth (as shown in comparison to MPI, yet would have a similar inspection
Figure 8) to avoid downhole failures. program reliability. Alternatively, this ideal
Conventional Inspection Technology inspection process would achieve an inspection program
reliability of 99.9 percent in comparison to 90
percent for MPI if the inspections were actually
For inspection processes that are approaching control performed
and have POD curves typi ca 1 of Curve B of Figure 3 at the same intervals.
(i.e. conventional drill-string connection inspec- In summary, the data from these evaluation programs
tions), "adet" can not be "practically" defined. identify the need for the following improved inspec-
Therefore, various strategies are typically required tion technology to effectively reduce drill-string
to achieve acceptable reliability. These include failures:
conducting frequent inspections, multiple independent
inspections, complementary inspections, or some • Reliable inspection process for the drill-
combination of these. Equation [4] may be used to pipe transition region, particularly the
calculate the relative merits of each of these strate- internal upset area.
gies.
Figure 12 illustrates the effectiveness of wet, • Reliable inspection process for drill-string
fluorescent MPI in terms of the number of equally- connections.

115
 B. A. DALE and M. C. MOYER
Improved signal-flaw discrimination and
internal surface sensitivity for drill-pipe
body EMI units.
EPR has developed an automated inspection device for
drill-string connections known as the Fatigue Crack
Detector (FCD). This device is based on EMI methodol-
ogy and has the capability for improved signal-flaw
discrimination. 17 Figure 14 shows the prototype
inspection device being used in the field at a drill-
ing rig site. Just as with drill-pipe body EMI units,
commercial use of the FCD for drill-string connections
is expected to perform very similarly to the ideal
inspection process represented by Curve A of Figure 3.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the statistical results of several
field evaluation programs which were conducted to
determi ne the sens it i vi ty and re 1i abil ity of commer-
cial drill-string inspection services. Although
conventional inspection techniques were generally
found to be substant i ally 1ess than opt imum, these
data are valuable for establishing nondestructive
inspection intervals based on modern fracture mechan-
ics concepts. Furthermore, the test data presented in
this paper support the development and use of improved
inspection technology for the critical fatigue-prone
areas of the drill-string to most effectively reduce
costly downhole failures.
NOMENCLATURE
a crack depth, in. [mm]
adet = minimum detectable crack depth with a 99
percent POD, in. [mm]
AC alternating current
c half crack length, in. [mm]
DC direct current
EMI electromagnetic flux leakage inspection
FCD Fatigue Crack Detector
ID inside diameter, in. [mm]
m number of inspections conducted over crack
propagation life, dimensionless
MPI magnetic particle inspection
OD outside diameter, in. [mm]
POD probability of detection, percent
Rp reliability of "parallel" events inspection
program, percent
UT ultrasonic testing
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wi sh to thank the management of Exxon
Production Research Company for allowing this paper to
be presented. In addition, the authors wish to
recognize the technical support of D. W. Reese, Sr.
for his contributions to the field evaluation pro-
grams.
REFERENCES
1. Gensmer, R. P., "A Contractor's View of Drill-
Pipe Life", IADCjSPE No. 14790 (February 1986).
2. "Steel Tubular Goods", IADC Drilling Manual,
Section B, Ninth Edition,. (June 1974).
3. "Drill Stem Design and Operating Limits", API
Recommended Practice 7G, API, Dallas, (May 1987).
4. "Rotary Drilling Equipment", API Specification 7,
API, Dallas, (May 1987).
116
5
5. Hagemaier, D. J., Abelkis, P. R., et al, "Supple-
mental Inspections of Aging Aircraft," Materials
Evaluation, Vol. 44, No.8, July 1986, pp.
989-997.
6. Swets, J. A., and Picket, R. M., Evaluation of
Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detec-
tion Theory, 1982, Academic Press, New York.
7. Parasuraman, R., "Appl ications of Signal Detec-
tion Theory in Monitoring Performance and Medical
Diagnosis," Proceedings of the Human Factors
Society, 24th Annual Meeting, October 1980.
8. Triggs, T. J., Rankin, W. L., et al., Human
Rel iabil ity Impact on Inservice Inspection:
Review and Analysis of Human Performance in
Nondestructive Testing (Emphasizing Ultrasonics),
NRC Publications, Vol. 2, 1986, NUREGjCR-4436-2.
9. Glasch, K. J., "Human Reliability in Nondestruc-
tive Evaluation, Materials Evaluation, pp 907-911
(August 1987).
10. Moyer, M. C., and Dale, B. A., "Methods for
Eva 1uat i ng the Quality of Oil fi e1d Tubul ar
Ins pec t ion s", .:<oJo""u".,r""n""a,."l---,o,-!f_P:...;e",t,-,r-"o,-,-l."'-e",um",--.. !.T."'-e",ch",n. . ,o,-,l-"o.:u.yg ,
Dallas, (January 1986).
11. Chapman, P. W., "Ultrasonic Inspection of Rotary
Shoul dered Connections" , SPEj IADC No. 16073
(March 1987).
12. Armstrong, G. M., Woods, J. A., et al., "Sensi-
tivity and Application of the Normal Beam Ultra-
sonic Technique for Detection of Fatigue Cracks
in Rotary Shouldered Connections", SPEjIADC 13430
(March 1985).
13. Marion, T. L., "IADC Chapter Looks Into Drill-
Pipe Failures", Drilling Contractor, (December
.1986jJanuary 1987).
14. Rolfe, S. T., Barsom, J. M., Fracture and Fatigue
Contro 1 in Structures - App 1i cat ions of Fracture
Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cl iffs,
N.J. (1977).
15. Dale, B. A., "An Experimental Investigation of
Fatigue Crack Growth in Drill-String Tubulars",
SPE No. 15559 (October 1986).
16. Miller, 1. and Freud, J. E., Probabilitv and
Statistics For Engineers, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1977).
17. Moyer, M. C., and Dale, B. A., "An Automated
Tool-Joint Inspection Device for the Drill
String", Journal of Petroleum Technology, Dallas,
(June 1984).
 Fig. 1 Critical Drill-string fatigue areas.

SIGNAL - DETECTION THEORY 100 o •

CRACK NO CRACK

"YES"
FALSE
z
o
~w
80 ....
CORRECT ALARM I-
(TYPE II ERROR) w-
01-
... z 60 •
O~
RESPONSE > a::
I-w
...iii -
-Q.
o
<
m
MISS o
(TYPE I ERROR) CORRECT a::
C1.

• PIN·END
o BOX.END

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Fig. 2 Inspector decision matrix. CRACK LENGTH (IN.)

Fig. 5 POD for combination MPI and UT of drill-string connections.

CURVE A:
IDEAL PROCESS

CURVE B :
PROCESS THAT IS APPROACHING CONTROL
CURVE C:
PROCESS THAT IS UNCONTROLLED

FLAW SIZE -

Fig. 3 Effect of Inspection process on probability of detection.

100 ... 100 0 10-

-----~-------.~-
.-'-
Z
z
0
i=
0
80 o
."".,...--- -- -- _--- 0 • .... 0
i=
0
W
80
//.-
.-,-/////'-

" ' BOX·END

W
I-
w-
...../ tuj:: 0 ,,/
• •
01- ..... <l Oz ..........
"'w 60
... ifi
00
60
/
/ "" 00
> a:: /
/
" "
> a:: w / 0 /
I-
-Q.
w
...iii - /
I
/
...iii -
I-
_C1.

40
/
/
PIN .END, /
......-
/ / ......-'
40 <3:
<
m I
/ m c/ ./
./' 10-
0 / .....-
0
a::
rtJ a:: f .....-

.--
I • C1. I
C1. 20 I
20 II
,
./"/
0 • PIN·END
I
I • PIN·END

, o BOX·END
0
1
f
.--,.-.--_.-- ..-- BOX·END

O~'~~~-!~~~--~--~--~~~~~~~~~~
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 1(\.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
CRACK LENGTH (IN.)
CRACK LENGTH (IN .)

Fig. 4 POD for MPI of drill-string connections. Fig, 6 POD for UT of drill-string connections.

117
 1.6
100
1.4
z
0
i= 80 /
U 1.2
w a=0.4O(2cl- 0.10 /
Ii:i- Z .,/'.
c!!:
u..w 60
= 1.0 .,t
o
X
Ou o.·~i
>11:
.... w
-11.
....1-
iii 40
_10 SURFACE
Ii:
~ 0.8
:..:
.0 tJ~
, .
«en ~ 0.6 • NC-46 PIN-END
• 00 NOTCH. 0.337 IN. WALL II: o
0 u NC-46 BOX-END
II:
11. o 10 NOTCH. 0.337 IN. WALL
a • •• D

0.4 • 4-1/2 IN. H-90 PIN-END

20
~ 00 NOTCH, 0.430 IN. WALL
• 4-1/2 IN. H-90 BOX-END
0.2
SINGLE CRACK INITIATION SITE
.09 .10 0.0
FLAW DEPTH IIN.I 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
CRACK LENGTH IIN.I

Fig. 7 POD for EMI of drill-pipe body. Fig. 10 Relationship between crack length and crack depth for drill collar
connections.

20 .~.
50,000 100
18
\
E 16 \ §
z
0
8
~ 14 \ 40,000

~
i=
U
w
....
80

---------
(!)

ew 12 \. .... w-
------
\. z C ....
z
-- -- ---
-- ---
30,000 ~ u..w 60
~ ou
II:
w
10
\ 0
:::E
>11:
.... w
-11. ..........
~ 8 \\, 20,000 ~
....1-
iii 40 "/,,,-
II!
(!) ~, is
«en ,/
w 6 BOX-END~-:--PIN-END zw 0
....I II:
(!)
en
~-
11.
0 4 20
c 10.000
~-
2 "'----...
INITIAL CRACK DEPTH OF 0.050 IN. ---... .:.::::- __
- - ';':::-FT=r- 0
0 0
1()4 10· 1()4 107 1()4 10" 10'· 0 .2 .4 .6 .8
10"
CYCLES TO FAILURE ESTIMATED CRACK DEPTH liN.)

Fig. 8 Fatigue creek propagation life for 6-V.-ln. x 2-V.-ln. Drill collars. Fig. 11 POD for MPI of drill-string connections.

100.-.-,---,----.---,----.---,---,----.---.---.
.--0_-_
--
100 0

#- \
~ "-'~ /
/.0-
~ 80 '~ i=
80 /
o '~ zw P
~ '~ u /
II:
r /
~ 60 -~ w
!!:
60
I
o PIN-END~ ...--BOX-END > /
II:
11.
- :"..
~_~ !:i I
iii
:..: ~-~ « 40
p
~ 40 ~_ ~ :::;
~ ~-~
w
II:
I -
(!) ~-~ I
20 r-- I
z -~
z20 -~ /
~
:::E
-~
-,
0
,/
~ 0 INITIAL CRACK DEPTH OF 0.050 IN. -', 0 2 3 4 5
0.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 NUMBER OF EQUALLY-SPACED INSPECTION INTERVALS
FRACTION OF WALL THICKNESS IIN.lIN.I
Fig. 12 Effectiveness of equally-spaced MPI of drill-string connections.
Fig. 9 Remaining fatigue life for 6-V.-ln. x 2-'1. In. Drill collars.

118
 100

j::
zw 80
,IY" .....
.......... .u--- _...0

() ./
ex: ./
w ./
~
>
60 ,/
I- /
:::; /
iii /
<
:::;
40 if
w
ex: /
/
20 /
/
0 ../
0 2 3 4 5
NUMBER OF· MULTIPLE INITIAL INSPECTIONS

FIg. 13 Effectlveneu of multiple Initial MPI of drill-string connectlonL FIg. 14 Prototype automated drill-string connection Inapectlon deYlce at a
drilling rig slta.

119