Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 1914 1922 www.elsevier.

com/locate/diamond

Homogeneous and structured PCD/WC-Co materials for drilling

Dan Belnap 1, Anthony Griffo *, 2
Materials R&D, Smith International, 16740 Hardy Street, Houston, TX 77032, USA Received 26 January 2004; received in revised form 9 June 2004; accepted 15 June 2004 Available online

Abstract Traditional polycrystalline diamond (PCD) materials for the rock-boring industry have been primarily composed of diamond particulates with a small volume fraction of cobalt as a binder/catalyst. Although these materials provide a cost-effective solution in many drilling applications, the catastrophic nature of the failure modes seen with these materials is a limiting factor in the increased usage of PCD in rock drilling. Research performed at Smith International has shown that composite PCD materials incorporating WC-Co as a third constituent have marked improvement in delaying the onset of catastrophic failure. These composite materials can be separated into two classes: (a) homogeneous composites and (b) structured composites. This paper reviews microstructures, material properties, field performance, and failure modes observed with these two new types of PCD composite materials. D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Diamond; Composited; Rock drilling

1. Introduction Rock drilling has been a primary application of polycrystalline diamond (PCD) since its introduction in the 1970s. The basic manufacturing technique for PCD involves subjecting diamond powders to high pressure and high temperature (HP/HT) conditions in the presence of a solvent/ catalyst [1,2]. The HP/HT process creates a sintered material characterized by strong inter-diamond bonding [3 5]. Most PCD drilling applications involve the in situ bonding of the sintered diamond material to a hardmetal (WC-Co) substrate during the HP/HT process. The material properties of PCD include high hardness and strength, combined with moderate toughness [6 11]. Tests on PCD shear cutting drilling components have demonstrated that a typical S-N type fatigue effect can be observed [12]. The unique combination of hardness, strength, and toughness has made PCD-enhanced components an excellent solution for many rockdrilling situations [13 16]. PCD-enhanced inserts have been used successfully in 3-cone bits for petroleum drilling since the 1980s [13]. A
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-2812-3359-57; fax: +1-2812-3359-00. E-mail address: agriffo@smith.com (A. Griffo). 1 PhD, R&D Manager, Smith Megadiamond, Provo UT. 2 Ph.D., Materials Projects Manager, Smith Bits, Houston TX. 0925-9635/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.diamond.2004.06.013

key enabling technology for PCD-enhanced inserts was the use of interlayers with intermediate properties between PCD and WC-Co, which effectively form a functional gradient in the PCD material [17]. Many improvements have been made since that time, with most efforts focusing on changes in insert design combined with cutting structure optimization [18 21]. A significant new direction was taken with the development of structured PCD/ WC-Co composite materials by Fang et al. [22]. In addition to the performance increase seen with structured composites, recent testing has shown benefits with a new category of PCD/WC-Co composite materials, which can be described as homogeneous composites. This paper reviews structured and homogeneous PCD/WC-Co composites on the basis of microstructure, material properties, field performance, and failure modes. Prior art on diamond-WC-Co composites have included work on slavutich and tvesals composites [23 26]. These composites are hot pressed product using diamond grit (typically greater than 500 Am diamond) and volume fractions below 30 vol.%. These materials have been successful utilized in hard abrasive formation where grinding is the only means of progressing through the formation. The current work focuses on micrometer-sized diamond powder at higher volume percent (50% or higher) where drilling mechanism is crushing.

D. Belnap, A. Griffo / Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 19141922

1915

2. Experimental procedures 2.1. Materials Two basic PCD powder variants were employed in this work. Variant A used 5 Am average grain size diamond and 20 wt.% cobalt. Variant B used a 3.5-Am average diamond grain size combined with 15.5 wt.% cobalt and 8 wt.% proprietary additives. All powders were blended using WCCo media. The powder for the homogeneous composites essentially used PCD variant A blended with 40 vol.% 10 20 Am WC-12 wt.% Co spray powder. The structured composites employed 6 Am WC-14 wt.% Co powders coextruded with PCD in a core/shell configuration. The coextrusion process for PCD/WC-Co composites has been described in detail elsewhere [22]. 2.2. Products Components of varying sizes and shapes were produced by subjecting PCD powders and WC-Co substrates to nominal HP/HT conditions of approximately 5.5 GPa and 1400 jC. Products manufactured included both enhanced inserts and flat 19 mm disk specimens manufactured under identical process conditions to the enhanced inserts. The disk specimens were used to produce specimens for flexural strength, elastic modulus, and wear tests. Products for comparative impact testing of PCD-A materials were 11 mm diameter semi-round top (SRT) enhanced inserts. Products for comparative impact testing of PCD-B materials were 19 mm gage chisel-enhanced inserts. Fig. 1 shows the products used in this study. 2.3. Hardness and microstructure Specimen preparation was performed by polishing sectioned PCD surfaces with sequentially decreasing lapping compound diamond down to approximately 1 Am diamond grit. This surface was then subjected to a high-speed, resin bonded diamond wheel for final polishing. Microstructural examination was performed in a scanning electron microscope (Philips Model XL30) operating with secondary electron detection. Hardness tests were performed on the

Fig. 2. Three-point bending test configuration.

polished surfaces using a Vickers indenter with a 500-g load. The hardness Hv was determined according to the formula Hv aP d2

where P is the applied load, d is the size of the impression diagonals, and a is a constant = 1.8544 relating the d2 term to the surface area of the impression [27]. 2.4. Flexural strength testing Rectangular specimens were EDM cut from the sintered PCD and transition layer materials. Care was taken in machining to ensure that EDM burrs were not in critical regions of the test specimens. The tension surface of the specimens was lapped with 12 22 Am diamond abrasive slurry prior to testing. The nominal specimen size and the testing geometry are shown in Fig. 2. Testing was performed with a three-point bend apparatus on a screw-driven universal testing machine with a displacement rate of 0.05 mm/min. The flexural strength rf of an individual test specimen was determined by the formula rf 3PL 2BT 2

Fig. 1. Nineteen-millimeter disk, 11 mm SRT, and 19 mm chisel products.

where P was the load required to fracture the specimen. Because the cross-sectional width and thickness dimensions B and T were critical to the calculation and varied slightly in size across each specimen, the width and thickness was measured after fracture as closely as possible to the fracture surface. In accordance with applicable test standards [28], the testing fixture employed a ball support in series with the loading line to allow the loading fixture to conform to slightly non-parallel specimen surfaces. Also in accordance with the test standard, the specimen supports were designed to allow rotation during loading to avoid overestimation of flexural strength due to frictional shear between the specimen and the supports. It should be noted that the test standard was followed where it could be practically applied. However, the recommendations for sample size and specimen chamfering were not followed because these pose unique cost and sample preparation difficulties for PCD-based materials. Once the group of specimens had been tested and the flexural strengths calculated, the probability of failure Pf was

1916

D. Belnap, A. Griffo / Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 19141922

determined by ranking the specimen from lowest to highest and using the ranking function Pf=(i 0.5)/n where i was the rank number and n was the total number of specimens. The Weibull modulus was then estimated using the slope of the data plotted as ln[ln[1/(1 Pf)]] vs. ln(r). 2.5. Elastic modulus testing Specimens for elastic modulus testing were EDM cut from the 19-mm sample blanks. According to the recommendations of the relevant testing standard [29], the specimen geometry was such that the ratio of length to thickness was greater than 20 so that the resonant flexural frequency was minimally affected by Poisson effects. The finished specimens had nominal dimensions of 17 6 0.8 mm. The equation used to calculate the elastic modulus (E) was E 0:9465 ms f 2 L3 T1 BT 3

vior of PCD components has been documented by other researchers [30]. 2.7. Wear tests Specimens were made from the sintered disks by OD grinding/lapping to nominal dimensions of 19 mm diameter and 8 mm length. The wear testing was performed by placing these specimens in a 15j backrake tool holder and machining the OD of a Barre granite cylinder on a lathe. The test conditions were 0.015 in. depth of cut and 550 650 surface ft/min under flood-cooling conditions. The nominal size of the granite cylinder was 20 cm OD 25 cm length. The amount of granite removed was determined by measuring the diameter of the granite cylinder before and after the test in multiple locations. The amount of abrasive material removed was determined by making measurements of the wear scar using an optical microscope and estimating the removed volume using a numerical algorithm. The ratio of granite material removed to abrasive material removed was recorded as the wear resistance or G-ratio of the PCD

where ms was the mass of the specimen, f was the measured resonant flexural frequency, L, B, and T were, respectively the specimen length, width, and thickness, and T1 is a geometry-dependent constant. Because of the criticality of the thickness measurement in the calculation and the inherent variation of thickness across the specimen, the thickness was determined by indirect means, which allowed for better estimation of the average thickness. To accomplish this, mass and density measurements were made on each specimen, along with length and width measurements. Using the physical definition of density and assuming the specimen to be a rectangular solid allowed for the determination of the average thickness for the specimen. Testing of the specimens was performed by tapping the simply supported specimens and measuring the resonant frequency. 2.6. Impact tests Testing was performed by placing inserts in a steel fixture, which allowed contact with two WC-11% Co cylindrical pins. The PCD contacted the carbide cylinders at approximately 45j from the central axis of the inserts. This contact location was selected as this is representative of the critical contact location in most enhanced insert applications. Impacts were delivered from a 12-lb steel drop weight, which was released magnetically from the appropriate heights from the inside of an aligning tube. A consumable steel block was employed between the insert and the drop weight to avoid unnecessary damage to the permanent fixture components. Impact testing started at 24 ft lbs and increased at 6 ft lb intervals until PCD chipping was observed. The energy at which chipping was first observed was recorded as the impact failure height. The use of impact tests in characterizing the mechanical beha-

Fig. 3. (a) Microstructure of PCD-A monolithic material. (b) Microstructure of homogeneous WC-Co composite.

D. Belnap, A. Griffo / Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 19141922

1917

Fig. 4. (a) Low magnification S.E.M. images of as-processed PCD surfaces. (b) Microstructure of structured composite PCD. (c) Microstructure of cell boundary material. (d) Microstructure of PCD-B monolithic material.

material. Similar procedures for testing the abrasion resistance of PCD have been reported elsewhere [30].

3. Experimental results Fig. 3a and b show, respectively, microstructures of PCD-A (4 8 Am diamond/20 wt.% cobalt) and PCD-A combined with 40 vol.% WC-Co. In all micrographs, the darkest phase is diamond and the lighter phases are cobalt and/or tungsten carbide. The 10- to 20-Am WC-Co particulates can be clearly observed in Fig. 3b and are randomly distributed within the microstructure. The hardness values of PCD-A were determined to be 3300 3400 kg/mm2, while the hardness values of the homogeneous composite material were determined to be 2300 2400 kg/mm2. In comparison, Slavutich type material has diamond grit on the scale of 300 Am or greater and no diamond bonding evident due to large particle size and low pressures used [25]. The microstructures of the structured composite material are shown in Fig. 4a c. The composite nature of the material can be clearly observed in Fig. 4a. This figure shows lowmagnification images of the as-processed surface of enhanced inserts fabricated with both the structured composite material and PCD-A. The structured composite material has a honeycomb-like structure, with individual PCD cells measuring 100 150 Am. The surface of the PCD-A material

can be observed to be comparatively featureless, which is representative of the as-processed surfaces of inserts made with PCD-B and homogeneous composite material. Fig. 4b and c shows the individual sintered microstructures of the cell (nominal composition PCD-B) and cell boundary (nominal composition WC-14% Co) materials that form the structured composite. Fig. 4d shows the

Fig. 5. Flexural strength data for PCD-A materials.

1918

D. Belnap, A. Griffo / Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 19141922 Table 1b PCD-B elastic modulus data Material PCD-B Monolith Structured composite
a

Elastic modulus 887 F 17 GPa 847 GPaa

Only one sample tested

Fig. 6. Flexural strength data for PCD-B materials.

microstructure of a monolithic material of composition PCD-B. Hardness values for the PCD-B materials in the structured composite material were determined to be 3100 3200 HV, while the hardness of the PCD-B monoliths were measured slightly higher at 3200 3300 HV. To facilitate accurate comparisons, the hardness measurements in the structured materials were fully confined within the PCD cells. Weibull plots of the flexural strengths of PCD-A-based materials are shown in Fig. 5. The PCD-A monolith material flexural strength was determined to be 1714 F 95 MPa (mean F one standard deviation), with an estimated Weibull modulus of 21.9. The composite material flexural strength was determined to be 1453 F 108 MPa, with an estimated Weibull modulus of 16.0. Weibull plots of the PCD-B-based materials are shown in Fig. 6. The PCD-B monolith material flexural strength was determined to be 1815 F 100 MPa, with an estimated Weibull modulus of 21.5. The structured composite material flexural strength was determined to be 991 F 97 MPa, with an estimated Weibull modulus of 12.0. The elastic modulus results as determined by impulse excitation for PCD-A- and PCD-B-based materials are given, respectively, in Tables 1a and 1b. The values for all materials except the structured composite were the average of data from three samples. Based on the tight standard deviation observed with the other samples using this technique, it was concluded that one data point was reasonably representative of the group values. As expected, it can be

seen that the elastic modulus is measurably reduced for the composite materials. Impact tests were performed on enhanced insert products to access the relative durability of the composite materials relative to the monolithic materials. The PCD-A monolith and the homogeneous composite materials were tested using an 11-mm SRT configuration. The inserts tested had a PCD thickness of 250 Am. The inserts tested also had a single interlayer of PCD/60 vol.% WC-Co also of 250 Am thickness as a functional gradient layer between the PCD layer and the WC-Co substrate. The results of the testing are shown in the Weibull plot in Fig. 7. The PCD-A monolith gave an impact resistance of 45 F 11 ft lb, while the homogeneous composite gave an impact resistance of 97 F 10 ft lb. The PCD-B monolith and the structured composite materials were tested using a 19 mm inclined chisel configuration. The inserts tested had a PCD thickness of 500 Am. The inserts tested also had a two interlayers, the first being a PCD/40 vol.% WC-Co material and the second a PCD/60 vol.% WCCo material. The interlayers were each of approximately 250 Am thickness. As in the previous example, these interlayers served as a functional gradient layers between the PCD layer and the WC-Co substrate. The results of the testing are shown in the Weibull plot in Fig. 8. The PCD-B monolith gave an impact resistance of 27 F 5 ft lb, while the structured composite gave an impact resistance of 38 F 5 ft lb. The decreased impact resistance observed between the 11-mm product and the 19-mm products is attributed to differences in the impact load distribution on the SRT and inclined chisel insert geometries, rather than a fundamental difference in intrinsic material impact resistance.

Table 1a PCD-A elastic modulus data Material PCD-A Monolith Homogeneous Composite Elastic modulus 892 F 10 GPa 799 F 9 GPa

Fig. 7. Comparative impact resistance of PCD-A materials.

D. Belnap, A. Griffo / Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 19141922 Table 2b Comparative wear resistance of PCD-B-based materials Material PCD-B Monolith Homogeneous Composite

1919

G-ratio 1.02 106 5.96 105

Fig. 8. Comparative impact resistance of PCD-B-based materials.

The results of the wear resistance tests for the PCD-Aand PCD-B-based materials are shown in Tables 2a and 2b. The results shown are the average of 4 5 parts per material. As may be anticipated from the microstructures, the wear resistance of the composite materials was observed to drop measurably in both the homogeneous and the structured composite materials. To a large degree, this is to be expected, since the wear resistance of these materials is dependent on the volume fraction of diamond.

4. Discussion of results The correlation between microstructure and hardness in the PCD-A-based materials is quite obvious. The PCD-A monolith contained approximately 90 vol.% diamond crystals compared to approximately 55 vol.% diamond crystals in the homogeneous composite material. The drop in hardness of approximately 1000 HV between the monolith and the composite materials is primarily due to the reduction in diamond volume fraction. While this is a significant drop in hardness from the PCD monolith material, the values are significantly higher than for any carbide grade used in rock drilling applications. Typical hardness values for these carbide grades range between 1200 and 1600 HV depending on cobalt content [31]. With its unique combination of microstructure and hardness, the homogeneous composite material essentially defines a new class of material for drilling applications. Examination of the PCD-B materials from both the monolith and the structured composite shows that it is possible to maintain very similar microstructures in either form. Close examination of the cell boundary material using
Table 2a Comparative wear resistance of PCD-A-based materials Material PCD-A Monolith Homogeneous Composite G-ratio 1.03 106 1.16 105

EDX analysis gave strong evidence that some cobalt migration from the boundary occurred during the sintering process. The initial amount of cobalt in the boundary was 16 wt.%; however, the EDX analysis showed that only 3 4 wt.% remained in the boundary after HP/HT sintering. Also, microhardness measurements in the boundary material gave values of 1500 1600 HV, which is about 400 HV higher than would be expected from a WC-16% Co material with this grain size [31]. In addition, careful examination of the PCD microstructures from the monolith and the composite showed that there appeared to be some increase in the binder metal in the structured composite PCD, although it was difficult to quantify this analytically with reasonable statistical significance. The additional binder metal is a reasonable explanation for the slight decrease in PCD hardness between the monolith and the composite. The flexural strength and Weibull modulus of the PCD-A and PCD-B monoliths were determined to be relatively high values for brittle materials. However, a decrease in flexural strength and Weibull modulus was observed in both the homogeneous composite and the structured composite materials relative to the respective monoliths. The homogeneous composite showed a reduction in strength of 15% relative to the PCD-A monolith. A simple uniaxial strain analysis may provide some explanation for the results. The critical strain for the PCD-A material can be estimated by the strength divided by the modulus, which gives a value of 0.192 F 0.011%. By a similar calculation, the critical strain for the homogeneous composite material gives a value of 0.182 F 0.014%. The critical strain values for these two materials can be argued to be in agreement within the range of scatter observed in the testing, thus the failure criterion for these PCD materials may be more related to strain than stress. The strength decrease with the structured composites showed a reduction in strength of 45% relative to the PCD-B monolith. The decrease is larger than can be explained by a critical strain analysis. Since the PCD-B material in the monolith and in the composite was reasonably similar, the boundary material was suspected to be microstructural feature responsible for the strength decrease. A subtle but important difference between the WC-Co used in the two composites should be emphasized here. As mentioned previously, the PCD-B structured composites employed blended WC and Co powder to form the boundary material, while the PCD-A homogeneous composites employed pre-sintered WC-Co. As a consequence, the HP/ HT conditions were responsible for the WC-Co sintering in the case of the PCD-B materials, while the WC-Co in the PCD-A material was sintered previously under standard

1920

D. Belnap, A. Griffo / Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 19141922

Fig. 9. PCD-A material failure modes.

carbide conditions. It is possible that the HP/HT press conditions used in sintering PCD materials are not ideally suited for the sintering of WC-Co, and as a result, the PCDB composite materials test weaker due to poorer carbide sintering. Additional reasons pointing to the PCD-B composite boundary material as the microstructural weak link were found in subsequent analysis. Elastic modulus values for both the homogeneous and structured composite materials decreased relative to the respective monoliths, as pointed out previously. This is to be expected from various theoretical models of the elastic modulus of two phase materials. Further analysis found that the experimental results agreed reasonably well with the Hashin Shtrikman elastic modulus model [32]. The impulse excitation technique appeared to give good agreement within material samples, demonstrating that the technique gives reasonably consistent experimental results. This combined with the reasonable agreement with theoretical predictions suggests that impulse excitation is a viable method for the determination of elastic properties of ultrahard materials. A similar conclusion was reached by previous researchers [33]. Impact test results showed an increase in impact resistance with the composite material, however, it was difficult to quantify a first-principles toughness increase in these materials because of complications such as the laminar nature of the materials, inherent residual stresses in the inserts, and permanent deformation/cracking of the contact anvils. However, despite these complications, it was impossible to ignore the fact that the composite materials were measurably more resistant to impact than the monoliths, and therefore possessed some degree of increased toughness. A portion of the toughening may be explained by the measured decrease in elastic modulus. For a given material, the toughness GC is governed by the relation GC
2 KC E

Fig. 10. Wear of homogeneous composite.

decrease alone. A similar but smaller toughening effect would be expected in the structured composite materials since the difference in modulus values between monolith and composite materials is smaller. This agrees semi-quantitatively with the impact data, since the difference between monolith and composite impact resistance is larger for the PCD-A materials than for the PCD-B materials. In both the PCD-A and PCD-B tests, the material that tested highest in impact resistance also possessed the lowest hardness. The most dramatic impact resistance increase was in the PCD-A materials, where the 2300- to 2400-HV composite material had an impact resistance of 97 ft lb, while the 3300- to 3400-HV monolith had an impact resistance of 45 ft lb. In materials such as steels, the inverse relation between fracture toughness and hardness is well characterized. It is possible that decreased hardness in PCD materials corresponds with an increase in fracture toughness as well. As the above relation shows, because of the squared term, even relatively small increases in fracture toughness would have a large effect on toughness. Therefore, the toughness increase with the homogeneous composite material relative to the PCD-A monolith material may be substantial. However, increases in impact resistance were observed to be accompanied by a decrease in wear resistance. Therefore, it should be noted that similar to other material systems, important material tradeoffs occur in PCD

where KC is the fracture toughness and E is the elastic modulus. This relation indicates an inverse relationship between material toughness and modulus; therefore, even assuming that the fracture toughness of the materials (not measured) remained constant, a toughening effect would be expected for a lower modulus material. Quantifying this for the PCD-A materials, a toughening effect of 12% would be expected in the homogeneous composite from the modulus

Fig. 11. Localized chipping of structured composite.

D. Belnap, A. Griffo / Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 19141922

1921

Fig. 12. Impact spall from tested insert with structured composite material.

materials and need to be considered in determination of appropriate grade selection for specific enhanced insert applications. Field test results with both homogeneous and structured composite materials have shown improvements over the monolithic materials. A detailed summary of performance data is beyond the scope of this paper, however, some note will be made of new types of failure modes observed with these composite materials. Fig. 9 shows comparative failure modes of the PCD-A-based materials used in for gage protection of a 3-cone bit. The monolith materials fail in this application by chipping/spalling of the diamond layer, as can be observed in the figure. By comparison, the homogeneous composite materials were observed to survive the application essentially in new condition. Close examination of some homogeneous composite inserts showed minor wear scars in the contact regions (Figs. 9 and 10). However, multiple field tests have demonstrated that the wear resistance of the homogeneous composite material is sufficient for 3-cone bit PCD insert applications, despite the large measured difference in wear resistance between the monolith and the homogeneous composite. Therefore, for 3-cone bit applications, it has been determined that the homogeneous composite material provides a substantial engineering benefit in improving the durability of enhanced inserts. However, it has been noted that the best performance with the homogeneous composite

material is accompanied by substantially increased PCD layer thicknesses ( f 3 mm). An increase in insert durability with structured composites relative to monolithic materials has been previously reported, with bit life increases of over 2.5 times reported in some regions [22,34]. It has been previously documented that some of the performance benefit from the structured composite material is at least in part due to the capability of these materials to form localized chipping as a failure mode. The edges of the locally chipped regions are frequently observed to coincide with the cell boundaries. Examples of the mitigated chipping continue to be observed in structured composite materials, as can be seen in the photograph in Fig. 11. Examination of impact-tested structure composite material has shown that cell boundaries can significantly affect the fracture path. Fig. 12 shows a photograph impact spall in which the cell boundaries clearly coincide with the fracture. This gives an indication that the cell boundary is considerably weaker than the cell material and therefore can provide a location for preferential fracture under certain conditions. The large decrease in flexural strength observed with the structured composite relative to the monolith material supports this observation. Confirming evidence of the cell boundary being a location of preferential fracture has been observed in sectioned analysis of field tested inserts. Fig. 13 shows a possible mechanism for creation of localized chipping. The photographs on the right show localized chipping on the surface of a structured composite insert. The micrograph on the right in Fig. 13 was sectioned from a field-tested structured composite insert, which was in visibly in good condition. It appears that the localized chipping phenomenon is likely due to the initiation of cracks along the cell boundaries, which continue to propagate until the cracks intersect resulting in material loss.

5. Conclusions (1) Homogeneous and structured composite PCD materials have been successfully fabricated for enhanced inserts.

Fig. 13. Possible mechanism for localized chipping damage in structured composites.

1922

D. Belnap, A. Griffo / Diamond & Related Materials 13 (2004) 19141922 [13] W.J. Salesky, B.R. Payne, Preliminary field test results of diamondenhanced inserts for three-cone bits, SPE/IADC Paper 16115, Presented at SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, 1987. [14] C.H. Reinhold, J. Clement, M. Oliver, C. Witt, J. Crockett, Diamondenhanced hammer bits reduce cost-per-foot in the arkoma and appalachian basins, SPE/IADC Paper 17185, Presented at SPE Conference, Dallas, TX 1988. [15] T.P. Lin, M. Hood, G.A. Cooper, X. Li, Wear 156 (1992) 133 150. [16] K. Ingmarsson, T.L. Mitchell, Geodrilling International 7 (1999) 10 12. [17] D.R. Hall, M.E. Russell, H.T. Hall Jr., Composite Polycrystalline Diamond Compact, August 5, 1986, US Patent 4,604,106. [18] M.K. Keshavan, M. Siracki, M. Russell, Diamond enhanced insert: new compositions and shapes for drilling soft to hard formations, SPE/IADC Paper 25737, Presented at SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 1993. [19] M.J. Doig, N. Bonnett, Beyond gauge retention: diamond chisel inserts provide further performance benefits on roller cone bits, SPE/IADC Paper 37638, Presented at SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 1997. [20] S. Andresen, S. Syltoy, R. Jones, A.K. Wicker, R.C. Pessier, The impact of a novel TCI bit on Osebergs horizontal drilling program, SPE/IADC Paper 37638, Presented at SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 1997. [21] D. Scott, M. Skeem, Diamond enhanced shear cutting elements on roller cone bits, Presented at Industrial Diamond Association Conference, Vancouver, 2000. [22] Z. Fang, A. Griffo, B. White, G. Lockwood, D. Belnap, G. Hilmas, J. Bitler, International Journal of Refractory Metal and Hard Materials 19 (2001) 453 459. [23] N.V. Novikov, N.Y. Tsypin, A.L. Maistrenko, I.F. Vovchanovski, Journal of Superhard Materials 5 (2) (1983) 3 5(Translated from). [24] L.C. Duan, X.Y. Liu, B.S. Mao, K.H. Yang, F.L. Yang, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 129 (2002) 395 398. [25] A.M. Bockovskii, et al, Journal of Superhard Materials 4 (1982) 14 17(Translated from). [26] C. Marx, C. Chur, Industrial Diamond Review 2 (1990) 86 90. [27] Standard Test Method for Microhardness of Materials, ASTM E384 99, 03.01, 1999. [28] Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Advanced Ceramics at Ambient Temperature, ASTM C1161 90, 15.01, 1990. [29] Standard Test Method for Dynamic Youngs Modulus, Shear Modulus, and Poissons Ratio for Advanced Ceramics by Impulse Excitation of Vibration, ASTM C1259 94, 15.01, 1994. [30] J.L. Wise, D.W. Raymond, C.H. Cooley, K. Bertagnolli, TransactionsGeothermal Resources Council 26 (2002) 201 208. [31] K.J.A. Brookes, World Directory and Handbook of Hardmetals, 2nd edition, Jetspeed Printing Service, United Kingdom, 1979. [32] Z. Hashin, S. Shtrikman, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 10 (1962) 335 343. [33] M.P. DEvelyn, D.E. Slutz, B.E. Williams, Mechanical Behavior of Diamond and Other Forms of Carbon - Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 383 (1995) 115 120. [34] R. Brown, A. Griffo, K. Keshavan, Advanced Materials and Processes 161 (6) (2003) 59 60.

(2) Impulse excitation gives reasonable and reproducible elastic modulus measurements for PCD materials and composites. (3) Significant differences in microstructure, hardness, flexural strength, elastic modulus, impact resistance, and wear resistance can be observed between composite and monolithic materials. (4) Changes in the failure modes of field-tested enhanced insert products are seen with the use of composite PCD materials. (5) Homogeneous and structured composites provide viable alternatives to monolithic PCD materials in 3-cone bit applications.

Acknowledgements Appreciation is due to Kevin Nelson and John Renfro (Smith Megadiamond) and Brian White (Smith Bits) for assistance in the sample processing, microstructure evaluation and hardness measurements reported in this paper. This paper was presented at INTERTECH 2003 in Vancouver, British Columbia.

References
[1] H.T. Hall, Science 169 (1970) 868 869. [2] R.H. Wentorf, R.C. DeVries, F.P. Bundy, Science 208 (1980) 873 880. [3] Y. Notsu, T. Nakajima, N. Kawai, Materials Research Bulletin 12 (1977) 1079 1085. [4] M. Akaishi, H. Kanda, Y. Sato, N. Setaka, T. Ohsawa, O. Fukunaga, Journal of Materials Science 17 (1982) 193 198. [5] J.C. Walmsley, A.R. Lang, Journal of Materials Science 23 (1988) 1829 1834. [6] P.N. Tomlinson, R.J. Wedlake, in: N.R. Comins, J.B. Clark (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Developments in Specialty Steels and Hard Materials, 1982, pp. 173 184. [7] M. Akaishi, S. Yamaoka, J. Tanaka, T. Ohsawa, Materials Science and Engineering A105/106 (1988) 517 523. [8] A. Lammer, Materials Science and Technology 4 (1988) 949 955. [9] M. Akaishi, T. Ohsawa, S. Yamaoka, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 74 (1991) 5 10. [10] D. Miess, G. Rai, Materials Science and Engineering A209 (1996) 270 276. [11] B.L. Huang, C. Weis, X. Yao, D. Belnap, G. Rai, in: F.H. Froes, J.C. Hebeisen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advanced Particulate Materials and Processes, 1997, pp. 431 437. [12] K.J. Dunn, M. Lee, Journal of Materials Science 14 (1979) 882 890.