OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CDNFERENCE PAPER

6200 North Central :Ex];Jressway - mJMBER OTe 1076

Dallas, Texas 75206

THIS IS A PREPRINT SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Maximum Permissible Horizontal Motions

of a Floating Drilling Vessel

By

John E. Hansford and Arthur Lubinski, Pan American Petroleum Corp.

Copyright 1969
Offshore Technology Conference on behalf of American Institute of Mining, MetalJ.urgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc., The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Institute
of Chemical Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Marine Technology Society,
Society of Exploration Geophysicists, and Society of Naval Architects & Marine Engineers.

This paper was prepared forpresentation at the First Annual Offshore Technology Conference to
be held in Houston, Tex., on May 18-21, 1969~ Permissionio copy is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 wQrds. Illustra:tions may not be copied. Such use of an abstract should contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by -:Whom-the' paper is presented.

ABSTRACT [i.e., drift]} or most often, some combination

Horizontal vessel motions [i.e., drift,
sway or surge] result in bending of the drill
string members in the Vicinity of the rotary
drive bushing at the-vessel and at the blowout
preventer close to the seafloor. -Allowable
horizontal vessel motions are calculated as a
function of l1ookload} using both cumulative
fatigue damage and drill pipe strength as
criteria for drilJ.,ing and for pulling stuck
pipe. The presently used rule of limiting -
horizontal vessel motion to 5 percent of water
depth is shown-to be too restrictive in some
cases and too lenient in others.
of the two. An accepted limit of horizontal
vessel motion of 5 ~ercent of the water depth
has been suggested and fre~uently followed. 2
In reality, the allowable motion is strongly
influenced by the hookload. Motions greater
than 5 percent of water depth are often per-
missible, and under some conditions, motions
should be limited to less than 5 percent of
water depth. The purpose of this paper is to
suggest maximum permissible motions imposed by
drill pipe fatigue damage and pipe strength}
as a function of hookload.
IDEALIZED SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION Fig. 1 shows an idealized system, highly

When drilling from a floating vessel} the
rotating drill string is subjected to fatigue
damage caused by reversing stresses which arise
from heave} roll} pitch and horizontal motions
of the vessel. In Ref. I} the authors have
examined the effect of drilling vessel roli and-
pitch On the cumulative fatigue damage of the
kelly and the first joint-of drnl pipe below
the kelly. As a continuation of that investiga-
tion} the present study covers the effect of
horizontal motions of the vessel on the drill
string.
Horizontal departure from over the borehole
may be oscillatory [i.e., sway or surge], static
References and illustrations at end of paper.
exaggerated for explicitness. Although pipe
bends are shown ~uite acute, bending stresses
were properly defined mathematically. The pipe
bending at the rotary drive bUshing [labeled
RDB in Fig. 1] is relieved in most cases by a
gimbaled bushing and largely taken by the
kelly, a more durable member. Therefore} the
point of most severe damage is in the area of
the blowout preventer rams [labeled BOP]. ---
Generally, the drill pipe is run inside a
larger pipe calle~ a riser, which provides a
return for the drilling mud from the sea floor
to the vessel. For the sake of simplicity) the
interaction of the drill pipe with the riser
was not considereQ in this investigation.
I I 68 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE HORIZONTAL MOTIONS OF A FLOATING DRILLING VESSEL
It is believed that the ef'f'ect of' this inter-
action on drill pipe bending is small.
The dimension D in Fig. 1 is the distance
f'rom the rotary drive bushing to the blowout
preventer. This distance. throughout this paper
is called water depth whichm~y or may not
correspond closely enough to the reality to be
used interchangeably. When in doubt, the true
distance D should be used and substituted f'or
water depth when using the curves in this paper.
The dimension H in Fig. 1 is the horizonta
departure of' the vessel frolllovertp.E) b_o:relJ.ole.
Generally, this distance will be referred to in
this paper in terms oJ a Itpercent of water . .
depth It, which will in reality be a percent of
distance D.
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
Figs. 2,3 and 4 give the allowable hori-
zontal vessel motion in percent of water depth
as a function of hookload. Figs. 2, 3 and 4
are for 5- in. ,19.5 lb/ft, Grade E steel drill
pipe, ~-1/2-in., 16.6 lb/ft, Grade E steel
drill pipe, and 5-in., 2014-T6 alloy aluminum
drill pipe, respec~ively. Each figure has
two abscissas, one labeled hookload and the
other corresponds to. an e<;LuJ. v~lent length of
the respective drilLp.1.pe in iOlb/gal mud.
Each figure is for a drilling rate of 10 ft/hr
and-a rotary table speed of 100 rpm.
Point A on the curve, labeled drift in
Fig. 2, shows that for a hookload of 90,000 lb
[approximately 5,000 ft of pipe] and for con-
stant translation of the vessel without ..
Q,Scillatory motion, the allowable horizontal
vessel motion is about 7-1/2 percent of the
water depth, i.e., 7 1/2 ft in 100ft of water,
15ft in 200ft of water, etc. The other
curve labeled maximum- sway is for oscillatory
motion without translation. Actually, vessel
oscillatory motion is usually a combination
of sway and surge, referred to hereafter as
sway. I t is slightly less eXacting than the
drift curve because the vessel is not at its
maximum value of departure continously as in
the case of drift. However, the difference in
allowable motion is small, and since the true
vessel motion is seldom purely oscillatory, it
is better to use the drift curve and maintain
a small-margin of safety.
The most important conclusion drawn from
Figs. 2, 3 and 4 is that the well depth strong-
ly influences the allowable horizontal vessel
motion. A factor of three or four on the
allowable horizontal vessel motion in the
range of practical interest is seen in eac~
figure. The range of practical i~terest is
set in most cases on the high end, at about
15 to 20 percent of the water depth by the
OTC 1076
bending limit of' the f'lex-joint at the bottom
of the riser. On the other hand, some reserve
pipe strength has to be maintained for pUlling
stuck pipe, and each vessel has some practical
minumum motion limit f'or drilling. These
two factors influence the lower limit of the
practical range of' interest. Thus, the 5 per-
cent of water depth rule which disregards
hookload is often too restrictive and some-
times too lenient. Good use of this knowledge
in the industry may be illustrated by the
following case history. One of the authors
happened to be on a drilling vessel when a
mooring chain brOke and the ship moved off
location in excess of 10 percent of water
depth. __ The driller immediately stopped drill-
ing. After ascertaining the total drift
reached as a result of the broken chain, the
author, consulting curves similar to those
presented in this paper, realized that drill-
ing could continue safely, because hole depth
at that time was less than 1,000 ft. As a
result, drilling proceeded during the several
hours needed to pick up the broken chain and
reconnect it to the vessel. The drill pipe
did not fail at this time or later while
finishing the well. This action resulted in
saving several thousands of dollars.
Figs. 2 [5-in. steel drill pipe] and 3
[4-l/2-in. steel drill pipe] are not very
different when compared on the drill pipe
length scale. This occurs because the in-
fluence of' the dif'f'erence in the two pipes'
rigidity and cross-sectional area is almost
exactly compensated for by their difference
in weight.
If Figs. 2 and 3 for steel pipe are com-
pared to Fig. 4 for aluminum pipe on the hook-
load scale, a small but significant advantage
is seen for aluminum pipe. If, however, the
comparison is made on the drill pipe length
scale, a very la~ge advantage is .seen for
aluminum pipe. For example, if the preViously
mentioned Point A in Fig. 2 is compared to the
comparable Point B [i.e., 5,000 ft of drill
pipe in the hole] in Fig. 4, the allowable
horizontal vessel motion is almost doubled for
the aluminum pipe. To compare the allowable
vessel drift when using steel pipe in one
case and aluminum pipe in the other, Fig. 5
was prepared. In this figure, which is an
example case for 300 ft of water, the allow-
able drift for each pipe is plotted against
the length of drill pipe above the bumper-subs
[roughly well depth]. In Fig. 5, aluminum
pipe shows a significant increase in allowable
vessel drift at all well depths. In reality,
5-in., Grade E pipe would not be used to 15,
000 ft, but aluminum pi];le couldbe used unless
such a solution is undesirable because of such
factors as high temperature [above 3000F],
improper mud PH, somewhat higher initial cost,
etc.
GTC lG76 JOHN E. RANSFORD and ARTHUR LUBINSKI
The solid line portion of' the curves in
Figs. 2 through 5 are calculated for the
criterion of'lO~percent f'atigue damage to the
drill pipe passing once through the b,lowout
preventer While ClriJ.l1.J:lg ahead. Continued
use of' this criterionf'or iarge hookloads
would result in exceeding the yield strength
of the pipe ~and wou:td r:eCl1j,ire extrapolation of
the S-N curve into the low cycle fatigue
region. For these reasons, the.d.ashed portion
of the curves is calculated f'or the criterion
of' the sum of' the bending and tensile' stresses
equal to 85 percent of the yield strength.
The dashed line portion is independent of
rotary table speed and drilling rate. On the
other hand, the value of' 10-percent damage
corresponding to the solid line portions in-
creases proportionally to rotary table speed
and inversely proportionally to the drilling
rate. If, for example, the vessel dr~ft were
7-l/2 percent of waterept1J. corresponding to
Point A in Fig. 2 [lO-percent fatigue damage],
but the rotary speed was 50 rpm and the drill-
ing rate 20 ft/hr, then the damage to each
joint of pipe passing through the blowout pre-
venter under these conditions would be 2-l/2
percent instead of~O ..
The question immedtately arises ~s to
what would happen if the drilling rate were
zero, i.e., the drill pipe was being rotated
off bottom. The answer is that, if the com-
bination of vessel ~otion and hookload results
in a drill pipe strees.lEl.rger than the~n-_
durance limit and the rotation off bottom
continues, the pipe would _break. All values
of fatigue damage between zero and failure
may occur depending upon the value of the
pertinent parameters. The fraction of damage
incurred for any particular set of conditions
may easily be calculated using the equations
presented in the AppendiX. From a practical
standpoint, however, it will suffice to re-
member that rotating the bit off bottom for
extended periods damages the pipe. Therefore,
the drill pipe shoulqberaised~r lo~ere~
frequently so as to have a different joint of
pipe in the blowout preventer.
The steel drill pipe considered in the
investigation of fatigue damage is all Grade
E, which was selected because it is the only
grade known to the authors for Which sufficient
full-size joint fatigue tests have been run to
curve [S-N curve].
y
establish a bendin stress vs cycles to failure
Some tests have been run
on S-l35, -but not sufficiently to establish a
reliable S-N curve. 3 However, Fig. 6 is pre-
sented as an example of how mixed grades of
pipe Jnightb.E)~used, i f sufficient data were
available. Fig. 6 is based on-the authors 1
educated guesses as to what the S-N curves for
Grade G and S-135 drill pipe would be.
II 69
The example of' Fig. 6 assumes that i:.he
vessel motion from over the borehole can be
held within 10 ft while drilling. Using 5-in.
steel drill pipe and drilling 240 ft of water
would allow the first 9,600 ft of drill pipe
to be Grade E. The next 4,600 ft of pipe
would be Grade G, and after the well reached
a depth of 14,200 ft, the drill pipe added to
top of the string would be 8-135. Under
conditions of Fig. 6, the well could be drill-
ed to 19,000 ft. Deeper wells would call for
mixed sizes as well as grades and possibly the
utilization of aluminum pipe. Another means
would consist of discarding from further use
those joints of pipe which were subjected to
excessive fatigue damage.
The relationship between drill pipe
fatigue damage and horizontal motion is not
proportional, i.e., if 5-ft drift in a given
set of circumstances gives 10-percent damage,
then 10-ft drift will not give 20-percent
damage, but much more. The lO-ft drift would
probably break the pipe. This fact is shown
in Fig. 7, in which the damage incurred by a
joint of 5-in. steel pipe passing through the.
blowout preventer while drilling at a rate of
10 ft/hr with a rotary table speed of 100 rpm
is plotted against drift in percent of water
depth. Thi's example is somewhat severe since
the drilling string length of 9,000 ft is
approaching the safe depth limit for 5-in.,
Grade E pipe. Nevertheless , it illustrates
the fact that if 4-3/4 ft gives lO-percent _.
damage [Point M, Fig. 7], it takes only about
an additional 1/2 ft of drift to give 20-
percent damage [Point N]. This phenomenon
occurs because of the logarithmic nature of
the 8-N curve. Thus, it is important to
. observe vessel motion limits closely.
The dotted portion of Fig. 7 was obtained
by extrapolation of the S-N curves to "cycles
to failure" values less than 104 cycles. The
legitimapy of this practice can be questioned
since 104 cycles is more or less the dividing
line between high and low cycle fatigue modes
of failure.
up to this point, the discussion has
centered around drill pipe fatigue damage
which occurs within the scope of this stUdy
only while the drill pipe rotates. Another
effect of vessel drift is an appreciable re-
duction of the amount of pull that can be
exerted on stuck pipe. Figs. 8, 9 and 10 give
sums of drill pipe tensile and bending stress
as a function of the hookload and the maximum
horizontal vessel motion. Again, as was the
case for Figs. 2, 3 and 4, Figs. 8, 9 and 10
are for 5-in. steel, 4-l/2-in. steel, and 5-in.
aluminum pipe, respectively. The ordinate of
maximum horizontal vessel motion encompases aJL
horizontal motions whether drift, sway, surge,
or any combinationof these. The curves in
each figure- ZWe.liIIeS .Qf..equal
Pile.stress.
It will be.riotedt.ha$..thg.yg?u%. of PiPe.str?.?s
for which the curves have been computed corres-
pond to the yield and ultimate strengths of
the most used grades. Also, as before, SJI
extra abscissa giving an equivalent length of
drillpipe in 10:lb/gal mud is included.
Suppose that 5-in., 19.5-lb/ft stuck PiPe
is being pulled on with a hookload of 150,000
lb and the-maximum horizontal vessel motion
is about 10-percent of the water depth. Then
point c in Fig. 8 shows that thest%ess in-the
joint of pipe in the blowout preventer woulil-
be 10,000psi. Or conversely, if the maximum
drill pipe stress cannot be allowed to exceed
100,OOO psi and the maximm. vessel motion is
about 10 percent of the water depth, then the
hookload cannot be allowed to exceed 150,000 lb
Consider now the following example, using the
same figure and conditionsas above, and sup-
posing that the length of drill pipe above the
freeze point is 5,000 ft, [Point G in Fig. 81
which roughly correspondsto 90,000 lb hook:
load [pointHin Fig. 8], then only 60,000 lb
[differencein abscissa of Points CandH] of
overpull csm be .exe:tedwithoutover-stressing
the pipe.
Again, Figs. 8 and 9 for 5-in. and4-l/2-
in. steel pipe, respectively,are not very
much different,but enough to warrant incl-ud-
ing them both.
It is in order now to investigatewhether
from a standpoint of overpull, +minm drill
pipe is.,or is.notl.betterthu steel PiPe.
Consider the sane case as ,above,nsmely: [11
vessel motion is 10 percent of water depth
and [2] that the freeze point of stuck pipe
is at 5,000 ft. Proceeding as above, one
obtains the results for maximum overpull shown
in Table I. From this table,the conclusion
may be reached,that!5-in. aluminum drill.pipe
may withstad more overpull to free stuck pipe
than Grades E or G steel pipe. However, S-135
steel pipe allows more oyerpull th~...alwn~n~
pipe. Although the above conclusionsme
based on exsmple~as~, they are actizally-
general. . If this hypothesis is true predictionsmade
THEORY AND DEFINITIONS
Miners Linear Hypothesis
All cumulative fatigue damage values
calculated for use in this gaper.were a?rived
at by using the so-called Miners linear rule.4
Miners rule deals with fatigue as a deter-
ministic phenomenon and was deriyed by its
author in a heuristic manner. In essence,
Miners rule states that, if a specimen is
subjected to a constant amplitude alternating
load, P, and fatls after N cYclesJ each cYc~e
expended l/N part of the specimens life.
Furthermore, if several identical specimens
were loaded similarly,but at other constant
loads, P PI, P2, P3 ....Pi so as to establish
a curve of load [or stress] vs N, then the
failure of any new identical specimen loaded
in any sequence of loading patterns, could be
predicted to fail when
;:
n
E
i=l
=
i
i.
1. . . . . . . . . . .[1]
where i number of cycles of load i
Ni z number of cycles to failure under
repeated application of load li
In a previous paper,1 the authors assumed
that failure occurs when the left-hand ex-
pression is equalto 0.5 rather than one, in
order to take into considerationthat the
cycle amplitude is not constant. In that
paper every factor influencing fatigue was
taken on a safe side. It is now felt that
such a procedure yielded unrealistic results.
For this reason, in the present paper the
value of one rather than 0.5 was adopted.
In a like manner, it is now felt that
corrosion was treated too conservativelyin
the past. Today it is possible and desirable
to folhw good practices of corrosion in-
hibftiion. For these reasons, the facet of
corrosion fatigue was not included in this
paper.
Miners rule has been the subject of much
discussion and there have been a score or
more of other deterministicrules proposed..to
tslceits place. However, bemuse Miners
rule is so simple to apply and seems to give
results no worse than the others, it remains
a standard for comparison. In fact, in very
many practical cases the rule has yield good
results.
Some investigatorsclaim that the order
of sequence of the loading cycles has an
influence on the fatigue life of metals.7,8,9
using Miners rule could either be conserva-
tive or nonconservativedepending on the true
load history of the hardware in question,
It has been found in the past that the
fatigue life md endurance limit of small
specimens are considerablyhigher than the
full-sizepiece of hardware even though the
stresses are equal. For this reason, full-
size joints of drill pipe have been fatigue
tested. The S-N curve for joints of Grade E
steel pipe is given in Ref. 1 and for aluminLm
pipe in Ref. 5.
OTC 1076 JOHN E . HANSORD and mm
Modified Goodman Diagrsn
It is a well known fact that a tensile
load superimposedoq_a specimen experiencing
cyclic bending stresses reduces the en~urance--
limit. This effect is called the Goodman
effect and is treated in this study in the s
s~e m~ner as described in Ref. 1 and 6; i.e.,
the bending stressismultiplied by a factor
Z=*2
t [2]
where t z tensile strength of the pipe
material
St = tensile stress imposed on the pipe
AccelerationFactor
When the drilling vessel heaves, the
tensile stresses in the drill pipe fluctuate
because of the acceleration of the vessel. To
take this factor into considerationin fatigue
calculations,a dymunic hookload was used..
The latter was estimated as equal to I-.o8
times the static hookload.
CONCLUSIONS
Fatigue damage of drill pipe is incurred
when a drilling vessel moves horizontally from
over the borehole and the drill.pipe is being
rotated. The point of most severe damage is
in the area of we blowo~tpreventer. Iri
order to combat this problem, a rule has been
suggested that the vessel be kept over the
borehole within plus or minus 5 percent oft~e
water depth.2 In case of drilling at a shallow
depth this rule is too restrictive and in some
cases of drilling at deep depths, the rule is
too lenient. This paper,presents curves from
which a more accurate esttmate of allowable
horizontal vessel motions may be made.
Within the range of water depths currentl~
being explored by the industry, the allowable
horizontal vessel motion is directly propor-
tional to the water depth; i.e., if 10 ft is
allowed in 100 ft of water, then 20 ft would
be allowea in 200 ft of water, other condition~
being the same.
While pure oscillatorymotion of the
drilling vessel [sway and surge] is less exact-
ing on drill-pipe fatigue than pure tramsla%io~
[drift],the difference is small enough to be
neglected, and motion limits presented in this
paper are based on drift. This procedure
gives results on the safeside.
The fatigue damage incurred as the drill-
ing vessel drif$s off loaction is highly non-
linear; i.e., if 5 ft off lcicationexpends
only 10 percent of the drill pipes fatigue
LUBINSa II 71
life, then 10 ft will probably break the pipe.
Thus, horizontal vessel motions should be
closely controlledwhile drilling.
When pulling stuck pipe, the driu pipe_
is not rotating and fatigue dsmage ceases to
be the criterion for allowable vessel motions.
In this case the sume of the bending and ten-
sile stress must be kept below some limit de-
pending upon several factors. The allowable
pull in excess of the weight of the pipe to th(
freeze point [overpull]is highly affected by
the horizontal excursion of the drilling
vessel. Curves for determiningthe allowable
overpull on stuck pipe as a function of vessel
motion are presented in this study.
From the standpoint of both cumulative
fatigue danage and pipe strength considera-
tions, aluminum drill pipe shows a clear ad-
vantage over steel drill pipe. While drilling>
the allowable horizontal motions using aluminw
drill pipe are roughly twice those using steel
drill pipe. If pulling stuck pipe, 5-in.
aluminum pipe allows significantlymore over-
pull than 5-in. steel pipe of Grades D, E and
G, and almost as much as S-135.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank the following for having
read the paper and presented constructive
criticism: H. E. Quellhorst,J. C. Stall and
J. A. Muckleroy, all employees of Pan America
Petroleum Corp.
REFERENCES
1. Hansford, J. and Lubinski, A.: Effects
of Drilling Vessel Pitch & Roll on Kelly
and Drill Pipe Fatigue,
Trans., AIME
[lg64] 231.
2. West, F~.: Practicesand l)evelopmen~s
in Offshore Oil Exploration and Produc-
tion, 1964 Trans., Institutionof Engi-
neers and Shipbuildersin Scotland,
Glasgow.
3. Rollins, H. M.: What We mow About
Drill-Pipe Fatigue Failure, Paper pre-
sented at AAODC Rotary Drilling Conference,
I?allas[Feb. 21, 1967].
4. Miner, M. A.: Cmnula*iveDamage in
Fatigue, J. Appl. Mech. [1945]
12, A159-
AI._64
.
5. Hansford, J. and Lubinski, A.: Cumula-
tive Fatigue Damage of Drill Pipe in Dog-
Legs, Trans., AIME [1966] 237.
6. Lubinsk~ Maximum Pem~sible DoE-
Legs in Rotary Borehole, Trans., AIME
[19611 222.
7. Vailu;i, S. R.: A Unified Engineering
Theory of High Stress Level Fatigue,
AeronauticalResearch Laboratory [Dec.,
1961] Report No. 181.
8. Manson, et al.: Further Investigationof
11 72 .-.
_. M&X- PEEiiISSIB13
HORIZONTAL MOTIONS OF A FLOATING DRILLING VESSEL OTC 1076

a Relation for CumulativeFatigue Damage in -Kx

=K<e . . . . . . . . . . .[7a]
Bending, J. for Engineering f& Indus;ry Cx
[Feb., 19651. SubstitutingEq. 7a into Eq. 2a yields the
9. Hardrath, H. F.: Fatigue,An Interdis- bending stress as a funckion of X:
ciplinary Approach, Sagsmore Army
Materials Research Conference [19631 345- =K%@Ce-~Eii/4 . . . . . . . . .[8al
359. -
x
SubstitutingEq. la into Eq. 8a:
APPENDIX
Edx
tan-l (H/D) e-~ . . . . .[9a]
The angle by which the drill pipe is bent x=--r
[abrupt dog-leg] is_shown in Fig. 1 as 2a. The For small values of 2a which are the only ones
tangent of this angle is H/D; i.e., of interest in this study, Eq. 9a becomes
Carl20L = H/D EdKH -KX
x Te ........[lOa]
or 2< = tanl(@D) . . . . . . . . . .[la]
To account for the Goodman effect on endurance
The maximum bending stress in the pipe is limit, ~ is increased by the factor T defined
given by the well known equation as: in Eq. 2.1J6 Thus finally,
CoEd
so=~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2a] s
x~=t-st (+) ~ e-w. . . [llal

where Co maximum curvature of the pipe The S-N curves of Refs. 1 [for steel drill
E= Youngs modulus pipe] and 5 [aluminumdrill pipe] were bi-
d= outside diameter of the drill pipe. linearized; i.e, the S-N curve in each case was
replaced by two straight lines, one horizontal
Eq. 31 of Ref. 6 is: line equal to the endurance limit and the other
line approximatingthe S vs N region above the
co =K a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[Sal endurance limit. In reality the approximation
is quite good. The equation for the endur~ce
where K is defined by Eq. 2t in Ref. 6 as: limit line is
1 .[ka] s= constant,
= F n - - . .
which means
and T = tension in drill pipe
I= moment of inertia of the drill pipe. 1
. [12a]
K=o.
L
. . . .. . . . .
The T in Eq. 4a maybe replaced by faT, the fa
being a factor to compensate for the average where l/Ni = fraction of drill pipe life
expended during the ith cycle.
increase in tension due to the acceleration of
the vessel in heave. In this study, fa = 1.08.
The equation for the line above the endurs.uce
limit is
To obtain the curvature of the pipe as a
function of the distance away from the point of = ~o(csi + b) ,
maximum curvature,use the coordinate system i
of Ref. 6, Fig. 19, and take the second deriva-
or
tive of Eq. 3t, with respect to X which yields:
1
= 1
d2Y [13a]
= Co CoshKX + so Sinh = . [5a] Ni ~o(cbi+b~ . . . . . . . .
cx=~
where C = -
&
As X approaches infinity, d2y/dX2 approaches
zero; therefore, so being a const=t, [fIs]L
= stress increment correspondingto one
log cycle
so = -Co=--K<. . . . . . . . ..[6al b= Log N when line is extrapolatedto
S=o.
SubstitutingEqs. 3a and 6a into Eq. 5a
The cumulative fatigue damage is then calcu-
Cx = K<
[
Cosh KX - Sinh FX
1. lated by Miners rule as:
~
n<
Substitutingthe exponential equivalents for th
cosh sad sinh functions,
L=
E i=J. q
.
. . . ... . . . .
.[14a]
 L= fraction of life expended as drill
pipe passes through the BOP ten =T/A. . . . . . . . . . . ..[15a]

where A = cross-sectionalarea of drill pipe.

where n~ = mxnbe-rof cycles the drill pipe was
sub.iectedto at stress level
The resulting equation which gives the
[sX~li maximum motion in percent of water depth to
Ni = number of cycles to failure under yield a given drill pipe stress for a given
continuousand repeated applica- hookload is:
tion of stress level [SX~]i.

The above developmentwas used to prepare PD=~ $ -~ . . . . . . [16a]

Figs. 2 through 7. r
rT
The calculationof horizontal motion to where PD maximum motion in percent of water
give a particular total stress, ST, for any depth
given hookload Is a straightforwardutilization ST = total drill pipe stress.
of the equations for bending stress developed
above and the equation for tensile stress, Eq. 16a was used to prepare Figs. 8, 9 and 10.

Table 1 - Examples of allowable overpull for various drill pipes.

For: Vessel Motion Equal to 10 Percent of Water Depth

Freeze Point at 5,000 feet

Pipe Approximate Yield Weight of 5000 in Alla#able OverPull

Strength 10 lb/gal Mud l-o

C-radeE 75,000 90,000 10,000 (Point J, Fig. 8)

G~ade G 100,0-00 90,000 60,000 (Point C, Fig. 8)

S-135 135,000 90,000 150,000 (Point E, Fig. 8)

.kiuminum 58,000 45,000 1.15,000(Point D, Fig. 10)

 LENGTH OF DRILL PIPE IN 10 LB/GAL MUD (1000S FT)

o 5 10
I I
25
I
+
n 51NCH,19.5LB/FT, GRADEE:
w sTEEL DRILLPIPE
/ :
w
20
IOFT/HRDRILLING RATE
-RDB +
s IOORPMROTARY TABLE
L 15
0
8
~
1+ 10
T
!3
D
$?
@5
G
g
o
0 50 100 150 200 250

HOOKLOAD (1000SLBS)

Fig. 2 - Allowable vessel sway and drift

in percent of water depth vs hookload
while drilling.

Fig. 1 - Idealized system.

LENGTHOFDRILLPIPEINIOLB/GAL MUD(IOOOS FT)

LENGTH OF DRILL PIPE IN IO LB/GAL MUD(lOOOS FT) 25
o 5 10 15 20
5 10 15 I 1 I I I
o
I I 25
I
25
51NCH,ALUMINUM DRILLPIPE
4 1/2 INCH,16.6 LB/FT, GRADE E: z
STEEL DRILL PIPE ~ 20 10 FT)HRDRILLING RATE
: 20 w
LLl 10 FT/HR DRILLING RATE a IOORPMROTARY TABLE
n a SPEED
E 100 RPM ROTARY TABLE sPEED. w 15
I.1.l 1-
+ 15
2
s L
L 0 1 I
o 10
10 *
# I
I t-
+ L
& E5
lx 5 -. n
(3 ---
---
----
-- -..
. . Q 25
0 50 100 150 200
200 250 0
0 50 ioo 150
HOOKLOAD (Iooos LBs)
HOOKLOAD (1000SLBS)

Fig. 4 - Allowable vessel drift in percent

Fig. 3 - Allowable vessel drift in percent
of water depth vs hookload while drilling.
of water depth vs hookload while drilling.
 o 0

I
2

4
3 <

4 4 6
E $
~
U5
L ~
-m -m
~ ~8
~6 0
w
0
= Q
0
=
g? G ~ 10
E !+! n
j8 v IJ_l
n
E
0 I -j 12
l&9
z s
k /
g 10 I 14
w 1
-1 MUD=IO LB/GAL
II I DRILLING RATE =10 FT/HR
; 16
I ROTARY TABLE SPEED =
12
100 RPM
/
WATER DEPTH= 300 FT
13 18
;
I4
I
I 20
15
I 1. .- .+ ----- .- 0.. 5... 19 154 20 25 30 35
0 IO 20 30 40 50 Go 70 130 ALLOWABLE DRIFT (FEET)
ALLoWABLE DRIFT (FEET)

Fig. 6 - Allowable drift vs well depth

Fig. 5 - Allowable vessel drift
in feet vs drill pipe length.
for mixed grades of drill pipe.

100 .
..
:
ORILL PIPE9000FTOF 51NCH, :
90
GRADEE:lNlOLB/GAL MUD ;
:
DRILLING RATE=lOFT/HR :
80 ROTARY TABLE SPEED=IOO RPM :

70
:
:
:
60 .
:
u .
w :
a :
z 5Q :
z :
# :
:
40 .
:
:
:
30 .
..
..
..
20 .11 II
N
UMI:.:
10

o
0 2 3 4 5 6 7
DRIFT,%OF WATER DEPTH

Fig. 7 - Drift of vessel vs percent

damage.
 LENGTH OF DRILL PIPE IN IO LB/GAL MUD ( 1000S FT)

o 5 10 15 20 25

25

20

15

10

HOOKLOAD (1000S LBS)

Fig. 8 - Drill pipe stress as a

function of vessel motion and
hookload.

LENGTH OF DRILLPIPE IN 10 LB/GALMUO (1000SFT) LENGTH OF DRILLPIPE IN 10LB/GALMUD (1000SFT)

0510152025 O 51015202530
J I I 1

25 I

I 51NCH ALUMINUM
DRILL PIPE

TIT
20

15

10

I I I ,

r
I
o
00 100 200 300 400 500 600 100 200 300 400 500 t

HOOKLOAD ([000S LBS) HOOKLOAD (1000S LBS)

Fig. 9 - Drill pipe stress as a Fig. 10 - Drill pipe stress as

function of vessel motion and function of vessel motion

hookload. and hookload.