Premature Yielding Identified in First Comprehensive 2-million-lbmDeep-Water Landing String Test Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Premature Yielding Identified in First Comprehensive 2-million-lbm Deepwater Landing String Test Program Dale W. Bradford; Dale W. Bradford BHP Billiton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Mike Payne; Mike Payne BP Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Donald Eugene Schultz; Donald Eugene Schultz Nexen Petroleum USA Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Burt Arthur Adams; Burt Arthur Adams Oil & Gas Rental Services, Inc Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Kurt Vandervort Kurt Vandervort Mohr Engineering Division Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, February 2007. Paper Number: SPE-105628-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/105628-MS Published: February 20 2007 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Bradford, Dale W., Payne, Mike, Schultz, Donald Eugene, Adams, Burt Arthur, and Kurt Vandervort. "Premature Yielding Identified in First Comprehensive 2-million-lbm Deepwater Landing String Test Program." Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, February 2007. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/105628-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to present the results of a comprehensive test program conducted with five different sets of deep-water landing string handling equipment consisting of both conventional and unconventional technology. A thorough presentation will be made detailing initial testing at elastic loads approaching yield and final high load testing beyond yield. All stages of the test program will be discussed including original testing protocol, test setup, testing performed, test results, and overall conclusions. This is one of the first standardized test programs used across five different designs of handling equipment. This overall presentation of the test program is made to identify stress levels associated with the extreme loads that occur when landing very heavy casing strings in deep-water wells.IntroductionWhile landing string designs have progressed1, 2, the design of the handling equipment, until recently, has been based upon conventional slip technology. This conventional technology3 and new technology4 has been previously studied. Based upon the increasing loads being placed on landing strings and the associated handling equipment, a group of test participants including BHP Billiton, BP, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, Nexen Petroleum and Oil & Gas Rental Services, Inc. arranged for Mohr Engineering Division, a division of Stress Engineering Services (Mohr) to perform an array of tests intended to increase the level of knowledge in the industry and help better understand the handling equipment currently in use for landing heavy loads. After developing an overall scope of work and understanding of the requisite testing, the field of handling equipment to be tested was determined to include a variety of designs used with landing string loads up to 2,000,000 lbs. Five different sets of handling equipment were tested. These included conventional slips referred to as SLIP A, SLIP B, and SLIP C, conventional power slips referred to as SLIP D and an unconventional slipless5, 6, 7, 8, 9 system referred to as SYSTEM E. Mohr provided the testing services and coordinated the machining and test sample preparation required to complete the tests. After testing was completed, Mohr also reviewed and post-processed the data and prepared a majority of the information contained in this paper. The manufacturers were requested to provide handling equipment for this test. Serial numbers were recorded to verify the handling equipment being tested and each manufacturer performed all inspections and dimensional verifications on equipment provided. After testing, test results for equipment provided were made available to each manufacturer.Each set of handling equipment was tested on instrumented test samples made from a 6.625″ OD × 0.813″ wall S-135 (50.46 ppf) conventional landing string. The test samples were turned on the OD and ID to provide actual dimensions at or very near nominal. Further, the test samples were instrumented with strain gauges, arranged in tri-axial rosettes (hoop, 45° and axial), set on 120° intervals to cover the ID of the entire contact area of the various handling equipment in order to determine the area of greatest strain/stress. The loading plan for the initial elastic test was as follows.Set the handling equipment with the strain gauge locations (vertical columns) at 0° on the test sample arranged to coordinate with the opening gap of the handling equipment.Load the handling equipment until the highest calculated VME stress reaches 120 ksi. The VME stresses were being calculated in real time for each strain gauge location.Hold that load only long enough to stabilize any gross deflection of the handling equipment, test sample and test frame. Then reduce the load back to zero.Rotate the handling equipment through 12° (15° for SYSTEM E) and repeat loading to the same load or a lower load if the VME stress reaches 120 ksi.Repeat in 12° increments through 60° (15° increments through 90° for SYSTEM E). Keywords: drill pipe selection, vertical height, hoop 240, casing and cementing, ksi, universal test sample, test sample, drillstring design, Upstream Oil & Gas, hoop 120 Subjects: Drillstring Design, Casing and Cementing, Information Management and Systems, Drill pipe selection, Casing design This content is only available via PDF. 2007. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it