Danks D.R.,Wear and Friction Resources |
Jones D.,Enventure Global Technology |
Chowdhary H.,Enventure Global Technology |
Naaykens B.,Wear and Friction Resources
Wear | Year: 2015
Downhole oil well piping has the potential to scrape against a myriad of objects, from geological debris to drilling components such as detached tools or the edges of machined, casing-exit penetrations. This project quantified the type and extent of damage that occurs on tubing when scratched with very high normal forces similar to those experienced downhole.A scratch test machine was designed and fabricated that used weights and lever arm to apply up to 11,120. N (2500. lbf) on a sharpened tool point. The point was forced into the rotating surfaces of bare and protected oil well pipe. The pipe protection hardfacings were proprietary thermal sprayed coatings in several thicknesses from 0.018. mm to 0.165. mm (0.007-0.065. in.).The scratch testing quantified the hardfacing thickness that was required to prevent the tool from penetrating into the base metal. The minimum protective thicknesses were not equal among the three hardfacings. Likewise, the maximum load that each hardfacing was able to withstand was not the same. The test rig demonstrated that it is possible to clearly delineate hardfacing type and thickness that are effective in protecting well casing components from high-load scratching damage. © 2015 Elsevier B.V.
Doering A.,Wear and Friction Resources |
Danks D.,Wear and Friction Resources |
Mahmoud S.,Wear and Friction Resources |
Scott J.,Wear and Friction Resources
Wear | Year: 2011
Standardized testing requires consistency of all testing parameters including consumables. One of the more common American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) tests to evaluate abrasive wear resistance is the ASTM G65-04 Standard Test Method for Measuring Abrasion Using the Dry Sand/Rubber Wheel Apparatus. The specified abrasive is nominally 100% silica (SiO 2), sieved to 50/70 mesh. To quantify the consistency of the commercially available silica abrasive used in the ASTM G65-04, five lots of the abrasive were compared using five material characterization tests. The five lots of the abrasive, purchased from U.S. Silica Co., were manufactured in March 1997, July 2007, August 2008, June 2009 and October 2009. The five tests used to compare the different lots of abrasive were the ASTM G65-04 wear test, Uncompacted Void Content (ASTM C1252), chemical composition, size (sieved size distribution) and particle shape (visual).It was found that there was only one instance of significant difference in the characterization tests among the five lots of abrasive. One lot had a significantly different amount of void content among the individual particles but demonstrated similar results to the other lots in wear rate, chemical composition, size distribution and particle shape. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.