4.7 Article

Prevention study on defective solid expandable tubular fracture

期刊

ENGINEERING FAILURE ANALYSIS
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.105121

关键词

Solid expandable tubular (SET); Defect; Scanning electron microscope (SEM); Failure analysis; Numerical simulation

资金

  1. Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Oil & Gas Equipment, Ministry of Education (Southwest Petroleum University) [OGE201702-09]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51604234, 51674214]
  3. Youth Scientific Research Innovation Team Project of Sichuan Province [2017TD0014]
  4. Southwest Petroleum University Drilling Tools Youth Technology Innovation Team [2018CXTD03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that the failure mechanism of SET in laboratory experiments is mainly attributed to tube defects causing rupture failure, with metal materials 316L and 304 being safer and more reliable compared to 20G and SA106b. Ensuring a tube wall thickness of more than 3.6 mm is crucial in preventing failure, while the number of rubber rings and defect length have minimal impact on bulging performance.
This study aims to reveal the failure mechanism of solid expandable tubular (SET) in a laboratory experiment and avoid downhole application failure. The scanning electron microscope (SEM) test of the section is carried out, and the finite element model of the defective expandable tubular is established. It was found that the tube defect causes the rupture failure of the expansion tube in the laboratory experiment, and the failure with defects in the inner wall occurs mostly. The safety and reliability of metal materials 316L and 304 are better than 20G and SA106b. Flaw detection shall ensure that the tube wall thickness is larger than 3.6 mm at any position. Moreover, rubber rings number and defect length have little effect on the bulging performance. The results provide a theoretical basis for preventing the fracture of SET.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据