Search Documents

By K. E. Darnell

Drilled pier foundations have long been a favored foundation type for heavily loaded structures. Drilled piers derive their load-bearing capacity from end-bearing, and/or sidewall friction. This type of foundation is used in many geologic settings, including those areas underlain by hard carbonate rock, such as limestones and dolomites. When properly designed and constructed, drilled piers provide high load-carrying capacity in both compression and uplift. However, carbonate rock is often subject to intense differential weathering resulting in the formation of an irregular bedrock surface, sinkholes and caves; consequently, the investigation for, and the design of, drilled pier foundations is often complex. Further, the construction may be difficult and costly. This paper discusses geotechnical investigative procedures which can be employed to develop foundation design criteria and reduce the frequency of changed conditions. Finally, state-of-the-art construction practices and quality control techniques are discussed.

Jan 1, 2010

By Thomas M. Gurtowski

This paper presents a summary of allowable bearing pressures and skin friction values that have been used to design drilled pier foundations for support of high-rise structures in downtown Seattle, Washington. These design parameters are based upon a review of geotechnical reports and records of more than 20 building projects. The following pages present a description of the soils encountered at these sites including foundation bearings soils, and design bearing and friction values. The accumulated data is summarized in Table 1, and the locations of the buildings are shown in Figure 1. A detailed description of the construction of two belled drilled piers are presented illustrating typical methods and procedures used in downtown Seattle. The two cases are from the Washington State Convention and Trade Center (WSC&TC). SEATTLE AREA SOILS The Puget Sound area was subjected to several major glaciations during the Pleistocene Epoch. Glacial ice originated in the cordilleran and coastal mountains and the Vancouver Range of British Columbia. The maximum southward advance of ice reached the area about halfway between Olympia and Centralia. As a result of these glaciations, the Puget Lowland was filled to significant depths by glacial and non-glacial sediments during the Pleistocene.

Jan 1, 1990

By F. H. Chen

the Rocky Mountain Region since 1950, drilled pier foundations have been widely used to combat structural movement problems in expansive soils. It is now an accepted practice for engineers to use drilled pier foundations in expansive soil areas. Piers are generally drilled into bedrock in a zone unaffected by moisture change. With some exceptions, such system has successfully prevented damage incurred in the structures as the result of soil expansion. In the last 15 years, no significant advancement has taken place in the design of the drilled pier system on expansive soils. Numerous failures continued to be reported. Causes for the failures were placed on poor drainage, inadequate void under the grade beams or mushrooms on top of the piers. Engineers realize that these are certainly not the major problems. The basic design criteria should be critically reviewed. It is the purpose of this paper to point out the actual problems confronted by designers, the failure module and remedial measures, The writer does not claim to have the solutions. In fact, it will be a long time before real solutions can be found, yet the writer believes the engineering communities, the construction industry and the general public should be aware of the true picture of the problem.

Jan 1, 2010

By J. Allan Tice

In the past fifteen to twenty years, the use of drilled piers to support high capacities in coastal plain deposits has become more and more common. With improved construction techniques and better understanding of pier behavior, drilled shafts with capacities of 200 to 500 tons are not unusual. The purpose of this presentation is to review several drilled pier installations from North Carolina to north-east Florida as a means of illustrating the different types of design concepts and installation techniques which are presently being used. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The information in this presentation was obtained from work performed by many individuals and companies. The section on limestone socket caissons in South Carolina is an abridged version of a paper prepared by Rob Smith and Neil Gilbert of Law Engineering's Charlotte, North Carolina office, and is used with permission. The section on pier installation in northeast Florida is an abridged version of a paper prepared by Kirk Mcintosh, Tom McDaniel, and Randy Knott of Law Engineering's Jacksonville, Florida office, reprinted here with permission. Additional data discussed in this presentation has been obtained from Farr Foundation Company, McKinney Drilling Company, and Peterson Drilling Company.

Jan 1, 1988

By Stanley A. Schwartz

In the Piedmont, heavily loaded structures are generally supported by either drilled piers or one of several pile types. The choice of drilled piers or piles is typically one of comparative costs. The cost of a drilled pier foundation is usually the more difficult to predict because of the greater impact that variable conditions and construction monitoring have on cost. Poor specifications, related to the drilling equipment, procedures and bearing level, can also result in large cost extras. In the southern Piedmont, straight shafts are typically extended down to hard rock to achieve primary support in end-bearing: when bells are required, they are often constructed manually. In some eastern and northern Piedmont locations the thickness of the decompossed rock zone is significant and considerable skin friction can be mobilized. Typically piers are constructed in holes temporarily cased with steel liners. The bottom is cleaned of loose material and water, and then evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to confirm the design bearing pressure (and friction, where appropriate) or recommend alternative construction measures.

Jan 1, 1988

By Boleslaw A. Klosinski

Drilling of a pier hole is accompanied with stress releasing in the surrounding soil and often with loosening of soil at the pier base. In effect the drilled piers are more deformable than driven piles of comparable dimension. The bearing performance of a pier may be considerably improved by properly executed base grouting. Various techniques of base grouting are used; many of them were described by Bruce (1986). The grouting devices are often placed within the pier. Alternatively the soil at or under the base is treated by cement or chemical grout. Preloading of the base subsoil by use of a special grouting cell is considered as the most effective way. Treatment of the ground below pier base with cement or chemical grout may be also useful. It may be performed immediately after the pier construction or during service, as a measure for increasing the pier capacity.

Jan 1, 1995

By Satyajit Vaidya, Rudolph Frizzi, Luis Berroteran

This paper presents design and construction challenges associated with a high-capacity rock-socketed drilled pile foundation system for a 60-story building recently constructed in an urban environment. The site is in very close proximity to surrounding 1-to-6-story buildings and a commuter rail subway tunnel structure. High compression, uplift, and lateral loads imposed by the tall, slender tower constructed over a relatively small site footprint posed a significant design challenge due to the close proximity of the subway tunnel and other structures. Construction challenges included those associated with advancing the drilled pile casings through overburden materials using internal flush method mandated by the Transit Agency, advancing the casings through very dense glacial till materials encountered above top of rock, and drilling rock sockets in variable rock conditions. This paper provides a brief overview of the site and subsurface conditions, and discusses the resulting design and construction challenges for the drilled pile foundation system and how they were addressed. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The 8,350-square-foot site is located in a busy neighborhood in downtown New York City (NYC). Buildings neighboring the site are supported on shallow foundations, and their basements extend about 15 feet below the sidewalk level. A NYC-Landmarked building is located within a NYC Department of Buildings (DOB)-designated 90-foot influence limit from the Project site. NYC Transit Authority (NYCTA) subway tunnel and station structures are located in close proximity to the Project site. The subway tunnel structure extends about 50 to 55 feet below the sidewalk level. Although the upper portion of the tunnel structure is about 13.5 feet away from the site property line, the lower portion is only about 1 foot away from the property line. A site location plan is presented as Fig. 1. Geotechnical borings revealed subsurface conditions generally consisting of successive strata of surficial fill, sandy and silty soils, and glacial till (predominantly consisting of cobbles and boulders) overlying mica schist bedrock. A generalized subsurface profile is presented in Fig. 2. The surficial fill stratum was about 10 to 23 feet thick, and generally consisted of loose to medium dense sandy soils with varying proportions of silt, gravel, and miscellaneous debris such as brick. The underlying sandy and silty soil stratum was about 60 to 79 feet thick and generally consisted of loose to medium dense inter-bedded layers of fine to coarse sand, silty fine sand, and silt. The underlying glacial till stratum was about 26 to 70 feet thick and generally consisted of cobbles and boulders embedded in a very dense soil matrix. Top of bedrock was encountered in the borings about 110 to 150 feet below sidewalk level. Groundwater level was measured at about 30 feet below sidewalk level.

Jan 1, 2018

By Hassell E. Hunter

The Wyoming Mineral-Conoco Crownpoint Project represents the first time that big hole drilling has been exclusively used to develop totally a privately financed mine below a depth of 1000 feet. Three shafts, one ten feet in diameter and two six feet in diameter, were successfully drilled to depths of 2243', 2188' and 2188' respectively and cased with hydrostatic designed steel casing. The largest shaft is to be used to handle muck and water from station excavation and enlargement of the other two shafts. A reverse circulation system with potassium chloride base mud was used for drilling. The mud was cleaned by settling in steel lined tanks with assistance by cyclone type separators. Deviation was monitored by gyroscopic surveying at 30 foot intervals and did not exceed 16 inches off plumb. Casing was designed to withstand hydrostatic pressures with a 1.5 safety factor to the large shaft and 1.25 safety factor for the smaller shafts. All casing welds were x-ray tested prior to lowering the casing in the hole. Cementing the annular space completed the operation. The total time to mobilize, drill and move off the three shafts was 363 days. The drilling operation was completed ahead of schedule and under budget.

Jan 1, 1983

By Anil Bhandari

Using subsurface data collected at each drilled shaft location is an ideal approach for conducting drilled shaft design. However, conducting subsurface tests at each drilled shaft location and subsequently performing the drilled shaft design can be a daunting task for a noise barrier wall that is divided into six (6) sections and stretches for approximately four (4) miles. In addition, having individual drilled shaft designs complicates the construction process. Grouping the subsurface conditions into broad categories and performing the design for each of those categories is an attractive alternative to the design per boring approach. Currently there are no existing guidelines to aid a designer on grouping the subsurface conditions for the drilled shaft design for the noise barrier walls. Therefore, a method was developed based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N values of the near surface soils to categorize the soil profiles into distinct categories. Since the soil engineering properties of the near surface soils are known to be critical for drilled shaft lateral capacity, these soils were emphasized in the methodology. This method was successfully implemented for the design of drilled shafts supporting the noise barrier walls along the I-20 in Columbia, SC. For this project, two distinct soil profiles, labeled as ?strong? and ?weak?, were used. An overview of the soil profile grouping methodology is presented as well as the vertical and lateral drilled shaft capacity analyses for this project for the two general soil profiles. The analyses indicated that the axial capacity governed the design in the ?weak? soil profile and the lateral capacity controlled the design in the ?strong? soil profile. However, this is not a generalization and whether the axial or the lateral capacity governs the design of drilled shaft depends on the soil profile and design loads. Nonetheless, our findings emphasize that both lateral and axial capacity should be checked for drilled shaft design even when the vertical load are minor.

Jan 1, 2011

By Jeff Jackson, Paul Axtell, David Graham

The Montana Department of Transportation recently awarded a contract to construct a replacement bridge across the Clark Fork River in Heron, MT. Both abutments and both intermediate bridge bents were to be founded on 6-ft and 8-ft diameter, permanently cased drilled shafts with rock sockets, respectively. Two drilled shafts per substructure location were designed for a total of eight drilled shafts. The original design included 6-ft diameter drilled shafts at the abutments but the Contractor elected to submit a Value Engineering proposal that increased them to 8-ft diameter. On the basis of the subsurface exploration program, extremely challenging subsurface conditions were known to exist, including the potential presence of large boulders within the predominantly sand and gravel soil matrix. The successful bidder elected to use an oscillator to install the permanent casing to the top of bedrock, while simultaneously removing the spoils from inside the casing with a clam-grab. On seven of the eight shafts, this approach worked well. Unfortunately, on one of the shafts, the casing met refusal on one or more boulders encountered in the predominantly sand and gravel soil overburden. Following several attempts, and despite several variations of approaches, it was determined that the casing could not be advanced beyond the obstruction without unacceptable risks to the pile-supported temporary work trestle (i.e., loss of soil and reduction in pile capacity for the foundations supporting the work trestle). To mitigate the problematic drilled shaft, a unique solution was designed and successfully constructed. The solution involved the construction of seven 16-in diameter micropiles constructed within the confines of the obstructed casing. The micropiles were drilled to bedrock through the sand, gravel, and boulders and include rock sockets to satisfy axial design requirements. The micropile casing thickness, grade and grout strength were designed to provide adequate flexural strength as well as to satisfy other design requirements. Upon completion of the micropile installation, the upper portion of the drilled shaft above the boulders and within the permanent casing was constructed as usual. This paper discusses the difficult subsurface conditions at the site, the drilled shaft construction difficulties, and the design and construction of the micropile solution.

Jan 1, 2018

By Paul J. Axtell

The design-build delivery system is being used to erect the landmark Christopher Bond Bridge as part of the kcICON project. The cable-stayed bridge is currently under construction and will span the Missouri River on I-29/35 in Kansas City, Missouri. The design-build process for the foundation work on this project has been successfully implemented as a result of cooperative efforts between the foundation designers and the constructors to develop a constructible design.

Jan 1, 2009

By J. A. Hayes

For over a decade the Osterberg Load Cell has been successfully used to determine the shear capacities of drilled shafts. Since the test method measures side shear directly, analytical complications due to the influence of end bearing resistance are removed. The data suggest that the side shear component of a drilled shaft's capacity is often more significant than end bearing. Given the interest in the use of side shear in drilled shaft design in compressible materials, it is important to examine factors that can influence capacity. We have found that some factors widely believed to influence capacity, such as slurry type, are not as important as commonly thought in most materials. Factors that are not usually considered as important, such as casing use, hoop spacing, concrete slump, concrete additives, spacers and rebar clear cover, seem to be more influential with respect to side shear capacity. For example, substantially lower than predicted shear resistance can occur when the rebar clear cover is small with respect to the cage diameter. We observe this most often in fine-grained cohesive soils. This effect can be exaggerated if the rebar cage has tight hoop spacing, if the concrete has low slump and if the hole is not straight. We have also noted that improper use of temporary casing can have a dramatic effect on side shear resistance. In some cases we have observed tested shear capacities reduced to less than 5% of either predicted or available shear values.

Jan 1, 2003

The AusIMM/AMIC code for reporting Reserves seeks to improve the calibre of professional reporting on this subject. But have they gone far enough? Should the code appreciate that the degree of reliability of estimates required will vary with the type of mining planned? How does one "confirm continuity" as required by the code? The aim of optimum development drilling is to achieve appropriate ore zone definition for acceptable estimates of reserves and their economic extraction. Can this procedure be in conflict with the code? How does it affect finance decisions?

Jan 1, 1989

By H. C. H. Darley

The principal causes of unstable boreholes* have been known for many years. For example, in a paper published in 1938, Halbouty and Kaldenbachl listed nearly all the classes of troublesome shales that we know today. Much progress has been made since then, but we still have difficulty in identifying the cause of hole problems and consequently in selecting the right technique for combatting them. This subject was discussed at length by Kelly2 in a recent paper and much valuable information was provided. In the Shell Laboratory it was felt that there was a need for a better understanding of the basic mechanisms underlying the various forms of hole instability, and accordingly, a study was undertaken. This entailed reviewing the physics and chemistry of shales, developing tests for characterizing shales, and constructing a model to study borehole stability. Full simulation of underground conditions was not attempted; for example, we used reconstituted shale specimens, and often simple solutions or suspensions rather than practical drilling muds. Such procedures are necessary in order to establish mechanisms, but caution must be exercised in applying the results to the more complex conditions in the field. Part I — Compaction Swelling and Dispersion of Shales Compaction of Sediments Shales are formed by the compaction of sediments. Water is expressed as sediments are buried by subsequent layers, and the degree of compaction is proportional to the depth of burial, provided the water is able to escape easily to permeable formations. The younger sediments, when recovered at the surface, soften and disperse when mixed with water; the older shales have undergone diagenesis (alteration of the clay minerals, secondary cementation, etc.), and remain hard and unaffected by water. In this paper we shall apply the term "shale", as the drilling engineer does, to everything from clays, which are highly reactive to water, to completely lithified materials such as claystones and slates, which are completely inert. However, because these materials behave quite differently when encountered in the drilling well, it is desirable to develop a simple means of characterizing them. The feature that distinguishes the various shales is their dispersibility in water —soft clays disperse readily, harder shales disperse slowly when agitated, the lithified materials will not disperse at all unless milled. In the dispersibility test used in our study, a weighed amount of dry shale particles in the 12-to-100-mesh-size range was placed in a tube filled with distilled water and allowed to soak for 16 hours. The

Jan 1, 1970

By R. P. Harvey, J. E. Walstrom, A. A. Brown

In view of the large number of wells directionally drilled from offshore platforms and urban drillsites, greater interest is being focused on the directional survey and on the uncertainty inherent in calculating the position of the bottom of the hole, or other benchmarks in the wellbore. Of the two methods presented here for evaluating this uncertainty, the first is analytical and uses the principles of probability and statistics. The second method uses Monte Carlo simulation to generate a pattern of the scatter of possible bottom-hole locations. Both methods are based on a model for which the usual assumption is made that the curvilinear axis of the wellbore is adequately represented by a large number, M, of linear segments joined end to end from the top to the bottom of the hole and closely following the course of the hole. The errors due to this approximation are assumed to be negligible and are not studied here. One form of the model is to consider that for a given hole there exists a perfect set of data describing it, of the above form. Each linear segment has an angle of inclination with the vertical 7, in radians, an azimuthal angle from true north xi in radians, and a length Si, in feet. The subscript variable, i, extends from 1 to M. Each of the M linear segments representing the axis of the wellbore has three components in the X, Y, and Z directions. These components are calculated from the equations: The bottom-hole coordinates as determined from the reference set of data for the wellbore are given by the following for i = 1 to M: X=SX, Y = Sy, Z=SZ; . (2) A directional survey instrument, lowered into the wellbore to the M segments, or stations, measures the values of the 7; and the 3,. In general, because of errors from various sources, the resulting angular measurements will not be precisely equal to the 7" and xi. Random variables l, and Ai are therefore considered with associated probability density functions fi(li) and gi(Ai), respectively, which represent the distributions of potential survey measurements for this hole. Since it is assumed that the values Si are accurately measured they are treated deterministically. The random variables corresponding to the surveyed bottom-hole coordinates are given, for i = 1 to M, by:

Jan 1, 1970

By F. S. Young

Previous laboratory and field experimentation has demonstrated the effect of several variables on drilling rate.1-5 These results have been incorporated into optimization theories6-" for the purpose of reducing drilling cost. Minimum-cost drilling theories rely on a combination of historical data and empirical prediction techniques for selecting optimum bit weight and rotary speed. Past solutions have required extensive use of computing equipment because of both the complexity of the mathematical formulations and the large number of parameters involved. Field attempts to apply these computed results have frequently failed because of the uncertainty of input data requirements. Humble has developed an on-site computer system to control bit weight and rotary speed and thereby implement the concepts of minimum-cost drilling. This system can (1) perform short interval drilling rate tests for formation evaluation, (2) use the results of these tests as input information to solve minimum-cost drilling formulas, and (3) control bit weight and rotary speed in accordance with these computed solutions. The purpose of this paper is to describe the computer control system and present results of initial field testing. Theoretical Considerations Minimum-cost drilling (MCD) requires a quantitative evaluation of the variables involved. Several forms of a basic mathematical model have been sug-gested.'?,' "he relationships reported here form the basis for the solution programmed in this work. Four equations are used, expressing drilling rate, bit bearing wear, bit tooth wear, and cost. A solution for minimum-cost drilling assuming constant bit weight and rotary speed over the entire bit life has been programmed for use in computing MCD schedules. This solution is subject to certain limiting assumptions such as those discussed by Graham et a1.I2: 1. Drilling cost is the summation of bit cost, rotating cost, connection cost and hoisting cost. 2. Diamond bits are excluded. 3. Bit life is limited by either bearing failure or tooth wear, or by a combination of operational factors that make it cheaper to pull an incompletely consumed bit. 4. Circulating hydraulics are adequate and do not limit drilling rate. 5. Bit weight considerations exclude hole deviation. 6. Drilling rate is a function of only bit weight, rotary speed, and degree of tooth dullness; that is, the effects of pressure, lithology, fluid properties hydraulics and drill string dynamics are ignored. In equation form, the four MCD expressions are as follows:

Jan 1, 1970

By B. A. Eaton

The subject of many discussions and technical papers in the last 20 years has been the prediction of the well-bore pressure gradients that are required to induce or extend fractures in subsurface formations. The subject merits this attention because of the frequently recurring problems that arise from an inability to predict fracture pressure gradients. Encountered in several common types of operations in the oil industry are problems associated with the prediction of formation fracture pressure gradients. When wells are being drilled in both new and old fields, lost circulation is often a very troublesome and expensive problem. Complete loss of circulation has been disastrous in some cases. Many times, such disasters could have been avoided if techniques for calculating fracture pressure gradient had been employed in the well plans, and if casing strings had been set, and mud weight plans had been followed accordingly. In areas of abnormally pressured formations, the prediction of fracture gradients during the well-planning stage is extremely important. In fact, it is as important as the prediction of formation pressure gradients, which has received a great deal of attention in recent years. There are several published methods used to determine fracture pressure gradients. However, none of these methods appears to be general enough to be used with much reliability in all areas. In 1957, Hub-bert and Willis published a classical paper that included the development of an equation used to predict the fracture extension pressure gradient in areas of incipient normal fau1ting.l Overburden stress gradient, formation pore pressure gradient and Poisson's ratio of rocks were the independent variables that were shown to control fracture pressure gradient, the dependent variable. In 1967, Matthews and Kelly published another fracture pressure gradient equation that is different from that of Hubbert and Willis in that a variable "matrix stress coefficient" concept was utilized.3 Later the same year, Costley wrote about a similar idea.5 Goldsmith and Wilson used a least-squares curve-fitting technique and field data from the Gulf Coast area to correlate fracture pressure gradient with formation pore pressure gradient and formation depth.' They noted that the fracture pressure gradient increased with increasing depth while the pore pressure gradient remained constant. In each of these cases, the problem for which a solution was sought was to determine the bottom-hole pressure gradient required to initiate or extend a fracture. Results of the previous work show that fracture pressure gradient is a function primarily of overburden stress gradient, pore pressure gradient, and the ratio of horizontal to vertical stress. There is argument for a fourth variable in that in many cases breakdown fracture pressure gradient is greater than the fracture extension pressure gradient. However, if the fracturing fluid is able to penetrate the formation through the pores or existing cracks, there is very little

Jan 1, 1970

By J. H. Yang, K. E. Gray

Results of single-blow bit-tooth impact tests on saturated rocks under elevated confining pressures and zero pore pressure were reported in a previous publication.1 This paper presents an extension of the earlier work to include a study of crater formation during tooth impact on both gas- and liquid-saturated Berea and Bandera sandstones at elevated confining and pore pressures. The basic data obtained were force-time, displacement-time, velocity-time and force-displacement curves during crater formation. Crater volume was also measured and the mode of crater formation determined. Bit tooth geometry, depth of penetration and velocity of impact were held constant. Results indicate that, with pore fluid present in the rock, failure trends from brittle to ductile as pore pressure is increased at constant confining pressure (pore pressure and borehole pressure were equal) For a given rock type, the mode of crater formation was dependent not only upon the nominal effective stress, but also upon the fluid which saturated the rock pore space. When confining pressure and pore pressure were equal (zero nominal effective stress), bit-tooth impact resulted in brittle failure for nitrogen-saturated Berea, and brittle to transitional failure for nitrogen-saturated Bandera; when saturated with liquid both rocks failed in a ductile manner at zero nominal effective stress. INTRODUCTION Dynamic wedge penetration tests have been conducted by investigators in several fields, but the failure mechanism of rock under dynamic stresses is not understood completely. The complex action of drilling bits, even considering the action of a single tooth, may be considered as a combination of drag bit and rolling cutter action. Thus, as a first step in understanding rock breakage in oil well drilling, single chisel impact and rock planing are of fundamental importance. For example, Gray 2 and Crisp3 studied drag bit cutting action at brittle stress states. Simon4 and Hartman5 studied the reaction of rocks to vertical impact by means of drop tests. The depth of penetration, crater volume and force-vs-time curves during crater formation were observed. The significance of indexing single-bit impacts has been noted.4,6-8 Gamer et al,9 reported impact tests on impermeable Leuders limestone at atmospheric and elevated confining pressures. In all cases the tests were accomplished on dry rock and pore pressure was considered to be zero. The importance of both confining pressure and pore pressure on the failure characteristics of rock was described. 10-12 It was found that the yield strength and ductility of porous rock depend on the state of stress under which the sample is tested. The importance of pore pressure on drilling rate in microbit experiments was noted by Cumingham and Eenink. l3 Robinson 12 also pointed out that in drilling the most important parameter in rock failure is the effective stress, where effective suess is defined as confining pressure pc minus pore pressure pp. The effect of pore pressure and confining pressure on rock strength was also noted by Serdengecti and Boozer 14 in strain rate tests, and by Gardner, Wyllie and Droschackl5 in elastic wave studies. Until recently all reported wedge impact studies under simulated wellbore stress states have been conducted on dry rock. Maurer 16 reported impact tests on samples saturated with deaerated water. Borehole and formation fluid pressures were equal in these tests except when mud was used in the borehole. With mud in the borehole and a high borehole-to-formation fluid pressure differential. Maurer observed "pseudoplastic" crater formation. Podio and Grayl reported impact tests on Berea and Bandera sandstone saturated with pore fluids having wide ranges in viscosities. In Podio and Gray's tests, confining pressure was elevated, but pore pressure and borehole pressure were held fixed at atmospheric pressure. The presence of

By A. A. Toprac

The recurring problem of joint failures in ofjshore structures, coupled with the catastrophic collapse of many of these structures during Hurricane Hilda (1964), hay forced reconsideration of techniques presently used to design sfuctural joints. This paper presents results of studies conducted for this reconsiderat?on. Only right-angled T-joint,s and cross-joints where a brace was welded directly to the undisturbed surface of another tube (the chord) were considered. Tests were performed on seven T-joint and 12 oross-joint specimens of two types which were designed to give a broad but practicd range to the geometrical parameters believed to be of significance to the problem. These paramefers were expressed in dimensionless form. Each specimen of the T-joints was instrumented wirh both electrical resistance strain gauges and deflection dials. After the elastic tests were concluded, each specimen was loaded to failure by applying an axial tensile load to the brace. The cross-joints were tested to failure without measuring elastic strains. Theoretical solutions for the stresses in a cylindrical shell due to a distributed radial load over portions of its surface were numerically evaluated. The experimental results are compared with calculated values obtained using Bijlaard's and Dundrova's theoretical analyses. INTRODUCTION During the last IS years a large number of structures were built for the offshore exploration of oil both in the Gulf of Mexico and dong the Pacific Coast.' In all these offshore platforms, the tubular shape was extensively used since this shape provides outstanding strength in proportion to its weight, compared to other shapes, when all directions (x, y, z) are considered. Past use of tubes was hampered because of connection details. But with the advent of welding, it became no more difficult to connect tubular shapes than to connect rolled shapes. However, some problems have been encountered in actual construction in making welded joints that are adequate and yet economical. In trying to connect tubular members, designers have used a varied number of methods; consequently, some of the joints seem to be very expensive in detail while others appear weak and underdesigned. An inspection of offshore platforms owned by different companies indicates the use of a large number of joint arrangements and configurations. Such a variety of joint types in current service indicates the wide divergence of opinion that exists on how such joints should be designed, stiffened and strengthened. Fig. 1 shows the various types of connections that have been used in practice. This paper reviews the present state of art on tubular joints of the T and cross type, and presents results of experimental and analytical work being conducted at The U. of Texas and elsewhere. It is believed that such information will be of great help to designers for the formulation of proper design procedures for joints. CONNECTION PROBLEM Recently, cracks have been observed in several welded connections in offshore structures. Fortunately, until about 1 1/2 years ago, these failures have been localized and have not resulted in the collapse of structures or loss of life. For example, one platform installed in Louisiana during 1955 in about 60 ft of water had been subjected to four tropical hurricanes. This platform successfully withstood these forces and was later removed because operations at this location had been completed. Many joint failures were observed during the removal.

By L. R. Raymond

With the trend toward deeper and consequently hotter holes, measurements of drilling mud properties at atmospheric temperatures are becoming increasingly inadequate.' Both the prediction and control of down-hole mud properties depend in part upon our knowledge of temperatures in the wellbore. Consequently, a better understanding of factors that affect temperatures during circulation and trips could improve drilling operations. It was toward the goal of obtaining this understanding that this study was directed. Other investigators2 have studied the response of fluid temperature in the borehole during trips. However, all of these studies have used an assumed formation temperature profile at the conclusion of circulation and have provided no means to calculate this profile directly. In this study, the formation profile during circulation was calculated. Other investiga-tors3-5 have also studied bottom-hole temperature during circulation. However, they have developed neither general techniques for calculating the entire temperature profile in the system nor generalized methods for predicting bottom-hole fluid temperatures during circulation. Such techniques and methods have been developed and are discussed briefly in the following pages. Temperature Behavior During Circulation Circulation of fluid during the drilling operation is represented schematically in Fig. 1. The process of circulation has three distinct phases: (1) fluid enters the drill pipe at the surface and passes down the drill pipe; (2) fluid exits the drill pipe through the bit and enters the annulus at the bottom; and (3) fluid passes up the annulus and exits the annulus at the surface. To simulate the thermal behavior of the fluid in the system, each of the phases of circulation must be described mathematically. In Phase 1, the fluid enters the drill pipe at a specified temperature, TDo. As the fluid passes down the pipe, its temperature is determined by the rate of heat convection down the drill pipe, the rate of heat exchange between the drill pipe and the annulus, and time. Phase 2 of the circulating process merely requires that the fluid temperature at the exit of the drill pipe be the same as the fluid temperature at the entrance of the annulus; i.e., TD(L,t) = TA(L,l). Thus in Phase 3, the fluid enters the annulus at TD(L, t). As the fluid flows up the annulus, its temperature is determined by the rate of heat convection up the annulus, the rate of heat exchange between the annulus and the drill pipe, the rate of heat exchange between the formation adjacent to the annulus and the fluid in the annulus, and time. These rates of heat exchange and the time dependency of mud temperature are described by well known heat-flow equation.6 Consequently, as shown in the Appendix, the temperature profiles in the drill pipe, annulus, and formation can be obtained by solving Eqs. 1 through

Jan 1, 1970