The field of this invention is lock devices that selectively prevent relative movement between two downhole components until a predetermined condition is met and the device is defeated to allow relative movement.
Many downhole applications require adjacent components to remain in a fixed relationship during run in. In many cases, shear pins or other temporary restraints are employed to break away under an applied force. While in many situations such arrangements work reasonably well, there can be situations during run in that could trigger a premature failure of the shear locking mechanism. Such early and unintended release of a shear retainer could have the result of an inability to set the tool or operate the tool where needed. It has been learned that in some applications, the process of running a tool into the desired location can put cyclical stresses on shear pins so as to cause them to fail prematurely.
The desire to prevent premature shear pin failure has brought about the solution offered by the present invention. The problem that lead to the present invention was first noticed in a product called CMP Defender®, which is a product made by Baker Hughes and features a mandrel and an interior sliding sleeve. This tool was described in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/408,798 filed on Apr. 7, 2003, whose contents are fully incorporated herein as if fully set forth. It also has an exterior sliding sleeve that is covering a port in the mandrel during run in. The interior sleeve is in the open position for run in. Pressurizing the tubing sets the packer, which can be connected to this tool. After sufficient pressure is developed, the packer sets. The application of pressure shifts the outer sleeve down to still leave the mandrel port closed as long as pressure that set the packer is maintained. However, the initial pressurizing that shifts the outer sleeve down breaks a shear pin that held it fixed for run in. When the packer setting pressure is removed, a spring moves the outer sleeve uphole to open the mandrel port.
The problem with this design was that during run in the string is lowered and brought to an abrupt stop to add new tubing at the surface. The abrupt change in direction caused the outer sleeve to stress the shear pins and created a potential that the shear pin could prematurely fail before the packer was delivered to its intended location.
Various solutions were devised and described below. Those skilled in the art will realize that the solutions are adaptable to other devices than the tool described. Sliding sleeve valves have long been known in the art as illustrated in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,156,220 and 6,260,616 . Locking devices involving dogs extending into grooves and supported to lock one body to another are illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 4,510,995 and 4,823,872 . Those skilled in the art will appreciate the various solutions offered by the present invention to address the issue of stressing the retaining mechanism during run in so that the components will remain in position until relative movement is needed to set the tool, from a review of the description of the various embodiments, the drawings and the claims, which appear below.
A locking device prevents stressing of other components used to hold tool portions against relative movement until a desired location is reached. A locking dog holds a first component, such as a sliding sleeve to a second component, such as a mandrel until pressure can move a piston and remove support for the dog. The same pressure that removes support for the dog to unlock the lock also forces a retainer, such as a shear pin that holds a sleeve to break to allow the sleeve to shift. The locking dog keeps stress off the shear pin when the locking dog is supported in the run in configuration. An alternative design uses a grease filled cavity to dampen shocks that could load a shear pin to the point of failure.
The preferred embodiment will be illustrated in the context of a tool that includes a pressure set packer in combination with a sliding sleeve assembly. As seen in
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that shear pin 50 is prevented from being stressed during run in because the dog 24 supported by piston 28 extends through window 22 and into groove 52 of outer sleeve 38 to prevent the outer sleeve from moving up or down. The central passage 54 through mandrel 10 is in fluid communication with annular space 56 because the port 16 in internal sleeve 14 aligns with port 12 of mandrel 10. When the tool is in the desired location, pressure is brought to bear in passage 54 and it communicates with annular space 56. The pressure in annular space 56 acts on surface 58 of piston 28 to push it uphole and break the shear pin 50. Movement of the piston 28 brings groove 34 into alignment with dog 24 to undermine support for it. Piston 28 can move up because the screw 32 can only move uphole in window 26. The dog 24 moves toward mandrel 10 in a radial direction to allow the outer sleeve 38 to move downwardly, in the opposite direction than piston 28. The pressure in annular space 56 acts on surface 60 to move the outer sleeve down against shoulder 62, as shown in
At some point, the packer is set and the pressure in passage 54 is released. At that time, the spring 46, shown in
As shown in
As shown in
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the preferred embodiment of the invention, shown in
The solution in
The invention has broader application and can be used to hold one member locked against another to protect so other retaining device against loading during run in that could cause premature movement of the retained member preventing the tool in question from being properly operated.
The foregoing disclosure and description of the invention are illustrative and explanatory thereof, and various changes in the size, shape and materials, as well as in the details of the illustrated construction, may be made without departing from the spirit of the invention.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/528,688, filed on Dec. 11, 2003.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3831632 | Young | Aug 1974 | A |
4441559 | Evans et al. | Apr 1984 | A |
4457368 | Knierimen et al. | Jul 1984 | A |
4510995 | Krause, Jr. et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4823872 | Hopmann | Apr 1989 | A |
5156220 | Forehand et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5174379 | Whiteley et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5413180 | Ross et al. | May 1995 | A |
5609204 | Rebardi et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5692564 | Brooks | Dec 1997 | A |
5810082 | Jordan, Jr. | Sep 1998 | A |
5819854 | Doane et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5865251 | Repardi et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
6059041 | Scott | May 2000 | A |
6148919 | Burris et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6230801 | Hill, Jr. et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230811 | Ringgenberg et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6237687 | Barbee, Jr. et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6253861 | Carmichael et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6260616 | Carmody et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6405800 | Walker et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6466729 | Wagoner et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6578638 | Guillory et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6609569 | Howlett et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
20020148610 | Bussear et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050126787 A1 | Jun 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60528688 | Dec 2003 | US |