See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/45289790

TORQUE AND DRAG CALCULATIONS IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL WELLBORES

Article · January 2009

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
0 4,549

1 author:

Ruktai Ace Prurapark

Srinakharinwirot University
6 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Study of Cooling Performance for Chillers at HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Medical Center, Thailand View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruktai Ace Prurapark on 27 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TORQUE AND DRAG CALCULATIONS IN

THREE-DIMENSIONAL WELLBORES

A Dissertation

by

RUKTAI ACE PRURAPARK

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

May 2009

Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

 TORQUE AND DRAG CALCULATIONS IN

THREE-DIMENSIONAL WELLBORES

A Dissertation

by

RUKTAI ACE PRURAPARK

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved by:

Chair of Committee, Hans Juvkam-Wold

Committee Members, Ann Jochens
Jerome Schubert
Catalin Teodoriu
Head of Department, Stephen Holditch

May 2009

Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

 iii

ABSTRACT

Torque and Drag Calculations in Three-Dimensional Wellbores.

(May 2009)

Ruktai Ace Prurapark,

B.Eng., Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand;

M.Eng., Texas A&M University

Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Hans C. Juvkam-Wold

Torque and drag (T&D) modeling is regarded as extremely helpful in well planning

because it helps to predict and prevent drilling problems that might occur during the

drilling process. Although T&D software has existed since the 1990s, some confusion

still exists over the validity of the models that are used to characterize drilling

operations, especially as we extend the length of modern horizontal wells.

Moreover, it seems that only minimal improvements have been made to the underlying

mathematical models over the last two decades. For normal planning on extended-reach

and other challenging wells, T&D modeling provides a guideline for performance. Better

modeling is especially important in complex three-dimensional wellbores.

To optimize well design, T&D modeling needs to be incorporated into the planning of

each well. The following factors should be evaluated:

 iv

- Optimizing the well planning design

- Adapting casing or tubular designs

- Changing annulus fluids; for example, oil-based mud lubricates are better

than water-based mud

- Adjusting operating drilling processes such as reducing sliding distances or

rotating to the bottom

This project develops software that will give more accurate 3D T&D calculations.

Moreover, this research is also widely beneficial in handling wellbore tortuosity which is

explained in detail in the text. The new software will optimize the wellbore path and

assist significantly in torque and drag calculation in well design.

 v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to give my sincere gratitude to those that have helped me through my

doctoral degree studies.

I especially would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Hans C. Juvkam-Wold, for his

invaluable advice, guidance, and encouragement, as well as consultation in the past four

years. His philosophy and career have inspired my study as well as my ideas. His

encouragement has taken me this far. I would also like to give my special thanks to Dr.

Jerome J. Schubert for his thoughtfulness and kindness to me. I will always remember

both of them as my own family.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Committee Members, Dr. Ann E.

Jochens and Dr. Catalin Teodoriu, for their most useful comments and time. Thanks to

all of my friends in College Station who have supported me in every way.

My deepest gratitude goes to my wonderful parents, Udomdej and Piyatida Prurapark,

and my younger sister, Kwankamol Prurapark, for their everlasting love and support, and

also my wonderful aunt, Nitaya Maliwan, MD., who has supported me continuously

since my B.S. four years and M.S. degrees one year. I also would like to thank the rest of

my relatives and friends, who have constantly given me strength throughout my

difficulties.
 vi

Last but not least, my posthumous gratitude goes to chief highway engineer, Mr. Kamol

Maliwan, my grandfather, who was the first person to inspire me in the engineering

profession.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................xi

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xvii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 Literature Review ....................................................................................... 2

1.1.1 T&D equations for three-dimensional wellbore ........................ 2
1.1.2 Tortuosity effects ....................................................................... 3
1.1.3 Stress concentration factor ......................................................... 4
1.1.4 Buckling ..................................................................................... 4
1.2 Objectives and Organization ...................................................................... 5

II TORQUE AND DRAG CALCULATIONS IN THREE-

DIMENSIONAL WELLBORE METHODOLOGY ....................................... 7

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Original Concept for Calculating Normal Contact Force .......................... 7
2.3 Soft-string Model for Three-dimensional T&D Calculation.................... 11
2.4 Lowering the Pipe into the Hole .............................................................. 13
2.4.1 Lowering the pipe into the hole in the build section................ 13
2.4.2 Lowering the pipe into the hole in the hold section ................. 15
2.4.3 Lowering the pipe into the hole in the drop section ................ 16
2.4.4 Lowering the pipe into the hole while the wellbore
turns ......................................................................................... 19
2.5 Pulling the Pipe out of the Hole ............................................................... 21
2.5.1 Pulling the pipe out of the hole in the build section ................ 21
2.5.2 Pulling the pipe out of the hole in the hold section ................. 24
2.5.3 Pulling the pipe out of the hole in the drop section ................. 25
2.5.4 Pulling the pipe out of the hole while the wellbore
turns ......................................................................................... 28
2.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 30
 viii

CHAPTER Page

III WELL PLANNING IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL WELLBORE ................ 31

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 31

3.2 System Modeling...................................................................................... 32
3.2.1 Well-planning and math modeling between surveys ............... 32
3.2.1.1 Finding minimum curvature (DLS) to
intersect target ........................................................ 33
3.2.1.2 Example tie-on surveys and target
directions................................................................ 36
3.2.2 Well-planning and math modeling for build type .................... 38
3.2.3 Well-planning and math modeling for build and hold
type........................................................................................... 39
3.2.4 Well-planning and math modeling for build hold and
drop type .................................................................................. 39
3.2.5 Well-planning and math modeling for horizontal well
design type ............................................................................... 40

IV TORTUOSITY IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL WELLBORES AND

THE EFFECT OF TORTUOSITIES ON TORQUE
CALCULATION ........................................................................................... 42

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 42

4.2 Oscillation in the Wellbore....................................................................... 42
4.3 Borehole Oscillations ............................................................................... 44
4.4 Model of Borehole Oscillations ............................................................... 48
4.5 Mathematical Model for Torque Calculations ......................................... 50

V STRESS CONCENTRATION WITHIN TOOL JOINT ............................... 52

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 52

5.2 Stress Concentration ................................................................................. 52
5.3 Mathematical Model for the Stress Concentration Factor........................ 55

VI BUCKLING ................................................................................................... 59

6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 59

6.2 System Modeling for a Deviation Wellbore............................................. 60
6.3 Buckling in a Vertical Well ...................................................................... 61
 ix

CHAPTER Page

VII NUMERICAL METHOD SOLVING T&D CALCULATION ..................... 63

7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 63

7.2 Euler’s Theory .......................................................................................... 63
7.2.1 Euler’s method ......................................................................... 63
7.2.2 Geometric description .............................................................. 65
7.2.3 Step size versus error ............................................................... 66
7.2.4 Example of the step size effect in Euler’s method................... 67
7.2.5 Euler’s method calculated in a three-dimensional
wellbore ................................................................................... 68

VIII DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ........................................................................ 72

8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 72

8.2 Mathematical Models for Three-dimensional Wellbores......................... 72
8.2.1 Lowering the pipe into the hole ............................................... 72
8.2.1.1 Build section .......................................................... 72
8.2.1.2 Drop section ........................................................... 73
8.2.2 Pulling the pipe out of the hole ................................................ 74
8.2.2.1 Build section .......................................................... 74
8.2.2.2 Drop section ........................................................... 75
8.3 Soft-string Model for Three-dimensional T&D Calculations .................. 76
8.4 Example and Comparison in Force Calculations ..................................... 77
8.5 Example and Comparison in Torque Calculations ................................... 79
8.5.1 Example while rotating off the bottom .................................... 79
8.5.2 Example for survey calculations .............................................. 84

IX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 87

9.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 87

9.2 Recommendations .................................................................................... 88

NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................... 89

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 93

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 96

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................ 107

APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................ 115

APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................ 123

 x

Page

APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................. 133

APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................. 139

VITA .............................................................................................................................. 149

 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1.1 Schematic of forces acting on downhole tubular assembly ............................... 5

2.1 Illustration of forces in build-up section (vertical view) ................................... 8

2.2 Illustration of forces in inclined section (vertical view) .................................... 9

2.3 Illustration of forces in drop section (vertical view).......................................... 9

2.4 Illustration of forces while the wellbore turns to the right (horizontal
view) ................................................................................................................ 10

2.5 Illustration of forces while the wellbore turns to the left (horizontal
view) ................................................................................................................ 11

2.6 Soft-string T&D model schematic ................................................................... 12

2.7 Illustration of forces in build-up section (lowering the pipe into the hole,
vertical view) ................................................................................................... 13

2.8 Illustration of differences between positive and negative forces in build-

up section (lowering the pipe into the hole, vertical view) .............................. 14

2.9 Illustration of force in hold section (lowering the pipe into the hole,
vertical view) ................................................................................................... 15

2.10 Illustration of forces in drop section (lowering the pipe into the hole,
vertical view) ................................................................................................... 16

2.11 Illustration of differences between positive and negative forces in drop

section (lowering the pipe into the hole, vertical view) ................................... 18

2.12 Illustration of forces when the wellbore turns right (lowering the pipe
into the hole, horizontal view) ......................................................................... 19

2.13 Illustration of forces when the wellbore turns left (lowering the pipe into
the hole, horizontal view) ................................................................................ 20

2.14 Illustration of forces in build-up section (pulling the pipe out of the hole,
vertical view) ................................................................................................... 21
 xii

FIGURE Page

2.15 Illustration of differences between positive and negative forces in build-

up section (pulling the pipe out of the hole, vertical view) ............................. 23

2.16 Illustration of forces in the hold section (pulling the pipe out of the hole,
vertical view) ................................................................................................... 24

2.17 Illustration of forces in the drop section (pulling the pipe out of the hole,
vertical view) ................................................................................................... 25

2.18 Illustration of differences between positive and negative forces in the

drop section (pulling the pipe out of the hole, vertical view) .......................... 27

2.19 Illustration of forces when the wellbore turns right (pulling the pipe out
of the hole, horizontal view) ............................................................................ 28

2.20 Illustration of forces when the wellbore turns left (pulling the pipe out of
the hole, horizontal view) ................................................................................ 29

3.1 Wellbore build & hold type in three-dimensional wellbore ............................ 32

3.2 Horizontal view of wellbore ............................................................................ 37

3.3 Vertical view of wellbore ................................................................................ 37

3.4 3D wellbore path by MATLAB version 7.4.0 ................................................. 38

3.5 Build type well design ..................................................................................... 38

3.6 Build and hold type well design ...................................................................... 39

3.7 Build hold and drop type well design .............................................................. 40

3.8 Horizontal well design ..................................................................................... 41

4.1 Spiral borehole as shown in 2D (Tracks 1 and 2) and 3D images ................... 44

4.2 An MWD survey tool cannot detect a tight spiral ........................................... 45

4.3 Illustrates the evidence of profound spiraling.................................................. 46

4.4 3D CAD model of 12-1/4” borehole................................................................ 47

4.5 Rippling 2D oscillation .................................................................................... 48

 xiii

FIGURE Page

4.6 Spiraling 3D corkscrew ................................................................................... 49

4.7 Hour-glassing cyclic hole enlargement............................................................ 49

4.8 Showing the two-dimensional schematic of the drift equation........................ 50

5.1 Torque-turn curve ............................................................................................ 53

5.2 Representative torque-turn curve with torque ranges shown........................... 54

5.3 Cross-sectional view of a typical premium connection shown........................ 54

5.4 A comparison of a premium casing connection and a proprietary rotary

shouldered connection ..................................................................................... 54

6.1 Sinusoidal buckling of the pipe in a horizontal wellbore ................................ 60

6.2 Helical buckling of the pipe in a horizontal wellbore ...................................... 60

6.3 Helical buckling in vertical wellbores ............................................................. 62

7.1 Euler’s approximations yk−1 = yk + h f (tk ,yk ) ................................................. 65

7.2 Comparison of Euler solutions with different step sizes ................................. 68

7.3 Illustrates force in the build-up section (lowering the pipe into the hole,
vertical view) ................................................................................................... 69

7.4 Illustrates the differences between positive and negative forces in the
build-up section (lowering the pipe into the hole) ........................................... 70

7.5 Comparison between Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equations and

numerical methods ........................................................................................... 71

8.1 Wellbore geometry for this example ............................................................... 77

8.2 Comparison between Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equations and

numerical methods ........................................................................................... 78

8.3 Axial tension plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s
(1991) method .................................................................................................. 81
 xiv

FIGURE Page

8.4 Torque plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)
method ............................................................................................................. 81

8.5 Axial tension plot for this example using numerical method .......................... 83

8.6 Torque plot for this example using numerical method .................................... 84

8.7 3D wellbore path by MATLAB version 7.4.0 ................................................. 85

8.8 Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft).................................. 86

8.9 Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) ..................................................... 86

A.1 T&D calculations for 3D well planning user form .......................................... 97

A.2 Showing enlarge picture application in 3D software ....................................... 98

A.3 Build type user form ........................................................................................ 99

A.4 Build & hold type user form .......................................................................... 100

A.5 Build hold & drop type user form .................................................................. 102

A.6 Horizontal wellbore user form ....................................................................... 103

A.7 T&D calculation between survey user form .................................................. 104

A.8 3D wellbore path by MATLAB version 7.4.0 ............................................... 106

B.1 Wellbore schematic for example in Appendix B ........................................... 108

B.2 Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft) for this example
using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) method .............................................. 109

B.3 Axial tension plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s
(1991) method ................................................................................................ 110

B.4 User dorm of Appendix B example ............................................................... 111

B.5 Result user form of Appendix B example ..................................................... 112

B.6 Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft)................................ 113
 xv

FIGURE Page

B.7 Axial tension force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F > 0 referred to
tensile force) .................................................................................................. 114

C.1 Wellbore Schematic for example in Appendix C .......................................... 116

C.2 Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measure depth (ft) for this example
using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) method .............................................. 117

C.3 Axial tension plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s
(1991) method ................................................................................................ 118

C.4 User form of Appendix C example ................................................................ 119

C.5 Result user form of Appendix C example ..................................................... 120

C.6 Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft)................................ 121

C.7 Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F < 0 referred to tensile
force) .............................................................................................................. 122

D.1 Wellbore schematic for example in Appendix D........................................... 124

D.2 Force table for Appendix D example ............................................................. 126

D.3 Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measure depth (ft) from Wu and
Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation ................................................................... 127

D.4 Axial tension plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s
(1991) method ................................................................................................ 128

D.5 User form of Appendix D example................................................................ 129

D.6 Result user form of Appendix D example ..................................................... 130

D.7 Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft)................................ 131

D.8 Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F < 0 referred to tensile
force) .............................................................................................................. 132

E.1 Wellbore schematic for example in Appendix E ........................................... 134

E.2 Result user form with 2D wellbore trajectory (no left/right turn) ................. 135
 xvi

FIGURE Page

E.3 Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F < 0 referred to tensile
force) from 2D wellbore trajectory ................................................................ 136

E.4 Result user form with 3D wellbore trajectory (10 deg/100ft left/right
turn)................................................................................................................ 137

E.5 Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F < 0 referred to tensile
force) from 3D wellbore trajectory ................................................................ 138

F.1 Comparison between push-the-bit results and point-the-bit-results .............. 141

F.2 The standard BHA configuration ................................................................... 143

F.3 Illustrates deflection in the bottom hole assembly......................................... 144

 xvii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

3.1 Input field data for tie-on surveys and target directions .................................. 36

5.1 Maximum SCF values and locations in shouldered connections .................... 57

7.1 Showing parameters for build section ............................................................. 69

8.1 Showing parameters......................................................................................... 78

8.2 Input field data for tie-on surveys and target directions for 3D wellbore
paths ................................................................................................................. 85

F.1 Listing of generic T&D reduction techniques ............................................... 145

F.2 Advantages and disadvantages of T&D reduction techniques ...................... 146

 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Excessive torque and drag in the design of a wellbore trajectory and drillstring

configuration might cause severe damage to a device that turns the drillstring (topdrive)

capacity, drillpipe strength, and available lifting capacity. It can increase pipe fatigue,

casing wear, and mechanical borehole problems, such as hole enlargement and can lead

to an inability to slide. Moreover, a conventional steerable assembly might increase

frictional forces, which can lead to failures in the tubular from excessive wear, bucking,

and collapse.

If helical bucking is unavoidable, then torque and drag (T&D) models must be more

robust if they are to accurately calculate the additional drag created in the post-buckled

portion of the string. This is essential to predict the loss of weight on a bit, the potential

for lock-up, and the impact on fatigue (Haduch, Procter, and Samuels 1994).

According to over two decades of petroleum literature that addresses Torque and Drag

(T&D) software, the basic mathematical model that underlies most T&D software has

not changed significantly since its original inception. Now is the right time to reflect on

the state of current models and identify the future requirements because T&D software is

commonly used during planning processes (Adewuya and Pham 1998).

This dissertation follows the style and format of SPE Drilling and Completion.
 2

A new model will help engineers identify feasible well designs and define drilling

limitations for particular field development options. A reliable mathematical model is

fundamental to a true understanding of the accuracy and applicability of T&D models.

Software based on a more accurate T&D mathematical model for each particular well

design will be highly useful in well planning design processes and will prevent the

problems caused by T&D.

1.1 Literature Review

T&D calculations and other information need to be changed in T&D software including

T&D equations, tortuosity effects, stress concentration factor, and buckling.

1.1.1 T&D equations for three-dimensional wellbore

Mason and Chen (2007) states that T&D modeling is regarded as an invaluable process

in well planning for assisting and predicting, as well as preventing, drilling problems.

Although T&D software has been developed for over 20 years, some confusion still

exists over the validity of the models. Meanwhile, Exxon production research has

developed soft string models for T&D equations. The soft string model is so called

because it ignores any effects of tubular stiffness. This means the drillstring is

represented as a heavy chain that transmits axial tension and torque caused by drillstring

friction resulting from normal contact forces between the pipe and the wellbore. The soft

string will be used in this research for T&D calculations during surveying in three-

dimensional wellbores. Moreover, Mason and Chen (2007) also provide criterion for

each type of buckling (sinusoidal and helical).

 3

When discussing T&D calculations in the build section, Wu and Juvkam-Wold (1993)

included three activities: rotating off bottom, running in the hole, and pulling out of the

hole. His paper provides analytical solutions for T&D calculations in two-dimensional

wellbore design. However, it will be most beneficial if we can develop these two-

dimensional equations into three-dimensional equations. This will be of great advantage

for our next generation of T&D calculations.

Aston, Hearn, and McGhee (1998) discuss techniques for solving present torque and

drag problems and mention many other techniques that are widely used for reducing

torque and drag problems. One of the techniques mentioned is to optimize the well

profile before drilling. This means that before the drilling begins, we have already

acquired the information concerning optimizing the wellbore profile. As a result, the

optimization will be greatly useful in facing any difficulties in the drilling process.

1.1.2 Tortuosity effects

Gaynor, Chen, Stuart, and Comeaux (2001) explain how to quantify tortuosity. Their

paper discusses “micro-tortuosity,” as well as the primary cause of hole spiraling that

will cause poor hole quality. Spiraling can be easily eliminated. It is desirable to reduce

“micro-tortuosity,” and thus it will improve hole quality. From this paper it will be

useful if T&D software programs also consider reducing this effect.

Gaynor, Halmer, Chen, and Stuart (2002) discuss the information on tortuosity versus

micro-tortuosity. This information has greatly assisted eliminating excessive tortuosity,

 4

which is regarded as a successful factor in solving extended reach drilling operation

problems. This paper also provides a mathematical model of a spiral hole and gives a

change in diameter in torque equations which changes the diameter of tool joint (D tj) to

the average diameter that has been used in torque equations (D drift).

1.1.3 Stress concentration factor

Tang, Muradov, Chandler, Jellison, Prideco, Gonzalez, and Wu (2006) present the new

stress concentration factor (SCF) analysis methodology for rotary shouldered

connections (RSCs) by using a finite element analysis as a primary method to calculate

SCF. This represents the connecting performance. In fact, this paper has application in

evaluating drill string connection design. However, it will not affect T&D calculations in

terms of increasing T&D.

1.1.4 Buckling

Wu and Juvkam-Wold (1993) discuss helical buckling and sinusoidal buckling of pipes

in horizontal wells and drilling and completion technologies. It is a highly difficult

technique when associated with transmitting compressive axial loads to the bit (or the

packer) on the bottom due to frictional force between pipe and wellbore. This paper

provides all of the buckling types in the horizontal wellbore that are used in this

research.
 5

Fig. 1.1–Schematic of forces acting on downhole tubular assembly (Aston et al. 1998).

Fig. 1.1 shows a schematic of the downhole forces acting on a tubular sliding and

rotating in an inclined wellbore. This will help us to choose the torque and drag model

for calculating torque and drag data. This picture shows all the forces that impact the

drillstring while the drillstring is downhole. Also, this research will cover more than just

T&D; the parameters that will be considered from the above figure will be axial load,

wall force, friction, torque, weight of pipe, and dogleg severity.

1.2 Objectives and Organization

This research’s objective will start by improving the equations that are normally used in

T&D software calculations, reflecting on the state of current models and identifying

future requirements. This research will provide more accurate T&D models that will

help alleviate helical buckling problems; normally, helical buckling causes the potential

for lock-up and impacts fatigue.

 6

This research’s second objective is to prevent T&D problems while drilling by trying to

optimize well profiles before drilling begins. Moreover, this research will try to show the

relation between well planning design and T&D calculation. This will make it easier to

find out which type of well design is more suitable in each particular area. Additionally,

this research will help tremendously in the design of long horizontal wellbores.

This research’s third objective is to help field personnel prepare for any unexpected

trend changes in a timely fashion during the drilling process. They will be able to

anticipate these changes by just inputting wellbore data and T&D parameters.

Furthermore, the outcome of the data from the T&D calculation program will be more

realistic because it will be based on a 3D model.

Chapter II will propose the new equations to be used in torque and drag analysis in

three-dimensional wellbores. Chapter III will provide the equations that have been used

in well planning; these are divided into four types of wellbore curves (build type, build

& hold type, build & hold & drop type, and horizontal wellbore type). Chapter IV will

explain the effect from tortuosity on torque and drag calculations. Chapter V discusses

continuing processes on torque and drag analysis of each drillstring connecting joint.

Chapter VI discusses buckling effects in T&D calculations. Chapter VII will emphasize

numerical methods in torque and drag. Lastly, Chapter VIII will present conclusions as

well as recommendations for future work.

 7

CHAPTER II

TORQUE AND DRAG CALCULATIONS IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL

WELLBORE METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction

The mathematical model for torque and drag calculations in three-dimensional wellbore

design is based on wellbore curve design. If we look at well planning just in a vertical

depth plane, we could derive each type of assumed curve without tortuosity in vertical

sections. We will divide the wellbore functions and hence the torque and drag

calculations into three steps: rotation off the bottom, following through running in the

hole, and pulling out of the hole (Wiggins, Choe, and Juvkam-Wold 1992). Dogleg

severity (δ) will be considered. The wellbore will be divided into two planes for

calculation: the vertical view and the horizontal view. We will start with T&D

calculations for rotation off the bottom. For rotating on bottom, the calculation will be

similar to rotation off bottom, however the difference for calculation is force at the bit

(Fbit). In addition, for sliding drilling, the calculation method is the same as running in

the hole, however the difference will be Fbit (Juvkam-Wold and Wu 1992).

2.2 Original Concept for Calculating Normal Contact Force

We start with a simple concept for normally contacting force calculations (N) (AadnØy

and Anderson 1998) by assuming that no friction (f) exists along the wellbore (rotating

off bottom).
 8

Fig. 2.1–Illustration of forces in build-up section (vertical view).

From Fig. 2.1 neglecting friction (e.g., pipe rotation) will be expressed as follows

(Johancsik, Friesch, and Dawson 1984):

 
ΣFalong normal: WsinI – (T+ΔT)sin - Tsin - N = 0 (2.1)
2 2

 
WsinI – 2Tsin - ΔTsin - N = 0 (2.2)
2 2

 
N = WsinI – 2Tsin (assuming ΔTsin  0) (2.3)
2 2

Note: f - Is the force of two surfaces in contact, or the force of a medium acting on a moving object, lbf

W - In this research, refers to buoyed weight of the string element, lbf/ft

I,θ - A deviation or the degree of deviation from the vertical

T - The tension force at the lower end of the string element, lbf

Δ - A normalized estimate of the overall curvature of an actual well path between two consecutive

survey stations, degrees per 100 ft

 9

Fig. 2.2–Illustration of forces in inclined section (vertical view).

From Fig. 2.2 neglecting friction (e.g., pipe rotation) will be illustrated as follows:

N = WsinI (2.4)

T+∆T
N
δ/2

δ/2 W

δ/2

Fig. 2.3–Illustration of forces in drop section (vertical view).

 10

From Fig. 2.3 neglecting friction (e.g., pipe rotation) will be illustrated as follows:

 
ΣFalong normal: WsinI + (T+ΔT)sin + Tsin - N = 0 (2.5)
2 2

 
WsinI + 2Tsin + ΔTsin - N = 0 (2.6)
2 2

 
N = WsinI + 2Tsin (Assuming ΔTsin  0) (2.7)
2 2

N
T+∆T
ø/2

ø/2

ø/2

Fig. 2.4–Illustration of forces while the wellbore turns to the right (horizontal view).

From Fig. 2.4 neglecting friction (e.g., pipe rotation) by using the same calculation as

drop section; however, W and I will not be considered.

 
Nturn ≈ (T + ΔT)sin + Tsin (2.8)
2 2

 
Nturn = 2Tsin (Assuming ΔTsin  0) (2.9)
2 2
 11

Fig. 2.5–Illustration of forces while the wellbore turns to the left (horizontal view).

From Fig. 2.5 neglecting friction (e.g., pipe rotation) will be illustrated as follows:

 
Nturn ≈ (T + ΔT)sin + Tsin (2.10)
2 2

 
Nturn = 2Tsin (Assuming ΔTsin  0) (2.11)
2 2

2.3 Soft-string Model for Three-dimensional T&D Calculation

The original soft-string T&D programs are based on a model developed by Exxon

Production Research (Mason and Chen 2007). The value of N (normal contact force)

depends on how the wellbore contacts with the formation and the actual amount of

normal contact force (Menand, Sellami, Tijani, Stab, Dupuis, and Simon 2006):
 12

N total = (T sin  ) 2  (T  W sin  ) 2 (2.12)

Note: T - The tension force at the lower end of the string element, lbf

ΔØ - The change in azimuth angle over the string element, rad.

I,θ - A deviation or the degree of deviation from the vertical

W - In this research, refers to buoyed weight of the string element, lbf/ft

If the wellbore turns neither left nor right, T sin  will equal 0; then using the normal

contact force equation, the tension and torque change can be calculated from Eq. 2.13

and Eq. 2.14.

T  W cos    N (2.13)

M  NR (2.14)

Eq. 2.13 shows that whether it is plus (+) or minus (-) depends on which direction the

friction will be, as illustrated in Fig. 2.6. The next section will discuss the case of

lowering the pipe into the hole.

Fig. 2.6–Soft-string T&D model schematic (Mason and Chen 2007).

 13

2.4 Lowering the Pipe into the Hole

This section will show the equations that will be used in three-dimensional wellbore

designs while lowering the pipe into the hole (Maidla and Wojtanowicz 1987).

2.4.1 Lowering the pipe into the hole in the build section

F(¶/2)

R
O’

F+∆F



2


Ff

F(0)


N [900  (  )]
2 X
F

Fig. 2.7–Illustration of forces in build-up section (lowering the pipe into

the hole, vertical view).

From Fig. 2.7 ΣF along N axis will be illustrated as follows:

  
NRΔα = (F + ΔF)sin + Fsin + WRΔαsin(900 – (α+ )) (2.15)
2 2 2

From Eq. 2.15 divide by RΔα, thus

2F  F  
N= sin ( )+ sin ( ) + Wcos(α+ ) (2.16)
R 2 R 2 2


When (Δα  0), then sin( ) will approach close to 0.
2

Fc ( )
N = Wcos(α) + (2.17)
R
 14

From Fig. 2.7 ΣF along X axis will be illustrated as follows:

Note: R - The radius of curvature of the string element while the wellbore is in the build section

(vertical view), ft

Α - The angle used to calculate the deviation of the wellbore, rad.

  
(F + ΔF)cos( ) – Fcos( ) - F f RΔα + WRΔαcos(90 o - (α + )) = 0 (2.18)
2 2 2

 
ΔFcos( ) - F f RΔα + WR Δαsin(α + )=0 (2.19)
2 2

Eq. 2.19 divide by Δα

F  
cos ( ) = F f R – WRsin(α + ) (2.20)
 2 2

dF ( )
When Δα  0 = F f R – WRsin(α); F f = μ|N| (2.21)
d ( )

α = 900

α2

α1

α2
N<0
α0

α1 N>0

α0
α=0

Fig. 2.8–Illustration of differences between positive and negative forces in build-up

section (lowering the pipe into the hole, vertical view).
 15

From Fig. 2.8 for N > 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{ [ w cos( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRsin(α); (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α 0 ) (2.22)
d ( ) R Rturn

Fc ( )
*The term comes from wellbore turning and will be shown in the next section of
Rturn

this chapter. The value will be zero if there is no right or left turn of wellbore; Fc means

if compressive force Fc > 0 and if tension force Fc < 0 (Wu and Juvkam-Wold 1991).

From Fig. 2.8 for N < 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{- [ w cos( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRsin(α); (α 2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (2.23)
d ( ) R Rturn

Fc ( )
*The term comes from wellbore turning and will be shown in the next section of
Rturn

this chapter. The value will be zero if there is no right or left turn of wellbore; Fc means

if compressive force Fc > 0 and if tension force Fc < 0.

2.4.2 Lowering the pipe into the hole in the hold section

I
F+
∆F

Ff

I
F

Fig. 2.9–Illustration of force in hold section (lowering the pipe into the hole,
vertical view).
 16

From Fig. 2.9 ΣF along N axis will be illustrated as follows:

ΣF along N axis:

N = WsinI (2.24)

The value of N depends on how the wellbore contacts with the formation and the actual

amount of normal contact force:

Ntotal = N 2  N turn
2
(2.25)

If the wellbore neither turns left nor right, N turn will equal  0.

Fc ( )
However, if the wellbore’s deviation is towards a left or right turn, N turn will be:
R

From Fig. 2.9 ΣF along F axis will be illustrated as follows:

(F+ΔF) + WcosI = Ff + F (2.26)

ΔF = μNtotal – WcosI (2.27)

2.4.3 Lowering the pipe into the hole in the drop section

F+∆F
X
α2 = 900
N

F(¶/2)
Ff


[900 ( )]
2  X
2

W
F



O’ α0 = 0
R
F(0)

Fig. 2.10–Illustration of forces in drop section (lowering the pipe into the hole,
vertical view).
 17

From Fig. 2.10 ΣF along N axis will be illustrated as follows:

  
ΣF along N axis: NRΔα + (F + ΔF)sin + Fsin = WRΔαsin(α+ ) (2.28)
2 2 2

2F  F  
N=-[ sin ( )+ sin ( )] + Wsin(α+ ) (2.29)
R 2 R 2 2


When (Δα  0), sin( ) will approach close to 0.
2

Fc ( )
N = Wsin(α) - (2.30)
R

From Fig. 2.10 ΣF along X axis will be illustrated as follows:

  
(F + ΔF)cos( ) – Fcos( ) - F f RΔα + WRΔαsin(90 o - (α + )) = 0 (2.31)
2 2 2

 
ΔFcos( ) - F f RΔα + WR Δαcos(α + )=0 (2.32)
2 2

Eq. 2.32 Divide by Δα

F  
cos ( ) = F f R – WRcos(α + ) (2.33)
 2 2

When Δα  0

dF ( )
= F f R – WRcos(α); F f = μ|N| (2.34)
d ( )
 18

α = 900

N>0

α1

N<0

∆α

α1

α0
α2

α=0

Fig. 2.11–Illustration of differences between positive and negative forces in drop section
(lowering the pipe into the hole, vertical view).

From Fig. 2.11 for N > 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{ [ w sin( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRcos(α); (α2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (2.35)
d ( ) R Rturn

Fc ( )
*The term comes from the wellbore turning and will be shown in the next
Rturn

section of this chapter. The value will be zero if there is no a right or a left turn;

Fc means if compressive force Fc > 0 and if tension force Fc < 0.

For N < 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{- [ w sin( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRcos(α); (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α0) (2.36)
d ( ) R Rturn
 19

Fc ( )
*The term comes from the wellbore turning and will be shown in the next
Rturn

section of this chapter. The value will be zero if there is no right or left turn; Fc means if

compressive force Fc > 0 and if tension force Fc < 0.

2.4.4 Lowering the pipe into the hole while the wellbore turns

This section will discuss drag calculation on the top view; the explanation will cover

either the wellbore turning right or left in each section. It will be similar to those of the

vertical calculations; however, the W term will not be shown in each equation, due to it

is a horizontal view.

F+∆F
α2 = 900
N

F(¶/2)
Ff


2

F



O’ α0 = 0
R
F(0)

Fig. 2.12–Illustration of forces when the wellbore turns right (lowering the pipe
into the hole, horizontal view).

From Fig. 2.12 ΣF along N axis

 
N turn RΔα + (F + ΔF)sin + Fsin =0 (2.37)
2 2

2F  F 
N turn = - [ sin ( )+ sin ( )] (2.38)
R 2 R 2
 20

 Fc ( )
When (Δα  0), then sin ( ) will approach close to 0 N turn = -
2 R

F(¶/2) R
O’


F+∆F 


2

Ff

F(0)

N
F

Fig. 2.13–Illustration of forces when the wellbore turns left

(lowering the pipe into the hole, horizontal view).

From Fig. 2.13 ΣF along N axis will be illustrated as follows:

 
N turn RΔα = (F + ΔF)sin + Fsin (2.39)
2 2

Eq. 2.39 divided by RΔα, thus

2F  F 
N turn = sin ( )+ sin ( ) (2.40)
R 2 R 2

 Fc ( )
When (Δα  0), then sin( ) will approach close to 0; N turn =
2 R
 21

2.5 Pulling the Pipe out of the Hole

This section will show the equations that will be used in three-dimensional wellbore

designs while pulling the pipe out of the hole.

2.5.1 Pulling the pipe out of the hole in the build section

F(¶/2)
O’



F+∆F


2
X

Ff

F(0)


N [900 ( )] F
2

Fig. 2.14–Illustration of forces in build-up section (pulling the

pipe out of the hole, vertical view).

From Fig. 2.14 ΣF along N axis will be illustrated as follows:

  
(F + ΔF)sin + Fsin + NRΔα – WRΔαsin(90 o - (α+ )) = 0 (2.41)
2 2 2

From Eq. 2.41

  
2Fsin( ) + ΔFsin( ) + NRΔα – WRΔαcos(α+ )=0 (2.42)
2 2 2

  
NRΔα = WRΔαcos(α+ ) - ΔFsin( ) - 2Fsin( ) (2.43)
2 2 2
 22

 F  2F 
NΔα = WΔαcos(α+ )- sin( ) - sin( ) (2.44)
2 R 2 R 2

 F  2F 
N = Wcos(α+ )- sin( ) - sin( ) (2.45)
2 R 2 R 2


If Δα  0, then sin( ) will approach close to 0
2

F ( )
N(α) = Wcos(α) - (2.46)
R

From Fig. 2.14 ΣF along X axis will be illustrated as follows:

  
{(F + ΔF)cos( ) – Fcos( ) - F f RΔα - WRΔαcos(90 o - (α + )} = 0 (2.47)
2 2 2

 
ΔFcos( ) - F f RΔα - WR Δαsin(α + )=0 (2.48)
2 2

Eq. 2.48 Divide by Δα

F  
cos ( ) = F f R + WRsin(α + ) (2.49)
 2 2

Δα  0

dF ( )
= F f R + WRsin(α); F f = μ|N| (2.50)
d ( )
 23

α = 900

α2

α1

α2
N<0
α0

α1 N>0

α0
α=0

Fig. 2.15–Illustration of differences between positive and negative forces in build-up

section (pulling the pipe out of the hole, vertical view).

From Fig. 2.15 for N > 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 F ( ) 2
= μ{ [ w cos( )  ] [ ] } R + WRsin(α); (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α 0 ) (2.51)
d ( ) R Rturn

F ( )
*The term comes from the wellbore turning and will be explained in the next
Rturn

section of this chapter; the value will be zero if there is no a right or a left turn; F means

if tension force F > 0 and if compressive force F < 0.

For N < 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 F ( ) 2
= μ{- [ w cos( )  ] [ ] } R + WRsin(α); (α 2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (2.52)
d ( ) R Rturn

F ( )
*The term comes from the wellbore turning and will be explained in the next
Rturn

section in this chapter. The value will be zero if there is no right or left turn; F means if

tension force F > 0 and if compressive force F < 0.

 24

2.5.2 Pulling the pipe out of the hole in the hold section

F+
∆F
N

F
Ff

Fig. 2.16–Illustration of forces in the hold section (pulling the pipe out of the hole,
vertical view).

From Fig. 2.16 ΣF along N axis

ΣF along N axis will be

N = WsinI (2.53)

The amount of N (normal contacts force) depends on how the wellbore contacts the

formation, and the actual amount of normal contact force will be illustrated as follows:

Ntotal = N 2  N turn
2
(2.54)

If neither a left turn nor a right turn is in the wellbore, the N turn term will equal  0. The

next section will discuss lowering the pipe into the hole. However, if the wellbore

Fc ( )
deviates toward a left turn or a right turn, N turn =
R

From Fig. 2.17 ΣF along F axis will be illustrated as follows:

(F+ΔF) = Ff + F + WcosI (2.55)

 25

ΔF = μNtotal + WcosI (2.56)

2.5.3 Pulling the pipe out of the hole in the drop section

F+∆F
X
α2 = 900
N

F(¶/2)
Ff


[900 ( )]
2 
W
2


F


O’ α0 = 0
F(0)

Fig. 2.17–Illustration of forces in the drop section (pulling the pipe out of the hole,
vertical view).
 26

From Fig. 2.17 ΣF along N axis will be illustrated as follows:

  
NRΔα = (F + ΔF)sin + Fsin + WRΔαsin(α+ ) (2.57)
2 2 2

2F  F  
N= sin ( )+ sin ( ) + Wsin(α+ ) (2.58)
R 2 R 2 2


When Δα  0, then sin ( ) will approach close to 0.
2

F ( )
N = Wsin(α) + (2.59)
R

From Fig. 2.17 ΣF along x axis will be illustrated as follows:

  
(F + ΔF)cos( ) – Fcos( ) - FfRΔα - WRΔαcos(α + )=0 (2.60)
2 2 2

 
ΔFcos( ) – FfRΔα - WRΔαcos(α + )=0 (2.61)
2 2

Eq. 2.61 divided by Δα

F  
cos( ) = FfR + WRcos(α + ) (2.62)
 2 2

When Δα  0, cos(0) will approach close to 1.

dF
= FfR + WRcos(α) (2.63)
d

From Ff = μ|N|; (2.64)

 27

α = 900

N>0

α1

N<0

∆α

α1

α0
α2

α=0

Fig. 2.18–Illustration of differences between positive and negative forces in the drop
section (pulling the pipe out of the hole, vertical view).

For N > 0 (Fig. 2.18) is separate in two cases of N value

dF F ( ) 2 F ( ) 2
 { (W sin( )  ) ( ) }R +WRcos(α); (α2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (2.65)
d R Rturn

F ( )
*The term comes from the wellbore turning and will be explained in the next
Rturn

section of this chapter. The value will be zero if there is no right or left turn;

F means if tension force F > 0 and if compressive force F < 0.

For N < 0

dF F ( ) 2 F ( ) 2
 { (W sin( )  ) ( ) }R +WRcos(α); (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α0) (2.66)
d R Rturn
 28

F ( )
*The term comes from the wellbore turning and will be explained in the next
Rturn

section of this chapter. The value will be zero if there is no right or left turn; F means if

tension force F > 0 and if compressive force F < 0.

2.5.4 Pulling the pipe out of the hole while the wellbore turns

This section will discuss mainly drag calculations from the top view while pulling out of

the hole. The explanation will be covered largely on the wellbore turning either right or

left in each section. This will be similar to those of the vertical calculations; however,

the W term will not be considered in each equation, due to it is a horizontal view.

F+∆F
α2 = 900
N

F(¶/2)
Ff


2

F



O’ α0 = 0
R
F(0)

Fig. 2.19–Illustration of forces when the wellbore turns right (pulling the pipe out of
the hole, horizontal view).
 29

From Fig. 2.19 ΣF along N axis

 
N turn RΔα = (F + ΔF)sin + Fsin (2.67)
2 2

2F  F 
N turn = sin ( )+ sin ( ) (2.68)
R 2 R 2

 F ( )
When (Δα  0), then sin( ) will approach close to 0; N turn =
2 R

F(¶/2) R
O’


F+∆F 


2

Ff

F(0)

N F

Fig. 2.20–Illustration of forces when the wellbore turns left (pulling the pipe out of the
hole, horizontal view).

From Fig. 20 ΣF along N axis will be illustrated as follows:

 
NRΔα = -(F + ΔF)sin - Fsin (2.69)
2 2

From the above equation, divided by RΔα, thus

2F  F 
N=- sin ( )- sin ( ) (2.70)
R 2 R 2

 F ( )
When (Δα  0), then sin ( ) will approach close to 0; N turn =
2 R
 30

2.6 Conclusion

This section provides all necessary drag equations for three separate operations in the

wellbore: rotating at bottom, lowering the pipe into the hole, and pulling the pipe out of

the hole. This also provides the first order differential equation that will be used in the

torque and drag calculations by the Visual Basic Application (VBA) program, which

will provide the numerical solution from the torque and drag equations and the weight

(W) that represents effective weight We as:

 mud
We = Wair *(1- ) (2.71)
 steel

The next chapter will discuss torque calculations by considering the tortuosity effect and

giving recommendations on how to prevent this effect.

 31

CHAPTER III

WELL PLANNING IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL WELLBORE

3.1 Introduction

This particular program requires input from field data, starting from the tie-on survey to

input parameters of MD TVD NC EC I AZ DLS and target directions of MD TVD NC

EC. The wellbore path has started from the tie-on survey position to the target direction.

The shape of the wellbore outcome will depend largely on which type of wellbore that

the user has selected from the beginning. We input the required type of the wellbore data

that should be used. As a result, we will have the final wellbore path in 3D from the tie-

on survey to the target direction, however if depends on which type of wellbore that we

chose. The overview project will be separated into 4 sections. Firstly, it will be well-

planning calculations from tie-on surveys to target direction by using Visual Basic

Application Software in an Excel Program to calculate the well plan. Secondly, it will be

torque and drag calculations based on 3D equations by using Visual Basic Application.

Thirdly it will display on wellbore planning in 3D program (by using MATLAB

program to display wellbore path). Lastly, gathering all of the information in a software

application program.

Note: MD - The actual distance traveled along the borehole, ft

TVD - The vertical distance between a specific location in a borehole and a horizontal plane

passing through the surface, ft

NC - The distance traveled in the north-south direction in the horizontal plane (north is positive,

south is negative), ft
 32

EC - The distance traveled in the east-west direction in the horizontal plane (east is positive,

west is negative), ft

I,θ - A deviation or the degree of deviation from the vertical

IM - Moment of inertial of pipe, in (Gaynor et al. 2002)

AZ - The direction or bearing toward which a sloping surface faces (e.g., a north-facing slope

has an azimuth angle of 360°; a northeast-facing slope, an azimuth angle of 45°), degrees

D- A combination of aerodynamic or hydrodynamic forces which tends to reduce speed, lbf

Ddrift - The average diameter that has been used in torque equations, in

Dtj - The diameter of tool joint, in

3.2 System Modeling

This section demonstrates equations of three-dimensional wellbore between the tie-on

survey at the kick off point (KOP) and target direction, meanwhile demonstrating

measured depth calculations of each wellbore planning design.

3.2.1 Well-planning and math modeling between surveys

In this research I will show simple types of wellbore shapes (Build & Hold type in three-

dimensional wellbore)

KOP W
S  N
 
t 


E n
TARGET
TVD

Fig. 3.1–Wellbore build & hold type in three-dimensional wellbore

(Well Planning, 1975).
 33

Fig. 3.1 shows the three-dimensional wellbore design from the KOP to the target

direction. It requires the user to put the tie-on survey data at the KOP and target

direction. After that the software will calculate wellbore trajectory automatically,

depending on which type of wellbore the user will select. Fig. 3.1 demonstrates how it

works, step-by-step as follows:

Calculate Φ

Φ = arctan(abs[ECtarget]/abs[NCtarget]) (3.1)

3.2.1.1 Finding minimum curvature (DLS) to intersect target

Note: Φ,ΔØ – The change in azimuth angle over the string element, rad .

Direction Cosines of the Tangent to the Turn Arc

Cos αI; t = Sin(I)*Cos(AZ) (3.2)

Cos ß; t = Sin(I)*Sin(AZ) (3.3)

Cos γ; t = Cos(I) (3.4)

Direction Cosines of the Line from the KOP to the Target

3D Distance from the KOP to the Target = [ΔTVD2 + ΔNC2+ΔEC2]1/2 (3.5)

Cos αI; target = (NCtarget – NCtie on survey)/3D Distance from the KOP to Target (3.6)

Cos ß; target = (ECtarget – ECtie on survey)/3D Distance from the KOP to Target (3.7)

Cos γ; target = (TVDtarget – TVDtie on survey)/3D Distance from the KOP to Target (3.8)

α = arccos(Cos α; t * Cos α; target + Cos ß; t * Cosß; target + Cos γ; t * Cos γ; target) (3.9)
 34

Maximum radius of turn = 3D Distance from the KOP to the Target /(2α) (3.10)

Minimum DLS to minimum target = 18,000/(π*Maximum radius of turn) (3.11)

Selected Radius of Turn Arc; R (ft) = 18000/(π *DLS) (3.12)

Note: t Tangent section

αI The angle between the distance traveled in the north-south direction and 3D Distance from

the KOP to Target, rad.

ß- The angle between the distance traveled in the east-west direction and 3D Distance from

the KOP to Target, rad.

Γ- The angle used to calculate the deviation of the wellbore in tangent section, rad.

Α- The angle used to calculate the deviation of the wellbore, rad.

DLS - A normalized estimate (e.g., degrees / 100 feet) of the overall curvature of an actual well

path between two consecutive survey stations

Length of Selected ARC, S; ft

Length e = Selected radius of turn /sin(α) (3.13)

Length n = 3D distance from the KOP to target (3.14)

Length f = Selected radius of turn /tan(α) (3.15)

Length d = ((length n)2 + (Select radius of turn arch)2 – 2*(length n)*

(Select radius of turn arc)*sin(α)) (3.16)

Length k = sqrt((length d)2 – (Select radius of turn arc)2) (3.17)

Finding Position in Three-dimensional Wellbores

NCturn = length e * Cos α; target + NCkop (3.18)

ECturn = length e * Cos ß; target + ECkop (3.19)

TVDturn = length e * Cosγ; target + TVDkop (3.20)

 35

NC = length z * - Cos α; t + NCturn (3.21)

EC = length z * - Cos ß; t + ECturn (3.22)

TVD = length z * -Cos γ; t + TVDturn (3.22)

λ = Acos(selected radius of turn arc; R, ft / length d) (3.23)

B = Acos((selected radius of turn arc2 + length d2 – length n2)/

(2* selected radius of turn arc; r, ft * length d) (3.24)

γ = B – γ; (f>0) (3.25)

γ = 2*π – B – γ; (f<0) (3.26)

Cos α = (NC – NCkop )/Selected radius of turn arch (3.27)

Cos ß = (EC– ECkop)/Selected radius of turn arch (3.28)

Cos γ = (TVD – TVD kop)/Selected radius of turn arch (3.29)

Note: e,n,z,d,k - Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in each wellbore

trajectory calculations, ft

λ,B - angle parameters for mathematical algorithm calculation, rad.

Length h; ft = Selected radius of turn arch * Cos (γ) (3.30)

Length m; ft = Selected radius of turn arch * Sin (γ) (3.31)

NCfinal = N + length h* Cos α; 2-4 + length m * Cos α; t (3.32)

ECfinal = E + length h * Cos ß; 2-4 + length m * Cos ß; t (3.33)

TVDfinal = TVD + length h * length m + length m * Cos γ; t (3.34)

Cos α; k = (NCtarget – NCfinal)/length k (3.35)

Cos ß; k = (ECtarget – ECfinal)/length k (3.36)

Cos γ; k = (TVDtarget – TVDfinal)/length k (3.37)

Δ North/South k; ft = NCtarget – NCfinal (3.38)

Δ East/West k; ft = ECtarget – ECfinal (3.39)

 36

Φ = Arctan(abs(Δ East/West) / abs(Δ North/South)) (3.40)

3.2.1.2 Example tie-on surveys and target directions

Table 3.1–Input field data for tie-on surveys and target directions
a) Target direction

MD TVD NC EC
6955 5000 -3000 2000

b) Tie-on survey at KOP

MD TVD NC EC I AZ DLS
90 90 -100 -70 57 300 5

Note: h,m – Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in each wellbore trajectory calculations, ft

From Table 3.1, we can calculate the above data and represent into 2D; one will be the

surface plane, and the other will be the side view plane. After that we bring the data into

the MATLAB program to represent 3D (Figs. 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4).

 37

H o riz o n tal v iew o f wellb o re

NC (ft)
500

0
-1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

-500

-1,000

-1,500

-2,000

-2,500

-3,000

-3,500

Fig. 3.2–Horizontal view of wellbore.

V ertic al v iew o f wellb o re

T VD
-1,000 -500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Fig. 3.3–Vertical view of wellbore.

 38

Fig. 3.4–3D wellbore path by MATLAB version 7.4.0.

3.2.2 Well-planning and math modeling for build type

This section illustrates wellbore in build type wellbore and also provides an equation to

calculate measured depth (MD) (Fig. 3.5).

TVD at Kick-Off α = 900

point
α2
R

α1

N<0
α0

α1 N>0

α0
α = 00

Fig. 3.5–Build type well design.

 39

MD= Tkop + R * ((П/ 2) -  0) (3.41)

3.2.3 Well-planning and math modeling for build and hold type

This section illustrates wellbore of build and hold type and also provides an equation to

calculate measured depth (MD) (Fig. 3.6).

α = 900 R

α2

α1

α2
N<0
α0

α1 N>0

α0

Fig. 3.6–Build and hold type well design.

MD = Tkop + R * ((П / 2) -  0) + Ltan (3.42)

3.2.4 Well-planning and math modeling for build hold and drop type

This section illustrates wellbore in build and hold type and also provides an equation to

calculate measured depth (MD) (Fig. 3.7).

 40

α = 900 R

α2

α1
α2
N<0
α0

α1 N>0

α0
I

N>0

R α1
N<0

α1

α0
α2

α=0

Fig. 3.7–Build hold and drop type well design.

MD = Tkop + R * ((П / 2) -  0) + Ltan + Rdrop section * (I -  0,drop) (3.43)

3.2.5 Well-planning and math modeling for horizontal well design type

This section shows wellbore in horizontal well design type and also provides an equation

to calculate measured depth (MD) (Fig. 3.8).

 41

α2

α1

N<0
α0

N>0
α1

α0

Fig. 3.8–Horizontal well design.

MD = Tkop + R * (П / 2) + HL (3.44)

Figs. 3.2 through 3.8 represented in horizontal view plane and R in this chapter is the

raduis of curvature in vertical view plane. However, for making 3D we need to have

Rturn (radius of curvature in horizontal view plane which has already been mentioned in

Chapter II) calculation.

 42

CHAPTER IV

TORTUOSITY IN THREE-DIMENSIONAL WELLBORES AND THE EFFECT

OF TORTUOSITIES ON TORQUE CALCULATION

4.1 Introduction

Tortuosity occurs when a well has a deviation from a straight hole. The most commonly

known tortuosity is a dogleg severity variation. However the tortuosity that we will

emphasize pertains to the torque and drag calculation and includes micro-tortuosity in

which the axial hole is spiraled instead of straight. This occurs when the bottom hole

assembly uses the mud motor system and can be minimized by using a rotary steerable

system instead. In this chapter we will consider the tortuosity effect and the effect of the

equations that will be used in the torque and drag software. Since micro-tortuosity can

cause poor hole quality, and spiraling is the primary cause of micro-tortuosity,

eliminating these problems will improve hole quality tremendously.

4.2 Oscillation in the Wellbore

Total tortuosity of an “as-drilled” well (T) can be calculated as the sum of the planned

tortuosity (T1), the large-scale tortuosity (T2), and the micro tortuosity (T3):

Ttotal = T1 + T2 + T3 (4.1)

The following will explain the definition of each term.

 43

T1 is a planned tortuosity and will represent the summation of the total curvature

including inclination and azimuth in the planned well trajectory divided by the well

depth. For example, using degrees/100 feet for a well that builds from the vertical to 60

degrees inclination and, assuming no change in azimuth angle, will achieve a total

curvature of 60 degrees. By having a total curvature of 60 degrees and the measured

depth of the well of 10,000 feet, the planned tortuosity will be 60/(10,0000/100) or

0.6o/100 ft.

Large Scale Tortuosity (T2) is the summation of the total curvature (inclination and

azimuth changes) when a drilled well is measured by measurement while drilling

(MWD) survey in dogleg severity and then subtracted by the planned tortuosity

(T1).These dogleg results can vary from survey to survey and may take 30 to 90 feet,

depending on which type of survey is being used in the drilling process. The result of

changing rig activity from sliding to high dogleg rotation can lead to a section of high

dogleg followed by a section of lower dogleg. Consequently, it will create a condition

similar to the large scale tortuosity.

Micro-Tortuosity (T3) is defined as the tortuosity that occurs in the wellbore that is

smaller in comparison to previous tortuosity. This phenomenon is from the spiral effect

when drilling tools run into the wellbore with the rotary assembly, motor assembly and

rotary assembly systems. The only ways to measure the micro-tortuosity are by the

advanced wireline survey techniques, MWD acoustic caliper tools, and the application of

back calculated friction factor.

 44

4.3 Borehole Oscillations

The presence of borehole rippling, spiraling, and hour-glassing have been known for

many years in the drilling industry. There have been publications in many papers

concerning oscillation problems in the borehole due to the micro-tortuosity effect.

However, this research will largely consider equations that will be used in unpredictable

situations and in difference shapes of hole spiral. They have to be tested for the borehole

spiraling effects like bit speed, penetration rate, and rock strength. From these

experimental situations, general guidelines can be derived on how to select the

appropriate bit, BHA, and operating parameters, as well as rotary steerable tools.

Fig. 4.1–Spiral borehole as shown in 2D (Tracks 1 and 2) and 3D images

(Gaynor et al. 2002).
 45

Fig. 4.1 illustrates spiral borehole images taken from the wireline CAST

(Circumferential Acoustic Scanning Tool) in a well in South America. The evidence of

the spiraling hole is represented in the strong diagonal response of the CAST images

running across the compressed and expanded 2D images as presented in tracks 1 and 2.

The reverse 3D image is clearly presented in track 3 which indicates the wellbore

spiraling while drilling. Note that the spiral seems to change its direction from time to

time and has a pitch length of approximately 2 feet.

Fig. 4.2–An MWD survey tool cannot detect a tight spiral (Gaynor et al. 2002).

Fig. 4.2 illustrates that short pitch tortuosity is cancelled over 30 feet (shown by

centerline 1) because it measures the inclination and drift’s direction (shown by

centerline 2) instead of the wellbore itself. MWD cannot detect spiral hole because it

measures the inclination and drift’s direction instead of the wellbore itself.
 46

Fig. 4.3–Illustrates the evidence of profound spiraling (Gaynor et al. 2001).

Fig. 4.3 illustrates a spiral hole as detected by a differential caliper tool on a wireline

density measurement at a well in the Gulf of Mexico. The log indicates that the hole is

under gauge approximately 1.5” for every 4 feet and rarely over gauge level. This
 47

phenomenon is repeated over thousands of feet on this log. This drilling section had a 9-

7/8” bit and 6-3/4” collars. Using the drift equation (new wellbore) calculation, there

will be 8.31”, a 1.56” (16%) reduction in wellbore OD which is exactly the same

magnitude measured by the wireline tool. The reduction in the cross section area (drift

vs. hole size) is calculated to equal 22.32 in2 (29%). Compare this to the figure on the

right, which illustrates a perfectly gauged hole drilled with a new steerable system (a

matched long gauge bit and positive displacement mud motor) [The entire 12,000 ft

interval drilling is only 2.7 days with no short trip.]

Fig. 4.4–3D CAD model of 12-1/4” borehole (Patusek, Brackin, and Christensen 2003).

Some of the bends in the BHA may be smoothened by drilling a spiraled hole. Fig. 4.4 is

a 3D CAD model of a 12-1/4” borehole from an offshore site in the Gulf of Mexico

(GOM) with a model of the BHA that is placed as a spiral to minimize its contact points.
 48

When this is animated for pipe rotation, it can be seen that spiraling hole is one way for

the BHA to relax its preload.

There are at least three key issues to be analyzed and optimized when drilling directional

wells with motors: tool face control, dogleg severity (DLS), and borehole quality. This

thesis will focus on hole problems from the well path, not from sloughing, caving,

erosion, etc. There are several types of oscillations that have been described in the past,

often with different or conflicting names.

4.4 Model of Borehole Oscillations

Figs. 4.5 through 4.7 will show the different types of borehole tortuosities that occur in

the wellbore.

Fig. 4.5–Rippling 2D oscillation (Patusek et al. 2003).

 49

Fig. 4.6–Spiraling 3D corkscrew (Patusek et al. 2003).

Fig. 4.7–Hour-glassing cyclic hole enlargement (Patusek et al. 2003).

The above three figures represent borehole rippling, spiraling, and hour-glassing, which

have been known for many years in the drilling industry. Descriptions of these problems

have become more precise with improved logging tools, yet the underlying mechanisms

have not been presented in the past nor have there been any attempts to explain the

steady state in response to the bottom hole assembly. Little has been published on the

non-equilibriums or dynamics relating to the system.

 50

There are at least three types of oscillations that have been described in the past. They

are rippling/undulations, helical spiraling/corkscrew, and hour-glassing. The above

figures represent the exterior of the three most common forms of borehole oscillation.

The oscillation can be solved by the drift equation. This will affect torque equations

mentioned earlier, which will become more accurate and affect all of the torque

equations.

4.5 Mathematical Model for Torque Calculations

Fig. 4.8–Showing the two-dimensional schematic of the drift equation

(Gaynor et al. 2001).

The collars will act directly to limit the amount of lateral movement of the bit off the

center line of the hole (Fig. 4.8). Thus the spiral amplitude will be determined by the

relative size of the bit and collars. This is exactly what was described by determining the
 51

maximum wellbore “drift.” Using Lubinski’s calculation for maximum drift creates a

crooked hole as (Rezmer-Cooper, Chau, Hendricks, Woodfine, Stacey, and Downton

1999):

Ddrift = (Bit Diameter + Collar Diameter)/2 (4.2)

Torque calculations in build and drop sections from Chapter II will use the adapted

equation by (Maidla and Haci 2004):

2 Ddrift
T(α2) =  0
 N ( )
24
Rd (4.3)

However, the next step of this equation will be separated by the integral theory, thus

1 Ddrift 2 Ddrift
T(α2) =  0
 N ( )
24
Rd +  1
 N ( )
24
Rd (4.4)

And it will depend on how the drillstring contacts the wellbore. From Eq. 4.4 and N(α)

from Chapter II, using visual basic application software will give us a numerical method

to solve torque and drag in the wellbore.

 52

CHAPTER V

STRESS CONCENTRATION WITHIN TOOL JOINT

5.1 Introduction

In this section we will mainly consider the stress between drillpipe connections.

Although this will not affect the torque and drag in the wellbore, this will help the user

to be aware of the drillpipe failure while working in the borehole. If the torque between

connections exceeds the recommended torque, it will affect the pulling out of the hole

phase since the drillstring connection cannot be broken. This might cause the drillpipe to

buckle while the drillstring is in the wellbore. This chapter will use the back calculation

to prevent the above-mentioned problem with the tripping process. This will help to

confirm and warn the rig personnel of any upcoming situation.

5.2 Stress Concentration

This section will address a new Stress Concentration Factor (SCF) analysis methodology

for Rotary Shouldered Connections (RSCs) by using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) as a

primary tool to explore the maximum peak trends in RSCs and calculating SCF to

represent the connection performance (Ring, Deltombe, York, and Baker 2007). Also in

this chapter we will cover the SCF analysis methodology and its application in the

evaluation of drillstring connection designs, advanced rotary shouldered connection

designs incorporating multiple shoulders, and metal-to-metal seals as well as further

 53

adding to the complexity of the stress distribution throughout the connection (Plessis,

You, and Prideco 2005).

The Stress Concentration Factor (SCF) is an important and useful parameter to evaluate

the maximum peak stress within the connection in response to an operational pipe’s

load.

Fig. 5.1–Torque-turn curve (Hamilton, Wagg, and Roth 2007).

Torque-turn curve of a premium connection that has passed the vendor make-up

acceptance criteria and the ultrasonic representation of contact stress along the

connection’s metal-to-metal seal.

 54

Fig. 5.2–Representative torque-turn curve with torque ranges shown

(Hamilton et al. 2007).

Fig. 5.3–Cross-sectional view of a typical premium connection shown

(Hamilton et al. 2007).

Fig. 5.4–A comparison of a premium casing connection and a proprietary

rotary shouldered connection (Tang et al. 2006).
 55

Figures 5.1 through 5.4 show that the connection stress forces as well as torque are more

than normal along the drillpipe. Because of the increasingly aggressive drilling

conditions and newer applications requiring multiple shoulders and metal-to-metal seals

in rotary shouldered connections, the need for SCF analysis ensues. This research’s

results on a number of evaluations suggest further explorations on various aspects of

SCF analysis to find a logical and conservative approach to evaluate the maximum peak

stress trend in rotary shouldered connections in response to applied pipe loads. This will

help to understand RSC fatigue characteristics in newer applications.

5.3 Mathematical Model for the Stress Concentration Factor

The stress Concentration Factor (SCF) is a concept for well-defined various mechanical

systems. It is also defined as a ratio of the peak stress (Σ) versus normal stress (σ). Peak

stress is the highest principal stress at a geometric discontinuity location.

SCF = Σ/σapp or Σ = SCF* σapp (5.1)

It is quite simple and straightforward if the mechanical system is at a zero preload

condition, such as welded offshore structures. In this matter the maximum peak stress

can be proportionally calculated through the SCF value based on a known applied

normal stress σapp. But if the mechanical system has a large amount of preload during an

assembly process like the makeup process in RSCs, the definition of the Stress

Concentration Factor has to be revised to the following:

SCF = (Σ-Σmean) (5.2)

 56

Another similar parameter is the Stress Amplification Factor,

SAF = (Σ-Σpreload)/(σapp-σpreload) (5.3)

As a result, the only difference between these two equations is the reference stress; the

SCF equation references any of the operational mean stresses: The SAF equation

references a specified preload stress, which is referred to as makeup stress. The SCF or

SAF is associated with a pre-defined reference stress point, either “preload stress” or

“mean stress.” It involves two components, Σmean or Σpreload and σmean or σpreload. The peak

stress change (Σ-Σmean) is actually a result of change in the pipe stress (σ-σmean). Then, if

one needs to know the absolute peak stress level, especially at a geometric discontinuity

location proportional to an applied load or stress in the pipe body, the formula can be

used as follows:

Σ = Σmean + SCF*Δpipe-stress (5.4)

Where Δpipe-stress = σapp – σmean (5.5)

A similar approach for SAF will be:

Σ = Σpre-load + SAF*Δpipe stress (5.6)

Where Δpipe stress = σapp – σpre-load (5.7)

In this research, a practical analysis approach is recommended to address these three

concerns with SCF for RSCs being defined as follows:

Σmax = Σmax mean + SCF*Δpipe stress (5.8)

Where Δpipe stress = σapp – σmean = (fapp – fmean)/A (5.9)

 57

SCF = (Σmax – Σmax mean)/(σapp – σmean) (5.10)

SCF = A*(Σmax – Σmax mean)/(fapp – fmean) (5.11)

Table 5.1–Maximum SCF values and locations in shouldered connections

(Tang et al. 2006)
Rotary Max. SCF up to
Shouldered Pipe Tension Max. SCF up to TJ Makeup Torque
Connection Capacity Tension Capacity (ft-lb) Critical Location
API NC 38 1.18 2.77 12,000 Pin Thread #2
(4-7/8-in. OD
X 2-9/16-in. ID)
1st GEN-38 1.11 1.13 17,665 Pin Thread #2
(4-7/8-in. OD
X 2-9/16-in. ID)
2nd GEN-39 0.91 0.91 22,190 Box Thread #1
(4-7/8-in. OD
X 2-9/16-in. ID)
API 5-12 FH 0.66 0.92 43,342 Pin Thread #2
(7-1/4-in. OD
X 3-12-in. ID)
1st GEN-55 1.00 1.03 46,347 Pin Thread #3
(7-in. OD
X 4-in. ID)
2nd GEN-57 0.68 0.74 56,600 Box Thread #3
(7-in. OD
X 4-1/4-in. ID)

Maximum SCF with specified 4-in or 5-1/2-in pipe configuration is shown in Table 5.1;

if the pipe force between connections (fmean) is more than the calculated data that we

have from torque and drag software, we will use

SCF = (Σmax – Σmax mean)/(σapp – σmean) (5.12)

SCF = A*(Σmax – Σmax mean)/(fapp – fmean) (5.13)

Then, finding fapp and using fapp for the force between the connections will be called back

calculation. As a result, if the pipe force between connections is (f mean) more than the
 58

calculated data from torque and drag software, we have to use fmean for torque and drag

calculation.
 59

CHAPTER VI

BUCKLING

6.1 Introduction

Buckling is a very important issue in T&D calculation. The buckling can cause an

increase in contact force between the string and the wellbore. This means that after the

drillstring is released from the derrick, the entire drillstring will be supported by

wellbore friction instead of the bit force. This phenomenon, called “lock-up,” occurs

when the drillstring weight exceeds the drill string limitation. A lock-up situation can

occur when working on coiled tubing operations; if this situation happens, it will cost a

lot of money due to increasing the rig time activities.

Buckling, as presented in this chapter, refers to sinusoidal buckling and helical buckling.

If the axial compression continues to increase in the string, the buckling will begin when

there is the string snake phenomenon along the wellbore (sinusoidal buckling as in

Fig. 6.1). As the axial compression continues to increase, the buckling will change into a

helix drillstring (also known as helical buckling as shown in Fig. 6.2).

 60

Fig. 6.1–Sinusoidal buckling of the pipe in a horizontal wellbore

(Wu and Juvkam-Wold 1993).

Fig. 6.2–Helical buckling of the pipe in a horizontal wellbore

(Wu and Juvkam-Wold 1993).

6.2 System Modeling for a Deviation Wellbore

A long pipe in a wellbore will be buckled into a sinusoid along the lower side of the hole

at an axial compressive force of Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s model (1991)

EIw
Fs  2 sin  (6.1)
r
 61

A helical buckling mode will not occur until the axial force is (Wu, Chen and Cheatham

model)

FH  2 Fs (6.2)

Buckling may then be assessed by calculating the friction force and using case selection

below to define

F < Fs no buckling (6.3)

Fs < F < 2 Fs sinusoidal buckling initiated (6.4)

2 Fs < F < (2 2 -1)Fs helical buckling initiated (6.5)

(2 2 -1)Fs < F helical buckling from Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation (6.6)

In the case of sinusoidal buckling, there is no significant increase in wall force; however,

in the case of helical buckling, wall force increases, and the drilling engineer will pick

up the best well design and attempt to avoid the buckling problem. In general for

sinusoidal buckling, case may be acceptable, but for helical buckling case has to be

avoided. But if the helical buckling is unavoidable, then T&D models need to be

improved more; thus, it has to be solved by equations from this research. However in the

vertical section, buckling calculations will be used differently.

6.3 Buckling in a Vertical Well

In 1950, researchers derived the following buckling load equation for the initial buckling

of tubular assembly in vertical wellbores (Rezmer-Cooper et al. 1999):

Fs = 1.94*(EIMWe2)1/3 (6.7)
 62

A helical buckling load for weighty tubular assembly in vertical wellbores was derived

through an energy analysis to predict the occurrence of helical buckling:

Fhel,b = 5.55*(EIMWe2)1/3 (6.8)

The top helical buckling load Fhel,t is calculated by simply subtracting the tubular weight

of the initial one-pitch of the helically buckled pipe from the helical buckling load Fhel,b.

Fhel,t = 0.14*(EIMWe2)1/3 (6.9)

Fhel,t

Fhel,b
Fig. 6.3–Helical buckling in vertical wellbores.

Fig. 6.3 shows helical bucking in vertical wellbores when the drilling pipe has
compressive force. All of the above equations that illustrate this research are to provide
the information towards users and avoid being buckled while working on well planning
and drilling processes. The information has already been in T&D software.
 63

CHAPTER VII

NUMERICAL METHOD SOLVING T&D CALCULATION

7.1 Introduction

Applying the numerical method solves torque and drag calculations in three-dimensional

wellbores. This will benefit future work by others to solve T&D calculations. This

chapter will illustrate the numerical method that can be used to solve the torque and drag

calculations by using a visual basic application program to solve the equations.

7.2 Euler’s Theory

From the first order in differential equations in Chapter II, using Euler’s Method in

Numerical Analysis serves to illustrate the concepts involved in the advanced methods

(Kaw 2006). It has a limitation in use because there are a lot of errors that accumulate

during the procedure. However, it is worth studying since the error analysis can be

understood easily.

7.2.1 Euler’s method

Let [a,b] be the interval over which we want to find the solution of the well-posed Initial

Value Problem (I.V.P.) y’ = f(t,y) with y(a) = y0. In actuality, we will not find a

differentiable function that satisfies the I.V.P. Instead, a set of points ( t k , y k ) is

generated, and the points are used for an approximation (i.e., y( t k ) ≈ y k ). Then how can

we proceed to construct a “set of points” that will “satisfy a differential equation

 64

approximately”? First, we choose the abscissas for the points, then for being convenient

we subdivide the interval [a,b] into M equals subintervals and select the mesh points as

follows:

ba
Tk = a + kh for k=0,1, …, M where h = (7.1)
M

The value h is called the step size. Now we can proceed to solve the equation

approximately.

Y’ = f(t,y) over [t0,tM] with y(t0) = y0 (7.2)

Assuming that y(t), y’(t), and y’’(t) are constantly continuous, then we use Taylor’s

theorem to expand y(t) roughly t=t0. For each t value there exists a value c 1 that lies

between t0 and t, so that

y ' ' (c1 )(t  t 0 ) 2

Y(t) = y(t0)+y’(t0)(t- t0) + (7.3)
2

When y’(t0) = f(t0,y(t0)) and h = t1- t0 are substituted in the Eq. 7.3, the result is shown

below:

h2
Y(t1) = y(t0) + hf(t0,y(t0) + y”( c1) (7.4)
2

If the chosen step size h is small enough, we can neglect the second-order term

(involving h2) and have

Y1 = y0 + hf(t0,y0) (7.5)
 65

This is Euler’s approximation; the process is repeated and generates a sequence of points

that approximates the solution curve y = y(t). The general step for Euler’s method is

Tk+1 = tk+h, yk+1 = yk + hf(tk,yk) for k=0,1,….., M-1 (7.6)

Fig. 7.1–Euler’s approximations yk−1 = yk + h f (tk ,yk ) (John and Fink 2004).

7.2.2 Geometric description

As can be seen in Fig. 7.1, if you start at the point t0,y0 and compute the value of the

slope m0 = f(t0,y0) and move the value of h horizontally and vertically hf(t 0,y0), then you

move along the tangent line to y(t) and will end up at the point (t1,y1). Notice that (t1,y1)

is not on the desired solution curve. But this is the approximation that we are generating.

Hence we must use (t1,y1) as though it were correct and proceed by computing the slope

m1 = f(t1,y1) and use it to obtain the next vertical displacement hf(t 1,y1) to locate (t2,y2)

and so on.
 66

7.2.3 Step size versus error

From above, the methods that we introduce for approximating the solution of an initial

value problem are called difference methods or discrete variable methods. The solution

is approximated at a set of discrete points called a grid (or mesh) of points. A basic

single-step method has the formula yk+1 = yk + hØ(tk,yk) for some functions Ø will be

called increment functions.

In using any discrete variable method to solve an initial value problem approximately,

there will be two sources of errors: discretization and rounding off. Assuming that

{(tk,yk)} kM 0 is the set of discrete approximations, then y = y(t) is the unique solution to

the initial value problem. The global discretization error is defined by

ek = y(tk) – yk for k= 0,1…….,M (7.7)

There is a difference between the unique solution and the solution obtained by the

discrete variable method. The local discretization error ek+1 is defined by

ek+1 = y(tk+1) – yk - hØ(tk,yk) for k= 0,1,…..,M-1 (7.8)

It is the error committed in the single step from t k to tk+1. When we obtained Eq. 7.4 for

Euler’s method, the neglected term for each step was y2(ck)(h2/2). Then if this was the

only error at each step, at the end of the interval [a,b] (after M steps have been made) the

accumulated error would be

M
h2 h 2 hM ( 2) (b  a) y ( 2) (c)

k 1
( 2)
y (C k )
2
 My (c)
( 2)

2

2
y (c ) h 
2
h  O( h1 ) (7.9)
 67

There could be some more errors, but this estimate predominates. A detailed discussion

on this topic can be found in advanced texts on numerical methods for differential

equations. Theorem (Precision of Euler’s Method), assumes that y(t) is the solution to

the I.V.P. given. If y(t) in C2[t0,b] and {(tk,yk)} kM 0 is the sequence of approximation

generated by Euler’s method, then

|ek| = |y(tk) - yk| = O(h) (7.10)

|ek+1|=|y(tk+1)-yk-hf(tk,yk)| = O(h2) (7.11)

The error at the end of the interval is called the final global error (F.G.E.):

E(y(b),h)= |y(b) - yM| = O(h) (7.12)

The final global error E{y(b),h}has been used to study the behavior of the error for

various step sizes. It can be used to give us an idea of how much computing effort must

be done in order to obtain an accurate approximation.

7.2.4 Example of the step size effect in Euler’s method

For example, the step size effect uses Euler’s method to solve I.V.P.

ty
Y’ = on [0,3] with y(0) = 1 (7.13)
2

1 1 1
Compare solutions for h = 1, , , and .
2 4 8
 68

Fig. 7.2–Comparison of Euler solutions with different step sizes (John and Fink 2004).

Fig. 7.2 shows a comparison of Euler solutions with different step sizes for y’= (t-y)/2

over [0,3] with the initial condition y(0) = 1, presenting four Euler solutions and the

exact solution curve

y(t) = 3e-t/2 – 2 +t (7.13)

Using Euler’s method will definitely solve a numerical solution that has been mentioned

in Chapter II. Note that this method only presents a numerical solution, not an analytical

solution.

7.2.5 Euler’s method calculated in a three-dimensional wellbore

A wellbore for a build section (lowering the pipe into the hole) starting from α0 = 0o to

α1 = 90o, assuming no rturn and having all of the parameters is shown below in Table 7.1.
 69

Table 7.1–Showing parameters for build section

Parameters Values Unit
Tkop 1,509 Ft
Teoc 3,308 Ft
μ 0.1
We 19.5 lb/ft
R 1,146 Ft
α0 0 Degree
α1 90 degree
Feoc 10,000(compressive) lb

Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equations will be

Fc (α) = [Fc(α0) - Asin(α0) + Bcos(α0)]eμ(α-α0) +Asinα – Bcosα (7.14)

Where

2
A= We R (7.15)
1  2

1  2
B=  We R (7.16)
1  2

F(¶/2) R
O’

F+∆F



2

Ff

F(0)


[900  ( 
N
)] F
2

X
W

Fig. 7.3–Illustrates force in the build-up section (lowering the pipe into the hole,
vertical view).
 70

α = 900

α2

α1

α2
N<0
α0

α1 N>0

α0
α=0

Fig. 7.4–Illustrates the differences between positive and negative forces in the build-up
section (lowering the pipe into the hole).

From Figs. 7.3 and 7.4 for N > 0,

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{ [ w cos( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRsin(α); (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α 0 ) (6.17)
d ( ) R R

Fc ( )
*The term comes from the wellbore turning and will be 0 because there is no
R

left or right turn; Fc means compressive force Fc > 0 and tensile force Fc < 0.

Fig. 7.5 shows that for a very small step size (1.25 degree), the result from the numerical

solution is close to the analytical solution; moreover, this will show force value in every

1.25 degrees. This means the procedure of the numerical method that has been used to

solve the first order differential equation is used by a small step size (such as 1.25

degree). Consequently, the results in this research are close to Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s

(1991) analytical equation and are realistic. From the equations in this research, in first

derivative order that uses Euler’s method can solve problems in a three-dimensional

wellbore.
 71

Fig. 7.5–Comparison between Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equations and numerical

methods.
 72

CHAPTER VIII

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

8.1 Introduction

This research developed torque and drag equations to be used in three-dimensional

wellbore designs based on Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equations by using numerical

methods as well as considering the stress concentration factor (SCF), tortuosity effects,

and buckling. After going through literature reviews, we have equations for torque and

drag calculation, in Chapter II shown below, as well as providing some examples.

8.2 Mathematical Models for Three-dimensional Wellbores

This section shows the equations that are being used in three-dimensional wellbores.

8.2.1 Lowering the pipe into the hole

8.2.1.1 Build section

For N > 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{ [ w cos( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRsin(α); (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α 0 ) (8.1)
d ( ) R Rturn

F ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
Rturn

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no turning right or turning left of the
 73

wellbore, and if there is tension force, then F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive

force, then F will be F < 0.

For N < 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{- [ w cos( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRsin(α); (α 2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (8.2)
d ( ) R Rturn

F ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
Rturn

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no right or left turn of the wellbore, and if

there is tension force; F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive force, then F will be

F < 0.

8.2.1.2 Drop section

For N > 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{ [ w sin( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRcos(α); (α2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (8.3)
d ( ) R Rturn

F ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
Rturn

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no right or left turn of the wellbore, and if

there is tension force; F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive force, then F will be

F < 0.
 74

For N < 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 Fc ( ) 2
= μ{- [ w sin( )  c ] [ ] } R – WRcos(α);(α 1 ≥ α ≥ α0) (8.4)
d ( ) R Rturn

Fc ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
Rturn

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no right or left turn of the wellbore, and if

there is tension force; F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive force, then F will be

F < 0.

8.2.2 Pulling the pipe out of the hole

8.2.2.1 Build section

For N > 0

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 F ( ) 2
= μ{ [ w cos( )  ] [ ] } R + WRsin(α); (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α 0 ) (8.5)
d ( ) R Rturn

F ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
Rturn

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no right or left turn of the wellbore, and if

there is tension force; F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive force, then F will be

F < 0.

For N < 0
 75

dF ( ) F ( ) 2 F ( ) 2
= μ{- [ w cos( )  ] [ ] } R + WRsin(α); (α 2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (8.6)
d ( ) R Rturn

F ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
Rturn

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no right turn or left turn of the wellbore, and

if there is tension force; F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive force, then F will

be F < 0.

8.2.2.2 Drop section

For N > 0

dF F ( ) 2 F ( ) 2
 { (W sin( )  ) ( ) }R +WRcos(α); (α2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (8.7)
d R Rturn

F ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
Rturn

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no right or left turn of the wellbore, and if

there is tension force; F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive force; F will be F < 0.

For N < 0

dF F ( ) 2 F ( ) 2
 { (W sin( )  ) ( ) }R +WRcos(α); (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α0) (8.8)
d R Rturn
 76

F ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
Rturn

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no right or left turn of the wellbore, and if

there is tension force; F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive force; F will be F < 0.

In addition, a hold section that has a deviation in either a left or right turn will consider

F ( )
Nturn term with .
Rturn

All of the above equations cannot be solved by analytical methods; however, they can be

solved by numerical methods by using an Euler method to solve this first degree

differential equation. The next section will provide an example that will be used to

compare Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) analytical equation with the research method

using Euler’s numerical methods.

8.3 Soft-string Model for Three-dimensional T&D Calculations

The original soft-string T&D programs were based on a model developed by Exxon

Production research (Mason and Chen 2007). The value of N (normal contact force)

depends on how the pipe contacts the formation and the actual amount of normal contact

force:

N total = (T sin  ) 2  (T  W sin  ) 2 (8.9)

 77

If the wellbore turns neither left nor right, T sin  will equal  0; meanwhile, using

the normal contact force equation to evaluate the tension and torque changes details in

Eq. 2.13 and Eq. 2.14:

T  W cos    N (8.10)

M  NR (8.11)

8.4 Example and Comparison in Force Calculations

The wellbore for the build section (lowering the pipe into the hole) starting from α0 = 0o

to α1 = 90o, assuming no Rturn, and having all the parameter shown below in Fig. 8.1 and

Table 8.1, respectively.

TVD at Kick-Off α = 900

point
α2
R

α1

N<0
α0

α1 N>0

α0
α = 00

Fig. 8.1–Wellbore geometry for this example.

 78

Table 8.1–Showing parameters

Parameters Values Unit
Tkop 1,509 ft
Teoc 3,308 ft
μ 0.1
We 19.5 lb/ft
R 1146 ft
α0 0 degree
α1 90 degree
Feoc 10,000 lb
Ftop -9,504 lb

Fig. 8.2–Comparison between Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equations and numerical

methods.

Fig. 8.2 Illustrates a very small step size (1.25 degree) as the result from a numerical

solution, which is close to an analytical solution. Moreover, this will show a force value

every 1.25 degrees. This means that the procedure for numerical methods used to solve

the first degree differential equation is to use a small step size (such as 1.25 degree) and,
 79

as revealed in this research, is close to Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) analytical

equation and is realistic. Equations from this research in the first derivative degree using

Euler’s method can solve problems in three-dimensional wellbores.

8.5 Example and Comparison in Torque Calculations

Torque calculations in the build and drop sections (while rotating off the bottom) from

Chapter III also consider tortuosity effects and will use the adapted equation by

2 Ddrift
T(α2) =  0
 N ( )
24
Rd (8.12)

However, the next step of this equation will be separated by the integral theory, thus

1 Ddrift 2 Ddrift
T(α2) =  0
 N ( )
24
Rd +  1
 N ( )
24
Rd (8.13)

It will depend on how the drillstring contacts the wellbore. From the above equation and

N(α) for three-dimensional wellbores from Chapter II, using visual basic application

software will give us a numerical method to solve torque and drag.

8.5.1 Example while rotating off the bottom

An example of torque calculations when comparing Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)

equation with the numerical solutions is shown below:

Rotary Drilling with Feoc = 40,000 lbf (tension) shows the well profile as an Extended

reach well with final I = 65 deg. BUR = 5.08 deg./100 ft μ = 0.333, Ikop = 0, Tkop = 1,509

ft Mud wt = 9.6 ppg Pipe wt = 16.6 lb/ft in air and Density of steel = 65.5 ppg
 80

NEOC = 14.17 cos 25 - 40,000/1,128 = - 22.63 lb/ft (upside contact) (8.14)

Axial drag = 0, but

F(α2) = F(α0) + Fd - We R (cos α2 - cos α0) (8.15)

FKOP = 40,000 + 0 - 15,979 (cos 90o - cos 25o) (8.16)

FKOP = 54,480 lbf (8.17)

From Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation

2 F ( 0 ) Dtj
T ( 2 )    2We cos   We cos  0  Rd (8.18)
0 R 24

From Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation

F ( 0 )
N(α) = 2Wecos α - Wecos α0 - (8.19)
R

Using integrate properties with Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation

2
2 Dtj 1 Dtj Dtj
T ( 2 )    N Rd   N ( ) Rd    N ( ) Rd (8.20)
0 24 0 24 24
1

 2
F ( 0 ) Dtj
T(
2
)=    (2We cos   We cos  0 
25 R
)
24
Rd (8.21)
180

Thus, Tkop = 3,760 ft-lbf (8.22)

 81

Axial Measured
Axial Tension for F EOC = 40,000 lbs (tension)
Tension Depth
lbf ft
0

75,860 0
500
54,481 1,509
54,481 1,509
53,089 1,607

Measured Depth, ft
1,000
51,707 1,706
50,346 1,804
1,500
49,017 1,903
47,729 2,001
2,000
46,492 2,100
45,317 2,198
2,500
44,211 2,296
43,183 2,395
42,241 2,493 3,000
41,393 2,592 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000

40,644 2,690 Axial Tension, lbf

40,000 2,789

Fig. 8.3–Axial tension plot for this example using Wu and

Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) method (Juvkam-Wold 2007).

Torque for FEOC = 40,000 lbs (tension)

Torque Depth
T, ft-lbf ft 0
3,760 0
3,760 1,509
500
3,760 1,509
3,358 1,607
Measured Depth, ft

2,977 1,706 1,000

2,617 1,804
2,278 1,903 1,500
1,958 2,001
1,657 2,100 2,000
1,375 2,198
1,110 2,296
2,500
861 2,395
627 2,493
406 2,592 3,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
198 2,690
0 2,789 Torque, ft-lbf

Fig. 8.4–Torque plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)
method (Juvkam-Wold 2007).

Figs. 8.3 and 8.4 demonstrate the result from Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) calculated

method. The next step will compare the results from the software using the torque

equations, from this research:

 82

For N > 0

Fc ( ) 2
N = [ w cos( )  cos( 0 )]2  [ ] ; (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α 0 ) (8.23)
Rturn

For N < 0

Fc ( ) 2
N = - [ w cos( )  cos( 0 )]2  [ ] ; (α 2 ≥ α ≥ α1) (8.24)
Rturn

F ( )
* is from the wellbore turning (which will be explained in the next section of this
R

chapter), and the value will be 0 if there is no right or left turn of the wellbore, and if

there is tension force; F will be F > 0, and if there is compressive force; F will be F < 0.

Fc ( )
For this example, ( ) will be 0 since the two-dimensional wellbore does not have
Rturn

any turning.

dF ( ) F ( ) 2
= WOB - [ w (cos( )  cos( 0 )]2  [ ] * R; (α 1 ≥ α ≥ α 0 ) (8.25)
d ( ) Rturn

Using Euler’s method to solve this equation will be shown below.

 83

Fig. 8.5–Axial tension plot for this example using numerical method.

Fig. 8.5 shows the axial tension plot for this example. Using torque calculations in the

build and drop sections from Chapter II will use the adaptive equation

2 Ddrift
T(α2) =  0
 N ( )
24
Rd ; (α2 = 900 and α0 =250) (8.26)

By Eq. 8.26 and N(α) from Eq. 8.24, using visual basic application software to help us

will give us a numerical method answer of torque and drag.

 84

Fig. 8.6–Torque plot for this example using numerical method.

Fig. 8.6 shows that there will be a very small difference in T&D calculations from Wu

and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation and T&D from numerical methods. This will prove

that numerical methods can be used to solve two-dimensional problems; also Wu and

Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation cannot solve problems in three- dimensional wellbores.

Moreover, this thesis can calculate well planning between the tie-on survey at the KOP

to the target direction by using Visual Basic Application program and MATLAB

together; the example below will show the results.

8.5.2 Example for survey calculations

For example, if we have a tie-on survey and a target direction (Table 8.2), we can also

use numerical method to solve this example.

 85

Table 8.2–Input field data for tie-on surveys and target directions
for 3D wellbore paths
a) Target direction

MD TVD NC EC
6955.28 5000 -3000 2000

b) Tie-on survey at KOP

MD TVD NC EC I AZ DLS
90 90 -100 -70 57 300 5

Fig. 8.7–3D wellbore path by MATLAB version 7.4.0.

 86

Fig. 8.8–Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft).

Fig. 8.9–Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft).

More examples and comparison will be provided in the appendices.

Note: Figs. 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9 are based on Fig. 8.6 geometry.
 87

CHAPTER IX

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Conclusions

This research began by improving the equations that are normally used in T&D software

calculations, reflecting the state of current models and identifying future requirements.

This provides more accurate T&D models because this research’s calculations are based

on 3D calculations that will help alleviate helical bucking problems since normally

helical bucking causes lock-up and fatigue potential.

This research’s software prevents T&D problems while drilling by trying to optimize

well profiles before drilling begins. Moreover, this research shows the relationship

between well planning design and T&D calculations in 3D. This makes it easier to find

out which type of well design is more suitable in each particular area. Besides, this will

help in designing of long horizontal wellbores tremendously. From all the above, this

research helps the user to find how to optimize the wellbore trajectory in each particular

area based on 3D calculations (in Chapter VIII has already compared between 2D

calculations and 3D calculations with various examples in the appendices).

This software helps field personnel to prepare for unexpected trend changes in a timely

fashion during the drilling process. A user is able to anticipate T&D values by only
 88

inputting wellbore data and T&D parameters. Consequently, the outcome of the data

from the T&D calculation program is more realistic because it is based on a 3D model.

Also a user can adjust the input data if there is more information during the drilling

process, this will provide even more accurate output.

9.2 Recommendations

Future work should be to improve the Soft-string assumption for calculating T&D

models. This means that the T&D software should consider bending stresses. These

include maximum stress calculations, fatigue limits, and fixed end or free end

assumptions. If the above-mentioned were included in new T&D programs, this would

provide more accurate T&D calculations.

 89

NOMENCLATURE

A- Pipe cross sectional area

AZ - The direction or bearing toward which a sloping surface faces (e.g., a north-
facing slope has an azimuth angle of 360°; a northeast-facing slope, an
azimuth angle of 45°), degrees

B- Angle parameter for mathematical algorithm calculation, rad.

d- Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in wellbore trajectory

calculation, ft

D- A combination of aerodynamic or hydrodynamic forces which tends to

reduce speed, lbf

Ddrift - The average diameter that has been used in torque equations, in

Dtj - The diameter of tool joint, in

DLS - A normalized estimate (e.g., degrees / 100 feet) of the overall curvature of
an actual well path between two consecutive survey stations.

e- Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in wellbore trajectory

calculation, ft

E- Young’s modulus, psi

EC - The distance traveled in the east-west direction in the horizontal plane (east
is positive, west is negative), ft

f- Is the force of two surfaces in contact, or the force of a medium acting on a

moving object, lbf

F(α) - Tensile force, lbf

Fc(α) - Compressive force, lbf

Fhel - New helical buckling load, lbf

Fs - Axial compressive load to initiate sinusoidal buckling of pipe, lbf

FEA - Finite Element Analysis

 90

h- Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in wellbore trajectory

calculation, ft

HL - Length of wellbore in horizontal section, ft

I,θ - A deviation or the degree of deviation from the vertical

IM - Moment of inertial of pipe, in (Gaynor et al. 2002)

k- Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in wellbore trajectory

calculation, ft

m- Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in wellbore trajectory

calculation, ft

ΔM - The increment in torque across the string element, ft-lbf

MD - The actual distance traveled along the borehole, ft

n- Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in wellbore trajectory

calculation, ft

N- The component perpendicular to the surface of contact of the contact force,

lbf/ft

Nturn - The normal contact force while the wellbore is turning, lbf/ft

NC - The distance traveled in the north-south direction in the horizontal plane

(north is positive, south is negative), ft

R- The radius of curvature of the string element while the wellbore is in the
build or the drop section (vertical view), ft

Rturn - The radius of curvature of the string element while the wellbore is turning
(horizontal view), ft

RSCs - Rotary Shouldered Connections

SCF - Stress Concentration Factor

t- Tangent section

T- The tension force at the lower end of the string element, lbf
 91

T1 - The planned tortuosity represent the summation of the total curvature

including inclination and azimuth in the planned well trajectory divided by
the well depth

T2 - The large-scale tortuosity represent the summation of the total curvature

(inclination and azimuth changes) when a drilled well is measured by
measurement while drilling (MWD)

T3 - The micro tortuosity defined as the tortuosity that occurs in the wellbore that
is smaller in comparison to previous tortuosity

ΔT - The increment in tension across the string element, lbf

T(α) - (or often called a moment) can informally be thought of as "rotational force"
or "angular force" which causes a change in rotational motion. This force is
defined by linear force multiplied by a radius, ft-lbf

Tkop - Depth in vertical section (ft)

TD - The assumed trajectory of the wellbore, ft

TVD - The vertical distance between a specific location in a borehole and a

horizontal plane passing through the surface, ft

W, We - In this research, refers to buoyed weight of the string element (provided by

Eq. 2.71), lbf/ft

z- Length parameters for mathematical algorithm in wellbore trajectory

calculation, ft

αI - The angle between the distance traveled in the north-south direction and 3D
distance from the KOP to Target, rad.

α- The angle used to calculate the deviation of the wellbore, rad.

ß- The angle between the distance traveled in the east-west direction and 3D
distance from the KOP to Target, rad.

γ- The angle used to calculate the deviation of the wellbore in tangent section,
rad.

σapp - Applied normal stress in pipe body

σmean - Average normal stress in pipe body

 92

Σ- Local peak stress within connection

Σmax - Maximum peak stress within connection

Σmax mean - Average maximum peak stress within connection

Φ,ΔØ - The change in azimuth angle over the string element, rad.

δ- A normalized estimate of the overall curvature of an actual well path

between two consecutive survey stations, degrees per 100 ft
μ- The coefficient of friction between the string and the wellbore

λ- Angle parameter for mathematical algorithm calculation, rad.

ρmud - Density of drilling fluid (lb/gallon)

ρsteel - Density of drill pipe (lb/gallon)

 93

REFERENCES

AadnØy, B.S., and Anderson, K. 1998. Friction Analysis for Long-Reach Wells. Paper
SPE/IADC 39391 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas,
Texas, 3-6 March.

Adewuya, O.A., and Pham, S.V. 1998. A Robust Torque and Drag Analysis Approach
for Well Planning and Drillstring Design. Paper SPE/IADC 39321 presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 3-6 March.

Aston, M.S., Hearn, P.J., and McGhee, G. 1998. Techniques for Solving Torque and
Drag Problems in Today’s Drilling Environment. Paper SPE 48939 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
27-30 September.

Gaynor, T., Chen, D.C., Stuart D., and Comeaux, B. 2001. Tortuosity Versus Micro-
Tortuosity – Why Little Things Mean a Lot. Paper SPE/IADC 67818 presented at
the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February-1
March.

Gaynor, T., Halmer, D., Chen, D.C., and Stuart, D. 2002. Quantifying Tortuosities by
Friction Factors in Torque and Drag Model. Paper SPE 77617 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29
September-2 October.

Haduch, G.A., Procter, R.L., and Samuels, D.D. 1994. Solution of Common Stuck Pipe
Problems through the Adaptation of Torque/Drag Calculations. Paper SPE 27490
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 15-18 February.

Hamilton, K., Wagg, B., and Roth, T. 2007. Using Ultrasonic Techniques to Accurately
Examine Seal Surface Contact Stress in Premium Connections. Paper SPE
110675 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Anaheim, California, 11-14 November.

Johancsik, C.A., Friesch, D.B., and Dawson, R. 1984. Torque and Drag in Directional
Wells-Prediction and Measurement. Journal of Petroleum Technology 36: 987-
992.
John, H. M., and Fink, K.K. 2004. Numerical Methods Using MATLAB, fourth edition.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Juvkam-Wold, H.C. 2007, Spring. PETE 432, Class Lecture, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas.
 94

Juvkam-Wold, H.C., and Wu, J. 1992. Casing Deflection and Centralizer Spacing
Calculations. SPE Drilling Engineering 7 (4): 268-274.

Kaw, K.K. 2006. An Interactive E-book for Illustrating Euler’s Method of Solving
Ordinary Differential Equations. Tampa, Florida: Holistic Numerical Methods
Institute, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.

Logging While Drilling. 2008. Houston: Weatherford International, Inc., 10-25.

Maidla, E., and Haci, M. 2004. Understanding Torque: The Key to Slide-Drilling
Directional Wells. Paper SPE 87162 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Dallas, Texas, 2-4 March.

Maidla, E., Haci, M., Cluchey, M., Alexander, M., and Warren, T. 2005. Field Proof of
the New Sliding Technology for Directional Drilling. Paper SPE/IADC 92558
presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
23-25 February.

Maidla, E.E., and Wojtanowicz, A.K. 1987. Field Comparison of 2-D and 3-D Methods
for the Borehole Friction Evaluation in Directional Wells. Paper SPE 16663
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, 27-30 September.

Mason, C.J., and Chen, D.C. 2007. Step Changes Needed To Modernize T&D Software.
Paper SPE/IADC 104609 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February.

Menand, S., Sellami, H., Tijani, M., Stab, O., Dupuis, D., and Simon, C. 2006.
Advancement in 3D Drillstring Mechanic: From the Bit to the Topdrive. Paper
SPE/IADC 98965 presented at the SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, 21-
23 February.

Patusek, P., Brackin, V., and Christensen, H. 2003. A Model for Borehole Oscillations.
Paper SPE 84448 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October.

Plessis, G.J., You, J.B., and Prideco, G. 2005. The Challenge of Selecting Appropriate
Drill String Enhancing Features for Drilling in the Middle East Harsh
Environment. Paper SPE/IADC 97368 presented at the Middle East SPE Drilling
Technology Conference and Exhibition, Dubai, U.A.E., 12-14 September.

Rezmer-Cooper, I., Chau, M., Hendricks, A., Woodfine, M., Stacey, B., and Downton,
N. 1999. Field Data Supports the Use of Stiffness and Tortuosity in Solving
Complex Well Design Problems. Paper SPE/IADC 52819 presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 9-11 March.
 95

Ring, L., Deltombe, P., York, P., and Baker, R.V. 2007. New Level of Expandable
Connector Qualification Helps Minimize Operational Risk in Solid Expandable
Liners. Paper SPE 110920 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 11-14 November.

Tang, W., Muradov, A., Chandler, R.B., Jellison, M.J., Prideco, G., Gonzalez M.E., and
Wu, J. 2006. A Novel Approach for Determining, Evaluating, and Applying
Stress Concentration Factors for Rotary-Shouldered Connections. Paper SPE
103052 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September.

Well Planning. 1975. The Woodlands, Texas: Mitchell Energy and Development Corp.,
35.

Wiggins, M.L., Choe, J., and Juvkam-Wold, H.D. 1992. Single Equation Simplifies
Horizontal, Directional Drilling Plans. Oil & Gas J. 90: 74-79.

Wu, J., and Juvkam-Wold, H.C., 1991. Drag and Torque Calculation for Horizontal
Wells Simplified for Field Use. Oil & Gas J. 89: unpaged.

Wu, J., and Juvkam-Wold, H.C. 1993. Study of Helical Buckling of Pipes in Horizontal
Wells. Paper SPE 25503 presented at the Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 21-23 March.
 96

APPENDIX A

INTRODUCTION TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATION SOFTWARE

PROGRAM USING NUMERICAL METHOD ANALYSIS

 97

This section will guide users in how to use T&D software that has been mentioned in
this research. This software will be used to calculate three-dimensional wellbore designs
by using numerical method analysis; this T&D software program also consists of seven
sections that explain procedures step by step. The first section in this program requires
users to follow Terms & Agreements, then users have to press this button prior to
continuing the process. After users click this button, they can choose any type of
wellbore design to calculate torque and drag data.

Fig. A.1–T&D calculations for 3D well planning user form.

 98

Fig. A.1 is a user form of this T&D (torque and drag) software program for T&D

Calculations for 3D Well Planning Designs. This program consists of input data frames

and result data frames. The input data frame consists of the tie-on survey of the kick off

point (KOP), the target direction for well planning with the method of calculation

(rotating off bottom, pulling out of the hole, and running into the hole), and the drilling

parameters. The right-hand end frame shows the planning picture of input data (user can

see large picture by clicking on any pictures in 3D software as Fig. A.2).

Fig. A.2–Showing enlarge picture application in 3D software.

The result frame provides all torque and drag output calculations. It shows the graph

from the horizontal view of wellbore trajectory, vertical view of wellbore trajectory,

normal contact force (lbf/ft) versus measured depth, axial tension/compression force
 99

(lbf) versus measured depth, and torque (ft-lbf) versus measured depth. The result will

depend on which method the user has chosen for method of calculation. Again the user

can see a large picture of the graph by clicking on the result’s picture.

Fig. A.3–Build type user form.

Fig. A.3 is a user form in this T&D software program for T&D calculations in Build

type well planning designs. This consists of input data frames and result data frames.

The input data frame consists of the method of calculation (rotating off bottom, pulling

out of the hole, and running into the hole) and the drilling parameters. The right-hand
 100

end frame shows the planning picture for input data (user can see large picture by

clicking on the picture).

The result frame provides all torque and drag output calculations. It shows the graph

from normal contact force (lbf/ft) versus measured depth, axial tension/compression

force (lbf) versus measured depth, and torque (ft-lbf) versus measured depth. The result

will depend on which methods user has chosen the method of calculation. Again for the

user can see a large picture of the graph by clicking on the result’s picture.

Fig. A.4–Build & hold type user form.

 101

Fig. A.4 is a user form in this T&D software program for T&D calculations in Build &

Hold type well planning designs, which consists of input data frames and result data

frames. The input data frame consists of the method of calculation (rotating off bottom,

pulling out of the hole, and running into the hole) and the drilling parameters. The right-

hand end frame shows the planning picture for input data (user can see large picture by

clicking on the picture).

The result frame provides all torque and drag output calculations. It shows the graph

from normal contact force (lbf/ft) versus measured depth, axial tension/compression

force (lbf) versus measured depth, and torque (ft-lbf) versus measured depth. The result

will depend on which methods the user has chosen for method of calculation. Again the

user can see a large picture of the graph by clicking on the result’s picture.
 102

Fig. A.5–Build hold & drop type user form.

Fig. A.5 is a user form in this T&D software program for T&D calculations in Build

Hold & Drop type well planning designs, which consists of input data frames and result

data frames. The input data frame consists of method of calculation (rotating off bottom,

pulling out of the hole, and running into the hole) and the drilling parameters. The right-

hand end frame shows the planning picture for input data (user can see large picture by

clicking on the picture).

The result frame provides all torque and drag output calculations, which shows the graph

from normal contact force (lbf/ft) versus measured depth, axial tension/compression
 103

force (lbf) versus measured depth, and torque (ft-lbf) versus measured depth. The result

depends on which method user has chosen the method of calculation. Again for the user

can see a large picture of the graph by clicking on the result’s picture.

Fig. A.6–Horizontal wellbore user form.

Fig. A.6 is a user form in this T&D software program for T&D calculations in horizontal

wellbore type well planning designs, which consists of input data frames and result data

frame. The input data frame consists of the method of calculation (rotating off bottom,

pulling out of the hole, and running into the hole) and the drilling parameters. The right-

hand end frame shows the planning picture for input data (user can see large picture by

clicking on the picture).

 104

The result frame provides all torque and drag output calculations; this shows the graph

from normal contact force (lbf/ft) versus measured depth, axial tension/compression

force (lbf) versus measured depth, and torque (ft-lbf) versus measured depth. The result

will depend on which method the user has chosen for method of calculation. Again the

user can see a large picture of the graph by clicking on the result’s picture.

Fig. A.7–T&D calculation between survey user form.

Fig. A.7 is a user form in this T&D software program for T&D calculations during the

survey. This section of calculation includes buckling effects and the stress concentration

factor (SCF), which consists of input data frames and result data frame. The input data
 105

frame consists of the method of calculation (rotating off bottom, pulling out of the hole,

and running into the hole), the drilling parameters, and the survey data in each position.

The right-hand end frame shows the planning picture for input data (user can see large

picture by clicking on the picture).

The result frame provides all of the information on torque and drag output calculations.

It shows the graph from normal contact force (lbf/ft) versus measured depth, axial

tension/compression force (lbf) versus measured depth, and torque (ft-lbf) versus

measured depth. The result will depend on which method the user has chosen for method

of calculation. Again the user can see a large picture of the graph by clicking on the

result’s picture.

If the user installs 3D software with MATLAP Program Version 7.4.0, he/she can use

Excel link icon to show 3D wellbore trajectory.

For example (from T&D Calculation for 3D Well Planning User Form),

Input field data

a) Target direction

MD TVD NC EC
6955.28 5000 -3000 2000

b) Tie-on survey at KOP

MD TVD NC EC I AZ DLS
90 90 -100 -70 57 300 5

Note: NC is negative, means the wellbore trajectory moves to south direction

EC is negative, means the wellbore trajectory moves to west direction
 106

Fig. A.8–3D wellbore path by MATLAB version 7.4.0.

 107

APPENDIX B

COMPARISON BETWEEN WU AND JUVKAM-WOLD’S EQUATION AND

NUMERICAL METHOD WHILE PULLING OUT OF THE HOLE

 108

In this appendix will show a comparison between Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)

equation and Numerical method while pulling out of the hole with Feoc = 100,000 lbf

(tension); Extended reach well with final I = 65 deg, BUR = 5.08 deg./100 ft, μ = 0.333,

IKOP = 0, TKOP = 1,509 ft; Mud wt = 9.6 ppg, Pipe wt = 16.6 lb/ft in air and Density of

steel = 65.5 ppg.

R= 1,128 ft
1,509
65

65 100,000 lbf

Fig. B.1–Wellbore schematic for example in Appendix B (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).

α0 = 25 ¶/180, α2 = ¶/2, We = 16.6 (1 - 9.6/65.5) = 14.18 lb/ft, R = 18,000/(¶ 5.08) =

1,128 ft

From Eq. 2.46, NEOC = We cos a0 - F(a0)/R

NEOC = 14.18 cos 25o - 100,000/1,128

= - 75.8 lbf/ft (upside contact)

WeR = 14.18 lb/ft * 1,128 ft= 15,979 lbf

 109

From Eq. 7.15, A = 9,579 lbf

From Eq. 7.16, B = -12,789 lbf

From Eq. 7.14

FKOP = [100,000 + 9,579 sin25o + 12,789 cos25o)exp[0.333 (¶/2-25o¶/180)] - 9,579 sin

90o - 12,789 cos90o

FKOP = 159,140 lbf

Fig. B.2–Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft) for this example
using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) method (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).
 110

Fig. B.3–Axial tension plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)
method (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).
 111

In this section will be numerical analysis method.

Fig. B.4–User dorm of Appendix B example.

 112

Fig. B.5–Result user form of Appendix B example.

 113

Fig. B.6–Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft).

 114

Fig. B.7–Axial tension force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F > 0 referred
to tensile force).
 115

APPENDIX C

COMPARISON BETWEEN WU AND JUVKAM-WOLD’S EQUATIONS AND

NUMERICAL METHODS WHILE PULLING OUT OF THE HOLE

 116

In this appendix will show a comparison between Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)

equation and numerical method while running into the hole with Feoc = 17,000 lbf

(tension); Extended reach well with final I = 65 deg, BUR = 5.08 deg./100 ft, μ = 0.333,

IKOP = 0, TKOP = 1,509 ft; Mud wt = 9.6 ppg, Pipe wt = 16.6 lb/ft in air and Density of

steel = 65.5 ppg

R= 1,128 ft
1,509
65

65 17,000 lbf

Fig. C.1–Wellbore Schematic for example in Appendix C (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).

α0 = 25 ¶/180, α2 = ¶/2, We = 16.6 (1 - 9.6/65.5) = 14.18 lb/ft, R = 18,000/(¶ 5.08) =

1,128 ft

From Eq. 2.46, NEOC = We cos a0 - F(a0)/R

NEOC = = 14.18 cos 25 - 17,000/1,128
= - 2.23 lbf/ft (upside contact)
WeR = 14.18 lb/ft * 1,128 ft= 15,979 lbf
From Eq. 7.15, A = 9,579 lbf
From Eq. 7.16, B = -12,789 lbf
 117

From Eq. 7.14

Fc,KOP = (-17,000 + 9,579sin25o - 12,787cos25o) exp(- 0.333 (¶/2 – 25 ¶/180)) -

9,579sin90o - 12,789cos90o

FKOP = 26,400 lbf (tension)

Fig. C.2–Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measure depth (ft) for this example
using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) method (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).
 118

Fig. C.3–Axial tension plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)
method (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).
 119

In this section will be numerical analysis method.

Fig. C.4–User form of Appendix C example.

 120

Fig. C.5–Result user form of Appendix C example.

 121

Fig. C.6–Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft).

 122

Fig. C.7–Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F < 0 referred to tensile force).
 123

APPENDIX D

COMPARISON BETWEEN WU AND JUVKAM-WOLD’S EQUATIONS AND

NUMERICAL METHODS WHILE RUNNING INTO THE HOLE WITH

COMPRESSIVE FORCE
 124

In this appendix will show a comparison between Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)

equation and numerical method while running into the hole with Feoc = 3,000 lbf

(compression). Extended reach well with final I = 65 deg, BUR = 5.08 deg./100 ft, μ =

0.333, IKOP = 0, TKOP = 1,509 ft. Mud wt = 9.6 ppg, Pipe wt = 16.6 lb/ft in air and

Density of steel = 65.5 ppg

R= 1,128 ft
1,509
65

65 3,000 lbf

Fig. D.1–Wellbore schematic for example in Appendix D (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).

α0 = 25 ¶/180, α2 = ¶/2, We = 16.6 (1 - 9.6/65.5) = 14.18 lb/ft, R = 18,000/(¶ 5.08) =

1,128 ft

From Eq. 2.46, NEOC = We cos a0 - F(a0)/R

NEOC = 14.17 cos 25 + (+3,000)/1,128

= 15.50 lbf/ft (downside contact)

 125

By trial and error it is found that, when inclination angle = 15.4 deg. (a1 = 74.6o) N = 0,

and contact changes to upside

WeR = 14.18 lb/ft * 1,128 ft= 15,979 lbf

From Eq. 7.15, A = 9,579 lbf

From Eq. 7.16, B = -12,789 lbf

Using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation between α0 and α1 (25 to 74.6 deg.):

Fc(α1) = [Fc (α0) - A sin α0 + B cos α0] exp(μ(α1 - α0)) + A sin α1 - B cos α1

Fc(α1) = - 4,230 lbf,

N(α1) = 14.17 cos 74.6 + (- 4,230)/1,128 = 0.01 lbf

Now using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation between α1 and α2 (74.6 and 90

deg.):

Fc(α2) = [Fc (α1)+ A sin α1 + B cos α1] exp(-μ(α2 – α1)) + A sin α1 - B cos α1

Fc(α2) = (- 8,108) (in compression)

FKOP = 8,108 lbf (in tension)

From Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991) equation

Fd = Fc(α2) - Fc (α0) - We R(cos α2 - cos α0)

= - 8,108 - 3,000 - 15,979 (cos 90o - cos 25o)

Fd = 3,373 lbf
 126

Fig. D.2–Force table for Appendix D example (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).

 127

Fig. D.3–Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measure depth (ft) from Wu and Juvkam-
Wold’s (1991) equation (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).
 128

Fig. D.4–Axial tension plot for this example using Wu and Juvkam-Wold’s (1991)
method (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).
 129

In this section will be numerical analysis method.

Fig. D.5–User form of Appendix D example.

 130

Fig. D.6–Result user form of Appendix D example.

 131

Fig. D.7–Normal contact force (lb/ft) versus measured depth (ft).

 132

Fig. D.8–Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F < 0 referred to tensile force).
 133

APPENDIX E

COMPARISON RESULT BETWEEN 2D WELLBORE DESIGN AND 3D

WELLBORE DESIGN WHILE RUNNING INTO THE HOLE WITH

COMPRESSIVE FORCE
 134

In this appendix will show a comparison of Hook load (Fkop) between 2D wellbore

trajectory and 3D wellbore trajectory with 10 Deg/100 ft (left/right turn) in build section

while running into the hole. By using the same input values as Appendix D.

Extended reach well with final I = 65 deg, BUR = 5.08 deg./100 ft, μ = 0.333, IKOP = 0,

TKOP = 1,509 ft Mud wt = 9.6 ppg, Pipe wt = 16.6 lb/ft in air, Density of steel = 65.5 ppg

and running into the hole with Feoc = 3,000 lbf (compression)

R= 1,128 ft
1,509
65

65 3,000 lbf

Fig. E.1–Wellbore schematic for example in Appendix E (Juvkam-Wold, 2007).

 135

Using T&D software calculation will give the result same as Appendix D, Fkop = 34,170

lb (tension)

Fig. E.2–Result user form with 2D wellbore trajectory (no left/right turn).
 136

Fig. E.3–Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F < 0 referred to tensile force)
from 2D wellbore trajectory.
 137

Using T&D software calculation with 10 Deg/100 ft (left/right turn) in build section will

give Fkop = 32,014 lb (tension)

Fig. E.4–Result user form with 3D wellbore trajectory (10 deg/100ft left/right turn).
 138

Fig. E.5–Axial force (lb) versus measured depth (ft) (F < 0 referred to tensile force)
from 3D wellbore trajectory.

From all the above mentioned, it showed that it will have the different result between 2D

wellbore trajectory and 3D wellbore trajectory with 10 Deg/100 ft left/right turn in build

section approximately

34,170  32,014
( )  6.73 % (based on these well planning and drilling parameters)
32,014

It proves that it has a significant different between 2D wellbore trajectory and 3D

wellbore trajectory regarding T&D issues.

 139

APPENDIX F

RECOMMENDATIONS
 140

General drilling Recommendations

Significant progress has been made in the understanding and improvement of tool face

control with PDC drill bits. Specifically, the recent papers on reducing torque

fluctuations with PDC bits have had a significant impact on utilization of these bits on

steerable motor systems. Also field data and early lab tests showed that short aggressive

gauge bits yield poorer quality boreholes in terms of instantaneous or local dogleg

severity and caliper measurements, than longer full diameter gauge bits. This has been

adopted in some areas by some investigators and resisted by others. However, there is a

current trend to look at hole quality more critically and to recognize that there are bit

designs and system parameters that affect the results.

These oscillation can significantly affect: 1) torque and drag while drilling, limiting the

reach of many wells and causing significant tool failures, 2) log quality, particularly

showing up in high resolution image logs causing to bottom, the caliper log may not

show a problem but the net drift diameter of the hole over a long section can be less than

casing diameter. To avoid tortuosity effect we should use rotary steerable system to

prevent this effect.

Rotary Steerable Tools

Rotary steerable tools were introduced to the oil and gas industry in the early 1990’s.

Two basic types emerged; “push-the-bit” and “point-the-bit”. Pushing the bit refers to

exerting the lateral side force on the bit as it drills ahead. Pointing the bit involves

bending the assembly so that the bit is pointed toward the intended direction while
 141

drilling. Point-the-bit is generally acknowledged as being superior; resulting in smoother

wellbores with increased dogleg capability (Maidla, Haci, Cluchey, Alexander, and

Warren 2005).

Fig. F.1–Comparison between push-the-bit results and point-the-bit-results (Logging

While Drilling 2008).

Tool development was driven by the engineering opportunity and economic advantages

that could be obtained by steering the wellbore while continuously rotating the

drillstring. Operator demand was driven by the need to drill increasingly difficult well

profiles, some of which would not be possible using conventional steering systems.

These are some of the advantages to using rotary steerable drilling:

- Eliminates the time spent aligning toolface; the rotary steerable tool controls it

automatically.

- 50% increased rate of penetration while using the rotary drilling over the use of sliding

with a motor.

- Improves hole cleaning, resulting in more consistent ECD’s than when obtained by

using the sliding and rotating with a motor.

 142

- Drag, which can cause shocks, vibration, and stick-slip, is reduced compared to sliding.

This results in a more consistent weight-on-bit and reduces stress on drilling

equipment.

- There is less chance of the drillstring becoming stuck if it’s moving most of the time.

- Deviation rates are more consistent as there is no change in mode between steering and

not steering to produce the required rate.

- PDC bits with more aggressive cutter angles can be used and optimized for ROP

performance, rather than a balance between ROP performance and ability to control

toolface while using a motor.

- Wellbore profiles are generally smoother, with no transition ledges resulting from

changes between rotating and sliding modes.

- Increases and improves quality of LWD data due to continuous rotation. Slide sections

would have to be reamed back over to obtain the same results.

- Reduces chance of wet trips and resulting in slower tripping speeds which are

associated with mud motor draining.

 143

Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA) Configuration

Fig. F.2–The standard BHA configuration (Logging While Drilling 2008).

The upper stabilizer, bias unit sleeve, pivot stabilizer and dog sub are all true gauge or

very close to it. Experience and testing have shown that this is the optimum

configuration for maximizing directional performance with the tool. The tool is capable

of generating doglegs of up to 12 degrees/100 ft or more with this setup. At 90 degrees

inclination, tests have also shown that with zero deflection the tool tends to hold an

angle or build slightly. Obviously, this is formation dependent and therefore varies to

some degree from well to well.

To build an angle at 6 degrees/100 ft with the tool with little or no turn, a 0 deg toolface

and 50–60% deflection should be initially selected (a general guide). Monitor the

resulting surveys, then adjust the setting accordingly to obtain the required dogleg and

counteract any turn. Be aware that the formation changes can have a significant impact

on tool response. The assembly achieves the build by deflecting the bias unit sleeve

upwards and internal shaft downwards, which in turn pushes the collar above the pivot
 144

stabilizer downwards. The pivot stabilizer pivots and points the dog sub and bit upwards

to build an angle.

Fig. F.3–Illustrates deflection in the bottom hole assembly (Logging While Drilling
2008).

To drill in any other direction, change the toolface. To generate different doglegs,

change the deflection. The tool does take some time to react in changing the settings,

normally only a few minutes (Gaynor et al. 2001).

Techniques for Solving T&D Problems

This section has pointed out to the readers of what is the advantage for using torque and

drag 3D calculation for the new technology, especially multilateral wellbore with the

tables shown a list of generic torque and drag reduction techniques. The first table

(Table F.1), listing of generic torque and drag reduction technique, and the second table

(Table F.2) will be advantages/disadvantages of torque and drag reduction techniques.

 Table F.1–Listing of generic T&D reduction techniques (Aston et al. 1998)
Deployment Typical Performance
Application Cased Hole Open Hole Method (friction reduction)
Drilling
DDPs: Rotating YES Reduces coefficient of friction 0-15% (Based on surface torque)
DPPs: Non Rotating (NR) YES Reduces Torque Radius 0-30% (Based on surface torque)
SUBS: Bearing / Roller Single or combined effect of Bearing,
Tools YES YES NR Sleeve or Roller Assembly 0-40% (Based on surface torque)

Helix Section stirs up cuttings to

SUBS: Hole Cleaning YES YES assist hole cleaning 0-25% (Based on surface torque)

Bladed Pipe assists hole cleaning and

Specialized Drillpipe YES YES dynamics Field Data not available/analyzed

Lubricants(Including
"Cocktail") YES YES Reduces Coefficient of friction 0-50% (Based on surface torque)
Specialized DP + Bearing
Sub + YES YES Combined (See above) 60% (Miller-based on the surface torque)
Lubricants
DPPs (NR) + Lubricants YES YES Combined (See above) 27% (Niakuk - based on surface torque)
CASING AND COMPLETION
RUNNING
Reduces Torque Radius and
Centralizers: solid NR YES Improves Standoff 0-30% (Based on rotary Friction Factor)
Centralizers: Roller Tools YES As above plus Roller Assembly 0-40% (Based on Torque and Drag per joint)
0-15% (Based on axial and rotary Friction
Lubricants (Single) YES YES Reduces Coefficient of Friction Factor)
COILED TUBING ACCESS
CT Straightener Reduce drag from residual bend 0-10% (Based on axial Friction Factor)
Lubricants (Single) YES YES Reduces Coefficient of friction 0-15% (Based on axial Friction Factor)
Lubricants + CT 35% (Wytch Farm - Based on axial friction
Straightener YES YES Combined (See above) factor)

145
 Table F.2–Advantages and disadvantages of T&D reduction techniques (Aston et al. 1998)
Techniques Advantage Disadvantage
If overstressed, possibility of falling off, getting stuck
Rotating Drillpipe Protectors Casing wear reduced. in the BOP
Reduce pipe fatigue by creating a gradual bend around
sharp ram cavities and plugging surface equipment
doglegs. Need to be routinely and correctly inspected
Relatively cheap to use. Average lifespan is comparatively low.
Not recommended for open hole, thus limiting
Easy to handle / install. extended bt runs.
Helps reduce differential sticking due to increased stand- Can increase annular pressure loss, reducing hole
off cleaning
and reduced sidewall contact. Efficiency.
Higher torque reductions and longer wear life than Can cause drillpipe wear, especially with abrasive
Non-Rotating rotating muds.
Drillpipe DPPs. Possible slippage or loss of clamping collars in hole.
Protectors Possible higher penetration rates due to improved torque Can cause increases in ECD
transmission to the bit. Cannot be run in open hole.
Reduced casing wear problems. Regular inspection required.
Reduced fatigue effects around doglegs
Relatively easy to handle and install.
Can help with differential sticking problems.
Some handing issues due to size and weight and
Subs – Bearing Higher torque reduction than NRDPPs. increased
based or Roller Tools Can be used in open and cased hole. String length (derrick height).
Can help with differential sticking problems and casing Can be expensive on a unit basis compared to other
wear. mechanical
Can withstand higher contact loads than NRDPPs. Tools.
Requires the correct connections

146
 Table F.2–Continued
Techniques Techniques Techniques
Failure of tool could result in costly fishing or
sidetrack
operation.
Fatigue or stress histories not logged.
Can increase pressure loss in annulus
Improved hole cleaning leading to faster trips, faster
Specialized casing Rental can be high.
Failure can lead to expensive milling, fishing or
Drillpipe (DP) Smoother drilling, reduction in torque variation. sidetrack
Reduces casing wear, less wall contact. Operations
Easy to handle on surface.
Designed for open hole.
Helps reduce differential sticking.
Requires minimum maintenance
Centralizers, Simple design, can be used in open and cased hole More expensive than other types of centralizers.
Increases stand off reducing the risk of differential Many bed into soft, unconsolidated formations or
Solid Non-Rotating sticking. uting beds.
Some designs can improve the quality of the cement job
by Limited effectiveness in washed out sections.
Creating turbulence.
Some Alloys wear resistant so stand off is maintained
longer in
ERD wells
Centralizer, Roller Can be used in open and cased hole Roller damage can occur under high impact loads.
Reduced casing running drags particularly in cased hole
Tools section Otherwise as for Centralizers Solid, Non-Rotating
Shaped roller pods designed to generate swirl

147
 Table F.2–Continued
Techniques Techniques Techniques
Reduced drag can extend operating window for CT
Coiled Tubing Straightener operations. Increased consumption of CT string due to fatigue.
Easier to make up a completion string under the injector
head. Increase rig height.
Simple, low maintenance, easy to use device
Can reduce Torque and Drag in both cased and open hole Need to be screened for chemical, temperature,
Lubricants for environmental
a wide range of operations. Compatibility and formation damage.
Lower risk in terms of implications of failure than some Can be expensive.
Mechanical devices. Issues of particle recovery with some solid lubricants.
Combinations of lubricants or “cocktails” can produce
high
levels of torque reduction.

148
 149

VITA

RUKTAI ACE PRURAPARK

6501 S. Fiddler’s Green Circle, STE 480
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

EDUCATION: B.Eng., Chemical Engineering

Chulalongkorn University
Thailand, B.E., 2004

M.Eng., Petroleum Engineering

Texas A&M University, 2005

Ph.D., Petroleum Engineering

Texas A&M University, 2009

View publication stats