Aadnoy 1998

© All Rights Reserved

8 views

Aadnoy 1998

© All Rights Reserved

- system of particles and rotational motion
- Upsee Syllabus
- irp dpp no3
- Drillstring Hardbanding
- Physics of Somersaults and Twists
- Rotational Motion Part-B
- α φ θ σ ρ ω π λ (physics review sheet!)
- final_exam_info
- 10 Balancing
- ACE - 2011- Catalouge - Calculation
- ASIGN_1_(DE-12-ME-014)
- Phys71SummerAY1011Finals
- 2012 paper
- questões de física
- Illustrative Examples Physics Vectors r
- Exp 3 Turbine
- sample_chapter_02_scalar_quantities_and_vector_quantities_in_mechanics_and_motion_analysis.pdf
- Statics
- Rotatory Motion 2
- Icoe2010 w.sheng

You are on page 1of 16

Society

iADC/SPE 39391

of Petroleum

Engineers

B.S. Aadnoy, Stavanger U., and Ketil Andersen,* Statoil

IADCMember

Copyright

1998, lADC/SPE

Drilling Conference

Dallas, Texss 3-6 Msrch 199B,

Drilling

Conference

Introduction

held in

~is

psper MS selected for presentation

by an lADC/SPE Program Comtittee

following

review of information contained In an abstrsct submitted by the author(s). Contents of the

paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International

Association

of Drilling

Contractors

or the Society of Petroleum En~ineers and are subpct to correction

by the

author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IAM. or

SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the lADC/SPE meetings are subject to

publication review by Editorial Committees

of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,

distribution, or storage of any pert of this paper for commercial purposes without the written

consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print

ia restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 word% illustrations may not be copied. The

abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment

of tiere

and by whom the paper was

presented. Write Librarian, SPE, PO. Box 833636, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,

U. S. A., fax

01-972-952-9435.

oil first, as it gives best economy. However, as existing fields

are being produced, it becomes important to drain these in an

optimum way. The drilling technology plays an important role

here as the horizontal reach is more than doubled during the

last decade.

It has become evident that well friction is a limiting factor in

extended-reach drilling. Sheppard et.al. showed that an

undersection trajectory can have reduced drag compared to a

conventional tangent section. Banks et.al.2 gives a summary of

extended-reach capabilities. McC1endon and Anders3 studied

the catenary well profile and demonstrated advantage over

conventional methods. The driving force for this development

was the need for longer wells.

Abstract

Presently wells are drilled in the North Sea approaching a

horizontal reach of 8 km. Plans for the near future is to extend

these towards and beyond 12 km. Well friction is one of the

most important limiting factors in this process.

Torque and drag prognosis are today developed on in-house

simulators. Although a good tool for planning, improvements

are made on an trial and error basis, and, these simulators have

limited availability. To provide more insight into the frictional

aspect, a larger study was undertaken. Explicit analytical

equations are derived to model drill string tension for hoisting

or lowering of the drill string. The equations are developed for

straight sections, build-up sections, drop-off sections and side

bends. Both constant curvature models and a new modified

catenary model are derived. The new catenary model is

developed for arbitrary entry and exit inclinations. Equations

to determine well friction in fully 3-dimensional well profiles

are also given. Furthermore, based on the tension equations,

expressions for torque and drag are developed. Equations for

combined motion and drilling with motor are also given.

Using these equations, the total friction in a well is given by

the sum of the contributions from each hole section.

to drain older fields more efficiently, but to reduce the number

of offshore platforms on new development projects. EekOlsen et. al.45and Alfsen et. al.6 demonstrates the evolution

from a 3 km reach to more than 7 km horizontal reach. Justad

et.al.7 show the planning and drilling of a complex long reach

designer horizontal well to develop marginal satellite fields

from an existing platform, while Blikra et.al.8 addresses both

the achievements and the cost-benefits. Benesch et. al.0

addresses an extended reach well in Japan.

Aarrestad and Blikra9 gives a good review of the various

aspects of torque and drag problems encountered in extepdedreach drilling. A good, but more general review is given by

Payne et. al.lO.

Gou and Miska2 and Wiggins et.al.3 defines equations to

calculate the well trajectory.

When the well trajectory has

been determined, the complete well must be designed. A

recent review over design considerations and potential

problems is given by Guild et. al., while Aadn@y5 describes

the complete well design process. Sheppard, Wick and

Burgess formulated the torque and drag models that are

implemented in most simulators.

the equations derived in the paper, the well path is chosen to

minimize the torque on the rig, which is the limiting factor.

The paper also summarize a number of guidelines for

extended-reach WC1ldesign, and shows the design of an ultrareach well of more than 12 km reach.

819

lADC/SPE 39391

defines the additional frictional force required to move the

pipe. The change in force when initiating motion either up- or

downwards is found by subtracting the weight from the forces

defined above. The weight is:

Previous approaches used numerical simulators to plan the

well. In this paper analytical expressions for build, drop, hold

and side profiles are derived, and also a new modified catenary

profile. Using these equations a friction analysis can be

carried out without requiring a simulator.

Torque

WASCOS

(2)

The same principle also applies for the rotating friction, the

torque. The applied torque is equal to the normal moment

(wAsr) multiplied with the friction factor A The torque

becomes:

(3)

T = ,uwAsrsina

are derived independently.

Therefore their applications are as

follows.

The drag equations applies when tripping in or out of the

well. This may also apply to coiled tubing, logging,

completion or workover operations. The torque equations

applies to pure rotation while drilling. The equation governing

combined motion, both axial movement and rotation, is also

given. Reaming, for example, can therefore also be modeled.

For this case the axial force has no influence. The torque can

be considered independent of the direction of rotation. Later

in this paper combined rotation and pulling will be addressed.

Provided the straight drill string section has a length A, the

vertical and horizontal projections shown in Fig. 1b are:

in the annulus is equal to the mud density inside the drillpipe.

If this is not the case, corrections must be applied.

Ax= Assina

(4)

Az=Ascosa

The unit mass of the drillpipe, or the weight must always be

corrected for buoyancy. The buoyancy factor is given by:

The paper use the models to analyze the drilling phase of the

well. However, the equations are valid for other phases as well

completions, provided a correct scenario is defined.

@=~_

Pm~~

(5)

Pdrillpipt.

with various frictional models, we will define the basic

principles for well friction. All equations to follow are based

on the soft string model. String stiffness is neglected as it is

giving negligible contribution to the tension. Figure la

defines the forces acting on an inclined drillstring:

w=

Pwdrillpipe

(6)

Please observe that the buoyancy correction defined in Eqn. 5

is valid only for cases of equal fluid densities on both sides of

the drillpipe as discussed earlier.

is:

F = rngcosa + ptngsina

drillstring to slide downwards: cosa >pina..

The following

condition for the maximum sail angle of a well is therefore:

opposite to the direction of motion, resulting in a top force of

(7)

F = rngcosa - ptlgsin a

This is a Coulomb friction model. From a stationary position,

increasing or decreasing the load an equal amount will lead to

upward or downward movement of the drillstring. For a

drillstring of weight nlg (=w4) and an inclination a, the axial

weight and the drag force in a straight section becomes (Fig.

lb):

(1)

F2 = F1 + vtIAs(coscY &pina)

2a and 2b shows these scenario. Force F, refers to the bottom

of the section, while force F2 refers to the top. The

inclinations at top and bottom are also shown. The equations

for friction in a drop-off section is derived in Appendix Al,

whereas Appendix A2 shows the derivations when a build-up

section is considered. The solutions are very similar as shown

below.

The plus sign defines pulling of the pipe, whereas the minus

sign defines lowering of the pipe. The first term inside the

The top force when pulling the pipe through a drop-off bend

(Eqn. Al .4), and the top force when lowering the pipe through

820

lADCISPE 39391

WELLS

F2 = F1ev(a2-a)

+o

ltIR

(1 pz)(sinaz

ep(a-a) sinal)

(8)

(13)

wheie:

L(~2-~1) ~os~, )

1

[ 2p(cosa2 e

Here a sign constant is used;

~ = +1, for pulling in a drop-off bend

l+p2

6 = -1, for lowering of the pipe

(Eqn.Al .5), and pulling in a build-up bend(Eqn. A2.4) is:

-p(~2-crI) + ~L.~ sin a2 e P(a2al ) sin ~,

(9)

1

{

Here the sign constant is:

cr = -1, for pulling in a build-up bend

(s= +1, for lowering in a drop-off bend

for the side bends of Figs. 2C and 2d are:

F2 =Fle

A.s=R(@2 -@,)

AX= R(cos #l

section(Eqn. A2.7) is:

~=~(Fl+@~sin~l)(~2

-~l)+2~~~R(os~2

projections horizontally and vertically. Then we will compute

the vector sum of these. The total well friction then becomes

the vector sum of the drop- or build- projection and the side

projection. The resulting equations are:

the weight of the pipe should be subtracted from the solutions

above. The weight of the pipe is:

(11)

The arc length of the bends presented in Fig. 2a and 2b, and

the displacements in the x and y directions are is given by:

F2

-Cosa,

(15)

is building or dropping and turning sideways simultaneously,

resulting in a fully 3-dimensional profile. The exect equations

for the friction are complex, since they involve forces acting

in two different planes. The resulting differential equation

must be integrated through the well path.

-cos~l)

(lo)

Ax= aR(cosal

COS $2

c = +1, for a build-up bend

6 = -1, for a drop-off bend

wR(sin a2 sin al )

(14)

T= pr(@2 - @l)~w

~ F22bui[d

.r

drop

F;

sidebend

(16)

Torque:

(12)

T =

where:

b~ild

or drop

,~debend

(17)

in Appendix B2, an ideal catenary profile results in no contact

between the hole and the borehole wall, and hence no friction.

However, during hoisting or lowering of the pipe, the tension

at the ends of the catenary section changes due to friction

elsewhere in the drillstring. This deviation in tension results in

friction. As an equation:

cr = +1, for a drop-off bend

Drag and torque in side bends. For this case the weight of

the pipe has no effect on the normal force. The side bends are

shown in Figs. 2C and 2d. The friction force through the bend

is defined by Eqn. A3.7:

(18)

821

...

IADCISPE

Fz = ~F:

As= Raz

&=

WAS

+@Ftan-*

F,

COS a,

adding the contribution from each geometry starting from

bottom. The result is the friction at surface due to contact

friction along the borehole. The total friction is the sum of the

surface friction and friction to the drilling fluid and cuttings.

The actual hook load and the rotary torque is given by:

F12 +( WAS) 2 + 2wAsFl

COS a,

AF (20)

wk i- FJ COS

F] @F

tan-

Ft.P

~c)p

F2

Fmu(i

Fbit

(28)

~,

FI sin al

(27)

R(l-cosa2)

Ay = R sin O!z

(19)

F, sin a,

39391

(21)

}

T+

Tmud

~it

throughout the well.

Todays practice is to use an overall coefficient of friction(that

is: FmU~= TmUd=0). In the analysis to follow this will be done.

However, for future work it will become important to

distinguish the friction as shown in Eqn. 28. The equations for

the mud friction are not yet derived. However, established

knowledge may demonstrate the effects.

WAS+ F1 cos al

ATCot= prAF tan~

F, sin al

(22)

}

must be known. In addition one must decide the horizontal

reach x as seen in Fig. B 1.2. With these parameters known,

the length of the catenary is determined with Eqn. B 1.5:

}$X

As= ~

sin al sinh

[{

F, sin al

associated with moving the pipe up or down the hole. The

total mud drag is then proportional to the pipe length, the pipe

and hole dimensions, the viscosity of the fluid, the mud

velocity and the velocity of the moving pipe. Similarly,

Bourgoyne et. al.d also derive equation for a Farm viscometer,

which can be used as a first approximation for the rotating mud

friction. Again, the rotating mud friction is a function of

geometry and length, viscosity and rotating speed. Preliminary

studies indicate that the mud friction is small compamd to the

mechanical friction between the drill string and the borehole.

+ sinh -(cot~l)}-cosffl]

(23)

w

cosh

[{

F, ~~al

cosh{sinh(cot

reduction of the hook load. The tension in the drill string is

reduced the same amount. Therefore the bit load applied

should be subtracted when studying drag during drilling.

al )}

1

(24)

and the inclination at the top of the catcnary is obtained by

inserting the measured length (Eqn. 23) into Eqn. B 1.2:

WAS+ FI

tan a2 =

added. This is difficult to quantify, and is not included in the

field case to follow. Torque maybe measured on some of the

modern MWD tools. As a rule of thumb, during rotary

drilling the torque is in the order of 4-6 kNm for a 12- 1/4 in.

PDC bit.

COS ~,

F, sin al

(25)

inclination at the top, which is given by Eqn. 25 above. A

build-up curve will be used to cover this transition from

vertical. This is shown in Fig. 2f. The radius is:(Eqn. B3.5)

R=

WFOsin al

an issue that needs to be addressed. During tripping, tight

hole conditions may occur. The remedy is typically to rotate

the drillstring while pulling, or to pump to provide hydraulic

support beneath the drill bit. During reaming, the bit and

(26)

The length along the wellpath and the x and z axis projections

822

IADCISPE 39391

FRICTION ANALYSIS

FOR LONG-REACH

WELLS

rotation will reduce the axial drag compared to a non-rotating

pipe. This will be explained below.

Here C is a constant, P is the power, T is the torque and n is

the rotational speed of the drill bit. Let us now assume that the

two scenario above consumes the same power at the bit. For

this case, the bit torque when drilling with a motor can be

expressed as:

a surface, the drag is equal to the normal force (weight)

multiplied with the coefficient of friction, WVAS. If the pipe

instead is rotated, the torque (T/r) ratio is also equal to ,uwAs.

In other words, the weight and friction coefficient results in the

same frictional resistance regardless of whether the movement

is axial or rotational.

(30)

resultant friction is still limited by the normal weight

component. The direction of the friction is determined by the

velocities in the two directions. Fig. 3b illustrates this. If the

pipe is only pulled, a drag of IOVASresults in the axial

direction. If pure rotation a T/r ratio of ,uwAs results in the

tangential direction. If a combined motion is applied, the same

resultant frictional force applies in some other direction.

However, now the torque and the drag arc related by the

following equation (Fig. 3b):

T2

()

+ Fz = (#wAs)2 = FC,lP

Thus, if the bit speed when drilling with a motor is for example

twice the rotary speed during conventional drilling, the

corresponding bit torque is just one half. Equation 30 above

can be used to normalize torque data for motor drilling, to be

made comparable to rotary drilling data. Also, using downhole

motor may be a mean to minimize torque when there are

severe torque limits on the rig:

Field case

In the following a friction analysis will be performed on a

long-reach well in the Yme field in the North Sea. It was

decided to drill a well into a target which was located at a

depth of 2950 mTVD (measured from RKB). The total well

depth is 3100 mTVD with a horizontal reach of 7528m. A

jack-up rig is permanently located and is serving as a

production platform. The rig has a hoisting capacity of

4454kN ( 1,000000 Ibs), and a top drive torque of 35 kNm

(25,800 ft-lbs). The hoisting capacity is sufficient, but it was

found that the top drive was a limiting factor. It was decided

to investigate which well profile would result in lowest

friction. Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the planned well with

the present record welis.

(29)

The term on the right side of this equation is given by the drag

under no rotation, and may be defined as the frictional capacity

of the pipe. If combined axial and rotational movement is

applied, Eqn. 29 can be used to compute the reduction both in

torque and drag. The angle 71is (.lcfined from the velocities:

q= tan- (v, / v~), wher e v, is the tangential (peripheral)

speed and )1,,is the axial speed of the drillpipe. From Fig. 3b

we deduce that the axial drag is reduced to a minimum while

reaming out of the boreholc.

Torque when drilling with downhole motor is an issue to be

discussed. Using downhole motor or turbine, the drill bit

rotates at a much higher speed than during rotary drilling.

The bit speed is the sum of the speed of the motor, and the

rotational speed of the drill string. The string is often rotated

at a low speed to reduce axial friction, as explained above.

under-section profiles were identified as early as 1985. A

comparison between different well profiles such as modified

catenary, undersection, and minimum dog-leg versus a

conventional profile was performed to find the profile which

generated lowest torque. By dividing up the total torque for a

well profile into the torque for the build-up curve and the

torque for the hold section, an understanding of the relative

contributions emerged.

downhole motorl~. The power source is downhole, and the

reactive bit torque must be balanced by friction in the borehole

and surface torque. Often one discard data taken during

drilling with downhole motor when analyzing well data,

because they are not comparable to rotary drilling.

All well

paths were designed to build from vertical to a sail angle,

which was kept into the reservoir.

conventional rotary drilling operation, whereas the second

scenario is drilling with a downhole motor. The power

consumed at the drill bit for the two cases can be expressed as:

coefficient from the previous well (Yme A-2A), about 0.15

average in open and cased hole. To ensure that the drillstring

will slide when orienting, the inclination should not exceed

tan-l( 1/0. 15) = 81.470 (Eqn. 7). Fig. 6 shows the maximum

823

IADCISPE 39391

Fz = 1252 -t-0.786x0.34016kN

The geometries of the four well paths are defined in Table 1.

Please observe that the measured lengths are different. The

length and horizontal/vertical projections are calculated using

Eqns.4, 12, 15 or Eqns. 23,24,27.

I mx300m = 1332kN

equations derived in this paper. Similar calculations can be

performed for pipe lowering and for torque. One element of

particular interest is the application of the equations to the

drilling mode. From above it is seen that the buoyed weight of

the bottomhole assembly is. 0.786 x132.2 kN = 104.3 kN.

From Eqn. 1 the axial component providing bit force is given

by: 104.3 kNcos8 1.47 = 15.47 kN. During sliding, there is

very little bit force to be applied because the well is designed

to barely allow sliding. However, when rotation is initiated the

axial friction will reduce as shown in Eqn. 29, resulting in an

increased bit load.

Table 2 shows the torque for the four well profiles. The

modified catenary profile gave lowest torque. The

undersection profile gave a little higher torque, but were better

than the standard well profile. and the minimum dog-leg

profile. Most of the torque is generated in the long sail section.

The hook loads for the four well profiles are shown in Table 3.

The hook loads are similar, but the standard profile gives a

higher pick-up load than the other profiles. The maximum

load is still less than half of the capacity of the drill pipe.

Therefor tension is not the limiting factor.

but the remainder of the drill string will be in tension. If a

higher bit load is applied, the neutral point (transition

compression/tension)

will move the drill pipe up. In general

it is acceptable to keep the bottom hole assembly in

compression. However, we try to place the drilling jar away

from the neutral point, that is, either in tension or in

compression. Usually we design the bottom-hole assembly to

just provide the required bit load, keeping the weight at a

minimum.

catenary profile gave lowest torque. The minimum dog-leg

profile can be preferred because it can be drilled with a

constant build rate.

To demonstrate the application of the analytical equations, an

example of determining the hook load during hoisting will be

performed. The minimum dog-leg trajectory is used.

the minimum dog-leg profile is the fact that the build-up

friction is generated over a shorter length(975m vs. 2758 m).

Friction reduction subs may therefore be applied over a much

shorter length, resulting in less cost. A significant part of the

friction of the modified catenary is due to the build-up before

the catenary starts. If a slant rig could be used, this friction

could be reduced to a minimum. See discussion in Appendix

B3.

1.68 s.g.: ~ = 1-1 .68/7 .85 = 0.786. From Table 4, the total

weight the bottom-hole assembly is: 117 kN.

The weight of the bottom-hole-assembly

and the drillpipe in

the sail section is: 117 kN + 0.34016 kN/m (5948-6 1)m =

2152 kN. The buoyed weight is: 0.786 x 2152= 1691 kN.

During pulling of the string, the total pull-load is for this

section (Eqn. 1):

Guidelines

proposed to obtain a low friction well profile.

The pulling load at the top of the sail section is the load at the

entrance of the build-up section. The section builds from

vertical to 81.47 degrees, an angle of 8 1.477r/I 80 =

1.422rad. 5 I/Z in. drillpipe is used from the start of the sail

section to surface. The pulling load at the top of the build

section becomes (Eqn.9):

results in a low tension at the end of the build-up section.

This

possible. Providing the required bit load is sufficient. The

drill string should also have minimum weight.

F2 = 501.6e015-*4z2

+ 0.786x0.34016(kN

3. If different pipe sizes are used, place the heaviest pipe in the

vertical section.

4. Maintain a minimum dog-leg through the well. Also keep

the tortuosity at a minimum.

The tension at the top of the well isthe tension at the kick-off

point plus the weight of the vertical pipe, or:

824

lADC/SPE 39391

FRICTION ANALYSIS

FOR LONG-REACH

composites.

recommended as the low tension results in a high buildrate. If

lightweight composite drillpipes are used, tension reduces

correspondingly, reducing the need for a catenary profile.

reach of 7528 m to 12 km will be shown. Figure 6 shows the

resulting well path. Maintaining the same sail angle, this well

will reach the target at a depth of 3767 mTVD (from RKB).

The build-up section is the minimum dog-leg profile.

compared to the minimum dog-leg profile. This may reduce

the cost of friction-reducing subs if used. Use torque reduction

subs where the side forces arc highest

such a long well resulted in the conclusion that the drill string

should have an outer diameter of at least 5.5 in. The analysis

is therefore assuming a 6 5/8 in drillpipe in the upper 2755 m,

and 5.5 in drill pipe down to the bottom-hole-assembly.

7. Use low weight drill pipe, with small outer diameter tool

joints and hard banding, with self-lubricating matrix. This

reduces weight, increases buoyancy and results in less well

friction.

Due to the fact that most of the drill string is located in the sail

section, the hook load is reasonably low. Table 4 shows the

results. The hook load is not a limiting factor during drilling

of the well.

cleaningd. Keep annular cuttings concentration 10W6.

Johansik, Friesen and Dawson8 shows the field analysis of

torque and drag.

Example of ultra-long

WELLS

Table 5 shows the torque for the case of using 5.5 in. drillpipe

throughout. The total predicted torque is 53.9 kNm.

Although a few drilling rigs can handle torque of this

magnitude, it is too high for Yme, which has an upper torque

limit of 35 kNm.

horizontal reach. However it is fully feasible to extend this

towards and even beyond 12 km by a well planned design and

a operational follow-up. Below arc a few points of concern.

is generated from tension from the sail section which is

converted into torque in the build section. The sail section was

therefore first modeled with a drill pipe made of titanium. As

seen in Table 5, the torque drops to 33.1 kNm. Since

composite drill pipes now are available]G (8.72 lb/ft), the sail

section was also modeled with this as well. The cumulative

torque was now down to 19.7 kNm. Bit torque must be added.

vertical section, a build section and a sail angle towards the

target. Avoid drop-off into the reservoir if possible to

minimize friction.

The sail arlgle should in general be as high as possible, to

reduce axial tension and hence friction in the curved hole

sections. Usually the reservoir depth is such that the target is

within reach only if a very high sail angle is used. The

maximum sail angle is given by the friction coeflicie~zt.

Therefore, another requirement is low friction. This can be

obtained by using oil muds or friction reducers.

extended reach well to 12 km. Actually, by using lighter drill

pipes as shown, it should be possible to drill several

kilometers beyond that.

The wells will often be designed with a constant sail angle into

the reservoir. The transition from vertical to this sail angle

may follow a modified catenary curve or a minimum dog-leg

profile, as these will provide minimum friction.

Other elements

of long-reach

wells

provides strong limitations as the wells become long.

However, a number of other elements must be handled as well

in order to drill a successful well. In the following, the most

important of these are discussed.

beneficial. The disadvantage of a dense fluid is the

compromise between buoyancy and friction. Usually more

particles in the mud will increase the frictions.

direct result of well friction. Therefore, all measures

addressed above to minimize friction leads to reduced casing

wear.

In long wells hydraulic friction may limit the flow rate, thus

leading to poor hole cleaning. Increased pipe size will reduce

this problem. Since increased pipe size leads to increased pipe

weight, drill pipes of alternative materials may be required.

825

B. S. AAUNUY AND

l~u~/arK

K. ANDtH5kN

dY6Y

T= torque along drillstring (kNm)

P = power(kW)

n = rotary speed (rPm)

C = conversion constant

a = inclination of string from vertical (rad)

$= azimuth of the section (rad)

AF = additional force applied to catenary

WOB = weight-on-bit

BHA = bottom-hole-assembly

R = radius of bend (m)

r = radius of tool joint (m)

TVD = true vertical depth (m)

RKB = drill floor reference

DL = dog-leg; angular change in well path

DLS = dog-leg severity; rate of dog-leg

=30 (m) x 57.3 (O/rad)/R(m)

cr = sign constant for various directions

and geometrys

F ,.aP= frictional capacity of the drill string

q = tangential speed/axial speed of the drillpipe

mayresult in stuck pipe. Thedrilling fluid should be

composed to handle this. Inparticular, the mudweight playsa

key role. Aadn@y15discusses optimal mudweight selection.

Holecleaning provides another constraint. Cuttings

accumulation in the annulus may lead to higher bottom-holepressure, which sometimes leads tocirculation losses. Another

consequence ofcuttings accumulation may be stuck pipe. The

operational procedures must ensure good hole cleaning*5.

Also, the flow rate must be adequate to transport cuttings to

surface. Aadn@y*5propose optimization criteria for flow rate

and bit nozzle selection.

Conclusions

In this paper friction models for a number of different well

geometrys are derived. Explicit equations are derived to

model both the rotary torque and the drag forces associated

with hoisting or lowering of the drill string. Equations to

compute well friction for a fully 3-dimensional well path is

also given. Equations for combined motion and for drilling

with a motor are also given. These equations can be applied

to any type of well using e.g. a spreadsheet.

References

1. Sheppard, M. C., Wick, C. and Burgess, T. Designing well

paths to reduce drag and torque. SPE Drilling Engineering,

Dec., 1987, pp. 344-350.

It is shown that by proper well path design, the torque and drag

can be reduced to a minimum.

The models are furthermore used to study ultra-long-reach

wells. It is fully possible to drill beyond 12 horizontal reach,

provided that light-weight drill pipes are used.

extended-reach capabilities through wellbore profile

optimization. Paper IADC/SPE 23850 presented at the 1992

IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Feb. 18-21.

low weight drillpipe. This reduces tension and increases

buoyancy, leading to less friction and less casing wear. Other

key elements are low friction coefficient, and high buoyancy

by using adequate mud density.

using the catenary method. Paper SPE/IADC 13478 presented

at the 1985 SPWIADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, La.,

March 6-8.

4.Eek-Olsen, J., Sletten, H., Reynolds, J.T. and Samuell, J.G.

North Sea advances in extended reach drilling. Paper

SPEIIADC 25750 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling

Conference, Amsterdam, Feb. 23-25.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Tor Iver Sakkestad, Statoil Bergen

and Odd Bj@rnar Ness, Statoil R&D for support in developing

the models. Also, we wish to acknowledge Statoil as. for

permission to publish the paper.

Design directional drilling to increase total recovery and

production rates. Paper SPE/IADC 27461 presented at the

1994 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, Feb. 1518.

Nomenclature

X,y = coordinates in the horizontal plane

z = vertical coordinate

S, A.s= measured length along hole section

~, ,4y, & = projected distances

w = unit weight of drillpipe (kg/m)

F= force along drillstring (kN)

F1 = force at bottom of section

the limits for extended reach drilling: New world record from

platform Statfjord C, well C2. Paper SPE 26350 presented at

the 68th Ann. Tech. Conf and Exhibition of the SPE, Houston,

Texas, Oct. 3-6.

826

iADC/SPE

39391

FRICTION ANALYSIS

FOR LONG-REACH

Appendix

and Ritchie, A., 1995. Extending barriers to develop a

marginal satellite field from an existing platform. Paper

SPE/IADC 28294 presented at the 69h Ann. Tech. Conf. of the

SPE, New Orleans, Sept. 25-28, 1994.

Al:

forces when a drillstring is pulled or lowered through a bend.

Figure Al. 1 shows the forces acting when a pipe is pulled

through a drop-off section. Before doing the actual analysis, a

few parameters need to be defined. Due to the bend, a normal

force N results between the driIlstring and the hole. While

pulling the string, a frictional force Q resist the motion. The

weight of the string is the unit weight w multiplied with the

length of the differential element, wRda Choosing a X,Z

reference system the weight can be decomposed into the

following components:

reach, horizontal and complex design wells: challenges,

achievements and cost-benefits. Presented at the 14t}World

Petroleum Congress, Stavanger May 29-June 1, 1994.

Proceedings VO1.2, pp. 191-201.

9. Aarrestad, T.V. and Blikra, H. Torque and drag - two

factors in extended-reach drilling. Journal of Petroleum

Technology, Sept., 1994, pp. 800-803.

P = wRdacosa

technologies for success in extended reach drilling. Paper SPE

28293 presented at the SPE 69}Ann. Tech. Con$ and

Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28, 1994.

~Fx = O:

(F+ dF)cosd&

ZFZ = O:

N -0 -(F+

- Fcosdd2-

dF)sind&

Q-P =O

- Fsindd

=O

friction v multiplied with the resulting normal force, that is: Q

= pN. Furthermore, for small arguments, cosda/2 = 1, and

sindu/2 = dci12. The force balance above can be shown to

become:

(All)

dF= Q i- P = Q i- wRdacosa

12. Gou, R., Lee, R.L. and Miska, S.. Constant curvature

equations improve design of 3-D well trajectory. Oil and Gas

Journal, Apr. 19, 1993, pp. 38-47.

13. Wiggins, M. L., Choe, J. and Juvkarn-Void, H.C. Single

equation simplifies horizontal, directional drilling plans. Oil

and Gas Joltrnal, Nov. 2, 1992, pp. 74-77.

(A1.2)

the drillstring becomes:

drilling extended reach wells. Petroleum Engineer

International, Jan. 1995, pp. 35-41.

dF=

{FF +wR(pina

(A1.3)

+ cosa)) da

additional force through the bend is given by:

6336

Young, F. S. Applied drilling engineering. SPE Textbook

Series, Vol. 2., first ed. 1986. ISBN 1-55563-001-4.

Fz = Fe#t%-alj

WR

+

1+p2

BratIi, R.K. Extended reach composite materials drill pipe.

Paper SPEIIADC 37646 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC

Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, March 4-6.

18. Johansik, C.A., Friesen, D.B. and Dawson, R. Torque and

drag in directional wells - prediction and measurements. Paper

IADC/SPE 11380 presented at the 1983 IADC/SPE DriIIing

Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, Feb. 20-23.

and O = wRda.rina

the following equations:

C.R. Planning a record extended-reach well in Japan.

Petroleum Engineer International, April, 1996, pp. 59-67.

Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands 1996).ISBN905410

WELLS

(1p2)(sina2e

[ 2p(cos a2 e

(Al .4)

,u(a2-cY,

) Cos ~, ~

}

at the top of the bend.

The above equation is valid for the case of pulling the

---- drillstring upwards. If the drillstring is lowered into the well,

the forces F and F+dF interchange places in Fig. Al. 1, and the

friction force Q change direction. The force balance now

become:

dF= Q - P = Q - wrdacosa

827

io

N= Fda+O=Fda

+wRdasina,

following differential equation:

IADCISPE

Finally, for the case of lowering the pipe through the build-up

bend results in: dF = Q - P

resulting in the

dF=

dF=

{pF+i~tR(/6ina-cr~sa}da,

39391

{,F-wR(pinci

+ cosaj da

(A2.5)

which solved again defining F2as the top force, becomes:

solution:

(A1.5)

-~(az-ffl ) +)ltR sin~~ e -P(az-rrl) sina,

{

}

Fz = Fle

always referring to the force in the top of the string.

F1e~(a2-al)

F,=

_ WR

Fzis

l+p2

[

with the pipe radius, integrated over the length of the bend,

ds=rda.

Thetension inthepipe forastatic pipe is:

A.1.3, and 1.6:

A 1.7, the torque becomes:

T=

(A1.6)

F = F, wR(sin a sin al )

2p

(A2.6)

~r{(F1

+wRsinal)(~2

-~l)}+2~wRr(cos~2

-coSal)

(A2.7)

Appendix A3: Drag and torque in side-bends

(A1.7)

T= JprN

described as follows.

Integrating the equation above, the resulting torque for a dropoff bend becomes:

T=pr

Appendix

F1wRsincil

Figure A3. 1 shows the situation. One extreme is that the drill

pipe is weightless. For this case pure tension applies, and the

pipe will assume a position in the middle of the borehole.

Based on previous derivations, we can define the end force of

the bend due to tension as:

}(~2-~1)-~~R(cos~2-cos~l)

(A1.8)

A2: Drag and torque in build-up bend

definitions are the same as for the previous case. A force

balance now results in:

ZF.V = O:

(F -t dF)cosd&

ZFy = O:

N + O -(F+

- Fcosdd2-

dF)sind&

F21 = F1ep(&4)

by the angle, or:

Q-P =O

- Fsindd2

=O

dF= Q + P = Q -!-wrdacosct

(A2.1)

(A2.2)

the dominating factor, resulting in the pipe lying on the bottom

of the hole. The normal force is then:

dN~ = wRd@

force now is defined by:

(pF -wR(pina

- cosa)) da

p(az-a2 )

F2=F1e -~(ff~-ffl) _ wIR sin az e

sin al

{

}

(A3.2)

dN, = Fd@

becomes:

dF=

(A3.1)

(A3.3)

assume a position at the bottom of the hole when entering the

bend, and move towards ~ = 90 at the exit of the bend. We

will assume that the resultant normal force is the vector sum of

Eqns. A3.2 and A3.3.

(A2.3)

(A2.4)

dN = ~dN;

828

+dN;

(A3.4)

lADC/SPE 39391

force, multiplied with the coefficient of friction, or:

11

WELLS

EFr=O+Fcosa

FOsincrl

=0

ZFZ =O+Fsina

ws F1cosal

=0

or combined:

dF=p~F2

+(wR)2d@

(A3.5)

F =

(B1.1)

The slope is given by:

,og{F+-}=PfP+c

(A3.6)

ws+ F, COSal

dz

tarif f=-=

dx

initial condition (Fl, $l). Applying the other end condition, the

tension at the upper end of the side bend is given by:

(BI.2)

F, sin a,

2

ds2=dx2+dz2+

s(x)=]

(BI.3)

1+ ~

o /7

Combining Eqns, B 1.2 and B 1.3 results in the following

differential equation:

(A3.7)

A similar expression results for lowering of the pipe. The

difference is that the exponents changes sign.

The pipe position on the borehole wall can be determined by

defining a tangential force balance as seen from Fig. A3. 1:

sinhu, and differentiating, Eqn. B 1.2 can be shown to become:

du

dx

F, sin al

Inserting zero friction into Eqn. A3.7, one observe that F2 = Fl.

For pure rotation , the torque is generated by a constant normal

force (weight) as defined in Eqn. A3.4. The total torque

becomes:

=~e(@2

Appendix

-@*)

u = F, sin al

X+c,

the string, x=O and z=O. Furthermore at this point the slope or

the derivative is no longer zero, but equal to sinh(fl-al).

Inserting these conditions into the equation above results in

C1=sinhl(cotal).

The solution can now be written:

(A3.9)

dx

continuously to mimic the shape of a hanging cable.

Theoretically, a catenary produces very low torque and drag as

a result of very low contact forces between the string and the

wall of the hole.

Wx

{ F, sin a,

+sinh-l

(cot al)

}

z=

horizontal end condition at bottom. This is illustrated in Fig.

B 1.1. Here we will derive a more general solution with

arbitrary inclinations at the bottom and at the top. Fig.B 1.2

illustrates the end section assuming this. We have chosen to

introduce the well inclination al and tension force F, to define

the end condition at the bottom.

F, sin al

w

cosh

w~.~

{ F1 sin al

+sinh-l

(cot al

+ C2

}

expression for the free-hanging string now becomes:

z=

Fl sin al

cosh

[{

w

Wx

Fl sin al

+ sinh l(cota,)}-cosh{sinh(cotal)}]

(B 1.4)

829

12

Equation B 1.4 gives the shape of the curve. The total length

measured along the string tnust be determined next. From

Eqn. B 1.2, the total length of the string becomes:

F1

s =;

F2 i- AFCal

-AF, and the tension at the bottom of the catenary is:

F] sin al

+ sinh -I(c~t~,)}-cos~,]

Ft AFCa,

by differentiating Eqn. B 1.2 with respect tos. This buildrate

can be shown to vary along the string as follows:

tLIF1sin ffl

F12+ (WS)2

Appendix

profiles.

Appendix

curve

F2

(B1.6)

Figure B 1.2 shows that the catenary starts at an angle crz from

vertical. We will choose to add a short constant curvature

build-up section on top to go to vertical. To make the

transition smooth, we will design the intersection between the

two functions to have the same curvature.

Eqn. B 1.6 defines the curvature for the modified catenary.

the top of the catenary, the inclination and curvature is:

tanaz

calculated at any point using the equation:

daAF

(B2.1)

ds

Assuming a coefficient of friction, p, in the borehole,

force seen at top of the catenary is given by:

dz

==

dx

ws + FOCOSal

FOsin al

da2

WFOsin al

.

ds F02+ (WS)2 + 2WSF0 cOSal

At

(B3.1)

(B3.2)

the drag

As = Rcr2

(B3.3)

dcz~ds = I/R

(B2.2)

Inserting Eqn. and B 1.6 into B2.2, and integrating, the

following equation results:

AFCut = pAF tan

(B2.6)

to the catenary

transition from vertical to the start of the catenary.

governed by the normal force between the drillstring and the

hole. Using the equations above, an ideal well profile results

with zero normal force. The objective is to use this condition

during drilling. However, when tripping out, an additional

force must be applied. If we assume that the catenary design

forces applies, the well will have an ideal catenary profile and

there is no contact between the hole and the drillstring during

drilling (ideally). Next assume that the drillstring will be

tripped out of the well. By pulling in the string, it contacts the

borehole wall resulting in drag friction. We assume that the

additional force at the bottom of the drillstring is AF. If the

drill string remains static, this additional force will be reflected

from the bottom to the top of the catenary section.

~_

()

{Ws;::

requires a non-vertical entrance at the top. This problem has in

the past been handled by defining a short constant-curvature

build section from the vertical well to the entrance of the

catenary. In land wells, it is possible to start the well at a given

angle using a slant rig.

2wsFl COSal

(B2.5)

(B 1.5

By inserting Eqn. B 1.5 into B 1.1, the total tension at any point

in the string can be determined.

x=

(B2.4)

}t:Y

sin al sinh

[{

da

IADCISPE 39391

(B3.4)

section becomes:

~ = FO+ (WS)2 + 2WSF0 COSal

(B2.3)

-{VS;::;U}

WFOsin al

(B3.5)

catenary, and 2 to the top of the modified catenary. Fig. B3. 1

shows the transition section.

The total load at the top of the catenary during tripping is now

given by:

830

Well

Le&~h

Kisk-off

Total

length(m)

profile

;tidg;p

depth (MTVD)

~nd (~)

sestbn (m)

Build rate

(=/3omfi

Sail angle

():

t

Modified

catenary

9125

300

2340

6485

0.57-3.1

81.47

Minimum

dog-log

8003

300

2755

5948

0.89

81.47

9327

1225

1221

8861

81.47

8102

300

1093

8709

72.85

Under-section

Standard

,Tablel:

Geometry

ofwell

profiles.

Toque

hold section

(kNm)

Surface

Well

buil;p;

Static

Well

profile

pick-up

hmk load

(kN)

load (kN)

Slack-off

load (kN)

profile

;?$:

Modified

catenary

28.57

7.11

21.46

Modified

catenary

845

1360

593

Minimum

dog-log

30.91

11.04

19.87

Minimum

dog-log

843

1332

609

Under-section

29.51

6.88

22.63

Under-section

842

1321

568

30,42

9.05

21.37

Standard

858

1350

543

Standard

Table2:

Torque forthevarious

well profiles.

Bit torque not included.

Length

(m):

)n~ww;~

Drillcoliar, 8

33

3186

82.1

Jar, 8

10

1481

24.9

Heavy weight

drill pipe, 51/2

18

723.3

10

I end of build

340.16

Component:

rota~~:ghl

2755m

Table 4: Composition

of drill string.

Torque (kNm)

Steel

Titanium

Composite

Hold

eedmn

Total

Static

10.2

43.7

53.9

6.2

26.9

33.1

B;~d~~*

Drillpipe

3.7

16.0

19.7

Pulling

Slack-oft

175

179

60

130

133

60

101

102

reach well using various drillpipes in the hold section.

* 65/8 steel drill pipe.

831

60

:{-:;,l

I

I

x

a) Forceson Inolinedobject

b) Geometry

and forces

for straight

inclined

hole

,

I

Ax

K

F2

It

Az

Az

As

Az

As

K

x

a) DrW.off

eeetlon

Ax

\;

b) Build-up aesfien

Y

e) The mcdifled ~tenary

profile

F2

t

Ax

az

el

Az

{~

Riihl sidebend

1 i

Ax

Ax

c)

F,

ca!enary

Torque/radius

PWAS

T/r

F=PWAS

T/r.pwAs

832

Horizmtal dapanure, m

4W0

2m

Im

5m

z-t

#

, ----

. ..

00

\

>,0

-.

~ 4000

.

0

o

7m

6~

,,

-\\

.L . . . .

w,,~r!

Ula

0

00

YEe

\\

\

\

7000

4:

Figure

3ritical sail

sngle, degrees

90-

._

Mnimum dog-%, 0.09 13~

. . . . Mdifiti

catenary. CMII build 0.57m,

to sta~01 catenav

w.975m

_ under.~~ti~

, 2l%m

85-

1225- \*.\.

2000-

81.47

\.\

..-

80-

___

I

I

.-

3ow-

I

75-

I

I

70

I

0.15

0.10

Figure

6:

[

O.w

0120

I

0.40 COeffj~ietOf

friction, u

Im

2000-

3m

4000

1

nTVO

1Oco

2W0

3m

4m

Sm

7m

J

eooo

r

Im

1

Ilow

m horizontal

833

,

Izm

reach

-.

d.

F+dF

/fl

F+dF

\

x

\

>

/

\v

wrda

Figure A2.1:

Figure Al.1:

in a build-up section.

pulled in a drop-off section.

F2

Ax

I

U2>

/

/

/,

I

I

,

/

Figure A3. I: Drill pipe position in the borehole for a side bend.

WFZ,.;%$:

.~~

L

*a)

Figure BI.1:

b)

J

z

J

x

F1

al

- system of particles and rotational motionUploaded byANshul Sharma
- Upsee SyllabusUploaded byDeeksha gupta
- irp dpp no3Uploaded byShivam Jaggi
- Drillstring HardbandingUploaded bypavi32
- Physics of Somersaults and TwistsUploaded bySteve Backenstoes
- Rotational Motion Part-BUploaded bysmi_santhosh
- α φ θ σ ρ ω π λ (physics review sheet!)Uploaded byprheenan
- final_exam_infoUploaded byAjiDiiart
- 10 BalancingUploaded bySunilkumar Reddy
- ASIGN_1_(DE-12-ME-014)Uploaded byNITESH JHA
- Phys71SummerAY1011FinalsUploaded bySherylleen Rodriguez
- ACE - 2011- Catalouge - CalculationUploaded byJai Kumar
- 2012 paperUploaded byBali Amin
- questões de físicaUploaded byFernanda Andrade
- Illustrative Examples Physics Vectors rUploaded byVishal Kalra
- Exp 3 TurbineUploaded byYasserAby
- sample_chapter_02_scalar_quantities_and_vector_quantities_in_mechanics_and_motion_analysis.pdfUploaded byahmd
- StaticsUploaded byAdolfo
- Rotatory Motion 2Uploaded byShiva Ram Prasad Pulagam
- Icoe2010 w.shengUploaded byxeyran
- Basic Formulas for Offshore Construction Professionals (Edition 2)Uploaded byMohamed Hermas
- Formulas of Horsepower and PowerUploaded byHimanshu1712
- Mains Rotational Motion Paper-01Uploaded byAnju Mohta
- Sistem Resultan GayaUploaded bydimas
- June 5 Balance and Unbalance ForceUploaded byJeazel Buenavides Mosendo
- angkineticssUploaded byAnonymous gr5Pr9AV
- Chapter4 (Drilling String Design)Uploaded byDrUpendra Singh Yadav
- Rotational Equilibrium and Rotational DynamicsUploaded byCG Amon
- Basic System ModelUploaded byVijay Shakar
- FQW1.docxUploaded bymercy sacriz

- Johan CsikUploaded byPonti Gomez
- teoria y aplicacion boyanza ren pozods aadnoy 2011.pdfUploaded byPonti Gomez
- UCalgary 2013 Fazaelizadeh MohammadUploaded byBezawit Temesgen Belete
- Aadnoy 2001Uploaded byPonti Gomez
- HOUploaded byPonti Gomez
- Aadnoy 1998Uploaded byPonti Gomez
- How Beer Saved the WorldUploaded byPonti Gomez

- Surveying BEC102 4 - Longitudinal and Cross SectionsUploaded byjfejfe
- Super Elevation - David LevinsonUploaded bypinkuru
- Topic 8 Property CETUploaded byNsv Dinesh
- Rollercoaster Project DraftUploaded bysamjshah
- Insulin Pump Z SchemasUploaded byTan Nwit
- Lecture Notes 14.pptUploaded byAbdul Hakeem Semar Kamaluddin
- Journal of real-time DSP performance on Android devices.pdfUploaded bySella Serafina
- VLSI Design Overview ProblemsUploaded byJorge Ivan Canales Verdial
- MIL-PRF-31013Uploaded byGustavo Castro
- SAES-T-633Uploaded bySayed Hashem
- Recirculating Aquaculture Tank 2Uploaded byJared Yair
- APAQUploaded bySmărăDavid
- Power Electronics Notes BetzUploaded byRobert Betz
- Computational Fluid DynamicsUploaded bymanish_agr85
- LabVIEW Machine Vision online_Self-Study Guide.pdfUploaded byjul
- An Introduction to Nonlinear Model Predictive ControlUploaded byAnonymous o6zFokM
- TcpipUploaded byapi-3721578
- Tutorial Metal2 NX Sheet MetalUploaded byMario Valdes
- User Guide Shape Designers a AsUploaded byMarcelo Carnicelli
- rising main design- sample.xlsUploaded byprasadnn2001
- Well Performance and Artifical Lift Rev 3Uploaded bysaladinayubi1234
- Plsql TuningUploaded bysanjibse
- Descartes, arguments for existence of GodUploaded bymazangel
- 2 2 5 p kmappinguniversalgates fireplaceUploaded byapi-373898002
- Phasing in DCS Migration[1]Uploaded bypanchogancho
- ICS_2415_ADBS_Sess05_10_AdvTopicsUploaded byWellWisher
- Effects of Coal-Mine Drainage on Stream Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins- Sulfate Transport and TrendsUploaded bywaodefadila
- Question 1 - Mounting MethodUploaded byMuhd Ilyas
- 146659160085555754 (1)Uploaded byMunavver Ali Husain
- Mpmc Question BankUploaded byAlluri Appa Rao