Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 28328

BHA Design and Steerability Optimization for Extended Reach Dri"ing

M.M. Agawani, U. of New South Wales; E.E. Maidla, * Unicamp/U. of New South Wales; and
S.S. Rahman, U. of New South Wales
'SPE Member

Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA, U.S.A., 25-28 September 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by Ihe author(s). Contents of the paper,
as resented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The matenal, as presented: does not necessanly reflect
t
an:position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are sublect to publication review by Editorial Committees thf ~oClet~
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain consp'cuous ac nowe gmen
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT uration to drill a particular interval of hole, have

not been developed. Current models rely on the
An algorithm, based on the steerability of a BRA configuration being given as an input be-
bottom hole assembly (BRA), has been developed fore calculating the pipe shape and forces acting
which can predict the complete geometry of the on the bit.
most suitable BRA to drill a given section of a In this research, an algorithm (optimization
directional well. program) has been developed which designs the
The model is particularly versatile because BRA most suited to drill a particular section of
it is applicable to rotary mode extended reach hole. The program is particularly versatile in that
drilling, can be used to compare various BRA con- the components for the BRA can either be cho-
figurations to that predicted by the algorithm and sen by the user based on availability or by the
can take full advantage of the steerability of vari- program from its library.
able gauge stabilizers. The optimization program, which maximizes
A field case study is presented to illustrate its the steerability of rotary system assemblies, uses
usefulness. the BRA program as a subroutine when calculat-
ing the best BRA configuration. The BRA pro-
INTRODUCTION gram itself is based on the energy method and is
solved using the Rayleigh-Ritz method which has
In the past, modelling of bottom hole assem- the advantage of fast processing without a loss in
blies (BRAs) has focused on the following aspects: preCISIon.
(a) the direction and magnitude of forces acting
at the bit and along the BRA; (b) bit tilt; and (c)
STEERABILITY
the final BRA shape (under static and dynamic
conditions ).
The concept of steerability is at the heart of
To date, a set of general design criteria for de-
the optimization process. It is best illustrated
termining the geometry of the best BRA config-
with the field example graph (figure 1) used later
References and figures at end of paper. in the text.
2 BRA Design and Steerability Optimization for Extended Reach Drilling SPE 28328

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION

rate of change of inclination (a) and the ratio The well trajectory is defined by the global
of lateral force (Fd to weight on bit (Fb) i.e., coordinates E, N, and D and usually has as its
(~ ), for a particular BRA configuration. For origin the well head or mudline location given in
this particular BRA: (a) the maximum build up UTM coordinates,. For these calculations, the
rate achieved was 2.5°/100ft at a lateral force to coordinate system shown in figure 2 is used and
weight on bit ratio of 92 X 10- 3 ; (b) the minimum therefore certain transformations are necessary.
build up rate was 1.6°/100ft at a lateral force to The total transformation matrix TT is given
weight on bit ratio of 73 X 10- 3 • Therefore the by:
largest change possible in build up rate due to • Translation of the bit coordinates to the ori-
changing the weight on bit between maximum gm.
and minimum values is 0.9°/100ft - this is the
desired parameter to be maximized when design- • Inversion of the depth axis direction.
ing. As the rate of change of inclination correlates • Rotation around the depth axis to align the
with the lateral force to weight on bit ratio, max- . east axis with point a within the horizontal
imizing this ratio will maximize the build up rate plane (figure 3).
change. The concept of steer ability is thus in- • Rotation around the north axis to align the
troduced as the difference between the maximum east axis with point a in 3D space (figure 4).
and minimum lateral force to weight on bit ratios
This transformation can be expressed mathe-
that a particular BRA design can achieve. In this
matically in homogeneous coordinates 5 as:
example the steerability value is 19 X 10- 3 •
Mathematically steerability (5) is defined as: [X Y Z = 1] [E
N D TT (2)1]
5= (Fd 1 _ (FL )2
(1)
(Fb)min (Fb)max (3)
where:
Fl = the lateral force when Fb is a minimum
1 0 0 0
F2 = the lateral force when Fb is a maximum
0 1 0 0
(4)
0 0 1 0
THE GOAL OF OPTIMIZATION -Eb -Nb -Db 1
To find the BRA configuration that maximizes 1 0 0 0
steerability while minimizing the loss in penetra- 0 1 0 0
Ts (5)
tion rate and cost per foot for the drilling opera- 0 0 -1 0
tion. o0 0 1
cos () sin () 0 0
BHA MODEL - sin () cos () 0 0
(6)
0 0 1 0
A 3D static model was selected because there 0 0 0 1
is insufficient field evidence to suggest that the cos f3 0 - sin f3 0
dynamic model predictions are superior 1,2. Other 0 1 0 0
2D and 3D static models have been cited in the (7)
TR,N sin f3 0 cos f3 0
literature3 ,4. 0 0 0 1

TTl I = cos () cos f3

SPE 28328 Mamdouh M. Agawani, Eric E. Maidla, Sheik S. Rahman 3

TT1 •2 = sin (} given by2,3 :

TTl 3 - cos (} sin f3 d4 x d2 x
EI dz 4 + WA(L - z) dz 2 = (FL)l (11)
TTl 4 = 0
TT2l = - sin (} cos f3 d4 y d2 y
EI dz 4 + WA(L - z) dz 2 = (FL)2 (12)
TT2.2 cos (}
The best BRA configuration for a particular
TT23 = sin (} sin f3
section of hole is determined by using the energy
TT24 = 0 method 7 which states that at equilibrium, the to-
TT3l = - sinf3 tal potential energy of the system is a minimum.
TT32 - 0 The total potential energy is the sum of the
- - cosf3 strain energy of bending, Ubn plus the potential
TT3.3
energy of axial distributed and concentrated loads
TT34 - 0
(the negative of the work done), Uwe plus the po-
TT4l = cos f3(Nb sin (} - Eb cos (}) + Db sin f3 tential energy of the lateral distributed load, UL
TT42 = - Eb sin (} - Nb cos (} plus the potential energy of the concentrated lat-
TT43 - sin f3( Nb sin (} - Eb cos (}) + Db cos f3 eral load, Ur.
TT4.4 = 1
U = Ubn + Uwe + UL + Ur (13)
where: For the inclination plane (xz plane):

~ [t El, (~:)' + t El, (~:)'

LN EIN (~X)2] dz
for N <0 ===} (} = 21l' - (} + ... +
lLN-l -2
dz
and, = _ W A fL(L _ z) [(2 dxo dX)
2 Jo dz dz
(9) d
+ (. dz 2
2
x) 2] dz
f3 =
E3T
arctan D;T
a
(10) WL 1L xdz

for D~T < 0 ===} f3 = 1l' + f3 ~ FA. [Xi ± Rsin (arctan I~; I) ]
THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
For the azimuth plane (yz plane):
The bottom hole assembly is modelled as an
elastic column, composed of several beams (pipes)
of different geometries and materials, restrained
within a curved tube (the borehole) in a 3D spa-
tial configuration. The borehole wall is assumed
not to deform and therefore its geometry and po-
sition do not change.
Based on the theory of elasticity6 the forces
at the bit in the vertical and azimuth plane are
4 BHA Design and Steerability Optimization for Extended Reach Drilling SPE 28328

(:.~)'] dz
For the azimuth plane: For the yz plane, Y
+ is represented by the series:

UL = 0 ~ . (2n + l)1rz
Y = L..J en sm 2L (17)
Ur = ~ FA; [Vi ± Rsin (arctan I:; I) ] n=O
In theory N = 00, however, in practice it de-
where: pends upon the acceptable level of error when go-
m = number of contact points ing from N = j to N = j + 1. Here N is between
FA = reaction force 50 and 100.
dbr - dp Calculation of bn
R =
2 The total potential energy given by equation
xo,Yo = the projection of the initial
deflection of the BHA in xz 1 is constant for any given scenario, therefore, the
and Y z planes respectively. following is true:

M J7rz (18)
Xo = LPJsinT (14)
J=1 where:
MJ7rz k = 0,1,2,3"", N
Yo LqJsinT (15)
J=1 and
M = number of survey points between
the bit and point a (excluded (19)
these two points)
where:
h=1,2,3,···,H
Boundary Conditions and
H = number of contact points (not including
• at point a, the pipe contacts the wellbore. the bit).
• all parts of the BHA are restrained within the By substituting equations 16 and 17 into 13
borehole. and by taking the first derivatives as shown in
equation 18 results a system of N + 1 equations
• the bit is centered.
with (N + 1) + H unknowns. The additional H
• initially, the BHA configuration is equal to number of equations are provided by equation 19.
the well trajectory.
How To Determine Point "a":
NUMERICAL SOLUTION Point a is one of the problem's boundaries
Well Trajectory: for which the upper part of the drillstring rests
Calculated using the well survey and the min- against the wellbore wall, and no buckling is oc-
imum curvature methodS. currmg.
It is not the neutral point of buckling as it
BHA Configuration is always located after the last stabilizer for any
(figure 2): WOB. Moreover, below point a, some parts of the
For the inclination plane: For the xz plane, drillstring generally are in a non-buckling condi-
x is represented by the series: tion.
Point a can take any value above the last sta-
~b . (2n + 1) 1rZ bilizer for which the drillstring lies on the low side
X = L..J n sm 2L (16)
n=O of the wellbore. Ideally it should be as close as
SPE 28328 Mamdouh M. Agawani, Eric E. Maidla, Sheik S. Rahman
possible to the last stabilizer to reduce and opti-
mize computer time.
In the field case study presented, the a value
was equal to the position of the third stabilizer
plus 50 ft.
Simulator Running Time:
Usually, a simulator run that calculates the
side forces and the bit tilt, takes about 2 minutes
on a 386 25Mhz PC.
OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM
Building Assembly
A diagram of the building BRA and nomen-
clature is shown in figure 5.
The rate of change of inclination (a) as a func-
tion of the forces at the bit is shown in figure 6.
The final direction is a function of the ratio of
the lateral force to weight on bit and, therefore,
is not solely dependent on the magnitude of the
lateral force. This is important since an increase
in side force doesn't necessarily mean an increase
in build up rate.
The design parameters are:
• Diameter of the pipe (d p ).
• Position of the stabilizers: L 1 , L 2 , L 3.
The design of the BRA requires records of the
behavior of BRAs run in the same formation. If
this data is unavailable an estimate can be made
based on records from other formations, in which
case predications will yield greater uncertainty.
After selecting the appropriate build up rate
and using a graph similar to the one shown in
figure 1 to estimate the lateral to weight on bit
force ratio, Lb L 2 , L3 are determined using the
following procedures:
STEP 1: A diameter of the drill collars is se-
lected from a pre-determined size group.
STEP 2: The weight on bit (Fb) is selected to
be the average of the maximum and the minimum
values (these limits are necessary in order not to
damage the bit and avoid drilling at undesirably
low penetration rates).
STEP 3: Three inclination values are selected.
The lowest value corresponds to the inclination of
5
the initial position of a new bit run. The highest
value corresponds to the inclination at which the
bit is estimated to end its run. The other value
is the average of the high and low values and is
used as the base value for the calculations needed
to proceed through the steps described below.
STEP 4: A value for L1 is selected. The pos-
sible values considered in this work are: 3, 4, and
5 ft. Smaller values than 3 ft are normally not
possible for 8t" bits and above. The disadvan-
tage of values larger than 5 ft is that much of the
leverage effect is lost.
Note: The values mentioned above apply to
conventional situations. For slim hole drilling for
instance, these values would be different.
STEP 5: An arbitrary value of L2 is selected
just to start off. In the field example a value of
30 ft was used.
STEP 6: An arbitrary value of L3 is selected.
In the field example a value of 30 ft was used.
STEP 7: ~ is then calculated and compared
to the desired value:
(a) If they are the same. The design proceeds
to STEP 10.
(b) If they are not the same. L3 = L3 + ~L·
and a polynomial interpolation method is used to
help iterate. Note: If it is possible to find L 3 ,
proceed to STEP 8. If not, go to STEP 9(b).
STEP 8: L2 = L2 + ~L ~L > 0
STEP 9: Try to calculate an L3 in which the
side force to weight on bit ratio matches the de-
sired value (Note: The polynomial interpolation
method is used to help iterate):
(a) If L3 can be calculated, proceed to
STEP 10.
(b) If L3 cannot be calculated:
~L = ll.2L
If ~L ::; tft. Go to STEP II.
Else L2 = L2 - ~L. Go to STEP 9.
STEP 10: Calculate 5 i and compare it with
the best previously calculated value 5 i - 1 •
(a) If it is equal to or greater than 5 i - 1 go to
STEP 8.
(b) If it is smaller than 5 i - 1 :
L2 = L2 - 2 X ~L
~L = -~L. Go to STEP 9.
6 BRA Design and Steerability Optimization for Extended Reach Drilling
STEP 11: Calculate the lateral to weight on
bit ratio for the average weight on bit for the min-
imum and maximum inclination values for that
particular bit run.
STEP 12: Check and see if it is possible to
build angle at the desired rate while drilling at
different inclinations.
STEP 13: Another L1 length value is selected
and the program returns to STEP 4 to begin the
process again. This loop continues until all op-
tions for L1 are covered (in the field example three
values were considered).
STEP 14: Another pipe diameter is selected
and the program returns to STEP 2 to begin the
process again. This loop continues until there are
no more pipe diameters left.
STEP 15: The pipe with the highest steerabil-
ity that meets all constraints is the final answer.
Dropping Assembly
The optimization is similar to the building as-
sembly with the following modifications:
L1 = 0, and the absolute value of S be con-
sidered.
FIELD EXAMPLE
The vertical section and casing program of the
extended reach well is shown in figure 7.
From kickoff up to an inclination of 20° will be
drilled using a mud motor. Rotary will be used
from there on as studies show this to be more
economical.
There are 3 sections to be designed:
• The first build up section with inclinations
between 20° and 48°.
• The second build up section with inclina-
tions between 48° and 86°.
• The slant section at 86°.
BHA Design - FIRST BUILD UP:
This comprises one 12~" bit run that will drill
from an inclination of 20° up to 48°.
The maximum allowable weight on bit is
60 Klbf and the minimum is 20 Klbf.
The build up rate required is 2° /100ft and us-
ing previous knowledge in the same area (figure 1)
SPE 28328
requires a lateral to weight on bit ratio of
77.5 x 10- 3 . Therefore the side force required for
a WOB of 40 Klbf is 3,100 lbf.
• Drill collars available for the design:
9 x 3"
8 X 2 13
16
"
13
7 X 2 16 "
• L1 = 3, 4, and 5 ft
The optimization program will start by using
,a weight on bit of 40 Klbf and an inclination of
34°. For the data and constraints above, the pro-
gram selects the best designs and checks them
throughout the different sections being drilled
within the range 20 to 60 Klbf - the results are
shown in table 1.
The design criteria used to generate the
BRA's for each drill collar diameter in Table 1
was based on maximizing steerability.
The best BRA design is for the 9" for which
L1 = 3ft, L2 = 40ft, and L3 = 61ft. The assem-
bly is predicted to perform well at inclinations of
20° and 48° within the weight on bit window of
20 - 60 Kbf.
When comparing the BRA configuration of
the 9" drill collar to the other ones considered,
the 9" is superior to the best 7" one by as much
as 32%, and 8% better than the best 8".
BHA Design - SECOND BUILD UP:
This comprises one 12~" bit run that will drill
from an inclination of 48° up to 86°.
The rest of the data is the same as for the first
build up.
The results are shown in table 2. For this par-
ticular design the best BRA configuration for the
8" and 9" drill collars are predicted to perform in
the same way with the same steerability at 67°.
The 9" one is slightly better within the weight on
bit window considered.
Both the 9" and 8" design steerability could
exceed the best 7" choice by as much as 11 %.
BHA Design - SLANT SECTION:
The 8!" hole is to be drilled at an inclination
close to 86°.
The plan calls for inclination steering to con-
tinue drilling within the target formation. For the
SPE 28328 Mamdouh M. Agawani, Eric E. Maidla, Sheik S. Rahman 7

BRA design this means that dropping and build- NOMENCLATURE:

ing must be achieved without tripping. For this a furthest point from the bit con
design a window of ±0.5° /100ft is desired. sidered in the BRA.
As there is no data on the behavior of previ- b, c, p, q constants.
ous bottom hole assemblies at low build up rates BRA bottom hole assembly.
(Note: figure 1 is only appropriate for inclination d = diameter.
rates above 1.5° /lOOft), an assumption is made D = vertical depth.
that a lateral to weight on bit ratio of 15.2 x 10-3 E modulus of elasticity.
is sufficient. For a 30 Klbf of weight on bit, this E east coordinate.
translates into a lateral force (FL) of 456 lbf. F = force.
The best design for this particular case are I = moment of inertia.
three stabilizers with the second one having vari- L = distance, length.
able gauge diameter (between 8!" and 8"). The M - no. of survey points between
optimum design was achieved for a 6~" pipe the bit and point a.
with the stabilizers spaced at Ll = 5, L2 = 5, N = north coordinate.
L3 = 29.5 ft. R = radial clearance.
The results of the computations are shown be- S Steerability.
low: T transformation matrix.
U = potential energy.
DROP BUILD
W weight per unit length.
(~~) Fb (~) X,Y,Z
WOB
= local coordinate system.
weight on bit.
10-3 Klbf 10- 3
inclination rate of change.
-42.2 10 46.3
Lagrange multiplier,
-14.2 30 16.1
(reaction force).
-9.7 50 8.6
The steerability for this particular design is
88.5 x 10-3 • Subscripts:

CONCLUSIONS a = point.
A = axial.
BRAs can be designed using reliable commer- b bit.
cial BRA programs and the optimization proce- bn bending.
dure outlined so long as there are appropriate br = borehole.
records of past job performances. The algorithm c counter.
is easy to use and eliminates the guesswork cur- D = depth axis.
rently used in BRA design. E east axis.
F final.
L lateral.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS m - number of contact points.
N north axis.
The authors would like to thank CNPq, 0 initial curvature.
CAPES, FAEP and the APCRC for their sup- p pIpe.
port. They would also like to thank Mr. Patrick r = radial force.
Lollback for helping out in editing. R rotation.
S = scaling.
8 BRA Design and Steerability Optimization for Extended Reach Drilling SPE 28328

T - total. 3. Walker, Bruce H.: "Some Technical and Eco-

TR = translation. nomic Aspects of Stabilizer Placement," JPT
we = effect of axial weight and initial pp 663-672, Jun 1973.
curvature. 4. Ho, H.S. : "General Formulation of Drill-
1 = inclination plane, or a counter. string Under Large Deformation and Its Use
2 = azimuth plane, or a counter. In BHA Analysis," SPE 15562, presented at
3 - counter. the SPE 61st Annual Technical Conference
), Lagrange multiplier (reaction force). and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA., October
Superscripts 5-8, 1986.
5. Foley J.D., and van Dam, A. : Fundamen-
2T = after the second transformation.
tals of Interactive Computer Graphics,
3T = after the third transformation.
Addison-Wesley Publications Co., Reading,
REFERENCES MA,1982.
1. Millheim, K.K. : "The Effect of Hole Curva- 6. Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J .M. : Theory
ture on The Trajectory of a Borehole," SPE of Elastic Stability, Second Edition,
6779, presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Fall McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Den- 1961.
ver,Co. October 9-12 1977. 7. Hoff, N.J. : The Analysis of Structures, John
2. Brakel, J.D. "Prediction of Wellbore Trajec- Wiley Publications, 1956.
tory Considering Bottom Hole Assembly and 8. Taylor, H. L., and Mason, C. M., "A Sys-
Drillbit Dynamics," Ph.D. dissertation, the tematic Approach to Well Surveying Calcu-
University of Tulsa, 1986. lations," SPEJ, Dec 1972.

2.5
_0
o ~
=- 2
Q)-
0>'
e 0>
o ~ 1.5
.t:.~
U
_ e~
o 0
.!=s
li ~ 0.5
.E
O+-------~------r-----~~----~------~

o 20 40 80 100
FL/Fb. (1/1000 dimensionless)

Figure 1 : BHA behaviour for the field study

SPE 28328 Mamdouh M. Agawani, Eric E. Maidla, Sheik S. Rahman 9

curve s : well trajectory

curve r: BHA configuration a
~b weight on bit (tangent to r,
rL lateral force
u tangent to well trajectory
Cl bit tilt
parametric variable
of curves rand s

x = 'E
y='N
z='D
• after transformations the y
is pointing away from the oliserver r{t)

Figure 2: Coordinate system setup showing a plane

perpendicular to the y axis.

algorithm for {3
Ea
tan {3 =
Da

a~Na ,Ea ,Da ~ for 1VD<O ==t> (3=rr+{3

~Na,Ea,O
a point D
0 origin a?~
a(O,Ea ,Da)

" vector defined by ap

/
/ a~O,Ea ,Da)
Oz = a
/' /
N
/' /
/'
cos
-+
v (0,1,0) f3Y
/' (I =
1V1 /
for N<O ==- (I = 27T-(I
/
0 E E
BIT BIT
Note: the N axit I. pointi.... QWay
fn>m th. ob.........
Note: the 0 axis is pointing at the observer

Figure 4: Nomenclature and coordinate system

Figure 3: Nomenclature and coordinate system
after the third transformation.
after the first two transformations
10 BHA Design and Steerability Optimization for Extended Reach Drilling SPE 28328

I -"""""
- --- ---.;
-
l2_ _ _ _.....I.oILi--____ La _ _ _ _ _...1

L1: d11unci f ..... till fici rtf til. b1t to til• • iddl. of til.
f1rlt .tab1l1z.r bled.
L2 dietlnc. between till .1ddll of till blld.1 rtf til.
f1rlt and til. locond ltab111zl"
L2 d11tlnco between till .1ddl. of till bladll rtf till
I.COnd Ind til. tll1rd Itab111ZI"

Figure 5: Building assembly configuration and nomenclature

•
a -- f (<I»
FL

Figure 6: Forces and direction at the bit·.

M) INC. lVD vs
11 11 11
0 0.00 0.00
4200 0 4200.00 0.00
4400 4399.88 6.98
1000
4600 4598.78 27.89
4800 12 4795.74 62.62
2000 5000 16 4989.80 111.00
5200 20 5180.01 172.80
5400 24 5365.45 247.72
3000 5600 28 5545.21 335.40
e OP.42OO1t 5800 32 5718.42 435.40
£ 4000 6000 36 5884.22 547.24
i
0
6200 40 6041.82 670.37

.
"8'E
:;.
5000

6000
and of 1\'st build BHA .6468 It
(lVD)
6400
6800
7000
7200
44
48
52
56
6190.45
6468.32
6596.87
6714.43
804.20
1091.93
1245.14
1406.94
end of bUld. 7206 It (lVD) 7400 60 6820.42 1576.55
7600 64 6914.31 1753.14
7000 7800 68 6995.66 1935.85
8000 72 7064.06 2123.79
8000 8200 76 7119.19 2316.04
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500 8400 80 7160.77 2511.67
8600 84 7188.61 2709.73
9000 8800 86 7206.04 2908.96
10000 86 7289.74 4106.04
Vllllcal SocIIon .11
15000 86 7638.53 9093.86

Rgure 7: Vertical section plane for the field case study.

SPE 28328 Mamdouh M. Agawani, Eric E. Maidla, Sheik S. Rahman 11

TABLE 1: BHA design for the first build up section

INC. PIPE Ll L2 L3 Fb=20K Ibf Fb=60 Klbf

deg in. ft ft ft FL,lbf FL/Fb FL,lbf FL/Fb S

20 7 3 42 50 2091 104.55 2434 40.56

34 7 3 42 50 2707 135.33 3514 58.56 76.00
48 7 3 42 50 3533 177.65 4087 68.12

20 8 3 42 59 2056 102.80 2425 40.42

34 8 3 42 59 2911 145.55 3148 52.SO 93.10
48 8 3 42 59 3592 179.60 3775 62.90

20 9 3 40 61 2178 108.90 2332 28.87

34 9 3 40 61 3031 151.55 3064 51.10 loo.SO
48 9 3 40 61 3748 187.40 3652 60.86

TABLE 2: BHA design for the second build up section

INC. PIPE Ll L2 L3 Fb=20K Ibf Fb=60 Klbf

deg in. ft ft ft FL ,Ibf FL/Fb FL Ibf FL/Fb S

48 7 3 39 51.5 2542 127.10 2847 47.45

67 7 3 39 51.5 3032 151.60 3284 54.70 96.87
86 7 3 39 51.5 3129 159.60 3397 56.62

48 8 3 39 58 2686 134.30 2762 46.03

67 8 3 39 58 3180 159.00 3054 SO.75 108.25
86 8 3 39 58 3306 165.30 3223 53.72

48 9 3 35 54 2779 138.95 2809 46.82

67 9 3 35 54 3212 160.60 3148 52.SO 108.10
86 9 3 35 54 3300 165.00 3223 53.70