Spe 212027 Ms

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/22NAIC/3-22NAIC/D031S014R003/2805976/spe-212027-ms.
pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 01 November 2022
SPE-212027-MS
Torque and Drag Calculations in Multilateral Wells
Darlington Etaje, Roman Shor, and Reza Lashkari, University of Calgary
Copyright 2022, Society of Petroleum Engineers DOI 10.2118/212027-MS
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria 1 - 3 August 2022.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract
Multilateral drilling technology has advanced to the point that it is now feasible to explore and extract
resources from previously unprofitable reservoirs. It may also help to enhance field development
management by allowing for more efficient fluid flow from the formation. Despite its various benefits,
a multilateral well has some drawbacks and requires a significant amount of technical work to optimize
drilling parameters and depth and well trajectory rise. The most critical issues occur for a fish-bone lateral
when the turns are formed for each lateral. The measurements of WOB are complex and may be inaccurate,
leading to torque and drag values that are miscalculated or misread. Currently, the soft-string model and
the intermittent contact due to drillstring stiffness are used in torque and drag models. But they also have
some limitations, such as the neglection of dimensional changes in the string components when assuming
clearance of contact and the inability to fully model the irregularity of the actual well path when assuming
complete contact throughout the wellbore. The suggested model is unique in its capacity to estimate
precisely anticipate drillstring-wellbore contact forces and solve torque and drag parameters from surface
to total depth using a conditional alternating use of the assumption that there is continuous contact of the
wellbore wall and the drill string while turning to each lateral and clearance between the drill string and
wellbore-wall when drilling through straight sections. The model shows how well path design calculation is
done for multilateral wells. A non-constant curvature trajectory is built into the model. The unique procedure
for calculating torque and drag in multi-lateral wells is explained with several actual field data tests.
Introduction
Over the last century, advances in drilling technology and processes have made it feasible to drill multilateral
wells, which are branching wells. Multilateral drilling is created after directional, sidetrack, and horizontal
drilling. This technology field has progressed from being an emerging technology to one that currently
allows for the commercial exploitation of previously uneconomic reserves. A successful multilateral well
may considerably decrease reservoir development costs by digging numerous lateral wells in one borehole,
expanding the oil-drainage area, and delivering more efficient fluid flow from the formation (Yanping,
Rongquan, Hui, & Jun, 2009). Furthermore, multilateral wells may improve field development management
and raise oil recovery rates (Mammadov, 2020). Such multilateral wells have shown significant promise for
cost-effective field development (Manshad et al., 2019).
2 SPE-212027-MS
Unique Calculations for Production in Multilateral Wells

"Root wells" are multilateral wells with laterals dug from main vertical wellbores. Fishbone wells are
multilateral wells with laterals dug out from main horizontal wellbores. Because all laterals (rib holes)
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/22NAIC/3-22NAIC/D031S014R003/2805976/spe-212027-ms.pdf/1 by Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Javidan Ibrahimli on 01 November 2022
share almost the same pressure in the main wellbore, predicting fishbone well production is straightforward
(backbone hole). Because the pressures in the laterals might be substantially varied, and wellbore hydraulics
plays a vital role, predicting root well productivity is more complex (Guo, Sun, & Ghalambor, 2014).
Fishbone Wells:
Figure 1—Schematic of a reservoir segment with a fishbone well draining it (Guo et al., 2014).
Before the rib holes start to interfere, the flow regime in a fishbone well might be pseudo linear. If the
drainage area is significant compared to the drilled section of the reservoir, the radial flow may dominate
later. Raghavan and Joshi (1993) proposed a mathematical model for predicting the productivity of root
wells. The model employs an effective wellbore radius (horizontal radial flow) to simulate fluid flow
to the horizontal drain holes. Retnanto and Economides (1996) proposed a straightforward definition
of multilateral well productivity for pseudo-steady-state flow. To cover the whole drainage region, they
combined a one-dimensional linear-flow model with a two-dimensional radial flow model to arrive at their
formulation. In the same way that Raghavan and Joshi (1993) offered a mathematical model, Larsen (1996)
proposed a mathematical model in which horizontal drain holes are mimicked by vertical wellbores situated
at the midpoints of the well components. Within the reservoir, a pseudo-linear-radial-combined model
assumes two regions: an inner drilled area and an outer non-drilled region. The model implies that pseudo-
steady-state pseudo linear flow between the rib holes dominates the inner area, while pseudo-steady-state
radial flow dominates the outside region (Guo et al., 2014). According to Furui et al. (2003), when you
solve equations for production rates, you get:
for oil reservoirs, and:
for gas reservoirs, where:

SPE-212027-MS 3
for gas reservoirs, and:
For gas reservoirs. The equivalent radius of the inner region may be estimated by:
where yb and L are the average rib hole drainage distance and rib hole length, respectively. The drainage
area shape factor CA may be computed based on the reservoir form and the position of the reservoir's inner
region if the fishbone well is used to drain an entire reservoir with physical no-flow barriers. If the fishbone
well is used to drain just a piece of a reservoir, the CA should be calculated using the drainage area's form,
with the inner region in the middle. The drainage area's aspect ratio (length to width) may be calculated
as follows:
CA = 39.51-8.5214RA may estimate the shape factor. All of the equations above are deterministic.
Therefore they may be used to forecast the actual well IPR. Different correlations that rely on the fluid type
may be used to predict the tubing performance relationship of fishbone wells.
Root Wells:
A root well's bottom segment comprises many horizontal wells joined together. However, the productivity
of a root well is not just the sum of the productivities of the different laterals due to pressure drops in the
wellbore sections unless the inflow performance relationships of all the laterals are correctly integrated with
knowledge of the wellbore hydraulics. A generalized root well construction is shown in Figure 2. The root
well may be seen as a succession of well branches, each with three sections: vertical, curved, and horizontal.
The symbols H, R, and L stand for the vertical length, the radius-of-curvature, and the horizontal length
of the vertical, curved, and horizontal sections, respectively. Figure 3 illustrates the parameters used to
characterize a root well. The notations K, h, and P represent permeability, thickness, and average pressure
in the reservoir area drained by a lateral branch. The pressures at the heel and kick-out point are denoted
by Pwf and Pkf, respectively. The symbols Phf and q represent wellhead pressure and well production rate.
4 SPE-212027-MS
To anticipate the production of a root well with n roots, apply the following trial-and-error technique (Guo
et al., 2014).
Figure 2—Structure of a simplified multilateral well (Guo et al., 2014).
Figure 3—Symbols to describe a multilateral well (Guo et al., 2014).
At the given wellhead flowing pressure phf n, assume a value of the total well flow rate qt, and calculate
the pressure at the kick-out point of lateral n and pkf n using the tubing performance relationship (TPR)
function ℑn:
Calculate the production rate by doing an inflow-outflow analysis for lateral n. Combine the TPR of the
curved section with the IPR of the horizontal section by solving for qn using the two relations below:
SPE-212027-MS 5
Where ℵn and ℜn are IPR, TPR (curved section) functions for the lateral n. Calculate the flowing pressure
at the kick-out point of lateral n-1 and pkf n-1 using the TPR function of the vertical section with flow rate
(qt-qn), that is:
Perform an inflow-outflow analysis for lateral n-1 to calculate the production rate from that lateral. This
is accomplished by combining the curved section's TPR and the horizontal section's IPR and then solving
for qn-1 using the following two relations:
Calculate the flowing pressure at the kick-out point of lateral n-2 and pkf n-2 using the TPR function of the
vertical section with flow rate (qt-qn-qn-1) that is,
Using the TPR function of the vertical section with flow rate (qt-qn-qn-1), calculate the flowing pressure
at the kick-out point of lateral n-2 and pkf n-2.
Calculate the production rate from lateral n-2 by doing an inflow-outflow analysis. Combine the TPR of
the curved section with the IPR of the horizontal section by solving for qn- 2 from the two relations below:
Steps 3 through 6 should be repeated until the lateral 1 (q1) flow rate is determined.
Compare the computed total flow rate (q1 + q2 + … + qn) to the qt (assumed total flow rate). If the (q1
+ q2 + … + qn) – qt exceeds the tolerance, use the value of (q1 + q2 + … + qn) as a new assumption for the
total flow rate qt and repeat steps 1–6.
Exit the loop if (q1 + q2 + … + qn) – qt is less than the set tolerance. Therefore, the qt is a projection of
the root well's production rate. The Hagedorn-Brown correlation, discussed in Chapter 5, may be used to
derive the tubing performance functions ℑ and ℜ for oil wells. Different IPR models may determine lateral
inflow performance relationship function ℵ.. One of the challenges in estimating root well productivity is
accounting for the mixed characteristics of fluids (oil, water, and gas) from all roots in hydraulics simulations
for various wellbore sections. The mixing rule may be used at any point trial-and-error process (Guo et
al., 2014).
Multilateral Well Drilling Dynamics

Drilling for oil, gas, and geothermal wells is a costly endeavour. Drilling operations often need specialized,
expensive equipment and technology. Drilling complicated wells, such as HPHT and horizontals,
6 SPE-212027-MS
necessitates the use of experienced workers. As a result, the operating firms want to finish and complete
their wells with the least amount of NPT and the least amount of money. They must take the necessary
measures and make the appropriate judgments before and during drilling. Torque and drag created in the
wellbore during drilling are one of the variables that often cause NPT. Miscalculated and misconstrued
values result in equipment and time losses, which have unfavourable outcomes. Many stiff string models
have been devised. However, there is no industry standard formulation, making the model impracticable.
(Çağlayan, 2014).
Torque and Drag Calculations Used in The Industry

Drilling these complicated wells demands precise planning to decrease drilling friction and achieve desired
goals within set precision, whether to access reserves remote from current facilities or to expose reservoir
portions for production and reservoir management benefits. These dangers include clogged pipes, worn drill
strings, and tiredness. This goal will be met by using torque and drag (T&D) models to anticipate precise
measurements of the drill string to borehole friction forces (Abughaban, 2017). During the well planning
stage, a torque and drag model is often employed to check if the planned well route can be drilled and finished
or not. It's also utilized to keep real-time track of torque and drag readings and take safeguards and preventive
measures when such values exceed the permissible limits (Çağlayan, 2014). The industry requires easy-to-
use instruments for torque and drag calculations so that field people can do accurate estimates quickly. It
has been noticed that field employees lack a thorough understanding of torque and drag theory and cannot
do rapid calculations to determine if the current drilling procedure is adhering to torque and drag limits.
Furthermore, the results of torque and drag calculations performed throughout the well route design process
may highlight potential hazards and help avoid issues from occurring. The well route may be constructed to
reduce torque and drag issues while efficiently hitting desired target reservoirs. Finally, when performing
unexpected operations or modifying the wellbore trajectory, the equipment required and drilling parameters
that must be used may be determined in a realistic way utilizing the results of torque and drag calculations
(Çağlayan, 2014).
Benefits Of Accurate Torque and Drag Calculations

Torque and drag caused by the contacts between the drill string and the borehole or casing are one of
the most significant restrictions in hydrocarbon exploration, particularly during directional drilling. As a
result, torque and drag analyses and calculations are critical for proper design to avoid equipment and
financial losses. Optimizing drilling parameters to limit or eliminate torque and drag is crucial to preserve
well conditions, avoid drill string failures, and minimize drilling costs. As a result, attention must be used to
maintain torque and drag within acceptable levels. Lower torque and drag might benefit drilling operations,
such as increased ROP and drilling interval. Torque and drag modelling is a valuable tool for well design,
but it is also helpful in predicting and preventing drilling difficulties (Çağlayan, 2014).
Difficulty of Torque and Drag in Multi-Laterals

Lower torque and drag might benefit drilling operations, such as increased ROP and drilling interval. Torque
and drag modelling is a valuable tool for well design, but it is also helpful in predicting and preventing
drilling difficulties (Butler, Grossmann, Parlin, & Sekhon, 2017). Despite its numerous advantages,
directional drilling has several drawbacks and requires a significant amount of technical effort since
adjusting drilling parameters becomes more complex as the well grows more profound and the well
trajectory changes. Torque and drag, caused by friction between the borehole and the drill string, are two
of the most significant restrictions. Torque and drag created in the wellbore during drilling are one of the
SPE-212027-MS 7
variables that often cause NPT. Equipment and time are lost due to miscalculated and misread values, which
has unintended repercussions (Çağlayan, 2014).
Step By Step Guide to Doing Torque and Drag Calculations in Multilateral
Wells
T&D models nowadays are either based on continuous drill string to wellbore contact (soft-string model) or
intermittent contact owing to drill string stiffness (stiff-string model) (Abughaban, 2017). The original T&D
researchers created rudimentary models; the idea was, presumably, to start simple and build complexity
as needed. Because the whole drill string is considered to have negligible bending stiffness, these models
are now known as "soft string." It's possible that early researchers were astonished by how well, or even
that, such a simple model functioned. On the other hand, soft-string variants are the workhorse of today's
business. Consider the drill string a weighted cable to visualize the underlying physics for soft-string models
(Mason & Chen, 2007). The weighted cable's geometry completely matches the shape of the wellbore,
ensuring that the drill string's inclination, azimuth, and curvature at each point along the wellbore are
identical. Because of friction with the wellbore, drag is created by the axial movement of the drill string up
or down. A force of magnitude equal to the coefficient of friction multiplied by the normal (or contact) force
between the drill string and the wellbore determines resistance to drill string movement (Sheppard, Wick,
& Burgess, 1987). Torque is generated by the drill string's circumferential, or rotary, movement against
the wellbore, produced by friction. The critical issue is estimating the resistance to rotational motion and
deciding on a moment arm radius. The torque radius was two-thirds of the distance between the pipe-body
radius and the tool-joint radius (Johancsik, Friesen, & Dawson, 1984), and it was a valid assumption that
tool joints carry two-thirds of the side load and the pipe body one-third. Others have used the tool-joint
radius as the torque radius, probably based on the idea that tool joints carry the full sideload, or contact
force, implying that the pipe body is not in touch with the wellbore. Because of these assumptions, the soft-
string model cannot have radial clearance between the wellbore and any point along the drill string. On the
other hand, one of the most significant advantages of these assumptions is that they eliminate a difficult
problem: determining all contact sites between the drill string and the wellbore (Tikhonov et al., 2014).
Every torque and drag model should consider drill string components, their weights, casing depths,
formation types, frictional forces, drilling fluid density, and sound profile (inclination and azimuth)
(Çağlayan, 2014).
Soft String Model:

The frictional force is calculated by multiplying the normal force between the wellbore and the drill string
by the friction coefficient (Çağlayan, 2014).
The normal force, Fn, the equation is shown in equation 1:
(1)
where Ft is the tension force at the lower end of the string element. ∆ф is the change in azimuth angle over
the string element. θ is the inclination at the lower end of the string element. W is the buoyed weight of
the string element. After calculating the normal force, equations 2 and 3 are used to compute the change
in tension and torque (Çağlayan, 2014):
(2)
(3)
Where ∆T is the increment in tension across the string element. ∆M s the increment in torque across
the string element. μ is the coefficient of friction between the string and wellbore. R is the radius of the
string element. The Soft String Torque and Drag Models all assume the drill string consists of small pieces
8 SPE-212027-MS
connected by connections that transfer torsion, tension, and compression but not bending moment. Starting
at the bottom of the drill string and working upward to the surface, the fundamental equations of friction
are applied to each segment. Each tiny period of drill string provides torque, drag, and weight increases.
The cumulative loads on the string are calculated by adding forces and torque values. The weight on the bit
and bit torque values for drilling operations are stated as initial conditions at the bit (Çağlayan, 2014).
Stiff String Model:

The bending stiffness does not contribute to the normal force in the curved portion, according to studies by
(Ho, 1986), (McSpadden & Newman, 2002) and (Mitchell & Samuel, 2009) for wellbores with continuous
curvature. The central notion is that a non-constant curvature trajectory (i.e., a spline) must be used to
account for stiffness. The first and second derivatives of the well-path (non-zero first and second-order
derivatives) exist. The assumption of a non-constant curvature trajectory (i.e., spline) in which the well-
first path's and second derivatives (non-zero first and second-order derivative) exist would need complex
advanced trajectory computations. Furthermore, assuming a stand-off between the pipe and the wellbore and
calculating the pipe's deflection equation in the wellbore, then calculating the second and third derivatives
of the deflection to obtain the bending moment and shearing forces, results in complicated differential
equations with unknown boundary conditions that are difficult to determine. The following assumptions
have been made in this model (Mirhaj, Kaarstad, & Aadnoy, 2016):
• It is unaffected by curvature.
• NORMAL force will be added to the force necessary to form the pipe along the wellbore. The
bending moment produced at a bend produces this extra normal force. Increased friction force
based on the Coulomb friction model will be estimated from the additional normal force.
• Because the model is for a constant curvature bend, it will generate a constant bending moment,
and the corresponding normal force will be computed from this constant bending moment.
• At the bottom of the curved portion, where the curved and straight parts meet, all equal normal
forces will be applied. This is a conservative assumption. Thus, the bending moment and
corresponding normal force in the bend will be overestimated.
• At the straight and curved parts intersection, friction caused by corresponding normal force will
be added to the 3D soft-string model.
• Even for constant curvature well-paths and continuous contact between the wellbore-wall and the
pipe, this basic model will account for pipe stiffness.
The diagram below depicts how the model will behave in a curve. The curved section is assumed to
be fixed at one place, and a constant bending force, M, is applied at the support. The goal is to figure out
how much more normal force is generated by the bending moment, M. One thing to remember is that the
normal force F is perpendicular to the bent at each location, which is why a constant bending moment will
be generated throughout the bend. As a result, the bending moment may be calculated assuming that the
arm length is equal to the curve length (Figure 4) (Mirhaj et al., 2016).
SPE-212027-MS 9
Figure 4—A constant bending moment along the constant-curvature
bend by a curved segment fixed at one end (Mirhaj et al., 2016).
The fixed end (support-end) of the wellbore is regarded as the start of the bend, and the extra normal
force is computed at the opposite end of the curved section as follows: We begin by calculating the bending
moment as follows.
Substituting equation (1) into (2) will give:
Force Fstiff is the additional normal force due to pipe stiffness in the bend. This force also indicates the
force needed to conform the string to the borehole's shape. The frictional force from F will now be estimated
using equation (3) and the Coulomb friction model assumption:
The soft-string model was created in the shape of:
The stiff-string model has the same shape, except the F1 will be replaced by F*1 in which:
The general stiff-string axial load is equal to the sum of the available 3D soft-string axial load and the
extra frictional force:
Identify The Difference in The Calculation Of Soft String and Stiff String
Models
The drill string is supposed to operate like a cable/chain in the soft-string model, with shearing forces
and bending moments having a minimal contribution to regular forces and consequently friction. In many
circumstances, this is a reasonable assumption. (Johancsik et al., 1984) created soft-string torque and drag
modelling, which was eventually converted into a standard differential form (Sheppard et al., 1987). It has
been widely utilized in industrial applications due to its simplicity and user-friendliness.
The most crucial challenges limiting the drilling industry's ability to proceed beyond a given measured
depth are wellbore friction, torque, and drag between the drill string and the wellbore wall. As a result,
several experiments on torque and drag modelling have been conducted. Different methodologies have
10 SPE-212027-MS
been employed in this respect, with the main distinction being how to integrate bending stiffness and
shearing forces in T&D calculations. These approaches are (1) the effect of shear forces calculations with
the assumption of continuous contact between the wellbore wall and the drill string as well as a constant
curvature trajectory, (2) the effect of bending stiffness and shearing forces calculations with the assumption
of clearance between the drill string and wellbore-wall, and (3) the effect of bending moment and shearing
forces calculations with the assumption of continuous contact between the pipe and wellbore-wall and a
non-constant curvature trajectory (i.e. spline type trajectories) (Mirhaj et al., 2016).
Today's T&D models assume either continuous drill string to wellbore contact (soft-string model) or
intermittent contact owing to drill string stiffness (intermittent contact model) (the stiff-string model).
Because the wellbore trajectory is based on the least curvature approach, the bending parameter, change
in the rate of curvature, and geometric torsion in the T&D equilibrium equations are all zero in both
circumstances (MCM) (Abughaban, 2017). The Soft String Model is the most often used model in the
business, while the Stiff String Model is challenging to implement and has no commercial formulation.
Soft String Model:

The Soft String Model was established by (Johancsik et al., 1984) as a model for directional wells that
ignored tubular stiffness effects and assumed the drill string was made up of soft components with weight.
Along the wellbore, the string is handled as a heavy cable, which means the wellbore supports contact
forces, and the string supports torque forces and axial tension. The calculation of the friction coefficient
is crucial for the practical uses of this model. (Mason & Chen, 2007) investigated the Soft String Model,
which posits that the stresses on the drill string are only caused by gravity and frictional drag caused by the
contact between the wellbore and the drill string. The most crucial assumption is that the drill string is in
continuous contact with the wellbore from bottom to top, ignoring radial clearance effects and the bending
moment in the Soft String Model (Çağlayan, 2014).
Stiff String Model

According to (Mason & Chen, 2007), a Stiff String Model should consider string bending stiffness and radial
clearance between the drill string and the wellbore since some drill string segments are not in touch with
the wellbore. Higher sidewall forces occur when stiff tubular is pushed around deviated parts, and lower
sidewall forces occur as the pipe straightens. There will be changes in the contact area between the wellbore
and a string component. A Stiff String Model must account for concentrated bending forces by drilling pipe
couplings, stabilizers, and casing centralizers. A Stiff String Model is intended to be a more realistic method
that accounts for stresses and pressures operating on the string and borehole wall. (Çağlayan, 2014). The
following scenarios are deemed to be more relevant for stiff string models:
• Radial clearances are restricted in well designs.
• Well-designed trajectories with a lot of twists and turns.
• Paths with a high degree of dogleg severity (DLS).
• Stiff tubular casing is used to run the casing.
A wide range of numerical approaches is required to produce a Stiff String Model, making it more difficult
to solve than Soft String Models.
Summary
Soft string and stiff string mathematical models are the two kinds of mathematical models used in T&D
software. The soft-string variant is the industry standard and is widely accessible. It is employed because
of the algorithm's simplicity, the fact that it can be calculated quickly on even the most basic laptop
SPE-212027-MS 11
computer, and the results are accurate enough for frequent drilling circumstances. Soft-string models have
been replaced with stiff-string ones, which produce more accurate results. Soft-string models provide poor
results when the tubular is stiff, the dogleg severity is severe (short radius of curvature), or the annulus has a
limited radial clearance (Mason & Chen, 2007). All stiff-string models are not created equal. Some consider
bending stiffness but not radial clearance, while others take into account both (Tikhonov et al., 2014).
Avoiding Errors in Torque and Drag Calculations in Multilateral Wells

Drilling and completing extended-reach and horizontal wells with 3D geometry are complicated by
excessive torque and drag. Torque and drag modelling are essential tools for well design and predicting and
preventing drilling issues. Because of the high friction, some wells may be bored but not finished. Because
stiff-string models are more sophisticated than soft-string models, soft-string models should be used unless
using such models creates significant mistakes in the computations.
Shortcomings of Soft-String Models

Because most of the drill string consists of a jointed drill pipe (or heavyweight drill pipe, for that matter)
with considerably different outer diameters for the connection (tool joint) and the pipe body, it is challenging
to provide radial clearance. It is simply not accurate to assume that the jointed drill pipe is in continuous
contact over its whole length. A considerably more logical assumption would be that each drill string
component's most oversized outer diameter is in connection with the wellbore, while the smaller-diameter
components are not. The inability to predict radial clearance is irrelevant when calculating T&D using
soft-string assumptions since the friction forces on the drill string are independent of the surface area in
contact. Soft-string models, as previously stated, ignore bend stiffness, implying that there is no resistance
to column buckling. Horizontal wells were not dug, at least not consistently, until soft-string models were
invented in the early 1980s. Best practices for drill string design back then recommended keeping the
neutral point in the drill collars so that the drill pipe was never run in compression on purpose. This
procedure was created to ensure that drill pipe buckling was not possible. On the other hand, horizontal
drilling became popular in the late 1980s and is now widely used. The introduction of horizontal drilling
necessitated significant modifications in drill string design. Both heavyweight and standard drill pipes are
now occasionally intentionally run-in compression. As a result, as a necessity for drilling horizontal wells,
it is critical to foresee the beginning of buckling in drill pipes. However, the lack of radial clearance in soft-
string T&D models is a significant stumbling block (Tikhonov et al., 2014).
Stiff-String Models
New and more complicated models were created to address the inadequacies of soft-string models. The
stiff-string model is a broad category that encompasses all the other variants.
Inclusion of Bending Stiffness

Ho (1988) analyzed the flaws in the soft-string model and proposed an updated model that "combines a
bottom hole assembly analysis in the stiff collar region, combined with an improved soft string model for the
rest of the drill string." The bending stiffness of the drill string is included as an enhancement, but the drill
string is still expected to remain in continuous contact with the well-bore (Ho 1988). Mitchell and Samuel
(2007) investigated the conventional soft-string concept using an analytical approach like Ho's (1986, 1988).
Mitchell (2008) improved the original soft-string model by using a spline model instead of the generally
utilized minimum-curvature-interpolation approach for directional surveys. "Less than 0.10 second on a
contemporary personal computer," according to the description. Spline interpolation is becoming more
widely accepted in the industry as better representing the expected drill string arrangement than minimum
curvature. Mitchell's spline model, on the other hand, assumed that the drill string matched the well-path
curvature (using the enhanced spline well path), keeping it in constant contact with the wellbore. As a
12 SPE-212027-MS
result, radial clearance, an essential component of a holistic stiff-string model, is not allowed in this model
(Tikhonov et al., 2014).
Preliminary Results of Torque and Drag Analysis for a Multilateral Well
Consider a multilateral fishbone well with 2 laterals dug out on either side. This plan was derived from
a horizontal program shown in the figure below. Some tweaks were made on the horizontal path with the
same operations data to achieve several laterals.
The tables below show measured depth, azimuth, and inclination progression.
Table 1.0—Lateral 1: Left
Measured Depth (ft) Inclination Azimuth
10206.69 89.29 314.93
10225.46 89.64 314.92
10273.03 90.03 314.56
10500 90.03 314
11000 90.03 328
11200 90.03 333
11400 90.03 8
12000 90.03 8
18487 90.03 8
Table 2.0—Lateral 1: Right
10206.69 89.29 314.93
10225.46 89.64 314.92
10273.03 90.03 314.56
10500 90.03 314
11000 90.03 300
11200 90.03 295
11400 90.03 260
12000 90.03 260
18487 90.03 260

SPE-212027-MS 13
Table 3.0—Lateral 2: Left
10206.69 89.29 314.93
10225.46 89.64 314.92
10273.03 90.03 314.56
10500 90.03 314
11000 90.03 314
11500 90.03 328
11700 90.03 333
11900 90.03 8
12500 90.03 8
18487 90.03 8
Table 4.0—Lateral 2: Right
10206.69 89.29 314.93
10225.46 89.64 314.92
10273.03 90.03 314.56
10500 90.03 314
11000 90.03 314
11500 90.03 300
11700 90.03 295
11900 90.03 260
12500 90.03 260
18487 90.03 260
Here are the various well path plots

SPE-212027-MS
When run as a multilateral fishbone well, the plot is as below.

14
SPE-212027-MS 15
Here are the general formulas that apply to both the soft string model and stiff string model for torque
and drag calculations
The next two figures show you the drag plots when the laterals are run as a stand alone drilling program.
16 SPE-212027-MS
The key point to note here is how the slack off weight begin to reduce drastically as the hole turns into
those lateral segments. One can really appreciate the sharp difference when the drag is computed for a
horizontal well staying on approximately same azimuth: no major turns into laterals.
The most important conclusion is that during those lateral turns, weight is lost in the pull up weight and
weight is gained in the slack off weight. This could have very significant meaning for the decision-making
team at the surface. The drilling team could be overestimating the slack off weight and potentially lead to
tool damage. Next is to look at torque calculations for each of these laterals. This is shown in the plots
below. A constant weight on bit of 30,000 lb and downhole torque of 12,100 was applied to the calculations.
SPE-212027-MS 17
The interesting analogy is that the kinds of effects for drag differences between turning into laterals and
staying on minimal azimuth changes do not exist for torque analysis. As shown below, the torque plot for
the minimal azimuth changes in the lateral is quite like the plots above. The fact that rotation is ongoing,
frees up any significant reductions or increases.
18 SPE-212027-MS
Conclusion
Analyzing torque and drag for multilateral wells requires attention to pull-up weight and slack-off weight
changes when the well path turns into the laterals. There could be significant increases and decreases in
these values leading to poor pre-BHA planning. The recommendation would be to run simulations using
offset well for all scenarios to be doubly sure of the predicted drag plots.
Abbreviations
TPR Tubing performance relationship
T&D Torque and drag
MCM Minimum curvature method
DLS Dogleg severity (°/30 m)
IPR Inflow Performance Relationship
TPR Tubing performance relationship
Symbols
qg Gas production rate Mscf/d
JPL Inner ragion productivity index (Mscf/d-psi2)
JR Reservoir productivity index (Mscf/d-psi2)
Reservoir pressure (Psi)
Pwf pressures at heel point (Psi)
KH Effective horizontal permeability (md)
µo Oil viscosity (cp)
Bo Oil formation volume factor (rb/stb)
h Pay zone thickness (ft)
Iani anisotropy index
S Average rib hole skin factor
Gas viscosity (cp)
SPE-212027-MS 19
Average gas compressibility factor

T Temperature in °R
rw Average rib hole radius (ft)
D non-Darcy flow coefficient
q Liquid flow rate (bbl/d)
A Well drainage area (acres)
γ the specific gravity of the liquid relative to water
CA Drainage area shape factor
rPL The equivalent radius of the inner region (ft)
Rib hole length (ft)
average rib hole drainage distance (ft)
n Number of rib holes
Pkf Pressures at kick-out point
PPL Average pressure at the edge of the inner region (Psi)
Phf wellhead pressure (Psi)
ℑ Tubing performance relationship function
qt Total well flow rate
ℵn IPR function for the lateral n
ℜn TPR function for the lateral n
Fn Normal force (lbf)
Ft Tension force at the lower end of the string element (lbf)
W Buoyed weight of the string element (lbf)
R Radius of the string element (ft)
µ Coefficient of Friction
M Bending moment (N.m)
E Young Modulus of Elasticity (Pa)
I Moment of Inertia (M4)
Fstiff Additional normal force due to pipe stiffness in the bend (N)
L Critical survey distance (m)
α Inclination angle (degree)
β Azimuth (degree)
W Unit weight of the pipe (Kg/m)
F1 Axial force at the beginning of the curved section (N)
F2 Axial force at the end of the curved section (N)
Axial force (drag) at the beginning of curved section with taking pipe stiffness into
account (N)
Axial force (drag) at the end of curved section with taking pipe stiffness into account
(N)
Greek letters
∆φ Change in azimuth angle over the string element (degree)
θ Inclination at the lower end of the string element (degree)
∆T Increment in tension across the string element
∆M Increment in torque across the string element
∆L Pipe incremental length (m)
20 SPE-212027-MS
References
Abughaban, M. (2017). Extending the reach of drilling: better wellbore trajectory and torque & drag models: Colorado
School of Mines.
Butler, B., Grossmann, A., Parlin, J., & Sekhon, C. (2017). Study of multilateral-well-construction reliability. SPE Drilling
& Completion, 32(01), 42–50. doi:https://doi.org/10.2118/175437-PA
Çağlayan, B. K. (2014). Torque and Drag Applications for Deviated and Horizontal wells: A case study.
Guo, B., Sun, K., & Ghalambor, A. (2014). Well productivity handbook: Elsevier.
Ho, H.-S. (1986). General Formulation of Drillstring under large deformation and its use in BHA analysis. Paper presented
at the SPE Annual technical conference and exhibition.
Johancsik, C., Friesen, D., & Dawson, R. (1984). Torque and drag in directional wells-prediction and measurement.
Journal of petroleum technology, 36(06), 987–992.
Mammadov, S. (2020). Selection of Technologies for Multilateral Wells' Completion in the Achimov Formations of
Yamburg Field. The University of Leoben.
Manshad, A. K., Dastgerdi, M. E., Ali, J. A., Mafakheri, N., Keshavarz, A., Iglauer, S., & Mohammadi, A. H. (2019).
Economic and productivity evaluation of different horizontal drilling scenarios: Middle East oil fields as case
study. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 9(4), 2449–2460. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13202-019-0687-9
Mason, C., & Chen, D. C. (2007). Step changes needed to modernize T&D software. Paper presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference.
McSpadden, A., & Newman, K. (2002). Development of a stiff-string forces model for coiled tubing. Paper presented at
the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition.
Mirhaj, S., Kaarstad, E., & Aadnoy, B. (2016). Torque and drag modelling; soft-string versus stiff-string models. Paper
presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition.
Mitchell, R. F., & Samuel, R. (2009). How good is the torque/drag model? SPE Drilling & Completion, 24(01), 62–71.
Sheppard, M., Wick, C., & Burgess, T. (1987). Designing well paths to reduce drag and torque. SPE Drilling Engineering,
2(04), 344–350.
Tikhonov, V., Valiullin, K., Nurgaleev, A., Ring, L., Gandikota, R., Chaguine, P., & Cheatham, C. (2014). A dynamic
model for stiff-string torque and drag. SPE Drilling & Completion, 29(03), 279–294.
Yanping, Z., Rongquan, R., Hui, W., & Jun, W. (2009). Multilateral drilling & completion technology based on a
Solid Expandable Tubular fixing system. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 36(6), 768–775. DOI:https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(10)60008-0

Spe 212027 Ms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 212027 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPENAIC/proceedings-pdf/22NAIC/3-22NAIC/D031S014R003/2805976/spe-212027-ms.

Torque and Drag Calculations in Multilateral Wells

Darlington Etaje, Roman Shor, and Reza Lashkari, University of Calgary

Copyright 2022, Society of Petroleum Engineers DOI 10.2118/212027-MS

Unique Calculations for Production in Multilateral Wells

for oil reservoirs, and:

for gas reservoirs, where:

for gas reservoirs, and:

for oil reservoirs, and:

Figure 3—Symbols to describe a multilateral well (Guo et al., 2014).

Multilateral Well Drilling Dynamics

Torque and Drag Calculations Used in The Industry

Benefits Of Accurate Torque and Drag Calculations

Difficulty of Torque and Drag in Multi-Laterals

Soft String Model:

Stiff String Model:

Substituting equation (1) into (2) will give:

The soft-string model was created in the shape of:

Soft String Model:

Stiff String Model

• Radial clearances are restricted in well designs.

• Well-designed trajectories with a lot of twists and turns.

• Paths with a high degree of dogleg severity (DLS).

• Stiff tubular casing is used to run the casing.

Avoiding Errors in Torque and Drag Calculations in Multilateral Wells

Shortcomings of Soft-String Models

Inclusion of Bending Stiffness

Table 1.0—Lateral 1: Left

Measured Depth (ft) Inclination Azimuth

10206.69 89.29 314.93

10225.46 89.64 314.92

10273.03 90.03 314.56

10500 90.03 314

11000 90.03 328

11200 90.03 333

Table 2.0—Lateral 1: Right

Measured Depth (ft) Inclination Azimuth

10206.69 89.29 314.93

10225.46 89.64 314.92

10273.03 90.03 314.56

10500 90.03 314

11000 90.03 300

11200 90.03 295

11400 90.03 260

12000 90.03 260

18487 90.03 260

Table 3.0—Lateral 2: Left

Measured Depth (ft) Inclination Azimuth

10206.69 89.29 314.93

10273.03 90.03 314.56

10500 90.03 314

11000 90.03 314

11500 90.03 328

11700 90.03 333

Table 4.0—Lateral 2: Right

Measured Depth (ft) Inclination Azimuth

10206.69 89.29 314.93

10225.46 89.64 314.92

10273.03 90.03 314.56

10500 90.03 314

11000 90.03 314

11500 90.03 300

11700 90.03 295