Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121 – 132

www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

A finite element model for analyzing horizontal well BHA behavior

F. Akgun *
Petroleum Engineering, The Petroleum Institute, P.O. Box 17555, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Horizontal wells are proven to be better producers because they can be extended for a long distance in the pay zone.
Engineers have the technical means to forecast the well productivity for a given horizontal length. However, experiences
have shown that the actual production rate is often significantly less than that of forecasted. There are a number of reasons
for the discrepancy of predicted to actual production rates in horizontal wells. However, it is a difficult task, if not
impossible, to identify the real reason why a horizontal well is not producing what was forecasted. Often, the source of
problem lies in the drilling of horizontal section such as permeability reduction in the pay zone due to mud invasion or snaky
well patterns created during drilling. Although drillers aim to drill a constant inclination hole once in the pay zone, the more
frequent outcome is a sinusoidal wellbore trajectory.
Logging while drilling (LWD) and real time measurement of resistivity at bit help drill in the pay zone by constant
monitoring of borehole trajectory and formation boundaries. Rotary steerable tools (RTS) allow spontaneous intervention to
drilling direction and inclination if run with LWD tools. Nevertheless, there are still many cases where LWD cannot be
deployed due to technical difficulties. One such case was noticed in the Middle East where LWD sensors were worn out
completely during 1 h run time due to extreme formation abrasiveness. In the absence of LWD and RTS, it becomes a
challenging task to drill a constant inclination borehole which will be addressed in this paper.
The two factors, which play an important role in wellbore tortuosity, are the inclination and side force at bit. A constant
inclination horizontal well can only be drilled if the bit face is maintained perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of bottom
hole assembly (BHA) while keeping the side force nil at the bit. This approach assumes that there exists no formation force
at bit. Hence, an appropriate BHA can be designed if bit side force and bit tilt are determined accurately.
Finite element method (FEM) used in this study determines the bit side force and bit tilt simultaneously. The FEM is
superior to existing analytical techniques because it can accommodate many more independent parameters which otherwise
cannot be taken into account. As a matter of fact, it is believed that oversimplification of actual physical phenomena with
unacceptable assumptions is the major source of error with existing BHA designs.
This paper presents an FEM technique in assessing the bit tilt and side forces and compares the results with the existing
techniques.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Horizontal well; BHA; Trajectory; Stabilizer

1. Introduction

Bottom hole assembly (BHA) is the part of drill

* Tel.: +971-50-663-5029; fax: +971-3-508-5100. string that affects the trajectory of borehole by bit
E-mail address: Fakgun@uaeu.ac.ae (F. Akgun). side force and tilt (Adam et al., 1991). The bit side

0920-4105/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2003.12.005
122 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132

force is the controlling factor for hard formations 2. Estimation of the bit side force based on existing
(i.e., drilling rates 1 to 10 ft/h). For formations that analytical techniques
are soft to medium hard, the side force is not the
only component that will influence the inclination A set of equations has been derived and published
and direction of the bit; the bit tilt becomes influ- (Jiazhi, 1986; Adam et al., 1991; Agawani et al.,
ential as well. Because of the curvature of the BHA 1994) to determine the bit side force based on ‘‘three
near the bit, the bit is canted or tilted in some moment equation’’. These equations are derived
resultant direction and inclination, somewhat like depending on how many stabilizers are attached such
the bent housing and bent sub (Adam et al., 1991). as slick BHA, single-stabilizer BHA and two-stabi-
Side force becomes a controlling factor once again lizer BHA. In all three cases, the essence of this
for very soft formations (i.e., drilling rates in excess technique is to determine the point of contact be-
of 100 ft/h). tween the pipe and wall of the hole called ‘tangency
For a given BHA, the bit side force and tilt point’.
depends on a number of parameters. These param-
eters are hole, drill collar and stabilizer sizes, BHA Slick BHA
material properties, mud weight, stabilizer locations,
borehole inclination, direction, contact length and Slick BHA has no stabilizers attached to it. The
location between pipe and hole and, finally, weight tangency point in this case is the first point where pipe
on bit. Unfortunately, analytical techniques derived departs from the borehole wall above the bit. The bit
to estimate bit side force ignores some of these side force, FB, is determined from
parameters for the sake of simplicity. For example,
the analytical method developed based on ‘‘three
FB ¼ 0:5Wc LT Bc sin/
moment equation’’ ignores the effect of pipe to
wall contact as well as hole curvature (Timoshenko, ðWOB  0:5Wc Bc LT cos/ÞS 3
1936; Jiazhi, 1986). Other techniques have been þ ð1Þ
LT
developed to handle the wellbore curvature, vari-
able gauge holds and combination BHA compo-
LT in the equation is the first point tangency and is
nents, and situations in which pipe/wall contact
measured from the bit. It has to be estimated before
occurs between the bit and stabilizers, as well as
substituting in Eq. (1). LT is determined by trial and
the cases in which increases in weight on bit force
error as following.
the creation of additional points of contact (Walker,
1977; Milheim and Apostal, 1981; Agawani et al.,
1994, 1996).
Table 1
Finite element method (FEM) has a long history Slick BHA bit side forces
of being successfully used to model solid structure Analytical method FEM
deformations and stresses. It has been used exten-
WOB (lbf) LT (ft) FB (lbf) LT (ft) FB (lbf)
sively to model oil field tubulars for a number of
reasons such as to model casing deformations 0 52.32  151.8a 49.2  150.4
10,000 50.83  133.2 48.3  132.0
(Akgun et al., 1992) and to predict drill pipe 20,000 49.38  113.9 46.7  112.8
stability (Akgun et al., 1996). It is an ideal tool in 30,000 47.98  93.9 45.0  92.9
analyzing BHA as well. The FEM designed for this 40,000 46.63  73.1 44.2  72.4
study helps assess bit side forces without accepting 50,000 45.33  51.6 42.5  51.1
many dangerous assumptions as in the analytical 60,000 44.08  29.2 41.7  29.0
70,000 42.89  6.1 40.8  6.1
case. It helps estimate the bit tilt simultaneously 80,000 41.75 + 17.8 39.2 17.7
which cannot be done practically with existing
db = 8 3/4 in; ODDC = 7 in; IDDC = 2 3/16 in; MW = 9.2 lb/gal;
analytical techniques. Furthermore, it can easily be / = 3.2j.
used to study the effects of stabilizers on the side a
‘  ’ sign indicates dropping tendency, whereas ‘ + ’ sign
force and bit tilt (Akgun, 1999). indicates building tendency.
 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132 123

Assume an initial guess for LT and calculate new Table 2

L TV from Eq. (2). If LT is not equal to L TV , then set new Slick BHA in a near-horizontal well
LT = L TV and repeat the procedure until LT agrees with Analytical method FEM
L TV . WOB (lbf) LT (ft) FB (lbf) LT (ft) FB (lbf)
0 25.2  1,280 24.2  1,287

 14 Deflection of the BHA axis from the borehole center at 0-WOB

24EIS with FEM
L TV ¼ ð2Þ
Wc Bc sin/X Distance Deflection
from the (in)
bit (ft)
24.2 0.875
3ðtanu  uÞ 23.3 0.874
X ¼ ð3Þ 22.5 0.873
u3 21.7 0.870
20.8 0.866
20.0 0.860
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 19.2 0.852
LT WOB  0:5Wc Bc LT cos/ 18.3 0.842
u¼ ð4Þ 17.5 0.830
2 EI 16.7 0.816
15.8 0.799
15.0 0.779
14.2 0.756
Tables 1 and 2 show the deflection of the BHA axis 13.3 0.731
near the bit, the bit side forces and the tangency 12.5 0.703
length, LT, for a slick BHA. The negative sign 11.7 0.672
10.8 0.639
indicates a net dropping tendency, whereas positive 10.0 0.602
indicates building tendency. Zero side force indicates 9.2 0.563
holding tendency. 8.3 0.522
7.5 0.478
Single-stabilizer BHA 6.7 0.431
5.8 0.383
5.0 0.332
As in the previous case, side force can be deter- 4.2 0.280
mined from Eq. (5) as a function of tangency point. 3.3 0.226
2.5 0.170
1.7 0.114
0.8 0.057
Bc Wc1 L1 sin/ BIT 0.000
FB ¼  db = 8 3/4 in; ODDC = 7 in; IDDC = 2 3/16 in; MW = 9.2 lb/gal; / = 89j.
2
/ = 89j.
ðWOB  0:5Wc1 Bc L1 cos/ÞS 1  m
þ ð5Þ
L1
and calculating LT from Eq. (6). If LT is not equal to
L2, then set new L2 = LT and repeat the procedure until
The tangency point, LT, is the first point where pipe LT agrees with L2.
departs from the borehole wall above the stabilizer.
However, LT stands for the length from stabilizer up to
the tangency point.
 14
The same analysis technique can be applied to 24EIðS 3  S 1 Þ  4mL2T W2
LT ¼ ð6Þ
determine LT by assuming an initial guess for L2 q2 x 2
124 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132

q1 L21 q2 L32 I1 6EI1 S 1 6EI1 ðS 1  S 3 Þ Table 3

 X1  X2 þ þ Single-stabilizer BHA bit side forces
4 4L1 I2 L21 L1 L2
m¼   Analytical method FEM
L2 I1
2 V1 þ V2 WOB (lbf) LT (ft) FB (lbf) LT (ft) FB (lbf)
L1 I2
10,000 66.91 3031 61.7 2983
ð7Þ
20,000 66.21 3044 60.8 2993
30,000 65.52 3058 60.0 3004
40,000 64.85 3073 59.2 3014
50,000 64.18 3087 58.3 3028
q1 ¼ Wc1 Bc sin/ ð8Þ
60,000 65.52 3101 58.3 3037
L 1 = 5 ft; d b = 12 1/4 in; ODDC = 8 in; IDDC = 2 13/16 in;
q2 ¼ Wc2 Bc sin/ ð9Þ ds = 12.21875 in; MW = 10.5 lb/gal; / = 10j.

2.3. Two-stabilizer BHA


3 1 1
W2 ¼  ð10Þ The two stabilizer BHA can also be solved with the
u2 sinð2u2 Þ 2u2
same technique. The distance between the second
stabilizer and the point of tangency (L3) is unknown,

 and, as in the previous two cases, L3 must be guesses
3 1 1 initially.
Vi ¼  ð11Þ
2ui 2ui tanð2ui Þ This solution technique accommodates three dif-
ferent collar diameters and material types. Once L3 is
where i = 1 and 2 determined, the two moments, m1 and m2, can be
determined and the bit side force can be calculated
3ðtanui  ui Þ from the following equations:
Xi ¼ ð12Þ
u3i
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
L1 WOB  0:5Wc1 Bc L1 cos/ Wc Bc L1
u1 ¼ ð13Þ FB ¼ sin/
2 EI1 2
 
Wc1 Bc L1
WOB  cos/ S 1  m1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2
þ ð17Þ
L2 WOB  Wc1 Bc L1  0:5Wc2 Bc L2 cos/ L1
u1 ¼
2 EI2
 
ð14Þ db  ds1
S 1 ¼ 0:5 ð18Þ
12

 
db  ds2
S 1 ¼ 0:5ðdb  ds1 Þ ð15Þ S 2 ¼ 0:5 ð19Þ
12

 
S 3 ¼ 0:5ðdb  d2 Þ ð16Þ db  d2
S 3 ¼ 0:5 ð20Þ
12

Table 3 shows the side forces and LT for a single-
 14

stabilizer BHA at various WOBs and stabilizer 24EI3 ðS 3  S 2 Þ  4m2 L23 W3
LT ¼ ð21Þ
locations. q3 X 3
 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132 125

m1 and m2 are solved simultaneously from the Table 4

following two equations: Two-stabilizer BHA bit side forces
Analytical method FEM
  WOB (lbf) LT (ft) FB (lbf) LT (ft) FB (lbf)
L2 I1 L2 I1 q1 L21
2m1 V1 þ V2 þ m2 W2 ¼  X1 10,000 63.50  559 53.3  537
L1 I2 L1 I2 4 20,000 61.73  550 51.7  525
q2 L32 I1 6EI1 S 1 6EI1 ðS 1  S 2 Þ 30,000 60.02  541 50.8  510
 X2 þ þ ð22Þ 40,000 58.37  531 49.2  491
4L1 I2 L21 L21
50,000 56.78  520 48.3  464
60,000 55.25  508 46.7  386
 
L3 I2 q2 L22 q3 L23 I2 L1 = 60 ft; L2 = 30 ft; db = 12 1/4 in; ODDC = 8 in; IDDC = 2 13/16
m1 W2 þ 2m2 V2 þ V3 ¼  X2  in; ds = 12.21875 in; MW = 10.5 lb/gal; / = 10j.
L2 I3 4 4L2 I3
q2 L22 6EI2 ðS 1  S 2 Þ 6EI2 ðS 3  S 2 Þ
 X2  
4 L22 LL3 Table 4 shows the side forces and tangency length
ð23Þ for a double-stabilizer BHA at various WOBs and
where stabilizer locations.

qi ¼ Wc Bc sin/ ð24Þ
3. Limitations of estimating bit side force based on

 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffirffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  ‘‘three moment equation’’
Li pci Li pci pci
3 tan 
2 EIi 2 EIi EIi The bit side force calculations based on ‘‘three
Xi ¼  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi3 ð25Þ
Li pci moment equations’’ for two stabilizers or less are
2 EIi relatively easy. However, this technique becomes te-
dious for BHAs installed with more stabilizers. More-
2 3 over, this technique is limited to straight hole
3 6 1 1 7 conditions and is not applicable for curved boreholes
Wi ¼  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 6 7
6  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi   rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 7 ð26Þ such as dropping and building wells. If more contact
Li pci 4 pci pci 5
sin Li Li points develop due to increased WOB or borehole
2 EIi EIi EIi
conditions, again, this method will not be applicable.
2 3
Finally, the deflection of BHA to the side of borehole
cannot be determined practically with this method.
3 6 1 1 7 However, the bit tilt can only be determined depending
6 7
Vi ¼  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 6  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi   rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 7 ð27Þ
pci 4 pci pci 5 on near-bit BHA deflection.
Li Li tan Li
EIi EIi EIi

where i = 1, 2 or 3 4. Estimation of bit side force and bit tilt with

nonlinear finite element methods
Wc1 Bc L1
pc1 ¼ WOB  cos/ ð28Þ
2 In this study, the BHA and the borehole are

 modeled by two different types of finite elements.
Wc2 Bc L2 The drill collars and the stabilizers are modeled with
pc2 ¼ WOB  Wc1 Bc L1 þ cos/ ð29Þ
2 an axisymetric element with tension – compression
and bending capabilities. The element is an elastic
pc3 ¼ WOB  ½Wc1 Bc L1 þ Wc2 Bc L2 straight pipe and has 6 degrees of freedom at two
 nodes: translations in the nodal, x, y and z directions,
Wc3 Bc L3 ð30Þ
þ cos/ and rotations about the nodal x-, y- and z-axes (Fig. 1).
2 The element is 10 in long.
126 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132

The borehole is modeled with a special gap ele-
ment which is capable of supporting compression in
the direction normal to the surface. The element is
made up of three nodes. Two nodes will represent a
surface and cannot be penetrated by the third node.
The two nodes of each gap element is placed, such
that it represents the wall of the hole, and the third
node is placed on the BHA (Fig. 1). The element may
be straight to model straight holes or circular to model
building and dropping holes.
Fig. 1 indicates global x, y and z directions. The
node 1 represents the bit. Therefore, it is restricted
to displace in global ‘y’ direction. It is also restrict-
ed to displace in global ‘x’ direction to simulate
matching bit and hole size. All nodes are restricted
to displace in global ‘z’ direction, as this model is
only a two-dimensional one. It does not predict
displacements in the azimuthal plane. The two
nodes of each gap elements, which are located to
represent the borehole wall, are restricted to move
from all directions to simulate rigid borehole con-
ditions. The top element on the global ‘y’ direction
representing BHA is restricted from bending (rota-
tion along x-axis), as this portion of BHA will lie on
the low side of the hole and take the shape of hole.
This restriction is needed to prevent rigid body
motion.
Stabilizers are modeled simply by restricting x
direction displacement of nodes where stabilizers are
considered.

Fig. 1. The finite element model and the nodal displacement constraints.
 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132 127

The material properties were isotropic. The 5. Results and discussion

young modulus, the Poisson’s ratio, the shear mod-
ulus of elasticity and the density values are chosen
for steel.
The modeled structures were loaded with grav-
ity as well as point force on the top node (Node
327).
The finite element model generated for this study
was verified by comparing the bit side forces and the
tangency lengths calculated based on Jiazhi’s analyt-
ical technique (Timoshenko, 1936; Jiazhi, 1986). For
this purpose, a simple, slick BHA was selected. As

Table 5
Single-stabilizer BHA in a 3.2j hole

Shade area indicates pipes are in contact with the wall of the hole at corresponding distance from bit.
128 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132

presented in Table 1, both methods calculated bit

side forces and contact lengths very close to each
other.
The single-stabilizer and the two-stabilizer BHA
models were created from slick BHA model by add-
ing x direction displacement constraints on the
corresponding nodes where stabilizers are to be
placed. As for the loading, the gravity loading is
applied. The self-weight of the model was applied

Fig. 3. Two-stablizer BHA deflection (10j hole inclination).

for WOB; however, when the model length was not

Fig. 2. Slick BHA deflection (3.2j hole inclination).
adequate to achieve the required WOB, a nodal force
on the topmost node was applied. Tables 3 and 4
present the bit side forces and tangency lengths for
these two assemblies. Again, for most weight on bits,
the analytical and the finite element techniques gave
 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132 129

similar results. However, a somewhat significant de- – In the absence of LWD and RTS tools, borehole
viation has been noticed for two-stabilizer BHA at inclination can be held constant by keeping bit
60,000 lbf weight on bit. There is a deviation simply side force nil (in the case of no formation force)
because, at 60,000 lbf weight on bit, there is an while keeping the bit face (tilt) perpendicular to
additional pipe-hole contact below the first stabilizer the BHA longitudinal axis (in the case of no
(Fig. 3), and Jiazhi’s (1986) technique does not BHA sag).
consider such a case. – Available analytical method of Jiazhi predicts the
At hole inclinations near 90j, it was noticed that bit side force for a number of drilling parameters
the bit side force does not change much with changing for an inclined and straight wellbore but is short of
weight on bit. For this particular case, both methods delivering BHA alignment and bit tilt which are
give similar values of tangency length and the bit side considered to be major players in determining well
force (Table 1). inclination.
Tables 1 and 5, and Figs. 2 and 3 present the – The proposed FEM technique can be used to
deflection of the BHA axis from the centerline of estimate the bit side force as well as bit tilt not only
borehole for slick, single- and two-stabilizer assem- for straight wellbores but also for inclined and
blies. For example, Table 1 illustrates the deflection curved boreholes for different weight on bit, hole
vs. ‘distance from the bit’ for a slick BHA in a and BHA combinations.
horizontal well at zero weight on bit. Fig. 2 illus- – By estimating bit tilt and bit side force accurately,
trates the deflection vs. distance for a slick BHA in a practicing engineers can design better stabilizer
3.2j inclination hole and at zero and 80,000 lbf. As locations and select more appropriate BHA –WOB
expected, near-bit inclination of BHA axis increases combinations to minimize wellbore tortuosity.‘
with increasing WOB. Table 5 presents the deflec-
tions of BHA axis for a single-stabilizer BHA in a
10j hole inclination and at varying WOBs. As Nomenclature
expected, there is a changing BHA inclination and Bc Buoyancy factor
increasing bit tilt with increasing WOB. Fig. 3 db Bit diameter
illustrates the change in a two-stabilizer BHA axis d2 Drill collar diameter
at five different WOBs in a hole with 10j inclina- ds1 1st stabilizer diameter
tion. For this particular case, it was noticed that there ds2 2nd stabilizer diameter
is an additional hole-pipe contact between the bit and E Young’s modulus
the first stabilizer. FB Bit side force
Finally, no pipe stability problem was noticed for G Shear modulus
WOB values at and below 80,000 lbf. However, it Ii Axial moment of inertia (i = 1, 2 and 3)
can be expected to see pipe instability for higher J Polar moment of inertia of drill collars
values of WOB. In such a case, the critical buckling LT Tangency length (ft)
load of BHA can be determined with this technique L1 Distance between the bit and first stabilizer
depending on the stabilizers location (Walker, L2 Distance between the 1st and the 2nd
1977). stabilizer
S1 Hole clearance around 1st stabilizer
S2 Hole clearance around 2nd stabilizer
6. Conclusions S3 Hole clearance around drill collars
pci Compressive load on the collars (i = 1, 2
– Drilling of a constant inclination path in a and 3)
horizontal well becomes a difficult task if rotary m Bending moment
steerable tools (RTS) cannot be employed with Wc Unit weight of drill collars
logging while drilling (LWD) due to severe Wc1 Unit weight of 1st stabilizer
formation abrasiveness where LWD tools wear WOB Weight on bit
out rapidly. u Hole inclination at bit
130 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132

Appendix A . Structural static finite elements where

analysis

A static finite elements analysis calculates the Ex Ey Ex Ex

h ¼ 1  t2xy  t2yz  t2xz  2vxy vyz vxz
effects of steady loading conditions on a structure. Ey Ez Ez Ez
ðA  9Þ
A.1 . Stress –strain relationship

The stress – strain relationship can be written as The shear moduli Gxy , Gyz and Gxz are as follows:

frg ¼ ½D feel g ðA  1Þ Ex E
Gxy ¼ ðA  10Þ
Ex þ Ey þ 2txy Ex
where{r}: stress vector;[D]: elasticity matrix;{eel}:
total strain vector; Gyz ¼ Gxy ðA  11Þ

frg ¼ ½rx ry rz rxy ryz rxz T ðA  2Þ Gxz ¼ Gxy ðA  12Þ


 feg ¼ ½ex ey ez exy eyz exz T ðA  13Þ

Ex 2 Ey Ex Ey
rx ¼ 1  tyz ex þ txy  txz tyz ey
h Ez h Ez
Ex
þ ½txz  tyz txy ez ðA  3Þ rx txy ry txz rz
h ex ¼   ðA  14Þ
Ex Ey Ez



Ex Ey Ey Ex txy rx ry tyz rz
ry ¼ txy þ txz tyz ex þ 1  t2xz ey ey ¼  þ  ðA  15Þ
h Ez h Ez Ey Ey Ez


Ey Ex
þ tyz þ txz txy ez ðA  4Þ
h Ey
txz rx tyz ry rz
ez ¼   þ ðA  16Þ
Ez Ez Ez


Ex Ey Ex
ry ¼ ½txz þ tyz txy ex þ tyz þ txz txy ey
h h Ey

 rxy
Ez Ex exy ¼ ðA  17Þ
þ 1  t2xy ez ðA  5Þ Gxy
h Ey

rxy ¼ Gxy exy ðA  6Þ ryz

eyz ¼ ðA  18Þ
Gyz

ryz ¼ Gyz eyz ðA  7Þ

rxz
exz ¼ ðA  19Þ
rxz ¼ Gxz exz ðA  8Þ Gxz
 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132 131

where ex: direct strain in the x direction; ey: direct where Aw: pipe wall cross-sectional area = p/4(D02 
strain in the y direction; ez: direct strain in the z D i2); E: Young’s modulus; L: element length; G: shear
direction; Eq. (A-1) may be inverted into modulus; J: polar moment of inertia = p/32(D04  Di4).

feg ¼ ½D 1 frg ðA  20Þ

2
1 txy txz
3 12EI
  0 0 0 7 a¼
6 Ex
6 Ey Ez 7
L3 ð1þ /Þ
6 tyx 1 tyz 7
6  0 0 0 7
6 7
6 Ex Ey Ez 7
6 7
6 tzx
6 
tzy 1
0 0 0 7
7 12EI
6 Ex Ey Ez 7 b¼
½D 1
¼6
6
7
7 ðA  21Þ L3 ð1
þ /Þ
6 0 1
6 0 0 0 0 77
6 Gxy 7
6 7
6
6 0
1 7 6EI
0 0 0 0 7 c¼
6 Gyz 7
6 7 L2 ð1 þ /Þ
4 1 5
0 0 0 0 0
Gxz
6EI
d¼
where Ex: Young’s modulus in the x direction rxy: L2 ð1 þ /Þ
minor Poisson’s ratio Gxy: shear modulus in the x–
y plane.
ð4 þ /ÞEI
e¼
A.2 . Stiffness and mass matrices for elastic pipe L2 ð1 þ /Þ

The principle of virtual work states that a virtual

(very small) change of the internal strain energy must ð2  /ÞEI
f ¼
be offset by an identical change in external work due L2 ð1 þ /Þ
to the applied loads or:

½Ke fug ¼ ½Me fug þ fFend g ðA  22Þ 24EI

/¼
GAw L2
where [Ke]: element stiffness matrix = mvol ½B T ½D ½B d
ðvolÞ ; {u}: nodal displacement vector; [Me]: mass
matrix = mvol ½N T ½N dðvolÞ ;{ F nd
e }: nodal forces ap- I: bending moment of inertia = p/64(D04  Di4)
plied to the element. Stiffness matrix for elastic pipe in The mass matrix in element coordinates
element coordinates:
132 F. Akgun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 121–132

where Mt = qAL;q: pipe wall density References

Adam, T.B., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E., Young, F.S., 1991.

13 7 1 6  r 2
þ / þ /2 þ Applied Drilling Engineering, vol. 2. SPE Textbook Series,
A ¼ 35 10 3 5 L Dallas, TX, USA.
ð1 þ /Þ2 Agawani, M., Rahman, S.S., Maidla, E.E., 1994. SPE 28774. A
New Approach to Selecting Optimum Bottomhole Assembly
Configuration for Any Given Well Trajectory. SPE Asia Pacific
6  r 2
Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
9 3 1
þ / þ /2 þ Agawani, M., Rahman, S.S., Maidla, E.E., 1996. SPE 35993. BHA
B ¼ 70 10 6 5 L Design Algorithm for Extended Reach Wells. SPE Petroleum
ð1 þ /Þ2 Computer Conference, Dallas, TX, USA.
Akgun, F., 1999. Optimum spacing of multiple stabilizers to in-
crease critical buckling load of BHA in slim hole drilling.

    SPE 54322. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
11 11 1 2 1 1 r 2
þ /þ / þ  / L Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia.
210 120 24 10 2 L Akgun, F., Mitchell, B.J., Huttlemaier, H.P., 1992. Ovality and
C¼
ð1 þ /Þ2 stresses of API tubulars in horizontal wells with FEM. SPE
24613. 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
SPE, Washington, DC, USA.

    Akgun, F., Estrella, D., Rahman, S., Mitchell, B.J., Eustes, A.,
13 3 1 2 1 1 r 2
þ /þ /   / L 1996. Selection of drill pipes based on critical loading condi-
420 40 24 10 2 L tions for slim hole drilling. SPE 36405. IADC/SPE Asia Pacific
D¼
ð1 þ /Þ2 Drilling Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Jiazhi, B., 1986. Bottomhole assembly problems solved by beam-

    column theory. SPE International Meeting of Petroleum Engi-
1 1 1 2 2 1 1 r 2 2 neering, Beijing. SPE 10561.
þ /þ / þ þ / þ /2 L
105 60 120 15 6 3 L Milheim, K.K., Apostal, M.C., 1981. The effect of bottomhole
E¼ assembly dynamics on the trajectory of a bit. J. Pet. Technol.,
ð1 þ /Þ2
2323 – 2338.
Timoshenko, S.G., 1936. Theory of Elastic Stability McGraw-Hill,
New York City.

    Walker, H.B., 1977. Downhole assembly design increases ROP.
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 r 2 2
 þ /þ / þ þ /  /2 L World Oil, 59 – 65.
140 60 120 30 6 6 L
F¼ 2
ð1 þ /Þ

r = radius of gyration = I/Aw .