DC170275 DOI: 10.
2118/170275-PA Date: 13-March-15 Stage: Page: 17
Combined Rate of Penetration and
Pressure Regulation for Drilling
Optimization by Use of High-Speed
Telemetry
Reza Asgharzadeh Shishavan, Casey Hubbell, Hector Perez, and John Hedengren, Brigham Young University;
and David Pixton, NOV IntelliServ
Summary
Low-latency feedback, high bandwidth, and improved sensor
placement are key benefits provided by wired-drillpipe (WDP)
technology. Improved WDP reliability, based on more than 100
wells of field experience, enables more-aggressive application of
the technology, including closed-loop control of drilling proc-
esses. Often, there is a requirement to consider multiple variables
when attempting to control complex processes, such as drilling in
deepwater wells. Such is the case when dynamically optimizing
rate of penetration (ROP) in a pressure-critical wellbore
environment.
Formerly, ROP and bottomhole pressure (BHP) have been
considered separate optimization and automation tasks, respec-
tively. This study combines ROP and BHP into a single compre-
hensive controller for a managed-pressure-drilling (MPD) applica-
tion. The controller adjusts mud-pump flow rate, choke-valve posi-
tion, drillstring-rotation rate, and weight on bit simultaneously and
with coordinated actions. The automated operations are guided by
an objective function that includes factors relevant to both BHP
stabilization and ROP maximization. A preliminary MPD case
study is used to assess the performance during different drilling
events, including transition into varying formations, causing an
unexpected gas influx. For the unwanted-gas-influx case, the con-
troller better stabilizes the pressure when there are low-latency
communications by simultaneously adjusting ROP. With WDP
and the optimizing controller, there is substantial decrease in time
required to control influx events compared with earlier controllers
or manual methods. The high-speed data availability affects both
the pressure-control reaction time and the resulting severity of the
kick. When encountering different formations, there is also notice-
able benefit by allowing pressure to fluctuate within an acceptable
range to optimize ROP.
Combining ROP control and BHP control minimizes risk,
decreases drilling costs, and reduces operator workload. Improve-
ments in drilling performance include higher ROP, lower risk of
uncontrolled kick events, and more-uniform cuttings loading.
Another benefit of this combined ROP/BHP controller is that the
reaction to gas influx is made more consistent and predictable rel-
ative to manual operations, reducing the demand for time-con-
suming remedial efforts.
Introduction
Maintaining downhole pressure is an especially critical and diffi-
cult element of deepwater drilling. Although conventional over-
balanced-drilling operations are suitable for some wells, effective
conventional drilling can be more difficult in various deepwater-
drilling environments. This is particularly the case when tight
Copyright V
C 2015 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 170275) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and
Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, USA, 10–11 September 2014, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 5 June 2014. Revised manuscript
received for review 7 October 2014. Paper peer approved 30 November 2014.
March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion
ID: jaganm Time: 16:22 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140043/APPFile/SA-DC##140043
Total Pages: 10
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
windows of safe pressure levels are encountered. As such, man-
aged-pressure drilling (MPD) has become a successful technique
for staying within the tight pressure margins necessary for
increased safety and efficiency of deepwater applications. In light
of increasing regulation, MPD allows for a more-controlled envi-
ronment without compromising economic payoff. This paper pro-
poses alternative methods of data transfer and modeling that
would improve MPD methods and further increase the benefits
they provide.
MPD for deepwater drilling has become more attractive with
the development of advanced telemetry technologies. Previous
MPD systems have relied on surface measurements and limited
downhole information, which limits the response time of the sys-
tem. However, wired-drillpipe telemetry is capable of high-band-
width communication that stands independent of fluid flow and
rock formations (Pixton and Craig 2014). By wiring each tubular
in the drillstring, sensors in the bottomhole assembly and at other
points along the drillstring can return quality information quickly
without degradation. This means that the controller is capable of
receiving high-resolution information as soon as downhole condi-
tions begin to fluctuate, resulting in faster kick attenuation and
precise pressure management.
These new developments allow for more-sophisticated and
more-accurate modeling schemes that enable rapid and intelligent
automation. This automation can be achieved by an ideal control-
ler that maintains both the rate of penetration (ROP) and annular
pressure throughout drilling, even during kick events. Currently,
ROP is treated as dependent on weight on bit (WOB) and revolu-
tions per minute (rev/min), whereas pressure is controlled only
with choke-valve opening and mud-pump-flow rate. These are
typically implemented as independent controllers. However, in
these models, the influences that rev/min and WOB have on annu-
lar pressure, as well as the influences that the mud-pump-flow rate
and choke-valve opening have on the ROP, are modeled with dis-
turbance variables, meaning these effects are essentially ignored.
It is, therefore, proposed that a multivariate controller that uses
WOB, rev/min, choke-valve opening, and mud-pump-flow rate as
manipulated variables would be capable of simultaneously regu-
lating ROP and annular pressure even faster than if these are
approached separately. This simultaneous-control scheme would
not only improve the response time for kick attenuation, but
would also avoid compromising ROP.
Research on kick management can be divided into studies on
kick-detection methods and studies on kick-attenuation methods.
Regarding kick-detection studies, Hargreaves et al. (2001) devel-
oped a detector system that uses a Bayesian probabilistic frame-
work on the surface for kick detection. Techniques such as the
microflux-control method (Santos et al. 2007), adaptive observer
(Zhou et al. 2010; Zhou and Nygaard 2011), and dynamic neural
network of surface data (Kamyab et al. 2010) have also been used
in the literature. An early kick-detection method modeled after ul-
trasonic with Doppler effect was proposed by Zhou et al. (2013).
Hauge et al. (2013a) used a partial-differential-equation model of
the hydraulic system and the method of backstepping to design an
observer that detects and quantifies any influx or outflux. Gravdal
17
 DC170275 DOI: 10.2118/170275-PA Date: 13-March-15
et al. (2010) have developed a technique that uses distributed
pressure measurements from a wired-pipe-telemetry system rather
than flow measurements as a kick-detection methodology.
Regarding kick-attenuation techniques, Zhou et al. designed a
switched controller that is based on estimated downhole pressure
and bit-flow-rate values for kick attenuation for dual-gradient dril-
ling (Zhou and Nygaard 2011) and MPD (Zhou et al. 2009, 2010,
2011). The objective of this controller is to regulate the pressure
and flow rate during normal drilling conditions, but when a kick
happens it switches into pure-flow controller. A pure-flow control-
ler that relies on estimated bit- and influx-flow rates was used by
Hauge et al. (2013b). This controller is also able to determine the
gas-influx location. Carlsen et al. (2013) have developed three dif-
ferent controller types: proportional integral derivative, internal-
model controller, and a linear-model predictive controller. They
have evaluated the performance of these controllers in three main
well-control steps, which include shut-in, pump startup, and circula-
tion during unwanted-gas-influx occurrence.
The purpose of the present study is to design a controller that
relies on direct pressure measurements from wired-pipe-telemetry
technology for both kick detection and kick attenuation. This
novel controller is a continuation of previous work (Asgharzadeh
Shishavan et al. 2014a, b; Pixton et al. 2014), and it is capable of
optimizing ROP while maintaining the borehole pressure at the
desired level. This technique provides significant advantages to
deepwater drilling by overcoming the challenges resulting from
the significant delays in the surface flow-rate measurements used
to represent downhole conditions.
Modeling
In this section, the equations that are used to model the different
dynamics for the comprehensive controller are discussed. The
combination of all these models forms a comprehensive drilling
model, which includes the interacting effects of pressure, rate of
penetration (ROP), revolutions per minute (rev/min), and weight
on bit (WOB).
Pressure Hydraulics. A lower-order model, introduced by
Stamnes et al. (2008), was used to model the pressure dynamics
of the drillstring. This model was derived from mass and momen-
tum balances. It has had extensive use among researchers and has
also been tested on actual drilling rigs (Godhavn et al. 2011). The
Stamnes et al. (2008) model includes four state variables: pump
pressure (pp), choke-valve pressure (pc), drill-bit-flow rate (qbit),
and drilling height (hbit). The dynamic equations of these state
variables are shown in Eqs. 1a through 1d. Eq. 1a describes the
pump-pressure time derivative on the basis of a mass balance
about the drillstring. Eq. 1b determines the choke-pressure time
derivative from a mass balance about the annulus section of the
well. Eq. 1c models the rate of change of the drill-bit-flow rate
from a momentum balance about the entire well, balancing the
pressures on the drillstring side with those on the annulus side.
The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. 1c describes the
pressure-drop effect because of the fluid flow in the drillstring and
annulus.
bd
p_ p ¼ ðqpump  qbit Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1aÞ
Vd
ba
p_ c ¼ ðqbit þ qback  qchoke þ qres  ROP  Aa Þ; . . . . ð1bÞ
Va
1 drilling fluid and cuttings have in the annulus. These two motions
q_ bit ¼ ðpp  Fd jqbit jqbit þ qd ghbit  pbit Þ; . . . . . . . . . ð1cÞ
M
h_ ¼ ROP; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1dÞ
where qback, qchoke, and qres represent backpressure-pump-, choke-
valve-, and reservoir-gas-influx-flow rates, respectively. V is the
volume, A is the cross-sectional area, b is the bulk modulus, q is
the fluid density, and F is the friction factor. M represents the
lumped density per length, which is determined by Eqs. 1e
18
ID: jaganm Time: 16:22 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140043/APPFile/SA-DC##140043
Stage: Page: 18 Total Pages: 10
through 1g. The subscripts a and d refer to annulus and drillstring
properties, respectively. The integration limit lw is the length of
annulus and Ldn is the length of N segments of drillpipe.
ð lw
1
Ma ¼ qa dx; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1eÞ
0 Aa ðxÞ
ð LdN
1
Md ¼ qd dx; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1fÞ
0 Ad ðxÞ
M ¼ Ma þ Md ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1gÞ
The downhole pressure is determined from Eq. 1h, which
sums up all the pressure terms that contribute to the downhole
pressure (static and dynamic):
pbit ¼ pc þ qai  Fai jqbit þ qres jðqbit þ qres Þh þ qa ghbit ;
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
                   ð1hÞ
The choke-valve-flow rate, qchoke, is related to the choke-
valve-percentage opening, zchoke, derived from the valve equation,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qchoke ¼ Kc zchoke qa ðpc  p0 Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1iÞ
where Kc is the valve coefficient and is determined on the basis of
valve characteristics, and p0 is the pressure downstream of the
choke valve.
ROP Equation. The Bourgoyne and Young (1974) model is the
most-common method used in the industry to model the ROP. This
empirical model is valuable because it is modeled after the statisti-
cal synthesis of past drilling data (Eren and Ozbayoglu 2010). Eq.
2 shows the ROP as a function of controllable and uncontrollable
variables for roller-cone bits. The parameters for Eq. 2 are defined
in Table 1. Table 2 describes each of the eight subfunctions (Eqs.
2b through 2i) in the Bourgoyne and Young model.
dF
¼ f1 ; f2 ; f3 ; f4 ; f5 ; f6 ; f7 ; f8 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ð2aÞ
dt
f1 ¼ expða1 Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2bÞ
f2 ¼ exp½a2 ð8; 000  DÞ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2cÞ
f3 ¼ exp½a3 D0:69 ðgp  9Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2dÞ
f4 ¼ exp½a4 Dðgp  qc Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2eÞ
 w 
 ðW=db Þt
f5 ¼ exp a5 ln db ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2fÞ
4  ðW=db Þt
 
N
f6 ¼ exp a6 lnð Þ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2gÞ
100
f7 ¼ expða7 hÞ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2hÞ
 
Fj
f8 ¼ exp a8 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2iÞ
1; 000
Effect of Rotational Speed on the Friction Factor. Changing
the rotation speed of the drill string (rev/min) has an effect on the
friction factor. This is a result of the two types of motion that the
are movement along the annulus (axial movement) and rotational
movement. As reported in the literature, the rotational movement
of the fluid has a substantial effect on the friction factor (Escudier
et al. 2002; Ahmed et al. 2010; Ozbayoglu and Sorgun 2010; Sor-
gun and Ozbayoglu 2011; Anifowoshe and Osisanya 2012; Saasen
2014). This effect of the drillstring rotation on the friction factor
has been modeled previously. Among those reported in the litera-
ture, the model proposed by Ozbayoglu and Sorgun (2010) was
selected for this research because it is based on empirical data and
March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion
 DC170275 DOI: 10.2118/170275-PA Date: 13-March-15 Stage: Page: 19 Total Pages: 10

D
gp
c

W db t

W db
h
Fj
a a

Table 1—Parameters used in Bourgoyne and Young model (1974).

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
td
i
f
f i i
f
ki i
f
f
di i
f
f b i
f
µ
Table 2—Effect of model parameters.
Ti i i

is simple to implement in the controller model. The Ozbayoglu
and Sorgun (2010) model is an empirical model that uses the fluid
Reynolds numbers to determine the friction factor (Eq. 3a). The
parameters a, b, and c can be determined on the basis of the em-
pirical drilling data.
fa ¼ a  NuRea b þ c  NuRex ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3aÞ
where NuRea and NuRex are Reynolds numbers in the axial and
rotational direction, respectively, given by
757qva ðDo  Di Þ
NuRea ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3bÞ
lea
2:025qNðDo  Di ÞDi
NuRex ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3cÞ
lex
where va is the velocity in the axial direction; Di and Do are well-
bore and pipe outer diameters, respectively; N is the angular ve-
locity; and lea and lex are the effective viscosity in the axial and
rotational directions.
Drillstring Dynamics. As mentioned previously, the rotational
speed of the drillstring applied on the surface is different from
that downhole because it changes as it is transferred along the
drillstring. The drillstring rotational effect was modeled as multi-
ple mass/spring/damper pendulums connected to each other in se-
ries (Johannessen and Myrvold 2010). The parameters used in this
model (Eq. 4) are defined in Table 3.
J1 €h 1 ¼ T1  T2  lh_ 1 ;
Ji €h 1 ¼ Ti  Tiþ1  lh_ i ;
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ð4aÞ
…
Jn €h n ¼ Tn  ðl þ lb Þh_ n
T1 ¼ d1 ðh_ td  h_ 1 Þ þ k1 ðh_ td  h_ 1 Þ;
Ti ¼ di ðh_ i1  h_ i Þ þ ki ðh_ i1  h_ i Þ;
; . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4bÞ
…
_ _ _ _
Tn ¼ dn ðh n1  h n Þ þ kn ðh n1  h n Þ
ji i
Table 3—Parameters used in Eq. 4.
WOB Dynamics. When some of the weight of the drillstring is
applied to the drilling bit, a reduction in deadline tension is
observed. In the drilling industry, this reduction is considered to
be the surface WOB, which is usually not equal to the downhole
WOB. For estimating the downhole WOB, the real-time hookload
data should be transferred into the system for further treatment
(Hareland et al. 2014).
The surface WOB can be a true value if the well is vertical and
the axial-friction force between drillstring and the wellbore is
negligible. When the well deviates from a vertical straight line,
the the surface and downhole WOB cannot be the same because
of the axial-friction force between the drillstring and the wellbore
(Hareland et al. 2014).
WOB dynamics was modeled by use of an empirical first-order
plus dead-time model (Eq. 5), which is the most well-known
model used in industry to capture simple dynamics.
d½BWOBðtÞ
sp þ ½BWOBðtÞ ¼ Kp SWOBðt  hp Þ; . . . . . ð5Þ
dt
In this model, BWOBðtÞ is the downhole WOB and is consid-
ered the controlled variable. SWOBðt  hp Þ is the controller out-
put and is the surface WOB with a time delay of hp . Kp is the
process gain and sp is the process-time constant for the first-order
model. The values of Kp , sp , and hp change with different rig
capabilities and drillstring configurations and effectively capture
the dynamics between a commanded change in the surface WOB
and the actual downhole WOB.
Estimator
The controller designed in this study can only use a drilling-pro-
cess model as far as measurements are accessible. However, vari-
ables such as annulus-friction factor, density, and gas-influx-flow
rates can be accurately approximated because data for these

March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion 19

ID: jaganm Time: 16:22 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140043/APPFile/SA-DC##140043

 DC170275 DOI: 10.2118/170275-PA Date: 13-March-15 Stage: Page: 20 Total Pages: 10

subject to 0 ¼ f ðx;
_ x; u; p; dÞ
0 ¼ gðyx ; x; u; dÞ

ys ys n T a  hðx; u; dÞ  b
yx

ym ym ym n T
Table 4 defines each of the terms used in the MHE
formulation.
ym ym ym n T The extended Kalman filter (EKF) formulation, listed here,
shows the formulation used in this study.
Wm • Step 1: Initialize: x^ ¼ 0:
Wp • Step 2: Calculate the following at each sample time Tout
(output sample rate is less than the sample rates of the
d
sensors).
• Step 3: For i ¼ 1 to N, do (prediction step):
c d

• a : x^ ¼ x^ þ TNout f ð^ x ; uÞ

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
f @f
• b : A ¼ @x ð^x ; uÞ

x • c : P ¼ P þ TNout ðAP þ PAT þ QÞ

u • If measurement has been received from sensor i, then pro-
d ceed with the measurement update:
g • d : Ci ¼ @h@x ð^
i
x ; u½nÞ
h • e : Li ¼ PCTi ðRi þ Ci PCTi Þ1
Table 4—Summary of parameters used in the objective function (Eq.
• f : P ¼ ðI  Li Ci ÞP
2). • g : x^ ¼ x^ þ Li fyi ðnÞ  h½^ x ; uðnÞg
In the EKF formulation, x^ is the estimate of the state, Q, R,
and P are the symmetric covariance associated with the process
values are not readily available. In this controller, a nonlinear disturbance, sensor noise, and estimation error, respectively, and
moving-horizon estimator (MHE) is used to estimate the annulus- N is the number of timesteps.
friction factor and density and an extended Kalman filter (EKF) is
designed for gas-influx-flow-rate estimation. Choke-valve, down- Controller
hole, and pump pressures are considered as measured variables and
Nonlinear-model predictive controllers (NMPCs) are designed to
are used as the estimation criteria. The MHE uses a squared-error
objective function, as detailed by Sun et al. (2014). Its formulation, regulate the downhole pressure, rate of penetration (ROP), weight
along with the constraints it is subject to, is given as on bit (WOB), and revolutions per minute (rev/min) during dril-
ling. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the control system.
min / ¼ ðyx  ym ÞT Wm ðyx  ym Þ þ ðDdÞT cDd During normal drilling conditions, the controller determines
d the optimum downhole pressure, WOB, and drillstring-rotation-
þ ðym  y^m ÞT Wp ðyx  y^m Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ speed values that would lead to the ROP value determined by the

Surface WOB SP
WOB Controller

Surface rev/min SP
Main Mud Pump
rev/min
Controller

Choke Valve
Downhole rev/min
Downhole WOB

Operator Inputs

Backpressure
SurfaceMeasurements

Density, friction
factor, gas influx ROP and Pressure
Estimator
Controller

Downhole Pressure, WOB, rev/min

Reservoir

Fig. 1—Schematic of the control system.

20 March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:22 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140043/APPFile/SA-DC##140043

 DC170275 DOI: 10.2118/170275-PA Date: 13-March-15 Stage: Page: 21 Total Pages: 10

Desired ROP

Find the optimum WOB, rev/min and p bit

that would lead to the desired ROP

Manipulate topside WOB to Manipulate topside rev/min to Manipulate zchoke and qp to regulate
regulate the downhole WOB regulate the downhole rev/min p bit

Fig. 2—Schematic of the control system during normal operation. zchoke=choke valve position. pbit=bit pressure.

operator. The controller then uses the values found from optimiza- In Eq. 8, pres  pbefore is the change of pore-pressure value at

tion as set points for the WOB and rev/min NMPC. The topside
WOB and rev/min are adjusted to regulate the downhole WOB
and rev/min at the specified set points. At the same time, the
NMPC manipulates zchoke and qp to regulate the downhole pres-
sure. Fig. 2 shows the control method during normal operation.
When a kick occurs, the controller first detects the kick situa-
tion through a rise in the measured downhole pressure or esti-
mated gas-influx-flow rate. Second, it switches the controlled
variable from downhole pressure to choke-valve pressure and sets
the new set point as Eq. 7. This increases the choke-pressure set
point (SP) by some amount proportional to the increase in down-
hole pressure. In this case, k1 is a proportional constant for the
controller.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
res
the final moment. While attenuating the kick, the controller also
changes the WOB to compensate for the rev/min change to hold
the ROP constant. Fig. 3 shows the structure of the control system
during the kick condition.
The NMPC formulation used in this study is shown in Eq. 9.
The objective function in the NMPC formulation is an L1-norm
that forms a dead band of no controller movement as long as the
process variable is close to a desired set point. The advantage of
L1-norm vs. conventional-squared-error norm can be seen in
noise, data outlier, and drift rejection (Hedengren et al. 2014; Sun
et al. 2014).
mind / ¼ wThi ðehi Þ þ wTlo ðelo Þ þ ðYm ÞT cy þ ðuÞT cu þ ðDuÞT cDu ;

pSP before kick

þ k1 ðpcurrent  psp subject to 0 ¼ f ðx;
_ x; u; dÞ;
C ¼ pC bit bit Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
0 ¼ gðyx ; x; u; dÞ;
Third, the NMPC manipulates the choke-valve opening, mud- a  hðx; u; dÞ  b;
pump-flow rate, and topside rev/min until influx-gas-flow rate
begins to decrease. At the same time, the new reservoir pore pres- dyt;hi
sc þ yt;hi ¼ SPhi ;
sure is estimated. Finally, it switches the controlled variable back dt
from choke-valve pressure to downhole pressure and defines the dyt;l0
new set point as Eq. 8. This new set point stabilizes the downhole sc þ yt;lo ¼ SPlo ;
pressure to the final reservoir pressure, with k2 as the proportional dt
constant for the reservoir pressure controller. ehi  ðym  yt;hi Þ;

pSP before elo  ðyt;lo  ym Þ;                         ð9Þ

bit ¼ pres þ k2 ðpres  pres Þ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ

Normal Drilling
Operation

Initiate kick-attenuation mode when

pbit > Safety Margin + psp and
qinflux > 0

Calculate the new Switch the controlled variable from downhole pressure into
reservoir pore pressure choke-valve pressure and set the set point as
(Pres) sp before kick
pc = pc (
+ k * pcurrent sp
bit – pbit )
Change choke-valve opening, surface rev/min and
pump-flow rate until the kick is attenuated

Hold until
qbit < specified limit

Switch the controlled variable from choke valve pressure

to downhole pressure and calculate the new set point
using the new reservoir pore pressure

Fig. 3—Summary of the control method for kick attenuation. In this flowchart pbit=bit pressure, psp=pressure set point, psp
c =choke
pressure set point, pbefore
c
kick
=choke pressure before kick, k=proportional tuning constant, pcurrent
bit =current bit pressure, psp
bit=bit
pressure set point, qbit=mud flowrate through the bit, and Pres=reservoir pore pressure.

March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion 21

ID: jaganm Time: 16:23 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140043/APPFile/SA-DC##140043

 DC170275 DOI: 10.2118/170275-PA Date: 13-March-15 Stage: Page: 22 Total Pages: 10

1,400
Single-pressure controller
1,200 Comprehensive controller
Manual control

Gas Influx (L/min)

ym T 1,000
ym ym n
800
yt,hi, yt,lo
600
whi, wlo
400
c y cu c y u u 200
u

f 0
x –200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
u
Time (seconds)
d
g Fig. 4—An unexpected gas influx that starts at 40 seconds of
simulation time.
h

a
b
elo
ehi
Table 5—Summary of parameters used in l1-norm objective function
(Eq. 9).
Table 5 summarizes all the variables used in Eq. 9.
Results and Discussion
Comparing the Results For the Two-Variable vs. Three-
Variable Case. The results of kick attenuation and comprehen-
sive controller performance are shown in this section. These
results are compared with a controller with separate pressure and
rate-of-penetration (ROP) control. Both control scenarios (com-
prehensive and independent controllers) rely on data from high-
speed telemetry and demonstrate a superior performance com-
pared with the case in which manual control is used for kick
attenuation. In manual operation, it takes 1 to 5 minutes for an op-
erator to respond to a kick. For this simulation, an 80-second
response time of the operator was assumed, after which the opera-
tor closes the choke valve to begin kick attenuation (Fig. 4 dem-
onstrates manual kick control). In general, superior performance
of the automated controllers with respect to manual-control case
is because of various main features. The first feature includes the
downhole sensors and high-speed-telemetry system, which enable
the changes in downhole conditions to be seen at the surface very
Drill-Bit Pressure (bar) Drill-Bit Pressure (bar)
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
quickly, therefore enabling the controller to react rapidly. The
second feature is the predictive feature of the controller, which
enables it to predict the dynamic system behavior by use of the
system model and past-data analysis in a prediction horizon and
therefore react accordingly and in advance. The third feature is
the optimization feature of the controller with model-predictive
control (MPC), which determines the optimum combination of
the manipulated-variable values—main mud-pump-flow rate and
choke-valve-opening area and revolutions per minute (rev/min)—
to regulate the kick. This enables the controller to not change the
manipulated variables more than a minimum amount and poten-
tially cause mud loss to the reservoir or additional gas influx.
Fig. 4 also compares the unwanted-gas-influx-attenuation
results with the same characteristics from both controller simula-
tions: the comprehensive controller and the single-pressure con-
troller. The single-pressure controller uses a wired-pipe-telemetry
system and is detailed by Pixton et al. (2014). It changes two vari-
ables—the choke-valve-opening area and mud-pump-flow rate—
for this purpose. The comprehensive controller attenuates the kick
more effectively and quickly than the pressure controller alone.
This is because it has an additional manipulated variable (surface
rotation speed) that can change the downhole pressure. Increased
surface rev/min leads to an increase in the downhole rev/min, as
dictated by the drillstring dynamics. This increase in rotation
speed increases the friction factor, leading to an increased
resistance to mud flow and therefore higher pressure along the
annulus. This increase in pressure provides more-effective kick
attenuation.
Fig. 5 shows the downhole- and choke-pressure changes over
time during a kick event for the comprehensive controller. During
normal drilling operations, the downhole-pressure set point or tar-
get value is 300 bar. When the kick occurs at 60 seconds of

600

500

400
Bit pressure control off
Downhole pressure
300
Set point
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (seconds)
200

150

100 Choke control on

Choke pressure
50
Set point

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (seconds)

Fig. 5—Switched control between bit pressure and choke pressure during the kick event.

22 March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:23 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140043/APPFile/SA-DC##140043

 DC170275 DOI: 10.2118/170275-PA Date: 13-March-15 Stage: Page: 23 Total Pages: 10

Pump-Flow Rate (L/min) Choke-valve opening

100
Choke-valve opening

50

0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

2000
Pump-flow rate

1500

1000
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
Time (seconds)

Fig. 6—NMPC favors movement of the choke-valve opening over pump-flow rate.

simulation time, the nonlinear-model predictive control (NMPC) fore, increasing pump-flow rate in this situation is not as effective
switches the controlled variable from downhole pressure to as it could be during normal drilling operations. The NMPC con-
choke-valve pressure (the gray area). This switch is enacted siders the changing relationships in the multivariate controller and
because the dynamics at the downhole area change once the gas favors choke-valve and rotational-speed movement more than
influx enters the annulus. Therefore, it is better to control the adjustment to the pump-flow rate.
choke-valve pressure that has not been affected by the gas influx. Fig. 7 shows the change in rotational speed of the drillstring at
This enables the controller to react more effectively during the the surface, downhole rev/min, and the desired set point. When a
initial kick event. The increase in the choke-valve pressure leads kick happens at a simulated time of 40 seconds, the downhole set
to an increase in the pressure along the annulus. This continues point increases after 20 seconds, when the kick is detected, and
until the gas-influx trend changes from ascending to descending automatically increases from 80 to 180 rev/min. The increase in
(at the time of 72 seconds). Then, the controller switches the tar- rev/min has the effect of increasing the annulus pressure by increas-
get pressure control to downhole pressure and calculates the new ing the friction factor associated with the rotating drillstring.
set point on the basis of the new estimated pore pressure. Because A benefit of the comprehensive controller is that during a kick
the kick is attenuated quickly, reservoir pressure may continue to event, the operator does not need to stop drilling, and the drilling
increase slowly even after the kick is attenuated, leading to multi- continues with a consistent value of ROP. As rev/min is increased
ple kicks. To overcome this problem, as the reservoir pressure for the kick-attenuation purpose, the comprehensive controller
rises, the downhole-pressure set point increases to stop the reser- decreases the weight on bit (WOB) to compensate for the effect.
voir gas from entering the annulus. In general, if gas influx enters This is determined by the master controller by use of the Bour-
the annulus and is detected, the controller switches to maintain the goyne and Young model. A consistent value of ROP not only
choke-valve pressure. Otherwise, the controller continues to main- helps to achieve drilling-depth targets but also avoids cuttings-
tain the downhole pressure even if the reservoir pressure increases. loading issues associated with fluctuations in ROP. As the ROP
As is shown in Fig. 5, the controller responds to the unex- fluctuates, the drilling mud must transport a variable amount of
pected gas influx by reducing the choke-valve opening and cuttings away from the bit. Localized sections of high cuttings
increasing the rev/min and main-pump-flow rate. This set of coor- loading may lead to packoff or other undesirable consequences
dinated actions is shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The controller tends to related to mud flow.
change the choke-valve opening (zchoke) and rev/min more than Fig. 8 shows the trend of surface, downhole, and set-point
the mud-pump-flow rate because changing the rev/min and zchoke WOB. As is shown, the slave controllers are able to adjust the
has a faster effect on annulus pressure than the pump-flow rate. downhole values at the specified set points determined by the
Also, when gas influx enters the annulus, it tends to decrease the master controller within 10 seconds. The WOB value at the down-
density in the annulus, which reduces the hydrostatic head. There- hole location is lower than the surface WOB because of the axial-
friction force between the drillstring and the wellbore. The WOB
200

180 4
Rotation Speed (rev/min)

×10
Downhole rev/min 2
160 Surface rev/min
rev/min set point 1.8
Weight On Bit (lb)

140
1.6
120
1.4
100
1.2
80 Surface WOB
1 Downhole WOB
60 WOB set point
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.8
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (seconds)
Time (seconds)
Fig. 7—Rev/min adjustments are constrained by a rate-of-
change limit toward the desired target for this particular Fig. 8—WOB adjustments compensate for rev/min adjustments
simulation. to maintain a consistent ROP.

March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion 23

ID: jaganm Time: 16:23 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140043/APPFile/SA-DC##140043

 130
Rate of Penetration (ft/hr) 125
120
115
110
Single ROP controller case
105
Comprehensive controller case
100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (seconds)
Fig. 9—ROP is increased while maintaining pressure control.
slave controller uses direct measurements and performs control
calculations by use of an empirical model to adjust the surface
WOB so that the downhole-WOB value can be regulated at the
required set point determined by the master controller. This ability
to quickly compensate for rev/min changes leads to the more-con-
sistent ROP.
Steady-State-Drilling Operations. An important aspect of any
controller design is not only to investigate the controller response
during upset conditions, but also during all phases of operation. It
is shown that the proposed multivariate controller is effective at
attenuating unexpected gas influx, but this is expected to occur
only during a small fraction of the total time of drilling. During
steady-state operations without unexpected gas influx, the control-
ler determines the optimum downhole rotation speed, WOB, and
pressure that lead to the desired ROP. The controller then sends
the required set points to the respective rev/min and WOB slave
controllers and uses choke-valve opening and mud-pump-flow rate
to adjust the downhole pressure at the required value. One differ-
ence between steady-state operation and kick-attenuation cases is
that in the kick attenuation, the desired value of rev/min is deter-
mined on the basis of the hydraulic changes and with the goal of
gas-influx attenuation by use of the hydraulic- and rotational-fric-
tion-factor models. While in the steady-state operation, the desired
value of rev/min is determined to achieve the required ROP, and
the Bourgoyne and Young model is used for this purpose. In the
comprehensive-controller case, a higher ROP is achieved com-
pared with the case with only real-time ROP optimization. This is
because a comprehensive controller is able to adjust to the mini-
mum-possible downhole pressure that leads to the highest ROP
value. The decreased downhole pressure leads to higher ROP, as
demonstrated in Fig. 9. As can be seen in the case of a comprehen-
sive controller, ROP is approximately 20% higher (126 ft/hr) than
the separate ROP- and pressure-controller case (105 ft/hr).
Conclusion
A comprehensive multivariate controller for rate of penetration
(ROP) and pressure is superior compared with the case where sepa-
rate controllers are used. The combined controllers are able to syn-
chronize changes in drillstring-rotation speed, weight on bit, pump
flow, and choke-valve opening to best achieve targets of pressure
and ROP. With controllers that are split between ROP and pres-
sure-control objectives, the actions are not coordinated and lead to
a feedback response instead of the anticipatory response of the
multivariate case. With the comprehensive controller, a more-con-
sistent and higher ROP is achieved and any unexpected gas influx
is attenuated more effectively. Wired-pipe technology or other
high-speed telemetry is critical for this control scheme because it
enables high-frequency data to both update the underlying models
and implement control actions. By use of an advanced nonlinear-
model predictive controller and estimators (both extended Kalman
filter and moving-horizon estimator), the different drilling situa-
tions are optimized to achieve operational targets.
This work is the second phase of a project that builds upon
prior results. The prior results demonstrated the value of speed of
24
response for kick attenuation. In future work, the value of distrib-
uted-drillstring sensing and gas-kick-location detection will be
determined across sensors that are positioned along the drillstring,
not only at surface and bottomhole locations.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express appreciation to the management
of National Oilwell Varco for supporting this work and encourag-
ing its publication. We give particular thanks to Adrian Snell,
100 Reza Rastegar, and Tony Pink, all from National Oilwell Varco,
for helpful suggestions and support.
References
Ahmed, R.A., Enfis, M.S., El Kheir, H.M., et al. 2010. The Effect of Drill-
string Rotation on Equivalent Circulation Density: Modeling and
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
Analysis of Field Measurements. Presented at the SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September.
SPE-135587-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/135587-MS.
Anifowoshe, O.L. and Osisanya, S.O. 2012. The Effect of Equivalent Di-
ameter Definitions on Frictional Pressure Loss Estimation in an Annu-
lus with Pipe Rotation. Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and
Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, 20–21 June. SPE-151176-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/151176-MS.
Asgharzadeh Shishavan, R., Hubbell, C., Perez, H., et al. 2014a. Com-
bined Rate of Penetration and Pressure Regulation for Drilling Optimi-
zation Using High Speed Telemetry. Presented at the SPE Deepwater
Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, Texas, 10–11 Sep-
tember. SPE-170275-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/170275-MS.
Asgharzadeh Shishavan, R., Hubbell, C., Perez, H., et al. 2014b. Multivar-
iate Control for Managed Pressure Drilling Systems Using High Speed
Telemetry. Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27–29 October. SPE-170962-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/170962-MS.
Bourgoyne, A.T. Jr., and Young, F.S. 1974. A Multiple Regression
Approach to Optimal Drilling and Abnormal Pressure Detection. Soci-
ety of Petroleum Engineers Journal 14 (4): 371–384. SPE-4238-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/4238-PA.
Carlsen, L.A., Nygaard, G., and Nikolaou, M. 2013. Evaluation of Control
Methods for Drilling Operations with Unexpected Gas Influx. J. Process
Contr. 23 (3): 306–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2012.12.003.
Eren, T. and Ozbayoglu, M.E. 2010. Real Time Optimization of Drilling
Parameters During Drilling Operations. Presented at SPE Oil and Gas
India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, India, 20–22 January. SPE-
129126-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/129126-MS.
Escudier, M.P., Oliveira, P.J. and Pinho, F.T. 2002. Fully Developed Lam-
inar Flow of Purely Viscous Non-Newtonian Liquids Through Annuli,
Including the Effects of Eccentricity and Inner-Cylinder Rotation. Int.
J. Heat Fluid Fl. 23 (1): 52–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-
727X(01)00135-7.
Godhavn, J.-M., Pavlov, A., Kaasa, G.-O., et al. 2011. Drilling Seeking
Automatic Control Solutions. Proc., 18th International Federation of
Automatic Control Congress, Milano, Italy, Vol. 18, 10842–10850.
Gravdal, A.E., Lorentzen, R.J. and Time, R.W. 2010. Wired Drill Pipe Te-
lemetry Enables Real-Time Evaluation of Kick During Managed Pres-
sure Drilling. Presented at SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 18–20 October. SPE-
132989-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/132989-MS.
Hareland, G., Fazaelizadeh, M. and Wu, Z. 2014. Autodriller System. US
Patent No. 20140196949 A1.
Hargreaves, D., Jardine, S. and Jeffryes, B. 2001. Early Kick Detection for
Deepwater Drilling: New Probabilistic Methods Applied in the Field.
Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October. SPE-71369-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/71369-MS.
Hauge, E., Aamo, O.M. and Godhavn, J.-M. 2013a. Application of an Infi-
nite-Dimensional Observer for Drilling Systems Incorporating Kick
and Loss Detection. Proc., 2013 European Control Conference, Zurich,
Switzerland, 17–19 July, 1065–1070.
Hauge, E., Aamo, O.M., Godhavn, J.-M., et al. 2013b. A Novel Model-
Based Scheme for Kick and Loss Mitigation During Drilling. J.
March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion
 Process Contr. 23 (4): 463–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jprocont.2013.01.006.
Hedengren, J.D., Asgharzadeh Shishavan, R., Powell, K.M., et al. 2014.
Nonlinear Modeling, Estimation and Predictive Control in APMonitor.
Comp. Chem. Eng. 70 (5 November): 133–148. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.04.013.
Johannessen, M.K. and Myrvold, T. 2010. Stick-Slip Prevention of Drill
Strings Using Nonlinear Model Reduction and Nonlinear Model Pre-
dictive Control. Report, Norwegian University of Science and Tech-
nology, Trondheim, Norway.
Kamyab, M., Shadizadeh, S.R., Jazayeri-Rad, H., et al. 2010. Early Kick
Detection Using Real Time Data Analysis with Dynamic Neural Net-
work: A Case Study in Iranian Oil Fields. Presented at Nigeria Annual
International Confernece and Exhibition, Tinapa-Calabar, Nigeria, 31
July–7 August. SPE-136995-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/136995-
MS.
Ozbayoglu, E.M. and Sorgun, M. 2010. Frictional Pressure Loss Estima-
tion of Non-Newtonian Fluids in Realistic Annulus With Pipe Rota-
tion. J Can Pet Technol 49 (12): 57–64. SPE-141518-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/141518-PA
Pixton, D. and Craig, A. 2014. Drillstring Network 2.0: An Enhanced
Drillstring Network Based on 100 Wells of Experience. Presented at
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas,
4–6 March. SPE-167965-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/167965-MS.
Pixton, D.S., Asgharzadeh Shishavan, R., Perez, H.D., et al. 2014.
Addressing UBO and MPD Challenges with Wired Drillpipe. Pre-
sented at the SPE/IADC Managed Pressure Drilling & Underbalanced
Operations Conference & Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, 8–9 April. SPE-
168953-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168953-MS.
Saasen, A. 2014. Annular Frictional Pressure Losses During Drilling—
Predicting the Effect of Drillstring Rotation. J. Energ. Resour.-ASME
136 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4026205.
Santos, H.M., Catak, E., Kinder, J.I., et al. 2007. Kick Detection and Con-
trol in Oil-based Mud: Real Well Test Results Using Micro-Flux Con-
trol Equipment. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 20–22 February. SPE-105454-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/105454-MS.
Sorgun, M. and Ozbayoglu, M.E. 2011. Predicting Frictional Pressure
Loss During Horizontal Drilling for Non-Newtonian Fluids. Energ.
ha
Fd
Fa
Md
Ma
Table A-1—Summary of parameters used in the model.
March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion
Source A 33 (7): 631–640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/155670309
03226264.
Stamnes, Oyvind Nistad, Jing Zhou, Glenn-Ole Kaasa et al. 2008. Adapt-
ive Observer Design for the Bottomhole Pressure of a Managed Pres-
sure Drilling System. Proc., 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Cancun, Mexico, 9–11 December, 2961–2966.
Sun, L., Castagno, J., Hedengren, J.D., et al. In press. Real-Time Parame-
ter Estimation for Towed Cable Systems Using Moving Horizon Esti-
mation. IEEE Aero. El. Sys. Mag.
Sun, L., Hedengren, J.D., and Beard, R.W. 2014. Optimal Trajectory Gen-
eration using Model Predictive Control for Aerially Towed Cable Sys-
tems. J. Guid. Control Dynam. 37 (2): 525–539. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2514/1.60820.
Zhou, J. and Nygaard, G. 2011. Automatic Model-Based Control Scheme
for Stabilizing Pressure During Dual-Gradient Drilling. J. Process
Contr. 21 (8): 1138–1147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2011.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
06.022.
Zhou, J., Nygaard, G., Godhavn, J.-M., et al. 2010. Adaptive Observer for
Kick Detection and Switched Control for Bottomhole Pressure Regula-
tion and Kick Attenuation During Managed Pressure Drilling. Proc.,
American Control Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, 30 June–2 July,
3765–3770.
Zhou, J., Nistad Stamnes, O., Aamo, O.M., et al. 2009. Pressure Regula-
tion with Kick Attenuation in a Managed Pressure Drilling System.
Proc., 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Shanghai,
China, 15–18 December, 5586–5591.
Zhou, J., Nistad Stamnes, O., Aamo, O.M., et al. 2011. Switched Control
for Pressure Regulation and Kick Attenuation in a Managed Pressure
Drilling System. IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag. 19 (2): 337–350. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2010.2046517.
Zhou, Q., Zhao, H., Zhan, H. et al. 2013. The Application of Ultrasonic
Based On Doppler Effect Used in Early Kick Detection for Deep
Water Drilling. Proc., 2013 International Conference on Communica-
tions, Circuits and Systems, Chengdu, China, 15–17 November, Vol.
2, 488–491.
Appendix A
Please refer to Table A-1.
a
25
 DC170275 DOI: 10.2118/170275-PA Date: 13-March-15
Reza Asgharzadeh Shishavan is a visiting scholar at NOV Intelli-
serv and a PhD-degree candidate at Brigham Young Univer-
sity. He previously worked with Hess at Astro Technology in
Houston and at the Rock Wool Company in Iran. Asgharzadeh
Shishavan’s research interests include managed-pressure dril-
ling (MPD), multivariate control, structural-integrity monitoring,
and model-based optimization. He holds a bachelor’s degree
from Sahand University of Technology, Iran, and a master’s
degree from Tarbiat Modares University, Iran. Asgharzadeh
Shishavan is a member of SPE.
Casey Hubbell is a PRISM laboratory research assistant and
student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Brig-
ham Young University. His research interests include multivari-
ate estimation and data-quality assessments for automation
of MPD. Hubbell is a member of SPE and an officeholder in the
Brigham Young University SPE student chapter.
Hector D. Perez is an advanced process control engineer con-
sultant in Colombia. He was a former PRISM research assistant
and Fisher-Tropsch catalyst researcher at Brigham Young Uni-
versity. Perez’ research interests include automation, MPD, sim-
ulation modeling, estimation, and model-based control. He
26
ID: jaganm Time: 16:23 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140043/APPFile/SA-DC##140043
Stage: Page: 26 Total Pages: 10
graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor’s degree from
Brigham Young University. Perez is a member of SPE.
John D. Hedengren is an assistant professor in the Department
of Chemical Engineering at Brigham Young University. He
developed the APMonitor Optimization Suite with APS and
worked with ExxonMobil on Advanced Process Control for 5
years. Hedengren’s research interests include drilling automa-
tion, fiber-optic monitoring, intelligent fields, reservoir optimiza-
tion, friction-stir welding, and model-predictive control. He
holds a PhD degree in chemical engineering from the Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin. Hedengren is a member of SPE.
David S. Pixton is vice president of engineering at TrailMods.
Most recently, he was vice president of engineering and senior
fellow at NOV IntelliServ. Before his work at NOV IntelliServ, Pix-
ton served in management and technical positions at Grant
Prideco and Novatek. His interests are in entrepreneurship,
wired drillpipe, drilling automation, and advanced drilling
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/DC/article-pdf/30/01/17/2661547/spe-170275-pa.pdf by China University of Petroleum (East China) user on 28 March 2023
tools. Pixton has authored or coauthored more than 15 techni-
cal papers and holds 38 patents. He holds a bachelor’s
degree from Brigham Young University in mechanical engi-
neering. Pixton is a member of SPE.
March 2015 SPE Drilling & Completion