IADC/SPE 77220
Analytical Models for Design of Wellpath and BHA
Bernt S. Aadnoy/Stavanger University and Petur P. Huusgaard/Shell
Copyright 2002, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 9–11 September 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Directional drilling is costly. Roundtrips of the entire
drillstring is often required to implement directional
corrections. The directional driller is a specialist using
numerical simulators for analysis. To simplify this, work was
undertaken to derive simple analytical equations that would
replace the simulators, and, to gain further insight into the
controlling mechanisms.
The first part of the paper investigate the minimum weight
and length of the BHA. Performing a force balance, including
torque and drag (Coulomb friction), minimum BHA length are
obtained both for rotating and sliding mode.
The second part of the paper is based on indeterminate beam
theory. Explicit equations are derived to model the two key
mechanisms; weight (gravity) and geometry (BHA deflection).
The equations clearly shows that the build-rate depends on
wellbore inclination. Using the insight from the models it is
shown that a catenary (minimum friction) wellpath can be
approximated by proper stabilizer placement, and can be
drilled without altering the BHA, that is, no correction trips
are required.
Several practical examples are provided, including a well
drilled to 110 degrees inclination. It is shown that buckling
defines the maximum bit force, and also shown is the design
of such an operation, including optimal placement of
stabilizers and drillcollars.
Introduction
The major objectives of the bottom-hole-assembly (BHA) is to
provide force for the drill bit and to control the direction of the
well. The BHA is mainly composed of heavy and stiff drill
collars, which can be put in compression without buckling.
Over the years many different types of design have been
applied, but the practice in the North Sea area was to use
unnecessary long and heavy BHA's, especially in vertical
exploration wells. In modern production drilling, on the other
hand, one found that these heavy designs led to drilling
problems like differential sticking, and one gradually started
using lighter assemblies.
With advanced steerable drilling systems it is possible to
drill deviated wells with high precision, but these systems are
expensive as compared to conventional BHA. They are also
often used in the reservoir section only.
The direction of drilling using conventional drilling methods
is controlled by the flexural behavior of the BHA. The
following factors are considered most important:
-Stabilizer location and gauge
-Drillcollar stiffness
-Borehole inclination and curvature
-Weight on bit
-Drillbit side-cutting
-Formation strength and anisotropy
A typical BHA as considered here is shown in Fig. 1.
During the past two decades a number of publications have
been published around the performance of BHA, mainly
because of the increase in extended reach directional drilling.
The majority of these are based on beam-column theory and
stabilizer spacing (Refs.11-26,30). There are various
approaches to the problem. Some of the more recent
references( Refs 27-29) addresses the new downhole tools for
directional control.
The present paper will provide another approach to the
directional control problem by developing explicit
analytical equations.
Designing length and weight of the
Bottom-Hole-Assembly
The main function of the BHA is to provide sufficient force
on the drillbit to ensure a rapid and efficient drilling process.
The drillbit requirements must be identified. This force is
2 B. AADNOY AND P.HUUSGAARD IADC/SPE 77220

defined as Fbit. Furthermore, one must define whether the If a motor is planned used, and drilling is assumed performed
complete, or just a part of the BHA should be in compression. in a non-rotating mode, the axial drag must be included. This
The so called neutral point is the place where the effective is the case during correction runs with motor and bent sub.
string force goes from compression into tension. An older The length of the BHA becomes in this case:
established practice is to define the neutral point at a length of
2/3 from the bit. Often the jar is placed near this place for Fbit
operational reasons. Today this criterion is relaxed, the L= + L2 (4)
βw ( cos α − µ sin α )
complete BHA is sometimes run in compression. Finally,
well friction should be included in the analysis Before
proceeding, please remember to correct the pipe weight for If the drilling operation is performed as rotary drilling, the
buoyancy. The buoyancy factor is2: axial drag is small and may be neglected as discussed above,
and the total length of the BHA is:
ρmud
β = 1− (1) Fbit
ρ pipe L= + L2 (5)
βw cos α
This equation is valid for any borehole inclination and for the
case of equal mud densities inside and outside the drillstring. With the above equations, the length of the BHA can be
For other cases, please see ref. 2. The density for steel determined. Assuming that the L2 is a pre-defined fraction of
drillpipe is 7.85 s.g. If drillstrings of other materials are used, L1 (K= L2/L1) the above equations can be modified to:
please use their respective densities.
First we will define the maximum hole inclination that it is Non-rotating case:
Fbit
possible to drill under ordinary conditions1. The assumption L = (1 + K ) (6)
is that the drillstring is in a sliding mode, that is not rotating. βw ( cos α − µ sin α )
The friction in the well is just axial drag. This situation also Rotating case:
applies at a later stage when the casing string is landed in the
well. The total length of the BHA is: L = L1 + L2 (see Fig. 2). Fbit
The friction or resistance towards axial motion is given by the L = (1 + K ) (7)
Coulomb friction model (friction coefficient multiplied with βw cos α
the normal force) or: F friction = µWsinα. Finally, the total
weight of the BHA is equal to the unit weight multiplied by Example 1: You are asked to design a BHA for a new
the total length; W =β wL. The string will stop to slide when production well. The inclination is 60 degrees, and from
the weight equals the friction or (ref. 1,3): torque-and-drag measurements, the coefficient of friction is
estimated to 0.2. The density of the drilling fluid is 1.5 s.g.
Assume that 1/4 of the length is above the neutral point
βwL cos α = µβwL sin α , or:
(K=1/3). The BHA consists mainly of 8x3 in. drill collars
with a unit weight of: 218.8 kg/m or 2146N/m. During
 1 drilling the expected force on the drillbit is 5 metric tons or
α maximum = tan −1   (2)
 µ 49050 N. The buoyancy factor is:
15
.
β = 1− = 0.81 resulting in a buoyed unit weight
Equation 2 defines the maximum inclination of the well to 7.85
ensure that the drillstring or casing slides down. It depends of: 0.81x2146 = 1736 N/m
directly on the coefficient of friction, and can be altered by
changing drilling fluid or by lubrication. During rotary For the sliding case, the minimum total length of the BHA is:
drilling, this is not the upper limit as axial drag reduces during
rotation. The drag goes toward zero1,3 provided the drillstring  1 49050N
L = 1 +  = 94.2m
is rotated fast.  3  1736N / m ( 60° − 0.2sin 60° )
cos
Now considering the part of the BHA that contributes to
drilling, that is in compression. A force balance along the
For the rotating case, the minimum length required is:
axis of the hole results in (see Fig.2):

βwL1 cos α − Fbit − Ffriction = 0 , or:  1 49050 N

L = 1 +  = 56.5m
 3 1736 N / m cos 60°
Fbit + Ffriction This example demonstrates that the required minimum length
L1 = (3) of a BHA is often less than what is used in practice.
β w cos α Furthermore, it demonstrates that if sliding mode is a
requirement, well friction must be taken into account.
IADC/SPE 77220 ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR DESIGN OF WELLPATH AND BHA 3

Highly deviated wells. The drilling process is usually
gravity driven. The requirement is that a component of the
gravity force can act on the drillbit. Therefore, the maximum
inclination for this to work is given by Eqn. 2.
However, it is possible to drill horizontal wells and even
upwards. The key is to place drillcollars in a downward dip
to provide force. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. We usually
neglect the stiffness of the drillpipe. The weight of the
drillcollars is axially transmitted through a bend to the drillbit.
For this case the unit weight of the drill collars is w1, and the
unit weight of the drillpipe to the bit is w2. The friction for
these two elements have the same indexes. Starting at the
neutral point, a force balance along the axis of the
hole becomes:
βw1L1 cos α − Ffriction −1 − Ffriction − 2 − βw 2 H TVD − Fbit = 0
The simplest case of buckling is the sinusoidal buckling.
The drillpipe assumes a sinusoidal shape. Increasing the load
further leads to helical buckling, the string assumes the shape
of a coil. These are valid for straight pipes and wellbores. If
the wellbore is curved, this actually stabilizes the pipe, and a
higher critical load is required to initiate buckling (see refs.
4,5,7,9,10).
For the general case with deviated boreholes, the following
equation defines the critical load to initiate buckling:
kFN EI
Fcr = (10)
r
Here: FN is the unit normal force on the pipe, and r is the
radial clearance between the drillpipe and the borehole.
The scaling factor k is defined as follows7,31:

Inserting the definition for drill collar friction, the length of k = 4 for sinusoidal buckling in straight wellbores
the BHA(drill collars) are: k = 32 for helical buckling in curved boreholes.

Fbit + Ffriction − 2 + β w 2 H TVD The normal contact force FN is the buoyed unit weight of the
L = (1 + K ) (8) of the string resting on the wellbore, and it is expressed
βw1 ( cos α − µ sin α )
as follows:
In the derivation of this equation we have used the conclusion2
that the axial weight of an inclined pipe is equal to its FN = (βw sin α + Fα ')2 + ( Fφ 'sin α )2 (11)
projected height. Furthermore, only the height exceeding the
bottom end of the drill collars contributes to this weight. Curvature in the wellbore actually stabilizes the pipe. He,
Several other considerations must be taken. Since we now use Halsey and Kyllingstad(1995) also showed that by
a drillpipe extension that is always in compression, the critical simultaneously applying torque to the pipe only lowered the
buckling force must be computed and not exceeded. This will critical buckling force by a few percent, suggesting that this
be left to the next section. Also, we have earlier assumed that effect may be neglected.
the axial drag vanishes if we apply a high rotational speed.
This assumption can be used also for this case provided a Example 2: We are drilling a 100 degrees well similar to the
small compressive load is applied. Because the well curves, scenario shown in Fig. 3. Below the drill collars is a coiled
the friction of the well depends on the bit force applied. The tubing installed to provide the required force on the drillbit.
higher the bit force, the higher the torque and the drag. Eqn. 8 The entrance before build-up is 80 degrees. Friction is
represents a sliding mode. For a rotational mode assuming neglected. Determine the critical buckling force for the
that the axial friction vanishes, the equation becomes: coiled tubing, which has an outer diameter of 1.5 in. and an
inner diameter of 1.25 in. and a radial clearance between
Fbit + βw 2 H TVD
L = (1 + K ) (9) borehole and tubing of 4.5 in.
βw1 cos α
Solution:
Neutral point and buckling
The moment of inertia for the coiled tubing is:
The lower part of the BHA is in a compressive state during
drilling. If a pipe is loaded axially beyond a critical point, it
will buckle and assume a sinus shape or some other shape that
I=
π
64
(4
D −d =
4
)
π
64
4
(
1.5 1.25
4
)
deviates from a straight pipe. Loading the pipe beyond the 4 −8 4
= 0.129in = 5.355 x10 m
buckling point may lead to increased well friction, ultimately a
stuck pipe, or pipe failure. Obviously, it is important for
The normal force on the tubing is(assuming a
practical well operations not to exceed the critical
segment of circle as shown in Fig. A1):
buckling load.
Buckling limit should be checked for any component put
into a high compressive load. In addition to HWDP and FN = 2 F sin 10° = 0.347 F
drillpipes this may be the case for completion and production
equipment as well.
4 B. AADNOY AND P.HUUSGAARD
Equating this axial force with the critical buckling force:
8 x 0.347 xFcr x 215x10 6 x5.355x10 −8
Fcr =
4.5x 0.0254
The critical buckling force becomes: Fcr = 27.96 kN.
Assuming negligible weight of pipe from the bend to the
drillbit, this is the maximum bit force that can be applied.
Directional control
Before deriving equations for directional control we will
identify two main mechanisms that control the direction of the
well. These are identified as the weight effect and the
geometry effect. Starting with the weight effect, reference is
given to Fig. 4. This figure shows the bottom section of the
BHA. The weight of the drillcollars shown has an axial
component that gives the bit force, and a normal component.
We furthermore assume that the total weight is taken up as a
reaction force at the bit and at the upper stabilizer.
A moment balance results in a normal force at either end equal
to Wsinα/2. In Fig. 4a, this reaction force is equal to the side
force on the drillbit. The drillbit is usually also designed for a
cuttings action sidewise. As drilling proceeds, this sideforce
will result in a downward hole shape. In other words, the
outcome is a drop in hole inclination.
In Fig. 4b we have installed a stabilizer adjacent to the drillbit.
The same reaction force exist normal to the wellbore.
However, the stabilizer is not designed for a cutting action,
rather with a function as a bearing. The drillbit will therefore
not experience a sideforce because of the support from the
stabilizer, and the result is a straight well path.
The weight effect above is not sufficient to control the
direction of the well. The geometry effect has a dominating
effect as well. The simple description of the geometry effect
is that the drillbit will drill in the direction it points. During
drilling with a motor, it is practice to use bent subs(Fig. 5a).
The BHA is very long with long distances between the
stabilizing points. The drillcollars between the stabilizers
therefore will assume a curved shape rather than being
straight. For this example, the well path will turn upwards
(build inclination) because the shape of the BHA points the
drillbit slightly upwards.
Fig. 5a shows that the bit points in a direction that differs from
the borehole direction. In Fig. 5b the bit force is also shown.
Since the bit force now points in a different direction than the
wellbore, it has a normal component which forces the bit to
build angle. This complicates the matter as the geometric
effect depends on the applied bit force, and cannot be
considered constant as for the weight effect.
IADC/SPE 77220
From this discussion it is obvious that the directional control
depends on the reaction sideforce on the drillbit (the weight),
and the geometric effect (the bit force). These two effects are
of course present simultaneously. For the examples discussed
they have opposite effects, and the vector sum determines the
actual wellbore direction. In the following we will develop
equations that gives the complete picture from beam theory.
Designing stabilizer placement We will now present
equations to determine the preferred directions various BHA
will drill. First we will consider the dropping assembly in
which the placement of the lowest stabilizer is most important.
For this analysis we will adapt solutions from statics. In Fig.
6a a cantilever beam is shown. It has an evenly distributed
load and bends down a distance defined by the geometric and
elastic properties. In Fig. 6b the analogous BHA is shown. In
adapting the cantilever solution a number of assumptions is
made. Some of these are:
-At the stabilizer the slope of the drillcollar equal the
wellbore inclination.
-We assume that the bottom of the BHA is free-
hanging.
-We decompose the drill collar weight into an axial
component that provide bit force, and a normal
component that causes the dip.
-Since the outer diameter of the drill collar is
significantly larger than the inner diameter, the
moment of inertia is based mainly on the
outer diameter.
-The elastic modulus used is for steel,
E = 215 kN/mm2.
Assume that at the start of drilling the wellbore is straight.
The assembly shown in Fig. 6b is installed. Initially, this
remains straight, and the bottom weight (normal component)
is evenly distributed between the stabilizer and the drillbit.
After drilling a short distance, the hole will assume a curved
shape, until there is no sideforce. At this point the BHA will
drill with a drop in inclination.
Adapting the equations for the cantilever solution with the
assumptions above, the drop-rate or the DLS (dog-leg-
severity) can be estimated from:
L ( m)
2
DLS ( ° / 30m ) = 196β w ( kN / m ) sin α (12)
D ( in )
4
In this equation, w is the unit weight of the drill collars, L is
the length from the drillbit to the stabilizer, and D is the outer
diameter of the drill collars. Please observe that the buildrate
depends directly on the wellbore inclination. This equation
works well for the drop-case. However, similar simple
equations for build- or hold assemblies are not as accurate.
An error is introduced because the inclination at the first
stabilizer depends on the position of the second stabilizer, and
may deviate from the wellbore inclination.
Instead, the problem is solved as a undetermined flexural
beam problem, as presented in Appendix A. The following
IADC/SPE 77220 ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR DESIGN OF WELLPATH AND BHA
general solution is valid for all three scenario- build, drop
or hold.
fδ
DLS ( ° / 30m ) = 1719 (13)
L tan
The following scaling factor applies:
 E  I  ρ  A  β 
f =  i  i    
 E   I   ρi   Ai   β1 
where: δ = deflection at the bit of the BHA
Ltan = distance drillbit - first stabilizer
E = modulus of elasticity
I = moment of inertia
ρ = density of pipe material
A = crossectional area of pipe
The deflection at the bit, δ, can be computed with Eqn. A1. It
can also be determined by measuring the deflection directly on
a BHA laid out on a drill floor. Knowing that the DLS has
certain proportionality relations, the scaling part of the
equation can be used as given in the following example.
Example 3: We are considering a BHA with the
following data:
12-1/4 in. hole, 8x3 in. drillcollars, mud weight: 1.56
s.g.
The following technical data applies:
Buoyancy factor: β = 0.8
E = 205 GPa ρ = 7850 kg/m3
A = 2.787x10 m
-2 2
I = 8.283x10-5 m4 L1 = L2 = 10m
The well is drilled from vertical to an inclination of 70 degrees
with a maximum DLS of 4.5 °/30m. The objective is to
determine the length from the drillbit to the first stabilizer that
gives the required build rate.
The data above are inserted into Eqn. 13 (see Appendix A
for details. Let f=1.). The results are shown in Fig 7. From
the figure the following is seen.
For Ltan = 3.56 m, the BHA is a hold assembly
regardless of borehole inclination.
For Ltan < 3.56 m, the BHA is a build assembly, but
the DLS increases with inclination.
For Ltan > 3.56 m, the BHA is a drop assembly, but
the DLS increases with inclination.
Inspection of Fig. 7 shows that the desired maximum build
rate is obtained approximately with Ltan = 1 m. The solution
is to use a 1 m spacing between the drillbit and the first
stabilizer.
5
Knowing the properties of a specific BHA, Eqn. 13 can easily
be used to predict the behavior of a similar assembly by using
the proportionality relations f. As a hypothetical case, assume
that the BHA is composed of a different material (titanium,
aluminium). The build properties would simply be obtained
by scaling according to f above. Another example is
given below.
Example 4: We will drill a section from 40 to 60 degrees
inclination, and require a maximum DLS of 4.5 °/30m. The
BHA is similar to the previous, but it is changed to 6-1/2 in x
2-1/4 in. drill collars. The mud weight is changed to 1.73 s.g.
Determine the length to the first stabilizer, and the start and
end DLS.
For the new BHA the following data applies:
Buoyancy factor: β = 0.78
A = 1.844x10-2 m2
I = 3.595x10-5 m4
The correction factor of Eqn. 13 becomes:
 E   8.203x10−5   ρ   1.884x10−2   0.78 
f =  i  −5        = 1.5
 E   3.595x10   ρi
−2
  2.787x10   0.8 
Again using Fig. 7, we look for a maximum DLS of 4.5/1.5 =
3 °/30m. At an inclination of 60 degrees, we find an Ltan =
1.5 m. At the starting inclination of 40 degrees, the DLS = 1.9
°/30 m from Fig. 7. The solution is as follows:
Length drillbit - first stabilizer: 1.5 m
Start DLS: 1.9x1.5 = 2.85 °/30m at 40 degree
inclination
End DLS: 4.5 °/30m at 60 degree inclination
Catenary well profile
The main idea with the catenary profile is to design the
wellpath profile as close to the shape of a free-hanging
drillstring as possible. In this way the normal forces between
the borehole and the drillstring are kept at a minimum,
resulting in low well friction. McClendon and Anders8 were
amongst the first to use this principle in oil well drilling, and
demonstrated the potential advantage over conventional
methods. Aadnøy and Andersen2 presents the equations
required to design a catenary profile. However, to obtain the
desired effect (minimum friction) both drillstring forces and
build rates must be accurately controlled.
The build rate for a conventional assembly can be
expressed as:
DLS(° / 30m) = DLSMAX sin α (14)
The DLSMAX refers to the maximum build-rate for a specific
BHA at a wellbore inclination of 90 degrees.
6 B. AADNOY AND P.HUUSGAARD IADC/SPE 77220

As shown in Appendix C, the build-rate for a catenary profile curvature will increase with depth in a similar way as a
can be approximated as: catenary profile.

DLSCAT (° / 30m) = DLSMAX − CAT sin 2 α (15) It is customary to try to maintain constant DLS. For rotary
drilling, this would require one or more correction trips. We
will argue that by drilling the complete section without
We observe that the build-rates follow the same pattern, but
corrections, time is saved, and, in our opinion an increasing
the latter follows a squared sine law. Using the results derived
DLS is fully advisable.
in Appendix D, the build-rate for the catenary profile can be
approximated as an ordinary constant BHA model, by
applying a scaling factor.
Summary
Example 5:
In this paper equations are presented to design a minimum
weight BHA. This includes both rotating and sliding mode.
Assume a build assembly with DLSMAX = 5°/30m. If start
In addition both ordinary gravity driven drilling and drilling
inclination is 10 degrees and end inclination 70 degrees
of wells exceeding horizontal are covered.
compute measured and vertical depth, horizontal departure,
radius and DLS.
Equations are also presented to design stabilizer placement
for directional control, including build- hold- and
Measured depth is(Eqn. B8):
drop assemblies.

 70  It is shown that the build-rate changes with inclination for a

tan 
1719  2  = 2750m given assembly. This is taken advantage of by showing that
s= ln  
5 10
 tan  an approximately catenary shaped well can be drilled simply
 2  by building the total angle without modifying the BHA. A
Start DLS: number of examples are also presented.
DLS ( α ) = sin10° = 0.86° / 30m
Acknowledgement

End DLS: The authors are thankful to Joannes Djurhuus at the University
DLS ( α ) = 6sin 70° = 4.7° / 30m of the Faroe Islands for help to develop the solution of
Appendix B.
Start radius: Nomenclature
1719
R(m) = = 1999m
0.86(° / 30m) β = buoyancy factor
ρmud = density of drilling fluid
End radius: ρpipe = density of pipe material (7850 kg/m3 for steel)
1719 α = borehole inclination
R(m) = = 366m µ = friction coefficient, torque and drag
4.7(° / 30m)
δ = end deflection of bottom-hole-assembly
F = force
The vertical depth and the horizontal departure is (B9,B10): L = length
BHA = bottom-hole-assembly
 sin 70°  K = fraction lenght above neutral point in the BHA
ln   w = unit pipe weight
y = 2750
 sin10°  = 2233m D = outer pipe diameter
 tan 35°  d = inner pipe diameter
ln  
 tan 5°  R = build- or drop radius
H = bit height above lowest point in deviated well
2750 ( 70 − 10 ) E = modulus of elasticity
x= = 1384 m
 tan 35°  I = moment of inertia
57.3 ln   r = radial clearance between borehole and pipe
 tan 5°  DL = change in inclination
For a given assembly used to drill a section from 10 to 70 DLS = rate of change (dog leg severity)
degrees inclination, the above DLS, projected departures and HWDP = heavy weight drill pipe
measured length would result. We observe that the wellbore φ = wellbore azimuth
IADC/SPE 77220 ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR DESIGN OF WELLPATH AND BHA
References
1. B. S. Aadnøy and K. Andersen : Design of Oil Wells Using
Analytical Friction Models. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 32(2001) 53-71.
2. B. S. Aadnøy, K. Larsen and P. C. Berg : Analysis of Stuck
Pipe in Deviated Boreholes. Paper SPE 56628 presented at
the 1999 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, TX, 3-6 October.
3. B.S.Aadnøy and K.Andersen: Friction Analysis for Long-
Reach Wells. Paper IADC/SPE 39391 presented at the 1998
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, 3-6 March.
4. X. He and Å. Kyllingstad : Helical Buckling and Lock-Up
Conditions for Coiled Tubing in Curved Wells. SPE Drilling
and Completion, March 1995.
5. X. He, G. W. Halsey and Å. Kyllingstad: Interactions
Between Torque and Helical Buckling in Drilling. Paper SPE
30521 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 20-25 Oct.
6. P.P.Huusgaard: Analytic Bottom-Hole-Assembly Design
for Trajectory Control in Directional Drilling. M.S.Thesis in
petroleum engineering, Stavanger University, Norway.
7. Å. Kyllingstad: Buckling of Tubular Strings in Curved
Wells. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 12 (1995), 209-218.
8. R.T.McClendon and E.O.Anders: Directional Drilling
Using the Catenary Method. Paper SPE/IADC 13478
presented at the 1985 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, La. March 6-8.
9. R. F. Mitchell: Buckling Analysis in Deviated Wells: A
Practical Method. Paper SPE 36761 presented at the 1996
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 6-9 October.
10. R. Dawson and P. R. Paslay: Drillpipe Buckling in
Inclined Holes. Journal of Petroleum technology, Oct. 1994,
pp. 1734-38.
11.K.K.Millheim and T.M.Warren: Side Cutting
Characteristics of Rock Bits and Stabilizers while Drilling.
Paper SPE 7518 presented at the 53rd Ann. Fall Tech. Conf.
And Exhibition of the SPE, Houston, TX Oct. 1-3.
12. H.B.Melton: A Practical Approach in Developing a
Stabilizing Assembly for Deep Hole Drilling. Paper SPE
9689 presented at the 1981 Deep Drilling & Production
Symposium of the SPE, Amarillo, TX, April 5-7.
7
13.B.Jiazhi: Bottom Hole Assembly Problems Solved by
Beam-Column Theory. Unsolicited paper SPE 10561.
14. J.S.Williamson and A. Lubinski: Predicting Bottomhole
Assembly Performance. Paper IADC/SPE 14764 presented at
the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX,
Feb. 10-12.
15. G.K.McKown and J.S.Williamson: An Engineering
Approach to Stabilization Selection. Paper IADC/SPE 14766
presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
TX, Feb. 10-12.
16.P.N.Jogi, T.M.Burgess and J.P.Bowling: Three-
Dimensional Bottomhole Assembly Model Improves
Directional Drilling. Paper IADC/SPE 14768 presented at the
1986 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, Feb. 10-12.
17. H.S.Ho: General Formulation of Drillstring Under Large
Deformation and Its Use in BHA Analysis. Paper SPE 15562
presented at the 61st Ann. Tech. Conf. And Exhibition of the
SPE, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
18. S.Miska: Analysis of Boundary Conditions for BHA
Under Static Conditions. Unsolicited paper SPE 15662.
19. B.H.Walker Factors Controlling Hole Angle and
Direction. Journal of Petroleum Technology, Nov. 1986, pp.
1171-1173.
20. J.D.Brakel and J.J.Azar: Prediction of Wellbore
Trajectory Considering Bottomhole Assembly and Drill Bit
Dynamics. Paper SPE/IADC 16172 presented at the 1987
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, March 15-18.
21. S.Rafle: Mechanistic Approach in Designing BHA’s and
Forecasting Wellbore Position. Paper IADC/SPE 14768
presented at the 1988 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas,
TX, Feb. 28 – March 2.
22. M.K.Jain, A.C.Mahanti and D.Tiwari: Single Stabilizer
BHA Analysis. Unsolicited paper SPE 17641.
23. D.Tiwari, A.C.Mahanti and M.K.Jain: Beam Column
Theory of the Single and Double Stabilizer Assembly.
Unsolicited paper SPE 18405.
24. E.Kristiansen, R.D.Jones and T.J.Eriksen: Use of
Variable Stabilizer in Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE/IADC
25752 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, 23-25 Feb.
25. L.D.Underwood and A.C.Odell II: A Systems Approach
to Downhole Adjustable Stabilizer Design and Application.
Paper IADC/SPE 27484 presented at the 1994 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, 15-18 Feb.
8 B. AADNOY AND P.HUUSGAARD IADC/SPE 77220

26. M.M.Agawani, S.S.Rahman and E.S.Maidla: BHA These equations are valid for any BHA design. If one
Design Algorithm for Extended Reach Wells. Paper SPE assumes the same dimensions in the BHA, explicit equations
35993 presented at the Petroleum Computer Conference, can be presented from flexural theory, that is from any
Dallas, TX, 2-5 June 1996. textbook on statics. However, often there are variations as e.g.
parts of the BHA is more thinwalled. By lying out the bottom
27. F.Agun: Optimum Spacing of Multiple Stabilizers to of the BHA on the drillfloor with the correct stabilizer
Increase Critical Buckling Load of BHA in Slim Hole spacing, the deflection can be measured. By correcting this
Drilling. Paper SPE 54322 presented at the 1999 SPE Asia measurement for buoyancy, the correct BHA build or drop
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, properties are accurately determined.
Indonesia, 20-22 April. From flexural theory (indeterminate beam theory) the
following equations results:
28. L.Yinghui and S. Yinao: Automatic Inclination
Controller: A New Inclination Controlling Tool for Rotary
Drilling. Paper IADC/SPE 59259 presented at the 2000
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, 20-25Feb.
 1
( )1
 − 12 q x − ( L1 + L 2 ) + 3 ( R1 + R 2 + R 3 )

4 4 


29. S.Schaaf, D.Pafitis and E.Guichemerre: Application of a
Point the Bit Rotary Steerable System in Directional Drilling δ=
1  { 1 2 } 1 (
 x x 3 − ( L + L )3 + M x 2 − { L + L } 2
1 2 ) 

Prototype Well-bore profiles. Paper SPE 62519 presented at
the 2000 SPE/AAPG Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach,
2EI 

2
( 2 
 − ( R 2 L1 + R 3 ( L1 + L 2 ) ) x + R 2 L1 + R 3 ( L1 + L 2 ) x 
2


)
Calif., 19-23 June.
 2 1 1 (
 + R L {L + L }2 − L2 ( L + L )
2 1 1 2 ) 

30.S. Rafie, H.S.Ho and U.Chandra: Applications of a BHA (A3)
Analysis Program in Directional Drilling. Paper IADC/SPE
514765 presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, where:
Dallas, TX, 10-12Feb.
q = βw sin α = βρgA sin α and x = L1 + L 2 + L tan
31. W.Qui, S.Miska and L. Volk: Drillpipe-/Coiled-Tubing-
Buckling Analysis in a Hole of Constant Curvature. Paper R1 = q ( L − X − Y )
SPE 39795 presented at the 1998 SPE Permian Basin Oil and
Gas recovery Conference, Midland, TX, 25-27 March. R 2 = qX
R 3 = qY
Appendix A: DLS model  L2 
M1 = q  XL1 + Y {L1 + L 2 } − 
 2
In the following a model will be presented to determine the  
build-rate for a BHA. Huusgaard6 developed the analytical and:
expressions from flexural theory. They are cumbersome.
Instead, a build-rate model was derived as shown in Fig. A1. X=
It simply determines the end deflection of a cantilever beam,
assumes a shape of a circular arch, and determines the ( )
L1 L31 + 6L21L 2 + 12L1L22 − 6L3 L22 + 10L22 − 12L 2 L23 + 3L42 − 6L22 L23
inclination as follows for a horizontal BHA by assuming the
shape of a circular segment.
(
4L1 3L1L 2 + 4L22 )
6 ( L1 + L 2 ) ( L2 + L3 ) + 2L2 L3 ( 2L2 + 3L3 ) − L31
2

δ Y=
DL = f sin −1   4L2 ( 3L1 + 4L2 )
L
β wL4
where : δ=
8EI
I=
π
64
(D4 − d 4 ) The final DLS model then becomes(assuming small angles):

(A1) fδ
DLS ( ° / 30m ) = 1719 (A4)
L
The rate of change is simply found from:
The following scaling factor applies:
f δ
DLS = sin −1  
L L (A2)  E  I  ρ  A  β 
f =  i  i  ρ  A  β 
 E  I  i  i  i 
IADC/SPE 77220 ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR DESIGN OF WELLPATH AND BHA 9

Appendix B: Model for build-up geometry The build-radius (which changes with inclination) is:
1719 1719
From Appendix A, it is evident that a build-assembly R ( m) = = (B7)
increases build rate with increasing inclination, or: DLS (° / 30m) DLS MAX sin α

dα The alonghole length is:

∼ sin α (B1)
ds  α2 
1719  tan 
ln  2
Drilling with a certain BHA over long distances will lead to an s=  (B8)
DLS MAX  α1
increased DLS over long distances. In the following we will  tan 
determine the depths and lengths associated with such a  2 
profile. Assume the following relationship:
The projected vertical depth is:
dα 1
= sin α (B2)
ds a  sin α 2 
ln 
 sin α 2   sin α 
Assuming a start inclination that is not zero, the following 1719
ln 
 1
 sin α 
measured depth results by integrating Eqn. B2 between the y= or : y = s
DLS MAX  1  α2 
start and the stop inclination:  tan 
ln  2

 α2   tan α1 
 tan   2 
s = a ln  2
 (B3) (B9)
α1
 tan 
 2  and finally the horizontal departure:
We also need to determine the vertical and horizontal
projections of the wellpath.
(
s α 2 − α1 )
Vertical depth: x=
1719
DLS MAX
(α 2 (°) − α1 (°)) =  α2 
ds  tan 
dy = cos α ds = cos α dα 57.3 ln  2

dα α1
 tan 
by inserting Eqn. B2 and integrating the vertical depth is:
 2 
(B10)
 sin α 2 
y = a ln 
 sin α 
(B4)
Here s is the measured length, α1 is the start inclination,α2 is
 1 the end inclination.

The horizontal departure likewise becomes:

Appendix C: Catenary well profile
ds
dx = sin α ds = sin α dα = adα The complete equations to model a catenary well profile are
dα (B5) derived by Aadnøy and Andersen,1,3. In the following some of
(
x = a α 2 − α1 ) the resulting equations will be presented.
These equations will in the following be converted to
Figure B1 shows the definitions of the catenary system. The
field units.
force through the drillstring is:
With reference to Eqn. 13, the maximum build-rate for a given
F = F12 + ( β ws ) + 2β wsF1 cos α1
2
assembly is defined as DLSMAX. This is usually referred to a (C1)
horizontal assembly. The constant above becomes: a=1719/
DLSMAX. The build-up rate becomes:

DLS(° / 30m) = DLSMAX sin α (B6)

10 B. AADNOY AND P.HUUSGAARD IADC/SPE 77220

The slope at any position is: Constant BHA:

dx βws + F1 cos α1 L BHA = ∫αα 2 DLSBHA − MAX sin αdα

tan α = = (C2) 1
(D2)
dz F1 sin α1
= DLSBHA − MAX ( cos α 2 − cos α1 )
The local slope (that relate to the DLS) is:
Catenary:
dα βwF1 sin α1
= (C3) LCAT = ∫αα 2 DLSCAT − MAX sin 2 αdα
ds F2 1

1
In all these expressions, the index 1 refers to the bottom end of = DLSCAT − MAX {2 ( α 2 − α1 ) + sin 2α1 − sin 2α 2 }
2
the catenary profile. (D3)
To compare the three different alternatives, we require the
dα βw sin α1 same drilled length. Expressing the two in terms of the
= (C4)
1

( 1 ) )
ds F 1 + sin α tan 90° − α 2 − cos 2 α 
( 1

constant BHA model, the following results:

We observe that the slope is expressed by initial conditions

and the local inclination α only. By using trigonometric 2 ( cos α 2 − cos α1 )
DLSCAT − MAX = DLSBHA − MAX
identities, the above expression can be reduced to: 2 ( α 2 − α1 ) + sin 2α1 − sin 2α 2
(D4)
dα βw
= sin 2 α (C5)
ds F1 sin α1

Remember that the above expression is in radians per unit

length. Converting to the familiar oil field units, the DLS
becomes:

180 β w
DLSCAT ( ° / 30m ) = 30 sin 2 α (C6a)
π F1 sin α1

or: DLSCAT ( ° / 30m ) = DLSMAX −CAT sin 2 α (C6b)

Appendix D: Comparing fixed BHA with the

catenary

It has been found that the ordinary build model and the
catenary solutions are similar, but the latter follows a squared
sine law. We will now compare the two solutions. In Fig. B2,
three different profiles are shown. Also a constant buildrate
model is presented for comparison. First we will derive
expressions for the drilled length for the three cases as
follows:

Constant build-rate:

LCONST − DLS = ∫αα2 DLSdα = DLSCONST ( α 2 − α1 )

1

(D1)
IADC/SPE 77220 ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR DESIGN OF WELLPATH AND BHA 11

Drillpipe
HWDP
Jar
Drillcollars
Stabilizer
MWD/LWD
Drillbit

Figure 1: A typical bottom-hole-assembly

L2
Neutral point

L1
Ffriction
α
W
Fbit

Figure 2: Forces acting on the

bottom-hole-assembly

Tension

L1 Compression Fbit
Lb
L2
α
Hb
W αb

Ffriction DC

Ffriction DP

Figure 3: BHA design to drill highly deviated wells and upwards

12 B. AADNOY AND P.HUUSGAARD IADC/SPE 77220

Ltan FN-stab
Ltan
W
α Fbit α
FN-stab FN-stab Fbit
W
Fside FN-stab

a) Drop assembly b) Hold assembly

Figure 4: The effect of the weight of the BHA

Fside

Fbit

a) Bent sub b) Build assembly

Figure 5: The geometric effect

L1 L2 Ltan
q

a) Beam model for a generalized BHA

L1

L2
Ltan

b) Analogous assembly - first interpretation

L1

L2
Ltan

c) Analogous assembly - second interpretation

Figure 6: Beam model for a generalized BHA

IADC/SPE 77220 ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR DESIGN OF WELLPATH AND BHA 13

6 Ltan = 0.75 m

Ltan = 1 m
4
Ltan = 1.5 m
DLS [deg/30m] .

2
Ltan = 2.5 m
0 Ltan = 3.56 m
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
Ltan = 5 m
-2 Ltan = 6.5 m
Ltan = 8 m
-4
Ltan = 9.5 m

-6 Ltan = 11 m

-8
Inclination [deg] .
Figure 7: DLS as a function of the inclination and the tangent length

DL/2

δ
≈ Ltan
a) Circle arc

DL

δ
≈ Ltan

b) Straight line

Figure A1: The shape of the

deflected tangent length