SPE 97079
Torque and Drag Modeling for Horizontal Openhole Completions
R. Rezvani, Halliburton/Sperry Sun, and B. Techentien, Halliburton Energy Services Inc.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 – 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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.
Proposal
Since horizontal openhole sections are now being drilled to
lengths that exceed 20,000 ft, placement of the completion
string (CS) to planned total depth (TD) may not be possible
under a proposed drilling plan. During the early years of
horizontal-well construction, the hanging weight of the
completion string was usually adequate to push it to TD. With
the extreme lengths being attempted today, it is important to
model the well before attempts are made to run the planned
completion to determine 1) whether the strength of the CS can
stand the strains (tension, compression, and torque) of
installation, and 2) whether there is enough weight in the
upper CS to push the lower CS to TD. A software model that
uses a wide range of well parameters to enable the operator to
predict possible tension loading, compression loading, and
torque limits on the CS during installation has long been
available. This paper discusses the software and how it can be
used in modeling well completion systems.
To calculate the applied forces on the completion string
requires the use of a wide range of well parameters and a
specialized software program that will allow the prediction of
loads and stresses that can be safely applied on the CS during
installation. If the modeling process indicates that the CS will
not stand the stresses of installation without (1) failing from
tensile loading, (2) buckling from the compression load, or (3)
failing from rotational torque, a different well plan can be
devised or other remedies employed. Charts developed from
actual case histories illustrate how the use of torque and drag
modeling can be advantageous in all phases of well
completion.
Introduction
Frictional drag can prevent installation of a completion string
(CS) to total depth (TD) of a well. This situation can be
especially critical in an openhole horizontal well, since there
are additional challenges inherent to gravel pack assemblies.
When considering offshore development, the cost of
drilling can approach, and occasionally, can even exceed $70
million. Because of the increased costs and risks in these well
scenarios, the capability to accurately assess the various
stresses to which the CS can be subjected during installation
will be critical to well success.
The technique presented in the paper provides the
completion designer an additional tool in designing a
completion string that can withstand the downhole stresses
encountered during the running of the completion string. For
example, if the modeling process indicates that the CS will not
withstand the stresses of installation without 1) failing from
tensile loading, 2) buckling from the compression load, or 3)
failing from rotational torque, a different well plan must be
devised. The operator must then formulate a new
configuration, which can then be assessed using the torque and
drag model for primary assessing of the capabilities of the new
configuration.
When considering the number of unplanned drilling issues
that can prove to be detrimental to the successful completion
of a horizontal openhole completion, a primary key to
successful planning, drilling, and completing a well is the
initial development of an organized program that foresees all
possible problem areas and includes all drilling as well as
completion parameters. This program should also determine
appropriate bottomhole assemblies and individual tools and
components.
Technological advances in drilling, particularly in the past
5 to 7 years, have resulted in a broad scope of new drilling and
measurement equipment for offshore and onshore drilling.
Each advancement and new tool, coupled with the rapid pace
of gathering “Know How” to apply the new concepts, have
improved the drilling processes considerably. The major
changes in the drilling sector have resulted from the following:
• The advent of Rotary Steerable Systems (RSS), as well as
integration of the computer and information technology
(IT) into the downhole drilling processes.
• Bigger and stronger Drilling rigs than their predecessors
• High-temperature, high-pressure (HT/HP) Measurement-
2 SPE 97079
While-Drilling (MWD) tools with an increased array of
improved sensors are now available.
Information technology techniques now include real-time
data transmission, both from downhole to surface and from the
rig site to the office. The new capabilities have improved
drilling efficiency and reduced cost to such an extent that
many of the wells being drilled and completed today could not
have been developed and/or financed before these
developments.
Rotary steerable systems have enabled wells to be drilled
deeper and to greater lengths horizontally as well as allowing
them to reach reservoirs that previously were not accessible.
These advantages improve the overall economics of the
projects.
Challenging drilling targets proposed by operating
companies has led the service providers to respond with the
advanced drilling technology required to drill these wells.
Completion technology has lagged and now can jeopardize the
successful completion of these challenging wells. Both
sectors of the industry ― the completion and drilling sectors
― have continued to advance into deeper environments.
However, the completion sector has concentrated on the sand-
control capabilities needed in the completion rather than on
the delivery of the completion components to the position
needed in the ever-lengthening hole section.1,2
Downhole completion hardware is not as rugged as drill
pipe and drilling assemblies by design. The new well bores
enabled by the advances in drilling technology can induce
additional loads and stresses that need to be evaluated and
fully understand prior to designing the completion string.
Table 1 compares the strength of completion strings and drill
strings.
The drill string can be rotated to TD, and casing strings are
floated to it. However, the completion string can neither be
rotated nor can it be floated. For a project to reach fruition,
the well must be completed, and if the completion string can
not be delivered to TD, the drilling investment in the well is
compromised ― at least partially, or perhaps, entirely.
What is the Solution to the Problem?
Torque-and-drag modeling can provide a solution.3 This type
of modeling is a relatively old concept that has been used
routinely in drilling applications. The use of this assessment
tool to broaden the scope of efficiency in running completion
strings is the subject of this paper. As with drilling, when this
modeling technique is applied to completion scenarios, it can
provide a method to predict any possible completion problems
beforehand, and therefore, should be a necessary step in
creating a completion procedure.
Friction factors have been considered for quite some time
in trying to determine torque and drag in the wellbore. This
term is used to group several factors that take into account the
conditions that increase torque and drag in the wellbore with
the most important conditions relating to the type and
composition of drilling fluid and the type of formation through
which the openhole wellbore will be drilled.4
By modeling the frictional forces that can affect the
completion string in advance, it is possible to predict if the
string will reach bottom or if the forces resulting from friction
will exceed allowable limits. This type of model can predict
possible buckling of the completion string. When three-
dimensional (Helical) buckling occurs, the string is coiled into
the wellbore, and no more weight is transferred to the BHA
regardless of “Slack Off”.
Torque and Drag modeling software is available from
many different sources and can be leased or purchased. To be
effective, however, the modeling software must contain a
database of bottomhole assembly (BHA) drilling and
completion components and must include as a minimum such
parameters as OD, ID, weight/foot, tensile strength and
torsional strength.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to derive the involved
formulas or all the algorithms used in calculating torque and
drag; however, it does take into consideration two algorithms
― a “soft-string” and a “stiff-string.” The soft string
algorithm ignores the local stiffness of the collar section and
effect of drilling stabilizers or very crooked hole sections, as
this algorithm will result in a slight under-estimation of the
amount of drag and torque (or over-estimation of the friction
factor). Although the amount of over/under estimation is, in
most cases, less than 2-3%, the stiff version appears to be
more commonly used.
Calculating Loads
The “friction factor” is the most important element needed to
calculate either the “pick up” or “slack off” load or the torque
needed to rotate the string. The friction factor is a function of
a great number of variables including but not limited to the
tortousity of the hole and the lubricity of the fluid in the
annulus. This number indicates the amount of friction as a
percentage of the weight of the object. Everything else being
equal, oil-based mud and synthetic mud produce a lower
friction factor than that produced by brine or water-based
mud. Also, long gauge bits produce lower tortousity than bi-
center bits. In general, the friction factors also will be lower in
a cased hole than they are in an open hole.
When moving the string (axially, such as picking up or
slacking off, or rotationally), the frictional forces are at a
minimum, yet considerable, and are the result of dynamic
friction as opposed to static friction. For all strings in the hole,
the closest true weight of the string (load) is obtained from the
rig-weight indicator and only when the string is being rotated
off bottom. Although the friction factor is independent of the
hole inclination, the frictional forces are higher in higher angle
holes because of the greater portion of the weight on the low
side of the hole.
Most torque-and-drag modeling software programs are
capable of back calculating a friction factor, given the weight
of the string. Acceptable friction factors have been calculated
this way for different fluid types and drilling circumstances.
What Parameters are Needed to Use the Software?
1. The main input to most torque-and-drag software is a
SPE 97079
delineation of the components of the string from the bottom to
the top. For each item, the length, OD, ID, weight/foot, tensile
strength and torsional strength are input manually or taken
from a database.
2. The profile of the well, (MD), inclination (Inc) and
azimuth (Azm), from top to bottom is also put into the
modeling software. If the well has already been drilled, it is
highly recommended that the actual directional surveys of the
well be used. If the well is in the plan stage, the profile listing
in the said form (MD, Inc and Azm) would be the best
available data to use.
3. Due to the fact that the acting weight of the string in the
hole is actually the buoyed weight, the fluid density is also an
input into the software, and the submerged weight of the string
is calculated and used for this purpose.
The software calculates the hanging buoyed weight (load
or tension) of the string from bottom to the top. When any part
of the string is under compression, the load is shown as
negative. This calculation is performed for several operational
modes. These are:
1) Rotating off bottom mode. (This load is the closest
true weight of the string that it is normally
obtainable):
2) Pick-up mode. This load is generally the highest
because the actual weight and the frictional forces
(Drag) are adding together
3) Slack-off mode. This load is the actual weight minus
the drag
4) Rotary drilling mode with weight on bit
5) Oriented drilling (sliding) mode with weight on bit.
For the purpose of modeling completion strings, the last
two items (Nos. 4 and 5) are not relevant. In fact, oriented
drilling mode with zero weight on bit is the same as the slack-
off mode. This is the same for rotary drilling; i.e., zero weight
on bit is the same as rotating off bottom.
These calculated weights are plotted as continuous curves
in a plot of weight versus measured depth. Also plotted on the
same chart is the tensile strength limit of the components as
well as the buckling strength of the same. Obviously, these
two curves fall on opposing sides of the plot because one is
maximum tension, and the other is maximum compression.
For better depiction and correlation, the vertical profile of the
well is also plotted as inclination versus measured depth.
If the weight (load or tension) curve should coincide or
cross the tensile strength curve at any depth, this will be the
depth at which the string will fail in tension or compression.
The same is true for the other side of the chart, which would
be the compressional/ buckling mode.
The software constructs a similar chart, depicting the
torque for the case of rotary drilling or rotating off bottom.
This plot shows the torsional load on the string at any point
from top to bottom. The torsional strength limit of the
component is also plotted. Again, if the torque exerted on the
component should equate or exceed the design limits (plot
lines coincide or cross), it would be at that depth where the
string would fail in torsion.
3
Figure 1 shows an out-reaching well plan only drillable
with rotary steerable equipment. This well, located in
Azerbaijan, was in the planning stage. When the torque-and-
drag software indicated that the well could not be completed
as planned, the operator was alerted to the problems before a
costly failure occurred. Figures 2 through 7 show the actual
plots generated from other recent case histories in which
torque and drag modeling was used. In Figure 2, a completion
had been developed for a well in Brunei that had already been
drilled. The well plan torque and drag was predicted to be
within the limits for this well at total depth. Figure 3 shows
the torque and drag report for the well depicted in Figure 2.
Figures 4A, 4B, and 5 also relate to the well in Figure 2.
Figure 4A shows the drill-string tension operational scenario,
Figure 4B illustrates the drill-string slackoff, and Figure 5
shows a plot of the completion-string torque (just in case the
string is rotated) with the case at total depth. Figures 6 and
Figure 7 relate to the well plan shown in Figure 1. Figure 6
shows that the completion string would slack off only at an
unrealistically low friction factor. Figure 7 is a picture of the
computer-screen calculations at total depth and that the drill
string is locked up and unable to go in the hole under the
slack-off operational mode.
Conclusions
Torque and drag modeling is a well-proven technique for
wellbore construction that has been routinely used in the
drilling segment of the industry. The advent of new drilling
technology has enabled the drilling of increasingly
complicated directional/horizontal wells that now require the
running of torque and drag modeling prior to the design of the
completion string.
The increased drilling capabilities and the sophistication of
today’s well profiles have stretched the envelope of
completion processes to the extent that any unforeseen event
in a well could easily jeopardize its economic success. The
wells in Azerbaijan and in Brunei are examples of how torque-
and-drag modeling can be advantageous. The modeling for
the Figure 1 well (Azerbaijan), which was still in the planning
stage, indicated that the well could not be completed as
planned. The torque-and-drag modeling for the Brunei well
showed that the completion design was satisfactory for the
conditions. This capability enabled the operators to determine
if and where their designs were acceptable. In both cases, the
advantages of using the modeling software can be easily seen.
The authors of this paper recommend that torque and drag
modeling be used in all wells during the planning process and
that it should become a requirement when planning the well
completion process. This will help ensure that the completion
design will be suitable for the well conditions and that the well
can be completed as planned. As shown by the figures, torque
and drag modeling has the capabilities to provide assurance
that planned completions in openhole horizontal wells will be
successful.
4 SPE 97079

Acknowledgments 3. Rezvani, R., Techentien, B.: “Torque and Drag Modeling Predicts
The authors wish to thank the management of Halliburton Tension, Compression, and Torque Limits for Horizontal
Energy Services, Inc. and Sperry Drilling Services for Openhole Completion Systems,” paper AADE-05-NTCE-50
encouragement and permission to write this paper. The presented at the AADE 2005 National Technical Conference
and Exhibition, held at the Wyndam Greenspoint in Houston,
authors also wish to thank the operators who allowed the new Texas, April 5-7, 2005.
torque and drag modeling procedures to be used in their well 4.Gaynor, T, Hamer, D, Chen, D., and Stuart, D.: “Quantifying
completions, and thus, helped to prove the advantages and Tortuosities by Friction Factors in Torque and Drag Model,”
efficiency of the torque and drag system for well planning. Paper SPE 77617 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29
References September to 2 October 2002.
1. Foster, J., Grigsby, T., and LaFontaine, J.: “The Evolution of
Horizontal Completion Techniques for the Gulf of Mexico. SI Metric Conversion Factors
Where Have We Been and Where are We Going? Paper SPE ft x 3.048* E - 01 =m
53296 presented at the 1999 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas in x 2.54* E + 00 = cm
Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia 20-22 April. psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
2. Duhon, P., Holley, A., Gardiner, N., and Grigsby, T.: “New lbm x 4.535 924 E - 00 = kg
Completion Techniques Applied to a Deepwater Gulf of Mexico bbl x 1.589 873 E - 01 = m3
TLP Completion Successfully Gravel Pack an Openhole lbf x 4.448 222 E + 00 =N
Horizontal Interval of 2,400 ft,” paper SPE 50146 presented at *Conversion factor is exact
the 1988 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Perth, Australia,
12-14 October

Table 1 ― Strength Comparison of completion versus drill strings

SPE 97079 5

Eastings (Wellhead)
Scale: 1cm = 300m
0
-2100 -1800 -1500 -1200 -900 -600 -300 0

Northings (Wellhead)
V-Section Azim

Northings (Wellhead)
uth: 277°
200 300.00 0 0

1200.00
160 .01

273.29
2.49

243
0.0
190 .77

0
400 -300 -300

240
0 .0
0
600.0

2 2 0 .7 7

0
4

240
17.9

0 .0
600 -600 2 -600

4°
22 500

22
4. .00
47

h:
.00

ut
900 26

im
800 -900 -900
28. 9 5/8in Casing

Az
2800.00 4123.00

n
Scale: 1cm = 300m

Scale: 1cm = 300m

io
.0 0 172.66

ct
Se
1000 00 -1200 -1200
1 2 .6 0

V-
38 .23
Vertical Depth (Wellhead)

14
29 7.36
.94 00

1200 -1500 14 -1500

48 00.
15

TD=4747m
.6 00

1400
51 00.
6
18

-2100 -1800 -1500 -1200 -900 -600 -300 0

0
.0
1600 00 Scale: 1cm = 300m Reference is Grid North
21 2.42 Eastings (Wellhead)
5
0
.0
00 0
1800 2 4 2 .4 2
5
0
.0 0
00 700.0
Vertical Depth (Wellhead)

2000 27 2.42 500

21.38
5
0
.0
00
30 2.42 1000 .00
2200 00
5 15 .94
.00 48
00
33 .90

.42 00
1 1500

52 00.
2400 5
23

.42 00
Scale: 1cm = 500m

52 00.
2600 3700.00 2000

30
Scale: 1cm = 200m

56.44

.44 00
9 5/8in Casing

56 00.
4123.00 2500

37
2800
9 5/8in Casing, 4123.00
TD=4747
43 .01

TD=4747
47 .01

3000
82
00

3000
82
00

.00
.00

0 500 1000 1500 2000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Scale: 1cm = 500m
Scale: 1cm = 200m Section Azimuth: 277.000° (Grid North) V-Section Azimuth: 224.292° (Grid North)
Vertical Section (Wellhead)

Figure 1 ― Well Plan Torque and Drag model predicted that the string would not reach the TD of this well
6 SPE 97079

Figure 2 ― Well Plan for a well in Brunei. This well had already been drilled.
Fortunately, the torque and drag was predicted to be within limits for this well @ TD
SPE 97079 7

Figure 3 ― Torque and Drag Report for well depicted by plot of Fig. 2
8 SPE 97079

Figure 4A ― This figure shows the drill string tension operational scenario (lbf) for the well in Figure 2
SPE 97079 9

Figure 4B ― This figure shows the drill string slack off for the well in Figure 2
10 SPE 97079

Figure 5 ― This figure shows the completion string torque for the well in Figure 2
SPE 97079 11

Figure 6 ― This chart shows that the completion string would slack off only at a unrealistically low Friction Factor for the well in Figure 1
12 SPE 97079

Figure 7 ― The computer-screen calculation at total depth for the well depicted in Figure 1. This shows that the
completion string has locked up in slackoff mode.