.

,tiiiMis R

Soclstv of Petrokum ErWtwra

SPE 26330

Problem Detection During Tripping Operations in Horizontal

and Directional Wells
J.V, Cardoso Jr.,* Unicamp/PetrobrclsS.A.; E.E. Maidla,* Unicamp; and IS Idagawa,
Unicam@PetrobrtwS.A.
●SPE Members

CapyrlghI 12S3, Seciety of Petrohum Engineers. Inc.

A
TMC paper waa pfaparai
for p?oaen!sllon al the SSlh Annual Technical CQnfemnce and ExhllWlon of the Soclefy of Petroleum Englne8rs hold In Hou8ton. Texee, 3-6 October 1S93.

This paper WM aalacfad for preaenlatlw by an SPE PrQra!n CommltIee following review 01 Info!matlon mntslned [n an sbafracl eubmftted by It!a author(a). Cements of the pupor,
cc preaantad, have not baan ratiowod by the Soclafy of Petroleum Engineara and are eubject to correction by the autfIor(8). The material, ea pre$emad, Ooea not neceeearlly reflect
any poaitlon of tha SOClolyof Patrolmim Englneara, Ha offlcara, or mambera. Papare pra$enled at SPE maatinge are subject to publlcallon mvlow by Edllonal Committee 01 the Society
al Patrolaum Er@iaam. Pormlaalon 10copy la faatrfctad to an abatracf of not more than 300 words. Illuatmtlona may not be copied. The abstract ehoutd contain canaplcuoue ocknowfedgman!
of whar8 #nd by whom Iho paper la preeanted. Write Ubrarian, SPE, P.O. Sox &M3s, Richardson, TX 7MN3.SS3S, U.S.A. Telex, 1S2246 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT the physical interaction between two surfaces sub-

Most directional well drilling problems de- jected to a normal force. The word pseudo is used
tected in Brazil, and also verbally reported by to indicate that the values calculated in the field,
‘ service companies abroad, occur during tripping are a function of the measured hook load, which
operations. A comprehensive research program in turn is a function of many parameters that in-
was undertaken to study this problem, The work clude but are not limited to:
is summarized in this paper, and shows the devel- e Cuttings bed, ledges, partially close bore-
opment of a field analysis procedure that proved holes, bridges, hook load sensor error, mea-
to be reliable and thus translates into significant sured depth sensor error, operational proce-
cost savings, dures during tripping, pulley friction (within
The field data was obtained using an in house the traveling and crown block), partially
mud logging offshore unit and service compa- stuck pipe due to any other proliem not
nies’ drilling sensors. The analysis was performed mentioned, drilling fluid properties and ef-
using the new developed method - Two Stage fects (e,g.: hydrodynamic friction, buoyancy
Qpe Curve Matching: an alert hook load ex- considered as a pressure x area effect,
pert system, followed by a pseudo friction fac- etc.), irregular geometry (e.g., washouts),
tor%ignature” analysis. etc. Note: differential sticking is not listed
Field results showed this to be useful for early here as it is a static phenomena (addressed
borehole detection. in detail, later),
The borehole friction factor has been studied
INTRODUCTION by many researchers ~2’3’415’*, and used for several
The first concept to be discussed is the applications in directional and horizontal wells.
“pseudo” mechanical borehole friction factor, rep- This includes drag and torque predictions and
resented by the symbol jbp. The traditional con- analysis, casing design, trajectory design, and
cept of mechanical friction factor is related to borehole diagnosis. The last one - “Borehole Dz-
agnosis” is seen here as a method by which cer-
References and I@rea at end of paper. tain driHing problems can be detected at an early

163

2 Problem Detection During Tkipping Operations
stage before they become critical to the operation
or well itself.
Single values of the borehole friction factor
have been reported and published. The trend
analysis, combined with the type curves has so
far been limited to our research.
Previous papers have investigated the bore-
hole friction factor by calculating one constant av-
erage value. Further investigations by Maidla7 de-
scribed the behavior of the friction factor through
the use of a medium scale laboratory equipment,
This work combines both ideas and goes further
to diagnose directional well problems during trip-
ping operations.
The diagnostic procedure is carried out in two
stages. First tripping data is collected at a sa,m-
pling frequence of 3 to 4 Hz (hook load, depth
and time). The hook load data is analyzed, on
line, and is used to screen out useful data to be
used (later defined in the paper), thus eliminating
recording too much unuseful information, Simul-
taneously to this filtering process, a first check
is made against type curves to try and identify
some problems: poor borehole cleaning - figure 1;
sections of borehole closure - figure 2 (e.g., Salt
Drilling); ledges - figure 3; key seats - figure 4;
differential sticking - figure 5; bridges - figure 6.
The second stage uses the screened data and
normalizes it by producing a pseudo friction fac-
tor log - the absolute value of ~bpis necessary but
does not provide any information regarding the
type of problem, and most of the times, this value
alone is unable to assure problem existence. The
total apparent borehole friction factor “signature”
is analyzed through another set of different type
curves, and tries to identify some of the problems
depicted in figures 1 through 6.
The objective of this work is to provide a field
diagnosis method (supported by fundamental re-
search and appropriate mathematical modeling),
that allows the early detection of some problems,
known to the drilling industry, while drilling di-
rectional and horizontal wells (parts of the anal-
ysis is applicable for vertical wells too).
164
●
In Horizontal and Dkectional Wells SPE 26330
DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE
The diagnostic procedure is carried out in two
steps. First - Hook Load Data Analysis - the
raw tripping hook load data is recorded. It is
analyzed after each section pulled out. Second
- Pseudo Friction Factor Analyzes - the pseudo
friction factor analysis is performed, if needed.
Hook Load Data Analysis:
This part of the analysis can be used for any
well trajectory – vertical, directional and horizon-
tal,
The analysis is performed by comparing trip-
ping out hook load data against different type
curve9:
1) TMpping Type Curve Standard: The
tripping out type curve standard for one section
of pipe is shown in figure 7. The following effects
take place:
● At the beginning and end part of the section
pulled out, the acceleration and deceleration
effects predominate.
s Within the center third part, the values os-
cillate around an average value. This value
is a function of the true borehole friction fac-
tor and any other problem that can cause
hook load to increase. If this value is be-
tween the hook load calculated for fb = O
and ~b = .fbn, (.fbnis usua]ly within 0.20 and
0.40)1, no problems (figures 1 through 6)
are assumed to have occurred - hook loads
within this range are referred to here as nor-
mal. lf average hook loads are above this
normal hook load range, the pseudo fric-
tion factor analysis is performed for the en-
tire trip out (obeying certain rules addressed
later).
Analysis of field data, showed similarity to
figure 7, and suggested that:
● The hook load value that best represents the
pulling out conditions of the drillstring are
contained within the center third portion of
the graphs, and this value is sometimes in-
dependent of the sampling rate used, There-
fore to proceed to the pseudo friction factor
SPE 26330 Jos4 Venhcio
analysis only the CTA (Center Third Av-
erage) needs to be calculated and stored in
memory.
2) Ledge Type Curve Standard - LTCS In
the previous type curve description a question
remained unanswered: Why is a 3 Hz sampling
rate necessary, if CTA is relatively independent
of this, and acceleration and deceleration effects
are known to take place only at the beginning and
ending of a pulled out section?
Notice in figure 8, that there are two distur-
bances within the more central part of the type
curve - one at about 3070 of the section trip time,
and the other at about 70?40.In this case it is sim-
ulating the tool joint hitting against the ledge,
but it could be any part of the drillstring with
shoulders on it (e.g., stabilizers). This can only
be clearly detected if high sample rates are used.
We found 3 Hz to be adequate.
3) Borehole Closure Type Curve Standard
- BCTCS This problem is well known in the
field, and a typical BCTCS is shown in figure 9.
The operation is followed by a succession of
pipe stretching, quick sudden movement (high ac-
celeration and deceleration), and further stretch-
ing, throughout the entire section being pulled
out, thus indicating much difficulty in all in-
stances in moving pipe, Notice that the entire
string is moving, otherwise the hook load would
simply increase as pipe is stretched, and no de-
crease would be observed,
The assumption here is that the pipe contin-
uously moves upwards.
4) Differential Sticking Type Curve Stan-
dard - DSTCS Initially the pipe only
stretches according to:
AFH At? ~ ~
u =tx E==$— — =G
A.
assuming the pipe is picked up at a constant v~
Iocity and stretched:
E predicted ones for normal fb values (.f~.). Also a
AF1t = —xv. xAt (2)
A, X !dp
Ae
where: VH = — (3)
At
Cardoso Jr.; Eric E. Maidla; Luiz S, Idagawa 3
As At is the only variable in equation 2, the initial
upward trend in figure 10 is therefore explained.
As soon as the increment in axial force ex-
ceeds the differential sticking drag force, the pipe
is released and a normal pattern takes place.
This occurs because differential sticking does
not happen instantaneously, but rather is a time
dependent static phenomena that takes place be-
tween the pipe and mud cake surfaces (due to the
cake thickness). This provides a contact area that
does not see, any longer, the wellbore pressure.
The pressure at the interface does not change im-
mediately but rather shifts from wellbore pressure
to the pressure at the rock/cake interface, as a
function of time.
At the initial stage. of the problem (low pres-
sure differential and/or snail times in which the
pipe remains static, and in contact with the cake)
it is very hard to detect without using high sam-
pling rates, due to the small time in which its ef-
fect on hook load takes place (only a few seconds
to begin with).
The detection of this problem is easier as t!ie
mud weight program is depth dependent. As the
differential pressures are related to depth, the
problem becomes worse as the well gets deeper.
This provides enough data to identify this prob-
lem during the trip operations that normally oc-
cur. In this case, as trips are recorded at different
times, but the different type curves at the same
depth, could be used to identify how severe is the
problem really becoming.
5) Incorrect Operating Procedure Type
Curve Standard - IOPTCS In this case
there are several accelerations and decelerations
(figure 11), meaning that the drillstring is pulled
out in a “bumpy” fashion. In not using the type
curve technique, or not observing the operation,
(1)
could otherwise lead to the wrong conclusion -
that there might be a problem!
This is detected by the use of type curve anal-
ysis because the hook load lower values exceed
larger amplitude occurs, even for wells with prob-
lems.
4 Problem Detection During “IMpping Operations
6) Further Analysis Type Curve Standard –
FA’JWS ‘Ilk graph is similar to the one shown
in figure 7 with the exception that CTA is greater
than the hook load predictions when using the
normal borehole friction factor (between 0.20 and
0.4).
Note: the next step is to be carried out only
for directional wells for which the DWR is greater
than 15% (explain&d later).
Pseudo Friction Factor Analysis:
This part of the analysis isn’t intended for
the vertical wells or depth intervals of directional
wells for which the DWR is lower than 15!Z0.
The Drag Weight Ratio (DWR) was first de-
fined by Maidla8, and was slightly changed here.
It is defined as the ratio between drag (calculated
for a normal borehole friction factor value*) and
the buoyant weight of the pipe:
Therefore if drag isn’t a significant portion of your
hook load, and therefore of your buoyant pipe
weight, other small effects on hook load will offset
the values of& calculated without the well really
having a problem. Just as an example, consider a
straight pipe resting against one inclined plane -
figure 13. The inclination is 10 deg, the hook load
error is 570, and a borehole friction factor of 0.35
is used. The pseudo friction factor calculated for
this situation is:
fbp = fbn+ & + fb. x I?HL
= 0.35+ - + 0.35x
fbp = 0.35+ 0.28 i- 0.02 = 0.65
This error (89%) becomes a problem if it is sys-
tematic, because it would indicate a problem that
really does not exist. If the error is of random
nature, the average values would remain around
0.35. Unfortunately in the field, both errors are
taking place, The systematic error is present
s 0.35 is used here.
In Horizontal and Directional Wells SPE 26330
to some degree in nearly all measurements, even
when they are so called “carefully recorded”.
Notice that for this simple example problem,
the DWR is calculated as:
.
DWR = fbn x tan a not val]d for w& (6)
therefore, for this example, the inclination angle
that corresponds to a DWR of 15% is roughly 23.2
degrees. In recalculating the pseudo borehole fric-
tion factor yields a value of 0.42, or an error in its
estimation of 3970 - a significant error decrease,
but still too large at times. A method for cali-
bration checks is presented later in this paper to
mitigate this effect.
Important Notice: The above cannot be ap-
plied to directional wells. There is a consider-
able vertical portion before the kick off point and
inclination changes with depth. Therefore DWR
should be calculated with a computer program for
the entire well profile, and only for those depths
for which DWR > 15% should the pseudo fric-
tion factor analysis be performed (DWR is not
linearly proportional to inclination - it depends,
among other factors, on the well trajectory, as
considered by equation 4), unless calibration is to
be checked.
Analysis Procedure
1. For every depth below the DWR limit depth,
and for each section of pipe pulled out, a
pseudo friction factor is calculated or as-
signed according to the following rule:
● If the hook load analysis indicates the
absence of problems fb= .fb. k as-
(5)
signed.
0.05 ● If the hook ioad analysis calls for the
pseudo friction factor analysis, then fbp
is calculated using the CTA value.
2. A log plot is produced: fbpvs. ~.
3. Pseudo friction type curve matching is used
tO verify if the vaiues of fbp follow any pat-
tern (Idagawag) simulated for:
● partial borehole closure.
● bridge.
● key seat.
166
.
SPE 26330 JOS4 Venikmio Cardoso Jr.; Eric E. Maidla; Luiz S. Idagawa
4. The best fit indicates the probable prob!em.
!5. If no fit occurs? the followirig might explain:
(a) the ‘signatures” (explained later) or
trends are the results of two or more
effects.
(b) systematic errors in hook load readings.
The type of sensor used and the way
it is calibrated are very important for
this analysis - refer to Maidla’ss paper
for 3 appropriate sensors, for hook load
measurements, that can be used (there
are others, but are not the scope of this
paper).
(c) a problem occurred that was not mod-
eled.
Pseudo Friction
Factor Type Curve for Par-
tial Borehole Closure A partial borehole clo-
sure is illustrated in figure 2. A long section
of pipe suffers the action of a lateral force, dis-
tributed in some manner over its length, that in
turn increases the hook load.
The following assumptions were made for
modeling of the phenomena that is further refined
to a type curve display:
The hook load increase is directly propor-
tional to the length of the borehole closure
SeCtiOn(ff3c).
The effect takes place as long as there is pipe
below or within this section.
It’s effect is time dependent in some way -
the longer it takes to get by it, the greater
the effect. This is modeled by assuming
that the additional increase in hook load will
be proportional to the initial depth of the
partial borehole closure and the current bit
depth.
An empirical coefficient (KBC) will provide
the ne&ssary degree of’ accuracy required
to account for many effects that are not
considered independently (since knowledge
of exact geometry is not possible) such as:
surface roughness, borehole friction factor
within the partially closed area, contact
forces due to the geometry changes, etc.
167
5
The phe,lomena is modeled as:
(~5&P
AFa = x t~c x KBC (7)
.Dbi~
F. = (FJO + AFa (8)
where: (F.)O = Pipe axial load at (DBc)tOPwith-
out considering the partial borehole closure effect.
For this study, a sensitivity analysis that took
into account the magnitude of the values for the
field data recorded suggested this coefficient to be
20 lbf/ft (292 N/m).
The last item missing in equation 8 to run
the type curve simulator is l~c (explained soon).
For now, we will work with a sketch as shown in
figure 14.
Analyzing the sketch it is seen that as the drill
collars, or stabilizers, or any other large diameter
portion of the drillstring (even tool joints - not
actually discussed here since the problem would
already be very severe) starts passing through the
partially closed section, there will be a sudden in-
crease (could be small) in hook load (point D)
that will gradually increase to an average value
(point C) that will remain fairly constant un-
til the bit reaches the bottom of the partially
closed section (point B) and after decreasing in
an unknown manner as the bit starts passing
through, until finally reaching the partial bore-
hole closure top (point A) and .fbp returns to nOr-
mal (point O).
In this paper, a term signature is used to de-
scribe the behavior of the borehole friction factor
log. For this case, the probable problem signature
is shown by the lines connecting OABCD13.
At this point, item 4 of the “analysis proce-
dure”, can be further detailed:
Once the meudo friction factor log is ready,
figure 14 ;S used qualitatively to ;heck and
see if there is any similarity between them.
● If the possibility exists, points A and B will
be tentatively defined on the log, and this
wi)l define the borehole closure length (.f.Ec).
This is the last value missing to run the type
curve simulator.
● By running it, a scaled type curve is pro-
duced and provides the best analysis tool.
6 Problem Detection During Tripping Operations
Sensitivity analysis is then performed to try
and verify if both signatures match to some
degree.
Pseudo Friction Factor Type Curve for
Bridging A bridge is illustrated in figure 6. A
short section of pipe suffers the action of a lateral
force,
The following assumptions were made for
modeling purposes:
● At the moment the bridge occurs, the hook
load would suddenly increase by some value
(in a step wise way), here modeled as:
DEi
= z~Bx
(A~’)initia( ~Dbit)initial (9)
The effect takes place as long as there is pipe
● pulled out.
below the bridge. Notice: here it is not as-
sumed that the bridge effect will necessar-
ily cease as the bit reaches the bridge, this
could happen at any moment depending on
the severity of the problem.
● The effect is time dependent in some way -
the longer the time ii exists for, the greater
the effect. This is modeled by assuming that
the additional increase in hook load will be
proportional to the depth change up to a
maximum WLILK?, h’B.
The phenomena is modeled as:
DE
F. = (Fc)o + ~{B X — (lo)
(Dbit)
where ~bi~ changes as the drillstring is pulled out.
For this case, sensitivity analysis suggests an
order of magnitude for Z{E of about 60,000 Ibf
(266,892 N). This could be reviewed after several
field case analysis.
The sketch (figure 15) shows that there will
be a continuous & increase up to the moment
the bridge breaks down, or the bit gets by it.
The severity of this increase will depend upon the
parameters shown in equation 10, but no matter
what the values are, it will increase, This is inl-
portant because the recognition of the signature
is somewhat independent from KB.
Observing the pseudo friction factor log, it is
possible that a signature match exists. To further
168
In Horizontal and Directional Wells SPE 26330
check this, the value of DB can be tentatively cho-
sen and an adjustment of the ]{B value should be
tried in order to obtain the best match possible,
interactively - this is done quickly with the sim-
ulator.
Pseudo Friction Factor Type Curve for Key
Seat A key seat is illustrated in figure 4, Part
of the borehole is worn out by some component
of the drillstring (e.g., the drillpipe).
The following assumptions are made for mod-
eling the hook load response:
The effect decreases as the drillstring is
pulled out. The reason being that for this
situation the normal force between pipe and
the key seat surface is decreasing as pipe is
The key seat effect is less severe for larger
radius around which the drillstring is be-
ing pulled, The reasoning in this case is
that doglegs generate larger normal forces,
as shown by any drag model* ‘2’3’6.
The phenomena is modeled as:
D
F. = (F. ). x e ( b“‘D k‘x]’’”) (11)
(12)
where Kli is a dimensionless empirical coeff~cient
used to try and tnatch the type curve tO the .fbp
log during the problem analysis.
The exponential function approach was se-
lected to model the key seat effect, because of
the analogy made to the homogeneous solution
of the differential equa?.ion that models the drag
phenomena (shown below - some analytical solu-
tions are shown by Maidla2).
Looking at the type curve shown in figure 16,
the following explanations pertain: between point
B and C, the complete drillstring is being pulled
passed the key seat; between points B and A, only
the drill collars are passing by.
The signature recognition proceeds as de-
scribed before, with a difference: there will
be portions of the theoretical signature that lie
within depths for which the DWR < 1570, there-
fore the type curve match that would indicate a
.
SPE 26330 JOS4 Ven&ncio Cardoso Jr.; Eric E. Maidlx
key seat problem will be within points E and C.
For depths above point E, the & might not have
even been calculated (if the suggestion for calcu-
lations of& previously described is followed).
Pseudo Friction Factor Analysis For Cali-
bration Systematic errors have a greater effect
on & values for the shallower portions of the well,
for which the DWR. is lower than 15%. There-
fore, calibration can be checked through sensitiv-
ity analysis on the parameters used to calculate
& ~suming they aren’t the type of problems
that would affect the & values.
This is better understood by working through
a complete field example problem, carried out in
the field case study section of this paper.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Drag is calculated using vector calculus in
three dimensions, after Maidla2. The model is
bssed on the analysis of forces acting on a small
pipe element within a 3-D well trajectory space.
Buoyancy, hydrodynamic friction and dog legs ar
built into the simulator. The minimum curv ‘ur
method, as defined by TaylorlO, is used as it cc.
siders first derivative continuity at any point of
the trajectory (note, the axial forces are acting
along this direction, and normal ones perpendic-
ular to it).
The basic mechanical friction component of
the simulator is calculated with base on the fol-
lowing equation:
dFa
— = WU(/?)+ j’b X ~N(/) (13)
dl
where:
+ used if pulling out.
used if running in.
WA?(t) distributed normal force, lbf/ft.
VVti(l) distrib. tangent force, lbf/ft,
and
where:
Wbi(l) = binormal component of distributed
weight, lbf/ft.
Luiz S. Idagawa 7
WP,(/) = principal component of distributed
weight, lbf/ft.
and
w“(t) = w ● z(t) (15)
Wbi(/) = @ ● ~(f) (16)
Wpr(q = iv ● fit) (17)
The tangent C(l), binormal ~(l), and principal
fll) vectors are explained in detail by Kreyszigll.
Equation 13 is solved by numerical techniques.
The simplicity of equations 13 through 17 and
the fact that horizontal wells require solutions for
inclinations above 90° (above equations are valid
up to 180°), further supports the use of this math-
ematical tool.
Data was recorded while drilling a horizon-
tal well offshore (figure 17). The horizontal and
vertical projections are shown in figure 18. For
completeness, the Bottom Hole Assembly used is
described in table 1, that was pulled out while
having a mud weight of 9.5 lb/gaL
While tripping out of the well the data wss
recorded between the depths of 7776 ft (2370 m)
and 8924 ft (2720 m) using a microcomputer (re-
strained within an explosion proof area), and ap-
propriate sensors, used by mud Iogging compa-
nies. Time, depth and hook loads were recorded
at a sampling rate of 3 Hz.
All data was processed and some results are
discussed:
1) Hook Load Data Analysis:
1.a) Differential Sticking: the type curve is
shown in figure 19. Only for this case, the
recorded frequency was 0.4 Hz. The data plot
matches quite closely the differential sticking type
curve standard (figure 10). The increase in hook
loads is due to stuck pipe. The sharp decrease in-
dicates its release, after which, hook loads return
to normal expected values.
1.b) Ledge Indication Without Con/%natiom
figure 20 shows the possibility of a ledge, as indi-
cated by the two arrows on the plot.
8 Problem Detection During l%pping Operations
Assuming some variation in the pulling veloc-
ity (it is lower toward the end) this plot is sim-
ilar to the ledge type curve standard shown in
figure 8.
To confirm this hypothesis, this behavior
should repeat itself throughout the other sections
pulled out - this was not observed. Therefore
this was not diagnosed as a drilling problem (this
is not the same as saying that no ledges existed
in the well).
Further seen is that the pseudo friction factor
values, that would be calculated using each hook
load point in figure 20, has an average close to
0.3, that is a normal value expected.
2) Pseudo Friction Factor Analysis:
A typical hook load plot, recorded at 3 Hz is
shown in figure 21. The acceleration affect at the
beginning and deceleration at the end are clearly
noticeable, as is the quality of the data in the
center third average of the plot.
The hook load type curve analysis showed no
need for type curve pseudo friction factor analy-
sis as the DWRS were below 15Y0. The analysis
performed was for calibration checking.
Systematic measuring errors cause large errors
in & if DWR < 15~o,making this a good tool to
check out calibration. Sensitivity analysis (on the
parameters used to calculate jbp) is the indicated
technique for this.
The field case studied here was concerned with
hook load measurement calibration - one of the
major sources of systematic errors. This was done
by producing a pseudo friction factor log shown
in figure 22.
The bottom curve was calculated using the
CTA values from the hook load analysis part. For
the other two curves, CTA was chmged by the
amount shown on each curve.
As the& values show a trend line parallel to
the depth coordinate and an average value of 0.37,
there is no indication of any calibration problems.
For the purpose of describing the method, two
other situations are explained (but are not taking
place here):
1) The & log for CTA shows slightly high
values at shallower depths decreasing as depth in-
170
In Horizontal and Directional Wells SPE 26330
creases. This is the first indication of the possibil-
ity of a systematic error - if this decrease doesn’t
occur (for an average fbp value above 0.4), the cal-
ibration checks can’t be performed since it means
that the effect of systematic errors is increasing,
that isn’t reasonable (if all equipment is in good
working order), and therefore some kind of prob-
lem might be occurring in the well.
2) If on the other hand, the average fbp value
is below 0,25 and the log values tended to increase
to values close to 0.3 or 0.4 [not more than this),
this would also indicate the possibility of some
systematic error in the measurements.
CONCLUSIONS
The field case study supports the use of the
Type Curve )kf@hing Technique, that includes
the “Hook Load Data Analysis” and the “Pseudo
Friction Factor Analysis” (used here as a calibra-
tion checkup tool), for the purpose of Borehole
Diagnosis).
The results showed that the graphical ap-
proach is useful for the diagnostic process,
whether to build type curves or to analyze pseudo
friction factor logs. It showed to be equally useful
while checking equipment measurements calibra-
tion while performing sensitivity analysis.
Problems were detected, proving the useful-
ness of the method, avoiding costly remedial op-
erations.
Field data analysis supports recording at
3 Hz, otherwise only a small part of the diagnosis
method could be applied.
NOMENCLATURE
J = binormal unit vector.
CTA = center third average, Ibf.
D = measured depth, ft.
DWR = drag weight ratio, d-lessl.
e = error, d-less.
E = modulus of elasticity, psi.
30 x 106 psi for steel.
f = mechan. friction factor, d-less.
1) d-less = dimensionless
WE Z(XWJ Jos& Veniincio Cardoso Jr.; Eric E, Maidl~ Luiz S. Idagawa 9

force, lbf. Anadrill Brasil; Mr. Manoel Rodriguez Parada

empirical coefficient, lbf. Neto from Petrobr&s; and the drilling department
I{Bc empirical coefficient, lbf/ft. of Petrobr6s’ base in Macti. Note: the material,
I<K empirical coefficient, d-less. as presented, does not necessarily reflect any po-
t length, ft. sition of PetrobrAs, and is subject to correction
principal unit vector. by the authors.
radius, ft.
t time, hours. REFERENCES
ii tangent unit vector. 1. Cardoso Jr., JOS6 V. L., Diagnr5stico de Problemas em
v velocity, ft/hr. PWOS Direcionais Durante = Manobras, M.S. thesis,
State University of Campinaa, Brazil, 1993. (in Por-
w distributed weight, lbf/ft. tuguese).
6 strain, d-less.
2. Maidla, E. E., “Borehole Friction Assessment and Ap-
CT stress, psi. plication to Oilfield Casing Design in Directional Wells,”
Cr inclination, deg. PhD dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1987, US.
& dog leg severity, or 3. Sheppard, M. C., Wick, C., and Burguess, T., “Design-
incl. rate of change, deg/100ft. ing Well Paths to reduce Drag and Torque, SPE 15436,
1986, US.
4. Falconer, I. G., Belaskie, J. P., and Variava, F., “Appli-
Subscripts: cations of a Reaf Time Welbore Friction Analysis”, SPE
18649, 1989.
b borehole. 5. Quigley, M. S., Dzialowski, A. K., and Zamora, M.,
“A Full-Scale Wellbore Friction Simulator,” SPE 19958,
bi binormal.
1990, us.
bn normal borehole.
6. Johancsik, C. A., et. al., “Torque and Drag in Dlrectinal
bp pseudo borehole, Wells - Prediction and Management,” J PT June 1984,
B bridge. pp 987-992, US.
BC borehole closure. 7. Maidla, E. E., Wojtanowicz, A. K., “Laboratory Study
dp drillpipe. of Borehole Friction Factor With a Dynamic-Filtration
Apparatus,” SPEDE September 1990, pp 247-255, US.
H hook.
HL hook load. 8. Maidla, E. E., and Wojtanowicz, A. K., “A Field
Method For Assessing Borehole Friction For Directional
K key seat. Well Casing,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engi-
m measured. neering, 1 (1988) 323-333, Elsevier Science Publishers
P pseudo. B., Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands.
pr principal. 9. Idagawa, L. S., “Estudo do Diagn6stico de Problemas
o without the effect of borehole na Perfura@o de Pogos D]recionais,” M .S. thesis, State
University of Campinas, Brazil, 1990. (in Portuguese).
problems.
10. Taylor, H. L., Mason, C. M., “A systematic Approach
N normal.
to Well Surveying Calculations,” SPE3362, 1971, US.
u tangent.
11. Kreyszig, E., Advanced Engineering M athematics, pp
w weight. 375-376, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1983, US.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Petrobr&
Unicamp and Fapesp. The authors also wish to
thank the Centre for Petroleum Engineering at
The University of New South Wales (in Australia)
for allowing the usage of all the communication
systems available to them. Also acknowledged
are the help of Mr. Yves de Malmazet, from
 .

10 Problem Detection During ‘IMpping Operations In Horizontal and Dkectional Wells SPE 26330

Table 1: BHA used while recording the field data.

!
I ELEMENT
OD
in
ID
In
1.
tt

BIT . ATJ.I lH 12114 1

STSERA5LE (I9 0/ STB 1!2 1/4 7314 26

FLOAT SUB 7314 3 2.4
I SHORT K-MONEL 1813 1101
MWD I 8 I 5 3a.3

PRS-PRESSURE RELIEF SUB 8 3 2.3

S?0 12 8 3 5.1 FQuro 1 : Poor claanmg.

K-MONEL I 8 3 29.7
STB 12110 e 3 5.1

S OC 136 lb/ft 7314 3 90.8

12RlLLtNG JAR 7314 3 3s.3

I DC 138 lb/ft 7314 3 31.1

CROSS OVER 7 314x 6314 I 213/16 I 3,6

r-
[
3 DC 101 Iblft

43 blW 49.5 lb/fl

DPS 19.S lb/ft

I

I
e 3/4
6

6
I
2 i3\16

3
4.7
I

I
92.3

1423

Figur4 2: Soratmlmclosurm.

Figure 5: Ditfefentlol slicking.

Figure 4: t(ey sat

STANDARD TYPE CURVE

TRIPPING OUT

-----
---------
---------
------
-----
,—.

I I

Figuro 6: Sddga
I
i
II

172
‘7 Figure
I f=rwrnal--

7 : Tripping
f=(ll

type curve standard

\

\
.
SPE 26330 JOS4 Ven&ncio Cardoso Jr.; Eric E. Maidla; Luiz S. Idagawa 11

E
I

I-
I
I

I
‘7
I
t

I
I

E
I

I
,
-41 r==-
Ml oooWav07 )iOOH Ml oooWavo7 WOH

. .. —- .

I I
t I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I t
t t
1 I
I I
I I
1 t
I I
I I
I I
t I
t !
1 I
I I
I
I
t

:.
I
I
I
I
I
1

%’
I
}
I
I
I
I
\ I
I
1 I

tiql oooWav07 YOOH bql oooll’avo~ YOOH

— —— ...- .— 173 -.— ——. . .. . .

12

DRAG WEK3HT RATIO

IJklng cquatlon 4:

(Ft+Fn. &/.Ft
OWR =
/..; I F,
I
I
i
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
4
I 9 ‘w
I
F;.
I
1
1 PSEUDO FRICTION FACTOR CALCUfATION
1 .——.
1 ( 1101 valid fOf Wdh )
I
i 5i. Ft
lbp. fp .y
I
I n
I
I F. = lFt+F”. &+ eM,. IFt +FnibJ
I
I
I f@ - fbp + & + f~” O“L
1
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 13: Sketch for the example problem
I
I
I

WIl oooWavO~
X)OH

1 —— . ...—— . ... ——. .

PSEIJDCl FRICTION FACTOR PSEUDO FRICTION FACTOR

0 >3

NORMAL TRENO LINE NOilMAf. TRENO LINE

(U$ulrly C#wcwr020.0.40) (IISWIIY belwasn 020.0.401

E sWOE
w
o <
~
a
PARTIAL
BOREHOLE
CLOSURE

Flgufo 14: Pewdo frkflcm fsclor Iypo cum. for parllal borahol@closuro

174
SPE 26330 Jos4 Ven&ncio Cardoso Jr.; Eric E. Maidlw Luiz S. Idagawa 13

PSEUDO FRICTION FACTOR

o >3

NORMAL TREND LINE

(UIMIIY Wwm 0.20. 0.40)

[c OCEAN

~
>?
CATION
w II-l
n KEY SEAT r.
Q
w
z
5

Figure 17: Well location.

Nw rm I@tl*l
o “n* m(pln.vmemo

Figure 16: Pseudo frlctlon factor type curve tor a key seat.

t
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1

lJ*I -----------, I
I

,6 nm n. I

‘F’!’L
1
4 . . . . . . . . . .. . ..*m..
t
.’ *+#- I
~ “!.!
.’
~tw 4 . . . . .O”. ww I
I I
i
I
)

i u. .%
.’
“,,: *7 ,’

* m
hall 111,0
>! Iw!-.__—_ —U1
.. . .. .
JIM

6y 000L ‘avol X20H

Figura 18 Horizontal and Vertical sectlona
 180
DWR = S %

170

~l,o

g
A
y 150
0
0
x
140 ~ = 0.3

..-&=o

13C

180

DWR = 5 %

170

:
~ 160

n“
< n
~ ------ ----- ----- ------ - ------------ J’t--
~ 150
0
g
. . ...4 =0.3
140
---&=o

130

CALCULATE FOR CIA X t 1>

, ,
</’
CALCUIAIED FOR CTA & 109

~~ CALCULATE USING CTA VALUES

D 2530 2720

Figure 22: Pseudo friction factor sensitivity anaiysls.

176