IADC/SPE 87149

Modeling of ECD in Casing Drilling Operations and Comparison with Experimental and
Field Data
H. Diaz, SPE, PDVSA; S. Miska, SPE, N. Takach, SPE, and M. Yu, SPE, University of Tulsa

Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas,
Texas, U.S.A., 2–4 March 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 International
Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers, their officers, or
members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by
Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors and 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.
Abstract
Three modeling approaches to the determination of
equivalent circulating density (ECD) in Casing Drilling 1
operations are considered in this study; viz., hook-load
measurements, pump-pressure measurements and
conventional hydraulic models. The bottom-hole pressure is
obtained by adding the calculated annular pressure losses to
the hydrostatic pressure. Since the annular clearance is very
small in casing drilling, a narrow-slot flow approximation
model is adopted that takes into account the effect of pipe
rotation. A Yield-Power-Law (YPL) drilling fluid is
considered in this study.
Results from each of the three approaches are compared
with experimental and field data. The differences between the
calculated and measured bottom-hole pressures (hence ECD)
are within a range of about ±8%. In terms of the frictional
pressure losses in the annulus, this range increases to about
±60% in some instances.
It is shown that pipe rotation plays an important role in
determining ECD. The experimental data indicate an increase
in the annular pressure losses with increasing pipe rotary
speed. The hook-load measurements correlate well with
flowing bottom-hole pressures.
Introduction
Casing drilling uses a casing string to drill, evaluate and
case a well simultaneously. This technology bypasses some
time-consuming steps of conventional drilling that may take
up to 35% of the total time to drill a well1,2. It has been
estimated that casing drilling has the potential to reduce the
costs of conventional rotary drilling by approximately 15%2.
1 The hydrostatic pressure can be computed from:
Casing Drilling is a registered trademark of Tesco Corp.
The well geometry in casing drilling is a major difference
from conventional drilling. The ratio of hole to pipe diameter
is close to unity. The internal diameter of a casing is large so
that there is relatively little pressure loss inside the casing.
However, the casing drilling annulus provides more restricted
flow so that higher than normal pressure losses are
encountered. Analogies can be drawn to slim-hole hydraulics.
It is well documented3-9 that the narrow clearance between
drill pipe and the wellbore plays an important role in
determining the frictional pressure losses in slimhole drilling.
The determination of the flowing bottom hole pressure
(hence ECD), during drilling operations, is an important task
of the drilling engineer. In most casing drilling situations the
ECD will be higher than the ECD in conventional drilling,
even though a lower flow rate may be used. ECD is
determined using the following equation:
Ph + ∆Pfa
ECD = = ρ mh + ρ fa (1)
Dg
The hydrostatic pressure is determined by the average
density of mud and cuttings in the annulus. The frictional
pressure losses depend on the borehole geometry, the flow
regime, pipe rotation and drillstring dynamics. In the case of
casing drilling the in situ cuttings concentration may be higher
than in conventional drilling due to lower flow rates and the
frictional pressure losses are higher than conventional drilling
because of the narrow clearance between casing and the
wellbore. And while the influence of drill pipe rotation on hole
cleaning and ECD has been widely recognized in conventional
drilling10-17, very little is known about the effects of pipe
rotation on ECD in casing drilling operations.
Although casing drilling has been identified as a
technology that can potentially solve many problems in
conventional drilling operations, a better understanding of
hydraulics is needed to improve the efficiency of this
technology2.
In order to obtain a better understanding of the factors that
affect ECD in casing drilling operations, experimental and
field data provided to the authors are analyzed using the
models presented in this paper. Particular emphasis is placed
on the effect of pipe rotary speed on ECD.
Mathematical Modeling
Calculation of Hydrostatic Pressure
2 IADC/SPE 87149
Ph = g (ρl (1 − CV ) + ρ pCV )D (2)
where the in situ cuttings concentration in an annulus, CV, can
be determined by the following equation:
2
1 ⎛⎜ v M ⎞ v sp 1⎛ v ⎞ pressure.
CV = − 1⎟ + − ⎜ M − 1⎟ (3)
4 ⎜⎝ v slip ⎟
⎠ v slip 2 ⎜⎝ v slip ⎟
⎠ related to the annular pressure drops, ∆Paj, through a force
For small values of Cv, the average slip velocity, vslip, can be
assumed to equal the terminal settling velocity. In this paper
the settling velocity was calculated from Chien’s21
correlations. A detailed derivation can be found in Ref. 18.
Calculation of Annular Pressure Losses for a Yield-Power-
Law Fluid with Pipe Rotation Using Narrow Slot
Approximation
Tao and Donovan3 proposed the following equation to
determine the pressure losses in a small clearance for a
Newtonian fluid.
f ' (∆P )ω =0
(∆P )ω = (4)
f cos α
This model can be extended for a non-Newtonian fluid if f,
f’ and (∆P)ω are calculated using a model for non-Newtonian
fluid flow in the annulus. In our study Tao and Donovan’s
model was extended to calculate frictional pressure losses in
the annulus for Yield Power Law fluids using the narrow slot
approximation approach. A computational procedure is shown
in Appendix A.
Calculation of Annular Pressure Losses Using Hook Load
Measurements
During casing drilling operations a noticeable reduction in
the hook-load is observed. This reduction is caused by the
upward forces on the outside surface of the casing due to fluid
flowing in the annulus. Thus, this hydraulic lift may be used to
estimate the pressure losses in the annulus.
In order to develop the relationship between hook-load and
annular pressure we assume a casing string composed of two
casing sizes, with different lengths and unit weights. The
densities inside and outside the casing are different due to the
presence of cuttings in the annulus. Steady state flow is
assumed and convective acceleration terms are neglected.
From a force balance of the casing drilling string we obtain
(see Appendix B):
Fh = Wc – Fb –Fd – Fp - Fbit –wob (5)
The contribution of the factors that cause the reduction of
hook load is shown in Fig. 1. Calculations were done for a
depth of 6720’, weight on bit of 10780 lbs, flow rate of 351
gpm and rate of penetration of 57 ft/hr. The values of these
parameters change as the well is drilled. However, the
distribution of the effects on the hook load does not change
much. Therefore, the trend can be extended to different
conditions. The principal causes of reduction of hook load are
buoyancy, weight on the bit and the piston effect. From the
result obtained with Equation 5, the jetting force is too small
to be considered an important factor. In addition, the
contribution of drag force in reduction of the hook load is not
large. The difference of pressure at the end of each section,
which causes the piston effect, depends on many variables
such as hole geometry, hole eccentricity, drill string dynamics
and pipe rotation. Thus, in casing drilling operations the hook
load measurement offers a way to estimate the bottom hole
The average shear stresses at the casing wall, τoj, can be
balance of forces acting on casing in the annulus (see
Appendix B). Equation 5 can be written in a general form for a
casing string composed of “m” sections as:
L j − g (ρ oj A oj − ρ i A ij )L j
m
Fh = ∑ [w
j =1
j
(6)
π
− D h D oj ∆ Paj ] − ∆ Pbit A n − wob
4
Equation 6 can be used to obtain an expression for the
change in hook load, ∆Fh, due to fluid flowing in the annulus.
For a string composed of one casing size the change in hook
load can be determined by the following equation:
π
∆Fh = Dh Do ∆Pa (7)
4
Warren19 derived a similar equation for the same case:
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
π ⎜ Dh2 − Do2 ⎟
∆Fh = ⎜ + Do2 ⎟∆Pa (8)
4 ⎜ ⎛ f h ⎞⎛ Dh ⎞ ⎟
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ 1 + ⎜ f ⎟⎜ D ⎟
⎝ ⎝ o ⎠⎝ o ⎠ ⎠
where fh and fo are the friction factors at the borehole wall and
casing wall, respectively. Instead of defining an average
friction factor, Warren19 used different friction factors for the
borehole and the casing wall. Both friction factors were
calculated using the same Reynolds number, but different wall
roughness. When fh and fo are equal (as is the case when
assuming an average friction factor) Equation 8 reduces to
Equation 7.
Calculation of Bottom Hole Pressure Using Surface Pump
Pressure Measurements
Bottom hole pressure can be calculated from surface pump
pressures. Pressure losses inside the casing are computed
using the conventional model for flow in pipes. The pressure
drops through the bit and the surface equipment are calculated
using the methods presented in Ref. 20. The bottom hole
pressure can be determined by subtracting all these pressure
losses from the pump pressure.
Experimental Data
The Baker Hughes Experimental Test Area (BETA) is located
about 20 miles south of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The data was
collected by MoBPTeCh Alliance and provided to TUDRP
(The University of Tulsa Drilling Research Project) as a
courtesy of Hughes Christensen.
Cased Hole Tests
The well bore schematic is shown in Fig. 2. Three
predetermined flow rates, 550 gpm, 450 gpm and 350 gpm of
IADC/SPE 87149
water, were used with the casing rotating at different rates (0,
60, 120 and 180 RPM). The test was repeated using
bentonite/water muds of 9 ppg and 10 ppg. Down hole and
standpipe pressures were recorded during these tests.
Drilling Tests
During the test the flow rate was kept constant at 540 gpm
and the rpm and WOB were changed. The BHA was
comprised of the 12 ¼” bit with TFA 0.746. More detailed
information can be found in Ref. 18.
Calculation of Bottom Hole Pressure
Three methods were used to estimate the bottom hole
pressure. The results of each method were compared with the
field data obtained from the MDP tool. The bottom hole
pressure was finally obtained by adding the calculated annular
pressure losses to the hydrostatic pressure. These methods are
as follows:
Method 1: The annular pressure losses are obtained from
the measured hook load using Equation 8.
Method 2: The annular pressure losses are obtained from
the measured hook load using Equation 7.
Method 3: The annular pressure loss is calculated using a
narrow slot flow approximation for a Yield-Power-Law fluid.
The effect of pipe rotation is included using an extension of
Tao-Donovan’s3 approach for non-Newtonian fluids
(Appendix A).
Field Data
BP drilled 15 gas wells22,23 using the Tesco Casing Drilling
process in the Wamsutter area of Wyoming. Data was
collected while the production hole was drilled. This data is
from a well that we call “Well 1”. The pump pressure, rpm,
ROP, flow rate and hook load measurements were recorded. A
schematic of the well is shown in Fig. 3. Casing string
configuration, drilling fluid properties, and cuttings properties
can be found in Tables 1 and 2.
The data collected in the tests was provided to TUDRP
(The University of Tulsa Drilling Research Project) as a
courtesy of BP-Tesco.
Calculation of Bottom Hole Pressure
In order to analyze this field data, Methods 2 and 3,
described in the previous section, are used. The pump pressure
measurements were also used to estimate the BHP. This
approach is referenced to as Method 4.
Discussion of Results
Water and two muds, Muds A and B, were used in the
tests. The average rheological properties of these fluids are
listed in Table 3. The Reynolds numbers for different flow
rates and types of fluids were calculated and are shown in
Table 4. The flow regime is fully turbulent for water at all
flow rates. For Mud A the flow regime is also turbulent, but
close to the transitional region. The flow regime for Mud B is
laminar below 450 gpm and transitional to turbulent above this
flow rate.
Figs. 4 to 6 show the bottom hole pressure as a function of
the casing rotary speed at different water flow rates (350gpm,
450gpm and 550gpm). Both model predictions show a similar
trend compared to the experimental data: the annular pressure
losses increase as pipe rotary speed increases. The results
obtained from the hook load measurement show a better
3
agreement with the experimental data as compared to the
predictions using the narrow slot approximation.
The differences between the calculated and measured
bottom-hole pressures (hence ECD) are within a range of
about ±8%. However, in terms of the frictional pressure losses
in the annulus, this range increases to about ±60%.
Similar tests were conducted using Muds A and B. Figs. 7
to 9 show the bottom hole pressure as a function of rotary
speed. The model predictions and measured data show trends
similar to those observed in the water tests. Again, the results
obtained from the hook load measurements show better
agreement with the experimental data as compared to the
narrow slot approximation.
The difference between the calculated and measured
bottom-hole pressures are within a range of about ±8%.
However, in terms of the frictional pressure losses in the
annulus, about ±40% difference is obtained.
Another fluid, Mud B, was tested in this study at the same
flow rates (350gpm, 450gpm and 550gpm). Fig. 10 shows the
bottom hole pressure as a function of rotary speed at a flow
rate of 350gpm. The axial flow is laminar under this test
condition. The predicted pressure losses obtained from
Method 3 decrease as pipe rotary speed increases. These
results agree well with the theoretical7, 13 and experimental6, 11
results for laminar helical flow of a shear thinning fluid in a
concentric pipe. However, the experimental data shows an
increase in the annular pressure losses when the casing rotary
speed increases. The flow of Mud B becomes less laminar
with increasing rotary speeds of the casing. Again, a better
agreement was obtained from the hook load measurements.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the results for Mud B at the flow
rates of 450gpm and 550gpm, respectively. The flow regime is
turbulent when the flow rates go beyond 450gpm. Similar
trends were observed and the results using hook load data are
better than the predictions using narrow slot approximation.
The differences between the calculated and measured
bottom-hole pressures are within a range of about ±20% for
Mud B. However, in terms of the frictional pressure losses in
the annulus, this range increases to about ±40%.
A flow test was conducted in which the flow rate was kept
constant at 540 gpm but the rotary speed and WOB were
changed. The properties of the fluids used are shown in Table
5.
The measured and calculated bottom hole pressure for the
interval from 435’ to 665’ are shown in Fig. 13 when Mud C
was used in the test. Both Method 2 and Method 3 over-
predict the bottom hole pressure.
Similar tests were conducted with Mud D. Fig. 14 shows
the bottom hole pressure, measured and calculated values for
the interval from 665’ to 887’ (TD). Both models under-
predict the bottom hole pressure in this interval.
Fig. 15 is a plot of the bottom hole pressure as a function
of depth for the interval from 2850 ft to 9070 ft. Water was
used as the drilling fluid in this test. The results obtained using
Methods 2 and 3 are similar. The bottom hole pressure
obtained from Method 4 (using pump pressure measurements)
is greater than the values obtained from the other two methods
(using hook load measurements and narrow slot
approximation).
4 IADC/SPE 87149
Concluding Remarks
Three modeling approaches are proposed and evaluated in
this paper for estimating ECD in Casing Drilling operations:
1. A mathematical model for estimation of bottom hole
pressure using hook load measurements;
2. An extension of Tao and Donovan’s method for
calculating pressure losses, using the narrow slot
approximation approach;
3. Use of surface pump pressures for estimation of
bottom hole pressure.
Experimental data was analyzed to estimate the bottom-
hole pressure by adding the calculated annular pressure losses
to the hydrostatic pressure.
Comparisons of the models with the experimental data
show good agreement. The differences between the calculated
and measured flowing bottom hole pressure are within a range
of about ±8%. However, in terms of the frictional pressure
losses in the annulus, this range increases up to about ±60%.
These frictional pressure losses represent about 10-30% of the
total bottom hole pressure.
It is shown in this study that pipe rotation plays an
important role in determining the Equivalent Circulating
Density in the annulus of a wellbore. The experimental results
indicate that an increase in the annular pressure losses is
observed with increasing pipe rotary speed.
The hook-load measurements correlate well with flowing
bottom-hole pressures.
Hook load measurements as well as surface pump pressure
measurements can be used to determine the bottom hole
pressure (hence Equivalent Circulating Density) in casing
drilling operations.
Acknowledgement
We would like to express our appreciation to Peter Bern of
BP, Allen Sinor of Hughes Christensen, Tommy Warren of
Tesco, the MoBPTeCh Alliance and Tulsa University Drilling
Research Projects for making this study possible.
Nomenclature
A=annular area,L2, in2
Ai = area of casing based on internal diameter, L2, in2
An = area of drill bit nozzles, L2, in2
Ao = area of casing base on outside diameter, L2, in2
Cv= in situ cuttings concentration, dimensionless
D = depth, L, ft
Deff = generalized “effective” diameter, L, in
Dh = wellbore diameter, L, in
Dhy=Do-Di, hydraulic diameter, L, in
Di, Di1 , Di2 = casing internal diameter, L, in
Do= casing O.D., L, in
Fb= force due to buoyancy, mL/t2, lbf
Fbit= jetting force, mL/t2, lbf
Fd= drag force, mL/t2, lbf
Fh= hook load, mL/t2, lbf
Fp= force due to piston effect, mL/t2, lbf
f= friction factor without pipe rotation, dimensionless
f’= friction factor with pipe rotation, dimensionless
fh = friction factor at the borehole wall, dimensionless
fo = friction factor at the casing wall, dimensionless
g = acceleration due to gravity, L/t2, 9.81 m/s2
K= Consistency index, mtm-2/L, lbf sm/ft2
Lj= section casing length, L, ft
m= flow behavior index of Yield Power Law model,
dimensionless
N= Generalized flow behavior index, dimensionless
NRe = Reynolds number, dimensionless
Ph = hydrostatic pressure, m/Lt2, psi
Q = flow rate, L3/t, gal/min
ReYPL = Reynolds Number for Yield-Power-Law fluids,
dimensionless
ri = casing radius, L, in
rpm = casing rotary speed, rev./min
u = mean tangential velocity, L/t, ft/s
vsp=superficial cuttings velocity, L/t, ft/s
vslip=slip velocity, L/t, ft/s
vm= mixture velocity, L/t, ft/s
v = mean axial velocity, L/t, ft/s
Wc= casing weight in the air, mL/t2, lbf
Wj= unit weight of casing, m/t2, lbs/ft
wob=weight on bit, mL/t2, lbf
(∆P)ω=0 = pressure drop without pipe rotation, m/Lt2, psi
(∆P)ω = pressure drop with pipe rotation, m/Lt2, psi
(∆P)bit = pressure drop through the bit, m/Lt2, psi
∆Pfa,∆Pa = frictional pressure losses, m/Lt2, psi
⎛ωr ⎞
α = arctan⎜ i ⎟
⎝ 2v ⎠
γw = shear rate, t-1, s-1
η= apparent viscosity, m/Lt, cp
µ= viscosity, m/Lt, cp
π= 3.14159…
ρfa = equivalent density due to frictional pressure losses, m/L3,
lbm/gal
ρι = density inside casing, m/L3, lbm/gal
ρ1 = mud density, m/L3, lbm/gal
ρmh = mixture density, m/L3, lbm/gal
ρο = density outside casing, m/L3, lbm/gal
ρp = cuttings density, m/L3, lbm/gal
τi= wall shear stress in pipe, m/Lt2, psi
τo=average wall shear stress in annulus, m/Lt2, psi
τw = wall shear stress, m/Lt2, psi
τy = yield stress, m/Lt2, psi
ω= angular velocity, rad/s
References
1. Tessari, R. M. and Mandel, G., “Casing Drilling – A
Revolutionary Approach to Reducing Well Cost”,
SPE/IADC 52789, presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Amsterdam, Mar. 9-11, 1999.
2. Tarr, B. and Sukup, R., “Casing-while-Drilling: The Next
Step Change in Well Construction”, World Oil, Oct. 1999.
3. Tao L. N. and Donovan W. F: “ Through-Flow in concentric
and Eccentric Annuli of Fine Clearance With and Without
Relative Motion of the Boundaries”; Assoc. Mem. ASME,
54 –A-175, presented at the Annual Meeting, p 1291, 1954.
4. DiPrima R.C.: “The stability of a viscous fluid between
rotating cylinders with an axial flow”, Journal of Fluid
Mech., 9, p 621, 1960.
5. Ustimenko B. P., and Zmeikov V. N.: “Hydrodynamics of a
flow in an annular channel with an inner rotating cylinder”,
IADC/SPE 87149 5

Institute of power Engineering academy of Sciences, Vol 2,

No. 2 p-259- 250, 1964. Table 1. Casing String Data
6. Cartalos U.: “An analysis Accounting for the combined
Effect of drillstring Rotation and eccentricity on Pressure
O.D I.D. Unit Weight Length
Losses in Slimhole Drilling”, SPE 25769 presented at the section no in in lbs/ft ft
Annual Meeting, 1993. 2 4.50 4.00 11.60 to surface
7. Haciislamoglu, M. and Cartalos U.: “Practical Pressure Loss 1 5.00 4.04 23.20 1536
Prediction in Realistic Annular Geometries”, SPE 28304,
presented at the Annual Meeting, 1994. Bit 6.25 ( 2x13/32 + 3x14/32)
8. Hansen S.A., et al.: “A new Hydraulic Model for slim Hole
Drilling Applications”, SPE 57579 presented at the Annual
Meeting, 1999. Table 2. Fluid and Cuttings Properties
9. McCann R.C., et al.: “Effects of high Speed Pipe Rotation on Fluid Cutting
Pressure in Narrow Annuli”; Paper SPE 26343, presented at Specific
the Annual Technical Conference, 1993. Density Viscosity Gravity Diameter
10. Walker R., and Al Rawi O.: “Helical Flow of Bentonite
Slurries”, SPE 3108, presented at the Annual Meeting, 1970. ppg cp in
11. Luo Y., and Peden J. M.: “ Laminar Annular Helical Flow of 8.33 1 2.6 0.25
Power-Law Fluids”; SPE 20304, presented at the Annual
Meeting, 1989.
12. Lockett T.J., et al.: “The Importance of Rotation Efficient
Table 3. Average Properties of Muds
Cutting Removal During Drilling”, SPE 25768 presented at Fluid Density Fann Viscometer Reading
the Annual Meeting, 1993. ppg 600 300 200 100 6 3
13. Hansen S.: “Drill pipe Rotation Effects on Frictional A 8.7 11 7 6 4 1 1
Pressure Losses in Slim Annuli”, SPE 30488. Presented at B 9.8 35 23 18 12 3 3
the annual technical conference, 1995.
14. Wei X.: “Effect of drillpipe Rotation on annular Friction
Pressure Loss (AFPL), in laminar Helical Flow of Power Table 4. Generalized Reynolds Number
Law Fluids in Concentric and Eccentric Annuli” Master’s Dh=12.715”, Do= 11.75”
thesis petroleum department University of Tulsa 1997. Generalized Reynolds Number
15. Ooms G. et al.: “Influence of Drillpipe Rotation and Q (GPM) Water Mud A Mud B
Eccentricity on pressure Drop over Borehole during
Drilling”, SPE 56638, presented at the Annual Meeting,
350 29836 4972 1765
1999. 450 38360 7089 2500
16. Sterri, N., Saasen A., Aas B., and Hansen A. S.: “Drill String 550 46885 9402 3298
rotation Effects on Axial Flow of Shear Thinning Fluids in
an Eccentric Annulus”, Oil gas Magazine p 30-33, 2000. Table 5. Properties of Muds Used in
17. Bailey W.J., and Peden J.M.: “A Generalized and Consistent
Pressure Drop and Flow Regime Transition Model for Drilling Test
Drilling Hydraulics”, SPE 62167 Drill & Compellation 15, Fluid Density Fann Viscometer Reading
2000. ppg 600 300 200 100 6 3
18. Diaz, H.: “Field Experimental Study and Modeling of ECD C 9.3 18 10 7 4 1 1
in Casing Drilling Operations”, Master’s Thesis, The D 9.7 29 19 13 9 1 1
University of Tulsa, 2002.
19. Warren, T.: “Casing Drilling Engineering Manual”, Tesco
Corporation, 2001 edition.
20. Bourgoyne, A. T., Millheim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E., and
Young, F. S.: “Applied Drilling Engineering”, SPE Text 14000
36.1% TD = 6720'
book Series, 1986. w ob = 10780 lbs
12000
21. Chien, S.F.: “Settling Velocity of Irregularly Shaped GPM = 351
ROP = 57.22 ft/hr
31.4%

Particles,” SPE 26121, 1992. 10000

24.3%
22. Shepard, S.F., Reiley, R.H. and Warren, T.: “Casing Drilling: An
8000
Emerging Technology”, paper IADC SPE 67731, 2001
lbs

IADC/SPE Conference, Amsterdam, February 27 March 1, 2001. 6000

23. Shepard, S.F. , Reiley, R.H. and Warren, T.: “Casing Drilling 4000
successfully applied in Southern Wyoming”, World Oil, p 7.8%

33-41, June 2002. 2000

0.4%
SI Metric Conversion Factors 0

ft × 0.3048
bouyancy drag piston jetting force w ob
E +00 = m eff ect

ft3 × 2.8317 E -02 = m3

lbm×0.454 E +00= Kg Fig. 1 Factors causing reduction in hook load
in × 25.4 E -03= m
in3/min × 1.6387 E -05= m3/min
Gal (US) × 3.785 E +00= liter
Psi × 6.8948 E +00= kPa
6 IADC/SPE 87149

145

Bottom hole pressure, psi

140

Flow outlet @ -1.50’

Hole cased with
13¾”, 68 #/ft
Ground level @ -12’
135
11¾” drilling casing
Length = 201.13’
MDP tool
Method 1
Method 2
BHA length = 60.6’ Method 3
130
Bottom of bit @ -282.85
0 60 120 180
Top of cement @ -300.29’
RPM
Casing Shoe @-325’
Fig. 5 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Water, Dh=12.715”,
OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=450gpm.

Fig. 2 Schematic of BETA Wellbore. (Courtesy of BETA facilities) 160

155

Bottom hole pressure, psi

4½”, 11.6 ppf
casing

150

7”, 23 ppf
@ 1179’
145

6¼” Hole
140 MDP tool
Method 1
Method 2
L1= 1536’ 5”, 23 ppf
Method 3
135
casing
0 60 120 180
RPM

Fig. 6 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Water, Dh=12.715”,

OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=550gpm.

145

Fig. 3 Schematic of Well 1.

140 141
Bottom hole pressure, psi

136 137
Bottom hole pressure, psi

132 133

128 129 MDP tool

Method 1
Method 2
Method 3
124 MDP tool 125
Method 1
0 60 120
Method 2
RPM
Method 3
120
0 60 120 180
Fig. 7 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Mud A, Dh=12.715”,
RPM OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=350gpm.
Fig. 4 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Water, Dh=12.715”,
OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=350gpm.
IADC/SPE 87149 7

155 190

Bottom hole pressure, psi 185

150

Bottom hole pressure, psi

180

145
175

140 170
MDP tool
Method 1
MDP tool
Method 2 165
Method 3 Method 1
135 Method 2
0 60 120 180 Method 3
160
RPM
0 60 120 180
Fig. 8 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Mud A, RPM

Dh=12.715”, OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=450gpm. Fig. 11 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Mud B,
Dh=12.715”, OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=450gpm.
170
205

165
Bottm hole presssure, psi

200

Bottom hole pressure, psi

160
195

155 190

185
150 MDP tool
Method 1
Method 2 MDP tool
Method 3 180 Method 1
145
Method 2
0 60 120 180
Method 3
RPM 175
0 60 120 180
Fig. 9 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Mud A,
RPM
Dh=12.715”, OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=550gpm.
Fig. 12 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Mud B,
Dh=12.715”, OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=550gpm.
168
400

380
164
Bottom hole pressure, psi

360
Bottom hole pressure, psi

160
340

320
156
300
152
280

MDP tool 260

148 Method 1
Method 2 240
Method 3
144 MDP tool
220 Method 2
0 60 120 180
Method 3
RPM 200
415 465 515 565 615 665 715
Fig. 10 Bottom hole pressure vs. rotary speed. Mud B,
Depth, ft
Dh=12.715”, OD=11.75”, TD=283’, Q=350gpm.
Fig. 13 Bottom hole pressure vs. depth. BETA drilling tests. Mud
C, Interval: 435’-665’, Dh=12.25”, OD = 10.75”, Q=540gpm.
8 IADC/SPE 87149

(τ w − τ y ) m ⎛ 3m ⎞⎛
1+ m
650
12v m ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟⎜τ w + τy⎟
Do − Di 1
⎝ 1 + 2 m ⎠⎝ 1 + m ⎠
K m τ w2
600
Bottom hole pressure, psi

550
A.4
Calculate wall Shear Rate, γ w :
500
1
⎛τ w −τ y ⎞m
γ w = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
450
A.5
400
⎝ K ⎠
MDP tool
Method 2 Calculate Generalized Fluid Behavior Index, N from:
Method 3

1 + 2 N 12V
350
650 700 750
Depth, ft
800 850 900
γ w = A.6
Fig. 14 Bottom hole pressure vs. depth. BETA drilling tests. Mud
3N Do − Di
D, Interval: 665’-887’, Dh=12.25”, OD = 10.75”, Q=540gpm.
Calculate Reynolds Number, Re YPL :
5000
Deff ρ v
N Re,slot = A.7
4500 η
Bottom hole pressure, psi

4000 where:
3N ⎛ 2 ⎞
3500
Deff = ⎜ Dhy ⎟ A.8
1 + 2N ⎝ 3 ⎠
3000

τ w,av
η=
2500
A.9
2000 Method 2
γw
Method 3
Method 4
1500
Determine whether flow is Laminar or Turbulent:
If N Re, slot < (N Re )cr ⇒ Laminar flow
2800 3800 4800 5800 6800 7800 8800
Depth, ft
Fig. 15 Bottom hole pressure as a function of depth. Well 1.
Water, Interval: 2850' - 9070', Dh = 6.25", OD1 = 5", OD2=4.5". Otherwise, flow is Turbulent

APPENDIX A Calculate friction factor, f:

2τ w 16
Procedure for calculating effect of pipe rotation on f = =
pressure losses ρV 2
N Re, slot
Suppose we have a yield power law fluid and are given the For laminar flow, A.10
For turbulent flow, find f from:
following data: Do , Di , Q, ρ , k , m, τ y and rpm .
Then we: 1 4 ⎡ 1− ⎤
N
0.4
Calculate the angular velocity, ω : = 0.75 Log 10 ⎢Re YPL f 2 ⎥ − 1.2
2π
f N ⎣ ⎦ N
ω= rpm A.1
A.11
60
Calculate annular pressure drop gradient without rotation,
Calculate mean axial velocity, v : ⎛ dP ⎞
⎜ ⎟ :
Q ⎝ dl ⎠ ω =0
v= A.2
A ⎛ dP ⎞ 4τ 2 fρv 2
Calculate mean tangential velocity, u: ⎜ ⎟ = w = A.12
⎝ dl ⎠ ω = 0 Dhy Dhy
ω ri ω Di
u= = A.3 Where Dhy is hydraulic radius = Do − Di
2 4
Calculate annular pressure drops, (dP )ω =0 :
Calculate shear stress at the wall, τ w from:
IADC/SPE 87149 9

2 fρv 2
(dP )ω =0 = dL A.13 Fh
Dhy

⎛ω r ⎞ PT
Calculate v ' = v sec α , where α = arctan⎜ i ⎟ A.14 pump
⎝ 2v ⎠
We substitute v = v and repeat the above calculations. The
'

annular pressure loss with the effect of pipe rotation is: Ft Ft

f ' (dP )ω =0
(dp )ω = A.15
f cos α Fig. B.2 Boundary condition at the top of 2dn section

APPENDIX B From a force balance of the whole string, we get (Fig.B.3):

Relationship between hook load and annular pressure
drops
In order to develop this relationship we assume:
• Casing string composed of two casing sizes, with
different lengths and unit weights.
• The densities inside and outside the casing are
different, due to the presence of cuttings in the
annulus.
• Steady state and acceleration terms are neglected.
From force balances at different sections of a casing drilling
string we obtain:
At the bottom of the first section (Fig.B.1):
F + (P + ∆Pbit )( Ai1 − An ) − P ( Ao1 − An ) = 0
b b b
B.1
F T − w1 L1 − w2 L2 + Pc12 ( Ai1 − Ai 2 ) − Po12 ( Ao1 − Ao 2 ) +
τ o1πDo1 L1 − τ i1πDi1 L1 + τ o 2πDo 2 L2 − τ i 2πDi 2 L2 + F b = 0
B.5
where:
P T = ∆Pc1 + ∆Pc 2 + ∆Pbit + ∆Pa1 + ∆Pa 2 +
B.6
g (ρ o1 − ρ i )L1 + g (ρ o 2 − ρ i )L2
P b = ∆Pa1 + ∆Pa 2 + gρ o1 L1 + gρ o 2 L2 B.7
Pc12 = ∆Pc1 + ∆Pbit + ∆Pa1 + ∆Pa 2 + B.8
g (ρ o1 − ρ i )L1 + g (ρ o 2 − ρ i )L2 + gρ i L2

F b = P b ( Ao1 − Ai1 ) − ∆Pbit ( An − Ai1 ) B.2 Pa12 = ∆Pa 2 + gρ o 2 L2 B.9

At the top of the second section (Fig.B.2):

F T − P T Ai 2 − Fh = 0 B.3
Ft

F T = P T Ai 2 + Fh B.4 W2
τo2

Fb Fb τi2
Section 2, L2

Pa12

Pc12
τo1
W1
Pcb Section 1, L1

τi1

Fb

Fig. B.3 Force balance of a casing string

Pb
wob
From a balance of viscous forces acting on a fluid element in
Fig. B.1 Boundary condition at the bottom of the 1st section
the pipe the following equations are obtained (Fig.B.3):
τ i1πDi1 L1 = ∆Pc1 Ai1 B.10

τ i 2πDi 2 L2 = ∆Pc 2 Ai 2 B.11

Combining Eqns. B.1 to B.11 we have:

Fh = Wc – Fb –Fd – Fp - Fbit –wob B.12
10 IADC/SPE 87149

where
Casings’ weight in air:

WC = w1 L1 + w2 L2 B.13

Buoyancy effect:

Fb = g (ρ o1 Ao1 − ρ i Ai1 )L1 + g (ρ o 2 Ao 2 − ρ i Ai )L2 B.14

Fluid drag:

Fd = τ o1πDo1 L1 + τ o 2πDo 2 L2 B.15

Piston effect:

F p = ∆Pa1 Ao1 + ∆Pa 2 Ao 2 B.16

Jetting force:

Fbit = ∆Pbit An B.17

The average shear stresses at the casing wall, τoj, can be

related to the annular pressure drops, ∆Paj, through a balance
of forces acting on a fluid element in the annulus. See Fig.B.4.

τoj
P P+∆Paj
rh

τoj roj
Fig. B.4 Forces acting on a fluid element in the annular space
Then, for annular flow:
π 2
τ oj π (Dh + Doj )L j ≅ ∆Paj
4
(Dh − Doj2 )
B.18
Thus, Eqn. B.15 can be rewritten as:
Do1π (Dh − Do1 ) D π (Dh − Do 2 ) B.19
Fp = ∆Pa1 + o 2 ∆Pa 2
4 4
Combining Eqn. B.19 and Eqns B.12 through B.17 and
rearranging:
Fh = w1 L1 + w2 L2 − g (ρo1 Ao1 − ρi Ai1 )L1 − g (ρ o 2 Ao 2 − ρi Ai )L2 B.20
π π
− Dh Do1∆Pa1 − Dh Do 2 ∆Pa 2 − ∆Pbit An − wob
4 4
In general, for a casing string of m sections:
π
Fh = ∑ [ w j L j − g (ρ oj Aoj − ρ i Aij )L j −
m
Dh Doj ∆Paj ] B.21
j =1 4
− ∆Pbit An − wob