SPE/IADC 163477

Drillstring Analysis with a Discrete Torque-Drag Model

Robert F. Mitchell, SPE, Halliburton, Arve Bjørset and Gaute Grindhaug, Statoil

Copyright 2013, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5–7 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have
not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors 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 SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
The only standard drillstring model in use today is the torque-drag model because of its simplicity and general availability.
Field experience indicates that this model generally gives good results but sometimes performs poorly. For example, some
friction loads predicted for casing running in horizontal wells have not been consistent with field data.
In the standard torque-drag model, the drillstring shape is taken as the wellbore shape. However, given that the most
common method for determining the wellbore shape is the minimum curvature method, this assumed wellbore shape forces
the bending moment to be discontinuous at survey points. This defect is dealt with by neglecting the bending moment.
A different approach assumes that the drillstring position corresponds with the minimum curvature wellbore only at
discrete points. The obvious choice for these discrete points is at the positions of the tool joints in the drillstring. While these
tool joints are fixed in position, they are allowed to rotate within the wellbore. These extra degrees of freedom allow solution
of the bending moment problem, for continuity of bending moment can now be assured at each tool joint. Further,
experimental studies of actual drillstrings have shown the potential to develop contact forces for lateral buckling that are
significantly larger than predicted by smooth-pipe models. Thus, by the discrete-point assumption, we resolve two problems:
bending moment continuity and underprediction of lock-up.
This paper gives a complete description of the drillstring calculation. Typical torque-drag problems are studied to
compare the two torque-drag formulations. These studies give comparisons in drag forces and torques for the two models,
and for the new formulation, the magnitude of the bending moments.

Introduction
What do we mean by “torque-drag modeling?” Drag is the excess load compared to rotating drillstring weight, which may be
either positive when pulling the drillstring or negative while sliding into the well (Note: there is no axial friction drag in a
rotating drillstring, so rotating drillstring weight is the zero-drag reference point.). This drag force is attributed to friction
generated by drillstring contact with the wellbore. When rotating, this same friction will reduce the surface torque transmitted
to the bit. It is useful to be able to estimate the friction forces when planning a well or doing post-mortem analysis.
Analysis of these drillstring loads is done with drillstring computer models, and there have been many drillstring models
developed over the last 30 years. By far the most common method for drillstring analysis is the “torque-drag” model
originally developed by Dawson and Morehead (Johancsik 1983) and put into differential equation form by Sheppard (1987).
Because of the simplicity and general availability of this model, it has been used extensively for planning and in the field. If
any drillstring model could be called “standard,” this would be the one.
In the most basic terms, a drillstring model must determine the trajectory of an elastic rod constrained by a wellbore. The
elastic rod will contact the wellbore in a number of places in either point contact or continuous contact, and the points of
contact must be determined by the calculation process. Furthermore, the geometric non-linearities associated with the
wellbore trajectory usually violate the basic assumptions used in developing textbook elastic rod equations, so more general
elastic relations must be used [e.g., Love (1944) and Nordgren (1974)]. Friction further complicates the problem because the
friction force direction is not usually known. One of the most well-known formulations was developed by Walker and
Friedman (1977). A comprehensive paper on formulation, unfortunately often overlooked, is the work of Ho (1986). A
typical recent paper on drillstring analysis is Menand et al. (2006).
The torque-drag model formulation solves the wellbore contact problem by assuming that the drillstring trajectory is the
same as the wellbore trajectory. Considering that survey data is measured inside the drillstring, this is an excellent
assumption. Contact is further assumed to be continuous. This assumed trajectory is certainly within inches of the actual
drillstring trajectory. Unfortunately, the most commonly used wellbore trajectory model (“minimum curvature”) implies that
2 SPE/IADC 163477

bending moments are not continuous at survey points. The solution to this problem is to assume that the drillstring is a
“single-force” beam, with the force assumed tangent to the trajectory. Because the bending stiffness is neglected, the torque-
drag model is often called a “cable,” “chain,” or “soft-string” model. Note that this assumption is not necessary if a different
wellbore trajectory model is used that is smooth enough to allow bending moment continuity (Mitchell 2008).
The goal of this paper is to describe a novel torque-drag model that incorporates lessons learned from the analysis of the
Ullrigg U2 full scale test (Mitchell and Weltzin 2011). This approach assumes that the drillstring position corresponds with
the minimum curvature wellbore only at discrete points. The obvious choice for these discrete points is at the positions of the
tool joints in the drillstring. While these tool joints are fixed in position, they are allowed to rotate within the wellbore. These
extra degrees of freedom allow solution of the bending moment problem, for continuity of bending moment can now be
assured at each tool joint. The Ullrigg U2 tests have shown the potential to develop contact forces for lateral buckling that are
significantly larger than predicted by smooth-pipe models. Thus, by the discrete-point assumption, we resolve two problems:
bending moment continuity and underprediction of lockup. A second feature of this model is intermediate contact with the
wellbore between tool joints.
Fig. 1 shows the novel features of this new approach:

Baseline
Trajectory

Drillstring Solution

Connectors

Wellbore Contact

Fig. 1—A new torque-drag analysis model.

The “minimum curvature” wellbore trajectory is indicated by the blue line in the figure, and the drillstring displacement
solution is shown by the red line. The drillstring displacements are constrained to correspond with the “minimum curvature”
wellbore trajectory at the connector positions; however, the drillstring is allowed to rotate at these points. If the displacement
solution extends through the wellbore wall, the solution is recalculated by restricting the axial displacement at that point to be
tangent to the wellbore wall.
Analytic solutions to the drillstring displacement had been developed by Mitchell and Miska to solve helical buckling
problems for pipes with connectors (Mitchell and Miska 2006). Because the analytic solutions are known, the behavior of the
beam between connectors is understood. This information is very useful for implementing a numerical solution technique for
the drillstring equilibrium calculation. Each joint solution has eight unknown coefficients. These coefficients are determined
by solving the conditions required to mechanically joint two joints of pipe:
1. Continuity of position
2. Continuity of slope
3. Continuity of bending moment
4. Contact force at the connector

Unfortunately, the coefficients do not relate directly with these conditions. Further, there are two distinct solutions to the
beam-column equations, depending on whether the beam is effectively in tension or compression. The eight unknown
coefficients take on different roles in each solution, which adds an additional problem of relating solutions that change from
SPE/IADC 163477 3

one condition to a different condition. In Appendix B, the analytic solutions are reformulated by solving for position and
slope in terms of the eight coefficients. The numerical solution for the continuity of bending moment then determines the
slopes.

Method for Calculating Torque and Drag Forces in a Drillstring with Connectors
The purpose of this analysis is to develop an improved torque-drag drillstring model. This improved model has:
 Drillstring contact only at connectors or at a mid point between connectors defines drillstring displacement, which is
known from wellbore trajectory.
 Contact and friction forces are concentrated at connectors or intermediate contact points, rather than distributed.
 Bending moment at connectors can be made continuous by proper choice of connector orientation.
 Local Cartesian coordinates are defined for each joint of pipe, to simplify equilibrium equations.

Drillstring Displacements. The conventional torque-drag drillstring model uses a large displacement formulation because it
may consider, for instance, a build section with a radius as small as 300 ft and a final inclination as high as 90. In this model,
we are considering sections that are a single joint of drillpipe, which is approximately 30 ft long. Over this length, the build
section just described traverses an arc of only about 6. We can simplify the analysis by defining a local Cartesian coordinate
 
system for this single joint. Over the measured depth interval sk , sk 1 (Note: s increases with depth (see Appendix A), we
define the pipe displacement by:
  
u k ( s )  U nk ( s ) nk  U bk ( s ) bk (1)


U nk (s ) nk coordinate direction, and U bk (s ) is the drillstring displacement in the
 Where, is the drillstring displacement in the
bk
coordinate direction. The local Cartersian coordinate system is defined:
 
 tk   t ( sk ) 
   
 nk    n ( sk )  (2)
 b   b (s ) 
 k  k 

We require the following boundary conditions at the connectors:

U nk ( sk )  0
U nk ( sk 1 )  rnk ( sk 1 )
(3)
U bk ( sk )  0
U bk ( sk 1 )  0

k

Where, rn (s ) is the normal component of the minimum curvature trajectory over the depth interval sk , sk 1 , Eq. A-9.
The following conditions are also required at the connectors:

dU nk ( sk 1 ) drnk ( sk 1 )  dU nk 1 ( sk 1 )  dU bk 1 ( sk 1 )   
  nk 1  bk 1   nk
ds ds  ds ds 
(4)
dU b ( sk 1 )  dU n ( sk 1 ) 
k k 1
dU b ( sk 1 )   
k 1
 nk 1  bk 1   bk
ds  ds ds 

Requirement (3) forces the drillstring displacement to equal the wellbore displacement at the connectors between the
joints of drillpipe. In the conventional torque-drag model, the drillpipe displacement equals the wellbore displacement at
every point. This model restricts drillpipe displacements only at a finite number of distinct points, defined by the length of the
drillpipe joints. In a general drillstring analysis, displacements of the drillpipe would be restricted to lie within the wellbore,
and points of contact would be unknown, to be determined by the analysis. Requirement (4) is continuity of slope across the
connector. Note that the coordinate system of joint k+1 may not coincide with the coordinate system of joint k. This is a
4 SPE/IADC 163477

feature of the minimum curvature method (see Appendix A). Eq. 4 is formulated to account for this fact. The connector is
allowed to rotate relative to the wellbore centerline, and this rotation is initially unknown and is to be determined by the
calculation.

Drillstring Static Equilibrium. Because fluid densities and pipe weight are constant over the pipe joint, the effective axial-
force equilibrium equation is particularly easy to solve (the plus sign indicates that the force is evaluated at node, k, for s
greater than sk):
 
Ft k ( s)  Ft k   wbp  tk ( s  sk ) (5)

Note that Ftk is the effective tension:

Ft k  Fak  ( pe   eve2 ) Ao  ( pi  i vi2 ) Ai (6)

And that the buoyant weight of the pipe is given by:

 
wbp  [ w p  ( i Ai   e Ao ) g ] iz (7)

Where, pe is the external pressure, pi is the internal pressure, Ao is the total cross-sectional area, Ai is the internal flow
area, ρe is the external density, ρi is the internal fluid density, ve is the external fluid velocity, vi is the internal fluid velocity, g
is the acceleration of gravity, and wp is the weight per unit length of the pipe in air.
The force for s less than sk may be different because the forces may be discontinuous at each connector. The discontinuity
in the force is caused by the contact force and friction force at the connector as a result of contact with the wellbore wall. For
sliding friction:

Ft k   Ft k     N   N 
k 2
n
k 2
b (8)

Where, the friction force direction opposes the direction of sliding, positive for upward motion, negative for downward
motion. The contact forces Nnk and Nbk are calculated:

N nk  Fnk   Fnk 
(9)
N bk  Fbk   Fbk 

For rotation, the effective axial force is continuous:

Ft k   Ft k   Ft k 1 ( sk ) (10)

The contact forces consist of a normal force, Nf, and a friction force, μNf, perpendicular to Nf. Thus, the magnitude of the
contact force, Nc, is:

N 2f   2 N 2f  1   2 N c  N   N 
k 2
n
k 2
b (11)

For rotation, the torque in the drillstring is discontinuous at each connector:


M tk   M tk   rtjk  N c  rtjk N   N 
k 2
n
k 2
b (12)
1 2
Where, rtjk is the radius of the tool joint.
Starting with an initial force value, typically a value of hook load or weight on bit, the remaining forces at the connectors
can be evaluated, given the contact forces. In a similar way, the torque can be calculated from the top down, given surface
torque, or bottom up given desired torque at the bit.
Satisfying the balance of moment within the pipe joint is more complex (Nordgren, 1974 and Mitchell and Miska 2006):
SPE/IADC 163477 5

M tk  constant between connectors

d 3U nk 2 dU n
k
dU bk
F   EI
k
n 3
 ( Ft ( s)  EI )
k
 M tk (13)
ds ds ds
3 k k
d Ub 2 dU b dU nk
Fbk   EI  ( Ft
k
( s )  EI )  M tk
ds 3 ds ds
Solutions to Eq. 13 are discussed in Appendix B.

Numerical Solution for Rotations

At each connector, there are two unknown slopes. We determine theses slopes by requiring that the bending moment be
continuous at the connectors. This condition removes the major fault of conventional torque-drag modeling, which may have
discontinuous moments at survey points. This requirement is expressed:

EI k  d U n , k ( sk 1 )   d U n , k 1 ( sk 1 )   d 2U b , k 1 ( sk 1 )   
2 2

 
  n
 k 1  bk 1   nk
EI k 1  ds 2   ds 2  ds 2 
(14)
EI k  d U b , k ( sk 1 )   d U n , k 1 ( sk 1 )   d 2U b , k 1 ( sk 1 )   
2 2

     nk 1  bk 1   bk
EI k 1  ds 2   ds 2  ds 2 

Two methods were tried for solving this requirement:

Extrapolation Method. The basic approach is to choose initial conditions and then calculate from element to element until
finished. One advantage to this approach is that coordinate conversion between joints is relatively easy. A second advantage
is that evaluation of friction effects is also easy. Unfortunately, this method proved to be unstable, with exponentially
increasing contact forces.

Two-Point Boundary Problem. In this formulation, surface boundary conditions were selected to have zero slope. Boundary
conditions at the bit were selected to be zero bending moment. The resulting system was a banded diagonal matrix with a
bandwidth of 3 elements for each side of the diagonal. Existing banded solution algorithms (Press et al. 1992) were used to
solve the system of equations, which were found to give stable answers. The precision of the calculation was found to give
satisfactory continuity of the bending moment, with very small error. For stable calculations, the two-point boundary
condition method was found to be necessary. Further, if connector rotation is constrained by the wellbore geometry, this
requirement can be satisfied in a relatively direct manner with this formulation.

Test Cases
Several simple beam-column test cases were computed using the new formulation, with exact matches to the analytic
solutions. This was expected, as the new formulation was based on analytic solutions.
For the next test, we will consider the drag and torque properties of an idealized well plan based on Well 3 described in
Johancsik (Johancsik et al. 1983) (see Fig. 2). There is not enough information to model the exact problem studied by
Johancsik, so the following problem was posed. The fixed points on the model trajectory are as follows. The well is
considered to be drilled vertically to a KOP at a depth of 2,400 ft. The inclination angle then builds at a rate of 5°/100 ft
(4°/100 ft to 6°/100 ft cited in Johancsik). Drilled as a conventional build-tangent well, the total build is a 44° well deviation.
Only generic drillstring data was supplied by Johancsik , so the model drillstring was configured with 372 ft of 6-1/2-in. drill
collar (100 lbf/ft.) and 840 ft of 5-in. heavyweight pipe (50 lbf/ft.) and with 10,988 ft of 5-in. drillpipe (19.5 lbf/ft.) to the
surface. A mud weight of 9.8 lbm/gal was used.
6 SPE/IADC 163477

2400 ft

5o per 100 ft

44 degrees

Fig. 2—Build and hold trajectory.

Drag Test Cases. The simplest case to study was the case of zero friction because a hand calculation of the axial force is
easily done. The axial force distribution for the conventional torque-drag model and the discrete model are shown in Fig. 3
for the case of zero friction:

2000

4000
Measured Depth (ft)

6000

Conventional
Discrete
8000

10000

12000

14000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Effective Tension (lbf)

SPE/IADC 163477 7

Fig. 3—Axial load distribtions – zero friction.

The results for the two models are very close. This is not suprising, as experience with the conventional torque-drag
model has shown it to predict field results reasonably well for many wells. Surface hook load was 193396 for the
conventional model, 193397 for the discrete model, which compares to 193395 for a hand calculation. For this simple
example, this result shows that the conventional model and the discrete model behave equally well.
Fig. 4 shows the contact forces predicted by the two models.

2000

4000
Measured Depth (ft)

6000

Conventional
Discrete
8000

10000

12000

14000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Contact Load (lbf/ft)

Fig. 4—Contact load distribtions – drag test case.

The discrete model has contact loads at the connectors, so for this comparison, the contact loads were divided by the joint
length to obtain the approximate distributed load. In this case, we find both models in agreement for most points, but with a
few notable differences in the build section.
The bending moments predicted by the two models are shown in the Fig. 5.
8 SPE/IADC 163477

2000

4000
Measured Depth (ft)

6000

Conventional
Discrete
8000

10000

12000

14000
-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Bending Moment (lbf-ft)

Fig. 5—Bending moment distribtions – drag test case.

The conventional torque-drag model does not predict bending moment; in fact, it does not consider them at all. However,
we can calculate a bending moment based on the curvature of the wellbore. In this case, we calculate a bending moment in
the build section. The bending moments predicted by the new model are quite different. In the build section, the predicted
bending moments are signifigantly larger than the bending moment based on the wellbore curvature. The first thing to note is
that the bending moments plotted for the discrete model are the bending moments at the connectors.

drillstring
shape
wellbore
shape

Fig. 6—Curvature in a deflected beam.

SPE/IADC 163477 9

In the build section, axial tension alters the shape of the beam by straightening it, as shown by the dotted line, with
increased curvature at the connector and decreased curvature in the middle of the beam, as shown in Fig. 6. This effect was
originally discovered by Lubinski, who called it the bending stress magnification factor (Lubinski 1977). It is also apparent
that the weight of the beam causes the beam to sag between connectors, producing bending moments in the inclined section
of the trajectory. The bottomhole assembly, which has no impact on the conventional model, produces bending effects as
well.

Fig. 7—Beam sagging between connectors.

Fig. 7 shows the effect of the weight of the beam on its shape between connectors. The beam shows curvature at the
connectors, which results in bending moments at the connectors, as predicted by the discrete model.
Because the results are so different from the conventional model, the accuracy of the calculation was tested. Fig. 8 shows
the percent error in the bending moment calculation:

2000

4000
Measured Depth (ft)

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000
-5.00E-12 -4.00E-12 -3.00E-12 -2.00E-12 -1.00E-12 0.00E+00 1.00E-12 2.00E-12 3.00E-12 4.00E-12 5.00E-12

% Error in Bending Moment

10 SPE/IADC 163477

Fig. 8—Percent error in bending moment calculations.

These errors represent a difference of ±9 or less in the 15th significant figure in a double precision calculation.
The next set of comparisons look at pick-up and slack-off loads for a friction coefficient of 0.4, as was used in the
Johancsik example. The three cases of pullout, runin, and zero friction are presented in Fig. 9.

2000

4000
Measured Depth (ft)

Conventional zero friction

6000
Discrete zero friction
Conventional Pickup 0.4
Discrete Pickup 0.4
8000 Conventional Slack-off 0.4
Discrete Slack-off 0.4

10000

12000

14000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000

Effective Tension (lbf)

Fig. 9—Comparison of pull-out and run-in calculations.

The discrete model shows slightly higher hook loads for pick-up and slightly lower hook loads for slack-off. The
difference in the two models occurs principally in the build section. In the zero-friction calculation, we showed increased
contact load in the build section, so this result was expected. The calculated hook loads are given in Table 1:

TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF HOOK LOADS FOR CONVENTIONAL AND DISCRETE TORQUE-DRAG MODELS.
Conventional (lbf) Discrete (lbf) % Difference
Zero Friction 193,396 193,397 .001
Pickup 317,134 322,401 1.66
Slack-off 116,373 112,878 -3.00

The conclusion is that the two models predict the same results to within a few percentage points. The conventional
torque-drag model has been in use for decades and has been found to give good results for the majority of cases studied. If
the discrete model has been properly developed, the expectation is that for a simple two-dimensional well profile, such as this
build-and-hold test case, the results should be close to the conventional model, as has been demonstrated. Further, the
differences in the two models can be explained by how the formulations differ. The conventional model cannot consider the
effect of bending because the formulation is not suitable. If the bending moment equilibrium is to be satisfied, then contact
forces must be developed to equilize the change in bending moment from a straight section to a build section. The discrete
model allows this equilibrium to be satisfied, and the additional contact force is produced.

Torque Test Case. Torque was calculated using the same well configuration and drillstring used for the drag calculations.
Well 3 described in Johancsik (Johancsik et al. 1983) indicated a weight on bit of 38,000 lbf and an applied torque of 24,500
ft-lbf at the suface, with an estimated bit torque of 2,000 ft-lbf. Field conditions were matched using a friction factor of 0.39.
The conventional model with a friction factor of 0.39 produced a bit torque of about 7,500 ft-lbf. This is reasonably close to
the Johancsik prediction, considering that their case could not be duplicated exactly with the data available. The results from
SPE/IADC 163477 11

the discrete model are very similar, as shown in Fig. 10. To approximate the bit torque, the friction factor had to be reduced
to 0.37.

2000

4000
Measured Depth (ft)

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000
7000 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000 25000

Torque (lbf-ft)

Fig. 10—Comparison of torque calculations.

The torque distribution is also similar. The difference can be seen by referring to Eq. 13. Torque converts the two-
dimensional problem into a fully three-dimensional problem.

Discussion
A new torque-drag formulation has been developed based on concepts suitable for a full drillstring model, but simplified for
efficiency of computation. This formulation improves on the conventional torque-drag model in the following ways:
1. Bending moment is explicitly included in the formulation. The conventional model cannot satisfy bending moment
continuity, so the analysis neglects bending moment completely, hence the term “soft-string”.
2. Contact forces are associated with bending moment. Hence, neglecting bending moment also neglects some contact
force. This impacts the magnitude of the “friction coefficient.” Having a better estimate of the actual friction
coefficient allows for a better prediction of casing wear, for example.
3. Conventional models must provide the effects of buckling in the compressive section of the string, through the use of
correlations based on analytic studies of buckling. The state of the art in buckling analysis (Mitchell 2008) is not as
complete as we might wish, so these correlations are only approximate. The discrete torque-drag does not need these
correlations because it predicts the displacements of the pipe between connectors.
4. Because the discrete torque-drag model is based on comprehensive drillstring analysis, bottomhole assembly analysis
and drilling trajectory analysis can be easily added to the analysis.
5. The analytic solutions are more precise than numerical solutions, such as finite elements; therefore, fewer elements
are needed for this analysis. One element is adequate to model one joint of casing, where multiple, simple (e.g.,
cubic-based) finite elements are necessary for good displacement predictions.

There are several disadvantages to this method:

1. The formulation is complicated and difficult to implement. Because of the large displacement aspect of most real
wellbore trajectories, a Cartesian coordinate system must be defined for each joint of pipe. Transformations between
12 SPE/IADC 163477

coordinate systems are also necessary to connect joint to joint. As a result, the formulation of this model is much
more complicated than the conventional torque-drag model. For a user, however, this is not an issue.

2. The analytic solutions are based on a constant axial force. Fortunately, over the length of a single joint of pipe, this
analysis is reasonable.
3. The displacement analysis requires the use of a banded equation solver, an additional complication.
4. Because we model each joint of pipe, there is a lot more data necessary for this analysis, meaning increased data
storage. For modern computer systems, this does not present a problem, but it would have been a distinct problem
when the original torque-drag model was developed in the early 1980s.
5. The discrete model requires iterative solutions, as the contact forces are functions of the axial forces, and the friction
forces developed by the contact forces affect the axial forces.
6. Execution times for the discrete model are over 100 times greater than for a conventional torque-drag model. Because
modern computers are exceptionally fast compared to the state of the art in 1980, this is not a problem, but it would
have prevented a useable model at the time the conventional model was developed.
7. This model does not consider dynamic effects. Some “steady-state” effects, such as reverse whirl (Menand et al.
2006), could be included and would improve the rigor of this model for torque calculations.

Nomenclature
ai = parameters in analytic solution of beam, i=1,2
Ai = internal flow area of the pipe (in2)
Ap =cross-sectional area of the pipe (in2)
Ao = Ai + Ap (in2)

bk = binormal vector, node k
bkz = z coordinate of the binormal vector, node k
c1-c8 = unknown coefficients to be determined by boundary conditions
Db = load function in analytic solution in b coordinate direction
Dn = load function in analytic solution in n coordinate direction
Ik = moment of inertia of element k (in4)
E = Young’s elastic modulus (psi)
Fa = actual axial force in the pipe (lbf)
Ftk  = axial force in element k at node k, (lbf)
k
F t = axial force in element k+1 at node k, (lbf)
k
F n = shear force in element k in the normal direction at node k (lbf)
k
F b = shear force in element k in the binormal direction at node k (lbf)
g = the acceleration of gravity (ft/s2)

iE = unit vector pointing east

iN = unit vector pointing north

iz = unit vector pointing downward
Mt = axial torque (lbf-in)
M tk  = axial torque in element k at node k, (lbf)
k
M t = axial torque in element k+1 at node k, (lbf)
Mkn = bending moment in the normal direction at node k (lbf)
k
M b = bending moment in the binormal direction at node k (lbf)

nk = normal vector, node k
nkz = z coordinate of normal vector, node k
k
N b = contact force at node k in the b coordinate direction
k
N n = contact force at node k in the n coordinate direction
pi = internal pressure (psi)
pe = external pressure (psi)
Pijk = interpolation functions, element k, i=1..8, j=1,2
SPE/IADC 163477 13


r = position vector (in)
rkn = displacement of wellbore at node k+1 in coordinate system k
k
r tj = tool joint radius, node k (in)
R = radius of curvature (in)
rc = radial clearance (in) )
ri = pipe inside radius (in)
rp = pipe outside radius (in)
s = measured depth (ft)
sk = measured depth of node k (ft)

tk = tangent vector, node k
tkz = z coordinate of the tangent vector, node k

uk = drillstring displacement, kth drillpipe (ft)

U bk = drillstring displacement in the bk coordinate direction, kth drillpipe (ft)

U nk = drillstring displacement in the nk coordinate direction, kth drillpipe (ft)
vi2 = internal fluid average velocity (ft/s)
2
v e = external fluid average velocity (ft/s)
wa = axial distributed load (lbf/ft)
wbp = buoyant weight of the pipe (lbf/ft)
wn = lateral load in the normal direction (lbf/ft)
wb = lateral load in the binormal direction (lbf/ft)
wb = weight of the pipe in air (lbf/ft)
wt = lateral load in the axial direction (lbf/ft)

k = parameter in analytic solution of beam k (ft-1)

k = ½(sk+1-sk) (ft)
s k = length of element k (ft)
wef = excess annular fluid loads (lbf/in)
 = wellbore curvature (ft-1)
k = dimensionless parameter in analytic solution of beam k
 = friction coefficient
ξ = dimensionless length parameter
e = density of fluid outside pipe (lbf/ft3)
i = density of fluid inside pipe (lbf/ft3)
k = parameter in analytic solution of beam k (ft-1)
k = dimensionless parameter in analytic solution of beam k
k = inclination at survey point k
k = azimuth at survey point k
 = angle between survey tangent vectors
ij = parameters in analytic solutions, i=0,1; j=1,2

References
Ho, H.-S. 1986. General Formulation of Drillstring Under Large Deformation and Its Use in BHA Analysis. Paper SPE
15562 presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5–8 October.
Johancsik, C.A., Dawson, R., and Friesen, D.B. 1983. Torque and Drag in Directional Wells - Prediction and Measurement.
Paper SPE 11380 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Lesso, W.G., Mullens, E., and Daudey, J. 1989. Developing a Platform Strategy and Predicting Torque Losses for Modeled
Directional Wells in the Amaulijak Field of the Beaufort Sea, Canada. Paper SPE 19550 presented at the 64th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–11 October.
Love, A.E.H. 1944. A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, 4th Edition, New York City: Dover.
14 SPE/IADC 163477

Lubinski, A., 1977. Fatigue of Range 3 Drill Pipe, Revue de l’Institut Français du Pétrole, March-April, 1977, vol 32, 2-77011.
Menand, S., Sellami, H., Tijani, M., and Stab, O. 2006. Advancements in 3D Drillstring Mechanics: From the Bit to the Topdrive,
IADC/SPE 98965 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, 21–23 February.
Mitchell, R.F. and Stefan Miska, 2006. Helical Buckling of Pipe with Connectors and Torque. SPEDC, 21 (2): 108–115.
Mitchell, R.F. 2008. Drillstring Solutions Improve the Torque-Drag Model, SPE 112623 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Orlando, Florida, 4–6 March.
Mitchell, R.F. 2008. Tubing Buckling – The State of the Art. SPEDC, 23 (4): 361–370. SPE 104267.
Mitchell, R.F. and Weltzin, T. 2011. Lateral Buckling-The Key to Lockup. SPEDC, 26 (3): 436–452. SPE 139824.
Nordgren, R.P. 1974. On Computation of the Motion of Elastic Rods, Trans. ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics, pp. 777–
780.
Press, W.H. et.al. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77, Second Edition, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press., pp. 107-110.
Sawaryn, S.J. and Thorogood, J.L. 2003. A Compendium of Directional Calculations Based on the Minimum Curvature
Method. Paper SPE 84246 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5–8
October.
Sheppard, M.C., Wick, C., and Burgess, T.M. 1986. Designing Well Paths to Reduce Drag and Torque. SPEDC, 2 (4): 344–
350. SPE 15463
Walker, B.R. and Friedman, M.B. 1977. Three-Dimensional Force and Deflection Analysis of a Variable Cross-Section
Drillstring, Trans ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Tech., 367–373.

Appendix A: Calculating the Wellbore Trajectory


The normal method for determining the well path r (s) is to use some type of surveying instrument to measure the inclination
and azimuth at various depths and then to calculate the trajectory.
At each station, inclination angle, , and azimuth angle, , are measured, as well as the course length, s, between
stations. Fig. A-1 shows the relationship of these angles to the coordinate directions, iN, pointing north, iE, pointing east, and
iZ, pointing downward.
SPE/IADC 163477 15

iN

iE
t


iZ

Figure A-1: Inclination and Azimuth 

These angles have been corrected to true north if a magnetic survey, or for drift, if a gyroscopic survey. The survey angles

define the tangent, t , to the trajectory at each station, where the tangent vector is defined in terms of inclination, , and
azimuth, , in the following formula:

t   cos( ) sin( ) , sin( ) sin( ) , cos( )  (A-1)

The survey angles and the tangent vector are shown in Fig, A-1. If we knew how the angles,  and , varied between
stations, or equivalently, if we knew how the tangent vectors varied between stations, then we could determine the trajectory.
16 SPE/IADC 163477

The method most commonly used to define a well trajectory is called the Minimum Curvature method, as, for example in
Sawaryn (2003). In this method, we connect two tangent vectors with a circular arc, as illustrated in Fig. A-2.

t2


t1


R = 1/

t2

s
t1

Figure A-2: Circular Arc Geometry


In Fig. A-2, we have a circular arc of radius, R, over angle, , connecting the two tangent vectors, t1 , at measured depth,

s1, and t 2 at measured depth, s2. The arc length is R = s2-s1 = s. Notice that the angle, , is also the angle between the
 
tangents, t1 and t 2 . From this, we can immediately determine R:

 
R  s /   s / cos1 ( t1  t2 )  1/  (A-4)

The following equations define a circular arc:

SPE/IADC 163477 17

  
r ( s )  t1 R sin[  ( s  s1 )]  n1 R {1  cos[  ( s  s1 )]}  r1
  
t ( s )  t1 cos[  ( s  s1 )]  n1 sin[  ( s  s1 )]
   (A-5)
n ( s )   t1 sin[  ( s  s1 )]  n1 cos[  ( s  s1 )]
   
b ( s )  t1  n1  b1
  
The vector, r1 , is just the initial position at s = s1. The vector, t1 , is the initial tangent vector. The vector, n1 , is the initial
normal vector. If we evaluate Eq. A-5b at s = s2, we find:
   
t (s 2 )  t1 cos s  n 1 sin s  t 2 (A-6)


which we can solve for n1 :
 
 t  t cos(s)  
n1  2 1  t 2 csc(s)  t1 cot(s) (A-7)
sin( s)
 
Notice that Eq. A-7 fails if t1 = t 2 . For this case, we use the equation for the straight wellbore: a constant tangent vector
between stations, which integrates into a straight line:
  
r (s)  r0  t1 (s  s0 ) (A-8)

 
n1 and b1 can conveniently be chosen to correspond with the normal and binormal vectors of the nearest
In this case,
 
station where they are defined. If the entire wellbore is straight, n1 can be chosen to point any direction perpendicular to t1 ,

with b1 defined by Eq. A-5d.

k 
The term, rn ( s ) is the normal component of
,
rk (s ) , which is given by:

 
rnk ( s )  rk ( s )  nk  R{1  cos[ k ( s  sk )]} (A-9)

Appendix B: Analytic Drillstring Solutions

The balance of moment gives:

d 3 U kn d 2 U kb dU kn
EI  M t  F t  Fnk 
ds 3 ds 2 ds
 w bp n kz (s  s k )  0
d 3 U kb d 2 U kn dU kb
EI 3
 M t 2
 F t  Fbk  (B-1)
ds ds ds
 w bp b kz (s  s k )  0
Ftk (s)  Ftk   w bp t kz (s  s k )
 
tkz  tk  ez
 
nkz  nk  ez
 
bkz  bk  ez
18 SPE/IADC 163477

Where EI is the bending stiffness, Mt is the axial torque and Ft is the axial effective tension, and wbp is the buoyant weight
of the pipe. Note that, at this stage, the shear forces, Fnk  and Fbk  are unknown constants that may be chosen to satisfy
,
boundary conditions. There are two distinct solutions of Eq. B-1a,b:

2
Ftk  M kt  M kt
  2
   0, k  ,
EI  2EI 
k
2EI
d 3 U kn d 2 U kb 2 dU n
k
 2   (  2
k   k )  01  11 (s  s k )  0 (B-2)
ds3 ds 2 ds
d 3 U kb d 2 U kn 2 dU b
k
 2   (  2
k   k )  02  12 (s  s k )  0
ds3 ds 2 ds
And

2
 M k  Fk Mk
   t   t  0, k  t ,
2
k
 2EI  EI 2EI
d 3 U kn d 2 U kb 2 dU n
k
 2  k  (  2
k   k )  01  11 (s  s k )  0 (B-3)
ds3 ds 2 ds
d 3 U kb d 2 U kn 2 dU b
k
 2  k  (  2
k   k )  02  12 (s  s k )  0
ds3 ds 2 ds
where:

Fnk 
01 
EI
w n
11   bp kz
EI (B-4)
k
F
02  b
EI
w b
12   bp zk
EI
Here we are treating Ft as if it were constant, evaluated at the central point of the pipe joint. Eq. B-2describes a pipe in
“tension”, as clearly Ft must be positive. We see that torque destabilizes the beam-column system. Eq. B-3 represents the
system that can buckle because the pipe is effectively in “compression.” The “neutral” point of a drillstring is given by:

2
Ftk  M kt 
  0 (B-5)
EI  2EI 

The solution to Eq. B-2 is given by:

U nk ( s)  c1  c2  c3 cosk    c4 sin k  cosh(k  )

 c5 cosk    c6 sin k  sinh(k  )  a1 2
(B-6)
U bk ( s)  c7  c8  c4 cosk    c3 sin k  cosh(k  )
 c6 cosk    c5 sin k  sinh(k  )  a2 2
SPE/IADC 163477 19

Where the following definitions were chosen for convenience in determining the coefficients:

( s  sk )
  1,  k  12 ( sk 1  sk ), k   k k , k   k k (B-7)
k

Because Fnk  and Fbk  are unknown constants, we substitute unknown coefficients, c2 and c8, for Fnk  and Fbk 
respectively, where ci, i=1..8 are constants to be determined by boundary conditions, and

w bp n kz
a1  
2 Ft
w bp b kz
a2  
2 Ft
(B-8)
k M t w bp b kz
Fn  c6 Ft 
Ft
M t w bp n kz
Fbk   c8 Ft 
Ft

The solution to Eq. B-3 is given by:

U nk ( s)  c1  c2  (c3 sin(k  )  c4 cos(k  )) sin(k  )

 (c5 sin(k  )  c6 cos(k  )) cos(k  )  a1 2
(B-9)
U bk ( s)  c7  c8  (c4 sin(k  )  c3 cos(k  )) sin(k  )
 (c6 sin(k  )  c5 cos(k  )) cos(k  )  a2 2

Where, ci, i = 1 to 8 are constants to be determined by boundary conditions, and

w bp n kz
a1  
2 Ft
w bp b kz
a2  
2 Ft
(B-10)
k M t w bp n kz
Fn  c6 Ft 
Ft
M t w bp b kz
Fbk   c8 Ft 
Ft

The original set of coefficients has the drawback that none has a specific physical meaning. The analytical models can be
reformulated from the original set of 8 unknown coefficients, to give the following new formulation:

k 1 k 1
dU nk k dU b
k
k 1 k dU n k 1 k dU b
U ( s)  P U  P
k
n
k
1a
k
n
k
2a  P3aU b  P4 a
k k
 P5aU n  P6 a
k
 P7 aU b  P8a
k
 Dn
ds ds ds ds
(B-11)
dU nk dU bk dU nk 1 dU bk 1
U bk ( s)  P1bkU nk  P2kb  P3kbU bk  P4kb  P5kbU nk 1  P6kb  P7kbU bk 1  P8kb  Db
ds ds ds ds
20 SPE/IADC 163477

The functions, P1a…P8b , Dn and Db, can be expressed in terms of six distinct functions of s, so the overall formulation is
not as complex as it might seem at first. Nevertheless, there are compression and tension versions of each set of six functions,
and each of these functions has to have a special formulation for parameters ϕ and λ near zero. Note that each displacement
depends on all end point displacements (Unk, Ubk, Unk+1, and Ubk+1) and all end point slopes (dUnk/ds, dUbk/ds, dUnk+1/ds, and
dUbk+1/ds). This is because torque couples the Un and Ub displacements (see Mitchell and Miska 2006). The eight unknown
coefficients are determined by solving the following set of equations for the coefficients ci, i=1..8 :

U nk ( s ) |s  s k  U nk
U nk ( s ) |s  s k 1  U nk 1  rnk
U nk ( s ) dU nk
|s  s k 
ds ds
k
U n (s) dU nk 1 drnk
|s  s k 1  
ds ds ds
(B-12)
U b ( s ) |s  s k  U b
k k

U bk ( s ) |s  s k 1  U bk 1
U bk ( s ) dU bk
|s  s k 
ds ds
k
U b (s) dU bk 1
|s  s k 1 
ds ds
These coefficients are substituted back into the appropriate set of equations, either (B-6) or (B-8), and equations of the
form (B-11) result after collecting terms. It can be shown that the functions Pjk are related to each other in the following
ways:

P1ka ( )  P5ka ( )

P2ka ( )   P6ka ( )
P3ka ( )  P7ka ( )
P4ka ( )   P8ka ( )
P1ka ( )  P3kb ( )
P2ka ( )  P4kb ( )
P3ka ( )  P1bk ( )
P4ka ( )  P2kb ( )
P5ka ( )  P7kb ( )
P6ka ( )  P8kb ( )
P7ka ( )  P5kb ( )
P8ka ( )  P6kb ( ) (B-13)