SPE

SPE 18047

An Improved Modeling Program for Computing the Torque and

Drag in Directional and Deep Wells
by H-S. Ho, NL Petroleum Services
SPE Member

Copyright 1988, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of Information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy IS

restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper IS presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT increasing urgency to reduce the total

drilling, completion, and production cost of a
In directional and deep wells, the torque well in order to develop a reservoir more
and drag generated by contacts between the economicall y. This will reduce the influence
drillstring and the borehole play major roles of price fluctuation of the world’s crude oil
in the following operations of the well: plan- on the exploration and development programs of
ning, drilling (trouble diagnosis and prevent- the operating companies. Directional drilling
ion), and casing running/setting.They also is now regarded as one way to achieve this
affect the completion/cementing operation. objective.
This paper discusses the shortcomings of Directional drilling is increasingly
the “soft-string” model, which has been widely being regarded as an effective means to mini-
used in the drilling industry. The soft–string mize overall development and production cost
model ignores the effects of drillstring stif- of an oil field, particularly for the follow-
fness, stabilizer placement, and borehole ing situations:
clearance. Consequently it generally shows
reduced sensitivity to local borehole crooked- (1) Drilling multiple directional wells
ness and underestimates the torque and drag. from the same platform or rigsite,
particularly in offshore and arctic
An improved modeling program is presented areas, to reduce rig cost;
here that combines a BHA (bottomhole assembly)
analysis in the stiff collar section, coupled (2) Drilling “horizontal” wells to im-
with an improved soft-string model for the prove production drainage, avoid
remainder of the drillstring. water coning, and develop very thin
reservoirs.
Case studies are presented to demonstrate
the difference between this improved model and While the outlook on directional drilling
the soft-string model; and also to justify the is very positive, there are many unique
approach of the improved model. technical problems that need to be resolved in
order to further reduce the total cost of a
For deep vertical wells, spiraling of the directional well. ‘The following two problem
well can result in very severe torque and are particularly significant:
drag. Simplified formulas are derived, and
examples are given to demonstrate the exponen- (1) Trajectory prediction and control;
tial increases of torque and drag as the well (2) Torque and drag generated by the
depth increases. In essence, deep vertical drillstring’s eccentric deformation
wells with spiraling tendencies should be and the consequent contact between
handled as directional wells. the drillstring (or casing) and the
borehole.
I. INTRODUCTION
A comprehensive drilling program must there–
A. Challenges In Directional Drilling: fore address the following issues in an inte-
gral reamer:
As oil and gas exploration becomes more
expensive due to more severe environments (1) Planning/prediction/control of well
(deeper offshore, or arctic areas), there is path;
 (2) Avoidance/prediction/advisory of
drilling troubles
(3) Total cost minimization.
Item (1) is imperative, since the target
must be reached within certain offsets if the
well is to be effective. In general, the dril-
ling trajectory does not conform to the
planned well path. Doglegs caused by unwanted
deviations are the major source of drilling
trouble, and require costly course corrections
and trips. Causes of these deviation ten-
dencies need to be well understood, in order
to plan for them if at all possible, and to
monitor and account for their effects on the
drilling operation.
During well planning, “optimum” well path
should be defined to minimize total drilling
cost. Conventional well-path planning merely
defines the trajectory connecting two points,
mostly assuming 2-D trajectory. This should be
expanded to include the anticipated deviation
caused by the BHA and the formation; the
generated torque and drag, and the ensuing
implications to drillstring/casing design
requirements.
While drilling, constant monitoring is
needed to maintain proper well trajectory,
taking corrective actions if needed. Improved
control and predictive capabilities will re-
quire fewer corrective actions, and result in
major cost savings.
Item (2) deals with the many potential
troubles during drilling, such as: fluid pres-
sure control (kick or lost circulation); in-
sufficient cuttings transport and hole clean-
ing; drillstring failure; severe hole crooked-
ness which may cause key-seating and stuck
pipe. Severe drilling troubles may require
side tracking or even hole abandonment. Most,
if not all of these problems, become more
acute and more difficult to resolve in direct–
ional wells. Thus it is essential to under–
stand the causes of these drilling troubles,
and develop capabilities to monitor, inter–
pret, control and predict them.
Item (3) deals with the optimization of
the total cost for the entire well, by con-
sidering trade-offs between conflicting gov-
erning parameters. This task is considerably
more difficult in directional drilling since
more parameters are present. Therefore better
understanding is needed about the effect of
variation of each parameter on the overall
drilling cost. An example of trade-off is the
choice of drilling mud. Lubricated muds can
reduce borehole friction but are much more
expensive and more difficult to dispose, while
the water-based muds are cheaper but will
cause higher torque and drag.
B. Role Of Torque-Drag Model Programs In
Directional Drilling:
In directional and deep wells, the torque
and drag generated by contacts between the
drillstring and the borehole play major roles
in the following areas: well–planning, drill–
ing operation (trouble diagnosis and preven-
tion), and casing running/setting operations.
They also affect the completion/ cementing
operation. Their accurate predictions are
therefore very important if the well is to be
successfully and economically drilled and
completed.
A good torque and drag model, especially
when coupled with improved surface torque and
hook load measurements, can be used for the
following purposes:
(A) Improved well planning design to
reduce torque and drag;
(B) More realistic drillstring design and
surface equipment selection;
(C) Rig-site trouble-spotting using diag-
nostic drilling (tripping) logs:
Comparison of measured and predicted
torque and drag can help spot
potential troubles;
(D) Aid in casing running and setting;
(E) Inferring downhole loads (WOB, TOB,
or casing landing force) from surface
measurements;
(F) Quantifying the casing eccentricity
and its effect on cementing, using a
program that computes the actual
deformation of the near-bottom sec-
tion of the casing;
(G) Aid in depth correlation of MWD mea-
surements;
(H) Aid in jarring operation: Identifi-
cation of the free point and the
overpull needed to activate jarring,
since both are affected by drag;
(I Means to redefine borehole trajectory
and geometric condition: Using suc-
cessive (time lapsed) tripping logs,
one can detect changes in the trajec-
tory and/or geometric conditions of
the borehole.
At present, applications of torque and drag
are mostly limited to (A), (B), and some lim-
ited cases of (C) and (D). Increased usage of
such models will be possible only with im-
proved reliability and sophistication of such
models, along with improved surface measure-
ments of hook load and torque.
Some directional drillers use steerable
downhole motors to change the drilling direc-
tion. Compared to rotary drilling, motor
drilling generates much higher drag in the
drillstring, because friction is generated by
sliding along the axial direction, rather than
the circumferential direction, of the drill-
string. For horizontal and for extended reach
directional wells, there may be a depth limit
beyond which one can no longer apply proper
WOB to the motor.
Recently, the drilling industry has de-
voted considerable effort to develop fundamen-
tal understanding and analysis software pro-

grams to address the major issues in direc-
tional drilling mentioned in the previous
section. In particular, several BHA (bottom-
hole assembly) analysis programs [1-5] and
some predictive bit-rock interaction models
[1,2,6-10] have been proposed and/or devel-
oped. These programs, if proven in the field,
will pave the way for a true predictive direc-
tional drilling program that can be used both
in the office as a planning aid, and in the
field as a monitoring and advisory tool. By
coupling such a predictive drilling program
with a trouble analysis program which accounts
for the effect of hole deviation on torque and
drag, we have the basic elements of a direc-
tional drilling simulator that will enable us
to drill a well on a computer.
II. PREVIOUS MODELS FOR COMPUTING TORQUE AND
DRAG
Several papers have been presented on a
model,to be called the “soft-string” model,
for computing the torque and drag in direc-
tional wells [11-14]. However, up to now,
there remain some doubt and confusion about
various aspects of its theoretical foundation
and/or limitation. The following briefly dis–
cusses these issues.
A. Basic Premises Of The Soft-String Model
And Its Derivations:
The derivation of the governing equations for
the soft-string model is based on the free-
body diagram of Fig. 1. It contains the fol-
lowing premises:
(1) It assumes the drillstring to contin-
uously contact the borehole. This
implies that effectively the borehole
clearance is zero (or rather, no
effect of actual borehole clearance
is seen).
(2) It ignores the presence of shear
forces in the drillstring in its
force equilibrium. Under general
conditions, the assumption of zero
stiffness does not imply vanishing
shears, as shown in Appendix B.
(3) For an infinitesimal drillstrinq
element, it violates moment equili-
brium in the lateral direction. For
any finite drillstring segment, the
assumed torque transfer is incorrect.
Ironically, when viewed from the large
deformation theory [5], the seemingly erro-
neous torque transfer equation turns out to be
a correct simplification, as verified by equ.
(A-17) in [5].
To handle the fluid effects, the effective
tension Te will be used in place of the true
tension T and the submerged weight density
will replace the drillstring’s dry weight
density, as in [12]. The relation between Te
and T is:
Te (1)
A more complete discussion of the effects of
4 9
3
internal and external flowing fluids will be
presented in a later paper.
B. Limitations Of The Soft-string Model:
As described in Appendix B, the soft-
string model neglects the stiffness of the
drillstring, and is independent of the clear-
ance between the drillstring and the borehole
wall. As a result, effects of tight holes and
severe local hole crookednesses cannot be
easily detected by such a model. As a result,
the soft-string model generally underestimates
the torque and drag, or overestimates the
friction coefficient.
These limitations are clearly illustrated
in Figs. 3 and 4 to be presented in the fol-
lowing section. They will severely limit the
usefulness of the soft-string model as a rig-
site monitor/advisory tool for trouble-spot-
ting.
Reportedly, some major oil companies have
incorporated a stiffness correction factor to
the soft-string model. However, the exact
nature of this correction is not yet publi–
cized and is unknown to the author.
III. IMPROVED TORQUE-DRAG MODEL
To account for the effect of drillstring
stiffness, an smimproved torque-drag model pro-
gram TORDRA-I , has been developed. It com-
bines two programs:
(1) An in-house developed soft-string
model program, TORDRA-0 sm, coded with
a very stable numerical integration
technique.
(2) A BHA analysis program for the stiff
collar section. This is modified from
DIDRIL-I sm (a finite-difference based
program using large deformation
theory [5]) to account for the drag
generated while tripping.
The rationale of the improved program is
to include the effect of drillstring stiffness
where such effect is the greatest, namely in
the collar. Adding BHA analysis also enables
us to include the effects of stabilizer place-
ment and hole clearance. In addition, when
used for casings with centralizers, output of
the BHA analysis portion will enable us to
determine the amount of eccentricity of the
casing. This information is important for
proper cementing operation.
This improved torque-drag program,TORDRA-
Ism, can handle top drives when the drill–
string is rotated while tripping. It is also
being modified to allow the computation of
stiffness effect in more than one segment of
the drillstring if needed. It currently con-
tains the following options:
(1) Soft-string analysis only, BHA
analysis bypassed;
TORDRA, DIDRIL are sevice marks
of NL Petroleum Services
4 AN IMPROVED MODELING PROGRAM FOR COMPUTING THE TORQUE AND DRAG IN DIRECTIONAL AND DEEP WEELS SPE 18047
(2) Inverted BHA analysis, where the
stiff collar section is not located
near the “bit”.
It can be run in two modes: (1) Forward mode:
Given friction coefficient, to find surface
loads; (2) Inverse mode: Given surface
load(s), to find friction coefficient.
The following case studies provide the
basic rationale for the development sm of
TORDRA-I sm. These case studies also clearly
illustrate the shortcomings of the soft–string
mode 1.
Consider a situation where measurements at
two adjacent survey stations show the borehole
to be in a smooth trajectory, when in fact
there exists local crookedness. This can arise
when drilling through hard and soft formation
sequences, as depicted in Fig. 2. The question
is: can we use torque-drag tripping logs to
detect such local hole crookedness?
A. Comparison Of Trip-out Tension Across A
Step Kink
First consider the situation where the
local hole crookedness is a “step kink”, shown
in Fig. 3, embedded in a supposedly straight
hole. Assume the bit to be at point A, trip-
ping out. We examine the effective tension at
point B, as a function of the length of the
curved section of the well. The shorter the
curved section (with the same total change in
deviation angle), the more severe the local
hole crookedness is. Intuitively this will
lead to larger tension at point B. Results
using the soft–string model are shown as dot-
tedlines (for collar, HWDP, and drillpipes)
in Fig. 3. They show clearly that the soft–
string model is totally insensitive to such
local hole crookedness.
Superimposed in Fig. 3 are results using
the modified BHA program, using a similar
make-up for collar, HWDP, and drillpipe. We
can conclude:
(1) Stiffness effect is very significant
in collar section when passing
severe local hole crookedness. For
example, when the curve section
length is 50’, tension at point B is
about 8 kips greater than that
computed from the soft-string model.
(2) Such effect lessens dramatically for
HWDP, and is negligible for drill-
pipe.
B. Comparison Of Trip-out Tension Across A
Down Kink
This case study is similar to the one
above, except the hole crookedness is now
assumed to be a “down kink”, as shown in Fig.
4. Results show entirely similar trends as in
the previous case. When the curved section
length is 50’, difference in tension at point
B is about 12 kips.
Furthermore, in Fig. 4, when borehole
clearance is reduced for the curved length at
100’, the improved model shows dramatic in–
crease in the effective tension at point B,
whereas the soft-string model remains un–
410
changed, since the soft-string model is inde-
pendent of the borehole diameter.
c. Experience Of The Improved Model
Limited analyses have been carried out on
existing wells using the improved model, and
compared to those using the soft–string model.
We make the following remarks:
(1) The improved model consistently ob-
tains larger surface loads than the
Soft string model. This implies that,
when the average friction coefficient
is computed from the soft-string
model, its value tends to be
somewhat higher. However, for reason-
ably smooth holes (less than 1.5
deg/100’ curvature anywhere), the
soft-string mode 1 does give
reasonably good results.
(2) When uncorrected MWD survey data are
used, particularly if the interval is
very small (some at 7’ intervals),
both our soft-string model and our
stiffness model obtain surface loads
considerably in excess of what
has been actually observed, with the
stiffness model showing consistently
higher values. The major problem here
is that the inferred borehole tra–
jectory becomes unrealistically
crooked, which is more faithfully
reflected in the higher torque and
drag obtained by the stiffened model.
Therefore, when using MWD survey, care
must be taken to reasonably smooth the data by
the following:
(a) Use reasonable survey interval (no
less than 25’);
(b) Correct intrinsic errors of the sur-
vey measurements. One type of system-
atic error is caused by the defor-
mation of the instrument sub, causing
the instrument axis to differ from
the borehole axis.
(c) Smoothing may be necessary to elimi-
nate random instrument errors.
(d) In depth regions where prior trips
and/or reaming runs have been carried
out, the borehole geometry has been
considerably altered. Therefore,
additional survey should be taken
while tripping in. Precaution should
be followed similarly as mentioned
above.
IV. SIMPLIFIED MODEL FOR DEEP VERTICAL WELLS
In theory, there will be no torque and
drag in truly vertical wells. In reality,
commonly observed hole spiraling will lead to
continuous wall contacts generating torque and
drag. The problem grows in exponential manner
as the well depth increases, and becomes ser-
ious for very deep vertical wells. Once hole
spiraling occurs, a vertical well behaves much
like a directional well, and needs to be han-
dled as such. Causes of hole spiraling are:
(1) Bit tilt from an initial vertical
position, due to “buckling” of the
collar when WOB is applied.
SPE 18047
(2) The applied torque generating a walk
force, as fully described in [5].
(3
Up-dip drilling deviation tendency
[1,9,10] when drilling into aniso-
tropic formation with non-horizontal
bedding.
Note that the phenomenon of hole spiraling
is different from the helical buckling of the
drillstring in a vertical hole, the latter not
generating any drag while tripping.
A. Simplified Relations
TO compute the torque and drag, particu–
larly in irregularly spiraled vertical wells,
an improved model including stiffness effects
should be used. In the following, simple for–
mulas are derived based on the following as-
sumptions:
(1) Spiraling is periodic with constant
pitch. This implies:
d(Ad)/dS = O; d(Az)/dS = const.= kz
(2)
(2) The hole deviation angle, Ad, is
constant but very small, so that
sin (Ad) is negligible with respect
to unity. This implies, in general,
that [sin(Ad) d(Az)/dS] is negligible
when compared to Nn term. This re-
sults in a “lower” estimate of the
drag generated.
Variation from a uniform helix is very
important and needs to be defined, because
such variation also tends to increase the
surface torque and drag. Improved torque-drag
model should then be used instead. For better
results, BHA deformation must be determined to
correct the MWD survey data.
For the simplified situations, equs. (A–6
to A-12) can be written as:
(3)
kb =Abs(k z sin(A d); (4)
N=N n=-T kb=Tsin(A d) kz; Nb = 0; (5)
d T/dS - f T kb= - g cos(Ad) = -g; (6)
For tripping out condition, integration of
equ. (6) leads to:
(7)
Similarly, integration of equ. (A-13) leads
to:
. (3) Variation from the perfect spiral
(8)
HWA-SHAN HO 5
B. Torque-Drag Computation For A Spiraled
Vertical Well
Equs. (7,8) show that torque and drag are
uniquely determined by the following quanti-
ties: the equivalent curvature k , the coef-
ficient of friction f, and the well depth S.
It is very useful to compare the torque
and drag of such spiraled wells to those of a
slanted well having the same constant devia-
tion angle, Ad. We will neglect the second
term in the bracket for Mt(s) (if exists at
all), since it is small compared to the first
term for deep wells. The following load fac–
tors are useful indicators for such compari-
sons:
(1) The “over-pull factor” t , defined as
the ratio of added surface pull over
the sticking force, To:
tp = exp[f kb s];
(2) The “drag factor” td, defined as the
ratio of the surface hook load over
the total dead weight (approximately
the hook load for slanted
straight well):
td= (tp -1)/(fkbs);
(3) The “torque factor” tm, defined as
the ratio of over-torque (the differ-
ence between the surface and the down
hole torque, if any) over the torque
generated by a slanted well with
constant deviation angle Ad:
t m = kb s/ (2 sin(Ad)).
To show how the well depth influences
these factors, sample cases are included in
Table I, using a friction coefficient of 0.2.
At present, it is not possible to predict the
degree of spiraling in a vertical well. There-
fore, equivalent curvatures Of kb = .5, 1.,
and 2. deg/100’are considered.
The table shows dramatic exponential
increases in torque and drag as the well depth
increases, and illustrates the significant
impact of deep hole spiraling on drillstring
design and surface equipment Selection. We
observe:
(1) The surface loads are much higher
than what would be for inclined
straight holes. For example, for a
40,000’ well with an equivalent
curvature of only 1 degree / 100’ and
a low friction coefficient of
0.2, the over-pull factor t is 4.04,
the drag factor td is 2.18, and
the torque factor t m is 100.
(2) These values are very sensitive to
the curvature of the spiral.
assumed herein tends to increase
the surface torque and drag. There-
fore, accurate definition of the
borehole trajectory is very impor-
tant.
411
6 AN IMPROVED MODELING PROGRAM FOR COMPUTING THE TORQUE AND DRAG IN DIRECTIONAL AND DEEP WELLS SPE 18047

TABLE I (4) Very deep vertical wells should be

handled as directional wells.
EFFECT OF VERTICAL HOLE SPIRALING
ON TORQUE & TRIP-OUT DRAG (5) Torque and drag in vertical spiraled
wells with spiraling tendencies in-
crease exponentially with depth.
Simple formulas have been derived for
their estimation.

(6) Improved surface load measurements

Cases: (1) kb - 0.5 d e g / 1 0 0 ’ ;
( 2 ) kb - 1 . 0 d e g / 1 0 0 ’ ;
(3) kb - 2.0 deg/100’;
In summary, we should regard deep ver-
tical wells with spiraling tendencies as di-
rectional wells with extended reach. The fol-
lowing considerations are essential for suc–
cessful drilling to the total depth:
are needed for more accurate estimate
All based on f - 0.2; of the drag generated. A 5 % error in
Ad - 2 deg.
the total hook load may mean an error
in excess of 50% in the generated
drag.
(7) With improved understanding, the
improved torque-drag model can be
used for many other applications to
help the drilling process.

(1) Well-planning should account for the VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

potential of hole spiraling.
The author wishes to express his appre-
(2) Surface torque and drag requirements ciation to the following persons: John
as well as drillstring and casing Fontenot for his guidance while he was at NL
strength requirements must be planned Paul Rodney and Vik Rao for their sustained
as in directional wells. support and encouragements; Steve Sawaryn of
Britoil and James Dech of Arco for their well
(3) Frequent surveys are needed to accu- data and helpful discussions. Thanks also go
rately define the borehole spiral to Cathy Connelly, Mary Spencer, and Mary
and variation from helical spiral. Fouts for their rush typing support. Last but
Errors in survey measurements (e.g., not least, the author thanks NL management for
effect of survey tool departure from the permission to publish this paper.
borehole centerline) should be
eliminated if possible.
VII. NOMENCLATURE
(4) Every effort should be made to re-
duce/control spiraling while drill– Ai : Drillstring section area
ing. The use of a predictive drill- defined by inner diameter
ahead program with rock-bit interac- Di
tion is very desirable for this pur-
pose, especially when used iterative-
ly in conjunction with MWD surveys. Ao: Drillstring section area
defined by outer diameter Do
(5) Results shown in Table I are only
lower estimates. When hole spiraling
becomes irregular, the simplified Ad: Deviation angle
formulas no longer suffice. An im-
proved torque-drag model program such Az: Azimuth angle
as TORDRA-I should be employed.
V. CONCLUSIONS: E: Elastic (Young’s) modulus

In conclusion, we note: Unit base vectors in global

system, pointing in East,
(1) The soft string model violates funda- North, and Up-vertical
mental equilibrium of the drill- directions
string. It is a useful model only
when the well trajectory is reason–
ably smooth. Unit base vector in natural
curvilinear system
(2) The effect of stiffness is dominant
in the collar section, less important
in the heavy weight drillpipe sec– principal normal direction;
tion, and negligible for drill pipe.
Binormal direction;
(3) An improved “stiffened” torque-drag
model is formed by combining a non-
linear BHA analysis for the collar Tangential direction,
section, coupled with a soft–string positive uphole;
model for the remainder of the drill-
string. Such a model should provide
more realistic torque and drag compu- section of drillstring
tation.
412
SPE 18047 HWA-SHAN HO 7
Effective axial tension,
Friction coefficient = T+(po A o - pi A i )

Distributed contact force Sticking force (effective)

vector on drillstring
Distributed torque per unit
Components of resultant length on drillstring
vector force at a section
in global coordinates Over-pull factor, = Surface
tension induced by To,
Vector of submerged drill- divided by To
string weight per unit
length:
Drag factor = Total surface
tension (T. = O) divided
g = g v ( Ao - Ai ) by total suspended string
weight
=
gV gs - gf; submerged
weight density; Torque factor = Surface
torque divided by torque on
Drillstring’s dry weight a straight hole of same
density constant deviation angle, Ad

Fluid’s weight density Physical components of

resultant force in
curvilinear coordinates
Moment of inertia of
drillstring section Fixed global coordinate
system, in:
= π (D04- Di4) / 64 East, North, and Up-vertical
directions
Total bending curvature
VIII. REFERENCES
Natural tortuosity of
drillstring centerline [1 Lubinski, A. and Woods, H.B.: “Factors
Affecting the Angle of Inclination and
Dog-legging in Rotary Bore Holes”, API
Rate of change of Drilling & Prod. Pratt., 1953, pp. 222-
azimuth angle: dAz/dS 250.
[2 Williamson, J. S. and Lubinski, A.: “Pre-
dicting Bottomhole Assembly Performance”,
Resultant moment vector at a IADC/SPE Conf., paper no.-14764, Dallas:
positive section of BHA Feb. 1986.
[3 ] Millheim, K., Jordan, S. and Ritter, C.
Distributed normal contact J .: “Bottom-hole Assembly Analysis Using
the Finite Element Method”, JPT, Feb.
1978, pp. 265-274.
[4 ] Jogi, P. N., Burgess, T. M. and Bowling,
Drillstring torque J. P.: “Three–Dimensional Bottomhole
Assembly Model Improves Directional
Drilling”, IADC/SPE Conf., paper no.
Components of in 14768, Dallas, Feb. 1986.
curvilinear coordinates [5 ] Ho, H.-S.: “General Formulation of Drill-
string Under Large Deformation and Its
Annulus fluid pressure Use in BHA Analysis”, SPE Ann. Tech.
Conf., Oct. 1986, New Orleans, SPE paper
#15562.
Bore fluid pressure [6 Bradley, W. B.: “Factors Affecting the
Control of Borehole Angle in Straight
Torque-generating radius of and Directional Wells”, JPT, June 1973,
drillstring pp. 679-688.
[7 Millheim, K. K. and Warren, T. M.: “Side
Cutting Characteristics of Rock Bits and
Arc length of borehole/ Stabilizers while Drilling”, SPE paper
drillstring centerline, 7518, Fall Annual SPE Conf. 1978, 8p.
positive going uphole [8 ] Brett, J. F.; Gray, J. A.; Bell, R. K.
and Dunbar, M. E.: “A Method of Modeling
the Directional Behavior of Bottomhole
Actual axial tension Assemblies Including Those with Bent Subs
and Downhole Motors”, SPE/IADC confer-
ence, Feb. 1986, Dallas SPE paper 14767.
413
8 AN IMPROVED MODELING PROGRAM FOR COMPUTING THE TORQUE AND DRAG IN DIRECTIONAL AND DEEP WELLS SPE 18047
[9 ] Ho, H.-S.: “Discussion on: ‘Predicting
Bottomhole Assembly Performance’ by
J. S. Williamson & A. Lubinski, Spe/
Drilling Engng. J., Mar. 1987, pp. 37-
46”, SPE/DE, Sept. 1987, pp. 283-284.
[10] Ho, H.-S.: “Prediction of Drilling Tra-
jectory in Directional Wells Via a
New Rock-Bit Interaction Model”, SPE
Paper #16658, Presented at SPE Conf.,
Oct. 1987, Dallas.
[11] Johancsik. C. A., Dawson, R. and Friesen,
D. B.: “Torque and Drag in directional
Wells – Prediction and Measurement”,
IADC/SPE conf., SPE paper 11380, New
Orleans, 1983, pp.201-208.
[12] Sheppard, M. C., Wick, C. and Burgess, T.
M .: “Designing Well Paths to Reduce Drag
and Torque”, SPE paper #15463, Presented
at SPE Conf., Oct. 1986, New Orleans, 12 p.
[13] Maidla, E. E. and Wojtanowicz, A. K.:
“Field Comparison of 2-D and 3-D
Methods for the Borehole Friction
Evaluation in Directional Wells”, SPE
paper #16663, Presented at SPE Conf., Sept.
1987, Dallas, pp. 125-139, Drilling.
[14] Brett, J. F., Beckett, C. A. and Smith, D.
L .: “Uses and Limitations of a Drillstring
Tension and Torque Model to Monitor Hole
Conditions”, SPE paper #16664, Presented at
SPE Conf., Sept. 1987, Dallas, pp. 125-139,
Drilling.

APPENDIX (A)
DERIVATION OF SOFT-STRING MODEL
IN NATURAL COORDINATES
The basic governing equations are given
here in natural curvilinear coordinates for the
soft-string model. When compared to the
“Constrained stiff model” given in Appendix B,
and further to real situations, the assum~
tions of the soft-string model will then be
apparent.
The effects of the internal and external
fluids, with pressures pi and p o,are taken
into consideration as in [12], by using the
effective tension, Te:

Te = T + p o A o - Pi A i
(A-1 )
and replacing the dry weight density, gs, by
the submerged density, g v:

= -
gv gs g f; (A-2)
where gf is the fluid density. A more detailed
treatment of these effects and related prob-
lems will be presented in a future paper.

With those substitutions, equilibrium of the

soft–string model is described as follows, per
Fig. 1, while tripping out:

Using the Frenet-Serret formulas for the

centerline of the borehole:

414
SPE 18047
Mt kb = O.
This violates equilibrium, unless kb = O.
Furthermore, when any finite length of the
drillstring is taken as a free body, overall
moment equilibrium is clearly violated in all
directions, unless the borehole is straight.
HUA-SHAN HO 9
[5], where now the natural coordinate system
(Et, En, Eb) will be used instead. This is
because the drillstring is assumed to be com-
pletely constrained by the borehole, and
therefore the centerline of the drillstring
has the same trajectory as that of the bore-
hole. Equilibrium of the differential segment
dS while tripping out is given by (Fig. 6):

To illustrate, Fig. 5a is a finite seg-

ment of the drillstring with constant (2-D)
curvature kb subjected to torque Mtl and Mt2
at both ends, and an assumed constant distri-
buted torque, t, for ease of illustration. To
consider moment equilibrium, we do not need to
include all the forces acting on the free
body, since there is in general no force cou-
ple. We can therefore consider moment equi-
librium about a point on the line of action of
the resultant total force.

Fig. 5b is a geometric construction of

the total moment acting on the free body by
the applied torque. The straight lines AB and
CD denote the torque at b and c, i.e., Mtl and
Mt2 respectively, whereas the curved (circular and the resultant bending moment, Mb, is de–
arc) section BC denoteS the integration of the fined by the borehole’s flexural curvature,
distributed torque t Et. Note the following: kb, by:

(a) Length CD = Length AB +Arc length BC

(from (A-14));
Noting that:
(b) Vector CD is tangent to arc BC at
point C.

Similarly, for any point p within the section

BC in Fig. 5a, the corresponding torque is the
vector PQ in Fig. 5b, satisfying the above two
conditions. Note that if t is not constant,
then, the curve BC will not be a circular arc,
but the above conditions still hold.

The above relationships can be inter-

preted as follows: The torque integrand curve
APC is the “evolute” of the torque integral
curve AQD, which in turn is the “involute” of
APc .

Therefore, the total resultant moment for (B-5)

this section is the vector AD, and not zero.
This implies that the section is not in moment (2) Force equil. in Et direction:
equilibrium.

APPENDIX (B) ( B-6

RIGOROUS DERIVATION OF
CONSTRAINED DRILLSTRING MODEL (3) Force equil. in En direction:
If we assume, as in the “soft-string”
model, that the drillstring is completely
constrained by the borehole (resulting in
continuous contact), but do not neglect the ( B-7)
stiffness of the drillstring, then a rigorous
theory can be derived for computing the con-
tact force, and the generated torque and drag. (4) Force equil. in Eb direction:

The derivation is based on the large de-

formation formulation recently presented in
( B-8)
415
10 AN IMPROVED MODELING PROGRAM FOR COMPUTING THE TORQUE AND DRAG IN DIRECTIONAL AND DEEP WELLS SPE 1804

In addition, we have: (2) The interpolated borehole trajectory

Note that the assumption of zero stiffness by
the soft-string model implies Mb = 0. However,
we cannot therefore assume zero shear force,
as does the soft–string model, because of the
term kb Mt. This error will lead to incorrect
normal contact force.
Several comments can be made about equations
(B.5-8):
between survey stations is smooth (at most
linearly varying curvature) and has zero tor-
tuosity. In such situations the soft-string
model does provide very good results within
each such survey interval.
When viewed from the entire borehole tra-
jectory, one can see the following problems
with the soft-string model:
(1) The drillstring centerline does not
conform to that of the borehole, particular-
ly if the borehole has reversed curvatures
(local hole crookedness).

(1) The bending moment always contributes (2) Due to the above condition, the
to a positive effective tension. However, this drillstring twist is different from the bore-
effect is generally small and negligible. For hole tortuosity and not zero, and does contri-
a 4.5” pipe under 30 deg/100’ curvature, this bute to the tortuosity of its centerline (also
amounts to about 25 lbf; for a 7“ collar, discussed in [5]). Therefore significant error
about 330 lb. exists in the computation of the contact force
N.
(2) Comparing (B-7) to (A-8) in computing
the normal component of the contact force Nn, (3) For any finite length segment of the
we see that the soft-string model (A–8) misses drillstring, moment equilibrium is violated,
the first two terms. Assuming planar curves as proven in Fig. 5a and 5b.
(as is the case with most survey interpolation
methods), then the tortuosity kn vanishes.
Therefore, if the moment (or hole curvature)
varies linearly, no error is involved. Other-
wise, substantial error will occur in the es-
timate of Nn. Note that real boreholes do pos-
sess non-vanishing kn.

(3) Comparing (B-8) to (A-9) in computing

the binormal component of the contact force
Nb, under the assumption of zero tortuosity,
we see that the soft-string model misses the
terms:

The second term vanishes if the circu-

lar arc method is used, but the first term is
always present, being equal to:

We can conclude that the soft-string

model provides reasonably good estimates of
the torque and drag under the following con-
ditions:

(1) The drillstring continuously contacts

the borehole, i.e., the drillstring centerline
nearly coincides with the borehole centerline.
This requires the borehole trajectory to be
very smooth and contain few if any reversed
curvatures.
This is a major assumption and the
source of significant error. It completely
ignores the effect of hole clearance.

416