Predicting 'the Build/Drop Tendency

of Rotary Drilling Assemblies

P.N. "'ogl, * Anadrill-Schlumberger
T.M. Burgess, SPE, Anadrill-Schlumberger
.... P. Bowling, Anadrill-Schlumberger

Summary. Today, the majority of rotary bottomhole assemblies (BHA's) for directional control are designed through practical
experience and trial and error. This approach can produce satisfactory results when a great deal of local experience can be drawn
on. It can prove costly, however, during drilling in a new area because of the increased number of trips and correction runs. This
paper demonstrates how a BHA model can be used to predict the directional inclination tendencies of rotary assemblies, thus
limiting the uncertainty associated with the traditional BHA design techniques.
The technique is demonstrated on data from 17 bit runs from three wells on the same platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Predicted
tendencies from BHA descriptions alone proved to be accurate (to an error of O.I /100 ft [0.03/1O m]) in more than half
the cases. The uncertainty of other predictions appeared to depend on the hole gauge. The distance taken for a BHA to reach a
stable build/drop rate after the start of a bit run depends on the length of the BHA. This factor must be_~_e~!nt,(} account in the
prediction of BHA performance.
Introduction
Factors that determine the behavior of a BHA have been the subject
of many papers over the last 30 years. 1-7 It is generally recognized
that the following factors are the most important: (I) stabilizer location and gauge; (2) drill-collar stiffness; (3) borehole inclination
and curvature; (4) weight on bit (WOB); (5) hole size; (6) rotary
speed; (7) bit side-cutting action; (8) formation strength; and
(9) formation anisotropy.
Most mathematical models are two dimensional (2D) and static. 8 ,9 They attempt to predict the side forces at the bit and stabilizers by assuming that the BHA deforms like an elastic beam. The
side force at the bit is then used to predict the build/drop tendency
of the BHA. These models take Factors 1 through 4 into account.
They are often analytic and tend to run in a matter of seconds on
small computers.
Although 2D models have led to significant improvements in BHA
design, large discrepancies frequently occur between predictions
and field results. These errors are a result of Factors 5 through 9
and the three-dimensional (3D) nature of the wellbore. Attempts
are sometimes made to correct the predictions with adjustable parameters as follows. Field results are first compared with predicted
results. An input parameter to the model (often associated with the
formation) is then varied until agreement is reached. We prefer not
to use this approach unless the cause of the error is clearly identified
and can be quantified or measured in real time. A parameter associated with the formation anisotropy cannot account for changes
in BHA behavior if the cause of the problem is hole enlargement.
Some advancement has been made by adding the effects of 3D
curvature and the dynamic effects of rotary speed. 10 These models
tend to be solved numerically by finite-element techniques. Because
of their size and complexity, they tend to run in a matter of minutes
or even hours on large computers. As such, they tend to be more
suited to a research environment than to rig-site utilization where
an interpretive approach and fast turnaround are required for
decision-making.
The model described in this paper is a compromise between the
two extremes. It is a 3D static analysis of the BHA. Because it is
3D, it can take into account complex wellbore geometry and can
model the effect of downhole torque on the BHA. Geometry and
torque are two of the factors that contribute to the turn of a BHA.
The model is solved analytically and thus runs in a few seconds
on a rig-site computer. This means that it can be used efficiently
as both a design and an interpretive tool. The solution is based on
"Now at Teieco OiHieid Services.

Copyright 1988 Society of petroleum Engineers

SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1988

the general theory of bending and twisting of elastic rods (see the
Appendix).
The model provides a prediction of the side force at the bit and
stabilizers, the deformed shape of the BHA, and the stable or equilibrium tendency of the BHA. The first result is used to predict
the qualitative tendency (i.e., the build/drop) of the BHA for a specified wellbore geometry. It cannot be used to quantify the initial
tendency reliably. Stabilizer side forces can be used to predict which
sides will be subject to most wear.
The second result is used to monitor which collars are subject
to large bending stresses and to determine which collars touch the
wellbore. This is important in measurement-while-drilling (MWD)
operations, when wellbore contact can result in excessive wear of
resistivity rubbers and large stresses can result in premature failure
of MWD components and drill collars.
The third result predicts the final or asymptotic behavior (buildl
drop rate and turn rate) of the BHA. This prediction is based on
the assumption that the BHA will tend toward drilling a hole curvature such that the side force at the bit is zero. Deviations from
this curvature will create side forces that will tend to push the bit
back to the stable position.
All directly measurable factors (Factors 1 through 4), except
rotary speed (Factor 6), are accounted for in the model. Caliper
information is never available in real time; thus, in the absence of
information on hole washout, the hole size, d h , is normally
assumed to be equal to the bit diameter. The side-cutting action
of the bit and the rock strength are omitted. We are not aware of
any reliable model for these effects, despite the fact that the sidecutting action could be measured in the laboratory and rock strength
can be inferred in real time from the inverse rate of penetration
(ROP). For completeness, rock anisotropy has been included in the
model by use of an anisotropy index described by Lubinski and
Woods 2 or by assuming that the anisotropy creates a moment or
couple at the bit. 7 In practice, we believe that because no measurements of anisotropy or bending moment are currently available
with MWD tools, it is best to ignore rock anisotropy.
The theory behind the model is outlined in the Appendix. The
next section describes some of the most important theoretical predictions and shows how sensitive the model is to input parameters
like WOB, hole size, and stabilizer clearance. Then the model is
compared with MWD directional data corning from 17 bit runs from
three wells on the same platform in the gulf coast. Only the
build/drop tendencies of the BHA's are analyzed at this stage. The
response is also compared with hole-size information measured by
caliper logs after drilling.
177

EOtJn.IBRM RATE (DEGI100 FT. )

3~---------------------------------,

IIO.I*TIIII AT BIT
EQUIllllll\ll IlIIlD RATE (DESl1oo FT. )

5 DES
a

.Hr--------------------------------,

24. 3 DEG

. 20
4S DEG

build

. 10

drop

.OS

-1

20

10

40

30

~-----===

. 15

. 00

20

DISTANCE fROM BIT TO fIRST STABILIZER (FT)

ora

&II

80

40
IEIOO ON tUT (KLBS)

Fig. 4-Effect of WOB on equilibrium build angle rate.

Fig. 1-Equlllbrlum rate vs. position of first stabilizer.

Inclinet1 on It bit
5 DES

BIT SIDE FORCE (lbs)

~r---------------_.-----------------,

110 DEli

====::1'

[DB"

c::=::::JDrill Collar (30') 1:1

IISt.b. (6')

oero .. o_r

'" [D ,

1000

droppino-----:~""'""---buildino

".10

'I
I f ....

'4 tn&*'Il1! I

-2000
_3000L-_~L_

_ J_ __ J_ _ _~L__~L__

_J

:a

-1. 5

-1.0

-.5

.0

.5

1.5

1.0

1m
rgt

II!!!

I!!!

aD
IBI

NIIlIIC.. ....

[D Cia
N "" Cia I
!'8!
') [Jl8J
'181
'B'
,. [llgI18Ji:m I
"aD
'5 [llgI....1!!!1
'181
1&1

aD
Cia

----12

Fig. 2-Effect of borehole geometry on bit side force.

EQUllllll11II CUIIIIATUIE (DES/lOO FT. )

STAB '1

2~------------------------~
IlI11D

STAB 12

o~~~-----------~----------~

STAB 13

-4

-6L-______-L________L -_____
.10

.20

____

.30

.40

:J IABIlIZER CLENWICt: (INCIS)

Fig. 3-Effect of stabilizer clearance on equilibrium curvature.

The turning tendency of the assemblies is not analyzed. We have

not found a reliable way of generally predicting the turning tendency
from a BHA description and hole-geometry information alone. This
suggests that the turning tendency might be a strong function of
dynamics and/or lithology and hence is best predicted by an approach based on local experience.

Theoretical Predictions
In this section, we consider the theoretical effects of some key factors
on the performance of BHA's. These include the locations of the
'"TO

,8

[DI!!I

mOB

'181

III

'9~
Cia

IgI

181

II!!!
I

Il!'

'81

Fig. 5-BHA's used in Wells 1 through 3

All 3

-2

.00

I!!I
Cia

I!!!

'6!lJg1 i . 1 Cia '

,,[llg1.:., Cia t
'''IBII

I80B

INCLlIII\TTIlH DWIlf (DES/l00 FT. )

I!

Cia
i

,,1lJ

aD

Ill!

''1&11

~
'a[lJlo ...... 1 aD I
---,) [llgI
I I

-1000

KID (34')

un l.el..... Sub (2')

.Stab. (6') ~ Lollinl ' Colhr(l1')~ Pony Collar (lO ')

(under,qe)

2000

.Pr...

.ub (2')

stabilizers, the initial or starting borehole curvature, the hole size

or stabilizer clearance, and the WOB.
We refer to a given BHA as being a "building assembly" or
"dropping assembly" at a given WOB if the predicted equilibrium
behavior is building or dropping, respectively, at that WOB. This
does not imply that the behavior is always in agreement with the
prediction.
The BHA 's discussed are similar to those used in the field tests described below. Results for other BHA's have a similar general form.

Stabilizer Location. As any directional driller knows, the most

important feature of BHA design is the location of the first few
stabilizers. Fig. 1 shows the effect on the equilibrium behavior of
a BHA when the near-bit stabilizer is moved from the bit toward
the second stabilizer. The effect is of the first order. Moving the
stabilizer from the bit by one collar length changes the BHA from
a building assembly to a dropping assembly.
It is trivial to use the program to study this theoretical effect for
any stabilizer. The benefit of this kind of analysis is to enable the
directional driller to look at a large number of possibilities to design
a so-called optimum assembly with an equilibrium response almost
independent of hole inclination and WOB across the commercial
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1988

.......

-=

5.40

;:: 3.00

ae.ao

4..80
C 4.40

'-.

! ....
"",...

!3.80

iii......

.,...

.... -+-~--.,.----.-----.---..------.,.----,

7"'.

Ie:0. 1
0 ..10

.......

_.0

c...
o

3.40

e:

2.80
2.40

Predicted

1.90

~---~l

1.40

::g 0.00 +----,'..----T'----"..----"T,---..------"

c:6

1400,0

7'7DO.O

IDOO.O

I3CIo.O

MOO,a

0.90 +---~---Tl+-----r------'
12300.0
12800.0
12000.0
1.00

1800.0

Depth (Fl)

Fig. 6-Logs of build/drop rate and average Inverae ROP for

Bit Run 6, Well 1.

.......
....
......

0.75

' -.

-:!:!

.-

~::~:~ ~ f\;/
~2.00
c..

1.50

e:

1.00

D.45

0.20

"';;0

9500.0

Actual
________ Predicted

a:l
0.00

1=============~
12000.0

12300.0

12800.0

Depth (Ft)

9800.0

Fig. 9-Logs of build/drop rate and average Inverse ROP for

Bit Run 10, Well 1.

j
=:\

Actual

Predicted

~=====~====~==z=~<==~~~~;~/~~.

go

Depth (Ft)

......... -0.05

0.25

+-----or--l'""----,..-----,
8200.0

0.50

8200.0

r-.

9500.0

9800.0

t: 20.00

---.....

lB.OO

cO
U 18.00

Fig. 7-Logs of build/drop rate and average Inverse ROP for

Bit Run 7. Well 1.

14.00
12.00 +-----,..----~
5800.0
8100.0

.........

400

~ 2.00

3.50
~

"'-.

: : 3.00

2.50

~2.oo
a.. 1.50
o

1!5

1.00

0.50
0.00

-+----.----.-----.-----...-----,
10000.0

10300.0

laeoo.O

0.30

oO
........
~

11200.0

._.0

Depth (Ft)

;::

10800.0

10000.0
10300.0
100I00.0
IIZOO.O
0.05 . - - - - ' - - - -......._ _ _-'--_ _--..1._ _ _- '

-0.20

go -045

...

.....Q
:::e

1.00

0.50

---g
o
~

1.50

0.00

.........

5800.0

2.50

QD
Q)

-.....

2.25

Predicted

J.-~.o:::::::::::~~--.::....::.

Actual

CI
-070

Predicted

Fig. 8-Logs of build/drop rate and average Inverae ROP for

Bit Run 8, Well 1.

8100.0

" '-.
Actual

----------

"t:I
- 2.00

;:s
al

+---r----r----r----,
5850.0 5800.0 5950.0 6100.0

Depth (Ft)

Fig. 10-Logs of build/drop rate, average Inverse ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 3, Well 2.

SPE Drilling Engineering. June 1988

179

g~
~

I .....

18.00

1.00

II." +-----,----..-----,---:---.-----.------.1
....
.7DD.0
_.0
_.0

~::l

~ 100

a..

0.60

InW.O

.:::.

foa
.
o

-.0

73GD.'

Depth (Fl)

"":".0

~_o .~.o

",:".o~

___

~.o

_ _ _ _ Actual

I-____-=______~===

14.00

+-----...-----.------.----.....,

12.00

11100.0

_0

......0

i3
U

11400.0

11700.0

l1000.0

4.00

~ 0" +--~--=:;~:....::::::;:::::.-_=:;:====:;:;::~.:::::......=..--..
_.0

go 000]

111.00

~ 111.00

Predicted

3.50

.......

;:: 3.00

'?: 2.50

i 2.00
.....
a..

1.50

e:o

1.00
0.50

-0.60

+-----...-----r------.-----,

0.00

<>

11100.0

Fig. ll-Logs of build/drop rate, average Inverse ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 4, Wen 2.

Il400.0

11700.0

l1000.0

1.40

...

.......

;:;
o

1.15

........

:0.110

2".00

0.415

.:;

22.00

I--_____~~------------------Predicted

Ctl

Actual

-.2Q.OO

.s
.......,

0.40

+---------'T"""------.--------,----------.,
11100.0

.....
a;

18.00

18.00

Il400.0

11700.0

l1000.0

Depth (Ft)
Fig. l2-Logs of build/drop rate, average inverse ROP, and
caliper for Bit Run 5, Well 2.

1".00
12.00

+-----r----.....,,...------,
9200.0
9500.0
9800.0
24.00

".00

22.00

3.50

::5
.....
.... 111.00
20.00

3.00

"t: 2.50

i
.......,

i3

2.00

111.00

0.. 1.50

14.00

1.00

12.00

o~

......

0.00

+------r------,,...------.
9200.0

9500.0

9800.0

Depth (Ft)
-

g
~

0.10]

92000

9500 0

11800.0

.......

10200.0

10500.0

10800.0

4.50

;:: 4.00

'?: 3.50

~3.00
a.. 2.50
o

e:

I-_...;\~------------predicted

2.00

1.50

1.00

-0,"

+----------.---------.-------...-------.
IlII00.0

0.50

0.50

Actual

0.00

0.

Fig. l3-Logs of build/drop rate, average inverse ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 6, Well 2.

+--------.--------...--------...---------.
1IiI00.0

'-' -0.40

10200.0

10500.0

10800.0

:2
5
Ctl
.......

....

0.20

10800.0

.::::. -0.05
QII
QI

Depth (Ft)
__--P-T-e-d-i-c-t-e-d-- Ac tual

-0.30

Co

5
Fig. l4-Logs of build/drop rate, average inverse ROP, and
caliper for Bit Run 7, Wen 2.

180

SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1988

24.00

-....
-

22.00

.::::, 18.00

:?

20.00

....

18.00

'-'

18.00

IS 14.00
U
12.00

Ci

U 18.00
14.00

-"-....
~

12.00
lotKlO.O

11200.0

11500.0

-:=
-

....
~

"-

2.00
1.50

QD

-"-....
Q)

O.gO

r-~A----------------- Predicted
Actual

0.85

0.50
0.00
10Il00.0

11200.0

11500.0

Predicted
0.75

~
,.Q

0.40
5800.0

6100.0

Depth (Ft)

Fig. 16-Logs of bulld/drop rate, average Inverae ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 2, Well 3.

::J

-....

0.00

1.00

;g

6100.0

0.50

--g

3.00

0.. 2.50
0

e:

5800.0

2.00

::"Ill 1.00

4.50

4.00
..........
C 3.50

8100.0

C 1.50

-a...

5.00

5800.0

0.50

"-

0
0

..........

Actual
0.25

QII

0.00

-0.25

4l

11200.0

c.
0

11500.0

(Ft)

Fig. 1S-Logs of bulld/drop rate, average Inverae ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 8, Well 2.

range of inputs. This results in fewer doglegs, more effective transmission of weight, and less wear and tear on downhole tools.
Borehole Curvature. Fig. 2 is a graph of side force at the bit vs.
borehole curvature along a BHA for planar wellbores inclined at
a number of different angles at the bit. All the computations were
made assuming a WOB of 35,000 Ibf [156 kN].
Fig. 2 shows that when the BHA is placed in a building section,
the side force at the bit is negative (Le., downward). This would
tend to reduce the build rate. The converse is true when the BHA
is placed in a dropping section of the wellbore. The equilibrium
curvature is reached when the side force is zero. This is achieved
for a wellbore of curvature between 0.0 and 0.1 1100 ft [0.0 and
0 .03110 m]. Thus, we describe the BHA as a holding assembly
at a WOB of 35,000 Ibf [156 kN) .
Of key interest is the time or distance taken for the BHA to reach
its equilibrium position. This is discussed in the Data Analysis and
Interpretation section.
Note that all the curves in Fig. 2 are linear and that the effect
of the borehole inclination at the bit is minimal or of a second order.
The equilibrium rate varies by only 0.1 /100 ft [0.03/10 m] when
the inclination at the bit varies from 5 to 60.
Hole SizelStabilizer Clearance. Fig. 3 shows the theoretical effect
of clearance between stabilizers and the borehole wall on the equilibrium behavior of the same BHA as above. The curves are linear.
SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1988

If the near-bit stabilizer is under gauge, the BHA will have a dropping tendency. The converse is true if the second stabilizer is under
gauge, although this effect is less pronounced.
Clearance.at the third stabilizer does not have such a marked effect. This type of analysis generally shows that only the position
and clearance of the first three stabilizers have a significant effect
on the theoretical behavior.
Uniform clearance on all the stabilizers (i.e., hole enlargement)
is equivalent to superimposing the individual effects. This results
in a significantly lower equilibrium rate for almost all types of assemblies.
WOB. Fig. 4 shows the effect of downhole WOB on the equilibrium
tendency of the same BHA for various inclinations at the bit. For
any given inclination, the effect ofWOB is small. The results show
that this holding assembly has a slightly greater tendency to build
when the weUbore is significantly deviated.

D.t. An ys.s .nd Interpret.tlon

The directional data in this study come from three wells on the same
platform in the gulf coast. The survey data were recorded with an
MWD tool. The sections analyzed consist of a 9Ya-in. [25-cm] section in Well 1 and 121.4-in. [31-cm] sections in Wells 2 and 3.
Seventeen bit runs are analyzed. The associated BHA's are identified by the bit-run numbers. They are described in a simplified
graphic representation in Fig. 5. Assembly 3 of Well 2 was used
for the analysis in Fig. I . Assembly 7 of Well 2 was used in the
analyses in Figs. 2 through 4.
The instantaneous build/drop rate at each survey point was computed by fitting a smooth second-order curve through all survey
points within the length of the BHA. Unfortunately, a sub measuring downhole WOB and torque was not run; therefore, surfacemeasured WOB has been used in the analysis. As a result of friction
effects down the wellbore, experience has shown that it is not practical to use surface torque values to infer downhole torque. This
is not a serious limitation because downhole torque theoretically
has a significant effect only on the turning behavior of the BHA.
181

-....

18.00

~ 18.00
18.00

.::::. 18.00

a;

14.00

-;; 14.00
U
12.00

....
--

12.00
6400.0

-:i

6700.0

..........

C 1.50

1.50

~ 1.00

c...
o
~

......

-g--

1.00

6400.0

.....
....
o

......

Predicted

I-.

'S

Fig. 19-Logs of bulldldrop rate, average Inverse ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 5, Well 3.

+------r------,
8400.0

6700.0

Depth (Ft)
Fig. 17-Logs qf build/drop rate, average Inverse ROP, and
caliper for Bit Run 3, Wen 3.

.....
....
g_ua
..
1 .00

-.

-.

..... +--......."'i---'.....--.---...,....---.---~----.
. . ..0

a.,50
::: ' .00

-.

.-.

Deptb (Ft)

'PIDO.O

1100.0

"".0

'-.0

........ +----r---....---.......
......
.
....
.......

-.
-.

--....,...----,........:~__.

~ - 0 .30
"-

:-OM

0.

-1 .01

-1 .30

Fig. 18-Logs of build/drop rate, average inverse ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 4, Well 3.

182

-0.30

..c

..

&900.0

QO

0-

Actual

"0
0 .25

- 0 .

Actual

Q)

CI

1.00

Predicted

' - -0.05 1-+--~'"'""""---"'mI!IV\".o

a> 0.50

!:..oo
g., ...
!

9900.0

0.20

"'CD

........

;800.0

r:II

0.75

' .00

+-----'"T'"----...,.------.
;300.0

-':;

6700.0

....,J

Ii
u

0 .00

't:I

0.00

1.00

0.. 0.50

o~

0.50

0 .00

4------.,------r------,
0300.0
;800.0
9900.0

; ! 2.00

;::! 2.00

"'C

Thus, in the analysis we consider only the build/drop behavior of

the BHA's.
Figs. 6 through 22 are logs of the measured build/drop rates vs.
depth. Superimposed on the logs is a constant value corresponding
to a simple prediction of the equilibrium response at an average
WOB, assuming that the hole is perfectly in gauge. The results are
strildng .
Of the 17 BHA' s, 13 appear to reach equilibrium. On average,
each one of these takes 100 to 400 ft [30 to 122 m] to achieve it.
At first sight, some BHA's (Figs. 12, 13, 15, and 20) do not appear to reach equilibrium at all.
It is interesting to note that the same BHA was used in Runs 7
and 10 in Well 1 (see Figs. 7 and 9). These BHA's were still converging to the equilibrium position after 600 ft [183 m], but both
were within O. 15 /100 ft [0.05 /1 0 m] of the prediction after 400
ft [122 mJ. The difference in the initial behavior of the BHA is
attributed to the different wellbore curvatures at the start of the bit
runs.
In nine cases (Well 1, Figs . 7 and 9; Well 2, Figs. 10, 11, and
14; and Well 3, Figs. 16, 18, 19, and 21), the model predicts the
equilibrium behavior with high accuracy (within 0.1 /100 ft [0.03/
10 mD. Run 2, Well 3 (Fig. 16) is a borderline case. In other words,
the model predicted the equilibrium rate from just the BHA description in more than half the cases analyzed.
For seven assemblies (Well 1, Fig. 6; Well 2, Figs. 12, 13, and
15; and Well 3, Figs . 17,20, and 22), the predicted equilibrium
rate was significantly greater than the actual response. The prediction
was within 0.4 /100 ft [0.13/10 m) in five of these six cases. One
consistent interpretation of this effect is that the wellbore had become enlarged. This is studied in more detail below .
For one dropping assembly (Well I, Fig . 8), the predicted
response was significantly greater (error of 0.6/100 ft [0.2/10 mD
than the actual response . The behavior of this bit run is not well
understood. This BHA differs from the others in that it was run
with a near-bit stabilizer measured on the rig as being Ya in . [0.32
cm] under gauge. This led to the prediction of a dropping assembly
( - 0.92 /1 00 ft [ - 0.3 /1 0 mD. The actual stabilized performance
was about -0.41100 ft [-0 .13/10 m). Had the stabilizer been
SPE Drilling Engineering. June 1988

IB.OO

24.00

c::

22.00

.::::,.. 18.00

.....

'itS

jZO,OO
~

14.00

... 18.00

'ii

18.00

12.00
14.00

12.00

+------,-----r-----,------,
l0e00.O

10800.0

11200.0

4.00

-...

3.50

...... 2 .50

;::: 3.00

' - 2 .00

...........

.....c::

2 .00

a..

1.50

o0:::

~ 1.50

2.50

0.. 1.00

e:o

0 .50
0 .00

0 .50

':

+--,.--~---r-----'

~o~

....Orz;

~~

....~

Predicted

+----.......----.------r-----.
l0e0O.O

"::'

1.00

0 .00

11500 .0

0 .20

10Il00.0

11200.0

11500.0

11200.0

11500.0

Depth (Ft)
l0e0O .O

101100.0

-0.05 ~--~----~----~----~

~+-~-~~~-------

go -0.30

V "-.,../

__=-Predicted
- Actual

r-.

Fig. 21-Logs of build/drop rate, average Inverae ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 9, Wen 3.

1.50

o
o

22.00

g20.00

1.25

... 18.00

...........

'ii

QD

ID 1.00
Q

'"0

=-=

24.00

Actual

.--..

18.00
14.00
12.00

0.75

11800.0

;::1
CQ

0 .50

+------"T-----.------"T------.

+--,.----T--_----,

......

111100.0

12200.0

12500.0

5. 10

::: 4080

d-uo

~3.eo
0.. 3 . 10

e:o

2.80
2 . 10
1.80

Fig. 20-Logs of build/drop rate, average Inverse ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 8, Well 3.

1.10
0.80

full gauge, the prediction would have been 0. 11100 ft [0 .03/10

m]. Achieving a prediction equivalent to the performance would
have required the stabilizer to be entered as YJ6 in. [0.16 cm] under
gauge.
Associated with each of the logs of BHA tendency is a log of
the inverse ROP (lIROP) smoothed over 3Q.ft [9-m] intervals. On
average, low inverse rates correspond to sand sections , and high
inverse rates correspond to shale sections.
Caliper logs measured by a wireline device during the electric
logging phase after drilling were available for Wells 2 and 3 and
are also shown (smoothed over 30ft [9-m) intervals). For the
majority of bit runs, a distinct correlation exists between the shape
of the caliper log and the shape of the inverse ROP. Differences
are largely a question of scale. It is clear that the wellbores had
eroded significantly in the time between drilling and logging. The
SPE Drilling Engineering. June 1988

--

-=g

'~
(I)

+------"T-----.------,------.
12:500.0
I1g00.0
12200.0
11800 .0
r-________________ Predicted

0.45
~------

________ Actual

0.20

;g::l
co

-005

J---::;...........----.,-----.-------,
111100.0

111100.0

12200.0

12500.0

Depth (Ft)

Fig. 22-Logs of build/drop rate, average inverse ROP, and

caliper for Bit Run 10, Wen 3.

183

correlation suggests, however, that the shale sections might become

over gauge as the BHA passes through them.
In the 12IA-in. [31-cm] sections of Wells 2 and 3, six predictiens
do not match well in the areas where one would expect equilibrium. For Well 2, these are after 8,600 ft [2620 m] in Run 5 (Fig. 12),
after 9,300 ft [2835 m] in Run 6 (Fig . 13), and all throughout Run
8 (Fig . 15). For Well 3, these are throughout Runs 3, 8, and 10
(Figs. 17,20, and 22). In all these cases (except Fig. 17) , the inverse ROP is distinctly greater than 1.5 minlft [4.9 minim]. In other
words, the poor equilibrium predictions occur when the ROP is
consistently lower than 40 ftIhr [12 mIh] in shale sections. Achieving
a prediction corresponding to the observed performance in these
areas was possible by entering into the model a hole overgauge of
up to !Is in . [0.32 cm] . Our interpretation is that at low ROP's the
well bore becomes enlarged during drilling from either mechanical
erosion from the stabilizers (which stay relatively longer in front
of the shales) or mud/hydraulic effects.
The poor prediction in Well 3, Run 3 (Fig . 17) remains unexplained because there is no reason to believe (from the inverse ROP)
that the wellbore was over gauge during drilling.

Conclusions
Of the 17 BHA's analyzed , 13 (76%) appeared to reach an equilibrium build or drop rate.
If the wellbore conditions remain constant, a BHA must drill about
one BHA length before reaching its equilibrium performance.
The BHA model predicted the equilibrium response from the BHA
configuration alone: 53% (9 BHA's) to within 0.1 /100 ft [0.03110
m]; 59% (10 BHA's) to within O.ZOI100 ft [0.07110 m]; 65% (11
BHA's) to within 0.3/100 ft [0. 11l0 m]; and 82% (14 BHA's)
to within 0.41100 ft (0. 13110 m] . It appears that reliable BHA
performance prediction is more probable when the ROP is larger
than 40 ft/hr [12 m/h] in the 12IA-in. [31-cm] sections of Wells
2 and 3. This is probably a result of hole enlargement. At lower
ROP's, a much improved estimate can be made by entering a clearance of up to !Is in. (0.32 cm] into the model.
A directional driller with sufficient local knowledge could probably achieve similar results based solely on his experience. Therefore, the model is probably of greatest application during the learning
stage when it can be used to indicate what would happen if an unused
BHA configuration were tried by comparing predictions against
some known field results for other BHA's.
Nomenclature
a,b = location on (x ,y) plane where couple acts on
bit, ft [m]
An = constants in integral equation for n = 1 ... 4
Bn = constants defined in Appendix for n = 1 . .. 5
d h = hole size, ft (m)
Fx = side force at bit in x direction, lbf [N]
Fy = side force at bit in y direction, Ibf (N)
Hn = constants defined in Appendix for n = 1 ... 9
L = effective length of BHA, ft (m]
mn = constants defined in Appendix for n = 1 .. .4
tJ.r = radial clearance between collars and well bore
T = applied torque, ft-Ibf lm N]
v = angular shear, degrees/ft (degrees/m] rotation
of axes
W = WOB, lbf [N)
WL = buoyant weight per unit length of collars,
Ibf-ft [N . m]
x,y,z = rectangular coordinate system with origin at bit;
z axis coincides with hole inclination in axis of
wellbore at bit; x-z axis is mutually orthogonal;
x points to low side of hole
f3 = borehole inclination at bit (drift), degrees
u = flexural rigidity (stiffness) of drill collars,
Ibm-ft2 [kgm 2]
T = torsional rigidity (stiffness) of drill collars,
Ibm-ft2 [kg m 2 ]
lO A

Acknowledgments
We thank Shell Offshore for enabling us to improve our service
by granting permission to analyze the directional survey data with
the BHA model. Recognition should also be given to T. Marszalek
for his encouragement and advice during the development of the
BHA model.
References
1. Walker, B.H. and Friedman, M.B.: "Three-Dimensional Force and
Deflection Analysis of a Variable Cross Section Drillstring," 1. PressW"e
Vessel Tech. (May 1977) 367-73 .
2 . Lubinski , A . and Woods, H.B.: Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1953)
222-50.
3. Lubinski, A. : "A Study of the Buckling of Rotary Drill Strings," Drill.
and Prod. Prac., API (1950).
4. Millheim, K., Iordon, S ., and Ritter, C .: " Bottomhole Assembly Analysis Using Finite Element Method," IPT(Feb. 1978) 265-74.
5 . Walker, B.H .: " Some Technical and Economical Aspects of Stabilizer
Placement, " JPT (lune 1973) 663-67.
6 . Bradley, W .B. : "Factors Affecting the Control of Borehole Angle in
Straight and Directional Wells, "lPT (Iune 1975) 679-88.
7. Murphy, C.E. and Cheatham, I.B. Ir. : "Hole Deviation and Drill String
Behavior," SPEl (March 1966) 44-49; Trans., AIME, 237.
8. Amara , M.H.: "Use of DriIlstring Models and Data Bases for the Scientific Control of Vertical and Deviated Hole Paths," paper SPE 134.95
presented at the 1985 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
March 5-8 .
9. Enen, I ., Callas, N.P., and Sullivan, W. : "Rig Site Computer Optimizes
Bit Weight Against Hole Angle for Bottom Hole Assembly, " microcomputer report, Oil &: Gas 1. (Feb. 13, 1984).
10. Baird, I .A . etal.: "GEODYN: A Geological FormationlDriIlstring Dynamics Computer Program," paper SPE 13023 presented at the 1!)84
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept.
16-19.
II . Love, A .E.H.: A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity,
fourth edition, Dover Publications, New York City (1944) .

Appendix
The solution is based on the general theory of bending and twisting
of elastic rods in the theory of elasticity. 11 This concept was used
by Walker and Friedman 1 in the derivation of the 3D model involving the effect of applied torque. Several assumptions were used
in this analysis.
1. The components of the drill string behave elastically.
2. The bit is centered in the borehole on the hole axis, and no
moment exists between the bit and the formation .
3. The borehole walls are rigid.
4. The drillstring and drilling fluid dynamic effects are ignored.
5 . The drillstring lies on the low side of the borehole for some
finite interval above the last stabilizer.
6. The displacement from the hole axis is small relative to the
length.
7. The stabilizers make contact with the borehole at poinls.
The program can model between 1 and 5 stabilizers and up to
12 drill collars of different stiffnesses, including MWD. Approximations are made for more general BHA's.
The differential equation 6 of the elastic line of the drill collars
is given by

+ WL(cos (3)Oyloz-v(WL )(z)sin

f3, ... . .. . . (A-I)

u(04xloZ4) = - T( 03y l oz 3)- W(02 xl oZ 2) + WLz(cos (3)o2x/oZ 2

+ WL(cos /3)(oxloz)+vWL (z)sin

f3, ... .. . . . (A-2)

and

T=rv, .. . . . .... ... . . .. . . . ... .. .... ... . ... ..... (A-3)

where
u = flexural rigidity of drill collars,
T = torsional rigidity of drill collars,
SPE Drilling Engineering, Iune 1988

WL = buoyant weight per unit length of the drill collars,

T = applied torque,
W=
{J
v =
x.y.z =

and
H 8 =WF/u . .. .. .... . ...... . .. .. ... . . . . .. . . . .. (A-16)

WOB,

= borehole inclination at bit,

angular shear, and
rectangular coordinate system with origin at bit
where Z axis coincides with hole inclination in
axis of wellbore at bit, x-z axis mutually
orthogonal, and x points to low side of hole.

The general solution for the above equations is of the form

....... . ..... . .................... (A-17)

and

If the tenn torque were neglected, Eqs. A-I and A-2 would reduce
to LUbinski's2 equation.
The equations can be simplified further by integration to the following fonn :
W
u(J3 y IJz 3)=T(J2yl(Jz2)+[(WL z cos (J)-W](ayl(J,)
-0.SvWL Z2 sin {HFy .. .... .. . ..... . ... (A4)

y(z)=e - m3z [A 3 cos(m4z)+A4 sin(m4z)]+B3z3

+B4z:+FyzIW+Bs , .......... . . ... . .... . . ... (A-I8)

where
BI =(Tv+W)WL sin (J/(2W2) , .... . ... ......... .. . (A-19)
B3 =vWL sin (J1(6W), . ... .. .. . . . .............. . . (A-20)

and
u(J3x l(JZ3) = - T(J2xl(J,2) + [(WL' cos (J)- W](Jxl(Jz)
+ WL' sin {3+F.. ,

. . . ... . . ...... . ... .. .. (A-S)

where F .. and Fy are the integration constants and represent the side
forces at the points where the drill string or bit contacts the borehole. In many drilling operations, the axial component of WOB
is much larger than the axial component of the weight of the pendulum length of drill collars; the term zWL cos (J can be neglected
relative to W.
This simplification reduces Eqs. A-4 and A-S to
u(J3 y liJz 3 ) = T(J2y/rJ,2) - W(ayl(Jz) -0.SvWL z2 sin {J + Fy

.... ....... . ... . . . ..... . . ...... . ... (A-6)

and
B 4 =[v(T2+ vo)+WT]WL sin 13/(W3) ,

. ........ .. (A-2I )

B2 and B5 are integration constants, and m is the root of

m 4 +C l m 2 +C2 =0, . . ..... .. . .. ... . . . . . . .. . . .. . (A-22)

where

C I =(T2 +2Wo)/o 2

.. ...... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . (A-23)

and
C2 =W2lo2 .. ......... . ........ (A-24)

The equations were solved for the following boundary conditions .

1. Because the bit is assumed to be centered at the bottom of the
hole, the displacement is zero:

and

.. .... .. ... . ....... . .. .. .. .... . .. .. (A-7)

Eliminating y in favor of x in Eq. A-I gives

x(O) =y(O) =0. . . ...... . ....... . . . ... . . .... .. . . . (A-2S)

2. The moment at the bit is not zero because the applied torque
is defmed on the hole axis rather than on the deflected elastic curve:
rJ 2x(0)/rJz 2 = -(Tlo)rJy(O)/rJz

. . .. . ................ (A-26)

............ .. . . . .... . . ............ (A-8)

and
where H 5 is a constant and
(J2 y(0)/(JZ2 = (Tlo)rJx(O)/(Jz. . .. . . .......... .. . ... .. (A-27)
HI

=(T2 +2Wo)/o,

.. . ... . ........ . ........... . .. (A-9)

H 2 =W2lo, . .. . . . . . . .. .. ........ .. .. . .. . . . . . .. (A-lO)

H 3=0 .5WL sin {J(Tv+ W)lo, ..... ... .. . . .. . ...... (A-ll)

and
H 4=F.. Wlo.

. ..... . .. ....... ...... . ........... (A-12)

Similarly, eliminating x in favor of y in Eq. A-I gives

3. At each drill-collar section, continuity of shear, moment, slope.

and deflection must be satisfied. At each stabilizer or points where
the drill string touches the fonnation (considered as point supports
in this analysis), continuity of moment, slope, and deflection must
be maintained.
4. At the top of the BHA , the boundary conditions are
x(L)=flr. iJx(L)/rJz=O .... . .. . ... . ............... (A-28)

and
y(L) =0, rJy(L)/rJz=O, .. ... . .... .... .. . .. .. . . . . .. (A-29)

. ........ . .. . . . .... .. .. . . ... . ..... (A-13)

where H9 is a constant and
H6=WvWL sin (31(6o), .... . . ...... .............. (A-I4)
H 7 =(T-vo)WL sin (Jlo,

.. . .. . . ... .............. (A-IS)

SPE Drilling Engineering. June 1988

where flr is the radial clearance between the drill collars and borehole . x(L) and y(L) are functions of borehole curvature. In our
model, we assume that the borehole has a single uniform curvature.
S. The length of the BHA , L, is determined by the additional
boundary condition that the moment is zero at the upper end because the drillstring is assumed to lie on the lower side of the borehole for some fmite time interval.
185

6. In addition, the deflected shape of the drillstring must always

remain within the borehole.
The formation effect in this is taken into account by drill-collar
moment theory.7 When a bit drills from a soft to a hard formation, the WOB is not evenly distributed along the bottom of the
hole. Because more of the WOB is taken by the hard formation,
a moment is generated at the bit. The effect is not the same during
drilling from a hard to a soft formation. The moment generated
at the bit is given by
u[tJ 2x(O)/tJz 2 ]+T[Oy(O)/tJz]+aW=O . . ............. (A-30)

and
u[tJ 2y(O)/tJz 2 ]- T[tJx(O)/tJz] +bW=O.

anisotropy. One of these parameters affects only the predicted build

or drop rate of the assembly; the other affects the azimuth change.
In the anisotropic theory, 2 however, one needs to know three parameters: dip angle, azimuth, and the anisotropic index to account
for the updip and downdip drilling in dipping anisotropic formations .
After the boundary and continuity conditions are used, the equations are solved numerically with the Newton-Raphson algorithm.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

degrees X 1.745329
ft x 3.048*
in. x 2.54*
Ibf X 4.448222

. .... . . .. ..... (A-31)

'Conversion factor is exact.

The unknown parameters a and b, which represent the location

on the bit face where the WOB acts, can be determined from field
data only if all the error in prediction is known to come from rock

186

E-02
E-Ol

E+OO
E+OO

= rad
m
cm

N
SPEDE

Original SPE manusctipl received for review Feb. 9, 1986. Paper accepted for publication
April I , 1967. RevIsed manuscript received Jan. 4, 1988. Paper (SPE 14768) first presented
at the 1986 IAOCISPE Orllfing Conference held in Dallas, Feb. 11>-12.

SPE Drilling Engineering, June 1988