SPE 166457

A New Approach for Build Rate Estimation of Downhole Motors

Nicholas Marchand, SPE, and Masoud Kalantari, SPE, National Oilwell Varco

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September2 October 2013.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, 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 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 copyright.

Abstract
Build rate prediction is a critical element in downhole drilling and proper BHA design. This paper presents a simple build
rate prediction method that demonstrates improved accuracy for short bit-to-bend (SBTB) motors compared to the industry
standard method.
The Three-Point Geometry method is the industry standard to calculate the predicted build rates of downhole motors. While
this method provides reasonable results for conventional motor designs, it consistently fails to match with field data for
SBTB motors. Field reports clearly demonstrate that SBTB motors can achieve significantly higher build rates than predicted
by the three-point geometry calculations.
A new analytical method has been developed to predict the build rate of conventional and SBTB motors. The new method
assumes that as the bit advances, it will drill in the direction it is pointing so that the resulting curved path is tangent to the
inclination of the bit. Based on this bit-tangency assumption and a defined upper contact point, the predicted hole curvature
can be calculated for a given motor configuration.
Results from the Bit-Tangency method provide a more accurate indication of the increased build rates that SBTB motors can
achieve. Further, the results of the new method for conventional motors conform to field data and the three-point geometry
results. Hence, the Bit-Tangency method can replace the standard Three-Point Geometry method of build rate prediction for
both conventional and SBTB motors.

Introduction
The Three-Point Geometry method is the industry standard method used to calculate the predicted build rate for a bent motor
assembly. In this method the bit, an intermediate contact point (typically the motor bend point or a near-bit stabilizer), and an
upper contact point (an upper stabilizer or assumed point at the top of the motor) define three points of contact with the
wellbore. The arc encompassing these three contact points is used for build rate calculation [1].
The widespread use of the Three-Point Geometry method demonstrates that build rate predictions using this technique
provide a reasonable approximation for conventional drilling motors with standard bit-to-bend lengths. Alternative
approaches have been developed that use finite-element [2] or semi-analytical methods [3-5] based on Lubinskis equations
[6, 7]. These methods require complex programming and are typically incorporated as part of proprietary BHA analysis
software, and are not suitable for industry-wide adoption.
Numerous drilling studies have been conducted that use the Three-Point Geometry method for build rate prediction, dating
back to the 1980s [8, 9]. Recently, Royal et al. have analyzed the steerability of a drill bit, driven by a downhole motor,
during horizontal drilling [10]. They have used the Three-Point Geometry method to develop a generic build rate for their
BHA. More recently, Davila et al. conducted design and modelling of a horizontal wellbore, drilled with a new SBTB motor
[2]. They discussed the shortcomings of the Three-Point Geometry method in their study and instead employed a proprietary
finite-element software package to predict the build rates.
New generations of downhole motors are trending toward extremely short bit-to-bend lengths for their improved steerability
and reduced stress on critical components. The Three-Point Geometry method has been found to drastically underestimate the
build rates for SBTB motors, especially for slick configurations with no stabilizer between the bit and the bend location. The
predicted trajectory from the three assumed contact points follows a path far shallower than the actual direction that the bit is
pointing.
In order to better estimate the build rates of SBTB motors, a new calculation method has been developed. This method
operates based on the assumption that as the bit advances it will drill in the direction that its pointing, so the resulting curved
path is tangent to the inclination of the bit. Similar methodology has been used for rotary-guided curve-drilling systems [12],
2 SPE 166457

but has been expanded upon for the case of a bent motor assembly. As with the Three-Point Geometry method, the upper
contact point between the motor and the wellbore is given as input, and the motor is considered as a rigid body without
accounting for any deflection during drilling.
The Bit-Tangency method provides a more accurate build rate prediction for SBTB motors, while showing similar results to
the Three-Point Geometry method for conventional motors. The developed method is analytical and simple, and can be easily
adopted across the industry for build rate calculations.

Trending from Conventional to SBTB Motors

The bit-to-bend length of conventional motors varies from one model to another, but is usually in the range of 5-6 ft or more
for common, intermediate size motors (eg. 6 motor OD). New motor technology and design innovations have enabled the
bit-to-bend length to be substantially decreased on new motor designs.
The benefits of decreasing the bit-to-bend length have long been evident in industry. SBTB motors are capable of achieving
higher build rates than conventional motors with the same bend settings; and can achieve the same results at lower bend
settings than are required for conventional motors. These characteristics have lead to numerous performance advantages,
including: (1) The ability to drill shorter radius curved sections than conventional motors; (2) Lower drag during rotating and
sliding, which provides improved transfer of weight to the bit, decreases vibration levels, and improves drilling efficiency
[5], and (3) Reduced stress in critical areas along the motor to improve reliability and allow rotation at higher bend settings,
allowing the motor to more reliably complete curved and tangent sections in a single run.
These advantages have led to a push for further decreased bit-to-bend lengths in recent motor designs, in the range of 30-40
for 6 motors. However, it is in this range that the Three-Point Geometry method has been found to severely deviate from
actual field results, especially for slick motor configurations.

Methodology
In the Bit-Tangency method, it is assumed that (1) the motor drills in the direction the bit is pointing, resulting in a curved
trajectory that is tangent to the bit; (2) the motor is rigid and does not deflect in the wellbore; and, (3) the top contact point is
defined.
For the first assumption, it is understood that there are many factors that can influence a bits tendency to drill straight ahead.
The actual bit type and design, formation properties, weight on bit, side force generated at the bit, and other potential factors
will all play a role. As with the Three-Point Geometry method, the Bit-Tangency method is not meant to account for all these
factors, but assumes that bit direction is the most influential factor in determining the resulting curved trajectory.
The second and third assumptions are shared with the Three-Point Geometry method and are inherent to any simple
geometric analysis. For a BHA with stabilization above the motor, the top contact point is easily defined. However, in the
case of a motor with no upper stabilizer, the upper contact point is not known and an approximation must be made. For the
comparisons in this paper the upper contact point is assumed to be located at the top of the motor.
Figure 1 shows a schematic view of a motor inside a wellbore that it has created.

Figure 1. Schematic view of the developed method for new build rate calculation

As shown in Fig. 1, L1 is the bit-to-bend distance (including the length of the bit), L2 is the distance from the bend to the
upper contact point, d is the diameter at the upper contact point, is the bend setting, and D is the bit diameter, which is
assumed to be identical with the wellbore diameter. The parametric calculation schematic is described in Fig. 2.
SPE 166457 3

Figure 2. The new parametric build rate calculation method

Shown in Fig. 2, R is the wellbore curvature radius, from which the build rate is calculated, and L is the total length of the
downhole motor. The calculation method is based on simple trigonometric and geometrical rules as below:

2
Dd
2 L 2
2 L2 sin
D d 2 2
R 2 L2 R 2 L2 sin R (1)
2 2
2
D d 2 2 L2 sin
2

2
Dd
Since D, d L , and for small angles of , it can be assumed that L2 2 L2 sin L2 , and 2 L2 sin L2 .
2 2 2
Therefore, eq. 1 can be simplified to
L2
R (2)
D d 2 L2

where R is the wellbore curvature, L is the motor length, D is the bit diameter, d is the diameter at the upper contact point, L2
is the distance from the bend to the upper contact point, and is the motor bend setting in radians. For all motor geometry in
inches, the build rate can be calculated as

2.16 105 ( D d 2 L2 )
/100 ft (3)
L2
where is the build rate.

Results and Discussions

Curve run reports of conventional and SBTB motors were acquired for wells from several different operators to verify the
Bit-Tangency method predictions, and to compare them with the Three-Point Geometry method results. One of the most
common motor sizes for drilling wells in North America is 6, so all of the reports contain survey data for 6 motors with
either conventional or SBTB designs at several different bend settings.
Overall, survey data from 27 different wells in North America were obtained for the comparison. The drilling activities in the
reports include both sliding and rotating, so only the sections of established sliding were considered for determining build
rates. The comparison is based on a total of 21,869 ft of slide drilling with 713 dogleg severity (DLS) measurements. Table 1
shows geometrical dimensions for the conventional and SBTB motors used in the run data. Also shown in the table are build
rate estimates based on the given dimensions for both the Bit-Tangency method and Three-Point Geometry method.
4 SPE 166457

Table 1. Dimensions and bend settings of Conventional and SBTB motors used in run data

L1
L2
(Bend to
L Bit- Three-Point
(Bit to (Total (Bend Motor Dia. Bit Dia. Tangency Geometry
Motor Information Top
Bend) Length) Setting) in in Method Method
of Motor)
in in /100ft /100ft
in

Conventional Motor

6" Conv. 7/8 5.0 66.1 259.9 326.0 2.38 6.75 8.75 15.25 13.59

Short-Bit-to-Bend Motor

6" SBTB 7/8 5.0 47.5 258.1 305.6 1.83 6.75 8.75 13.61 9.67
6" SBTB 7/8 5.0 47.5 258.1 305.6 2.00 6.75 8.75 14.74 10.89
6" SBTB 7/8 5.0 47.5 258.1 305.6 2.12 6.75 8.75 15.53 11.75
6" SBTB 7/8 5.0 45.5 259.9 305.4 2.38 6.75 8.75 17.39 12.46

Figure 3 shows the comparison of the Bit-Tangency method with the Three-Point Geometry method and the run data. The
DLS survey data are illustrated using box plots to display the range of data for each motor and highlight the InterQuartile
Range (IQR). The median values, denoted by the band across each box plot, are taken to be the best representation of the
build rates for each motor configuration.

25
Bit-Tangency Method Three-Point Method

20
Build rate (/100 ft)

15

10

0
6" Conv. 2.38 6" SBTB 1.83 6" SBTB 2.0 6" SBTB 2.12 6" SBTB 2.38

Motor Information
Figure 3. Comparison of Bit-Tangency method with the Three-Point Geometry method

For the 6 conventional motor with 2.38 bend setting, the predictions from the Bit-Tangency method and Three-Point
geometry method agree very closely with the median of the DLS survey data. Both methods provide similar and reasonable
build rate predictions for this conventional motor configuration.
The remaining data are for 6 SBTB motors at various bend settings. These configurations illustrate the discrepancy in
predicted values between the Bit-Tangency and Three-Point Geometry methods for SBTB motors. Comparing to the DLS
survey data, Figure 3 illustrates that the Three-Point Geometry predictions are far below the IQR for each configuration,
while the Bit-Tangency predictions are within the IQR for each configuration, tending towards the upper quartile of each
range.
This indicates that the Bit-Tangency method does overestimate the build rate for these configurations. However, since these
are slick motors, as previously mentioned the upper contact point is not known in these cases and assumed to be located at
the top of the motor. In reality it is likely that the upper contact point is some distance above the top of the motor, and a more
accurate definition of this point would decrease the resulting Bit-Tangency predictions to be more in line with the median of
SPE 166457 5

the data. Conversely, specifying a higher contact point for the Three-Point method would decrease the resulting predictions
even further below the IQR of the data.

Conclusion
The Bit-Tangency method is a new approach for downhole motor build rate predictions which provides an alternative to the
long-establised Three-Point Geometry method. Both methods were compared to an expansive selection of field data, and the
results demonstrate the improved accuracy of the new method. While both methods yield similarly accurate results for
conventional motor configurations, the Bit-Tangency method clearly provides far better results for short bit-to-bend motors, a
current industry trend in motor design. The Bit-Tangency method offers a simple analytical approach which can be easily
adopted in industry for build rate predictions.

References
1. Samuel, R. (2007). Downhole Drilling Tools Theory and Practice for Students and Engineers. Gulf Publishing, Houston TX.
2. Davila, W., Azizov, A., Janwadkar, S., Jones, A., Fabian, J., & Rowan, T. (2012, March). Overcoming Drilling Challenges in the
Marcellus Unconventional Shale Play Using a New Steerable Motor with Optimized Design. In SPE/EAGE European Unconventional
Resources Conference and Exhibition.
3. Chen, D., & Wu, M. (2008, December). State-of-the-art BHA Program Produces Unprecedented Results. In International Petroleum
Technology Conference.
4. Wu, M., & Chen, D. (2006, September). A Generic Solution to Bottomhole-Assembly Modeling. In SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition.
5. Gaynor, T., Chen, D., Maranuk, C., & Pruitt, J. (2000, October). An Improved Steerable System: Working Principles, Modeling, and
Testing. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
6. Lubinski, A., & Woods, H.B. (1953). Factors Affecting the Angle of Inclination and Dog-Legging in Rotary Bore Holes. Drilling and
Production Practice.
7. Lubinski, A. (1950). A Study of the Buckling of Rotary Drilling Strings. Drilling and Production Practice.
8. Karlsson, H., Brassfield, T., & Krueger, V. (1985, March). Performance Drilling Optimization. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.
9. Karlsson, H., Cobbley, R., & Jaques, G.E. (1989, February). New Developments in Short-, Medium-, and Long-Radius Lateral
Drilling. In SPE/IADC Drilling Conference.
10. Royal, A.C.D., Riggall, T.J., & Chapman, D.N. (2010). Analysis of steering in horizontal directional drilling installations using down-
hole motors. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 25(6), 754765.
11. Warren, T.M., Winters, W.J., Mount, H.B., & Mason, K.L. (1993). Short-Radius Lateral Drilling System. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 45(2), 108115.