Copyright 1998, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in
Dallas, Texas 36 March 1998.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee followin
g review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 IADC or
SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax
01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper presents a novel torque and drag analysis approach
and demonstrates its robustness when used with a versatile
computer program. Torque and Drag analysis remains an
important evaluation process for assessing drilling feasibility
of directional wells, minimizing the occurrence of catastrophic
drill string failures and avoiding premature termination of the
drilling operation before reaching planned target depth.

From a draft well plan, the drilling engineering analysis is
initiated with the development of a representative analytical
model using selected entries in a Torque and Drag computer
program. Several parameters and instances of evaluation are
needed to capture the physical behavior of modeled systems
and to produce technically sound results.

The availability of computational tools have not necessarily
improved the drilling engineering process or enhance the
quality of recommendations without a methodical approach
and application of results.

To minimize the iterative steps required to reach an
interpretable result, the analytical process as presented in this
paper is accelerated with a directed search and a convergence
to the determinant drilling variables. The novel approach
narrows - the design search domain and tests sensitivities of
well-plan characteristics, simulates drilling conditions and
applicable drillstring - to the dominant operating factors that
determine the boundaries of application.

A record extended reach well (MD/TVD ratio of 2.9) with a
lateral displacement of approximately 6,000 ft. was drilled in
the GOM using this approach to select tubulars and their
position in the well with respect to dogleg severity, inclination
and target objectives.

Introduction
Suppose we define Drilling Mechanics analysis as consisting
of a number of well-established activities, including Well-
path planning, Torque and Drag analysis, Drillstring design
and the selection of Drilling Systems. The subject of this paper
- well-path design and, torque and drag analysis - maintains a
strong interest in the petroleum industry.

The process of well-path planning and drillstring design for
given geological targets are subject to Bottom Hole Assembly
(BHA) directional performance, torque and drag analysis,
Hydraulics analysis and mechanical strength of drillstring
components has seen progressive development, the current
surge in Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) operations,
Horizontal re-entries and other complex drilling programs is
an excellent testimonial. Torque and drag analysis comprises
well-path description and drillstring load modeling process
aimed at simulating the same mechanics and characteristics of
a real-life drilling operation. Torque and Drag analysis is now
considered a valuable tool used primarily for design, planning
and application screening of drilling and completion systems.

However, evolution of successful approaches has been dogged
by heuristic concepts and rules of thumb which are not
effective when non-linear situations exist or when decisions
become sensitive to quantitative measures rather than
qualitative indicators. It is our belief that the evident
complexity of run-time problems does not permit solutions
based only on the experience of the drilling group.

The design and troubleshooting ability of those who undertake
such analysis should not be limited to historical experiences
and performance of the applied drilling system if the proper
use of computational tools and methodical approaches enable
thorough and concise evaluation of the drilling program. The
implementation of model-derived analytical solutions should
be brought about by providing a framework for system
behavior dynamics to evaluate the possible system states
created in the modeling process.


IADC/SPE 39321
A Robust Torque and Drag Analysis Approach for Well Planning and Drillstring Design
Opeyemi A. Adewuya, SPE, and Son V. Pham, SPE, Baker Hughes INTEQ
2 YEMI ADEWUYA, SON PHAM IADC/SPE 39321
A robust modeling process is based on the logical
representation of system states as functions of interval
objectives at the modeling stage, providing solutions for
extremely complex interplay of variables without necessarily
simplifying the system model. The approach we propose uses
available theoretical foundations and analyses, combined with
the extensions to conservative criterion offered by practice to
arrive quickly at feasible parameters for hole Dogleg Severity
(DLS), optimum tubular properties, and scope of drilling
feasibility.

This paper is presented in two sections, in the first section
beginning with Well Planning Considerations we discuss the
Torque and Drag implications of the Well-path Trajectory
Method used in survey calculations for the well design.
Completing this first section is a discussion on the attributes
that makes this proposed modeling approach robust and the
steps demonstrating its value - minimized iteration time and
ease of implementation - using an example well is outlined. In
our conclusion we summarize, with emphasis, the most
valuable components of that process.

Well-planning Considerations

Well-path Trajectory Method:
Many methods for calculating well-path trajectory have
been formulated to represent a suitable plan to reach
geological objectives. There are basically six different
methods, which have been widely used in the directional
drilling applications, are the Tangential, Average Angle,
Balanced Tangential, Mercury, Minimum Curvature and
Radius of Curvature method. All except for the Tangential
method demonstrates relative accurate representation of the
well-bore trajectory [16]. Readily available computational
tools naturally leads to the use of the more demanding
Minimum Curvature Method in order to maximize on survey
calculation accuracy.
While the variation in survey calculation methods plays a
minor role in the overall torque and drag analysis, it does
contribute to the overall accuracy and thoroughness of the
well-path design. Therefore Minimum Curvature Method is
the formulation of choice and is consistently utilized in the
well planning process.

Constraints Definition and Management:
Most engineering systems are designed to operate within
specified set of constraints which may be limitations on
operating load levels, modes or overall system response. The
constraints define the lower and upper bounds of selected
design variables and in terms of design performance becomes
a yardstick for measuring compliance.
To allow for efficient processing of design steps, a
mechanism for defining constraint properties at each design
stage is necessary [see Figure 1].
1.Structural (Surface location and Target coordinates)
Geophysicists and geologists work together to select take
points and target intersection requirements. Candidate surface
locations are chosen based on proximity, logistic
requirements, criteria to maximize slot recovery opportunities
and minimization of drilling costs for trajectory and ancillary
resources required to complete a well.
The choice of surface location relative to target
coordinates define the design space for the trajectory of the
well. The geometric elements of the well are prescribed by
other factors which include drag and allowable curvature for
drilling tools in applicable hole size.
2.Geometric specifications:
The variables which shape the geometry of directional well
plans are Kick-off Point (KOP), Build-up Rate (BUR), hole
inclination and casing program. Rehashing what is common
knowledge today, have been the subject of much research, it is
clear that the depth of kick-off has a significant contribution
on the torque and drag characteristics and horizontal reach of a
well.
Build-up rates are a matter of connecting points along the
wellbore to intersect target coordinates, but the choice of an
optimal BUR is determined by hole size, drilling tool
capability, anticipated drag effects and an over-all evaluation
of the drilling objectives.
3.Casing Program:
The casing design process requires the selection of a
casing program to meet at the minimum design requirements
such as imposed mechanical stress (hoop, radial and tri-axial)
and loads (burst, collapse, tensile) among other prerequisites
which include estimated life-cycle of well, future re-entry
work, formation isolation and casing wear tolerance.
Strategic casing placement to extend drilling assembly
performance, although an opportunity cost issue, can be
justified by using the example well presented later in this
paper. For the work on which this paper is based, the casing
program was specified for inclusion in the well-plan.
4.Geological obstacles:
Crooked well-paths or 3-D trajectories are not well-
profiles of choice. Furtive views of local geology obtained
from seismic data provides information on enroute geological
obstacles such as sensitive shales, unstable sandstone
stringers, dips, faults and the prominent water or gas sands
subtended by the oil bearing reservoir.
5.Drilling system operational compatibility:
From an automated well design tool, BUR necessary to
connect geometric markers (End of Build, End of Hold, etc.) is
obtained routinely, optimization of the well-design is achieved
when consideration is given to the interval hole size and
applicable performance drilling system.
Top hole sections necessarily are large holes requiring the
use of large diameter tools. The mechanical constraints of the
large diameter tools limits the degree of curvature that can be
used in the top hole section.
In addition, the lower bending capability leads to high
lateral loads and the attendant drag and torque effect. The use
of collar-based Measurement While Drilling (MWD) tools
introduces even greater rigidity which places further limitation
on planned well-bore curvature.
Conventionally, most top hole sections are drilled
IADC/SPE 39321 A ROBUST TORQUE AND DRAG APPROACH FOR WELL PLANNING AND DRILLSTRING DESIGN 3
vertically to a selected kick-off depth, to allow drilling large
hole sections and setting conductor casing. However when
trajectory efficiency requires early directional work, relatively
smaller hole size i.e. 12-1/4 can be drilled out of large casing,
enabling the use of higher BUR. When the interval TD is
reached, the hole is opened up to 17-1/2, as was done in the
example well, to accommodate a 13-3/8 casing string.
In smaller hole sizes, BUR ranges cover a wider spectrum
allowing flexibility in trajectory geometric properties. At the
high end of this wide spectrum is a drilling assembly
limitation posed by push-through radius. That discussion is
beyond the scope of this work.
So far we have discussed constraints as defined in the
preamble to this subsection, suppose a constraint were to be
used to advantage, for instance, designing a well path to
maximize drilling assembly rotation and exploiting the drop
tendency of the drilling assembly from gravitational effects to
track the well into the target location.

Drillstring Torque and Drag Modeling and Design
Drilling engineering algorithm developers are constantly
striving to produce sophisticated computational engines from
mathematical representations of drill string dynamics which
offer greater accuracy and more realistic results. While the
computational engines improves, the results produced are
more intricate and refined. The impressive developments in
areas such as trajectory simulation are to be immensely
appreciated but each step brings its own problems for the end-
user.

Software Tools:
Robust analysis of modeled multivariate systems require
considerable computational processing before meaningful
results are obtained. The Torque and Drag analysis tool used
in this work is one of the seven module suite of Baker Hughes
INTEQ proprietary drilling engineering software tools.
In the Torque and Drag calculation mode the software
computes the surface-to-bit load, stress and lateral force
information for rotary and oriented drilling operations at user-
specified evaluation depths. Operating load cases including
magnitude, location and mode of occurrence (e.g. drilling,
rotating-on-bottom, tripping, etc.)
The computational engine allows fast and rigorous
engineering mechanics analysis of the modeled well-trajectory
and casing configuration, drillstring and drilling parameters,
based on a continuous elastic beam column theory. From the
vast array of state-of-the-art analytical solutions, the relevant
solutions for Euler, sinusoidal, helical buckling and post
buckling behavior, drillstring torsion and load displacement
hysteresis in buckling mode transition was the focus in this
application [2].
Availability of computational tools facilitate fast and
accurate iterations which will naturally be incorporated into
drillstring optimization processes.

Well-plan Drillstring Optimization - Supplementary
Issues:
In Extended Reach directional wells, what remains a
protracted optimization issue is not simply DLS minimization
but the effect of the inter-play between inclination, azimuthal
change, drag and buckling.
Micro-loading studies into sensitivities of drillstring to
varying well-profile pursue the quantitative indexing of
dominant load factors towards achieving optimization. As
reported by Payne and Abbassian [4], critical well-bore
inclination i.e. angle at which pipe no longer falls at own
weight, is one of the several factors that shape ERD well-bore
design [see Figure 2].
Logically, lower inclination angles produces less drag, but
lacks the well-bore support (cradling effect) needed to manage
the severity of buckling. An interesting observation also
presented by Payne and Abbassian though empirical, identifies
the sensitivity of hole inclination to type of operation and
briefly stated, a high KOP well profile is favorable to a 12-
1/4 hole by 9-5/8 casing/coiled tubing run, while a low KOP
well profile is preferred for an 8-1/2 hole by 5-1/2 liner/pipe
runs.
Steering in well-bores with azimuthal and inclination
changes combined with long tangent sections present a
challenge to the transmission of mechanical forces. Precise
orientation of tool-face in the presence of significant torque
couples (normal/contact force, circular frictional drag)
aggravates the uncertainty of heading and achieving geometric
drilling objectives.

Process for achieving Analytical Robustness with
Well-path and Torque and Drag Modeling

Well-path Modeling:
To account correctly for the degree of variation of dogleg
severity in finite course lengths two approaches was examined
by the authors. One approach uses a user-specified maximum
relative noise amplitude based on a scale of 0 - 10 to produce
random net well-path tortuosity nominally ranging from 0.0 -
2.0 deg/100 ft. [1], while the definition given by Dr. Rapier
Dawson suggest the correction of the well-path by the addition
of a sinusoidal variation to the inclination and azimuth angle
over 1,000 ft. course lengths [17]. Different methods of
applying tortuosity to a well-plan may result in the same
average dogleg severity [see Figure 3] but from our
observation, of the drilling operation, applying a random noise
factor is more representative of a tortuous well path compared
to a cyclic factor applied by the tortuosity equation [see Figure
3, Equation 3-A]

The Tubular Buckling Theories Compared:
The available theoretical foundations on which tubular
buckling has been developed can be grouped into two
categories, namely conservative and extended models. The
models that can be classified as conservative criteria consists
of the combined work of Lubinski, Dawson/Paslay,
Chen/Cheatham and, Sextro and He/Kylinstad.
The recent developments by Wu/Juvkam-Wold qualifies as
an extended criteria model [1]. The differences between the
4 YEMI ADEWUYA, SON PHAM IADC/SPE 39321
two classes of criterion is enumerated in terms of scope of
application and impact on modeling.
Conservative Theories: Critical buckling loads predicted
by the Dawson/Paslay equation are much lower than actual or
operating critical loads. In addition, the equation represents
the mechanical behavior of long finite tubular elements and
produces erroneous results for short elements [15].
The critical buckling load limits predicted by Chen
indicated a 40% increase in load during sinusoidal to helical
buckling transition and an 18% increase in the magnitude of
critical load required to initiate buckling.
Extended Criteria Theories: A full understanding of the
premises on which the buckling theories proposed by Wu and
Juvkam-Wold is important to recognizing their relevance to
resulting load behavior of modeled drilling assemblies.
Directional wells with long tangent sections and hole
inclination approaching critical angles with respect to friction
are stereotypical of the parameters which validate the
suitability of the extended buckling theories. At low
inclination angles where the contribution of tubular weight to
axial compressive force is greatest, the Wu and Juvkam-Wold
buckling equation [12] suffices with the critical length and
axial load term. The He & Kyllinstad work contributed the
effect of wellbore curvature to the development of
mathematical basis for assessment of critical buckling loads.
In essence, the normal forces due to curvature as an additional
resistance modulus is added to the force term [15].
A broad comparison of the two classes of criteria can be
summarized in terms of common factors namely the normal
force and the stiffness terms. Invoking the conservative
buckling criteria assesses buckling loads based a quotient of
unit stiffness and normal force, while the extended buckling
criteria assumes higher indices for modifiers to stiffness and
normal force terms.
In summary, the reason for enumerating the differences
between the conservative and extended buckling assessment
approaches is to draw our attention to the quantitative quality
of analytical work based on these models. In practice, factors
such as hole friction, wellbore inclination and curvature affect
the initiation of buckling and un-buckling discriminatorily
contributes to the torque and drag analysis.
Extended-reach wells by virtue of design and required
tubular configuration manifest loads at higher thresholds and
are best analyzed with models based on extended criteria.
Frequent occurrences of drillstring failures or completion
string collapse would have dogged ERD save that there are
favorable interplay of influencing factors which make current
theories poor predictors.

The Genealogy of a Robust Torque and Drag Modeling
Approach

Multiple Analytical stations:
Traditionally the drillstring design process tended to focus
on meeting minimum safety requirements in the string, for
example design based on mechanical ratings, size, drilling
mode, casing points and relative component function. Also,
emphasis was placed on drillstring applicable only at TD,
whereas in most cases stations such as KOP, casing points,
whipstock exits and build-turn sections present greater drilling
challenges.
A common assumption is that the analysis at TD of the
well-plan will yield the limiting parameters for the drilling
applications of the entire well-path - which neglects the
varying tool size utilized and changing geometry of the well-
bore. Due to the weight and complex load bearing
characteristics of different size drillstring components it is
necessary to perform computational analysis for each hole
interval to better understand and optimize on the well-
bore/drillstring interactions.
Correct interpretation of the drilling program enables
effective drilling mechanics analysis of the drillstring and the
quality of results approach close approximations.

Reflective of Actual / Changing Hole Conditions:
The initial torque and drag modeling allows us to
systematically develop a thorough understanding of the
interaction between well-bore, drillstring components and
operational parameters [see Figure 4]. By discretely selecting
modeling stations or evaluation intervals, drilling parameters
(ROP, WOB, RPM) that best describe hole conditions
(lithology, temperature, hole cleaning, mud properties, etc.)
can be applied for a representative model that approaches
actual drilling condition.
It also enables narrowing the drillstring design search
domain and improves ability to test sensitivities of drillstring
well-bore interaction in the following modes: rotary drilling,
slide drilling and tripping. By closely evaluating the different
drilling modes we can determine safe drilling limits.
Operational limits consist of the applicable WOB without
buckling the drillstring, tripping capabilities and frictional
tolerences.
On a scale of significance, friction factor and WOB are
dominant contributions to the torque and drag effects on
drillstring application.

Trade-Offs:
Traditionally, the objective of Heavy Weight Drillpipe
(HWDP) application is to contribute to string weight as a
mean to transfer weight to the bit. However well curvature
impose a limit on the functional relevance of the HWDP.
String weight in the curve produces greater normal loads and
contact forces.
As hole friction changes, the ability to maximize HWDP
functional performance is affected by the rate at which a
compressive state or a tension state is approached or
maintained. In cased hole, when friction becomes a property
of the contacting materials and imposed loads, the function of
HWDP can be exploited to a higher degree.
A secondary mechanical characteristics of HWDP is the
inherent capacity to withstand relatively higher compressive
loads [12]. By strategically utilizing this load characteristics
of HWDP we can meet complex and challenging drilling
objectives which would not otherwise be successful with
IADC/SPE 39321 A ROBUST TORQUE AND DRAG APPROACH FOR WELL PLANNING AND DRILLSTRING DESIGN 5
normal drillpipe application.
Optimization requires an evaluation of the load and drag
distribution of the well based on the selected drillstring. In
addition, optimal use of HWDP requires correct assessment of
required length, location in the borehole and balance of
performance in mitigating buckling while maximizing
transmission of the weight to bit.
In drilling work of horizontal wells with long laterals, the
effective application of HWDP is becoming more of a science
than a convention. This emerging functional use of HWDP for
sustainable transfer of weight to the bit is becoming critical to
achieving lateral length target displacements and reach target
depth.
The inverted drillstring configuration is now an
established arrangement of drillstring assemblies. An inverted
drillstring arrangement places the HWDP above regular
drillpipe.
The common belief supported by static force analysis of
weight-derived axial force indicates that half the amount of
this force is available at hole inclinations greater than 60 i.e.
the weight of HWDP element x cos(60) weight of HWDP x
0.5. Although this guideline is generally acceptable for non-
critical applications advance well-bore construction requires
methodical computational drillstring analysis which takes into
account friction factor, trip analysis, WOB and other drilling
optimization and constraining parameters.

Presentation of Model Analysis:
Graphical representation and summary tables simplifies
complex data sets for quick and accurate interpretations and
serve as an invaluable communications tool. The extensive
knowledge captured from the modeling process needs to be
communicated to all team members.
When used as a monitoring or look ahead tool on the field,
deviation from predicted outcome can be flagged early and
corrective measures taken. In the next section the application
of this approach on the field is discussed using the example
well. Logical presentation of data allows the operational team
to easily and quickly assemble feedback information
facilitating easy understanding of complex relationships
between modeled and output variables.
Execution of results and recommendations is
straightforward and less prone to misinterpretation by field or
implementation staff because of the graphical highlights that
limit additional processing.

Example Step-through Modeling Process
This methodology was first used in an extended reach well
with a MD/TVD ratio of 2.9 and a lateral displacement of
6000 ft. In this section the application of the components of
the robust modeling thesis enumerated thus far as it applies to
the different phases involved in the design and eventual
successful drilling of the well is presented.

Wellpath Planning of Example Well
Preliminary well design requirements was developed by a
multidisciplinary team composed of the operator and service
personnel.
The example well [see Figure 5] consist of a 20 drive-
pipe set at 300 ft., an initial drill-out 12-1/4 hole kicks-off
beginning at 3/100 ft. and end-of-build reached at 1,000
ft.,MD with final heading of 341.23. The 12-1/4 hole is re-
entered and opened to a 17-1/2 conductor hole to be drilled
with a 5/100 ft. build rate, building to a 40 inclination at
1,500 ft.,MD.
Beyond the planned 13-3/8 conductor set depth, curve
building would be continued at 5/100 ft. to an intermediate
end-of-build inclination of 83 at 2,373 ft.,MD. The 83
inclination is held to the end-of-hold depth at 6,317 ft.,MD.
A two section drop was designed to intersect a target sand
for which the complete coordinates (orientation and depth)
definition was unknown. The two section drop would facilitate
a slide and search drilling operation and a controlled drop rate
of 1.5/100 ft. to reach the bottom hole location.
Fit for Purpose Well Design: the combination build-rate
of 3/100 ft. and 5/100 ft. used in the kick-off after drivepipe
is installed was chosen after careful evaluation of its potential
torque and drag implications. The curvature produced by the
strategically chosen combination build rates is intended to
provide a less aggressive trajectory thereby reducing normal
forces and lateral loads that affect the drag distribution in the
bore-hole drillstring interface.
The magnitude of build-up rate used in curved sections
follow a scheme that locates the smaller BUR, 3/100 ft. at the
beginning of the curve section and the larger BUR, 5/100 ft.
at the end of the curve. By following this scheme the ability
to maintain WOB and stable string is ensured and lateral load
in the curved section of the hole is evenly distributed.
Surface Casing Location: the choice of set depth for the
surface casing was informed by the following reasons:
provide a cased hole to place HWDP for effective
transmission of WOB in the drilling of the target.
provide a reduced friction channel to minimize drag
and torque.
to enable rotation of the drillstring in the tangent
section and smooth bore-hole with less dogleg
severity and the ability to drill to target depth.
introduce a significant hole-cleaning advantage is
offered by placing the surface casing about midway of
the tangent section, since half the section is cased-off,
the hole cleaning requirement for the tangent section
is halved.
Production Hole Design for Maximum Rotary drilling and
expected drop tendency: this hole section consist of a long
tangent section and a drop of inclination in the end in order to
search for the target sand. Both the tangent and angle drop
section allows us to employ the natural tendency of the
drilling assembly and maximize drilling in the rotary mode.
The challenging aspect of ERD is the ability to place
sufficient WOB in the sliding mode in order to maintain
directional control. By planning on the natural drop tendency
of the drilling assembly we can minimize the need for slide
6 YEMI ADEWUYA, SON PHAM IADC/SPE 39321
drilling and therefore maximizing operational success.

Torque and Drag Analytical Stations:
The analysis for the example well was performed for all
hole intervals (surface, protective and production). For each
scenario defined by well-bore design, select BHA and
drillstring, drilling parameters and imposed loads, the analyst
must model all possible configurations and must take into
account the combination of several interacting or related
factors. The reality of such undertaken is that modeling is a
study of non-deterministic events, a phenomenon amplified by
the number of cases required to test the influence of each
factor. Unarguably, a guided search to test sensitivities of
factors is indispensable, providing a precise experimental
delineation to reduce the number of iterations.
Due to space constraints we will only use the analysis of
the TD point of the production interval to highlight the robust
methodology. The selection of the 8-1/2 production interval
clearly demonstrates slide drilling and tripping concern
inherent in all ERD.
For this cycle of evaluation, we will closely scrutinize the
results in the form of Summary Data Tables and the Drilling,
Tripping and Frictional Sensitivity Analysis. As will be
demonstrated, the format of the data presentation leads to a
thorough and logical interpretation of the modeled results.
Drilling Sensitivity Analysis: in this scenario we will
isolate WOB to determine its affect on the drillstring during
the drilling of specific intervals. The modeling consist of
varying the WOB while constraining to the same frictional
factor, drilling assembly and other rig parameters.
Since the operation calls for the use of a water based fluid
system the frictional values of .25 and .30 was chosen, based
on a historical database, for casing and open-hole sections
respectively. The model results will therefore lead to an
operational WOB boundary based on a realistic frictional
estimation.
Selection of WOB is based on tools specifications as well
as operational parameters. The operational WOB expected for
an 8-1/2 hole section will range from 0-25 klbs. The
modeling take points will analyzed at 0, 15, 25, and 50 klbs
WOB in order to view the dynamic condition reflective of the
operational performance.
We will now interpreted the actaul data grouped in a table
and graphical format. The result summary table allows us to
easily compare the models results with the specification of the
5 drillpipe. The initial analysis was performed on a
drillstring consisting solely of drillpipe [see Table 1]. We can
quickly learn that any WOB above 10 klbs will result in a
negative Hook Load at surface and enter into the helical
buckling regime at the top 500 ft. of the well-bore, as seen
from the graphical representation [see Figure 6].
A comparison of the analysis using the preliminary versus
the same sensitivity analysis of the modified drillstring [see
Table 2] will demonstrate the value of the simple method in
integrating complex variables.
The placement 4,000 ft. of HWDP in the modified
drillstring was not derived from only the Drilling Sensitivity
Analysis but the Tripping Sensitivity Analysis was a major
contributing factor.
Tripping Sensitivity Analysis: these sets of analysis uses
similar parameters as set for the Drilling Sensitivity Analysis
which was performed using the preliminary drillstring. The
main objective for this type of analysis to determine the
location and amount of HWDP needed (if any) in order to trip
to TD while still having sufficient WOB available to
overcome any ledges.
The graphical results [see Figure 7] indicates, by
interpolating between the 0 and 15 klbs trip curve, that any
ledge requiring WOB over approximately 5 klbs cannot be
applied with the current drillstring. Contingency plan requires
the force of at least 15 klbs for any ledges encounter during
the drilling process and therefore modifications must be made
to the preliminary drillstring.
The information capture from the trip analysis lead to the
replacement of the drillpipe with 4,000 ft. of HWDP at the top
section of the preliminary drillstring. Subsequently, the
selection of the amount of HWDP leads to the strategic
decision to set the 13-3/8 casing string at 4,000 ft.,MD to
encompass the heavier weight drillpipe in a stable will-bore
and therefore reducing the overall torque and drag affects.
Friction Sensitivity Analysis: this final sensitivity analysis
completes the torque and drag evaluation of the 8-1/2
production hole interval. Determining the tolerable frictional
operating range assist in making the decision to incorporate
the type of mud system, lubricious additives, drillpipe rubbers,
hole cleaning equipment, stringent fluid parameters, etc. into
the drilling program.
The graphical results in this case [see Figure 8] shows that
adequate load transfer and helical buckling can be feasibly
mitigated by modification of the drillstring design rather than
upgrade to the more costly oil-based mud system. The
economical decision, from a frictional perspective, is a
contingency plan to incorporate the use of the water-based
fluid system with a stringent solids removal program and the
addition of lubricious additives as contingency.

Interpretation and Field Implementation:
In recent publications and papers it has been implicitly
expressed that there are discrepancies in the analytical results
and recommendations put forward by drilling service
companies, and the expectations of operators during crucial
drilling operations or at planning stages. Drilling services
companies share objectives for success of drilling projects and
would undertake a rigorous drilling mechanics evaluation for
an mechanical application match of the prescribed drilling
system.
The procedure developed to integrate well planning,
drillstring design and torque and drag analysis have
demonstrates is fruitfulness through field use and observation.
On the technical merit, we have seen the torque, drag, and
frictional trends distinctly matched with the modeling results.
In cases where the trends diverge or differ parameters different
from the ones chosen for modeling were identified and
accounted for in changes made to the operational parameters.
IADC/SPE 39321 A ROBUST TORQUE AND DRAG APPROACH FOR WELL PLANNING AND DRILLSTRING DESIGN 7
A secondary merit of the modeling process in the field
communications and implementations. Through the format of
the result presentation, explanation and support of the design
parameters were clearly understood and plans were carried out
as specified.

Slide Drilling Limitations Leading Towards State-of-the-
art Drilling Technology:
The frictional drag in the drill ahead direction in the well-
bore relative to the string poses a limitation to the ability to
slide. The severity of this frictional drag is dependent on well-
bore profile, traversed formation type and bore-hole geometry.
We can observe the tremendous reactionary load difference
between the sliding and rotating drilling model [see Table 1 &
2].
Recently, torque reducers have seen prolific use in solving
the problem by isolating would-be contact points between the
tool-joints/drill-stem and the well-bore. Torque reducers can
be defined as active if they rotate relative to drillpipe or
passive if non-rotating.
However, in ERD wells the severity of frictional drag is
such that contact points become pseudo-fixed points along the
drill-string producing increasing sensitivity to WOB. The
following approaches have been touted as successful antidotes
for excessive drag,
Increased mud lubricity
Low friction drill-pipe protectors
Running DC or Heavy-Weight Drill-Pipe (HWDP) in
near vertical well sections
Boost weight transfer with Bumpers, and Thrusters for
smooth WOB application
Use extended or double-power section motors to
increase stalling resistance.
And, recently Rotary Closed Loop Drilling Systems , an
advancement over the Variable Gauge Stabilizer emerged as a
panacea for overcoming critical drag limitation in ERD wells.
Otherwise, drilling mechanics practitioners emphasize
qualifying drillstrings and well-sections for rotation, that may
otherwise present drag limitation.

Conclusion
A novel well planning and torque and drag analysis
approach and demonstrates its robustness when used with a
versatile computer program. The value of using a methodical
procedure in the evaluation of a drilling program can clearly
appreciated through:
Application of the state-of-the-art theories and
computational algorithms
Incorporating the dynamics of the field operation into
the planning and modeling process by carrying out
drilling, tripping and frictional sensitivity analysis
Multiple points of analysis ensures a thorough and
precise understanding of well-bore/drillstring
interactions from surface to TD
Advance deployment of HWDP for efficient weight
transfer to bit and integration into the drilling
assembly as a load bearing member to mitigate
drillstring helical buckling
Logical and simple presentation of data through
tabular and graphical summaries to represent complex
modeling systems
Useful communications tools to be incorporated into
the drilling program for precise field implementation
and appreciation of model optimization
Refinement and proven through field usage

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the respective management of
Baker Hughes INTEQ for permission to prepare and publish
this paper. The support of the following people are gratefully
acknowledged during the initial stages and final preparation of
this work: Thomas Dahl, Steve Dearman, Keith Fisher, David
Gaudin, Spencer Harris, Pat Havard, Raymond Jackson and
Les Shale.

References

1. Baker Hughes INTEQ Torque and Drag v.4.1. Program,
Users Guide
2. Baker Hughes INTEQ, Drilling Engineering Software
v.3.20, Marketing Documentation
3. Batchelor, B. J., and Moyer, M. C., Selection and
Drilling of Recent Gulf of Mexico Horizontal Wells,
OTC 8462 (May 1997)
4. Payne, M. L., and Abbassian, F., Advanced Torque-and -
Drag Considerations in Extended-Reach Wells, SPE
35102 (March 1996)
5. Ruddy, K. E., and Hill, D., Analysis of Buoyancy-
Assisted Casings and Liners in Mega-Reach Wells,
IADC/SPE 23878 (February 1992)
6. Guild, G. J., Hill T. H., and Summers, M. A., Designing
and Drilling Extended Reach Wells, Part 2 , Petroleum
Engineer International (January 1995)
7. McKown, G. K., Drillstring Design Optimization for
High-Angle Wells, SPE/IADC 18650 (February 1989)
8. Maurer Engineering Inc., Horizontal Technology
Manual - DEA 44 September 1994
9. Payne, M. L., Duxbury, J. K., and Martin, J. W.,
Drillstring Design Options for Extended-Reach Drilling
Operations, PD-Vol. 65, Drilling Technology, ASME
ETCE, 1995
10. Callin, J. K., and Hatton, P., Drillstring Considerations
and BHA Design for Horizontal Wells, Internal Eastman
Christensen Paper(now Baker Hughes INTEQ)
11. Chen, Y. C., Lin, Y. H., and Cheatham, J. B., Tubing
and Casing Buckling in Horizontal Wells, JPT, p140-
191, February 1990
12. Morris, E. R., Heavy Wall Drill Pipe A Key Member of
the Drill Stem, Presented at the Joint Petroleum
Mechanical Engineering and Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, September, 1976
13. Wu, J. and Juvkam-Wold, H. C., Buckling and Lockup
8 YEMI ADEWUYA, SON PHAM IADC/SPE 39321
of Tubulars in Inclined Wellbores, PD-Vol. 56, Drilling
Technology, ASME ETCE, 1994
14. Brett, J. F., Beckett, A. D., Holt, C. A., and Smith, D. L.
Uses and Limitations of a Drillstring Tension and
Torque Model to Monitor Hole Conditions, SPE 16664,
September 1994
15. McCann, R. C. and Suryanarayana, P. V. R.,
Experimental Study of Curvature and Frictional Effects
on Buckling, OTC 7568
16. API Bulletin D20, Directional Drilling Survey
Calculation Methods and Terminology, American
Petroleum Institute, December 1985
17. Maurer Engineering DDRAG8 Torque and Drag Users
Manual
18. Hill, T. H., Summers, M. A., and Guild, G. J. ,
Designing and Qualifying Drillstrings for Extended-
Reach Drilling, SPE DRILLING AND COMPLETION,
June 1996, Vol. II, No. 2, Pg. 111-117
19. Arora, J. S., Introduction to Optimum Design,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1989



Table 1: Result Summary - Analysis of Preliminary Drillstring

Table 2: Result Summary - Analysis of Optimized Drillstring



Figure 1: Well Planning and Engineering Analysis Procedure

Figure 2: Critical Inclination Curve - Simple Static Analysis

Figure 3: Tortuosity Comparison Chart

Figure 4: Torque and Drag Analysis Procedure

Figure 5: Plot of Plan vs. Actual Well-path

Figure 6: Torque and Drag - Drilling Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 7: Torque and Drag - Tripping Sensitivity Analysis

Figure 8: Torque and Drag - Frictional Sensitivity Analysis




Table 1: Result Summary - Analysis of Preliminary Drillstring
REFERENCE 8-1/2" Hole Size: 5"DP to Surface
RESULTS
5
"

S
-
1
3
5

1
9
.
5
#

D
P

P
r
e
m
i
u
m

(
N
C
5
0
)

-

A
P
I

R
P
7
G
-
-
-
-
-
ORIENTED ROTARY=100rpm ORIENTED
Friction Factors [csg/oh] ----- ----- .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .35/.40 .45/.50
Weight on Bit [klbs] ----- ----- 0 15 25 50 0 15 25 50 25 25
Max. Tot. Eqv. Stress (MTES) [psi] ----- ----- 28,044 28,992 30,490 41,126 32,988 31,646 31,458 34,736 34,584 45,021
Location of MTES [ft, MD] ----- ----- 1,060 1,960 1,630 800 650 530 530 1,210 1,060 90
Mode of MTES ----- ----- Pick-up Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Pick-up Drilling
Yield Stress [psi] 135,000 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Torque - Drilling [ft-lbf] ----- ----- 0 708 1,181 2,361 10,335 10,193 10,722 13,943 1,181 1,181
Torque - Rot-Off-Bot. [lbf] ----- ----- 10,360 10,360 10,360 10,360 10,360 10,360 10,360 10,360 14,066 17,772
Make-Up Torque [ft-lbf] 24,645 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Torsional Yield [ft-lbf] 63,406 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Hook Load - Drilling [lbf] ----- ----- 15,322 -4,483 -18,608 -67,353 53,735 38,764 28,762 3,690 -49,464 -99,771
Hook Load - Rot. Off Bot. [lbf] ----- ----- 54,091 54,091 54,091 54,091 54,091 54,091 54,091 54,091 54,091 54,091
Hook Load - Pick-Up [lbf] ----- ----- 107,959 107,959 107,959 107,959 107,959 107,959 107,959 107,959 139,324 180,089
Hook Load - Slack-Off [lbf] ----- ----- 15,322 15,322 15,322 15,322 15,322 15,322 15,322 15,322 -6,824 -39,028
Max. Allow. Hk Ld @ Min. Yld [lbf] 560,764 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Neutral Point [ft, MD from bit] ----- ----- 0 7,659 7,659 7,659 0 3,533 6,066 7,466 7,659 7,659
Table 2: Result Summary - Analysis of Optimized Drillstring
REFERENCE 8-1/2" Hole Ssize: 5"DP to 9-7/8" Casing Shoe and 5"HWDP to Surface
RESULTS
5
"

S
-
1
3
5

1
9
.
5
#

D
P

P
r
e
m
i
u
m

(
N
C
5
0
)

-

A
P
I

R
P
7
G
5
"

K
-
5
5

4
9
.
3
#

H
W
D
P

(
N
C
5
0
)

-

D
r
i
l
c
o

H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
ORIENTED ROTARY=100rpm ORIENTED
Friction Factors [csg/oh] ----- ----- .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .25/.30 .35/.40 .45/.50
Weight on Bit [klbs] ----- ----- 0 15 25 50 0 15 25 50 25 25
Max. Tot. Eqv. Stress (MTES) [psi] ----- ----- 26,183 26,796 27,478 35,219 28,275 27,949 28,207 32,626 28,006 28,614
Location of MTES [ft, MD] ----- ----- 6,797 4,323 4,323 4,563 4,053 4,053 4,053 7,458 4,323 4,323
Mode of MTES ----- ----- Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling Drilling
Yield Stress [psi] 135,000 55,000 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Torque - Drilling [ft-lbf] ----- ----- 0 708 1,181 2,361 13,877 14,063 14,480 14,291 1,181 1,181
Torque - Rot-Off-Bot. [lbf] ----- ----- 13,889 13,889 13,889 13,889 13,889 13,889 13,889 13,889 19,008 24,126
Make-Up Torque [ft-lbf] 24,645 29,400 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Torsional Yield [ft-lbf] 63,406 51,375 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Hook Load - Drilling [lbf] ----- ----- 45,305 26,547 13,124 -26,884 99,227 84,245 74,246 49,202 -23,972 -77,286
Hook Load - Rot. Off Bot. [lbf] ----- ----- 99,717 99,717 99,717 99,717 99,717 99,717 99,717 99,717 99,717 99,717
Hook Load - Pick-Up [lbf] ----- ----- 165,662 165,662 165,662 165,662 165,662 165,662 165,662 165,662 204,021 253,452
Hook Load - Slack-Off [lbf] ----- ----- 45,305 45,305 45,305 45,305 45,305 45,305 45,305 45,305 15,085 -26,911
Max. Allow. Hk Ld @ Min. Yld [lbf] 560,764 691,185 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Neutral Point [ft, MD from bit] ----- ----- 0 7,019 7,344 7,659 0 3,534 5,544 6,463 7,659 7,659
Note: Critical results
Reference limits and specifications
Figure 1: Well Planning and Engineering Analysis Flowchart
Preliminary Well-Path Design
Constraints Definition
- Surface Location and Target
Coordinates
- Rig Specifications
- Geological Specifications and
Obstacles
- Drilling Systems Operational
Compatibility
Anti-Collision Anaysis
Initial Well-Path
Approval
Preliminary Drillstring Design
Yes
No
Completions Program
Fluids Program
Bit Program
Hydraulics Analysis Torque & Drag Anaysis
Optimal Well-Path
and Drillstring Design
Optimized Drillstring Design
No
Develop Drilling Program
Yes
Perform Drilling Operation
Collect Useful Drilling Parameters
Torque (surface, down-hole), Weight On Bit
(surface, down-hole), Friction Factor (caing,
open-hole), Drag (slack-off, pick-up), Rate
of Penetration, Rotary Speed, Pump Rates,
Fluids Properties, Bit Performance, etc.
Torque & Drag Anaysis
Figure 4: Torque and Drag Analysis Flowchart
Drilling Sensitivity Anaysis
Tripping Sensitivity Anaysis
- WOB #1 (No Load)
- WOB #2 (Low Oper. Load)
- WOB #3 (High Oper. Load)
- WOB #4 (Max. Load)
Friction Factor Sensitivity Anaysis
- Friction Factor #1 (Expected)
- Friction Factor #2 (High)
- Friction Factor #3 (Problematic)
Preliminary Drillstring Design
Oriented Drilling
- WOB #1 (No Load)
- WOB #2 (Low Oper. Load)
- WOB #3 (High Oper. Load)
- WOB #4 (Max. Load)
Rotary Drilling
- WOB #1 (No Load)
- WOB #2 (Low Oper. Load)
- WOB #3 (High Oper. Load)
- WOB #4 (Max. Load)
Evaluation of Summary and
Graphical Results
Drillstring Optimization
Drill-String Component
Limitations and
Specifications
A thorough evaluation of the drilling
program will include this cycle of
analysis for each hole interval
Figure 2: Critical Inclination Curve - Simple Static Anaysis
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Critical Inclination [deg]
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
Y
X

FW
F
f=

F
N
F
Y
+
F
X
F
N
F
A
F
A
Summing forces in the X direction yields
the following simple relationship:
= atan
1
where: = Inclination [deg]
= Friction Factor

Figure 5: Plot of Plan vs. Actual Well-Path

0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Planned Actual
9-5/8" Casing @ 4,000'md
D
e
p
t
h

[
f
t
,
T
V
D
]
Vertical Section [ft]
13-3/8" Casing @ 1,500'md
20" Drive Pipe @ 375'md
Planned TD @ 7,660'md
Actual TD: 7" Casing @ 7,075'md
12-1/4" x 17-1/2" Hole Size
12-1/4" Hole Size
8-1/2" Hole Size
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Planned Actual
9-5/8" Casing @ 4,000'md
D
e
p
t
h

[
f
t
,
T
V
D
]
Vertical Section [ft]
13-3/8" Casing @ 1,500'md
20" Drive Pipe @ 375'md
Planned TD @ 7,660'md
Actual TD: 7" Casing @ 7,075'md
12-1/4" x 17-1/2" Hole Size
12-1/4" Hole Size
8-1/2" Hole Size
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
-2,500 -2,000 -1,500 -1,000 -500 0
<
-
-
-

N
o
r
t
h

[
f
t
]
<--- West [ft]
Planned TD
Actual TD
Figure 6: Torque and Drag - Drilling Sensitivity Analysis
TORQUE & DRAG ANALYSIS
HELICAL BUCKLING & DRILLING LOADS
-
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
-
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
5
0
,
0
0
0
05
0
,
0
0
0
Loads [lbf]
Hel. Buckling Load [lbf] Drlng Load 2 (WOB=15klbs) [lbf]
Ext. Hel. Buckling Load [lbf] Drlng Load 3 (WOB=25klbs) [lbf]
Drlng Load 1 (WOB= 0klbs) [lbf] Drlng Load 4 (WOB=50klbs) [lbf]
Critical Inclination
Critical
Region
Preliminary Drillstring
HOLE SIZE: 8-1/2"
MODE: ORIENTED
FRICTION FACTOR (CSG/OH): .25/.30
Modified Drillstring
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
-
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
-
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
5
0
,
0
0
0
05
0
,
0
0
0 Loads [lbf]
HWDP
Placement
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

D
e
p
t
h

[
f
t
]
Figure 7: Torque and Drag - Tripping Sensitivity Analysis
TORQUE & DRAG ANALYSIS
HELICAL BUCKLING & TRIP LOADS
-
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
-
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
5
0
,
0
0
0
05
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
LOADS [lbf]
Hel. Buckling Load [lbf] Trip Load 1 (WOB= 0klbs) [lbf]
Ext. Hel. Buckling Load [lbf] Trip Load 2 (WOB=15klbs) [lbf]
Pick-Up Load [lbf] Trip Load 3 (WOB=25klbs) [lbf]
Slack-Off Load [lbf] Trip Load 4 (WOB=50klbs) [lbf]
HOLE SIZE: 8-1/2"
MODE: ORIENTED
FRICTION FACTOR (CSG/OH): .25/.30
O
O Critical Trip Depth
O
Preliminary Drillstring
Modified Drillstring
Critical Inclination
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
-
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
-
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
5
0
,
0
0
0
05
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
LOADS [lbf]
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
D

D
E
P
T
H

[
f
t
]
O
HWDP
Placement