Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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.
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
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
ora
&II
80
40
IEIOO ON tUT (KLBS)
Inclinet1 on It bit
5 DES
~r---------------_.-----------------,
110 DEli
====::1'
[DB"
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
STAB '1
2~------------------------~
IlI11D
STAB 12
o~~~-----------~----------~
STAB 13
-4
-6L-______-L________L -_____
.10
.20
____
.30
.40
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
All 3
-2
.00
I!!I
Cia
I!!!
I80B
I!
Cia
i
,,1lJ
aD
Ill!
''1&11
~
'a[lJlo ...... 1 aD I
---,) [llgI
I I
-1000
KID (34')
2000
.Pr...
.ub (2')
.......
-=
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
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)
.......
....
......
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
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
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
8100.0
" '-.
Actual
----------
"t:I
- 2.00
;:s
al
+---r----r----r----,
5850.0 5800.0 5950.0 6100.0
Depth (Ft)
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
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.
+--------.--------...--------...---------.
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
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)
::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)
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.
-....
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
+------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
182
-0.30
..c
..
&900.0
QO
0-
Actual
"0
0 .25
- 0 .
Actual
Q)
CI
1.00
Predicted
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
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-.
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
1.10
0.80
--
-=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)
183
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
and
and
H 8 =WF/u . .. .. .... . ...... . .. .. ... . . . . .. . . . .. (A-16)
WOB,
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)
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.. ,
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
and
B 4 =[v(T2+ vo)+WT]WL sin 13/(W3) ,
. ........ .. (A-2I )
where
C I =(T2 +2Wo)/o 2
.. ...... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . (A-23)
and
C2 =W2lo2 .. ......... . ........ (A-24)
and
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)
=(T2 +2Wo)/o,
and
H 4=F.. Wlo.
and
y(L) =0, rJy(L)/rJz=O, .. ... . .... .... .. . .. .. . . . . .. (A-29)
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
and
u[tJ 2y(O)/tJz 2 ]- T[tJx(O)/tJz] +bW=O.
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.