IADC/SPE 127413

MWD Failure Rates Due to Drilling Dynamics

Hanno Reckmann/Baker Hughes, Pushkar Jogi/Baker Hughes, Franck Kpetehoto/Baker Hughes, Sridharan
Chandrasekaran/TATA Consultancy Services, John Macpherson/Baker Hughes

Copyright 2010, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 24 February 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Rig downtime due to MWD tool failure is expensive, particularly on offshore rigs with extremely high operating costs. There
are different reasons for tool failures, one being the high vibration loads on MWD tools under extreme drilling conditions.
MWD and LWD tools are usually equipped with sensors to measure and record vibrations for drilling efficiency and
optimization. The goal of the study described in this paper is to establish the link between MWD or LWD tool failure, and
drilling dynamics. With this knowledge, it is possible to reduce failure rates and costs with real-time monitoring of downhole
drilling dynamics.
To analyze the effect of drilling dynamics on MWD tool failures, a unique database of MWD runs in challenging
environments was created. This database includes vibration data recorded at 5-second intervals from more than 12,000 drilling
and reaming hours, over a total footage of 425,000 feet. In addition to unique dynamics data such as weight, torque, bending
moments and axial, lateral and tangential RMS and peak accelerations, the database included detailed run and failure reports,
and environmental information such as well profiles and drilling operations.
A statistical study using the logistic regression indicates the types of dynamic behavior most statistically significant in
MWD/LWD tool failures. These are cumulative lateral vibrations and backward whirl. Cumulative axial or tangential
acceleration appears not to be significant in current MWD/LWD tool failures.
A study on the correlation between recorded MWD tool dynamics and tool failure rates established the link between time
spent operating above a level of vibration and the probability of tool failure. This paper contains charts describing this
relationship between dynamics, operating hours, and MWD/LWD tool failure rates. These charts are valuable in operational
risk management and in developing procedures for optimal drilling practices that reduce the dynamic loads on the MWD
system, resulting in prolonged tool life and reduced cost.
Introduction
In recent years, there has been growing interest from both service companies and operators on quantified MWD tool and
system reliability. BHAs are becoming longer and more complex with the addition of more MWD and LWD components, and
the well path is becoming increasingly more challenging due to length and 3D trajectory. A vibration related failure of MWD
or LWD components can result in a trip, lost tools, or a sidetrack. All of these are expensive.
As shown in the simplified chart, Figure 1, there is considerable overlap between known excitation frequencies and
response frequencies of the BHA, and it is difficult to avoid generating large dynamic loads in the BHA while drilling.
Reliable operation consists, therefore, of combining knowledge of the operating limits of MWD and LWD tools with real-time
condition monitoring.
Brehme and Travis (2008) provide an operators viewpoint where the main idea is to focus on the whole system instead of
individual tools to obtain the best system reliability by eliminating systematic failures. It is mentioned that the standard
measure for the statistical reliability of tools and components in comparing different vendors is MTBF, which was originally
proposed and recommended by Ng (1989).

IADC/SPE 127413

Figure 1: Relationship of some known excitation frequencies to the frequencies of dynamic behavior.

System failures might be due to different causes. Wand et al. (2006), identifies the root causes for failures in rotarysteerable-systems as planning, software, assembly, shock, and so on. Here shock is a descriptor used when the root
cause is mechanical vibration loads on the system, and Wands analysis is accountable for 23 percent of the failures. In our
analysis, we found that 29 percent of failures were vibration related. These vibration related failures include mechanical
failures (for example, cracks in steel bodies), and electrical failures (for example, vibration related breaks in electrical cables).
The higher percentage of vibration related failures in our analysis can be explained by the choice of MWD runs the tool that
transmitted and recorded the vibration data is deployed in higher risk jobs, where difficult drilling and vibrations are
expected.
Most reliability-based risk analysis techniques are founded on the premise that given a sample of failure times, it is
possible to derive a probability distribution function that quantifies reliability as a function of time. Time in the drilling
industry is operating time which could be interpreted in several different ways, see Brehme and Travis (2008). Once this
probability distribution function is known, then it is possible to estimate values such as reliability or failure probability at a
given time. This approach has been successful in many industries, but due to the unique nature of the drilling process with its
changing stress levels (because of depth-based changes in formation properties and time-based changes in drilling parameters)
the purely time-based approach is not sufficient. It is necessary to incorporate the varying levels of stress in the risk assessment
process.
In this paper, the focus is on the influence of the dynamic loads drilling dynamics on the reliability of MWD and LWD
BHA systems. A data-driven model is used to assess risk and stress, and a database containing a representative number of data
sets was assembled for this purpose.
Each MWD company accumulates data for calculating tool MTBF. These databases contain information on operational
parameters such as distance drilled, circulating hours, drilling hours, reaming hours, etc. Additional data about repair and
maintenance is also collected, which includes the root cause analysis in the case of tool failures. These databases generally
lack detailed information describing the dynamic loads acting on the BHA system.
For the analysis presented in this paper the databases containing operational and maintenance data were merged with
drilling dynamics data recorded by a downhole tool designed to measure, record and provide real-time information for drilling
optimization. With this combined database, it was possible to establish the link between system dynamic loads and failure rate.
Further analysis of the large data set with respect to drilling optimization also illustrates the effects of drilling dynamic
phenomena such as stick-slip and whirl on BHA stresses and drilling performance.
Data Availability and Selection
Measurement tools are available to monitor motion and loads on the BHA at fixed points within the BHA. The MWD tool
used in this study was first described by Heisig et al. (1998). It is currently capable of taking 14 dynamic measurements at a
sample rate of 1,000 Hz, among them lateral, axial and tangential accelerations, torque, axial force, and bending moment. Data
is available through telemetry in real time to surface for drilling optimization. In parallel, data is stored in the downhole tool
memory with a sampling interval of 5 seconds.
Some of the measured data used for the analysis in this paper are summarized in Table 1.

IADC/SPE 127413

Table 1: Measurements used in the analysis

Variable

Unit

Description

a lat , peak
Lateral 1sRMS acceleration a lat ,1sRMS
Axial peak acceleration a ax , peak

Maximum lateral acceleration in 5 seconds, sample rate of 1,000 Hz.

Maximum 1-second RMS over 5 seconds

Maximum lateral acceleration in 5 seconds, sample rate of 1,000 Hz.

Axial 1sRMS acceleration a ax ,1sRMS

Maximum 1-second RMS over 5 seconds

a tan, peak
Tangential 1sRMS acceleration a l tan,1sRMS

Maximum lateral acceleration in 5 seconds, sample rate of 1,000 Hz.

Maximum 1-second RMS over 5 seconds

max
RPM min min
RPM average avg

rpm

Maximum rotation rate in a 5 second interval

rpm

Minimum rotation rate in a 5 second interval

rpm

Average rotation rate over 5 seconds

rpm

Average bending rate over 5 seconds

Nm

Average downhole torque (DTOB) over 5 seconds

Average downhole axial force (DWOB) over 5 seconds

Nm

Average bending moment over 5 seconds

Lateral peak acceleration

Tangential peak acceleration

RPM max

Bending RPM average

Torque average

avg

Tavg

Axial force average Fax ,avg

Bending moment average

Bavg

Bending RPM is calculated from the two orthogonal bending measurements, see Macpherson et al. (1998). Axial, lateral
and tangential acceleration are obtained by adding and subtracting measurements from a pair of tri-axial accelerometers
mounted diametrically opposite and equidistant from the centerline of the tool. Axial acceleration is the acceleration
component along the tool axis. Lateral acceleration is the acceleration of the center axis of the tool in the lateral direction.
Tangential acceleration is the acceleration component generated by a rotation around the tool center axis, and is the angular
acceleration times the distance from the tool center axis.

Figure 2: Sample data set of dynamics data from a well in Beggs, Oklahoma.

IADC/SPE 127413

From operations with this measurement tool during a 20-month period, January 2007 to August 2008, 232 data sets were
gathered. Of these, 67 contained identified vibration related failures. Since the measurement tool is typically run for drilling
optimization in difficult and challenging drilling environments, it is a rich source of vibration related information.
The accumulated information includes vibration data recorded at a 5-second interval from more than 12,000 drilling and
reaming hours, over a total drilled and reamed footage of 425,000 feet. A sample data subset for a well in Beggs, Oklahoma, is
shown in Figure 2.
In addition to unique dynamics data, the database includes detailed run and failure reports, and environmental information
such as well profiles and drilling operations.
Data Processing
Assumptions and Criteria
The analysis contains several assumptions:

Each MWD tool is like new at the begin of a run;

Only MWD tools which are identified as having failed due to vibration are included;

Tool failure is actually due to mechanical vibration loads (i.e., the root-cause analysis is correct).
In the interests of timely data gathering and processing, it is assumed that the MWD tools are new at the beginning of
each run. In other words, it is assumed that there is no pre-existing damage to a tool. Furthermore, it is assumed that failure
was due only to vibration. Failures caused by, for example, bending due to high dogleg severity, and manufacturing, repair,
and operational issues, are already removed from the data set.
Calculated parameters
Certain information used in the analysis were calculated from the measured data. For example, one statistic of a run is the
cumulative rotary speed variance C rsv . To characterize the variation in rotation rate, the spread between maximum RPM and
minimum RPM is multiplied by the sample interval and summed over the run. The unit of this cumulative RPM variance is
revolutions.

Crsv = (max min ) t

( 1)

Other information was represented in terms of relative energy. The power of a parameter is proportional to the square of
its value. The energy is then proportional to the integral of the power over time. The relative energy for several different
parameters, for example the vibration energy from accelerations, bending energy from bending moments, torsional energy
from torque, and so on, can thus be calculated. These relative energy values are used in the data analysis to find which
parameters correlate with failure.

E = x 2 t

( 2)

Other derived parameters of interest are backward and forward whirl, and the stick-slip index. Whirl, , is the rotation rate
of the center of the measurement tool about the center of the hole, and is given by the difference in rotation rate, , and
bending rate, :

(t ) = avg (t ) avg (t )

( 3)

The integral backward whirl parameter is calculated by selecting those intervals in which the whirl is less than -10 RPM,
and summing these time intervals over the run. Likewise, forward whirl is handled by selecting those intervals in which the
whirl rate is positive.
Stick-slip index is the ratio of rotary speed variance to average rpm:

SSI (t ) = max min / (2 avg )

( 4)

This parameter will be zero for sliding, one for fully developed stick-slip, and greater than one for cases where the string
comes to a complete stop for a certain time per cycle.
Data analysis
Significance (p-test) with binary logistic regression
The binary logistic regression method has been developed for regression analysis with binary variables, see (Hosmer 2000;
Pampel 2000). Logistic regression is extensively used in many areas including the medical and social sciences, marketing and
reliability engineering. In the case of tool failure analysis, the criterion failure or non-failure has in a mathematical sense

IADC/SPE 127413

the states 0 or 1 and are thus binary in nature. Logistic regression is a statistical model for predicting the probability of
success or failure based on historical data. The advantage of the logistic regression is that it can use both categorical variables
(e.g., binary 0 or 1) and numerical variables (e.g., vibration energy). Like the ordinary regression model, logistic regression
takes a linear form of predictor variables (X1, Xn) where n is the number of predictors:

Z = 0 + 1 X 1 + K + n X n .

( 5)

In the above equation, a positive regression coefficient i means that the i-th factor has a positive influence on the
probability of success. In addition, a large regression coefficient means that the factor strongly influences the probability of
success, while a near-zero regression coefficient means that the factor has little influence on the probability of success.
The difference between the ordinary regression model and the logistic regression model is that Z is not a response variable
in the logistic regression, but Z is the input to the probability function:

f (Z ) =

1
.
(1 + e Z )

( 6)

The probability function f(Z) is the predicted value of the probability of success. Here the probability of success is the ratio
of runs without failure to the number of total runs.
One part of the binary logistic regression analysis is the significance test (p-test) of variables, which is used to decide if
variables in the data set are significant in explaining tool failures or not. The data set is analyzed to answer the question if a
high value of a parameter corresponds to a high likelihood of a tool failure. A significance of 0.05 (1 in 20) is used as defined
in Table 2.
Table 2: Interpretation of p-value
Common Language

Test Threshold

Statistically Significant. Unlikely due to chance

p < 0.05

Statistically Insignificant. Likely due to chance

p > 0.05

The process of finding the p-value is automated in statistic analysis software packages. The estimated p-values for the
analyzed parameters are listed in Table 3 below.
Table 3: p-test results
Significant

Not Significant

Parameter
Lateral Acceleration Peak Energy
Lateral Acceleration 1s RMS Energy
RPM Spread [revolutions]
Backward Whirl
Stick Slip Index
Axial Acceleration 1sRMS energy
Axial Acceleration Peak Energy
Forward Whirl
TOB Energy
WOB Energy
TOB Maximum Energy
Tangential Acceleration 1s RMS Energy
Bending Rate [revolutions]

p-value
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0025
0.0276
0.0560
0.0649
0.1174
0.2020
0.2147
0.3850
0.4816
0.6500

Cumulative energy due to lateral motion of MWD tools is most significant in tool failure, as are the cumulative effects of
the variance of the tool rotation speed and backward whirl. Cumulative stick-slip is also significant but better suited for
drilling efficiency studies since the relationship between rotary speed oscillations and tool failure is better described by the
cumulative variance in tool rotational speed over a run.
The p-test showed no significant correlation between cumulative axial acceleration, tangential acceleration or bending rate
and MWD failure. This does not mean these parameter are unrelated to MWD tool failures but rather that their relationship to
tool failure may be more that of short-lived and localized events.

IADC/SPE 127413

Results
The peak lateral and 1-second RMS values of the lateral acceleration both show a highly significant correlation with MWD
tool failure, and are related. The graph below in Figure 3 shows an example of the correlation between these two parameters
over all 232 data sets. The logarithmic color scale is the accumulated time of values in the 0.2g bins. The result is a linear trend
between the two measurements up to about 18g in lateral peak acceleration. After 18g, there is a wider spread of data, but this
wider spread represents less than one cumulative hour and is indicative of short-lived events such as impacts. The linear graph
in the right-hand diagram of Figure 3 shows the relationship between the two lateral acceleration measurements (up to 18g
peak lateral acceleration).
This correlation indicates that either a 1-second RMS measurement, or a peak acceleration measurement (or both) can be
used for condition monitoring of an MWD BHA.
Correlation of peak to 1sRMS lateral acceleration

1sRMS Lateral Acceleration [g]

10
9
8
7
6
5

y = 0.2362x

4
3
2
1
0
0

10

15

20

25

Peak Lateral Acceleration [g]

Figure 3: Correlation of lateral peak acceleration to lateral 1sRMS acceleration

Time [h]

Tool Failures
To establish a map from time and vibration load to probability of tool failure, the data was processed in four steps for each
mode of vibration:
1. For each run: determine the amount of time spent in each 1g bucket. The last bucket contains the time spent operating
with more than 50g.
2. For each run: determine the time above an acceleration threshold. For example, the first bucket contains the time
above 0g (i.e., all drilling and reaming time), the next bucket contains the time above a 1g threshold, and so on.
3. For all runs: in a time vs. vibration matrix, total the runs with failure. For example, if the run ended in failure and
operated with 120 hours above 0g, and 80 hours above 1g, etc., then the count for cells (0, 120) and (1, 80) are
incremented by one. The same process is repeated for the non-failure runs.
4. Calculate the ratio of runs-with-failure to total-number-of-runs in each bucket in the time versus vibration matrix.
This result is shown in Figure 4, with a 2D smoothing and interpolation function applied.

Figure 4: Failure rate (0 to 1) for time operating at or above a lateral 1sRMS acceleration threshold

IADC/SPE 127413

Time [h]

Discussion
The white area in the failure rate versus lateral 1second RMS acceleration and time diagram represent combinations of
parameters (g-threshold and time) where no data is available. These combinations are never reached because they are either
physically not possible or the tools had already failed. The boundary of the colored area, therefore, represents the operating
limit of the tools it is where tools are overloaded and thus fail with the highest probability. The probability of a failure then
decreases to lower values in the time-load parameter space.
Within the area with lower failure rate, the minimum is a failure rate of about 0.2. The reason is that the failed runs do not
only operate at high acceleration levels, but also spend a portion of time at low acceleration levels. In addition, due to variance
in operational conditions and variance in manufacturing and repair (in other words, real data), there are also always some
failures at low operating times, and thus the failure rates do not reach zero. It could be generalized that below 1.5g for the
lateral 1sRMS acceleration, lateral accelerations do not harm BHAs. Failures at these low lateral accelerations have a cause
other than vibration.

Time [h]

Figure 5: Failure rate versus lateral 1sRMS acceleration and time, fitted with a parametrical model

It is possible to fit an analytic function to the surface in the time, acceleration and failure rate space. Based on this analytic
function, tables can be generated from which it is possible to estimate the probability of failure given the acceleration history
of a tool. The probability of failure P(f) generated from the analytical fitting function is tabulated in Table 4.
Table 4: Failure rate versus lateral 1sRMS acceleration threshold and time (hours)

P(f)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

>0.5

143
70
11

>1

118
50
8.1

>1.5

134
83
32
5.9

>2

150
143
123
87
47
19
4.3

>2.5
126
110
88
64
42
25
12
3.1

>3
60
48
38
29
22
15
8.4
2.1

>3.5
27
23
19
16
13
9.6
5.8
1.4

>4
15
13
12
11
8.5
6.5
4.1
0.8

>4.5
9.5
8.7
7.8
6.9
5.8
4.5
2.8
0.3

>5
6.5
5.9
5.4
4.8
4.1
3.2
1.9

>5.5
4.5
4.1
3.7
3.3
2.8
2.2
1.2

>6
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.3
1.9
1.4
0.6

>6.5
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.2
0.8
0.2

>7
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.3

>7.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.1

The above table indicates the probability of failure of a tool if it has operated for an amount of time (in hours) above a
vibration threshold (in grms). For example, an MWD tool which has operated for 4.8 hours above 5 grms has a 70% chance of
failure. Here the grms measurement is defined as the maximum 1-second RMS in a 5 second window.
The failure rate table can be used in several ways. A first possibility is to calculate what the actual probability of failure is,
based on the accumulated data during a run. A second possibility is to estimate the remaining time at an anticipated load until a
given failure rate is reached. A third possibility would be to calculate the acceptable vibration envelope for a given failure rate
and time.
The failure rate table, therefore, provides a powerful method of tracking the condition of an MWD BHA. It relates current
vibration level to likelihood of failure, and provides an estimate of remaining lifetime to failure. For example, consider an
MWD tool which has experienced conditions of 4grms for the previous 4.5 hours, and which is currently experiencing lateral
vibrations above this level. If the out-of-specification (OOS) limit is set at a probability of failure of 70%, then the tool may
only be operated in the same environment for another 6.5 hours before it becomes OOS. Alternatively, if the environment

IADC/SPE 127413

becomes more benign (due to a lithology change or an operating parameter change) so that the MWD BHA is subject to less
than 2grms lateral acceleration, then the tool is unlikely to reach an OOS condition.
Cumulative rotary speed variance
The study found that the third most significant parameter correlating to failure is the cumulative rotary speed variance. The
relationship between cumulative rotary speed variance over a tool run, and the probability of failure, is shown in Table 5. An
analysis of the individual tool sizes shows that the relationship between cumulative rotary speed variance and tool failure is the
strongest for the 4.75 tool size. The bigger tool sizes also show this trend but with a different slope, and the failure rate for the
bigger tool sizes is less dependent on the cumulative rotary speed variance. Therefore, in terms of cumulative rotary speed
variance, different tool sizes should be treated differently.
Table 5: Probability of failure P(f) in respect to cumulative rpm variations for tool size 4.75
P(f)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

C rsv

169,500

339,000

508,500

678,000

847,500

1,017,000

1,186,400

1,355,900

Unlike the stick-slip index, the rpm variance should be similar above and below a motor. A discussion of the relationship
of stick-slip index (SSI) to vibration is given in the drilling performance section, below.
Whirl
The study found that backward whirl is also statistically significant in MWD tool failures. Whirl in MWD tools can result in
high cyclic bending stresses and also in high lateral accelerations. The probability of failure criterion for backward whirl with
a whirl rate smaller than -10 RPM is provided in Table 6. The short time spans of whirl to reach high probabilities of failure
point out the destructive effect of backward whirl on BHAs. This means that real time monitoring of the backward whirl rate
and timely action to prevent whirl can significantly prolong the life of the BHA.
Table 6: Probability of failure P(f) in respect to time of backward whirl (hours)
P(f)

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

t <10

1.6

2.7

3.8

4.8

5.9

7.0

8.0

9.1

Drilling performance
Due to the large volume of data gathered it is possible to examine the relationship between the various parameters, such as
stick-slip index and peak lateral vibrations, as shown in Figure 6. It should be realized that such studies are of large data sets
and indicate only what will happen on average.

Figure 6: Data distribution and ROP versus Stick-Slip Index and 1sRMS Lateral Acceleration

IADC/SPE 127413

The color in the left diagram of Figure 6 represents the amount of data falling within a vibration, stick-slip cell, and uses a
normalized logarithmic scale. A value of 1 for the stick-slip index (x-axis) indicates fully developed stick-slip (the bit rpm
approaches zero). It is interesting to note that high lateral vibration occurs at low values of stick-slip in other words, a nonzero value of the stick-slip index (for example, above 0.2) is healthy while drilling. Put another way, torsional oscillations
while drilling help avoid damaging lateral vibrations. An explanation for this coupling could be a mistuning effect. As a
consequence of the changing rpm there is no constant excitation frequency and the system cannot reach a steady state with
high vibration amplitudes.
The right diagram in Figure 6 shows the average ROP versus stick-slip index and peak lateral acceleration. The
relationship to ROP is interesting: there is a zone where higher ROP occurs with low lateral vibration and non-zero SSI (about
0.5). Note that high ROP can also occur with high lateral acceleration for SSI less than 0.2 but the risk of BHA failure is
higher. An optimal parameter region is around an SSI of 0.5 with most of the 1sRMS lateral vibrations a lat ,1sRMS less than
3grms and an average ROP greater than 50ft/h.
Summary and Conclusion
Accumulated drilling dynamics data, when combined with context data such as failure reports and environmental information,
can statistically link the stress and load on the BHA system to the probability of MWD tool failure. The most significant stress
variables were identified in a statistical approach using an extensive and rather unique downhole data set and the binary
logistic regression method. Lateral accelerations are by a magnitude more significant than other variables. Other significant
variables are cumulative rotary speed variance and time spent in backward whirl. For lateral vibrations, a table can be
developed which links the probability of failure to time operating above a vibration level threshold. The probability of failure
is also directly related to the cumulative rotary speed variance in revolutions and the time spent in backward whirl.
Based on these charts it is possible to assess the risk or probability of a tool failure for an estimated future vibration load
and thus to assess the likelihood of tool failure under the current, or different, operating conditions. Therefore, by real time
monitoring of these dynamic stress variables it is possible to adjust drilling parameters in a timely manner to reduce the
vibration load on the BHA system, thereby extending BHA life and reducing the probability of a BHA failure.
The analysis also provides an interesting perspective on the development of MWD tools. To date, stick-slip has been an
important consideration in MWD tool condition monitoring, and has been used as an indicator for out-of-specification
operations. This study finds, however, that MWD companies have addressed, and continue to address, the torsional capability
of their tools and this indicator is now of significance only for the slimmer tool size.
The limitations of the study should be clearly understood: it has attempted to quantify only the long term condition
monitoring of MWD Bottom Hole Assemblies. The various criteria studied which are found not to be significant for MWD
BHA condition monitoring may be significant for other purposes. As examples, stick-slip monitoring is significant in drilling
optimization studies; backward rotation is significant in drill bit life assessment. In addition, an MWD tool may still fail due to
a catastrophic load applied over a very short time interval (an impact), such as is caused by jarring on a stuck BHA where the
MWD tool is above the stuck point.
The paper concluded with an analysis of the dependency of lateral vibrations, stick-slip index and ROP, which lead to
conclusions for optimal drilling performance. The best rates of penetration are reached for a stick-slip index less than 0.2, but
with potentially damaging lateral vibrations. An optimal stick-slip index is about 0.5, which has an average ROP greater than
50ft/h, and significantly lower lateral accelerations.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Baker Hughes for their support and permission to publish this paper. They would also like to
thank all the field and application engineers for their help in gathering data for this analysis.
Nomenclature

a lat , peak , a lat ,1sRMS

Lateral peak and 1sRMS acceleration

a ax , peak , a ax ,1sRMS
a tan, peak , a l tan,1sRMS

Axial peak and 1sRMS acceleration

max , min , avg

avg

maximum, minimum and 5 second average rotary speed

Tavg
Fax,avg
Bavg

5 second average downhole torque

Tangential peak and 1sRMS acceleration

5 second average bending rate

5 second average downhole axial force

5 second average bending moment

10

IADC/SPE 127413

cumulative rotary speed variance

C rsv
t
E

SSI

Energy value

Probability of success

f(Z)

Probability function

Significance value

ROP

Rate of penetration

sample time

Whirl rate
Stick-slip index

References
Brehme, J. and Travis, J. T. 2008. Total BHA relaiability An Improved Method to Measure Success, IADC/SPE 112644 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Orlando, Florida, U.S.A., 4-6 March.
Heisig, G., Sancho, J. and Macpherson J. D. 1998. Downhole Diagnosis of Drilling Dynamics Data Provides New Level Drilling Process
Control to Driller, SPE 49206 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, 27-30 September.
Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression, A Wiley Interscience Publication, NJ, USA.
Macpherson, J. .D., Jogi, P. N. and Kingman J. E. E. 1998. Application and Analysis of Simultaneous Near Bit and Surface Dynamics
Measurements, IADC/SPE 39397 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 3-6 March.
Ng, F. 1989. Recommendations for MWD Tool Reliability Statistics, SPE 19862 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, San
Antonio, Texas, 8-11 October.
Osnes, S. M., Amundsen, P. A., Weltzin, T., Nyrnes, E., Hundstad B. L. and Grindhaug, G. 2009. MWD Vibration Measurements: A Time
for Standardization, SPE/IADC 119877 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 17-19
March.
Pampel, F. C. 2000. Logistic Regression A Primer, Sage Publications, CA, USA.
Wand, P.,Bible, M. and Silvester, I. 2006. Risk-Based Reliability Engineering Enables Improved Rotary-Steerable-System Performance and
Defines New Performance Metrics, IADC/SPE 98150 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Miami, Florida, U.S.A.,
21-23 February.