IADC/SPE 103734
The Reliability Problem Related to Directional Survey Data
Roger Ekseth, SPE, Kazimir Kovalenko, SPE, and J.L. Weston, SPE, Gyrodata Inc.; Torgeir Torkildsen, SPE, and
Erik Nyrnes, SPE, Statoil ASA; and Andrew Brooks, SPE, and Harry Wilson, SPE, Baker Hughes Inteq
Copyright 2006, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Bangkok, Thailand, 1315 November 2006.
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, 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
International Association of Drilling Contractors, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors and 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
The validity of error model predictions of wellbore position
accuracy is highly dependent on the application of rigorous
quality control procedures to the survey data. Concern has
been expressed within the SPE Wellbore Positioning
Technical Section (WPTS, formerly ISCWSA) that failure to
apply the necessary operational procedures may be
commonplace, raising questions about the reliability of the
survey data so generated. Directional survey data that does
not conform to its models predictions represents a risk in
terms of lost production, damage to infrastructure and loss of
life.
This paper lists all sources of error, describes internal data
checks that are capable of identifying many of them, and
highlights those that are missed and which will therefore
require alternative QC measures. Real wellbore survey data
are used to illustrate how the use of inadequate QC procedures
can lead to invalid survey data being accepted as valid.
The paper is the product of collaborative work within the
SPE WPTS.
Introduction
Like all measurements, downhole directional surveys are
subject to error. Downhole surveys are carried out remotely,
without the closure and correction normally associated with
survey measurements on surface, and the resulting errors can
be significant with respect to the positional objectives for a
well. Planners therefore require an estimate of the position
uncertainty associated with any proposed survey programme.
Such estimates are provided by survey tool error models, also
known as instrument performance models.
Position uncertainty estimates are used to determine if
there is an adequate probability of hitting the geological target,
of avoiding collision with offset wells, and of drilling a
successful relief well in the event of a blow out. These are
high value decisions and they depend heavily on the validity
of the uncertainty estimates. The WPTS has made substantial
efforts to improve and standardise survey tool error modelling.
Models have been published that accommodate nearly every
type of survey tool, their response to varying environmental
effects and the application of advanced correction
techniques1, 2. However, error models are based on many
assumptions about tool quality, operating procedures and
environmental conditions. If the actual survey data are not
acquired in conformance with the models assumptions, the
uncertainty estimate is invalid and it can no longer be assumed
that the directional objectives for a well are being met. It is
therefore necessary to ensure, to the greatest possible extent,
that the survey data are reliable.
It is apparent to those working in the wellbore positioning
discipline that the degree to which surveys are validated
against their model varies greatly and that the critical
importance of this activity is not widely understood. In fact
there is concern that the recent provision of a "better" error
model might have exacerbated the situation, since the apparent
logic of some users is that the quality of the error model
determines the quality of the survey data3. It is now realised
that the provision of an advanced error model without an
accompanying set of validating QC measures represents a
dangerously incomplete solution. A comprehensive set of QC
measures, derived from the model, is required.
Various methods of QC are possible. Downhole survey
tools measure their attitude with respect to the Earths gravity
field and its magnetic or spin field. A survey tools error
model predicts how well the measured field values should
agree with the theoretical fields. Compliance of the survey
data with these criteria indicate compliance with the
inclination and azimuth accuracy assumptions of the model.
When applied to individual stations this method is very cost
effective, since it requires no significant additional data
acquisition time and no additional processing effort. However,
the reliability of this test is very dependent on the wellbore
and tool attitudes. This limitation can to some degree be
overcome with multi-station analysis of reference field
measurements, but these techniques normally require
specialist supervision and therefore incur some additional cost.
2 IADC/SPE 103734
This paper presents an analysis of such internal data checks,
including limitations and operational recommendations.
Additional reliability is provided by independent data in
the form of an overlapping survey. It is the intention of the
authors to describe and present analyses of such external data
checks in a later paper. The two papers taken together will
show that it is usually necessary to employ QC tests based on
both internal data checks and external measurements to
validate a directional survey, and thereby justify the use of an
SPE WPTS error model.
Down-hole sensor package QC tests
Accelerometer test. Modern directional surveying tools use
accelerometer packages to generate stationary inclination
and/or toolface measurements. The accelerometer packages
usually consist of three acceleration sensors mounted with
their sensitive axes mutually orthogonal and coincident with
the principal (xyz) axes of the survey tool. The accelerometers
therefore measure the gravity components along these axes,
inclination and toolface being calculated directly from the
three measurements. Accelerometer sensor errors will
therefore affect the accuracy of the inclination and toolface
estimates so derived1, 2. For the purpose of the error models, it
is assumed that any random accelerometer errors can be
neglected in wellbore position uncertainty calculations, and
that systematic accelerometer errors are kept within certain
boundaries. Accelerometer errors change with time; random
errors change, per definition, very rapidly, while systematic
errors may vary over longer periods of time. It is therefore
important that the performance of an accelerometer package is
always verified, preferably for every recorded measurement.
However, it is important to stress the fact that a verified
accelerometer package is not sufficient for a full inclination
and toolface verification. Environmental error sources that
will be present, such as tool misalignment and sag, are not
controlled through accelerometer tests, and have to be verified
by other methods.
The gravity error test for xyz accelerometer systems. The
measurements provided by three axis (xyz) accelerometer
packages can be used to determine the magnitude of the local
gravity, in addition to the inclination and toolface of the
survey tool. The local gravity is calculated using the equation:
2 2 2 effect on the gravity error measurement if the tool is in a
G= G +G +G (1)
x y z vertical well (I = 0), and will therefore pass the gravity error
where Gx, Gy and Gz are the three accelerometer
measurements.
The local gravity is usually known with high precision,
given knowledge of the local latitude and the vertical depth of
the tool. It is therefore possible to calculate the error in the
gravity estimate formed using the accelerometer
measurements. The gravity estimation error (G) can be used
as a quality control (QC) measure for the accelerometer
package performance at a given survey station. It is given by:
G = G Gt (2)
where Gt is the theoretical (known) gravity, which has to
be adjusted for latitude, elevation, vertical depth, and water
depth.
It is logical to test the absolute gravity error value against a
iven tolerance, which should be related to the error model
g
inputs at a 3 confidence level. The gravity error test (GET)
will then classify a survey station as a good station if the
measured gravity error falls within the following interval and
as a bad survey station if it falls outside these limits:
G G G
where the tolerance G is given in Appendix 1A.
The GET would be a perfect QC test provided that it
always fails when either the inclination or the toolface is
outside the error model expectation (3), and passes when
both are within the limits defined by the error model. This is
not universally the case, as will be demonstrated in the
analysis which follows.
Whether the GET is a perfect QC test or not can be
evaluated by using mathematical techniques similar to those
used in the MWD error model derivation1. However, it is not
sufficient to evaluate the effect that systematic accelerometer
errors have on the gravity error measurement. Random
accelerometer errors and eventually, errors in the known local
gravity, must also be taken into consideration. The gravity
error expressed as a function of the accelerometer errors, x, y
and z lumped bias/random errors (ABX, ABY and ABZ), x, y
and z scale factor errors (ASX, ASY and ASZ), and the error in
the known local gravity (dGt) is given by:
G G G
G = ABX + ABY + ABZ
ABX ABY ABZ
G G G
+ ASX + ASY + ASZ
ASX ASY ASZ
G
+ dGt (3)
Gt
The weighting functions given in Appendix 1A show that
the sensitivity of the gravity error relating to a particular
accelerometer error is dependent on the tool orientation. For
example, a gross x-accelerometer bias error has a minimal
test without being detected. Conversely, a gross
z-accelerometer bias error will affect the gravity error estimate
for the same well direction. In this case, the gravity error test
will respond to the z-bias by indicating a survey station
failure.
The inclination and toolface errors created by individual
sensor errors are also dependent on tool orientation1.
However, the orientation dependency of these errors is
different from the gravity error dependency. For example, in a
near vertical well, a gross y-accelerometer bias will result in
the largest possible inclination error if the toolface is zero or
180, while it has negligible effect on the gravity error.
IADC/SPE 103734
A detailed analysis of the inclination, toolface and gravity
error weighting functions shows that the GET works
adequately when the inclination is 45, and the toolface angle
is 45, 135, 225 or 315. The GET will then indicate a good
survey station when the accuracy of both the inclination and
toolface estimates are consistent with the error model, i.e. the
results are not offset by gross accelerometer errors, and
indicate a bad survey station when the errors in inclination
and/or toolface fall outside the limits defined by the error
model. This test becomes increasingly unreliable as the well
path inclination departs from 45 degrees and approaches
horizontal or vertical. In these situations, good survey stations,
where the calculated inclination and toolface are within the
limits defined by the error model, may then fail the test and be
rejected as bad survey stations, while bad survey stations,
where the inclination and/or toolface are outside the error
model limits, may pass the test and be accepted as good
stations. The decision to fail what is a good survey might lead
to increased survey costs and loss of rig time. The situation
where a bad survey is judged to be correct is even more
critical as it represents a potential safety hazard. Examples are
given in Appendix 2A.
The weaknesses in the GET caused by the orientation
dependency outlined above can not be overcome by avoiding
the test, since this strategy will not remove the potential safety
hazard. Other QC checks will be needed instead. A GET trend
analysis may be one possible solution if gravity error data are
available from previous survey stations (same run) with
sufficient variation in tool orientation.
Multi-station accelerometer test. The basic GET can be
expanded to a multi-station accelerometer test (MSAT) when
xyz accelerometer measurements are available from a number
of survey stations from the same survey. The major difference
between the two methods is that the MSAT tests the
magnitudes of the individual accelerometer errors, and/or the
average resultant sensor error for each accelerometer, while
the single-station GET tests only the lumped effect of all
accelerometer errors. The MSAT is therefore the more
powerful of the two, but has the disadvantage that it can only
be used after an extended period of drilling.
The MSAT makes use of the same fundamental equations
as the GET. The measured gravity error at survey station
number i, is then given by:
2 2 2 and the y bias and y scale factor error can be lumped together
G = G +G +G Gt
i x, i y, i z, i
where Gti is the theoretical gravity at the depth of survey
station i.
Equations from five independent stations with different
inclinations and toolfaces make up a solvable equation system
in ABX, ABY, ABZ*, ASX, and ASY. The z accelerometer errors
are lumped together to avoid mathematical accuracy problems
related to high correlations. The lumped z accelerometer error,
denoted ABZ*, is treated as an apparent average bias error. Six
or more stations form a redundant equation system, where
ABX, ABY, ABZ*, ASX, and ASY can be found through a least
squares adjustment, see Appendix 1B.
3
In addition to the accelerometer error parameter estimates,
the least squares adjustment also gives a vector (G)
containing estimates for the residual random errors from each
individual gravity error measurement. Each of these residual
errors should be tested against their residual error tolerance
counterpart (Gi) calculated using the equation given in
Appendix 1B. This procedure is adopted to avoid the
acceptance of bad survey stations caused, for example, by tool
movements during measurements.
The MSAT tolerances that a survey must meet to be
classified as a good survey are:
3*ABX ABX 3*ABX
3*ABY ABY 3*ABY
3*ABZ ABZ* 3*ABZ
3*ASX ASX 3*ASX
3*ASY ASY 3*ASY
Each individual survey must in addition meet the
following tolerance to be classified as a good survey station:
Gi Gi Gi
Tolerances for the residual gravity errors (Gi) are
calculated for each survey station i with the tolerance equation
given for the GET in Appendix 1A.
It is easy to see, by studying the equations given in
Appendix 1B, that the quality of the MSAT increases with a
larger number of survey stations, and with increased variation
in inclination and toolface. The test is optimal if the toolfaces
are spread over the full circle and the inclination over the full
semi-circle. Under such conditions, the test could in fact have
been expanded to a six parameter test by splitting the resultant
z accelerometer error into two (a bias and a scale factor error).
However, as shown in Appendix 2B, the ability to do so
without approaching singularity problems disappears before
the inclination spread has been reduced to 135, which is of
course far more than can be expected in practice.
Further, the MSAT is of little or no value for surveys with
only small angular variations, such as tangent section and/or
constant toolface surveys. In these cases, the test mathematics
will be singular, and all kinds of strange results can be
obtained. In such situations, it is better to use a reduced MSAT
with fewer error parameters. For example, if the problem is
too little toolface variation, the x bias and x scale factor error,
(4)
i to form apparent x and y accelerometer bias errors. It is not
possible to estimate any accelerometer error parameter if both
the inclination and the toolface variation are too small. The
MSAT is then reduced to an advanced version of the basic
GET, with improved possibilities to distinguish between
random accelerometer errors and the more dangerous
systematic accelerometer errors.
It is not possible to give exact recommendations for when
the MSAT should be substituted with a reduced test. It is
dependent on unpredictable factors such as accelerometer
noise levels, the profile of the surveyed wellbore section, and
the actual toolface distribution. However, the following
4 IADC/SPE 103734
general recommendations do reduce the risk of test failure,
and should be observed.
- The z accelerometer bias and scale factor error terms
should always be lumped together to form a resultant
error term
- The two x and two y accelerometer error terms should
be lumped together to form two resultant error terms if
toolfaces are available from fewer than three
quadrants.
- The multi-station accelerometer test should not be
used to estimate any accelerometer error parameters if
maximum inclination difference is less than 45, and
maximum toolface variation is less than 180
- The multi-station accelerometer test should not be
used to estimate any accelerometer error parameters
for surveys with fewer than 10 independent survey
stations
It is important to note that tests which attempt to provide
estimates of a combination of accelerometer error sources
(lumped parameters) are weaker tests, and are more likely to
generate incorrect conclusions. However, the negative effect
of such tests is regarded as being less dangerous than the use
of a test that is close to singular.
The recommendations given here are not always sufficient
to guarantee the validity of the test. Correlations between the
different estimated parameters should always be considered
before final conclusions are drawn. This is most easily done
by looking at the correlation coefficient matrix. Analysis
conducted by the authors has shown that all non-diagonal
elements should fall within a 0.4 interval in the presence of
typical measurement noise levels. Any non-diagonal elements
falling outside this interval indicate excessive correlation, and
the calculated results can not be trusted without further quality
analyses. The elements of the correlation coefficient matrix
are given by:
q
i, j
= (5)
i, j q q
i, i j, j
where qi,j is element ij (row i and column j) in the co-factor
matrix Q, see Appendix 1B.
Examples are given in Appendix 2B.
Gyro-compassing test. Modern gyro instruments make use of
various types of gyro and accelerometer packages to generate
estimates of azimuth in a process referred to as gyro-
compassing. The control of xyz accelerometer packages has
already been described; alternative tests would need to be
devised if the accelerometer package differs from this
configuration. It is also necessary to verify the gyro package
performance in order to control fully the azimuth estimation
process. Various gyro packages are used to determine azimuth
and, dependent on the particular sensor configuration adopted,
are also capable of providing estimates of the turn rate of the
Earth, or the horizontal or vertical component of Earth's rate.
These quantities can therefore be used as gyro quality control
measurements in the same manner as the gravity measurement
may be used for the accelerometers.
The measurement of total Earth's rate and latitude
constitute a full measurement of the reference, and is therefore
the preferred method. However, it can only be applied when
xyz gyro packages are used; for three axis gyro tools, QC tests
can be applied similar to those described below for three axis
magnetometers (with the difference that the reference is
stable). The widely used xy gyro system can only measure one
component of Earth's rate independently.
Horizontal Earth rate test for xy gyro systems. A xy gyro
package provides measurements of the turn rates about the x
axis (x) and about the y axis (y), and is affected by the
following significant systematic sensor errors; the two bias
errors (GBX and GBY), the two scale factor errors (GSX and
GSY), the direct mass unbalance error (M), the quadrature
error (Q) and the lumped random gyro error (GR). These
errors propagate directly, but in a different manner, into the
estimates of both azimuth angle and horizontal Earth's rate
generated by the system.
The horizontal component of Earth's rate can also be
determined to high precision, independent of the gyro
package, given accurate knowledge of the local latitude. It is
therefore possible to determine the error in the horizontal rate
estimate generated using the gyro measurements, and to use
this quantity as a gyro package quality control parameter. It is
given by:
h = h cos (6)
where h is the estimate of the Earth's horizontal rate
calculated from the gyro measurements, is the known
Earths rate, and is the known local latitude. The 3
horizontal rate test will then be:
h h h
where the tolerance h is given in Appendix 1C.
Limitations in the horizontal Earth rate error test (HERT)
can be found through a similar analysis to that conducted for
the gravity error test. The local horizontal Earth rate error can
be expressed as a function of the sensor errors GBX, GBY,
GSX, GSY, M, Q and GR. The error in the known local
horizontal rate will not be significant, given the expected
accuracy in the knowledge of latitude, and can therefore be
ignored. The same is true for the inclination error as long as it
is proven to perform within the error model.
The theoretical equation for the HERT is given in
Appendix 1C. This equation, together with the gyro error
model document2, shows that the HERT is optimal when the
inclination is 45 (or 135), and the azimuth and toolface are
45, 135, 225 or 315. It becomes singular at both poles, and
where the well is vertical or horizontal, and therefore has no
value at or close to these locations/orientations. The HERT
has further weaknesses when the survey tool is located in a
north/south or an east/west well. Examples are given in
Appendix 2C.
IADC/SPE 103734
The multi-station gyro test. As in the accelerometer case,
the basic HERT can be expanded to a multi-station gyro test
(MSGT) when xy gyro measurements are available from a
number of survey stations from the same survey. However, it
is difficult to obtain a survey with sufficiently strong geometry
to avoid correlation problems if both bias and scale factor
errors are to be calculated. It is therefore recommended that
these error terms should be combined to form lumped error
terms. Whilst this procedure will reduce the strength of the test
to some extent, the effect is small because the gyro scale
factor errors are usually small in comparison to the gyro
biases. A least squares solution for GBX*, GBY*, M, and Q,
can be found if five or more independent stations are present,
see Appendix 1D for equations. The tolerances the MSGT has
to meet are then given by:
3*GBX GBX* 3*GBX
3*GBY GBY* 3*GBY
3*M M 3*M
3*Q Q 3*Q
hi hi hi These errors propagate directly, but in a different manner,
In addition all non-diagonal correlation coefficients should
fall within a 0.4 interval. Tolerances for the residual
horizontal rate errors (hi) are calculated for each survey magnetometer error term. The same is true for MSX and ACX,
station i with the tolerance equation given for the HERT in
Appendix 1C.
The following recommendations should be followed to
secure that the MSGT results are not corrupted by correlation
problems:
- The MSGT should not be used to estimate any gyro
error parameters if the maximum inclination
difference is less than 30, if toolfaces are available
from fewer than three quadrants, or if more than 50%
of the survey stations are within a sector of 30 with
respect to the east/west axis.
- The MSGT should not be used to estimate any gyro
error parameters for surveys with fewer than 10
independent survey stations.
- The quadrature error term can be omitted from the
equation system for calibrated dual-axis dry-tuned
gyros owing to the proven stability of this error term.
Examples are given in Appendix 2D.
Magnetometer test. State-of-the-art magnetic instruments
make use of xyz magnetometer and xyz accelerometer
packages to determine azimuth. Control of the accelerometer
package has already been described. It is also necessary to
verify the performance of the magnetometer package in order
to fully control the azimuth estimation process. Magnetometer
packages are capable of measuring the Earth's magnetic field
strength and its dip angle, in addition to the azimuth. These
quantities can therefore be used as magnetometer quality
control measurements in the same manner as the gravity
measurement can be used for the accelerometers.
Using the two Earth magnetic field measurements as
quality measures is not as straightforward as using the gravity
and the Earth's rate measurements. The Earth's magnetic field
is much more unstable and therefore less predictable than the
5
other two measures. The test has therefore to control the
reference itself, in addition to the magnetometer performance.
Such tests make use of geo-magnetic models and are
strengthened considerably by the application of in-field
referencing techniques. Further discussion of the latter topic is
reserved for the planned sequel to this paper which will focus
on external data checks.
Total magnetic field + dip test for xyz magnetometer
systems. A xyz magnetometer package run without axial
magnetic corrections is affected by the following significant
systematic sensor errors: the three bias errors (MBX, MBY and
MBZ) and the three scale factor errors (MSX, MSY and MSZ),
and the following reference errors:
- declination error (DEC);
- axial magnetisation (AMID);
- cross-axial magnetisation / attenuation (ACX and
ACY);
- total field strength error (MFI);
- dip error (MDI).
into the azimuth, the total field, and the dip measurements.
For the z-magnetometer readings, MBZ and AMID are
fully correlated, and will therefore be treated as a lumped z-
and for MSY and ACY.
The average values of the total field strength and the dip
angle are usually known through the local latitude / longitude
and a global magnetic field model1, or through various in-field
referencing (IFR) techniques. It is therefore possible to make
use of a total field error measurement and a dip error
measurement as magnetometer package quality control
parameters viz:
B = B Bt (7)
= t (8)
where B is the measured total field, the measured dip,
Bt is the theoretical (known) total field, and t is the
theoretical dip. The 3 total magnetic field + dip test (TFDT)
will then be:
B B B
where the tolerances B and are given in Appendix 1E.
The following limitations in the TFDT have been found:
- The TFDT does not give any indication on whether a
survey station fails as a result of excessively large
magnetometer errors, high levels of drill-string
magnetisation, or large Earth's magnetic field errors.
- Small and moderate magnetometer errors slightly
outside the 3 error model inputs may pass the TFDT
because of correlations with the Earth's magnetic field
errors, which have much larger error model inputs.
- The total field and dip measurements are unaffected
by an error in the magnetic declination, an error
6 IADC/SPE 103734
parameter that has a major impact on the calculated
azimuth. The TFDT can therefore classify a bad
survey station as good, even if a gross declination
error is present.
- The TFDT is unable to detect errors on a sensor axis
which is aligned with the horizontal east/west
direction.
Examples are given in Appendix 2E.
The multi-station magnetometer test. Just as the GET can
be expanded to the MSAT, the basic TFDT can be expanded
to a multi-station magnetometer test (MSMT) when xyz
magnetometer measurements are available from a number of
survey stations. This is achieved by applying equations and
tolerances given in Appendix 1F. Reduction in the number of
estimated parameters might be necessary in case of correlation
problems.
However, it is possible to take this a step further and create
a full multi-station estimation (MSE) method with
simultaneous estimation of the azimuth angles at each survey
station and the systematic geometry dependent magnetometer
and magnetic field error sources4. The MSE can be formulated
as a linear regression problem by5:
E(b) = b = (Aa AX) * (a X)T (9)
where E denotes the statistical expectation, b is a vector of
magnetometer measurements, is a vector of measurement
errors, a is a vector of the unknown azimuths from each
station, Aa is its known coefficient matrix, X is a vector of the
unknown systematic error parameters and AX is its known
coefficient matrix.
The vector X may represent the linear scale factor errors,
the bias errors and the sensor misalignments for the three
magnetometers, or gross errors in the individual magnetometer
readings. It may also include other unknown parameters such
as the Earth's magnetic field strength and the magnetic dip
angle. The errors , often referred to as measurement noise,
are usually assumed to be normally distributed and
uncorrelated. MSE techniques can also be applied to
accelerometer measurements, either standalone or together
with the magnetometer measurements. In the standalone case,
the a vector will consist of the inclinations and toolfaces of
each station, while in the combined case it will include the
inclinations, toolfaces, and azimuths.
The two main application areas of the MSE are to improve
the overall azimuth (and/or inclination and toolface) quality by
correcting for the effects of systematic errors, and to quality
control the directional sensors against systematic and gross
errors. The unknown parameters, i.e. directional parameters
and systematic errors, can be estimated through a least squares
adjustment. Since the mathematical relationship between the
measurements and the unknown parameters is non-linear, the
Gauss-Newton method can be used to derive the least squares
estimators.
Owing to limiting factors, such as geometry and
measurement noise, the MSE may produce highly correlated
and uncertain parameter estimates, and this may cause
problems in distinguishing individual sensor specific error
terms. An objective way for evaluating the quality of the
results generated by the MSE is to apply statistical methods. A
simple diagnostic method is a visual inspection of the
correlation coefficients between the parameter estimates. A
correlation between two estimated error terms that is close to
unity indicates that they are estimated with large uncertainty.
A more advanced diagnostic method is to perform statistical
testing. In general, the statistical testing can be performed on
each estimated error terms by means of a Student t-test
statistic for example. This can be extended using a stepwise
regression approach to find a parameter model that has the
best statistical fit to the measurements. A parameter that is
inaccurately estimated, i.e. has a large variance, may, in the
stepwise regression approach, be rejected at the expense of
other more accurately estimated parameters (error terms). This
means that a systematic error may pass the test undetected
although the effect of the error actually is very large.
Nyrnes et al.5, 6, 7 have studied MSE techniques in more
detail. They have concluded that the MSE is most useful for
diagnosing external effects and serious sensor imperfections,
while the presence of sensor errors of acceptable magnitude is
more difficult to prove statistically. These studies have also
concluded that the uncritical use of MSE increases the chance
for misinterpretation of the estimation result. However,
another important conclusion was that MSE will always
provide valuable information about the quality of the survey
data.
As for the basic single-station test (TFDT), the
performance of the multi-station test (MSE) is strongly
dependent on the overall wellbore direction and the directional
variation along the well. Geomagnetic location is also
important for the estimation of some error terms. In addition,
the performance of the MSE process is dependent on the
quality of the measurements of the Earths magnetic field
strength and the magnetic dip angle. The number of estimated
error terms is also crucial. When the number of estimated
model parameters is large, this may result in high uncertainty
in both the azimuth and the systematic sensor error estimates.
When applying MSE techniques the largest uncertainties
are usually associated with the axial error terms, since the
directional spread of the along-hole axis measurement is often
much smaller than that of the cross-axial measurements.
However, the controllability of the cross-axial sensor error
terms is usually good for tools that rotate between survey
stations. Considering all of the error terms, the controllability
is best for the cross-axial biases. This means that the cross-
axial biases are often declared significant by these tests, and
are seldom rejected from the model. If they do happen to be
rejected, the estimates of other model parameters will be little
affected. The reliability is therefore considered good for these
error terms. On the other hand, the reliability is usually poor
for the axial error terms, because they rarely can be estimated
with sufficient accuracy. It is important to emphasize that the
linear scale factors are most sensitive to errors in the
measurements of the magnetic field intensity and the dip
angle. It is therefore difficult to distinguish between scale
factor errors and errors in the geomagnetic reference
components. It should also be emphasized that the magnetic
declination can never be quality controlled by applying multi-
station estimation techniques.
IADC/SPE 103734
The MSE can, as already mentioned, be applied to both
accelerometer and magnetometer measurements
simultaneously. In this case the contribution from
magnetometers to the calibration of accelerometers is greatest
in the north/south direction. This contribution may be of
considerable importance for the identification of systematic
accelerometer errors in situations where the geometry is poor.
The multi-station tests presented in the previous sections
(MSAT and MSGT) constitute a logical step from the single-
station estimation tests, and are far more straightforward to
apply and provide results that are easier to interpret than the
complete multi-station estimation (MSE) approach explained
here. However, the complete MSE approach has the ability to
correct the azimuth for the effects of systematic measurement
errors. It can also be used to estimate other parameters; the
measurement noise for instance, i.e. the elements in the vector
(Equation 9). The MSE method also produces the correlation
coefficients between the estimates of the azimuth angles and
the error terms, which can be useful for diagnosing the cause
of correlation problems.
An example is given in Appendix 2F.
QC tests with multiple data sets at the same depth
The rotation-shot misalignment test. It is necessary to
control the misalignment and the gravity driven sag errors, in
addition to controlling the accelerometer sensor errors, in
order to document the quality of an inclination measurement.
Since accelerometer tests are not sensitive to misalignment
and sag, the rotation-shot-misalignment test (RSMT) has been
developed. This test is built around repeated inclination
measurements taken at different toolfaces at the same depth.
Different toolfaces are usually achieved by rotating the drill-
pipe between the measurements. Therefore, the RSMT is only
suited for MWD and for gyros run at a fixed orientation inside
drill-pipes. It is noted that the accelerometer package should
always be tested, using the methods described earlier in
relation to accelerometer testing, and accepted prior to running
this test.
The inclination difference between the initial rotation-shot
measurement (i = 0) and shot i (1 i n) is given by:
I = I I (10)
i i 0 Its theoretical value is further given by:
Its theoretical value is further given by:
(
I = cos cos MX
0
) where DST = DST
( )
i i
+ sin sin MY (11)
i 0
where MX is the x component and MY is the y component
of a toolface dependent misalignment error. Equation 11
shows that the effect of a constant misalignment error and the
effect of a gravity driven sag error drop out when this rotation
shot inclination difference is calculated. Error equation 10 is
therefore a toolface dependent misalignment equation only,
and the two other possible misalignment terms will not be
detected by the RSMT.
7
Equations from two independent rotation-shot inclination
differences (a three measurement rotation-shot) form a
solvable equation system in MX and MY. Three or more
inclination differences will form a redundant equation system,
where MX and MY can be found through a least squares
adjustment (see Appendix 1G). The tolerances the RSMT has
to meet, if a survey shall be classified as a good survey, are
then:
3*MX MX 3*MX
3*MY MY 3*MY
The following recommendations should be followed to
secure acceptable RSMT results:
- The RSMT should not be used if the inclination is less
than 5 due to poor toolface quality.
- The RSMT should not be used if toolfaces are
available from only one or two quadrants.
- The RSMT should not be used if fewer than five
independent rotation-shots are present.
- Maximum absolute non-diagonal correlation
coefficient should not exceed 0.4.
Examples are given in Appendix 2G.
The dual depth difference test. The depth measurement is
regarded as the most complicated directional surveying
parameter to quality control fully against gross errors. There
exists no additional reference measurement in this case. The
only possible down-hole QC measurement is therefore an
extra independent depth measurement, and this is usually not
available for single-surveys, for example for MWD, GWD,
and drop gyros. The only exception is for wireline gyro
surveys run with a CCL run inside casing or drill-pipe. Two
depth measurements, a wireline and a pipe depth
measurement, are then available at every pipe connection.
Physical depth errors can be lumped together into three
apparent depth errors8, the depth reference error (DREF), the
depth scale error (DSF) and the depth stretch error (DST).
The depth difference at pipe connections between the pipe
depth measurement (Dp) and the associated wireline depth
measurement (Dw) can be used for QC, and is given by:
D = D D (12)
p w
D = DREF + Dt DSF + Dt Dv DST (13)
DST , DSF = DSF DSF ,
p w p w
DREF = DREF DREF , Dt is the true depth, Dv is the
p w
real true vertical depth, DREFp the pipe reference error, etc.
The 3 dual depth difference test (DDDT) will then be:
D D D
where the tolerance D is given in Appendix 1H.
8 IADC/SPE 103734

The DDDT is not a perfect test since it is sensitive only to a)

error differences. With gross errors present in both depth
measurements, the DDDT may both fail good surveys and
accept bad surveys. Examples are given in Appendix 2H.
Overview of single survey tests ability to QC
directional measurements
Table 1 gives a complete overview of which error terms can
be quality controlled through the different single-station /
single-survey QC tests. The table is valid for most magnetic
tools (MWD and EMS) and xy gyro instruments. It is not valid
for z and xyz gyro tools. The different error terms are named
as in the above discussion, and the following coding is used to
indicate how well a particular test controls a given error term:
- Impossible No control
1 Lumped effect only Low control
2 Difficult Medium/low control
3 Medium difficult Medium/high control
4 Simple High/full control
xy gyro error term
b)
magnetic error term
ab)
both xy gyro and magnetic error term
1)
to 3) Combined effect only - the same number in two or
more locations indicates closely correlated error
terms
4)
Not possible for fixed toolface surveys
5)
Not possible for surveys with only drill-pipe
depths
The table shows that internal (single-station / single-
survey) QC tests improve the reliability of directional
surveying data significantly without giving full control, and
that multi-station tests generally are more powerful than
single-station tests. The table also shows that it is not possible
to QC the magnetic declination error and the sag error through
single-station / single-survey tests. These two error terms are
therefore particularly dangerous. It is the intention of the
authors to present QC methods for declination and sag errors
as part of a future paper.

Table 1. Overview of error terms controlled using single- Summary

station/single-survey QC tests Single-station / single depth QC tests are not sufficient to
G M H M T M R D prove the validity of the error models for a given survey.
Error E S E S F S S D The quality of single-station / single depth QC tests are
Term T A R G D M M D usually dependent on tool/well orientation.
T T T T T T T The gravity error test (GET) is intended to QC the
ABX ab) 1 3 - - - - - - inclination and/or toolface measurements performed with xyz
ABY ab) 1 3 - - - - - - accelerometer systems.
ABZ ab) 1 1 - - - - - - The GET does QC the inclination against the lumped
GBX a) - - 1 3 - - - - effect of accelerometer sensor errors
GBY a) - - 1 3 - - - - The GET becomes increasingly unreliable as the well
MBX b) - - - - 1 2 - - path inclination departs from 45 degrees and
MBY b) - - - - 1 2 - - approaches horizontal or vertical
MBZ b) - - - - 1 2 3) - - The horizontal Earth rate test (HERT) is intended to QC
ASX ab) 1 3 - - - - - - the azimuth measurements performed with xy gyro-
ASY ab) 1 3 - - - - - - compassing instruments.
ASZ ab) 1 1 - - - - - - The HERT does QC the survey against the lumped
GSX a) - - 1 2 - - - - effect of gyro sensor errors
GSY a) - - 1 2 - - - - The HERT is weakest at high latitudes, when the well
MSX b) - - - - 1 2 1) - - axis is near to the vertical or the horizontal, and/or near
to east/west or north/south
MSY b) - - - - 1 2 2) - -
The total magnetic field + dip test (TFDT) is intended to
MSZ b) - - - - 1 2 3) - -
QC the azimuth measurements performed with xyz
MX ab) - - - - - - -/2 4) -
magnetometer instruments.
MY ab) - - - - - - -/2 4) -
The TFDT does QC the azimuth against the lumped
S ab)
- - - - - - - -
effect of magnetometer sensor errors and most
M a) - - 1 3 - - - - magnetic field errors
Q a) - - 1 3 - - - - The TFDT does not QC the azimuth against the highly
GR a) - - 1 3 - - - - significant magnetic declination error
DEC b) - - - - - - - - The TFDT is weakest at high geo-magnetic latitudes,
AMID b) - - - - 1 2 3) - - or when one of the sensor axes is near to the horizontal
ACX b) - - - - 1 2 1) - - east/west direction; such attitudes exist when the well
ACY b) - - - - 1 2 2) - - runs horizontal east-west, or when it is headed
MDI b) - - - - 1 2 - - north/south with toolface at a cardinal position
MFI b) - - - - 1 2 - - The GET, HERT, and TFDT, are also available as multi-
DREF ab) - - - - - - - -/1 5) station tests; the multi-station accelerometer test (MSAT), the
DSF ab) - - - - - - - -/1 5) multi-station gyro test (MSGT), and the multi-station
DST ab)
- - - - - - - -/1 5)
IADC/SPE 103734 9

magnetometer test (MSMT) or multi-station estimation (MSE) Nomenclature

process. A azimuth measurement
Dependent on wellbore geometry and toolface ACX, ACY cross-axial magnetic attenuation errors
variation, the multi-station tests QC individual sensor Am magnetic azimuth
error and/or lumped sensor errors AMID axial magnetisation error
The multi-station tests reduce to their single-station ABX, ABY, ABZ accelerometer bias errors
counterparts for the most unfavourable survey ASX, ASY, ASZ accelerometer scale errors
geometries B total magnetic field measurement
Multi-station tests have to be tested against high Bt true/known Earth's magnetic field
internal correlation effects to be valid Bx, By, Bz
B magnetometer measurement
The multi-station estimation (MSE) procedure DEC magnetic declination error
represents a development of the MSMT; provides dGt true/known gravity error
estimation of systematic errors and further helps to Dp, Dw depth measurements
diagnose external error effects DREFp, DREFw depth reference errors
The rotation-shot misalignment test (RSMT) is intended to DSFp, DSFw depth scale errors
QC the inclination measurements for misalignment errors. DSTp, DSTw depth stretch errors
The RSMT is only suited for surveys taken with Dt true depth
instruments fixed inside drill pipes Dv true vertical depth
The RSMT does not QC the survey against toolface G gravity measurement
independent misalignment and sag errors GBX, GBY gyro bias errors
The RSMT does not work near to the vertical GR gyro random error
GSX, GSY gyro scale errors
The quality of the RSMT test is sensitive to the amount
Gt true/known gravity
of rotation between rotation shots
Gx, Gy, Gz accelerometer measurements
The RSMT is only valid if preceded by a successful
I inclination measurement
GET
It true inclination
The dual depth difference test (DDDT) is intended to QC
M gyro mass unbalance error
the depth measurements when two independent depth
MBX, MBY, MBZ magnetometer bias errors
measurements are present.
MBIX, MBIY axial corrected magnet-
The DDDT is only suited for wireline surveys run ometer bias errors
together with a CCL inside drill-pipes MDI magnetic dip error
The DDDT does QC the survey against the lumped MFI magnetic field error
effect of all depth errors MSX, MSY, MSZ magnetometer scale errors
The DDDT is only sensitive to the difference between MSIX, MSIY axial corrected magnet-
wireline and drill-pipe depth errors ometer scale errors
Single-station / single-survey QC test improves the MX, MY misalignment error components
reliability of directional surveying data significantly, but Q gyro quadrature error
without giving full control. toolface measurement
Multi-station QC tests generally are more powerful than local latitude
single-station tests.
magnetic dip measurement
It is impossible to QC the magnetic declination and the sag
t true/known magnetic dip
errors through single-station / single-survey QC tests.
h Earths horizontal rate measurement
Conclusions true/known Earths rate
Position uncertainty estimates are invalid when associated x, y gyro measurements
with unreliable survey data. . . measurement error
In common practice, survey quality control is normally not . . difference measurement
rigorous enough to assure reliability. . . uncertainty estimate (3) /
Internal data checks can provide a significant degree . tolerance
of reliability. . . uncertainty
Multi-station test/analysis is the most powerful method of
internal control. References
Internal data checks alone cannot assure survey data 1. Williamson H. S. (2000) Accuracy Prediction for Directional
reliability. Measurement While Drilling. Paper SPE 67616, SPE Drilling
Supplementary data and additional quality tests are and Completion 15 (4), December 2000
2. Torkildsen T., et al (2004) Prediction of Wellbore Position
required for high integrity wellbore positions.
Accuracy When Surveyed With Gyroscopic Tools. Paper SPE
90408, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Acknowledgements Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September 2005
The authors wish to thank Gyrodata, Statoil ASA and Baker 3. Minutes of the 21st Meeting of the SPE-WPTS, Oslo, Norway,
Hughes INTEQ for their permission to publish this paper. 27 May 2004, spe.org
10 IADC/SPE 103734

4. Brooks A. G., Gurden P. A., Noy K. A. (1998) Practical G 2

Application of a Multiple-Survey Magnetic Correction G y G
= G y
Algorithm. Paper SPE 49060, SPE Annual Technical ABY Gt =
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 27 ASY Gt
September - 1 October 1998. G 2
G G
5. Nyrnes E., Torkildsen T. (2005) Analysis of the Accuracy and = z G z
Reliability of Magnetic Directional Surveys. Paper SPE 96211, ABZ Gt =
ASZ Gt
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference &
Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 12-14 September 2005. G
= 1
6. Nyrnes E., Torkildsen T., Nahavandchi H. (2005) Error Gt
Properties of Magnetic Directional Surveying Data. Paper,
SPWLA Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 27-29 June 2005. Appendix 1B: Equations for the multi-station
7. Nyrnes E., Torkildsen T., Nahavandchi H. (2005) Detection of accelerometer test
Gross Errors in Wellbore Directional Surveying with Emphasis Gravity error measurements vector:
on Reliability Analyses. Paper, Kart og Plan vol. 65 2005.
8. Ekseth R. (1998) Uncertainties in connection with the G = (G1 G2 . Gn)T
determination of wellbore positions. ISBN 82-471-0218-8,
doctoral thesis 1998, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, 1998:24 IPT-rapport G = G Gt
i i i
Appendix 1A: Equations for the gravity error test
Theoretical accelerometer measurements: 2 2 2
G = G +G +G
i x, i y, i z, i
G = Gt sin I sin
x Design matrix:
G = Gt sin I cos
y A1,1 . A1,5
G = Gt cos I A = . . .
z An,1 . An,5
Measured gravity error: Elements for row i are found by making use of the
weighting functions given in Appendix 1A for station number
G = G Gt
i: Ai,1 = Gi/ABX, Ai,2 = Gi/ABY, Ai,3 = Gi/ABZ, Ai,4 =
Gi/ASX, and Ai,5 = Gi/ASY.
2 2 2
G= G +G +G
x y z Error parameter vector:

Tolerance: X = (ABX ABY ABZ* ASX ASY)T

Least squares solution:

G
2
G
2
G = 3 ABX + ABY Q = (AT*A)-1
ABX ABY ...
X = Q*AT*G
2 2
G G
+ ABZ + ASX ... G = GA*X
... ABZ ASX
2 2 Appendix 1C: Equations for the horizontal Earth's
G G
+ ASY + ASZ ... rate test
... ASY ASZ Theoretical gyro measurements:
2
G t = cos (cos I cos A sin
+ Gt
... Gt
x
+ sin A cos ) + sin sin I sin
Weighting functions:
t = cos (cos I cos A cos
G 2 y
G G
sin A sin ) + sin sin I cos
= x G
ABX Gt = x
ASX Gt
IADC/SPE 103734 11

Measured horizontal rate error: Appendix 1D: Equations for the multi-station gyro
test
h = h cos Horizontal rate error measurements vector:

h = (h,1 h,2 . h,n)T

y
2
h = cos sin + sin
x x
[(
... h = h cos
i i

2
+ cos sin sin I / cos I 2
cos sin + sin
... y h =
i x, i i y, i i x, i i ...

2
+ cos t sin sin I / cos I

... y, i i i i

Tolerance:
Design matrix:
h
2
h
2
h = 3 GBX + GBY A1,1 . A1,4
GBX GBY ... A = . . .
An,1 . An,4
2 2
h h
+
GSX +
GSY ... Elements for row i are found by making use of the
... GSX GSY weighting functions given in Appendix 1C for station number
2 2 i: Ai,1 = h,i/GBX, Ai,2 = h,i/GBY, Ai,3 = h,i/M, and
h h
+ M + Q Ai,4 = h,i/Q.
... M Q ...
Error parameter vector:
2
h
+ GR X = (GBX* GBY* M Q)T
... GR
Least squares solution:
Weighting functions:
Q = (AT*A)-1
h
= sin A cos + cos A sin / cos I X = Q*AT*h
GBX
h h = hA*X
= sin A sin + cos A cos / cos I
GBY
Appendix 1E: Equations for the total field + dip test
h
= t (sin A cos + cos A sin / cos I ) Theoretical magnetometer measurements:
GSX x
h
= t ( sin A sin + cos A cos / cos I )
B (
= Bt cos t cos I cos A sin

)
x m
GSY y
+ sin A cos Bt sin t sin I sin

(
h h m
= cos A tan I Gt = sin A sin I Gt
M Q B = Bt cos t cos I cos A cos
y m
h
=
1 sin 2 I sin 2 A m
)
sin A sin Bt sin t sin I cos
GR cos I B = Bt cos t sin I cos Am
z
+ Bt sin t cos I
12 IADC/SPE 103734

Measured total field error: B 2

B B
= x B x
B = B Bt MBX Bt =
MSX Bt
B 2
B y B
2 2 2 = B y
B= B +B +B MBY Bt =
x y z MSY Bt
B B 2
B B
Measured dip error for standard measurements: = z z
MBZ Bt =
MSZ Bt
= t
B
= 1 = 1
MFI MDI
B x G x + B y G y + Bz G z
= arcsin cos t sin t
= sin I sin
B G MBX
( )
Bt Bt

cos I cos A sin + sin A cos
m m
Gx, Gy, Gz and G, are given in Appendix 1A. cos t sin t
= sin I cos
MBY
( )
Bt Bt
cos I cos A cos sin A sin
m m
Tolerances for standard measurements: cos t sin t
= cos I sin I cos A
MBZ Bt Bt m

B 2 2 cos t sin I sin sin t

=B
B
B = 3
MBX
+
MBY MSX x Bt Bt
MBX MBY ...
cos I cos A sin + sin A cos
m m
]
2 2
B B
+ MBZ + MSX ... cos t sin I cos sin t
=B
... MBZ MSX MSY y Bt Bt

B
+

2
B
MSY +

2
MSZ ...
cos I cos A cos sin A sin
m m
]
... MSY MSZ
cos t cos I sin t sin I cos A
= B
B
2 MSZ z Bt Bt m
+ MFI
... MFI
Equations for the total field + dip test when using axially
corrected data.
Because the errors in B and are correlated, a single

2

2
magnetic QC parameter can be used, viz.
= 3 MBX + MBY
MBX MBY ...

2 2
B = (B cos Bt cos t )2 + (B sin Bt sin t )2

+ MBZ + MSX ...
... MBZ MSX Tolerance for axial corrected measurements:

2 2
B 2 2
+ MSY + MSZ ... B
... MSY MSZ B = 3
MBIX +
MBIY
MBIX MBIY ...

2

+ MDI B
2
B
2
... MDI
+ MSIX + MSIY ...
... MSIX MSIY

Weighting functions for standard measurements: 2 2
B B
+ MFI + MDI
... MFI MDI

IADC/SPE 103734 13

Weighting functions for axial corrected measurements: = i/MBX, Aib,2 = i/MBY, Aib,3 = i/MBZ, Aib,4 =
i/MSX, Aib,5 = i/MSY, and Aib,6 = i/MSZ.
B cos I sin A cos + cos A sin
= m m Error parameter vector:
MBIX
1 sin 2 I sin 2 A
m X = (MBX MBY MBZ MSX MSY MSZ)T
B cos I sin A sin cos A cos
= m m Least squares solution:
MBIY 2 2
1 sin I sin A
m Q = (AT*A)-1

B cos I sin A cos + cos A sin

= Bx m m X = Q*AT*B
MSIX 2 2
1 sin I sin A
m B = BA*X
B cos I sin A sin cos A cos
= By m m
MSIY
1 sin 2 I sin 2 A
m Test tolerances:

B cos t cos I sin t sin I cos Am 3*MBX MBX 3*MBX

=
MFI 3*MBY 3*MBY
1 sin 2 I sin 2 A
MBY
m 3*MBZ MBZ 3*MBZ
cos t sin I cos A + sin t cos I 3*MSX MSX 3*MSX
B m
= Bt 3*MSY MSY 3*MSY
MDI
1 sin 2 I sin 2 A 3*MSZ MSZ 3*MSZ
m BiB Bia Bi
B

Bti Bib Bti

Appendix 1F: Equations for the multi-station
magnetometer test where Bia and Bib are obtained from the elements
Magnetic field + scaled dip error measurements vector: in the residual vector (B) corresponding to the
measurements of the magnetic field error (Bi) and the scaled
B = (B1 Bt1 . Bn Btn)T
B

B B

dip error (Bti).

In addition all non-diagonal correlation coefficients should
B = B Bt fall within a 0.4 interval, and the n different Bi and the n
i i i
B

different i are calculated for each survey station i with the

Bt = Bt Bt t total field and dip tolerance equations given in Appendix 1E.
i i i i i i
Appendix 1G: Equations for the rotation-shot
2 2 2
B = B +B +B misalignment test
i x, i y, i z, i Rotation-shot inclination differences vector:

B x, i G x , i + B y , i G y , i + Bz , i G z, i I = (I1 I2 . In)T
= arcsin
i B G I = I I
i i i i 0

Design matrix: Design matrix:

A1a,1 . A1a,6 A1,1 A1,2

A1b,1 . A1b,6 A =
A = . . . An,1 An,2
Ana,1 . Ana,6
Anb,1 . Anb,6 Elements for row i are given by:

Elements for rows ia and ib are found by making use of the A = cos cos
weighting functions given in Appendix 1E for station number i ,1 i 0
i: Aia,1 = Bi/MBX, Aia,2 = Bi/MBY, Aia,3 = Bi/MBZ,
B B B

A = sin sin
Aia,4 = Bi/MSX, Aia,5 = Bi/MSY, Aia,6 = Bi/MSZ, Aib,1
B B B
i,2 i 0
14 IADC/SPE 103734

Error parameter vector: The gravity error test tolerance in g is further given by:

{ (
X = (MX MY)T

G = 3 0.0004 2 + sin 4 I sin 4
Least squares solution: ...

Q = (AT*A)-1
....
) ]
+ cos 4 + cos 4 I 0.0005 2 }
X = Q*AT*I
Consider a three accelerometer system that is affected by a
Appendix 1H: Equations for the dual depth single gross z-accelerometer bias error of 0.0040g (10 times
difference test the MWD error model input1, and possible for a tool that
Measured depth difference: never has been recalibrated). Measured errors, error model
estimates, and test tolerances, for a survey station at a TVD of
D = D D 4000 meters with equal inclination and toolface of 45, and
p w with an exact known gravity (corrected for depth), is then:

Tolerance: Errors Error model (3) Tolerance

I = 0.16 I = 0.09
D 2 = 0 = 0.11
D = 3 DREF 2 + DREF 2 g = 0.0028g g = 0.0015g
DREF p w ... The inclination error is outside its 3 error model estimate,
and the gravity error is also outside its tolerance. The gravity
2 error test therefore indicates that this is a bad survey station,
D
+ DSF 2 + DSF 2 which is a correct conclusion.
... DSF p w If the z-accelerometer bias is reduced to 0.0016g (4 times
...
the error model input), the resultant errors will be:
2
D 2

+ DST + DST Errors Error model (3) Tolerance
... DST p w
I = 0.06 I = 0.09
Weighting functions: = 0 = 0.11
g = 0.0011g g = 0.0015g
D D
=1 = Dt
DREF DSF The two angular errors are then both within the error
model estimates, and the gravity error is also within its
D
= Dt Dv tolerance. The gravity error test now indicates that this is a
DST good survey station, which once again is a correct conclusion.
However, this would not have been the case if the gravity
Appendix 2A: Theoretical gravity error test examples error had been calculated with a theoretical gravity not
The WPTS MWD error model estimates for the inclination corrected for depth. The measured gravity error would then
and toolface uncertainties in radians at a 99.7% (3) become g = 0.0016g. This is slightly outside the tolerance of
confidence level are given in reference 1. 0.0015g, and an acceptable survey station would erroneously
have been classified as a failed station by the test.

[
The results below show that an erroneous conclusion may
I = 3 0.0004 2 + 2 sin 2 I cos 2 I be reached, even when the gravitational depth correction has
... been implemented correctly. The following case relates to a

( ) ]
horizontal survey station with a 90 toolface, where a single x
1 sin 2 cos 2 0.0005 2 accelerometer bias of 0.004g (10 times the error model value)
... is present.

0.0004 2 Errors Error model (3) Tolerance

= 3 + 2 sin 2 cos 2 0.0005 2 I = 0 I = 0.07
sin 2 I = 0 = 0.07
g = 0.004g g = 0.0019g

The gravity error is once again outside the tolerance, while

both the inclination and toolface are acceptable.
IADC/SPE 103734 15

Appendix 2B: Theoretical multi-station

accelerometer test examples Correlation coefficients
It has been described in the body of the paper how non- ABX ABY ABZ* ASX ASY
diagonal elements of the correlation coefficient matrix that fall ABX 1.00 0.05 -0.10 0.03 0.09
outside a given interval (0.4) indicate excessive correlation ABY 0.05 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.03
and that the test results derived in these situations can not be ABZ* -0.10 0.01 1.00 -0.04 -0.11
trusted without further quality analyses. This appendix ASX 0.03 0.00 -0.04 1.00 -0.29
illustrates the effect of inclination and toolface variation on the ASY 0.09 0.03 -0.11 -0.29 1.00
correlation coefficient matrix, and highlights the need to lump
together the z bias and z scale factor error because of The correlations are now all within 0.4 and are therefore
correlation problems. acceptable, and will remain so for all inclinations as long as
Consider a survey that is near to optimal for the purposes the toolfaces vary randomly from station to station. If the same
of a gravity error test, with a survey station at every degree of well profile (0 135 inclination) were to be surveyed with
inclination change in a theoretical well that is building toolfaces varying between 0 and 180 only, the correlation
inclination constantly from 0 to 180, and with random matrix would become:
toolface variation from station to station of between 0 and
360. The correlation coefficient matrix for the three Correlation coefficients
biases/three scale factor errors case is then given by: ABX ABY ABZ* ASX ASY
ABX 1.00 -0.04 0.49 0.98 0.74
ABY -0.04 1.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.05
ABZ* 0.49 -0.02 1.00 0.46 0.36
Correlation coefficients ASX 0.98 -0.04 0.46 1.00 0.69
ABX ABY ABZ ASX ASY ASZ ASY 0.74 -0.05 0.36 0.69 1.00
ABX 1.00 0.07 0.09 -0.06 0.01 0.02
The maximum correlation (between the x accelerometer
ABY 0.07 1.00 -0.00 -0.07 0.11 0.01
bias and scale factor error) is now close to unity, which is
ABZ 0.09 -0.00 1.00 0.02 -0.03 -0.01
totally unacceptable. The only possible solution would be to
ASX -0.06 -0.07 0.02 1.00 -0.27 -0.20
lump together the x bias and scale factor errors also in the
ASY 0.01 0.11 -0.03 -0.27 1.00 -0.20 calculation. The correlations would then reduce to acceptable
ASZ 0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.20 -0.20 1.00 levels again.
The maximum (absolute) non-diagonal element is -0.27, Appendix 2C: Theoretical horizontal Earth's rate test
which is well within the given 0.4 tolerance. However, this examples
situation changes rapidly if the maximum inclination in the A hypothetical xy gyro instrument has the following WPTS
constantly building well is reduced from 180. The tolerance error model inputs: GBX = GBY = 0.1/hr and M =
has been exceeded well before the maximum inclination has 0.1/hr/g, and GSX = GSY = Q 0. An instrument of this
reached 135, which is still beyond the inclination ever
type operating at a latitude of 45, with both inclination and
reached in wellbore surveying. The correlation coefficient toolface also set to 45, gives the following azimuth error
matrix in this case is given by:
model estimate (3) 2:
Correlation coefficients
ABX ABY ABZ ASX ASY ASZ
A = 3
(
0.01 + 0.005 sin 2 A cos 2 A )
ABX 1.00 0.07 0.13 -0.04 0.01 -0.08
ABY 0.07 1.00 0.13 -0.03 0.11 -0.13
0.5 h 2
ABZ 0.13 0.13 1.00 0.21 0.10 -0.79
ASX -0.04 -0.03 0.21 1.00 -0.23 -0.30 and the following horizontal rate tolerance:
ASY 0.01 0.11 0.10 -0.23 1.00 -0.21
ASZ -0.08 -0.13 -0.79 -0.30 -0.21 1.00
h = 3
(
0.01 + 0.005 cos 2 A sin 2 A )
The maximum correlation, which is the correlation 0.5
between the z accelerometer bias and z scale factor error, is
already at this stage almost -0.8. This is far outside what can Consider now a gyro instrument of this type that is
be accepted, and proves that it is near to impossible to affected by a single direct mass unbalance error of 1/hr (10
distinguish between a z accelerometer bias and a scale factor times the error model input, and possible for a tool that has
error. If they are lumped together to an apparent bias error been exposed to a severe mechanical impact). The following
(ABZ*), the following covariance matrix is achieved: results will then be found at 45 azimuth:
16 IADC/SPE 103734

360
Errors Error model (3) Tolerance
A = 3.8 A = 2.3 270
h = 0.71/hr h = 0.42/hr Inclination
180 Azimuth
The azimuth error is outside its 3 error model estimate, Toolface

and the horizontal rate error is outside of its tolerance. The test 90
is therefore working as expected in this case; a bad survey
station is declared as bad. However, this is not the case if the 0
azimuth is changed to north. The results are then: 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81

Errors Error model (3) Tolerance The MSGT gave the following gyro error estimates for this
A = 0 A = 1.6 survey:
h = 1.00/hr h = 0.52/hr
Estimated gyro errors in /hr
The azimuth is now error free, but the horizontal rate error GBX = 0.17 GBY = -0.20 M = 0.82
still exceeds its tolerance. The test has erroneously classified
this good survey station as a bad one. The opposite happens if This is a very unlikely result for a dry-tuned indexed xy
the azimuth is changed to east. The test will then classify a bad gyro where the biases, GBX and the GBY, are expected to be
station as a good station, as indicated by the following results. close to zero.
Another dry-tuned indexing xy gyro was run through a
Errors Error model (3) Tolerance test-stand simulated drop survey of an east/west well, as
A = 5.4 A = 2.8 described next. A plot of the geometrical variation and the test
h = 0 h = 0.30/hr results, the estimated gyro errors and the correlation
coefficients, are shown below:

360
Appendix 2D: Real data multi-station gyro test
examples 270
This appendix uses both real downhole survey data and Inclination
surface simulated survey data to illustrate potential pitfalls in 180 Azimuth
the application of multi-station gyro tests, and the care that Toolface

must be taken in interpreting the results of such tests. 90

The following offshore drop gyro survey was performed in 0

a well which runs close to the north/south direction. The 1 11 21

survey, undertaken using a dual-axis dry-tuned indexed xy

gyro, was run through the multi-station gyro test which gave
Estimated gyro errors in /hr
the following correlation coefficient matrix:
GBX = 0 GBY = 0 M = 0.10
Correlation coefficients
Correlation coefficients
GBX GBY M
GBX GBY M
GBX 1.00 -0.65 0.67
GBX 1.00 0.32 -0.07
GBY -0.65 1.00 -0.55
GBY 0.32 1.00 -0.07
M 0.67 -0.55 1.00
M -0.07 -0.07 1.00
The large off-diagonal elements in the correlation matrix
In this case, the correlation coefficient matrix is
suggest that this survey is not fulfilling the given geometrical
acceptable, and the estimated gyro errors should be correct.
recommendations, and that the calculated error term estimates
However, further investigation of the test results revealed that
can not be trusted. The truth of this assertion becomes evident
this is not the case. Whilst the small estimated mass unbalance
by studying the following survey plot, which shows only small
error of 0.10/hr should have resulted in a maximum azimuth
geometrical variations over the surveyed section.
error of 1.5 (at the most unfavourable inclination) for this
survey, the real azimuth errors are much larger as shown in the
following figure. While some of the effect is of course caused
by random gyro errors, there is obviously an underestimation
of the real mass unbalance error. This is caused by hidden
correlation effects between the measured azimuth (used in the
partial derivative calculations) and the mass unbalance
IADC/SPE 103734 17

estimate. These correlations, which are most severe near

east/west, do not show up in the correlation coefficient matrix.
It is therefore not sufficient simply to monitor the correlation
coefficient matrix to verify the validity of a multi-station gyro
test near east/west.

2 Azimuth error
The following azimuth differences were found between the
basic solution and the MSE solution, and between an
0
1 11 21
overlapping gyro survey and the MSE solution.

-2

Appendix 2E: Theoretical total magnetic field + dip

test examples
An error free magnetic instrument is used to measure azimuth,
which is controlled through the total magnetic field + dip test,
at 45 inclination, at 45 azimuth and at 45 magnetic dip. All
resultant errors in the azimuth and the two quality control
parameters (total field and dip) will in this case come from
errors in the magnetic reference itself. For example, the
following resultant errors will arise in the presence of a
magnetic declination error of 2 (ca 5 times the error model
input, and possible in areas with large crustal anomalies):

Errors Error model (3) Tolerances

A = 2.0 A = 1.6 The azimuth differences between the MSE and the gyro
B = 0 B = 400nT are much smaller than the differences between the MSE and
the basic MWD. This indicates that the MSE, in this case, has
= 0 = 0.6
led to a significant increase in azimuth accuracy compared to
the basic MWD. The azimuth differences between the basic
The azimuth is outside its 3 error model estimate, and the MWD and the MSE are largest for the east direction, and
total field and dip are well within their tolerances. The total almost zero for the south direction, a fact that shows that the
field + dip test therefore accepts a bad survey station in this benefit with using the MSE is dependent on orientation.
case. The test responds in the opposite manner in the presence The MSE further estimated large scale errors on the cross-
of a dip angle error of 1 (ca 5 times the error model input). axial axes. Such combined effects are probably caused by
The following results show that the test then fails a good magnetic particles in the drilling fluid, which also can explain
survey station. the following directionally dependent variation in the total
magnetic field strength as shown in the figure below. The
Errors Error model (3) Tolerance single station total magnetic field test will work best in the
A = 0 A = 1.6 parts of the wellbore closest to south, since the effects of
B = 0 B = 400nT the cross-axial scale errors on the calculated field intensity
= 1.0 = 0.6 are greatest here.

Appendix 2F: Real data multi-station magnetic

estimation example
The MSE technique is applied to a magnetic MWD directional
survey in the wellbore section shown in the figure below. The
wellbore turns smoothly from the east to the south direction
and has an inclination of about 40.
18 IADC/SPE 103734

The misalignment components from the first test are both

within the 3 tolerance, while the second test has one
component outside the tolerance.

Appendix 2H: Theoretical dual depth difference test

examples
Consider a combined wireline gyro/CCL survey run inside
drill-pipe with a pipe tally available for QC. Various depth
error configurations have been analysed. The first case has
only a depth error present, a wireline scale error of 0.00012
(50% of Ekseths [8] 1 scale error model input). The
following results will then be achieved at D = 1000m and D =
4000m.

Errors Error model Tole-

(3) rances
Appendix 2G: Real data rotation-shot misalignment
test examples
D Dp Dw D Dp Dw D
Since real down-hole rotation-shots were not available to this 1000 0 0.6 0.6 1.3 3.5 3.7
study, surface roll-test data were used instead. A roll-test is a 4000 0 2.2 2.2 3.1 13.2 13.6
tool test where directional measurements are taken at the
surface with constant inclination and azimuth, and with The DDDT is within tolerance at both depths, and the two
different toolfaces. It is almost equivalent to a down-hole associated wireline depth errors are also within their 3 error
rotation-shot, with the exception of the effects caused by model estimates. The test passes good surveys, and is
rotation induced drill-pipe movements. Whilst such effects therefore functioning in the desired manner. The same is the
may be large they will exhibit a random behaviour, and should case if the wireline scale error is increased to 0.0024 (10 times
only affect the noise level. 2 different surface roll-tests gave the error model input).
the following results in degrees (tolerances are given in
reference 1): Errors Error model Tole-
(3) rances
Roll-test data D Dp Dw D Dp Dw D
Test 1 1000 0 11.0 11.0 1.3 3.5 3.7
Inclination 90.11 90.15 90.12 90.08 4000 0 44.0 44.0 3.1 13.2 13.6
Toolface 46.97 135.71 223.98 316.08
Test 2 The test now fails bad surveys, and is again functioning
Inclination 89.94 89.95 90.02 90.00 correctly. The opposite occurs if both depth measurements
Toolface 312.30 42.16 134.70 224.59 have 4 times the error model input scale errors.

Errors Error model Tole-

Test results (3) rance
Estimated Tolerances D Dp Dw D Dp Dw D
Misalignments 1000 1.0 4.4 3.4 1.3 3.5 3.7
MX MY MX MY
Test 1 -0.01 0.03 0.18 0.18 The DDDT will in this case pass a bad survey.
Test 2 0.15 0.24 0.18 0.18