Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

CHAPTER

3
3. Introduction
Mathematical Modeling
3.1. Introduction

In this chapter the mathematical equations that will be used in formulating the proposed models will be consid-
ered. Some published equations will be used. five equations will be developed and used instead of existing ones.
The accuracy of these equations will be discussed in chapter five To two field case study have been developed to
be used in different wells One model was developed with best drilling parameter to field (X) and second model to
field (Y) .
By Integrated model in this field can be compromise with a new wells in the different location but any deviation
in geological lithology or depth etc … can be predicate the percentage of success according to optimize the drill-
ing parameter and best practices to drilling team. To achieve the more progress.
We well simplified graphical model to solve this problem to selected the best way to use one of both drilling
techniques ( the conventional casing or the drilling with casing ) in surface hole section .
To established models will be formulated and checked the drilling parameter within safe range as a detailed Risk
Assessment and Mitigation Plan to select one of both techniques .

All the drilling parameter according to ROP relationship in the following formulation:

 The casing design and depth selection

 Bit Optimization (formation hardness)
 The hydraulic drilling parameters
 the flow rate (GPM)
 the pump pressure (SPP)
 The mechanical drilling parameters
 weight on bit ( WOB )
 Torque and drag
 RPM

Figure (3.1) A combination of RPM and WOB actions: indentation and cutting

1
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

3.2. The casing design and depth selection

3.2.1. There are two main stages of casing design and deliverables from each stages
The design should start from the bottom of the well and be based initially on kick tolerance – to
determine the minimum casing setting depths to reach each casing setting depth. Having deter-
mined these points for all casing string where the BOPS or diverter will be installed, the depths
can be fine-tuned based on lithological considerations. And the two main stages of casing de-
sign are :
 Preliminary Casing Design – where the deliverables are :
 the casing and hole sizes and
 the casing setting depths

 API Detailed Casing Design – where the deliverables are

 Casing nominal weight

 Casing grade
 Coupling selection
 Length by range ( R1,R2,R3)
 Interface to wellhead
 Manufacturing process

3.2.2. There are two methods of casing seat selection that are most appropriate for initial
casing design and minimum information is required to perform
 Top Down method
 For top down and unlimited kick volume calculations it is necessary to have information about the local
pore pressure and formation strength regimes. A feeling for the margins that should be left above the
pope pressure and fellow the fracture pressure is also significant in practice. But found two limits relat-
ed to density of mud fluid that are usually applied when performing top-down casing seat selection are
 The hydrostatic pressure exerted by the fluid must be greater than the pore pressure … to
prevent an influx occurring
 The hydrostatic pressure exerted by the fluid must be less than the formation strength … to
prevent losses or formation fracture.
 It is normal to apply safety margins on these two limits. Thus a trip margin or +/- 200 psi is
usually maintained over the pore pressure. Similarly, it is usual to apply a 100 – 200 psi
margin below the formation strength vale.
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

figure (3.2): Idealised Casing Seat Selection

Notes to figure 3.1 above:

 Casing is set at depth 1, where pore pressure is P1 and the fracture pressure is F1.
 Drilling continues to depth 2, where the pore pressure P2 has risen to almost equal the fracture pressure
(F1) at the first casing seat.
 Another casing string is therefore set at this depth, with fracture pressure (F2).
 Drilling can thus continue to depth 3, where pore pressure P3 is almost equal to the fracture pressure F2 at
the previous casing seat.
 This figure does not include any safety or trip margins, which would, in practice, be taken into account.

 Unlimited Kick Method and kick tolerance

 For limited kick volume calculations it is also necessary to know the planned holes sizes and also the
BHA etc. An appreciation of the probable kick volume can either be basic – a standard value adopted in
an OU,- or more sophisticated – based on modelling the size of a kick on a given rig using the Well plan
Well control module.
 Kick tolerance relates to the ability of a well design to withstand a kick either due to swabbing or to
drilling into an over-pressured formation. The well’s pressure envelope – which includes the BOP, the
wellhead, the casing and the open hole formations - must be able to withstand the pressures exerted when
the well is closed in and also during the well control operation. This may either be bullheading pressures
or the pressures experienced in the annulus as the influx is circulated out to surface and out of the well.
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

3.2.3. Approach To Casing Design

Casing design is actually a stress analysis procedure. The objective of the procedure is to produce a pres-
sure vessel which can withstand a variety of external, internal, thermal, and self weight loading, while at
the same time being subjected to wear and corrosion. During the drilling phase, this pressure vessel is a
composite of steel and in conjunction with a variety of biaxial stressed rock materials. As there is little
point in designing for loads that are not encountered in the field, or in having a casing that is dispropor-
tionally strong in relation to the underlying formations, there are four major elements to the casing design
process:
 Definition of the loading conditions likely to be encountered throughout the life of the well.
 Specification of the mechanical strength of the pipe.
 Estimation of the formation strength using rock and soil mechanics.
 Estimation of the extent to which the pipe will deteriorate through time and quantification of the im-
pact that this will have on its strength.
3.2.4. Wellbore Forces
Various wellbore forces affect casing design. Besides the three basic conditions (burst, collapse and axial
loads or tension), these include:
 Buckling.
 Wellbore confining stress.
 Thermal and dynamic stress.
 Changing internal pressure caused by production or stimulation operations
 Changing external pressure caused by plastic formation creep.
 Subsidence effects and the effect of bending in crooked holes.
3.2.5. Design Criteria
 Burst
Burst loading on the casing is induced when internal pressure exceeds external pressure.

Pb=Pore pressure X Design Factor (2.1)

 Design Methods
The most conservative design for burst assumes the gradient of dry gas inside the casing, the pres-
sure of which equals the formation pressure of the lowest pressure zone from which the gas may
have originated or, alternatively the fracture pressure of the open hole below the shoe. The basis for
this design criteria is that a dry gas blow-out is assumed that, when shut-in at the surface, would ei-
ther build to the blow-out zone's static shut-in pressure or cause an underground blow-out once the
shut-in pressure reaches the fracture pressure of the weakest formation exposed in the open hole sec-
tion. Most operating companies modify this basic ‘dry gas’ design concept according to a number of
other influences including:
 Casing wear considerations
 Depth of the shoe
 DF applied
 Current BOP rating, etc.
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

 Collapse
Pipe collapse will occur when the external force on a pipe exceeds the combination of the
internal force plus the collapse resistance. It occurs as a result of either, or a combination of:
 Reduction in internal fluid pressure.
 Increase in external fluid pressure.
 Additional mechanical loading imposed by plastic formation movement.
 Design Methods
The design of a string of casing in collapse mode consists of selecting the lowest cost pipe that has
sufficient strength to meet with the desired design criteria and design factor.
If, when making a selection, a choice exists between a lower grade heavy pipe and a higher grade but
lighter pipe, both of which provide adequate strength at similar cost, the higher grade (lighter) pipe
should be chosen due to the reduction of tension loading.
• Note : The reduced collapse resistance under biaxial stress (tension/collapse) should be considered.
• Note : No allowance is given to increased collapse resistance due to cementing

CP=0.052 X Mud weight X Depth Design Factor (2.2)

 M1 = mud density used to drill next hole (ppg)

 Pf = formation pore pressure of thief zone, (psi/ft) (or ppg)
(assume = 0.465 psi/ft for most designs)
 L = length of mud column inside the casing
 CSD = casing setting depth (TVD) of the casing string being designed, ft

This is a simplified assumption and does not consider the effects of internal pressure.
For practical purposes, collapse pressure should be calculated as follows:
 Collapse pressure = External pressure– Internal pressure
 External pressure at depth X = 1 psi/ft x X
 Internal pressure = pressure resulting from partial loss circulation

Figure (3.3) the collapse pressure on pipe

 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

 Tension calculation
Most axial tension arises from the weight of the casing itself. Other tension loadings can arise due to:
bending, drag, shock loading and during pressure testing of casing. In casing design, the uppermost
joint of the string is considered the weakest in tension, as it has to carry the total weight of the casing
string. Selection is based on a design factor of 1.6 to 1.8 for the top joint. Tensile forces are deter-
mined as follows:
 calculate weight of casing in air (positive value) using true vertical depth;
 calculate buoyancy force (negative value);
 calculate bending force in deviated wells (positive value)
 calculate drag force in deviated wells (this force is only applicable if casing is pulled out of hole);
 calculate shock loads due to arresting casing in slips; and
 calculate pressure testing forces
Casing air weight = casing weight (lb/ft) x hole TVD (2.3)
Casing in mud weight = casing weight (lb/ft) x hole TVD XB.F (2.4)

3.3. Bit Optimization (formation hardness)

the drilling with casing drillable alloy bit allows drilling the borehole and casing of the well in a single trip for
casing- and liner-while-drilling service applications. Total time to drill an interval is reduced by eliminating the
time for running casing and mitigating downhole problems with borehole instability. The body alloy of the cas-
ing drill bit can be easily drilled out with a standard PDC bit, eliminating a dedicated drillout run or use of a
special drill out bit.

Optimized blade and

Steel Body cutter count within
drill-out area Premium
PDC Cutters

HVOF hard-facing on
Field Interchangeable Aluminum surface
copper or ceramic PDC
Drillable nozzles

Aircraft grade
Aluminum nose
and support blades
(fully PDC drillable)
80% less steel to drill out

Figure (3.4) the drilling with casing drillable bit

 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

3.3.1. Features
 Innovative cutting structure design with PDC cutters on each blade to provide the
drilling performance to meet today’s drilling requirements.

 Advanced computational fluid dynamics software is used to optimize cleaning effi-

ciency and bit cooling to maximize ROP.

 Nozzle design allows optimization of fluid and hydraulic horsepower to maximize

ROP without damaging the drill out bit.

 Stabilization is maximized and vibration is reduced with spiral gauge pads Large-face
water ways and junk-slot areas maximize cuttings removal..

Figure (3.5) Defyer( WATHERFORD casing bit) DPA series material composition
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

3.3.2. Design specification

3.3.3. Types of casing drilling bit

The casing drill bit, used in drilling formation attached to the end of the casing string.
Weatherford uses three drill shoe types:

 Defyer™ DPA Drillable Casing Bit Designed to drill medium-hard formations

 Defyer™ DT Drillable Casing Bit Designed to drill soft formations
 CleanReam™ Premium Casing Reaming Shoe
The differences amongst these drill shoes shown and described in Fig. (3.5) A common feature with all the
drill shoes is their ability to optimize hydraulic performance with the aid of their interchangeable nozzles
The table above illustrates the various performances in different formations drilled by these drill shoes, their
sizes, compressive strengths, cutting structures, number of blades and the casing strings attached to them
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

Defyer™ DPA Drillable Casing Bit
Designed to drill medium-hard
formations
• Up to 20,000psi UCS
• Interchangeable nozzles
• Drillable with PDC bit
• 380 successful field runs as of Apr •
2015
Defyer™ DT Drillable Casing Bit
Designed to drill soft for-
mations
• Up to 7,000psi UCS
• Excellent reaming tool
• Interchangeable nozzles
Drillable with PDC bit
CleanReam™ Premium Casing
Reaming Shoe
• Reaming tool
• Tortuous wellbores
• Interchangeable nozzles
• Drillable with PDC bit

Figure (3.6) Defyer( weatherford casing bit) types

3.3.4. casing drilling bit drill out presdure
The installation of a separate float collar in the casing string allows the cementation operation to begin
immediately once TD has been reached, and to be completed as normal. After ‘waiting-on-cement’ the
next drill bit is run and drills through the shoe track and Defyer before entering new formation.
 Drill through Float Equipment as per normal procedure.
 At one foot before tagging the Defyer nose, set the rotary at the minimum RPM and pump rate.
 Mark the drill pipe at rotary table level. Gradually increase the Weight on Bit (WOB) and proceed
to drill through the Defyer. Lift the PDC bit off of the bottom intermittently and circulate at a high
flow rate, as necessary, to enhance cuttings removal.
 Once the Defyer has been penetrated, increase the flow rate to below the recommended drill out
flow rate. To re-ream the Defyer, stop rotary before pulling back through the shoe. With mud mo-
tor, minimize the flow rate hence the bit RPM when the drillout bit passes through the Defyer.

Table (3.1) drill out with PDC bit

 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling
 Maximum 20 RPM with drill-string when drilling out shoe track with bent housing. When pene-
trating the DPA cutting structure (+/-6”), reduce drill string RPM to zero.
 PDC cutter is susceptible to impact damage, hence RPM has to be kept as low as practically possi-
ble. If possible, when drilling out with a PDC bit and motor, do not rotate the drill pipe since the
recommended flow rate will provide sufficient bit RPM to drill out the Defyer.
 Do not rush to drill through the Defyer nose. Control WOB while using recommended RPM to
limit depth of cut and prevent PDC chipping. This will also assist in minimizing size of debris.

Table (3.2) drill out with roller cone bit

BE PATIENT! Exceeding the recommended parameters (particularly WOB) may shear off rather than cut the
aluminum material

3.4. The hydrulic drilling parameters

This section details the hydraulic analysis of 12” hole sections using provided well data. The analysis was
conducted with the aim of understanding mud flow / circulation dynamics through the wellbore sections dur-
ing drilling operation, in order to determine optimal running / operating parameters. Any assumed data will be
outlined in the well modeling data section of the report.

3.4.1. Modeled wellbore sections

 9-5/8” Non-Retrievable Drilling with Casing Hydraulic Analysis

3.4.2. The simulations of both well sections indicated that

 Pressure drop across drill string components is normal
 Expected annular velocities are sufficient to provide good hole cleaning in both scenarios
 Required flow rates to clean the hole sections are well achievable with the recommended flow rates
 Recommended flow rates are expected to induce circulation pressures and ECDs at TD that does
not exceed assumed formation fracture pressure gradients
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

3.4.3. Drilling with casing hydraulics analysis for 12” hole section
 pressure drop distribution
Higher pressure drop across the bit is influenced by the nozzle size selected. The resulting jet ve-
locity from the selected flow rate is within allowable range for the recommended ceramic nozzles
(300ft/s jet velocity is the limit for ceramic nozzles).

Figure (3.7) hydraulic pressure loss distribution

3.4.4. Annular velocity, (ECDs) and cuttings concentration graph
 Theoretical results indicate that wellbore formation fracture is not expected at recommended flow
rate and assumed fracture gradient.
 Expected mud annular velocities are sufficient to provide adequate hole cleaning in and around the
9-5/8” casing.
 Cuttings concentration as shown below is low enough (recommended < 5%) to conclude that hole
cleaning will be achieved with the recommended flow rate.

Figure (3.8) DwC hydraulic parameter graph

 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

3.4.5. Hydraulic lift phenomenon

Casing drilling process utilizes large diameter casing to drill. The small annulus brings about higher friction
which leads to higher equivalent circulating density (ECD) in comparison to conventional drilling. Through
combining the use of the Smear Effect, (ECD) as our Friend, and Casing drilling the window of operation
have been spread beyond the traditional trip margin window. now drilling to a pore pressure gradient that is
nearly equal to the fracture pressure gradient is possible thus pushing the casing strings deeper and elimi-
nating the need for intermediate casing liners
During drilling operations as fluid circulates through large casing and narrow annulus several forces act
upwards on the casing that reduces the effective weight on bit Figure (3.8). Major contributing lifting forces
are
 Drag Forces: Upward frictional forces of fluids on casing wall during CwD operation as fluid
passes through narrow annulus.
 End Forces: Upward force of fluids as it exits the nozzles and acts upward on the bit face. This
force consists of frictional pressure loss through annulus and the hydrostatic pressure required
balancing the mud column.

Figure (3.9) Major contributing forces on Hydraulic Lift

Hydraulic lift forces involved in a drilling operation are developed for three common well conditions. These well
conditions are -
 A static conditions in which both well fluid and central pipe string are at rest (Non-circulating)

 A circulating operation in which the fluids are being pumped down the central pipe string and
up the annulus.(Circulating well)

 A tripping operation in which central pipe string is being move up and down through the fluid

To model the overall hydraulic lift circulating well condition is considered. To simplify the model following as-
sumptions are followed
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

 No effect of casing eccentricity and pipe rotation on pressure loss

 Sections of open hole are circular in shape and of known diameter

 Drilling fluid is incompressible

 Flow is isothermal

 No tool joint effect

Figure (3.9) demonstrates a simple circulating route of drilling fluid while drilling and it is possible to analyze the
each section to understand each pressure loss component. In the mud circulation system fluid travels from the still
tanks to mud pump, from the pump through the surface equipments to drill string then through drill string to the
bit. Afterwards passing the nozzle of the bit fluid moves up through the annular space between the drill string and
hole to the surface finally, through contaminant removal equipment back to the mud pit. During mud circulation
frictional pressure loss of mud occurs mainly in the surface equipment, inside drill string, in the bit nozzle and
through the annulus. When fluid starts to move from mud pump the pressure provided by mud pump is the sum of
all pressure loss to circulate the mud continuously. Thus as fluid exits through nozzle the amount of pressure
transmitted by the fluid is the sum of frictional pressure drop at annulus and the hydrostatic pressure of the mud
column. These pressure requirements have been used to calculate hydraulic lift and can be expressed as-

Figure (3.10) mud circulation system

 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

Hydraulic Lift = Frictional drag force on casing wall (F1) + End Forces at the bottom (F2) (3.5)

3.4.6. model derivation for vertical well with single diameter casing and uniform hole
As fluid circulates through a vertical well single diameter casing two major components comprise the over-
all hydraulic lift shown in Figure 3.3. To model the overall hydraulic lift these two forces are derived.
 Frictional force on casing wall (F1 )
Frictional pressure on casing wall occurs due to fluid flow through annulus along with cuttings. Effect of
cutting is included in the calculation by considering effective mud density Annular frictional pressure
drop can be computed using narrow slot approximation method for various fluid types and flow pattern,
(Bourgoyne et al. 1986). Frictional force on casing wall F1 then can be calculated from shear stress on
casing wall.

Figure (3.11) the direction forces on Hydraulic Lift

(3.6)

 End forces at the bottom of the casing (F2)

Amount of pressure contained at the bottom of the casing is the some of annular frictional pressure and the
hydrostatic pressure differential between different mud densities. So it can be written as

F2 = Fluid pressure contained at the bottom ×Area of the bottom of casing (3.7)
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling
= (Annular pressure drop + Hydrostatic pressure differential at bottom) × Area of the bottom of the casing

(3.8)

Hence, Combining F1 and F2 Hydraulic lift can be expressed by following equation,

HL = F1 +F2

(3.9)

3.5. The mechanical drilling parameters

3.5.1. The combination between the RPM and weight on bit ( WOB )
By study the best practices which taken from conventional drilling offset well’s and optimize
with drilling with casing can be combination the two drilling parameters ( WOB and RPM )
To obtain the torque value to achieve safe drilling with good hole cleaning performance so we
discusses who can do this during of drilling operation .

3.5.2. Torque and drag

 Torque Losses

Are defined as the difference between the torque applied at the rig floor and the torque generated at
the bit. Also referred to as rotating friction.
Torque = side force x friction factor x radius (3.10)
 Drag losses

It is the difference between the static weight of the drill string and the weight under movement. Also
referred to as sliding friction.
Chapter three Mathematical Modeling
Drag = side force x friction factor (3.11)

 The torque and drag dwon hole monitoring

 Track hole condition and deterioration

 Determine hole cleaning efficiency
 Evaluate cuttings bed formation
 Determine limitation of equipment and maximum achievable depths
 Determine mud lubricity effects
 Determine effects of mud weight and mud property changes
 Build a friction factor database
 Understand problems encountered when running casing/liners
 Optimize string configurations and BHA and need for torque reducers

 The Parameters which monitor and measurements T&D

 By use hook loads

 picking up at least 5-6 meters with a constant speed

 slacking off at least 5-6 meters movement with a constant speed
 Rotating off bottom at least 1-2 meters off bottom
 Torque gauge
 Off bottom torque @ rotary speed
 Torque and Drag Monitoring, When

 At every connection
 Before and after circulating bottoms up and pumping sweeps
 After a mud type change and major mud proprieties change
 Before and after additions of torque reducers
 At TD before and after hole has been cleaned
Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

• Torque and Drag Monitoring , How

 Moving the drill string at the same speed

 Take the least affected, steady weight indicator reading and record
 Turn pumps off and take P/U and S/O weights and repeat Previous steps above, before the
connection
 Take the circulating readings at the same flow rate (for each hole section) to avoid the po-
tential influence/interference of hydraulic lift which change in hole cleaning performance
 Chapter three Mathematical Modeling

Summary
In this chapter the mathematical equations required to control a gas
kick were introduced. Pre-kick calculations are shown. Post-kick
calculations (kill parameters) to control a kick in all wells were presented.
Kill sheet (step down chart) with different alternatives was illustrated.
These alternatives are: the integrated model, the approximated model,
vertical kill sheet, directional kill sheet, and Kumar and Sarma model.
Bottomhole circulating pressure equation was presented to calculate the
bottomhole pressure and judge the different models used. Graphical
method is presented with one example to show how to convert a vertical
kill sheet step down to the deviated one.
Chapter three Mathematical Modeling