IADC/SPE 87162

Understanding Torque: The Key to Slide-Drilling Directional Wells

Eric Maidla, SPE, and Marc Haci, SPE, Noble Corporation

Copyright 2004, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference

slides along the wellbore without rotating; the bent housing
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, (and thus, the tool face) is oriented for trajectory control
Texas, U.S.A., 2–4 March 2004.
(Fig. 1).
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
The value added is different for each system and depends
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling on the total drilling costs involved, the availability of this
Contractors or 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 technology, and the logistics of a particular job.
Association of Drilling Contractors or Society of Petroleum Engineers, their officers, or
members. Papers presented at IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by
With the motor/MWD system, sliding drilling efficiency
Editorial Committees of the International Association of Drilling Contractors and Society of is largely determined by the driller’s ability to transfer the
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 proper amount of weight to the bit without stalling the motor,
Contractors and Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
and to reduce longitudinal drag sufficiently to achieve and
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was maintain a desired tool-face angle.
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435. Several techniques are available for reducing longitudinal
drag. They include addition of lubricity agents, rollers,
downhole vibrators within the bottomhole assembly (BHA),
Abstract
and the use of a “rocking” procedure that consists of turning
An in-depth study of surface torque and its effect on drillstring
the pipe to the right and then to the left by an amount that
and bit movement has led to the development of automated
avoids interference with the tool face. The effectiveness of
technology for optimizing directional drilling with a downhole
each technique varies with well conditions, however, each
motor/measurement while drilling (MWD) system. By
technique is limited in some respect(s). Limitations can
assimilating surface torque with downhole bit and drillpipe
include cost, rig downtime, permanent installation
behavior, the technology allows drillers to maximize drilling
requirements, and increased risk for downhole failure (or loss)
efficiency and improve wellbore quality (due to less trajectory
due to introduced equipment, introduced vibrations, and
tortuosity) during the sliding part of the drilling process. This
fishing restrictions (especially if downhole vibrators or other
paper describes this proprietary1,2,3 surface system and how
obstructive devices are introduced above the MWD
developers used torque control to optimize slide drilling
equipment).
without introducing new equipment downhole.
The authors surmised that an understanding of how torque
The new technology integrates surface and MWD data to
impacts the drillpipe and bit movement allows significant
provide the following benefits in the sliding mode:
improvements in the accuracy with which slide drilling could
• Improved ROP and horizontal reach capability
be controlled. By defining the relationships between torque,
• Improved tool-face correction while drilling
drag, and downhole pipe movement, the Noble team
• Improved well trajectory
established the foundation for a control system for automating
• Improved motor life (less stalling)
the slide drilling process, helping ensure optimum
• Quick and accurate tool-face orientation
performance on every job.
• No lost-in-hole exposure
• Time savings from switching from rotating to sliding
Directional Drilling Challenges
without coming off bottom; faster tool-face orientation;
As weight is increasingly applied to the bit, torque at the bit
overall performance optimization (as listed above)
increases. Bit torque is proportional to the tangential force
vector to bit rotation to the right. Thus, the downhole motor
Introduction
with its bent housing just above the bit experiences an equal
In the oil industry today, two primary methods are used to
force in the opposite direction (left) called reactive torque.
directionally drill a well: rotary steering and drilling with a
Because of the relationship between bit weight, bit torque and
motor/MWD system. Rotary steering systems are configured
tool-face orientation, the tool face responds to changes in bit
so that the entire drillstring rotates continuously with steering
weight.
capabilities. A motor/MWD system is designed with a
To commence a slide during rotary drilling without the aid
downhole motor and a bent housing. The system rotates the
of automation, the driller normally stops drilling, comes off
entire drillstring to drill a tangent section, and turns only the
bottom, and reciprocates the drillstring to release trapped
bit to produce a curve or bend. Drilling with only the mud
torque. Then, taking into account the effect of reactive torque
motor is commonly called slide drilling because the drillpipe
on the bit, the driller must re-orient the tool face and control
2 UNDERSTANDING TORQUE: THE KEY TO SLIDE-DRILLING DIRECTIONAL WELLS
the slack off at the surface to achieve the desired tool-face
angle. While this technique has been used for years, results
often vary widely, and the challenges increase as wellbore
drag increases.
Transfer of Weight to Bit. Weight is transferred to the bit by
slacking off at the surface (or pushing down, in some shallow
horizontal wells). The difference between the weight that the
bit actually experiences and the amount slacked off at the
surface is the drag force that opposes pipe movement. As
horizontal displacement or wellbore depth increases,
controlling bit weight in the sliding mode becomes difficult
because of the pipe’s elasticity. This elasticity causes the pipe
to move nonproportionately, such that part of the pipe will
move while other parts of the pipe remain stationary or move
at different velocities. Because of the difference between static
and kinematic friction between pipe and other surfaces
(casing, open hole, cuttings beds, etc.), weight is sometimes
released suddenly. A sudden release of weight can also be
caused by hang-ups (key seats, ledges, etc), uneven cuttings
beds, and other factors.
If a sudden transfer of weight to the bit exceeds what the
downhole motor can withstand, the bit rotation will come to a
sudden halt. Such stalling conditions can damage the rubber
component of the motor; the amount of damage depends on
the severity of the weight transfer and how quickly this
situation is detected.
As a well’s horizontal departure increases, the
longitudinal drag of the drillpipe along the wellbore also
increases, and transferring weight to the bit without stalling
the motor becomes increasingly difficult. For example, a
horizontal lateral in the Austin Chalk can be drilled to 1,500 ft
with a 2 7/8-in. drillpipe and a 4 ¾-in. bit with little difficulty
in most cases. However, as the horizontal departure
approaches 3,000 ft, drilling becomes much more difficult and
less daily footage is achieved. Beyond 3,000 ft, drilling
becomes even more challenging.
Among studies described in this paper, the ROP achieved
with conventional sliding technology typically averaged 10%
to 25% of the average ROP in rotating mode. Among
horizontal departures exceeding 3,000 ft, this ratio could fall
to 10%.
Orientation of the Tool Face. Achieving the proper orienta-
tion of the tool face becomes more challenging as the
horizontal departure increases because of the increased
difficulty in eliminating torque from the system during initial
reciprocations. Furthermore, running to bottom smoothly
becomes more difficult. In one field case, a driller experienced
nine stalls without success in orienting the tool face for a
4,000-ft+ step-out using the conventional sliding technology.
Tool-Face Angle Maintenance. Once a proper tool-face
orientation is achieved, maintaining that orientation becomes
more difficult with increasing horizontal departures because
the weight transfer to the bit becomes more erratic, thus
affecting the reactive torque and consequently changing the
tool-face angle.
Because of the number and criticality of factors that must
be manually controlled during slide drilling, the job requires
SPE 87162
intense concentration by the directional driller, often for long
periods of time, and sudden transfers of weight to bit are often
difficult to prevent. In the Austin Chalk, a 2- to 3-hour sliding
period is often required to achieve a 15-ft correction slide. On
one location, a motor was lost when it suddenly stalled,
inducing a left-hand torque in excess of the BHA’s make-up
torque; the well then had to be sidetracked.
Benefits of the Automatic Torque Control System
By sensing the amount of surface torque needed to transfer the
proper amount of weight to the bit, and eliminating the need to
come off bottom to make tool-face corrections, automated
slide drilling allows substantial increases in both the daily
footage drilled and the length of horizontal departures that can
be achieved.
To commence slide drilling from the rotary drilling mode,
the driller simply initiates an automatic rocking action by
applying sufficient torque to the right and then to the left to
allow appropriate weight transfer to the bit. The transfer of
weight is controlled through the adjustment of rocking depth,
which is automatically adjusted to compensate for changes in
reactive torque. Consequently, downhole twist-offs due to
sudden major motor stalls are avoided, and no time is lost in
orienting the tool face, as compared to the conventional
method.
Corrections in tool-face angle are easily achieved through
additional torque pulses (bumping) during the rocking cycles
as demonstrated later in this paper.
Theory behind Automatic Torque Control
To understand the effect of surface torque and reactive torque
on longitudinal drag, a velocity vector was derived from the
combination of pipe rotation to the right and left, and drillpipe
movement forward during drilling. The velocity component is
a function of the position of the pipe along the entire wellbore.
The direction and magnitude of this vector will dictate the
degree of reduction in longitudinal drag.
Left-and-right torque rocking initiated by the top drive
reduces longitudinal drag in the wellbore, allowing the
drillpipe to rotate from the surface down to a point where
torque from rotational friction against the side of the hole
stops the drillpipe from turning.
Meanwhile, reactive torque generated by the drill motor is
transmitted up the pipe to a point where it is overcome by the
bottomhole torque along the BHA/drillpipe system. In this
paper, this equilibrium point is referred to as the point of
interference. Between this point and the bit (described here as
the zone of interference), the velocity component again
dictates the degree of reduction in longitudinal drag and the
change in tool-face orientation.
To prevent pipe rotation from the surface from penetrating
the zone of interference, the system is tuned based on on-
bottom and off-bottom torque measurements in the field
during each job.
The point of interference changes as the reactive torque
changes. Therefore, to keep the difference between the depth
of the point of interference and the depth of rocking relatively
constant, thus providing a known constant “actual sliding”
distance, an automated control system must compensate for
this change.
SPE 87162 E. MAIDLA, M. HACI
The “actual sliding” distance is the length of drillpipe that
does not turn during the rocking cycle. Ideally, an actual
sliding distance of zero would appear to provide the fastest
weight transfer to the bit. However, eliminating the actual
sliding distance is not only impossible to achieve without
affecting the tool face, it is not necessary to provide good
control of pipe movement, as proven in laboratory and field
experiments.
Fig. 2 depicts the theoretical rotation of a drillstring in a
wellbore from the time it has no torque in it up to the moment
that it is totally rotating and finally drilling. The make-up
torque Te is never reached for safety reasons. The reactive
torque is given by Td – Tc, and Tb marks the point at which
additional surface torque will change the tool-face angle.
In this example, given a few approximations and
averaging, only the distance between points b and c is actually
sliding, allowing good control over the weight transfer to bit.
If torque stays below Tb, the tool-face angle will remain
unchanged as long as the reactive torque stays constant.
Knowing the location of this window, however, also allows
the directional driller to make controlled corrections to the
tool-face angle during drilling. Placing the rocking limit close
to the tool-face control domain (zone of interference) allows
the tool-face angle to be changed slowly in small increments
(rolling). Placing one cycle of the rocking routine closer to or
inside this area allows tool-face correction in larger
increments (bumping).
Without rocking between Ta and Tb to help reduce drag
along the drillpipe, a sudden transfer of weight to the bit is
likely, increasing the potential for stalling the downhole
motor, and eliminating the potential for making tool-face
corrections while drilling.
Control System Components and Operation
Input parameters to our control system include surface torque,
standpipe pressure, and/or downhole tool-face angle. The
automation technology package comprises a software
component and a hardware component.
Software. The software component collects torque and
standpipe pressure data required to determine the need for
adjustments during drilling.
Standpipe pressure provides an indication of reactive
torque, which changes continually. In monitoring reactive
torque via standpipe pressure, the system continuously adjusts
the rocking depth (amount of surface torque applied to the
right and left) to compensate for the effect of reactive torque.
Because factors unrelated to reactive torque (such as cuttings
buildup, partially plugged nozzles, etc.) can affect changes in
the standpipe pressure, the software analyzes pressures in the
proper frequency spectrum to differentiate between reactive
torque indicators and pressure changes caused by unrelated
factors.
The downhole tool-face measurement is used to determine
the amount of correction needed to restore the tool face to a
predetermined target angle. To correct the tool-face angle
during a rocking cycle, the driller can “roll” or “bump” the
tool face by initiating torque pulses. These corrections can be
made to the right or left with ease.
3
Hardware. The hardware component features a universal
robotics solution to fit any top drive. It is non-intrusive and
requires no rig modifications for operation. The robot actuates
the control systems (e.g. buttons, switches, wheels, etc) as
directed by the software.
Safety. Though the automated system’s robotics eliminates
the need for most manual adjustments required in
conventional slide drilling, the system is designed to allow
manual intervention at any time, assuring the highest level of
operation safety.
Complete redundancy was built into the torque control
system to avoid left-hand torque overshoot and potential twist-
off. This includes a software check in the control logic and a
hardware system that assigns an operator-adjustable torque
limit to the top drive. Rocking is commonly used in horizontal
wells and is performed manually on hydraulic top drives and
electric top drives that can be turned to the right and left with
one switch. Rocking is less common on rigs where two
switches (or combinations of switches, buttons, and/or wheels)
must be manipulated to achieve the rocking movement.
Ease of Installation. The automated control system can be
installed in less than 2 hours without interrupting the drilling
process. Installation of sensors is the primary task involved in
the system’s installation.
Technology Development Methodology
In moving from concept to development, safety and cost
savings remained primary concerns. Field tests are costly and
any negative perception from premature field failures could
limit the time allowed for testing. In addition, ideal field
testing conditions are difficult to obtain, and delays between
testing opportunities could be quite lengthy. Assembling the
instrumentation for testing (which is quite different from the
instrumentation needed to control the final product) that is
necessary for learning, is also a major challenge in the field.
To maximize the potential for successful field tests,
developers conceived a strategy comprising three basic steps:
1. Build a laboratory physical simulator (PS).
2. Conduct field tests with a smaller horizontal well drilling
rig equipped with a hydraulic power swivel to validate the
prototype’s reliability and ease of installation and
operation.
3. Scale-up production to a universal product line.
Laboratory Simulation. The laboratory physical simulator
(PS) used to test the automation system (Fig. 3) comprised
three basic components for simulating surface controls,
wellbore events, and downhole conditions.
• The surface system contained the driller’s console,
drawworks, top drive, and instrumentation package.
• The wellbore system included a specially designed pipe
for simulating the same wraps that drillpipe would be
subject to in the field (d-less analysis was used) and a
borehole torque and drag producing device.
• The bottomhole system included a downhole motor with
rock/bit interaction and adjustable formation strength
capabilities. The rock/bit device was used to generate
reactive torque, and its output could be varied based on
4 UNDERSTANDING TORQUE: THE KEY TO SLIDE-DRILLING DIRECTIONAL WELLS
the aggressiveness of the bit being simulated. The
formation strength device allowed for axial advancement
of the bit while drilling to simulate softer or harder rock.
After initial manufacturing of the physical simulator, the
system and its various components were calibrated against
field rig data. The same rig from which this data was gathered
was later used for field-testing the automated system. This
assured the highest possible degree of accuracy during
laboratory experiments and minimized the field trial duration.
Control System Development. The control system was
developed for the laboratory simulator in such a way that the
same software could be used in the laboratory and in the field.
Because the first field test was scheduled for a rig with a
hydraulic power swivel, an industrial control panel for that
system was modified so that the control panels could be
swapped on the rig during the field test. After the second field
test, this adaptation was no longer necessary because robots
(servo motors with appropriate software and hook-up
capabilities) had been added to provide a universal solution for
all types of top drives (Fig. 4).
Component Testing. In the initial field test, all components
performed according to plan. The concepts learned in the
laboratory were proven and all the discoveries were
confirmed. After five days of testing without any downtime,
developers decided that it was safe to move from alpha testing
to beta testing and remain on location, drilling the well up to
the end of the lease boundary. This was a rather unique and
fortunate opportunity, considering that numerous field trials
are normally required to prove new technology, even after
thorough laboratory testing.
Field Test Results
Fig. 5 shows a typical horizontal well used for field-testing the
automated torque control system.
The field results are presented by category rather than
chronologically to emphasize specific achievements obtained
with the new automated directional torque control system.
ROP Enhancement. Fig. 6 shows the effect that torque rock-
ing has on the rate of penetration. The graph shows an
approximate 40% increase in rate of penetration. The
discontinuity in the value of the rate of penetration displayed
is due to the averaging routine that calculates the ROP (ROP
calculations for this case are based on the time required to drill
the last 6 in.) The ROP is enhanced because the “actual sliding
distance” is reduced. The increase in the “depth of rocking”
coupled with a small increase in reactive torque allowed for
the reduction in “actual sliding distance.”
On Job 1, the average daily sliding ROP was increased
from a range of 5 to 7 ft/hr to a range of 10 to 20 ft/hr. The
ROP in the rotary drilling mode with the downhole motor was
40 ft/hr.
On Job 2, the average daily sliding ROP was increased
from a range of 3 to 4 ft/hr to a range of 5.6 to 7.2 ft/hr. Again,
the ROP in the rotary drilling mode with the downhole motor
was 40 ft/hr.
Fig. 7 shows how efficiently the system can perform. For
every torque cycle to the right or left, a corresponding pressure
SPE 87162
peak is observed, indicating that the weight is being
transferred to the bit at each torque cycle.
Tool-Face Orientation Time Improvement. Fig. 8 compares
tool-face data collected during the orientation phase without
the new technology and similar data collected after the new
control system was deployed. The well had a 4,000 ft+
horizontal departure and the directional driller experienced
great difficulty in manually locking in the tool face to the
desired value. After a 45-minute attempt, the automatic torque
control system was deployed. The tool face was easily
obtained and maintained at the desired range of 140° to 165°.
Thirty minutes after the automatic torque control system was
put into use, the downhole motor stalled and the driller
attempted to correct the tool face manually. After 5 minutes
without success, the automatic torque control system was
again deployed and successfully corrected the tool face.
Extended Reach. When a motor/MWD system is used to drill
a directional well, the sliding controls the wellbore trajectory.
An inability to obtain the desired tool face or to achieve the
rate of penetration necessary for sliding often results in
increased drilling time and can be tolerated only for a short
while. The inability to slide can cause the target envelope to
be missed or the lateral section to be cut short.
Fig. 8 shows the difficulty the driller encountered in trying
to orient and control the tool face manually at higher step-outs.
As a result, drilling economics limited the length of this lateral
section. This difficulty was not experienced with the
automatic torque control system, although more data are
necessary for determining limits of extended reach drilling.
Improving Motor Life. Stalling of downhole motors due to
longitudinal drag and sudden transfers of weight to bit are
known to cause premature motor failure due to the excessive
stresses exerted on the rubber component by the fluid blow-by.
Fig. 9 shows gravity tool face and standpipe pressure.
During the first 45 minutes that tool-face orientation was
attempted manually, the downhole motor stalled nine times.
Only one stall was observed during the use of the automatic
torque control system.
Bumping. A “bumping” procedure is used to achieve a small
tool-face correction (typically 10° to 40°). Such corrections
are made after torque is increased during a rocking cycle. If a
right-hand correction is required, the right-hand torque will be
increased by an amount determined by the directional driller;
and a similar procedure is used for a left-hand tool-face
correction. Fig. 10 shows a tool-face correction to the right,
obtained by increasing right-hand torque by 400 ft-lb for one
cycle. The tool face first shifts to the left by 8° due to the
reactive torque generated by the increase in weight on bit
transmitted to the motor. The tool face then shifts 28° to the
right, netting an approximate 20° correction to the right. This
procedure is very simple and is commonly used with the
automated torque control system to orient the tool face from
its random landing position as the driller transitions from the
rotary mode to the sliding mode. This technique can also be
used to correct the tool face if it begins to roll away from the
target value while sliding.
SPE 87162 E. MAIDLA, M. HACI
Rolling. The automatic torque control system provides
additional steering capabilities to a motor/MWD system
through a procedure called rolling, in which a continuous
small torque bias is applied to the left or right to slowly build
or drop the angle of trajectory. The tool face is rolled to the
right when the right-hand torque is increased and the left-hand
torque remains constant. Likewise, the tool face is rolled to the
left when the left hand torque is increased while the left-hand
torque remains constant.
Fig. 11 is similar to Fig. 8, but it includes more data. At
the end of the slide run, the directional driller decided to
reduce the inclination further by bringing the tool face closer
to the low side. This was accomplished by increasing the
depth of the right-hand torque (green line on the plot) while
holding the left-hand torque value constant. A smooth roll of
the tool face towards the right was observed over a 20-minute
period and the tool-face angle changed from 155° to 200°.
Conclusions
The following advantages were observed while engaging the
automatic torque control system in the slide drilling of
directional wells, as compared with conventional motor/MWD
sliding systems:
• higher ROP’s; significantly faster orientation times
• increased averages of daily footage drilled
• reduced risk of torque overshoot to the right or left
Fig. 1— Diagram of the motor/MWD system.
5
• ability to make tool-face adjustments without coming off
bottom
• improved motor life due to fewer motor stalls
• less stress on the directional driller, due to the automation
of rocking and sliding techniques that were previously
performed manually
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Noble Corporation’s management
for permission to publish this paper. Maurer Technology, Inc.
and Triton Engineering Services Co.’s feedback and support
during the development of this technology is greatly
appreciated. The author's would also like to thank Mr.
Mitchell Pinckard for his earlier work in this area and Mr.
Buddy King, for his vision, leadership and support during the
critical stages of this project.
References
1. Haci, Marc and Maidla, Eric, Patent Pending 10/325,639,
Method of and System for Directional Drilling, Noble
Drilling Services, Inc., 2002.
2. Maidla, Eric; Haci, Marc; and DeGhelder, Calvin, Patent
Pending (provisional) 60/469,293, Method of and
Apparatus for Directional Drilling, Noble Drilling Services,
Inc., 2003.
3. Maidla, Eric; Haci, Marc; and DeGhelder, Calvin, Patent
Pending, Continuous On-Bottom Directional Drilling
Method and System, Noble Drilling Services, Inc., 2003.
6 UNDERSTANDING TORQUE: THE KEY TO SLIDE-DRILLING DIRECTIONAL WELLS SPE 87162

Austin Chalk formation

Make-up torque Pump pressure: 2,600 psi at 150 gal/min
e
Mud weight: 8.5 ppg
Rotary mode Make up torque (2 7/8-in. AOH): 4,400 ft-lb
Full drillstring rotation
d Rotating torque: up to 4,000 ft-lb
Toolface Rotating slack-off (WOB): 5,000 to 8,000 lb
Surface Torque

Reactive
control
domain
torque Sliding slack-off: 25,000 to 35,000 lb
c
WOB transfer
6,800-ft KOP
MD = 12,000 ft
domain b
35°/100 ft TVD = 6,930 ft
Build Rate HD = 5,000 ft
Torque “Rocking” Domain 90°
4 ¾-in. PDC bit
a 7-in. casing with 3 ¾-in. motor
Conventional Sliding without “Rocking” (Torque = 0)
Time

Fig. 2— Theoretical torque/time relationship for different sliding Fig. 5—Typical horizontal well diagram.
scenarios.

Right and left torque peak trend lines

200 2000
Tool Face,°
180 1800

160 1600

140 1400
Tool Face and ROP

120 1200

Torque
100 1000

80 800

60 600

40 400
Torque, ft-lb
20 ROP=14.4 ft/hr 200
ROP=10.3 ft/hr
0 0
2:14:30 2:15:30 2:16:30 2:17:30
Time, h:min:s

Fig. 3— Laboratory physical simulator. Fig. 6—ROP enhancement due to deeper rocking.

3400 3110
Each torque peak is followed
by a pressure pulse
3200 3100

3000 3090
Pressure, psi
Torque, ft-lb

2800 3080

2600 3070

2400 3060

2200 3050
04:06:30 04:07:30 04:08:30 04:09:30 04:10:30 04:11:30 04:12:30
Time, h:min:s

Fig. 4— Robotic solution for a power swivel. Fig. 7—Effective weight transfer to the bit during each torque
cycle.
SPE 87162 E. MAIDLA, M. HACI 7

4000 360
360

3500 315
315

270 3000 270

Torque and Pressure

225 2500 225
Tool Face, °

Tool Face
180 2000 180

135 1500 Slow right turn 135

90 Orientation 1000
Manual Automated Torque Control 90
Attempt (45 min) Torque, ft-lb
45
500 Pressure, psi 45
Manual Automated Torque Control
0 Tool Face, °
0 0
6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30
6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30
Time, h:min
Time, h:min

Fig. 8—Manual vs. automatic tool-face orientation Fig. 10—”Rolling” procedure for achieving a smooth turn of
the tool face.

4000 360 4000 195

400 ft-lb right bump
3500 315 3500 190

1 Stall 3000
3000 270
185
Torque and Pressure

2500 225 2500

Pressure, psi

Tool Face, °

Tool Face
180
~ 20° tool face
2000 9 Stalls 180 2000
correction
175
1500
1500 135
170
1000 Initial increased reactive torque
1000 90
Manual Automated Torque Control Torque, ft-lb effect on tool face drills off
500 165
500 Pressure 45 Pressure, psi

Tool Face Tool Face, °

0 160
0 0
3:59:50 4:00:10 4:00:30 4:00:50 4:01:10 4:01:30 4:01:50
6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30
Time, h:min:s
Time, h:min

Fig. 9—Motor stalling scenario, manual vs. automatic tool-face Fig. 11—Tool-face correction via “bumping.”
orientation