Accuracy Prediction for Directional

Measurement While Drilling

H.S. Williamson, SPE, BP
Summary
In this paper a new method for predicting wellbore position uncertainty which responds to the current needs of the industry is
described. An error model applicable to a basic directional measurement while drilling MWD service is presented and used for
illustration. As far as possible within the limitations of space, the
paper is a self-contained reference work, including all the necessary information to develop and test a software implementation of
the method. The paper is the product of a collaboration between
the many companies and individuals cited in the text.
Introduction
As the industry continues to drill in mature oil provinces, the dual
challenges of small geological targets and severe well congestion
increase the importance of quantifying typical wellbore positional
errors. The pioneering work of the 1970s culminated in the paper
by Wolff and de Wardt.1 Their approach, albeit extensively modified and added to, has remained the de facto industry standard to
this day. At the same time, various shortcomings of the method
have been identified,2-4 but are not discussed further here.
In recent years, a number of factors have created the opportunity for the industry to develop an alternative method:
risk-based approaches to collision avoidance and target hitting require position uncertainties with associated confidence levels, something which Wolff and de Wardt specifically avoided;
changing relationships brought about by integrated service
contracts have forced directional drilling and survey companies to
share information on tool performance;
the development of several new directional software products
and their integration with subsurface applications has provided the
necessity and the opportunity to develop new means of communicating and visualizing positional uncertainty.
This paper provides a three-part response to this need.
1. Error Model for Basic MWD. This is based on the current
state of knowledge of a group of industry experts. There are several reasons why directional MWD is the most suitable survey
service to illustrate a new method of error modeling. The error
budget is dominated by environmental effects, so that accuracy
differences attributable to tools alone are minimal. It is the survey
tool of choice for most directional wells, where position uncertainty is of greatest concern. The physical principles of its operation, including the navigation equations, are in the public domain.
2. Mathematical Basis. This is a rigorous description of the
propagation of errors in stationary tools. Fit-for-purpose error
models using the same basis are in development for inertial and
continuous gyroscopic tools, although some simplification and
compromise are inevitable. A rigorous treatment of continuous
survey tools would probably have too restricted a cognoscenti to
be practical.
3. Standard Examples and Results. Despite the apparent simplicity of the Wolff and de Wardt method, different software
implementations generally give subtly different results. While an
effort has been made in this paper to provide a comprehensive
description of the new method, there will surely remain some
Copyright 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 67616) was revised for publication from SPE 56702 first presented at the
1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October. Original manuscript received for review 31 January 2000. Revised manuscript received 26 July 2000. Paper peer approved 14 August 2000.

SPE Drill. & Completion 15 4, December 2000

areas of ambiguity or confusion. In such cases, reproduction of the

numerical results at the end of the paper will act as a powerful
criterion for validation.
Genesis of the Work. The content of this paper is the fruit of two
collaborative groups.
ISCWSA. The Industry Steering Committee on Wellbore Survey Accuracy is an informally constituted group of companies and
individuals established following the SPWLA Topical Conference
on MWD held in Kerrville, Texas in late 1995. The groups broad
objective is to produce and maintain standards for the industry
relating to wellbore survey accuracy. Much of the content of this
paper, and specifically the details of the basic MWD error model,
had its genesis in the groups meetings, which were distinguished
by their open and cooperative discussions.
Four Company Working Group. The ISCWSA being too large
a forum to undertake the detailed mathematical development of an
error propagation model, this was completed by a small working
group from Sysdrill Ltd., Statoil, Baker Hughes INTEQ, and BP
Exploration. The mathematical model created by the group and
described below has been made freely available for use by the
industry.

Assumptions and Definitions

The following assumptions are implicit in the error models and
mathematics presented in this paper.
Errors in calculated well position are caused exclusively by
the presence of measurement errors at wellbore survey stations.
Wellbore survey stations are, or can be modeled as, threeelement measurement vectors, the elements being along-hole
depth, D, inclination, I, and azimuth, A. The propagation mathematics also requires a toolface angle, , at each station.
Errors from different error sources are statistically independent.
There is a linear relationship between the size of each measurement error and the corresponding change in calculated well
position.
The combined effect on calculated well position of any number of measurement errors at any number of survey stations is
equal to the vector sum of their individual effects.
No restrictive assumptions are made about the statistical distribution of measurement errors.
Error Sources, Terms and Models. An error source is a physical
phenomenon which contributes to the error in a survey tool measurement. An error term describes the effect of an error source on
a particular survey tool measurement. It is uniquely specified by
the following data:
a name;
a weighting function, which describes the effect of the error
on the survey tool measurement vector p. Each function is referred to by a mnemonic of up to four letters.
A mean value, .
A magnitude, , always quoted as a 1 standard deviation
value.
A correlation coefficient 1 between error values at survey
stations in the same survey leg. In a survey listing made up of
several concatenated surveys, a survey leg is a set of contiguous
survey stations acquired with a single tool or, if appropriate, a
single tool type.
A correlation coefficient 2 between error values at survey
stations in different survey legs in the same well.
1064-6671/2000/154/221/13/$5.000.50

221

 A correlation coefficient 3 between error values at survey

stations in different wells in the same field.

To ensure that the correlation coefficients are well defined, only

four combinations are allowed.
Propagation Mode
1
2
3
Random R
0
0
0
Systematic S
1
0
0
Well by well W
1
1
0
Global G
1
1
1
1, 2, and 3 are to be considered properties of the error source,
and should be the same for all survey legs.
An error model is a set of error terms chosen with the aim of
properly accounting for all the significant error sources which
affect a survey tool or service.
An Error Model for Basic MWD
For the survey specialist in search of a best estimate of position uncertainty it is tempting to differentiate minutely among
tools types and models, running configurations, bottomhole assembly BHA design, geographical location and several other
variables. While justifiable on technical grounds, such an approach is impractical for the daily work of the well planner. The
time needed to find out these data for historical wells, and for
many planned wells, is simply not available.
The error model presented in this section is intended to be
representative of MWD surveys run according to fairly standard
quality procedures. Such procedures would include rigorous and
regular tool calibration, survey interval no greater than 100 ft,
nonmagnetic spacing according to standard charts where no axial
interference correction is applied, not surveying in close proximity to existing casing strings or other steel bodies, and passing
standard field checks on the G total, B total, and dip.
The requirement to differentiate between different services may
be met by defining a small suite of alternative error models. Examples covered in this paper are application or not of an axial
interference correction and application or not of a BHA sag correction.
Alternative models would also be justified for in-field referenced surveys, in-hole gyro referenced surveys, and depthcorrected surveys.
The model presented here is based on the current state of
knowledge and experience of a number of experts. It is a starting
point for further research and debate, not an endpoint.
Sensor Errors. MWD sensors will typically show small shifts in
performance between calibrations. We may make the assumption

Item
Drill collar

Stabilizer

Motor

These figures include errors which are correlated between sensors, and which therefore have no effect on calculated inclination
and azimuth the exception being the effect of correlated magnetometer errors on interference corrected azimuths. It could be
argued that the magnetometer scale factor errors in particular
which may be influenced by crustal anomalies at the calibration
sites should be reduced to account for this.
BHA Magnetic Interference. Magnetic interference due to steel
in the BHA may be split into components acting parallel axial
and perpendicular cross axial to the borehole axis.
Axial Interference. Several independent sets of surface measurements of magnetic pole strengths have now been made. Observed root-mean-square RMS values are the following.

Pin

Box

RMS Pole Strength

505 Wb 8
605 Wb 11

Sample Size

177
396
369
340

Wb
Wb
Wb
Wb

6
10
5
12

435 WB 11
511 Wb 4
189 Wb 10
408 Wb 10
419 Wb 10

Oddvar Lotsberg also computed pole strengths for 41 BHAs

from the results of an azimuth correction algorithm. The RMS
pole strength was 369 Wb micro-Webers.
These results suggest that 400 Wb is a reasonable estimate for
the 1 s.d. pole strength of a steel drillstring component when
further information is lacking. This is useful information for BHA
design, but cannot be used for uncertainty prediction without a
*Minutes of the 7th Meeting of the ISCWSA, Houston, 9 October 1997.

222

that the shifts between successive calibrations are representative

of the shifts between calibration and field performance. On this
basis, two major MWD suppliers compared the results of successive scheduled calibrations of their tools. Paul Rodney examined
288 pairs of calibrations, and noted the change in bias i.e., offset
error, scale factor, and misalignment for each sensor. Wayne
Phillips did the same for 10 pairs of calibrations, except that sensor misalignments were not recorded.
Andy Brooks has demonstrated that if a sensor is subject to a
scale error and two orthogonal misalignments, all independent and
of similar magnitude, the combination of the three error terms is
equivalent to a single bias term. This term need not appear explicitly in the error model, but may be added to the existing bias term
to create a lumped error. This eliminates the need for 20 extra
weighting functions corresponding to sensor misalignments.
The data from the MWD suppliers suggest that in-service sensor misalignments are typically smaller than scale errors. As a
result, only a part of the observed scale error was lumped with
the misalignments into the bias term, leaving a residual scale error
which is modeled separately. In this way, four physical errors for
each sensor were transformed into two modeled terms. The results
were as follows.
Weighting
Propagation
Error Source Function Magnitude
Mode
Accelerometer biases ABX,Y,Z 0.004 ms2
S
Accelerometer scale
factors
ASX,Y,Z
0.005
S
Magnetometer biases MBX,Y,Z
70 nT
S
Magnetometer scale
factors
MSX,Y,Z
0.0016
S

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

Source
Grindrod and Wolff Ref. 5
Lotsberg Ref. 5
McElhinney*
Grindrod and Wolff
Lotsberg
McElhinney
Lotsberg

value for the nonmagnetic spacing distance. Unfortunately, there

is no typical spacing used in the industry, and we must find
another way to estimate the magnitude of this error source.
A well-established industry practice is to require nonmagnetic
spacing sufficient to keep the azimuth error below a fixed tolerance typically 0.5 at 1 s.d. for assumed pole strengths and a
given hole direction. This tolerance may need to be compromised
in the least favorable hole directions. For a fixed axial interference
field, and neglecting induced magnetism, the azimuth error is
strongly dependent on hole direction, being proportional to
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

sin I sin Am . Thus to model the azimuth error in uncorrected surveys, we require a combination of error terms which predicts zero
error if the well is vertical or magnetic north/south, predicts errors
somewhat greater than the usual tolerance if the well is near horizontal and magnetic east/west or predicts errors near the usual
tolerance for other hole directions.
These requirements could be met by constructing some artificial weighting function, but this would violate our restriction to
physically meaningful error terms. A constant error of 0.25 and a
direction-dependent error of 0.6 sin I sin Am is perhaps the best
we can achieve by way of a compromise. It is legitimate to consider these values representative of 1 standard deviation, since the
pole strength values which underlie the nonmagnetic spacing calculations are themselves quoted at 1 s.d.
Both error terms may be propagated as systematic, although
there is theoretical and observational evidence4 that this error is
asymmetric, acting in the majority of cases to swing magnetic
surveys to the north in the northern hemisphere. Giving the
direction-dependent term a mean value of 0.33 and a magnitude
of 0.5 reproduces this asymmetry with about 75% of surveys
being deflected to the north, while leaving the root-mean-square
error unchanged.
Axial interference errors are not modeled for surveys which
have been corrected for magnetic interference.
Cross-Axial Interference. Cross-axial interference from the
BHA is indistinguishable from magnetometer bias, and propagates
in the same way. Anne Holmes** analyzed the magnetometer
biases for 78 MWD surveys determined as a by-product of a multistation correction algorithm. Once a few outliers, probably due
to magnetic hot spots and hence classified as gross errors, had
been eliminated, the remaining observations gave a RMS value of
57 nT. This figure is somewhat smaller than the 70 nT attributable
to magnetometer bias alone. The conclusion must be that crossaxial interference does not, on average, make a significant contribution to the overall MWD error budget, and may be safely left
out of the model.
Tool Misalignment. Misalignment is the error caused by the
along-hole axis of the directional sensor assembly being out of
parallel with the center line of the borehole. The error may be
modeled as a combination of two independent phenomena:
BHA Sag. This is due to the distortion of the MWD drill collar
under gravity. It is modeled as confined to the vertical plane and
proportional to the component of gravity acting perpendicular to
the wellbore i.e., sin I. The magnitude of the error depends on
BHA type and geometry, sensor spacing, hole size and several
other factors. Two-dimensional BHA models typically calculate
inclination corrections of 0.2 or 0.3 for poorly stabilized BHAs
in horizontal hole.6 For well stabilized assemblies the value is
usually less than 0.15. In the absence of better information, 0.2
at 1 s.d. may be considered a realistic input into the basic error
model.
Sag corrections, if they are applied, are calculated on the often
unjustified assumptions of both the hole and stabilizers being in
**Minutes of the 8th Meeting of the ISCWSA, Trondheim, 19 February 1998.

gauge. Data comparisons by the author suggest a typical efficiency of 60% for these corrections, leaving a post-correction residual sag error of 0.08.
Assuming similar BHAs throughout a hole section, all BHA
sag errors may be classified as systematic.
Radially Symmetric Misalignment. This is modeled as equally
likely to be oriented at any toolface angle. John Turvill made an
estimate of its magnitude based on the tolerances on several concentric cylinders.
Sensor package in the housing. Tolerances on three components are clearance, 0.023, concentricity, 0.003, and straightness
of sensor package, 0.031.
Sensor housing in the drill collar. For a probe mounted in a
centralized, retrievable case, 0.063.
Collar bore in the collar body. Typical MWD vendors tolerance is 0.05.
Collar body in the borehole. The API tolerance on collar
straightness equates to 0.03. MWD vendors specifications are
typically somewhat more stringent.
The root sum square of these figures is 0.094. Being based
on maximum tolerances, it is probably an overestimate for stabilized rotary assemblies.
An analysis by the author of the variation in measured inclination over 46 rotation shots produced a root-mean-square misalignment of 0.046. Simulations show that within this figure,
about 0.007 is attributable to the effect of sensor errors.
An additional source of misalignment, collar distortion outside the vertical plane due to bending forces, may be estimated
using three-dimensional BHA models and 0.04 seems to be a
typical value. This error differs from those above by not rotating
with the tool. It should therefore strictly have its own weighting
function. Being so small, it seems justifiable on practical if not
theoretical grounds, to include it with the other sources of radially symmetric misalignment. This leaves us with an estimate for
the error magnitude of 0.06. This figure may be a significant
underestimate where there is an aggressive bend in the BHA or a
probe-type MWD tool is in use. This error term may be considered systematic.
Magnetic Field Uncertainty. For basic MWD surveys, only the
value assumed for magnetic declination affects the computed azimuth. However, conventional corrections for axial interference
require estimates of the magnetic dip and field strength. Any error
in these estimates will cause an error in the computed azimuth.
A study by the British Geological Survey and commissioned by
Baker Hughes INTEQ6 investigated the likely error in using a
global geomagnetic model to estimate the instantaneous ambient
magnetic field downhole. Five sources of error were identified:
modeled main field vs. actual main field at the base epoch, modeled secular variation vs. actual secular variation, regular diurnal
variation due to electrical currents in the ionosphere, irregular
temporal variation due to electrical currents in the magnetosphere
and crustal anomalies.
By making a number of gross assumptions, and by considering
typical drilling rates, this author has distilled the results of the
study into a single table.

Error Magnitude
Error Source
Main field model
Secular variation
Daily variation
Irregular variation
Crustal anomaly

Declination
deg
0.012*
0.017*
0.045**
0.110**
0.476

Dip
deg
0.005
0.013
0.011**
0.043**
0.195

Total Field
nT
3
10
11**
45**
120

Propagation
Mode
G
G
R/S
R/S
G

*Below 60 latitude N or S.
**At 60 latitude N or S.

Daily and irregular variation are partially randomized between surveys. Correlations between consecutive stations are approximately 0.95 and 0.5 for the two error sources.

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

223

The dominant error source is crustal anomalies caused by varying magnetization of rocks in the Earths crust. The figures shown
are representative of those of the North Sea. Some areas, particularly those at higher latitudes and where volcanic rocks are closer
to the surface, will show greater variation. Other areas, where
sedimentary rocks dominate, will show less.
In the absence of any other information, the uncertainty in an
estimate of the magnetic field at a given time and place provided
by a global geomagnetic model may be obtained by summing the
above terms statistically. There is one complication: some account
must be taken of the increasing difficulty of determining declination as the horizontal component of the magnetic field decreases.
This can be achieved by splitting this error into two components:
one constant and one inversely proportional to the horizontal projection of the field, B H . For the purposes of the model, the split
has been defined somewhat arbitrarily, while ensuring that the
total declination uncertainty at Lerwick, Shetland (B H
15 000 nT) is as predicted by the BGS study 0.49. Being
dominated by the crustal anomaly component, all magnetic field

Error Source
Random reference
Systematic reference
Scale
Stretch type

Error
Proportional
to
1
1
D
D.D v

Land Rig
0.35 m
0m
2.4104
2.2107 m1

Errors Omitted From the Basic MWD Model. Some errors

known to affect MWD surveys have nonetheless not been included in the basic error model.
Tool Electronics and Resolution. The overall effect on accuracy caused by the limitations of the tool electronics and the resolution of the tool-to-surface telemetry system is not considered
significant. Such errors will tend to be randomized over long survey intervals.
External Magnetic Interference. Ekseth7 discussed the influence of remanent magnetism in casing strings on magnetic surveys, and gave expressions for azimuth error when drilling out of
a casing shoe and parallel to an existing string. Although certainly
not negligible, both error sources are difficult to quantify, and
equally difficult to incorporate within error modeling software. It
seems preferable to manage these errors by applying quality procedures designed to limit their effect.
Effect of Survey Interval and Calculation Method. The
method presented in this paper relies on the assumption that an
error-free measurement vector p will lead to an error-free wellbore position vector r. If minimum curvature formulas are used
for survey calculation, this assumption will only be true when the
well path between stations is an exact circular arc. The resulting
error may be significant for sparse data, but may probably be
neglected so long as the station interval does not exceed 100 ft.
Gravity Field Uncertainty. Differences between nominal and
actual gravity field strengths will typically have no effect on
MWD accuracy since only the ratio of accelerometer measurements is used in the calculation of inclination and azimuth.
H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

Along-Hole Depth Errors. Ekseth7 identified 14 physical sources

of drill-pipe depth measurement error, wrote down expressions to
predict their magnitude and, by substituting typical parameter values into the expressions, predicted the total error for a number of
different well shapes. He then proposed a simplified model of just
four terms, and chose the magnitudes of each to match the predictions of the full model as closely as possible. The results were
as follows.

Error Magnitude 1 s.d

For the purposes of the basic model, the values for the land rig
or, equivalently a jackup or platform rig may be chosen. The
stretch-type error, which dominates the other terms in deep wells,
models two physical effects, stretch and thermal expansion of the
drill pipe. Both of these effects generally cause the drill string to
elongate, so it may be appropriate to apply this term as a bias see
below. If this is done, a mean value of 4.4107 m1 should be
used, since Ekseth effectively treated his estimates of these errors
as 2 s.d. values.

224

errors may be considered globally systematic and summarized as

the following.
Weighting
Propagation
Error Source
Function Magnitude
Mode
Declination constant
AZ
0.36
G
Declination
DBH
5000 nT
G
B H dependent
Dip angle
MFD
0.20
G
Total field
MFI
130 nT
G

Floating Rig
2.2 m
1m
2.1104
1.5107 m1

Propagation
Mode
R
S
S
G

Gross Errors. Any attempt at a comprehensive discussion of

MWD error sources must at least acknowledge the possibility of
gross errors, sometimes called human errors. These errors lack the
predictability and uniformity of the physical terms discussed
above. They are therefore excluded from the error model, with the
assumption that they are adequately managed through process and
procedure.

Propagation Mathematics
The mathematical algorithm by which wellbore positional uncertainty is generated from survey error model inputs is based on the
approach outlined by Brooks and Wilson.3 The development of
this work described here was carried out by the working group
referred to in the Introduction.
A physical error occurring at a survey station will result in an
error, in the form of a vector, in the calculated well position. From
Ref. 3:
ei i

dr p
,
dp i

where ei is a vector-valued random variable a vector error, i is

the magnitude of the ith error source, p/ i is its weighting
function and dr/dp describes how changes in the measurement
vector affect the calculated well position. It is sufficient to assume
that the calculated displacement between consecutive survey stations depends only on the survey measurement vectors at these
two stations. Writing rk for the displacement between survey
stations k1 and k, we may thus express the 1 s.d. error due to
the presence of the ith error source at the kth survey station in the
lth survey leg as the sum of the effects on the preceding and
following calculated displacements:
ei,l,k i,l

drk drk1 pk

,
dpk
dpk
i

where i,l is the magnitude of the ith error source over the lth
survey leg, and pk is the instrument measurement vector at the kth
survey station.
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

The total position error at a particular survey station K in survey leg L will be the sum of the vector errors ei,l,k taken over all
error sources i and all survey stations up to and including K. The
uncertainty in this position error is expressed in the form of a
covariance matrix:
CK

errors k 1 K k 2 K
i

T
i,l 1 ,k 1 , i,l 2 ,k 2 ei,l 1 ,k 1 ei,l
,
2 ,k 2

where ( i,l 1 ,k 1 , i,l 2 ,k 2 ) is the correlation coefficient between the

value of the ith error source at the k 1 th station in the l 1 th leg and
the k 2 th station in the l 2 th leg. In practice, it is more convenient
to sum separately the contributions of errors with different propagation characteristics. Details are in Appendix A.
Weighting Functions. The weighting function for a particular error source is a 31 vector, the elements of which describe the
effect of a unit error on the measured along-hole depth, inclination
and azimuth. For example, the weighting functions for constant
and B H -dependent magnetic declination errors are

0
p
0 ,
AZ
1

0
p
sin I ,
SAG
0

0
p
0

,
AM ID
sin I sin A m

D
p
0 ,
DSF
0

D.D V
0
.
0

A m tan1

G 2x G 2y G z2

17

B z B cos sin I cos A m B sin cos I.

18

Taking the X-accelerometer bias (ABX) as an example,

I
1 cos I 1
G xG z
cos I sin
,

G x sin I G x
sin I
G3
G

19

and, similarly,

A m cos I sin A m sin cos A m cos tan cot I cos

.

Gx
G
20

10

Weighting Functions For Sensor Errors. Tool axes and toolface angle, , are defined in Fig. 1. There are 12 basic sensor error
sources a bias and scale factor for each of three accelerometers
and three magnetometers and each requires its own weighting
function. These are obtained by differentiating the standard navigation equations for inclination and azimuth:
Icos

B cos sin A m sin ,

p
ABX

1
p
0 ,
DREF
0

Gz

16

The appropriate weighting function is therefore

and for reference, scale and stretch-type depth errors they are

B cos sin A m cos ,

B y B cos cos I cos A m cos B sin sin I cos

For BHA sag and direction-dependent axial magnetic interference they are

DST

B x B cos cos I cos A m sin B sin sin I sin

0
0
.
1/ B cos

DBH

Fig. 1Definition of tool sensor axes and toolface angle.

1
G

0
cos I sin
.
cos I sin A m sin cos A m cos tan cot I cos

21
Effect of Axial Interference Correction. When a simple axial
magnetic interference correction is applied, Eq. 12 is no longer
used, and different weighting functions are required for sensor
errors. The following analysis is by Andy Brooks.
Details of the interference corrections differ from method to
method, but since all such methods suffer from similar limitations,
it is reasonable to characterize them all with a single example.
Methods which ignore the B Z measurement and find the solution
which minimizes the vector distance between the computed and
expected values of the magnetic field vector will satisfy Eqs. 16
and 17 and
2 B sin B sin
2 minimum, 22
B cos B cos

11

G x B y G y B x G 2x G 2y G z2

B z G 2x G 2y G z G x B x G y B y

12

are the estimated values of total field strength and

where B and
dip angle, respectively. Solving these three equations for azimuth
leads to
P sin A m Q cos A m R sin A m cos A m 0,

23

where

and making use of the inverse relations

G x G sin I sin ,

13

sin I cos I,
P B x sin B y cos cos IB sin

24

G y G sin I cos ,

14

Q B x cos B y sin ,

25

G z G cos I,

15

sin2 I.
RB cos

26

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

225

TABLE 1 ERROR SOURCE WEIGHTING FUNCTIONS NOT GIVEN IN THE TEXT

Sensor Errors (without axial interference correction)
0
0
1
cos I sin
sin I cos I sin2
ABX
ASX
G
tan sin Icos I sin Am sin cos Am cos cos I cos sin
cos I sin Am sin cos Am cos tan cot I cos
0
0
1
cos I cos
sin I cos I cos2
ABY
ASY
G
tan sin Icos I sin Am cos cos Am sin cos I sin cos
cos I sin Am cos cos Am sin tan cot I sin
0
0
MBX
cos Am cos cos I sin Am sin /B cos
0
0
MSX
cos I cos Am sin tan sin I sin sin Am cos cos Am cos cos I sin Am sin
0
0
MBY
cos Am sin cos I sin Am cos /B cos
0
0
MSY
cos I cos Am cos tan sin I cos sin Am sin cos Am sin cos I sin Am cos
0
0
0
1
sin I
sin I cos I
0
ABZ
ASZ
MBZ
G
sin I sin Am /B cos
tan sin Isin Am
tan sin I cos I sin Am
0
0
MSZ
sin I cos Amtan cos Isin I sin Am

Sensor errors (with axial interference correction)

ABIX

1
G

ABIY

1
G

0
cos I sin
cos2 I sin Am sin tan cos Isin I cos Amcos tan cos Amcot I/1sin2 I sin2 Am
0
cos I cos
cos2 I sin Am cos tan cos Isin I cos Amsin tan cos Amcot I/1sin2 I sin2 Am

0
sin I cos I sin2
sin sin I cos2 I sin Am sin tan cos Isin I cos Amcos tan sin I cos Amcos I/1sin2 I sin2 Am

ASIX

0
sin I cos I cos2
cos sin I cos2 I sin Am cos tan cos Isin I cos Amsin tan sin I cos Amcos I/1sin2 I sin2 Am

ASIY

MSIX

MSIY

0
0
cos I cos Am sin tan sin I sin sin Am cos cos I sin Am sin cos Am cos /1sin2 I sin2 Am

ABIZ

0
0
cos I cos Am cos tan sin I cos sin Am sin cos I sin Am cos cos Am sin /1sin2 I sin2 Am

0
0
cos I sin Am sin cos Am cos /B cos 1sin2 I sin2 Am
0
1
sin I
G
sin I cos I sin Amtan cos Isin I cos Am/1sin2 I sin2 Am

MBIX

0
0
cos I sin Am cos cos Am sin /B cos 1sin2 I sin2 Am
0
sin I cos I
sin I cos2 I sin Amtan cos Isin I cos Am/1sin2 I sin2 Am

MBIY

ASIZ

Magnetic field errors (with axial interference correction)

0
0
MFI
sin I sin Amtan cos Isin I cos Am/BIsin2 I sin2 Am

226

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

MDI

0
0
sin I sin Amcos Itan sin I cos Am/1sin2 I sin2 Am

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

Fig. 3Vertical section plot of standard well profiles. Note the

different section azimuths.
Fig. 2Plan view of standard well profiles.

The sensitivities of the computed azimuth to errors in the sensor

measurements are found by differentiating Eq. 23.
Magnetic Field Uncertainty. The weighting function for magnetic declination error is given above. Those for magnetic field
strength and dip angle, which are required when an axial magnetic
interference correction is in use, are derived by differentiating Eq.
.
23 with respect to B and
Misalignment Errors. Brooks and Wilson3 model tool axial
misalignment as two uncorrelated errors corresponding to the x
and y axes of the tool. Their expressions for the associated inclination and azimuth errors lead directly to the following weighting
functions:

MX
p

MY

0
sin
,
cos /sin I

27

0
cos
.
sin /sin I

28

Table 1 contains expressions for all the weighting functions not

cited in this section which are required to implement the error
models described in this paper.
Calculation Options
The method of position uncertainty calculation described here admits a number of variations. It can still claim to be a standard, in
that selection of the same set of conventions should always yield
the same results.
Along-Hole Depth Uncertainty. The propagation model described above is appropriate for determining the position uncertainty of the points in space at which the survey tool came or will
come to rest. These may be called uncertainties at survey stations.
Thorogood2 argued that it is more meaningful to compute the
position uncertainties of the points in the wellbore at the alonghole depths assigned to the survey stations. These may be called
the uncertainties at assigned depths. This approach allows
computation of the position uncertainty of points such as picks
from a wireline log whose depths have been determined independently of the survey. Thorogood made this calculation by defining
a weighting function incorporating the local build and turn rates of
the well. The approach described in Appendix A achieves the
same result without the need for a new weighting function.
The results of the two approaches differ only in the along-hole
component of uncertainty. The along-hole uncertainty at a survey
station includes the uncertainty in the stations measured depth,
while the uncertainty at an assigned depth does not.
The correct choice of approach depends on the engineering
problem being tackled, in many cases it is immaterial. The user of
well-designed directional software need not be aware of the issue.
H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

Survey Bias. Not to be confused with sensor biases which might

better be termed offset errors, survey bias is the tendency for the
most likely position of a well to differ from its surveyed position.
The only bias term defined by Wolff and de Wardt was for magnetic interference in poor magnetic surveys. The claims for
stretch and thermal expansion of the drill pipe to be treated as bias
errors are at least as strong.
Some vendors of directional software have neglected to model
survey bias on the grounds that such errors should be corrected
for, and that engineers do not like/understand them. The first objection can be countered by the observation, yes, but they are
not, the second by careful software design.
The sign convention for position bias is from survey to most
likely position i.e., opposite to the direction of the error. Since
the drill pipe generally elongates downhole, most likely depths are
greater than survey depths and bias values are positive. For axial
drillstring interference, most likely azimuths are greater than survey azimuths when the weighting function, sin I sin Am , is positive, so bias values are again positive at least in the northern
hemisphere. The additional mathematics required to model survey bias is included in Appendix A.
Calculation Conventions. The calculation of position uncertainty
requires a wellbore survey consisting of discrete stations, each of
which has an associated along-hole depth, inclination, azimuth,
and toolface angle. Clearly, these data will not be available in
many cases, and certain conventions are required whereby assumed values may be calculated. The following are suggested.
Along-Hole Depth. For drilled wells, actual survey stations
should be used. For planned wells, the intended survey interval
should be determined, and stations should be interpolated at all
whole multiples of this depth within the survey interval. Typically, an interval of 100 ft or 30 m should be used. For well plans,
the way points should be included as additional stations.
Inclination and Azimuth. For drilled wells, measured values
should be used. For planned wells, the profile should be interpolated at the planned survey station depths using minimum curvature.
Toolface. If actual toolface angles are available, they should be
used. If not, several means of generating them are possible.
Random number generation. Possibly close to reality, but results are not repeatable and will tend to be optimistic.
Worst case. Several variations on this idea are possible, but
each will require some additional calculation. The principle is
questionable, and the computational overhead is probably not justified.
Borehole toolface i.e., the up-down left-right change in borehole direction. This angle bears little relation to survey tool orientation, but is at least well defined, and may be computed directly from inclination and azimuth data. This approach will tend
to limit the randomization of toolface dependent errors, giving a
conservative uncertainty prediction. This is the convention used in
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

227

TABLE 2 STANDARD WELL PROFILES

ISCWSA No. 1North Sea extended reach well
Lat.60N, Long.2E, G9.80665 ms2, B50,000 nT, 72,
4W, Station interval30 m, Vertical Section Azimuth75
MD
Inc
Azi
North
(m)
(deg)
(deg)
(m)

East
(m)

0.00
1200.00
2100.00
5100.00
5400.00
8000.00

0.00
0.00
415.08
2924.62
3201.34
5712.75

0.000
0.000
60.000
60.000
90.000
90.000

0.000
0.000
75.000
75.000
75.000
75.000

0.00
0.00
111.22
783.65
857.80
1530.73

ISCWSA No. 2Gulf of Mexico fish-hook well

Lat.28N, Long.90W, G9.80665 ms2, B48,000 nT,
58, 2E, Station interval100 ft, Vert. Sect. Azim.21
MD
Inc
Azi
North
(ft)
(deg)
(deg)
(ft)
0.00
2,000.00
3,600.00
5,000.00
5,525.54
6,051.08
6,576.62
7,102.16
9,398.50
12,500.00

0.000
0.000
32.000
32.000
32.000
32.000
32.000
32.000
60.000
60.000

0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
32.000
62.000
92.000
122.000
220.000
220.000

0.00
0.00
435.04
1,176.48
1,435.37
1,619.99
1,680.89
1,601.74
364.88
1,692.70

TVD
(m)
0.00
1200.00
1944.29
3444.29
3521.06
3521.06

0.000
0.000
50.000
50.000
0.000
0.000
90.000
90.000
110.000
110.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
283.000
283.000
193.000
193.000

0.00
0.00
245.60
705.23
1012.23
1012.23
1038.01
1127.99
996.08
721.40

the examples which follow. Formulas for borehole toolface are

given in Appendix B.
Standard Profiles
At the Eighth Meeting of the ISCWSA participants were set the
task of designing a number of well profiles suitable for testing
software implementations of the error models and propagation
mathematics, studying and highlighting the behavior of different
error models magnetic and gyroscopic and individual error
sources, demonstrating to a nonspecialist audience the uncertainties to be expected from typical survey programs.
The ideas generated at the meeting were used to devise a set of
three profiles:
ISCWSA No. 1: an extended reach well in the North Sea,
ISCWSA No. 2: a fish-hook well in the Gulf of Mexico, with
a long turn at low inclination, and
ISCWSA No. 3: a designer well in the Bass Strait, incorporating a number of difficult hole directions and geometries.
Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the test profiles in plan and section.
Their full definition, given in Table 2, includes location, gravity
and magnetic fields, survey stations, toolface angles and depth
units.
228

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

0.00
0.00
429.79
3027.79
3314.27
5914.27

DLS
/30 m
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
3.00
0.00

East
(ft)

TVD
(ft)

VS
(ft)

DLS
/100ft

0.00
0.00
15.19
41.08
120.23
318.22
582.00
840.88
700.36
1,026.15

0.00
2,000.00
3,518.11
4,705.37
5,153.89
5,602.41
6,050.92
6,499.44
8,265.27
9,816.02

0.00
0.00
411.59
1,113.06
1,383.12
1,626.43
1,777.82
1,796.70
591.63
1,948.01

0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.00

TVD
(m)

VS
(m)

DLS
/30 m

0.00
500.00
1026.69
1412.37
2070.73
2470.73
2585.32
2585.32
2520.00
2417.40

0.00
0.00
198.70
570.54
818.91
818.91
905.39
1207.28
1197.85
1069.86

0.00
0.00
2.50
0.00
2.00
0.00
15.00
0.00
9.00
0.00

ISCWSA No. 3Bass Strait designer well

Lat.40S, Long.147E, G9.80665 ms2, B61,000 nT, 70,
13E, Station interval30 m, Vertical Section Azimuth310
MD
Inc
Azi
North
East
(m)
(deg)
(deg)
(m)
(m)
0.00
500.00
1100.00
1700.00
2450.00
2850.00
3030.00
3430.00
3730.00
4030.00

VS
(m)

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
111.65
501.40
727.87
791.28

Example Results
The error models for basic and interference-corrected MWD have
been applied to the standard well profiles to generate position
uncertainties in each well. The results of several combinations are
tabulated in Table 3.
Examples 1 and 2 compare the basic and interference-corrected
models in well ISCWSA No. 1. Being a high inclination well
running approximately ENE, the interference correction actually
degrades the accuracy. The results are plotted in Fig. 4. Examples
3 to 6 all represent the basic MWD error model applied to well
ISCWSA No. 2. They differ in that each uses a different permutation of the survey station/assigned depth and symmetric error/
survey bias calculation options. The variation of lateral uncertainty and ellipsoid semimajor axis, characteristic of a fish-hook
well, is shown in Fig. 5. Finally, example 7 breaks well ISCWSA
No. 3 into three depth intervals, with the basic and interferencecorrected models being applied alternately. This example is included as a test of error term propagation.
The results in Table 3 were computed by the author, and have
been independently verified by Anne Holmes, Steve Grindrod,
and Andy Brooks. Exact duplication of these results is a powerful
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

(1)
(2)
(3)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1410
3030

Key to calculation options:

to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to

8000 m
8000 m
12,500 ft
12,500 ft
12,500 ft
12,500 ft
1380 m
3000 m
4030 m

Depth interval(s)

Key to error models:

1
1
2
2
2
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

Well
No.

basic
ax-int
S, sym
S, bias
D, sym
D, bias

basic
ax-int
basic
basic
basic
basic
basic
ax-int
basic

Model
S,
S,
S,
D,
S,
D,
S,
S,
S,

sym
sym
sym
sym
bias
bias
sym
sym
sym

Option
m
m
ft
ft
ft
ft
m
m
m

84.342
196.390
29.551
29.551
27.288
27.288
4.703
3.646
5.892

L
m
m
ft
ft
ft
ft
m
m
m

8.626
8.626
10.057
9.080
8.526
8.419
0.919
7.890
9.594

A
m
m
ft
ft
ft
ft
m
m
m

HA
0.676
0.676
0.613
0.429
0.607
0.574
0.633
0.623
0.590

HL
0.016
0.005
0.030
0.030
0.050
0.050
0.007
0.172
0.180

Correlations Between
Borehole Axes

LA
0.004
0.005
0.049
0.073
0.145
0.148
0.006
0.665
0.302

Basic MWD
Basic MWD with axial interference correction
Uncertainty at survey station, all errors symmetric (i.e., no bias)
Uncertainty at survey station, selected errors modeled as biases (see Table 4)
Uncertainty at assigned depth, all errors symmetric (i.e., no bias)
Uncertainty at assigned depth, selected errors modeled as biases (see Table 4)

20.116
20.116
16.185
16.185
15.710
15.710
2.013
3.239
5.604

Uncertainties Along
Borehole Axes

bL

6.788 ft
12.411 ft
6.788 ft
12.411 ft
(results at 1380 m)
(results at 3000 m)
(results at TD4030 m)

bH

Survey Bias Along

Borehole Axes

11.698 ft
4.758 ft

bA

TABLE 3 CALCULATED POSITION UNCERTAINTIES AT 1 s.d.. UNCERTAINTY AT THE TIE LINE MD0 IS ZERO; STATIONS INTERPOLATED AT WHOLE MULTIPLES
OF STATION INTERVAL USING MINIMUM CURVATURE; WELL PLAN WAY POINTS INCLUDED AS ADDITIONAL STATIONS; INSTRUMENT TOOLFACEBOREHOLE TOOLFACE

Fig. 4Comparison of basic and interference corrected MWD

error models in well ISCWSA No. 1.

and demanding test for implementations of the method and models described in this paper.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper, and the collaborative work which it describes, establishes a common starting point for wellbore position uncertainty
modeling. The standardized elements are a nomenclature see below, a definition of what constitutes an error model, mathematics
of position uncertainty calculation, an error model for a basic
directional MWD service, Table 4, a set of well profiles for in-

Fig. 5Variation of lateral uncertainty and ellipsoid semimajor

axis in a fish-hook well, ISCWSA No. 2.

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

229

TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF BASIC MWD ERROR MODELS

Weighting
Function

Basic Model

With Axial
Correction

Propagation
Mode

0.004 ms2
0.004 ms2
0.004 ms2
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
70 nT
70 nT
0.0016
0.0016

S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

0.2
0.06
0.06

S
S
S

Sensors
ABX
0.004 ms2
ABY
0.004 ms2
ABZ
0.004 ms2
ASX
0.0005
ASY
0.0005
ASZ
0.0005
MBX
70 nT
MBY
70 nT
MBZ
70 nT
MSZ
0.0016
MSY
0.0016
MSZ
0.0016
ABIX
ABIY
ABIZ
ASIX
ASIY
ASIZ
MBIX
MBIY
MSIX
MSIY
Misalignment
SAG
0.2
MX
0.06
MY
0.06
Axial magnetic interference
AZ
0.25
AMID
0.6
Declination
AZ
0.36
DBH
5000nT
Total magnetic field and dip angle
MDI
MFI
Along-hole depth
DREF
0.35 m
DSF
2.4104
DST
2.2107 m1

S
S or B*
0.36
5000nT

G
G

0.20
130 nT

G
G

0.35 m
2.4104
2.2107 m1

R
S
G or B**

*When modeled as bias: 0.33, 0.5.

**When modeled as bias: 4.4107 m1, 0.

vestigating error models, and a set of results for testing software

implementations.
The future work which these standards were designed to facilitate
includes
establishment of agreed error models for other survey services, including in-field referencing and gyroscopic tools and
interchangeability of calculated position uncertainties among
survey vendor, directional drilling company, and operator.
Useful though this work is, it is only a piece in a large jigsaw
puzzle. Taking a wider view, the collaborative efforts of the extended survey community should now be directed towards standardization of quality assurance measures, strengthening the link
between quality assurance specifications and error model parameters, and better integration of wellbore position uncertainty with
the other aspects of oil field navigation.
Nomenclature
ISCWSA Nomenclature*
D along-hole depth, m, ft
230

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

I wellbore inclination, deg

A wellbore azimuth, deg
A m wellbore magnetic azimuth, deg
toolface angle, deg
magnetic declination, deg
magnetic dip angle, deg
B magnetic field strength, nT
G gravity field strength, ms2**
X,x,Y,y,Z,z tool reference directions; see Fig. 1

*Adopted by ISCWSA participants as a standard for all technical

correspondence.
**The international standard value for G of 9.806 65 ms2 was
used in the calculation of the results in Table 3.
Special Nomenclature
b component of wellbore position bias vector
B estimated magnetic field strength
B H horizontal component of magnetic field
strength
SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

C
e
e*
E

H,L
m
m*
M

p
P,Q,R
r
rk

v
w

wellbore position uncertainty covariance matrix

1 s.d. vector error at an intermediate station
1 s.d. vector error at the station of interest
sum of vector errors from slot to station of interest
particular value of a survey error
used in calculation of the toolface
bias vector error at an intermediate station
bias vector error at the station of interest
wellbore position bias vector
mean of error value
standard deviation of error value, component of
wellbore position uncertainty
survey measurement vector (D,I,A)
intermediate calculated quantities
wellbore position vector
increment in wellbore position between stations
k1 and k
correlation coefficient
estimated magnetic dip angle
along-hole unit vector
factor relating error magnitude to uncertainty in
measurement

Subscripts and Counters

hla,HLA
i
k
K
Kl
l
L
nev

borehole referenced frame

a survey error term
a survey station
survey station of interest
number of stations in the lth survey leg
a survey leg
survey leg containing the station of interest
earth-referenced frame

4. Dubrule, O. and Nelson, P.H.: Evaluation of Directional Survey

Errors at Prudhoe Bay, SPEDE September 1987 257.
5. Grindrod, S.J. and Wolff, J.M.: Calculation of NMDC Length Required for Various Latitudes Developed From Field Measurements of
Drill String Magnetisation, paper 11382 presented at the SPE 1983
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 2023 February.
6. Macmillan, S. et al.: Error estimates for geomagnetic field values
computed from the BGGM, British Geological Survey Technical
Report No. WM/93/28C 1993.
7. Ekseth, R.: Uncertainties in Connection with the Determination of
Wellbore Positions, PhD dissertation, Norwegian U. of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway 1998.

Appendix A: Mathematical Description of Propagation

Model
The total position uncertainty at a survey station of interest, K in
survey leg L is the sum of the contribution from all the active
error sources. It is convenient computationally to group the error
sources by their propagation type and to sum them separately.
Vector Errors at the Station of Interest. Recall that the vector
error due to the presence of error source i at station k is the sum of
the effect of the error on the preceding and following survey displacements:
ei,l,k i,l

drk drk1 pk

.
dpk
dpk
i

Evaluating this expression using the minimum curvature well

trajectory model is cumbersome. There is no significant loss of
accuracy in using the simpler balanced tangential model:
r j

D j D j1
2

Superscripts
dep at the along-hole depth assigned to the survey
station
rand random propagation mode
svy at the point where the survey measurements
were taken
syst systematic propagation mode
well well by well or global propagation mode
Acknowledgments
The author thanks all participants in the ISCWSA for their enthusiasm and support over several years and in the review of this
paper.
Particular contributions to the MWD error model were made by
John Turvill and Graham McElhinney, both now with PathFinder
Energy Services, formerly Halliburton Drilling Systems; Wayne
Phillips, Schlumberger, Paul Rodney and Anne Holmes, SperrySun Drilling Services; and Oddvar Lotsberg, formerly of Baker
Hughes INTEQ.
Participants in the working group on error propagation were
David Roper, Sysdrill Ltd.; Andy Brooks and Harry Wilson,
Baker Hughes INTEQ; and Roger Ekseth, formerly of Statoil.
The author also wishes to thank BP for their permission to
publish this paper.
References
1. Wolff, C.J.M. and de Wardt, J.P.: Borehole Position Uncertainty
Analysis of Measuring Methods and Derivation of Systematic Error
Model, JPT December 1981 2339.
2. Thorogood, J.L.: Instrument Performance Models and Their Application to Directional Survey Operations, SPEDE December 1990
294.
3. Brooks, A.G. and Wilson, H.: An Improved Method for Computing
Wellbore Position Uncertainty and Its Application to Collision and
Target Intersection Probability Analysis, paper 36863 presented at
the SPE 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy,
2224 October.
H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

A-1

sin I j1 cos A j1 sin I j cos A j

sin I j1 sin A j1 sin I j sin A j .
cos I j1 cos I j

A-2

The two differentials in the parentheses in Eq. A-1 may then be

expressed as

dr j
dr j dr j dr j

dpk
dD k dI k dA k
drk 1

dD k 2

jk,k1 ,

A-3

A-4a

sin I k cos A k sin I k1 cos A k1

sin I k sin A k sin I k1 sin A k1 ,
cos I k cos I k1

D j D j1 cos I k cos A k
dr j 1
D j D j1 cos I k sin A k

dI k
2
D j D j1 sin I k

dr j 1

dA k
2

sin I k1 cos A k1 sin I k cos A k

sin I k1 sin A k1 sin I k sin A k ,
cos I k1 cos I k

drk1 1

dD k
2

D j D j1 sin I k sin A k
D j D j1 sin I k cos A k
0

A-4b

jk,k1 ,

jk,k1 .

A-5

A-6

For the purposes of computation, the error summation terminates

at the survey station of interest. Vector errors at this station are
therefore given by

* i,L
ei,L,K

drK pK
.
dpK i

A-7

* indicates that a measurement error at this staThe notation ei,L,K

tion affects only the preceding survey displacement. In what follows we reserve the notation ei,l,k for vector errors at intermediate
stations, which affect both the preceding and following displacements.
Undefined Weighting Functions. For some combinations of
weighting function and hole direction, one component of the meaSPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

231

TABLE A-1 ERROR VECTORS IN VERTICAL HOLE WHERE WEIGHTING FUNCTION

IS SINGULAR
Sensor errors (with or without axial interference correction)
ABX
ABY
sinA
cosA
i , l D k 1 D k 1
i , l D k 1 D k 1
or
or
cos
A

sinA

ei , l , k
ei , l , k
ABIX
ABIY
2G
2G
0
0
Misalignment errors
MX

sinA
i , l D k 1 D k 1
cosA
ei , l , k
2
0

surement vector usually the azimuth is highly sensitive to

changes in hole direction and the vector p / i is apparently
undefined. There are two cases.
Vertical Hole. In this case, dr/dp is zero but the vectors ei,l,k
* are still finite and well defined. They may be computed
and ei,L,K
by forming the products of Eqs. A-1 and A-7 algebraically and
evaluating them as a whole. Take as an example the weighting
function for an X-axis radially symmetric misalignment. Substituting the expression for p/ M X , Eq. 27, and the well trajectory
model equations, Eqs. A-3 to A-6, into Eqs. A-1 and A-7, and
setting I equal to zero gives

sin A
i,l D k1 D k1
cos A
ei,l,k
2
0
and

A-8

A-9

Summation of Errors. Vector errors are summed into position

uncertainty matrices as follows.
Random Errors. The contribution to survey station uncertainty
from a randomly propagating error source i over survey leg l not
containing the station of interest is
Kl

k1

i,l,k " ei,l,k

A-10

rand

C i,K

C
l1

rand
i,l

k1

i,L,k " ei,L,k

* " ei,L,K
* T.
ei,L,K

A-11

Systematic Errors. The contribution to survey station uncertainty from a systematically propagating error source i over survey leg l not containing the station of interest is
232

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

cosA
sinA
0

Kl

syst

C i,l

Kl

k1

ei,l,k "

k1

ei,l,k

A-12

and the total contribution over all survey legs is

L1

syst

C i,K

l1

syst
i,l

K1

k1

K1

*
ei,L,k ei,L,K
"

k1

*
ei,L,k ei,L,K

. A-13

Well by Well and Global Errors. Each of these error types is

systematic among all stations in a well. The individual vector
errors can therefore be summed to give a total vector error from
slot to station:

Kl

e
l1

k1

i,l,k

K1

* .
ei,L,k ei,L,K

k1

A-14

The total contribution to the uncertainty at survey station K is

well
T
Ei,K "Ei,K
.
C i,K

A-15

Total Position Covariance. The total position covariance at survey station K is the sum of the contributions from all the types of
error source:
C Ksv y

iR

rand
i,K

C
iS

syst
i,K

i W,G

well
,
C i,K

A-16

where the superscript svy indicates the uncertainty is defined at a

survey station.
Survey Bias. Error vectors due to bias errors are given by expressions entirely analogous with Eqs. A-1 and A-7:
mi,l,k i,l

* i,L
mi,L,K

drk drk1 pk

,
dpk
dpk
i

A-17

drK pK
.
dpK i

A-18

The total survey position bias at survey station K, MKsv y , is the

sum of individual bias vectors taken over all error sources i, legs
l and stations k:
MKsv y

K1

i , l D k 1 D k 1
2

L1

and the total contribution over all survey legs is

L1

ei , l , k

L1

There are similar expressions for Y-axis axial misalignment and

X- and Y-axis accelerometer biases. These are given in Table A-1.
Equivalent expressions may be used for evaluating bias vectors in
* , i,l and i,L substituted for
the vertical hole, with mi,l,k , mi,L,K
* and i,l and i,L , respectively.
ei,l,k , ei,L,K
Other Hole Directions. Some error sources really are unbounded in certain hole directions. The examples in this paper are
sensor errors after axial interference correction in a horizontal and
magnetic east/west wellbore, a so-called 90/90 well. In such
cases, the assumptions of linearity break down, and computed
position uncertainties are meaningless. Software implementations
should include an error-catching mechanism for this case.

MY

Ei,K

sin A
i,L D K D K1
cos
A .
*
ei,L,K
2
0

rand

C i,l

Kl

l1

kl

mi,l,k

K1

k1

*
mi,L,k mi,L,K
.

A-19

Position Uncertainty and Bias at an Assigned Depth. Defining

the superscript dep to indicate uncertainty at an assigned depth, it
may be shown that

* de p ei,L,K
* s v y i,L w i,L,K vK ,
ei,L,K

A-20

de p
svy
ei,l,k
ei,l,k

A-21

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

Relative Uncertainty Between Wells. When calculating the uncertainty in the relative position between two survey stations
(K A ,K B ) in wells A,B, we must take proper account of the correlation between globally systematic errors. The uncertainty is
given by
C s v y rK A rK B C Ks vAy C Ks vBy

i,K A " Ei,K B

iG

Ei,K B " Ei,K A T .

A-24

The relative survey bias is simply

Ms v y rK A rk B MKs vAy MKs vBy .

A-25

Substitution of Eqs. A-20 to A-23 into these expressions gives

the equivalent results at the along-hole depths assigned to the
stations.

Fig. A-1Vector errors at the last station point of interest due

to an along-hole depth error at the last station.

where w i,L,K is the factor relating error magnitude to depth measurement uncertainty and vK is the along-hole unit vector at station K. Figs. A-1 and A-2 illustrate these results. Substituting
these expressions into Eqs. A-12 to A-16 yields the position uncertainty at the along-hole depth assigned to each survey station.
Survey bias at an assigned depth is calculated by substituting
the following error vectors into Eq. A-19:

Transformation Into Borehole Reference Frame. The results

derived above are in an Earth-referenced frame north, east, vertical, subscript nev. The transformation of the covariance matrices and bias vectors into the more intuitive borehole referenced
frame highside, lateral, along hole, subscript hla is straightforward:
C hla T T C ne v T ,

A-26

bH
b L Mhla T T Mne v ,
bA

where

cos I K cos A K

A-27

sin A K

sin I K cos A K

cos A K

sin I K sin A K

cos I K

T cos I K sin A K

sin I K

A-28

is a rotation matrix. Uncertainties and correlations in the principal

borehole directions are obtained from

H C hla 1,1 etc.,

HA

A-29

C hla 1,2
etc.
H L

A-30

Appendix B: Calculation of Toolface Angle

The following formulas may be used to calculate borehole toolface angle from successive surveys:
H K sin I K cos I K1 sin I K1 cos I K cos A K A K1 ,

B-1

L K sin I K1 sin A K A K1 ,

B-2

if H K 0,
if H K 0,

B-3

B-4

K tan L K /H K ,
K tan L K /H K 180,

if H K 0, K 270, 0 or 90 as L K
0, L K 0 or L K 0.

Fig. A-2Vector errors at the last station point of interest due

to an along-hole depth error at an earlier station.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft 3.048*
*Conversion factor is exact.

* dep mi,L,K
* s v y i,L w i,L,K vK ,
mi,L,K

A-22

dep
svy
mi,l,k
mi,l,k
.

A-23

H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD

B-5

E01 m
SPEDC

Hugh. S. Williamson is a well positioning specialist with BPs Upstream Technology Group in Sunbury-on-Thames, U.K. e-mail:
williahs@bp.com. He holds a degree in mathematics from
Cambridge U. and a degree in engineering surveying and geodesy from Nottingham U.

SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000

233