SPE

SPE 19545

Society of Petroleum Engineers

An Analysis of Predicted Wellbore Trajectory Using a ThreeDimensional Model of a Bottomhole Assembly With Bent Sub,
Bent Housing, and Eccentric Contact Capabilities
J.B. Williams* and M.C. Apostal, * * DAD Corp., and G.A. Haduch, Jordan, Apostal,
Ritter Assocs.
*SPE Member
* *SPE Member with Jordan, Apostal, Ritter Assocs.

Copyright 1989, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Antonio, TX, October 8-11, 1989.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the .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 Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Bent subs and bent housing motors are one of the

most important class of tools available to aid drilling
engineers in deviation and directional control of wellbores.
Even though such tools may spend very little actual time
drilling a hole, the quality of their performance often
determines the difference between success or failure of a
well as far as execution of the trajectory plan (or design) of
the well is concerned.

Apparently, the earliest attempts at explaining 'the

structural behavior of drill strings and Bottom Hole Assemblies (i.e., BHA's) in terms of beam mechanics and elastic
bending theory dates back to the early work of
Capelushnikov [1] and Clark [2] in the 1930's. Drilling mechanics did not, however, really come into its own as a discipline until the 1950's when Lubinski and Woods [3,4,5] in
their pioneering work carried out buckling studies on rotary
drill strings and addressed such questions as the factors affecting inclination and dog-legging in rotary boreholes and
the use of stabilizers in controlling hole deviation.

Despite the importance of bent subs and bent

housing motors to the drilling community, the previous lack
of available rigorous analytical models has assured that the
design and selection of these tools remain confined to the
realm of experience.

Initial efforts, such as the work of Huang and

Dareing [6] and Fischer [7], to develop computer models of
BHA's and drill strings were largely based on procedures
such as the finite difference method which operates directly
on the differential equations of bending of a structural model. Paralleling developments in advanced structural analysis
occurring in other industries, (e.g. aerospace, nuclear, marine, etc.) finite difference BHA models began, in the early
1970's, to evolve to more powerful potential energy or virtual work-based finite element models.

Recently, however, a sophisticated numerical

algorithm has been developed by the authors which
implements the Finite Element Method in modeling the
nonlinear behavior of steerable bottomhole assemblies
containing motors with multiple bends, -.bent subs, bent
housing motors, steering tools, eccentric contact stabilizers,
and wear pads (kick pads).
First, this paper provides a brief description of the
steerable bottomhole assembly analysis software model.
Second, this paper presents a variety of applications of the
model in field drilling situations to demonstrate the model's
ability to (i) accurately predict the actual response in these
field cases, and to (ii) permit a drilling engineer to isolate
the pertinent downhole structural mechanism operable during a given wellbore trajectory deflection scenario.

The frrst applications of the finite element method in

drilling mechanics can probably be attributed to- work undertaken initially by Nicholson [8] and later by Wolfson [9] at
the University of Tulsa. Nicholson's study dealt with the finite element analysis of constrained BHA' s in straight inclined wellbores using the penalty function method to define
the well bore boundary. Wolfson generalized these ideas to
include curved wellbores in three dimensions. Following
Nicholson and Wolfson's studies, Millheim, Jordan and
Ritter [10] went on to demonstrate the practicality of implementing a large, general purpose, nonlinear finite element
code for routine BHA analysis.

References and illustrations at end of paper.

273

AN ANALYSIS OF PREDICTED WELLBORE TRAJECTORY USING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF A

BOTTOMHOLE ASSEMBLY WITH BENT SUB, BENT HOUSING, AND ECCENTRIC CONTACT CAPABILITIES

SPE 19545

A limitation of all models addressed above is the

assumption of an initially straight centerline of the
undeformed string, a limitation which precludes the use of
bent tools (i.e., bent subs or bent housing motors) in the
BHA. To date, with the exception of the study by Brett,
Gray, Bell and Dunbar [28], very little information is
provided in the open literature concerning analytical or
numerical models for dealing with bent subs in the BHA.
Brett et. al. directly modify the computational scheme of
Millheim and Apostal [11] by implementing a series of
coordinate transformations, to achieve the desired result of a
slope discontinuity in the centerline of the undeformed
BHA. The work described herein, has the same ultimate
goals as that of Brett et. al. but achieves the result from a
decidedly more powerful mathematical approach.

Millheim and Apostal [11] were the firSt to implement complex three-dimensional dynamic models of a rotating BHA to study the effect BHA dynamics has on the trajectory of a bit. This work was instrumental in demonstrating that the intermittent contact and dynamic torque and
friction effects associated with a rotating BHA were important factors in directional (especially azimuth) responses of
a drilling BHA. Previously, these responses had been attributed to formation effects. More recent efforts in this area
are represented by the studies of Mitchell and Allen [12]
and Birades [13].
Dunayevsky, Judzis and Mills [14,15]
implemented analytical models of the entire drill string (not
just the BHA) to investigate the onset of drill string precession in directional boreholes [14] and the dynamic stability
of drill strings under fluctuating weight on bit [15].

DESCRIPI'ION OF MATHEMATICAL MODEL

A common characteristic of the BHA analysis algorithms described in [8-13] is the assumption that the interaction between a BHA 's bit and stabilizers and the formation can be dealt with via implementation of simplified contact, torque and friction models imposed on the bit and
stabilizer nodes of the finite element model. Though this ap- .
proach is adequate for analyzing the overall static and dynamic response of a BHA, the resulting solution provides little insight into the complex behavior which results from the
interaction between the teeth (or cutters) of the bit, the
blades of the stabilizers, and the formation. ~

Background of The BRA Model

The BHA model described in this paper is based on

the finite element method and has been designed to account
for the static and rotational response of a bottomhole
assembly drilling in an arbitrary curved three-dimensional
wellbore [31,32].
The nonlinear solution algorithm incorporated in the
model is
designed to
accommodate intermittent
contact/friction, large displacement, buoyancy, and other
diverse effects which characterize the interaction of a
rotating bottomhole assembly with the formation.

To address this limitation, Baird, Apostal and

Wormley, together with Caskey and Stone [16,17,18,20],
undertook the development of a three dimensional transient
dynamic finite element computer program (GEODYN2) capable of simulating the behavior of a rotating BHA interacting with a non-uniform formation. GEODYN2 facilitates a
very detailed analysis/simulation of the behavior of a BHA
with a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bit and various stabilizer designs. Working along somewhat different
lines in pursuit of the same goal, Brake! and Azar [19] generalized their resulting transient dynamic finite element
BHA analysis algorithm to accommodate roller cone as well
as PDC tits.

The mo<;lel has been designed to function in two

modes: (i) in a stand alone mode which allows the analysis
of a bottomhole assembly at a given location in the wellbore,
and/or (ii) in a drillahead simulation which implements the
force and displacement solution predictions provided by the
stand alone model to predict the assembly's behavior.
Previous investigators, Brett et. al. [28] and Millheim and
Warren [30], have demonstrated the importance of using bit .
side fo~ce and tilt data in the prediction of wellbore
trajectory.

Resisting the general trend in the drilling mechanics

community toward implementation of finite element models
for analyzing the structural response of drill strings and
BRA's, a number of authors have persisted in advancing finite difference models for this purpose [21-24]. All the finite difference models implemented in [21-24] have their basis in, or can be related to, the differential equations of bending which result from a beam theory advanced by Walker
and Friedman [25] and was developed specifically with drill
string applications in mind.

To facilitate its use by rig site drilling personnel , two

major areas were addressed in the design of the BHA
Model; (i) the necessary data for the model such as
surveys, drilling parameters, and bottomhole assembly
configurations uses standardized, pre-processed, "oil-field"
input, and (ii) the execution speed of the model during a
drillahead simulation is maximized through the use of
advanced analytical and progranhning techniques.
The
assembly configuration input by the user is passed through a
mesh generator for automatic construction of the finite
element model. The drilling parameters and survey data are
then processed by the program to establish the solution
control, load, and constraint criteria for the model.

In a fairly recent effort to cast the Walker-Friedman

beam theory into a finite element (i.e., Galerkin Integral)
form, Andersen [27] detected inherent difficulties in the
Walker-Friedman Theqry associated with the axial rotation
of the beam and thus concluded that, while the axial forceforce flexure mechanism of the beam theory is applicable to
BHA analysis applications, the torsion-flexure coupling
mechanism is not appropriate for such a use.

Application of this technology at the rig site requires

that the model be capable of providing solutions in a minimal
amount of time. The current formulation of the mathematical
model can petform a static or rotational analysis of a
bottomhole assembly in approximately 10-20 seconds on a
microcomputer with an 80836 processor at a clock speed of
274

SPE 19545

WILLIAMS , APOSTAL, HADUCH

some type of measuring device such as a steering tool or

MWDcollar.

twenty (20) Wlz. A drillahead simulation for a one hundred

foot (100) interval normally takes from 5 - 15 minutes
depending on the assembly and wellbore configuration. This
proportional increase in time is due to the drillahead
algorithm. This makes rig site use of the program acceptable
for drilling operations.

The objective of this procedure is frrst the orientation

of the steering tool (or similar functioning component) with
respect to the high side of the hole (or some other
convenient reference direction) followed by the subsequent
alignment of the bend(s) and accompanying eccentric
components with respect to the steering tool. Control of the
drill string through torque applied at the surface is then used
to keep the assembly properly oriented as it drills ahead.
Consequently, any finite element algorithms purporting to
accurately model such a hole deflection process must be able
to constrain any resulting solution to reflect the above
orientation process. In effect, the orientation process is
inflicting a constraint on the solution; a constraint which is
best handled by either a Lagrange multiplier or penalty
function technique.

Modification of The BHA Mo4e1 to .

Accommodate the New Tools
Bent tools and their associated hardware (e~g. kick
pads, eccennic stabilizers, etc.) are characterized by
inherent geometrical (and thus structural) asymtnetry in
their construction which causes them to provide a
bottomhole assembly with a predilection for deformation in a
prescribed direction (or plane). Modification of the above
described BHA model to accommodate the presence of
these components not only mandated significant expansion
of the existing drilling component library but required
addition of some significant new analytical capability as
well.

Since the Lagrange multiplier and penalty function

methods both excel at dealing with all the analytical
problems addressed above, either of these techniques i~ a
viable candidate for implementation in the mathematical
formulation of the new bent tool analysis capability being
addressed here. The authors, having had a great deal of
experience implementing both these approaches, have found
that, in most situations, the penalty function method is the
most effective means of accommodating the constraints
which invariably inflict themselves on a static or dynamic
bottomhole assembly analysis. The authors experience with
this technique dates back to the earliest versions of the
BHA Model where the procedure was implemented to
represent the intermittent contact and friction effects
characterizing the rotational behavior of standard
assemblies. In incorporating the new bent tool capabilities,
the areas addressed by the penalty function method were
expanded to include modeling the structural behavior of the
bent tools, and their associated hardware, as well as the
alignment of these components in the bottomhole assembly
and the orientation of the assembly in the hole.

An important difference between creating a structural

(e.g. finite element) model of a conventional rotary
bottomhole assembly and one with a bent tool in it is the
discontinuity in slope in the undeformed centerline of the
assembly which occurs at every bent tool location. In
constructing a finite element model of an assembly, this
slope discontinuity can be enforced in a number of ways
including local to global coordinate transformation (which
turns the bottomhole assembly into a space structure), the
use of Lagrange multipliers and the implementation of
penalty function models (both of wh~ch enforce the bent tool
angle as a geomenic constraint acting on the fmite element
model).
The kick pads, eccennic contact stabilizers, etc.,
frequently found in use with bent tools, present modeling
problems of their own in that they must be dealt with as
eccennic appendages attached to a basically cylindrical
structure (i.e., the bottomhole assembly). This eccennicity
creates obvious problems in building a finite element model
of the component in the frrst place and in representing the
eccennic contact behavior of the component in the second
place. One means of dealing with the modeling problems of
these components includes formulation of special finite
elements representing the specific geomenies of the
components in question. The difficulty with this approach is
that each new class of component added requires an
additional special complex mathematical formulation for its
implementation. An easier and more efficient approach to
accomplishing the same task is to retain the assumption of
basically cylindrical forms for these tools and to represent
the .eccennically placed appendages .as constraints enforced
through the above mentioned Lagrange multiplier or penalty
function techniques.

The Drilling Component Library

Prior to the implementation of the new bent tool and
eccentric contact capabilities, the component library of the
BHA Model was limited to modeling standard cylindrical
components such as drill collars, drill pipe, heavy weight drill
pipe, and standard forms of stabilizers and reamers. In the
course of carrying out the work described here, the
component library was expanded to include bent subs, bent
housings, eccentric stabilizers, kick pads, steering tools, and
MWD collars.
The bent sub model incorporated into the program
assumes a fmite length bent sub with a bend (or kink) at
some point along its length. The exact degree, location of
the bend, and orientation with respect to the steering tool
are definable quantities. The PDM and turbine are not
accommodated by special elements in the drilling component
library but rather are handled as short lengths of drill collars
with differing values of inner diameter to account for the
varying stiffness properties along its length. Millheim [33]
showed that downhole motors are not as stiff as drill

A third major difficulty incurred in modifying a finite

element program that accommodates the presence of bent
tools, eccentric stabilizers, etc., is that when drilling with a
positive displacement motor (PDM) or turbine under field
conditions, these tools have to be alig~ed (oriented) using

275

AN ANALYSISOF PREDICTED WELLBORE TRAJECTORY USING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF A

BOTTOMHOLE ASSEMBLY WITH BENT SUB, ~ENT HOUSING, AND ECCENTRIC CONTACT CAPABILITIES

collars. In the case of a bent housing motor, it is a simple

matter (using this procedure) to intersperse a bend in the
midst of the motor. It should also be noted that there is no
limit to the number of bends which a user can introduce into
the model of a bottomhole assembly. In this way, the model
can be used to evaluate any one of the commercially
available steerable systems presently being used by the
drilling industry.

SPE 19545

bit and the bit tilt for a typical Bent Sub Assembly,
respectively, with an orientation zero (0) degrees from high
side. As expected, the lateral (building) force at the bit
increases as bent sub angle is increased. This conflmls the
earlier assumption that the build rate should increase as the
angle of the bent sub is increased. Figure 2, however,
illustrates a unique characteristic of the Bent Sub Assembly
which had not been expected. For all assemblies, the value
of bit tilt is found to decrease as the bent sub angle is
increased.

The eccentric stabilizer model currently provides for a

maximum of eight blades, of varying diameter, distributed
circumferentially in a uniform manner about a cylindrical
body. As in the case of an ordinary stabilizer or reamer, all
blades (or rollers) for this component are assumed to have
the same length. During the solution process, the blades are
modeled by a series of contact points (or vectors) which
overlay the cross-section of the cylindrical body so that both
the body outer diameter and the blades (contact vectors)
provide a mechanism for contact with the wellbore wall.

This is an important result because it may explain

why som~ Bent Sub Assemblies do not build faster when
the angle of the bent sub is increased. In the case of the
12-l/4" hole size, Figure 2 shows that the effect on the build
rate may not be very noticeable. However, the 9-7/8" and
8-l/2" hole size plots given in that figure demonstrate that
when the angle of the bent sub is greater than one (1)
degree, the building tendency of the assembly being modeled
will be offset by a dropping tendency due, in large part, to
the negative (downward) tilt at the bit

Rather than being visualized as a component in its

own right, the kick pad alluded to earlier is really just an
appendage attached to a component (e.g. PDM, bent
housing, turbine, etc.). The kick pad is modeled by a single
oriented contact vector emanating from a reference node
defined during mesh generation.
In practice, this
configuration acts like a stabilizer with a single, very short,
blade since both the component and attached kick pad can
act as contact mechanisms.

Figures 3 and 4 show the effect of bent sub angle on

the lateral force at the bit and bit tilt, respectively, when the
same Bent Sub Assembly modeled in Figures 1 and 2 is reoriented straight down, i.e., the plane of bend is oriented one
hundred eighty (180) degrees from the high side of the hole.
Referring to Figures 3 and 4 we fmd that, again, the behavior
of the lateral force is as expected. Increasing bent sub angle
increases the value of the lateral (dropping) force at the bit.

A steering tool, or MWD, is modeled as a reference

point at a specific location in the drilling assembly. It has no
length, outer diameter, or inner diameter but rather is used
to orient some defined plane of the assembly with respect to
the high side of the hole. In this way, the user has the
capability to orient a bend, series of bends, kick pad, or
eccentric stabilizer from zero (0) to one hundred eighty
(180) degrees right or left from the high side of the hole.

An interesting effect of bent sub angle on bit tilt for

the Bent Sub Assembly can be seen in Figure 4 where we
observe a reversal in behavior (an inflection point) at a bent
sub angle of approximately one (1) degree for all
assemblies. The effects of this phenomenon can have
adverse effects on drilling performance.
Correlating
predicted to actual behavior could be particularly useful in
determining the downhole mechanism controlling the
assembly's behavior. In the author's experience, there have
been many cases where a Bent Sub Assembly has been
oriented straight down in order to drop hole angle only to
find out that the hole angle continues to build with that
orientation.

BENT SUB ASSEMBLY

Generally, a driller utilizes one of two methods to

impart a lateral force at a bit. One method is associated
with rotary assemblies and involves generation of the lateral
bit force via stabilization. By positioning the stabilizers at
certain locations along the length of the assembly, the
lateral force at the bit can be controlled to make a
bottomhole assembly build, drop, or hold angle [33].
Another method of imparting a lateral force at the bit is by
introducing a bend into the assembly some given distance
from the bit. The operative assumption here is that if the
plane of the bend is oriented in a given direction, the
trajectory of the well will go in that same direction as well.

Prediction of Bent Sub Assembly Performance

Using field data available to the authors, the bent

tool model was used to predict the resultant wellbore angle
and direction change for a Bent Sub Assembly that was
oriented ninety degrees (90) left of high side, the intention
being to counteract a right hand walk tendency of the hole. It
was logical to assume, in analyzing this trajectory
correction, that the hole angle would remain constant since
the assembly was set for full left hand turn. The assembly
used in this case is defined in Table 1, with the results of the
analysis given in Table 2. Rather than holding angle, the
model predicted a build rate of 0.8 degrees/100 ft. versus an
actual build rate of 0.6 degrees/100 ft. The predicted turn
rate of the assembly was left .9.07 degrees./100 ft. versus
the actual of left 9.52 degrees/1 00 ft. Inspection of predicted
bit tilt and side force data demonstrates that the bent tool

Most of the available literature shows that the rate

of build will increase with increasing bent sub angle [34,35].
The rationalization here is that as the bent sub angle is
increased, the lateral force at the bit is increased and, as a
result, the bottomhole assembly will deflect through a given
trajectory at a faster rate. Figures 1 and 2, obtained from
the application of the previously described bent sub model,
show the effect of bent sub angle on the lateral force at the
276

SPE 1951.5

WILLIAMS. APOSTAL, HADUCH

model correctly predicted a build and turn response of the

assembly.

Figures 8 and 9 show the effect of variation of

eccentric stabilizer diameter on the bit side force and bit tilt,
respectively. The blades in the model used to generate the
results shown in Figures 8 and 9 are located at 2 ft. and
25 ft. distances from the bit. The lower blade is oriented
one hundred eighty degrees from high side with the upper
blade oriented zero degrees from high side. In carrying out
the computer runs used to generate the curves of Figures 8
and 9, the blade diameter was increased in 0.125 in.
increments for both blades simultaneously. For this hole
size and assembly, the computer results indicate that the
side force at the bit increases at a rate of approximately 2.5
kips I 0.125 in. of blade diameter. It is unlikely that bit side
forces on the order of 10 - 20 kips could be achieved during
drilling operations. The results plotted in Figures 8 and 9
stand as a representation of the type of analysis that can be
performed with a computer model of this type.

BENT HOUSING ASSEMBLY

The use of a Bent Housing Assembly as an
alternative to the side loading concept of the Bent Sub
Assembly was proposed by Emery [36] in 1985.
By
creating a bend in the assembly close to the bit, it was
theorized that two objectives could be accomplished, (i) bit
tilt could be controlled, and (ii) the side loading of the bit and
resultant power loss to the motor could be eliminated.
Analyses were undertaken with the new bent tool model to
validate the above statements.
Figures 5 and 6 show the effect of bent housing angle
on the lateral force at the bit (Figure 5) and bit tilt (Figure
6) for typical, but comparative, Bent Housing and, Bent Sub
Assemblies. The bends in the assembly were located at 5.8
ft. (Bent Housing) and 26.5 ft. (Bent Sub) from the bit,
respectively. Under the given conditions, the model predicts
that bit side force is minimized and bit tilt continuously
increases in the range of zero (0) to one (1) degree of bent
housing angle. At bent housing angles greater than one (1)
degree however, the model predicts a dramatic increase in
bit side force while the value of bit tilt levels off in magnitude
to a value of approximately 0.9 degrees.

A unique and rather unanticipated effect of the

presence of the eccentric stabilizers on bit tilt can be seen in
Figure 9. In carrying out the computer runs comprising this
analysis, it was not expected that (see Figure 9) the bit tilt
would continue to decrease with increasing blade diameter,
especially to the point where the bit tilt would eventually
point down (i.e., maintain a measurable negative value).
This example demonstrates the usefulness of the new bent
tooVeccentric stabilizer computer model in optimizing the
size of blade diameter for this class of assembly.

Prediction of Bent Housing Assembly Performance

APPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL

Data from a horizontal well [37 ,38] was used to

simulate. the predicted performance of a 1-7/8 degree bent
housing motor in a 7-7/8" hole. This case is unique in that
the directional work was performed with a positive displacement motor using air as the drilling medium. The Bent
Housing Assembly configuration used in the analysis is
defined in Table 3 while the results of the analysis are given
in Figure 7. As shown in Figure 7, the results of the
analysis show good agreement between the predicted
performance and the actual result. The bent tool computer
model predicted a build rate of 11.2 degrees/100 ft. whereas
the actual performance was calculated to be 10.5
degrees/1 00 ft. The straight line nature of actual hole
inclination shown in Figure 7 can be explained in that only
three directional surveys were taken over the drilled
interval. The drillahead simulation, on the other hand, is
executed by the program once every 5 ft. of hole which
explains the oscillation seen in Figure 7 for predicted
performance.

A model of this type has many applications in the

field of directional drilling or deviation control, some of which
are listed below:
1.

Orientation of a bottomhole assembly (0 - 180

degrees left or right of high side) for achieving
optimum performance in a well deflection scenario.

2.

Comparison of rotary versus steerable assembly

performance for a given well trajectory analysis.

3.

Given the versatility of the model in handling any

number of bends and eccentric contact points in an
assembly, an engineer can use the program to
optimize the design of a steerable system without
resorting to the more costly trial and error method.

4.

Estimating the additional torque drawn from the

motor due to the lateral force at the bit. Used in
conjunction with Warren's model (39) for roller cone
bits and the GEODYN model (18,29) for PDC bits,
the total torque requirement for a specific bit could be
estimated.

5.

Evaluation of the effect of motor stiffness on

assembly performance.

ECCENTRIC STABILIZERS
Eccentric stabilizers are used in conjunction with a
turbine motor because (i) the housing of a turbine does not
bend as readily as a positive displacement motor, and (ii)
they offer an advantage over the bent sub in that a driller can
both orient the assembly for a controlled deflection and
rotate the assembly .for drilling ahead. The bottom stabilizer
(often just a single blade) is usually placed on the lower end
of the motor housing while another stabilizer is mounted on
the housing of the turbine some distance up. The distance
between the stabilizers is usually established based on the
experience of the drilling personnel involved.
277

AN ANALYSIS OF PREDICTED WELLBORE TRAJECTORY USING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF A

BOTTOMHOLE ASSEMBLY WITH BENT SUB, BENT HOUSING, AND ECCENTRIC CONTACT CAPABILITIES

SPE 19545

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

1.

1.

Capelushnikov, M., "Why Holes go Crooked in Drilling," World Petroleum, May 1930.

2.

Clark, L.V.W., "A Theoretical Examination of

Straight and Directed Drilling Techniques," Institute
of Petroleum Technologists, Vol. 22, January 1936.

3.

Lubinski, A., "A Study of the Buckling of Rotary Drilling Strings," Drilling and Production Practices, 1950.

4.

Lubinski, A. and Woods, H.B., "Factors Affecting

Angle of Inclination and Dog-Legging in Rotary Bore
Holes," Spring Meeting, Mid-Continent District, Division of Production, Tulsa, March 1953.

NOMENCLATURE

5.

Woods, fl.B. and Lubinski, A., "Use of Stabilizers in

Drill-Collar String," Oil and Gas Journal, April 4,
1955.

6.

Huang, T. and Dareing, D.W., "Buckling and Frequencies of Long Vertical Pipes," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division of the ASCE, February
1969.

7.

Fischer, F.J., "Analysis of Drill Strings in Curved

Boreholes," Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, Paper No. SPE5071, 1974.

8.

Nicholson, R.W., Jr., "Analysis of Constrained Directional Drilling Assemblies," Ph.D. Dissertation, The
University of Tulsa, Department of Petroleum Engineering, 1972.

9.

Wolfson, L., "Three-Dimensional Analysis of Constrained Directional Drilling Assemblies in a Curved

Hole," M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, Department of Petroleum Engineering, 1974.

10.

Millheim, K., Jordan, S. and Ritter, C.J., Jr., "BottomHole Assembly Analysis Utilizing the Finite Element Method," Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, Paper Number SPE6057, 1976.

11.

Millheim, K.K., and Apostal, M.C., "The Effect of

Bottom Hole Assembly Dynamics on the Trajectory
of a Bit," SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol.
33, 1981.

12.

Mitchell, R.F., and Allen, M.B., "Lateral Vibration:

The Key to BHA Failure Analysis," World Oil,
March 1985.

13.

Birades, M., "ORPHEE 3D: Static and Dynamic Tridimensional BHA Computer Models," SPE 15466,
Presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference
of the SPE, New Orleans, LA, October 1986.

2.

A three-dimensional finite element model of a

bottomhole assembly has been modified to simulate
the nonlinear behavior of a bottomhole assembly that
contains bends and eccentric contact points along its
length.
Results obtained by performing analyses (using the
above described new computer model) on bottomhole
assemblies that contain bends and eccentric
stabilization show that the behavior of these
assemblies is predictable and not always consistent
with prior expectations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A:

Vector A

~:

Matrix C

a:

Variational Operator

()T:

Transpose of the Vector or Matrix ( )

7t:
A

Total Potential Energy

7t:

Modified Total Potential Energy

U:

Elastic Strain Energy

V:

Potential Energy Due to Applied Loads

F:

Functional

G:

Constraint Function

u:

Displacement Vector

x:

Coordinate Vector

B:

Element Shape Function Matrix

:::::

.9-e=

Element Degree of Freedom Vector

~e:

Element Residual Force Vector

Je=

Element Jacobian Matrix

L\:

System Degree of Freedom Vector

R:

System Residual Force Vector

J:

System Jacobian Matrix

278

SPE 19545

WILLIAMS. APOSTAL. HADUCH

14.

Dunayevsky, V.A., Judzis, A., and Mills, W.H.,

"Onset of Drill String Precision in a Directional Borehole," SPE 13027, 59th Annual Technical Conference
of the SPE, Houston, TX, 1984.

15.

Dunayevsky, V.A., Judzis, A. and Mills, W.H.,

"Dynamic Stability of Drill Strings Under Fluctuating
Weights-On-Bit," SPE14329, Presented at the 60th
Annual Technical Conference of the SPE, Las Vegas,
NV, September 1985.

16.

17.

18.

19.

. 20.

21.

22.

23.

Baird, J.A., Apostal, M.C., Wormley, D.N.,

"Analyzing the Dynamic Behavior of Some Typical
Rotary Bottom Hole Assemblies During Start Up,"
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 9 Part I, 1985.
Baird, J.A., Caskey, B.C., Wormley, D.N. and St~ne,
C.M., "OEODYN2: A Bottom Hole Assembly Geological Formation Dynamic Interaction Computer
Program," SPE 14328, Presented at the 60th Annual
Technical Conference of the SPE, Las Vegas, NV,
September 1985.
Baird., J.A., Apostal, M.C., and Wormley, D.N.,
"Phase 2 Theoretical Description - A Geological Formation - Drill String Dynamic Interaction Finite Element Program (GEODYN2), Sandia Laboratories,
Contract No. 68-3061, Report No. SAND86-7084,
1986.
Brakel, J.D., and Azar, J.J., "Prediction of Wellbore
Trajectory Considering Bottomhole Assembly and
Drill Bit Dynamics," SPE!IADC 16172, presented at
the SPE!IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
LA, March 1987.
Baird, J.A., Wormley, D.N., and Apostal, M.C.,
"Implementation of Component Mode Synthesis in a
Nonlinear Rotational Dynamics System," Proceedings of the 6th International Modal Analysis Conference, Kissimmee, Florida, 1988.
Rafie, S., Ho, H.-S., and Chandra, U., "Applications
of a BHA Analysis Program in Directional Drilling,"
IADC/SPE 14765, Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, February 1986.
Jogi, P.N., Burgess, T.M., and Bowling, J.P., "ThreeDimensional Bottomhole Assembly Model Improves
Directional Drilling," IADC/SPE 14768, presented at
the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, February 1986.
Ho, H.-S., "General Formulation of Drill String Under
Large Deformation and its Use in BHA Analysis,"
SPE 15562, Presented at the 61st Annual Technical
Conference of the SPE, New Orleans, LA, October
1986.

24.

Toutain, P., "Analyzing Drill String Behavior,'' Three

Part Series Appearing in World Oil, June, July and
September 1981.

25.

Walker, B.H. and Friedman, M.B., "Three-Dimensional Force and Deflection Analysis of a Variable
Cross Section Drill String,'' Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology of the ASME., May 1977.

26.

Love, A.E.H., A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, Dover Publications, New York, NY
1955.

27.

Andersen, C.T., "Formulation of a Beam Finite EleFor Torsion-Flexure Coupling and Axial ForceFlexure Coupling, M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, Discipline of Mechanical Engineering, 1985.
~ent

28.

Brett, J.F., Gray, J.A., Bell, R.K. and Dunbar, M.E.,

"A Method of Modeling the Directional Behavior of
Bottomhole Assemblies Including Those With Bent
Subs and Downhole Motors," IADC/SPE/4767, Presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE Dt;illing Conference,
Dallas, TX, February 1986.

29.

Baird, J.A., Caskey, B.C., Tinianow, M.A., and Stone,

A Geological Formation/Drill
C.M., "GEODYN:
String Dynamics Computer Program," Paper SPE
13023 Presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Sept. 16-19,
1984.

30.

Millheim, K.K., and Warren, T.M., "Side Cutting

Characteristics of Rock Bits and Stabilizers While
Drilling," Paper SPE 7518 Presented at the SPEAIME 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct 1-3, 1978.

31.

DRD Corporation, Tulsa, Okla., WELLPLAN User's

Manual.

32.

DRD Corporation, Tulsa, Okla., WELLPLAN Theoretical Manual.

33.

Millheim, K.K., Eight-Part Series on Directional

Oil and Gas Journal (Nov. 1978- Feb. 1979).

Dri~ng,

34.

Dyna-Drill Handbook, Sixth Edition, Revised, p. 90.

35.

Baker Service Tools Downhole Drilling Motor Opera-

tions Manual, Third Edition, 1983, p. 58.

36.

Emery, M.M.,"Optimizing Results for Bent-Sub

Drilling Applications," Drilling (Feb. 1985), 46-48.

37.

Overbey, W.K., Carden, R.S., and Williams, J.B.,

"Computer Applications in the Planning and Drilling
of a 2,000-ft Horizontal Well in Wayne County,
West Virginia," Paper SPE 16501 Presented at the
Petroleiun Industry Applications of Microcomputers,
Montgomery, TX, June 23-26, 1987.

AN ANALYSIS OF PREDICTED WELLBORE TRAJECTORY USING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF A

BOTTOMHOLE ASSEMBLY WITH BENT SUB, BENT HOUSING, AND ECCENTRIC CONTACT CAPABILITIES

38.

39.

Yost II, A.B., Overbey, W.K., and Carden, R.S.,

"Drilling a 2,000-ft. Horizontal Well in the Devonian
Shale," Paper SPE 16681 Presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX,
Sept. 27-30, 1987.

o <u, a!! ,... > =o

....

(5)

d~

In the constrained minimization problem defined by (3) and

(5)above, ~ must not only satisfy the specified boundary

Warren, T.M., "Factors Affecting Torque for a Roller

Cone Bit," JPT (Sept. 1984), 1500-1508.

conditions and be sufficiently continuous, but must satisfy

any of the constraints imposed on the body as well.
The constraints in the BHA solution algorithm arise
from many sources including contact and friction effects, definition of specialized drilling tool behavior, orientation of
steering tools, etc. The penalty function method, which is
employed in the BHA model solution algorithm to deal with
these constraints, involves the reduction of conditional extremum problems to extremum problems without constraints by
the introduction of a penalty function associated with the
constraints. As applied to the problem defined by (3) and
(5) above, the technique involves seeking the minimum of a

APPENPIX
Generation and Solution of the Constrained Finite Element Model of the BHA
Notwithstanding the fact that time and space do not
permit an exhaustive treatment of the subject, one notes
that the prominence of the penalty function method in generating and solving constrained finite element models of bottom hole assemblies in the BHA analysis model described
here dictates that we stop for a moment to provide a brief
mathematical review of the ideas involved. Though the finite
element models implemented in the BHA analysis model
module are formulated using the more general Principle of
Virtual Work, the concepts involved here are more concisely
and elegantly explained using the Principal of Minimum Potential Energy as a variational framework for the direct formulation of the element stiffness equations.
The Total Potential Energy functional 1t of an elastic
body is given by
(1)
x=U+V

Modified Potential Energy Functional

1t
obtained by
adding a quadratic term associated with the constraint in
(5) (i.e., the constraint is satisfied in the least square
sense):
1\

1t

(F+

) dv

(6)

where"( is a weighting parameter bounded by 0 < 'Y< oo

We note that the stationary condition

(7)

attempts to yield a kinematically admissible solution for u

where U is the strain energy arising from deformation of

the body and where V is the potential energy attributable
to the presence of any applied loads. The Principal of Minimum Potential Energy states that "Among all displacements
of a kinematically admissible form, those that satisfy the
equilibrium conditions render the potential energy a stationary value." We go on to note that the stationary condition
on 1t is enforced by

ax = au + av = o

SPE 19545

which simultaneously satisfies both equilibrium and the constraint conditions of (5) as well.
Implementing (6) we note that we can express B~
in the form

(2)

(8)

v
At this point it is convenient to re-express 1t in the equivalent form
1t

= f F ( x, ~, d.Y ,... ) dv
v
a~

where

(3)

R= aF + 'YG
au

where

!!

= [ u, v, w ]
= [ X, y,

Z]

(9)

Letting a superimposed dot indicate an increment of a quanti-

(a)

ty, i.e., ( ) indicates an increment of (

show that

(4)
~

00

au

(b)

), we can also

(10)
with u,v,w representing, respectively, the displacements of
the body in the x,y ,z rectangular Cartesian coordinate directions.
We next undertake the problem of finding the minimum of the
functional 1t (3) subject to the constraint

280

SPE 19545

WILLIAMS. APOSTAL. HADUCH

1\

The element Jacobian matrix incorporated in the BHA

analysis finite element model reflects the presence of rionlinearities in both the functions F an G of (3) and (6); the
principal contributions from F arising due to the presence of
nonlinear bending and torsional effects in the specialized
beam elements used to model the BHA components and the
contribution from the constraint function(s) G resulting
from the previously stated presence of intermittent contact,
friction, etc.

where ; is the Jacobian matrix given by

(11)

In introducing the standard fmite element approximations,

we assume that the modified Total Potential Energy ~ of
the elastic body under consideration can be approximated by
the sum of the energy contributions of the N individual discrete (finite) elements used to model the body. It therefore
follows from (6), (8) and (10) that, in building a finite element model, we assume that

"

7t

J::l

e=1

ve

( F +1
2

o2

As represented in (14), our fmite element model is

still disconnected topologically. In order to complete the formulation, we must impose the standard nodal displacement
compatibility and nodal force equilibrium conditions on (14)
to yield

(12)

)dv

8~

In considering the deformation of an arbitrary element e of

the assemblage, we note that we can employ the element
shape functions to relate E (at any point ~ within the element) to

~e

8~

via an expression of the form

u

where ~,
(13)

B (x) &e

,..,

(a)

!!-

and

= 8.1T J ~

(b)

- -

given above are, respectively, the

displacement vector, the residual force vector and the Jacobian matrix for the assembled nonlinear fmite element model.

,.,

Implementing (8), (10), (12) and (13) it follows that

N
8 ~ J::l :E 8 &T R
e=1
,... e ,... e

--

(16)

(the nodal degrees of freedom of the element)

1"<11

= 8&T

Substituting (16-a) into (7), we note that the requirement for a stationary condition on

(a)

1t

requires that
(17)

(14)
Since 8 &

is arbitrary, (17) requires that (for equilibrium)

we must have the Residual Force Vector

where

~e

the solution equal to zero, i.e.

!!- = Q

and le can be identified, respectively, as the ele-

arising from
(18)

,..

ment residual force vector and the element Jacobian matrix

given by

R = I BT
dv
,... e
v ::::: ,...
e

Frequently

R=P-I=O
,..,
,.,
,..,
,..,
where f

JB

is interpreted as implying

(a)

(15)

BT

~.

dv

(19)

is the external force vector acting on the finite ele-

ment model and

is the resulting internal force vector at-

tempting to bring the system into equilibrium.

(b)

In linear finite element formulations (and occasionally in

nonlinear formulations as well), ~e is frequently referred

The BHA analysis finite element solution algorithm implements a knowledge driven, iterative, often times incremental, Newton-Raphson based scheme to solve the highly nonlinear set of finite element equations represented by ~

to as the element stiffness matrix; a terminology which aris-

(19) for the displacement vector ~ (which represents the

es because

final deformed shape of the BHA centerline). The solution algorithm is knowledge driven in that it is controlled by
a great deal of experientially rooted logic designed to address the many problems which arise in a nonlinear BHA

can be interpreted as representing the slope

of the load-displacement cutve in the multi-dimensional

space define d by the element degrees of freedom ~ e and
the internal forces fe associated with the element's nodes.
281

10

AN ANALYSIS OF PREDICTED WELLBORE TRAJECTORY USING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL 0F A

BOTTOMHOLE ASSEMBLY WITH BENT SUB. BENT HOUSING. AND ECCENTRIC CONTACT r.APARTT.TTT~~

analysis including (but not limited to) displacement field initialization (for the Newton-Raphson solution process), identification of solution convergence or divergence, solution increment sizing, identification and circumvention of limit and
bifurcation buckling points, convergence acceleration, penalty
function parameter control, etc.

BENT SUB ASSEMBLY

(DRILLED FROM 10,571' - 10,698' MD)
15 1 1 -

1 1 -

6-1/4" X 2-1/4" DRILL COLLARS

6-1/4" X 2-1/4" NONMAGNETIC DRILL COLLAR
1.00 DEGREE BENT SUB
6-1/2" POSITIVE DISPLACE:MENT MOTOR
8-1/2" DRILL BIT (IADC 837)

TABLE 1

ACTUAL VERSUS PREDICfED RATES FOR BUILD AND TURN

Bit Tilt
Angle
Azimuth

Bit Side Force

Angle Azimuth

PREDICfED

0.26

-0.01

+292

-467

0.80

-9.07

ACTUAL

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.60

-9.52

TABLE2

282

Build Rate

Tum Rate

SPE 19545

SP.E

19 54 5

BENT HOUSING ASSEMBLY

(DRll.LED FROM 3,869' - 3,998' MD)
1
1
1
1
1

6-1/4" X 2-114" NONMAGNETIC DRILL COlLAR

CROSSOVER SUB
6-1/4" X 2-114" NONMAGNETIC DRILL COlLAR
6-3/4" POSITIVE DISPLACB:MBNT MOTOR Wl'lH 1-7/8 DBG. BENT HOUSING
7-7/8" DRILL BIT (IADC 612)

TABLE3

5 DEG. I ORIENTED 0 OFF HIGH SIDE I STATIC

BIT SIDE FORCE I LBS.
3000~--------------------~--------------------~

12-114" HOLE
25oo .................................................................................................................. ...............~~.?(~~~..M9.TQ.8
2000 : g-:.:.7/B.. HOt:E

7-314" MOTOR
1500

500

-5oo~--~~----~----~~----~~~~----~----~

0.5

1.5

2.5

BENTSUB ANGLE I DEGREES

FIGURE 1

2S3

3.5

5 DEG./ ORIENTED 0 OFF HIGH SIDE I STATIC

5 DEG.I ORIENTED 180 OFF HIGH SIDE I STATIC

BIT SIDE FORCE I LBS.

BIT TILT l DEGREES

0.3,....-----------------------

0.--------------------------.
.'(_-

0.2

-500

f--~

0.1 f--~--==-=.1.2.:.1l4.~..HQl.~... 9.:~/8.~.MQIQR. ..............................

-,

8-112~HOLE

-1000 r---~~----~-s::172".MOTOR
0
-1500 f--'"'=

-0.1

9-718.. HOLE

-0.2

-2000 ~------~--~---7.::314~.MQTOR ......,

-0.3
-2500

1------~-1

-0.4

12-114" HOLE
9-5/8" MOTOR
-3000

-0.5
0

0.5

1.5
2
2.5
BENTSUB ANGLE I DEGREES

3.5

'------'-----'----'----.L..-.----l.....-------'---.--J

0.5

1~

~5

3.5

BENTSUB ANGLE I DEGREES

FJGURE 2

FJGURE 3

:
5 DEG.I ORIENTED 0 OFF HIGH SfDE I STATIC
12-114 " HOLE SIZE WITH 9-5/8" MOTOR

5 DEG. fORIENTED 180 OFF HIGH SIDE I STATIC

0.5

BIT SIDE FORCE I LBS. (Thousands)

BIT TILT I DEGREES

r--------------------------,

14
BENT HOUSING

12 -- -:

0.4

10

0.3

------

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

0.2

9-718" HOLE, 7-3/4" MOTOR

0.1

...

4
0

BENT SUB

.0
V\

-0.1

\1\
____j__

-2

-0.2

0.5

1.5
2
2.5
BENTSUB ANGLE I DEGREES

FIGURE4

3.5

0.5

_I

1.5
2
BEND ANGLE I DEGREES

FIGURES

2.5

3.5

BIT TILT I DEGREES

7-718" HOLE SIZE /1-7/8 DEGREE BENT HOUS1NG MOTOR

5 DEG./ ORIENTED 0 OFF HIGH SIDE/ STATIC

12-1/4" HOLE WITH 9-5/8" MOTOR

HOLE ANGLE I DEGREES

90.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

1
BENT HOUSING
0.8

...................................

0.6

......................................................................................................................................................................

851-~~-1

ACTUAL
801-~~1

.......................................................................................................................................................................

0.4

75~1

0.2
70 1-1

-0.2

1.5
2
2.5
BEND ANGLE I DEGREES

0.5

3.5

65 1
3869

3909

3 9
a4

3998

MEASURED DEPTH I FEET

FIGURE7

FIGURE 6
N

CD

en

5 DEG./ ECCENTR~C BLADES ORIENTED 180 AND 0/STATfC

9-7/8" HOLE SIZE WITH 7-3/4" MOTOR

5 DEGJECCENTRIC BLADES ORIENTED 180 AND 0/STATIC

9-7/8" HOLE SIZE WITH 7-3/4" MOTOR

B1T SIDE FORCE I DEGREES (Thousands)

BIT TILT 1 DEGREES

25

20

0.4

----~-

0.2

---~-----

15

0
10 --- ..........................................................................................
-0.2

...
1'11

5
-0.4

~
~

0
9.75

10

10.25

10.5

STABILIZER DIAMETER /INCHES

FIGURES

10.75

11

9.75

10

10.25

10.5

STABILIZER DIAMETER /INCHES

FIGURE 9

10.75

11

z:.

Ul