SPE 68440

Development of Computer-Controlled Hybrid CT Drilling Units

Robert Ewen, SPE; Kevin Mackay, SPE, Baker Hughes Inc.; Frank Shepard, SPE, Baker Hughes INTEQ

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in
Houston, Texas, 78 March 2001.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

computer simulations, modeling and monitoring systems

running online. It would be only a matter of time until a
company designed and built a computer-controlled CT unit for
running in and out of hole.
The Baker Hughes INTEQ Wellbore Construction Group
was formed in December 1994, to build a Reeled Technology
System that was radically different from the conventional
units available on the market at that time. A steering
committee was formed to outline requirements for the overall
needs of the market.

Abstract
This paper describes the development and design of a
computer controlled hybrid coiled tubing unit used for
workover, re-entries, casing exits, coiled tubing underbalanced drilling, running & cementing liners and logging &
perforating. Key components of the unit were a purpose-built
bottom hole assembly and a companion control cabin.

The primary goal was to design a unit that could drill wells
under-balanced using either jointed pipe or coiled tubing. The
units were to be modular and capable of being shipped and
either lifted onto an offshore platform or used on a land
location. Rig control was to be based on fly by wire
technology either onsite or remote and there were to be a
minimal number of lines for hook up.

The goal was a fly by wire control cabin with no

hydraulic lines and a minimum number of hydraulic hoses
linking the equipment. All equipment on site was to be
controlled from a central location. The focus was to construct
an environmentally friendly unit requiring minimum crew size
but without impacting safety.

Initial inquiries on existing technology for control systems

proved quite uneventful; designs for standard drilling rig
systems had been done but nothing for coiled tubing
operations. After analysis of automated process and
production systems, a decision was made to study how these
could be adapted to operate a coiled tubing system.

Introduction
In 1994, following a comprehensive market study, Baker
Hughes INTEQ embarked on a program to build the surface
package to supplement the slim-hole drilling bottom hole
assembly (BHA) it had developed in 1991.
The coiled tubing industry had changed quite dramatically
in the mid 80s. This was the transition period when coiled
tubing became a device for carrying out other functions such
as drilling out scale and milling downhole tools that could no
longer be retrieved on wireline. Also, monitoring systems
changed from simple devices such as a Martin Decker gauge
to a multi-pen recorder or a computerized data acquisition
device with large data storage capabilities.
By the late 80s and early 90s, CT (coiled tubing)
companies had changed to larger control cabins with various

Hybrid CT Drilling Unit Design & Development

Surface Equipment The first two units were designed in
early 1995. The decision was made to automate control of the
coiled tubing system only. To that date, the operation of
snubbing equipment had been manual only and this function
was not considered the primary function of unit design.
The first unit (Copernicus) was built to Norwegian
specifications and certification standards. Each module was
designed for lifting by platform cranes so the structure
developed was nine separate modules. All other components,
mud pumps, power pack, mud tanks, accumulator, etc., were
designed with the same modular philosophy. Assembly of this
structure was a lengthy process and it was imperative to
receive the components in the correct order for assembly. The

F. SHEPARD, B. EWEN & K. MACKAY

modular structure also meant that all wiring and services had
to be done independently within each module
Copernicus proved to be labor intensive for the electronic
technicians. Moreover, the multiple connectors caused some
reliability problems. Hook up and wiring of the following rigs,
the Galileo series units, were changed to overcome the
limitations experienced with the Copernicus design.
Drilling Support Structure A modular structure was
designed and constructed for the Copernicus unit to
accommodate deploying the BHA in under-balanced
conditions. The unit was to be able to handle casing, drill pipe,
tubing (up to 6 5/8) and coiled tubing (up to 3). It
combined a rig-assist snubbing unit, a coiled tubing injector
mounted below the jack and a drill floor to replace the usual
snubbing basket. The drill floor also had a fifteen-foot radius
guide arch, which guided the coiled tubing from the storage
reel into the injector, through the jack slip-bowls. The guide
arch also could be parked off well center to allow the
deployment of jointed tubulars via the gin pole.
The injector position meant the drive modules had to be a
unique design that would allow all tubulars to pass through but
it could be used as a back-up to the jack if required. The
injector drive modules could be opened to a maximum 12 ID,
which allowed the jacking unit to handle all tubular sizes up to
6-5/8 casing complete with hanger.
The BHA could be deployed in one or two pieces through
the injector head and snubbing unit into the lubricator above
the upper swab valve or safety head BOP ram. Its main
disadvantages were that the coiled tubing had to be rigged up
over the large tubing arch, above the drill floor. The tubing
arch was hydraulically operated for traversing over well
center. Vertically mounted hydraulic cylinders within the arch
provide a compensation system between the coiled tubing reel
and the injector head. This process was monitored by the
control system.
Benefits of Automation One of the driving forces behind
the degree of computer based automation on the CT drilling
rigs was the need to allow automatic control system reaction
to potential problems where there is little time for an operator
to react. There are many parameters that can provide warnings
of imminent failure or other problems.
One area where this was implemented successfully was the
injector drive hydraulic pump and motors. Charge pressure,
drive pressure, skate/chain tension pressures, setpoint versus
output and actual speed of motors versus pipe speed are all
compared and analyzed within the software, to detect possible
pump failures, motor failures, slipping pipe, operator error,
etc.

SPE 68440

Although it took some time to find the correct balance

between automated and operator decisions, the system evolved
into a fail-safe unit with minimal risk of coil runaways, etc.
Another benefit of computer-based automation was the
simplicity of changing the system configuration. As all the
relevant sensors and control equipment were installed, any
alterations were generally made in the software. This was
done easily and often in the main office, then e-mailed to the
rig. This minimized the cost of modifications throughout the
learning process as the rigs matured.
Development & Design of Control System Although
the hybrid CT drilling rigs were designed for both coiled
tubing and jointed pipe, most of the jointed pipe handling
equipment was not automated. This was due to the difficulty
of doing the programming to control these for the first time in
the industry versus the benefits of automation. A cost and risk
analysis did not justify the automation of the rig assist
snubbing unit or the pipe handling system, although some
monitoring of pressures, temperatures, etc., was done in the
interests of increased safety and operator awareness.
A major initial decision was on the control system
architecture, based on all possible design philosophies of
future rigs. The options were either programmable logic
controllers (PLC) in the cabin, with each component being
wired back to the cabin or distributed control with the PLC's
physically on the equipment they are controlling, connected to
the control cabin via ARCNET. Distributed control provides
maximum flexibility for offshore and onshore use plus
component interchangeability between rigs.
On the first and second units, each equipment vendor was
responsible for training its respective employees on the OPTO
22 companys control hardware and software. These people
had to be familiar with all aspects of writing the software to
allow each device to be integrated into the total package. This
proved to be a labor intensive, tedious route for integrating the
total package and did not provide a seamless system, as each
vendor chose a slightly different method to design and lay out
the control system hardware and software for its respective
components.
For all following rig control system designs, a central team
was established to carry out the hardware and software scope
for each component.
As with any new design, the appropriate resources were
allocated along with a good cross section of mechanical and
electrical backgrounds. Testing and HAZOPs (Hazard and
Operability Analysis) were carried out over a three-month
period to verify each system and to ensure the overall system
design was fail safe for all operations. The main focus was to
design a control system that could operate the entire package
(drawworks, power swivel, CT system, mud pumps, and
under-balanced system) from a central location.

SPE 68440

DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER-CONTROLLED HYBRID CT DRILLING UNITS

Control System Hardware The central location for CT

drilling rig control is the control cabin (Fig. 1), normally
located on the rig floor. The control cabin is a pressurized and
purged, Zone 1 rated container, A60 fire rated. This allowed
control cabin placement flexibility for future applications, as
with all other system components. The driller was located here
and operated all the equipment from the cabin, using touch
screens. These were Acoustic Wave touch screens, to
minimize the effects of contamination on the screen. There
were four monitors used; one for each main sub-system:
1) Injector and CT reel
2) Hydraulic Power Unit and Mud Pumps
3) Fluids Handling System
4) BOP Control
Each of the monitors displayed customized Human
Machine Interface (HMI) mimics, used as a graphical control
interface between the operator and the equipment. Each HMI
had its own Pentium computer dedicated to its operation and
to service as the interface between the operator and the
controllers, via ARCNET. The computers were also equipped
with an Ethernet network, allowing any HMI to be displayed
on any monitor. This changeover took around two minutes,
which provided redundancy for critical screens.
The selected control system hardware was based on
equipment then currently in use by the parent company. OPTO
22, from California, was chosen as the Programmable Logic
Controller (PLC) vendor. This furnished a reasonably flexible
system, with intuitive software programming and
troubleshooting facilities, using graphical programming and
Microsoft-based commands. This selection was made to
minimize the need for onsite programming and
troubleshooting by software specialists.
Data could be exchanged from the OPTO 22 control
system utilizing Pentium computers. The computers could
send and receive data using the control system ARCNET
network, process the data into a suitable form, and send it
using the Ethernet network (Fig. 2). This data exchange
method was then available for other systems that were
required to be tied into the control system. One of these was
the coiled tubing fatigue modeling software package. This
system received real-time data from the system and used these
pressures, depths, speeds, etc to predict the CT fatigue as it
occurred. Another system, with two-way data transmission,
was the MWD/Directional Drilling package. Relevant data
packets were transmitted between the two, as necessary. Using
this computer interface allowed the control system to interface
with any other computer based system that required access to
its data.
The OPTO 22 system, flexible and modular, suited the
design goals for the first system. As the first unit was designed
for use offshore, each piece of equipment had to be
independent and replaceable, so each had its own PLC
controller (CT reel, Hydraulic Power Unit, Fluid Pump, etc).
These components were then connected to a central control

cabin, using fiber optic cabling. As the equipment was spotted

on the platform, the only connections necessary were a low
voltage power supply cable and the fiber optic cable, which
were run to it from the control cabin. This reduced the
electrical rig-up time to a minimum.
The control cabin served as the central communications
point for all components. The control system communications
network, ARCNET, was selected because Ethernet networking
was not an available option at the inception of the project with
OPTO 22.Also, ARCNET was proven to be a reliable network
for production control systems at that time. All the fiber optic
cables came back to an ARCNET HUB, where they were
connected in a star configuration. This allowed controllers to
communicate directly to one another using unique addresses,
via the hub.
The PLCs and associated hardware for each piece of
equipment were housed inside a purged box, allowing them a
Zone 1 (Class 1 Division 1) hazardous area rating (Fig. 3). A
clean, dry air source was required for each piece of equipment,
which was run to the purged box using flexible hose.
By keeping each component separately equipped with its
necessary control hardware and software, a mud pump, for
example, could be removed and taken onshore for
maintenance and a similar unit would take its place, without
modification to the control system. The changeout would be
transparent to the other components and the only
disconnections were the UPS backed power cable, the fiber
optic network cable and the air hose for the purged panel.
Each equipment skid had all its instrumentation
permanently wired back to the purged panel on its framework.
The instruments were Intrinsically safe, where possible. The
I.S. barriers selected were based on the Galvanic Isolation
principle, where the connection between the purged panel and
the hazardous area is transformer-isolated, virtually
eliminating the risk of a spark being generated externally. This
allowed the grounding requirements on each equipment skid
to be reduced significantly, once again reducing the total rigup time of the system
Although some pieces of equipment remained under
manual control alone, most were designed for remote control
and monitoring. These included:
1) Injector
2) Hydraulic Power Unit
3) Mud Pumps
4) BOP / BOP Accumulator Skid
5) Coiled Tubing Reel
6) Fluids Handling System
7) Underbalanced Drilling System

Control System Software The software used for

programming of the OPTO 22 PLC's was a package called

F. SHEPARD, B. EWEN & K. MACKAY

CYRANO, a proprietary product of OPTO 22. CYRANO is a

visual control language, which is intuitive for personnel who
are familiar with process control and programming
fundamentals. Once all the I/O and variables have been set up,
these can be used in flowchart type programming, graphically
displaying the controls sequence (Fig. 5). These charts can
also be viewed online in a debugging mode, showing process
status, in real time.
For the Human Machine Interface (HMI) programming and
operation, MISTIC MMI, another OPTO 22 product was used
to create and operate all the HMI's for the CT drilling units.
The operating system used on the control system PC's was
Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.11. This system was
selected for its compatibility with the OPTO 22 programming
packages at the inception of the project. This proved to be a
very stable background and was relatively trouble-free. Some
inflexibility was noted during setup in comparison with later
Microsoft products.
The OPTO 22 programming suite used is a 16-bit package,
which has now been superseded, by a 32-bit package,
FactoryFloor. It takes advantage of the newer features of
Windows for increased functionality and speed. The degree of
control required by the CT drilling rigs under-utilized the
capabilities of CYRANO and did not require the enhanced
capabilities FactoryFloor. The responsiveness of the HMI
could be improved by shifting to either FactoryFloor or a third
party HMI but this was never considered cost effective, due to
rig down time required for implementation.
The coiled tubing fatigue modeling package also used
Windows 3.11 as an operating system initially. In a recent
upgrade this was switched to Windows 95. This package,
supplied by CTES, consisted of two components Orion, and
Cerberus. Orion provided an interface between the rig
control system and Cerberus. Cerberus provided real time
fatigue modeling and data storage. Coiled tubing fatigue
history files were archived, and updated in real time for each
coiled tubing string used.
The interface with the downhole equipment was via
DrillByte, a proprietary software package by Baker Hughes
INTEQ. Critical drilling parameters were transmitted to and
from the rig control system for integration with MWD data
and storage in the DrillByte database.
Control System Evolution The first system had distributed
control, with OPTO 22 PLCs located in purged panels, within
each system component. These were all tied back to the
control cabin using multimode fiber optic pairs, to an
ARCNET Hub. Their power supply was a UPS backed, 240volt supply, run from the cabin. All the connections were
made with quick-mate connectors, following the philosophy of
the process and hydraulic connections. This suited the modular
approach of the first rig, designed for utilization in most
applications around the world, but primarily for the North Sea.

SPE 68440

The second rig was also a flexible, quick rig-up unit. It was
designed for land use. Although the same modular approach
and architecture was used, the control cabin design was
different. Due to space and weight requirements, the cabin was
split in two. A smaller cabin was placed on the rig floor, with
the central control and operation equipment. A second cabin
was located behind the substructure. All of the electrical
distribution, network hubs, UPS equipment and injector
control equipment were located here. The injector control
equipment was placed here because of limited space within the
injector module. The injector module was designed to travel
up and down within the mast, for jointed pipe operations.
Instrumentation was cabled back to this cabin using multi-pair
cables with Zone 1 connectors, for quick rig up. Also, the
control equipment for the mud system was within this cabin.
This allowed for some flexibility in mud system selection,
which could be rental or owned equipment. All the mud
system instrumentation was also run back to this control
equipment using multi-pairs.
The third system required a major architecture rethink.
This rig was a permanent installation on a drilling barge, no
longer requiring some of the architecture used for a quick rig
up. All PLCs were located inside the control cabin and
multipair cables were run to junction boxes on each
component. At this point, the number of PLCs could have
been reduced, as each PLC (Hydraulic Power Unit, Mud
Pumps, CT Reel, etc) were under-utilized. The decision was
made to leave the division of PLCs alone as consolidating
these into common PLCs would have required a substantial
software re-write, along with increased commissioning time.
The fourth system was a land rig designed for the Middle
East. The rig was once again a quick rig up unit. Due to the
benefits realized on the previous rig and with the centrally
located PLCs, this same architecture was selected again. Since
multiple components were trailer-mounted together, the multipair solution involved minimal effort. Zone 1-rated connectors
were used between trailers and the overall rig design and
layout was optimized to keep the connector quantity to a
minimum.
As with previous designs, the control cabin was positioned
on the rig floor. The number of controlled components
increased with this system. The Drawworks was added to the
control system. As the Drawworks shared the same hydraulic
power supply with the injector, the system was set up so that
the same control hardware (joystick, touchscreen, PLC) was
used for both components, by selecting the mode of operation
on the screen and crossing over the hydraulic connections
(Fig. 4).
There were three CT reels. Instrumentation on each reel
was identical, allowing all three reels to be controlled using
one PLC and multi-pair bundle. Two connectors and the
hydraulic hoses were changed over with each reel change.
This rig also had its own generators and switchroom. These

SPE 68440

DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER-CONTROLLED HYBRID CT DRILLING UNITS

were added to the control system also, making it the most

expansive and flexible system to date.
Each system provided valuable lessons that were
incorporated in the future designs along with the input from
rig personnel. Commissioning time for each successive rig
decreased dramatically and was down to a matter of a few
weeks on location with the fourth generation. There could
have been further optimization on the final design, but
compromises were made based on sound cost vs. time vs.
benefit evaluations.
Conclusions
Control System Architecture Future control system
architecture should be based on the design, application and
function of each rig. Although there are significant
engineering and commissioning hours associated with
modifying the control system from rig to rig, the benefits to
adjusting the system setup are realized during operation. For
future applications, either permanent or mobile rigs, it would
be better to start with a distributed system to avoid a major
restructuring of the software as the system develops.
The decision to design rig equipment for interchangeability
within rigs proved to be restrictive. In reality, each rig was
designed for different areas and applications around the world,
so the transfer of equipment required a significant control
system and software modification to suit applications. If the
rig fleet were definitely going to be identical, suited for most
worldwide applications, then this would be a viable choice.
Operations Personnel The availability of coiled tubing
operators who are comfortable with this technology proved to
be a challenge. It was a difficult transition from being exposed
to all the sensory indications available to an operator on a
conventional CT unit, to being enclosed in a soundproofed, air
conditioned control cabin, reliant only on feedback via
computer screens. Most operators made this transition
reasonably quickly, but it proved to be an intense learning
experience. A critical component in this transition is a training
simulator. This needs to be in service prior to the deployment
of the unit to provide training for the operators before they are
exposed to the system, possibly during the selection /
interview process.
A similar problem was noted with electronic technicians.
Due to the limited crew on a CT rig, electronic technicians
must be qualified on power, instrumentation, controls,
electronics and software. They may also be required to help
out with general rig duties. There is a limited availability of
personnel who meet these requirements, so training
requirements may prove to be extensive. This requires the
early hire of electronic technicians. Another consideration is
the ability to retain such personnel considering the significant
investment with regard to both time and budget.

The choice of PLC supplier and type is critical. Due to the

repercussions of having to rewrite the control system software,
the selected system should be compatible with current
requirements but with some degree of expansion and upgrade
capability possible with minimal effort and cost.
The design of the HMI screens required a significant
degree of field operations input to maximize their operability
and acceptability. This should be restricted, to some degree, to
reach a timely design, since all operators have a differing idea
on how the screens should look and act.
The HAZOP process is critical to the design and
architecture of the control system and should be carried out as
soon as practically possible in the process. The time and
resources spent on this activity will pay a premium as the test
and commissioning phases commence.
It is critical to ensure that there is one overall vendor /
team overseeing and coordinating of the control system. If
individual components are left to each vendor, the system
integration, commissioning and testing phases will be
extended and complicated, affecting timeline and budget. This
team should ideally be members of the rig operators
company, to ensure that they have the necessary intimate
knowledge of the overall system.

Nomenclature
A60
ARCNET
BHA
BOP
CT
C/W
CTES
HAZOP
HMI
HUB
ID
I/O
IS
MWD
PCs
PLC
UPS

= Fire Rating 60 minutes, non-hydrocarbon

= Attached Resource Computer Network
= Bottom Hole Assembly
= Blow Out Preventer
= Coiled Tubing
= Complete/With
= Coiled Tubing Engineering Services
= Hazard & Operability Analysis
= Human Machine Interface
= Central connection point
= Internal Diameter
= Input/Output
= Intrinsically Safe
= Measurement While Drilling
= Personal Computer
= Programmable Logic Controller
= Uninterruptible Power Supply

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Baker Hughes INTEQ, Baker
Hughes Process and Baker Hughes Inc., for supporting the
publication of this paper. The authors also wish to thank the
staff of OPTO 22, California for allowing us to publish
information about the control system. Thanks to everyone
within Hydra Rig Inc., CTES, Zone Power and National
Oilwell, Dreco, who have all been involved in this Hybrid
Coiled Tubing unit development program. Finally, the authors

F. SHEPARD, B. EWEN & K. MACKAY

thank the staff of Baker Hughes INTEQ at all levels for the
support throughout the project. Editorial contributions of
Frank Radez, Baker Hughes Inc., are gratefully acknowledged.
References
1.

van Venrooy, J. et al: Underbalanced Drilling with Coiled

Tubing in Oman paper SPE 57571 presented at the 1999
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference in Abu Dhabi, UAE,
(November 1999).

2.

Johnston, C.A. et al: Coiled Tubing Parabolic Loop System

A New Approach to Tubing Handling paper SPE 50584
presented at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference, The
Hague, The Netherlands, (October 1998).

Attachments

Fig. 1Example of a Control Cabin cross-section. This is the

design for the third unit, used in the Middle East.

SPE 68440

Fig. 2A Typical Control System architecture for the Hybrid

CT Drilling Units, showing ARCNET and Ethernet networks.
ACCUMULATOR PLC

MUD PITS PLC

CT REEL PLC

CONTROL CABIN PLC

MUD PUMPS PLC

INJECTOR PLC

HYDRAULIC POWER UNIT PLC

UNDERBALANCED SYSTEM PLC

KEY:

HUB LINK

ETHERNET CABLING

ARCNET CABLING

DRILL BYTE
TERMINAL

ARCNET HUB 2

ARCNET HUB 1

BOP /
ACCUMULATOR

CTES /
COMMUNICATIONS

INJECTOR / REEL /
DRAWWORKS

MDS / SPARE

HPU / MUD
PUMPS

UNDERBALANCED /
MUD SYSTEM

SPE 68440
DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER-CONTROLLED HYBRID CT DRILLING UNITS
7

F. SHEPARD, B. EWEN & K. MACKAY

Fig. 3A Typical purged panel, showing the control hardware

that was stored inside to allow placement inside Zone 1 areas.

SPE 68440

SPE 68440

DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER-CONTROLLED HYBRID CT DRILLING UNITS

Fig. 4Typical hydraulic schematic for the hybrid CT drilling Units

10

F. SHEPARD, B. EWEN & K. MACKAY

SPE 68440

Fig. 5Example OPTO 22 CYRANO flowchart, demonstrating the graphical nature of the control system programming method. The actual
attachments to the hardware are made within each bock of the chart. The logical progression can be followed online in a debugging mode
where the flow is demonstrated actively on the screen.