Spe 163566 Pa

DC163566 DOI: 10.
2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14
Stage:
Page: 279
Total Pages: 16
Dynamic Model for Stiff-String Torque

and Drag
Vadim Tikhonov, SPE, Khaydar Valiullin, SPE, Albert Nurgaleev, SPE, Lev Ring, SPE, Raju Gandikota, SPE,
Pavel Chaguine, SPE, and Curtis Cheatham, SPE, Weatherford
Summary
A dynamic stiff-string torque-and-drag (T&D) model is presented
that assumes steady-state motion of the drillstring as its basis for
calculations. Results are compared with previously published
T&D models that are based on static equilibrium. The novelty of
the new dynamic model is the ability to solve T&D operations of
the entire drillstring from bit to topdrive in reasonable time by use
of standard engineering computers.
The new approach is modeled after a 3D dynamic model of
drillstring and bottomhole assembly in an elastic borehole. It considers bending stiffness, torsional stiffness, contact forces, and
friction with localization of contact points. A numerical method is
described that has proved to have excellent convergence. Complete governing equations are provided, and the method is
described in detail to permit readers to replicate results.
The dynamic model is compared with two static stiff-string
models. Comparisons are also provided for three conventional
soft-string models, including the Lubinski-Paslay-Cernocky bending-stress-magnification factor. Four field case studies are presented for horizontal wells. One well is short radius with dogleg
severity greater than 50 /100 ft, and three wells are unconventional shale wells with doglegs up to 15 /100 ft. Predictions for
surface T&D up/down for the new dynamic stiff-string model are
compared with the static stiff- and soft-string models. In many situations modeled, the top-level results for surface T&D up/down
are close enough for all six models to be within the uncertainty
range associated with the commonly used, lumped-parameter friction factor. However, some major differences in hookload for sliding and slackoff operations are observed, which are shown to be
caused by differences in location and magnitude of contact force
between the drillstring and wellbore. Further, significantly lower
surface torque is predicted by the new dynamic stiff-string model
compared with other models for one case history because of lower
contact forces in the vertical section of the well. In fact, the key
finding of this paper is that major differences are observed for
contact forces for the new dynamic stiff-string model compared
with all five other models, including the two static stiff-string
models. These differences in contact forces are most significant
when the drillstring has helically buckled or when doglegs in the
wellbore are high. Contact forces have a large impact on local
stress behavior, which is important for predictions of casing
and drillpipe wear, drillstring fatigue, and failure points in the
drillstring.
Although several previous papers have published stiff-string
models, there is no industry-standard formulation. The main problem holding back the development of an industry-standard stiffstring model is perhaps the complexity of the numerical algorithm
and substantial running time. To address this problem, some previous stiff-string models account for bending stiffness of the drillstring but not for radial clearance, whereas others appear to model
only portions of the drillstring as stiff. The new stiff-string model
accounts for bending stiffness and radial clearance for the entire
drillstring while still giving reasonable computational times. For
stiff-string models, the advantage of the use of a dynamic

approach to solve the steady-state position of the drillstring is
mainly related to superior convergence of the numerical algorithm
compared with static stiff-string models because the calculation
of contact points is faster.
Introduction
Soft-String Model. In the early 1980s, the first torque-and-drag
(T&D) models were developed. Exxon published their model
(Johancsik et al. 1984), and at least one other major operator developed a very similar model for internal use. The Exxon paper is by
far the most well-known paper on T&D. This model and similar
ones are still commonly used today. Minor enhancements, such as
addition of bending-stress-magnification factor and auxiliary
buckling predictions, have been added over the years. The model
was formulated in differential-equation form in 1987 (Sheppard
et al. 1987). According to Mitchell (Mitchell and Samuel 2007;
Aadnoy et al. 2009), Sheppards equations represent the standard
method used for T&D analysis in the industry today.
The first T&D researchers developed simple models; presumably the concept was to start simple and add complexity only as
required. Today, these models are known as soft string because
the entire drillstring is assumed to have zero bending stiffness. It
may have surprised early researchers how well such a simplistic
model actually worked, or even that it worked at all. Nevertheless,
soft-string models are the workhorse of todays industry.
A common explanation for envisioning the underlying physics
for soft-string models is to consider the drillstring to be a weighted
cable (Mason and Chen 2007). The shape of the weighted cable
exactly conforms to the shape of the wellbore so that the inclination, azimuth, and curvature at each point along the wellbore are
perfectly matched by the drillstring. Drag is developed because of
axial movement of the drillstring up or down as a result of friction
with the wellbore. Resistance to movement of the drillstring is
determined by a force of magnitude equal to the coefficient of friction multiplied by the normal (or contact) force between drillstring
and wellbore (Sheppard et al. 1987). Torque is developed because
of circumferential, or rotary, movement of the drillstring against
the wellbore, again caused by friction. The main problem is determining the resistance to rotary motion and deciding what radius to
use for the moment arm. Johancsik et al. (1984) determined the
torque radius to be two-thirds of the distance between pipe-body
radius and tool-joint radius and stated it was a reasonable assumption that two-thirds of the side load is carried by tool joints and
one-third is carried by the pipe body. Others have used the tooljoint radius as the torque radius, presumably on the basis of the
assumption that the entire side load, or contact force, is carried by
tool joints, which effectively means the pipe body is not in contact
at all with the wellbore.
An important consequence of these assumptions is that it is
impossible for radial clearance to exist between the wellbore and
any point along the drillstring for the soft-string model. On the
other hand, a key benefit of these assumptions is the elimination
of a tricky problem: the determination of all contact points
between the drillstring and wellbore.
C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Copyright V
This paper (SPE 163566) was accepted for presentation at the 2014 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 46 March 2014, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 29 April 2014. Paper peer approved 4
August 2014.
Shortcomings of Soft-String Models. The fact that it is impossible to permit radial clearance is a critical shortcoming because
most of the drillstring comprises jointed drillpipe (or heavyweight
September 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 20:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140027/APPFile/SA-DC##140027
279
DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14
drillpipe, for that matter) that has significantly different outer

diameters for the connection (tool joint) and the pipe body. A
bright 12-year-old would realize that the assumption that jointed
drillpipe is in continuous contact along its entire length is simply
not true. A far more reasonable assumption would be that only the
largest outer diameter for each drillstring component is in contact
with the wellbore, and the smaller-diameter portions are not in
contact at all. However, to calculate T&D by use of soft-string
assumptions, the inability to model radial clearance is immaterial
because the friction forces on the drillstring are independent of
the surface area in contact.
So why does radial clearance matter? As mentioned earlier,
soft-string models neglect bending stiffness, which means there is
no resistance to column buckling. When soft-string models were
developed in the early 1980s, horizontal wells were not drilled, or
at least not routinely. In those days, best practices for drillstring
design called for maintaining the neutral point in the drill collars
so that drillpipe was never intentionally run in compression. This
practice was designed to eliminate the possibility of drillpipe
buckling. However, in the late 1980s, horizontal drilling entered
the scene, and it has become commonplace today. The advent of
horizontal drilling made it necessary to make fundamental
changes in drillstring design. Today, both heavyweight drillpipe
and regular drillpipe are sometimes deliberately run in compression. Therefore, it is essential to predict the onset of buckling in
drillpipe as a requirement for drilling horizontal wells. But the absence of radial clearance in soft-string T&D models represents a
major obstacle. To address this shortcoming, the industry adopted
auxiliaryor bolt on models that had been originally developed for helical post-buckling of coiled tubing in horizontal wells.
The first such model was published in 1984 (Newman et al.
1989). This work was conducted to improve predictions of reach
limits in high-angle wells for coiled tubing. The concern was that
predictions of occurrence of lockup (the inability to push the
coiled tubing deeper) did not match field observations. The conclusion was that lockup is caused by helical buckling, which
resulted in significant increases in contact force between the
coiled tubing and the wellbore. The contact force increased with
the square of compressive axial force, which led to the practical
conclusion that once helical buckling occurred, lockup was imminent (Wu and Juvkam-Wold 1995).
Coiled tubing has two important differences from jointed drillpipe: It does not have any upsets, or tool joints, and it is not
rotated. This might seem to make the application of the coiledtubing buckling model problematic for jointed drillpipe. However,
the coiled-tubing buckling model provides two essential features
that are absent in the soft-string T&D model: the ability to model
radial clearance and bending stiffness.
Consequently, these buckling models have been applied to
soft-string models as part of T&D analysis.
T&D soft-string model is used to predict the axial forces
along the drillstring to determine where compressive forces
occur.
Buckling model is used to predict the minimum compressive
force required to begin helical buckling along the drillstring,
taking into account varying radial clearance and bending
stiffness.
Results from the two programs are compared, and portions
of the drillstring are identified where helical buckling is predicted to occur.
The most conservative approach is to reject any drillstring design
that predicts helical buckling. The reason is that the model predicts large increases in contact force from helical buckling. However, others believe it may be possible to operate with portions of
the drillstring in a helical-buckling configuration. Another downside for rotating helically buckling pipe is that the increased contact force accelerates wear of the drillstring and casing.
The governing equations of these classic soft-string models are
modeled after static equilibrium (Mitchell and Miska 2011). Equilibrium means there are no net external forces on the drillstring,
which would mean acceleration is zero. This would indicate the
280
Stage:
Page: 280
Total Pages: 16
drillstring is either not moving or moving without any time dependency. Static means the drillstring is not moving. Somewhat
in conflict with this view, the classic soft-string models of Johancsik et al. (1984) and Sheppard et al. (1987) were classified by
Mason and Chen (2007) as steady state, meaning that transient
effects were ignored and the drillstring was assumed to be moving
in a steady manner rather than being static. Regardless of whether
the soft-string model permits any motion of the drillstring, the
fact is that velocity terms do not appear in the formulation.
Indeed, one of the industry-available programs compared in this
paper does not permit the user to enter any velocity values (such
as axial speed or rotary speed) for both its soft-string and stiffstring models. The other industry-available program does not permit user input for rate of penetration, or axial speed, for sliding
operations for both its soft-string and stiff-string models. So, it is
clear that these programs do not consider essential elements of a
dynamic program. The only manifestation of axial drillstring
movement in the soft-string models is the addition of the drag
term, which is assumed to be the product of the coefficient of friction multiplied by the contact force, again with an unspecified velocity. This approach does not really entail a dynamic drillstring
model but rather is a useful way to include friction. Moreover, the
torque term, which is frictional resistance to rotary motion, is the
same frictional drag term multiplied by a somewhat unknown (or
at least arbitrary) moment arm. Consequently, we refer to the
industry-available programs as static.
Stiff-String Models. To overcome the shortcomings of softstring models, new and more complex models were developed.
Generally these other models are lumped into a fairly broad category known as the stiff-string model.
Inclusion of Bending Stiffness. Ho (1988) discussed the
shortcomings of the soft-string model and developed an improved
model that combines abottom hole assemblyanalysis in the
stiff collar section, coupled with an improved soft string model
for the remainder of the drillstring. The improvement offered is
that the bending stiffness of the drillstring is included but the drillstring is still assumed to be in continuous contact with the wellbore (Ho 1988).
Mitchell and Samuel (2007) developed an analytical model
similar to those of Ho (1986, 1988) and studied the classic softstring model. Mitchell (2008) offered improvements to the classic
soft-string model by replacing the commonly used minimum-curvature-interpolation method for directional surveys with a spline
model. Run times are stated to be extremely fast, less than 0.10
second on a modern personal computer. There is growing acceptance in the industry that spline interpolation provides a better
description of the likely drillstring configuration than minimum
curvature. However, Mitchells spline model assumed that the
drillstring matched the well-path curvature (using the improved
spline well path), thereby remaining in continuous contact with
the wellbore. Consequently, this model does not permit radial
clearance, which is an essential element of a holistic stiff-string
model.
Inclusion of Radial Displacement. Cernocky and Scholibo
(1995) stated that their development of an analytical model that
accounted for bending stiffness and radial clearance was to
address column buckling of casing. Details about the analytical
model are not provided, but extensive details on associated numerical modeling by use of Abaqus finite-element analysis (FEA)
are given in a separate reference (Cernocky and Scholibo 1994).
Their objective was to study casing damage caused by reservoir
compaction. The primary modeling focus was to simulate depletion of the reservoir pressure and corresponding loads and deformation of the casing. The local model of the well was used to
predict the reservoir loading on the casing, by use of nodal loads
instead of distributed loads on the casing. Central-processing-unit
(CPU) run times were extremely slow, about one CPU week on
an HP730 workstation (Cernocky and Scholibo 1994).
Rezmer-Cooper et al. (1999) used a finite-element stiff-string
model for both bending stiffness and radial clearance. Results for
Page: 281
Total Pages: 16
soft-string models sometimes give poor results for stiff tubulars,

high dogleg severity (small radius of curvature), or narrow radial
clearance in the annulus (Mason and Chen 2007). Not all stiffstring models are equal. Some account for bending stiffness but
not for radial clearance, whereas others account for both effects.
X (North)
Z
Stage:
O
e3
e1
O
e2
Q
M(0)
Fig. 1Coordinate systems.
one case history showed the contact forces for stiff string were
significantly lower than for soft string (Rezmer-Cooper et al.
1999). The paper also states that their stiff-string model calculated
a much more accurate torque loss for the drillstring compared
with the soft-string model, but it did not say which was higher.
Menand et al. (2006) developed a stiff-string model of a complete drillstring that uses a numerical method that was stated to be
much faster than finite element. The drillstring is assumed to be a
beam element, and the borehole is assumed to be rigid and circular. The contact algorithm is begun by assuming no contact anywhere in the drillstring and then uses an iterative process to
introduce contact, one point after another.
Aslaksen et al. (2006) described FEA analysis of the drillstring
from bit to surface. The analysis ran on a Unix platform and provided time-based simulations of the drilling process that included
a laboratory-derived rock/bit-interaction model. The method modeled torsional, axial, and lateral vibrations and accelerations. The
paper points out solutions for the entire drilling system are
exceptionally time consuming and complex both in setup and
computational time. Although FEA modeling had been used as
early as 1943, the paper stated that the long computational time
had meant that relatively short lengths of drillstring had been analyzed. The general approach is described for this method, but sufficient details on the solution method are not provided to allow
readers to replicate the papers results.
McSpadden et al. (2011) carries out full stiff-string analysis of
casing by use of a purpose-built FEA code to calculate radial displacements of the casing centerline from the wellbore centerline.
The radial deflection of the casing string at each node allows for
determination of the true casing curvature or effective dogleg severity. The model was run in static mode although the same stiffstring-analysis model has also been used in dynamic mode to study
stresses on the coiled-tubing stack from wellhead to injector assembly (Smalley and Newman 2005). Application of the dynamic
model has also been made to analyze drillstring loads during jarring (Newman and Proctor 2009).
Summary. Two general types of mathematical models are in use
for T&D software: soft string and stiff string. The soft-string
model is widely available and represents the industry standard. It
is used because of the simplicity of its algorithm, rapid calculation
time on even the most basic laptop computer, and the sufficiently
accurate results obtained for many common drilling situations.
Stiff-string models have been developed to provide more-accurate analysis than soft-string models. It is generally believed that
Why Did We Develop the New Dynamic Stiff-String

Model? The new stiff-string model takes its starting point to be
3D dynamic equations of motion for the entire drillstring from bit
to topdrive. Bending and torsional stiffness of the drillstring is
considered in the model. Radial clearance is modeled, and contact
points are calculated rather than assumed. The wellbore is allowed
to deform elastically as a result of contact with the drillstring. The
interaction of lateral, torsional, and axial vibration is taken into
account. The friction force is based on a hysteresis dynamic
model. The method of solution assumes steady-state motion of the
drillstring. These assumptions we believe capture more of the
essential physics of the problems compared with existing models.
Moreover, the method of solution described here permits T&D
analysis from bit to the topdrive on standard engineering computers with robust numerical convergence in reasonable simulation time. For the field case histories presented in this paper,
approximately 15 minutes of computing time was used per T&D
operationsuch as drilling, reaming, and rotating off bottomon
an engineering desktop computer.
The model and method of solution is presented in full detail in
this paper and previous papers (Tikhonov et al. 2006; Tikhonov
and Safronov 2008, 2011), which permits other experts to validate
and replicate the results presented here. Consequently, we believe
the new dynamic stiff-string model presents innovative capabilities for the industry to model drillstrings with both stiffness and
radial clearance. These improved capabilities can be used to solve
problems where it is essential to model local contact or stresses,
such as casing and drillpipe wear, drillstring fatigue, buckled
drillstring, and failure points in the drillstring.
As described in the next section, the new dynamic stiff-string
model is run to solve the steady-state motion of the drillstring.
The advantage of this approach is mainly related to superior convergence of the numerical algorithm compared with static equilibrium. Another advantage of the general dynamic formulation of
governing equations in the new stiff-string model is the ability to
study transient dynamic drillstring problems in the future.
Theoretical Basis of the Model
The mathematical model for the dynamic stiff-string torque and
drag (T&D) is modeled after the method of the drillstring
dynamic analysis in a well (Tikhonov et al. 2006). Originally, this
method was designed for buckling (Tikhonov et al. 2006) and
whirling (Tikhonov and Safronov 2008) studies. We summarize
the basic principles of this analysis and then apply the methodology to perform T&D analysis.
The Mathematical Model of a Drillstring. The 3D mathematical model of a drillstring in a well used in the new stiff-string
model is described by Tikhonov et al. (2006) and Tikhnov and
Safronov (2008). The model includes a system of equations for
lateral, torsional, and axial modes of a drillstring, written as projections on axes-coordinate system oe1e2e3, referenced to the
wellbore (Fig. 1):
00
00
mr Tr jj EIr jj

00
jMr jj0 f n ;
00
1
M0 l; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
qIp w
m
x T 0 fx ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
where r y jz; y, z projections of the drillstring axial line on
axes oe2 and oe3; m* effective mass, which includes mass of the
drillstring m and the added fluid mass inside the drillstring and in

281
the annulus per unit length; EI, GIp, AE bending, torsional, and
axial stiffness of the drillstring, respectively; qIp moment of
inertia of the drillstring; T AEx0 0:5jr0 j2 axial force; M
GIp w0 j1 torque; j a0 jh0 cosa a projection of the
well curvature onto plane oe2oe3; j1 cosah0 a projection of
the well curvature onto axis oe1; a, h the inclination angle and
the azimuth angle of the wellbore, respectively; w torsion angle;
fn fy jfz; fx, fy, fz projections of the external force per unit
length onto axes oe1, oe2, and oe3, respectively; l frictional torque per unit length; and j (1)1/2 imaginary unit.
Note the prime means a derivative with respect to arc length s
(Fig. 1) and the dot is derivative with respect to time t.
Major components of external forces and torque include
weight, contact force, and friction force:
f n wsina pr=jrj1 jkh vh =v; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
_
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
fx wcosa kx px=v;
l 0:5Dpkh ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
where w weight of the drillstring in mud per unit length;
_ circumferential
p contact force per unit length; vh 0:5Dw
velocity of a point on the drillpipe surface; v x_ 2 v2h 1=2 resultant velocity of a point on the drillpipe surface; D outer
diameter of the drillstring; and kh, kx friction factors in the circumferential and axial direction, respectively.
The model assumptions are
The contact force is dependent on a penetration of drillstring
into the wellbore wall: p p(d), where d (y2 z2)1/2 d0;
d0 0.5(Dh D) clearance between the wellbore wall and
the drillstring; and Dh hole diameter.
Dependence p(d) is quadratic-elastic (Tikhonov et al. 2006).
The circumferential velocity of a point on the drillpipe surface relative to its own axis is significantly higher than the
circumferential velocity of a point on the drillpipe surface
relative to the wellbore axis. This assumption permits the
simulation of drillstring-whirl cases.
Dahls elasto-plastic model is used as the friction model
(Tikhonov and Safronov 2011).
The drillstring and wellbore parameters can vary along the
measured depth. This feature permits modeling different drillstrings
and bottomhole assemblies in wells with varying wellbore diameter.
For field case histories presented here, we assumed gauge hole.
Different rig operations are determined by boundary conditions for Eqs. 1 through 3.
For Eq. 1, the inputs required are lateral displacements at
the top and bottom of the drillstring in the cross-sectional
plane of the well r(0) and r(L), and the corresponding first
and second derivatives, where L drillstring length.
For Eq. 2, the inputs required are torque on bit,
Q GIp w0 O, and the drillstring rev/min, angular velocity
_
X wL.
For Eq. 3, the inputs required are weight on bit, P T(0),
_
and rate of penetration or axial speed, vr xL.
The equations of motion, Eqs. 1 through 3, are numerically
integrated by use of the method of lines (Tikhonov et al. 2006).
Eqs. 1 through 3, which are of the second order with respect to
time, are converted to six equations of the first order (i.e., in
Cauchys form). Partial derivatives with respect to length are
approximated by nonuniform finite differences on mesh along the
arc length, s. The resulting system of ordinary-differential equations is integrated by use of the Runge-Kutta explicit method.
Initial conditions for integration of the system of Eqs. 1
through 3 can be arbitrary, although reasonable assumptions are
used to improve convergence. For example, one reasonable initial
condition assumes that only all tool joints are in contact with the
wellbore wall. The initial conditions for the drillstring in the wellbore are specified in the first stage of the integration process. This
stage is used for identification of the natural position of the drillstring inside the hole, which includes locating all contact points in
a 3D well under gravitational force, friction, and contact forces.
282
Stage:
Page: 282
Total Pages: 16
The new stiff-string model, developed by use of the previously

described process, has a wide range of applications for conducting
numerical simulation in the area of drillstring mechanics.
Adaptation of New Stiff String for T&D Analysis. The ability
to obtain a steady-state solution through the numerical simulation
of a dynamic problem allows its use for T&D analysis. In this
case, integration of dynamic equations over time is a kind of iterative procedure establishing steady state of drillstring and contact
forces required for T&D analysis.
The main problem arising from such an approach is to ensure
the numerical stability of an explicit integration scheme. To satisfy the necessary convergence condition of a numerical algorithm
for a stiff system, the timestep Dt should be chosen on the basis of
the following condition:
rr!
m m
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Dt < min DL
AE0 k
where DL is the mesh size and k is the stiffness of the borehole
wall per unit length as defined by the elastic characteristics of
rock.
For representative values of the drillstring and rock stiffness
from 7,000 psi for sandstone to 30,000 psi for granite (Glowka
1989) integration step Dt reaches 104 to 106 seconds, which
significantly slows down the computer analysis. For instance,
transient dynamic processes such as buckling or whirling calculations for a 1,300-ft drillstring by use of a mesh with 3-ft spacing
and a timestep of 53105 seconds will require up to 4 hours of
computing time to be completed. However, for the sake of T&D
analysis of the steady-state processes, modeling of the transient
dynamic regimes is not of great importance.
As follows from Eq. 7, the integration timestep could be
increased by artificially increasing mass m. Then, to suppress the
inevitably increasing oscillations, corresponding artificial damping should be introduced into the numerical scheme. This numerical technique permits rapid decay of transient processes without
introducing any disturbance into the overall steady-state-equilibrium dynamic results. We have run simulations with and without
the artificial mass and damping to confirm the validity of this
approach. By use of the artificial mass and damping technique,
the running time to achieve steady-state dynamic equilibriumor
full decay of the transient intermediate processeson a mesh of
several thousand elements (drillstring up to 15,000 ft) requires
approximately 15 minutes of computing time. Without the use of
the artificial mass and damping, computing time was roughly
doubled. The result of the steady dynamic state is a solution of the
static equations that could be derived from Eqs. 1 through 6 for
x and steady-state velocity valzero acceleration values of r; w;
_
_
ues r 0; w X; x_ vr :
00
00
00
00
Tr jj EIr jj jMr jj0

wsina pr=jrj1 j0:5DXkh =v 0;
8
M0 0:5Dpkh ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
T 0 wcosa kx pvr v: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The steady-state condition was considered to have been
achieved when the kinetic energy at any point along the drillstring
(and neglecting rotation at the input rev/min) was less than 0.01 J.
The conventional soft-string equations of T&D can be obtained from Eqs. 9 and 10. Eq. 8 represents the equilibrium of
forces acting normal to the borehole wall and determines the distribution of the contact force along the length of the drillstring,
p(s). It is worth noting that the obtained solution considers the
drillstring-bending stiffness and allows the user to determine axial
force and torque, as well as bending moment, Mb (Eq. 11), and
contact force, R (Eq. 12):
00
Mb 0:5Djr j; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Stage:
Page: 283
Total Pages: 16
Table 1Rig operations and parameters.
Contact Force per Joint vs. per Node. Soft-string models mathematically assume continuous contact of drillstring with casing/
wellbore. This assumption prevents soft-string models from predicting the actual location of contact along the drillstring. Furthermore, to calculate contact forces, an additional assumption is
usually made that only tool joints are in contact. In other words,
the contact force is conventionally lumped per 31-ft joint for
reporting purposes.
The new stiff-string model makes no assumptions regarding
location of contact. Instead, it calculates the force on each node,
which for a beam model can be as close as 3 ft. As the following
case histories show, the new stiff-string model predicts that in
some cases additional contact occurs on the pipe body between
tool joints, whereas in other cases some tool joints are not in contact at all. The capability to predict local contact behavior is important for analysis of casing and drillpipe wear and drillstring
fatigue. It also helps identify failure points, thus improving drillstring operational reliability.
Case 1: Backward-Nudge Profile in Unconventional Shale

Well in West Virginia. Case 1 is a backward-nudge well drilled
in West Virginia, USA. This profile is used in shale formations to
increase horizontal reservoir exposure by nudging the well away
from the intended target direction, as seen in Figs. 2a and 2c. For
Case 1, the build section begins at 5,200 ft at an initial inclination
of 16 . The build section was drilled with maximum doglegs close
to 15 /100 ft as shown in the upper part of Figs. 3a and 3b and
Fig. 4. Note the backward nudge increases the maximum dogleg
severity. The build ends at 6,300 ft, where the well is horizontal.
The well remains horizontal until 9,818 ft with doglegs on the
order of 0.53 /100 ft (Fig. 3a). For the cased-hole section from
the surface to 5,400 ft, a friction factor of 0.20 is used. For the
open hole, a friction factor of 0.25 is used. Both friction factors
were chosen to represent reasonable values on the basis of experience. The well is assumed to be 8.5 in. in diameter from surface
to total depth (TD). The mud weight used in the well is 12.8 lbm/
gal. The drillstring consisted of an 8.5-in. polycrystalline diamond
compact bit with a 6.75-in. mud motor bottomhole assembly,
and 5-in. S-135 19.5 lbm/ft drillpipe with NC50 connections
(Table 2).
Model Comparisons by Use of Field Case

Histories
Three field cases were chosen to compare the torque and drag
(T&D) results obtained by the new stiff string, a new soft-string
model (Tikhonov and Safronov 2010), and two industry-available
programs (referred to as Program A and Program B) that both
have soft- and stiff-string models. For each field case, the analysis
has been carried out for seven common rig operations, as shown
in Table 1.
The well profiles shown in Fig. 2 represent common horizontal
well types. Each case was chosen because it has unique and instructive features for T&D analysis.
T&D Analysis Results: Comparison and Discussion. The comparison of hookload and surface torque calculated by different
models for basic rig operations is shown in Table 3. At first
glance, the comparison of T&D results indicates good agreement
of results among programs. But a closer examination of the
operations of rotating off bottom (ROB) and sliding reveals some
important distinctions among programs. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that only the new stiff-string and new soft-string models
are capable of modeling reaming operations, as shown in Table 1.
ROB. The axial-force distribution along the drillstring while
ROB is at TD shows good agreement for the results obtained by
all models (Fig. 3a). This figure also shows that surface results for
R pDL: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
0
3,500
3,000
100
3,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
4,000
500
200
200
400
600
800
1000
N+/S (ft)
400
2,000
TVD (ft)
TVD (ft)
2,000
N+/S (ft)
2,500
400
1,5001,4001,2001,000 800 600 400 200
E+/W (ft)
200
5,000
1,200
6,000
0
1,400
0
500 1,000 1,5002,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Horizontal Displacement (ft)
4,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
5,000
500
1,000
800
6,000
700
600
500 400 300

E+/W (ft)
200
100
7,000
E+/W (ft)
(a)
2,500
3,000
200
350
1,000
3,000
150
300
800
3,500
2,000
250
600
4,000
1,000
50
200
TVD (ft)
1,000
4,000
N+/S (ft)
(b)
8,000
200
400
600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
9,000
0
(c)
5001,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Fig. 2Well profiles: (a) Case 1, backward-nudge well; (b) Case 2, short-radius well; (c) Case 3, backward-nudge well.
283
DLS
DLS
Page: 284
Total Pages: 16
20
20
10
10
0
500
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000
120
7,000
100
6,000
80
5,000
Torque (lbfft)
Axial Load (klbf)
Stage:
60
40
New Soft String
New Stiff String
Program A Soft String
Program A Stiff String
Program B Soft String
Program B Stiff String
20
0
20
0
(a)
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 1,0000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
MD (ft)
500
0
0
New Soft String

New Stiff String
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
(b)
MD (ft)
Fig. 3Comparison of the T&D results for ROB operation, Field Case 1: (a) axial load and (b) torque distribution. DLS 5 dogleg severity in units of degrees per 100 ft.
20
DLS
DLS
20
10
0
5,000
1,500
10
0
500
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000
Contact Force (lbf)
1,500
New Soft String
New Stiff String/Joint
New Stiff String/Node
0
5,000
DLS
500
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000 6,000
MD (ft)
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
500
1,000
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
1,500
2,000
MD (ft)
2,500
3,000
3,500
1,500
New Soft String

New Striff String/Joint
New Striff String/Node
Program A Striff String
Program B Striff String
500
(c)
1,000
MD (ft)
0.4
0
0
6,500
6,000
5,500
0.2
1,000
6,500
500
(b)
Contact Force (lbf)
Contact Force (lbf)
1,000
1,000
6,000
5,500
New Soft String
New Striff String/Joint
New Striff String/Node
Program A Striff String
Program B Striff String
500
1,000
(a)
Fig. 4Contact force during ROB operation for Field Case 1 along: (a) entire drillstring, (b) build section, and (c) top 2,500 ft of vertical section.
hookload are in good agreement for all models (within 4%). The
surface torque (Fig. 3b) for ROB has somewhat larger differences
among programs, with a maximum difference of approximately
1,000 lbf-ft for surface torque (15%). One of the main reasons for
the observed difference is the fact that contact-force distributions
for different models are not identical, as shown in Fig. 4. The biggest difference in contact force occurs for the Program A stiff
string, which predicts much higher values in the build, as shown
in Fig. 4b.
Outer Diameter (in.)
The contact-force-distribution figures show some interesting

effects predicted by the new stiff-string model. To interpret these
results, note that the red line represents the new stiff-string model
with contact force calculated per 31-ft joint, as is performed for
all other programs. The orange bars represent contact force for the
new stiff-string model calculated on a per-node (3-ft) basis. The
first observation is that the new stiff-string model predicts no contact in the first 2,500 ft of the vertical section in the well, as shown
by the red line in the close-up of the vertical section in Fig. 4c.
Inner Diameter (in.)
Table 2Field Case 1 drillstring design. NMDC 5 nonmagnetic drill collar.

284

Stage:
Page: 285
Total Pages: 16
Table 3Field Case 1: T&D results comparison for hookload and surface torque.
Second, it can also be seen that the new stiff string predicts no
contact in the build for more than two whole joints at 5,500 ft, as
shown by the red line in the close-up of the build in Fig. 4b. For
the rest of the well, the new stiff string predicts that contact occurs
only on the tool joints. This is shown by the agreement between
the orange bars (which represent contact-force-per-node results)
and the red line (which represents contact force per joint). None
of the other models were able to capture this behavior.
Sliding. The sliding operation at TD in this well shows several noticeable differences between the programs (Fig. 5). For the
axial-load distribution (Fig. 5a), Program As stiff string stands
out as the lowest hookload. This is caused by the larger amount of
helical buckling predicted by the Program A stiff string, which
can be observed from the higher contact forces for the light blue
curve in the build section in Fig. 5b, and particularly in the closeup in Fig. 5c. When helical buckling occurs, the program dramatically increases contact forces. All programs, except both models
of Program B, predict the onset of the drillstring helical buckling
just above the build section. Program B predicts sinusoidal buckling but not helical buckling. This can be seen by the lower contact forces for the green curves (for Program B soft and stiff) in
Fig. 5b and particularly in the close-up in Fig. 5c.
Comparing contact forces predicted by the new stiff-string
model and the other programs, we note that distribution of contact
forces (lumped per joint) are in a fairly good agreement with Program B and the new soft-string model, with the only exception
being the prebuild interval. Although lumped contact forces in the
high-dogleg section (red curve in Figs. 5b and 5c) are close to the
other predictions, the contact forces per node (orange bars in Figs.
5b. and 5c) in the build and high-dogleg sections are much lower
than the lumped-per-joint contact force, because of multiple
instances of drillpipe/body contact. The new stiff-string model
gives greater insight on actual drillstring-contact-point prediction
by being able to predict helically buckled drillstring position in
the hole. In Fig. 5d, the position of the drillstring predicted by the
new stiff string is shown to be helically buckled in the wellbore
just above the build section. The upper part of the figure shows a
side view of the drillstring, with some tool joints contacting the
top of the wellbore whereas others contact the low side. The lower
part of the figure provides a top view of the drillstring with some
tool joints contacting either side of the wellbore. The color of the
tool joint represents the intensity of the contact force, as shown by
the code bar at the bottom of the figure, with red being the highest
values. Let us recall that buckling in the three soft-string models
is calculated by use of a separate equation that is bolted on to
the T&D analysis after its completion, as described earlier in the
Introduction. However, this is not the case with the new stiffstring model, which calculates the location of each contact as well
as the contact force at each location.
Case 2: Short-Radius Well. Case 2 is a short-radius horizontal
well drilled in Texas with a maximum dogleg close to 50 /100 ft,
as shown in the upper part of Figs. 6a, 6b, and 6c. The build starts
at 1,300 ft and ends at 1,500 ft, where the well becomes horizontal. The well remains horizontal until reaching total depth at 2,830
ft, with doglegs between 0.5 and 6 /100 ft (Fig. 6c). The entire
20
DLS
DLS
20
10
0
0
500
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500
9,000 9,500 10,000
5,000
60
20
0
20
4,500
4,000
Contact Force (lbf)
New Soft String

New Stiff String
40
Axial Load (klbf)
10
0
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000
500
3,500
3,000
New Soft String

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
40
500
1,000
DLS
(a)
Contact Force (lbf)
1,000
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
New Soft String

5
4,350
Side View
4,000
MD (ft)
4,500
5,000
5,500
4,450
4,500
4,550
4,600
4,650
MD (ft)
5
0
0
3,500
4,400
Top View
5
4,350
3,000
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
MD (ft)
5,500
500
0
2,500
0
0
(b)
10
0
2,500
(c)
2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

MD (ft)
Projections, (in)
60
0
4,400
50
4,450
4,500
100
4,550
150
4,600
200
(d)
MD (ft)
4,650
250
CF (lbf)
Fig. 5Sliding operation at TD, Field Case 1: (a) axial load, (b) contact-force distribution, (c) close-up of contact force in vertical
section, and (d) helically buckled drillstring position in wellbore. CF 5 coefficient of friction.
285
60
45
30
15
0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
(c)
New Soft String

New Stiff String
10
Axial Load (klbf)
2,500
DLS
(a)
DLS

12
60
45
30
15
0
0
1,000
Page: 286
Total Pages: 16
1,500
2,000
2,500
1,500
MD (ft)
2,000
2,500
3,000
14
7,000
16
New Soft String

18
6,000
(b)
DLS
22
0
60
45
30
15
0
0
500
1,000
500
1,000
1,500
MD (ft)
1,500
2,000
2,500
2,000
2,500
3,500
New Soft String
New Stiff String
3,000

2,500

Contact Force (lbf)
20
Torque (lbft)
500
Stage:
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
1,000
500
0
0
0
500
1,000
1,500
MD (ft)
2,000
500
2,500
1,000
Fig. 6Drilling operation, Field Case 2: (a) axial load, (b) torque, and (c) contact-force distribution.
Table 4Field Case 2 drillstring design.
well is modeled with a constant friction factor of 0.30. The mud

weight used in the well is 10.0 lbm/gal. The drillstring used consists of a 4.75-in. polycrystalline diamond compact bit with a
4-in. mud motor, a short section of nonmag drill collar, and
2.875-in. S-135 9.95 lbm/ft drillpipe with NC31 connections to
the surface (Table 4). The results of the analysis obtained by the
different soft- and stiff-string models are shown for axial force,
torque, and contact force along the drillstring (Fig. 6).
T&D Analysis Results: Comparison and Discussion. Results
for T&D analysis of this field case are shown in Table 5. All programs are very close for drilling, ROB, and pickup. As noted
before, only the new stiff string and new soft string provide results
for reaming, so a comparison against the other programs is not
possible. There are very large differences in results for sliding and
slackoff, which are operations prone to drillstring buckling. Space
constraints here prevent a detailed discussion of these widely
varying results, but the different treatment of buckling by the six
programs is the underlying cause.
Rotary Drilling. For modeling rotary drilling in this well, all

programs predict very similar axial loads, but contact forces and
especially torques for the programs differ (Fig. 6). As in the sliding operation for Case 1, the torque and contact-force graphs exhibit curiosities with respect to the stiff string of Program A. This
program, unlike all others, predicts a larger increase in contact
force in the build portion of the well. This consequently leads to
an increase in the torque for its stiff string and is perhaps a primary reason behind the increased torque of Program A compared
with its soft string (Fig. 6b).
The torque for Program As soft string and the two industryavailable stiff strings in this case is approximately 3,000 lbf-ft,
whereas the torque of the new stiff string is much lower because
of the difference in contact distribution along the drillstring. Taking a look at the contact forces predicted by the new stiff string
per joint, we see that they match very well with the other programs. The use of this lumped-per-joint contact forces the results
of the new stiff string and the prediction for surface is 2,990 lbfft, which is extremely close to results from most other programs.
286

Stage:
DLS
DLS
Total Pages: 16
20
20
10
0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
10
0
0
12,000
16,000
3,000
14,000
2,500
Contact Force (lbf)
Torque (lbfft)
Page: 287
12,000
10,000
New Soft String
New Stiff String
8,000
6,000
2,000
4,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
New Soft String

1,500
1,000
500
4,000
0
2,000
2,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0
0
2,000
4,000
MD (ft)
MD (ft)
(a)
(b)
10,000
12,000
Fig. 7Rotary drilling, Field Case 3: (a) torque and (b) contact-force distribution.
However, if local contact forces are taken into account, it can be

clearly seen that there is substantial pipe/body contact, as shown
by the new stiff string (Fig. 6c), and that the results differ greatly.
The characteristic of the new model to capture local contact
through dynamic analysis, consider stiffness and geometric nonlinearity of the drillstring, and correspondingly assess friction-torque loss results in a lower prediction for surface torque.
shown in Table 7. For hookload, results are similar for drilling,

ROB, and slackoff, but some differences are seen for sliding and
pickup. For surface torque, the most significant difference is that
the new stiff string predicts much lower values for drilling and
ROB. This difference in surface torque while drilling will be discussed here by examining the contact-force predictions.
Case 3: Backward-Nudge Profile in Unconventional Shale

Well in Texas. Case 3, like Case 1, is also a backward-nudge
horizontal well, but it was drilled in the Eagle Ford shale in
Texas. As the well profile shows in Fig. 2c, the backward nudge
occurs at approximately 7,200-ft true vertical depth with maximum doglegs close to 16 /100 ft (Fig. 7a). The well becomes horizontal at 9,150-ft measured depth (MD) and remains horizontal
until 12,478-ft MD, with doglegs between 0.5 and 3 /100 ft (Fig.
7a). The cased hole goes from surface to 2,998 ft, with an
assumed friction factor of 0.20. The rest of the well is open hole
with an assumed friction factor of 0.25. The mud weight used in
the well is 11.1 lbm/gal. The drillstring used for drilling this well
is shown in Table 6, with most of the drillstring comprising 5-in.
S-135 19.50 lbm/ft drillpipe with NC50 connections.
Rotary Drilling. The new stiff-string model predicts lower surface

torque (11.6 klbf-ft) than all the other software (between 13.8 and
15.7 klbf-ft). The differences range from 19 to 35%. As seen in Fig. 7,
locality of contact forces again plays an important role. Examining
the dogleg severity (graph shown above the contact-force figures), it
can be seen that this well profile is tortuous along the entire wellbore.
In this situation the new stiff-string, and to some extent the Program
B stiff-string, models again show the role of tubular stiffness. The
new stiff-string model predicts an important aspect of local contact
that the other programs do not capture: the absence of drillpipe contact in the initial vertical part of the well, with the drillstring only partially in contact for the rest of the wellbore until approximately 5,000ft MD, and sometimes losing contact for several joints (Fig. 7b). The
prediction of reduced contact where the drillstring tension is high
leads to the lower surface torque predicted by the new stiff string.
T&D Analysis Results: Comparison and Discussion. Hookload

and surface torque predicted by each program for Case 3 are
Concluding Remarks on Three Field Case Histories. For the

three case histories, in many situations modeled, the top-level

287
Stage:
Page: 288
Total Pages: 16
Table 8Field data from daily drilling reports.
results for surface T&D up/down are close enough for all six
models to be within the uncertainty range associated with the
commonly used, lumped-parameter friction factor. However,
some major differences in hookload for sliding and slackoff operations are observed, which are shown to be caused by differences
in location and magnitude of contact force between the drillstring
and wellbore. Further, significantly lower surface torque is predicted by the new dynamic stiff string compared with other models for one case history because of lower contact forces in the
vertical section of the well.
The key finding of this paper is that major differences are
observed for contact forcesboth location and magnitudefor
the new dynamic stiff-string model compared with all five other
models, including the two static stiff-string models. These differences in contact forces are most significant when the drillstring
has helically buckled or when doglegs in the wellbore are high.
Helical buckling of the drillstring can harm drilling-optimization
efforts by preventing effective weight transfer to the bit, thereby
reducing rate of penetration or causing poor motor performance.
The difference in contact-force prediction would also be important for prediction of fatigue of a rotated drillstring and for prediction of casing and drillpipe wear.
Comparison of New Stiff- and Soft-String Models Against
Field Data for Field Case Histories 3 and 4. As discussed in the
preceding section, the new stiff-string models compared favorably
in most situations against well-accepted industry Programs A and
B. This good agreement provides some level of validation for the
new stiff-string model. The next step in validation of the new stiffstring model is to compare its predictions against field data.
In this section, the new stiff-string model is compared against
field data for the same Field Case History 3 described in the preceding section and against field data for a fourth well, which is
denoted Field Case History 4. Data from Field Case History 3 are
depth-based data taken from daily drilling reports (Table 8),
whereas data from Field Case History 4 are time-based. Depthbased and time-based field data have different advantages and disadvantages. Both types are used as part of the validation process
to illustrate the viability of the new stiff-string model. For these
comparisons, the new soft-string-model predictions will also be
included to illustrate potential differences with the new stiff-string
model. As noted earlier, the new soft-string model agrees very
closely with industry-accepted soft-string Models A and B.
Depth-Based Field Data From Field Case History 3. Depthbased data were obtained from daily reports for the Field Case His-
tory 3 discussed earlier. Such daily report data provide a single

value or range of values that represent 24 hours of drilling. Our data
for this well represented 8 days of drilling over 9,500 ft of hole (Table 8). Consequently, obtaining eight data points can hardly be
expected to represent the actual drilling operations with precision.
Moreover, the entering of data into daily reports is subject to human
interpretation. For example, one person might enter the highest
value observed for a specific parameter, such as surface torque,
while another might enter the average value for the day. Nevertheless, daily reports are relatively easy to obtain, so we decided to
compare Field Case History 3 in detail by use of this method.
The first step is to compare rotating off bottom (ROB) hookload field data against the new stiff-string-model predictions. During ROB, all friction is in the circumferential direction (none in
the axial direction). Consequently, the surface hookload should
match buoyed weight of the drillstring with reasonable accuracy
after accounting for the weight of the traveling assembly. If there
are significant differences in predicted and observed hookload
ROB, then the likely reason is differences in weight of traveling
assembly or drillstring composition between the model and the
field data. Gross errors in mud weight can also affect these comparisons, but this is a relatively minor effect. The comparison of
field data for ROB hookload is given in Table 9 and shown in
Fig. 8. Generally, Fig. 8 shows close agreement. Model predictions for the shallowest measured depth (MD) have a relatively
large difference from field data (32%), which could be attributed to sheave friction causing inaccuracy in the rigs weight sensor or an error in our estimation of the weight of the traveling
assembly. Model predictions for the rest of the well, including the
important horizontal section, are within 6% for the new stiffstring and soft-string models, which is well within the expected
variation.
The next step is comparison of pickup hookload data to assess
effects of axial-friction factors. As shown in Fig. 9 and Table 10,
the agreement is close between field data and predictions from the
models. In Table 11, the average of the absolute value of differences between field data and predictions from the new stiff string is
tabulated. For pickup hookload data, the new stiff-string model
predictions are on average 9% different from the field data, which
is considered to be within acceptable limits (Table 10).
The comparison of slackoff hookload field data against the
new stiff- and soft-string-model predictions is also performed to
complete the validation of the hookload field data. As shown in
Fig. 10, generally the agreement is close except in the horizontal
section. Table 11 shows the new stiff-string model is on average
9% different from the field data, which is considered within acceptable limits. The qualitatively different character of the field
Table 9Comparison of hookload while ROB.

288

Stage:
Page: 289
Total Pages: 16
250
160
140
String Weight (klb)
100
Field Data
Field Trend
New Stiff String
New Soft String
80
60
40
Hook Load Picking Up (klb)
200
120
150
Field Data
Field Trend
New Stiff String
New Soft String
100
50
20
0
0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000 8,000
MD (ft)
10,000
12,000 14,000
Fig. 8Field Case History 3: Comparisons of ROB hookload for

new stiff-string and new soft-string models vs. field data.
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000 14,000
MD (ft)
Fig. 9Field Case History 3: Comparisons of pickup hookload

for new stiff-string and new soft-string models vs. field data.
Table 10Comparison of hookload pickup.
data vs. the models in the horizontal section is not well understood, although the qualitative character of model predictions
appears to be correct in our view.
Comparing surface torque also helps validate the new stiffstring model against the field data. As shown in Fig. 11, the torque generally agrees with the new stiff-string-model predictions,
but contains two points of discrepancy in the deepest part of the
well in the horizontal section. These field data do not continue the
clear trend of increasing torque with increasing MD, which would
be expected and is predicted by both models. The likely conclusion is that the field data are compromised, and this clearly demonstrates the limitations of the use of only depth-based data
derived from daily reports. Table 11 shows that the new stiffstring-model predictions on average are 20% different from field
data, even including the two spurious points.
In summary, the new stiff-string-model predictions agree with

observed field data for Field Case History 3 within 10% for hookload and within 20% for surface torque. These differences are
considered to be well within acceptable limits and help confirm
the validity of the new stiff-string model.
Field Case History 4
As noted in the preceding section, depth-based field data used in
Field Case History 3 have limitations, primarily the fact that an
entire days operations are represented by a single data point. To
further test validity of the new stiff-string torque and drag (T&D)
model, time-based data are compared by use of a different well,
which is called Field Case History 4.
This case is a backward-nudge well in the Eagle Ford shale.
Casing was set at 6,238 ft, and then the well was drilled open hole
Table 11Average of absolute value of differences between field data and model predictions.
289
140
14
120
12
100
10
Torque (klb-ft)
Hook Load Slacking Off (klb)
80
Field Data
Field Trend
New Stiff String
New Soft String
60
40
Page: 290
Total Pages: 16
Field Data
Field Trend
New Stiff String
New Soft String
8
6
4
20
0
Stage:
2
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
MD (ft)
Fig. 10Field Case History 3: Comparisons of slackoff hookload for new stiff-string and new soft-string models vs. field
data.
0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
MD (ft)
10,000
12,000 14,000
Fig. 11Field Case History 3: Comparisons of surface torque

while drilling for new stiff-string and new soft-string models vs.
field data.
Table 12Field Case 4 operating parameters.
to total depth of approximately 19,000 ft. Some of the other parameters that were used for this well are shown in Table 12 and
the drillstring design is listed in Table 13.
The following graphs show the results obtained by running the
new stiff- and soft-string models and comparing them with the
real-time data obtained from the field. This case also shows good
agreement with the predictions, although some of the data have
significant of noise.
Rotating off bottom (ROB) was determined by selecting rev/
min between 50 and 100; operation tag of Off Bottom; and rate
of penetration between 5 and 5 ft/min. Rotary drilling was determined by selecting weight on bit (WOB) greater than 10 klbf; rev/
min of greater than zero; and the operation tag of On Bottom.
Tripping-in and tripping-out operations were determined by use
of the Off Bottom tag as true and WOB less than 5 klbf. For
tripping in, speeds of greater than 100 ft/hr were selected, and for
350
String Weight (klb)
300
250
200
Field Data
New Soft String
New Stiff String
150
100
50
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
MD (ft)
Fig. 12Field Case History 4: Comparisons of ROB hookload
for new stiff-string and new soft-string models vs. field data.
290
tripping out, speeds of less than 100 ft/hr were used. In addition,
the difference in the bit position was checked, and for tripping in
was made sure to be positive (and negative for the tripping-out
operation).
Again, the first step in comparison is to examine ROB to
ensure predicted buoyed weight of the string matches field data
with acceptable accuracy. Results are shown in Fig. 12, which
shows the available field data were limited to the horizontal section of the well. Predictions from the new stiff-string model agree
closely with the lower limit of the filtered time-based data, which
indicates a good match.
After matching the ROB hookload, the next step is to calibrate
the friction factors by comparing the pickup and slackoff hookloads. The best agreement was obtained with a 0.17 openhole friction factor and a 0.20 cased-hole friction factor. Both of these are
within the range of common friction factors observed in other
wells for drilling operations. Results are shown in Fig. 13a for
slackoff hookload and Fig. 13b for pickup hookload.
The slackoff data in Fig. 13a were obtained partly during a trip
and partly during connections. Moreover, data were only available
for portions of the well. Data from approximately 9,00014,000-ft
measured depth represent a trip and provide less spread compared
with connection data. Similarly for pickup data in Fig. 13b, data
from approximately 14,000 ft to surface represent a trip, and again
show a smaller spread after filtering compared with the connection data. Overall, the agreement is within acceptable limits.
The next step is to compare surface torque while drilling and
ROB. By use of an estimated bit torque of 6,000 lbf-ft and the
same friction factors as discussed previously, comparisons are
shown for torque while drilling (Fig. 14a) and torque while ROB
(Fig. 14b). The method for filtering the torque while drilling was
to select all the torques less than 5 klbf-ft. For ROB, all torques
with values of zero were taken out because this would suggest no
rotation. Then, for both drilling and ROB, the torques for both
Stage:
450
400
Field Data
New Soft String
New Stiff String
350
300
Hook Load Slacking Off (klbf)
Hook Load Slacking Off (klbf)
Total Pages: 16
450
400
250
200
150
100
50
Page: 291
5,000
10,000
MD (ft)
15,000
300
250
200
150
100
50
20,000
Field Data
New Soft String
New Stiff String
350
5,000
(a)
10,000
MD (ft)
15,000
20,000
(b)
Fig. 13Field Case History 4: Comparisons of (a) slackoff and (b) pickup hookload for new stiff-string and new soft-string models
vs. field data.
20
Field Data
New Soft String
New Stiff String
15
Torque ROB (klb-ft)
Torque Drilling (klb-ft)
20
10
10
0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
Field Data
New Soft String
New Stiff String
15
5,000
10,000
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
(a)
(b)
15,000
20,000
Fig. 14Field Case History 4: Comparisons of (a) surface torque while drilling and (b) surface torque while ROB for new stiff-string
and new soft-string models vs. field data.
were arranged in order of depth, and all values for the same depth
were averaged to determine a mean value.
The comparison of torque while drilling shows the predictions
for the new stiff-string model falling near the center of the cloud
of time-based field data, which indicates good agreement. It
should be noted that moderate stick/slip occurred during much of
the time represented by these data, which is indicated by the
spread in field data. The torque-while-ROB comparison shows a
similar result to the torque-while-drilling comparison. Again, the
new stiff-string-model predictions lie near the center of the cloud
of field data, which represents acceptable agreement.
In summary, predictions from the new stiff-string model show
acceptable agreement with time-based field data from Field Case
History 4. Combining this with previously noted good agreement
with depth-based field data from Field Case History 3 and with
comparisons against industry-accepted Programs A and B, the
new stiff-string model has been shown to provide suitably accurate predictions for all cases tested so far.
Future Work
The dynamic stiff-string model provides improved capability to
predict local contact force and stress, which we plan to use to
study drillstring and casing wear and drillstring fatigue. Additional field validation is considered important and is ongoing. The
new model will also be used to study noncircular wellbore cross
sections, which our initial dynamic simulations indicate have im-
portant effects on results. Finally, the full dynamic model will be

used to study transient dynamic drillstring problems, such as
stick/slip and whirling.
Conclusions
Our conclusions from this work are as follows.
1. A new dynamic torque-and-drag (T&D) model has been developed that assumes steady-state motion of the entire drillstring
from bit to topdrive. Bending stiffness and radial clearance are
both accounted for in the model, which classifies the new
method as full stiff string.
2. The key advantage of the new method is the ability to analyze
the entire drillstring by use of standard engineering desktop
computers in reasonable computing time. The advantage of the
use of a dynamic approach to solve the steady-state position of
the drillstring is mainly related to superior convergence of the
numerical algorithm compared with static stiff-string models
because calculation of contact points is faster.
3. Although several papers have published stiff-string models,
there is no industry-standard formulation of it. The main problem holding back the development of an industry-standard stiff
model is perhaps the complexity of the numerical algorithm and
substantial running time. The new stiff-string model described
here adopts a full stiff-string model while still giving reasonable
computational times. T&D analysis of the field case histories
presented in this paper required approximately 15 minutes of

291
R
s
t
T
v
vh
vr
w
y
z
a
d
d0
DL
Dt
h
j
j1
k
l
qIp
w
X
Stage:
Page: 292
Total Pages: 16
computing time per T&D operation (such as drilling, reaming,

rotating off bottom) on an engineering desktop computer.
4. Three recently drilled horizontal shale wells were analyzed
that had high dogleg severity, which is generally believed to
cause the industry-standard soft-string models to provide poor
predictions of T&D. The new dynamic stiff-string model is
compared with two static stiff-string models and three softstring models.
a. In many situations modeled, the top-level results for
surface T&D up/down are close enough for all six models to
be within the uncertainty range associated with the commonly
used, lumped-parameter friction factor.
b. However, major differences were observed for the new
stiffstring model compared with other models for hookload
during sliding and slackoff operations. These differences are
shown to be caused by differences in location and magnitude
of contact force between the drillstring and wellbore. These
differences in contact forces are most significant when the
drillstring has helically buckled or when doglegs in the wellbore are high.
c. Significantly lower surface torque is predicted by the
new dynamic stiff-string model compared with other models
for one case history because of lower contact forces in the vertical section of the well. This resulted in a lower prediction of
surface torque, which matched the field data better.
5. The key finding is that major differences are observed for contact forcesboth location and magnitudefor the new
dynamic stiff-string model compared with all five other models, including the two static stiff-string models. These differences in contact forces are most significant when the drillstring
has helically buckled or when doglegs in the wellbore are high.
Helical buckling of the drillstring can harm drilling-optimization efforts by preventing effective weight transfer to the bit,
thereby reducing rate of penetration or causing poor motor performance. The difference in contact-force prediction would
also be important for prediction of fatigue of a rotated drillstring and for prediction of casing and drillpipe wear.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge major contributions from Lee Winchell for his technical guidance and expertise and for providing
field case histories; Michael Kuhlman for his technical guidance
and expertise on field practices and providing field case histories;
Anand Kannappan, Melissa Frilot, and Mike Rossing for their
technical guidance and expertise; and Collin Johnson for his
expert technical writing. We also appreciate Weatherfords support in conducting this work and publishing this paper.
Nomenclature
A cross-sectional area of the drillstring
AE axial stiffness of the drillstring
D outer diameter of the drillstring
Dh hole diameter
E Youngs modulus
EI bending stiffness of the drillstring
fn complex external forces per unit length
fx projection of the external force per unit length onto axis
oe1
fy projection of the external force per unit length onto axis
oe2
fz projection of the external force per unit length onto axis
oe3
G shear modulus
GIp torsional stiffness of the drillstring
I axial moment of inertia of the drillstring
Ip polar moment of inertia of the drillstring
j (1)1/2 imaginary unit
kh friction factors in the circumferential direction
kx friction factors in the axial direction
L drillstring length
m mass of the drillstring
m* effective mass, which includes mass of the drillstring m
and the added fluid mass inside the drillstring and in the
annulus per unit length
M torque
Mb bending moment
p contact force per unit length
P weight on bit
Q torque on bit
r complex lateral displacement of drillstring axis about
wellbore axis
Aadnoy, B.S., Cooper, I., Miska, S.Z., et al. 2009. Advanced Drilling and
Well Technology. Richardson, Texas: SPE.
Aslaksen, H., Anand, M., Duncan, R., et al. 2006. Integrated FEA Modeling Offers System Approach to Drillstring Optimization. Presented at
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, 2123 February.
SPE-99018-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99018-MS.
Cernocky, E.P. and Scholibo, F.C. 1995. Approach to Casing Design for
Service in Compacting Reservoirs. Presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 2225 October. SPE30522-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30522-MS.
Cernocky, E.P. and Scholibo, F.C. 1994. Approach to Using Abaqus to
Simulate Drilling and Casing Wells and Loading Casing Through Reservoir Compaction. Proc., Seventh Abaqus Users Conference, Providence, Rhode Island, 13 June, Sec. Contributed Papers, 167176.
Glowka, D.A. 1989. Use of Single-Cutter Data in the Analysis of PDC Bit
Designs: Part 1 Development of a PDC Cutting Force Model. J Pet Technol 41 (8): 797849. SPE-15619-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15619-PA.
Ho, H.-S. 1986. General Formulation of Drillstring Under Large Deformation and Its Use in BHA Analysis. Presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 58 October.
Ho, H.-S. 1988. An Improved Modeling Program for Computing the Torque and Drag in Directional and Deep Wells. Presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 25 October.
Johancsik, C.A., Friesen, D.B., and Dawson, R. 1984. Torque and Drag in
Directional Wells Prediction and Measurement. J Pet Technol 36
(6): 987992. SPE-11380-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/11380-PA.
Mason, C.J. and Chen, D. C.-K. 2007. Step Changes Needed To Modernise T&D Software. Presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022 February. SPE-104609-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/104609-MS.
292
contact force
arc length
time
axial force
resultant velocity of a point on the drillpipe surface
circumferential velocity of a point on the drillpipe
surface
axial speed, running speed, or rate of penetration
weight of the drillstring length in the mud per unit length
projections of the drillstring axial line on axis oe2
projections of the drillstring axial line on axis oe3
inclination angle of the wellbore
penetration of drillstring into the wellbore wall or deformation of the wellbore wall
clearance between the wellbore wall and the drillstring
mesh size
integration timestep
azimuth angle of the wellbore
projection of the well curvature onto plane oe2e3
projection of the well curvature onto axis oe1
stiffness of the borehole wall per unit length as defined
by the elastic characteristic of the formation
Frictional torque per unit length
moment of inertia of the drillstring
torsion angle
drillstring angular velocity, rev/min
References

McSpadden, A.R., Coker, O.D., and Ruan, G.C. 2011. Advanced Casing
Design with Finite-Element of Effective Dogleg Severity, Radial Displacements, and Bending Loads. Presented at PE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2729 March. SPE141458-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/141458-MS.
Menand, S., Sellami, H., Tijani, M., et al. 2006. Advancements in 3D
Drillstring Mechanics: From the Bit to the Topdrive. Presented at the
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Miami, Florida, 2123 February.
Mitchell, R.F. 2008. Drillstring Solutions Improve the Torque-Drag Model.
Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, 46
March. SPE-112623-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/112623-MS.
Mitchell, R.F. and Miska, S.Z. 2011. Fundamentals of Drilling Engineering, Vol. 12. Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Mitchell, R.F. and Samuel, G.R. 2007. How Good is the Torque-Drag
Model? Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2022 February. SPE-105068-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/105068-MS.
Newman, K.R., Corrigan, M., and Cheatham, J.B. 1989. Safely Exceeding
The Critical Buckling Load In Highly Deviated Holes. Paper presented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 58 September. SPE-19229-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19229-MS.
Newman, K.R. and Proctor, R. 2009. Analysis of Hook Load Forces During Jarring. Presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 1719 March. SPE-118435-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/118435-MS.
Rezmer-Cooper, I., Chau, M., Hendricks, A., et al. 1999. Field Data Supports the Use of Stiffness and Tortuosity in Solving Complex Well
Design Problems. Presented at SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 911 March. SPE-52819-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/52819-MS.
Sheppard, M.C., Wick, C., and Burgess, T. 1987. Designing Well Paths to
Reduce Torque and Drag. SPE Drill Eng 2 (4): 344350. SPE-15463PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/15463-PA.
Smalley, E. and Newman, K. 2005. Modeling and Measuring Dynamic
Well Intervention Stack Stress. Presented at the SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference, The Woodlands,
Texas, 1213 April. SPE-94233-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/94233MS.
Tikhonov, V.S., Safronov, A.I., and Gelfgat, M.Ya. 2006. Method of
Dynamic Analysis of Rod-in-Hole Buckling. Proc., 8th Biennial ASME
Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, Torino,
Stage:
Page: 293
Total Pages: 16
Italy, 47 July, Vol. 3, 2532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/ESDA200695059.

Tikhonov, V.S. and Safronov, A.I. 2008. Numerical Simulation of the
Drillstring-in-Hole Dynamics at Rotary Drilling. Proc., the 9th Biennial ASME Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis,
Haifa, Israel, 79 July, Vol. 2, 543550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
ESDA2008-59165.
Tikhonov, V.S. and Safronov, A.I. 2010. Report on Drill String Calculation Program 3-DDT Mathematical Model. Moscow, Russia, April
(unpublished).
Tikhonov, V.S. and Safronov, A.I. 2011. Analysis of Postbuckling Drillstring Vibrations in Rotary Drilling of Extended-Reach Wells. J. Energy
Resour. Technol. 133 (4): 043102-1043102-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
1.4005241.
Wu, J. and Juvkam-Wold, H.C. 1995. Coiled Tubing Buckling Implication
in Drilling and Completing Horizontal Wells. SPE Drill & Compl 10
(1): 1621. SPE-26336-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26336-PA.
Appendix ADepthBased Field Data for Field

Case History 3
Block weight was estimated to be 50,000 lb; this value was subtracted from the discussed hookload data for comparisons shown
in Figs. 10 and 11, Case History 3, and Tables A-1 and A-2 used
here.
Vadim S. Tikhonov is manager of the Russian Group of Simulation and Modeling at Weatherford. Previously, he worked for
40 years for Moscow Aviation Institute and Aquatic Company.
Tikhonovs current interests include drilling mechanics, drilling
hydraulics, and numerical methods. He has authored or coauthored more than 150 technical papers. Tikhonov holds a PhD
degree in dynamics and control of vehicles from Moscow Aviation Institute and is a member of SPE.
Khaydar Valiullin is a senior project engineer in Research & Development with Weatherford. Previously, he worked for 5 years
as a research fellow at Polytechnic University of Milan. Valiullins
research interests are wellbore and drillstring integrity, drilling
optimization and automation, defect-tolerance design, and
multiaxial fatigue. He has coauthored more than 15 technical
papers. Valiullin holds a PhD degree in mechanical systems engineering from the Politecnico di Milano and a masters degree
in petroleum engineering from Ufa State Technological University. He has been a member of SPE since 1999.
Table A-1Comparison of hookload slackoff.
Table A-2Comparison of surface torque while drilling.

293
Albert Nurgaleev is Lead Engineer Technical Support for Tubular and Premium Connections at TMK Company. Previously he
worked for 6 years in Research & Development with Weatherford in Russia. Nurgaleevs current interests include stress analysis, fatigue tests, and torque-and-drag analysis. He holds a
bachelors degree in physics engineering from the University
of Russia. Nurgaleev is a member of SPE.
Lev Ring has been the Director of Technology Development
with Weatherford since 2002. His current interests include
managed-pressure drilling, drilling automation, and real-time
simulation of drilling processes. Ring holds a PhD degree in
physics and mathematics from the Russian Academy of
Sciences and a masters degree in applied physics from the
Institute of Physics and Technology, Russia. He is a member of
SPE.
Varadaraju Gandikota is Manager of Secure Drilling for Deepwater Systems Engineering with Weatherford. He has been
with the company for more than 8 years and has been
involved in numerical modeling and simulation for the past 15
years. Gandikota previously worked in other industries in
applied research, engineering, and numerical modeling. His
current interests include managed-pressure drilling, drilling-systems modeling, computational fluid dynamics, and fluid/structure interaction. Gandikota holds a masters degree in
294
Stage:
Page: 294
Total Pages: 16
industrial engineering from Wichita State University and a

bachelors degree in mechanical engineering from Madras
University, India. He is a member of SPE.
Pavel Chaguine is a design engineer at Weatherford. Previously, he worked as an engineering intern at Weatherford.
Chaguines research interests include computational fluid dynamics, drilling dynamics, and robotics. He holds a bachelors
degree in chemical engineering from Rice University and is
currently pursuing a masters degree in mechanical engineering at Rice University. Chaguine is a member of SPE.
Curtis Cheatham is a drilling-engineering adviser in Research
and Development at Weatherford. He has worked for Weatherford or its legacy companies since 2001, with a focus on new
technology development in drilling-engineering simulation
and numerical modeling, drillstring mechanics and torque
and drag, drilling dynamics, drilling hydraulics, rotary-steerable
systems, automation, and real-time drilling optimization.
Cheatham has authored or coauthored 15 technical papers.
He has been a member of SPE for 37 years and was previously
an executive editor and is currently an associate editor of SPE
Drilling & Completion. Currently, Cheatham is a member of
the technical program committees for the 2014 SPE Deepwater Drilling & Completion Conference and the 2015 SPE/
IADC Drilling Conference. He holds bachelors and masters
degrees in mechanical engineering from Rice University.


Spe 163566 Pa

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Spe 163566 Pa

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DC163566 DOI: 10.

2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

Dynamic Model for Stiff-String Torque

stiff-string models, the advantage of the use of a dynamic

C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers

September 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

drillpipe, for that matter) that has significantly different outer

ID: jaganm Time: 20:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140027/APPFile/SA-DC##140027

DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

soft-string models sometimes give poor results for stiff tubulars,

Why Did We Develop the New Dynamic Stiff-String

mr Tr jj EIr jj

September 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

The new stiff-string model, developed by use of the previously

Tr jj EIr jj jMr jj0

ID: jaganm Time: 20:25 I Path: S:/3B2/DC##/Vol00000/140027/APPFile/SA-DC##140027

DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

Table 1Rig operations and parameters.

Case 1: Backward-Nudge Profile in Unconventional Shale

Model Comparisons by Use of Field Case

500 1,000 1,5002,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

500 400 300

600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Horizontal Displacement (ft)

5001,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

Axial Load (klbf)

New Soft String

New Soft String

Contact Force (lbf)

Contact Force (lbf)

Outer Diameter (in.)

The contact-force-distribution figures show some interesting

Inner Diameter (in.)

Table 2Field Case 1 drillstring design. NMDC 5 nonmagnetic drill collar.

September 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

9,000 9,500 10,000

New Soft String

Axial Load (klbf)

New Soft String

Contact Force (lbf)

New Soft String

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

New Soft String

DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

Program A Soft String

Program B Stiff String

New Soft String

Program A Soft String

Program B Soft String

Contact Force (lbf)

Table 4Field Case 2 drillstring design.

well is modeled with a constant friction factor of 0.30. The mud

Rotary Drilling. For modeling rotary drilling in this well, all

September 2014 SPE Drilling & Completion

DC163566 DOI: 10.2118/163566-PA Date: 23-September-14

New Soft String

Table 6Field Case 3 drillstring design.

However, if local contact forces are taken into account, it can be

shown in Table 7. For hookload, results are similar for drilling,

mr Tr jj EIr jj

Tr jj EIr jj jMr jj0