Egyptian Journal of Petroleum (2017) 26, 489–504

H O S T E D BY
Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute

Egyptian Journal of Petroleum

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyjp
www.sciencedirect.com

FULL LENGTH ARTICLE

A study of friction factor model for directional wells

Ahmed A. Elgibaly a, Mohammed Shehata Farhat a, Eric W. Trant b,
Mohammed Kelany a,*

a
Faculty of Petroleum & Mining Engineering, Suez University, Suez, Egypt
b
TL Longbow Prime, Dallas, TX, USA

Received 31 January 2016; revised 15 June 2016; accepted 4 July 2016

Available online 12 October 2016

KEYWORDS Abstract High torque and drag is one of the main problems in the directional wells. Friction models
Wellbore friction; can be used for analysis during planning, drilling and after finishing the well. To have an accurate
Modeling; model it is very important to have the correct friction factor. This paper studies one of these models
Directional drilling; called Aadnoy’s friction model. The purpose of this paper is to make an investigation on the limitations
Torque and drag; of the model, and also to find out how much the model can help for detecting the downhole problems.
Aadnoy’s friction model The author used an Aadnoy’s based excel sheet done by TL Longbow Prime company for studying the
model. The model has shown reliable results for slant wells which helped to estimate the downhole issue
(Bitumen – high viscous oil). Also good torque results had been obtained for horizontal section despite
the poor drag results. In the paper three different well profiles has been used during the study.
Ó 2016 Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction ling because they prevent to reach drilling targets [14]. Therefore,
the focus on torque and drag model has been increased by
Torque and drag result from the friction between the drill string increasing the number of extended reach drilling [7,8].
and the wellbore. Torque and drag calculations are very impor- Running torque and drag model is a very important factor
tant during planning phase and operating phase of the well. The to drill the wells successfully. Usually a model based on fric-
success of the well can be affected by torque and drag presence tional analysis is used to study the effect of friction on torque
especially in deep and complex wells. For instance, high torque and drag readings. The friction factor is maybe the most uncer-
and drag forces are important limitations in extended reach dril- tain factor in the calculations. This is because the friction fac-
q
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Final discussion for Partial Fulfillment of M.Sc. in Petroleum Engineering held in Suez
University, Suez, Egypt, 22 Feb, 2016.
Abbreviations: 2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional; BHA, bottom hole assembly; ECD, equivalent circulation density; ERD, extended
reach drilling; ERW, extended reach wells; HD, horizontal departure; HL, the hook load. Displayed by the weight indicator; HKL, the hook load.
Signature in real time data file; MD, measured depth; POOH, pulling out of hole; PRS, pick up/rotate/slack off; RIH, running in hole; ROP, rate of
penetration; RPM, revolutions per minute; SPP, stand pipe pressure; TVD, true vertical depth; TRQ, torque. Signature in real time data file; WBM,
water-based mud; WOB, Weight on bit; RSS, rotary steerable system; PDM, positive displacement mud motor; MW, mud weight; PDC,
polycrystalline diamond compact; DD, directional driller; TL, Trant-Logistics Company; PWD, pressure while drilling.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Kelany).
Peer review under responsibility of Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2016.07.004
1110-0621 Ó 2016 Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
490 A.A. Elgibaly et al.

Nomenclature

a wellbore inclination, radians Hr hook load while rising, calculated in analysis, tons
Da change in inclination over section length, radians HKL the hook load, tons [kN]
U wellbore azimuth, radians L length of element, m
DU change in azimuth over the section length, radians MF mud flow, l/min
h absolute change in direction/dogleg, radians r radial clearance between wellbore and work
l friction factor string, m
b buoyancy factor R radius of curvature, m
F1 the bottom force of a pipe element, N RPMB revolutions per minute or average rotary speed, (–)
F2 the top force of a pipe element, N s length of the section, m
Fdown slacking force, N SPP stand pipe pressure, bar
FF frictional force, N T torque, kNm
FN side or normal force, N TJ tool joint, m [inch]
Fup pulling force, N W buoyed weight of the pipe, N
DF difference in Fup and Fdown, N w unit weight of pipe, kN/m
Hl hook load while lowering, calculated in analysis, Wtb weight of traveling block, tons
tons

tor is not a measured parameter but it is a fudge factor. This drop-off and build up sections. In 2008, Aadnoy et al. [15]
fudge factor depends on other effects including mud system made the analytical model simpler and entered the movement
lubricity, pipe stiffness, cuttings beds, hydraulic piston effects of the drill pipes up or down. In 2010 Aadony et al. improved
and tortuosity [18]. To have an accurate model, it is very impor- this model for different geometries [12]. The Author had used
tant to find appropriate friction factors for different drilling situ- an excel sheet based on the model done by Aadnoy et al. [15].
ation. To judge any model whether it is good or bad, we have to Torque and drag analysis has proven to be useful in well
judge the model quality and how much easy it is to use. planning/design, real time analysis and post analysis.
In the present paper, the author will study Aadnoy’s friction Practically torque & drag model’s analyses are a combination
model by applying real well data for different hole conditions of study of historical behavior, improves the experience, utilize
and will compare the model with field data. The main objective engineering models and use of that analysis, to be able to study
of the paper is to study the validity and limitations of Aadnoy’s the well bore condition and reduce the downhole problems.
model. Because the fudge factor or the friction factor is one of the Every time we use the model we have to calibrate the model
important factor for any torque and drag model, the main goal is at the beginning of each section.
to model the friction factor for different hole conditions to find
out if the model can be used to predict the downhole condition. 2.2. Friction factor

2. Literature review
In Coulomb friction model, the friction coefficient between an
object and a surface is defined as the ratio of the friction force
In this section, a short review on the previous work has been F between the object and the surface and the normal force N of
done for torque and drag models. the object on the surface. The situation is called static, if a
force acts on a body, until the maximum friction force is
2.1. Torque and drag models review reached. At this moment in time the body starts moving.
The Coulomb friction model can be described in the follow-
The first contribution to understand the friction in the well was ing Eq. (1) and Fig. 1, can be expressed as.
developed by Johansick [22]. He has developed a torque and
drag model based on basic equations for friction in deviated
wellbores. In 1987 Sheppard et al. improved Johansick model
by changing the model into standard differential equations
[21]. In 1993 a well has been drilled in the Wytch Field in Eng-
land by British Petroleum (BP). The well profile was ERD well
with 10.1 km horizontal displacement from the onshore plat-
form. Drilling this well proved to the industry that the targets
were earlier seen as out of reach became accessible. From this
time extended reach drilling wells increased globally. One of
these wells was in Al Shaheen field in Qater with 12.3 km
MD drilled by Maersk in 2008 [9]. From these types of wells
a more understanding of downhole forces improved the torque
and drag models, because they limit distant drilling objects and
decide the success of the well [4,12]. In 2001 Aadony and
Andersen developed a new analytical solution to present the
wellbore frictions [19]. These geometries include straight, Figure 1 Friction in a deviated well.
Friction factor model for directional wells 491

Ff move the pipe element. The plus sign in Eq. (2) is for pulling
l¼ ð1Þ
Fn while minus is for slacking, and the equation is valid for both
where l is the Coulomb friction coefficient. In Eq. (1) the the 2D model and the 3D model [12].
inequality sign is valid as long as the body is stationary (static F2 ¼ F1 þ bDLwðcos a  l sin aÞ ð2Þ
friction), while the equality holds once the body starts moving
(dynamic friction). The friction coefficient is a property of the
3.1.2. Drag in curved sections
two surfaces in contact with each other. During the drilling oper-
ation the drill string is always in contact with the inside of the For curved section, the friction is based on the tension on the
hole. For any torque and drag model, the friction force and string more than the weight component. In some cases the ten-
the weight of a drill string element affect in the total load of sion could be more than the weight of the string element. For
the drill string. A high value of l means the material needs to curved sections there are different equations for the 2D model
overcome a large resistance to start motion. Once there is and the 3D model, where the first four equations are for the 2D
motion, the friction force reduces, and acceleration takes place. model, and Eq. (7) is for the 3D model [12].
At this threshold of motion, the static friction coefficient, lstatic, Eq. (3) is for POOH and Eq. (4) is for RIH in a drop-off
changes to the dynamic friction coefficient, ldynamic. This bend.
dynamic is lower than the static friction coefficient. " #
lða2 a1 Þ wR ð1  l2 Þðsin a2  elða2 a1 Þ sin a1 Þ
In the drilling process this phenomenon can cause a vibra- F2 ¼ F1 e þ
tion in the drill string called ‘‘stick-slip”. As the drill string 1 þ l2 2lðcos a2  elða2 a1 Þ cos a1 Þ
rotates there is friction between the bit and the formation ð3Þ
and between the formations. When the bit is encountering
 
too much friction, it will remain stationary on bottom and will F2 ¼ F1 elða2 a1 Þ þ wR sin a2  elða2 a1 Þ sin a1 ð4Þ
not rotate. Subsequently, the friction force increases as the drill
string torques up. When the friction force reaches a threshold The following two equations; Eqs. (5) and (6), are sequen-
value the bit starts to accelerate and exceed the drill string neu- tially for POOH and RIH in a build-up bend.
 
tral position. In effect, the drill string acts like a giant damp- F2 ¼ F1 elða2 a1 Þ  wR sin a2  elða2 a1 Þ sin a1 ð5Þ
ened spring and the bit angular velocity will decrease till the
motion stops. The drill string exceeds the bit rotating speed " #
lða2 a1 Þ wR ð1  l2 Þðsin a2  elða2 a1 Þ sin a1 Þ
again and starts to wind up until it reaches the threshold value F2 ¼ F1 e 
1 þ l2 2lðcos a2  elða2 a1 Þ cos a1 Þ
once more.
ð6Þ
3. Mathematical model For the 3D model Aadnoy generate two equations; one for
POOH and one for RIH, where the plus sign is for pulling
Torque and drag models have the following benefits: while minus is for slacking [12]:
 
sin a2  sin a1
 During planning trajectory we can adjust or change it for F2 ¼ F1 eljDhj þ bDLw ð7Þ
a2  a1
minimum torque and drag.
 During drilling we can predict the down hole problems
before major problem happens. 3.2. Torque
 Torque and drag model can help us to select better BHA.
 During drilling we can monitor the hole cleaning 3.2.1. Torque in straight sections
performance. For straight section the torque is normal moment multiplied
 Can help us for better casing run. with the friction factor, Eq. (8). This equation is valid for both
 During planning phase, the model can help us to select the 2D and 3D model [12].
proper BHA weight to prevent pipe buckling.
T ¼ lrwDs sin a ð8Þ
 To select the right pipe grade to handle the pre-calculated
torque and drag. From Eq. (8), torque will be zero when a vertical bend (a
 The torque and drag model can help us for mud drilling equal to zero), while the torque will be maximum when a hor-
program and hydraulics calculations. izontal section (a equal to 90 degree). In case the drill pipe only
in rotation, the axial friction has no effect, and the direction of
In the following section we will try to summarize Aadnoy’s the motion has no effect on the torque.
model equations
3.2.2. Torque in curved sections
3.1. Drag
Torque with no drill string axial motion with a drop-off bend
3.1.1. Drag in straight sections the in 2D model is presented by Eq. (9), while torque based on
the 2D model in a build-up bend is given by Eq. (10) model
In the straight sections the friction is based on the normal
[12].
weight component. If we divide the drill string to elements
the top force for each element is given by Eq. (2), where the T ¼ lrðF1 þ wR sin a1 Þða2  a1 Þ  2lrwRðcos a2  cos a1 Þ ð9Þ
cos a-term is representing the weight if the element, while the
sin a-term represents the additional friction force required to T ¼ lrðF1 þ wR sin a1 Þja2  a1 j þ 2lrwRðcos a2  cos a1 Þ ð10Þ
492 A.A. Elgibaly et al.

For 3D model Eq. (11) is applicable for torque with the 3D

Table 1 Characterizing different sections in the 2D model [6].
model the drill string is on stationary no movement up or
down. Type of section Inclination Azimuth

T ¼ lrFN ¼ lrF1 jh2  h1 j ð11Þ Straight/vertical ‘‘Constant” ‘‘Constant”

Build-up ‘‘+” ‘‘Constant”
Drop-off ‘‘” ‘‘Constant”
3.3. Combined axial and rotational motion Side bend ‘‘Constant” ‘‘+” or ‘‘”
Horizontal ‘‘Constant” ‘‘Constant”
The current model still can’t be used for estimating frictions in
combined axial and rotational motion cases. However the
experience from the field showed that the drag will be less
when the drill string is rotating [16]. So this case is not included Table 2 Characterizing different sections in the 3D model [6].
in the current study. Type of section Inclination Azimuth

3.4. Model selection and input data Build-up with right side bend ‘‘+” ‘‘+”
Build-up with left side bend ‘‘+” ‘‘”
Drop-off with right side bend ‘‘” ‘‘+”
Selecting the model type whether 2D or 3D depends on the
well geometry. We normally select the 2D model in case the
well is in a single plane in other words azimuth is negligible  Measured depth
however we can select the 3D model. Studies have shown that  Measured inclination
either procedure should give approximately the same solution  The friction coefficient
[10]. As a general rule of thumb; the friction is considered  Weight on bit used during drilling
higher for more side-bends throughout the wellbore trajectory  Bit torque during drilling
[13]. There are different forces applied on the drill string
including axial, bending, friction and hydraulic loads Fig. 2
[20]. 3.5. Quality control for real time data
For 2D and 3D models; to describe the inclination change
or azimuth change normally use the sing + or – to describe
Pickup/rotate/slack off test (PRS test) is very important test
this change Tables 1 and 2. In the tables sign ‘‘+” means
for torque and drag calibration and during daily drilling oper-
increasing in an angle, ‘‘” means decreasing, while ‘‘con-
ation. Normally we have to do the PRS test to calibrate the
stant” means that the angle didn’t change [6].
model at the casing shoe to determine the correct friction fac-
As a good practice, the model calibration is very important
tor. Also during drilling operation we use this test to record
during drilling operation, based on trial and error method to
free rotating weight, free rotating torque, pick up weight and
calibrate and find the proper friction factor Fig. 3 [5]. The fol-
slack of weight after drilling each stand. Also we can record
lowing data have been used during running the model using
that reading when the pumps are off is an optional [17].
the TL Longbow Prime excel sheet, the excel sheet can accept
For better and accurate reading a clear procedures must be
English or Metric units:
followed and also with the same parameters (RPM and hoist-
ing system speed). This procedure making readings before con-
 Rig data (travel block weight)
nection has been used successfully Fig. 4 [11]:
 Fluid properties (Buoyancy factor)
Pumps are ON for all these measurements:
 The unit weight of the drill pipe
 The length of the drill pipe [m]
 After stand down, Drills off the weight.
 BHA unit weight
 Back ream pulling up at a fix speed, and according to DD-
 Largest radius on the BHA (bit radius)
approved back reaming RPM and DD-approved interval: 1
single, 2 singles or complete stand of DP.
 At the top of the back ream interval, stop and rotate freely
at 80 RPM for 30 s.
 Record the free rotating weight and free rotating torque.
Then, continue by reaming down with same back reaming
RPM.
 Pull up at a consistent speed to DD-approved interval with-
out rotary. Make sure we are above stretch distance.
 Record pickup weight.
 Work back down at consistent speed. Record slackoff
weight.
 Set slips.

By following these procedures the accuracy of the results

will be increased. Some clients prefer to measure off bottom
rotating weight before turning on the pumps after the connec-
Figure 2 Forces acting in a downhole bend [20]. tion is made. An important point is to achieve a good clean
Friction factor model for directional wells 493

Figure 3 Flow diagram for finding a proper friction factor that match the estimated surface load with the measured surface load [5].

Federal Region of Kurdistan, and was completed to a TD of

5175 m measured depth (MD).
The well has been drilled to 12.2500 section where encoun-
tered a BHA lost in hole. Decision was to side track in
12.2500 section and hit the original targets. For bad trajectory
control they had high DLs which caused the too much torque
and drag. So another side track has been decided to do and a
slant well was drilled based on the well plot Fig. 5 [3].
After a successful side track and drilling 12.2500 hole section
to a depth of 2903 m, the 9 5/800 Intermediate 3 Casing has
been set. The 8.500 section has been drilled with a concern with
Jurassic target reservoirs – Barsarin (4346-4588 m MD), Sar-
gelu (Naokelekan) (4588–4765 m MD) and Sekhaniyan
(4765–4819 m MD) formation. The potential risks for this sec-
tion were well control, H2S, Loss circulation, differential stick-
ing and drill string fatigue.
Figure 4 Connection procedures and PRS test [11]. The 8 1/200 hole section has been drilled with non-
damaging Polymer/KCl based drilling fluid with mud weight
9.5 ppg. The mud rheological properties and flow rate have
baseline before the casing shoe is drilled, and then friction fac- been optimized to provide superior hole cleaning and sus-
tors can be adjusted in for a clean well. This makes it easier to pension, to prevent washouts and fulfill overall hydraulic
later diagnose drilling problems. requirements.
The 8 1/200 directional BHA included an NOV PDC Bit
4. Field case 6  15 jets and NOV PDM with 1.15 deg and Jar, new
MWD tools have used Table 3 [3].
In this paper the friction model will be applied on real wells. The 8 1/200 section has been drilled where encountered a tor-
First relevant data of the applied wells are presented in this que and drag issue in 4500 m MD will be discussed in the next
section followed by results and discussion from modeling fric- section in detail.
tion in the next section.
To cover different hole conditions Three wells; Well-A, 4.2. Field data of Well-B
Well-B and Well-C, will be presented with relevant field data
to run the friction model. The second well we are going to include in the paper is a hor-
izontal well (WELL-B). Well-B is a production well in a Field
4.1. Field data of Well-A located in the Federal Region of Kurdistan, and was com-
pleted to a TD of 3016 m measured depth (MD).
The presented dataset of Well-A is taken from the final well The objective for Well-B is to be landed at 90 degrees in
report. Well-A is an appraisal well in the Field located in the Shiranish S1 target and drill 1000 m of Horizontal section to
494 A.A. Elgibaly et al.

Figure 5 Well-A well plot [3].

TD and complete the well as a horizontal producer by draining After setting the 95/800 casing the well has been drilled to
oil from the Cretaceous reservoir. Also objective was to TD using two BHAs. The first BHA was PDM BHA used to
increase the productivity of the well. land the well to 90 degree inclination from 1900 m MD to
Friction factor model for directional wells 495

Table 3 8 1/200 hole section BHA for Well-A [3].

Name Overall length Accumulated ID OD Acc. weight
(m) length (in) (in) (klb)
Assembly description
500 19.5# G-105 NC50 4478.400 4767.840 4.276 5.000 383.010
500 Hevi-Wate DP (15 jts) 136.760 289.440 3.000 5.000 57.570
6–1/200 HM Drilling Jar S/N CW-770874–2 6.070 152.680 2 5/8 6 5/8 34.330
5‘‘ Hevi-Wate DP (12 jts) 109.410 146.610 3.000 5.000 30.990
6 3/400 PBL Circulating Sub SN: WES 675 SBP 511 2.830 37.200 2 3/4 6 3/4 12.400
6–3/400 NMDC SN: 556412-6A 8.550 34.370 3 1/4 6 3/4 10.460
6–3/400 MWD Flow Sub SN: 24667–7 0.930 25.820 3 1/4 6 3/4 7.710
6–3/400 MWD (DNI & GR) SN: 556412-4A 9.410 24.890 3 1/4 6 3/4 7.410
6–3/400 Pony NMDC SN: 563348-5A-2 4.290 15.480 3 1/4 6 3/4 4.200
800 String Stabilizer SN: 0413379–356 1.770 11.190 2 3/4 6 3/4 2.820
6 3/400 PDM 5/6 6.8S w/8 3/800 S.Stab/1.15 bend w/Float Valve 9.170 9.420 2.000 6 3/4 2.260
8 1/200 PDC Bit Haliburton 0.250 0.250 8 1/2 0.080

2109 m MD, and the second BHA was RSS BHA which has The major objective of the Well-C is to determine the pres-
been used to drill the horizontal section Table 4 [2]. The second ence of hydrocarbons in the Jeribe–Dhiban carbonates and
BHA was used with the required well data to evaluate the collect data on the reservoir rock and fluids. Additional infor-
model for horizontal section. The well has been drilled based mation on the overburden rocks will be collected to aid future
on the plan and the actual surveys have been used during the drilling planning.
study Fig. 6 [2]. Due to the uncertainty of an exploration well and of the
The drilling mud which has been used to drill this section data available, a five string design was proposed. Also a con-
was a reservoir drill in fluid with 9.5 ppg. tingency 500 string is included in the plan in case well demands
deepening down to Oligocene 3500 m.
4.3. Field data of Well-C After setting the 2000 Intermediate casing the well has been
drilled to 18.500 section where it encountered a drag issue.
This section contains a description of another well applied Which casued a drill string stuck problem and therefore
with the model, Well-C. The Shakal structure is located caused BHA lost in Hole. We had used the data to evaluate
approximately 100 km southeast of the Kirkuk city, the city the model including the acutal surveys and well plot Fig. 7
of Kifri lays on the SW flank of the structure and the city [4].
of Kalar is at the SE end. The structure trends NW-SE As our concern in this well is the 18 1/200 hole section and
and is one of several anticlines in the area; it is on trend with we will display the data for that section. The purpose of select-
Pulkhana structure where nine wells have been drilled to ing that section is studying the shallow hole depth results using
date. Aadony’s model.
Well-C is the second exploration well to the JERIBE and The well profile is vertical. The drilling fluid used was
DHIBAN formation with a proposed total depth of 3100 m. The KCl/NaCl polymer system will be utilized. Salt and

Table 4 8 1/200 hole section RSS BHA of Well-B [2].

Name Count Accumlength ID (in) OD (in) Acc. weight (klb)
Assembly description
500 Hevi-Wate DP (15 jts) 15.000 1598.66 3.000 5.000 169.800
500 19.5# G-105 NC50 (138 jts) 138.000 1458.62 4.276 5.000 146.010
500 Hevi-Wate DP (5 jts) 5.000 128.050 3.000 5.000 49.310
6–3/400 Double Act Hyd Jar. SN kJ 14352 1.000 81.350 2.500 6.750 41.380
500 Hevi-Wate DP (3 jts) 3.000 72.260 3.000 5.000 36.320
6 1/200 Float Sub SN:PST-8864 1.000 44.120 2.678 6.500 31.540
6–3/400 NMDC SN:556412-4A 1.000 43.190 2.810 6.750 31.090
6–3/400 MWD Flow Sub SN:566977-2A-1A 1.000 34.030 2.810 6.750 28.150
6–3/400 MWD SN:566080-3A 1.000 33.080 3.250 6.750 27.840
6–3/400 LWD (GR/PWD) SN:270 1.000 23.690 3.250 6.750 24.640
8 1/400 Non Mag String stab SN:SDT 8624 1.000 14.540 3.000 6.250 20.230
Pony non Mag Drill Collar SN:563348-5A-2 1.000 12.490 3.250 6.750 19.260
700 RSS Tool (2  Stabs) SN:144 1.000 8.210 1.938 7.000 17.950
RSS PIT Bull Stab SN:BBX812-05 1.000 0.570 2.000 8.375 0.400
Bit BH PDC Q506X, SN:7132501, Jets 3  14, 1  12, 2  15 1.000 0.350 8.500 0.290
496 A.A. Elgibaly et al.

Figure 6 Well-A well plot [2].

shale inhibitors were used in the system for shale inhibi- nometer is deemed necessary to assist in keeping verticality
tion. The mud weight used to drill this section was of the well.
11 ppg. The 18 1/200 section has been drilled where it encountered a
A RSS/packed BHA is proposed to drill the 18 1/200 hole to drag issue in 1907 m MD which will be discussed in the next
section TD. The BHA is designed to prevent hole deviation section in detail [4].
and ensure hole straightness. It is also designed to provide
the required Weight on Bit (WOB) and improves bit perfor- 5. Results and discussion
mance in Tables 5 and 6 [4].
RSS is included to improve bit performance, A PWD This section contains results from field cases with the selected
tool was used to provide annular pressure measurements friction model. The same procedure as discussed in Mathemat-
while drilling and will help to determine the back pressure ical Model section is applied to model friction factor for the
during connections for the MPD system and MWD incli- field wells.
Friction factor model for directional wells 497

Figure 7 Well-C well plot [4].

5.1. Results and discussion of Well-A had been converted to English unit and run the model. I had
used friction coefficient as I had calibrated the model at the
The required input data which have been discussed in Section 3 beginning of the section. However in software result we still
are described on the model snapshot in Fig. 8. The well data can have results based on two other friction factors.
498 A.A. Elgibaly et al.

Table 5 18 1/200 hole section RSS BHA for Well-C [4].

Name Count Accum OD ID (in) Acc. weight
length (in) (klb)
Assembly description
500 19.5# G-105 NC50 170.000 1940.020 5.000 4.276 223.220
500 Hevi-Wate DP (21 jts) 21.000 333.730 5.000 3.000 106.490
CrossOver 6 5/8 Reg to NC50 SER # – Rig CrossOver GreyWorf 1.000 131.560 8.000 2.813 72.140
8–1/200 Drill Collar (1 jts) 1.000 130.780 8 1/2 3.000 71.880
800 HM Drilling Jar – SER # – 800-186 1.000 121.320 8.000 2 3/4 67.340
8–1/200 Drill Collar (6 jts) 6.000 115.810 8 1/2 3.000 65.890
CrossOver 7–5/8 Reg to 6–5/8 Reg SER# –Rig CrossOver GreyWorf 1.000 59.240 8.000 2 3/4 38.760
9 1/200 Drill Collar (2 jts) 2.000 58.450 9 1/2 3.000 38.190
9–1/200 PBL Circulating Sub – SER # – WES 950 BP175 = 2800 SHEARING 1.000 39.590 9 1/2 2.270 24.600
PSI
18 1/400 String Stab – SER # – 0413379-240 1.000 36.840 9 1/2 3.000 22.720
9 1/200 Drill Collar (1 jts) 1.000 34.940 9 1/2 4.000 21.230
18 1/400 String Stab – SER # – 0413379-238 1.000 25.760 9 1/2 3.000 14.810
MWD (DNI) – GAMMA - PWD – SER # – 565286-1A+48557-4 + 48557-1 1.000 23.840 9 1/2 4.000 13.310
Float Sub (Ported) – SER # – NM-1043-014-2 1.000 12.430 9 1/2 2 3/4 6.240
(XO) SUB - SER # – 0413379-72 1.000 11.330 8.000 2 3/4 6.060
1000 WG RSS w/ two Stab’s - SER # – 022 1.000 10.540 10 3/16 2 13/ 5.670
16
18 1/400 WG Anti Spiral Sub SER # – 011 1.000 1.070 9 1/2 3.000 0.980
18 1/200 PDC Bit – SER # – E161381 1.000 0.380 18 1/2 0.440

The results showed that the torque we have is around

Table 6 18 1/200 hole section RSS BHA parameters [4]. 18 kft-lbs however we had during drilling 23 kft-lbs. and also
BHA weight in air, klbs 121.3 the actual drag we had during drilling was more than 60 klbs
BHA buoyed weight, klbs – 101.8 drag. Decision was POOH and check the BHA found marks
10.5 ppg mud of Bitumen (high viscous oil) Fig. 9.
Maximum available WOB, klbs 65.0 – with 85% of weight below The model helped us to determine the presence of downhole
jar problem and avoid any Drilling problem ex. Lost BHA in hole.
Maximum allowable Pull, klbs 370 – with 85% of new pipe Decision was run drill pipe non rotating protectors to reduce
tensile capacity the torque and drag generated from friction between DP and
casing Fig. 10 [1].

Figure 8 Snapshot for the model excel sheet.

Friction factor model for directional wells 499

Figure 9 Torque and drag results for 8.500 hole section Well-A well.

5.2. Results and discussion of Well-B Using the TL Longbow Prime company excel sheet we had
calibrate the software at the heel and applying the data dis-
The purpose for selecting this well /section was to find out played in the previous section for the RSS BHA.
Aadony’s model performance in the deep holes 8 1/200 and The torque model shows good results by comparing it with
also in the horizontal section. Using the data displayed in the actual well data which were around 13–14 kft-lbs as in
previous section will have results for well TD with RSS Fig. 11. However, the Drag result which is described in
BHA. The PDM BHA had been used to land the well to Fig. 12 shows high difference between rotating weights, slack
90 deg inclination and the RSS BHA had been used to drill off and pickup weights. And this is clear by comparing the cal-
the horizontal section. culated results with the actual field data described in Table 7
[2]. This is because of horizontal section with considering the

Figure 10 Picture for one job using non rotating protectors [1].
500 A.A. Elgibaly et al.

Figure 11 Describe the results of toque for 8.500 section RSS BHA.

Figure 12 Describe the results of drag for 8.500 section RSS BHA.

string lying on the low side of the hole. Same as drag the buck-
Table 7 Describe the actual readings of drag in klbs for 8.500
ling results show Sinusoidal buckling 9 klbs and Helical buck-
section RSS BHA [2].
ling 14 klbs however the section has been drilled with average
20 klbs WOB, Fig. 13. Pick up weight, klbs Slack of weight, klbs Rotation weight,
klbs
5.3. Results and discussion of Well-C 205 115 155

The purpose for selecting this well/section was to find out the
Aadony’s model performance in the shallow and big holes 18 However using friction factor 0.4 we had torque reading
1/200 using the data displayed in previous section. around 3.5 kft-lbs Fig. 14. The actual reading during drilling
Friction factor model for directional wells 501

Figure 13 Describe the results of buckling for 8.500 section RSS BHA.

Figure 14 Describe the results of toque for 18.500 section RSS BHA of Well-C.

was around 10 kft-lbs. The big difference in torque calculated because of not considering the side forces on the calculation.
and actual reflects the weakness of the soft string analytical The conformance results of the model didn’t help to avoid
model. The soft string model considers the string is in the cen- BHA stuck because of hole collapse issues.
ter of the hole however it is not in reality. Even the well is ver-
tical still there are torque results from the side forces coming
from the contact between the drill string and the bore hole. 6. Conclusions
The drag results including pickup weight, slack of weight
and rotation weight Fig. 15 showed that reading is less than Based on the modeled and evaluated results in present paper
the actual reading Table 8 [4] and this is as torque reading the following conclusions can be summarized:
502 A.A. Elgibaly et al.

Figure 15 Describe the results of Drag in klbs for 18.500 section RSS BHA.

Table 8 describe the actual readings of drag in klbs for 18.500

section RSS BHA [4].
Pick up weight, klbs Slack of weight, klbs Rotation weight,
klbs
224 214 218

 The Excel model, which is developed by TL Longbow

Prime company and based on Aadnoy’s friction theory,
has given some reliable results and this appeared on Well-
A when estimated the downhole issue (Bitumen – high vis-
cous oil) (Fig. 17).
 The Model showed reliable readings for torque in horizon-
tal section in Well-B however it has some inaccurate read-
ings for drag and buckling calculations.
 In different situations we forced to use high friction factors
to reduce the inabilities of the model. However from the
deviation calculations the model showed good drilling prac-
tices Table 9.
 The model should also be improved to powerful software to
enable real time applications
 The model has some inabilities:
1. Tortuosity and micro-tortuosity: The model considered
the actual well path will be perfectly smooth, but in
reality it will have natural tortuosity. To correct that; Figure 16 Contact forces in an actual vertical well [16].
a higher friction factor needs to be used.
2. Hydrodynamic viscous drag: Hydraulic viscous drag
is another effect which is not considered in the calcu- 3. Perfect vertical wellbore: The model assumed that per-
lations. Same as Tortuosity and micro-tortuosity fect wellbore is perfectly vertical and the drill string is
higher fiction factor need to be used to correct the in the center of the hole and there is no contact between
readings. the drill pipe/BHA and the borehole wall. This leads to
Friction factor model for directional wells 503

Figure 17 Torque and drag plots Well-A. Figure 18 Torque and drag plots Well-C.

have inaccurate results from the torque and drag anal- 7. Recommendations for future work
ysis. This appeared clearly in the Well-C. However the
actual position of the drill string in the vertical well is From the previous conclusions, we can summarize some ideas
not in the center of the hole Fig. 16 [16] (Fig. 18). for future work improvement:
4. Friction loss in the hoisting system is not corrected in
the results. To reduce that effect accurate calibration 1. Improve tortuosity measurements and add the tortuosity
must be done for the hoisting equipment. effect to Aadnoy’s friction model.
5. Buckling results showed some of non-accuracy and this 2. Add a hydraulic model to Aadnoy’s model to include the
appeared on Well-B (Fig. 19). hydraulic effect on the torque and drag readings.

Table 9 Summary of results and deviation calculations.

Well Field data Calculated results Deviation Notes
name %
Well-A Torque = 23 kft-lbs Torque = 18 kft-lbs 21% During operation noticed that there are a big differences between
P/U = 210 klbs P/U = 150 klbs 28% calculated torque/drag and actual in the field. And this difference
is getting bigger with drilling more meters. The Recommendation
for the client to increase the hole cleaning performance by
increasing the flow rate and use special mud chemicals for lubricity
However all this has been done Recommended to client to POOH
and check BHA for any indication for formation related problem.
After POOH found marks of Botomin (high viscous oil). Decision
was run drill pipe non rotating protectors to reduce the torque and
drag generated from friction between DP and casing
Well-B Torque = 13 kft-lbs Torque = 12.5 kft-lbs 0.04% The torque model shows good results by comparing it with the actual
Weight Weight 30% well data. However the drag result shows high difference. This is
difference = 45 klbs difference = 60 kbls because the model considered the string lying on the low side of the
hole of the horizontal section. Same as drag the buckling results
shows Sinusoidal buckling 9 klbs and Helical buckling 14 klbs
however the section has been drilled with average 20 klbs WOB
Well-C Torque = 10 kft-lbs Torque = 3.5 kft-lbs 65% However the section was big and shallow, we had used friction factor
P/U = 224 klbs P/U = 150 klbs 30% 0.4. With this friction factor still there is big difference between
calculated torque/drag and actual in the field. This big differences
reflect the weakness of the soft string analytical Aadnoy’s model. The
model ignored tortuosity and micro-tortuosity effects and also
considered the drill string is centered in the wellbore
504 A.A. Elgibaly et al.

[7] J.E. McCormick, C. Evans, J. Le, et al, Practice and evolution of

torque and drag reduction: theory and field results, in: Paper
IPTC 14863 presented at International Petroleum Technology
Conference, 7–9 February 2012, Bangkok, Thailand, 2011,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/14863-MS.
[8] J.E. McCormick, M. Frilot, T. Chiu, Torque and drag software
model comparison: impact on application and calibration of
field data, Paper SPE 143623 presented at Brazil Offshore, 14–17
June 2011, Macaé, Brazil (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
143623-MS.
[9] T.M. Redlinger, J. McCormick, Weatherford International.
<http://www.drillingcontractor.org/longer-deviated-wells-push-drill-
pipe-limits8779>, 2011.
[10] S.A. Mirhaj, E. Kaarstad, B.S. Aadnoy, Mod. Appl. Sci. 5 (5)
(2011) 10–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v5n5p10.
[11] T. Tveitdal, E. Karstad, S.A. Mirhaj, Torque drag analyses of
North Sea Wells using new 3D model (M.Sc. research), Faculty
of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger, 2011.
[12] B.S. Aadnoy, M. Fazaelizadeh, G. Hareland, SPE J. Pap. 49 (10)
(2010) 25–36, SPE-141515-PA. DOI: 10.2118/141515-PA.
[13] S.A. Mirhaj, M. Fazaelizadeh, E. Kaarstad, et al, New aspects
of torque-and-drag modeling in extended-reach wells, in: Paper
SPE 135719 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Figure 19 Torque and drag plots Well-B. Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010, 2010, http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/135719-MS.
[14] D. Gihselin, Best practices emerging for ERD wells. <http://
www.varelintl.com/content/includes/best_practices_emerging_for_
erd_wells.pdf>, 2009 (downloaded 19.01.13).
3. Improve Aadnoy’s model to give more realistic data for
[15] B.S. Aadnoy, J. Djurhus, Application of a new generalized
buckling calculations.
model for torque and drag, in: Paper IADC/SPE 114684
4. Do more investigation on the friction losses in the sheaves presented at Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and
to add its effect on the friction model. Exhibition, 25–27 August 2008, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2008.
5. Improve the excel sheet to have: [16] S. Menand, H. Salami, M. Tejano, et al, Advancements in 3D
a. Separate part for BHA effect. drill string mechanics: from the bit to the top drive., Paper
b. Adding an option to have a real time analysis. IADC/SPE 98965 presented at drilling Conference, 21–23
c. Improving survey input data by adding Sag and Cosag February 2006, Miami, Florida, USA (2006), http://dx.doi.org/
corrections. 10.2118/98965-MS.
d. Increase the ability to add two friction factors for cased [17] G. Rae, W.G. Lesso, M. Sapijanskas Jr., Understanding torque
and drag: best practices and lessons learnt from the captain
and open hole in the model.
field’s extended reach wells, in: Paper SPE 91854 presented at
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 23–
25 February 2005., 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/91854-MS.
References [18] Drill string design and implementation for extended reach and
complex wells, third ed., K&M Technology Group, 2003.
[1] WWT International Company, <http://wwtinternational.com/ [19] B.S. Aadnoy, K. Andersen, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 32 (1) (2001) 53–
index.php/non_rotating_protectors/>, 2016 (downloaded 16.02.16). 71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-105(01)00147-4.
[2] Well-B Final of well Report, 2015. [20] M.S. Aston, P.J. Hearn, G. McGhee, A Technique for solving
[3] Well-A Final of well Report, 2014. torque and drag problems in today’s drilling environment, Paper
[4] Well-C Final of well Report, 2014. SPE 48939 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
[5] C. Frafjord, Mirhaj, Aker, Friction factor model and Exhibition, 27–30 September 1998, New Orleans, Louisiana
interpretation of real time data (M.Sc. research), Norwegian (1998), http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/48939-MS.
University of Science and Technology, 2013. [21] M.C. Sheppard, C. Wick, T. Burgess, SPE Drill. Eng. 344–350
[6] O. Ismayilov, Application of 3-D analytical model for wellbore (1987).
friction calculation in actual wells (MS thesis), Norwegian [22] C.A. Johancsik, D.B. Friesen, R. Dawson, J. Petrol. Technol. 36
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, (6) (1984) 987992, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/11380-PA, SPE-
2012. 11380-PA.