Designing and Qualifying Drillstrings for
ExtendedĆReach Drilling
T.H. Hill, SPE, and M.A. Summers, SPE, TH Hill Associates Inc., and
G.J. Guild, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services
Summary
Extended-reach (ER) drillstring design involves selecting from a
variety of available drillstring components those best suited to drill
an ER well. In a typical ER well, torsion loads will be higher and ten-
sion loads will be lower than for a vertical well of the same measured
depth. These differences in applied loads and the need to apply bit
weight with normal-weight drillpipe pose design and operating
questions that are answered in this paper. ER drillstrings are often
very complex. Also, most available components are in used condi-
tion, and thus have been exposed to unknown histories of wear and
fatigue. A system for qualifying the drillstring is required to ensure
that the components we use conform to our design requirements.
This paper covers some of the issues the authors have faced in de-
signing and qualifying drillstrings for ER wells and how these issues
were successfully resolved.
ER Drillstring Design Model
Fig. 1 shows a general model for drillstring design in an ER well.
We first estimate the loads that the drillstring will experience (Step
1), then select components that can safely carry these loads (Step 2).
Because the two steps are interdependent, this is an iterative pro-
cess, and the arrow is drawn both ways. In addition, the final selec-
tion of drillstring configuration is also heavily influenced by many
issues other than applied loads. These “side issues,” shown on Fig.
1, are also interdependent, often conflicting one with another, and
rarely cut-and-dried. For example, hole cleaning needs and pump-
pressure limitations may favor 65/8-in. drillpipe over 5-in. drillpipe,
but equivalent circulating density (ECD), rig setback space, and
availability issues may be forcing us toward the smaller pipe. The
final design is invariably a compromise between all these issues,
and thus will rarely be “optimum,” if indeed such a thing exists.
Rather, we aim for a “successful” design, one that gets us safely to
total depth (TD) within budget and without either experiencing a
drillstring failure or wearing out our casing.
Typical Drillstring Loads and Load Limits
Imagine that we plan to drill a series of 20,000-ft DM wells with 5-in.
drillpipe. We’ll drill the first one vertically to TD. The others will
be kicked off at 1,000 ft and build angle at 2°/100 ft until they reach
some desired tangent angle between 0° and 90°, then continue
straight until they reach 20,000-ft DM . Fig. 2 shows the expected
surface hanging load and torsion to rotate the drillstring off bottom
in these hypothetical wells as tangent angle increases to 90°. Al-
though rotating off bottom is only one of many possible operations,
it’s readily apparent from Fig. 2 that torsion will often be a major
concern in ER drilling. Tension, the traditional design concern in
vertical wells, will decrease in importance unless high tensile drags
are expected from hole-cleaning difficulties.
Tool Joints. Tool joints are torsionally the weakest part of most
drillstrings. The operating torsion limit for a rotary shouldered con-
nection is generally considered to be its makeup torque; however,
with externally applied tension, it may be the tensile load capacity
of the pin neck after taking makeup into consideration.1 We com-
monly encounter two factors that affect tool joint load capacity in
ER wells more than in conventional wells.
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Feb. 29, 1995. Revised manuscript received
April 1, 1996. Paper peer approved April 4, 1996. Paper (SPE 29349) first presented at the
1995 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam, Feb. 28–March 2.
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996
1. Contractors often provide tool joints with larger-than-standard
ID’s, such as the popular 3¼–in. ID NC-50 tool joint on 5-in., 19.50
lbf/ft, S-135 drillpipe. Larger-than-standard ID’s mean reduced tool
joint makeup torque and torsional strength.
2. Predicted operating torque in an ER well is often high (Fig. 2),
sometimes exceeding standard makeup torque. This requires in-
creasing makeup torque, changing out the drillstring, or attempting
to lower the friction forces in the hole. Because the first alternative
is always cheaper, it’s usually the solution of choice.
Although the fix for excessive operating torque requirements in
ER wells is often simply increasing makeup torque, we should keep
in mind that adding makeup torque can reduce pin-neck tensile ca-
pacity, so this action should be taken only after we verify that the in-
creased pin-neck tensile stress from the higher makeup does not re-
duce the tensile capacity of the string as a whole.
A successful application of increased makeup torque in an ER well
is given in Ref. 1. Also, Ref. 2 provides curves that are useful for esti-
mating tool-joint tensile capacities at various makeup torques (Fig.
3). If the tensile capacity of the pin neck at the higher makeup torque
still exceeds the tensile capacity of the drillpipe tube (as often occurs),
increasing the makeup torque is probably safe. If not, the string may
need to be changed for one with (torsionally) stronger tool joints, or
some action taken to reduce operating torsion.
Drillpipe Tubes. Unless we have inadvertently reduced the tool-
joint tensile capacity by excessive makeup, the tensile capacity or
combined tension-torsion capacity of the string will probably be lim-
ited by the capacity of the drillpipe tubes (Fig. 4). These load curves
are convenient for determining the simultaneous tension/torsion load
capacity of drillpipe. The curves are also available in Ref. 2.
Estimating Drillstring Loads in a Well
A number of PC-based computer programs are available to estimate
the tension and torsion loads in an ER well.3 These “torque-drag”
estimators are usually based on the Johancsik model,4 and require
the user to input hole and mud information. A drillstring configura-
tion and a friction factor are also specified. Friction factors will, of
course, vary with mud type and geographical area, and a variety of
friction factors have been reported in the literature, as shown in
Table 1.
The torque-drag programs grind through the model for a variety of
drilling operations and give the estimated tension/torsion loads dur-
ing each. Drillstring loads in an ER well will vary widely depending
on the operation being performed and the drillstring configuration at
the time. Thus, a summary for each hole section can be very useful
toward keeping track of things. The example load summary on Table
2 shows the torque-drag program output as “applied loads” at the sur-
face for a 25,000-ft North Sea ER well. These are compared to the
drillstring load limits of makeup torque (for torsion) and the com-
bined tension/torsional capacity of the tube for each of a number of
drilling operations. In this example, loads vary from as little as 5% of
the tube’s capacity in tension while drilling in sliding mode to 97%
of the tool-joint torsional limit while backreaming. This higher tor-
sional load during backreaming occurs because the tensile load
associated with backreaming increases side-wall contact force.
Fatigue
In addition to the loads mentioned above, fatigue from cyclic loading
is a major concern. Fatigue is the most common cause of drillstem
failures in general, and, next to torsion, will be the most likely cause
of drillstring failure in an ER well. Fatigue is also a complicated
mechanism whose control requires concerted attention to material
111

Fig. 1—Drillstring design for an ER well is an iterative process
that involves many variable and often conflicting issues.
properties, cyclic stress levels, and the corrosiveness of the environ-
ment.8,9 Our purpose here is to call the readers’ attention to two fa-
tigue control steps that may require special attention in an ER well.
These steps involve recognizing and controlling cyclic stresses from
(1) buckling and rotating normal weight drillpipe at the same time,
and (2) rotating heavy, stiff bottomhole assembly (BHA) components
that are sagging toward the low side of high-angle holes.
Buckling Normal Weight Drillpipe
To retard fatigue damage, rotating any buckled drillstring component
should be avoided, if at all possible. When buckling is unavoidable,
as in the bottom part of the string in vertical and near-vertical hole sec-
tions, long practice has established that drill collars and heavy-weight
drillpipe are more tolerant of simultaneous buckling and rotation than
normal-weight drillpipe. When normal-weight drillpipe is compared
to the other two components, we see two significant geometric differ-
ences: (1) larger stiffness variations between stiff and limber sections,
Fig. 3—Pin-neck tensile capacity of a rotary shouldered connec-
tion will vary with the applied makeup torque. (Reprinted with
permission from Ref. 2).
112
Fig. 2—Drillstring loads vary with hole angle.
and (2) the presence of the internal upset stress concentrator on the
limber drillpipe tube. Whether these or other factors fully explain why
traditional BHA components better resist fatigue damage while
buckled, our objective remains to prevent simultaneous buckling and
rotating of normal-weight drillpipe.
Compressive loads drive the drillstring toward being buckled. How-
ever, it’s useful here to differentiate mechanical compression arising
from applied bit weight and hydraulic compression induced by pres-
sure acting over the exposed areas of the drillstring. In a free-hanging
string, pressure-area compressive forces are offset by pressure-area sta-
bility forces and, thus, are normally safely disregarded when looking
at drillstring buckling.2 For buckling considerations, we historically
take into account only the mechanical component of total compression.
Many publications2,10,11 provide accepted methodology for pre-
venting drillpipe buckling from mechanical compression in vertical
to moderate-angle holes. The traditional rule in these holes is to not
apply mechanical compression to the drillpipe, that is, not to apply
more bit weight than the vertical force vector from the buoyed
weight of the BHA hanging below, taking hole angle into account.
In an ER well, high hole angle often means that bit weight cannot
be efficiently applied with the traditional BHA, and it becomes nec-
essary to mechanically compress the normal-weight drillpipe to ap-
ply bit weight. Fortunately, the high hole angle helps stabilize the
drillpipe and allows a certain amount of mechanical compression.
So long as the magnitude of mechanical compression does not ex-
ceed the critical buckling load, FC , the drillpipe remains stable.
Dawson and Paslay12 showed that the critical buckling load in a
straight wellbore could be predicted by the relationship
FC + 2 ǸEIwAr sin q.
B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Fig. 4—Drillpipe combined tension/torsion load capacity may be
a concern in an ER well when backreaming a dirty hole. (Re-
printed with permission from Ref. 2).
SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996
 TABLE 1—FRICTION FACTORS REPORTED will always occur first in the straight section immediately below.
IN THE LITERATURE Therefore, it would appear that a drillstring in a positive build section,
being mechanically compressed from straight hole sections above
Mud Type Casing Open Hole Reference and below, must buckle first in one or the other of the straight sections.
Synthetic OBM .15 .20 Alfsen5 Therefore, the amount of mechanical compression that our string
Mineral OBM .17 .20 Guild1 could carry without buckling anywhere would be limited by the criti-
Polymer WBM .22 .25 Mueller6, Kimball III7 cal buckling loads in the straight sections above and below a positive
Polymer Salt .26 .29 Mueller6, Kimball III7 build section, not in the build section itself. This, of course, does not
KCL/Brine .41 .44 Mueller6, Kimball III7 apply to a negative build (decreasing angle) section.

If bit weight is applied with normal-weight drillpipe in a straight
wellbore, the Dawson-Paslay equation predicts the onset of buck-
ling from mechanical compression, and therefore provides a conve-
nient limit for the extent the drillpipe can be used to apply bit weight.
The only further necessity is for us to determine the amount of me-
chanical compression at our point of interest in a straight wellbore,
then compare this with the value from Eq. 1 to see if buckling is oc-
curring. The Eq. 1 limit is also thought to be conservative when the
hole is not enlarged, as the formula does not consider the benefit
gained from the presence of tool joints on the drillpipe. The Daw-
son-Paslay formula has been widely accepted in the industry, and
curves are provided in Ref. 2 that give quick solutions to the equa-
tion. An example curve is shown in Fig. 5.
To look at buckling in an ER well, consider the wellbore shown
in Fig. 6. We will assume that our drillstring consists only of the
drilling assembly and normal-weight drillpipe, and desire to limit
bit weight so that the drillpipe is nowhere buckled. We have three
areas of concern for drillpipe buckling: 1) in the build section, 2) be-
low the tangent point, and 3) above the kickoff point. Let us take
these one at a time, assuming that we’re drilling in rotary mode (ro-
tating the drillpipe with weight on the bit). Because the string is ro-
tating and moving only slowly downward, we may neglect tensile
drag.
Buckling in the Build Section
Schuh13 and Wu and Juvkam-Wold14 showed that the critical buck-
ling load in a curved wellbore of positive build (increasing angle)
was always higher than that in a straight wellbore of the same in-
clination. In other words, positive wellbore curvature has a stabiliz-
ing effect on pipe in mechanical compression. The stabilizing effect
of positive wellbore curvature allows the following observations:
(1) buckling at the kickoff point will always occur first in the straight
section immediately above, and (2) buckling at the tangent point
Buckling Below the Tangent Point
If the tangent angle is less than 90°, the highest mechanical com-
pression in the drillpipe would be in its bottom joint, in this case at
the top of the drilling assembly. Buckling of the drillpipe would be
predicted at this point if bit weight exceeds the pipe’s critical buck-
ling load plus the buoyed weight of the drilling assembly below the
bottom joint of drillpipe:
W b w F C ) A B cos q Tǒw DA·L DAǓ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
Preventing buckling below the tangent point is a matter of not ex-
ceeding the bit weight given by Eq. 2. If the tangent section were
horizontal, the third term in Eq. 2 is zero, and mechanical compres-
sion in the tangent section would theoretically be equal over its en-
tire length. In this case, buckling would be predicted in the entire
tangent section if bit weight exceeded critical buckling load. How-
ever, it’s unlikely that all tensile drag could be neglected with part
of the string buckled, so buckling would be more likely just below
the tangent point where compressive load would be greatest.
Buckling Above the Kickoff Point
Again neglecting tensile drag for rotating pipe, the idea behind Eq.
2 also applies to the straight hole section above the kickoff point.
Buckling of the drillpipe would be predicted if bit weight exceeds
the pipe’s critical buckling load plus the buoyed weight of the drill-
string below. The calculation of buoyed weight hanging below the
point of interest is only slightly more complicated than in Eq. 2.
Here, it’s necessary to add the weight of the pipe in the build section
to determine buoyed weight hanging below the kickoff point. The
buoyed weight of pipe in the build section can be calculated by Eq.
3 (see the appendix for a derivation).
W BS + A B·wDP ƪ5729.6(sinqq * sin a)ƫ.
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)

TABLE 2—ER LOAD SUMMARY (EXAMPLE 12¼-in. SECTION—NORTH SEA)

(Loads at surface, string at casing point except as noted. Drillpipe: 5-in., 19.50 lbm/ft, S-135 PC, NC-50, 65/8 3¼-in.)
Load Capacities Applied Loads Percent Of
Tube Tensile Cap. (Klbm) TJ Torsion Limit Tension Torsion Tool Joint Tube
Operation No Torsion W/Torsion MUT (Kft-lbm) (Klbm) (Kft- Tensile Cap. MUT Min. Yield Combined Cap.
lbm)
PICKUP ------
1. W/ Rotation 561 472 34.0 231 32.9 35% 97% 64% 49%
2. W/O Rotation 561 561 34.0 322 — 49% — — 57%
SLACKOFF-----
3. W/ Rotation 561 495 34.0 112 27.2 17% 80% 53% 23%
4. W/O Rotation 561 561 34.0 56 — 9% — — 10%
DRILLING ------
5. W/Rotation 561 482 34.0 116 30.3 18% 89% 58% 24%
6. W/O Rotation 561 561 34.0 33 — 5% — — 6%
7. ROTATING 561 480 34.0 167 31.2 26% 92% 63% 35%
OFF BOTTOM

Assumptions: Measured depth (ft): 21,200 BHA torque (ft-lbm): 3,000

Mud weight (lbm/gal): 14.5 BHA drag (lbm): 30,000
Wb (lbm): 20,000 RPM: 120
Bit torque (ft-lbm) 2,000 Friction factors: 0.17 (casing), 0.2 (open hole)

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996 113

Fig. 5—Solutions to the Dawson-Paslay equation are found in
the literature. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 2).

If the tangent section is not horizontal, the drillstring below the Fig. 6—A drillstring in an ER well.
tangent point also contributes to hanging weight below our point of
interest. The value of hanging weight in this hole section is calcu-
The factors 0.765 and 0.817 are the buoyancy factors upon which
lated in the traditional way by Eq. 4.
the two curves are built.
W TS + A B cos q Tƪ(w DP·L DP) ) ǒw DA·L DAǓƫ. . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
SagĆInduced Fatigue
For the common case where the hole is vertical above the kickoff
point, Eq. 3 simplifies to the following: In a high-angle hole with one or more drill collars above the topmost
stabilizer, the top connection in the stabilizer is vulnerable to fatigue be-

W BS + A B·wDP ƪ5729.6(sin
q
q )
ƫ.
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
Like Eq. 1, Eq. 5 lends itself to graphical presentation, and solutions
are given for 5-in., 19.50 lbm/ft pipe in Fig. 7. The graphical solution
is handy for estimating the bit weight limit for “no buckling” of pipe
in the vertical section above the kickoff point. For a vertical hole sec-
tion, both the Dawson-Paslay formula (FC +0) and traditional practice
argue that no mechanical compression at all should be carried by nor-
mal-weight drillpipe in the vertical section. Thus, maximum bit weight
to prevent buckling here must not exceed the buoyed weight hanging
below, which is found by adding the weights from Eqs. 4 and 5.
cause the collar immediately above sags abruptly. This puts high stress
on the connection on top of the stabilizer and shortens its fatigue life.
The problem will be worse as stabilizer gauge/body ratio increases be-
cause the collar above has farther to sag. Eck-Olsen et al.15 reported
fatigue failures in BHA connections from this cause and corrected them
by running intermediate gauge tools to decrease the abruptness of the
sag. Acting on Eck-Olsen’s recommendation, we have added stabiliz-
ers sized to allow no more than one half of the sag to occur in the first
collar, and have experienced no failures from this cause.
Hole Cleaning
Hole cleaning will be an important element in drilling an ER well

Maximum W b + A B ƪ5729.6·wq (sin q )ƫ

DP T
with a high inclination and a long displacement. Several papers have
shown the importance of drillpipe rotation as a means of improving
hole cleaning.1,3,16 As the drillpipe is rotated, cuttings are agitated
into the flowstream and circulated out of the wellbore. To enhance
) A B cos q Tƪ(w DP·L DP) ) ǒw DA·L DAǓƫ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) hole cleaning, drillstring rotation is used while drilling, backream-
If the tangent section is not horizontal, add the hanging weight ing, and with the pipe off bottom.
from the curve (Eq. 5) to the hanging weight from pipe below the
tangent point calculated by Eq. 4. If the tangent section is horizontal,
use only the value from the curve to estimate maximum bit weight.
Be sure to derate your answer by the design (safety) factors you
would normally use in designing a vertical drilling assembly.
In summary, and neglecting tensile drag while rotary-mode drilling,
the limit for mechanical compression to prevent buckling anywhere in
a string with a positive build section is that compression that first ex-
ceeds the critical buckling load in the straight section below the tangent
point (given by Eq. 2), or exceeds the critical buckling load in the
straight section above the kickoff point (given by Eq. 4 or both Eqs. 4
and 5). Use the lesser of these two values for maximum bit weight.

Variations in Mud Weight

In using curves based on Eqs. 1 or 5, it may be desirable to compensate
if actual mud weight differs substantially from the mud weights built
into the curves. This can be done with the two following equations:

F CADJ + F C Ǹ0.765
A B
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)

+W ǒ Ǔ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
Fig. 7—The weight of pipe in a build section below a vertical hole
A B section can be easily estimated. This graph shows the weight of
or W BSADJ BS
0.817 5-in., 19.50 lbm/ft pipe in 12 lbm/gal mud.

114 SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996

 TABLE 3—PUMP PRESSURE FOR TURBULENT FLOW 5-in.
vs. A COMBINATION 5-65/8-in. DRILLSTRING (12¼-in.
HOLE, 20,000 ft DM , 12 lbm/gal MUD)
Circulation Pressure (psi)
Flow
mp /y (gal/min) 5-in. 5 65/8-in.
3/6 530 1731 1120
7/10 780 3814 2459
11/14 940 5612 3638
15/18 1110 7898 5130
TABLE 4—Van WITH RESPECT TO HOLE AND
DRILLPIPE SIZE
Hole (in) DP (in) Flow (gal/min) Van (ft/min)
17½ 5 1100 96
16 65/8 1100 117
12¼ 5 900 176
12¼ 65/8 900 208
Pump Pressure and Drillpipe Size
Laboratory studies have indicated that turbulent flow is beneficial for
hole cleaning.17-19 However, in a long ER well, pump pressure ca-
pacity may limit the ability to reach turbulent flow. If turbulent flow
is desired, increasing drillpipe size will not only increase annular ve-
locity, Van , for a given pump rate, but will usually allow higher pump
rates for a given surface pressure as well. Table 3 shows an example
of the benefits of using a combination 5- 65/8-in. drillstring
compared to a full string of 5-in. drillpipe. The flow rate and pump
pressure for this example are based on a 12¼-in. section of an ER well
with a measured depth of 20,000 ft. The mud weight is 12 lbm/gal.
The combination string is composed of 10,000 ft of 5-in. pipe and
10,000 ft of 65/8-in. pipe. Both strings also include 125 ft of 8½-in.
BHA and a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bit with open
jets. No measurement-while-drilling (MWD) or mud motor are in-
cluded in either string. As Table 3 shows, using 65/8-in. drillpipe sig-
nificantly reduces the pump pressure associated with turbulent flow.
For example, at 940 gal/min, turbulent flow is achieved around
the 5-in. pipe with almost 2,000 psi lower surface pump pressure.
However, if a MWD and/or a mud motor were added to the string,
the pump pressure would likely be above 6,000 psi to reach turbu-
lent flow, even with the larger drillpipe. Because most rig pumps and
circulating systems cannot handle this pressure, steps other than tur-
bulent flow have developed for cleaning ER wells.
Annular Velocity and Drillpipe Size
Van is a key factor in wellbore cleaning. Therefore, finding ways to
increase the Van is often desirable.19 Van is directly related to the an-
nular area between the wellbore and drillpipe. Table 4 displays the
Van for several different drillpipe and hole sizes. The Van figures in
this table are based on the assumption that 1,100 gal/min can be
pumped in the 17½- or 16-in. hole and 900 gal/min for the 12¼-in.
hole. As Table 4 illustrates, going from a 17½-in. hole with 5-in.
drillpipe to a 16-in. hole with 65/8-in. drillpipe increases the Van from
96 to 117 ft/min, or 23%. (Another benefit of a 16-in. hole if hole
cleaning is a problem is that it generates 16% less cuttings volume).
Going from 5- to 65/8-in. drillpipe in a 12¼-in. hole increases the Van
from 176 to 208 ft/min, an increase of 18%.
Casing Wear and Backreaming
Casing wear is affected by rotating time, build rate, and drillpipe ten-
sion below the build section.20,21 The more rotating time, the higher the
build rate, and the greater the drillstring tension, the higher the casing
wear rate. If the well has a relatively low build rate (1° to 3°/100 ft) and
a high angle so that tension is minimal, the well designer may not sus-
pect casing wear as a potential problem. However, low build rates and
reduced drillpipe tension may be offset by the practice of backreaming
to keep the hole clean. Backreaming maximizes tension and side-wall
forces through the build section at the same time the string is being ro-
TABLE 5—DRILLSTRING SURFACE TENSION, DRILLING vs.
BACKREAMING
Tension
Operation (Klbm) % Increase
Drilling with Rotation 116 —
Pickup with Rotation 231 100
(backreaming)
tated. Table 5 compares the calculated surface tension while drilling to
that while backreaming in a 12¼-in. hole at 21,200 ft DM . In this exam-
ple, the kickoff point is at 1,000 ft and the well has a 2°/100 ft build rate
to a tangent angle of 75° at 5,300 ft DM . The tension in both cases was
calculated using a commercially available PC program that is based on
the tension/torque model developed by Johancsik et al.4
Whether this tension is sufficient to cause a casing-wear problem
depends on the time spent backreaming, mud abrasiveness, and the
type of tool-joint hardbanding. Nevertheless, the well designer
needs to consider the casing-wear effects of backreaming. If there
is a concern, then drillpipe rubbers or nonabrasive tool-joint hard-
banding inside casing should be considered.
Qualifying the Drillstring
The complexity of the drillstrings for long ER wells can be daunting.
In a recent North Sea ER well, the drillstring at one time or another
was composed of more than 2,000 separate components from 15 dif-
ferent suppliers, and this count does not include the dozens of sub-
components that made up the specialty tools. Quality is a concern
not only because so many different components from separate
sources are brought together to make up the typical ER drillstring,
but also because the vast majority of these components are previous-
ly used and have been subjected to various and usually unknown
histories of wear, damage, and fatigue.
The implementation of a quality plan can be a complicated techni-
cal and logistical undertaking, but with simple objectives.
1. Make a list of all components required for the drillstring.
2. Outline an inspection program to confirm each component’s
suitability to carry predicted loads.
3. Monitor drillstring performance during drilling. Compare pre-
dicted with actual loads. Monitor wear that might render a compo-
nent unsuitable for further service.
Because the operator usually takes the risk of a drillstring failure,
the operator must take a lead role in establishing and implementing
the quality program to allow management of that risk.
A quality plan is designed to increase our confidence that the
components we use in the well meet our design requirements. The
plan consists of four groups of activities:
1. Design the drillstring for each hole section. Predict the loads
and establish the minimum attributes that each component needs to
possess, including anticipated wear tolerances.
2. Establish an inspection program that verifies the desired attrib-
utes in each component.
3. Conduct the program, using process controls such as those
found in Ref. 2 to maximize confidence in inspection results.
4. Communicate variations in actual conditions from assumed or
predicted conditions with the team. Review design and inspection
steps if the need is indicated.
The quality management process is illustrated in Fig. 8. Out of the
design process will come not only a list of drillstring components,
but the loads they will be expected to carry and the minimum dimen-
sions that each component must possess. The latter are fed into the
inspection program as minimum acceptance criteria for the string
we’re about to pick up. Basing the drillstring acceptance criteria on
performance requirements, that is, suitability for service, is an im-
portant consideration. Historically, we have accepted or rejected
drillstrings based on their conformance to arbitrary standards, such
as “API Premium Class.”10 However, this often results in either one
or the other of the following undesirable results:
1. The pipe doesn’t have the necessary attributes for the well
we’re about to drill, and our risk of a failure increases.

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996 115

 Conclusions
1. ER trajectories impose higher torsion and lower tension loads
on the drillstring than vertical wells of the same measured depth.
2. Neglecting tensile drag while rotary-mode drilling, the limit for
mechanical compression to prevent buckling in a string having a posi-
tive build is that compression that first exceeds the critical buckling
load in one of the straight sections above or below the build section.
3. As an aid in hole cleaning, the well designer will want to maxi-
mize fluid flow and Van . The use of 65/8-in. drillpipe where applica-
ble can help minimize pump pressure and allow greater fluid flow.
65/8-in. drillpipe also reduces the annular space between the hole and
the drillpipe, which in turn increases the Van .
4. In an ER well, hole cleaning is improved when the drillstring
is rotated.
5. The practice of backreaming will increase applied drillpipe
tension. The time spent backreaming and the effect of increased ten-
sile load during backreaming should be considered when predicting
casing wear.
6. A quality management program has been used to ensure that
drillstring components meet the requirements for ER drilling.

Nomenclature
Fig. 8—The quality management process for a drillstring.
2. We spend money to comply with an arbitrary requirement
that’s not necessary in the well we’re about to drill, gaining nothing
for our added expense.
Once the list of equipment and minimum requirements is estab-
lished, an inspection program is outlined to verify that the compo-
nents we’re about to pick up meet our requirements.
It’s important to keep in mind that the problem is not solved by sim-
ply setting the inspection program. How the inspection procedures
are conducted will be a determinant in their success. The importance
of complying with good procedural controls to the success of a drill-
string inspection cannot be overemphasized. Moyer and Dale dramat-
ically demonstrated this in a study of commercial drillstring inspec-
tion processes.22 In their evaluation, commercial blacklight
inspection failed to find even very large drill collar box fatigue cracks
one time in four. How did Moyer and Dale themselves know that the
cracks were in their sample collars? By inspecting them with the same
blacklight method, but using proper process controls! No inspection
method or procedure is 100% reliable, but for our purposes, the more
reliability, the better. Therefore, the inspection company should be
instructed to follow specific procedures, such as those in Ref. 2, to re-
move some of the uncertainty from the inspection process.
To make sure that the loads we apply are correct on the rig, load
indicators must be calibrated. These include the weight indicator,
rotary torque indicator, makeup torque gauges, and pump pressure
References
gauge. Then during operations, actual loads must be monitored to
evaluate deviations from predicted loads that may require re-evalu-
ation of our design or acceptance criteria. Also, wear and damage
to components should be monitored to identify components no
longer suitable for use and to help focus operation and handling
steps aimed at minimizing the damage.
Finally, communication among team members is critical. The ac-
ceptance criteria must be widely distributed to allow proper inspec-
tion and monitoring on the rig. Each drillstring component should
be tagged or labeled so that the rig team has a quick indicator that
a component that just arrived at the rig complies with all require-
ments. Also, drillstring load limits must be communicated all the
way to the drillers so that their awareness is raised and procedures
are modified. As the well progresses, data concerning drillstring
performance, wellbore conditions, and any changes in objectives
must be communicated freely among all team members.
a+ inclination of the straight hole section above the
kickoff point, degrees
AB + buoyancy factor
DM + measured depth, L, ft
E+ Young’s modulus
FC + critical buckling load, m, lbm
FCadj + critical buckling load adjusted for mud weight
variations, m, lbm
I+ moment of inertia, L4, in.4
L+ length of a drillstring section, L, ft
LDA + length of a drilling assembly, L, ft
LDP + length of a drillpipe section, L, ft
q+ build rate, °/L, °/100 ft
r+ radial clearance between pipe and hole, L, in.
R+ radius of a build section, L, ft
Van + annular velocity, L/t, ft/min
w+ unit weight in air of a drillstring component, m/L,
lbm/ft
wDA + unit weight in air of a drilling assembly, m/L, lbm/ft
wDP + unit weight in air of drillpipe, m/L, lbm/ft
Wb + weight on bit, m, lbm
WBS + total buoyed weight of pipe in a positive build
section, m, lbm
WBSAdj + total buoyed weight of pipe in a positive build section
adjusted for mud-weight variations, m, lbm
WTS + total buoyed weight of pipe in a tangent section, m, lbm
y+ yield point, m/L2, lbm/100 ft2
mp + plastic viscosity, centipoise
q+ hole inclination, degrees
qT + hole inclination in a straight tangent section, degrees
1. Guild, G.J. et al.: “Designing Extended Reach Wells,” presented at the
1993 Offshore Technical Drilling Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland,
Nov. 17.
2. Standard DS-1, Drill Stem Design and Inspection, TH Hill Associates
Inc., Houston (1992) 46–52.
3. Brett, J.F. et al.: “Use and Limitations of Drillstring Tension and Torque
Models for Monitoring Hole Conditions,” SPEDE (Sept. 1989)
223–229.
4. Johancsik, C.A., Friesen, D.B., and Dawson, R.: “Torque and Drag In
Directional Wells—Prediction and Measurement,” JPT (June 1984)
987–992.
5. Alfsen, T.E. et al.: “Pushing the Limits for Extended-Reach Drilling:
New World Record From Platform Statfjord C, Well C2,” paper SPE
26350 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
hibition, Houston, Oct. 3–6.
6. Mueller, M.D., Quintana, J.M., and Bunyak, M.J.: “Extended-Reach
Drilling From Platform Irene,” SPEDE (June 1991) 138.

116 SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996

 7. Kimball III, C.F., Colwell, C.N., and Knell, J.W.: “A 78° Extended
Reach Well in the Gulf of Mexico, Eugene Island 326 No. A-6,” paper
OTC 6711 presented at the 1991 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, May 6–9.
8. Hill, T.H., Seshadri, P.V., and Durham, K.S.: “A Unified Approach to
Drillstem Failure Prevention,” SPEDE (Dec. 1992) 254–260.
9. Rollins, H.M.: “Drill Pipe Fatigue Failure,” Oil & Gas J. (April 18,
1966) 82–91.
10. API RP 7G, “Recommended Practice for Drill Stem Design and Operat-
ing Limits,” fourteenth edition, American Petroleum Inst. (Aug. 1990) 49.
11. Casner, John A.: “Drill String Design,” Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.
(July 1973).
12. Dawson, R. and Paslay, P.R.: “Drillpipe Buckling in Inclined Holes,”
JPT (Oct. 1984) 1734.
13. Schuh, F.J.: “The Critical Buckling Force and Stresses for Pipe in In-
clined Curved Wellbores,” paper SPE 21942 presented at the 1991 SPE/
IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, March 11–14.
14. Wu, J. and Juvkam Wold, H.C.: “The Effect of Wellbore Curvature on
Tubular Buckling and Lockup,” ASME PD-Vol. 56, Drilling Technology
(1994) 17–24.
15. Eck-Olsen, J. et al.: “North Sea Advances in Extended-Reach Drilling,”
paper SPE 25750 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Feb. 22–25.
16. Guild, G.J. and Jeffrey, J.T.: “Drilling Extended-Reach/High-Angle
Wells Through Overpressured Shale Formation in the Central Graben
Basin, Arbroath Field, Block 22/17, U.K. North Sea,” SPEDC (Sept.
1994) 161; Trans., AIME, 297.
17. Okrajni, S.S. and Azar, J.J.: “The Effects of Mud Rheology On Annular Fig. A-1—Schematic of positive build section.
Hole Cleaning In Directional Wells,” SPEDE (Aug. 1986) 297.
18. Hemphill, T. and Larsen, T.I.: “Hole Cleaning Capabilities of Oil-Based
and Water-Based Drilling Fluids: A Comparative Experimental Study,” gives the solution for the case where the straight section above the
paper SPE 26328 presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Confer- kickoff point is vertical.
ence and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3–6.
19. Tomren, P.H., Iyoho, A.W., and Azar, J.J.: “Experimental Study of Cut-
tings Transport in Directional Wells,” SPEDE (Feb. 1986) 51. W BS + A B·w DP ƪ5729.6(sin
q
q )
T
ƫ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
20. Best, B.: “Casing Wear Caused By Tool-Joint Hardfacing,” SPEDE
(Feb. 1986) 62.
21. Bradley, W.B. and Fontenot, J.B.: “The Prediction and Control of Cas-
ing Wear,” JPT (Feb. 1975) 233. SI Metric Conversion Factors
22. Moyer, M.C. and Dale, B.A.: “Sensitivity and Reliability of Commer- ft 3.048* E*01 +m
cial Drillstring Inspection Services,” paper SPE 17661 presented at the
1988 SPE Southeast Asia Offshore Technology Conference, Singapore, gal 3.785 412 E*03 +m3
Feb 2–5. in 2.54* E)00 +cm
lbm 4.535 924 E*01 +kg
Appendix psi 6.894 757 E)00 +kPa
This appendix gives the derivation of the formula for weight of drill- *Conversion factor is exact. SPEDC
pipe in a positive build section of constant build rate.
Neglecting tensile drag, the hanging weight and weight that a
length of pipe in a hole can apply to the bottom of the hole (bit Tom H. Hill founded TH Hill Assocs. Inc. in 1980 after 12 years at
weight) is equal to the vertical projection of the pipe’s total length Exxon Co. U.S.A. in various engineering and supervisory roles. In
times the pipe’s buoyed weight per unit length. For a straight hole, addition to more than 20 technical papers, Hill has 12 books and
the available bit weight is: manuals, primarily on the subject of drillstring failure prevention,
W b + w·L·AB· cos q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1) to his credit. Hill was the principle author of the DSĆ1 standard for
drillstem design and inspection. He is a registered engineer with
Consider the positive build section of constant build rate q, shown a BS degree in mechanical engineering from New Mexico State
in Fig. A.1. In English units, the vertical projection of the quarter U. Marcus A. Summers is senior vice president of TH Hill Assocs.
circle between Points 1 and 2 is the radius of the arc: Inc., a Houston consulting firm specializing in preventing drillĆ
36, 000 string failures. He has more than 15 years' experience in drilling
R+ + 5729.6
q , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2) engineering, operations, and research with Amoco Production
2p·q
Co. Summers is a registered professional engineer with a BS deĆ
and the maximum hanging weight or bit weight available from pipe gree in petroleum engineering from the U. of Oklahoma. A
that fully occupied the arc from Points 1 and 2 is photograph for Summers is unavailable. G. John Guild is currentĆ
ly an integrated solutions well engineer with Halliburton Energy
W b + w·A B· 5729.6
q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3) Services in Houston, TX. He was a drilling engineer for 13 years
with Amoco Production Co., including 4 years as well designer
Assume that the build section occupies less than the full quarter for development and ERD operations in the U.K. North Sea. He
circle. Also assume that the straight section of hole above the kick- is a registered professional engineer with a BS degree in meĆ
off point has an inclination of a degrees (ay0°) and that the straight chanical engineering from California Polytechnic State U.
hole section below the tangent point has an inclination of “qT ”
(qT x90°). Then the available bit weight from pipe occupying the
build section between the kickoff point and the tangent point is

W BS + A B·w DP ƪ5729.6(sinqq * sin a)ƫ.

T
. . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)

Eq. A-3 gives the available weight from pipe in a build section
that kicks off from the vertical and finishes horizontally. Eq. A-5 Hill Guild

SPE Drilling & Completion, June 1996 117